Lords Sitting of 5 December 1967

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chichester
The Lord O'Hagan—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his grandfather.

THE GOVERNMENT AND HEREDITARY INSTITUTIONS
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of their avowed intention to eliminate the hereditary basis of the House of Lords, it is their further intention to eliminate the hereditary basis of other institutions; and, if so, of which.]
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF LONGFORD): No, my Lords.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, may we take it that that Answer by the noble Earl the Leader of the House applies to that grandest of all our hereditary institutions, the Monarchy?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I am sure that if any proposal to reform the House of Lords imperilled or in any way impaired the strength of the Monarchy in this country, there is no member of the Government, and I am sure no Member of this House, who would touch such a proposal with a bargepole.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, will the noble Earl and Her Majesty's Government recognise that the answer he has just given will give deep satisfaction throughout the country?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I am very grateful to the noble Earl. It is seldom that one is able to say anything that is at once so popular and so true.

DEVALUATION AND LIABILITIES TO THE I.M.F.
2.37 p.m.
LORD GRANTCHESTER: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government the additional amount of their liabilities in sterling to the International Monetary Fund in respect of their deposits and borrowings as at November 19, 1967, as a result of the alteration in the exchange rate.]
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the sterling equivalent of drawings outstanding which have to be repaid in foreign currency is increased by £90 million. In addition, we shall make a payment of £206 million to the Fund to restore the gold value of the Fund's sterling, which is largely held in the form of non-interest bearing notes.
LORD GRANTCHESTER: My Lords, should I be right in assuming that the current instalment of this payment, which totals just £300 million, that has to be made to restore our pre-devaluation position, will have to be dealt with in the Budget, and presumably raised by taxation will have to be dealt with in the Estimate be tabled showing this and any other similar, new liability in sterling arising out of devaluation?
LORD BESWICK: No, my Lords, there is no question of taxation. The £206 million is, in a sense, only a bookkeeping transaction.

DEVALUATION AND CAPITAL GAINS TAX
LORD GRANTCHESTER: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the loss on the value of savings from the debasement of the value of sterling will be allowable against any liability to capital gains tax.]
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, it would be neither right nor practicable to single

523
out for special treatment a fall in the value of money due to devaluation as distinct from falls attributable to other factors. All tax liabilities are calculated in sterling, and a loss is allowed for capital gains tax purposes only if the cost in terms of sterling of the asset and of the expenses incidental to its acquisition and disposal exceeds the disposal price in terms of sterling.
LORD GRANTCHESTER: My Lords, are we to understand that in respect of the International Monetary Fund Her Majesty's Government accept the view that compensation is payable to make good any loss due to devaluation?—because Governments have agreed upon this code of conduct, which seems to me to be elementary honesty. Will they now work out a system which does not discriminate against British citizens who lend their savings to the Government and in favour of foreign lenders? And, in view of what the Minister has said about the capital gains tax, has not devaluation made the capital gains tax unfair and unworkable? So NA/ill Her Majesty's Government take a new look at this tax in the light of what has happened?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the difference between our liability to the I.M.F. and our transactions in this country is that in the one case we are borrowing foreign currency and in the second case the transaction is entirely in terms of sterling. So far as discrimination is concerned, I am sure the noble Lord, whom I know to be a fair-minded person, would not wish to discriminate in favour of the capital gains taxpayer as against, say, the individual who puts his money in the Post Office Savings Bank.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, seeing that capital gains tax is charged on all properties, and that in the end properties all come to what one might call international prices, is it not possible, and possibly the Government's view, that by judicious devaluation from time to time they will ultimately get all the property in the country into their hands through the operation of capital gains tax? I asked them that question at the beginning, I think, and they said they would never do a wicked thing like that. Would
524
the noble Lord give me the Government's view on that point?
LORD BESWICK: I think the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, is crediting the Government with more far-sightedness than he himself possesses.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, does the noble Lord appreciate that the present operation of the capital gains tax is simply this: that a loss shall be deemed to be a gain?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the capital gains tax is a tax levied upon one form of income, and I am sure the noble Lord will agree that, even if it were practicable, it would be wrong to enable the capital gains taxpayer to hedge, in this case, against inflation when the hedge is not available to the individual who, for instance, puts his money in the Post Office Savings Bank; or, indeed, to the wage-earner, who has only his wages to depend upon.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I agree with him about not discriminating between various forms of investment, but that I entirely disagree with him—as will, indeed, his colleague the Chancellor of the Exchequer—when he says that this has something to do with income? It is not a tax on income. It has nothing to do with income. What I am putting to the noble Lord is that if property maintains its real value, or even does not quite maintain it, but has a greater value in sterling as now defined, the owner of that property will have suffered a loss; but under existing legislation he will be deemed to have made a gain.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, first of all, I am afraid that the noble Lord is wrong if he assumes that the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, at least, who levied this capital gains tax does not believe that gains made through capital transactions are income. He justified the capital gains tax on the basis that they were. Indeed, if the noble Lord looks at the Finance Act under which this tax is charged, he will see that the rate of capital gains tax for individuals is 30 per cent.; but that under the "alternative basis of charge" they can have half the gains in any year up to £5,000 charged under the same rate as their ordinary income tax liability.
LORD PARGITER: Would my noble friend say precisely why property should be sacrosanct in any tax system?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I endeavoured to point out that there is no basis in equity, or, indeed, in practice, for differentiating between the gains made through dealings in property and the gains made by putting in a hard week's work.
LORD STRANGE: My Lords, could the noble Lord tell me whether a Monet, a Renoir or a Gauguin is included in capital gains?
LORD BESWICK: I think the noble Lord will remember the rule about commenting upon individual incomes.
LORD GRANTCHESTER: My Lords, may I press this matter? I was asking only that the Government should consider a scheme under which those who put their money in the Post Office, or in any other form of Government savings, should be looked after as well as the International Monetary Fund look after foreign lenders to Her Majesty's Government.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am sure the whole House would agree that the best method of looking after the interests of those who put their money in the Post Office Savings Bank, or any other form of investment, is to make, as nearly as possible, a stable currency. It is hoped that the recent step of devaluation will give us the opportunity to get back to a system of stable currency.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that investments come in the same category as property and that, and irrespective of who started it, so long as devaluation is taken into account in calculating capital gains then the tax is one on devaluation and not on capital gains?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I can only say that I disagree with the noble Lord. It is quite impracticable to differentiate between—to use the phrase of a noble Lord—a debasement of the currency through devaluation and a debasement which takes places for other reasons.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he thinks that the best way to stop inflation and to prevent wage advances is for noble Lords
526
on the other side of the House to complain of the taxation of capital gains and property?

FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE: SLAUGHTER POLICY
2.45 p.m.
LORD WISE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether a different method can now be tried to eradicate foot-and-mouth disease with a view to cutting down the wasteful slaughter of animals which are free from the disease, can be kept under observation, and may never contract it.]
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, foot-and-mouth disease is one of the most infectious diseases found in animals and will spread rapidly to contact animals, and it is therefore necessary to slaughter both affected animals and the contacts as soon as possible, in order to prevent the build up of infection within the herd and so minimise the risk of spread to contiguous herds. The control of foot-and-mouth disease was last examined by the Departmental Committee on Foot-and-Mouth Disease, 1952–54. This Committee recommended, on economic grounds, that the slaughter policy should be continued. My right honourable friend has recently reaffirmed his belief in this policy and his intention to stamp out the present epidemic by slaughter, but has announced his arrangements for a supply of vaccine for use as a second line of defence should this become inevitable.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, in view of what my noble friend has said, would he not agree that the great tragedy here is the slaughter of the healthy animals? Since, as so far, nothing which has been tried has been successful, why should we not try removing the healthy contacts, giving them a vaccine, isolating them and keeping them under strict supervision?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, it is conceivable that my noble friend who put down the Question in the first place wished to advance a somewhat similar

527
point of view. But the fact is, as I have said, that it is impossible to say that the contacts are not infected. There is an incubation period of up to ten days. If one allows that period to expire before deciding whether one has to slaughter, the viruses multiply and the risk of infection has been widely spread.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that, as everything has so far failed, we should try giving the vaccine to a limited number of healthy animals and to isolate them under strict supervision? Why not try?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I respect the opinion of my noble friend, but I respect even more the letter recently published in The Times from the President of The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and the Vice-President of the British Veterinary Association in which they compliment my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture on his activities, and ask that this policy should be pursued with the maximum amount of public support.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, may I ask Her Majesty's Government whether the highly infectious nature of this disease is not due to the policy of slaughter that has been followed for the past fifty years?
LORD BESWICK: What I think we want to do is to get back to the position when this country was free of foot-and-mouth disease. It is quite impossible to guarantee complete freedom once one has recourse to a policy of vaccination.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, will the Minister please say why the Government have changed their policy of giving us two or three bulletins a day, and provide only one, which, under present conditions, seems insufficient?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot answer that. I suspect it is because those of my right honourable friend's staff who are concerned in this matter are very active indeed in trying to stamp out the disease.
LORD WISE: My Lords, at last I am able to put a supplementary question. Before I do that, I want to say that my sympathy goes out to the Minister in the
528
serious situation which has arisen. I would ask him quite plainly, straight away to consider another way of dealing with the outbreak. At the moment it seems only a question of slaughter and possibly vaccination. Is the Minister aware that it is possible to cure the disease, as was customary in my early farming days, by a simple method of isolation, clean bedding, care and attention and the application of Stockholm tar, disinfectant, ground rock-salt and home-made soft soap?
Why cannot the Minister stop this wholesale and seemingly futile slaughter of healthy animals, which, if the present rate goes on, may extend throughout the whole of the herds of Britain, and, if and when new cases arise, undertake an experiment on the lines I have suggested? It cannot make matters worse. A comparative examination of results might prove that I am right and he is wrong, and in that event we should have saved thousands of healthy, innocent animals and staved off the ruin of many farmers.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, perhaps I may quote one extract from the letter to which I referred earlier—it was published last Friday—in which the joint signatories say:
"Everyone is disappointed that after comparative freedom from foot-and-mouth disease in recent years up to 1966—indeed complete freedom in 1963 and 1964—this major epidemic has arisen. Nevertheless official farming circles are fully in agreement with the policy which is being followed and the whole veterinary profession is behind it."
One respects the views of those like my noble friend Lord Wise, and others who, I have noticed, have written to the Press and who speak of old-fashioned remedies. But this matter has been considered very carefully by those most qualified to go into it, and their advice is to stick to the policy of slaughter, at any rate for the time being.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that as Chairman of the Animal Virus Research Station I felt a little inhibited from joining in these questionings? Is the noble Lord aware that in the minds of most people in the farming world and, I think, most people in the scientific world there can be no doubt that the statement he has just made is the right one? There now appears to be a fair prospect of the

529
slaughter policy succeeding, and if that is so it is the best thing we could achieve. The right thing to do is to take a look at the whole policy after we have finished.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, for what he has said.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I think that we have reached a point where if noble Lords wish to pursue this subject they will probably wish to do it in some other way. I know that there is no subject which in recent times has caused more understandable feeling than this, but we are going a long way beyond our usual limit for questions.

PROCEDURE: CONSIDERATION OF PUBLIC BILLS
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, it may be useful if I place on record an explanation of a new piece of procedural machinery, consequential upon one of the recommendations of the Procedure Committee which your Lordships agreed to last June. The Committee recommended that Public Bills which are not likely to be debated may be advanced in the Order Paper without consultation; but that if a debate arises on a Bill so advanced it shall be open to any noble Lord to move without notice that the debate be adjourned till later in the day or to another day. In order to make this recommendation workable, and to enable Peers to know which Bills have been so advanced in the Order Paper, it has been decided to mark Bills so advanced with a typographical device which I believe is known as a "paragraph sign." Your Lordships will see an example of this sign among the Notices and Orders published this morning, together with an explanatory rubric.
It is entirely in the discretion of the House whether or not to adjourn an unexpected debate on a Bill so advanced. No doubt your Lordships will be indulgent towards a speech which takes only a minute or two; but if the day's programme is a heavy one, it must be understood that any noble Lord is entirely within his rights in moving the adjournment of any debate arising on a Bill advanced in the Order Paper in this manner. If any noble
530
Lord should wish to speak on one of these Bills marked with a paragraph sign, he ought to give notice a day or two before to the Peer in charge of the Bill, who can then have it put back to its proper place as a debatable Bill in the Order Paper.

RENT BILL [H.L.]
2.56 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to consolidate the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions Acts 1920 to 1939, the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act 1946, the Landlord and Tenant (Rent Control) Act 1949, Part II of the Housing Repairs and Rents Act 1954, the Rent Act 1957 (except Section 16 thereof), the Rent Act 1965 (except Part III thereof) and other related enactments. I beg to move that this Bill be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

LEGITIMATION (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
2.57 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (LORD HUGHES): My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, after Clause 6, to insert the following new clause:
Re-registration of birth of person legitimated under this Act
" . The Registrar General for Scotland may, on production of such evidence as appears to him to be satisfactory, authorise at any time the re-registration of the birth of a person legitimated under this Act and such re-registration shall be effected in such manner and at such place as the Registrar General for Scotland may by regulation prescribe:
Provided that the Registrar General for Scotland shall not authorise the re-registration of the birth of any such person in any case where information with a view to obtaining such re-registration is not furnished to him by both parents."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, at the Committee stage we had some discussion as to the manner in which legitimacy should be registered under this Bill, and since I put down my Amendment I have had a letter from the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, which goes a long way—I say this straight away—to meet the type of point that I had in mind. I think the House accepts quite fully the simple principle of this Bill. The ordinary case is one in which, shall I say, a bachelor interferes with a married woman; a child is born; the marriage breaks up and the bachelor is then free to marry the mother and to legitimise the child. That is quite accepted by the House and I think is quite straightforward. But noble Lords worried on two points: first, regarding the rights of third parties, which may or may not arise, and, secondly, how the third parties could enforce their claims. Particularly would this be the case where there was any fraudulent entry.
There are rather difficult things to establish: first, the illegitimacy of the birth; secondly, the identity of the parents, and thirdly the fact of the marriage. The last may be quite easy to establish. There is no reference in this Bill to registration except in one particular which is not relevant to what I am saying, that is in regard to re-registering adopted children. With that exception, there is no suggestion of how registration should be carried out. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has explained to me how this is done, and broadly, it is in this way. When there is any doubt the matter has to be referred to the Sheriff who will make a decision, and I presume that it would be possible to appeal from that decision. I think that is satisfactory so far as it goes.
There are, however, two questions that I should like to ask of the noble Lord. First, is there any obligation to register? In the Bill there is no reference to any obligation, and I do not know whether it is merely a convenience, or an optional course. No doubt it is advisable, but there is no obligation at all to register as there would be in the case of a newborn child.
The second question I should like to ask is this. As well may happen, if at the time the marriage takes place the child is either of age or at least of years of
532
discretion, has he to be consulted before the birth is legitimated? I think that this might be a real point in certain cases, for instance, where a child has been brought up in a family, perhaps carries the name of that family and may wish to remain with the family or, alternatively, where he has no particular wish to be registered with the name of his father, who possibly may have a bad record.
I do not know whether there is any obligation or not. As I read the Bill, it simply states that where the parents of an illegitimate person marry that person shall be legitimated. I do not know whether the child will be entitled to consultation or not. Subject to these questions, I should be grateful if the noble Lord would recapitulate the method by which registration should be carried out. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 6, insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
3.2 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, has been good enough to refer to the letter I sent him recently on the subject of this Amendment and he has invited me to recapitulate the circumstances which I describe in that letter. Section 20 of the Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages (Scotland) Act 1965 already makes provision for the re-registration of a birth in legitimate form. And the section contains provisions to ensure that the birth is only re-registered in this way by the Registrar General if he is presented with positive evidence of paternity of a nature laid down in the Act or, where this evidence is not available to him, if the sheriff court, after due inquiry into the circumstances, sanctions re-registration. This provision, which applies to legitimations under existing law, operates satisfactorily and is equally appropriate to legitimations under the Bill. No amendment of the law is necessary to apply it to legitimations under the Bill; so from that point of view, the Amendment tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, is unnecessary.
In practice, the Registrar General will authorise re-registration in any of the following circumstances: first, where both the natural father and the mother went to the registrar when the birth was registered in its original illegitimate form and both signed the register; secondly, where,

533
within twelve months of the birth, the natural father makes a statutory declaration acknowledging his paternity and the mother makes a confirmatory declaration; or, thirdly, where a decree of paternity has been granted by a competent court. If such evidence of paternity is not available, the Registrar General cannot authorise the re-registration of a birth following the marriage of the parents, except with the sanction of the sheriff, granted on the application of both parents or the survivor or, if both parents are dead, on an application by or on behalf of the child and after due inquiry into the circumstances.
The existing law, in Section 29 of the 1965 Act, is more restrictive than the noble Earl's proposed new clause, in that it specifies more clearly the circumstances in which the Registrar General may authorise re-registration and leaves less to his discretion. But the existing law is not so restrictive as the proposed new clause in that it does not require both parents to provide information at the time of re-registration. It is possible under the existing law for the birth of a legitimated child to be re-registered even if both parents are dead. I went on to say to the noble Earl that the existence of a re-registered birth certificate in legitimate form, although of evidential value, was in no way conclusive evidence of paternity. The absence of such a certificate would be a hurdle that any claim to legitimation by subsequent marriage would have to overcome before it could be upheld.
If I may refer to the questions which the noble Earl put, he asked me whether there was an obligation to re-register. No, there is no obligation. This is a right which is being conferred. There is not, as at birth, a duty to re-register. The birth has already been registered and the State's purposes have been accomplished. There is a right to re-register when the opportunity is available for the record to be changed from the registration of an illegitimate birth to re-registration as a legitimate birth. Whether or not people elect to take advantage of this right is a matter for themselves.
The question as to whether a child, if of mature age, has the right to oppose registration is not so easy. The position is that legitimation is effected by the law automatically on the subsequent marriage of the illegitimate child's parents,
534
and there is nothing that the child can do to stop that taking place. This Bill, when it becomes an Act, will have accomplished that. If there is no dispute about whether either one or other of the married couple is in fact the parent of the child, his registration as an illegitimate person is incorrect and no-one has a right to stop the re-registration of the facts. But the child, or anyone else with an interest, could make representations to the Registrar General to the effect that one or other of the married couple was not his parent. In such a case, the Registrar General would have to set on foot due inquiry before deciding whether or not he puts the entry into the register of corrections. Such inquiry might well result in an application to the sheriff in order that he might inquire and, if appropriate, sanction the entry.
It does not make possible the position, to which the noble Earl referred, of a man who had been living happily with parents who had adopted him or brought him up and did not wish to be associated with his real father because he thought him a disreputable person. Unfortunately, the Bill does not permit him to admit that the man is his father but to oppose the fact being registered. The only course open to him is to prove that this disreputable person is in fact not his father.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a question? I am thinking of the case of an adopted child who is now to be legitimated. If a child has been adopted by law in a court, will the adopters be told that, if by any chance the parents of the child get married and the child is made legitimate, in spite of what has been arranged in court they will have to give up the child?
LORD HUGHES: No, my Lords; adoption will not be affected. It is possible to adopt a legitimate child just as it is possible to adopt an illegitimate child, so that adoption would not be cancelled by the re-registration of the child as legitimate.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, if the child is re-registered as legitimate, then for the first time the child will learn who its parents are. Is that not so?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, it could be, but it is possible that the child may be re-registered without the child knowing of it. This comes back to the point to which the noble Earl referred.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord one more question. If a couple have legally adopted a child who is called illegitimate, are they later to be told that because the father and mother have now married—it may be years after—and the child is legitimated it is lawful for the father and mother to insist on taking away the child from that couple who have adopted it legally?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, this is a Bill to correct registry of what has now become a legitimate birth instead of an illegitimate birth. Adoption is an entirely different set of circumstances and has nothing to do with the registration of the child's birth.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, could I put another point?—be-cause I think it has only just occurred to my noble friend. It is the point that when people adopt the child of an unmarried mother the child will not be told who its parents are in order that the child shall not be worried and shall have the maximum protection. Now, as a result of this, that can no longer obtain, because the child will know its parentage.
LORD HUGHES: Not necessarily.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for a very useful statement, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 [Savings]:
3.11 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN LORD SALTOUN moved to add to the clause:
"( ) Nothing in this Act shall affect the succession to any dignity or title of honour or render any person capable of succeeding to or transmitting a right to succeed to any such dignity or title."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have no hostility to this Bill. I take issue with it only on one point. As a matter of fact, I look on it in a way as a piece of sentimental legislation, because it is going to legitimise only those children born where parents who are not in a position
536
to marry subsequently marry. That legitimates only a small portion of what I might call a large class. The object of the Bill is to take away from the child the stigma of illegitimacy. While I have not the smallest hostility to the Bill, I think this is rather a fanciful thing. One hundred and thirty years ago Pam did not find being illegitimate in the least an obstacle; and 900 years ago William the Conqueror found it no obstacle. I think it is only a piece of what I vulgarly call bourgeois Victorian prejudice which makes it a stain on a man.
If you look in an old edition of Who's Who you will find, luckily at the beginning of the alphabet, one "AB"; you will find more than half a column of his literary productions, and you will find the name of the lady he married. The next item is "CX", I will call him, "son of AX", not by B but by D. There are quite half a column of his productions. Then you go on. There are five entries, I think, and only the fifth is the son of the original gentleman and his lawful married wife. In the case of that family, being illegitimate has not been a bar to advancement of fortune or to reputation; and I do not think it is. That is merely to the general proposition.
On the last occasion, however, I pointed out that the Bill extends to the Peerage, and I think that is not a proper part of a Bill on this subject because the Crown has always very carefully defined the method of devolution of any Peerage granted, and this extends that order. It is perfectly true to say that it extends it by only very little; but, after all, the housemaid's baby was excused because it was a very little one, but it was none the less a baby. It is perfectly possible to point to a hypothetical case which is covered by this Bill and which extends the method of devolution of the Peerage concerned. I say that that is without precedent in the practice of your Lordships' House, and it ought to be carefully considered by your Lordships. It was for this very reason that I did not press this Amendment in the Committee stage.
Your Lordships have often taken quite extreme action in matters of Peerage. Those who read your Lordships' Standing Orders will remember that King Charles I created a certain Lord Banbury, and because he was an old man and a special friend of the King, the King asked

537
for him to be given precedence over all the other Peers that he had previously created. Your Lordships reacted with extreme violence and steadfastly refused to grant Lord Banbury the precedence asked for him by the King; and eventually Charles I promised that he would never do it again. Your Lordships established that point. But that had nothing to do with the terms of devolution of that Peerage.
There is another case. Queen Anne, wishing to make a little more interest in your Lordships' House, created the Duke of Hamilton (I am glad to see my noble friend Lord Selkirk sitting beside me, because he can correct me if anything I tell your Lordships is not right) Duke of Brandon. The House thereupon promptly refused to accept him as Duke of Brandon. They said that he was a Scotsman and a Scottish Peer, and he must come as a Representative Scottish Peer or not at all. And when he came as a Representative Scottish Peer, your Lordships refused to receive him because he was an English Duke, the Duke of Brandon. I think your Lordships were quite wrong. That is one of the reasons why I referred on the last occasion to your Lordships' 18th century manners. It was not for many years that that difficulty was overcome. And your Lordships maintained that position, in spite of the Duke of Argyll, who had an English Peerage, too. That was excused because he had that Peerage before the union of the Crowns in 1707.
But your Lordships still have never interfered with the Royal Prerogative, in so far as to extend it in a general fashion like this, especially without any particular authority to do so, and simply at the dictation of Government. It is perfectly true that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, on the last occasion said that he had been assured that the Royal Prerogative had not been touched in any way by this. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, can give an expert opinion, and it may have great weight with your Lordships; but I do not think it can have weight against the facts. It is perfectly possible for me to show a hypothetical person who becomes under this Bill an heir to a Peerage and who, if this Bill did not pass, would not have done so but would have been excluded by the terms of that Peerage. That is an extension of the Royal Prerogative. That, I think, should not be done without a definite decision by your Lordships'
538
House for which your Lordships would be responsible.
It is true, too, that before the Bill leaves this House I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, will say that Her Majesty has sent a Message to say that she will not put the Royal Prerogative in opposition to anything that your Lordships decide in this Bill. That, as your Lordships know, is purely permissive. It has happened on many occasions, and means merely that the Crown is submitting itself to the decision of Parliament in the matters affected. It does not dictate what that decision shall be.
There is another reason for rejecting the inclusion of Peerage in this Bill, and that is because your Lordships did not include it in the Bill affecting English Peerages. That may also seem a small point, but it is not without a certain amount of weight. In the first place, Scottish Peerages descend in a different manner from English Peerages. This will make the difference greater still. It is quite possible that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, will say that we have always been in advance of England and he does not see why we should not keep that advantage and still remain in advance. To move from the same position is not necessarily to advance, and in this case I do not think it will be an advance. One thing we do not want to do is to increase the difference between the two countries more than we absolutely need, for this reason: it may be a very convenient thing to an individual in his personal family circumstances to come to Scotland and to try to acquire a residence there in order that those circumstances may be governed by Scottish law instead of by English law; but however convenient it may be for a person it is not a particularly reputable thing for the country as a whole or for the legal system of the country.
In this matter I am suffering front a certain disadvantage. In the old days your Lordships used to meet at 4 o'clock in the afternoon, and after the last war, when we were asked whether we would retain the practice of meeting at 2.30 in the afternoon or go back to 4 o'clock, I said that although it would make my life very difficult we ought to go back to 4 o'clock. My reason for saying that was one which would be useful to me at this moment, because after 4 o'clock we get our Law Lord colleagues in this

539
House and I should have received the support of some of my Law Lord friends on this last point. I think both these points are worthy of your Lordships' consideration, and the first point is one which ought not to be decided upon by your Lordships other than by a Division. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 28, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Saltoun.)
3.22 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I am in a little difficulty about this Amendment. I must confess that my sympathies are in favour of it because it is making a change in the law of Scotland in relation to the succession to Peerages. Our difficulty is this: always in Scottish law illegitimate children who have been legitimised by the subsequent marriage of their natural parents can succeed to Peerages. This often happened. In one case the King of Scotland succeeded to the Crown although he had been an illegitimate child but his parents had subsequently married, and from him our present Royal House is descended. So there is no question about that.
The difficulty is that in 1926 the English changed their law and approximated it to that of the rest of Europe, including Scotland, and an Amendment was inserted in identical terms to the Amendment now being moved by the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, which provided that nothing in that Act should affect the succession to an hereditary Peerage. So the English in 1926 thus created a very marked difference between the laws of England and the laws of Scotland, in that while all other illegitimate children born of unmarried parents who subsequently married could succeed to all the rights of legitimate children, that did not apply to the case of hereditary Peerages. But it always had applied in Scotland, and that has been the difference from 1926 to the present time. Then in 1959 the English proceeded to legitimise children who were born at a time when their parents were married to somebody else. I remember we had a lively debate about it in which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter spoke about the difficulties at school between Smith Major and Smith Minor
540
when they had both been born from different marriages of the same parents. At the time there was a great deal of feeling about it, which seems now to have subsided.
I am not objecting to this Bill bringing, the old law of Scotland—the first time we have changed this law of Scotland—into similarity with the law of England on this subject, but I would like to know from the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, exactly what sort of proof is required if someone who believes that he is the son of a man who is married to someone not his mother, and his mother is married to someone not his father, claims that he may be the heir to the Peerage of his putative father, who was not in fact his legal father at the time of his birth? I think that is an important point.
One point which the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has made clear is that this will not affect the right of heirs apparent, that is to say, children of the father, because the seniority does not take effect until the putative parents are subsequently married. So the adulterous birth will not cut out the original legitimate birth, even if the former is older, because his seniority dates from the time of the marriage. But he will cut out heirs presumptive, say a brother or a nephew, and as the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, has pointed out this might be a temptation to some ambitious young widow to marry a Peer and look after him in his old age, on the understanding that he would falsely declare that all her children already born were his children. I should like to know what standards of proof are required.
I would much prefer the law of Scotland to be left as it is and let the English do what they like, but now that we are going to alter the law of Scotland this is a real difficulty—whether we should introduce into this Bill the Amendment which the English carried in the 1926 Act, as well as the 1959 Act, that we should say that nothing in this Bill should affect the succession to hereditary Peerages. I feel a little uneasy about this matter, and I should like to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has to say about it.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I hope I shall be able to remove the unease

541
which the noble Earl feels, although I am equally certain I shall not change in any way the opinions which have been expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun. I have endeavoured to do so twice in letters, the only success attending my efforts being that the noble Lord arrived at the conclusion (which I must admit I share) that the offer of a meeting this morning should not be taken up, on the basis that he did not think it would be worth while.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord for a moment, I came to that conclusion because I did not think we should get any further. It is always worth my while to meet the noble Lord, Lord Hughes.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I was talking in terms of concrete results rather than any other forms of satisfaction. But one of the reasons why I do not really have great hopes of converting the noble Lord at this late stage is because of the nature of the arguments he has put forward. At the last stage he put forward three reasons for amending the Bill, and he has now brought in four people in support—William the Conqueror, Lord Banbury, the Duke of Hamilton and Brandon—
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Oh no, he was not illegitimate—please!
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, neither, so far as I am aware, was it suggested that Lord Banbury was illegitimate, but he was brought into the argument. The fourth person was the housemaid. If I understood the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, correctly, he more or less implied that if certain things were good enough at the time of William the Conqueror it was not necessarily an advantage to have changed them in the interval. If your Lordships had accepted that argument frequently in the past, at least the Statute Book would not have needed so many Consolidation Acts in the interval.
I should like to go back to what was said in Committee stage, because I think that what both the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, has said and what the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, has said makes it worth while and necessary that I should recapitulate the full situation. As I explained in Committee, the effect of Lord Saltoun's Amendment is to prevent per
542
sons who cannot be legitimated at present by the subsequent marriage of their parents from succeeding to dignities and titles of honour. I said then that the Amendment might have the further effect—and I want to stress the fact that I am not going beyond "might"—of preventing all persons who are legitimated by subsequent marriage in future, including those who can be legitimated under the present law, from succeeding to titles. This in fact is a change in the Scottish law with a vengeance, because it is going to stop something which, as the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, pointed out, has been the law of Scotland for centuries.
The reason why I say that it might put the clock back all these years is because the noble Lord has adopted the wording from the Legitimacy Act 1959. The 1959 Act was an ordinary amending Act confining itself, so far as legitimation was concerned, to amending the existing law to extend legitimation to those persons who could not previously be legitimated because of the operation of the bar. The words in the 1959 Act were therefore appropriate for the purpose of ensuring that those to whom the Bill extended legitimation could not succeed to titles. But the present Bill, following the recommendation of the Scottish Law Commission, is not an amending Bill; it is a codifying Bill. It restates and replaces all the main provisions of the existing Common Law on legitimation as well as amending the law in certain ways.
If your Lordships will look at Clause 1, you will see that it covers the whole law on legitimation, both the law relating to present legitimation and the extension of the law to legitimate those at present subject to the bar. If the noble Lord's Amendment is read with Clause 1, its effect may well be not to leave present legitimations to the existing law. The existing law is being absorbed into the present Bill; the effect of the noble Lord's Amendment might therefore be that it is held that persons who can be legitimated under present law, and whose legitimation will in future be under this Act, will not be able to succeed to title. It is, I submit to your Lordships, a possible ambiguity which could not be permitted to stand, and this is an added reason for the Government's not accepting the Amendment.

543
At Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, adduced three reasons in support of his Amendment. First, he said that the rights of heirs presumptive will be affected by the legitimation of persons who cannot at present be legitimated. Secondly, he said that the legitimation of such persons will open the door to fraud. Thirdly, he pointed out that the Bill might invade the Prerogative of the Sovereign. I gave my answer to the first of his points at Committee stage. I agree without hesitation that the rights of heirs presumptive will be affected by the legitimation of persons who cannot at present be legitimated. But the rights of heirs presumptive have always been affected by legitimation under the present law, by the legitimation of a son who becomes heir apparent. It is a general principle of the Bill that all children legitimated by the subsequent marriage of their parents should for all purposes be treated similarly, whatever the circumstances at the time of their conception or birth, over which, of course, the child has no control. It seems to the Government that there is no more justification for discriminating between legitimated persons in the matter of titles than in any other area of succession. As I said in Committee, and as I have said to-day, it is not an act of the child which differs in the two cases, and I think it is fair that the children should be treated in the same way.
Lord Saltoun's second argument concerns the possibility of fraud. It would be possible, he said, for an elderly Peer who is none too honest to get himself a housekeeper and oust an heir presumptive by persuading a young widow to marry him and care for him on condition that he will acknowledge paternity of her son so that he will succeed to the title. The Government are satisfied that this is not a ground for discriminating against those who are legitimated under the Bill. To give the Government's reasons I must explain once again the safeguards against fraud and why the provisions of the Bill do not increase the exceedingly remote chances of such an attempted fraud succeeding. As I said in Committee, if the persons who are the parents of an illegitimate child subsequently marry each other legitimation is automatic on that marriage. But the Registrar General is not empowered to re-register a birth in legiti
544
mate form unless he is satisfied as to paternity; and this in practice means that if there is no entry relating to paternity in the original registration of the child's birth or in the Register of Corrections, or if there has been no finding of paternity by a competent court, re-registration is permitted only with the sanction of the sheriff after due inquiries.
Further, an entry in the Register or in a birth certificate is no more than evidence in its favour; there would be nothing to prevent a person from proving that an admission of paternity on which the entry is based is false. And, as your Lordships will know, the Lord Chancellor must be satisfied as to the succession to a Peerage before he issues a Writ of Summons. If he is not satisfied, stringent inquiries are made which involve the Lord Advocate and the Committee for Privileges. I have, as the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, said, written to him setting out in fuller details the safeguards which are provided; but I think I can assure your Lordships that they are such as to make the chances of success of the kind of fraud which he has described extremely remote indeed.
I pointed out to the noble Lord at the last stage that such an attempt at fraud is already a possibility under the present law; the Peer may marry an unmarried woman with a child—not his mistress, as the noble Lord understood it, but a woman with whom he has had no closer previous acquaintance than with the hypothetical widow of whom the noble Lord spoke. And if he were to, his chances of success, negligible at any time, are certainly greater than if he married a widow. The reason for this is that a child born during the widow's previous marriage is presumed by law to be the child of her husband; and this is an additional hurdle which would have to be overcome in attempting to establish the Peer's paternity. This hurdle would not exist if, under the existing law, he attempted the fraud by marrying an unmarried woman. I can therefore categorically state that there are adequate safeguards against such fraud and that the risks of fraud are not increased by the extension of legitimation in this Bill. If, therefore, any of your Lordships are looking for an ingenious way of finding a housekeeper, I do not suggest you are

545
influenced by what the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, has said, although I do not wish it to be read that finding a single woman with an illegitimate child is any easier a way of seeking to spite an heir presumptive whom you do not like.
Then there was the question of the Royal Prerogative. I informed the House that the Government had considered this point and we took the view that it did not infringe the Royal Prerogative. On reconsideration, however, we have come to the conclusion that, a doubt having been expressed, it would be safer to take the view that indirectly the Bill might affect the Prerogative. We have therefore acted on this view, and I am pleased to inform your Lordships, as the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, predicted I would, that Her Majesty's consent will be signified at the appropriate stage.
I hope your Lordships will forgive me for having dealt at such length with the Amendments. Although I am in complete disagreement with what the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, has said, it seemed to me it would be completely unfair if I did not react to the complete sincerity with which he raised the point, and give him an answer which I hope will persuade your Lordships that the principle at stake in this matter is such that we are reasonable in declining to accept the Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, has put forward. Even if it did not have the effect which we believe it is likely to have, by the act of putting the clock back several hundred years by removing a right from children who presently have it, we should still be of this opinion. That is an added reason for rejecting the Amendment which the noble Lord has put forward.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, if no other noble Lord wishes to speak I should like to say a few words in reply. The
noble Lord, Lord Hughes, replied at great length to the speech I did not make, at any rate this afternoon. He expressed a fear that my Amendment would go too far and would alter the law of Scotland as it is at present. The wording of my Amendment is:
"Nothing in this Act shall affect the succession to any dignity or title of honour or render any person capable of succeeding to or transmitting a right to succeed to any such dignity or title."
The fact that the early part of this Bill recites what is the law at present surely does not repeal that law if, later on, we put into the law that "Nothing in this Act shall" alter the law as it stands at present. Surely that is a clear case? Otherwise, I should be in doubt, and I do not think there can be any doubt about that.
As I had hoped, the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has brought the usual Royal and gracious Message, that Her Majesty is willing to abide by the decision of your Lordships' House. The question before us at this moment is, what is that decision to be?
My third argument was not touched upon by Lord Hughes at all, and it is one upon which my legal friends put most stress: that the Bill extends further the existing difference between the law of Scotland and the law of England with regard to peerage. That is my answer to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. As I was afraid would happen, we have not convinced one another. That does not affect my regard in other respects for Lord Hughes; but I am afraid we must differ on this.
3.44 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 32; Not-Contents, 55.

CONTENTS

Albemarle, E.

Fortescue, E. [Teller.]

Nunburnholme, L.

Amherst, E.

Fraser of North Cape, L.

Ogmore, L.

Amulree, L.

Greenway, L.

Rea, L.

Asquith of Yarnbury, Bs.

Henley, L.

Rowallan, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Horsbrugh, Bs.

St. Oswald, L.

Beachamp, E.

Iddesleigh, E.

Saltoun, L. [Teller.]

Blackford, L.

Ilford, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Brentford, V.

Kinloss, Ly.

Strathclyde, L.

Byers, L.

Margadale, L.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Forbes, L.

Milverton, L.

Wedgwood, L.

Monsell, V.

Ypres, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Hall, V.

Rathcavan, L.

Arwyn, L.

Hankey, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Balerno, L.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Rowley, L.

Beaumont, Bs.

Henderson, L.

Royle, L.

Beswick, L.

Hill of Wivenhoe, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Bowles, L.

Hilton of Upton, L. [Teller.]

St. Davids, V.

Brockway, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Selkirk, E.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Hughes, L.

Shackleton, L.

Champion, L.

Hunt, L.

Shannon, E.

Chorley, L.

Hurcomb, L.

Silkin, L.

Citrine, L.

Kilmany, L.

Sorensen, L.

Clwyd, L.

Latham, L.

Stonham, L.

Crook, L.

Leatherland, L.

Strang, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Lindgren, L.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Falmouth, V.

Molson, L.

Swanborough, Bs.

Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Noel-Buxton, L.

Tayside, L.

Glasgow, E.

Phillips, Bs. [Teller.]

Wells-Pestell, L.

Haddington, E.

Raglan, L.

Williamson, L.

Younger of Leckie, V.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

EDUCATION BILL [H.L.]
3.50 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Phillips.)
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD JESSEL in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Government and conduct of colleges of education and other institutions providing further education
1.—(1) For every institution maintained by a local education authority, being either—

(a) a college for the training of teachers (in this section referred to as a college of education); or

(b) an institution, other than a college of education, providing full-time education pursuant to a scheme of further education approved under section 42 of the Education Act 1944,

there shall be an instrument (to be known as an instrument of government) providing for the constitution of a body of governors of the institution.
(2) The instrument of government for any such institution shall be made by order of the local education authority, and the body of governors to be constituted there under shall consist of such number of persons, appointed in such manner, as that authority may determine.
LORD ABERDARE LORD ABERDARE moved, in subsection (1), to leave out the third "the" and insert "each separate". The noble Lord said: This is a simple Amendment. I presume that the intention in subsection (1) of Clause 1 is that there should be a separate board of governors for each of the institutions covered by the Bill, but it did not seem to me clear that this was so. It might well have been the case under the Bill that one governing body would be sufficient for more than one institution. Therefore, the idea of this Amendment was to make it quite clear that each institution should have its own board of governors. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 15, leave out ("the") and insert ("each separate").—(Lord Aberdare.)
BARONESS PHILLIPS: It was rather assumed that the purpose of the noble Lord's Amendment was exactly as he has already told the Committee; namely, to ensure that each institution has a separate board of governors. The Bill does not give the local education authorities the power to group two or more colleges of education under a single governing body, so in fact no Amendment is required to ensure this. It is the Secretary of State's intention that, as the Bill now provides, each college of education should have its own separate governing body. I should, however, tell noble Lords that it has been represented to my right honourable friend that the power to group two or more schools under one management conferred by Section 20 of the Education Act 1944 should be applied

549
to special schools, and that an analogous power should be applied to the grouping of purely local further education establishments performing a similar function for different parts of an authority's area, where the authority consider such grouping expedient and the Secretary of State approves it.
My right honourable friend is giving sympathetic consideration to these suggestions with a view to the possibility of moving appropriate Amendments at a later stage. He wishes me, however, to make it clear that the Government have no intention of conferring a power to group colleges of education, and that there is no suggestion that the power to group further education establishments should be wider than what is needed to meet the circumstances of purely local colleges, and then only on the initiative of the local education authority and with the approval of the Secretary of State.
I have given a somewhat longer explanation to the noble Lord than he might have considered necessary, in order that it should be recorded, and I hope that he will feel that he can withdraw the Amendment.
LORD ABERDARE: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving that extremely lucid answer at some length. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ABERDARE LORD ABERDARE moved to add to subsection (2):
"Provided that in a college of education these persons shall include the principal and representative members of the academic staff together with university representatives, members of the teaching profession and other persons with a concern for the training of teachers as full voting members."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment follows on what I said on the Second Reading of the Bill. If I may summarise what I then said, it was that the institutions of higher education covered by the Bill would not enjoy any real internal independence unless their boards of governors were fully representative in the sort of way envisaged by the Weaver Report, and unless they had freedom to choose their own clerks. The question of the clerk I leave aside, because I have no doubt that this comes
550
within the articles of government, and the articles, under subsection (3), are already subject to the approval of the Secretary of State. What I am concerned about is the board of governors which forms part of the instrument which, under subsection (2), is the responsibility of the local education authority alone.
Your Lordships will remember that I put forward a tentative suggestion on Second Reading that the instrument might also be subject to the Secretary of State's approval, and the noble Baroness said that this would not in her opinion be appropriate. That is a view with which I have some sympathy. But I am still concerned about the colleges of education. It was recommended by the Robbins Committee that these colleges should be of full university status, and indeed their students are already working for Bachelor of Education degrees. But when it was decided by the Government that they should not enjoy full university status, it was at the same time said that they should enjoy the maximum amount of internal self-government, and it was to that end that the Weaver Committee was established. It is specifically to guarantee them what was promised to them, or what was recommended for them by the Weaver Report, that I have put down this Amendment.
The Weaver Report was a unanimous Report, and it was the Report of a Study Group on which were included all the relevant parties—the Department of Education and Science, the local education authorities and those who were teaching in the colleges of education. I am going no further than suggesting that in the case of colleges of education the constitution of the board of governors recommended in that unanimous Report should be put into the Bill. I think it is essential that these colleges should have the same independence in this way as, for example, the polytechnics have. In the case of the polytechnics there is no question. The Secretary of State, in his Notes for Guidance, asks authorities to include drafts of the proposed instrument and articles of government, so that he will have power to approve both the constitution of the board of governors and the articles. What I want to ensure is that the colleges of education are no worse off than that.
I have therefore put down in my Amendment the words taken straight from the Report of the Weaver Committee, dealing with the constitution of the governing body. I have added the last four words "as full voting members", because I feel sure that this was the intention of the Weaver Committee, although I do not think it was specifically expressed in the Report. But I believe that if those words were not included, it would be possible for a local education authority to establish a governing body on which the principal and representatives of the staff were included, but without full voting powers. That is the reason for adding those words at the end. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able either to accept this Amendment, or to give me some fairly definite assurance that the position of the colleges of education will be safeguarded. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 20, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Aberdare.)
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER: I wish very briefly to support this Amendment. If I may speak from experience of voluntary colleges of education, I would say that this aspect has already been gone into very carefully in our negotiations with the Department over articles of government, and the principle, so far as they are concerned—certainly in the colleges I know—has been fully established. They have not always shown the same freedom from rigidity for which the noble Lord has pleaded in other cases, and which I hope they will still consider. But they have shown great understanding of this point, and very much to the profit of the colleges.
I should like very much to support what the noble Lord has said, not so much about the mere status of these colleges of education—this near-university status—but about the whole nature of life within them, which is very much of the same calibre. The size of these colleges to-day, the freedom of the students, the academic responsibility which is expected of them—this is something which I think can be properly achieved only within institutions which are themselves manifestly academic bodies, with great academic freedom in them. While the relationship of the universities and the
552
university representatives certainly speaks for itself, I should also like to endorse the other points which the noble Lord has made about members of the teaching profession and others outside, since their relationship with the students is so very important. I hope very much that this Amendment can be either accepted now or included in some other form.
4.6 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: I should like, first of all, to assure the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, that my right honourable friend is very concerned about the status of the colleges of education. Indeed, I think that on Second Reading I indicated that this was one of the reasons for the introduction of this Bill.
In setting up the Study Group on the Government of Colleges of Education, to which the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, has referred, my right honourable friend the then Secretary of State for Education and Science charged them with the task of striking the correct balance between the freedom which institutions of higher education should enjoy, and the social control which democratically elected representative bodies were required to exercise. I think noble Lords indicated, by their warm reception of the Bill at its Second Reading, their general approval of the unanimous recommendations at which, after long and friendly discussion, the Study Group arrived. These recommendations were designed to distribute responsibility between the different parties, and to give as much freedom to governing bodies and academic boards as was consistent with the inescapable duties of the local education authorities.
My right honourable friend the present Secretary of State does not think it necessary or desirable to alter the nice balance that was achieved by the Study Group, and to which this Bill is designed to give effect. This does not mean, as I explained on Second Reading, that he is not concerned to see that the several partners in this enterprise, including, of course, the local education authorities, between them bring it about that the colleges are governed in accordance not only with the letter of the Study Group's Report, but also with its spirit which they did their best to communicate in its last chapter, and by what the Secretary

553
of State commended as "its general tenor and liberal attitudes". The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, referred to this.
To lay down in the Bill the composition of the governing body of a college, or to make the instrument of government subject to the Secretary of State's formal approval, would not in his view improve the balance of interests that was achieved. I hope that, in the light of this explanation and of the fact that the authorities may be expected to act on the unanimous recommendation of the Study Group that the principal of the college of education and members of the academic staff should be members of the governing body, the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, will not wish to press an Amendment which the Government would feel bound to reject.
LORD ABERDARE: I certainly do not wish to press the Amendment. I am, however, still rather disturbed. It seemed to me that this particular balance, or this particular requirement, within the board of governors was a direct recommendation of the Weaver Report and that it would not really be upsetting any balance to put it into the Bill. But I appreciate what the noble Baroness has said. I should like time to study the matter further, and if we have to come back to it we will. But for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

BRITISH STANDARD TIME BILL [H.L.]
4.10 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAN): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Stonham.)
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD JESSEL in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [British Standard Time]:
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: I should point out that Amendment No. 1 pre-empts Amendment No. 2. If Amendment No. I is agreed to, I shall not call Amendment No. 2.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY moved, in subsection (1), to leave out, "(to be known as British standard time) shall be one hour in advance of Greenwich mean time", and insert "shall be Mid-European time (one hour in advance Greenwich mean time)". The noble Earl said: With the exception of one Amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Ferrier, the Amendments on this Committee stage of the Bill are confined solely to the matter of the name of the time it is proposed to adopt and of course, the Title of the Bill. The name of the time is surely a simple enough matter. As your Lordships know perfectly well, we have had up to this point, and we still have, two times in force. Since 1916 we have had Greenwich Mean Time, on the one hand, as our basic time, and we have had British Standard Time for a varying number of months in the year, on the other hand. This Bill seeks to do away with that and to extend British Summer Time throughout the winter. Obviously, we cannot continue to call it British Summer Time, so we must call it something else.
The effect of the Bill, as your Lordships also know, is simply to move us Eastwards from one time zone into another, so that we adopt the time for the zone immediately to our east, which is known as Mid European Time. That

555
name is known not only to the 35 countries that use it, but also to all the other countries in the world. I believe almost without exception, it has been for a long time part of the world's standard time system based on Greenwich. That, therefore, is the name of the time, and we presumably should use it, like everybody else. But we prefer not to, and the Bill proposes that we should call it British Standard Time.
There has been a great deal of argument and discussion on the matter, and I dare say that much of it has been quite entertaining. As the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, told us on Second Reading:
"More than a hundred different names were received from many sources, including Members of Parliament, the public and the Press. Two newspapers ran readers' competitions, and one of them chose 'British Standard Time' which was easily the most popular choice among the letters received, and this was the title chosen by my right honourable friend, after careful consideration of all the alternatives. It appears to be a general wish that the word 'British' should appear in the title…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23/11/67, col. 1186.]
This is perfectly understandable, and we are entitled, if we choose, to give our own private name to this very public time, just as one would be entitled to own a dog which might be a pedigree bloodhound named, say, "Champion Thundercloud of Tillington", and call it "Spot". But in international behaviour this kind of thing is apt to look a little ridiculous, and also to be at times tiresome. If I may take a rather more close analogy, it is as though I were to join a club; shall I say, if I dare to, the Carlton Club, of which I am not a member. This might be my only club, and after my name in the reference books would appear the name, "Carlton Club". If I wished to go there by taxi, I would ask the taxi driver to take me to the Carlton Club. At home, it being my only club, if I was telling my wife where I was going I would simply say that I was going to "the Club"; in rather the same manner as our own time will be referred to domestically as, "the time".
But suppose that, for some rather curious, whimsical piece of vanity of my own, I preferred to call it, privately, "The Cork Club," and had those words engraved on my visiting card. This, I suspect, would cause a certain amount of irritation to the members of the Carlton
556
Club, and would induce the world at large to think that quite possibly I was not entirely right in the head. I do not think we really want to be thought either tiresome or not quite right in the head, and I think it would be a great deal more to the point if we used the same name as everybody else uses for this time, which is "Mid-European Time".
There is another point, slightly more subtle, if I may use the word, than this. This is a time that will affect every one of us from the cradle to the grave—perhaps not continuously from the cradle to the grave, but it is going to affect every man, woman and child throughout the months of winter, which is the only time of the year that this time will have effect. It will affect us all, in the sense that we get an hour's extra daylight in the evening, which will be agreeable; but I believe it will also bring a certain amount of hazard, possibly hardship and conceivably even death—I do not wish to be melodramatic, but this can happen—to three main groups of people, that is, schoolchildren going to school in the morning in the dark, motorists on the road going to work in the last hour before the dawn rather than the first hour after it, and chronic bronchitics and people with weak chests who will have to put up with an extra hour of darkness, cold and fog in the morning.
If this is to be so, it is a serious matter. I do not wish to exaggerate, and it is not a thing about which one should be flippant, but I think it is reasonable and just, to say the least, that we should say in the Bill exactly what it is that we are doing. We are not moving to some new, slightly whimsically-chosen form of British Standard Time. There is no point in clinging to the word "British" when in fact it is British no longer. I see very little object in trying to retain the initials "B.S.T." because they are the same as those which were used for "British Summer Time", as the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, suggested. I might equally well, perhaps with rather more justification, and perhaps with a certain charm, call it, "Baron Stonham Time". But it is not: it is Mid-European Time. This, I submit, is its name; it should remain its name; and it is this that I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 6, leave out from beginning to ("throughout") in line 7 and insert ("shall be

557
Mid-European time (one hour in advance of Greenwich mean time)").—(The Earl of Cork and Orrery.)
4.17 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: As has been rightly pointed out by the Deputy Chairman, the effect of carrying this Amendment would be to exclude discussion of my own, and I think it may be for the convenience of the Committee that I should now deploy the argument for my own. I think it will probably be for the convenience of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and I think of the whole Committee, if we know the case for the two Amendments that are suggested. There are two new names suggested as alternatives to the one in the Bill. My noble friend behind me and I are agreed that the name in the Bill ought to go, and I think that each of us would agree that one or other of the two Amendments that we have put down should be adopted. I think they should both be considered.
I was a little astonished, on one minor point, that my noble friend called it Mid-European Time, because I thought that what most people call it, and what it is known as throughout the world, is Central European Time.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: Will my noble friend forgive me for interrupting him? This is quite likely a fault in my own research, which has not been carried far enough, but it has been carried out with the assistance of the Library and the Public Bill Office. I believe it is called Mid-European Time, but I am sure no one would complain greatly if that name were found to be wrong; and perhaps the matter could be adjusted by a small drafting Amendment at a later stage.
LORD CONESFORD: I entirely agree. Subject to that, I certainly support my noble friend as against the words at present in the Bill; and I think that, if his Amendment is not adopted, he will also probably support me in what I suggest.
I shall now give the case for my Amendment, which, it will be seen, is to change the name to "Advanced Greenwich Time". I want to show why the name in the Bill will not do, and why I think that the name I suggest is the best alternative. Since the Second Reading I have had the great advantage of a most helpful letter and memorandum
558
from Mr. D. H. Sadler, the President of the Royal Astronomical Society and the man named in the Preface of the Nautical Almanac as one of the two men under whose immediate supervision the Nautical Almanac is produced. I thought of reading to your Lordships the preface to the Nautical Almanac. It is the first time I have brought it into this House. It is a work of some fame and one with which I think the Home Office will be familiar—although I rather gather from a letter in the Press from my friend A. P. Herbert that the Home Office, although familiar with longitude, has not yet studied latitude.
Mr. Sadler, who has been good enough co help me in this way, was one of the four signatories to the letter from the representatives of the scientific interests concerned which was published in The Times on October 24 this year, the letter that has been mentioned previously in our debates. I will, if I may, quote just one sentence from that letter:
"However, we understand that the name British Standard Time is being considered: this is ambiguous, is likely to lead to confusion and misunderstanding and should be rejected as being, in our view, geographically inconsistent with the system of Standard Time lanes."
Mr. D. H. Sadler has also drawn up an admirable statement for the Council of the Royal Astronomical Society. It is headed "British Standard Time Bill 1967. Statement of the arguments against the use of the name British Standard Time", and is dated the 8th of last month. I take it that Her Majesty's Government have seen a copy of this document and have already studied it. If they do not accept one of the two Amendments that will be before them, then I hope they will say why they ignore the considered opinions of this scientific body. The document first sets out the background of the problem. Since 1884 the zero meridian of Greenwich has been recognised and used internationally. If I may, I will read a few sentences:
"As everyone knows the zero meridian from which longitudes are measured is that defined at the old Royal Observatory in Greenwich Park (actually by the Airy Transit Circle). It has been recognised and used internationally since 1884. That zero meridian defines Greenwich Mean Time which is used internationally for purposes of astronomy, navigation, surveying and other sciences; it is also known as Universal Time.

559
"For civil purposes it is desirable to use a measure of time differing from Greenwich Mean Time, by a constant time-difference, depending on longitude, in order that the alternating periods of day and night should fall at convenient clock times.
"For practical usage it is essential that there should be only a few well-defined such measures of time; and, arising from the International Time Conference of 1884, there is in existence a well-recognised and internationally adopted system of Standard Time Zones. There are 24 such Zones, centred on longitudes of multiples of 15°, with corresponding Zone Standard Times differing from Greenwich Mean Time by multiples of one hour."
So far I have been quoting from this document. The great objection to the name "British Standard Time" is the fact that, if this Bill is passed in its present form, there will be, in fact, in this country two standard times; that is to say, the standard time of the zone in which the Meridian of Greenwich is situated (that is to say, Greenwich Mean Time) and the standard time, one hour in advance, which is mentioned at present in the Bill. All round the globe Greenwich Mean Time is the world standard time for other countries and for us. To take one example, members of the Committee may be familiar with the form of announcement that the B.B.C. uses in its Overseas Services.
I think I had better now read the very important paragraph which sets out the case against the name given in the Bill, and it will be safer if I quote the actual words of the document. It says:
"Choice of name. The natural Standard Time for any country is that of the Zone Standard Time corresponding to the Standard Time Zone in which the country (or the bulk of the country) lies; the use of the combination of the name of the country and the word Standard for a Zone Standard Time that differs from that corresponding to the Standard Time Zone in which the country lies is unnatural and likely to lead to confusion. This is the nub of the argument against the name British Standard Time for permanent Summer Time; both logically and naturally British Standard Time should be identical with Greenwich Mean Time, and its use for a different measure of time is likely to cause confusion.
If British astronomy had not been honoured by the choice of the Greenwich meridian as the international zero of longitude, the time used in the British Isles would probably have been known as British Standard Time (instead of as Greenwich Mean Time) since this is the logical and obvious name."
In other words, the only reason that we call the time "Greenwich Mean
560
Time" instead of "British Standard Time" is the compliment internationally given to this country by the recognition of Greenwich as the Zero of Longitude. Otherwise, British Standard Time would have been the name always known; in fact, it is still so known for many purposes.
I hope the Committee will agree that we cannot ignore these objections of the men of science. Why should we decide a name by newspaper competition among laymen and not consult the learned societies? Is that the way by which Her Majesty's Government wish to show their sympathy and respect for science and technology: to ask innumerable bodies what should be the name, but not to ask any of the learned societies? I wonder what is the view of the Astronomer Royal. We have not been told. I believe that an effort to find out in another place did not succeed because he is a civil servant. That may be the reason. Another reason may be that his views may not be printable.
If the Committee reject, as I hope they will, the name chosen in the Bill, what should they put in its place? There are two names, as my noble friend has said, which already describe the time called in the Bill British Standard Time. They are British Summer Time and Central (or Mid-) European Time. The first, British Summer Time, is clearly now inappropriate; because, whatever else you think about the word "summer", it is not a very useful word to describe the winter. The second name is, I think, less desirable than the one that I have put forward. Mr. Sadler, in his letter to me, has made it quite clear that when he and his friends in the other learned societies wrote their letter to The Times they fully expected some notice would be taken of their objections to the name, British Standard Time and that they would be consulted.
May I read one paragraph of his letter? It says:
"We have deliberately avoided putting forward proposals for a name because this is largely a civil matter; however, we feel that we have the right to ask, as we did in the letter to The Times, for the exercise of the greatest care, implying that the appropriate authorities, both in Government and non-Governmental circles should be consulted. Although wide consultations were apparently made in respect of the principle of the change, there do not appear to have been any such

561
consultations in respect of the choice of name."
He then goes on to give the names that he thinks will be clear and do no harm. Of the names he puts forward I believe that far the best is the one which I now suggest—"Advanced Greenwich Time". It is short; it is accurate and it is free from confusion; and that is the name I would ask the Committee to adopt.
4.32 p.m.
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN: Very briefly I should like to support my noble friend Lord Conesford. I shall not take more than a minute or two. I have always disliked very much the thought that the name "Greenwich Mean time" should disappear. Even if it has to be altered, I greatly prefer my noble friend's Amendment to any other suggestion, because we are all used to the name and so are foreign countries. I am not myself either a mid or a central European. I do not know where one of them begins or the other one ends. I do know where Greenwich is, and I have even been there. I hope sincerely that we shall continue (I do not say this as an old Tory backwoodsman), for very obvious historical, scientific and other reasons, to adhere to the name "Greenwich".
LORD SOMERS: I must confess that I am a little astonished that the Government are so keen on retaining British nationality so far as time is concerned when we have been told, as regards the Common Market, so often that we are definitely part of Europe—a fact, I may say, about which I have the gravest doubts—and that the sooner we realise that the better. My noble friend Lord Cork and Orrery has suggested that we use the term which is used all over the rest of Europe, and I suggest, with all due respect to my noble friend Lord Conesford, for whose views I always have the greatest respect, that it seems rather foolish in the circumstances to have two names for the same thing.
LORD AMPTHILL: I rise to support my noble friend firing on my port bow, and I do not agree with my noble friend's "broad" on my port bow. It is, I suppose, about 50 or 55 years since I had to use the Nautical Almanac professionally, and I must confess that I have not used it very much ever since. I should like to congratulate my noble friend on the
562
masterly use that he has made of scientific data, if that is the right word. Why I support his name "Advanced Greenwich Time" is that Greenwich Time is known right round the world, and it is used right round the world by air-lines, shipping and all the rest. I think it would be a disaster if we got rid of the word "Greenwich", for the same reasons that I, with others of my noble friends in this House, fought and voted against the last Administration to retain the word "Admiralty". For much the same reasons I think we should retain the word "Greenwich"; therefore I support my noble friend Lord Conesford.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: I freely admit that I greatly prefer the Amendment put forward by my noble friend Lord Conesford on both æsthetic and patriotic grounds.
THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: Does that mean that the noble Earl is withdrawing his Amendment?
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: No, it does not. I was about to say that my personal prejudices are not what really count. It is a matter of confusion. I do not think that we should lessen the confusion by having two Greenwich Times—Advanced Greenwich Time and Greenwich Mean Time. We should increase it by inviting navigators and others to use both at once, as they might have to, and to convert one to the other in the course of a cruise or a flight. We should only invite confusion in the minds of unfortunate people visiting our shores from countries who use Mid-European Time. They would come to a country where they were told about some other time, only to be told, in brackets after that, "But it is just the same as your own." This seems to me unnecessary; and despite my feelings (I entirely sympathise and agree with both my noble friends in front of me: I oppose them only with the friendliest respect), I think we should be realists and admit that we are abandoning Greenwich Time and adopting Mid-European Time; and we should do well, for the sake of honesty of policy, plainness and lack of confusion, to make absolutely plain what it is we are up to.
4.37 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: As I understand the position, we are discussing the Amendment moved by the noble Earl,

563
Lord Cork and Orrery. He has not withdrawn it, and therefore it is incumbent on me to deal with it. The noble Earl indicated that if he does not carry the Committee with him on his Amendment he will then be in a position to support the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, when he moves his Amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Conesford, indicated that both he and his noble friend would agree that one or other of the two names would be better than "British Standard". I submit first that this indicates somewhat less than 100 per cent. confidence of either of the noble Lords who have put down Amendments in the name they have submitted to the Committee. I would also point out that neither Amendment affects the principle of permanent Summer Time which is enshrined in the Bill and which is its main purpose. Both Amendments are confined to the question of what we should call the time.
Having said that, I shall be grateful if I may be allowed to go outside the strict terms of the Amendment to acknowledge an error which I made on Second Reading and which Sir Alan Herbert has pointed out in the columns of The Times in his own inimitable way. It will be recalled that I not only moved the Second Reading but I also wound up the debate. In the course of that debate every noble Lord who spoke mentioned the times of sunrise, and I ventured to suggest, not that the Home Secretary was superseding the Almighty but that the time of sunset would thereby be moved forward by one hour and the length of the time of daylight would not be affected; and that if people got up in the dark they would stand a better chance of going home in the light—which seemed to me not an unfair point to make. But in doing that, and having on my knee the times of the sunrise and sunset of about 14 European towns, including a number of British towns, I somewhat hurriedly worked out the hours of daylight in between. I regret that I made a mistake of one hour in one only—that was Rome. In this the gallant Knight is quite right, and I hope that I have made full and proper amends.
May I now move first to the Amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, because, though in principle
564
he suggested another name, I submit there is a difference between his Amendment and that of his noble friend; therefore I should like to deal with them separately. In the course of his speech the noble Earl said that we could use the same name as everyone else uses. I submit to him that that would be quite impossible, because there are several names widely used in Europe indicating the same system of time. A major difficulty in the noble Earl's Amendment is that it would virtually deprive the new time system of a name. That does not seem to be his intention. While his Amendment states what the time is to be, it does not say what it is to be called.
On Second Reading, the noble Earl said that in his view, whatever name is given to the new time system here, it will be called "Mid-European time". He has embodied that in his Amendment. That is an opinion, a perfectly fair and valid one, but it is an opinion that we do not share.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: Am I not right in thinking (though I do not know whether the noble Lord will agree) that when one makes a statement on some subject and writes it in block capitals, that is the statement as one means it.
LORD STONHAM: I am considering the Amendment and its effect on the Bill if it were accepted. May I read to the noble Earl how this clause would read if his Amendment were accented?
"The time for general purposes in the United Kingdom shall be Mid-European time (one hour in advance of Greenwich mean time).…"
That does not say what it is to be called. It is what the time is to be. That is an important difficulty in the noble Earl's Amendment.
It is essential that the new time system should be given its own easily recognised statutory name, which can be adopted for general use. The name should be one that is generally acceptable, because obviously the new time cannot be known by more than one name. "Mid-European Time" is admittedly an alternative title, but the commonest term for the time system on the Continent is Central European Time, as the noble Lord said. This was considered with other titles embodying "Europe" and we rejected it, because

565
the change is being made not primarily to bring us in line with the countries using Central European Time, but to introduce a time system here which is best suited to the domestic interests of the country as a whole. It is identical, of course, with the Central European Standard, but there is understandably a considerable body of opinion in favour of including in the title the word "British".
I do not agree with the noble Earl in saying that we do not want to cling to "British" because it is British time no longer. One feature about the suggestions we received was that so many of them wanted "British" in the title. Moreover, in so far as people think of the Continental connection, it is with Western, not with Central or Mid Europe. To those noble Lords who are unaware of the technical reasons the reference which the noble Earl proposes tends to be somewhat puzzling, and to suggest an affinity to peoples in Europe with whom people here do not commonly feel such an affinity. Therefore, particularly in view of what he said a short while ago, I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his Amendment.
I turn now to the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Conesford. In view of the Powerful speech he made on behalf of the scientists and the support given to him by the noble Viscount, Lord Stuart of Findhorn, may I point out that the Bill expressly reserves Greenwich. Subsection (2) of Clause 1 reads thus:
"( ) Nothing in this section affects the use of Greenwich mean time for purposes of astronomy, meteorology, navigation or other purposes for which that time is adopted by international usage, or the construction of any document referring to a point of time in connection with any of those purposes."
That conclusively and rightly reserves the term "Greenwich Mean Time" for all the international and scientific purposes for which it is commonly used and internationally famous.
I submit that the issue boils down to this. Does the use of the name "British Standard Time" inflict such an injury on the use of "Greenwich Mean Time" and such a confusion that it ought not to be used? Alternatively, if there is such a damage, is it right that the scientists should pre-empt a title and deny it to the vast mass of laymen who have
566
been consulted through their organisations about the title which is proposed? The noble Lord, Lord Conesford, quoted at length from a letter from Mr. Sadler.
LORD CONESFORD: I quoted one paragraph from the letter and more extensively from the document, which I assume had also been sent to Her Majesty's Government.
LORD STONHAM: My information is that the document has not been sent to the Home Office. I inquired immediately, and we cannot trace having seen it. But Home Office officials went down to Hurstmonceux and discussed the name with Mr. Sadler. The fact that he does not agree with our choice does not mean that he was not given a chance to explain his views to us. The noble Lord, Lord Conesford, rather reproached us for not having consulted the scientists, but in fact we consulted a universal agglomeration of interests.
The noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, mentioned the airlines and shipping lines. Of course, we consulted them, and they supported our proposals and do not find any difficulty about them. The Admiralty do not find any difficulty about them. I do not want to mention all the many bodies which were consulted, but they include the British Airports Authority, British European Airways, the International Air Transport Association, the British Medical Association, the British National Export Council and the British Overseas Air Corporation. We consulted virtually everyone we could think of who has a direct interest in this matter. We have gone into this very thoroughly over a period of years. After all, we have had Summer Time now for over half a century. And the name we put before your Lordships certainly represents a consensus of strong support by a substantial majority.
I come now to the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, in which he suggests that instead of calling it British Standard Time we should call it Advanced Greenwich Time. I have in my hand a three-page list of all the names that were suggested and considered. They include Willett Time, Churchill Time, Civil Time, Mean Civil Time, Permanent Time, Advance Time, Common Time. Then we have no fewer than 14 names, all of which include

567
Greenwich: New Greenwich Mean Time, Greenwich Time, G.M.T.A.—that is Advanced—G.M.T.I., Greenwich Ante-Meridianal Time, Greenwich Global Time, Greenwich British Time, Green-which Plus Time, Greenwich Less One, Plus Greenwich, Greenwich Advanced Time, Advanced Greenwich Time and Advanced Meridian Time. We rejected all those names for the very reason, in effect, that the noble Lord has advanced in his Amendment—because we did not want to create confusion with Greenwich Mean Time. We submit that if we accepted the Amendment and called Permanent Summer Time Advanced Greenwich Time, then inevitably the public would call it Greenwich Time, without the "Advanced", and inevitably, in our view, it would create confusion.
The noble Lord, Lord Conesford, advanced, as he always does, in a perfectly fair way, the argument that for scientific purposes the world is divided into 24 standard time zones, of which one has its centre on the meridian at Greenwich and the others are related to it, so that the Standard Time cannot be other than Greenwich Mean Time. That is the point the noble Lord made. But in ordinary usage the term carries precisely the right meaning for the purposes of this Bill—that is, British Standard Time—and we see no reason for abandoning it on technical or specialist objection. We do not accept that confusion would be caused by the use of "British Standard Time", because laymen are completely unaware of the specialist implication, while the specialists themselves are in no danger whatever of being misled, and there is this special exception in the Bill.
On this question of the name, we really have thought about it carefully. We have had the most extraordinary names: SATYR Time, Same All the Year Round, Orbitime, Orbitum, Orbitim, Solar Time, Solar Plus and Solextra. But of all these technical varieties the one that emerged as the outstanding choice was British Standard Time. There were more than five times as many people who suggested British Standard Time as the nearest number favouring any other choice—nearly six times as many as the others.
We have had a debate on two Amendments. Obviously, the noble Lords who moved them are not supremely confident
568
that theirs is the right choice. I hope that I have convinced them, and certainly I hope that I have convinced your Lordships, that the Amendment moved by the viable and should be withdrawn; and, noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, is not secondly, that the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, is not necessary, because the confusion which he alleges will not arise, because the scientists are already protected by the Bill, and because, if we accepted the Amendment, then clearly we should create confusion. I hope that in the light of those explanations the Amendments will be withdrawn.
4.55 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: The noble Lord the Minister of State has made a sincere defence of the Government's choice of the words "British Standard Time" for the new time. He was, of course, perfectly right in saying that we are not discussing in either of these Amendments the main principle of the Bill. We are simply discussing the name, which is a fringe matter compared with the heart of the Bill, which says that we are to have time an hour in advance of Greenwich Mean Time throughout the year. I thought, however, that the noble Lord was claiming a little too much when he sought to make the point that there was in the Amendments less than 100 per cent. support for any alternative. That may be so, and it is not surprising; but in the Amendments there is nil support for the Government's proposal. Both of these Amendments are quite clear in objecting to "British Standard Time".
I think the House would be grateful if the Minister of State would tell us a little more about this consensus among those who were consulted. He made two statements. He said that there was a general consensus in favour of "British Standard Time" when the Government consulted various bodies; and he also said that of the people who made suggestions five or six times as many suggested "British Standard Time" as suggested any other name. I do not pay very much regard here to the suggestions that came in, as it were, casually from members of the public. I doubt whether it is a good way of governing the country to invite people to write in and then to say that the majority of those who have bothered to write in are

569
probably correct. One would hardly do that in any other field.
What is more important, however, is the method by which the Government consulted those bodies of which the noble Lord gave us a list. Did they say: "We are suggesting "British Standard Time". Is that acceptable to you?" Or did they say: "Here is a number of varied suggestions;"—including "British Standard Time", "Advanced Greenwich Time", and perhaps several others—"which of these would you prefer?" There is a difference in those two methods of consultation, and it is only the second method which would really elicit from these authoritative bodies what they actually thought.
I myself in the Second Reading debate mentioned "Advanced Greenwich Time" as a name that was worth considering, and I was honoured when I found that my noble friend, Lord Conesford, had made it the subject of his Amendment. I certainly like his Amendment more than I like that of my noble friend Lord Cork and Orrery. I do not wish to be tied up in advance to Europe by taking either "Central European Time" or "Mid-European Time" for the purposes of this Bill; and I was not convinced by my noble friend's argument that it would be confusing to tourists if we had a different name in this country. Indeed, I would invite him and other noble Lords to consider whether when they have travelled to the Continent they have been confused by not knowing the name of the time under which they were living. My own concern is simply to find out whether the time in France or in Germany or wherever I am going is the same as in Britain or an hour different. What they choose to call it seems to me to be a matter of complete indifference, so far as the interests of tourists are concerned. If there were any difficulty, I am sure it would be quickly overcome by tourists from the Continent visiting this country.
I think we should probe a little more carefully into the objection of the scientists. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said that "British Standard Time" was acceptable broadly to all except people who had a technical or specialist objection. I confess I was a little surprised to hear this used as an argument on behalf of a Government who have prided
570
themselves on being the Government who really take science seriously. I suggest most strongly to your Lordships that we ought not to dismiss the opinion of the scientists merely on the ground that they are a relatively small group of people who talk their own language; or indeed on any other ground, for example, the further ground given by the noble Lord, that the name of "Greenwich Mean Time" will after all be preserved in subsection (2) of Clause 1 for scientific purposes.
I cannot see that this is a subject into which Party philosophy enters at all. I have been a Party politician most of my life, and though I will not challenge comparison with some of your Lordships in the understanding of Party philosophy it appears to me that one could be a good Socialist, a good Conservative, a good Liberal—or indeed a good Communist—and take whatever view one wished to take of this question without being untrue to one's Party. Perhaps I ought to have omitted the Communists from that statement: they perceive deviationism more quickly than the rest of us. But I confess that I see considerable sentimental attraction—and indeed I would venture to say patriotic attraction—in retaining the word "Greenwich", which is now known throughout the world; and I find it quite impossible to believe that any confusion would be caused in any quarters that matter if we were to use a different adjective in this case and call it "Advanced Greenwich Time".
I am simply expressing my personal views. I would not dare to urge my noble friends to vote in one direction or another, if either of these Amendments comes to a vote, but I think the arguments against "British Standard Time" are somewhat stronger than the Minister of State, on behalf of the Government, allowed.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, I should like to make one small point. "British Standard Time" is bound to be abbreviated to B.S.T. If we ever have, as we did during the last war, what was then called "Double Summer Time" this would presumably be called "British Summer Time", as it would then be one hour in advance. That also would be abbreviated to "B.S.T." and I think it would cause confusion in timetables. Therefore I think it would be desirable

571
to have a word in the middle which did not begin with "S". Other than that, I am rather impressed by the name "British Standrad Time". I think it rings rather better than the alternatives.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I wonder if the Minister is able to say whether anyone in France talks about "French Standard Time"? Do the Portuguese talk about "Portuguese Standard Time"? Do any of the countries of Western Europe use the name of their country in the official description of the time that they use? If none of them do, why is Britain being invited to be so quaintly nationalistic in this particular context?
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN: In regard to what the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, has just said, may I say that usually people will call things by the name they prefer, whatever an Act of Parliament says. Therefore while I am somewhat comforted by Lord Stonham's reply and what he said about my own personal view, I object to the loss of the word "Greenwich". I support my noble friend Lord Conesford, because I like to use the words that people know, such as "Greenwich". We all know where it is and we are not just guided, as in "The Hunting of the Snark". In that regard I think the Bellman's remarks were good, when he said:
"What's the use of Mercators, North Poles or Equators,
Tropic zones and Meridian lines?',
So the Bellman would cry; and the crew would reply,
'They are merely conventional signs'."
I am saying it from memory, and I hope I have got it right. At any rate, people will be guided by using the words, sometimes short and sometimes even obscene, but nevertheless the words of which they know the meaning.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: I want to say a few words, but one thing I shall not say is that it is now 5.7 p.m. Greenwich Mean Time. In point of fact we do not use the words "Greenwich Mean Time" or any other reference except when we change our watches. The ordinary person who travels changes his watch to Greenwich Time, and under this Bill he will change it to whatever name
572
we give and then he will use the appropriate words. But on no other occasion, unless you are a navigator or an air pilot, do you use expressions like "Greenwich Mean Time". We must legislate for the greatest convenience of the greatest number of people. There will be Americans who will come to Europe and they will alter their watches to Central European Time, and they will keep their watches at that time unless they go to Russia. Likewise Russians and Asiatics coming from the East will change their watches to Central European Time, I suppose, when they cross the Iron Curtain, or wherever it may be. But surely for the convenience of those who are doing trade with us and who are the only people, other than the experts, who will use any description of the time, we should use what is most convenient for them and for us.
5.9 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: There is a great deal to be said for convenience; there is very little indeed to be said for showing complete contempt for scientific opinion. The scientists who have stated their objections have not done so because they think scientists are going to be confused. They have pointed out the real dangers of confusion, and they have done so in arguments that I endeavoured to repeat. Of course the word that causes the trouble is the word "Standard", because it is already used, and used frequently, in connection with standard time zones, and to make people living in the standard time zone of Greenwich say "Standard Time" when they do not mean Greenwich Time is to breed confusion.
We were not told, in the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, what the Astronomer Royal thought about all this. I do not blame him for not telling us, though I think his omission was noticeable. My reason for putting down this Amendment is that I treat scientists and scientific opinion seriously. I think it would be a terrible insult to scientific and technological opinion if the Government settled the matter by a newspaper competition among laymen, and decided to consider the convenience of the large body of people who were consulted, but took no notice whatever of the considered opinion of the scientists. I do respect their opinion.

573
I believe that the name "Advanced Greenwich Time" will be free from confusion. It has many advantages and is much better than the name at present appearing in the Bill. The noble Lord read out a whole series of names that have been suggested, some of an idiocy that showed near-genius in the minds of those inventing them. But this suggestion of Advanced Greenwich Time is not ridiculous in any way, and I hope that the Committee will support it.
LORD FRASER OF NORTH CAPE: May I ask the noble Lord what do you do with the clocks when you go to Advanced Greenwich Time? Do you put them on or back?
LORD CONESFORD: I should have thought the experience of a lifetime would have told the noble and gallant Lord the answer to that. If you want to know the time—
LORD STONHAM: Ask a policeman.
LORD CONESFORD: When you advance the time you put it on. I am using the expression in the Bill as drafted, "one hour in advance of Greenwich mean time". Is it now clear to the noble Lord?
LORD FRASER OF NORTH CAPE: You put the clock on an hour?
LORD CONESFORD: Yes.
LORD FRASER OF NORTH CAPE: If you change the meeting of the House of Lords from three o'clock to two o'clock you advance the time of the meeting by an hour. That is the confusion.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: I said at the outset of this debate that it should be simple. It evidently is not. I am not altogether surprised. I will be very brief. I have the impression that only the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, and the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, himself grasped the central point of my Amendment. Even the noble Lord has confused it and turned it upside down by complaining about it. This clause is a clause about what we are going to do
with our time. We are going to put the clocks on: we are going to put our clocks one hour forward. This is a statement of fact. This is what the Bill says. There is no necessity under this clause to say what name we are going to give to this time. The time, so far as we are concerned, is the time.
LORD STONHAM: I must correct the noble Earl. The clause reads:
"The time for general purposes in the United Kingdom (to be known as British standard time) …"
and so on. He proposes to delete those words, and that is why I said he was not calling it anything.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: Yes; I agree with that; it is not emphasised but thrown away in a bracket, as it were. I find it difficult to accept the noble Lord's contention that the clause without these words is not viable. It still remains a statement that we shall be using Mid-European Time. This is a perfectly good statement of truth. It is what we shall be using and the statement is quite truthful on the basis of fact.
I wish to exonerate myself entirely in the eyes of my noble friend Lord Conesford from any suggestion of disrespect to scientists. I do not think anybody has greater respect, or even greater respect for the Nautical Almanac, which even I have used, although I do not think I could now. This is a specialised field. I do not think that scientists enter into it very closely: they have their own language and departments. There is no reason why 50 million of us should be guided by something of convenience for scientists alone. The Bill says that we are going to have a particular time. This is a final statement. There is no confusion about it. We are going to change to Mid-European Time, and that is it.
5.18 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 22; Not-Contents, 96.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Cork and Orrery, E. [Teller.]

Henley, L.

Albemarle, E.

Craigmyle, L. [Teller.]

Iddesleigh, E.

Audley, Bs.

Denham, L.

Killearn, L.

Barrington, V.

Faringdon, L.

Monson, L.

Byers, L.

Forbes, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Ogmore, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Rea, L.

Somers, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Teynham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Fortescue, E.

Monsell, V.

Addison, V.

Fraser of North Cape, L.

Moyle, L.

Ampthill, L.

Fulton, L.

Newton, L.

Arwyn, L.

Gage, V.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Atholl, D.

Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Pargiter, L.

Auckland, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Phillips, Bs.

Beswick, L.

Granville of Eye, L.

Plummer, Bs.

Blyton, L.

Greenway, L.

Raglan, L.

Bourne, L.

Grenfell, L.

Rhodes, L.

Bowden, L.

Gridley, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Bowles, L. [Teller.]

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Rowallan, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Hall, V.

Royle, L.

Brockway, L.

Henderson, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Heycock, L.

St. Davids, V.

Buckton, L.

Hill of Wivenhoe, L.

Sandys, L.

Burden, L.

Hilton of Upton, L.

Segal, L.

Caccia, L.

Horsbrugh, Bs.

Shackleton, L.

Cawley, L.

Hughes, L.

Silkin, L.

Champion, L.

Hurcomb, L.

Sorensen, L. [Teller.]

Chorley, L.

Ilford, L.

Stonham, L.

Citrine, L.

Kennet, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Collison, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Strabolgi, L.

Conesford, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Strange, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Kirkwood, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Douglas of Cleveland, L.

Latham, L.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Effingham, E.

Leatherland, L.

Summerskill, Bs.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Lindgren, L.

Swanborough, Bs.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Longford, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Falkland, V.

McLeavy, L.

Tayside, L.

Ferrier, L.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Fiske, L.

Maelor, L.

Williamson, L.

Fleck, L.

Merthyr, L.

Younger of Leckie, V.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

LORD CONESFORD: We have already discussed my Amendment. I therefore do not wish to make another speech. I beg formally to move my Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 6, leave out ("British Standard") and insert ("Advanced Greenwich").—(Lord Conesford.)
5.32 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 49 Not-Contents, 61.

CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Inglewood, L.

Auckland, L.

Falkland, V.

Killearn, L.

Audley, Bs.

Falmouth, V.

Maelor, L.

Balerno, L.

Faringdon, L,

Monsell, V.

Barrington, V.

Ferrier, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Bourne, L.

Forbes, L.

Oakshott, L.

Bowden, L.

Fortescue, E.

Rowallan, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Gage, V.

St. Just, L.

Buckton, L.

Goschen, V.

St. Oswald, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Grenfell, L.

Salisbury, M.

Conesford, L. [Teller.]

Gridley, L.

Sandys, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Somers, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Hall, V.

Strange, L.

Daventry, V.

Horsbrugh, Bs.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Denham, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Strathcarron, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Ilford, L,

Stuart of Findhorn, V. [Teller.]

Swansea, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Greenway, L.

Raglan, L.

Arwyn, L.

Henderson, L.

Rhodes, L.

Atholl, D.

Heycock, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Beswick, L.

Hill of Wivenhoe, L.

Royle, L.

Blyton, L.

Hilton of Upton, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Bowles, L. [Teller.]

Hughes, L.

St. Davids, V.

Brockway, L.

Hurcomb, L.

Shackleton, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Kirkwood, L.

Shepherd, L.

Burden, L.

Latham, L.

Silkin, L.

Caccia, L.

Leatherland, L.

Sorensen, L. [Teller.]

Champion, L.

Lindgren, L.

Stonham, L.

Chorley, L.

Longford, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Stow Hill, L.

Citrine, L.

McLeavy, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Merrivale, L.

Summerskill, Bs.

Fiske, L.

Merthyr, L.

Swanborough, Bs.

Fleck, L.

Mitchison, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Fraser of North Cape, L.

Moyle, L.

Tayside, L.

Fulton, L.

Pargiter, L.

Teynham, L.

Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Phillips, Bs.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Plummer, Bs.

Williamson, L.

Younger of Leckie, V.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

5.38 p.m.
LORD FERRIER LORD FERRIER moved, in subsection (1), after "document" to insert "except any contract for the supply of electricity". The noble Lord said: This Amendment is perhaps on a different plane from the one we have just discussed. Nevertheless, it raises a matter of principle, there may even be in it a matter of law, and it certainly is of considerable importance to the public. As the Committee will be aware, I opposed the Bill on Second Reading, and I have had a substantial "fan mail" as a result. I can only say to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, who said that one advantage of the Bill is that it will bring to an end the bi-annual crop of complaints, that I am afraid that they may not merely be bi-annual but, if this Bill becomes law, will last throughout the winter. However, your Lordships having given the Bill a Second Reading, it is our business to improve it wherever we can and to make it less unbearable to the public.
The object of my Amendment is, first, that if contracts for the supply of off-peak electrical power are affected by the Bill then such contracts will be excepted from the terms of the Bill. Secondly, I wish to draw attention to the fact that tens of thousands of contracts are going to be affected unilaterally, if indeed the Bill is intended to alter the terms of contracts already entered into by the public for the supply of off-peak electricity. I have my own paper here. It is not a
578
contract but is a statement of terms, and it clearly says:
"The hours quoted above are Greenwich Mean Time",
and so on.
In many cases it is fair to say that for these contracts to be frustrated or altered unilaterally may be markedly to the disadvantage of consumers. If I can help the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, I can accept straight away—I think we can all accept—that this extra hour is an important matter in the overall load pattern of the supply boards. Here we are chiefly concerned with thermal storage type apparatus, and even in regard to domestic heating I am prepared to say that the Bill will have little effect on the convenience of thermal storage type domestic space heating in the southern part of the country. But it is more than possible that this will be a very important alteration in the colder North.
Again in order to help the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, we must accept that in terms of the new time the hours of supply in the evening will be an hour earlier as the hours of supply in the morning will also be an hour earlier. But apart from domestic space heating, what about horticulture, farming, industry, office accommodation, retailers and the like, many of whom use off-peak power and thermal storage apparatus, sometimes of a very complex and expensive nature, for their space heating? I should like to know how such consumers are going to be treated, if they are indeed affected by this Bill. I think it is as well to remember that off-peak tariffs have risen

579
sharply since the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and I were instrumental in getting thermal storage equipment made available for domestic use. My tariff has increased by 50 per cent. in five years.
The questions that I have in my mind are these. How are off-peak contracts going to be affected by the Bill? In other words, will the passage of this enactment then and there alter electricity contracts unilaterally? Have consumer councils been consulted and, if not, will they be? If the hours of supply are unilaterally so altered, will rates be reduced to compensate for adjustments which may be necessary to equipment, or indeed for the frustration of the contract? In view of the widely varying conditions of daylight and cold in the winter in the different parts of the country, will different Boards offer different off-peak tariffs to their consumers?
That is all I have to say at this stage. I should be very grateful if the Minister could answer these points before I decide whether or not to press my Amendment. I can say now that in view of the lateness of the hour I have no intention of pressing the Amendment, but if the noble Lord's answers do not quite clear up my worries I contemplate putting something down at a later stage. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 9, after ("document") insert ("except any contract for the supply of electricity").—(Lord Ferrier.)
5.44 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: The noble Lord's interest in and knowledge of this matter are well known, and I am not surprised that he has received a substantial fan-mail. But I am bound to say, and I hope I can prove it to him, that I think he is expressing concern over a matter about which there is no real need for concern. First of all, I am obliged to deal with the Amendment as an Amendment and to point out certain defects, so that even if I do not satisfy him on the question of principle I can at least show that the Amendment itself would not be such as your Lordships could be expected to support.
The noble Lord has made it quite clear in his speech that his object is to prevent Electricity Boards from revising the
580
terms of their off-peak electricity tariffs, and any special agreements with consumers, to reflect the change to British Standard Time. The actual effect of the noble Lord's Amendment is uncertain, because nothing is applied in place of British Standard Time. In his speech the noble Lord assumed that if British Standard Time were not there, or if electricity agreements were excepted from the purposes of the Bill, then Greenwich Mean Time would take its place. But the Amendment does not achieve that. If the noble Lord looks at the Bill and at one of the repeals he will see that the Statutes (Definition of Time) Act 1880 is to be repealed in toto. Therefore, once this Bill becomes an Act the statutory recognition of Greenwich Mean Time will be confined to the matters dealt with in subsection (2) of Clause 2, relating to scientific matters. So much for the technical aspect of the Amendment.
With respect, I do not think that the Amendment, even if it were viable, would in any event achieve any sensible object, because it says merely that where a contract for the supply of electricity refers to a specific point of time the rule in the Act that this should mean British Standard Time is not to apply—that is, not to apply to electricity contracts. It thus leaves completely obscure what system of time is to apply. The Amendment would make sense only if one knew in what connection a point of time was going to be mentioned in a contract, and there is nothing in the Amendment to show that. The contract might say that electricity should cost less between certain hours, or that heat should be stored between certain hours, or even that meters should be read between certain hours. But it is useless to make a general provision of this kind without suggesting how it would apply.
As I understand the principle of the noble Lord's objective, which I think is misconceived, it is apparently that electricity storage heaters should continue to store heat up to the same time in the morning relative to sunrise as they do in winter now, though up to one hour later by the clock under British Standard Time; that is, up to 8 or 8.30 a.m. instead of 7 or 7.30 a.m., or in the South of Scotland up to 9 or 9.30 a.m., instead of 8 or 8.30 a.m. But the heaters give off the greatest amount of heat at the time

581
when storage ceases, and thereafter continue to lose heat gradually throughout the day. So for warmth of rising on dark winter mornings it is, if anything, preferable that storage should cease at 7 or 7.30 a.m., or 8 or 8.30 a.m. in the South of Scotland, rather than one hour later. The gain would come from the stored heat lasting longer into the day, when under British Standard Time it would, if anything, be less needed. But the whole justification for the special tariff for these heaters is that they use electricity outside the peak periods, as the noble Lord and I have made clear on previous occasions, and the additional hour of storage in the morning which is contemplated by the Amendment would begin to overlap the morning peak, and probably would not be justified on economic grounds.
There are other quite strong objections to operating with electricity contracts in the way the noble Lord proposes. I think that these are the crux of the objection, and the reason why the Amendment is not necessary, because the precise terms of tariffs and contracts are essentially commercial matters for the Electricity Boards and their customers, the consumers, which they should settle in the light of their circumstances. It is not a suitable matter for legislation. There is nothing to prevent the tariff for the special rate being varied similarly if this is necessary. There is plenty of warning. It is a matter for the suppliers and the customers to settle between themselves. They must agree, in individual contracts, when things in question are to happen, and then frame their agreements accordingly. The Amendment is wrong, since it operates only on a provision which applies in the absence of a contrary intention, so that its effect could be immediately circumvented, if it were accepted, because a contract for the supply of electricity can be varied from one quarter to another, from quarter to quarter. In any case, the existing contracts, when extending into the period of Summer Time, refer to British Summer Time, and will therefore become inaccurate unless they are amended to accord with the Bill.
In one sentence, the argument is this. There is in my view nothing for the noble Lord to fear. There cannot be any question of unilateral alteration of contracts.
582
It must be by agreement between the Boards and their customers, and unquestionably the Boards and the customers, working together, will be able to decide when are the best times, talking about time on the watch as it will then be, to have the heat stored.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I wonder whether the noble Lord can help me on one further point. As I understand the situation, the Electricity Boards have their hands to some extent tied as to the periods when they can provide off-peak tariffs, because they have peaks which depend upon two things: one, the time when people get up and cook and go to bed, and the other the time at which it gets dark and it gets light. They can supply cheap electricity at the non-peak period in between, and to this, of course, they are tied. I know that they do their best to be fair to the customer and to give a good bargain, but that is the basic situation in the electricity industry.
The customer may have installed equipment for a specific purpose, and in the past he has done so upon the basis that it was going to get dark and light at a given time, which has always been, since memory ran (except, perhaps, during the war), the time when it did get dark and get light. I do not know that it is a matter only of those with thermal storage in their houses. I wonder about horticulturists. They may have lights which go on in the middle of the night to make the flowers grow more quickly; and it may be that farmers have equipment which turns on the light in the middle of the night to make the chickens think that it is another day. For all I know, they may have equipment—and quite expensive equipment—which has been installed upon the basis that cheap electricity will be available between certain times which are related to the time it gets dark and the time it gets light. That relationship is now going to be changed, and for all I know it might make a difference to the process which is being carried out by that horticulturist or by that farmer. Has the noble Lord made any inquiries on this point to find out whether there are people whose actual processes will be upset by this, and whose equipment has been installed upon the basis which has hitherto prevailed and which will be made invalid

583
by this Bill? If he has not, it might be worth while finding out about this, because if it is true that there are such cases then I can foresee hardship resulting.
LORD STONHAM: I am most grateful to the noble Viscount. Does the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, wish to add anything before I reply to the noble Viscount?
LORD FERRIER: I was going to say something because I owe a debt of gratitude to the noble Viscount who has just sat down for saying so clearly what I have had in mind. Perhaps it would help the noble Lord if I built up on what the noble Viscount has said in replying to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham. First of all, as to the point of time, the point of time is mentioned in the contract. Here it is—A, B, C and D tariffs; 7 o'clock to 7 o'clock, 12.30 to 3.30 or whatever it is. There are the points of time, and there is the clause saying, "Greenwich Mean Time". So, if I have done nothing else, I have succeeded in drawing attention to this very tricky matter which the noble Viscount has developed. It means that apparatus which has been installed will not work in the same way as it did when Greenwich Mean Time, which is the basis of the contract, was directly related to hours of sunrise and sunset.
In regard to the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, I might say that my fan-mail concerned general objection to the Bill as a whole. I think that very few people, including a large number of your Lordships, could "tumble", from my Amendment, to what I was getting at. We shall hear much more about it now, I think, than we have done hitherto, because I entirely agree with the noble Viscount that this is a very tricky matter. The point of time is mentioned in the contracts, and processes will be upset. I can assure the noble Lord that they will be upset, because, after all, it means that the off-peak heat will go off one hour more before dawn, which, as I pointed out on Second Reading, is, in Inverness at the end of December, at 9.57 a.m.
There is one point that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, mentioned in regard to the times of sunset. It is most interesting to study the times of sunset in the North,
584
because if you look at the time of sunset in December you find that, as between December 1 and December 31, there is a difference of two minutes, whereas in the case of sunrise there is a difference of 27 minutes. That is why, in all that I said on Second Reading and say now, I refer to sunrise as the most important matter in regard to off-peak tariffs.
I said in my speech that I appreciated the noble Lord's point that if these electricity supply contracts are to remain at Greenwich Mean Time then the load will impinge upon the overall load curve of the Board; and I am very glad that the noble Lord mentioned customers. This was a word which the noble Viscount also used; and it is in terms of the customer's position that I speak as emphatically as I can. I feel that we are too used to accepting that these Boards of the nationalised industries, after consulting their consultative committees (which are, I regret to say, pretty ineffective sometimes), can dictate to consumers what they are to have. That is why I moved this Amendment, and that is why I made my speech. I believe that if the apparatus which they have installed is going to be interfered with, in terms of its effectiveness, by this Bill, then there must be a revision of the tariffs, of the hours and of the terms under which such consumers have hitherto been supplied.
5.58 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: I entirely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, has just said, and that is the crux of the matter. But perhaps I may now deal with the points put by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross—and I join with his noble friend in thanking him for putting them so lucidly. The noble Viscount asked me whether we had made any inquiries and whether I had encountered any difficulties of the kind which he instanced; for example, of the poultry keeper wanting to have the lights on at night to encourage his hens, or of the horticulturist also wanting lights on at night. The answer is that I have not had any such difficulties brought to my notice. I am not aware of any of those points having been raised by the organisations representing horticulturists or farmers.
I would point out, however, that we are at present dealing with a Bill which will come into operation on October 27

585
next year. Meanwhile, for the first time, under the Summer Time Order which your Lordships agreed a few months back, we shall have Summer Time starting early in February next year and going on until October 27, the day on which this Bill will come into operation. In other words, we have put forward a measure before Parliament which would have, as it were, the effect of this Bill on time for the whole period of next year except for about six weeks at the beginning of the year and about nine weeks at the end of it. The February period, at least, will be likely to be a period of acute cold in many parts of the country, and certainly in many parts of the country the darkness in the morning will be that much later; but, even so, we have not had a single objection. There were no objections of this kind made when we considered that Order, although we had quite a debate on it.
As the noble Viscount will remember, his noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford put forward points on behalf of agriculture and asked me for an assurance (which I was able to give him) that in spite of the later hours of darkness in the morning in the winter, it was thought nevertheless that we had enough provision of electricity to carry out the additional load at that peak hour. We have not had these difficulties put to us; and I should have thought that had there been a difficulty of that kind it would have shown itself by now. I cannot answer for individual time clocks. There are many mechanisms which operate by electric time clocks. One advantage of permanent Summer Time, or British Standard Time, will be that there will not be the need as there is at present during the course of the year to alter those clocks.
That difficulty apart, I want to come to the general point of off-peak periods. The only difference which this Bill can make to off-peak periods is that the off-peak time could be, other things being equal, one hour later in the morning and one hour later in the evening. If, for example, the peak load at the moment is 8 a.m. by current time, then under the Bill it would become 9 a.m. by current time and therefore the off-peak period must be advanced one hour because it is in the morning that it is darker later.
586
The noble Viscount does not seem to be following me.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I am not sure whether this is altogether true. It seems to me that there may be a different sort of peak, because people will have to get up at a time which, in relation to the period of darkness which is continuing in front of them, will affect their habits. In the winter different lights will be put on by different people doing different things with electricity from what they do now. I doubt whether there will be a complete shift in the peak, as the noble Lord indicated.
LORD STONHAM: My assumption is that the things people are doing at 8 o'clock by current time now they will be doing at 9 o'clock in the future.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No!
LORD STONHAM: The off-peak period will go forward; they will be getting up at 9 o'clock by the sun. I am not making an issue of this; I am trying to say that, broadly speaking and unless people change their habits, in the spectrum of the 24 hours starting from the morning it is likely that the peaks, both of the morning and of the evening, will shift forward one hour in relation to the sun. It seems likely that the off-peaks will move in relation to the sun in the same way, and that, therefore, is the only change with which we are concerned.
The fear of the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, is that unless we exclude electricity contracts from this Bill either people will lose some of their cheap off-peak electricity or they will be having it at times which, in part at least, are not consistent with their needs. My answer to that is, as I made clear in the answer to the last question that he put to me, that if this should arise then the Electricity Boards on their behalf and the customers on their behalf must make different contracts as to time.
LORD FERRIER: Or as to rates.
LORD STONHAM: And they can do that every three months. The contracts can be changed every three months. Therefore, not only is there no need to exclude electricity contracts from this Bill, but there is every need to include them in order that consumers can have the off-peak heat when they want it and

587
in order that the supplier can supply the off-peak heat at the proper times and when it is properly off-peak. I hope that with that explanation the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his Amendment.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I thought the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, had got it wrong when he said that what people will be doing in the morning at 8 o'clock by the sun they will be doing at 9 o'clock by the sun this time next year. I should have thought that they would tend to be doing it at 7 o'clock by the sun. They will have got up an hour earlier by the sun if they are to be at work at the same time under this new régime. But there are certain people such as foresters and agricultural workers, whose time of starting work depends not on the clock but more on the state of daylight or the lack of it.
Therefore, the pattern of demand for electricity probably will alter. I think that only in the light of experience will the Electricity Boards be able to decide on the hours at which they can offer off-peak rates. It is going to be extremely difficult for them to decide in advance; for I am sure that the load factor will vary enormously from area to area. Therefore I think it should be written somewhere in the Bill that all present contracts will be cancelled and that new contracts will have to be drawn up within, say, three months of the coming into operation of the Bill. This would seem to me to get over everyone's difficulties and to be a fairly common-sense solution.
LORD CHAMPION: We do not need to do this by means of anything in the Bill. The arrangements between the electricity supplier and consumer are a matter for the two parties concerned. It seems to me to be quite clear that the off-peak periods will change and, therefore, it will be in the interests of the electricity supplier to "change the clock" to some extent. In this, of course, the electricity consumer will be glad to participate, because the fact that he is getting off-peak electricity means he is getting it cheaper. I must admit that this seems to me to be rather much ado about very little. I cannot imagine that this problem can be solved by an Act of Parliament.
But I am absolutely sure that both the noble Viscount and the noble Lord, Lord
588
Ferrier, are right in calling attention to this, and that the electricity supply industry ought at this time to be setting about the task of ensuring that, when the change takes place, the contracts have been altered in a way which will provide the mutual satisfaction that is normally experienced by the people who are the consumers. I also agree with the point about horticulture and, indeed, the question of battery hens and hens that are fed indoors, and so on. This is a problem which has to be solved between the parties concerned, and it would be nonsense for us to include a sentence in an Act of Parliament Which attempted to solve it.
6.10 p.m.
LORD FERRIER: I am sure that your Lordships do not want to go on worrying about hours and times. I would only say that I have been intimate with the electricity industry for many years and I would never dare to talk about it without having a graph in my hand to work out whether it is an hour on or an hour off. I will withdraw the Amendment, but before doing so I would, with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, differ from something he said. What is to happen on February 18 is quite different from what is going to happen when this Bill comes into force. On February 18 Summer Time is going to begin, and under the contracts between electricity supply companies and off-peak consumers the consumer can elect to have his clock altered by the supplier on payment of a fee of 7s. 6d.; and I think it fair to say that very few consumers bother about that.
That brings me to the iniquity of this Bill because it is not Standard Time throughout the year; it is Summer Time in winter. On February 18 the clocks will go forward, but the electricity clocks controlling off-peak supply will remain the same as they certainly do in Scotland throughout the summer, where the long days do not require the clocks to be put forward. If I can help the noble Lord with some of my graphs, and things like that, I will gladly do so. I am sure that your Lordships do not want to hear any more about it at this juncture, and so I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
6.12 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: I should like to put one point to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham. He may not be able to answer forthwith, but I should like him to consider it before the next stage of the Bill. He may be aware that the B.B.C., in all its foreign services, begins with this type of formula: "This is the World Service of the B.B.C., 18 hours Greenwich Mean Time". I think that on the true construction of Clause 1 there is nothing to prevent the B.B.C. in its broadcasts from this country continuing that desirable practice, but I should be grateful if the noble Lord would look into it and make certain that his legal advisers take the same view.
LORD STONHAM: I will certainly look into it. I should not like to give an answer off the cuff now. I should have thought that the interpretation of Clause 1(2) would not interfere with the continuance of that practice, but I should like to go into it and possibly on Third Reading I shall be able to inform the House on that point.
LORD AIREDALE: I asked the Minister whether he knew if any other countries in Western Europe use the name of their country in the official description of the time they use. I do not know whether the Minister has the answer to that now. If they do not it is rather curious that this country should be invited to be so quaintly nationalistic in this particular way. Perhaps at some stage the Minister could let the House have the answer to that question.
LORD STONHAM: Yes, most certainly. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, for not replying to his question. In fact, I made two speeches on that previous Amendment and I thought I should not make a third. I can say now that I am not aware that any European country uses French time, or Yugoslav time or West German or Polish time. I know that in America you have Eastern time, Pacific time and several varieties of that kind. I will give the noble Lord a firm answer to this question when we come to the Third Reading. On the other hand, I do not regard it as being nationalistic to have decided that we should call it "British Standard Time".
590
There was certainly a very strong feeling throughout the country that the Title should be "British", and without being in any way jingoistic I am bound to say that I strongly agree with that.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to. Schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment. Report received.

ELECTRICITY BILL [H.L.]
6.18 p.m.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. In view of the lateness of the hour and the labours, which your Lordships have still to undertake this evening, I will endeavour to be as brief as I can, commensurate with trying to state my case. The Bill is aimed at the abolition of what, to me, and not only to me but to very many other people, appears to be quite an evil racket which goes on, in spite of legislation, about the supply of electricity through pre-paid meters, particularly where there are several occupants of one building or in caravans. There are many parts of the country where large houses have been converted into flats and flatlets. In my home town of Brighton, for example, there are hundreds of such places, and the honourable member for Paddington. South, who is a Conservative, Mr. Nicholas Scott, has told me of very many cases which have occurred in his constituency. He has expressed a desire to take over this Bill in another place, if your Lordships pass it in this House.
London must have very many places that are like Paddington. What happens in these towns and areas may be multiplied many times. My attention was first drawn to the matter by an article published in the Brighton and Hove Gazette on March 11, 1966. It told the story of an old lady living in a one-room flatlet whose relatives thought that she was spending far too much on electricity. They called for help from the electricity consultative council and discovered that she was paying 10d. a unit through the landlord's pre-paid hired meter. At the time the official maximum price was less than 2d. a unit, with 4d. a day extra

591
allowed for various expenses. The Brighton and Hove Gazette said in the article that they knew that there were hundreds of such cases in Brighton. Subsequently I discussed the matter with the Consumer Council, and this Bill comes before the House as a result of the discussions which took place, of their wide investigations and of their help.
In spite of the introduction in April, 1965, of the Resale of Electricity Order laying down a fixed maximum price, the Secretary of the South-Eastern Electricity Consumer Council has said that there is nothing that a tenant can do about it except go to law. Can your Lordships imagine old or poor, and in some cases ignorant, people, ignorant in a matter of this kind, taking the step which is involved in legal action, apart altogether from the threat of notices to quit which hang over their heads? The prepayment meter belongs to the landlord and he can recalibrate it to his own liking. Even the Electricity Board have no power to read the prepayment meter. They can only read the main meter, the account for which is paid quarterly to the Board. These prepayment meters are often purchased from second-hand dealers and are mostly reconditioned.
I have with me an advertisement from a journal—I never knew of it before—called the Exchange and Mart dated November 2, and one of its advertisements is headed, "There is money in slot meters." The advertisement certainly implies that the installation of a slot meter is a profitable investment. It even says, "All prices per unit settings available". By the courtesy of the Consumer Council, I have put one of these meters by the brass gates. If any noble Lord would like to see it after our debate, please look at it. On one part of it, in a very small circle, it says, "Rate A". And the landlord can change it to rate "B" or "C" or "D", whichever he likes. He has complete control over it.
I want to be brief, and I will state the problem in its simplest terms. The owner of property who wishes to have a main electricity supply introduced through a meter obtains from the Electricity Board a main meter, for which he is responsible and in respect of which he pays the standard price. From this meter the wiring system passes on through a number of
592
sub-meters, the number depending on how many separate residential areas the landlord intends to rent. It is mainly with the status of these sub-meters that my Bill intends to deal. The tenants who put in shillings, sixpences and pennies through the slot probably believe that this money is spent in paying the charge imposed by the local Electricity Board. They do not realise that the landlord pays his Bill at the end of each quarter and then collects what may be a substantially additional disguised rent. The Bill would also regulate other methods of charging where electricity is supplied to the main consumer and retailed by him to other consumers. The problem is not a new one, and the Electricity Boards recognise that the landlord's activities may serve to give an inflated idea of what the price of electricity actually is.
Others affected by the high electricity resale price are the many people who live on caravan sites and some of the visitors in boarding houses and hotels. The position of the caravan dweller is not clearly defined in law, and it is not certain how his tenure is secured. But my evidence indicates that overcharging in this sector is very common. When it comes to hotels and boarding houses, I remember an experience of my own a year or two ago when I went to stay in an hotel on the South Coast at Christmas time. The temperature of the bedr000m was not high enough and there was a meter there. I put a shilling in the meter and it ran out in less than a quarter of an hour with a one-bar electric fire. I was ignorant about the matter, as so many people are. I complained to the manager. He said that he would have to get the electricity people along to put it right. Now I know that he had it in his power to put it right, and was in fact "twisting" me on the amount of electricity I was using.
It has been suggested that it will be difficult for those who install prepayment meters in hotels and boarding-houses to take advantage of the clause in the Bill which allows the owner of a main meter to avoid criminal proceedings for overcharging if he repays the balance owing within a stipulated time. The purpose of this proposal is to enable the main purchaser to discover that he is making a profit in excess of that allowed by the Electricity Board and I should expect

593
that the result of this discovery would be a recalibration of the meter to see that the legitimate charge was made. A couple of weeks ago the Consumer Council bought one of these meters and found it capable of being calibrated to charge tenants far in excess of what is permitted by law. In passing, may I say that the only alternative to my Bill would be to empower meter inspectors to examine sub-meters and to enforce criminal sanctions where overcharging is discovered. At present they have no such power.
For the Record, may I quickly paraphrase the clauses of the Bill. Clause 1 says that any person who requires the payment of charges exceeding the maximum charges applicable shall within 28 days of receipt of the payment repay to the tenant the amount of the excess. In these circumstances the landlord must give the tenant a statement of the maximum which is applicable, of the amount received and of the amount which is in excess of the maximum charge. Then follow the penalties. Clause 2 deals with bodies corporate rather than individual landlords.
May I conclude by saying that I have submitted my Bill, with ample time, to the Minister of Power? It took him four months to reply to my letter, and then only after I had "pushed" him once or twice. In his reply the Minister says that the tenant has recourse to the law. I have dealt with the impossibility of this action by the kind of people who are mainly concerned. Secondly, he tells me that the general impression is that the 1965 Orders have proved useful as a safeguard for tenants with controlled rents and security of tenure. But what about the mass of people who have no security of tenure? I wonder how many cases where there is security of tenure have actually come before the courts.
Thirdly, the Minister says that 28 days might be unfair to the landlord who has overset the meter. I have not much sympathy for that kind of landlord, but I should be quite prepared, if necessary, to consider an Amendment to extend that period. The Minister says that the fine may be out of proportion. Well, it is a maximum fine, and the courts do not often go up to the maximum fine. Nevertheless, if necessary, I should agree to a reduction of the fine.
594
I know that the Minister is having a meeting with electricity consultative councils in March next to discuss the 1965 controls. Frankly, I am not very optimistic about that. Any outcome from that meeting without further legislation, and this racket can go on and on. Meanwhile, probably thousands of people are being "rooked". This is another form of Rachmanism—a hidden form of Rachmanism. The last annual report of the Southern Electricity Consultative Council expressed deep concern at the ineffectiveness of the current legislation. That report bears out my contentions. I shall listen carefully to what my noble friend has to say for the Government with regard to this Bill. I hope the House will not think that I have occupied too long in describing what I have in mind, and I sincerely hope that your Lordships will give this Bill a Second Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Royle.)
6.32 p.m.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, there is no doubt that the rackets which the noble Lord has described do exist, and in certain places to a considerable extent. We on this side of the House would welcome a Bill that deals with such rackets, with the slight reservation, of course, that we should like to examine it closely to make sure that it attacks the various evils in the right way. Where there is a separate meter for the tenancy, as, for instance, in the case of a cottage that might be let, and the landlord reads the meter and passes on the charge to the tenant, I believe the formula produced by this Bill is a satisfactory one. I am a little unhappy, however, about the effect where coin boxes are used for payment. I believe every word that the noble Lord has said about coin boxes and the way they can be adjusted exactly as the landlord likes, but, to a certain extent, this particular Bill might be a bit unfair to the landlord.
Parliament has decreed numerous safeguards to prevent landlords from charging tenants excessive rents. As is always right on these occasions, the law leans over backwards to come down on the side of the tenant rather than on the side of the landlord. Occasionally one finds cafes where there is definite hardship to the landlord, perhaps where a landlady

595
lets a few rooms and can get only a very small rent indeed compared with the expenses that she has to pay. Places of that sort would probably have a coin box meter in each room. It is most important that where the rent is small the landlord should not be forced to lose money over the electricity. Many of the single rooms, especially in London, are let for one day or for short tenancies. Unless the landlady opens the coin box fairly often, she may well find when she does that she has a number of foreign coins inside, or those little discs that are made to put in "one-armed bandits", and when she comes at the end of the quarter to pay her electricity bill she finds that she has not enough money from the coin boxes to meet the charge that she has to pay. In those cases I think it could be said that a landlady could properly put up the price to the tenant, to a certain extent, in order to cover the amount that she might lose over a period from tenants who cheat her.
Even if the landlady complies with Clause 1(2)(a), and in order to fill in the little charge sheet that she has to do she empties the coin box and works out the sum, she may well find that a tenant who has been there for one night has already left. Although she can ask for rent in advance, she may well find that she loses a night's electricity because some foreign coin has been put in the coin box. This over a period could cause a certain amount of hardship to an owner of lodgings where there are a considerable number of rooms. That is my first slight worry.
My second worry is that Clause 1(2) puts a little too much of the burden in certain cases on the landlord or the landlady in terms of time and trouble. I am again thinking of the short-term tenancy. It could well prove a difficult mathematical problem for a landlady to be faced, perhaps several times in one morning, with having to work out the amount of electricity that has been used, multiply it by the maximum cost per unit, then add up the number of coins in the box and subtract one sum from the other in order to fill in the written information to give to the tenant. Many hotel rooms, as the noble Lord has said, have electric fires with coin boxes attached. There will be great difficulty for a hotel guest leaving early in the morning who might
596
have to wait not only for his bill but also while the night porter works out what proportion of the 2s. 6d. he put in the electric meter the night before must be returned to him.
These are small points, but I am a little worried as to whether it would not be better, as the noble Lord suggested, to make it possible for the Electricity Boards themselves to install coin meters which could be really efficient and sealed, so that the amount of electricity per coin could not be tampered with; meters that worked efficiently enough so that neither the landlord nor the tenant could cheat. If this were done, both the landlord and the tenant would benefit by the fact that with boxes of this sort the notice needed under Clause 1(2) would not be necessary in respect of short tenancies. I do not think that this would cause a great deal of extra work for the Electricity Boards, because once they had installed these coin boxes they could be inspected whenever the inspector came to read the main meter. If these small points can be cleared up, then I shall welcome this Bill.
6.40 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, I rise to support most wholeheartedly the Bill so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Royle, and to thank him very much indeed for the charming and moving way in which he has put his case. It is a case that I know very well. It is a case which the noble Lord has taken up on behalf of the Consumer Council and of consumers. He has taken immense trouble to get his facts, and he has recounted to us this evening a number of experiences which I am sure noble Lords will agree are very damaging indeed, and told us about matters which we should all like to see put right.
I am a little concerned about the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Denham, because it seemed to me that he took a point of view about the landlord being cheated. Naturally, one does not want a landlord to be cheated, and the noble Lord seemed to take the view that this was a matter with which the Bill does not deal. But, after all, the landlord is the kind of person who can well go to the courts and bring a case against someone who has cheated him. On the whole, he is probably a person of some substance, whereas the people we are concerned about are those, on the whole, rather

597
humble people who perhaps take a room or two rooms in a house, or who live in much more humble circumstances. Many of them are old-age pensioners who are not at all likely to go to the courts—indeed, they probably would not know how to do it.
I am not in the least worried about the landlord. I think he has every possibility of suing someone whom he knows, or has discovered, to have been cheating him, whereas the case put by the noble Lord, Lord Royle, of the tenant who is being "fleeced" by a landlord who is buying one of these meters, is a very different matter. As the noble Lord has said, we have brought one of these meters here to-day and noble Lords can look at it in the Lobby afterwards. These meters are being widely advertised and can be bought by any unscrupulous person.
This is a very serious matter indeed. We have a tremendous amount of evidence pouring into our offices. I can assure your Lordships that we have not taken this question up lightly in any way. We have been deeply concerned about it. It arose in the first place in regard to people living in caravans, and then we discovered a great many other cases of one kind or another, which amount to a kind of "Rachmanism" which I think we ought to see is stopped.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I hope my noble friend will give way for a moment. I tried to make it clear that my objections to this Bill were small ones on matters of detail. I was not thinking of the rich landlord "fleecing" his tenants, and trying to protect him: I was thinking of the poor—possibly even very poor—landlady who lets out rooms in her house, and who might be cheated by unscrupulous tenants.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: I understand the noble Lord's point, and of course there are two sides to this question. But on the whole, in the case of the people who let out rooms for a night, as the noble Lord previously suggested, the heating for those rooms would be done, as the noble Lord, Lord Royle, has said, by a shilling-in-the-slot meter which is put in and which will burn for either a longer or a shorter period, according to the honesty or dishonesty of the landlord. It is a meter, which allows
598
the tenant to buy a shilling's worth of electricity.
This Bill is designed to take account of people who are sub-letting accommodation of a variety of kinds and installing meters throughout their premises over which they have control and which the electricity meter readers cannot get at. They cannot go round to every room—they have not the authority. Therefore the position of the subtenants is extremely difficult and gives rise to a great deal of unfairness, and cheating. I am very keen that this Bill should stop this kind of exploitation.
I realise that it will probably mean a considerable amount of work for the readers of meters, but it cannot be beyond the bounds of possibility to arrange this through the electricity authorities. The noble Lord has said that there is going to be a meeting of the consultative committees of the electricity authorities. I am a little doubtful as to how much good that will do. I know that some consultative committees of the electricity authorities are concerned about this and would be anxious to put it right; but there are others who look upon it as a hopeless proposition and are not prepared to tackle it. I think it is time we did something about it, and in my opinion this Bill is an excellent effort in that direction. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Royle, that we may have to see some changes in the Bill. Indeed, there always are changes when Bills go through their Committee stage in this House, but the principle we support, and it is one which we hope your Lordships will support, too.
On the whole, noble Lords in this House are anxious to put right any wrongs which are discovered by organisations such as mine, and this is an occasion when your Lordships can be in advance of other people. Having produced this Bill to-day in your Lordships' House and, as I hope, given it its Second Reading, we are doing something ahead of time, and I am anxious that we should give the noble Lord, Lord Royle, every possible support. I congratulate him heartily on the Bill, which I support.
6.47 p.m.
LORD BUCKTON: My Lords, I feel the t I must intervene for a few minutes to welcome this Bill, for if it had not been for action which I took in another

599
place there would have been no Section 29 of the Electricity Act for the noble Lord to seek to amend. My only surprise is that his interest in this matter is so recent, for when I first took an interest in this matter, in 1955, the noble Lord's constituency was separated from mine only by the Manchester Ship Canal.
My interest in this matter was first aroused in 1955 when I discovered that certain unscrupulous landlords were making profits ranging from 100 to 500 per cent. in the re-sale of electricity to the tenants of their flats. I raised the matter in another place and I was promised that it would be considered for legislation when a further Bill was introduced. When the Electricity Bill of 1957 was introduced no such clause appeared in it. I therefore arranged for a clause to be introduced in the Standing Committee, and it was because of the introduction of this clause that, on Report stage, Section 29 was added to what was then the Bill, and I think it has proved of use in dealing with this form of profiteering. However, it is clear from what the noble Lord has told us that developments since have shown the need for much greater powers. For that reason, I welcome the action which the noble Lord, Lord Royle, has taken. I wish him well, and I hope that your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading.
6.49 p.m.
LORD CITRINE: My Lords, anyone who is at all familiar with this problem would echo the sentiments which have been uttered by the noble Lord, Lord Royle, in introducing this Bill. I think it is known to most of your Lordships that I was for ten years the Chairman of the British Electricity Authority, from the date of its formation in 1947, and this matter of overcharging and of exploitation by unscrupulous landlords was raised on several occasions in the course of our deliberations and those of the Area Boards. Complaints of overcharging were fairly numerous but not always easy, on the data available, to track to their source. The allegations of inaccuracy of meters, the effect of which was to show that more electricity had been consumed than had in fact been the case—that kind of thing—furnished a source of complaint almost as grave as that of the deliberate overcharging by fixing prices.
600
The noble Lord, Lord Royle, has suggested, and indeed it was suggested later in the debate, that the meter inspectors of the Electricity Boards could inspect, and perhaps should be empowered to inspect, the meters or the sub-meters which reveal these excessive charges. Dealing with that narrow point, I would say that that would add a great amount of work to the work of the inspectors. While that cannot be disregarded, at the same time I realise that it is not an absolute objection to the desirability of its being done. But it must be remembered that there would be no contractual relationship whatever between the landlord who owned those meters and the Electricity Board, and therefore there would be no means of requiring the landlord to make a payment for these inspections. So, in effect, the Electricity Board would be asked, and required, if this was passed into law, to inspect the meters privately owned at their own expense. That is one of the difficulties which stand in the way.
Time and time again when this question was considered by the Electricity Boards during my chairmanship there was a distinct reluctance on the part of the Boards to intervene, for two reasons. The first was that they did not think it a healthy thing for statutory boards to intervene between landlord and tenant. How far that would have carried the Boards and set precedents I do not know, but there undoubtedly was a feeling that these were matters which should be dealt with directly between the tenant and the landlord.
I mentioned in a sentence that complaints were received. But they were by no means numerous complaints, and even to this day I do not think anybody knows the volume of the complaints and just how big this problem is. That exploitation is going on I firmly believe; I do not think it could be challenged. But to bring that exploitation down to the state of a court of law and legal proceedings might require a great deal more careful attention than, with all respect to those who support the Bill, they realise would be involved. We all know the reason why people are reluctant to complain. The noble Lord, Lord Royle, has indicated that the insecurity of tenure that many of them necessarily have might easily mean that they would lose their homes. That could happen. In fact, if

601
I were to become by some misfortune an unscrupulous landlord I could find ways of avoiding the consequences of this Bill. It could be done. I am not going to give anybody the tip, because I do not think it is a good thing, but it can be done. We all know that dexterous lawyers, who always appear to be ready to give their services—always assuming they are properly paid for them—could find loopholes in what would appear otherwise a very clear and definite Act of Parliament.
The main difficulty is enforcement. How do you enforce it? I will come to that in a second. I am pleased to hear that one noble Lord was instrumental in securing the clause, now a section, of the 1956 Act. I think it is a good thing in itself. But let us never forget that it does not require the Electricity Boards to fix maximum prices. It is entirely permissive. It says the Boards may publish a list of maximum prices, and may do this and may do the other. So everything depends upon the will of the Boards and the depth of their conviction that they can give a practical turn to the attempt to prevent these abuses, before anything really valuable can be done.
I have spoken about the volume of complaints. This is specifically referred to in the Report of the Electricity Council, which represents all the Boards, for 1965–66. In paragraphs 113 and 114 the following appears:
"All the area boards published a maximum price operative from the 1st July, 1965, at which electricity may be resold for domestic purposes in all types of accommodation."—
I do not need to bother about the actual price; that is extraneous to the discussion.
"Although the boards have no power to enforce a maximum resale price and cannot adjudicate in disputes, they are of course willing to give advice on request to tenants or landlords."
The first question that arises there is how much the services of the Boards have been sought in giving that advice. I have no statistics on the matter. But the paragraph which appears next, paragraph 114, may contain part of the answer.
"The operation of maximum retail prices will be reviewed when enough experience has been gained of their impact. Experience so far suggests that most of the difficulties or inquiries brought to the notices of the boards have been satisfactorily resolved."
So what we have still to discover are those many cases which I am sure exist
602
where the complaint is justified but has never been reported to the Board or has never come its way in any shape or form. The Report goes on to say that a review of this matter is to take place and they hope that some clearer experience will have been obtained.
If I may say so to the noble Lord, Lord Royle, with very great respect and I am almost entitled to say, charity, I do not think his Bill will stand up to the Committee stage. I think the sections of it which deal with enforcement will prove to be full of holes. I have no legal authority for saying that; I am simply putting it forward upon my own construction of what could take place in this respect. There is no provision for imprisonment as an alternative to fines and we are still left with the difficulty about who is to be the prosecutor. Is it the tenant, who is afraid now to go to a Board and get advice about the misbehaviour of his landlord, or is it the Electricity Board? If it is the latter, it means that a great deal of additional expense, time and energy will be spent upon that.
May I make a suggestion, which I hope will help to achieve the purpose which the noble Lord, Lord Royle, and those who support the Bill have in mind? Would it not be a good thing for the Minister to expedite a review of this matter? He has a meeting every year with the consultative councils of the Electricity Boards. These are completely independent bodies, not under the jurisdiction of the Boards. It is perfectly true that at least one Board—I recall the Southern Electricity Board, in particular—has reported severely on the malpractices which it believes to exist. If the Minister were given the opportunity, before this Bill is given a Second Reading at all, to consult with the Electricity Council and with the consultative councils, something really practical would result. I do not think that anybody denies the existence of the abuses, certainly I do not. Many times I fumed at the lack of executive power possessed by the Electricity Boards in this sphere. But I suggest that if the course I have suggested is taken it will help to bring this issue more speedily and I believe more constructively to an end, and will satisfy the mover and supporters of this Bill.
7.3 p.m.
LORD GRIDLEY: My Lords, I apologise for rising, but I should like to support warmly Lord Royle on this Bill that he has brought before the House. May I inform your Lordships of an experience which I suffered last summer? I went away with my family on holiday. We stayed at a certain place which had an electricity slot machine. I was continually putting shillings in the meter. When the inspector came to read the meter I informed him of my experience, and he confirmed that the meter had been set to extort a far higher tariff than was justified by the electricity tariff. In circumstances of that kind, and if that goes on to a great extent in this country, I, for one, for those reasons alone, shall welcome the noble Lord, Lord Royle's Bill.
I have one observation on the speech of my noble friend Lord Denham, in regard to the unscrupulous tenant who may put some sort of "dud" coin into the electricity meter and thereby the landlord suffers. From my own reasoning I do not think that this would justify the alteration of the machine in any way to enable the landlord to cover that loss by extorting a greater tariff from some tenant who was "playing the game" and putting proper coins into the box. I would recommend that there be some research into these slot machines, and that a foolproof electricity slot machine should be put on the market. That is all I want to say. I most warmly welcome this Bill which has been introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Royle.
7.5 p.m.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I think perhaps a brief word is called for from these Benches. I suppose the noble Lord, Lord Royle, might have adopted the fashion of the day and have called this Bill the Electricity Consumers' Protection Bill. It seems to me that, if it is passed, this Bill will do far more to protect consumers than some of the lesser clauses of the Government's Consumer Protection Bill, that most tortuous Bill with which we have again to wrestle this evening before our proceedings are concluded. Therefore, I hope very much indeed that this Bill will succeed, because if the Government's Consumer Protection Bill were to succeed in being passed and this Bill were to fail, I feel
604
that that would not be ultimate justice to consumers. Therefore I greatly hope that this Bill will reach the Statute Book in some form or another. Finally, may I say to the Minister that it will be difficult for me to remain to hear his winding-up speech. I hope he will acquit me of discourtesy if I leave. I assure him that I shall read his speech in Hansard with great interest.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, I too should like to say a word in welcoming this Bill. I see the difficulties in enforcing it and, although I am not knowledgeable on the subject, I wonder whether it would be possible for anybody who is installing a subsidiary meter in his house to be forced to rent it from the local Electricity Board, to have it inspected by them, and to have it made in such a form that it cannot be altered? In that way, the consumer would be protected. It would be interesting to know, when the noble Lord opposite replies, whether he has any knowledge of anything in the nature of this sort of racket also going on in the world of gas.
7.8 p.m.
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Royle for introducing this Bill on the resale of electricity. I know that my noble friend regards this as an important matter, and the whole House will, I am sure, wish to congratulate him on the way he presented his Bill to us. I have known Lord Royle a long time, and when a section of the community are being wrongly treated I expect him to come to their rescue, especially, as in this case, when the problem concerns old people and the poorer section of the community. He has certainly done this again to-day in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, which he described as "the abolition of this evil racket".
My noble friend told us of overcharging with "phoney" meters, and so on, by unscrupulous landlords and others; in fact, he described it as "Rachmanism in a hidden form". He was, I think, most fortunate, in that all the several speakers who have spoken on this Bill gave him support, except perhaps my noble friend Lord Citrine, who gave it qualified support but, in my opinion, made a good suggestion to which I shall refer a little later. Most noble Lords who have spoken

605
to-night have given instances of cases where unscrupulous landlords have been perpetrating this evil racket.
Time is getting away and I shall not be unduly long in replying; but I will deal briefly with some of the comments which have been made, especially on the question of "phoney" meters, to which a number of your Lordships referred, and on which there was a suggestion by Lord Denham, I think, that it might be a good idea if they could be replaced with decent modern makes. The situation here is that the Electricity Acts do not require certified meters to be used, except for supplies by Boards themselves. To require all non-certified meters to be replaced would be a massive and probably an expensive undertaking, and would require legislation. So there is a difficulty there.
In June, 1965, using their powers under Section 29 of the 1957 Electricity Act, the Electricity Boards fixed maximum prices at which electricity may be resold for domestic purposes. The maximum price per unit in England and Wales was fixed at one farthing above the charge in the Board's standard domestic tariffs. In addition, landlords may make a fixed charge of up to 4d. per day to cover their own fixed costs, such as the quarterly fixed charge to the Electricity Boards. These maximum prices apply to the electricity used for domestic purposes in all types of accommodation—hotels, boarding houses and caravans, as well as in houses and flats in which electricity is resold by the Electricity Boards direct to the consumer, the occupier, through private meters. The Electricity Act provides that persons who are charged more than the maximum can recover the excess through civil action in the courts. My noble friend Lord Royle referred to this, and mentioned some of the difficulties which old and poor people might have in that regard.
We have now had two and a half years' experience of the control. It is difficult to get reliable information on how it is working in practice, but the Ministry's general impression is that it has been a very useful measure of protection for tenants, especially those with security of tenure and controlled rents. Where over-charging has taken place it is often due to ignorance of the control, and experience suggests that in most
606
cases landlords comply when it is drawn to their notice. Nevertheless, there may remain a small minority of unscrupulous landlords who deliberately overcharge, and even if tenants know about the maximum price they may not take action for fear of eviction. It is difficult to get a measure of the extent of this problem, although there is no evidence that evasion anything like as widespread as is sometimes suggested.
After the control was introduced the electricity consultative councils were asked to keep a watch to see how it worked in practice. In the event, the majority of councils have encountered only a very few examples of evasion. It is also significant that many of the people who write to the Ministry on this subject do not, on their own figures, appear to be overcharged, but they very often fail to take account of the fixed charge of up to 4d. a day which the landlord is entitled to make to cover his own fixed costs.
The Bill before the House is intended to strengthen the enforcement of the maximum price control. It would do this, in effect, by adding to Section 29(4) of the 1957 Electricity Act a requirement that the landlord must repay any excess charges within 28 days and, in certain circumstances, give the tenant a receipt specifying the total amount paid, the Electricity Board's maximum price and the amount, if any, by which the tenant has been overcharged. A landlord who fails to make repayment or to give the necessary receipt would be liable to a fine not exceeding £100 and £5 for each day for which the overcharging continues.
Although the Bill is intended to secure enforcement of the maximum price, its weakness is clearly that it would fail to do so for precisely the reason that the present control is alleged to be inadequate. In the last resort, its enforcement would depend on the tenant's taking up any overcharging with the landlord and, if he could not get satisfaction, going to the police. The position of tenants with security of tenure and rent control might be strengthened, but there is no evidence that this group are much affected by evasion. But the tenants who may need the extra protection—those without security and without rent control—will probably still be reluctant to take action for fear of eviction. In any case, without rent control there would be nothing

607
to prevent the landlord from increasing rents to cover any reduction in electricity charges, and the tenant would be no better off. The only way that the maximum price could be made effective for all such tenants would be to introduce a system of random inspection for private meters and bills, but this would be a very large undertaking. There would have to be evidence of widespread evasion before such a detailed and expensive control could be seriously considered.
There are a number of other serious practical and legal objections to the scheme of enforcement in the Bill. For example, the provision requiring the overcharger to seek out and repay within 28 days or to present a receipt to the person who had been overcharged would clearly be unworkable in the case of hotels or boarding houses whose occupants are continually changing. It might be that the Bill could be amended to remove some of these objections, but its primary weakness which has already been mentioned—that it would be an inadequate and unsatisfactory way of helping those who might need further protection—could not be remedied in this way.
The Government's attitude on this occasion does not mean that they are unsympathetic to the needs of the tenants. The simple fact is that the case for further legislation to deal with an awkward but relatively small problem has not been demonstrated. The Minister has made clear that if there is evidence of widespread evasion he will seek to ensure that more effective means of enforcement are introduced. I believe that my noble friend knows my right honourable friend well enough to realise that he is a man of his word. But we have not yet reached that stage.
The Minister has asked the electricity consultative councils to watch the position, and he intends to discuss the matter with their chairmen at the annual meeting arranged for next March. I know that my noble friend does not seem to have a very high opinion of electricity consultative councils.
LORD ROYLE: Oh, no!
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: Well, he did not think much would come from this. But I may tell my noble friend that at one time I myself was a member
608
of such a council, and I can assure him that they do splendid work.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, I must make it quite clear that I do not think that at all. I, too, think they are doing a splendid job of work.
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: My Lords, I am sorry if I misunderstood my noble friend. This is a point where the experience of my noble friend Lord Citrine comes in, with the suggestion he made that the Minister should expedite his review through the consultative councils.
LORD CITRINE: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves that point, may I say that it is vital to have the experience of the Electricity Council which, of course, is composed of the chairmen of all the various Boards.
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: On the point about the Electricity Council, I will certainly convey to my right honourable friend the suggestion made by the noble Lord, because I believe this can help to produce the sort of fruit which my noble friend would like to see.
My noble friend Lord Royle will see from what I have already said that the door is not shut and still remains open, but at the moment I do not consider this to be the appropriate time for the action which my noble friend seeks in his Bill, despite the fact that he has had all-round support from speakers in this House. After what I have said, I am sure my noble friend will not be surprised to hear me say that, in the circumstances, the Government are unable to support his Bill.
7.19 p.m.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, I hope I shall not be accused of any discourtesy if I do not deal with all the individual points which have been made by noble Lords. I can see the side of my Chief Whip's face, and I am very concerned, since I know what he has to face for the rest of the evening. I hope noble Lords will accept my gratitude for the part which they have played in this debate so far; I am very encouraged at the support which I have received from all parts of the House. I am a little concerned that most of the cold water has been poured by my noble friend Lord Citrine and my noble friend the Minister.

609
I seemed to get a warmer approach from noble Lords on the other side of the House, and I am very grateful to them.
There is one thing which I want to say to my noble friend Lord Hilton of Upton. He seemed to indicate that this was not as big a problem as I was making out; that in point of fact the consultative councils did not think it was as big a point as I made out. I should like to read what the Southern Electricity Consultative Council said in their report:
"Council members are convinced that there are still a great number of cases where elderly or poor tenants in tenements, block of flats, et cetera, are overcharged, but are afraid to go to the courts or even to allow the Consultative Council to handle their case anonymously for fear of reprisals from the landlord or even of getting notice to quit. There is some evidence that more such cases are brought to the notice of the Citizens Advice Bureaux than to the Consultative Councils."
This may well be so. I should not like the House to think for one moment that I have exaggerated or tried to make too much of my case. I have done nothing of the kind.
My noble friend Lord Citrine has very rightly—and I appreciate it—pointed out the difficulties which might apply. He has also pointed out alternative methods of approach; and, in effect, my noble friend Lord Hilton of Upton has said the same things and has suggested other alternatives. As I said earlier, I am aware that the Minister is meeting representatives of the consultative councils at the annual meeting in March next, and it may well be that they will get down to this problem. In fact, I know that it will be on the agenda. That being so, what we have said and done to-night may have an influence on that body, and I hope that when the meeting takes place they will consider what has been said in your Lordships' House this evening, which will show the strength of support for what my Bill is trying to do. It is a Bill which is trying to improve the present position so far as the tenants
610
are concerned, and which will help to blot out the evil which is going on.
I remember that in June, 1966, my late noble friend Lord Cohen of Brighton introduced the Sale of Goods Bill. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will remember it very well, because he had to wind up for the Government. Having obtained a Second Reading, my noble friend said that he would not press for a Committee stage at that moment because of certain assurances which had been given by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. But the matters which my noble friend covered at that time are not even included in the Consumer Protection Bill. This is an important problem. I do not want to be difficult with the Government, and I am a very practical man. I was a Member of another place for 19 years, and was a Government and an Opposition Whip, so I know the powers of the Government in another place for stopping things. I would much prefer that we made some progress on this Bill to-night, rather than that it should be damped down at this stage of the Second Reading.
Therefore, I ask your Lordships to be good enough to give the Bill a Second Reading to-night, and I shall not proceed with the Committee stage until I have had some report of the meeting of the consultative councils with the Minister in March. If that is done, I shall still have my rights. The Bill will have had a Second Reading and, without starting again, I shall be able to come back in the, Spring, probably after Easter, if I am not happy with what has been done, and we can then have a Committee stage of the, Bill. Therefore, my appeal to your Lordships is that you give the Bill an unopposed Second Reading, with the assurance that I shall have another go at it if I am not satisfied after March, 1968.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

CONSUMER PROTECTION BILL [H.L.]
7.26 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD BROWN): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Brown.)
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, would like to begin by making a reference to a correction to Hansard, and that the noble Lord, Lord Cawley, will then wish to move the Amendment.
LORD DRUMALBYN: With permission, I should like to draw attention to a misprint in yesterday's Hansard. Lines 25 to 27 of column 378 read:
"at least the manufacturer ought to be prosecuted if he has played his part and done enough to justify the claim."
I understand that this has been found to be a printing error, and that what I actually said was:
"ought not to be prosecuted".
Clause 29 [Notice of test and intended prosecution]:
LORD CAWLEY LORD CAWLEY moved, after subsection (2), to insert:
"( ) Where it appears to the Board of Trade that proceedings for the same or similar offence against the same person are being instituted by a government department or by a local weights and measures authority the Board of Trade may require any other local weights and measures authority giving such notice as is mentioned in the preceding subsection not to institute such proceedings."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment concerns a matter with which we have dealt before, but I wish to raise a point on it. It is concerned with preventing multiple prosecutions, but I now realise that the Board of Trade has almost complete power to prevent multiple prosecutions, and it is done in this way. There is no statutory duty on the Board
612
of Trade to issue a certificate if the provisions of subsection (2) of Clause 29 have been complied with. Therefore, they need not issue a certificate to the prosecuting authority.
Subsection (3) says:
"A certificate of the Board of Trade that the requirements of subsection (2) of this section have been complied with in relation to any proceedings shall be conclusive evidence that they have been so complied with".
As soon as a local authority start a prosecution the magistrate will undoubtedly ask, "Where is your certificate?" If they do not have one they will have to set about proving that they told the Board of Trade, and I cannot imagine any local authority starting to prove that. It would be disastrous to their case. Therefore, in effect, I think that the Board of Trade can pretty well stop any prosecution they do not want to proceed, simply by neglecting or refusing to issue a certificate, because there is no duty on them to issue one. Merely to raise that point, I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 36, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Cawley.)
LORD BROWN: The implication of the noble Lord's remarks, if I understood him correctly, is that because of the interpretation which he puts on Clause 29(3) he is probably going to withdraw the Amendment. I do not want him to do so under any misunderstanding. It is quite clear that the Board of Trade have the right to issue or not to issue a certificate under this clause, but I think it is equally clear that if they have in fact had due notice in the proper form before 28 days of an intended prosecution by a local authority, then they would not, I think, legally be entitled to refuse to issue a certificate to that effect. I do not want to mislead the noble Lord. I would point out that we have given quite positive assurances that, even without the legal right to veto prosecutions by local authorities, the Board of Trade will nevertheless keep in very close touch and will act in a grandmotherly way. I think this is an effective assurance that they will not allow unfortunate multiple prosecutions. I do not think the noble Lord would be correct in relying on the Board of Trade to use Clause 29(3) in a way which I think would be a little improper.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I understood that it was customary for grandmothers to spoil their children, not to restrict them. I am not altogether happy about the procedure to be adopted in this case. It is quite true, of course, that the Board of Trade will be able to tell a weights and measures authority that another Government Department—and the point of this Amendment, of course, is that as well as a local weights and measures authority, it is another Government Department—or a local weights and measures authority is already proposing to institute proceedings in a particular case; but I do not know how the Board of Trade are going to persuade local authorities not to have multiple prosecutions. The noble Lord said at an earlier stage that they would not "interfere" with local authorities. I think that was the word used, although I cannot remember whether it was the noble Lord, Lord Brown, or the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, who used it. But to some extent, of course, the whole purpose of the reporting procedure is to interfere in some way or another.
I do not know how the noble Lord proposes to secure this co-ordination. I think we would all agree that there should not be multiple prosecutions; and at the moment the matter is left in the air. What is good sense in a particular matter is, of course, very often a question of opinion, and even dispute. But I think it is important that Parliament should devise a means to ensure that there will not be multiple prosecutions; and that is why this particular Amendment was put down. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to assure us that he has good hopes of attaining this objective without having the power that this particular Amendment would give him. It is quite paradoxical, after yesterday evening's proceedings, that the Government should refuse to take any power in this matter when they are offered it. The Board of Trade are here offered a power and are refusing it, presumably in full confidence that they will be able to secure this common objective without that power. I wonder whether the noble Lord could say a little more about how he proposes to secure that objective.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: May I ask one question before the noble Lord replies? Would it be for the convenience
614
of the Committee if I were to move my Amendment, which follows, now? It simply takes the matter a good deal further than this Amendment. Or would the noble Lord rather that I waited until he had answered this Amendment, in which case he would then answer mine separately? Perhaps the Lord Deputy Chairman could give us his guidance.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: It is not possible for two Amendments to be moved together by anybody, but, of course, it is more than possible for two Amendments to be debated together. If the noble Baroness wishes to debate two Amendments, or even more, on the Amendment now before the Committee, there is no possible objection to that being done, if she likes to intervene now.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: I should like to ask the noble Lord who is to reply whether he would find that more convenient or less convenient. I am quite prepared to speak now or to wait until he has answered the noble Lord and then speak again.
LORD BROWN: It is certainly quite convenient to me. The noble Baroness will understand that the objections I shall raise to her Amendment are so similar to those which I shall raise to the present Amendment that the reply will serve both.
LORD PEDDIE: Is my noble friend suggesting that he will be offering the same arguments to the noble Baronesses's Amendment as to this Amendment? There is something of a difference. If he is saying that, I would suggest that the two Amendments should be dealt with separately.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Perhaps I may make the suggestion that it might possibly be convenient to deal with my Amendment first, and then the noble Baroness can put the point of the second paragraph of her Amendment possibly more conveniently separately.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: Very well; it is all the same to me.
LORD BROWN: I think the noble Lord asked for an assurance on the part of the Board of Trade that they would

615
be able to contain the nuisance of multiple prosecutions, and so forth. This is not a position where they can veto illegally; otherwise, we should not be having this Amendment in front of us. It is a psychological issue. I have observed—I speak now as a Scotsman, and perhaps the noble Lord will appreciate this—the extraordinary degree to which people in this country South of the Border can co-operate in issues of this sort. If the Board of Trade receive notice of several prosecutions pending under Clause 29(3) and they regard then, as being confusing or unnecessary, then communications will immediately go out to those local authorities and discussions will take place.
One can only assume that local authorities will be intent on prosecuting this if they behave thoroughly unreasonably. I do not think there is any ground for assuming that this is going to happen. These are professional people, and professional people who are extremely busy people. They are going to have a very busy time indeed under this Act. They are probably going to be short-staffed, as we all recognise, and if they feel that a nuisance can be handled, on the one part, in some other local authority's area or, on the other part, that the Board of Trade may say that the best thing is for them to take it over, it seems to me that they will be prepared, with gladness in their hearts and with a saving of expense locally, to drop the subject. These are the common sense rather than legal grounds on which we have decided not to invest the Board of Trade with this right of veto.
Had we done so, as the noble Lord argued on a previous Amendment, we should have been apparently delegating authority to them and then, simultaneously, exercising the right to veto their decisions, and to that extent one always makes people somewhat less responsible. I think the net effect of giving the Board of Trade veto power might be to produce some very serious arguments of a rather acrimonious kind when they sought to use it; and I think we might be driven into a position where local authorities felt they were in competition with the Board of Trade rather than in co-operation with them. We might find ourselves saying, "We have
616
used this veto a number of times and we do not want to pick up some more trouble in this locality; we shall let it go this time", when in actual fact we had felt that it would be better to use the veto or, in other circumstances, to invite their co-operation in dropping their prosecution. I think there are very strong psychological pounds for this decision. I cannot argue the case better than that, I fear. I hope that brings some satisfaction to the noble Lords opposite.
LORD CAWLEY: I think it would be a pretty brave local authority who would start a prosecution against the advice of the Board of Trade. I have told the noble Lord of the possible extra sanction, and I do not think I need say any more. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.39 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD moved, after subsection (2), to insert:
"( )

(i) Where on receiving notice of intended proceedings under the preceding subsection, it appears to the Board of Trade that proceedings for an offence or a similar offence against the same person are likely to be proposed by more than one local authority area, the Board of Trade may require any local authority giving such notice as is mentioned in the preceding subsection not to institute proceedings for such an offence.

(ii) Where the Board of Trade require a local authority not to institute proceedings by virtue of the preceding paragraph, the Board of Trade or other appropriate government department shall take proceedings unless and until the Board of Trade revokes the requirement to that local authority not to institute proceedings."

The noble Baroness said: Before I move this Amendment, I want to draw the Committee's attention to a misprint. It is in line 5. The word "by" should be "in": "by" does not make sense. It should read:
"… are likely to be proposed in more than one local authority area …"
I move this Amendment because I do not entirely agree with what the noble Lord has just said on the question of national advertisements and national prosecutions. There could be conflicting decisions, with resultant uncertainty about the legality of the statement. If there are a great many different national prosecutions then a single prosecution by a Government Department was, I should have thought, clearly desirable. It would decide the

617
matter with certainty throughout the country.
Other Amendments deal with the position where one local authority is taking proceedings and a second intends to do so. The intention here is to stop a second prosecution. This, I agree, is useful, but I do not think it goes far enough to deal with the circumstances I have mentioned. Indeed. I think it more likely that there would be a sequence of local prosecutions rather than two or more concurrent cases. Further, I believe that it would be more convenient for a Government Department to step in at the outset, when a particular practice appears to have a national effect and at the time when the Board of Trade are first notified of the alleged offence.
The second part of my Amendment seeks to ensure that if a local authority is required to stop proceedings, for the reasons I have explained, it should have an assurance that either the appropriate Government Department will continue with the matter or that the local authority will be made free to proceed on its own initiative. I am anticipating here the very strong feelings of local authority officers if they are prevented from remedying an abuse in their own area, and where their own people—people to whom they show a very devoted sense of duty—are harmed. I am speaking here chiefly of the Inspectorate of Weights and Measures, although I realise that other enforcement officers may share those duties. In short, I am proposing that where an offence is likely to affect the country as a whole, proceedings should be centralised and taken by a Government Department, but that, as a safeguard, the central authority should not be free to sit on the matter and so veto local proceedings until the time limit of one year had expired. This I think would be most unfair. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 36, at end insert the said paragraphs.—(Baroness Elliot of Harwood.)
LORD PEDDIE: I hope my noble friend will give serious consideration to this proposal because I feel it would be easy of operation and would also bring about a rationalisation of the procedure. There is always the possibility, with a nationally marketed commodity, that an infringement of regulations may result in
618
a certain number of prosecutions. If these prosecutions have been entertained in various parts of the country it is obvious that there is a strong likelihood of differing decisions. I should have thought acceptance of this proposal would have meant that the Board of Trade would have a better understanding or the situation and that it would introduce some measure of rational conduct in the whole operation of the Act.
If there be any thought that this is likely to interfere with the rights and responsibilities of local authorities the second part of the Amendment deals with that. Should it be felt by a local authority that no action was being taken by the Board of Trade when the local authority felt it was justified, then under the terms of this Amendment there would ultimately arise the possibility of the local authority's embarking on such a prosecution. I cannot see any reasonable objection to this. I think it would strengthen the Act.
LORD DRUMALBYN: May I make one observation? I think this might get over the psychological difficulty that the noble Lord was talking about. The only point at which I think my Amendment was, if I may say so, slightly better was that it also introduced the possibility of a prosecution by another Government Department being already undertaken.
LORD BROWN: I think I may have expressed myself a little ungraciously when we had the debate about whether the noble Baroness's Amendment should be taken. I meant to say that the background arguments which I should use would be the same but not the fore ground ones. To demonstrate this, I will give them. I have already explained in relation to Amendments Nos. 64 and 67 why we do not think the Board of Trade should have a right of veto over proceedings by enforcement authorities. I have also made it clear that if a number of local authorities were to report to the Board that they wished to prosecute in respect of the same offence the Board of Trade might well have to offer to bring a central prosecution. I do not believe that if such an offer were made any local authorities would wish to proceed with their own prosecutions. But I have laboured this point sufficiently already.
As to the proposal that it should be obligatory on the Board of Trade to take

619
proceedings where they have prevented or dissuaded local authorities from doing so, I hope that your Lordships will agree that this is unnecessary. If a number of local authorities told the Board of Trade that they were proposing to prosecute in respect of the same nationally circulated advertisement, or something similar, the Board might well offer to bring a central prosecution; but it is quite unnecessary that the Board should always do this. What matters is that the offence should be dealt with by someone and that unnecessary multiple prosecutions should be avoided. This, the procedure proposed in the Bill will achieve.
Even if I could accept, which I cannot, that it would be right to place on the Board a duty to prosecute in certain types of cases, I am sure that it would be extremely difficult to define what those cases should be. There would clearly be no justification for the Board's taking over every case notified by more than a single local authority. Thus we should be left with a situation of having to assess the cases very carefully indeed to decide whether the situation was such as to justify our taking them over. The situation that would arise if we took them over, examined them and then found, on the deeper examination, that prosecution was not justified would be extremely embarrassing if the law laid down that, having taken them over, we had to prosecute. There are difficulties of this sort surrounding this Amendment which makes me worry a good deal about it. But the general reasons for asking the Committee not to accept this Amendment are really the psychological ones to which I have already referred in answer to Lord Drumalbyn's case for his Amendment.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: I thank the noble Lord for that reply. He has on previous occasions said that the Board of Trade are always very loth to bring prosecutions. It is a fact that to get the Board of Trade to prosecute for anything is a very difficult matter. My Council's concern is that we are anxious that there should not be a great many prosecutions all over the country for one type of offence. In the case of a nationally advertised product, there may be prosecutions in magistrates' courts in which the results are quite different; and this would be most unfortunate.
620
The Board of Trade still think they would rather that happen and that there was not central prosecution, which seems to be very short-sighted. I think it would be very difficult if there were a number of prosecutions on the same subject all of which had different results.
Be that what it may, it still remains that the Board of Trade should realise that there is quite a large body of opinion in this sphere of people who want to protect the consumers which feels that the Board of Trade do not prosecute enough and that if they get prosecutions into their hands and do not use them this would be typical. I put this Amendment down to try to persuade the Board of Trade to prosecute when they have a good case. In the opinion of many people they do not at the moment prosecute enough.
LORD BROWN: May I interrupt before the noble Baroness sits down? I was very obstinate in Committee last night over the question of powers. I was aware of the fact that I may have created a little resentment, but I was trying to hang on desperately to having quite clear powers for the Board of Trade to enforce these Acts. I want to draw the noble Baroness's attention to the fact that I was doing this principally because of the comments that she has just made of the reluctance of the Board of Trade to prosecute—which always relates back to uncertainty about their powers. I assure the noble Baroness that we are aware of the dangers of multiple prosecutions. We shall do our best—we think we have adequate powers—to stop them in all cases where they would seem completely unsuitable.
LORD DRUMALBYN: May I comment on that? We were not complaining yesterday about the powers of the Board of Trade but the powers being given to local weights and measures authorities to inspect.
LORD BROWN: That is true. But the fact that the local weights and measures authorities are short of powers is equally important in respect of these prosecutions. There is such a thing as prompting local weights and measures authorities to prosecute if we do not think that they are doing their job. We have power under the Bill to call for an inspection and if, having prompted them

621
to get on with the job, they replied that the powers were inadequate because the Board of Trade failed to support those powers in this House, we should be in a rather awkward position. So I established the connection between the powers of the weights and measures authorities and the Board of Trade.
LORD PEDDIE: My noble friend indicated in his initial reply that the Board of Trade would seek to prevent multiple prosecutions. In the event of the non-acceptance of this Amendment I should be glad if he would indicate how the Board of Trade would operate to prevent multiple prosecutions.
LORD BROWN: With respect to my noble friend, I thought I had done that. Under the Bill the Board of Trade must receive 28 days' notice of every prosecution which is going to be brought by local authorities. In the light of their knowledge of the fact that multiple prosecutions, about issues which may perhaps concern the same advertisement, are about to take place, they would be in a position to find out what is happening from the local authorities and ask either one or more to desist and leave the prosecution to one local authority; or to say, "In this case we think it better that we should undertake a central prosecution and we invite all the local authorities to drop their prosecutions." I have no doubt that this sensible course would be accepted by the local authorities without any trouble at all. That is the process by which the Board could seek to prevent this unfortunate situation from arising.
LORD PEDDIE: I am glad to have my noble friend's assurance on that point.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.53 p.m.
LORD PARGITER LORD PARGITER moved to leave out subsection (3). The noble Lord said: There is obviously a good deal of doubt, which has been expressed, about what this subsection is intended to do. The Board of Trade will issue a certificate. According to what the Minister has said, this certificate has no value. It can be put in to show that the provision about 28 days' notice has been complied with, but there is a simple way to do that: the prosecution could merely produce
622
a document to show that they had submitted a case to the Board of Trade and had waited for the appropriate 28 days before instituting proceedings. It seems to me that the certificate has little value in any case except that it might be implied—and this is what we are concerned about—that the certificate is a necessary prelude to prosecution. It has been made clear it is not intended that the certificate shall be that.
I wonder why we want it at all, and whether we cannot achieve a little streamlining and cause less work for the Board of Trade by not having to bother to issue a certificate. The authorities would merely have to satisfy the court that they had apprised the Board of Trade and that they had given the appropriate notice. It seems to me that this would avoid a good deal of confusion and misunderstanding and possibly there would be a little less work to do. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 37, leave out subsection (3).—(Lord Pargiter.)
LORD CAWLEY: I think that this is quite a simple matter. The certificate is designed to assist the court, and the procedure is included in numerous Acts. It would be much more difficult to call evidence and put witnesses in the box to say that they had sent a notice by recorded delivery, and so on. This is a help to the lawyers, and I think it ought to remain in the Bill.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Cawley, for the point he has made. Since it is accepted that it is desirable for the enforcing authorities to give notice of intended prosecution to the Board of Trade, it is only common sense that we should include a provision along the lines of the subsection to enable them to indicate that the required notice has been given to the Board of Trade. Otherwise witnesses would have to be called in person in each case to give evidence to this effect, which would be a waste of time. The further provision in the subsection about the certificate being genuine is designed to avoid the possibility of a defendant holding up the proceedings by quibbling about this point. He would have to produce evidence to substantiate his allegation. Having heard what has been said by the noble

623
Lord, Lord Cawley, I hope that your Lordships will not accept the Amendment.
LORD PARGITER: Having heard the explanation and without prejudice—because I may return to the whole question of subsections (2) and (3) at another stage—I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN had given notice of his intention to move to leave out subsection (3), and insert instead:
"(3) At the same time as any such notice as is referred to in subsection (2) of this section is sent to the Board of Trade, a copy of that notice shall be sent to any person against whom it is intended to bring proceedings, and the copy shall be accompanied, in lieu of the summary of facts, by the result of any tests on any goods purchased or seized for the purpose of prosecution."
The noble Lord said: In view of the fact that the Government wish to keep subsection (3), it would facilitate the discussion on this Amendment if I were allowed to treat it as if it were purely an insertion. In other words, in page 16, line 42, at end to insert the words on the Marshalled List. I should explain that this Amendment would require the local weights and measures authority to send a notice of intention to prosecute not only to the Board of Trade but also to any person against whom it is intended to take proceedings, but in his case the notice would be accompanied, not by a summary of all the facts, as required in subsection (2), but by the results of any tests only.
This is a similar procedure to that which applies in the case of prosecutions for traffic offences. It certainly has the advantage—and this is a considerable advantage, in view of the delay imposed by the 28 days' notice—of giving the person against whom it is intended to take proceedings notice in advance of the intention, at the same time as the Board of Trade is given notice. That would mean that he would have an opportunity to keep track of any evidence in his favour. Also it would save time, because it would give him time to have the results of the tests checked and challenged, if you like; but, at any rate, he would be able to have his own tests done as well as the tests which might be carried out by the weights and
624
measures authority. It seems to me that this is a reasonable procedure in the circumstances, and I hope the noble Lord will be able to accept it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 42, at the end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
BARONESS PHILLIPS: As already explained by the Minister in relation to several other Amendments, the purpose of the Board of Trade's being given notice under subsection (2) of Clause 29 is to enable the Board to promote a uniform policy among enforcement authorities and to advise them on action being taken in respect of similar offences by other authorities; or, where it seems appropriate, to agree to take the prosecution. It seems, therefore, that to give a copy of the notice to the offender could serve only two purposes. In the first place it could give him somewhat longer notice of the prosecution, although he would get all the notice he needs when the summons is served. Secondly, it would give him an opportunity to make representations to the Board of Trade that he should not be prosecuted, or should be prosecuted by some other authority. But this would be quite inappropriate, as it would interfere with and delay the essentially co-ordinative function of the procedure and could come close to putting the Board, rather than the courts, in the position of deciding whether or not a case had been made out.
The provision that notice should be accompanied by the result of any tests or any goods purchased or seized for the purpose of prosecution does not seem to me to be necessary in the light of Clause 29(1). This already provides that a person must be informed of the result of a test on goods which have been seized and, where the test leads to the institution of proceedings, on goods which have been purchased. In view of this explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am not altogether happy with that explanation, because it does not appear that the Government have taken into account the procedure in traffic offences. Is there any basis for saying that anybody who receives a notice makes representations that he should not be prosecuted? I cannot

625
see any basis whatsoever. The purpose of my Amendment is simply to give the person against whom proceedings are likely to be taken a little longer notice, and to give him the result of the test at the same time as the Board of Trade are given the result. It is the timing that is important here. I do not want to press this proposal, but I hope that the Government will not discard it too lightly now that I have brought to their attention the parallel with traffic offences.
LORD BROWN: The noble Lord's experience of the law in general is impressive, and I cannot claim a similar experience with the Road Traffic Acts. There will be no delay in getting the results of tests to the person who may be prosecuted immediately they are available. On the second point in the more complex situation where there is a possibility of the scene of a prosecution being shifted from one local authority to another or to the Board of Trade, we are afraid of the people who are to be prosecuted coming to the Board of Trade and trying to put arguments to us. I cannot give solid reasons for saying this, but I am advised, on the basis of the experience of the officials who advise me, that that is likely to happen. I hope that I have disposed of the argument about the test arrangements. On the other argument about—I keep searching for the word for a man who is to be prosecuted; there must be a legal term for him—the defendant—
LORD DRUMALBYN: The intended defendant.
LORD BROWN: The intended defendant is safeguarded in the matter of receiving adequate notice under the laws of the land as they stand now. I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his Amendment, because I think that it might have unfortunate repercussions.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am surprised at the argument. I should have thought that it would be perfectly possible to print an ordinary form to send out to anyone who made representations saying that the Board of Trade cannot entertain such representations. I cannot see how pressure can be brought to bear on the Ministry, and certainly pressure which they could not easily resist. This is not an Amendment to which I attach an
626
overriding importance, and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 29 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD DRUMALBYN: Scotland seems to be going rather by the board in all this. We have been talking of getting coordination in England and Wales. I wonder whether the noble Lord can give us any indication of how such co-ordination is to be carried out in Scotland, bearing in mind the fact that a local weights and measures authority may be intending to prosecute in Scotland at the same time and on the same facts as an authority in England. I hope that the Government have thought of this matter and will be able to tell me how they intend to proceed.
LORD BROWN: The noble Lord was good enough to give me brief notice of this point. I understand that it is highly probable that the procurator-fiscals in Scotland will be agreeable, as a voluntary act—because they are not under an obligation to do this—to notify the Board of Trade in the same way as the local authorities in England are going to notify them. I cannot give an absolute assurance yet, but I believe that discussions are proceeding in this direction, and if we can get such an assurance I think that this will be adequate.
LORD DRUMALBYN: This sounds like a very sensible working agreement, and I see no reason why it should not work.
Clause 29 agreed to.
Clause 30 [Evidence by certificate]:
8.6 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Amendment No. 70 is a probing Amendment. With the Amendment, subsection (1) of Clause 30 would read:
"The Board of Trade may by regulations provide that certificates issued by such persons as may be specified by the regulations in relation to such matters as may be so specified being matters referred to in section 2(1) of this Act shall, subject to the provisons of this section, be received in evidence of those matters in any proceedings under this Act."
The purpose of the Amendment is purely to limit the powers to make regulations

627
to matters covered under the general term "trade description". I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 4, after ("specified") insert ("being matters referred to in section 2(1) of this Act").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD BROWN: I agree that this Amendment would cover a great many of the cases about which the Board will wish to authorise certificates to be issued, but it would not cover all of them. It may well be that undisputed technical evidence will be needed in proceedings for offences relating, for example, to marking orders, under Clause 8, or to advertisement information orders, under Clause 9, or especially for offences relating to services accommodation or facilities, under Clause 13. May I give an example to illustrate my point? An offence under Clause 13 might turn on whether or not the persons by whom a service was to be provided possessed the qualifications which it had been represented they would have. A man might claim to be a qualified architect or to have a cordon bleu chef in his hotel. If this in turn hinged on whether or not their names were on a professional register, there seems no reason why undisputed evidence as to that fact should not be given by certificate.
The noble Lord's Amendment would impose too severe a restriction upon the Board's powers in this matter and derogate from the very purpose which this clause seeks to achieve. If the noble Lord thinks that this power is liable to abuse, there are two effective safeguards: the party against whom the certificate is to be used in evidence can exercise his rights under subsection 2(b), and the regulations exercising the power are subject to Parliamentary control under subsection (3). I hope that this expansion of examples will allow the noble Lord to see that we do, in fact, need slightly more extensive powers than the Amendment would give us.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am much obliged for the expression of intention here, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved, after subsection (2), to insert:
628
"( ) The Board of Trade may by regulations establish standards of qualification and testing for such persons as are authorised to issue certificates under the provisions of this section".
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is quite clear from its terms, and I do not think I need enlarge on it. At page 17, line 2, are the words "such persons as may be specified by the regulations". I was not clear whether those words were intended to refer to persons of such kinds as may be specified by the regulations or to individual persons who may be specified by the regulations. In either case, it does not seem to me from the drafting of this subsection that there is any power in the clause to establish standards of qualification of testing for them. I may be wrong about that, but to probe the matter I put down this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 13, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD BROWN: The noble Lord does not miss very much. When I read these words I put upon the clause referred to much the same interpretation as he has done. However, on probing the matter further I am assured that the relevant words are, as he indicated, "such persons as may be specified", and that this is equivalent to the power, when specifying the persons who may issue the certificates, to say all persons holding such-and-such qualifications. I do not know if I have made that clear. I will say it again. Where in the clause it says that the Board of Trade may by regulations provide that certificates issued by such persons as may be specified by the regulations relating to such matters by the term "such purposes", we are, I am advised, giving the Board of Trade power to include in their regulations the specification of the professional qualifications of the persons. I agree that this is a slightly difficult interpretation to put upon the words, but I am advised that it can be put on these words, and it has been put on such words in similar Acts. I hope that this explanation will satisfy the noble Lord.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am obliged to the noble Lord. It satisfies me perfectly. The effect seems to be achieved with the minimum of words, if indeed the

629
effect is achieved. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 30 agreed to.
Clauses 31 and 32 agreed to.
Clause 33 [Saving for civil rights]:
8.13 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, to leave out Clause 33 and to substitute the following new clause:
Saving for civil rights
"33. A contract for the supply of any goods shall not be void or unenforceable by reason only of a contravention of any provision of this Act."
The noble and learned Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name and in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood. The object of this clause is to make it plain that nothing in the Bill is to affect the contractual or tortious rights of the parties. It is thought that the clause in its present form may not do that. There are cases, I think, in which an illegal act is mixed up with a contract and a court has said that this makes the whole contract void; and there are other cases where the court has said that, although it does not make the whole contract void, it makes it unenforceable at the suit of the party at fault. The original clause was not thought to achieve that purpose, whereas this new clause, it is thought, does so.
It is not the purpose of the Bill to prejudice the civil law remedies of the person to whom goods bearing a false description are supplied. This is a Bill which I suppose in a sense might have dealt with all this by no recourse to the criminal law at all, but by enlarging in some way the contractual or tortious rights of the other party. But it does not. This is a Bill which makes the future acts criminal acts, and does not deal with the civil law position. Neither would it be right to provide that the contract is void, or even that the contract is unenforceable at the suit of the party at fault. The fault, after all, may vary enormously. A man sells a £1,000 car, and there is a description of the car as having recently had the clutch relined. If that is untrue, certain criminal consequences may follow under the Bill. But it would be quite wrong that the owner
630
of the car should not be able to recover the contract price of the car, and wrong, for that matter, that the purchaser should be able to get a £1,000 car for nothing.
Therefore, the object of this clause as now drafted is simply to make it clear that there is nothing in the Bill which will have the result that the fact that there is an illegal act here either makes the contract void or makes it unenforceable. It is thought that the clause in its new form, as proposed by this Amendment, achieves that object. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 33 and insert the said new clause.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
8.15 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD moved to add to the proposed new clause:
"( ) In a contract for the sale of any goods to which a trade description is applied there shall be an implied warranty that the trade description is not a false trade description."
The noble Baroness said: As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has moved the previous Amendment, which my Council would support, I am adding an Amendment to it which I now wish to move. As it stands, Clause 33 as now amended is a substantial subtraction from the rights a customer has under the existing merchandise marks law, and I therefore couple this Amendment with the last Amendment, No. 73, so that the buyer will not be deprived of a very useful legal protection—the right to say that if goods have been falsely described he is entitled to appropriate compensation by way of damages without having recourse to any other Acts of Parliament or to the Common Law.
I anticipate that a number of arguments may be made against this Amendment. It may be said that the civil law, strengthened by the Misrepresentation Act of this year and by new contract legislation which may follow, will provide the customer with adequate remedies in all circumstances. But this may not be so, and in any case it is always dangerous to rely on future legislative activity as a reason for not including sensible provisions now. Secondly, it may be said that the rights given to the customer under Section 17 of the Merchandise Marks Act 1887 have not been used in many cases. No statistics seem to be

631
available, and we cannot even hope to discover how useful Section 17 was to the customer, or how frequently it was used by buyers or by their solicitors to obtain out-of-court settlement of their claims.
In simple terms, I want the buyer who has bought goods bearing a false trade description to have the right to found a claim for damages on that fact alone, and, as I have said, this is so under existing merchandise marks law. It is important that this rule be maintained, because the scope of the present Act is much wider, of more popular interest and less technical than the previous Acts, and so we can anticipate that far more people will seek redress when they discover that they have bought goods which have been falsely described.
If we leave the clause as it is now, in its amended form, then we run the risk of having two different standards and quite unnecessary complications. A shopkeeper who has demonstrably committed a criminal offence under these proposals will still be able to resist a claim for compensation, relying on the wording of Clause 33. The claimant will then have to fall back on the civil law, sale of goods, misrepresentation law and Common Law. It is uncertain that this body of law covers as much ground as this Bill, and we could find a ridiculous situation where a description would be a crime, and the seller could be convicted, but he could not in any way be obliged to recompense the buyer for loss suffered. The situation in which this could arise is very complicated, but I am told that it can be best summed up by saying that an innocent, non-negligent description, not amounting to a term of a contract, could be a criminal offence under the Bill, but no civil remedy would exist after the agreement was finalised.
Apart from this technical shortcoming, surely we want to give to purchasers a single piece of law which will help them both to make sure that sellers are deterred from making false statements, and which will also provide civil protections for the buyer. It may be clear to the lawyer that other remedies will be available in many cases, but this is the Consumer Protection Bill and we want the ordinary purchaser to be able to find his law as easily as possible.
As your Lordships know, this Amendment is intimately connected with my proposed Amendment No. 40 to Clause 17, which I withdrew. Both share the same purpose of giving the purchaser a personal right to redress. With your Lordships' permission I really must counter some of the objections which were made, and no doubt will be made again, on this issue. As I have said. Section 17 of the Merchandise Marks Act 1887 now gives a buyer a civil remedy where a false trade description is applied to the goods he buys. None of the prognostications raised by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, seem to have afflicted us during the past 80 years. If it is said that the existing Section 17 has rarely been used, it is equally clear that a retailer who has been convicted is not going to defend a civil action when he sees from the Statute that the buyer has a civil claim against him. For this reason, questions about differing standards of proof in criminal and civil courts are really irrelevant. No one in his senses will spend money on a civil case which he knows he will lose.
There is another purpose which my Amendment serves, as I have said. The Consumer Council deals with many inquiries about remedies for false trade practices. If Clause 33 remains as it stands, many people will have to be told that proceedings lie under the Consumer Protection Act, but they will say, "What is there in it for me?" At present we can point to Section 17 of the Merchandise Marks Act and say, "There is your ready-made civil remedy". We shall not be able to say so under the present Bill unless it is amended, and naturally people will not be so willing to come forward.
At an earlier stage the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, thought it was curious to combine civil and criminal law, as I had proposed in my earlier Amendment to Clause 17, which dealt with compensation. Substantially the same issue is raised here, and I would invite the noble Lord to look at Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act 1961 which gives anyone affected by an offence under that Act the right to raise a civil action for breach of duty. I know that this Act deals chiefly with safety to the person, but none the less the precedent is there. Section 17 of the Merchandise Marks Act 1887 carries the same principle into

633
the field of trade descriptions. I allow that separate actions may be necessary in principle, but for the reasons I have already explained in practice the existence of a civil remedy is all we want.
I hope the Government will not say that my purpose will be served by the civil remedies given by the new Misrepresentation Act 1967, because that Act will not fill the gap. The Misrepresentation Act is a bit of a red herring. It merely filled in a very small gap in English law, which I may say never existed in Scots law. In certain cases the Act now gives a person the right to revoke a contract, whereas before he only had a right to damages. I know there are other legal refinements embodied in this Act, but this is the main point that concerns us here. In any case, I find it curious that the Misrepresentation Act should be dragged in, because misrepresentations are a far more delicate and rare species than common false descriptions, and it is these with which we are chiefly concerned here. The first civil remedy that comes to hand is, of course, Section 13 of the Sale of Goods Act 1893, which confers an implied condition that goods correspond with their description. But the trouble with all these civil remedies is that they will not be linked with the Bill and they would involve a county court case starting ab initio. Both my Amendment and the existing Merchandise Marks Acts provide this useful link. It is true that I have left out the seller's right to exclude his liability under Section 17 of the Merchandise Marks Act 1887, but I hope discussion of this matter need not delay us. I am anticipating the work of the Law Commission, but I should be nearly as satisfied if Clause 17 was reinstated in full, in the knowledge that the exclusion of liability at the end of that section is, I hope, already under sentence of death.
Finally, in this matter there was mention of fast-moving low-priced goods, but we should not forget that furniture, carpets, and perhaps second-hand motorcars and other quite expensive goods are all covered by this Bill. It is here that an easily established civil remedy is needed for the person who has lost an amount perhaps of the order of £10 to £50 or more, as a consequence of a false trade description being applied to goods. I beg to move.
Amendment to Amendment moved—
Line 3, at end insert the said subsection.—(Baroness Elliot of Harwood.)
8.25 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I should like to make one comment and to ask one question. My comment is that what the noble Baroness said about my remarks was not exactly what I meant. I was dealing only with the case of combining civil and criminal remedies in the same court at the same time. I was not going further than that. When I saw this Amendment I read it in a rather different sense. I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor can comment on it. The intermediaries, the retailers, feel that they are going to be rather unfairly at risk because of the withdrawal of the implied warranty, and I should very much like to see it reinstated. They feel that if this is done it will be much easier for them to shift the blame on to the manufacturer. It is strongly felt that if this kind of provision were included in the Bill it would ease the task of a retailer in defending himself where he has acted in good faith on a trade description by a wholesaler or a manufacturer, because in the past he has been accustomed to treat that kind of representation as an implied warranty.
LORD CAWLEY: If a retailer buys goods, is not an implied warranty that it does not bear an infringing trade mark equally an implied warranty that it does not infringe a patent in law at the moment? I do not know whether there is an implied warranty at Common Law that it does not offend against the Merchandise Marks Act, but it might be better if this were placed in the present Bill to clarify that point, if that warranty does not exist at Common Law.
LORD PEDDIE: In moving her Amendment the noble Baroness gave the Committee a mass of evidence in support, and I made a note of one or two points which appear to be very important. I should be glad if my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor could help me in deciding whether or not the arguments that have been advanced are based on fact. I understand from what was stated that if we leave the clause as amended, a shopkeeper who has actually committed a criminal offence tinder these proposals will be able to resist a claim

635
for compensation. That was the statement which was made, and it was said that the claimant would have to fall back on the civil law, that probably the civil law does not cover the same ground as this Bill, and therefore it would be a disadvantage. If that be so, it would seem to be a serious disability, even with the clause as amended, and I take it that the purpose of the Amendment is to give the right to the buyer who has bought the goods bearing a false description to establish a claim for damages on that fact alone. Those seem to me to be two very important points which, if they can bear examination and acceptance, would appear to strengthen the Bill very greatly.
8.30 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This matter has a somewhat complicated legislative history. As the noble Baroness has said, the Amendment seeks to reproduce in the present Bill the substance of the first part of Section 17 of the Merchandise Marks Act 1887 in so far as it applies to false trade descriptions. The second part of that section permitted the vendor to contract out of the implied warranty by delivering to the buyer a written disclaimer, which the buyer accepted. The Amendment proposed by the noble Baroness is silent on whether contracting out of the implied warranty is to be permitted or not. I imagine she probably intends that there should be no contracting out, but it is not clear whether the Amendment would have that effect. As I expect she knows, this provision of Section 17 has in fact been very little used in the last 80 years. The Molony Committee recommended that Section 17 should be continued in substance, but that the right to contract out should be confined to sales of secondhand, imperfect and auctioned goods. This was in line with their general recommendations on contracting out of liability under the Sale of Goods Act.
In the 1966 Bill Clause 34 reproduced the substance of the existing provision. It did not, however, impose any restriction on the right to contract out, because it would have been wrong to implement the Molony Committee's recommendation on this point in isolation from their recommendations on the wider question of contracting out of the Sale of Goods Act conditions and warranties. At about
636
the same time, the Misrepresentation Bill was introduced in this House and it became apparent that Clause 34 was inconsistent with the principles of the Misrepresentation Bill in that it could operate to make a seller liable for damages when he had been guilty of neither negligence nor fraud. With the passing of the Misrepresentation Act 1967 the arguments for omitting the provision have become really irresistible. The buyer of goods bearing a false trade description will now almost always have a civil remedy, either under the Common Law or by virtue of the new Act, if the trade description is a term of the contract or if it was one of the causes which induced him to buy the goods. If he did not know of it or was not influenced by it, there is no case for giving him a remedy on account of it.
If the misrepresentation was made negligently or fraudulently the buyer would have a right to damages and rescission of the contract. This would apply unless the seller could prove that he had reasonable ground to believe, and did believe up to the time of the sale, that the facts represented were true. Even if the seller was entirely blameless (so that he would not be liable for damages), the buyer would be able to rescind the contract and ask for his money back; and if the trade description had become a term of the contract he could also claim damages at Common Law.
The worst feature of the provision which the Amendment seeks to preserve is that it imposes a civil liability even on a seller who was in no way to blame for the false trade description and would have a complete answer to a criminal charge in respect of it. It would also be inconsistent with a fundamental principle of the Misrepresentation Act, namely, that there shall be no right to damages where a misrepresentation is wholly innocent.
It may also be noted that the provision of a civil remedy is really out of place in a Bill of this kind. Of course, the Law Commission has a Working Party working on exemption clauses. The right time to deal with exemption clauses in this small field is when we deal with exemption clauses generally. But, speaking in general I think the point really is this. One can

637
conceive of a Bill in this field which sought to impose obligations simply by giving the other party to a contract a civil remedy. But this Bill does not do that. This Bill does not deal with the law of contract at all. If this Amendment were to be accepted, this would be the only clause in the whole Act which deals at all with contractual rights or tortious rights. This is a Bill which imposes obligations on people which are to be enforced by the criminal law imposing penalties.
We have now got the Misrepresentation Act, which very carefully defines the exact circumstances in which there are to be remedies for a misrepresentation. Of course, there are rights in tort. There is no difficulty in the case of fraudulent misrepresentation; there is a right to rescind and a right to damages as well. But until the Misrepresentation Act it had been a general principle of English law that you could not get damages for an innocent misrepresentation, or in general even a negligent one. The Misrepresentation Act has now defined very carefully what your civil remedies can be. There are cases in which you can get both the contract rescinded and damages. There are other cases in which you cannot get damages but you can have the contract rescinded. It would be contrary to the general principles of this Bill, which, as I have said, is a Bill which imposes obligations to be enforced by the criminal law, if we started putting into it clauses which are in conflict with what we have carefully decided the civil law to be in the Misrepresentation Act. It is for those reasons that I am unable, I am afraid, to accept the Amendment.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord very much for his reply. Far be it from me to enter into any kind of legal argument with the Lord Chancellor. I am not a lawyer, and the information given me is from the legal department of my Consumer Council. I naturally take him to mean that the view expressed by my representatives, that the Misrepresentation Act is not going to give the same kind of protection this Amendment would have given, may not be correct. I hope that is so. I hope that what the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, has said will give the kind of protection we
638
are seeking in this Bill. I will study with great care and interest what the noble and learned Lord has said. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment to Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 33, as amended, agreed to.
8.37 p.m.
Clause 34 agreed to.
LORD PARGITER LORD PARGITER moved, after Clause 34, to insert the following new clause:
Records of transactions in imported goods
" —(1) The Board of Trade may by order require that any person dealing in imported goods of a kind specified in the order shall keep and retain for a period of at least two years a true record of every transaction in which he engages by way of trade in such goods other than a sale by retail and such record shall include the names and addresses of the parties to any such transaction together with particulars of the date of the transaction and of the description, quantity and origin of the goods which were the subject thereof.
(2) The record mentioned in the previous subsection shall be a 'document' for the purposes of subsection (1)(c) of section 27 of this Act.
(3) Any person who fails to comply with any requirement of this section or any order made there under or wilfully destroys or defaces any record of the kind mentioned in this section before the expiration of two years from the date when it was made shall be guilty of an offence."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is designed for a particular purpose and to cover a particular difficulty in which local authorities find themselves at the present time. Clause 27(1)(c) enables an authorised officer to require the production of books or documents, but there is nothing in the Bill which requires a person to keep documents. Obviously, he does for normal trade purposes, but he is not obliged to and there is nothing in the Bill which says he must. Generally speaking, it would probably be quite wrong to make such a requirement part of the general trade and business they undertake, but there is a specific case with regard to imported goods and a specific case also where those imported goods are imported in bulk and then broken down. There are such things as butter, lard, honey and wine, to take examples of goods which are imported in bulk from foreign countries. They are broken down, very often blended and

639
so on. It is within the knowledge of officers in the local authorities that a good deal of misdescription goes on as a result, but they are quite unable to get at it because they cannot get at the original record, as the documents are not necessarily available, and there is no requirement that they should be produced.
What this Amendment does is to ensure that the documents shall be available for a reasonable period and shall describe what has happened to the goods after the first importer brought them into this country. It would mean that what it is now impossible to deal with in the way of misdescription would become possible to deal with. There would still be a great deal of difficulty about it, but at least it would act as some check on what happens at the present time.
It will be within the knowledge of your Lordships that not so long ago a great fuss was made about imported wines and about a misdescription which was applied to them. Some importers argued that they improved the wines by blending them, although they kept the original labels. That may be, but that does not alter the fact that it is still a misdescription. But unless you have some sort of record to begin with as to where the wine comes from, and other information about it, there is not much that can be done. This applies also to the other articles that I have mentioned, and may well apply to other types of goods. Having regard to the fact that so far the Government have not accepted many Amendments, except the one red letter one that has been moved for the Government, I hope they will look a little more favourably on this Amendment than they have done upon many others that have been moved. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 34 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Pargiter.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: I have sympathy with the noble Lord in his Amendment, although I am not absolutely certain of the actual words he has used. I am not quite certain what the interpretation of "dealing in" is. I do not know whether it is wide enough to cover the kind of cases that he has in mind. It is not only main importers who, as I
640
read this, are affected. It means importers dealing in the goods. He seems to be treating this as applying to anybody who has anything to do with imported goods, including the blending of them and so forth, and who may buy them at third or fourth hand after the importing. I am not quite certain whether the actual drafting here will cover the points he has in mind. But, subject to that, I am in considerable sympathy with his idea.
LORD PARGITER: I am not wedded to this form of words; I am merely wedded to the principle. If the Government would indicate that they accept the principle, and would provide a more suitable form of words I should be only too happy to withdraw the Amendment on that basis.
LORD BROWN: My noble friend referred to the fact that we had not accepted many Amendments. We did accept one, but eventually it was withdrawn. But I would point out that although we have not accepted Amendments we have undertaken to consider a large number of cases, as is customary when, as so often happens, Amendments are not phrased in a way to fit into the Bill. I do not want to be accused of being too Micawber-like.
This Amendment would enable the Board of Trade to place onerous record-keeping requirements upon all who deal in imported goods, and I cannot think that we should be justified in accepting it. I would first of all point out that if the goods have passed through several hands on their way to the consumer—and there is nothing in the new clause to suggest that these several hands through which the goods pass must not keep them, except for the fact that it leaves out retail sales—the dealers may well not know whether or not they are imported goods.
In the second place, I believe that, in most cases, the normal records kept by traders will suffice to enable the Bill to be properly enforced; and it would not be right to give the Board power to impose a special record-keeping duty on all to cover a small minority of cases. Finally, the clause which my noble friend proposes would invite the Board of Trade to impose an onerous requirement in respect of, and only in respect

641
of, imported goods. I should be the first to hope that our traders would prefer to stock British goods and that our shoppers would prefer to buy British goods. But we cannot pursue that aim by building into this Bill a discrimination which I am quite sure would be contrary to our international obligations, legal and otherwise.
Perhaps I may just add that there must always be an importer into this country, and if that importer is guilty of applying a false description, then he can be assailed for the act and he will have to produce the information. Whether that information be elsewhere in some other country, if he is selling goods in this country with a false description, and if they want to know what the content of the wine is and so on, the Board have power under this Bill to insist that the information is provided. For this reason I have been puzzled as to the real essential purpose of this new clause; and perhaps my comments may satisfy my noble friend that it is not really so necessary as he may have thought.
LORD DRUMALBYN: May I just add a word to what the noble Lord has said? He will recollect that on Second Reading I referred to the report of the weights and measures inspector in which he talked about the difficulties of dealing with trade descriptions on imported goods. I thought that perhaps the noble Lord's Amendment would help with that. The noble Lord, Lord Brown, has referred to the fact that it is possible, shall I say, to "nail" the importer. I should like to be satisfied that imported goods are not at an advantage as compared with British goods, in the sense that somebody can always be "nailed" on imported goods, just as much as on British goods, where there is a false trade description put on by a manufacturer. This is what one wants. It is not a question of discriminating against a foreigner, but a matter of making certain that the foreigner is not put in a position of advantage in comparison with British goods.
LORD PARGITER: Frankly, while obviously I am not going to get far with this Amendment, I was not getting, or seeking to get, at the original importer. He will import in good faith and he will break down the bulk and will sell it with
642
a proper description. There is no question that he will necessarily be at fault in selling his bulk article which he has imported, and then has broken down to some extent to go for blending purposes and various other things. The point at issue is what the person who buys the article from him does with it, and what ultimately it arrives as when it gets into the shop. It is in order to get this right that I put this Amendment down. Unless you can get at the original record you really cannot do anything about it. If you suspect that a person has given a wrong description to a blended article, or something of that kind, and his records show that he has bought certain goods and so on, it is possible to go back to where the one part of the product which is being sold was imported, and from that to establish the case with regard to the extent to which there may be a misdescription of the goods which are being sold to the retailer. I should not think that that would be so difficult.
What my noble friend has now said is that in fact this would create difficulties, and would impose on the importer something of a severe penalty. Where is the severe penalty in having to keep a record of his purchases and his sales for a reasonable period? Two years may be the right or the wrong period, but I should not have thought that a duty to keep these records for a reasonable period, so that they are available to be picked up by the weights and measures inspector at some time, in order that he may trace the origin of the article and the point at which it became dealt with in such a way that it ultimately had a misdescription when it came to be sold over the counter, was imposing a particular hardship. The keeping of such records could not possibly be a hardship in any way. I think it is quite reasonable. I admit that often there may be difficulties in this type of case about getting a proper description applied to the goods. But anything which acts as a deterrent and ensures that a proper description is applied, and that people do not carelessly slip up in these matters, will be for the general benefit of the consumer.
LORD BROWN: With great respect to my noble friend, I suggest he is putting upon this matter a very different interpretation from that which could properly

643
be put on it by the words in the new clause. It starts off:
"The Board of Trade may by order require that any person dealing in imported goods of a kind specified in the order shall keep and retain for a period of at least two years a true record …"
He made reference to bulk goods. Well, wine coming in bulk may be dealt with at two or three stages and may involve hundreds, indeed thousands, of firms. This is a power which possibly would cause as many as thousands of firms to keep extensive records. I do not see the purpose of this proposition.
Compare the onerous nature of an order insisting that all those records should be kept with, on the other hand, the difficulty which one might occasionally come across of finding goods which had been imported that were the subject of a false description. There might occasionally be difficulty in tracing these back to the importer, although the person who had offered them for sale would be under some duress to provide the information which would take the authorities back to the importer, otherwise he himself would stand in some danger of prosecution. If he said that they were bought from persons unknown, well, that is not always a tale which could be accepted. So if one leaves the law as it stands, it will in most cases be necessary to go to the importer, who, if he is running his business properly, would have the necessary records. If he has not, then the worse for him according to the law. Therefore I do not think this Amendment is necessary.
I turn now to Lord Drumalbyn's point. Far be it from me to shrink from the idea that we should see to it that importers are not put in a favourable position as against those who supply British goods. I will think about this point to make quite certain, since I am alarmed at the mere thought that this might be so. However, I do not think it is so under this Bill. There must be an importer, and he is under the same requirements in the Bill as anyone else. I do not think that there is any possibility of his being in a different position, but because the anxiety is an acute one in my mind at the moment, I will promise to think about it.
LORD PARGITER: Having regard to the explanation which has been given,
644
although still I think that the Amendment could be made workable—it may not be as precise as it ought to be, and perhaps it is widely drawn whereas it ought to be narrowly drawn—in the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 35:
Orders
35.—
(3) The following provisions shall apply to the making of an order under section 7, 8, 9, 14 or 34 of this Act, except in the case mentioned in section 10(2) thereof, that is to say—
(a) before making the order the Board of Trade shall consult with such organisations as appear to them to be representative of interests substantially affected by it and shall publish, in such manner as the Board think appropriate, notice of their intention to make the order and of the place where copies of the proposed order may be obtained; and
LORD PARGITER LORD PARGITER moved in subsection (3)(a), to leave out the first "such" and insert:
"the associations of local authorities and such other".
The noble Lord said: In the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, who unfortunately is unable to be present, may I say that I am interested in Amendments Nos. 76 to 78. Having regard to the discussion which has taken place on Clause 10(2), I do not wish to move Amendments 76 or 77, but I wish to move Amendment No. 78. This Amendment seeks to ensure that those bodies who have to work in close co-operation with the Board of Trade in connection with the orders and with their execution are brought fully in to consultation. I know that the clause says that so far as the Board of Trade are concerned they will consult such organisations or bodies as may appear to them to be interested. The local authority associations themselves will be interested in all circumstances, and they particularly wish that this fact shall be recognised. If there is a particular partnership between the associations and the Board of Trade they wish this to be recognised in this particular clause, whereas other organisations might be brought in from time to time according to the nature of the order. Therefore, as it would appear

645
that they will always be concerned, it would make it clear that the local authorities are virtually partners with the Board of Trade in regard to any orders. I hope that the Minister will be able to accept this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 14, leave out ("such") and insert the said new words.—(Lord Pargiter.)
LORD BROWN: The noble Lord wishes to provide that the Board of Trade must in every case before making an order consult with the associations—and, as his Amendment stands, with all the associations—of local authorities. The weights and measures authorities who will have to enforce orders obviously have a substantial interest in them, and it therefore follows that in such cases the clause as it stands will oblige the Board to consult the organisations representing weights and measures authorities. To that extent the addition of the words proposed by the noble Lord would be superfluous; and to the extent that the Amendment would require the Board to consult as a matter of course with any other associations of local authorities, even though it was apparent that they could have no substantial interest in the particular matter, I suggest that the addition of these words would be quite inappropriate. The force of my argument turns on the assumption that my noble friend in his Amendment is intending to include weights authorities in local associations. I hope that this is the case, because in that case he will understand that the Amendment is not required.
LORD PARGITER: I was dealing with the authorities concerned with the operation of the Act; I may have used the term loosely in the wording of the Amendment. But on the assurance given that the Board of Trade must consult, and having regard to the fact that this will be on record, I think that will be sufficient to satisfy the authorities themselves that they are properly protected.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD STRABOLGI LORD STRABOLGI moved, in subsection (3)(a), after "it" to insert "including advertising and design organisations". The noble Lord said: This is a similar type of Amendment to that which has just been moved by my noble friend Lord Pargiter. I really put
646
it down in order to seek information. The Amendment would make clear in the clause that the Board of Trade will bring the advertising and design organisations into any prior consultations before orders are drafted. It is not, in my view, sufficient to limit consultation to the trade bodies. In this Bill the Government are entering into new fields hitherto left to voluntary control, and it is most important that full consultations should be put in hand and that if possible prior agreement should be reached to ensure that any statutory orders are practicable and easy to understand and also that they do not jeopardise good advertising design and techniques, on which we as a nation depend. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 16, after ("it") insert ("including advertising and design organisations").—(Lord Strabolgi.)
LORD BROWN: We appreciate that there will be cases in which the interests of the advertising and design world are liable to be substantially affected by a proposed order. It will not necessarily always be so. For example, one can envisage that their interests might not be affected by an order under Clause 35(2). But where it is so, Clause 35(3) as it stands already obliges the Board to consult the representative organisations of these interests, and I can assure the noble Lord that the Board would be fully conscious of that duty. I hope, therefore, that he will recognise that it would be superfluous to add this express reference, which might indeed even be interpreted as obliging the Board to consult advertising and design organisations in every case even though their interests were unaffected. I hope that with that assurance the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.
LORD STRABOLGI: I am grateful to my noble friend for that assurance, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.0 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I rise to move Amendment No. 80 merely to try to find out what the actual procedure is to be here. Since we last dealt with this matter we have added a provision in regard to 28 days. I take it that this is intended to be a minimum period. But I

647
was wondering whether the timing of the various operations is put in chronological order. As drafted it appears that the first step is to consult, the second step is to publish, and the third step is to consult again if anybody makes representations. Is that correct?—because that is the way it is set out. Perhaps the noble Lord will be able to explain. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 16, after ("shall") insert ("thereafter").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD BROWN: I do not think it is necessary to specify the sequence in which the Board of Trade must carry out their obligations, imposed by Clause 35(3), to consult with representative organisations and to give notice of their intention to make an order. Indeed, it could be positively unhelpful for all concerned to impose a rule to this effect. The best technique for evolving the order will, I suggest, depend very much on the nature of the particular case. Sometimes the consultation can best be conducted on the basis of a very general proposition, and at the end of the process it will be quite possible to draft an order in near-final form. But experience in other fields suggests that this will not always be so. In some circumstances it may be practicable to start with the draft of an order, and far more helpful for everyone to have this as a focal point for the process of consultation. Indeed, sometimes it may be best to combine those two approaches: to begin with consultations on a general proposition, and then, in the light of those consultations, to produce a draft of the order, and proceed with further consultations on the basis of the draft. Therefore the answer to the noble Lord's question—I can understand his wanting to get this answer—is that we are not trying to impose any particular order of sequence. I hope that will satisfy him.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I would just ask the noble Lord to make it clear—because I think this is the intention, and I am sure that people outside would like to know—that when he is talking about making a draft of an order he is not talking about making an order. That is quite a different thing.
LORD BROWN: That is quite right. It is a proposition for debate.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am much obliged. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 35 agreed to.
Clause 36 agreed to.
Clause 37 [Interpretation]:
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved, in the definition of "advertisement", after "list", to insert:
"but does not include any label printed on or affixed to goods or to any wrapper or outer container."
LORD DRUMALBYN: I hope the noble Lord will say that this Amendment is unnecessary, because I do not think anybody in the advertising world understands an advertisement to cover a
"label printed on or affixed to goods or to any wrapper or outer container."
The activities are considered quite distinct. The activities of packing and what is put on packing—if anything is put on at all—are quite distinct from the activities of making goods known. I think I have said quite enough about this, and I need not go any further at this stage, although I may have to do so later, in view of what the noble Lord may reply. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 35, after ("list") insert the said new words.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD BROWN: I have a long note here, but I think I can possibly satisfy the noble Lord with a very short answer. If the label refers only to the goods to which it is affixed, then I am advised that it is certainly not an advertisement. If, on the other hand, the label attached to goods or wrapped around goods refers to goods other than those around which it is wrapped, then it may well be an advertisement. I do not know whether that will satisfy the noble Lord. If it does not, I shall read him my much longer note.
LORD DRUMALBYN: That seems to be perfectly understandable and perfectly sensible. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved, after the definition of "goods", to insert:
""to a material degree" means to such a degree as is likely to induce a purchase of goods or acceptance of an offer to provide services, accommodation or facilities."
The noble Lord said: This is an important Amendment, in the sense that it goes to the root of the interpretation of the Bill. As the noble Lord is well aware, I am very glad that the words "to a material degree" have been added to the Bill, because without them one might have had a certain number of—I do not want to say vexatious, but trivial prosecutions which would not really be justified from the point of view of the public purse or anything else, and which would cause a lot of trouble. However, the question is: how are the words "to a material degree" to be interpreted? If you do not interpret them at all, then you are going to have a lot of case law developing on what is "to a material degree". The Molony Committee itself gave an indication—it would be wrong to say that it was a definition—of what they meant in regard to similar, though not identical, words, and their indication was very similar to what I have attempted to put down as a definition in this case. I hope the noble Lord will be able to accept this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 37, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: I should like to support this Amendment. It is simple and clear, it carries one part of our general misdescriptions clause, and it makes clear the test of falsity is its dynamic effect on the buyer, not to abstract considerations about the falsity of the description itself. It seems to me eminently suitable and it fits into the Bill. I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Brown, that as we have now reached Amendment No. 85, and he has not accepted a single Amendment, it might be an act of grace as well as of wisdom to accept this Amendment, which seems in every possible way to improve the Bill.
LORD STRABOLGI: I should like to support this Amendment which is in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, and the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood.
LORD BROWN: I am sorry to appear ungracious. May I remind the noble Baroness that I have undertaken to consider, and I hope to come back to, a number of Amendments in response to arguments that have been made. I cannot agree that this Amendment is necessary or desirable. If the Amendment were accepted the prosecution would have to prove that every false trade description was such as to be "likely to induce a purchase of goods". I think that is surely not something which the noble Baroness would like to see put into this Bill, because it would mean that a large number of people who would otherwise be prosecuted would escape prosecution. The prosecution would also have to prove that every misdescription of a service was such as to be "likely to induce acceptance of an offer to provide services". This would be an unwarrantably heavy burden. If the Amendment is intended to provide that a statement should be regarded as false to a material degree if it were proved to have induced a particular person to buy the goods or accept the offer of services, this would be still less acceptable. To make the issue depend on the effect produced on a single individual, who might have most unreasonable expectations, would be quite unjustifiable.
What is false to a material degree is a matter which must be left to be determined by the courts in the light of the circumstances of each case which comes before them, and I agree that there will be some Case Law built up around this. The ordinary test will apply, of whether the degree of falsity would be likely to be material to the average buyer in the circumstances, to the reasonable man. I am sure that it would be a mistake to substitute some manufactured criterion. The words "to a material degree" are a reference to goods and not to the state of mind of the person buying them.
LORD DRUMALBYN: They are a reference to the trade description of the goods.
LORD BROWN: I am sorry they are a reference to the trade description of the goods, and not to the state of mind of the person buying them. It would be very dangerous to introduce this Amendment, and with great reluctance (because the Committee is desirous of my accepting at least one) I still ask the

651
noble Baroness and the noble Lord to withdraw this Amendment.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I rather suspected that the noble Lord would treat this Amendment as being too limiting, and I quite accept that what the Molony Committee gave as a general indication does not necessarily make a complete definition. I should have liked the noble Lord to give some further guidance as to what is meant by "to a material degree", but if he considers that this is impossible I still feel very strongly that we should stick to the words "to a material degree", in the belief that we know generally what they mean even though we cannot define them in detail. I hope that in the course of this Bill the Government will not be shaken out of standing by the words "to a material degree". I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 37 shall stand part of the Bill?
9.12 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: Before the Committee leaves Clause 37, I wonder whether I might ask my noble friend a question which has troubled me all through the course of this Bill. It is whether the word "advertisement" includes editorial comment on consumer goods. As the Committee are aware, most newspapers to-day (and the same is true of magazines) carry women's pages which give very full descriptions of goods, including the price and where they can be bought—though I do not include sponsored supplements in newspapers, but only the editorial matter. These, of course, are closely linked with consumer advertising, and in fact are a very important adjunct of information to the consumer.
I imagine that the Government might find themselves in the position of wishing to impose certain orders on advertising, on show cards and so on, but finding that the goods were also being described, equally fully, in these supplements and women's pages. I should like an assurance that they would not try to impose similar requirements on the editors of these newspapers and magazines, as this would appear to be a de
652
finite infringement of the liberty of the Press.
LORD DRUMALBYN: May I add just a few remarks to that point, because I think it is one that I made on Clause 1, and the noble Lord, Lord Brown, said he would look at in broad terms. I was talking then about journalists' applying false descriptions as people in the course of a trade or business. I am not quite certain of the right way of dealing with this matter. I know that many people feel that it is anomalous to have a Bill which deals with advertisements in a way in which they have not been dealt with before—and, of course, this is part of the major purpose of the Bill: the application of a trade description in advertisements—without defining the word "advertisement" except in this rather negative way. I should like the noble Lord to consider this point. I will not say more than that about it.
I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, that it would be highly undesirable if we were to have a number of lawsuits arising where newspaper proprietors were prosecuted for what had appeared in the editorial parts of their newspapers. I think this should be avoided. I am not saying that it is not possible to disguise advertisements in the form of editorial comment, because this is a matter with which, in my other capacity, I have to deal quite a bit—and so do the Press Council. But I think it would be highly undesirable if journalists in the course of their ordinary activities in connection with the business of newspapers were liable to prosecution for giving false trade descriptions. There are two ways of dealing with this problem: either define the word "advertising," or define the words, "in the course of trade or business".
LORD BROWN: I am advised that the term "advertising" does not cover editorial comment. I imagine—and this is my own contribution—that the question of intention would come into it, and whether the comment is or is not paid for by somebody who wishes to sell goods. I take note of what noble Lords have said. I will explore the question a little to see whether we have it quite clear.
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: May I suggest to my noble friend that this

653
leaves the whole thing open to complete and absolute abuse?
LORD BROWN: I do not think my noble friend understood me. I am advised conclusively that "advertising" does not include editorial comment.
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: That is what I am saying. If you allow unlimited and unrestricted editorial comment of the kind my noble friend Lord Strabolgi was talking about, this would defeat the object of the clause.
LORD BROWN: I really do not think there will be much difficulty about this if the editorial comment is not paid for by the advertiser. If it is inspired by payment, then I imagine it would cease to be editorial comment and would become advertising. But I will get the whole matter defined.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: Could my noble friend give me guidance on what attitude would be taken, for example, to a firm's public relations hand-out which was inaccurate in this manner? This is material which has certainly been paid for by the firm and issued by their agents, the public relations firm, but which has been adapted as news by the editor of some newspaper.
LORD BROWN: I am now being asked to interpret the words of the Bill. I imagine this would be advertising, the definition of which includes catalogues, circulars and price lists referring to goods which are for sale.
LORD STRABOLGI: I am grateful to my noble friend and we look forward to returning to this matter at a later stage. This is a very important point indeed. I worked for many years for a woman's magazine with a large circulation. It is sometimes difficult to draw a dividing line. You can get a sponsored booklet on, say, knitting, which is entirely paid for by the wool manufacturers and is tantamount to an advertisement. On the other hand, you can get a "pull out" which is purely editorial presentation and which is not paid for or linked in any way with the advertiser, and which may be just as full of description as the advertisements themselves. I think it essential that the freedom of the Press should be maintained over this, and that
654
they should know exactly where they are when this Bill becomes law. I am grateful to my noble friend for his offer to look at it.
LORD DRUMALBYN: May I say something? What the noble Lord has just said, and what the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, has said, emphasises the need to get a definition of "advertising".
Clause 37 agreed to.
Clauses 38 and 39 agreed to.
Clause 40 [Continuation, for three years, of Orders in Council requiring indication of origin]:
9.18 p.m.
BARONESS PLUMMER BARONESS PLUMMER moved, in subsection (1)(a), to leave out, "except in so far as it requires any goods to bear an indication of origin at the time of importation". The noble Baroness said: This Amendment would remove an addition which has been made to the Bill since it was previously introduced in your Lordships' House. The effect of the addition is to bring all the Orders on origin marking to an end in so far as they refer to imports, as soon as the Bill comes into force, instead of three years later at the same time as the other provisions of the Orders. I would ask the Government most earnestly to reconsider this matter. Many of these Orders have been in force, for over thirty years, and a great deal of thought will be needed by all interests concerned on how they should be replaced by new orders made under this Bill. To remove the importation provisions of the old Orders straight away cannot but prejudice this consideration.
I am particularly concerned about several orders in the agriculture field. May I take eggs as an example. It is an easy matter to make sure that eggs are marked with the country of origin at the time of importation, but if marking is not required at that stage it is clearly difficult to enforce origin marking at a later stage, and it is easy for foreign eggs to be put on sale unstamped. There are also the Orders relating to meat, and in particular ham and bacon. The markings required on carcases of meat are of a considerable extent. The idea, of course, is to ensure that some part of the marking survives when the carcase is cut up. How much easier it is to check

655
the marking at the point of import than at the time of some subsequent sale in this country. It may also be that there would be greater reluctance on the part of those importing to this country to apply the marks to carcases if they realised that it was no longer an offence for unmarked carcases to be imported.
I am not suggesting that these Orders do not require review. It may well be that in some cases different forms of marking, or indeed none at all, would be sensible. But this would need a good deal of thought and consultation with all those who would be affected. I submit this cannot be done for all these Orders in six months. I think it would be far better to leave them all exactly as they are until the three-year period is over. If the Board of Trade and the other Departments concerned could bring forward replacement Orders more quickly, they would still have the power to revoke the existing Order under Clause 40(3). There seems, therefore, no case for removing the importation provisions of all the old Orders by a provision in this Bill. I hope that the Government will be prepared to accept my Amendment, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 18, leave out from ("1926") to ("or") in line 20.—(Baroness Plummer.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: I hope that the noble Lord will accept this Amendment. I gather that he will, and in that case I shall not say more than that I fully support it.
LORD BROWN: We had thought that since any Orders eventually made under Clause 8 of the Bill to replace these old Orders under the 1926 Act would not require an indication of origin at the time of importation, it was unnecessary that the old Orders should maintain such a requirement for the rest of their life. Having listened carefully to what the noble Baroness has said, I now believe that there is indeed a case for not abandoning this feature of the old Orders so quickly. Without necessarily going along with all her remarks, I can see that there may be problems which would take time to resolve. There is in particular the point that the precise method of marking prescribed under an existing Order may
656
be one which it is not really practicable to apply except where the goods are being produced or prepared for shipment. If it is eventually decided that such goods should be subject to a new marking Order under Clause 8, it may then be possible to prescribe some other form of marking which can conveniently be applied after the goods have reached this country. Or, if the importers would still find it more convenient to have the overseas suppliers mark the goods, it is conceivable that they may wish to incorporate provisions in their new contracts to achieve this, instead of simply relying upon the exporter, because he knows it is a condition of importation under the law of the United Kingdom. Even though it may be perfectly practicable to set up these new arrangements in the course of the next three years, it could well be difficult to set them up by the time the Bill comes into force.
I am therefore quite willing to accept the noble Lady's Amendment in principle, but I think that if we do so a further consequential Amendment may be necessary, for certain technical reasons, concerning enforcement of the requirements. If the noble Baroness will be kind enough to withdraw her Amendment, I will undertake to put forward at Report stage another Amendment which achieves precisely the effect she desires, and deals as necessary with the consequential point I have in mind. I wish I could have made a similar speech to the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood. Unfortunately I have been unable to do so, and I apologise for that.
BARONESS PLUMMER: I will willingly withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 40 agreed to.
Clause 41 [Short title and commencement]:
9.25 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI LORD STRABOLGI moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "Consumer Protection" and insert "Trade Descriptions". The noble Lord said: As I suggested on Second Reading, I do not think the present Title to the Bill is accurate. On Second Reading my noble friend Lord Brown said the remarks

657
made by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, and myself about the present Title struck a chord of deep sympathy in him. I fully agree with my noble friend Lady Burton of Coventry, when she said that the term "consumer protection" belongs to a bygone era, and that we have now moved on to consumer education, with the trade and consumer organisations all working together. The words "consumer protection" do not apear at all in the Preamble to the Bill nor in any of its clauses, except this one.
The title appears to me to be rather slanted, as it gives the impression that there is a continuous state of conflict between the trader and the consumer. The present Title is not fair to the great majority of honest manufacturers and retailers whose interest it is, and must be, to satisfy their customers. I much prefer the Title of the previous Bill, introduced in the last Parliament, which your Lordships will remember was the Protection of Consumers (Trade Descriptions) Bill, because this at least had the words "Trade Descriptions" in the Title, which is what the Bill is all about. It seems to me to be most unfortunate that a Bill like this, which deals with false or misleading descriptions, should itself bear a Title which is a misdescription. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 23, leave out ("Consumer Protection") and insert ("Trade Descriptions").—(Lord Strabolgi.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: The noble Lord, Lord Brown, may recall that when the previous Bill was introduced I had an Amendment down to leave out the words "Consumer Protection" and let the Bill be described as the Trade Descriptions Bill. This seems to be what the Bill is all about. As the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, has said, it is not only the consumer who has to be protected, nor do all the clauses deal with consumer protection. Admittedly they do not all deal with trade description directly either, but the Bill is in the tradition of trade descriptions and merchandise marks. In the course of the Second Reading debate I suggested that it might be better to find a name which would reflect the purpose of giving protection all round in the way of fair trade, and to call it the Fair Trading Bill. If the noble Lord, Lord Brown, is now prepared to
658
accept the Title, Trade Descriptions Bill, my noble friends and I on this side would support him.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: I do not feel strongly about this point, but I think it would be a mistake to leave out the word "consumer". If we have only "Trade Descriptions", a vast proportion of the people we are hoping to help with this Bill will not realise that it is for their benefit. I agree with my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn that we do not want to set up any conflict between the trader, the consumer and the manufacturer. On the other hand, if we have a Title which has no mention of the consumer, in the eyes of the ordinary public it will be another Bill like the Merchandise Marks Act and the Weights and Measures Act, which they will think has no personal relation to them. This legislation has a personal relation to everybody who is concerned with buying, selling and manufacturing, and though I am not opposed to putting in "Trade Descriptions". I think it would be a mistake to take out "Consumer Protection". Therefore I oppose the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi.
LORD CAWLEY: I have only one objection to this Amendment. I think it would be sure to cause confusion between the Trade Marks Act and a Trade Description Act, and "Consumer Protection" is quite a different name.
LORD BROWN: The fact that I expressed my sympathy with the words "Trade Descriptions" on Second Reading has been referred to, and I stick to that; but in spite of my own personal preference I am in the peculiar position of saying that I must advise your Lordships to reject the Amendment. Frankly, some of my colleagues in the Government prefer the other name. Owing to the circumstances in which we have rather had to rush this Bill through, I am in the situation of having to say that I do not desert my original expression of opinion about the Title of the Bill, but that I am unable to accept the Amendment. I am sorry to put your Lordships in this position, but it is unavoidable, so far as I am concerned, at this stage.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I think it would be unfortunate if the noble Lord were to reject this Amendment out of hand, because it might cause a Division

659
at this time of night and bring the matter to a test at a time when the Committee is not as full as it might be. I think it would be unfortunate to have a conflict on this at the end of a long stage when we have been considering a great many points. I do not think the noble Lord has fully made up his mind about this question of the Title and therefore I would counsel the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, not to press the Amendment at the present time. But perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Brown, will think more about it between now and the next stage.
LORD BROWN: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I said what I did just now because I did not want to get into a false position over this matter. I am grateful for the advice, and I willingly undertake to consider the matter.
LORD STRABOLGI: I am grateful for my noble friend's undertaking to consider the matter. Perhaps he will apply his mind to some kind of compromise whereby both he and I, and the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, and the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, can be satisfied, perhaps by calling it something like the Consumer Protection (Trade Descriptions) Bill. Having put out the thought, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Remaining clause agreed to.
Schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendment.