Lords Sitting of 26 November 1969

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Chester):
The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

THE LORD BISHOP OF ROCHESTER
Richard David, Lord Bishop of Rochester—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

PROCEDURE ON UNSTARRED QUESTIONS
2.35 p.m.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to make a brief Personal Statement. At the end of yesterday's proceedings I referred to a report from the Procedure Committee about noble Lords speaking after the Minister has replied to an Unstarred Question. I am afraid that I inadvertently misled the House since I am informed that no such Report has been made, although this question has been discussed and is under active consideration at the moment. I am afraid that it was this knowledge which led me into the error of saying that the Committee had, in fact, reported. While adhering to the general principles of what I stated last night, I should like to apologise for an inaccurate statement.

DESTRUCTION OF HEDGEROWS
LORD SORENSEN: 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, in view of the large number of country hedges being destroyed and thus spoiling a countryside amenity, what action is being taken by local authorities covering rural areas to ensure that such destruction shall only
1250
occur when it is essential; and what investigation has been made to determine on balance to what extent hedgerows are an agricultural advantage or disadvantage.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET): My Lords, planning permission is, under the Town and Country Planning Acts, not required for the removal of hedges. Under the Acts local planning authorities may however make tree preservation orders on hedgerow trees and saplings, and a number of such orders have been made. Grants may be paid under both agriculture and amenity legislation for tree planting. The agricultural advantages and disadvantages of hedgerows are kept under review by the Shelter Research Committee of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on which university and other research organisations are represented.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that portion of his reply which I happened to hear, may I ask him whether he would reply a little more clearly to the last part of my Question; that is to say, what investigation has been made to determine the respective advantages and disadvantages from the demolition of hedgerows?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I apologise for my inaudibility. The matter is being considered by the Shelter Research Committee of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and on this Committee are representatives of universities and other relevant research organisations.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, is it to be taken that the information is then passed on to the respective and responsible authorities in the rural areas?
LORD KENNET: Yes, my Lords.
LORD OAKSHOTT: My Lords. is there any reason to believe that the principle, well accepted in the past, that hedgerows prevent soil erosion has been abandoned or changed in any way?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I understand from such evidence as is available so far that hedgerows prevent soil erosion only for rather a short distance into the field, and that the present best

1251
opinion is that in arable farming it is a better bet to have large windbreaks.
LORD ALLERTON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that large fields have considerable agricultural advantages, and that tractor time spent turning round is tractor time wasted? Also, is he aware that the present cost of cutting and laying hedges is in the neighbourhood of some £4 a chain?
LORD KENNET: Yes, my Lords; and this is of course the reason why farmers like to uproot hedgerows. Nevertheless, there is an amenity consideration which has to be balanced against the farming consideration.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, arising out of the original reply, may I ask whether Her Majesty's Government realise that this wholesale destruction of hedges means also the wholesale destruction of nesting places of insectivorous birds which do so much to reduce agricultural pests?
LORD KENNET: Yes, my Lords; this factor also is taken into account.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that it is only a relatively recent innovation to have hedges, and that before the Inclosure Acts hedges were far less common than they are at present and the soil did not then become eroded?
LORD KENNET: Yes, my Lords. Hedges are mainly of 18th and early 19th century origin; that is quite correct.

AGENCY CHARGES ON SMALL BUSINESS TRANSFERS
2.39 p.m.
LORD SORENSEN: 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 what consideration has been given to the allegation that certain business agencies have been making excessive charges for the transfer of small businesses whether engaged on production or distribution.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD BROWN): My Lords,
1252
we have seen a few reports alleging excessive charges by agents for the transfer of small businesses. The most recent was about six months ago. If my noble friend has evidence that this practice is widespread he may like to send it to me, but I should explain that we have no powers at present to take any action.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, am I to understand from my noble friend that it is recognised that there are excessive charges in certain cases? If that is so, would it not be wise and appropriate for the Government at least to investigate the matter to see what action can be taken?
LORD BROWN: My Lords, no. We do not recognise that there are excessive charges. There may be, but the recognition of excess implies the ability to lay down a standard, and in a matter as complex as assisting in the sale of a business, with all the necessary calculations as to future profitability and so on, the laying down of a standard is a very difficult matter indeed. If my noble friend has examples we should be interested to hear of them because this would give us data on which we could consider the future of the matter. But we do not believe that this is a widespread evil at the moment, and if such an evil did in fact exist we have no powers at the moment to deal with it.

SCOTTISH FORESTRY EDUCATION CENTRE
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what action has been taken to implement the recommendations of the Scottish Technical Education Consultative Council that a Forestry Education Centre be established in Scotland for craft level and supervisory courses.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD HUGHES): My Lords, it is expected that only one forestry education centre will be required in Great Britain for supervisory courses. Claims from education authorities in Scotland, England and Wales are being

1253
considered, as well as the views of many other interested bodies, and it is hoped to make an announcement soon. Craft level courses will in any event be provided at a centre in Scotland, but their location must await a decision on the Great Britain centre for supervisory courses.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for that helpful reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that the proposal for craft courses was made three years ago and for supervisory courses 18 months ago; and as the site in Banff was proposed and nothing seems to have happened, will he hasten a satisfactory conclusion to this matter and in particular of the siting of at any rate the craft level course centre in Scotland?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, a full course of consultations has been necessary, not only with education authorities but also with many bodies having an interest in training and education for the forestry industry. I do not think that a decision will now be long delayed.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, will the Government bear in mind that about 75 per cent. of the afforestation in Great Britain is now being done in Scotland?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, while not necessarily committing myself to the percentage quoted by the noble Earl, I can assure him that the Scottish Office is well aware of the preponderant position of Scotland.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, while not necessarily asking the noble Lord to commit himself further, may I ask him whether he will hear in mind that there is great anxiety in parts of Wales and in the South of England that this one supervisory centre intended to serve the whole of Great Britain should be established either in Banff or in Inverness, which virtually means being out of reach of the larger part of Great Britain?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I should find it difficult to agree with that point of view.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord again, may I ask him to give us an assurance that
1254
unworthy competitive regional points will not delay this matter any longer? Does not the noble Lord agree that this centre should go to the country where it belongs?

ANGLO-FRENCH ARMY HELICOPTERS
2.44 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the anticipated cancellation cost incurred by the French Government following their cancellation of 150 WG 13 Army helicopters ordered; and what effect this will have on the cost of the British military order.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, MINISTRY OF TECHNOLOGY (LORD DELACOURT-SMITH): My Lords, I must apologise for the length of the Answer to the noble Earl's Question. The WG 13 is still in the development stage. No production orders can yet be placed by either Government. Cancellation costs do not therefore occur. The decision to discontinue the Attaque variant was taken by France solely for budgetary reasons. As the noble Earl may have seen in the Press this morning, it does not affect their continued participation in the basic development of the aircraft nor their requirement for the Naval variant. At a meeting of the Anglo-French Defence Projects Board in Paris last Monday our two countries committed themselves to the remainder of the development programme up to the launching of the production of the Naval variant in 1972. We had no requirement ourselves for the Attaque variant and its removal from the programme results in some saving in development costs. Moreover, as almost all the work on this variant was to have been done in France, the effect on the United Kingdom industry will be marginal.
I would also draw your Lordships' attention to the position we have now reached on the SA 330 and SA 341 helicopters. On Monday we agreed with the French to start production of the SA 341. We are satisfied that technical

1255
problems on this aircraft have been overcome and that it will fully meet United Kingdom Service requirements. Its export prospects are also good. The greater part of the production will be carried out in the United Kingdom. Work on the SA 330 is also going well. The first jointly produced aircraft have been delivered to the French Army and R.A.F. deliveries start next year. Export orders for 35 aircraft have already been gained.
Both we and the French are convinced that our package agreement offers the best means of meeting our future helicopter requirements. We are also, through the strong links which have been forged between United Kingdom and French firms, steadily increasing our industrial capability in this field.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that almost record detailed statement in reply, may I ask him what the latest estimates are for the research and development costs of the WG 13 helicopter, and whether he can advise us when it is expected that this helicopter will come into service?
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, I am afraid that I am not in a position to give the detailed development costs, nor, at this stage, a precise estimate of when the aircraft may come into service.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, can the noble Lord inform us how many production orders are anticipated for the Naval variant of the WG 13 by this country and France?
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, in our own case we are expecting at this stage between 80 and 100 orders, and we expect a somewhat similar number in the case of the French Government.

NEW FOREST BILL [H.L.]
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to make a further provision for the New Forest. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read la —(The Earl of Malmesbury.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be Printed.

CONSUMER PROBLEMS
2.49 p.m.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRYrose to call attention to future administrative developments on consumer problems; and to move for Papers. The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in rising to move the Motion which stands in my name on the Order Paper, perhaps I could start with the legal problem of small claims. I hope to cover four main sections in my remarks to-day, namely, the legal problem of small claims; consumer inquiries or complaints; how the Trade Descriptions Act is working; questions being asked in the consumer world.
In our debate on June 23, 1966, I drew attention to the problems and cost of bringing these cases to court, and a year later, on November 14, 1967, I stated what we all realised to be an obvious fact: that we are all too unaware of our legal rights, but, in addition to that, the difficulty, the cost and the uncertainty of enforcing them by legal action deters us from making the attempt. If an aggrieved customer has been persistent, if he has tried what seem to him to be all possible channels—the retailer, the manufacturer, the Citizens Advice Bureaux, the local Weights and Measures inspector, his Member of Parliament and perhaps the Press—if he has tried all these and has got nowhere, what remains? The right to take the case to court. Two years ago I believed that court procedure had not been able to solve the problems of the length and the cost of actions, which are both far too great to deal with the problem of small injustices.
As the House will know, Focus is the magazine published by the Consumer Council and their issue of last July contained an interim report entitled, Is the Legal System any Use to Consumers? It is because of this that I have returned to my theme of three years ago. Do consumers consult solicitors? Do they use the courts? The Consumer Council say that they would be more emphatic and advise people to go to a solicitor

1257
were it not for the fact that their experience suggests that the present legal system is not suitable for pressing consumer claims.
They did a special survey into consumer claims; in other words, claims or counter-claims by ordinary people for misrepresentation or for breach of contract on the grounds that goods or services purchased were not satisfactory. The project covered small claims; that is, claims within the £500 limit of county court jurisdiction. But it was chiefly concerned with claims in the region of £20 to £100 as being the range involving sums regarded as substantial by consumers but as relatively small by the legal system.
The Consumer Council feels that consumer claims form a large enough class of potential legal problems to be considered on their own. Research was carried out into county court records. A survey of solicitors and one of consumers was also made. Obviously court records are regarded as confidential, but permission to examine these was obtained from the Lord Chancellor's office and the registrars concerned, provided that no disclosure was made of parties involved. From this research it appeared doubtful whether county courts were a suitable forum for consumer claims, for two main reasons: first, an individual would find it difficult to conduct a case himself in the county court, while representation at any rate for small claims, is prohibitively expensive; and secondly, the unsuitability and expense of court procedure for technical matters.
Solicitors, asked whether they thought an individual without legal representation could bring an action, felt that few people could handle a complex claim, though many could manage a simple debt claim. Most consumer cases have a technical aspect, and solicitors felt that not only technical questions but complex legal ones were often raised in small claims. Many solicitors were concerned at the prohibitive cost of getting justice over small matters, and this point was made by my noble friend Lord Silkin in the debate on the Address at column 69 on October 29 last.
The Citizens' Advice Bureaux have also been concerned for some years about the relatively minor disputes in which the amount of money at stake is small and
1258
where, because of the fear that the cost of legal proceedings might exceed the amount involved, the matter is now often allowed to go by default. They would therefore welcome the development of informal procedures as alternatives to the courts in such cases and have offered to support and co-operate with the Consumer Council in any further research which may be undertaken. I believe that my noble friend Lord Donaldson may be referring to this matter when he comes to speak. But we should welcome some comment from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, and I should like to say to him how much vie all appreciate his intervening today; we know how heavily burdened he is, and we do say "Thank you". We all know his serious concern on matters like these, and I appreciate that a start has been made already in that there is provision in the Administration of Justice Act 1969 by which the financial limit of the cases heard before registrars instead of judges is raised from £30 to £75. This must speed up the procedure. But on the question of expense, would the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor feel able to comment on the small claims courts held in many American towns and cities, as described in the December issue of Focus? Would these be a possibility here?
I come now to consumer inquiries or complaints. As we all know, these are the job of the Citizens' Advice Bureaux and not of the Consumer Council. For some time the Citizens' Advice Bureaux have made a continuous survey of consumer inquiries. To begin with, a pilot scheme was initiated and this was replaced by a system worked out with Board of Trade statisticians. This system was launched in February of this year and was based on a statistically selected sample of about sixty Bureaux distributed all over the country. Those sixty Bureaux were to report on every consumer inquiry. except in the case of Birmingham which was to report on one in ten, in order to lessen the burden of work on the Bureau workers. The forms sent in by the sixty Bureaux to the C.A.B. headquarters are analysed there and weekly reports are sent to the Board of Trade and the Consumer Council, and I myself have a copy. Probably it would help if I stated what the headings are in these weekly reports.

1259
They are five in number: subject; number of inquiries; date of purchase or contract; approximate cost of article or service; and details.
This has not been the success, or (shall I say?) has not proved its usefulness as much as I anyway had hoped. Why? It is my belief that the original intention was that the Consumer Council should follow through these weekly reports, and this they have not done. Why not? I think the Consumer Council would take the view that insufficient detail has been supplied to them. This is a complicated and involved story which I would prefer to leave for the time being. But perhaps I might digress for a moment and say how I had envisaged this information being used.
I wanted to see the Consumer Council dealing with the national picture, obtaining information from the Citizens' Advice Bureaux on which they could build the the national scene, enabling them to stress where various evils were. For example, suppose returns from the Citizens' Advice Bureaux show many complaints either about particular merchandise, particular methods of selling or advertising merchandise, or too many complaints coming from a particular area and reflecting apparently on traders there, I could see the Consumer Council moving in to call attention to that. I have always believed that the Council had a special function at national overall level and also that they had the means, the machinery and the people to do just that. I have still to be convinced that they should deal with actual complaints or should have regional or local offices; but I do see the development of their excellent broadsheets, pamphlets, booklets, which do so much to help us all and which influence necessary public opinion.
Why has this not worked out? Primarily, if one is honest, it has not worked out because the relationship of the Consumer Council to the Citizens' Advice Bureaux has not been a good one. It is not for me to apportion responsibility for that; nor would it help if I did so. But if this basic fact is not realised it will not be possible to put the matter right, and I believe that if the matter cannot be put right a new system must be found. Really the Citizens' Advice Bureaux and
1260
the Consumer Council never talked the same language, especially over paragraph 858 of the Molony Report, which deals with co-operation between them. There is, of course, the further problem that the Citizens' Advice Bureaux have never found it easy to co-operate with a pressure group, and the Consumer Council see themselves very much in this role. I should like to see the Consumer Council helping the Citizens' Advice Bureaux to do their job more successfully. It would mean that the Council would have to master the principles and techniques upon which the C.A.B. movement is based. Long experience, going back over 30 years, has shown which methods produce the best results in C.A.B. work, and help must be acceptable to them.
I personally think that the onus here is on the Consumer Council. If the Molony recommendations are to be implemented successfully, adequate co-operation and co-ordination are essential. This we have not got. How far have we got to-day with what Molony actually recommended? As the House knows, their priorities are given in paragraph 913 of the Report. In so far as hire-purchase and merchandise marks are concerned the major legislation has been enacted, but the law relating to Sale of Goods has still not been revised. Surely this should now have priority?
As Members know, the Sale of Goods Act 1893 gives the purchaser of goods the right to undisturbed possession and to insist that the goods should match the description under which they are sold and comply with reasonable standards of quality and fitness for their purpose, but it allows the seller to contract out of these conditions. The recent Report of the English and Scottish Law Commissions states that sellers of goods should no longer be allowed to contract out of the statutory duties to provide the buyer with what he expects to get. Many of us have felt strongly on the two questions of contracting out and guarantees, and have expressed these feelings on several occasions.
I realise, of course, that so far as the Law Commission's Report on Exemption Clauses is concerned, this matter would ordinarily be for the Board of Trade; but as we are fortunate enough to have the Lord Chancellor intervening,

1261
we hope perhaps to have his views on this aspect. And on two other points, one general and one specific, I wonder whether he would feel able to comment? On the general point, in the United States President Nixon is proposing to expand jurisdiction of the Federal Trade Commission and to establish a new consumer protection division in the Justice Department. Would it be useful for us to consider that general principle here? And on the specific point, I understand that for some little time our own Government have been examining the legislation in force in New York State under which, if someone receives unsolicited goods, they become his property as an unconditional gift. I was intending to ask whether we could bring in such legislation here, because it would be welcomed by many people. But as the House may know, events have caught up with me and we now have a Bill dealing with unsolicited goods to be introduced by Mr. Davidson in another place. It may be that this fact inhibits comment by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. Reverting to the Molony recommendations, I would point out that if the Sale of Goods Act were dealt with we should then be left with the problem of the control of unregistered seals of approval. I think this afternoon we could ask the Government to give us an indication as to when those two particular items will be dealt with.
I come now to my third section, how the Trade Descriptions Act is working. In the October issue of Which?, the organ of the Consumers' Association, there is a cogent précis of the Act, and I think three points are worth quoting. They are these:
"1. The Act is concerned only with descriptions that are false or misleading to a material degree;
2. The Act is not a general prohibition against shoddy goods—it is concerned with misleading descriptions;
3. The Act lays it down that any of these misleading claims is a criminal offence: a guilty trader may get heavily fined but his victim does not necessarily get any recompense."
That is what the Act does. How is it working? As we all know, local Weights and Measures authorities have been given the duty of enforcement of the Act. I think it should be said straight away that
1262
because of public misunderstanding about this Act many Weights and Measures authorities have received a number of quite unrelated complaints from shoppers. Recently, the Consumer Council sent out a questionnaire to 242 chief inspectors of Weights and Measures in order to discover how the Act was working. Replies were received from 174, and my following three points are taken from the report in the November issue of Focus. The answers showed, first of all, that during the first six months of the life of the Act at least 17,500 complaints were registered from all sources. Of these, some 11,200 were possible offences reported by the public, some 4,100 were spotted by members of Weights and Measures departments, and 628 were registered by traders or manufacturers, sometimes against each other, sometimes against their own suppliers. If any noble Lord has been adding up those figures he will of course realise that they do not exactly balance. Secondly, labels giving misleading information were the biggest single source of trouble. Thirdly, the three sectors which the Act deals with —goods, prices, services—are not covered equally comprehensively. Enforcement of the Act's provisions in relation to prices is more difficult than it is over descriptions of goods. This has always been obvious.
The House knows what I think of Section 11, and I do not propose to weary your Lordships with tedious repetition. But strong criticism comes from some sections of the grocery trade—not against the Act but against Section 11, which is felt to be virtually unworkable for them. Some groups declare that they are now in the state where the same article might be on sale in their shops at a variety of prices. Are they right? Is their system of management at fault? Or is the Act in need of amendment?
The Chief Inspector of Weights and Measures for a wide area comprising Westminster, Kensington, Chelsea and Hammersmith, is quoted in the Sunday Telegraph of October 12 last as saying:
"The section dealing with prices is particularly open to evasion and the return of the recommended price, legally meaningless, has been widespread. We must assume that the law will, at some future date, be examined and in part re-drawn."
It is not that Section 11 is not enforceable—of course it is enforceable—but it

1263
is badly drafted, limited and full of loopholes which are widely used.
It would be helpful to know from the Minister what the Government now think of this particular aspect, and of one further point made to me by more than one person. The interpretation of many differences is left to magistrates, and local authorities naturally apply the Act differently. Could the Board of Trade help with some co-ordination and guidance to local inspectors? Presumably their local autonomy is guided by the Board of Trade, and they must work directly in line with their legislation. I think we should bear in mind that they are criminal enforcement officers and their help to consumers is incidental. Some inspectors of Weights and Measures have set up sections to deal with all manner of complaints from local shoppers: the burden has been heavy and additional staff will have to be taken on. But we must look carefully at this and see that there is no wasteful duplication of effort in any area. These, I think, are some of the drawbacks to the success of the Act, but if we exclude Section 11 there is no doubt that the legislation is working well. It has proved a considerable deterrent to that minority in need of such action.
Now I come to the fourth section, questions being asked in the consumer world. In the September issue of the Trade Information Service of the Retail Trading Standards Association, their Director, Mr. Roger Diplock, asked some himself. Several people to whom I have talked said that they could not have thought of better ones. I propose to deal with these for three reasons. The first is that nobody knows more about consumer problems than Mr. Diplock, and the R.T.S.A. has rendered great service to consumers and industry alike. The second is that over a period of almost twenty years never once has the R.T.S.A. given me wrong information. The third is that these are the questions that the consumer world is asking. I informed the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, and the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, that I should be dealing with these.
First of all, I take the Consumer Council. Mr. Diplock asked:
1264
"Has the Consumer Council, grant aided to the extent of £210,000 annually, made its mark on consumer affairs?"
Yes, my Lords, I think it has; but not enough, and not the right one. I shall return to this matter finally. Next he asked:
"If not, to what extent is this due to the restricted terms of reference which forbid the Council to handle consumer complaints?"
At one time I thought the terms of reference needed looking into, but after the work of these past three months I am not so sure. I do not think the Council should handle consumer complaints. Mr. Diplock further asks:
"Does the Council, indeed, fulfil an essential function which warrants the expenditure of public money?"
My Lords, on the publicity side and on some research I think it does, but the word here is "essential" and I do not believe the Council is fulfilling an essential function, its essential function, and I shall come back to this finally.
On the question of public money, I should like to ask something myself. In the current annual report of the Council the accounts section lists "publicity and research" payments as £64,721 Os. 4d. Could we have this item broken down to tell us how much was spent on the national advertising campaign for TELTAG? How much goes on consumer education, schools, colleges, general publicity. What was the cost of the research projects listed in Appendix D? These are all questions involving the expenditure of public money and are asked for information and not in antagonism. I did, of course, give notice of them to the people concerned.
Now we come to the Citizens' Advice Bureau. Mr. Diplock says:
"There was an intention that the Citizens' Advice Bureaux should widen the scope of their help and advice to local residents in order to embrace shoppers' problems. There are now 500 citizens' advice bureaux throughout the country. Has the intention of the Government in fact been realised?"
The scope has been widened to embrace shoppers' problems, but insufficient money has been available to create adequate development.
Two years ago, in our debate on November 11, at col. 614/15, I stressed that more money was needed for this work, which we must remember was laid on the Bureaux by the Government of

1265
the day. Indeed, I said I believed that the Council of the Citizens' Advice Bureaux was quite unable, because of the financial problem, to develop as it should and indeed to appoint the actual staff needed then to deal with this burden. I asked the Government (my Government, if the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, does not mind my saying so) to have a look at this matter, saying that we should at least make sure that the bureaux were equipped financially to staff themselves adequately. I hope the Minister will be able to tell us what has been done about this.
Mr. Diplock further asks,
"… to what extent can these bureaux be manned by experts able to give sound advice to shoppers—or indeed solve the intricacies of their complaints?"
On "complaints", I believe that most lawyers would agree with me that trained voluntary workers in citizens' advice bureaux are as capable of giving sound advice to shoppers as they are of giving sound advice about housing legislation or employment problems, and this has never been in doubt. Concerning "intricacies", I go back seven years ago to our first debate in this House on Molony on November 14, 1962. I stressed then how essential it was that this problem of technical advice was dealt with: that to begin with this should cover four main classes of goods, the four main classes mentioned in the Molony Report as having given rise to most complaints over past years, so that any local citizens' advice bureau which had merchandise brought to it and on which it could not get good technical advice itself, or locally, could refer the matter to the centre. That was in 1962, to a Conservative Government. On March 24, 1965, at col. 637, I tried again, changing my four main classes to five and saying that until this problem of technical advice was dealt with the system would not work, irrespective of who dealt with complaints. That was to a Labour Government, with exactly the same results—nil.
The last question is:
"Can the Bureaux give sound advice to shoppers?"
As recently as last year the Citizens' Advice Bureaux informed me that they could find acceptable solutions to 90 per cent. of the consumer inquiries dealt with, but that the remaining 10 per cent. needed
1266
to be referred to a specialist service. Most people consulting Citizens' Advice Bureaux about disappointing purchases want redress and are not often concerned to punish offenders. Complaints are more often founded in disputes about facts than in matters of law; but even if the squabble could be resolved by legal action there would almost always be a need for expert opinion as to the performance of the offending article.
The last two groups of questions deal with the Weights and Measures authorities. I have already tried to cover these points, and I think other noble Lords will deal with that area. This brings me to my conclusion and to the very fair question, "What do you suggest should be done?" Administratively the most disappointing outcome of all this has been the failure to recognise the Consumer Council as the co-ordinating machinery. The consumer is not nearly so well served centrally as he is locally. There is not nearly enough co-ordination of effort or, indeed, co-operation between the various bodies supposed to be devoted to consumer interests.
I see three outstanding needs. The first one is co-ordination in a non-pressure atmosphere of the work being done on behalf of consumers; this should lead to greater co-operation. I believe that the Citizens' Advice Bureaux should continue as at present, but only if given adequate finance and independence. This must be forthcoming in the near, the very near, future. If not, then the work will not be successful because of lack of adequate implementation. Responsibility here lies primarily with the National Council of Social Service and with the Government. I hope the Minister will comment for the Government, and I understand that the whole position is now under review between the National Council of Social Service and the National Citizens' Advice Bureaux Council.
The second need I see as informal machinery for the resolution of difficult complaints. This should aim at the facts, leaving it open to the contestants to appeal to the courts on points of law. A number of pilot schemes would have to be tried to determine whether such machinery would work at all, and what form would be most successful. The third need is that it must be decided what central organisation and/or machinery is to do

1267
the co-ordinating. Should it be the Consumer Council as now? Should it be the Consumer Council with a new constitution? Should it be something else altogether?
My Lords, what type of organisation is necessary to co-ordinate voluntary organisations and trade, local authorities and consumer bodies? What type of body is necessary to follow through the continuous survey done by the Citizens' Advice Bureaux—by refurbished Citizens' Advice Bureaux? What type of body is necessary to satisfy consumers while being fair to retailers?—because we must bear in mind that many consumer complaints are unjustified; that retailers and industry alike deplore the relatively few black sheep who bring discredit upon them but who must be dealt with. That point must be decided: it has been left in abeyance far too long. I see it as a responsibility of Government. I believe that in the past the Government have not looked into this problem sufficiently deeply. I think they should do so now.
I have spent three months preparing for this debate—I hope that it has not seemed even longer to your Lordships. At the beginning I felt that the Consumer Council must have a new constitution or we must have something else altogether. These three months of consultation have brought home to me more than ever before this lack of co-operation and co-ordination that I have been talking about. My Lords, I think this situation could be put right with the existing set-up, so I should like to see one final effort made before we realise we have to embark on a new system. So I return to our old friend Molony and to paragraph 872 of the Report—and I hope the House will bear with me while I quote it:
"We look to the Consumer Council to inspire and co-ordinate the activities of other organisations working for the consumer. We plan to give it the supreme position in consumer affairs. Whether it will seize and retain this position will depend on the quality of its personnel and organisation and its handling of problems. Whether all other consumer bodies will acknowledge its authority remains to be seen. Since they are independently constituted this cannot be assured. But we have little doubt that even if the constitution we recommend for the Consumer Council does not wholly match their views, they will not with-
1268
hold co-operation. We do not accord it the position of a dictator or claim for it any right to interfere in the organisation or methods of working of any other body. But we would wish to see the paramountcy of the Consumer Council accepted, and its right to act as the overall leader and co-ordinating agency in consumer affairs acknowledged."
My Lords, this result has not been achieved because of lack of confidence. and I should like (and this point is, I think, the only one of which I have not given notice to the noble Baroness) to see the President of the Board of Trade call together six people, with himself in the chair. The six people would comprise the Chief Officer of the Consumer Council, the National Citizens' Advice Bureaux Council, the Consumers' Association, the Federation of Consumer Groups, the Women's Advisory Committee of the British Standards Institution and the Institute of Weights and Measures Administration. I believe that in that sort of atmosphere these people could explain why they have not had this confidence, with the consequent lack of co-ordination and co-operation. I believe that these six people, together looking at this whole problem, with nobody laying down the law, could bring about a new era. Without such a meeting there will have to be a new plan; but obviously we cannot go into that to-day.
My Lords, I have many friends of long standing in the consumer world. At all times—for ten years in another place, and particularly for our original debate here seven years ago and for that of to-day—these friends have given me comments, advice and their unstinted help. I like to think also that they have given me their trust, and I hope that by being frank to-day I have not lost them. I beg to move for Papers.
3.25 p.m.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, we are all deeply grateful to the noble Baroness for raising this subject, which we know is very dear to her heart. If it is not impertinent, I should like to congratulate her on covering such a wide field, and also congratulate myself in that I anticipated that she probably would cover a wide field and that, therefore, such a far-seeing approach from myself would not be needed. I have certainly not been preparing this speech for three months. I think it is well known to

1269
your Lordships that this is the first time I have ventured to enter on this subject in your Lordships' House; but I am slightly heartened in that I suspect that this is also the first time the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, has taken on Lord Brown's mantle in this matter. But I may be wrong in that.
At any rate, to-day we are going to survey this field, which for 18 months now has been strengthened by the Trade Descriptions Act of last year, the results of which are now beginning to be seen. Last month the President of the Board of Trade described that Act as, "The consumer's charter, the housewife's friend, the motorist's delight—all rolled into one.". In fact, he thought it ought to be known as, "The people's pal". He then described it as the most effective little Act that the Labour Government had introduced. I think, with all that, he might well have called it the most effective and gallant little Act, as it obviously had to do so much manful work. struggling against the huge giants of Mammon and Corruption, with all their temptingly false sugary attractions.
However, I was happy to learn from the same right honourable gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade, that in the nine months concerned only 295 cases had to be brought before the courts, and that only 384 cases were pending. I trust, my Lords, that this means that this gallant little Act has put to rout all those false deceivers, and not that the Weights and Measures authority are unable to cope. I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, or perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, will be able to tell us that the recruiting situation for qualified staff in the Inspectorate of Weights and Measures has improved since the Mallaby Report came out, which indicated, I think, that in London they were something like 33 per cent. under strength. Hearing to-day and yesterday of the six inspectors who have to travel the globe inspecting the canned meat which is to come into this country from foreign sources, one is rather led to suspect that the Inspectorate may still be somewhat short of qualified inspectors. I only hope that these gentlemen may be qualifying for "Her Majesty's Greyhounds", as they must do more travelling than many of Her Majesty's diplomatic messengers.
1270
My noble friend Lord Drumalbyn will discuss in more detail the involvement of Weights and Measures inspectors, in which matter he has always taken an enormous interest and about which he knows more than most Members of this House. It is still early days now for the full picture to have emerged, but we on these Benches hope that it is the Board of Trade who are supervising the decisions as to when to prosecute, or when to prod the erring manufacturer or retailer back on to the paths of righteousness. We hope it is not being left to the local Weights and Measures authorities to decide in lonely isolation their various policies, with all the differences over the country which would then arise. I think this is a reasonable thing, which has been expressed in both Houses in the past. It is too early for us to know, but perhaps Her Majesty's Government may know the trends before the facts are published, and may be able to help and advise us.
There are still various professions which, for various reasons, go on using inaccurate descriptions quite automatically because the phraseology has become commonplace jargon in their particular profession. I noticed that the housing correspondent of the Daily Telegraph was complaining this morning that many properties are described as "luxury" which by modern standards are just not the case. He quoted one or two instances which your Lordships can read for yourselves. Certain people —shall we say those who are in this country from abroad and who are hopefully seeking temporary work and temporary accommodation —do not always find it easy to check up on these descriptions in person. In the case of renting, we know that, especially if it is temporary, the landlord is apt to ask for rent in advance. If one has paid rent in advance for a luxury flat only to find that the luxury consists of one radiator which is hardly working and a lavatory in which it is necessary to climb on to the seat to operate the flush, then, if the renting is temporary and one cannot prolong one's stay and does not wish to risk the extra money involved in suing in the civil courts, one may suffer grave injustice through this false description. I am sure that there is a great weight of public opinion ready to prod the Consumer Council or the Weights and Measures Inspectorate (whichever

1271
body has this duty) into enforcing the regulations. I think that house agents are perhaps one of those professions who are living in the past in their descriptions.
I come now to another matter which is close to most consumers in the country. This is the money in our pockets. Admittedly, by the time the tax man, the insurance stamps, S.E.T. and a hundred and one other commitments have been given priority there is not much money left. But what finally gets into the pocket is very personal. It may seem a small matter to your Lordships, but even at this late stage cannot some consideration be given to what the Consumer Council and most of the shopkeepers in this country have asked for—the retention of our humble "tanner" as a 2½p piece? I do not suppose that we shall get any cheer from the answer to this plea. In any case, it may not be long before inflation makes it an unnecessary coin—but it would be nice if we could retain it. It might even help keep down the cost of living half a point.
I turn now to another coin of our decimal system, the 50p piece. I have yet to see on any side of the House a single real friend of this coin. We all agree that the design is good; that perhaps it is nice to look at when mounted on velvet in a little box. But owing to its size and likeness to the florin, it is very unpopular. Would it not be possible for Her Majesty's Government to give a nudge to the Decimal Currency Board over this matter? I do not see why it should not be possible for the 10s. note to be preserved in the form of a 50p note. I have been told that the 10s. note is a horrible, dirty note and that it gets used up twice as fast as the pound note. But, my Lords, it is used more often because it is popular. People use what they like.
Is it not the case that what the consumer likes is good? I am a believer in supplying people with what they want. The French are very particular about their money—they even have a one-centime and a five-centime piece! If they find it possible to have a five new franc coin and a ten new franc coin in currency alone with a five new franc notes and a ten new franc note, surely we can. In any case, in this climate people do not want heavy coins in their pocket or handbags. Notes are easier
1272
to carry. I have not yet seen a reasonable argument why the consumer cannot have a 50p note —excepting the one that the note is going to be more expensive to produce.
I thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, was a little unkind to the Consumer Council. Only for a moderately short time of its existence has it had the powers of advice and action behind it. I agree with her that it is very important that the Consumer Council should work alongside the Citizens' Advice Bureaux and not separately. To that extent, I think that her idea of the President of the Board of Trade working alongside these six heads is very good. I noted that she informed us that the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, is going to discuss those considerations which, I know, have been worrying the Consumer Council and the Citizens' Advice Bureaux very much. I can safely leave that matter to the noble Lord.
I should like now to draw your Lordships' attention to the matter, already mentioned by the noble Baroness, of those recommendations of the Molony Report which have not so far been acted upon by Her Majesty's Government but with which, we have been told, they are in general agreement. These refer to the desirability of amending certain clauses in the Sale of Goods Act 1893. In Chapter 12 of the Molony Report on Consumer Protection the Committee drew attention to the many cases of buyers who were unable to get full justice in the matter of manufacturers' guarantees. These guarantees are freely given and are expected by the buying public. When we buy our new car or television set we all expect to be able to get redress, if necessary, within the period of the guarantee. By reason of the well-known name of the makers, we have probably been led to accept the guarantee as being as secure as any written word can be in our imperfect world.
In most cases we, the consumers, are satisfied that all that is necessary in the way of repair will be done. But there are certain cases, luckily not frequent, where the new buyer cheerfully signs the guarantee and returns it; but, in the words of the Molony Report (paragraph 426):
"He does not realise the significance of his signature being asked for to secure for himself a supposed advantage—instead of his being

1273
the recipient of an executed document. The consequence may be that he unknowingly signs away valuable rights and thus deprives himself of a legal basis for subsequent complaint."
The problem of the Molony Committee was to consider whether this contracting out should be allowed to continue. After considering the pros and cons they came down in favour of accepting the need to ban contracting out. Subsequent to that Report, the President of the Board of Trade sought further advice from the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission in 1966. They, in their turn, had further advice from the Working Party set up in the same year under the chairmanship of Lord Kilbracken and Mr. Arthur Martin, Q.C. This Working Party also found the Molony Committee proposals justified, and they, by a majority, supported a ban on contracting out, which they said should be absolute and unqualified. The Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission, in their Report laid before Parliament in July of this year dealing with exemption clauses in contracts, recommended that Sections 12 to 15 of the Sale of Goods Act 1893 be amended. So far as private consumers are concerned, they too supported a ban on contracting out, with the sole exception of matters applying to public auctions. Draft clauses to amend the Act were included in their Report. They even gave alternative drafts for Her Majesty's Government and the Houses of Parliament to consider.
We on these Benches should be grateful if the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack would give us tidings of when the private consumer is going to get the benefit of this suggested legislation. May I express the hope that the noble and learned Lord, bearing in mind the approaching festive season, will be able to give us tidings of joy in the form of an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will not only introduce legislation on this matter but carry it through in this Parliament.
3.40 p.m.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, may I begin by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, on his self-confessed "maiden speech" on this subject. I certainly agree with everything the noble Lord said about the 50p piece. At Question Time the other day, I ven-
1274
tured to suggest that it might have been better to have made the 50p piece the size of the half-crown, which is being withdrawn, instead of the same size as the florin, which is being retained. I did not get very far with the Government Chief Whip who was answering that day. I was told that I really ought to have another good look at the coin. Well, my Lords, I have had another good look at the coin, and I still suggest that it would be very much better if it were the size of the half-crown and not of a size which causes it to become muddled with the florin.
My Lords, I join with the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, in his congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, on her wide-ranging speech, with its wealth of practical suggestions, many of which I fervently hope will find favour. I cannot hope to have the wide knowledge of consumer problems which the noble Baroness has. I think the, best that I can do is to select one of these topics, one which both noble Lords who have spoken touched on, and to expand it a little. It is the matter of exemption clauses in contracts, or, as it is alternatively sometimes called, the practice of contracting out; a practice whereby manufacturers and traders sometimes introduce clauses into their contracts which exempt them from their ordinary liabilities under the law in respect of defective goods which they may supply and, correspondingly, denying to the purchaser, the consumer, the ordinary protection which the law wishes him to have in ordinary circumstances when he has the misfortune to be landed with defective goods.
I think that this is essentially a problem of the age of mass production. I imagine that in the days of horse-drawn coaches there were probably as many coach builders in the country as there are boatbuilders in the country to-day; and if you thought that a coach builder's terms of business were unfair and onerous, there was no difficulty in finding another coach builder. Of course, the trade knew this and it was a very unwise coach builder of those days who sought to impose burdensome, unfair conditions on a purchaser. But, my Lords, how different in these days of motor cars for the millions. The Molony Committee, reporting in 1962, as has already been referred

1275
to this afternoon, said this about motor cars:
"… the practice of contracting out is universal in the motor vehicle trade, and general in respect of electrical and mechanical appliances. In all these cases it is associated with guarantees or warranties' as the motor car manufacturers term them …"
I expect your Lordships are familiar with the fact that so often when you buy something like a refrigerator you get with it a rather expensively printed, impressive looking guarantee card; and you are told how important it is that within 14 days you should send this card to the manufacturers with your name and address filled in so that you may be quite sure that the valuable terms of the guarantee will be available to you should the refrigerator break down. My Lords, in many cases you would be very much better off if you threw the guarantee card into the waste paper basket and relied on the ordinary rights which the laws of England give you.
The Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission, as we have been told, investigated this matter further. In 1966 they set up a joint Working Party, and in July of this year they published their Report which gives the conclusions of this further study of the subject of contracting out. They naturally referred back to the Molony Committee's researches, and in paragraph 68 of the Report of last July the two Law Commissions say:
"On the strength of the evidence which they had collected, the Molony Committee declared themselves compelled to view the practice of contracting out as a general threat to consumer interest, in the sense that 'heavy and irrecoverable loss may fall upon the consumer who is unlucky enough to get a defective article' … they found an overriding argument in favour of prohibiting contracting out'. The mischief was that this practice enabled well-organised commerce 'consistently to impose unfair terms on the consumer and to deny him what the law means him to have'."
The Report goes on to say that the consumer
"found it difficult and sometimes impossible to avoid submitting to the terms of business universally adopted, because he had no bargaining power of sufficient weight."
In paragraph 72 the Report says:
"Our Working Party found themselves in agreement with the Molony's Committee's main proposal that in sales to private consumers any exclusion of the statutory conditions and warranties should be void."
1276
In paragraph 75 the Commissions say.
"…we endorse … the Working Party's proposal for a general ban on contracting out in sales to private consumers."
For good measure, in an Appendix to the Report—this has already been mentioned —the Commissions published a draft clause which they put forward as the basis for legislation. Here we are early in the Session with a good deal of Parliamentary time before us, and it would seem that there is an overwhelming case for banning this practice of contracting out. But I have to face the fact that two possible defences against acting now are open to Her Majesty's Government if they are not minded to proceed quickly.
First, the two Law Commissions are still studying the question of contracting out, even in cases of negligence on the part of manufacturers and suppliers. Secondly, they are still further considering contracting out in cases of contracts for the supply of services as distinct from contracts for the sale of goods. I should have thought that if you were in favour of banning contracting out in the case of the sale of goods you would also be strongly in favour of banning contracting out in the case of the supply of services. If you travel by public transport; if you send your clothes to a dry cleaner; if you leave your hat or umbrella in a hotel cloakroom or the cloakroom of an exhibition —who does not do all these things?—surely you are entitled to the same fair trading, fair dealing, to which you ought to be entitled if you buy goods. Therefore, I should have thought that in the interests of the consumer there was an overwhelming case to proceed now with the banning of this practice of contracting out. I do not believe that anything that could be done now for the consumer would be more worth while, and I would say to Her Majesty's Government, "Do not let us wait any longer; we have been waiting since 1962 when the Molony Committee reported. Let us get on with it now."
3.50 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, the Government are grateful to my noble friend Lady Burton of Coventry for introducing her Motion this afternoon. It is a Motion which is always sympathetically received in all parts of the House, because we are

1277
all consumers now. Perhaps the attention which the Government pay to the question may be indicated by the fact that there are two Government speakers in what is not a long list. May I apologise, in case I forget later, for the fact that, owing to engagements which I am unable to escape, I may have to leave before the end of the debate. May I also apologise for the effect of the Act of King Henry VIII, which always makes me seem so discourteous to the Liberal Benches behind me.
My noble friend Lady Phillips will reply to the debate as a whole and I do not propose to deal in general with what I might call the Board of Trade problem. I have always felt strongly—and I think most judges and lawyers do—about the so-called guarantee. The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, is of course quite right in saying that the primary object of giving a guarantee with a beautiful scroll on top, and of getting the buyers to send a card acknowledging having received it, is to take away the Common Law rights which we should have as buyers, if we had not been foolish enough to accept the guarantee.
I was delighted, I remember, when my right honourable friend the then President of the Board of Trade asked the Law Commission to go into the whole subject. As your Lordships know, they reported in July—another example, perhaps, of the good use of the Law Commission. These are entirely matters for the Board of Trade and not for me, though it is correct, as my noble friend Lady Burton of Coventry said, so far as inertia sales are concerned, that Mr. Davidson has drawn sixth place in the ballot in another place. That is a good augury, I think, for his success.
I propose to deal mainly with what I do know, which is the problem of the courts in relation to small claims, the legal problem there enforceable. The case which is made in relation to that is that there is too much difficulty, cost and uncertainty for consumers fighting small claims. The broad answer is that it is what in another context lawyers would call a true bill. I think it is right. It is said that when people go to a solicitor they are advised not to press a small claim. The complainant says that the thing does not work properly, that there is some defect. But the solicitor replies
1278
that there is not a lot of money in it: it is something less than £30, that expert evidence would have to be called, and that it is not worth while to litigate about a small amount like that. I think that this does happen. The sample given in the inquiry made by the Consumer Council was a very small sample of about 2 per cent.
The report of the inquiry commented on the fact that nearly all county court actions seem to be by firms and companies, rather than by individuals; by firms against individuals, rather than by individuals against firms. But the county court is primarily a debt-collecting court. To most claims there is no defence at all, and where a defence is filed it is sometimes put in by consumers simply to gain time. But the general complaint is, I think, justified. The question is: what is the remedy?
If I may take first those suggested by the Consumer Council, my noble friend asked me to say something about small claims courts. It is right that in America, in some States, at all events, there are small claims courts which are held in the evening. Usually, nobody is represented; the person who decides is a lawyer who does it for nothing in his free time. At first sight, this idea sounds attractive, but the article in Focus also demonstrated the difficulties. It said that these courts are used by ill-educated or illiterate people and that, being unrepresented, they have usually left the more relevant documents at home. It is all very rough and ready, and often the consumer is pushed into some sort of compromise which does not really do justice to his case. There would be a further difficulty in this country, in that the proportion of lawyers in America is immensely higher than the proportion here. As your Lordships may know, we are very short of lawyers. All solicitors are over-worked and I think would not have time to do work of this kind. They are all doing as much as they possibly can, and they are short staffed.
The same article suggests that there should be local advisory services. I am not an expert on consumers' organisations, though a great admirer of them from a distance; and I also admire the C.A.Bs. It is suggested that the county court registrars should act as conciliators. In fact, they already do, if they can get

1279
a sensible settlement. In my experience, the registrars and county court staffs are extremely good at helping those who are not represented. It is then suggested that there should be arbitrators. The experience of lawyers about arbitrators—and we have had a good deal of experience—is that in the end they do not turn out to be any cheaper than the courts. If parties have lawyers, they have to be paid; and the arbitrator also has to be paid, whereas the judge does not. It is an illusion to think that arbitration is cheaper.
It is also suggested that there should be neighbourhood law firms. I have been fully into this point, and I do not think that such a scheme is at all well suited to our problems here. We in this country have a proper system of legal aid, and there is no legal aid in the United States. I think that the answer is simply that we should extend legal aid and advice. We have already extended the jurisdiction of the county courts, and if all the recommendations of Lord Beeching's Royal Commission are accepted it will be extended still further. That means that actions now tried in the High Court will be tried more cheaply in the county court. As my noble friend said, only this last Session we have doubled the jurisdiction of the registrar, and your Lordships may remember that it was only in the last Session that I made some Orders applying legal aid to forms of proceedings to which it had not been applied before.
When we are talking about extending legal aid we have to look at the background, and the first thing we have to recognise is that in this country we have an appalling shortage of lawyers. There are parts of the country where there are simply not enough barristers to go round; and, as I have said, solicitors are all over-worked. Departments are advertising for lawyers and cannot get them. There are many unfilled Government legal posts. The only people who can get lawyers are the Law Commission—perhaps because the work is so interesting. We are short, as we all know to our cost, of Parliamentary draftsmen. While some of the complaints made against solicitors, that they do not seem to get on with doing what clients want them to do, are justified, the main reason is that they simply cannot meet all the work
1280
they have to do. That is one background fact which we have to realise.
When it comes to county court work, the suggestion that solicitors shy off county court is true; and for a very simple reason. The Prices and Incomes Board have recently reported that in their view some of the charges made by solicitors who do conveyancing of large properties are too high. That statement, naturally, the Press widely publicised. What the Press have not publicised is the equal finding that solicitors lose money on every county court case they undertake. This is for the simple reason that their charges have not been increased for thirteen years. Do any of your Lordships know of any other group of men, whether professional or otherwise, whose charges in some field have not been increased for thirteen years? Naturally, solicitors lose money, and in their Report the Prices and Incomes Board says, in paragraph 34:
"Some firms are refusing to take on county court work, and this would apply particularly to smaller cases where the level of fees is known to be specially unremunerative. From the returns in our present survey, we find that three firms in every ten appear to have no county court work at all. This figure is based on a single quarter and cannot be taken as representative of a full year, but it is clear that the proportion is now higher than in 1966 when it was only about half as great. This roust give cause for serious concern, and indicates that a realistic solution to the problem of county court costs is urgent and should be put into effect with the least possible delay."
This is obviously part of the difficulty. I never like refusing to see anybody. A group of solicitors wanted to come and see me recently. I did not recognise the name of the man who wrote to me, but I saw them—there were some six or seven of them. When they came I found that they were old friends of mine, in the days when we were all young together in the Haldane Society or in the Society of Labour Lawyers. They were all solicitors who act almost entirely for employees and not employers, or for tenants and not landlords. When they have litigation, they litigate in the county court and not in the High Court. If they do conveyances, they are few and at the lowest end of the scale, which the Board recommend ought to be increased. These solicitors were wondering how long they could stay in business. They regard what they do in life as partly a social service. They do not like to say

1281
to a client: "I am sorry, but I cannot take a county court case because I shall only lose money on it". They simply take the case and lose money on it. They were wondering how long they could go on doing this. It is not much use saying to solicitors like that: "The West End solicitors who do conveyancing for large properties are making too much money." This, I think, is the real answer—legal aid and legal advice.
Then I have, in conclusion, to say something about finance. I do not think there is any doubt that our system of legal aid is the best in the world. We used to have this silly system under which if a man was really poverty-stricken he got the action done for nothing, but otherwise he could get no help to all. Now a man has to contribute what he can, but the State will pay for the rest. This is surely an elementary feature of justice —because what is the good of passing Acts of Parliament giving people legal rights if they cannot afford to enforce them? If you cannot afford to enforce your legal rights, you may as well throw them into the wastepaper basket. It has worked admirably.
In the end, of course, there is something for the taxpayer to find. Most accident injury claims succeed; the defendant pays the costs, and the action does not cost the State anything. Most of the money the taxpayer has to find goes on undefended divorce, where the petitioner is a wife and cannot make any contribution because she has not the money to do so. But legal aid has been gradually extended. It started in relation to most actions in the High Court. Then came the time when a Government said: "You can have a bit more money for legal aid", and aid was extended to county court actions. Now it has been extended to what one may call the civil side of magistrates' courts. Then there were these three or four additional kinds of action to which we extended it by Order this last Session.
My Lords, the financial position is that, having started in 1950, until 1960–61 what had to be found was always £1 million-plus. The amount went up every year, but it was always roughly that figure. Then the next year it was £2 million; the next year it was £3 million; the next year it was £4 million; the next year it was £5 million; and the next year it was £6 mil-
1282
lion. Then, of course, legal aid was introduced for criminal cases, and I think the current figure of the amount to be found is about £9,900,000. Extending the system is simply a question of finance.
My Advisory Committee, of which the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amber-lay, is chairman, made a report, some time ago now, recommending, first, that there should be an alteration of the basic figures, particularly for the lower limit, because those figures have not been changed for nine years; and, secondly, that legal aid should be applied to proceedings before the Lands Tribunal. But it is all a question of amount. As your Lordships know, Government expenditure has to be curtailed, and it is a matter for consideration by each Government, and particularly my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether we can do it.
Legal advice has never really got properly started. You go to a solicitor, and if your income is less than a certain figure you can get his advice for a sum that you can pay. One of the difficulties is that what the solicitor gets has never been increased; and here again the Prices and Incomes Board say, in substance, that what the solicitor gets should be doubled. But we really do not get in early enough. It is a difficult problem. How do you get in touch with the poorest section of the community of all? If they have a contract when they buy something, and do not read it, they do not know that they need legal advice. This, as I say, is a difficulty. We must, therefore, expand legal advice in every way.
Taking full advantage of the Citizens' Advice Bureaux, the Law Society have put forward a very practical scheme which would lead to a great expansion of legal advice to the people who most need it. My Legal Aid Advisory Committee are even now in the middle of reporting to me on this, and I hope to be able to publish their report next month. The Law Society's scheme seems to me an admirable one, but it would cost £2,400,000 a year. No doubt it seems a shame that lawyers require to be paid for what they do, instead of not charging anybody and living on nothing, but I am afraid that if one wants somebody with the technical qualifications one has to pay for them. This is the basic difficulty.

1283
When a lawyer says that it is not worth fighting a case under £30 because of the costs, he is right. I was a little surprised when my noble friend Lord Silkin, in an observation referred to by my noble friend Lady Burton, complained that it seemed ridiculous that an action involving about £100 might involve costs of £100. Whatever the cost is, it is not due to the fact that lawyers charge too much, because the Prices and Incomes Board have shown that they do not get enough. I repeat, it is a question of finance. Nobody is more anxious than I am to see that both legal aid, particularly at the level of the lowest cases—because if the consumer is right he wins his action, and his costs, and therefore the Legal Aid Fund's costs, too, will be paid by the loser—and legal advice are greatly extended. My Lords, I conclude by saying again how grateful we are to my noble friend Lady Burton for having introduced the Motion this afternoon.
4.10 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, I also should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, very much for introducing this debate, and for the most thoughtful and interesting speech which she has made, to which I have listened with the greatest possible interest. The noble Baroness is, if not the greatest. certainly one of the greatest experts on this subject, and has done more than anyone to bring the matter in front of the public many times. It so happens that we have not had a debate in this House on consumer affairs since the debate that I think she inaugurated (or perhaps I inaugurated it, I am not quite sure) in 1966—quite a long time ago. So to-day is an opportune moment for us to review these questions. In taking part in this debate to-day, I speak for the first time not as a member of the Consumer Council, or as its Chairman, since I gave up the chairmanship about a year ago.
Before I come to deal with one or two points which the noble Baroness has raised, and which I think I can deal with since they were matters which were raised originally when the Council started, if the House will bear with me I should like to say one or two words about the work of the Consumer Council to-day. I have in my hand the Report of the Council, which I think is excellent reading. I
1284
should like to congratulate my successor, the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kings-bridge, and his excellent staff, on the work that they are doing and plan to do in the future. The Report is very good reading indeed when you think that it is only the sixth annual review of this organisation. It takes a long time to get a new organisation established in this country and, as I say, this Report is excellent.
There are one or two matters I should like to pick out from the Report, because they follow on so much what I hoped would happen when we started some five or six years ago. There is a large section on personal service to the individual, and a whole range of subjects which are of the greatest possible value to individuals. The first group is the health and safety section, dealing with food standards and labelling. This is a most important matter, as has only recently been brought to our notice in connection with the use of cyclamates in various foods. Then there is an excellent and interesting paragraph about children's clothing, and about the changes to alternative sizes (which we always wanted) not based on age, but on height, weight and the actual size of the child.
There is a paragraph about the safety of electrical appliances and their uses, and also a paragraph about safety of toys. We began dealing with these matters about five years ago. They have now become part and parcel of the work, results have been established and are of value to the individual. There is a section in the Report dealing with the market place, and many subjects listed there are extremely interesting. Of course, they are new subjects which did not arise when I was Chairman.
I notice that the Council have not been successful in trying to prevent the closing of banks on Saturdays. This occurred in Scotland a year before it occurred in England. I knew at the time that it would be exceedingly inconvenient for ordinary people, for whom Saturday was the one day when they could get to the banks, but we could do nothing to prevent this happening, and I am afraid that the people in England are having just the same disagreeable experiences as we have had in Scotland for the past year and a half. Many interesting studies have been carried out on various important matters.

1285
There are studies on carpets, for in-stance, about which many complaints were always being sent to us. There are studies on footwear, which is another matter that is continually coming up. There is a new section about transport, which interested me very much, with questions connected with taxicab companies and the public.
These may sound small things, but I am picking out only one or two that were new to me and interested me very much indeed. There is a paragraph about the House-builders' Registration Council. There are now 11,000 builders registered, which is a splendid increase, and a matter which shows how important it is that we should try to keep the standards in house building as high as possible. The Consumer Council have helped tremendously in backing that Council. There are also paragraphs about the TELTAG scheme, which interested me very much. It is only just starting, but it is off to quite a good start. The noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, is speaking in this debate, and I know that he is largely responsible for this section of the Consumer Council work, and hope he will be able to tell us more about it.
There are one or two matters which I think the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, touched on, and on which I should like to elaborate. I was delighted to see in the Report emphasis laid on the education of the consumer. This aspect of the Council's work is of enormous importance. I entirely agree with those who have said that an informed and knowledgeable buyer is just as important —and is more important to the manufacturer and retailer—than any other kind of buyer. As the noble Baroness has said, when shoppers complain and when inquiries are made as to what the complaints really stand for, it is often found that the goods or equipment purchased, if of a durable character, like electrical equipment, has been badly and wrongly used, and naturally the result is not satisfactory. Only an educated and informed shopper can avoid those pitfalls. This is one of the subjects to which the Council is devoting a great deal of attention.
How can the Council do more? How can they be more important and helpful in this whole field of consumer work? The noble Baroness, Lady Burton, has suggested that more can be done. Every-
1286
body will agree that always more can be done, and those who are enthusiastic in this matter are always anxious to do more. But there are difficulties, and I should like to say one word on the subject of finance. The total budget of the Consumer Council, for all the work it has to do, is only £231,800-odd. When you realise that the Council is working in the commercial world, the advertising world, the world of huge retailers, and so on, that tiny sum is minute compared to what is expended on advertising or what is expended in the commercial world on selling to the public goods and services in which the public are interested. It is true that the Consumer Council is not selling anything. But it is selling itself, and that is very important indeed. It means that when you have a budget as small as that you have to choose all the time on what you spend your money. There are any number of things one would like to do, but when it comes down to financing inquiries, or financing whatever it may be in the interests of the consumer, and in helping the Council, it is impossible to do everything. So you have to choose; and the choosing has to be done with scrupulous care. It also means leaving out, and there is a great deal one would like to do but which one cannot do because something has to be left out.
There is one Association of which I am vice-president and which is one of the co-operative organisations, the Consumers' Association. This is a splendid organisation, as we all know, and those of your Lordships who subscribe to their magazine Which? will know that it has a huge circulation and does very valuable work. But when I tell your Lordships that the current Annual Report of the Consumers' Association states that the sum of £300,000 is expended on membership and on Which? alone, it gives you some idea of the difference between the amount of money available for the Consumer Council and the amount of money which is spent on that one item by the Consumers' Association. I do not grudge it to them, because I think it is an excellent publication and they do a splendid job. But it is only one item with which they deal. The Consumer Council has £231,800-odd to do everything.
The second matter is one to which the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of

1287
Coventry, has referred and about which I should very much like to talk. I mean the methods by which complaints from consumers are dealt with and reach the Council. The noble Baroness is absolutely right when she quotes the Molony Committee's paragraph on the subject of the Citizens' Advice Bureaux. When I took over the chairmanship of the Consumer Council, as the first Chairman, the first thing we did was to work in very close touch with the Citizens' Advice Bureaux. I made many speeches, up and down the country, in those first years in which I said that the Citizens' Advice Bureaux were the eyes and ears of the Consumer Council. and everything we could do to help them we should do; and I hoped that they would pass on to us their reports, and so on, so that we should be able to help them.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, said, this has not worked out in exactly the way which I, as the first Chairman of the Council, and she, as one interested in how consumer complaints can be dealt with, would have liked. There are one or two reasons for this which I can explain. The noble Baroness said, perfectly correctly, that the Consumer Council, by its constitution, is prohibited from dealing with individual complaints; it cannot do that, and has never tried so to do. The Citizens' Advice Bureaux are the people to deal with individual complaints. But they have often said to me—and I am sure they would be the first people to support this view—that they are often hampered by not having enough expert knowledge on the spot to deal with difficult individual problems. The noble Baroness has said that she thinks they deal with about 90 per cent. of the cases reported to them, and that about 10 per cent. are beyond their powers. This is in a way a very fine percentage, because 10 per cent. is quite a reasonable number. On the other hand, 10 per cent. of dissatisfied complainants can make a great deal of trouble.
One of the difficulties about passing on information by the Citizens' Advice Bureaux to, let us say, the Council or any other body is that the Citizens' Advice Bureaux are not allowed to pass on—or at any rate they do not do so—any names of firms or people who are being complained about. No name of an
1288
organisation or of a commercial firm or any other name is ever passed on. They operate like this because they wish to be considered an impartial body, and therefore do not want to be involved in any kind of controversy with a commercial firm or any other service about which there is a complaint. That attitude is perfectly understandable.
However, when it comes to the Citizens' Advice Bureaux passing on information to the Consumer Council and asking them if they will take up the complaint, the Council are of course enormously handicapped by not knowing who is said to be at fault or is being complained about. Again, the Council do not wish to take sides in any complaint until they know the rights and wrongs of the case. On the other hand, supposing there is a complaint about, say, "inertia selling", or doorstep selling, or anything else which is highly irritating to the public, if the complaint is passed on in a vacuum, with absolutely no method of pinning down who the offending seller is, what can the Council do to put it right? The position is very difficult indeed.
Unless it is possible for the complainant and the complaint to be identified, I do not think it is possible for the Consumer Council to deal with the complaint. This is one of the reasons why the present setup has not worked. It has not worked, with all good will on both sides, because if one side does not give a great deal of information, the other side has largely to work in a vacuum: and this is very difficult indeed. I think that if one is going to take up complaints one must know who the offending person is; otherwise I do not quite see how the matter is going to be dealt with.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, has said, what has happened is that complaints have come only sporadically through the Citizens' Advice Bureaux, but more and more people get in touch direct with the Consumer Council office. On page 33 of the Report that I have here your Lordships will see that the number of direct contacts between the public and the office is growing every year. Whether it is done by letter, by telephone or by personal approach of some kind, this method of contact is going on all the time, and the Council are therefore able to deal directly, by letter or by telephone, with some complaints. The way in which the information from

1289
the Bureaux is handled, in addition to the cases which the Council handle themselves, is that it is passed on where it can be, but without any particularisation of the difficulty.
One of the ways in which we could improve on this method would be by seeing that the Consumer Council have offices in other places besides London. I realise that this would involve slightly more expense, but it would enable the Council to be much more accessible to the public, and I believe that this would be valuable from the consumer point of view. I was interested to see in the Report that the first area where the Council would like to work is in Scotland. This would be excellent. I cannot believe that it would he very expensive; not a very big office would be needed, just a small office. It would be able to keep in close touch with the other consumer organisations and would also be a centre, as the Consumer Council in England is a centre, for opinions and work. Matters could then be dealt with much nearer to the public than would be the case if the only offices were in London.
I remember that when I was on the Council we hoped to have a number of regional centres. We should have liked, for instance, to have centres not only in Scotland and in Wales, but also in either Manchester or Birmingham, the great Midlands area, and possibly in Bristol or elsewhere in the West. It seems to me that if we embark on a reorganisation of local government, as it appears we may do, both in Scotland as a result of Lord Wheatley's Report and in England as a result of the Redcliffe-Maud Report, now is the time to consider whether or not in the new regional set-up there should be some regional offices of the Consumer Council. I am quite sure that they would pay handsomely in a return to the public and also in a return to those who are interested in consumer affairs.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, will my noble friend allow me to ask her one question? I should like to know exactly what she is proposing. Is it her proposal that in future these regional offices should be able to deal with particular individual complaints from consumers, and that the terms of reference of the Consumer Council should be altered to enable them to do so?
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: I cannot speak for the present Council because I am not on it, but certainly when I was on the Council we did not envisage altering the constitution in order to deal with individual complaints. We thought we should be much nearer to the commercial, retail and servicing worlds and to the local authorities if we had a regional office than if we always operated from London. The noble Lord:, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, may be able to answer that question better than I can, but I do not think we had actually considered altering the principle of not dealing with individual complaints, because that would mean cutting across what is done by the Citizens' Advice Bureaux to some extent, and we should not want to do that. Also I think it might entail employing too many people in the office.
The noble Baroness, Lady Burton, mentioned co-operation between the organisations dealing with consumer affairs. I do not know whether she realises how much co-operation there is. It may be three years ago now (indeed it may be four) when the membership of the Council was being reviewed—I think three people go cut every third year, although I am not quite certain what the constitution is at the moment. We took great trouble to get someone on the Council who, I notice from the annual report, is still on it at the present time. I thought it would be very useful to have him on the Council, because apart from the fact that Professor Beresford is a highly knowledgeable person in many fields, he happens to be the Chairman of the Yorkshire C.A.B.
In the other organisation, the Consumers' Association, we used to have, and I think it is still carried on, a meeting between that Association and the Consumer Council every year. The two Councils met, we had a tremendous heart to heart talk and we made plans in which we indicated to each other the lines on which we thought we could best co-operate. We were not trying to do the same things, because that would he absolutely useless, and in any case the Council has no money to do the things done by the Consumers' Association. However we had those regular meetings and I think they still continue.
In regard to Weights and Measures and local authority services I must, in those

1291
five years, have addressed at least eight or ten meetings of Weights and Measures inspectors. I toured the country, having general meetings with people interested in consumer affairs, and always inviting, of course, all the organisations that were interested in this subject. Those meetings grew in momentum. We started with rather small meetings, because then it was only in the initial stages. I vividly recollect the last meeting I addressed—and I may say this was not because I was the speaker. It was at Newcastle, and we thought we were going to have 200 or 300 people present. It turned out, however, that the number of people who wanted to attend was so great that we had to take a hall to accommodate the 900 people who were present. So in one area alone—the North Eastern Region —there were 900 people interested. I thought that was gratifying. I see in the annual report that this type of co-operative meeting is being continued. There are reports of two—one in Sheffield and one in Bristol—which also, I believe, were on rather a large scale. So the Weights and Measures inspectors and the local authorities are all brought in, so far as is possible.
Every time I went to a meeting I also addressed—or hoped to address—a group of the C.A.B. I remember doing that in Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, Bristol, Newcastle and Edinburgh—I cannot remember any more. but I vividly remember having special meetings with the workers in the C.A.B. and having as close co-operation as I possibly could. We tried to have as wide a spectrum as possible of organisations interested in and dealing with consumer work. There were also other organisations, such as the Electrical Association for Women and the Gas Council. I am sure this co-operation is still carried on.
I have here a most interesting article by Mr. Roger Diplock of the R.T.S.A. I entirely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, that nobody has done more work or been more helpful to the retail trade, or to the consumer, than Mr. Diplock. At the end of the article he says:
"When some of these questions have been discussed in depth in the House of Lords, it may perhaps be realised that the great majority of retail establishments not only pro-
1292
vide sound service to sensible shoppers but would be out of business very quickly if they did not."
I cannot tell your Lordships how much I agree with those sentiments. Of course, the retail trade does give wonderful service to shoppers. In all the work which the Council do, in all the publications which they distribute and, I imagine—it was certainly so in my day—in all the speeches made up and down the country, it is emphasised that there is no question of organising a build-up against the retail trade. On the contrary, I always stressed that it was in the interests of the producer, the retailer and the consumer that there should be co-operation on all sides and, above all, an educated and intelligent shopper. This is the aim; and these three elements in consumer work are in no way antagonistic.
The noble Baroness, Lady Burton, has referred to the voice of the consuming public: how can it best be heard, and what are the best methods of achieving this? I believe that it is heard to-day far more than it has ever been heard before. In all our legislation someone in every Government Department must ask himself: "What will the consumer think about this piece of legislation?" On that point I should like to pay a tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, because she was the first person to make us consumer conscious, which she did by her staunch work in another place when she was a Member of the House of Commons. To-day it is rare not to find somebody looking at the consuming end of any legislation that is brought before Parliament.
Reference has been made to the Trade Descriptions Act, in which I took an active part and which I think, with certain reservations—namely, Section 11, as the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, has said —has been a great help to shoppers. I believe that the appointment of the consultative committees, if only they had more power, is an example of the nationalised industries' desire to consult the public. Incidentally, the Consumer Council carried out an interesting study on these consultative committees and came up with some excellent suggestions. Whether or not those suggestions have been acted upon I do not know, but the very fact that in the nationalised industries consultative committees are now

1293
established goes some way towards ensuring that they are all the time thinking about the public. But, of course, these committees have not enough power; as I think I said before, they have no real teeth, and it is time they were given more statutory power than they have to-day.
Then again, more and more is being put on the weights and measures departments of local authorities. Consumer protection is extremely important, and the weights and measures officers and their work are very important to the consumer. So I think that, on the whole, if one looks back one can say that a lot has already been done. That a lot more could be done is, of course, obvious. But unless more money is available, so that the Council can do more and do not have to reject so much because the necessary money is not there, the Council will always be hampered. I think it is amazing that the Council do as much as they do on as little money as they have, and I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kings-bridge, and the officers of the Council on what they do.
Whether anything more would be achieved by the suggested meetings, as put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, at the end of her speech, I do not know. Certainly there is no harm in trying. One can always have conversations and discussions, and see whether anything better can be done. But in the nature of things, although the co-operation is being built up over the country, there is the difficulty of passing on information from the C.A.B. to the Council because of the nature of the way in which the C.A.B. work, which I think was not appreciated by the Molony Committee when they made these proposals. I believe that the C.A.B. do a splendid job. If they had more money they would do more. Nobody is more enthusiastic in their support than I am. But this liaison between the two, although it is there, is not as successful as it ought to be, because of the nature of the way in which the C.A.B. work, never divulging any names. not enabling the Council to "get after" any particular organisation or shop or commercial interest, or whatever it may be, to follow up these complaints.
1294
So, my Lords, I think that, given the difficulties and the lack of funds, and the fact that there is such a huge field, the amount that has been achieved by the Council is very remarkable. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, and those who have contributed to this success, and I wish them every possible good fortune in the work still ahead of them.
4.43 p.m.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, I understand that a certain newspaper, not one which crosses my breakfast table, suggested yesterday that it would be improper for me to take part in this debate as I am the part-time salaried Chairman of a public body concerned in the subject. This naturally concerned me. I have taken advice by studying the Addison Rules and the other hints contained in the little red book for the proper behaviour of Peers; I have consulted the Clerk of the Parliaments and my own Chief Whip, and I have consulted the President of the Board of Trade, whose predecessor appointed me, and none of those sources have suggested that it would be anything but right and proper for me to intervene. So ultimately one has to make one's own decision. I have made it and I am speaking. I think the House was the poorer for riot hearing my noble friend Lord Aylestone and the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, in the broadcasting debate, and I am not following their example.
This is not a debate on the Consumer Council; it is a debate on consumer affairs. If it were necessary to expand on the work of the Consumer Council, this has already been done amply, first by my noble friend Lady Burton, in her opening remarks, by the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, my predecessor, whom I am always glad to follow, whether as Chairman there or speaker here, and by the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, in his reference to the small claims investigation. Any information your Lordships may require about the Consumer Council I feel you have, one way or another, already had.
I must declare two rather conflicting interests. First of all, I am Chairman of the National Executive Committee of the Family Service Units. Here we are constantly concerned with standing up for the family which has failed to look after itself and has fallen for the blandishments of

1295
efficient salesmanship, so that it is swamped by claims it ought never to have incurred and is heading for disintegration. There we are concerned with individual cases, and one could describe it, I think, as consumer protection taken to the extreme. I have seen too many cases where foolish families were bulldozed in their own houses into buying things they did not need and could not afford, to have much love for the honey-tongued salesman or indeed his cold-hearted employer.
The second interest which I must declare has already been referred to: that I am Chairman of the Consumer Council. We in the Council are concerned not with the particular but with the general, not with the merely protective but with the positive. Throughout its life the Council has been acting on a number of fronts lo curb the excesses of salesmanship which lead to debt and distress. But it is not concerned, and it is not allowed to be concerned, with the individual case. Its task is prevention rather than rescue.
It is concerned essentially to try to redress the balance of size which enables modern businesses to employ, perfectly properly, large legal departments and expert lawyers and pit them against the inadequate information available to the private citizen, and to employ large sums of money in their own interests which cannot be matched by the private individual in any way. When one sees the havoc wrought among families whose worst crime is lack of resistance to the spurious charms of the salesman, one is tempted to clamp down altogether on the kind of trading which leads to it: to ban credit buying, to suppress doorstep selling. But, of course, this would be absurd. We must above all things widen the choice of goods and services available to the public; make it easier for them to shop, perhaps by removing restrictions on shopping hours; make it easier for them to buy, perhaps by making credit terms less onerous. We must work by easing restrictions and not by increasing them.
Having disclosed these somewhat conflicting interests, which sometimes pull me in different directions, let me go on to thank my noble friend Lady Burton for having opened the debate in such an illuminating way, and in particular for painting it in on such a very wide canvas.
1296
We are not confined in our debate to consumer protection: we are concerned with information, advice, education, and all other constructive sides of this work. My noble friend has asked me some specific questions, which I will answer in due course; but first I should like to make one or two remarks of a general kind about the problems which confront those who concern themselves with trying to redress the balance in favour of the consumer.
Since the last war there has been an enormous growth in consumer consciousness, stimulated by greater opportunity, more money and the gradual removal of war-time restrictions. The statutory existence of consumers was first recognised, I suppose, in the Acts establishing the nationalised fuel and transport industries, under which consultative committees were set up. They were followed by voluntary and, on the whole, more vigorous organisations—outbursts, one might say, of consumer zeal. The Consumer Advisory Council of the British Standards Institution, with its Shoppers' Guide, was the first in the field, followed closely by the Consumers' Association, with Which?; and their success story seems to me to epitomise the whole growth of consumer awareness, at any rate of the more sophisticated part of the population. Which? now has a circulation of 600,000, and it claims to be read by 3 million people—no mean achievement in, I think, about twelve years.
There are about 80 consumer groups throughout the country, numbering some 20,000 members. That reflects a spontaneous generation of interest in this particular subject; a rather remarkable growth. Finally, in 1963, in response to the recommendations of the Molony Committee, the Consumer Council was set up by the Government. It is not a statutory body; it has no legal powers, but it is not exactly voluntary, either. It has no members, and it does not sell its services. It is financed by the Government, but most jealously preserves its independence and its right to come out strongly against Government policy when, as I regret to say sometimes happens, it thinks that the Government are wrong.
At the same time as this proliferation of consumer organisations there has been a leap forward in consumer legislation.

1297
We have had fairly detailed discussion already of the Trade Descriptions Act. I should like to say here that I endorse the misgivings of my noble friend Lady Burton about Section 11. I think that few noble Lords in this House were happy about that section, and it does not appear to be working very well. Otherwise, it seems that the Trade Descriptions Act is doing more or less what it was intended to do, which is a great deal; and I think, particularly from the point of view of the Consumer Council, the added zest and force given to the weights and measures authorities has been most remarkable and satisfactory.
Earlier, I referred to the first of the two basic problems which I see in assisting the consumer; that is, keeping the balance between freedom to compete for the consumer's custom and curbing excessive zeal which leads to abuse of the customer's confidence in the trader. It is difficult to protect the gullible without protecting the rogue, and it takes very accurate drafting to legislate to protect the innocent without unduly clipping the wings of imaginative salesmanship. Every time a Bill of this kind is brought in, after a year or two one finds the holes.
The second basic problem is how to reach the shopping public at large. We know that the Consumer Council's penetration is not as deep as it ought to be. In spite of the fact that it prints and distributes pamphlets and leaflets to the tune of millions, issued free through the C.A.B., through health clinics, through shops and stores, through women's organisations and through multifarious channels, its penetration is too shallow. As the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, pointed out—and it would be out of place for me to stress this-it simply does not have the funds to compete more prodigally. Television advertising, which is generally thought to be the one thing which really does work in this country, is right outside its range. It has to rely largely on editorial publicity in order to give the warnings and advice which it wants to give.
The noble Baroness asked me whether I could tell the House the amount of money spent by the Consumer Council on publications and publicity. I should be happy to do so. In 1968–69, it spent £58,000; in 1969–70, it expects to be able
1298
to spend only £53,000. This includes a miserable £20,000 for promoting its informative labelling scheme, TELTAG. For the moment that is all it can afford. That does not mean that it cannot or does not speak for consumers at large in its representations to Government Departments, to trade organisations, to particular firms and to the Press. It takes a great deal of trouble to find out the experiences, as consumers, of representative samples of the population.
My noble friend Lady Burton referred to the research projects listed in the Council's Annual Report, and asked what they cost. They cost about £7,000. And in 1969–70 it expects to spend about £6,000. This, of course, is just chicken feed. But the surveys which are carried out in this inexpensive way are respectable and statistically valid, and based on the population as a whole, not just the middle-class intellectuals, whom it is sometimes contemptuously said are its only supporters, and people represented by the Council. It is worth while remarking here that even when agitation for reforms, whether statutory or voluntary, comes only from the concerned and articulate section of consumers (which it is fair to say it usually does) it is none the worse for that, because every time an abuse is nailed, it is nailed for the harassed housewife in overcrowded conditions as well as for the people who enjoy more gracious living.
The removal of exclusion clauses, about which the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, spoke, and with whom I entirely agree, is something for which the Council has campaigned ever since it was set up, and it is most gratifying to know that the Law Commissions have now reported in its favour. This will help everybody, and not just the more sophisticated. This is a most important matter. The work which is being done on the legal system on small claims, which my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack discussed in some detail will also help. Research into small claims work is being carried out at the moment by the Consumer Council and is only half way concluded. As the noble Baroness mentioned this point particularly, I will make a brief further reference to it; but the Lord Chancellor dealt with it so fully that I shall not spend long on it. As a result of the researches not yet finished it has been discovered that about 70 per cent.

1299
of actions in county courts are initiated by firms against consumers for debt, for goods or services. In this particular section of research, cases brought by consumers against firms were unable to be found. Individuals do not use the courts because the process is too expensive and too daunting. The system is not geared to an ordinary individual's bringing his own case, which is the only way to keep down expense.
The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack referred to the American small claims courts. I do not suggest that they could be imported wholesale into this country. However, I do not accept the noble and learned Lord's allegation that all forms of arbitration are as expensive as ordinary forms of litigation. I certainly do not think they need to be. No doubt if they are wrongly conducted they may be; but I think it is most important not to accept the situation of the impossibility of bringing a case for £100 without spending £100. It really will not do. If that is the best that we can do we must think again. Thinking again means doing something quite different and doing something quite different probably means doing something not altogether different from the American plan. At least the parties can tell their own story to an independent arbiter and get a judgment, albeit one with which they may not be satisfied but which at least costs them virtually nothing.
We have already been told about the difficulties which confront the Consumer Council and the C.A.B. in the co-operation which Molony anticipated. My noble friend Lady Burton was absolutely right—and the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, has confirmed this—when she said that this is not working in the way it was supposed to work. My own view is that the Molony Committee were wrong in thinking that it ever would work. I believe that it was not the right answer, because I do not think that people who are expert at social service, which is a difficult and demanding function, are necessarily particularly good at the rather niggling side of dealing with claims, with watches that go wrong and things of that sort, which in regard to 90 per cent. of the cases they deal with satisfactorily by ringing up the firm who are quite happy to put the matter right, but when
1300
there is something really wrong, which is what we want to get at, they are not able to do it. Of course, the confidentiality has made the information passed to the Consumer Council almost impossible to work on.
The Council is not allowed to deal with complaints. The C.A.B. are not equipped to deal with complaints. The county courts are too expensive and nobody will use them. So you are left with a major fault in the administration of consumer affairs, which quite rightly my noble friend has raised.
It may be that with the new powers they have under the Trade Descriptions Act, the local authorities will provide the necessary point of contact. Sheffield and Bristol, as we have already been told, in rather different ways are running consumer advisory services fairly successfully, and some twenty other local authorities, in different places and in different ways, are doing something about this along the same lines. The difficulty is that the weights and measures inspector, who normally the local authority employs on this matter, finds himself acting both as policeman and as supervisor. As we know from the experience of the National Agricultural Advisory Service some years ago, this is a very unhappy association, so that the answer is not obvious at the moment. I do not know what is the right solution, but in view of the stringency which my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack has once again brought to our attention, I must say that I think we are more likely to get something done through local authorities than in any other way.
I have referred to the other problem. that of how to balance protection against enterprise. Molony said that competition was the consumer's best friend, and I think we shall all agree—at least probably everybody in this House will—with that. But inefficiency cannot be cured by legislation; and inefficiency is the great crime against the consumer. What can we do? I suppose that all we can do is to encourage people to make themselves better informed about their real wants and to demand that the people who are selling them things say what those things really are. If you get "A" equalling "B" in this way, you get a satisfactory sale. The Consumer Council does

1301
quite a lot in this respect. But as my noble friend Lord Hanworth, who is a specialist in this particular subject, will deal with it later, I will say no more. Anyone working in this field, it seems to me, must walk a tightrope between too much and too little interference. In trying to promote the interests of the buyer without mortally offending both the seller and the relevant Government Department, one must regard pleasing two out of the three as a bull's-eye not often achieved.
My noble friend Lady Burton of Coventry raised one other question, apart from complaints—the question of co-ordination; and of course I agree with her that a better and stronger lead could and should be given by the Consumer Council. Goodness knows! we are trying to do it. But there is already very close co-ordination in many directions. Of course it should be closer; of course it should be more effective. But the Chairman of the Consumers' Association is one of my oldest friends, and we meet and talk constantly about this question of co-ordination. We had the C.A. people in our office only last week discussing Mr. Arthur Davidson's Bill on unsolicited goods. And I think that, as a result of this discussion, he is going to widen it (at any rate, I hope he is) to cover not only unsolicited goods, which are an obvious evil but one that rarely appears, but also something which is much more difficult: I refer to some of the less attractive examples of "inertia selling" which come about as a result of the activities of book clubs and gramophone clubs, which on the whole do a very good job but sometimes go a little too far. Then we have regular meetings with the weights and measures officials; and we frequently go to and speak at the consumer groups. I think the machinery is available, though I agree that we ought to make better use of it.
My Lords, I have said all I should. It is a difficult task, because one is so apt to go too far on one side or the other. But there is such an enthusiastic movement in this country of consumer groups (we have been through them all once or twice, these various voluntary movements of which my Council is only one) that I believe that, if we all go on trying, we shall eventually make some real progress.
5.4 p.m.
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: My Lords, I should like to deal with one aspect of consumer problems, which is providing information about the goods consumers buy. But I, like the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, must declare an interest because I am a full time working member of the Consumer Council, and the head of the labelling branch which is responsible for TELTAG. The views I am going to express this evening are, of course, my own, and I thought rather carefully whether it would be right to speak, but I propose to deal with the subject in a fairly broad way. I gather the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, is also interested in hearing something of what we are doing on the TELTAG side.
In England to-day the need to provide consumers with reliable information on the goods they buy is, I think, a very pressing one. The range of goods available has vastly increased and the old yardsticks on which they could be judged do not any longer apply. For example, wool garments can be treated so that their characteristics are quite different from what would normally be expected. Wool garments may have as good a resistance to shrinkage as other types of fibre. Moreover, things are changing so rapidly that there simply is not time to find these things out by trial and error. By the time we have done that, probably a new and improved product will have come on the market.
I think we must also take into account the immense power of modern advertisements. The new Trade Descriptions Act will improve the reliability of the statements made, always provided that there is adequate enforcement. I think we must remember that the weights and measures authorities have a very big job to do. They are doing it very well, but they cannot be everywhere and there is, of course, a danger sometimes that it may be worth while the manufacturer, or whoever it is, just pressing ahead and saying, "Well, one is unlikely to get caught out". So we have got to think of enforcement that is adequate for the purpose. It is interesting to note that in some areas the Trade Descriptions Act has been a positive disincentive to providing even the meagre amount of information which was given before the Act came into

1303
force. Later on I am going to say a word about the use of Section 8, which provides compulsory powers in the Trade Descriptions Act, because if we are going to continue to get the amount of accurate information we need I believe there are areas where enforcement must be considered and must be used.
I think there is also a much longer term aspect to this matter. The success of our capitalist economy relies on consumer choice dictating the type of product firms make, and without an informed consumer it is certain that the feed-back will not operate efficiently. There is certainly a danger that if the consumer has to reply solely on the statements made by the manufacturers, the initiative will rest largely with the manufacturers and their trade associations, and these necessarily tend, in the main, to have a rather conservative approach. This would not only be to the detriment of the consumer, but to our ability to compete in overseas markets. We must sec that new products which are an improvement come on to the market as quickly as possible in order to be able to compete overseas. If the consumers are not informed they probably do not know that such products exist, and therefore we do not move into new fields as quickly as we can and should.
Apart from the information which the manufacturer provides, there are three recognised systems for helping the consumer in making a logical choice. These are: comparative testing; quality marks; and informative labelling. Comparative testing, as your Lordships all know, is represented in England by the Consumers' Association magazine Which? This fulfils a very important and useful role, particularly so for the more highly educated consumer. It cannot, however, directly provide information at the point of sale either to the buyer or to the sales assistant, and in many cases it is the sales assistant on whom the consumers rely in trying to make their choice.
We then have quality marks, and these are intended to show that goods have reached a certain standard of performance, quality or safety. Unfortunately, the vast majority of so-called quality marks are very little more than trade "puffs", or an attempt to promote the sale of a particular product. They have
1304
no public requirements or system of surveillance. The certification trade marks, which have to meet requirements laid down by the Board of Trade, are notable exceptions to this generalisation. They include the kite mark, which certifies compliance with a British Standard; the B.E.A.B. mark for the safety of domestic electrical appliances; and the wool mark, which requires the product to be of pure wool and to meet certain specifications. There are, of course, many more, but I have mentioned three of the ones which are particularly well known.
These marks are of real help to the consumer where there can be a clearly defined basic specification, such as for health or safety, but they provide no guide for the bulk of goods which exceed the minimum requirements or where the consumer's choice depends on sorting out the various performance characteristics of the goods to meet their own particular needs. As an example, a food mixer might be excellent for whisking eggs but simply not man enough for the Victoria sponge cake. There, of course, one is faced with a dilemma when dealing with a quality mark: do you exclude the mixer which is suitable only for whisking eggs, or what do you do? The usual answer is that it would come down on the lower side, and would therefore give no information whatsoever on the properties of the mixer for cake-mixing.
Informative labelling is a fairly wide term, and it is often used to cover care instructions such as may be given on textiles for specifying the recommended washing or cleaning procedures. I prefer to confine it to information which may be given to assist consumers in making a logical choice at the time of purchase. The aim is to give a balanced overall picture of a product with an emphasis on its performance characteristics. I think carpets are probably a particularly good example. There are two major characteristics of importance to the consumer; one being the durability and the other being retention of appearance. By "retention of appearance", I include such things as colour fastness, pile flattening and soiling. If you are a family man with, say, three children and you want a carpet in your living room, and if you cannot go out and buy the most expensive type of carpet, durability must be your first consideration. If, on the other hand, you want it in the spare room,

1305
which is very seldom used, then the durability problem simply does not enter into the question and you are much more concerned with its retention of appearance, the fact that it will not fade. So it is not just a simple matter of giving a quality mark. You have to give more information, perhaps combined with a quality mark, to enable the consumer to make that logical choice.
This type of labelling was started in Sweden some 16 years ago, and it has been taken up in other Scandinavian countries. Schemes have also been recently started in Germany and Holland; and it is being considered in America, too. Our own TELTAG was started just four years ago and is based on the same principles, and I should like to tell your Lordships something about it in a little more detail. Producing a TELTAG is quite a long and complicated process. First of all, we have to find out as much as we can about the product and then produce a tentative label for discussion with consumer interests; because, above all, the TELTAG is designed to be a label for consumers, so our first preoccupation is what consumers want to know and how we can give them the information in an understandable form. I should like to say here that the Consumers' Association, with all their expertise, have been particularly helpful to us. They always attend our meetings when we discuss a label, and they provide any information which they may have on the methods of test, and so on. So this has been a very happy relationship with another of the consumer bodies.
We then discuss the revised label informally with the trade, and, depending on circumstances, either ask the British Standards Institution to arrange for one of their technical committees to produce a standard laying down the test methods we need or, alternatively, hold a meeting of interested parties and then put the test methods in the certification trade mark documents. So in either case they are published within the full meaning of the word. Before any manufacturer can join the scheme and use a TELTAG label the B.S.I., acting as our agents, inspect the quality control procedures at manufacturers' works and arrange for the testing of the product to check that the statements to be made on the label are correct.
1306
The standard of quality control is, broadly speaking, that of a good firm in that industry. We then have continuing visits, which are made roughly on an annual basis, and periodic tests of the product, some of which products we buy through retail outlets.
Although this degree of independent surveillance is no more than has been required for the B.S.I. kite mark for some time, it represents a new conception to many manufacturers who feel that outside influence in their affairs is undesirable and who tend to resent it. But we can usually convince them that in fact this is necessary to preserve the validity of our mark against abuse. We feel, however, that this independent surveillance, and the full publication of all test methods and regulations, are one of the most important parts of the scheme, both from the consumer point of view and in making the scheme of real value in our export markets.
Our own experience has shown that firms often believe that their quality control is excellent when in fact the system has broken down at the lower managerial level. Our largest retailer of carpets, who has well over 150 shops, will shortly be using the TELTAG for all his tufted carpet ranges, and has publicly stated that one of the chief reasons for doing so is that it will no longer be necessary for the firm to make their own tests and checks on the quality of the carpets which are being manufactured for them to sell. It is also interesting to find that the information given on performance, and in particular the colour fastness of carpets, has increased the interest in this important characteristic and has led to improvements which were at one time thought impossible.
Surveillance, however, is only one of the difficulties we have had in getting the scheme accepted by manufacturers, and perhaps it goes without saying that no manufacturer has the consumers' interest so much at heart that he will join the scheme unless it is thought to be a viable commercial proposition. We ourselves have never had any doubt that the scheme had worthwhile commercial advantages—always provided that the manufacturer will use it as a selling aid and not, at this stage, simply sit back and imagine that the label will automatically sell itself. This may of course be so in the

1307
future, when the scheme becomes far more widely known, but it is, I am quite convinced, a very powerful selling aid for those who use it. The scheme does not in fact cost very much. If you cost it on a product basis it usually works out at something less than 1,000th of the retail selling price of the product. So this is something which the manufacturer can absorb quite easily if he feels that the scheme is going to be useful to him.
Some manufacturers also view the scheme as a further interference by the Government and as something which will upset the existing status quo or interfere with the importance of brand image, or, at the best, as a needless complication to an already complicated life. Looking at the situation as it stands to-day, I think I can say that we have succeeded in establishing the TELTAG scheme, although it has taken a good deal longer than we had hoped for when we first started. But the speed at which we can expand it and make a real impact on the consumer depends on the funds that we can get for publicity. As your Lordships have heard, the maximum amount that we could spend last year was £20,000. That does not begin to reach the consumers at all. We have found this money to be very useful in getting the retailers and others to know something about the scheme; but it simply does not touch the problem of getting the scheme moving really quickly.
I believe, for reasons which I have stated earlier, that there are areas where the Government should make use of the compulsory powers given under Section 8 of the Trade Descriptions Act, not only to establish the principle of giving more information to the consumer but because in some cases an order covering a whole product field would be better than a partially-implemented voluntary scheme. Frankly, I am doubtful whether the Board of Trade, which is responsible for implementing such compulsory legislation, has yet organised itself to take such a task. which is a very considerable one when one takes into account the amount of consultation and research that is necessary before using compulsory powers.
We hope that we can press the Board of Trade to grasp this nettle, and, incidentally, to support them in the House
1308
when they nave grasped it and not to ask: "Why did they not do it on something else, something which would have been so much more important? "—because I think we can rest assured that where they do it they will have considered the matter extremely carefully. It is very important that they should get started on this in the right area, which may not necessarily be the one which appears from the outside to be the most important to the consumer.
Before closing I should like a word about consumer education. Many people think, and I agree, that a good deal of consumer dissatisfaction and complaint would disappear if people knew more about the goods and services they buy and if they adopted an altogether more questioning attitude to what is displayed before them. There are two ways to tackle this: to give consumers more and better information at the point of sale (as I think TELTAG will do), which makes it easier for them to find out what they can expect from goods and services; and also to encourage consumers to be more questioning and discriminating.
This means starting with basic education. I am impressed by the way in which consumer education is being taught in school subjects. Pupils are encouraged to make visits to shops, to evaluate the comparative merits of different products, to learn how to manage the money they earn and to master the intricacies of hire-purchase and credit documents. Groups of young people in colleges of further education and in clubs are by no means passive consumers of goods and services. They take a lively interest in their rights as shoppers and want to find out as much as they can about the things that they buy. One of the problems of consumer education is reaching out to people who may not choose to use any part of the formal education system—and the Consumer Council has explored a number of possibilities of reaching consumers with basic education. This includes talks with groups of mothers at post-natal clinics, with youth clubs, with community clubs. The impression that is left by all these encounters is that people do want more information about the goods and services they use but they do not always know how to go about getting it. And

1309
they are emphatic that they certainly do not get it from an overwhelming number of suppliers. I feel that in the future consumer education can be one of the most important ways of overcoming our consumer problems; and from what I know of the other work of the Consumer Council, I can say that we have done a great deal in this field and have done as much as our finances could permit.
5.25 p.m.
LORD REDMAYNE: My Lords, I too must congratulate the noble Baroness. I know that the retail trade will be keenly interested in what she had to say, and indeed in this whole debate. They will be grateful to her for her acknowledgment that there are some white sheep among the black—I am also, because I am a director of two large and quite separate retail organisations. In this debate, therefore, I feel something of a lone wolf in white sheep's clothing—which the noble Viscount, Lord Han-worth, will agree that I am entitled to call "double thickness".
No scrupulous retailer takes exception to the principal objects of the Trade Descriptions Act, but since it submits him to supervision of his trading he has a right to ask that that supervision should be intelligently applied; and I doubt if this has always been so. To quote a concrete case, I doubt whether a branch of a reputable multiple chemist should be taken to court because an assistant inadvertently charged a customer (who was an inspector) the full price for a product which was marked" 9d. off retail price". Admittedly, shopkeepers are responsible for the actions of their employees; but there are limits to the possibilities of supervision of individual mistakes.
I would say, for example, that if an inspector makes a test purchase he should act in the same way as any other customer. Any other customer making that purchase would obviously say: "What about the 9d. off?" The answer to that would immediately tell the inspector whether, in fact, the cause of the complaint was an isolated act of carelessness which could be adequately dealt with by a warning to the branch manager or to the company, or whether, on the other hand, it was a wilful act which justified prosecution. Incidentally, the company of which I am talking in this
1310
instance was fined £100 for what I regard as a very trifling offence. The damage is that a fine of that category gives to the public at large a grossly magnified image of the nature of the offence. Indeed, one could wish that the shoplifter was treated with the same severity as the shopkeeper. But that is perhaps hardly relevant to this debate.
My Lords, the second point relating to the particular multiple company to which I am referring is in regard to errors in dispensing. I should be grateful if the noble Baroness who is to reply would give me a specific answer on this point. The dispensing error that I have in mind at this moment was the cause of a recent prosecution based on a shortage of ten pills in a bottle—trifling enough as it sounds, although dispensing errors are very important. There is no doubt of that; they are serious matters. But I put it to the noble Baroness that these are very much better dealt with by complaint to the local National Health executive committee rather than under the Trade Descriptions Act. The National Health executive is much more competent to judge a professional matter; it has full powers to reprimand and to fine, and it can even strike off an offender. So far as I know, there has never been any suggestion that the supervision of dispensing chemists by this means has been inadequate.
One tends to suspect, my Lords, that some inspectors may regard a prosecution as a feather in their cap and be forgetful that, as I have said, to the company concerned it may mean serious damage to good will out of all proportion to the gravity of the offence. Of course, it is desirable to detect and punish unscrupulous traders, but the honest do not relish being treated as dishonest. Therefore I think it fair to ask again—this question has already been put—whether local authorities have received any advice from the Board of Trade as to the policy which local authority inspectors should follow in carrying out their duties under this Act: and, if they have, what were those instructions.
I do not want to be tedious, but there are two or three anomalies that arise under Section 11 which ought again to be put on record. The noble Bareness, Lady Burton of Coventry, referred to them as loopholes in the Act; I would

1311
refer to them as pitfalls for the honest shopkeeper—perhaps a difference in attitude of mind. They are causing a great deal of anxiety to those who have to manage retail businesses, and I would guess that they are just as puzzling to the inspector. Why, one might ask for example, is it apparently forbidden under Section 11 to sell an article marked, "3d. off the recommended price" at less than 3d. off the recommended price? It frequently happens that the retailers regular price is lower than the recommended price and therefore he is caught between two fires. The customer expects him to take 3d. off his regular price, but, as we read it, the Act forbids that, if in fact the offer is made in relation to the recommended price. It is a terrible tangle and I do not expect the noble Lady to reply to these points. As I say, they are for consideration.
Another anomaly is the provision that a product reduced from its normal price must have been on offer at that price for not less than 28 days in the preceding six months. We all know this provision. It has two effects; one is that that offer becomes illegal if it continues longer at the lower price than approximately the six months on which it is based: thereafter it must lapse. Alternatively, of course, under the same provision it is illegal to make a further reduction in the reduced price during the period of six months unless the lower price has itself ruled for 28 days. There are other anomalies. I will not go into them in detail, but honest traders do want guidance about how this Act should be interpreted. In fact, as the noble Baroness said, Section 11 badly needs amending.
There is one other effect of the Act which is worth putting on record. It is that at a time when maintained prices of any sort were being largely abandoned, for the presumed good of the consumer, there has become apparent a strong tendency for manufacturers to return to maintained prices, recommended prices, as being the least uncertain base for a pricing policy. As a result, consumers are having to pay marginally more than the market would necessarily demand. As I say, we want a solution to these difficulties and I was grateful for the generous support of the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, who admitted, in a way in which it has not been
1312
admitted before in this debate, that there are two sides to this question; that the battle is not all on the side of the consumer; that the retailer has his problems too and is doing his best to resolve them in the public interest.
A further undesirable result of the Trade Descriptions Act as a whole is the false impression which it has created under its catch-phrase name of "the Shoppers' charter". It has been accepted by the public that the Act is not only a protection against misrepresentation but provides machinery for complaint, particularly in the office of the local inspector of weights and measures. Those who have any practical knowledge of this aspect of retailing will know that customers' complaints run the whole range, from genuine, through arguable, to frivolous and downright dishonest. The shopkeeper, of course, deals with them on their merits, and with an eye on retaining the continuing goodwill of his customer. But, if I may say so, the customer will frequently get more generous compensation—a matter referred to by the noble Baroness—from the shopkeeper, interested in retaining his goodwill than from any legal decision. I think that the use of the offices of inspectors of weights and measures for this general purpose is a waste of time and money, because two-thirds of these complaints cannot be resolved in that way. By the same token, I am not very happy about proposals for increasing the machinery of Citizens' Advice Bureaux; for the provision of legal aid more easily—certainly not in respect of individual complaints to the Consumers' Council, though I gather that that is not really a runner. Possibly the obtaining of legal advice is a different matter, provided that advice, when given, is informed on particular technical points. I do not think that it is just a matter of law; it is to a great extent a matter of retail practice. If this is to be the way in which those who fight the consumers' case want the scheme to be implemented, I am certain that all these agencies will be swamped by complaints to which the shopkeeper himself could give a sensible answer.
Whether the answer would be acceptable to the customer is another matter altogether, and that is what competition in the High Street is all about. It is too easy for people to think that shopkeeping is simply a matter of buying and selling.

1313
In fact, it concerns itself wholly, through the agency of buying and selling, with establishing and maintaining a permanent relationship with a body of customers. Supervisory legislation is for rogues anti fly-by-nights. The great mass of retailers stay in business by the goodwill of their customers and do not lightly risk damaging that goodwill.
My Lords, apart from my present interest I have been closely concerned with the retail trade all my working life. During forty years I have seen a very significant change in consumer attitudes—and this point was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kings-bridge. In the 1930s the consumer who could find the cash—admittedly. if he could, he was lucky—spent it with very considerable caution and I think with great wisdom. On the other hand, a large part of the public which desperately needed consumer goods and had little enough cash to spend fell victim to some pretty unscrupulous trading by some sections of the retail trade.
The 1940s looked after themselves, or at least the problems were different; but by the 1950s the pattern had changed considerably. Those who had some prosperity represented an increasingly wide section of the public, but among them there were many who had little experience of spending cash in the sort of quantities in which they then found it available. They were more free to spend, and frequently they spent badly. Too often they chose what was expensive or eyecatching rather than what was. in their judgment, good value for them. The expensive or eye-catching may well be good value, but it is not on that account a good buy for a particular type of customer.
During the ten years or so after the war some customers made great mistakes. One saw them constantly if one was in the retail trade. From the sum of their regrets there grew a body of opinion which sought to protect consumers from their own unwisdom, and this is really what this debate and the legislation that has preceded it has been all about. I do not quarrel with the legislation in principle, but I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, and the noble Viscount. Lord Hanworth, have stressed the need for consumer education. I would ask
1314
that consumer education should not be based on the idea that the retailer is the enemy of all men. Let us have a bit of co-operation. Certainly the two companies, of which I am a member, and which have already been doing this for some years, will continue, if we are required, to do our utmost to provide men who can talk about the merchandise which they sell. I believe that this is a useful service and one that the retail trade as a whole would certainly support.
We must ensure that the legislation. we have is working well, and I would ask that its working be studied with the idea of amending legislation where necessary. It must work well in detail, and in its overall effect on our society. I do not believe that excessive protection of the individual can in the long run do anything but harm. By all means let us pursue the rogue, and protect the unfortunate. But I hope that we shall treat the great majority of citizens as adults capable of conducting their own affairs, and the great majority of shopkeepers as honest men.
5.42 p.m.
LORD TAYLOR OF GRYFE: My Lords, I am glad that the House has an opportunity of discussing consumer affairs and, like other speakers this afternoon, I should like to acknowledge my debt to my noble friend Lady Burton of Coventry, not only for her comprehensive review of the problem but also for her continued interest and vigilance in these matters over a long number of years. I am sure that it is some encouragement to her to see her interest shared, and the progress of legislation in this field.
Like others who have spoken this afternoon, I have to declare my interest, which arises from my close association with the Co-operative Movement. A great deal has been said to-day about new organisations which are concerned with consumer protection, such as the Consumers' Association and the Consumer Council, and it may not be inappropriate to make some reference to the Co-operative Movement as a consumer-owned organisation, embracing no fewer than 13 million consumers, with an annual volume of trade of around £1,000 million. We are inclined

1315
to take the Co-operative Movement for granted. It has been in existence for a hundred years, and when we look at its history we appreciate that the original justification for co-operatives was that they were organisations of consumers bound together by a common philosophy to protect the consumer. Indeed, long before legislation for consumer protection was placed on the Statute Book, co-operatives were guaranteeing correct weights and campaigning against the adulteration of foodstuffs.
When so much is being said nowadays by various parties about the importance of participation and involvement of people in community enterprise, I expected that something might have been said about the contribution of co-operatives in this field. Co-operatives are organised and owned by consumers. They are administered by consumers through local committees, and in the field of consumer education, through its educational agencies and women's guilds, the Co-operative Movement has deep roots in the community and plays a considerable role in educating the housewife in quality, design and other aspects of the goods which she buys.
Having dealt with my particular area of interest, I should like to make some general comment, because I feel that in the comprehensive debate we have had, points of detail have been thoroughly pursued. Listening to my noble friend Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, I found that I could not share his optimism about the growing significance of the consumer explosion in our society. In fact, when I look at economic policies in Britain in the last decade I seem to detect a deterioration in the position of the consumer in society. We are all familiar, from our television screens, with the fact that when the Government are discussing new economic policies the T.U.C. are summoned to Downing Street, and we see with equal regularity that the Government call in the C.B.I. before any major economic policy is evolved. The T.U.C. represents largely the workers in manufacturing industries, and in turn the C.B.I. represents especially those in manufacturing industries, and in the evolution of economic policy I feel that at times the general consumer interest is neglected. Perhaps that is why some strange legis-
1316
lation, like the selective employment tax, finds its way on to the Statute Book.
I feel that the role of the consumer in Government is a declining one. Noble Lords who are familiar with the work of John Kenneth Galbraith will appreciate that his argument, the myth that the consumer is king, no longer holds. Because of the very nature of modern mass production and the investment that is called for in research and in plant in order to put new products on to the market, the consumer is conditioned to accept those products before they are launched. No manufacturer can now risk putting a product on to the market without a considerable barrage of advertising and brainwashing to ensure that the product is accepted. So the consumer is not the man who wanders down the High Street with a free choice without any previous conditioning. I suggest to my noble friend that his conception of the place of the consumer should not he framed so optimistically as he has expressed it this afternoon.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, may I comment? I certainly did not use the word" explosion"; I deny that. Galbraith's remarks apply to the United States of America and are much truer there than they are here, but I absolutely accept that there is a danger. What I do not accept is that from the point of view of the consumer the situation is different. It has always been the case, and it is intensifying, but so are the numbers of consumers and so are the consumer organisations.
LORD TAYLOR OF GRYFE: My Lords, with regard to the more specific points raised by my noble friend Lady Burton of Coventry, I think there has been general acknowledgment that the Trade Descriptions Act is a consumer's charter. I hope that some of the difficulties of operating Section 11 will be examined. When that section was being framed, I think that many of the people who were engaged in negotiations with the Board of Trade recognised the difficulty of applying it. While we may change that section in the light of experience, at the same time it contains within it a very important element of consumer protection.

1317
There has been an acceptance, I think, not least from my noble friend Lord Donaldson, the Chairman of the Consumer Council, that the Council has certain weaknesses. Probably the greatest of these is the fact that it has not been able to establish itself, despite its efforts, as a co-ordinating body for all consumer interests. That, as has been pointed out, was the intention of the Molony Committee Report. And the fact that it does not have grass roots is perhaps another weakness in the Consumer Council; and that has been acknowledged by the Chairman in his Report.
I am not sure that this latter difficulty will be overcome by establishing regional offices. I think that the acceptance of greater responsibility by local authorities in this field offers a much more promising possibility. I accept that it is a helpful thing in our community that, almost spontaneously, local consumer groups have been formed; but I think we must be careful about this matter. In my own experience, I have found local consumer groups full of goodwill and enthusiasm, but sometimes less than fair in making judgments and assessments of the performance of local traders. Indeed, I think it can be said that there have been cases of misrepresentation by people who seemed to be more concerned with publicity than an objective judgment. Like the noble Lord, Lord Redmayne. I think we have to see this matter in all its aspects. It is not a battle of the consumers against the traders, of the good against evil. The traders themselves have considerable problems. The distributive trade is a trade which does not pay high wages. It is carrying the full burden of the selective employment tax, and consequently traders can become vulnerable through no fault of their own.
So far as the Consumers' Association is concerned, as has begin mentioned, its main weakness is the fact that it is drawn from the middle-classes and the more intellectual and affluent sections of our community, whereas in our society real consumer protection is required by people who are much less well cared for. Citizens' Advice Bureaux, despite all the goodwill, have been ineffective in their efforts. They have been largely concerned with collecting complaints, transmitting them to the traders and returning to the original complainant the explanations of the shopkeeper.
1318
As I have said, the most helpful development has been the recognition by several local authorities of their responsibility in these matters, by the establishment of local consumer departments. There they can draw on the expert knowledge of Weights and Measures inspectors, public health inspectors and so on. I understand that the Institute of Weights and Measures is now preparing a diploma on consumer affairs so that their inspectors may be much more competent to exercise a wider supervision. But if this job is to be done effectively by local authorities, we must get away from the old idea that the local authority man is some kind of snooper. We must try in our consumer legislation to effect liaison between the community and co-operative societies, chambers of commerce, citizens' advice bureaux, local consumer groups and so on, to see that this consumer protective legislation is discharged with goodwill and understanding.
I think that most speakers in discussing the work of the Consumer Council this afternoon have highlighted the weakness of the lack of co-ordination. But this is true of Government Departments also. There are several Government Departments interested in this area. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Board of Trade, the Home Office, the Department of Health and Social Security and the Ministry of Technology, all have some responsibility in this field. We have to look for co-ordination in this field not only of the bodies mentioned—the Citizens' Advice Bureaux, the Consumer Council and so on—but also of Government Departments.
My noble friend Lady Burton asked what kind of body we wish to create that will effect co-ordination. The Co-operative Movement has led evidence on occasion that it might be appropriate to consider the establishment of a Ministry of Consumer Welfare. I have no intention of creating further bureaucracy or adding to the cost of Government administration. It may be that such a Ministry could be the Government body responsible for relations with the British Standards Institute, the Consumer Council, the Consumers' Association, the Retail Standards Association, the Council of Industrial Design and similar bodies whose work is important to the consumer

1319
But, in addition, it should assume responsibility for weights and measures and food and drugs legislation, and should administer the Trade Descriptions Act in liaison with local authorities. It should represent consumer interest in connection with applications for import duties on foodstuffs and other consumer goods and in connection with the application of indirect taxation, such as purchase tax and selective employment tax.
It should be consulted before Government policy is declared; it should be brought into consultation perhaps by Ministers when they are making their appointments to the various consumer councils in the nationalised industries. It should be prepared in the interests of consumers to make representations to the Monopolies Commission or to the Registrar of Restrictive Trading Agreements on any aspect of restraint of trade which appears to be operating against the public interest, and so on. That would appear to be the comprehensive remit which a Ministry of Consumer Welfare might discharge. And in the last analysis, it may not add to the burden of Government expenditure. It may be a method of rationalising and streamlining the many bodies and activities which are engaged in this field.
There is one other matter to which I should like to refer, and it is the problem of consumer representation in the nationalised industries. I think we all agree that nationalisation in itself does not guarantee that the industry concerned will be sensitive to the needs of consumers. A public monopoly, like a private monopoly, removes from the consumer his basic strength—his right to choose and his ability to take his custom elsewhere if he is not satisfied. I am not arguing against nationalisation. The Nationalisation Acts themselves recognised this difficulty. But, in looking at the operation of the consumer councils within these nationalised industries, I think we should from time to time take stock as to their effectiveness.
Co-operative organisations recently gathered together people who sit on these bodies nationally and tried to make some assessment of their effectiveness. They complained of a lack of independence. These committees are frequently provided with staff and premises by the Boards of the industries concerned, and tend to
1320
be part of the Board rather than an independent element. They have extremely limited powers. There is a lack of public awareness of the existence of these councils within the nationalised industry. A Gallup survey showed that only 12 per cent. of the public had heard of the electricity and gas committees, and only 4 per cent. of the transport consultative committees. So I feel we must examine this important element, too.
I am well aware that this is a very difficult problem, and while we are concerned about consumer interest being expressed adequately in public monopolies, at the same time we must do nothing that inhibits these industries, or frustrates these industries, from operating as first-class business organisations, because they will be judged in the future on that basis. I think we can make some assessment of the effectiveness of these councils without disturbing the commercial viability of these undertakings.
6.1 p.m.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, I should like to join those who have congratulated the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, on enabling us to have this debate to-day. Those of us on both sides of the House who have sat through a number of consumer debates on Government Bills and other Motions over the years, will know what a stalwart champion of the consumer she has been and, indeed, at times she has hurled her barbs at this Bench and her own Bench.
The first thing we have to remember is that we are all consumers. There has been a tendency in the past to regard consumers as a very limited section of the public without realising that manufacturers, retailers, sales managers, merchandisers and market researchers are themselves consumers. Therefore, in this Motion we are really looking into the future, and trying to assess how to join together the existing legislation to make it effective. This is certainly not an easy job.
I should like to declare an interest of a non-financial nature, as a Vice-President of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. I believe safety has a great deal to do with this debate. The Royal Society, I know, will be interested to read what takes place to-day, and my own particular interest here is on the 1968 Medicines Act. I should like to ask the noble

1321
Baroness (I have given her notice of one or two points) a question concerning consumer representation on the Medicines Commission when it is set up. As I understand it, when the Bill went through the Government would not agree to actual representation of the consumer, or any consumer group, on the Commission as a whole, but they have given an undertaking that they would be represented on some of the committees.
I wonder whether the noble Baroness could expand on this matter tonight, or on another occasion, because it is very important at a time when drugs and pharmaceutical products are becoming such emotive words. It is essential that the interests of the pharmaceutical companies and the drug manufacturers, who for the most part are extremely honest, hard-working people, should be protected. The general public as a whole are becoming more safety conscious. I noticed this particularly last week when I went as a guest to the Safety Week in the Borough of Lambeth, where I saw some of the excellent work which is going on in educating people on the matter of safety, and particularly safety in consumer products.
This brings me to the subject of labelling, and one wonders whether sufficient is being done with regard to some of the pharmaceutical capsules and other products to make quite sure that young people particularly, and old people who may be affected in their vision, can tell these products from ordinary confectionery items. This is an important point. If accidents occur, they are highlighted, perhaps in an exaggerated manner, in the Press. Retailers and manufacturers inevitably find themselves, sometimes deservedly but this is often not so, on the butt end of an enormous row.
I should like now to turn to the matter of the consumer in general. We hear a great deal about cut-price items and offers. A good deal has been said in this debate. The Molony Committee made its recommendations, and we have had the Trade Descriptions Act. We still get a certain amount—particularly in cereals—of so-called free gifts, bulbs or some other product at a cut price. One wonders whether the general public really wants them. Has market research, whether carried out by the company or elsewhere,
1322
proved that they are wanted? What people want is the full weight and value of the corn flakes or the washing powder. Do they get it with these free gifts, or cut-price gifts enclosed with the products? I believe there is some doubt in the minds of many people whether this is the case.
There is also the fact that all this goes well beyond the retailer. The retailer depends very much on the know-how, and sometimes the honesty, of the sales force of the company concerned. I declare an interest here as an associate director of a small firm of management consultants. Some of my colleagues run communication courses for sales managers and sales forces of consumer products, although I am not directly concerned with that side of the business.
Much is being done now in the intensive training of sales forces. It is very important to a retailer that the sales representative, or, indeed, the merchandising representative who calls, knows his job. This is particularly true of the small retailer, who may have many customers to serve. He may have accounts to make up, and does not always have time to check on the bona fides of the man's knowledge, or ability of the person concerned. Much is being done now by training companies of the organisations concerned, as a whole, and of training companies generally, to make sure that their sales and marketing forces really know their products and do not merely put over the glossy nature of them; so that they do their utmost to give the beneficial aspects of the products as well, in order that the retailer can pass the information on to the customer.
Finally, I should like to say just one word about certain second-hand products which are still being hawked around the market. This is not primarily a debate on safety, but, as I said earlier, safety and consumer protection and consumers generally go very much hand in hand. There are still fêtes and sales offering too many second-hand electric fires, which are on the market despite the Act which I believe the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, piloted through this House some years ago. One sees them on market stalls and, as I have seen them, at fetes and elsewhere. One has only to have an accident caused by one of these appliances and the bona-fide manufacturers of electric fires

1323
may well find themselves branded as being purveyors of danger. I know that to some this may seem an extreme statement, but I have been told on very good authority that this is the case. My Lords, I hope that, as a result of this debate, the points which have been put forward, together with the various Acts which have resulted from consumer debates in the past, will be another milestone in a really good consumer representation for this country as a whole.
6.12 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, we are now coming towards the end of what has been an extraordinarily interesting debate, and I should like to echo what has already been said by way of gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, for not only having introduced the debate but having made such an excellent speech. I am not absolutely certain that I agreed with her final conclusion as to the value of a "summit meeting" on this particular subject, but she certainly set out the considerations in an exemplary manner for the House to consider. We have also had the benefit of a wide range of different points of view. We have heard both the previous and the present Chairman of the Consumer Council and had the benefit of their advice—and long may we have the benefit of their advice! I certainly would not subscribe to any suggestion that they should not be allowed to speak about consumer affairs in this House; we should be very much the poorer if they were debarred from doing so. Then, we have had a spokesman from the Co-operative movement taking part, and a spokesman (if I may put it that way) from the departmental stores, so we really have had a very wide range of assistance in this debate—
A NOBLE LORD: Multiple stores.
LORD DRUMALBYN: All right, multiple stores; I thought it was "departmental". I do not propose to go into any particular question, because it struck me that this was intended to be a debate about administration in general, developments in administration, rather than on methods of dealing with particular questions such as whether we should have a sixpence and a 50p piece—I wholly agree with my noble friend's views in that connection but I will not pursue them;
1324
whether free gifts are a good thing and, if not, who is to say that they are not a good thing (a question which I should have thought could be left to the market), and whether contracts should contain exclusion clauses. In this connection, I think we have here complete unanimity that the sooner legislation is introduced the better, and that we need not really wait until we have possibly the same kind of additional clause as Section 14 of the Trade Descriptions Act, which was experimental so far as services are concerned. I would doubt whether we should get further than an experimental clause on services in any Bill to amend the Sale of Goods Act.
I do not propose to say anything about "inertia selling" either, the supply of unsolicited goods, except that I think we must be very careful when we go in for legislation of this kind that we do not introduce side effects which would be just as bad as the disease. If the cure is going to be as bad as the disease, it is possibly a good idea not to have it. The point is that, if we were to follow the New York State legislation and allow a person to whom goods which he had not ordered were delivered to annex those goods—to treat them as a gift—I think we should be striking at our ideas of morality; and we should be very careful about doing that. We do not want to encourage people to acquire goods which do not belong to them in that way. I would certainly say in this matter that two blacks do not make a white and, furthermore, if we had this kind of proposal it might very easily do considerable harm to transactions by word of mouth. Everybody would want everything in writing, because otherwise the customer could always say, "I did not ask for this. I am keeping it. Thank you very much." So I think we must consider difficulties of this kind when we are thinking of legislation on such a subject as this.
Having said that, I think that possibly the best way of dealing with it is this. Mr. Bernard Levin has put forward a suggestion that information should be given with all goods as to the rights of the consumer; and this would follow the hire-purchase legislation. This, I think, would in itself probably be beneficial. We will wait and see what the Bill says, but I feel that I ought to make my

1325
position clear on this matter in advance because the simpler the law is made, and the simpler the obligations that are laid upon people, the better for all concerned.
I noted with interest what my noble friend Lord Redmayne said about fining. May I say this, in passing. My experience of the working of the Trade Descriptions Act so far is that on the whole traders are apt to treat a summons under the Act rather as they would treat a summons for causing obstruction in the road, and say to themselves, "Well, that is finished. I've had it. I may as well plead 'guilty', and the least said the soonest mended." I do not believe that this Act will work properly if traders take that view. If they think they are right, they must plead "not guilty", and appeal if necessary. The law is not all that clear—we know that—and there are aspects of it which need to be clarified, and they will not be clarified unless people stand up for themselves and their rights, if they think they are right.
I agree very much with the spirit of this debate in the sense that it seems to me that we are all united in seeing the value of the closest co-operation and coordination all along the line. If one looks back seven years or ten years, one can say that the antagonisms between the consumer and the trader were very much greater then than they are now. A great deal of the credit for this change lies with the various bodies which have been working in the field. But, so long as consumers treat themselves only as consumers and traders treat themselves only as traders, we cannot expect to have a good relationship between the two.
The Consumer Council have done a good job, if I may say so, in bringing parties together. Sometimes I feel they could develop this work even further than they do already. For example, supposing they were to publish in their organ Focus the results of working parties designed to set up codes of practice for trades and to make suggestions for legislation and the like (as they do to some extent), if they were working parties representing all the interests rather then merely internal working parties, it might be valuable. I always read Focus with the greatest of interest and a good deal of enjoyment, but many of the articles are really just reporting jobs that could be
1326
done as well by the Press. If Focus were to concentrate more on the general principle of getting both voluntary organisations and traders together for the benefit of the consumer—and indeed for the benefit of the trader, because the trader depends on the consumers—this might bring still more laurels to the Consumer Council, to the general benefit of us all.
I was tremendously interested in the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Burton. She dealt mainly with four principal matters: the handling of consumer civil claims; the handling of other consumer complaints; the relationships between the various organisations concerned (which I have already tried to touch on), and consumer education and all that goes with it, including the training of shop assistants which I was glad to hear my noble friend Lord Redmayne mention.
I would approach this by saying that there are essentially seven bodies dealing with consumer problems. In the first place, there are laws, almost all of which have been touched on in this debate, such as the Consumer Protection Act and the Medicines Act, designed to protect the consumer against dangers to health and safety which particular goods may involve. Secondly, there are laws designed to protect him from misleading descriptions and claims, such as the Trade Descriptions Act and parts of the Food and Drugs Act. Then there are laws designed to enable him to assert his own rights and obtain redress under the civil law. Then there are bodies and associations concerned with helping the consumer with advice and information or making representations on his behalf. There are those which actually take up cases, including newspapers and magazines, which invite readers to send in their complaints for examination. They have columns, such as the Daily Express "Action Line". There is also consumer education. Finally—I think I am echoing what my noble friend Lord Redmayne has said—there is the individual and collective conscience of traders, coupled with their recognition that they are not merely making a livelihood but giving a service, and coupled, as my noble friend so rightly said—or perhaps it would be better to say "tripled"—with their recognition that they are wholly dependent on the good will of the consumers.

1327
My Lords, as taxpayers we all have a common interest in ensuring that we do not unnecessarily multiply the number of people in agencies looking after our interests as consumers, and probably doing things that we could and should do for ourselves. We also have a common interest as citizens in seeing that we do not strangle our liberty with a lot of unnecessary laws and regulations, and that we are in a position to know exactly what obligations such rules and regulations as do exist lay upon us, and what rights they confer upon us, whether as consumers or traders. Of course, we must have some laws and regulations to stop the rogues. At this point I would suggest that there is a strong case for grouping all enforcement duties for which we look to local authorities under one local authority department, and I would hope that when we get a new Local Government Act this will be a requirement in that Act. I am sure that it would make for better administration once we get a clearer division of frontiers.
My Lords, it is nearly a year since the Trade Descriptions Act came into operation and it is right that we should take stock of the position. As was to be expected, in the light of the way weights and measures inspectors performed their duties under the Weights and Measures Act 1953, for the most part these officers have sought to educate traders in the requirements of the Act, only bringing prosecutions in cases where a trader deliberately sets out to deceive or is negligent in the duty to avoid deception. I would admit to my noble friend that perhaps where they particularly dislike a practice, as they dislike the "threepence off" practice, they may bring prosecutions.
LORD REDMAYNE: My Lords, I hope my noble friend will study carefully to-morrow what he has said, which if I were not his friend I would call grossly offensive to the cases which I have put.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, is the noble Lord referring to what I have just said?
LORD REDMAYNE: Yes, my Lords.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am sorry, my Lords. Most certainly I will look at it carefully to-morrow. I hope that I have
1328
not been in any way offensive; I did not mean to be. If my noble friend is talking about what I have just said about the "threepence off" technique—
LORD REDMAYNE: My Lords, I was talking about gross negligence.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I think this is what the weights and measures inspectors have been trying to do—only to bring prosecutions in cases where there was either wilful deception or gross negligence. That is what they have been trying to do as a whole, but I have made an admission to my noble friend that where there are points on which they are particularly keen they may follow these up.
Weights and measures inspectors are rightly regarded as the allies both of consumers and of honest traders, and I know that they attach great value to being regarded in this dual capacity. No doubt there are cases where they have felt it necessary to make a public example to clarify the law for the benefit of the public at large, but I am told that the total number of prosecutions notified to the Board of Trade has now passed the thousand mark. I do not know whether the noble Baroness can confirm that. That may sound a large number, but spread over some 250 weights and measures authorities it represents only an average of four cases per authority per year; so it indicates at any rate forbearance on the part of the weights and measures authorities if there were a larger number of cases that they feel they could have prosecuted.
On the other hand, weights and measures inspectors have received a great many complaints from consumers. I am told that the total may be as many as 20 or 30 times the number of prosecutions notified. In view of the publicity given to the Trade Descriptions Act I think it was inevitable that a great many consumers should bring their complaints to the weights and measures authorities. No doubt many of them thought it was the duty of the local authority to obtain redress for them. I dare say that a large proportion of the complaints revealed no offence under the Trade Descriptions Act, or any other Act, but might nevertheless have appeared to inspectors to have some merit. Then, of course, the inspectors have to decide what to do with complaints

1329
which involve no breach of the criminal law. Ought they in such cases to spend their time, and the ratepayers' money, in seeking redress for the complainants at a time when many weights and measures departments are understaffed? This is a problem they have to face.
As your Lordships will know, some local authorities had been experimenting with consumer advisory and information services even before the Act came into being. Some had separated, partially or completely, their consumer services from their enforcement duties; and in my personal view they were wise to do so. Consumer help and advice services can usefully be attached, for example, to a public relations department of a local authority. I say this for more than one reason. If a trader is approached by a local authority, he has a right to know whether or not the local authority is acting in the exercise of its statutory powers. If the local authority officer is merely using his good offices in a matter where no offence has been committed, he should make this absolutely clear; and I believe that in such cases enforcement officers generally do so. Nevertheless, I feel that it is better if an enforcement officer turns over a complaint involving no offence to a different department, such as a consumer help and advice department. No enforcement authority can be right all the time about the law; nor, for that matter, can the magistrates in courts. This again is a good reason why anyone who considers that the enforcement authority or magistrates' court is wrong about his case should be prepared to take it to a higher court if he is found guilty of an offence in the court of first instance.
This liability to error is also a reason why enforcement authorities should not use their weights and measures status as enforcement authorities to induce anyone to do things that the person has no legal duty to do. I regard this as an important matter of principle. Enforcement authorities are efficient; they are conscientious; they are impartial. But it seems to me wrong in principle that they should act in matters where they have no powers, because it seems to me this can only lead to confusion on the part of the public as to the limit of their duties and as to what the law really is. If a complaint comes from a person who has suffered no loss and there is no offence, the inspector can
1330
report to the Board of Trade, if he thinks that the law should be strengthened, and the Board of Trade can call for reports on particular points from time to time. If a person has had a loss, he or she should be advised to obtain redress in the appropriate way.
If the weights and measures authority is not to help a consumer in this kind of way, who is to do it? A good deal of discussion to-day has ranged over this point. It has to be remembered that it is reckoned to cost something between £2 and £4 or £5 to handle each consumer complaint. If a test were required, it could be very much more than that; and then who is to pay? The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, said that he did not know the answer to this, and nor do I.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: And neither do I.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I do not think one would have expected a definite decision, but surely part of the purpose of this debate is to examine the possibilities, and I would like to put forward one or two here.
There is one point that is important: whoever is going to settle the dispute should be either a person or an organisation which does not represent either traders or consumers; it must be an impartial person or organisation. I think that is the first point that must be established. So that Citizens' Advice Bureaux and the consumer information departments of local authorities are there to give advice and not to act as referees. The weights and measures authorities are impartial but they are enforcement authorities, as the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, has said. They are not conciliation boards or arbitrators. I would egree with the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, that separate consumer advisory committees can help, but they are not necessarily the complete answer. I have considerable sympathy with the idea that there should be some form of tribunal or arbitration, perhaps in a small claims court, similar to the one in New York State about which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was speaking, or by recourse to an arbiter; and I would suggest that such arbiters could be drawn from a panel of arbiters appointed by the local authority and agreed between the parties.
If I may say so, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor had a rather

1331
quick sleight of hand at this point, because he pointed out that in New York the arbiters to whom cases are referred act voluntarily, without cost; and he then went on to say that in his experience arbitration was always just as expensive as litigation. Could not we do the same here? Could we not have voluntary arbiters, meeting in the evenings as they do in New York, to whom disputed claims could be submitted? I think the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, suggested that this should be done by trial and error. Why should not we try it in certain areas, to see how it works, and then in due course reach final conclusions?
There is another consideration. It is unreasonable for a consumer to expect to get redress entirely at public expense unless he is without means, and if the legal aid system were extended to this sort of case it would be an ideal solution. I should have thought that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was perhaps overestimating the difficulty of extending legal aid to cases of this kind. Given that it is so difficult to provide any other solution, I should have thought we were bound to extend legal aid to cases of this sort. He himself demonstrated the difficulty of finding any other solution, and he said that this really depends on legal aid—that is what his speech amounted to. Surely, if that is so, that is the solution that must be decided upon: legal aid must be made available in these cases, so that those who can afford to get redress will pay for it and those who cannot will get it just the same.
I do not want to detain your Lordships any further on those aspects, but I want to say a word about consumer education, because I regard it as extremely important; indeed, in this debate great stress has been laid upon it. I fully agree with what has been said, that this education should start in the schools. I would suggest to the noble Baroness that, at a time when we are about to have an extension of the school-leaving age, this is just the kind of instruction that could interest children staying on from 15 to 16. The great problem is to give them in the last year things that interest them and that actually affect what they are going to do in later life. I should have thought this was a
1332
very good opportunity to introduce consumer education in the schools; and that means also in the teacher-training colleges. I do not know how far the Consumer Council can assist in this respect. I know that they do a great deal by way of pamphlets and so forth; but if they could be peripatetic and provide this instruction in the teacher-training colleges, I think they would be doing a very great service indeed.
I would add one comment on what seems to me to mark a very great difference between our debate on consumer services this time and last time—and here I speak with an interest. I have not heard the word "advertising" mentioned once in this debate, and as Chairman of the Advertising Standards Authority I am very glad.
Lastly, there is one suggestion that I would make to the noble Baroness who is to reply, and that is that she might find it advisable—or, rather, the President of the Board of Trade might find it desirable—to have an advisory committee. I am sure that an advisory committee of this kind would have to be nominated by the President himself from all kinds of personal advisers. They should certainly not be delegates and should certainly not give their advice in public. Considering that the President of the Board of Trade has these duties of deciding what regulations to make, and considering also that he will be getting reports from the Institute of Weights and Measures Administration and the weights and measures authorities in general on various aspects of their work, and suggesting whether the law ought to be tightened up, it seems to me that a committee of this kind might be very valuable to him. However, I fully realise that that is really a matter for the President, and I would not press him to appoint a committee if he is not going to use it or did not think that it would be valuable.
I mentioned just now the weights and measures authorities. I omitted to say something which I feel I must say here The people who are as well placed as any to give the Board of Trade advice in matters of regulations to be made and so on, are the weights and measures inspectors, and the best way of giving such advice would be through their professional organisation, the Institute of

1333
Weights and Measures Administration. Noble Lords may be surprised to know that the Institute has no paid staff at all, although among other things it is responsible for the training of weights and measures inspectors. The Institute is financed entirely by the voluntary subscriptions of its members, and the subscriptions have been more than doubled in this year.
As this Institute is engaged in work on behalf of the public far more than in promoting the interests of its members—it is not a trade association—surely there is a strong argument in favour of giving an annual grant in aid to the Institute. It is important that the Institute should be able, with one authoritative voice, to speak collectively to the Government, to trade associations and to consumer organisations. It is already speaking to trade associations on travel matters, on the motor trade and so forth. It is also doing good work towards overcoming what, as the noble Baroness knows, I regard as the main difficulty of the Trade Descriptions Act, the fact that there can be almost as many interpretations of the Act as there are enforcement authorities, and there is no real co-ordinating body. The Institute is doing this by acting as a centre of information about cases pending and prosecutions decided, but it is greatly handicapped by lack of resources and by lack of people to deal quickly with problems. For example, not all enforcement officers are even members of the Institute. I understand that office bearers have to pay out of their own pockets a lot of the expenses incurred in the performance of their duties as office bearers. That is not a satisfactory situation, and I am sure that there is a real need to build up the prestige and effectiveness of the Institute as the professional organisation of enforcement officers in the field of fair trading under the law, because that is what this whole debate is about: to get the best possible means of fair trading and of administering the system of fair trading in this country.
6.43 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, it is nearly a year since the Trade Descriptions Act came into force and, with her unfailing sense of timing, the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, has enabled us to look at the way in which the Act is working. She introduced the whole sub-
1334
ject in a remarkably clear and logical way which was a delight to us all. I think that the way in which the noble Baroness introduced the debate has set the pattern, so that in fact we have closely followed the subject under discussion and have not strayed into further fields. I will endeavour to answer the points that she has raised. Probably she will not like all my replies, and if they do not follow in strict sequence she will know that I am at any rate attempting to come to them. It is unfortunate, in one sense, that we are a little ahead, as we are so often in this House, of a Press conference to discuss the working of the Trade Descriptions Act. I have been given various statements which I could have made had we had the debate a week later; but as the honourable lady in another place who will be conducting the Press conference is a relative of mine, I feel that it would be a little hard if I stole her thunder to-day.
I should like at once to assure the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, whom I congratulate on his most interesting speech, that, unlike him, I am no maiden in consumer affairs. In fact, using one of the phrases that other noble Lords have used, I might say that I am a grass roots housewife of many years standing, because as many noble Lords will know, this has been one of my interests since long before I came into this House.
The Act came effectively into force eleven months ago, and so we have had an opportunity at looking at the number of cases that have arisen. It might be interesting to noble Lords if I outlined the figures given by the professional body to which such great tribute has rightly been paid by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, the Institute of Weights and Measures Administration. Several other figures have been bandied about, but I think their figures will be the most useful of all. The number of complaints relates to the nine months from December 1, 1968, to August 31, 1969, so they do not cover precisely the period of operation of the Act, but they are near enough. In that time 25,000 complaints were filed under the Trade Descriptions Act, and, as the noble Lord has just pointed out, about 1,000 prosecutions are being dealt with. I have to put it as generally as that, because various things can happen.

1335
It is important to recognise that the Institute has itself made the point that these figures derive from complaints raised by members of the public and do not reveal the number of checks made by weights and measures officers during their normal and everyday working. I think this is most relevant to the fact that we are talking specifically of the Act and the effect on the consumer.
I would at once agree with those noble Lords who have said that the publicity has undoubtedly aroused interest among consumers, which may result in some complaints which are largely frivolous. But, as all noble Lords who have been concerned in any work of this kind will agree, it is equally true that this will shake down as time goes on. The provision concerning false statements about services, accommodation and facilities has also been invoked, as well as the particular provision which we all expected would come greatly to the fore. The types of cases concerned are such as one might have expected—cars, motor vehicles and accessories coming well to the fore, with the setting back of mileage recorders and so on. But I think noble Lords will agree that the figures that I have just given, both of complaints and of pending prosecutions, leave no doubt that the Act has been vigorously enforced and that its passage was amply justified.
Of course, we must not get the wrong impression. There is no widespread and systematic attempt to deceive the customer. In relation to the total number of retail transactions that take place the number of prosecutions is quite small, and in a number of cases it is fair to say that the offences arose because the shop did not observe the high standard of care which the Act rightly demands in checking the accuracy of descriptions, rather than because of deliberate misrepresentation. I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, would be the first to agree with me that the true success of the Act is to be measured not in a number of prosecutions but by the extent to which it promotes greater standards of care to get right trade descriptions; and there is no doubt about its success in that respect.
The Board of Trade are well aware of the immense amount of trouble that is
1336
being taken by trade associations and by individual companies at all levels to ensure that the requirements of the Act are fully understood and faithfully observed; and I think we must pay tribute, as many noble Lords have done and I should like officially to do, to the enforcement officers, to the weights and measures inspectors who are, as has been rightly said, carrying a heavy burden at this time. A great deal has been said on the fact that some guidance should be given to them. I am happy to say that I have here some guidance which was issued to local weights and measures authorities before the Trade Descriptions Act came into force. Your Lordships will be happy to know that I do not intend at this point of time to read through the whole of these notes. I should like to draw the attention of those of your Lordships who took part in the debate to one or two of the headings. On the question of duplicated offences which was raised during the discussion of the Act—whether a shopkeeper, or a multiple shopkeeper, could be prosecuted a hundred times, as it were, for the same offence—there is a very wise and full instruction to the enforcement officer as to his methods of conduct. These officers are of course requested to complete returns and to send them back to the Board of Trade in order to facilitate preparation of the statistics with which we have been dealing. I think this probably highlights the point which the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has just made.
I must say that when I spoke to the Institute of Weights and Measures Administration I, like the noble Lord, was amazed to know that their own Association was a voluntary one, considering the tremendous amount of work they did. While I cannot comment on this fact, I take the noble Lord's point that this is for the information, and we hope the consideration, of the President, and I would certainly say that I would endorse all he has said about the fact that a voluntary group of this kind does this remarkable piece of work.
This circular outlines very fully the lines of conduct for the weights and measures authorities. I think your Lordships would agree, however—and this is a point which we have often debated in this House—that too much direction from the central Government may lead to

1337
an apparent snarling up, as it were, of law-making and law-enforcing at local level. I am thinking now as a magistrate. I have so often heard in this House a request for a direction. But, of course, the courts are made up of people who are there to look objectively at the facts presented, and I feel that if the directives were too precise we might introduce a completely new principle into English law.
LORD REDMAYNE: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Baroness? One would imagine that it is not a public document, and one can see objections to making it public. However, would it be possible to lay it in the Library of the House, or something of the sort, so that one might study it? It would be very helpful to those of us interested in the subject to see on what lines the Act is being implemented.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I will look into this point. I do not think there would be any difficulty, because the document concerns general lines of conduct. I will consult the Department and see precisely what can be done about this. As I say, I should not think there would be any difficulty about allowing those who are directly interested and concerned in this matter a sight of this document.
The noble Lord, Lord Redmayne, said that he did not want a specific reply this evening, but I can at any rate, speaking generally, give him some replies to the comments he made. He criticised the prosecution of a chemist because an inspector was overcharged on a single purchase. I think it is important to remember that, although local weights and measures authorities may enforce the Act by examination of goods and prices in shops, purchases are often made because complaints have already been made by the public. I call to mind an instance that was given to me at a meeting not long ago. It concerned an incident where a wrong price was shown in a supermarket. The member of the public went back at intervals, and this particular thing was still happening; and only then, did he make a complaint. So one accepts that the innocent may well be caught occasionally—or, rather, where the complaint is genuine. But it is important to recall
1338
that the officer often acts following a complaint made by the public.
The noble Lord, Lord Redmayne, referred to dispensing shortages. The Board of Trade have reminded local weights and measures authorities of the desirability of using the appropriate legislation for dealing with offences. But ultimately it must be left to the discretion of the authority concerned to decide how they deal with any matter that is brought to their attention. That is the point I have tried to make before. The Act places the duty of enforcement on the local weights and measures authorities, and the Board of Trade have no powers to require that they enforce the Act in any particular way. I think I must emphasise this. There would of course be difficulties about suggesting that a warning was appropriate in one case, but that there would have to be a prosecution in another. Much must depend on the circumstances of the particular case; and the local weights and measures authorities are on the spot and in the best place to judge what is likely to be misinterpreted by the local community and be most harmful to them.
I think it was Mr. Roger Diplock who suggested that there was a great deal of flexing of muscles. Weights and measures inspectors are human beings, and there will naturally be some who are perhaps more enthusiastic than others. But, equally, since we have agreed this evening that they are a grossly overworked group in the community, it seems unlikely that they would be seeking out something willy-nilly, and that they would prefer to take the course of warning rather than that of prosecuting. Indeed, I think the figures I have quoted reveal this.
The noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, mentioned the recruiting of the weights and measures inspectors. I cannot give him any figures on this point. We have heard, of course, that they have their own courses. I do not know that this matter of numbers is very much under discussion because, as I have said, they are under great stress. I am sorry that I cannot give him any satisfaction at all about retaining the sixpence. I think that probably the noble Lord did not expect it. Nor, of course, can I give him, or the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, any hope about the 50p piece, except to repeat the points made so well by my noble friend the Chief Whip, that a coin

1339
has a much longer life than a note. It may be of some satisfaction to both noble Lords to know that I myself last week actually gave one of these as a tip, thinking that I was giving two shillings—so that may well be "the biter bit". However, there is little doubt that already people are beginning to get used to the new coin: one notices that in the stores they are putting these coins in separate slots. So, while I have no doubt that the noble Lords will probably return to the attack, I cannot this evening say any more on this subject.
The noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, and the noble Lords, Lord Mowbray and Stourton and Lord Airedale, referred to the Sale of Goods Act, and to the fact that the Law Commission have published this Report. The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, very skilfully suggested what my reply might be, thus putting me in the position that I must see to it that I give another reply. I can only say that the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, will appreciate that one cannot plunge lightly into legislation of this kind because it is hedged around with all kinds of complications, despite the justice of the case which has been argued. But I can equally tell the noble Lord that this matter is—I am not quite sure what is the phrase here; but perhaps I may say in the usual channels. I did ask if 1 could say more but I cannot do so because no date or anything has been arranged. At least he will see that the Law Commission's Report is being acted on without waiting necessarily on the other points—though these are very valid and, of course, the subject of further Reports. I hope that I have not, by saying that, in any way jeopardised my own position; and if I am reshuffled tomorrow the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, will have this on his conscience.
The noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, we are always delighted to hear from, and I should like to pay my tribute to her work for the Consumer Council. I remember having the pleasure of speaking on a platform with her at one of these large meetings she mentioned, and I thought she put up a very spirited defence for the Consumer Council. if they want a public relations officer, I think they need seek no further than the noble Baroness herself. I agree with
1340
the noble Baroness that the case for what they are doing is a very strong one. Their proposals, as the noble Baroness will know, are currently under review, and the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kings-bridge, is discussing this. I cannot from the Box this evening make any comment on the situation vis-à-vis more money for any of the proposals that are being put up. It seems that, however we dress up our requests in this House, whether they come in an intellectual guise or whether they come in the guise of defence, they always come back to what the Yorkshire-man calls the "come-from".
I sit here waiting for, "Can we have more money?" Whatever the subject, this is always what I might call the tag line. I would only say to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, that Molony did not see any need for the Council to have regional organisations, because they conceived the Council as a central authority working at a national level; and the Committee reached the conclusion that the C.A.B. was the best agency to provide local advisory services for consumers. I am not saying this in any other way than in the spirit of reminding the noble Baroness and the noble Lord of what Molony said at that particular time.
The noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, mentioned the question of TELTAG, and gave us a very interesting account of it. I hope he gave my noble friend Lady Burton of Coventry the figures for which she asked, because I do not have them. I do not think he gave a complete breakdown, but at least he gave an outline of how this scheme was working. I think this links very closely with the point which my noble friend Lady Burton put to me about seals of approval. Although the Molony Committee came to the conclusion that seals of approval should be controlled in some way, they mentioned that they found little evidence that consumers had substantial cause for complaint about their use.
I am sure the noble Baroness will agree that the Trade Descriptions Act has gone a long way towards outlawing seals which are misleading. It seems that the voluntary marks—the kite mark, the British Electrical Approvals Board mark and the TELTAG mark—are gaining ground against the type of seals which Molony criticised.

1341
I remember sitting on a number of voluntary bodies trying to determine how to describe something like "showerproof" or "rainproof". So much so that I have never since bought a coat which has been able to compete against the rain, because nobody seemed to be able to define what was showerproof and what was rainproof. These committees went on endlessly, and as one question was solved so another seemed to be turned up. So I would say that the fact that the TELTAG label has gone so far is a great tribute to the work which must have been put into it—and here I speak from some knowledge and background.
The noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, asked us to grasp the nettle (I think that was his phrase) and to deal with Section 8, the marking order section. I think it is very important to remind the noble Viscount that it was made clear during the passage of this Act—in fact, there were expressions of anxiety, as I recall, from among your Lordships—that the Government never intended to make prolific use of these powers. It is very important to get this on the record. They are essentially reserve powers to be used to secure necessary ends when other possible means are found to be inadequate; and at present this is not the case. In fact, the noble Viscount's own marking scheme seems to be meeting a certain point, so far as information is concerned.
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: My Lords, perhaps I might just say that there are certain areas where voluntary means have not proved successful.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: Yes, my Lords; and the Board of Trade constantly have this under review. But I think it is important to emphasise that this is a final and rather absolute power which was, of course, questioned during the passage of the Act, so it must be looked at very carefully each time.
My noble friend Lady Burton, and I think my noble friend Lord Taylor of Gryfe, referred to the possible setting up of more co-ordinating machinery, or something which would be essentially different from that which exists at the present moment. To deal first of all with the point made by my noble friend Lady Burton, she referred to the functions of the Federal Trade Commission
1342
in the United States, and she wondered whether in any way an organisation of this character might in fact help the administration of consumer affairs in this country. I think it is rather important to point out that when we look at the functions of the Federal Trade Committee we see that we really cover a large number of them by legislation already on the Statute Book.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, may I interrupt my noble friend? The point was—and I hoped the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor would rise, but he did not—whether it would be possible to include a consumer protection department in the justice department, as in America.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: In that case, I am afraid I shall have to rest on the reply of the noble and learned Lord. The point made by my noble friend Lord Taylor of Gryfe dealt with a different issue, though similar in one sense. He thought there was need for bringing in the consultative committees of the nationalised industries, and so on. I would certainly go along with him in suggesting that these very worthy councils should be better known. Anything which seeks to help the consumer should certainly be better known. But so far as a wider co-ordinating department is concerned, I must refer him to the reply of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister when this question was put to him in the other place recently. He said:
"I think that consumers' interests are best served by the present arrangements, under which the Board of Trade has a general responsibility for consumer protection but the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, with its expert knowledge, has a special responsibility in relation to food".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 26/6/69, col. 302.]
This is not, of course, a final reply by any means, but it is the reply at this point of time.
The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge gave us a very interesting history, I thought, of what led up to a great deal of consumer legislation, but I should like to point out to him and to the noble Lord, Lord Redmayne, and, I believe, to several other noble Lords, that here I feel I must speak up for the Citizens' Advice Bureaux. They appear to have nobody among your Lordships represented on their committees, so their

1343
voice has not really been heard. When not in Government, I had a very close affiliation with them; so to the noble Lord, Lord Redmayne, I would say that the Citizens' Advice Bureaux have a policy, when a complainant comes in, of always referring them first to the shopkeeper before they in fact take the complaint any further. And, of course, they had 85,000 consumer inquiries in 1968–69 compared with 59,000 in 1963; so there is little doubt that they are not wholly concerned with social service matters. I would remind your Lordships that the bureaux were set up during the war, when they certainly would not have been dealing with social services. They were dealing with practical questions and answers which related to points of law. So there is little doubt that they carry out the functions of dealing with consumer inquiries.
The noble Lord, Lord Auckland, made a point about the Medicines Act and the Committee on Advertising and Labelling. At present, the composition of the Committee has not been dealt with. I am sure that my right honourable friend will bear the noble Lord's point in mind when this is looked at, but the composition of this Committee is not immediately under discussion. Of course, we salute the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, for his work for safety; I know of this in another way. I take his point about the danger in connection with second-hand electric fires. There are, of course, various regulations, as he will well know, already on the Statute Book, and the Home Office, which is responsible for this section, is constantly looking at this. This is one subject, I see, which they have marked for further discussion.
My Lords, I hope I have attempted to reply to most of the questions raised. This has been a very interesting debate—I would say a fascinating debate—and each noble Lord who has participated has emphasised the point on which I think we would all agree: that only the educated and the informed shopper can in fact, in the end, get best value for money. I am sorry, I nearly missed Lord Drumalbyn's point about consumer education. The Consumer Council in this field have a very good record, starting, as the noble Lord emphasised, with the schools and building up. I rather took the other points that the noble Lord,
1344
Lord Drumalbyn, made as points which he hopes my noble friend will look at; because I am sure that he would not expect me to make a formal reply. I can only say that I rather liked some of the suggestions he put forward; although I found that at one stage when he was putting the questions I had not the answers, and it seemed to me that neither had he.
The educated and informed shopper is what we want. I have believed for many years that if people know more about products they do not buy less but more. Therefore, the interests of the consumer and the trader are running on parallel lines. Education is important and this is what we are bending our minds to at this moment. I wonder whether your Lordships ever read this little poem which I think is rather intriguing. I cannot remember its source. It says:
"Why do shops close when its time to go shopping?
Why is parking absolute hell?
Why are replacements not available instantly
And why don't folks know about things that they sell?
Why are there dogs in the delicatessen"—
not for sale, I hope—
"And doors only heavyweight boxers can pull.
Why are writers of labels such liars?
And eye-catching packages only half-full?
Why are we either neglected or bullied, refused things from window displays and high shelves
Why don't they ever stock sizes that fit us"—
and this is the point—
"Why don't we ever stick up for ourselves?"
The legislation is there for the consumer, the good will is there and I hope that this Act is going to prove that we are concerned to see that the consumer gets true value for money.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, said that the Government attached great importance to this subject, as was evidenced by our having two Government speakers to-day. I believe that our debate has justified this; I think it has been an excellent one. We have not had one speech which any of us would call facetious. I know that I am prejudiced in favour of this House, but I think that this House is supreme when it comes to this type of debate. I have the pleasant duty of thanking everybody very much for having taken part in it. I should like

1345
to join the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, in saying how glad I am that my noble friend Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge refused to be silenced. I did not see the paper to which he referred. We should have missed his contribution; and we are glad that he took part.
I should like to make just one comment on what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Redmayne. It conveyed an unfortunate impression. We could see that he had a pleasant expression when he said it; but you cannot read a pleasant expression into Hansard. The noble Lord said that referring to retailers I conceded that there were some white sheep. What I did say was this. I spoke of the relatively few black sheep who bring discredit upon retailers and industry alike. I say this only because for years I have tried to remove the word "protection" out of this subject and to talk about consumer education. I should hate to be tarred with the wrong brush.
LORD REDNIAYNE: My Lords, I am sorry I misinterpreted the noble Baroness in her remarks. Perhaps I was being facetious.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, we will not accuse the noble Lord of that.
My Lords, we never get the replies we should like from Ministers. What we must try to do is to pursue what the noble Baroness meant by saying that the Law Commission's Report and the dates for implementing it were "in the usual channels". I was glad that she mentioned the good work which is being done by the Citizens' Advice Bureaux. I know her experience there and I feel strongly about this matter. I should like to pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, for the enormous amount of trouble she took to find out the background, long before the debate arose. I would pay her another tribute which perhaps from her point of view may be dubious. I know how difficult it sometimes is as a Minister, knowing the full background, to give the replies that one would like to give. We appreciate that and we are grateful to her for what she has said. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave withdrawn.

POLICE BILL
Brought from the Commons, read 1a, and to be printed.

SPRINGBOKS' TOUR AND RACE RELATIONS ACTS
7.15 p.m.
LORD FERRIER LORD FERRIER rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in regard to the disturbances connected with the tour of "The Springboks" Rugby Football side, they are satisfied that the provisions of the Race Relations Acts of 1965 and 1968 are being properly administered by the authorities. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. I ask it because there is a widespread feeling of anxiety and, indeed, alarm at the disturbance and violence which is taking place on the occasions of Springbok Rugby matches. The debate has begun rather later than I expected because of the interesting debate which preceded it. But one advantage of that is that the evening paper has appeared in the Library. I should like to read from it. a few words. The heading is:
"BOKS BATTLE—THE BIGGEST AND ROUGHEST"
—and "roughest" applies to the crowds. The article reads:
"It was the biggest and roughest antiapartheid demonstration of the Springboks' tour.
"Three police officers were sent by ambulance to hospital suffering from crushed ribs."
It goes on:
"More than 5,000 people—mainly university students—swarmed over barricades, fought police officers, used their banners as weapons and tried to battle their way into the rugby ground.
"Girls screamed as they were trodden underfoot. Youths yelled as they linked arms and ran and crashed into the police barricades.
"They swarmed over the roads, over walls, through the gardens of private houses.
"Terror-stricken mothers shepherded children indoors and locked themselves inside …"
And so it goes on.
Is there any wonder that there is anxiety and alarm? I feel that there is no doubt about it, especially after reading this and judging by the public reaction to the sprinkling of broken bottle-glass on playing fields even before a practice

1347
game. Was not this, anyway, a criminal offence under common law?
However that may be, the fact that the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Wade, on demonstrations (December 10) appeared on the Order Paper on the same day as this Question of mine was given a date, goes to confirm that anxiety is felt by others in this House besides myself. The noble Lord, Lord Wade, and I acted quite independently of one another. I am glad that his Motion will be before your Lordships in only a fortnight, because it enables me to keep my speech to the narrower issue of the Race Relations Act—and I concentrate on Sections 6 and 7 of the 1965 Act.
I venture briefly to sketch in three personal experiences which form the background of my approach to the subject. Fifty years ago I played for a well-known Scottish Rugby side. Incidentally, I happen just now to be president of the club. Before that I had played for my school and in the 1918–19 season for a Service side in the Midlands. I particularly recall a match with the New Zealand Machine Gun Corps team which contained a number of Maoris. Incidentally, I recall the seismic experience of a collision with my noble friend Lord Wakefield in a game against an R.A.F. side.
In the mid-twenties I was Rubgy Secretary in the Bombay Gymkhana and I arranged the first match between its all-European side and the High School Old Boys Club which consisted of Anglo-Indians and Indians. This match became a regular feature which I believe continues to this day. Thirdly, I recall the Quadrangular Cricket Tournament in Bombay between four clubs, Hindoo Parsee, European and Mohammedan. The tournament was the reverse of divisive but, alas! the wiseacres thought otherwise, and it was never resumed after the last war.
So, my Lords, first, I have personal knowledge and experience of Rugby football, this superb game which, if not actually a religion, is, to many at least, a way of life; and secondly, I have played it and encouraged the playing of it in mixed communities, and my experience has been that it is not a class game—I put "class" in inverted commas—as some of the Members in another
1348
place seem to think. Thirdly, my Lords, I believe that inter-communal sport is the reverse of divisive. It follows, therefore, that I am in favour of the visit of a team, whoever they represent.
It also follows that I have no sympathy with the policy of apartheid, though I am satisfied that many critics of it are ignorant of South Africa and the advantages to coloured people there which stem from that policy; however much those advantages are outweighed by the disadvantages. I would add that I respect an individual who prefers to stay away from Springbok matches, or the player who chooses not to play against the side. This is, my Lords, a free country, or it used to be. There used to be freedom to demonstrate; freedom of peaceful assembly; freedom to indulge in sport; freedom to play games; freedom to watch games. Is the only freedom left to be the freedom to stay away, to keep out of the way? Or is this to become compulsory by order of a mob?
My Lords, I drafted my Question and put it on the No Day Named List on November 12, and I confess that were I drafting it to-day I would word it more narrowly still, especially in the light of the prospect of Lord Wade's debate, because a great deal has happened in the last fortnight, and a good deal more to-day.
As I have said, my principal concern is with Sections 6 and 7 of the 1965 Act. May I take Section 7 first, because that section elaborates Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1936 which was passed into law at the time of the Mosley troubles. As I wish to be brief, I think the simplest and shortest way in which to illustrate my contention would be to quote from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, on the Second Reading of the 1965 Race Relations Bill on July 26, 1965, at column 1102. I am sure that noble Lords will agree with me that we miss the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and wish him a speedy recovery. I imagine that nobody regrets his absence more than the noble Baroness, Lady Scrota, who is to reply.
On that occasion, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said:
"Clause 7 of the Bill re-enacts Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1936 in extended form. This section provides that 'any person

1349
who in any public place or at any public meeting uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with intent to provoke a breach of the peace or whereby a breach of the peace is likely to be occasioned shall be guilty of an offence.' Section 5 of the 1936 Act is directed primarily to securing that public meetings and demonstrations in public places take place without breach of the peace. Freedom of public speech and demonstration is of little value unless this can be assured and, at the same time, those not taking part are entitled to expect that they shall not become occasions for brawls and disorder, in which members of the public may be injured. The purpose of the section is essentially preventive—either to prevent disorder when a breach of the peace seems likely, or to limit and end disorder that has occurred. This can be effected only by immediate police action, for which Clause 6 is not designed to provide.
As Section 5 of the Public Order Act now stands, it does not state in clear terms to the man-in-the-street that it covers such conduct as the dissemination of pamphlets and waving of banners at public meetings, or the sale of offensive literature in streets. The view has been expressed, and has much to commend it, that in law the word behaviour' as it stands is sufficient to cover all these activities, and that accordingly no amendment of Section 5 of the 1936 Act is necessary. On balance, however, we have thought it right to take the opportunity to re-write Section 5 in extended form, so as to make its scope completely and unequivocally clear, particularly to those likely to be directly affected. The present penalties in Section 5 of the 1938 Act (which are, in fact, set out in the Public Order Act 1963) will continue to apply."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26/7/65; col. 1102.]
And so on.
I assure your Lordships that I read that lengthy extract because it saved me saying the same thing and it is put in a very much better way than I could have said it. So much for Section 7. Incidentally, the Preamble to the Public Order Act 1936 is well worth some study. Section 6(1) of the 1965 Act reads:
"A person shall be guilty of an offence under this section if, with intent to stir up hatred against any section of the public in Great Britain distinguished by colour, race, or ethnic or national origins—

(a) he publishes or distributes written matter which is threatening, abusive or insulting; or

(b) he uses in any public place or at any public meeting words which are threatening, abusive or insulting, being matter or words likely to stir up hatred against that section on grounds of colour, race, or ethnic or national origins."

Subsection (2) deals with definitions, and subsection (3) says:
"A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—
1350

(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding two hundred pounds, or both;

(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine not exceeding one thousand pounds, or both; but no prosecution for such an offence shall be instituted in England and Wales except by or with the consent of the Attorney General."

I leave your Lordships to draw your own conclusions in the light of what is happening to-day. These sections in the Act and the Minister's speech at the time—fourand-a-half years ago—of that Second Reading show a remarkable prescience of what might happen and, unfortunately, is happening now. Has the warning been disregarded? As I see it, various of these offences are being committed, not only in connection with specific matches but in general terms almost every day. Is it possible that the Government have been dragging their feet?
I pose another question. If ordinary people are beginning to get apprehensive, and even impatient, should not the authorities act now? Who promotes the "Springboks go back" banners and slogans? Who says that they will, "hound the Springboks wherever they go"? Are they not offenders under the Act? My Lords, I would quote from a speech of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor which he made on the occasion of that Second Reading. In fact, I propose to make two quotations. One is a brief one which reads:
"I am sure that we all regret that in this country it should ever have been necessary to legislate against intentional incitement to racial hatred. But in the circumstances in which we now live, the law would he detective if it did not provide against it."—(col. 1061.)
Later, the noble and learned Lord said, when dealing with a remark from the noble Lord, Lord Somers:
"Of course, it would be quite possible, under Clause 6 of the Bill. to have a prosecution of a black person for inciting to hatred against white people." (col. 1064.)
Indeed I think that a prosecution has been lodged along those lines. The Home Secretary has done well to confer with Chief Constables but has he gone far enough? I doubt it, if, indeed—and I refer to a news headline—
"Anarchists known to the police are stirring up trouble at the Springboks' matches."

1351
The same newspaper quotes from the Home Secretary's interview:
"The right to demonstrate, whether the demonstration is a popular one or not, is a cardinal right of the people of Britain. But there is a difference between demonstration and destruction.
"I would do nothing to interfere with traditional right. But it is a fact that a job lot of anarchists have got on to the antiapartheid demonstrations for the sole purpose of fomenting violence."
If that is the case, are they not committing offences under this Act and inciting offences against the common law? And if they are known to the police and are identifiable, should they not be brought to justice? I look forward to the reply of the noble Baroness, which will, I hope, clear this up.
At the moment a situation has developed in which ordinary people going about their affairs feel impotent in the face of disorder and violence by a comparative few. Do not the polls show that most people in this country want this tour to continue? Such feelings of anxiety can perhaps have the most disastrous effects, the very reverse of what the demonstrators seek. I commend to your Lordships a letter from a South African, a Mr. E. Webster, from Balliol College, Oxford, which appeared in The Times on Saturday, and with your Lordships' permission I will quote the last two paragraphs, in which he writes:
"But what disturbs me in particular is that the majority of that moderately tolerant group of the British public (revealed in the recent Colour and Citizenship report), will become increasingly unsympathetic to the d'Olivieras of this world and will be easily led by unscrupulous politicians along the path of race hatred.
"Furthermore, a factor which is uppermost in my mind as a South African, is that the totally irrational, negative and hysterical reaction of the South African public will find a vindication in their intransigent attitude if the protest simply ends in senseless violence. The path to racial tolerance and harmony is not an easy one, but the prejudiced personality is certainly not likely to be convinced by coercion."
To conclude, if the Government find themselves unable to do more than they are doing now, then, when the Act comes to be amended, as seems inevitable and as I hope, as a Scotsman, imminent, should not any such amendment include that the provisions of Sections 6 and 7 be strengthened or enlarged to protect law-abiding citizens from disturbance?
1352
Not only that, at whose charge is all the cost of the damage, the crush barriers, the minions of the law, the transport dislocation and now, as I read, the destruction of private property, not to mention the quite unreasonable demands being made on the long-suffering individual policemen, who are being faced with difficult and arduous and even dangerous duties when, admittedly under strength, they have other things to do?
If the position is not clear enough as it stands—believe it is—then let the matter be clear beyond a peradventure before the visit of the South African cricket team next summer, when disturbances in cricket grounds will be more difficult to contain than they are on the hitherto sacred turf of Twickenham or Murrayfield. There are some points which I have not mentioned and which will doubtless be dealt with by other speakers and other points which will emerge during the debate on December 10, and I shall resist the temptation to say more, unless it be to conclude by saying that, like some other noble Lords from Scotland, I attended the Annual Rededication Parliamentary Service at Crown Court Church this morning and in the course of his Prayer of Intercession, the minister prayed:
"Where there is turbulence and violence let there instead be harmony and hope."
My Lords, it is in that spirit that I ask my Question.
7.35 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHESTER: My Lords, I am sure that the House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, for asking this Question and for giving us an opportunity for a short debate upon a matter which is very much in the minds of us all. In making my contribution I must say things that I believe must be said, though I would far rather not have been compelled to do so; but I think that we must go rather more deeply into the background of the situation which has arisen.
I am confident that your Lordships will give unanimous agreement to the view that politics should have no place in sport. Games should be played for what they are, a test of skill and stamina between individuals or teams, with no other factor impinging upon the outcome than the incentive of beating one's opponents fairly by a superior display of

1353
expertise. But with the growth of international sport it has become more and more difficult to observe this ideal, and from time to time—for instance, in the Olympic Games—there have been reminders that the elements of national prestige and national politics are never far from the surface and all too easily break through, to vitiate the integrity of the sport and embarrass those who hold strong views about their undesirability.
Such, in my view, is the situation that has arisen over the visit of the Springboks to this country. I do not think it is denied that this team was chosen according to the application of the principles of apartheid. Politics have played their part in the selection of the team that is touring this country. I have heard it said that it is wrong for us in this country to protest against the presence of such a team in our midst because by doing so we are bringing a political judgment upon a situation that ought to be free of politics. But, my Lords, it is not we who are bringing politics into sport: it is the South African authorities who have done so. And I would hold that by playing games against a team which avowedly has been selected on grounds of racial discrimination we involve ourselves in bringing politics into sport, and that the only way we can uphold the principle that politics have no place in sport is by refusing to participate with those who openly apply racial standards in the selection of their teams.
I believe that, however acceptable may be the individuals who compose a team in a sporting event, and however innocent they may be, as individuals, of political motives, it is nevertheless undesirable to welcome to this country visiting teams in the choice of which race and colour have been a deciding factor; and I would uphold the right of those who feel strongly about the principles which are involved to make their protest known as effectively as they can do so.
How is this to be done? I think I can understand the views of many who feel that there must be some physical manifestation of their principles. They believe that this is the only kind of opportunity they have of making known their views about apartheid and they have some reason to think that, unless their protest is unmistakably seen and heard to be made, the absence of such evidence may
1354
well be construed in South Africa as evidence that we do not care. But I am equally sure that anything other than peaceful demonstration and protest is ill-conceived and ought to be condemned as strongly as 'we can do so. There may be some who genuinely feel that they must indulge in physical violence and must attempt to prevent matches from taking place. This I believe to be wrong in principle. I believe that such behaviour plays into the hands of less scrupulous people, who do not care a fig for racialism and whose only purpose is to seize upon any excuse for making trouble. Such attempts, moreover, deny the democratic freedom of those who wish to watch such matches. Again, violence begets violence, and its use in support of an ideal, however worthy, is likely to produce reactions the very opposite to those which the protesters would desire. So I trust that this House will unequivocally condemn the use of violence in making protests of this nature.
However, I would repeat my conviction that it is undesirable that sporting teams chosen on grounds of racial discrimination should come to this country: for by welcoming them and co-operating with them on the field we knowingly or unknowingly implicate ourselves in the political issues which have determined their selection. We defeat our object if we try to express our approval by indulging in physical violence and hooliganism. I believe that we can best express our feelings by staying away from matches; by bringing pressure to bear upon governing bodies of sport to refuse to allow teams in this country to play against those chosen on discriminatory grounds or to send teams from this country to them; and by suggesting to those responsible that facilities in this country should not be made available for such games.
It is to be hoped that by now the message will have reached South Africa, and that it will be appreciated there that many people in this country do not think it right to welcome teams until we can be assured that the standard which has been adopted in the selection of a team is that of skill, arid skill alone.
7.42 p.m.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: My Lords, I am sure the House is most grateful to my noble friend Lord Ferrier

1355
for giving us the opportunity to discuss the disturbances that have taken place and are taking place outside and within Rugby fooball grounds arising from the tour of the Springboks Rugby Football side from South Africa. Public attention has been drawn to the working of the Race Relations Acts in connection with other matters that have taken place recently quite unconnected with Rugby football. It seems to me desirable that there should be an authoritative statement in this House on the working of these Acts, and in particular on their application in respect of demonstrations that have taken place arising from this South African Rugby Football tour.
First of all, however, I should like to declare an interest, in that I am a past President of the Rugby Football Union and at the present time act as one of its trustees. Also, for a number of years I represented England on the International Board which is responsible for the control of the playing of international Rugby football and the amending, as and when desirable, of the laws of the game. Both this International Board and the Rugby Football Union have always been most concerned to keep politics out of the playing of the game of Rugby football. They have been greatly encouraged in such wishes, because in the years immediately following the First World War, when Ireland became politically divided, the Irish Rugby Football Union continued to represent both the North and the South, and politics were kept out of the game in Ireland, to the great advantage of the game and, it is hoped, of politics as well. As your Lordships will know, because of recent political disturbances in Northern Ireland the Springboks game due to be played in Belfast on Saturday has been cancelled.
When a few years ago South Africa became a Republic, that political fact in no way altered the happy and friendly relationship between the South African representation on the International Board and the rest of the Board. From time to time, when international matches are played the Rugby Football Union impartially invites members of the Government of the day and the leaders of the Opposition to watch the game, and afterwards at the dinner in the evening when the game is over, if the principal
1356
guest invited to speak is a politician, then he may be either a member of the Government or of the Opposition Shadow Cabinet. Therefore the disturbances that have recently been taking place on Rugby football grounds in England and Wales have been deeply regretted by the Rugby Football Union and the Welsh Union, whose only desire is to keep clear of politics and look after the playing of the game. The Rugby Football Union are solely concerned with the organising of the game in England in the best interests of the players, in the expectation that the more the players enjoy the game the better will it be for players and spectators alike.
I am making this point at some length to your Lordships because recently, prominently reported on the front page of the Daily Telegraph was the following statement by Mr. Russell Kerr, the Socialist Member of Parliament for Feltham and Chairman of the Socialist Tribune Group. This is what he said:
"I deeply regret that the Rugby Union should be engaging itself in politics in this way".
It is difficult to imagine a more distorted, biased and untruthful statement. The facts are that the four home Unions of England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales have invited a Rugby football team from South Africa to visit the British Isles to play Rugby football as they are fully entitled to do.
It is over 60 years since the first team from South Africa visited the British Isles, and more than 70 years since a touring side from these Isles first visited South Africa; and there have been many visits since then. The sole purpose of these visits is for players and spectators to enjoy themselves in watching a game of Rugby Union football played by a team from overseas. So far as the Rugby Football Union is concerned, politics has never entered into the playing of these games, nor does it now. The sole responsibility for the bringing of politics into the playing of the game of Rugby football has been with others. The players and spectators gathered together on a privately-owned Rugby football ground to enjoy themselves in playing and watching a game of Rugby Union football do not deserve this legal and peaceful enjoyment of their leisure time to be broken up and destroyed.

1357
Players and spectators are entitled to be protected, exactly as I should be entitled to be protected if I were giving a private party in my flat and people entered on to my property to break up my party. I am entitled to throw them out and, if necessary, to get the help of the police in doing so. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, had a letter in the Daily Telegraph a few days ago which makes the point very well. He said:
"'Police accused of aiding vigilantes'; Springboks at Swansea, your headline (November 7). If a mob invaded my garden and the police helped me to turn them out would they be 'accused'?"
That is the end of the letter.
When Oswald Mosley and his Black-shirts some thirty years ago started causing disturbances on racial grounds it became necessary to introduce the Public Order Act 1936, as my noble friend Lord Ferrier has already said. The Race Relations Acts of 1965 and 1968 are, as he has pointed out, an extension of that Act. It seems to me, and to many others as well, that people have been guilty of offence under Section 6(1) of the 1965 Act, because without any doubt numbers of people have been quite deliberately stirring up hatred on racial grounds within and outside Rugby football pitches. Many of those demonstrating have used words which are abusive and insulting, and they have been deliberately so used to stir up hatred on grounds of race and national origin. Since this is the case, the public are entitled to know what action the Government are proposing to take to prosecute people guilty of misbehaviour. The noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, has already drawn attention to Section 6(3), which concerns penalties, so there is no need for me to take up your Lordships' time by reading them again, but I think that if the Government made it known very clearly that they were not going to countenance any further scenes of disorder and violence on or outside Rugby football grounds, and that there would be prosecutions under the Act, we might well see this violence cease.
I make a strong distinction between those peacefully demonstrating in public places and others whose sole object is to stir up trouble on private property against the wishes of the great majority assembled on that private property for lawful and peaceful purposes. It is in-
1358
teresting to recall that it was the National Socialist leader, Hitler, who first brought politics into sport in a big way in the Berlin Olympic Games in 1936. When the War was over the Iron Curtain countries were quick off the mark in realising the importance to them of mixing politics with sport, and sport was fully exploited by the Communists for political ends. It is, I think, significant that people who have been causing these disturbances within as well as outside Rugby football grounds—and again I make the distinction between violence and disturbance, and peaceful demonstrations—are the same sort of people who are to be found protesting and demonstrating on all and every occasion, especially on Sundays, that suits Communist policy. And, of course, they avoid such occasions as when the Russians invade Czechoslovakia, or when a wall is erected in Berlin to prevent people from leaving East Germany because of the intolerable conditions in that country.
When the Springboks were playing their first match against Oxford University at Twickenham three weeks ago, your Lordships will recall seeing on television, as well as in the photographs in newspapers, an old man in shorts being led from the pitch. He had invaded the playing area at half-time. This individual was none other than 60-year old Bill Laithwaite—a leading Surrey Communist. Why did not the B.B.C. and the newspapers report this item of fact? Why do not the newspapers and the B.B.C. report that the planning and the driving force behind these disturbances and violent demonstrations come from Communist anarchy sources? These people wish to disrupt our way of life and cause anarchy in our midst.
People in our country are allowed wide freedom, as indeed they should be, to demonstrate and protest by peaceful means. If, however, this freedom is abused, as it now is, by deliberate interference intended to provoke violence of lawful and peaceful behaviour by law abiding citizens on Rugby football grounds in the United Kingdom, then just as surely as I am addressing your Lordships to-night our ancient rights and privileges will disappear. That is why it is so important for the Government immediately to take firm action under the Race Relations Acts. If the Government do not do so, then the Race

1359
Relations Acts are meaningless jargon; and, what is also so important, the law is brought into disrespect.
The noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, has already drawn attention to the wording of the Race Relations Act, and I must say that I find it extraordinarily difficult to understand how it comes about that a Scottish family wanting a Scottish cook to make them porridge for breakfast offend against the Race Relations Act when they advertise this employment requirement, but people who invade private property and then cause a disturbance for the sole purpose of inciting racial hatred apparently are not offending. If they are offending, then why have the Government not taken action before now? May I remind the Government of what the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said in the debate already referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier. I quote:
"Taken together, the powers contained in Clauses 6 and 7 will enable the police to deal with the rabble-rousers in the street, and with the back-room organisers …"—[OFFICIALL REPORT, 26/7/65; Col. 1013.]
If this gives to the Government the necessary powers in the street, then surely they have the powers even more strongly to stop these rabble-rousers from creating disturbances on private property. Moreover, in the process of causing this disturbance among people gathered together for lawful and peaceful enjoyment of a leisure pursuit, these hooligans, some of whom are under the influence of drugs, use filthy and obscene language. For innocent and peaceful players and spectators to have threatening epithets and obscene abuse hurled at them, even before a game has started, such as, "You masturbating Fascist pigs" is quite intolerable.
To judge by some of the things said on the B.B.C., and reported in certain newspapers, coupled with the use of the word "vigilantes" instead of the time-honoured and well-understood word of "stewards", people might be excused for thinking that there had been encouragement by the Rugby Football Union for stewards to rough-handle these disturbers of the peace who invade the playing area, which in any case would be only what they deserve. The facts are exactly the opposite. Prior to statements which have been made during the past
1360
48 hours, strict directions had been issued by the Rugby Football Union to those clubs and unions responsible for organising the playing of matches against the Springboks. They have been told to instruct all stewards that they are there only to assist the police to remove demonstrators from the playing area if requested so to do by the police. Furthermore, that they should not on their own remove demonstrators by force, and that in no circumstances whatever, and no matter how great the provocation, should they retaliate in any way.
Finally, stewards when on the pitch should be clearly distinguishable to each other and to the demonstrators. Stewards give, and always have given, their services voluntarily. They have never been paid, as was suggested by the Home Secretary in another place a day or two ago. I have seen the police, assisted by stewards, in operation on two occasions recently, doing their best to preserve law and order while undergoing the most filthy abuse and deliberate provocation by people not assembled to watch Rugby football but to cause disturbance. No tribute paid to the patience and forbearance of the police in such circumstances can be too high. I hope that the Government will take the opportunity that this debate provides to commend the police for the loyal, patient and quite outstanding manner in which they discharge their difficult and exacting duties in the public interest.
Next year, to commemorate the celebration of its centenary, the Rugby Football Union have invited a team from Fiji to pay us a visit. I cannot but help wonder whether the Government would not have taken action before now if, instead of the Springboks, the Fijians had been our visitors this year and they had been subjected to the same kind of provocation, intended to arouse racial hatred, as have our present visitors.
In conclusion, your Lordships will have noted that I have made no reference at all to the arguments for and against the policy of apartheid which is being pursued in South Africa, and on which subject there are such deep feelings. What I am drawing the attention of the Government to is the fact that this touchy subject of apartheid is being used by the Communo-anarchists to stir up violence and hatred, with anarchy the ultimate

1361
object in view. I am sure that the Government have in their possession the necessary evidence, as I have, of the people behind these disturbances and their known Communist affiliations. In so far as the principles of apartheid are concerned, these people could not care less. What they are interested in is the fact that this subject is a convenient vehicle for the disruption of our society.
8.1 p.m.
LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, one of the main reasons why I come to your Lordships' House is to learn, and one of the more important things I have learnt is how controversial subjects ought to be discussed-subjects such as that under discussion at the moment. The calmness and tolerance that is often found here does so much good. Race, and people's views on matters connected with race relations or discrimination, are "hot" subjects; and we have a very great responsibility when discussing them.
I do not like apartheid. I think it is indefensible; it degrades those who benefit from it, as well as those who are discriminated against. Nor do I like violence. But I feel that your Lordships ought to continue to help to provide sensible leadership when matters like that under discussion to-night are before the public eye. Yesterday the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, chipped away, unintentionally or not, the chances of calm discussion continuing here. To-day we have had another discussion capable of misinterpretation, and the unnecessarily violent speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wakefield of Kendal. I live in Fulham. Two streets away from my home is a big wall—I think it is the wall of the gasworks. On it, in letters about 2 ft. high, is written: "Enoch's all right. So keep Britain white."
There is a great deal of fear; there is a great deal of ignorance, and a great deal of reactionary unrealism about. However calmly the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, made his case, I shall be sad if the message that goes out from this House, particularly to the Commonwealth, tonight is that the principle of fair treatment for all citizens takes second place to games of Rugby. My Lords, if it does, the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, will have done infinitely more harm than good. I fear that he may have done
1362
so; and if he has not, the noble Lord, Lord Wakefield, has.
8.4 p.m.
LORD BROUGHAM AND VAUX: My Lords, the wind has been taken out of my sails by what has been said already. I should like first to welcome the Spring-boks here on behalf of myself, and also I feel, on behalf of the great majority of the people of this country, lovers of this sport. I should like also to wish them luck and wish them well. I do not particularly approve of apartheid, but they probably do not approve of many of the laws that we have in this country.
If one wants to discriminate against South Africans coming to this country, one has to consider which is the lesser of two evils. The Russians can come to this country—your Lordships may think that this is a red herring, but it has been slightly touched on in a different context to-night. I know that Russia is a Communist country, but if they can murder people just because they do not do as they are told, I think that what we are faced with by this visit is the lesser of two evils. If any people should not be allowed to come to this country, it is the Russians. If we stop nationals from both these countries from coming here, then that is the end of international sport.
I should like also to-night to congratulate the police on the job they are doing. I wish them all the luck, support and strength they need to carry out their duties to the best of their ability, and in their attempts to please everybody without treading on the toes of the hooligans (for that is all these demonstrators are; they are very much a minority), while, on the other hand, they are beaten and suffer internal injuries, fractures and the like.
As I have said, many of the points I was going to raise have already been mentioned, and at this hour I do not think it worth mentioning them again. I have noticed what has been said about to-day's incidents. They took place a quarter of a mile away from the ground where the match was actually being played. I do not know whether one can draw any consolation from this or not. But in this country it has always been a right to air our views through peaceful demonstrations. This right has now more

1363
or less disappeared, and we have come almost to the stage of bloodshed. If these hooligans want violence, then I think the police ought to be given more assistance with troops, who can give just an extra bit of weight and push them away. If that does not work, then I suppose it will have to come to the police standing there and using their truncheons. We shall then see just how close the demonstrators actually get to the police. I am sure that they would keep well away from the police, who would not have to move an inch.
My final point is that I should like the Press to give more space to the actual games of Rugger and not so much to the demonstrations, because it only blows the situation up for a bigger and more violent demonstration at the next Rugger match.
8.8 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I apologise for not having given notice that I wish to take part in this discussion. I want to do so as a Rugby football enthusiast. Sixty years ago Rugby was my religion, and Rugby is still my escapism. I regard it as the greatest sport in the world. I went to a school with only 90 boys. We regularly provided international players: Gillespie of Scotland, Fahmy of Wales, the great Gracie of Scotland. Indeed, when I left school I had no greater desire than to become a Rugby international. My devotion to Rugby was one of the reasons that made me a Socialist. On 15s. a week I could not stand the cost, the social cost, of Rugby clubs in London. Although I felt that frustration, I retained my devotion. The beauty of the passing movements across the field! The times I have watched the noble Lord, Lord Wakefield of Kendal, leading a forward attack! They are some of the highest memories of my enjoyment in life. It is because of this enthusiasm for Rugby football that I am taking part in this debate tonight.
One of the reasons for my devotion to athletics and sport is because of its internationalism. One thinks of the Olympic Games, with the great principle that neither politics nor race nor religion must deny the right of any team to be represented there. I pay my tribute at once to our Rugby Union for the contribution which they have made in Ireland, to Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland
1364
playing together. One thinks of great athletic meetings and the inspiration of seeing them upon television, with Negro athletes representing America; with all races and all colours, with the yellow races of Asia there, too. Anyone who has a real understanding of athletics and sport must have the understanding that a man or woman who is to be regarded as great in athletics and sport must be so because of capacity in the game and not because of the pigmentation of their skin and their birth.
My Lords, it is partly this devotion to the philosophy of athletics and sport that makes me regret so much that in South Africa this principle should be repudiated. There, no African can play with a white European. There, no coloured person can play with an African. There, no Indian can play with any member of another race. South Africa to-day is repudiating the very essence and philosophy of those of us who treasure athletics and sport, in the way that many of us do. It is not those who are protesting against this denial of the very essence of sport and athletics who have brought in politics. It is the South African Government, which denies the right of the great majority of its population to be chosen for a South African team. I know it is sometimes said that no one but a white in South Africa has the athletic quality to be chosen for their team. One would not be surprised if that were true, when one considers the football fields on which those who are not white have to train and have to play. But it is not true. With my knowledge of Rugby football I could recite many names of non-whites in South Africa, even under the conditions there, who would have won on any inter-racial basis the right to represent their country on the international field. I can think of one at this moment who has become a professional and for whom Australia has paid a large fee because of his great ability as a Rugby player. So, my Lords, it is not those who are protesting against the presence of the South African team who are introducing politics into sport. It is the South African Government which has done so, and those of us who believe so deeply in the essence of athleticism and sport are sorry that any Government in the world should have introduced this element of division.

1365
My Lords, I want to speak briefly but I must make some comment upon the extraordinary argument that we have heard tonight that the Race Relations Act should be applied to those who have been demonstrating against the white South African visit. I have been described—and I do not think he will mind my mentioning this—by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor as the author of the Race Relations Acts, because year after year when I was in another place I introduced Bills which ultimately found expression in the Acts. What has been the purpose of those Acts? The purpose has been to make illegal the practice of discrimination on the grounds of race or of colour in expanding spheres, beginning in public places, moving on now to housing and employment and to financial contracts. The purpose was to indicate that our nation stood against racial discrimination.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord, I thought I had made it perfectly clear in my opening speech that the issue as I see it is a narrow one concerning Sections 6 and 7 of the 1965 Act, and no other Section of any Act have I mentioned.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, but I do not think what I am saying is irrelevant to his argument, to which I listened with great care. I am trying to speak with a certain absence of intensity, and this is partly because as a Rugby footballer I have appreciation both of the noble Lord who put down this Unstarred Question and the noble Lord, Lord Wakefield of Kendal. I know their contributions to the Rugby game. What I was trying to say was that the purpose of the Race Relations Acts was to declare on behalf of this nation that we are opposed to discrimination on the grounds of race and of colour, and those now opposing the coming of the South African team are opposing it exactly upon those lines. How in the world a Race Relations Act can be used against those who are demonstrating this right to human equality I do not begin to understand.
I will just add one further thing before I conclude. I am against the violence which has been shown by demonstrators. I was at Oxford at the time of the cancellation of the University match
1366
there. I spoke to students and I warned them of the backlash which would come if violence was shown in these demonstrations. But the great majority of the students who are protesting now are doing so from the highest motives: because they believe in human equality; because they believe that human personality is greater than any difference of race or colour; because they believe that this spirit ought to animate the international sport which we love, which Britain has done so much to contribute to the world. My Lords, in that spirit I hope that we shall reject the arguments which have been put forward tonight, and applaud those who regret the presence of the South African team, because it denies the very spirit of human equality for which this nation stands.
8.20 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, we are grateful to my noble friend Lord Ferrier for introducing this Question, because it has enabled your Lordships to have a debate on a subject which is of very considerable public interest. I consider that anyone who takes part in a debate of this nature realises that he has a very "hot potato" and must indeed be moderate and careful in what he says. No one could have been more moderate and careful than the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester, who, if I may say so, put his case, which was necessarily a fairly strong one, with the least possible cause of upset to anyone. If I could emulate that in one small iota I should be grateful, but I doubt whether I shall succeed.
We have of late had an increasing number of demonstrations, and these give the public cause for deep consideration. I am not one of those who feel that to demonstrate is to exercise democracy, albeit one may be availing oneself of a privilege of democracy. It has always seemed to me curious, when one looks back over the years and thinks how hard the pioneers have struggled to get to a state where we can call ourselves democratic, that one can sit back and reflect that the greatest sign of democracy is that people may demonstrate because their views are not accepted.
The problem will come when the Government have to decide between the undoubted right of people to demonstrate and the even more undoubted rights of

1367
people to go about their lawful life or pleasure without let or hindrance. I would impute no particular emphasis to either; I think that both are important. But they are necessarily conflicting, and the conflict seems to be becoming greater. I listened with immense interest, as one always does, to the right reverend Prelate, and I hesitate to comment on what he said for fear, as it were, of being taken in the wrong way. But perhaps I may just say that I think we might be on dangerous ground if we accepted his assertion that we should not play games with people who come from a country whose Governments or way of life we do not like or accept. One entirely understands his views in saying that, but I should think that this would be a dangerous precedent indeed.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHESTER: My Lords, perhaps the noble Earl will allow me to interrupt. I did not say that we should not play games with teams coming from countries whose policies we do not approve of. What I said was that we should not play games with teams which themselves represent a policy that we cannot accept.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I bow to the right reverend Prelate's definition, but I should have thought there was not a significant difference. However, be that as it may, I accept what the right reverend Prelate has said. I also accept fully the views of those who feel, as indeed he did and other noble Lords did, that the Springboks side is unacceptable to them personally because it contains no coloured people. I accept the fact that if they feel the desire to express their dissatisfaction at this they may have the right to demonstrate. But I do not accept that they have the right to demonstrate in such a manner as to prevent others from going about their lawful business of enjoying a match.
But, my Lords, have these people the right to demonstrate? What are they demonstrating about? It is surely that the team is composed solely of one type of person; that the team is not composed of a mixture of races but is composed solely of white people. The essence of the demonstration must therefore necessarily be racial. If one were to imagine a situation where a team of coloured
1368
people were playing a match and there was a demonstration against them, this would be infringing the Race Relations Act. Surely, therefore, if there is a demonstration against a team not composed of coloured people but composed solely of white people; if this is the essence of the demonstration, this must surely offend against the Race Relations Act.
I should have thought that if anyone wished to consider this he would have need to go no further than Section 1 of the Race Relations Act 1968, which says:
"…A person discriminates against another if on the ground of colour, race or ethnic … origins he treats that other …less favourably than he treats or would treat other persons …".
Nobody likes a situation where demonstrations such as this are caused. One would hope that in the future some way will be found of making one's perfectly legitimate complaints against a régime or a society in such a manner as does not conflict with the lawful business or pleasure of other people.
I once suggested to your Lordships that I had coined a law, which I described as "Ferrers Law", which says quite simply that everything has the reverse effect of that intended. I cannot but believe that that is possibly the case with the Race Relations Act, because this is an Act which was designed to prevent racial discrimination against coloured people. In fact I should have thought that there is here an argument that it bears completely the other way round, where you have a situation in which there is discrimination against a side because of its racial make-up. I have never liked the Act because, instead of harmonising people of different ethnic backgrounds, it has had completely the reverse effect. It has tended to polarise people into different groups, each trying to find out what are their rights and duties and privileges and protections under the Act; and this I believe to be a wholly regrettable state of affairs. I do not believe that it is a unifying Act. But the fact is that we have the Act, and it should be brought to bear equally for the protection of one section of the community as for the other.
I wonder for how long we shall have to suffer policemen being injured and knocked about by these demonstrations,

1369
with little being done to protect them, all to allow the so-called freedom to demonstrate. Ten were injured at Swansea; another four to-day taken to hospital, as your Lordships have heard, with crushed ribs. Where is the freedom here? Where is the freedom for those who genuinely wish to watch the match, who want no truck with race relations? Where is the freedom for the mothers, as my noble friend read from the paper, who had to lock their children up in their houses for fear of the demonstrations? The Government have an Act to preserve law and order, yet they seem to be making little use of it.
I have heard a report that 200 students from Edinburgh had their fares paid to go down to Swansea to join in the demonstration. We know that the genuine demonstrator has a right to put forward his views, but surely he must also accept some liability if by airing his views he attracts a considerably larger element of rowdy people who are not concerned with expressing his views but merely want to have a punch-up. This is the danger; that if the one genuine band of demonstrators attract a large crowd of rowdy people they themselves will, in the end, prejudice the right of the genuine demonstrators to demonstrate. This is what we should guard against. So I would ask the Government this simple question: what are they doing to ensure that the rights and the privileges of those who demonstrate do not make inroads into what I consider to be the far greater right and privilege of the many who wish to live their lives and to go about their work or their pleasure in peace and quiet.
8.32 p.m.
LORD STRANGE: My Lords, I am a chalk jockey. I apologise for that, but I put my name down at the door and it has been reported to both Benches and also to the Desk. The reason I did that was that I did not know whether or not I was going to speak, because I thought that other speakers before me would have covered very much better than I could have done everything that I was likely to say. But they have not, which is most surprising. However, I can guarantee to your Lordships that I shall not keep you any longer than necessary, because I have only about three or four things to say. I may say to your Lordships that I have just received a "wire from the turf" to
1370
say that there are four other speakers after me. That is pretty serious but still!
I know we are most keen on teaching and preaching democracy to everybody outside the country. Why on earth do we not have democracy in this country? That is the point I am speaking on. I know quite well that there are here a number of rugger players. Lord Brockway was a rugger player. We all agree that sport is outside politics. For goodness sake, let us leave politics out of something! Let us have sport free. I am sure that everybody in this House resented the attitude of the South Africans in trying to pick the cricket team we wished to send over there last year. It is against all the interests of sport and everything else. I am sure that nearly everybody in his heart objects to these disturbances against the team that they have chosen to send over here. We do not want to go into this question of racialism in the matter of sport. For goodness sake, let us keep it clean! Lord Wakefield, Lord Brockway and myself were all keen rugger players. We never thought about whom we were playing against. I should not have minded playing against black, yellow, green or whatever colour the people were; I wanted to play, and I liked it. For goodness sake, do not dirty sport with racialism or anything else! Just forget it. They have sent over here the people that they want and we should play against them. Let us leave other things out of it.
The point that I have got up to raise is this. So far as we can, let us keep this country a democracy. People, Wat Tyler, everybody else, are entitled to collect the masses together and to march. We recognise that. We recognise that it is the British way of showing a grievance. They march along and wave banners, they shout and yell. They cannot be stepped because it is part of the British democratic way of life to do this. People are allowed free speech. But they are also allowed liberty of the individual. That is basic. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will be able to correct me if I am wrong, but I think it comes from Magna Carta, that in time of peace people should be allowed to go about in freedom.
These marches are great fun; but they impede the traffic. They are damaging

1371
for the police and often to other people. They are inclined to be riotous, which we do not want. They are inclined to break up buildings; we do not want that. The point is that they hold up traffic, they sometimes damage people, they are extremely noisy and they interfere with the liberty of other individuals. That is not democracy. Other individuals should have their liberty. They should be able to go about and do what they like. They should not be stopped by people marching down the street. But the people marching down the street should not be stopped, either. They have their point in regard to democracy. They are very angry about something—in fact, furious. They wave banners. They have all sorts of weapons to throw at somebody else. They should be allowed to do that.
But what we want to achieve is fairness to other people, the nice people in this country who do not riot, who stay quietly at home. They know what they want, or what they think they want, but they do not want to get bowled over by the rioters going down the street. What we should do, therefore, is to have a circular track on which it is legal for platforms and speak, shout and yell, and forms so that they can get up on the platforms and speak, shout and yell, and throw anything they like at each other, and we should have a quite limited police force to keep them in order. We should have organising points on this circuit where these people can organise themselves to march. They should be kept at a distance apart so that they do not start a fight with each other. If they want them, we should have Members of the Houses of Parliament—yes, Members of the House of Lords, too, if they will go—to stand on those platforms to answer questions. These people like asking questions. Let them be answered. They should march round as many times as they like. if the British public want to go and look at them, let them. We should have places for them to stand. They could buy hot dogs, or fish and chips; they should sit down on the grass and should be allowed to listen. These people should be allowed to run down anybody they like—the Queen, the Royal Family, the whole Constitution, the House of Lords even.
At the end of the day they will be tired. They will have said their say.
1372
Then they would go to a disbanding point and go quietly on their way. But do not let us have them marching down the streets, collecting in squares, upsetting people who do not even like them and who think they are a bore. Let them attract the people who like them. There is always a Hyde Park or places such as that at which people can speak. Give them a proper route to march down with their banners. At these matches I think they should be conducted to a held where they can march round and wave their banners, but not interrupt people who want to go and see a game of Rugby football. What on earth has that to do with politics? I cannot see any connection at all between these two things. Some people want to see others playing a game.
We are a little nervous about the way in which South Africa is not run quite as a democracy. But that has nothing to do with sport. Do not let us have students coming down from Edinburgh. Perhaps we should let them come, but let them have a field on which to march, where they can shout and do anything they like other than upset the ordinary citizen who has come to see a game of Rugby football. That is all I have to say.
8.39 p.m.
LORD BURTON: My Lords, I, too, apologise for not having put down my name, but I had hoped that this point would be made by someone else. It is only one point, and it is that if these scruffy, long-haired children who make up the majority of the demonstrators were to get no publicity for their demonstrations, would they continue to demonstrate? Is it necessary for the Press and the B.B.C. to give them all the publicity that they do? It seems to me that it is this publicity which is costing the country so much money and trouble to keep law and order.
8.40 p.m.
TIIE LORD BISHOP OF DURHAM: My Lords, I, too, apologise for having been unable to give notice of speaking, and especially for being unable to be here when the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, introduced the discussion. I entirely agree with all that has been said about the distinction we need to make between peaceful demonstrations and violent

1373
demonstrations; of the democratic need for the one in certain conditions of society, the justification for the one, and the lack entirety of justification for the other.
That point aside, I should like to approach from another direction, and quite briefly, a point which the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, made, and which I believe the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Chester made. My point is centred round the question: can politics and sport be kept apart on this occasion? I do not know enough about the details of the Irish situation in regard to those Irish Rugby games in the past, but the Race Relations Act apart, it would surely have been an entirely different matter if the Northern Ireland team had excluded, on a principle enunciated for everyone's knowledge, people born South of the Border, people who had not been Unionists, and people who were not members of the Orange Order. That would inevitably have made the team from Northern Ireland politically biased and politically expressive. It could not help but have done. I think that situation is closer to the one we have before us now.
The truth is that politics have in fact entered into the playing of this game, and by none of our doing. Sport and politics have now met together because they have entered into the selection of the team, and it seems to me that that fact itself makes the games occasions which stir up racial trouble. Inevitably the team becomes a symbol of racialism, though no member of the team may himself wish for that. The team cannot help but be a symbol of racialism because of the principles on which it has been selected. As I say, the Northern Ireland case would have been just the same had that team been selected on the principle of allegiance to the Unionist Party or the Orange Order, or whatever it was. They were not selected on those principles, and therefore the Irish situation was undoubtedly helped by these games occurring.
Surely we have to be very careful that sport does not have the political overtones which have in this case been given to it by a Government not our own. It is those political overtones which this team expresses which form the cause of trouble in this case; and they are overtones which, as the noble Lord, Lord Brock-
1374
way, said, entirely deny the philosophy of sport which we treasure in this country. That, my Lords, I submit, is the real issue behind the present disturbances.
LORD WADE: My Lords, I should like to make it clear that my only reason for not taking part in this debate is that in a fortnight's time I am due to open a debate on the subject of demonstrations. The noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, very kindly referred to this. At the same time, I should not like my silence to be implied as agreeing with the varied arguments that have been put forward in support of this Motion. I think perhaps the fairest thing I can say in one sentence is that I think it is commendable that the youngest Member of your Lordships' House who has taken part in this debate should have spoken with such wisdom, moderation, and good sense.
8.44 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (BARONESS SEROTM: My Lords, it will be obvious to the House that I could not have had the direct experience of the game of Rugby football that many of your Lordships clearly have. My own personal involvement has been secondhand in the sense that three times a week when my son was playing Rugby football for his school, I had to wash his Rugby kit. This did not prejudice me against the game; it gave me some idea of the enthusiasm that it engenders amongst men.
When I saw the terms of the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, which he has put tonight, and which in fact has enlarged itself into a debate, it seemed to indicate that he was concerned primarily with the very limited issue of whether the authorities concerned with administering the race relations legislation in this country are sufficiently alive to their duties and responsibilities. However, as has been shown by the very wide variety of issues and questions that have been raised by those who have spoken since him in the debate, his Question is not really as simple as all that. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester—who unfortunately has had to leave us owing to another engagement, and who has asked me to apologise for his absence to the House—I thought

1375
spoke with courage and with clarity, stating the wider issues that were involved and which indeed lay behind Lord Ferrier's Question. The whole of the discussion we have had goes to show that the problems that have been raised by the Springboks' tour in this country, and the demonstrations that have happened in connection with it, involve issues which are really of the essence of our traditional procedures and our democratic system of government in this country.
The noble Lord, Lord Wade, has just reminded the House that he has a Motion down on the significance of demonstrations in a modern society. But it is not surprising that many of the points that have been raised to-night have been raised in relation to this issue, which is a matter of concern in some quarters at the moment, and was debated at some length during the passage of the Race Relations Act itself in 1965.
Several Members of the House have reminded us of the longstanding tradition in this country that persons with similar opinions, whatever one's view of those opinions, should have the right to organise themselves and put their opinions forward, provided they do not go beyond the limits that have been set by the law in the interests of the community as a whole. In spite of the call for troops from the noble Lord, Lord Brougham and Vaux, the rest of the House would I think agree that we would not wish to rush into any action which could result in paying the very high price indeed of the loss of our traditional freedoms in this country. It is regrettably true that some demonstrations can lead to violence, and several speakers have deprecated this, but this occurs far less often than is supposed. I hope that the House will keep these incidents in a sense of proportion.
I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Burton, when he seemed to suggest that perhaps certain incidents receive too much publicity. Perhaps certain facets of certain incidents get too much publicity. I think the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has basic objections to demonstrations, in that he himself has never felt moved to demonstrate; but there are several Members of your Lordships' House, and I certainly am one of
1376
them, who have joined in many demonstrations.
LORD AUCKLAND: Peaceful.
BARONESS SEROTA: And I have often been surprised when we have read or seen the accounts of them later in the Press. My Lords, it would surely be far too extreme a step for the Government to forbid all demonstrations, because only a minority give rise to violence. It would be equally invidious to take the view that certain demonstrations, because they might interfere with some activities which some of your Lordships hold dear, ought solely on that account to be prohibited. The noble Lord who put the Question was concerned with penalties for offences such as assaulting the police, possessing weapons, and about making good damage. I think the noble Lord knows that where a demonstration does become violent the police have adequate powers to deal with offenders, but with regard to the explicit subject of the Question, namely, the application of the race relations legislation—
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Baroness, I did not say anything about making good damage. I mentioned that damage seems to have ensued from the violence.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, I am sorry if I misunderstood the noble Lord. I thought he was making the general point, and my reply was that this comes generally within the terms of the law and is not dealt with, nor needs to be dealt with, within the context of our race relations legislation.
The noble Lord referred in some detail to Sections 6 and 7 of the Act, and quoted at considerable length from the speeches that were made on them during the passage of the Bill, particularly from the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. But as he told us—and I do not wish to requote the sections of the Act because the hour is late—if there is any allegation of an offence under Section 6, then it is for my right honourable friend the Attorney General to consider it in the light of the details of the particular case alleged. And whilst I am clearly not competent to make any authoritative statement on a question of law,

1377
especially in a Chamber such as this, which has so many distinguished and learned Members, I should have thought it very doubtfully arguable that the demonstrations have so obviously involved any offence of racial incitement under Section 6.
With regard to these demonstrations, I think that many of us see them as being not dissimilar from those which have been held in recent years against the Vietnam war. The intention of those demonstrations has been to seek an end to the war; and the intention of the current demonstrations against the Springbok tour, as many noble Lords have pointed out, is to put an end to the racial policies of the South African Government. I know that several of those who have spoken tonight deeply resent what they regard as the mixing up of politics with sport; but I think that they must equally understand that there are others, who are demonstrating to bring the Springbok tour to a close—that is their declared objective—because they believe that a team which is selected by a country on the principles of apartheid is the very anathema of all they believe in. The Government do not see that this is relevant to Section 6 of the 1965 Act, which deals with racial incitement against minority groups in this country. I would urge your Lordships to look at the Act and to understand that that is its purpose: namely, to take action
1378
against those who incite race hatred against minority groups in this country.
With regard to Section 7 of the Act, the other point raised by the noble Lord at the outset, its original purpose, as he said, was to substitute amended provisions for those originally enacted in Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1936, which make it an offence in any public place or at any public meeting for a person to use threatening or abusive language or insulting words and behaviour; and the fact is that, out of a total of 102 arrests at matches after the present Springbok tour, 61 arrests were for offences under Section 7. I submit to the House that the problems which arise in connection with these matches are not really problems of the kind to which the race relations legislation is really directed. Indeed, as my right honourable friend the Home Secretary said in another place on November 17, they are problems of public order and fall to be dealt with as such on precisely the same basis as any other such problems. I hope it is in that light that those noble Lords who are concerned with the general issue of demonstrations and the right to demonstrate freely in a democratic society will address their minds when they take part in the debate that the noble Lord, Lord Wade, is initiating on December 10.
House adjourned at five minutes before nine o'clock.