Lords Sitting of 16 May 1972

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The LORD DERWENT on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells.

SCOTTISH INDUSTRY AND S.T.D. TELEPHONE SERVICE
THE EARL OF CROMARTIE: 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, in view of the fact that the telephone service in the Northern Highlands and Islands of Scotland is unable to cope with the greatly increased traffic that has resulted from extensive industrial developments, when the recommendations of the Postmaster General's Working Party that full S.T.D. should be installed throughout the area will be implemented.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, the planning and installation of Subscriber Trunk Dialling is a management function of the Post Office which has the responsibility for running the nation's telecommunication services. As a measure of progress, I understand that 89 per cent. of its telephone customers in Scotland now have S.T.D. facilities enabling them to dial practically all their calls. Those still without S.T.D., whether they are in Scotland or elsewhere, should have these facilities by the end of 1974.
THE EARL OF CROMARTIE: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that completely unsatisfactory Answer, may I ask whether he is aware that buildings erected for the installation of these S.T.D. machines are deteriorating through not being used, because the machines are not there? Can he say whether the installations which were intended for the North of Scotland have been diverted to other places, such as the South-East of
1276
England, by the headquarters of the Post Office in London?
LORD DENHAM: No, my Lords. These are all matters for the Post Office.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, bearing in mind that these matters are for the Post Office and that the Minister's function is to pass the buck, may I ask whether he will answer this question? Will the exchanges which are being established in the North of Scotland allow sufficient space for expansion to take care of the industrial development which is arising from off-shore oil exploration?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I understand that the Post Office is taking into account the possible expansion in the North of Scotland. The noble Earl said that I am passing the buck, but I would remind your Lordships that we passed the Post Office Act 1969 and that that Act stated that these are now matters of the day-to-day running of the Post Office.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that it is open to Parliament to debate the conduct of a nationalised industry, and that if he insists on giving such unhelpful replies to his noble friends we shall have to insist upon such a debate?
LORD DENHAM: Yes, my Lords; certainly I am aware that it is up to noble Lords, if they so wish, to debate the running of these bodies. But certain matters must be for the day-to-day management of the Post Office.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept that I should not wish to embarrass the Deputy Chief Whip of my own Party, nor himself personally? But is he aware that, if it is not a question of passing the buck, it is at any rate a question of shouldering responsibility for the overall running of the Post Office, which concerns every citizen in this country?
LORD DENHAM: Yes, my Lords. Of course my right honourable friend has overall responsibility and can obviously make representations to the Post Office. But if he does that too much it will not give the Post Office Corporation a fair chance to run its affairs.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, while accepting that it is proper, as the Minister suggested, that he should not concern himself with matters of day-to-day running, will he, having regard to the answer given to the noble Earl, accept that it might be reasonable to ask a question of the Post Office on matters which appear to be not of day-to-day, but of year-to-year?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, it is always open to any noble Lord to ask a question, but it is also open to whoever is answering to make up his own mind whether something is a matter of Government responsibility or a matter for the Post Office.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm that at the moment it is possible for any noble Lord to write direct to the Post Office, if he so wishes, in order to get an answer to his question?
LORD DENHAM: I thank the noble Lord. That is absolutely right.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the introduction of S.T.D. shows progress, to the advantage of the telephone user in this country? Is he also aware that even to-day it takes at least three to four years to erect and put into operation a telephone exchange to meet the high demand from prospective telephone subscribers in this country?
LORD DENHAM: Yes, my Lords. Certainly, the noble Lord, Lord Slater, appreciates the difficulties.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, have the Government made any estimate of the demand from this part of Scotland for horoscopes from Birmingham?
LORD DENHAM: No, my Lords. That, too, is a matter for the day-to-day running of the Post Office.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, is one of the reasons for this delay the fact that the Post Office is now ordering telephonic equipment from Sweden instead of from British firms?
LORD DENHAM: No, my Lords.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether the Post Office has any statutory obligation to
1278
reply to inquiries from Members of your Lordships' House?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I should be very surprised if the Post Office did not reply to any inquiries, whether they were from Members of your Lordships' House or from elsewhere.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that letters addressed to the Post Office very often do not get a reply?
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, I suggest to noble Lords that this particular telephone call should now go dead.

SOUTH AFRICAN PURCHASE OF HELICOPTERS
2.43 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I apologise for having two Questions on the Order Paper this afternoon? One was originally tabled for yesterday. 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 whether they have endorsed the sale by Westland Aircraft Ltd. of seven Wasp helicopters to the Government of the Republic of South Africa.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE): Yes, my Lords. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs said in another place on February 22 last year that Her Majesty's Government have informed the South African Government that if orders were placed for Wasp helicopters Her Majesty's Government would, according to their legal obligations, issue export licences at the appropriate time.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while thanking the noble Baroness, whom we welcome back from Chile, may I ask her this supplementary question? Does the reservation that arms shall not be used for internal purposes within South Africa still stand; and, if so, how was it that helicopters were used in Namibia, South-West Africa, during the recent labour unease?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, the answer to the noble Lord's first supplementary question is: Yes, that still stands. The answer to his second supplementary question is that we are sure that Wasp helicopters could not possibly be used because they are not troop-carrying aircraft.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness whether the fulfilment of the supply of seven Wasp helicopters to South Africa discharges our legal liability in that direction?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, the noble Lord will, I am sure, remember that the White Paper on the legal obligations of this country referred in the first place to Westland Wasp helicopters and, secondly, to
"such replacements of the initial equipment and stores and base reserves for all the vessels supplied under the Sea Routes Agreement".
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, is the noble Baroness saying that it is technically impossible to modify the Wasp helicopters by adding machine guns so that they can be used in a role rather like that in which the United States forces have been using their helicopters in Vietnam? And if that is so, how can the noble Baroness say that they are not capable of being used for internal repression?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I am informed that the Wasp is essentially an anti-submarine helicopter, and that those supplied to the South Africans contain a range of electronic and radar apparatus, and have room for only two crew members.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, what I asked the noble Baroness was: why should they not take out this electronic equipment and put in machine guns? Is she saying that that is technically impossible?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I do not think I am technically qualified to say whether it would be technically possible, but the fact is that the helicopters supplied to the South African Government are not troop-carrying helicopters.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness whether it is
1280
not the case that these helicopters were used in Namibia for reconnaissance purposes to inform the ground troops?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, my information is that The Times carried a report that the South African police were using helicopters in order to stop tribal fighting in Natal. It did not specify the type of helicopter, but it probably referred to the Puma, which was of course supplied by the French.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that it is not only troop-carrying aircraft or armed helicopters which are used in riot duties, but reconnaissance helicopters, to give the security forces the information they want about the riot? Will she therefore give us an assurance that in the case of these seven helicopters Her Majesty's Government will get an undertaking from the South African Government that they will not be used in riot duties?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, we have always made it perfectly clear that we would not supply arms under our legal obligations, as is the case with the Wasp helicopters, for purposes of enforcing apartheid.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, is it not the case that you could put a machine gun on any commercial aircraft if you wanted, or drop a bomb from any commercial aircraft? Is it not a very good thing from the point of view of employment in this country that we are exporting these excellent helicopters?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I am sure it is an excellent idea from the point of view of employment, and I am sure they are excellent helicopters.

SOUTH AFRICAN LABOUR GANGS: CONSCRIPTION CHARGES
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will ask the Human Rights Commission of the United

1281
Nations to investigate the charges that young African boys between the ages of 8 and 15 have been kidnapped and employed compulsorily in farming labour gangs in South Africa.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, as my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary said in another place on April 18, we have no information about the allegation to which the noble Lord refers, and consequently did not raise the matter at the 1972 Session of the United Nations Human Rights Commission, which ended on April 7.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, in thanking the noble Baroness, may I say that I should be very glad to send her the information? But may I ask her whether it is not a fact that at Boksburg, near Johannesburg, African boys of 8 years of age who were not attending school, often because their parents could not afford the fees, were picked up and conscripted in farming labour gangs until they were 16 years of age? Is this not a form of juvenile slavery which ought to be brought to the attention of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I read the allegations in the People newspaper very carefully, and the Government are of course asking our Mission in South Africa to try to find out whether in fact, and to what extent, these allegations are true.

HOUSING POLICY: LAND RELEASE AND PLAY FACILITIES
2.49 p.m.
LORD LUKE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the recent Government announcement concerning the release of land for housing they will give an assurance that land at present used for playing fields and children's playgrounds will not be used for building; and what steps they will take to
1282
ensure that in all new housing developments there is proper provision for children's play.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, restrictions imposed by Parliament ensure that no public open space can be used for another purpose without Parliamentary approval unless equally advantageous land is offered in exchange. Normal planning procedures apply to the development for other purposes of other land used for recreation.
As regards the second part of the Question, there is a recommended standard for the provision of playspace on local authority housing estates, and my right honourable friend is considering, in the light of a recent study of children's play, what changes should be made to that standard. It is intended to issue a "Design Bulletin" this summer, including guidance on the facilities to be provided.
LORD LUKE: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his Answer to the first part of my Question. With regard to the second part, can be say when it is likely that this provision will be compulsory on all local authorities?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I do not think it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to make it compulsory. It is hoped that local authorities, as in the past, will heed the advice given which has been arrived at in consultation with all the interested parties concerned, including the Sports Council.

NORTHERN IRELAND BILL OF RIGHTS [H.L.]
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to make provisions for equating the civil rights of persons resident in Northern Ireland with those of persons resident in the remainder of the United Kingdom, and to make discrimination on grounds of race or religious belief unlawful. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a—(Lord Brockway.)
On Question, Bill read 1a and to be printed.

NORTHERN IRELAND PROPOR- TIONAL REPRESENTATION BILL [H.L.]
LORD ARCHIBALD: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to make provision for proportional representation in elections for any legislative or parliamentary assembly or local government area in Northern Ireland. I beg to move that this Bill he now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Archibald.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

ANTI-DISCRIMINATION (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Baroness Dacre and the Baroness Summerskill be added to the Select Committtee on the Anti-Discrimination (No. 2) Bill.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CARRIAGE BY RAILWAY BILL
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Popplewell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CHILDREN BILL [H.L.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE): My Lords, I understand that no Amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript Amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore. unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move, pursuant to Standing Order No. 45(2), that the Order of Commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the Order of Commitment be discharged.—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

NATIONAL INSURANCE (AMENDMENT) BILL
2.54 p.m.
LORD REIGATE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This small Bill represents a minor amendment to the National Insurance Acts. It passed through all its stages in another place in one day with good will on both sides of the House and I hope that it will commend itself in the same fashion to your Lordships to-day. It relates to one particular feature of the National Insurance scheme; that is, the earnings rule. Almost any noble Lord who has ever sat in another place will be more than familiar with that particular expression because I suppose he will have had many complaints from aggrieved pensioner constituents who felt that they were cheated by the incidence of the earnings rule. It is a fact that the Beveridge Report, when first published, embodied an entirely revolutionary principle, which is that instead of pensions as of right for old age, a pension should be payable only on retirement, and only on total retirement at that. The earnings rule therefore was the inevitable corollary. This is where the shoe has pinched so many pensioners among one's former constituents.
There was great merit in Lord Beveridge's proposals. but one must remember that it was conceived against a background of pre-war unemployment. I do not propose to-day to embark on any discussion of its merits. I think we must accept it as a fact which remains embodied in our present legislation but, alas! at the time it was introduced there was a total failure to educate or persuade the public or the pensioners to accept this new principle, and I think that even to-day there are many who feel aggrieved by the effect of the earnings rule. Moreover, in the original Act the principle of total retirement was breached in two ways. First, there was, quite rightly, a concession made exempting the first £1 of casual earnings by retirement pensioners. Secondly, there was a major breach made by exempting those aged 70 (or in the case of women. 65) from the earnings rule altogether—which means that the rule therefore applies only to a band of five years. The position remained unchanged from the National Insurance Act 1946 until 1951 when the

1285
noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, altered the sum to £2 in the National Insurance Bill 1951. This was a great step forward. Nothing further happened until 1956 which, if I may say so, is where I came in.
Successive Governments were unwilling to abandon the earnings rule, and understandably, on account of the very high cost. That is still the official answer. But I found myself by 1956 increasingly unwilling to give the stock answer to my complainants and I thought of the idea—or, to be more exact, I found it tucked away in the original Beveridge Report—that above the £1 exemption there might be a band of partial exemption which would be in slight mitigation of the rigidity of the earnings rule. In 1955. I drew a low place in the ballot for Private Members' Bills. Noble Lords will know that a Private Member's Bill cannot embody a charge on Exchequer funds; but by a happy inspiration I realised that the cost of amending the earnings rule would fall in effect on the National Insurance fund and not on the Exchequer. This brought it within the scope of a Private Member's Bill. It is no secret to say that I was extremely unpopular with the Ministry and with the Minister of the day as a result. My old friend Sir Edwin Leather happened to have a higher place in the ballot and volunteered to sponsor my Bill and help to get it on the Statute Book. The Minister then changed his mind, and with the concurrence of the National Insurance Advisory Committee accepted our proposal and was able to raise the exemption limit to 50s. and to have a £1 band subject to partial deduction. Successive Governments have built on the foundations of the 1956 Bill in relaxations of the earnings rule, and to-day the exemption limit stands at £9·50 which represents 30 per cent. of average earnings. In 1967, the band of partial deduction was raised from £1 to £2 on a proposal of the National Insurance Advisory Council and this was advocated on the grounds, rightly and wisely, that pension rates had doubled and that average earnings had risen by 70 per cent.
My Lords, the simple proposition of the Bill before the House is to raise the £2 band of partial deduction to £4, for exactly the same reasons as was recommended
1286
in 1967 by the National Insurance Advisory Committee. I would say that the Bill will affect in total only some 14,000 pensioners and it will burden the National Insurance fund only in the sum of about a quarter of a million pounds. But I think your Lordships will agree that the proposal, if modest, is also just, logical and consistent. I may say, as the ultimate of magnanimity, that it leaves the Secretary of State to appoint the day on which it will come into force. My hope (which is that of Mr. Coombes) is that this will take place at the annual review in the autumn of this year. This is a slightly technical Bill but I commend it to your Lordships and beg to move that it be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Reigate.)
3.0 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I should like first to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, on his ingenuity in finding a way by which to introduce a Private Member's Bill and get round the Money Rule. It seems to me something upon which we should commend him. During the last discussion we had in this House on the question of National Insurance I entered a plea for the complete abolition of the earnings rule. As the noble Lord has said, conditions have changed vastly since we originally included this provision in National Insurance legislation. I had hoped that the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, would go a little further than he has done, but I appreciate that we are happy to have any modification which will make life a little easier for this group of people.
It must surely be very costly to operate an earnings rule when, as at present, on earnings between £9·50 and £11·50 5p is deducted for each 10p earned, and, when earnings are over £11·50, £1 is deducted on account of the first £2 earned over the £9·50; and 5p is deducted for each 5p over £11·50, I made a calculation and found that actually things do not tie up there, but that it would be possible to have a deduction which would bring the figure below £11·50, but I will not bother the Minister with that point now because my mathematics may well have been wrong. It must be a time-wasting and expensive operation when the rule is applied to quite a number of

1287
people and it is necessary to do this calculation in order to take away money from those who have the energy and enthusiasm to earn after reaching a certain age.
To-morrow we shall be discussing the question of pensions, but I would say to your Lordships that a woman of 60 or a man of 65 still has a contribution to make to the community. Indeed, after seeing the way in which some of your Lordships operate one might say that a man or woman of 70, 80 or possibly even 90 still has a contribution to make, if he or she is able to work. We must remember that people in this group who work do so mainly in trades and professions in which other people do not want to work. I think that the catering trade would come to a halt were it not for people over the retirement age who continue to work. I remember that the Minister gave us figures during our previous debate and said that it would be possible for a husband and wife to earn £9·50 each, collect their pension and have a total income of £30 a week. That may be so. but by the time the tax regulator has dealt with them. I suggest that a substantial part of anything they may earn will come back to the State. I am wholly behind the noble Lord's plea that this Bill should go on to the Statute Book as quickly as possible. It will provide a small benefit in respect of the only group in the whole community which has to pay back something it has received from the State; and that "something", I suggest to your Lordships, these people have earned over and over again.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I support what my noble friend Lady Phillips has said. It was fascinating to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, and to the details which he gave to the House of the various changes in this legislation. He will recall that years ago it was difficult to effect any change because there was a fear that the labour of the old people might be exploited. I think that my noble friend Lord Douglass of Cleveland, one of the most generous of trade unionists, will agree that there was some fear among the trade unions that that exploitation of the old might interfere with wage negotiations. But time goes on, and now I
1288
believe that there is a completely different climate of opinion among the trade unions with regard to this matter. I am sure that all those who have served so well in many unions will agree that the time has come when if it is not possible to abolish the earnings rule altogether we should support what the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, has said.
3.7 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Reigate has given a clear explanation of this Bill, and also he has been good enough to paint a bit of the background to the earnings rule, for which I am grateful. It is a rule which he himself has played a distinguished part in trying to amend; indeed, this is his latest effort. Like the noble Lord, I do not think that it would be appropriate to discuss the earnings rule itself at this time although I listened with interest to what was said by the noble Baronesses opposite. Perhaps I may add the fact that the cost of abolishing the earnings rule as a whole would be something in the region of £110 million.
My Lords, the Government are lukewarm about this Bill, not because of its undoubted merits, which have been described by my noble friend, but simply for reasons of timing. As he said, it is a modest measure; in our calculation it would cost about £200,000 a year. It benefits working pensioners for whom we all have respect and sympathy. But, with the limited resources, the Government have to choose their priorities, and for this year's up-rating an easement of the earnings rule was not included. Of course we gave it careful consideration, but other benefits were thought to be of greater importance this year. We had already increased the earnings rule limit last year by £2, from £7.50 to £9.50 a week, and we have to face the fact that the proposal in this Bill will benefit only pensioners earning more than £11.50 a week. Certainly such people are fully worthy of our sympathy and support, but they are not those who are in the greatest need; and this year we put first other improvements, such as the maximum addition to the standard rate of pension and an extension in the scope of the attendance allowance. This, therefore, is not a proposal which the Government would have brought before your Lordships' House this year.

1289
We felt that we had made a significant change in the earnings rule last year and that it would be better to leave further changes for consideration next year. But this is a Private Member's Bill; it has been accepted in another place and the cost falling on the National Insurance Fund is relatively small. We should not, therefore, wish to oppose it. If your Lordships see fit to give the Bill a Second Reading we shall have two Amendments to put forward on Committee stage. One would he to include Northern Ireland in the Bill, and the second would be to remedy a minor technical deficiency in the Long Title. As my noble friend said. the Bill leaves it to my right honourable friend to appoint the day to bring it into operation; and should the Bill in its present form, with those two Amendments, be approved by both Houses and receive the Royal Assent, it would be the intention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to make the necessary commencing Order so that the change would become operative at the same time as the proposed increases in pensions; that is, in the week beginning October 2 next.
LORD REIGATE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baronesses opposite who gave me such wholehearted support, and also to my noble friend the Minister who, after praising the Bill with a few faint damns, has given it his blessing—and also something we really wanted, the day on which it will come into operation in the autumn. I am grateful for the support it has been given and I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

WINTER KEEP (SCOTLAND) VARIATION SCHEME 1972
3.9 p.m.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON rose to move, That the Draft Winter Keep (Scotland) Variation Scheme 1972, laid before the House on May 2, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Scheme, which applies only to Scotland, gives effect to the decision announced in the White Paper on the Annual Review 1972 (Cmnd. 4928) to increase by 50p per acre the winter keep acreage grant payable to Scottish farmers. This increase and the increases in the winter keep headage supplements, also
1290
announced in the White Paper, are intended in the case of hill farming to replace the reduction in the fertiliser subsidy about which the noble Lord. Lord Hoy, asked yesterday. These reductions and increases balance out at approximately around the £500,000 mark.
It may be helpful to your Lordships if I mention briefly that at the inception of winter keep assistance in 1964 grant was paid on an acreage basis throughout the United Kingdom. In 1965 acreage payments were discontinued in England. Wales and Northern Ireland and replaced by headage supplements on hill cattle and sheep qualifying for hill cattle and hill sheep subsidies. To ensure that Scottish farmers did not suffer disparity through being restricted to acreage payments, those eligible were also given a small headage payment on their hill sheep. Since 1967, when headage payments were introduced in Scotland, eligible farmers. have been given the choice each year of receiving their winter keep assistance as headage supplements or as acreage payments. The object of having these alternative methods of payment is to allow for the wide variation in Scottish conditions and to allow farmers to receive the assistance in the form they consider best suited to their circumstances. Since this option was introduced the number of farmers choosing headage supplement has steadily increased, but about a quarter of the 13,500 eligible farmers still choose acreage payments, which we consider represents a reasonable level of demand for this form of assistance. My Lords, I commend this Scheme to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Draft Winter Keep (Scotland) Variation Scheme 1972 laid before the House on May 2, be approved.—(Lord Mowbray and Stourton.)
3.12 p.m.
LORD HOY: My Lords, we debated fully yesterday the whole question of the Government decision in the White Paper to reduce by £20 million the fertiliser subsidy. This means that the Government have now called back 17s. 4d. of every £1 which they used to pay in fertiliser subsidy. It is true that in Scotland they did not do as we did—I say "we" as I was the Parliamentary Secretary at the time—namely, go over to a headage payment which we thought was rather economical, so that the farmer saved

1291
a considerable amount of time over form filling and administration, and which also represented a practical saving to the Ministry itself. To take away a quarter of a million pounds and give back £200,000, and to say that this is compensation does not seem to me to be doing a good job.
If the Government wished to continue to spend a quarter of a million pounds I would have thought from the country's point of view that it would have been better spent on the fertiliser subsidy. The Minister will say, "We leave it to the farmer. He will either choose to buy fertiliser or not do so." Then we shall be given another little homily, to the effect that farmers are so good, they will all use the fertiliser subsidy. If this is the case, the Government are saying to the farmers generally, including the hill farmers, that the £20 million which they used to get to help them do this job they will get no longer. That is why I regard this as a retrograde step.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, If I may make one small correction to what the noble Lord said, I did say the reduction in hill-farming subsidies on fertiliser would be about the half a million pounds mark, not a quarter of a million pounds, and that the increase in acreage and headage payments will amount to just about the half million pound mark, too.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (FAMILY PLANNING) AMEND- MENT BILL
3.15 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Amulree.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD DERWENT in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Provision of voluntary vasectomy services]:
LORD ABERDARE LORD ABERDARE moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 19, at end insert—
("(2) It shall be the duty of any local health authority providing voluntary vasectomy services
1292
by virtue of this section to make to the Secretary of State, at such times as he may require, periodical reports as to those services, and the report for any period—

(a) shall show how many patients received treatment in the period, and categorise them by age; and

(b) shall state the expenditure of public money incurred by the authority in the provision of those services during the period; and

(c) shall give such other information possessed by or available to the authority as the Secretary of State may request with respect to those services or to the persons who have at any time applied for or received treatment;

and for that purpose a local health authority shall keep such records as the Secretary of State may from time to time direct.")
The noble Lord said: As I indicated on Second Reading the Government do not wish to oppose the Bill, but we have some reservations about Clause 2, most of which was added to the original Bill at Report stage in another place.
Clause 2 is in general concerned with the keeping of records and the making of reports, both admirable objects in themselves, but both entailing considerable administrative action; and it is largely on administrative grounds that we are not happy with the clause as it stands. It is divided into three subsections. The first subsection begins by laying a duty on local health authorities to make reports, and this we readily accept. It is contained in substance in the new subsection which I am now moving. But the original subsection goes on to require the Secretary of State to publish all these reports (and there will be 175 of them) within one month and to put them on sale to the general public. We do not think this either practicable or necessary and, if your Lordships agree to the Amendment, I can give an assurance that we will prepare a summary of reports received from local health authorities and make it available in some convenient form.
Subsection (2) places a duty on local health authorities to keep records showing how many patients under the age of 30 sought a vasectomy were refused and applied again. This may not he immediately apparent from the wording. but the provision would in fact require arrangements to be made to identify patients who were refused treatment in one area and subsequently sought it in another.

1293
This would entail elaborate and costly administrative machinery out of proportion to any benefits that it might bring. I suggest to your Lordships that the right course is to replace this provision by a requirement that the local authority should keep such records as the Secretary of State directs and for my Department to discuss with local authority associations what arrangements could best be made to give effect to the wishes of Parliament in this respect.
Subsection (3) I am afraid the Government find totally unacceptable. This provision would require every local health authority to make a report to the Secretary of State annually on any significant effects on the circumstances or social relationships of men who have been vasectomised under the Bill. This provision would involve quite unacceptable intrusion into the lives of families where the husband has had a vasectomy. Indeed. the thought of such annual check ups could well deter people from having vasectomies under this Bill, despite the fact that they may have a pressing need for the operation.
For these reasons I shall be moving the deletion of Clause 2 and the substitution of a new subsection to Clause 1. This will ensure that proper records are kept and that reports are made. I beg to move.
3.19 p.m.
LORD STRANGE LORD STRANGE rose to move, as an amendment to the Amendment:
In line 7 of the Amendment, at end insert—
("() shall show what proportion of those people who have received treatment have a genetic history of mental disturbance or insanity; and").
The noble Lord said: I beg to give the background to this Amendment which I put down. Small boy 1911 reads regimental history of experiments on garden peas. Small boy a little older experiments in garden peas. Bigger boy experiments on tame rabbits. Man does large-scale farming with all sorts of livestock experiments and knows by this time that he can identify a genetic character on sight. In older age he experiments and goes through his own family tree to find out what he has inherited in the genetic line. The result is not all that encouraging, because genetic inheritance cannot be altered. He then goes over
1294
his children and watches them growing up, and his grand-children, and now he has reached the stage of being able to tell genetic inheritance characters in many people. I am afraid to say that he even recognises them in Members of your Lordships' House. He tries from what is available to find out where they came from.
That is the background to the Bill. At my age I have realised, and I confess, that I am 90 per cent. automatic: I give myself 10 per cent. free will purely out of pride. In the 61 years that this has been going on in my mind, in my practice, I have noticed a great many changes take place. In the 'twenties Freud's theory swam into my ken. That caused—in fact, I think it is still causing—a great deal of comment and experiment. At that time somebody hit the wonderful idea that all men would be equal were it not for early environment or wealth. I think that is a lovely idea, and I am glad that somebody thought of it, because when we look back on our lives and find the colossal mistakes that we have made and the failures that we have had it is nice to know that it was not our fault. But it does not really ring true to-day.
If I suffered from a lethal early environment, it is possible that working in a factory I might go bald from some chemical accidentally sprayed over me. But if I have inherited early baldness, I will go bald whatever the conditions are. If I am rich, I may be left with complexes and one thing and another; I may sit on couches or I may lie on them; I may hear everything that has to be said. But I will never cure (if I may put it that way) the genetic inheritance that made me rich and will go on making me rich when conditions alter, because my genetic inheritance is fly enough to make me see round this point. Genetic inheritance cannot be altered: we have it; we succeed to it; and it is not our fault. If we could alter it we should fall to bits.
I know that this is an unusual Amendment and it is an unusual background, but, as I usually am, I am sincere in what I say. We come to the point about madness, insanity. Insanity in itself is not hereditary; but the physical factors

1295
which cause it are. I could go into this at depth and prove my point, but I should need a great number of books, your Lordships would probably all go bald while I was doing it and it would lead to a lot af arguments. So I will merely give two examples. The first, whom I shall call X was a member of a family of six children. Five of them went through their lives in and out of what he called the "bin"; and one was perfectly sane and normal. I could give your Lordships the genetic background for that, but I will not bore you by making this talk longer than I have to. All I would mention is that X said to me: "My sister is getting married." I said to him: "Which one?"—hoping that it would be the one I wanted it to be. He said that it was so-and-so—I will not mention her name. I said: "Where did she meet her husband?", and he replied: "She met him in the 'bin'". I did not say anything. But that is an expression that has haunted me for 30 years, and I shall never get it out of my mind as long as I live. That is just one example of what is at the back of my mind.
The other example is an unusual one, and I do not mind if your Lordships recognise the character in it. A man whom I thought very distinguished, good-looking, charming and intelligent had a sister who was insane. He went over the whole of his family history—a very distinguished family history—and came to the conclusion that insanity was hereditary in his family. He married a lady who was too old to have children: he wanted his line to come to an end; and so it has. That is an example of what can be done about insanity, which is a perfect nuisance in all its forms in the world to-day.
I do not want to go on for too long, but I think I should explain a little clearer the reason for this Amendment. I would put it in this way. Normally evolution takes care of all this. The mad people are not fly enough—they get killed off; the tribe kill them off. Or we have population explosions—I think of the rather attractive little mammal in Norway which swims down the fiords to its death. Occasionally the ladybird,
1296
to give it the popular name, has a population explosion, and they are swept up all over the country. But our species of creature has managed to evolve to such an extent that we are going under our own steam. We have got beyond the power of the evolution system to control us. We can control ourselves only by these ghastly and lethal wars. In my lifetime, at any rate, we have become so clever at making things that we are destroying our world. When I say "we are destroying our world", I mean that it is the people who have genetic faults, like the one that I have mentioned, who cannot stop destroying it. A tremendous greed comes to them through genetic inheritance. I mentioned the case of the rich man psychiatrist. They cannot avoid it; it is nobody's fault.
I think the time will come when we have to face genetic inheritance and forget the rest. The point is that you do not have to go to a psychiatrist to be cured of biases, complexes and inhibitions; you can cure them yourself by recognising them, if you have the guts and the intelligence to do it. The only thing that we have to worry about in future is genetic inheritance. We all hope that we do not know how we are going to end up. in a Jules Verne period of time. It does not look very good. Now intelligent people have made these wild saucers, and they are going into space to find out if there are any other animals who are similar to us. Well, if there are any other animals who are similar to us they will not answer back. because they will have killed their world millions of years ago, just as we are now trying to kill ours. Our only hope for the future is to try to restrain ourselves—or, if I may use a modern expression, perhaps make an A.I. bank of really good genetic inheritance that may be used in the future.
I have spoken in a visionary way, because you get to the time in this House when people have heard you often enough; and you want to say what you really think, quite seriously, without too many jokes, while you have the opportunity of doing so. That is the background of the Amendment, which starts in such a mild way: it is insidious. The essence of it is that somebody who wishes,

1297
for no particular reason, to be castrated—I do not think that is quite the right word—
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: Sterilised.
LORD STRANGE: I am obliged. I was thinking of farming and animals. We do what we call a "short cut" on them, but we never castrate the pedigree bulls on whom we have spent years of genetic research in order to build them up into what we want. We preserve them. That is the background of this Amendment.
I do not expect anyone in your Lordships' House to have followed me throughout my remarks, or to have agreed with me, but I am glad to have been able to say what I have said. I shall probably withdraw this Amendment later on.
3.31 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Strange, for giving us such an interesting talk on the subject of genetics and heredity in general. I could not quite follow all that he said, but I did understand a great deal of his speech. However, I should like to point out that it really seemed to me to have no bearing on this Bill.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD AMULREE: The Bill we are now talking about is an enabling Bill, pure and simple, so that local authorities may include the operation of vasectomy among their family planning activities: nothing more than that. The information that may be required by the Department or by the Secretary of State would be available if needed. I am greatly inclined to accept Amendment No. 1 and therefore I feel that the Amendment of the noble Lord does not really apply. There are many things that need to be known: for example, the number of people who write with their left or their right hand; the number of people who have red or black hair, and so on. But these things do not come into the Bill we are now discussing. I very much hope that the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw his Amendment and not press it.
If I may now speak to the first Amendment, may I say that I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, for having put down this new subsection,
1298
which in many ways seems preferable to the original Clause 2. Therefore, when the other Amendment is moved, to leave out Clause 2, I shall have great pleasure in accepting it.
LORD STRANGE: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Amulree very much for his kind remarks about what must have been to all doctors present in your Lordships' house, and indeed to everybody else, a difficult and, indeed, embarrassing speech. I made it for obvious reasons, and because I wanted to get it off my chest while I am still available to do so. But, to do it justice, I personally do not think this Bill will see the light of day. I should vote for it if it did, but I am pretty sure that it will not reach the Statute Book. I am not debating the Bill, but what I would settle for is that the noble Lord should say to me, "I will think it over", which is a very nice remark from the Front Bench: it means nothing and it lets me out.
3.34 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, may I say just a word about the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Strange? The thing that surprised me was that he took credit for only 10 per cent. of free will. I should have thought that anyone who showed a greater percentage of free will than the noble Lord would be hard to find in your Lordships' House—otherwise he must have a most potent combination of genes. But we appreciated the noble Lord's interest in genetics, and I would only say that there is every possibility that this Bill will find its way on to the Statute Book. It has already been through another place, and if your Lordships pass it through its Committee stage to-day there is every possibility of its reaching the Staute Book. I should like to make this point: that if there are genetic factors which make vasectomy desirable, that operation could be performed on health grounds and could therefore be done in hospital. This Bill will merely enlarge the possibility and allow local authorities to undertake vasectomies in certain instances. However, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment to the Amendment.
LORD STRANGE: I thank the noble Lord very much. He always displays the utmost civility. I did not quite hear all he said, but I thought he said, "I

1299
will think it over "—and I thank him very much. I am sure that we in this House all know that I was putting on rather an act and I can only ask your Lordships to forgive me. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment to the Amendment.
Amendment to Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SEGAL: If I may refer for a moment to the main Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, to add a new subsection to Clause 1, I hope that the House will support it and will delete Clause 2 as it stands. I have always felt that it is rather invidious to lay down a definite age limit, and Clause 2(2) says:
"… to keep a record for the first two years of operation of this Act showing how many patients under the age of thirty years applied for but were refused treatment …".
As we all know, the age of maturity has varied during the last ten or twenty years. People are now becoming adult at a much earlier age than was hitherto believed possible, and it may often happen that someone under the age of thirty years may produce very strong and justifiable grounds for having this operation done. I think it is a definite advance that the age of thirty years is to be deleted from the noble Lord's Amendment.
The other point that I would raise concerns paragraph (c) of the proposed new subsection (2), which states that the local health authority's report
"shall give such other information possessed by or available to the authority as the Secretary of State may request …".
At the present time most of the vasectomy clinics go meticulously into the factors that must operate before this operation is undertaken—and that, too, with reference to the Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Strange, has just withdrawn. In spite of his persuasive tones, I felt that his case might have been stronger had lie worded his Amendment to show what proportion of those people who have not received treatment has a genetic history of mental disturbance or insanity: because, as the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, has just mentioned, one of the strongest factors that would justify such an operation is the existence of a genetic history of mental disturbance or insanity. But again I would stress that the most meticulous details have to be
1300
studied before any operation of this nature is agreed upon.
I have a list of the details that are required from any applicant. The third question asks for a record of the husband's health. The fourth question concerns the wife's health, general health. obstetric health, and gynæcological health. Even after the Family Planning Association's doctor has recommended that this operation should be performed, he has to explain to any applicant the full implication of it. Out of a list of thirteen items which he is required to explain to the applicant, the first one is to make clear that the operation must be regarded as irreversible. The second is that the consent of the general practitioner is essential; and here I would say that I hope that in every case the general practitioner will be approached by anyone who is in charge of the clinic and a full history of any mental insanity or disturbance will be recorded before anything in the nature of such an operation is sanctioned. I consider that the proposed new paragraph (c) requires all kinds of information which may be deemed necessary to be returned by the local authority accepting, as he was so clear to stress, that absolute insistence of secrecy shall be maintained at all times. I have no hesitation in hoping that the Committee will adopt the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, and add the new subsection to Clause 1.
BARONESS BIRK: I should like to support the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare. It is a great improvement on what was originally in the Bill. I agree with my noble friend Lord Segal on the age limit of 30. I think this is an extremely worrying point. One of the advantages of the Amendment is that it puts the whole matter much more neatly and more formally where it should be in the whole range of the contraceptive service rather than it being a very special area. The special part about it is the irreversibility; but this applies to women who are sterilised. I was not quite happy with regard to the point about the consent of the general practitioner being obligatory. Perhaps the Minister can help us on that point. We have had many letters to the Health Education Council indicating for all sorts of reasons, religious and otherwise, that the general practitioner has been against the whole idea

1301
and concept of vasectomy. I had hoped and envisaged that, as a result of this Bill going on the Statute Book, there would be the opportunity, particularly in those cases, for the patient to see another doctor who may take a different view. If the G.P. is against vasectomy—and this applies to all forms of contraception—it does not seem right that a person should be denied help because of the views of his own doctor. Because the age limit has been removed and because of the whole flavour of this Amendment, I think it is a great improvement to the Bill. I hope it will be accepted and that the Bill will go on the Statute Book.
LORD PLATT: As a former President of the Family Planning Association, I feel that I should add my congratulations to the Minister on this Amendment which is a great improvement. Although the noble Lord, Lord Strange, has withdrawn his Amendment to tile Amendment, perhaps I would not be out of order in saying that the Amendment we are now discussing would give ample opportunities for research to bodies such as the Eugenic Society, of which I have also been President, to make use of the new situation in which vasectomy will become a common operation and large numbers of people can be studied by proper scientific methods. Also, a certain amount of information which will be helpful to people like the noble Lord, Lord Strange, who are worried about the inheritance of mental diseases, will probably conic out of these investigations.
LORD ROBBINS: Will the Minister give us an assurance that the consent of an objecting G.P. on religious or philosophical grounds will not be an obstacle to the provision of this facility?
3.44 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: I was going to raise this matter. I am rather concerned about this point because the general practitioner of the average patient is the doctor whom he has chosen under the National Health scheme. This doctor will have a full record of the patient. I quite understand that the general practitioner's advice is important because he alone has the patient's record. But when the patient first chose the doctor he may not have been thinking in terms of vasectomy and did not ask his neighbours, "Has this doctor any religious objection
1302
to sterilisation?" But as the years pass and the patient decides to have a vasectomy operation he realises that this particular doctor, his general practitioner, as is defined in the Bill, would have religious objections. I should like the noble Lord to tell me what will be the position in that case. Would be consider a further Amendment giving a patient who wishes to have a vasectomy but who, nevertheless, has a general practitioner who has religious objections to it, permission to go to some other doctor, or can we rely upon the advice from the hospital or the doctor who already has been recognised as the individual who will perform a vasectomy?
LORD LEATHERLAND: We have had speeches from five very experienced and distinguished doctors. It may not be inappropriate if the voice of an ordinary man is raised. I am not a medical man; I have never touted for a clinic; I have never been vasectomised. However, just as I supported the Bill with one or two small qualifications on Second Reading, so I support the Amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare. The original Clause 2 imposed upon the local authorities far too great a responsibility for providing far too much information in a red tape manner. whereas the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, simplifies this and gives the authorities all the information that they need. For instance, it does away with the suggestion in the original Clause 2 that an annual report should be made available for sale to the general public. I hardly think that that is necessary; the newspapers will give good coverage to such information as the Ministry discloses. Speaking as an old newspaper man. I recollect that if the word "sex" appeared in a Government report it was certain of being given a good show in the general newspapers.
I feel that the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, is an improvement; but I am rather sorry, perhaps for personal reasons, that the noble Lord, Lord Strange, has withdrawn his Amendment. I think the information regarding any mental instability in a family would have been very valuable data for inclusion in such reports as local authorities had to make. Another reason why I should have been glad to have come to the support of the noble Lord,

1303
Lord Strange, involves our families. Back in the early years of the 15th century, when the noble Lord's family were the rulers of the Isle of Man, they were confronted with a revolution and so a Lieutenant-General had to be appointed to quell that revolution. The name of the Lieutenant-General was Leatherland. Just as we went to the rescue of the Stranges in those days, so I should have been willing, had the noble Lord's Amendment remained before the Committee, to go to his support on this occasion. Nevertheless, I support the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare.
LORD AMULREE: May I intervene for one moment in this debate to point out once more that this Bill is a Bill merely to enable local authorities to include vasectomy in their family planning work? It does not compel anyone to be vasectomised; it does not stop anybody. It is merely there to enable the authorities to include advice, which may be pro or may be con, about this kind of facility, and if the advice is that the operation should be done it may be carried out. We tend to get lost about an extremely simple purpose in this Bill.
LORD ABERDARE: I am grateful to all your Lordships who have spoken on this Amendment—all, happily, supporting it. As the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, has just said, we have gone rather wide of the Amendment itself which is concerned purely with the keeping of records and the making of reports. However, I take it that your Lordships are content with that. The noble Lord, Lord Segal, started the rot, I think, by referring to the requirements of consultation with the general practitioner, which point was taken up by the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, and the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill. As I said on Second Reading, the Chief Medical Officer has set up a group of professional people who will advise medical officers of health on the provision of vasectomies under the local authority. This is a professional matter for this group to consider and decide what their advice will be. But I will certainly make sure that what has been said this afternoon is drawn to their attention. I suspect that certainly the advice of the person's general practitioner would be taken. But, on the other hand, it would not follow that necessarily his
1304
consent would be required if the person concerned wished to have the operation performed and satisfied the clinic that this was an essential operation.
BARONESS BIRK: May I raise a point on my noble friend's comment on that question? I believe it is right to say that what he was referring to was a questionnaire put out by the Family Planning Association at the moment; that this in fact is not obligatory at all, it really has not any connection with this Bill, and that it would not necessarily be in any guidelines which are put out by the Ministry to the local health authorities. We ought to be quite clear about that because, although it may be a red herring, it has been brought into this issue.
LORD ABERDARE: This is perfectly true. We are straying away from the Amendment. But there will be this group and a circular will be issued from the Department, first of all, to the local authorities. There will also be this professional guidance from the working group which has been set up by the Chief Medical Officer.
LORD SEGAL: Would the noble Lord not agree that in cases where the operation of vasectomy has been performed it would be only right, while accepting fully the safeguards of secrecy, that the general practitioner of the patient, possibly in the interests of both the patient and his wife, ought to be notified?
LORD ABERDARE: I would think as a layman that this would be absolutely essential, as the noble Lord says, but I would prefer that it should be left to the Chief Medical Officer's working group finally to advise the medical officers of health.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: I am not quite sure whether I should put this point to the Minister as a layman or to one of the noble Lords who is a doctor. Several noble Lords are rather concerned about the question of what is the difference between general health records and health records relative to obstetrics and gynæcological records. It seemed to me that general health would cover all these areas. In any event, I am not sure of the difference between a gynæcologist and an obstetrician; but this is a finer point.
LORD ABERDARE: I am really rather straying from the Amendment now. I do not see either the word "obstetrics" or "gynæcology" in the Amendment. We are considering purely the records that will be kept by the local authority. There will be two kinds of records. The local authority will go into the case of the person concerned before the operation is performed. That is a confidential inquiry to make sure that the operation is required. Then, also, they will be keeping records from which the Secretary of State may be able to make a summary eventually for the information of the general public. What will be in these returns will be discussed between my Department and the local authority associations, if your Lordships agree to this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Reports to be made and records to be kept by local health anthorities]:
LORD ABERDARE: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, to leave out Clause 2. This clause is replaced by the new subsection in Amendment No. 1, which has been accepted.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 2.—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported, with the Amendments.

TRADE DESCRIPTIONS BILL
3.58 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Elliot of Harwood.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD HENLEY in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Indication of origin on certain imported goods]:
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 11, after ("Kingdom") insert ("the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man,").
The noble Baroness said: In rising to move this Amendment I should declare an interest of which I think the Committee is well aware, that I am a consultant on consumer affairs to Courtauld's.
This is a simple and short Amendment and I hope that it may prove acceptable. There are cases where goods made in the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man and imported for sale in this country could bear trade marks or names registered here or owned by companies or persons carrying on trade or business in this country. I feel that such goods certainly might complement production from factories here, and they could be made under contract to major retail trading outlets by whom they are sold as "own name" products. I think there is clearly no sense in a customer's knowing that goods in one packet on a shop shelf are made in this country and that identical goods in the next packet on the shelf are, for example, made in the Isle of Man. This is quite apart from the inconvenience to the manufacturer, the wholesaler or the retailer in this country of having to arrange to preserve what I think is a totally artificial distinction between what is made for him in, say, the Isle of Man, and what is made for or by him here. I beg to move.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: The noble Baroness has spoken most eloquently about this Amendment, the purpose of which is to enable goods manufactured or produced in the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man and bearing a United Kingdom name or mark to be sold in the United Kingdom without the name of origin. I have great sympathy with the argument and I readily admit that most people in this country would hardly think of citizens of the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man as being foreigners. But it is a fact that the Amendment before us recognises that the United Kingdom does not include the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, and for the purposes of the 1968 Act, which is the main Act, it is therefore not permissible to give an indication of

1307
United Kingdom origin in respect of goods manufactured or produced in the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man.
The whole basis of this Bill is a presumption that a United Kingdom name or mark, unqualified, is likely to be taken as an indication of United Kingdom origin. In any case where the unqualified United Kingdom name or mark on Channel Islands or Manx goods is likely to be so taken, such use would be contrary to the main Act, irrespective of the provisions of this Bill. So this Amendment would not mean, as an ordinary trader might wrongly suppose in reading the Bill with this Amendment incorporated in it, that there was no need to qualify the United Kingdom name or mark on Channel Islands or Manx goods. It would merely mean that whether or not qualification was required would turn, as under the existing law, on the facts of the particular case, instead of being determinable, as this Bill proposes, by straightforward general rule. Therefore the Amendment would be inconsistent. confusing and an unwarranted exception to the aim of the Bill, which is to establish a clear, general rule in this field. I fear therefore that I must resist this Amendment.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY (THE EARL OF LIMERICK): I must strongly, if a little reluctantly (because until one looks into the complicated legal background the change proposed seems to be simple enough), support my noble friend Lady Elliot in her argument for the rejection of this Amendment. The crucial points which she has made are, first, that, for all their geographical proximity, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man are not, as a matter of legal fact, part of the United Kingdom. Again as a matter of legal fact—and it would be beyond the scope of this Bill to alter this, even if we so wished—if anything likely to be taken as an indication of United Kingdom origin is applied to Channel Islands or Manx goods this would be contrary to the Trade Descriptions Act 1968. In short, the Amendment would not support the main Act requirement that people should avoid using United Kingdom names or marks relating to Channel Islands or Manx
1308
goods in such a way as might be thought to imply United Kingdom origin, and it would be quite wrong to put words into this Bill which might create the contrary impression. I might add that we have had no representations on this matter from the authorities of the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: I am grateful for the sympathy expressed by the noble Baroness and by the Minister. I can quite understand the position. I was under the impression—and I know now that I was wrong—that the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man were classified (if that is the right term) as part of the United Kingdom. Before withdrawing the Amendment, with the permission of the Committee. I should like to ask either the noble Baroness or the Minister whether, as this Amendment has not succeeded, if any additional information comes to light which would have a bearing upon Clause 1(4) the Minister and the Department would be willing to receive such information. to see whether in any particular case this situation might cause difficulties either for the customer or for the wholesalers or manufacturers.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: I am sure that what the noble Baroness has just said is quite right. I should be most anxious to hear if there were any exception. The real difficulty that we have now discovered is that the main Act does not include the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man as part of the United Kingdom. Therefore one is in the difficult position that it cannot be altered.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: I am much obliged to the noble Baroness. I ask permission of the Committee to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.7 p.m.
THE EARL OF LIMERICK THE EARL OF LIMERICK moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 11, leave out from ("Kingdom") to end of line 16 and insert ("subsection (1A) of this section shall apply except as otherwise provided by or under this section.
(1A) If any person, in the course of a trade or business, supplies or offers to supply the goods, then, unless—

(a) the name or mark is accompanied by a conspicuous indication of origin consisting of the word "imported" or of

1309
an indication of the country in which the goods were manufactured or produced; or

(b) the name or mark is neither visible in the state in which the goods are supplied or offered nor likely to become visible on such inspection as may reasonably be expected to be made of the goods by a person to whom they are to be supplied;

the person supplying or offering to supply the goods shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be guilty of an offence.").
The noble Earl said: There are two basic objects which this Amendment seeks to achieve. The first is to allow the use of the word "imported" as an alternative to the actual country of origin; the second is to exclude the need for the indication of origin to accompany United Kingdom names or marks which the consumer cannot be expected to see before he decides to buy the goods.
As regards the first of these changes—allowing the use of the word "imported" as an alternative to naming the country of origin—this arises from the important question of ensuring that the Bill is workable in practice. I have received convincing representations about the great difficulties which some classes of suppliers would face in labelling with the actual country of origin. Their problem is that their packaging has to be printed in advance, but they may be forced to vary the source of supply at a later stage. The noble Lord, Lord Macpherson of Drumochter, who gave me notice that he would be unable to be present this afternoon, gave us two excellent examples of this problem during the Second Reading debate, when he referred to the unpredictability of the Pacific salmon catch, and the variations in the citrus fruit crop between the various areas of the Caribbean as a result of hurricanes or other special factors. This is obviously a problem which can arise wherever the output of one's product is at the mercy of natural forces; and indeed not only natural forces, for political or labour circumstances could similarly dictate a sudden change of source. So, too, may significant changes in price and other actions beyond the importer's control, such as the impositions of quotas. In such circumstances the trader cannot possibly judge, when he orders his packaging many months ahead of the crop, how many cans or boxes he should have printed with the name of each of the
1310
countries to which he may eventually-have to turn for supplies. If we drove him down that road, the bountiful crop from country X might remain unsold for lack of containers to pack it in, while thousands of containers bearing the name of Y, where the crop failed would go to waste. So far as the consumer is concerned, all of this would merely mean scarcity and higher prices. This is a problem which is by no means confined to foodstuffs; it can equally well arise with other commodities. It is a problem which can be removed—and can only be removed—by giving the supplier a choice between declaring the actual country of origin and merely stating that his goods are "imported".
I know that there are some among your Lordships who will be disappointed that it has been found necessary to relax the proposed requirement that a United Kingdom name or mark on imported goods should be accompanied by an indication of the actual country of origin. It is a disappointment which, I confess. the Government also feel no less keenly. But we must be practical. The fact remains that the real purpose of this Bill is to prevent misrepresentation by ensuring that any name or mark which might wrongly be taken as an indication of United Kingdom origin is countered by an indication that the goods are from elsewhere, and it would be hard to contend that the word "Imported" will achieve this any less effectively than naming the actual country of origin. And we must simply face the fact that difficulties in implementing the present provisions of this Bill have been explained to us and are thought serious enough to make it impracticable over a considerable area. Insistence on this requirement of origin marking could bring about an interruption of supplies or increases in prices in certain trades, unwarranted by the additional benefits of naming the actual country of origin. I am sure that those imported goods which at present bear a precise indication of origin will continue to do so, and I have no reason to believe that this practice will not continue to grow. I hope it will. Traders having a legitimate pride in the source of their goods will doubtless make use of it in preference to designating the goods merely as "Imported".
A supplementary advantage of the change is that it would remove most of the problems which arise in relation to the marking of imported blends and mixtures which consist of materials of different countries of origin. My noble friend Lady Elliot has not found it possible to devise a suitable exemption for such blends and mixtures, and she will be moving a later Amendment to leave out the existing subsection (2) of Clause 1 which has been found wanting.
I turn now to the second part of the Amendment, which is somewhat technical in nature. The purpose of this Bill, let us remember, is to prevent any possibility that people are positively induced to buy goods by an erroneous supposition—based on the presence of a United Kingdom name or mark unqualified by notice of foreign origin—that they are in fact British made. This is the central purpose of the Bill and it must be achieved by ensuring that foreign goods to which this Bill applies are recognised as such at the time of decision to purchase. The Bill as at present drafted, however, goes beyond this and raises the likelihood that many suppliers may technically be breaking the law in future in an area where strict compliance would be very hard to achieve and would add nothing to the protection of the consumer. This arises from the very wide range of cases in which, by virtue of Clause 3, a United Kingdom name or mark will be deemed to have been "applied" to goods. The effect of that is that a United Kingdom name or mark is "applied" if it is
"affixed or annexed to or in any manner marked on or incorporated with"
the goods themselves, or anything in, on, or with which the goods are supplied, or anything in, on, or with which the goods are placed.
Note that there is nothing in this definition which limits it to externally visible names or marks. If the name of a United Kingdom firm is stamped at intervals along the edge of an unexposed role of photographic film where it may never be seen by the average photographer who bought it, it is at each of these points "applied", according to the definition, to the film. Again, if such a name is moulded into each chocolate in a box,
1312
every one of them individually foil-wrapped and the box offered for sale sealed in a clear plastic wrapper, the name is "applied" to each chocolate. If it is stamped somewhere within the hidden depths of a domestic appliance which, once it leaves the factory, will never be probed except by a repair man in the event of a breakdown, the name is none the less "applied" to the machine. And wherever there is such an application the Bill as it stands requires an accompanying indication of origin and makes it an offence to omit it, even though its addition would add nothing.
There is clearly no risk of deception if the United Kingdom name or mark is so placed that there is no question of the customer seeing it before he has acquired the goods. So in the first place it serves no useful purpose for the Bill's origin-marking requirements to extend it to United Kingdom names or marks which the customer will not see before he buys. But there is more to it than that. If the requirement does extend to these invisible names and marks, suppliers will be at peril under the Bill as regards names and marks which they do not even know to be present on the goods; and even where they know of the existence of the name or mark they may well be unable to add the required indication of origin without in the process rendering the goods quite unsaleable, as in the case of my examples of the photographic film and the foil-wrapped chocolates within the cellophane wrapped box.
If a United Kingdom name or mark is visible to an intending purchaser, or likely to be visible in the course of the pre-purchase inspection he may reasonably be expected to make, it is right, and indeed essential for the purpose of the Bill, that it should be accompanied on imported goods by an indication of their origin. But the purchaser cannot possibly be deceived by United Kingdom names or marks which—even though technically "applied" to the imported goods—will not be seen by him before he decides to buy; and, as I have explained, serious and wholly unwarranted practical difficulties can be expected to arise for honest suppliers unless, as the second part of this Amendment proposes, these invisible United Kingdom names and marks are exempted

1313
from the requirement that they be accompanied by an indication of origin.
The three further Amendments standing in my name are consequential on the division of the present Clause 1(1) into two separate subsections, and therefore perhaps, with leave, they might be taken together. It has also been drawn to my attention that the Amendment which I have just moved is likely to be contradictory to Amendment No. 9 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, and the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, and it might therefore be for the convenience of the House if the arguments were to be taken together.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: With permission, I would prefer to discuss them separately. I think there must be some overlapping, but it is a completely different point.
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: In that case, I beg to move Amendment No. 2.
LORD SAINSBURY: I do not know whether I should declare an interest or not, but it is an interest more in the past and rather remote at present, as I spend much more time in your Lordships' House than on other business. I was unable to be here at the Second Reading, but I am aware of Lord Macpherson's fears which represent certain fears of the trade, and I am going to say quite frankly that I think those fears are grossly exaggerated. As I understand the Bill, it affects goods that are so packeted that they are likely to be taken to be manufactured, processed or canned in the United Kingdom. But the Minister, briefed by Lord Macpherson, quoted the foodstuffs, salmon, and citrus from the Caribbean, as providing difficulties for the trader because he might draw his salmon from the U.S.S.R. or Japan or Canada and he would need to have many different printed labels. If he cannot so organise his business, in spite of seasonal variations in the catch in those different countries, then he is not a very efficient operator.
I am afraid that one of the real reasons behind trade opposition is that certain countries are more popular in the eyes of the general public than others. There may be people, for example, who do not like the Japanese; there may be people
1314
who do not like the citizens of the U.S.S.R.; and it may be easier to sell canned salmon coming from Canada than from another country. I do not know. It is an inconvenience for the trade, I grant, but I do not think that that is a valid reason for bringing in "Imported". I believe that the consumers of this country are entitled to know the real country of origin.
Secondly, if I heard aright, chocolates were mentioned. Nobody is going to be so impractical and silly as to suggest that every separately silver-wrapped chocolate, nougat, or what-have-you, must have upon it the country of origin. If the chocolates are packed in a box and are not British but Swiss chocolates then the box will have the country of origin upon it. The same will apply to sweets because they are mostly in a plastic bag of some sort and the bag will be marked and not the individually wrapped sweet. I am not at all surprised that the trade has opposed the idea of naming the country of origin and prefers the word "Imported". But if we are really concerned with the consumers' interest, I believe that we should have the real country of origin, and I cannot support this Amendment.
4.21 p.m.
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: I also strongly oppose this Amendment, and particularly the first part. I very much hope that if necessary those who feel the same as I do will take this to a Division. I regard this as the first step on a slippery slope; that is, the slope of avoiding giving the country of origin. I think that in this case the arguments we have heard against it are wholly unconvincing. They are the kind of arguments that could equally well be applied in almost any trade. The consumer wants to know, and has a right to know, where his salmon and lemons are coming from. In a recent survey I gather that 90 per cent. of consumers thought that a statement as to the country of origin was important. In many cases consumers get a minimal amount of information about goods, and the country of origin can give them a certain amount of information in various ways. In any case, even if the argument were based purely on the fact that some consumers want to know, and some consumers want to purchase British,

1315
or Japanese, or any other goods, they have a right to have that information.
There are some other much more practical arguments of why in certain cases it is useful to know the country of origin. It gives some indication, in default of anything better, of the quality and the performance of the goods. One knows that certain countries have a reputation for a certain type of goods. We all know that in the main Japanese cameras are manufactured under a Government scheme and that they are of exceedingly good quality—even the cheaper ones. One could mention a number of other goods where the country of origin gives that sort of information. Secondly, of course, there is the spares and service availability and the method of dealing with complaints. If a consumer knows that the goods are of foreign origin and the country they come from but does not recognise the firm, it is wise to find out what sort of after sales back-up service is available before choosing those goods.
With perishable goods, which are, in the main, not branded, country of origin is almost the only thing which can give us any idea of how they are going to taste—and as consumers we want to know this. To take an example of another perishable such as sherry, the country of origin is all important, and this goes for a number of other goods. I feel that this is an opportunity to show that we believe that as much marking of country of origin as is practical should take place. To give in on this by accepting this Amendment would be a fatal tactical error. I do not say that I think that it is practical in all cases of all goods to mark the country of origin, so I would support the Amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, in so far as this could be a general rule with exceptions, instead of the other way round where it is the exception to mark the country of origin.
LORD SLATER: I listened to the noble Earl presenting the case on behalf of the Government. After listening to the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, and the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury. I am more than ever convinced that we have not heard the whole story to-day as to why the Government are introducing this Amendment. I may have a suspicious
1316
mind, but I really think that what is behind this Amendment is an attempt to cover up the country of origin, such as in the case of South Africa. The customer has a right to know the place of origin of goods coming to this country and finding their way into our households. I have had arguments even with my wife with regard to tins of produce that she has purchased at various places. She has said that she has bought certain goods from one particular shop or from another shop, which have come from one particular country or another. I have said, "For God's sake don't get them from that shop again! Keep to the other one because they are of better quality."
After listening to the observations of the noble Earl in presenting his case, and thinking of the time when the Trade Descriptions Bill was being introduced in another place, I really believe that on this occasion we are not being told the whole truth as to why the Government are coming along at this particular juncture and introducing this Amendment and asking for the support of the House. I sincerely hope that we can gather the support that the previous speaker asked for in opposing the Amendment introduced by the noble Earl.
4.29 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: I hope that we shall not range too widely over the points relating more specifically to the later Amendment on country of origin, but I should like to come in on a slightly different point. We were told yesterday that it was very unusual for an amended Private Member's Bill to be accepted by the Government. Here we have a situation where the Government are in fact introducing what is in the nature of a major Amendment. The Bill has gone through the other place and been accepted in a certain form. The Amendment proposed by the Government on this occasion will not only weaken the Bill but, in my judgment, will make a major alteration, and I am amazed that the Minister can stand before us still perpetuating this farce that this is a Private Member's Bill. I think we all know that this is a Bill that the Government want in order to prevent them subsequently having to take more advanced measures.
Those of your Lordships who have spoken on the country of origin have

1317
shown that there is a great feeling in the country for the naming of the country of origin. But the Minister said that it was an alternative to marking country of origin to have the word "imported", and this was in the very narrow sense of the Preamble to the Bill. In other words they are saying, "We are not saying all goods; we are simply saying the goods referred to here".
The noble Earl said that he had had some representations from various industries. I am puzzled to know from which industries he has had representations, apart from the one which we heard about on Second Reading. I have received representations from brushware manufacturers, ceramic manufacturers, textile manufacturers, steel manufacturers and wool manufacturers, and none of them wants anything other than the country of origin. So I shall be interested to know why the representations of food manufacturers, which cover a very narrow front, should be accepted in preference to these others who have an equal claim.
I was very intrigued that the Department gave the Minister such a ridiculous example as the box of chocolates. I should have thought that an exotic box of chocolates with every chocolate marked with its country of origin, possibly with the wrapping coming from somewhere else, might have a selling point. One could say that it was a United Nations box of chocolates. The box would obviously be marked as coming from Switzerland or America, but nobody would expect that each chocolate would be separately marked, however the Bill was framed. It is surely possible for special cases such as salmon and fruit to be treated separately, if the Minister feels that there is a reason for that to be done, though I think it is very debatable.
If I bought a can of salmon which I assumed came from Canada, I should be a little irritated if I found that it came from another country, whatever the people who canned the salmon had to say about it. As another noble Lord has said, it seems a very curious reflection on a business that it cannot be operated a little better than that. But, as I understand it, Section 42 of the original Trade Descriptions Act empowers the Minister to make the necessary marking order in special cases. This
1318
Amendment is not acceptable. It not only changes the Bill in a major respect. but considerably weakens it. I hope that the noble Baroness who is sponsoring the Bill will not accept it.
4.32 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD:
I have listened with great interest to the discussion. and I am afraid that on this occasion I do not agree with my noble friend Lord Hanworth, who worked with me for some time on the Consumer Council. The Amendment does not weaken the Bill; it simply gives an alternative which makes it very much more workable. It does not greatly matter whether you are importing apples from the United States at a certain time of the year. That is done in order to make it possible for the consumer to have a continuous supply. Everybody would know that the fruit was imported, especially citrus fruits which cannot be grown in this country. A number of people will put the country of origin on their goods. but it will make matters very difficult indeed if everyone must do that in the case of seasonal goods such as fruit and vegetables, which do not always come from the same place.
This Amendment does not state that goods shall not be marked with the country of origin. All it states is that if it becomes extremely difficult and complicated to do so, the word "imported" can be used. The object of this Bill is to stop goods being sold in this country as United Kingdom goods when they are not. If they are marked "imported" they are clearly not United Kingdom goods, and in many cases whether they come from Australia, the U.S.S.R. or South Africa is quite immaterial. South African wine is nearly always marked "South African" and people buy it because they think it is good. If they do not like it they will not buy it. I do not agree that this is a matter of political intention. It is important to keep trade away from politics. The real criterion is that goods should be of good quality and what the consumer wants.
I was brought up in my early youth to be a very strong free trader. That is not so fashionable nowadays, because there is no such thing as free trade. But we are still a very important trading nation, and one wants to do everything one can to encourage that state of affairs and not

1319
make it more difficult. If everything coming into this country had to be stamped with the country of origin, that would be very detrimental to our trade and I should not like to see it happen. I also do not want to see goods being sold as United Kingdom goods when they are not, and that will be stopped by this Bill. I cannot believe that the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, who is a great expert in this field, wishes to see a diminution of our world trade, because that would be a mistake.
Nothing in this Bill prevents people putting "Australia", "Japan" or "U.S.S.R." on goods coming into this country, and all we are saying is that it is not necessary, especially when one is importing a great deal of salmon or tomatoes and has to switch suddenly from Italy to Spain for supplies, to change over all the labels when the ingredients are identical. That is not necessary from the point of view of the consumer. What I want for the consumer is good produce at a reasonable price. I do not think your Lordships need worry about this. The Amendment will make it a little simpler for some goods, particularly perishable goods—which is what we are really concerned about—to come into this country as imported goods, and I support it.
LORD JACQUES: May I point out that the question before the Committee is not whether all goods should have the country of origin marked upon them, but whether imported goods which have applied to them a United Kingdom name or mark should show the country of origin. That is a quite different question. Furthermore, before the Minister replies, may I suggest that if there were a few genuine cases where it would be difficult to apply the country of origin, they could be dealt with under subsection (4) of Clause 1.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: In supporting this Amendment, I should like to divert the attention of the Committee away from perishable goods, such as salmon, chocolates and so on, and say that there is very great concern felt by the large international manufacturers, such as I.B.M., Ford, General Motors, Philips, and so on, many of whose names are household words, who are assembling
1320
manufactured goods in this country with certain components which have come from overseas. It would be immensely expensive to stamp every part, which may not even be seen by the public. After all, we now have the Concorde, and is it really expected that every little bit which comes in from France will be stamped "Made in France"? Surely, the main object is not to mislead the public, and I believe that these great household names, these international names such as those I have mentioned, are just as good guarantees of quality—they have a very high quality control—as anything that could be stuck on the goods. It is a serious and expensive business to tool up these big industries, and they would need a long period of warning in order to get their matters straight. Perhaps the Aemndment which is proposed covers this, and I think that what the noble Earl, Lord Limerick, said is going to relieve their minds somewhat, but I should like him to say whether these large international manufacturers who are assembling within the Common Market region are covered.
LORD STRABOLGI: The noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, mentioned the problems involved where goods are made up of various components produced in different countries. I think he would find, if he looked at it, that that is covered by Section 36 of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968, which deals with the country of origin, where it is clearly laid down:
"For the purposes of this Act goods shall be deemed to have been manufactured or produced in the country in which they last underwent a treatment or process resulting in a substantial change."
We listened with great interest to the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood. I must say I am very surprised that she should support an Amendment of this kind, because it seems to me entirely to change the purpose of her Bill. I must say, though I speak subject to correction, that I can never remember, during my many years in this House, the Government attempting to change completely a Private Member's Bill that has been passed by the other place. It introduces a completely new principle; and, having done that, I should have thought that the Government would have put up a rather stronger case than, if I may say so, the noble Earl has done. He has given very

1321
few examples of what he has in mind. There are, of course, cases concerning imported fruits, salmon and canned goods, but surely they could all be dealt with by special order under subsection (4) of Clause 1 of this Bill. As to other problems, as my noble friend Lord Slater said, quite rightly, are there things which we are not being told about? If there are ether problems, I think the noble Earl has a duty to tell us, and the Committee has a right to hear what they are. Unless the noble Earl can give a better defence of why, in this Committee, the Government are proposing to change a Bill which they supported and promoted in the other place, then I hope my noble friends will divide.
LORD STRATHCARRON: I should like to say a few words on the problems which large international manufacturing companies would face concerning the transfer of spares and other parts. In many cases these are interchangeable, and are sourced in one country for worldwide distribution. Each part may be embossed with the name of the particular company concerned. To have the tools altered to include the word "imported" would be a most costly business. Furthermore, to have parts separated and individually marked would add further to the cost. In my view, the trade mark of an internationally known company should be sufficient protection for the consumer, who may not wish to pay more for the goods due to the increased costs which I have mentioned. I trust that this will prove acceptable, but as a last resort it would be preferable to mark the crate or case with the information required, rather than each individual item.
LORD BARNBY: First of all, I should like to get one thing clear. Is it to be understood that the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, has suggested that her Amendment shall be associated with this Amendment, and the two talked about together?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: No.
LORD BARNBY: That makes it easier. I know the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, did not object at all to the submission made just now by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, that the character of the
1322
Bill—a Private Member's Bill—was changed a good deal by reason of this Government Amendment. I would assume, subject to correction, that that is a correct statement in the light of our conventional procedure. I am getting myself more confused the more I hear about the different matters put forward. On Second Reading I emphasised that it was very difficult to generalise when specialised subjects were so different in their requirements as regards treatment. On reading the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Second Reading debate it is confusing, because the statements made vary so much. In column 860 my noble friend Lady Elliot said:
"It is not the object of the Bill to insist that all imported goods should have the mark of origin, …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4/5/72.]
She confirmed that to-day. At a later point, at column 869, Lord Macpherson of Drumochter said that the Bill did
"make it mandatory to state on the label the country of origin of the goods".
To refer to my own remarks, in column 867 I am reported to have said:
"This Bill requires all garments to be marked".
I am sure I said "does not require all garments to be marked", so Hansard was very confusing in those three columns. It makes it very difficult to understand what exactly it is we are talking about.
I really find it difficult to understand why my noble friend Lady Elliot has just assured us that we must not insist on the mark of the country of origin. If the word "Imported" is to be used, why not make it simpler and indicate the country of origin? Anybody would have thought that was the simpler way; and I must say that I feel the Bill falls short of reality.
I said before—and I repeat it now—that I speak with a particular interest in the textile industry. I have been in the textile industry all my life, though I have retired now, in the main. I took the trouble to read all the debates at all stages of this Bill in the other place; and, of course, I read carefully in Hansard everything that was said on Second Reading here. I really fail to be convinced why it is not possible to insist on the country of origin being marked on the goods. But if it be proved that that is not possible—and

1323
Lady Elliot has given us her strong feelings as to why that is not possible—why should the Committee not be assured that with regard to particular products (and I have in mind textile products) the Minister would exercise the power given in Section 8 of the Act, which empowers the Board of Trade to make new marking orders in respect of any matter, not just origin,
"Where it appears … necessary or expedient in the interest of persons to whom any goods are supplied …"
We are all getting mixed up about this Bill. Are we approaching it from the point of view only of the consumer, only of the manufacturer, or of both; and, if so, which in priority? I look at it, of course, as I did in my remarks on Second Reading, from the point of view of industry, and I emphasised the need to help employment in this country. For the benefit of those of your Lordships who were not in the House at the time, I would repeat that in the industry in which I am particularly interested, the wool textile industry, in the last 12 years, I think I am right in saying—it may be 14—the number of people employed has fallen by 80,000 in that one industry.
The volume of imported consumer goods in textiles is disquieting in every direction. The other day the noble Viscount, Lord Boyd of Merton, raised a very important issue from the point of view of a company in which he was particularly interested. I am always interested in the quality of wool textiles, and looking at this matter as a consumer, I may say that I went into a big multiple store the other day and saw on the counter a pullover. The quality of the wool was very good. I can say this with emphasis; I can judge the quality. The price was astonishingly low, ridiculously so; and I decided to buy it. I put it on; but I could not understand why one sleeve was different from the other until I discovered that one was three inches longer than the other. The pullover happened to come from Korea. Many of us would say after such an experience that we would never again buy such an article manufactured in Korea. That is why I recommend to the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, that goods should be marked with their country of origin. Having in these remarks expressed my own apparent
1324
stupidity in being unable to understand the object of this Amendment and having stated quite clearly my own feelings about what should be done (which would inevitably support Amendment No. 9), I will from my own point of view have satisfied my own feelings.
LORD HAWKE: I apologise for not having been able to get here for the beginning of this debate, but I should like to endorse what was said by my noble friend, Lord Barnby. I, too, was brought up in the textile industry and suffered very much from what were called "passing off" operations—the Japanese precisely copying British goods and there being no means of telling the two apart without very careful examination. I cannot see why the regulations have been relaxed now, at a time when there are so many countries whose manufacturers are prepared to copy British goods as faithfully as they possibly can and then to send them to this market. There is no practical means of finding out where they come from or what they are until you try them on and, perhaps, find one sleeve longer than the other. I think the Japanese are more sophisticated than the Koreans and I doubt whether that would happen; but it is possible that when the garments came back from the wash, you would notice the difference between properly-prepared British goods and others. I am somewhat shocked that by this Bill apparently it is possible for the Minister to allow people to escape the provisions of Clause 1, but that there is no provision "the other way on". If goods are not subject to marking at the moment—and it seems that there is no method by which a Minister can cause them to be marked—I think the Board of Trade are being remiss in not listening to trade representations on this particular subject.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGS-BRIDGE: I wonder whether I may clear my mind on this point. I missed the Second Reading debate and I came late to this one due to circumstances beyond my control; but, taking Lord Barnby's example of the pullover, unless it has a United Kingdom name or mark or something which is likely to be taken for a United Kingdom name or mark, none of this applies at all. Am I right in that? As Lord Jacques pointed out, we are really talking about something quite alien to the Bill. We should declare

1325
what we are talking about. If a garment is described as "Shetland wool" and it is from Korea, I think you would need the words, "from Korea" on it. What my noble friends on this side of the Committee are saying is that if a thing is described with a United Kingdom mark (or with something that can be taken for such a mark) it is not enough to say it is imported; you might as well say where it comes from; it is no more difficult. I do not think that Lord Montagu's case applies here. I think this is covered as something "assembled in the Trade Descriptions Act. So I feel that the debate on this part of the Bill has been very largely off the point. Perhaps the noble Baroness or the Minister could tell us if that is so.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD:
The noble Lord is right. We are talking about goods that have a United Kingdom trade mark and are not United Kingdom goods. What the Amendment says is that if we insist on goods coming into this country being marked—and the noble Lord opposite said this was not a fact—and if they have to be marked in every case with the country of origin, then we are going to make life almost impossible for ordinary trade. I do not think this is necessary. We should follow Lord Donaldson's suggestion: that if the goods carry a United Kingdom name or mark and are not United Kingdom-manufactured, they must bear the word "imported".
BARONESS PHILLIPS: May I take up the noble Baroness on that? I feel that she has again missed the point, which is exactly as my noble friend Lord Donaldson stated. This is why I wanted my Amendment discussed separately; for it dealt with all goods marked with the country of origin. This Amendment deals with goods carrying a United Kingdom mark or what could be taken as a United Kingdom name or mark. We are not on the second point but on the first, which is the narrow point of what the Bill asks for. Lord Donaldson has stated precisely what we are talking about at the moment. Perhaps the Minister will clarify the position.
LORD BARNBY: Would the noble Baroness find it difficult to give some help as to whether it is possible to devise a means whereby the Minister is empowered
1326
to do what he likes with regard to this industry and not with that industry in the event of there being no application from that industry? It seems to me that it is the generalisation which is producing many of the difficulties. What may be appropriate, for example, in the case of drinks or cigars may not be so in the case of canned foods or textiles: canned salmon is obviously a different case from that of a textile garment. Therein lies the real difficulty. Under the original Act it seems that the Minister is empowered to make orders for goods of such character as he sees fit.
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: I have listened with great attention to the many points made, particularly as they were raised by noble Lords who have wide experience in the fields in which they speak and who feel strongly on the subject. I think, however, that this discussion, by straying outside the terms of this Amendment, has revealed the misunderstandings in this complicated area. We are concerned with the working of Clause 1 as at present drafted. I should like to say, with respect to Lord Sainsbury and others on the question of markings on chocolates, that of course this is ridiculous. It is precisely because it is ridiculous that the second part of the Amendment has been brought in. If we do not intend these classes of display goods to be caught by Clause 1, then let us say so—which is all the second part of the Amendment achieves. I do not think that there should be any disagreement on that point.
The first part of the Amendment is more wide—ranging but, having listened to the discussion with great care, I cannot accept that it is as fundamental as a number of noble Lords have suggested. I have no information about precedents for this, but I do not think that we need a precedent because this is not really a fundamental Amendment. This is not a Bill about origin markings except as a means to consumer protection. Many members of the Committee, including the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips. made clear that they were speaking from the point of view of the consumer interest, and that is what this Bill is all about.
Perhaps I may remind the Committee of the words I used earlier: that the real purpose of this Bill is to prevent misrepresentation by ensuring that any

1327
name or mark which might wrongly be taken to indicate a United Kingdom origin is countered by an indication that the goods are from elsewhere; and I went on to say that it would be hard to contend that the word "Imported" will achieve this any less effectively than naming the actual country of origin. This is what we are talking about. It is a question of whether we should impose by law a requirement affecting certain defined interests. Here we are not talking only about the food trade—it is much wider than the question of a tin of salmon or other canned food—we are talking extensively also about the chemical trade. The question is whether we impose by law a requirement which at best is inconvenient and at worst may be very expensive, probably unworkable and possibly unenforceable. Of course we could make orders under Clause 1; we could go on making orders all day and all night—and probably that is what we should have to do if we allowed the clause to stand in its present very wide form. That is what we wish to avoid.
May I now take up shortly one or two of the specific points that have been made? The noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, was worried, as was another of my noble friends, about imported pieces. I can say that that is covered by the answer which has already been given by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi. It is a matter of where the last process or treatment resulting in a substantial change took place. To deal with one other point, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Slater, about the intention behind the introduction of this Amendment, I can give an unequivocal assurance that I have received no representation whatsoever concerned with any political arguments on origin markings—from South Africa or from anywhere else. The arguments to which I have listened
have been concerned purely with the administration of this clause as it concerns the trade of the country. Having listened with great attention to all these arguments I urge the Committee to support the Amendment.
LORD STRABOLGI: What I am not clear about, and the question that I should like to put to the noble Earl, is why this cannot be done under Clause 1(4). There may be difficulties with regard to certain goods, but this is a fairly small area and the Bill gives the Government power to make orders. Would it not be better to do it by order, rather than by a wrecking Amendment of this kind?
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: I cannot accept that this is a wrecking Amendment. This is a small change. It is a question of the size of the net with which you go fishing. Having listened to many representations, we think that the mesh of the net is so fine that we should catch many fish that we had no intention of catching—and should then have to spend our time throwing them back again.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGS-BRIDGE: Can the noble Earl give us any instances? Why is it easier to say, "Imported" than "Imported from Korea"? I have no doubt that the noble Earl has good cases which may be quoted, but not being experienced in this sort of thing, I cannot myself think of a single one.
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, said that he missed the first part of the debate, and I think he will find that this point was covered in my introductory remarks.
5.5 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided. Contents, 84; Not-Contents, 63.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Conesford, L.

Airedale, L.

Belstead, L.

Courtown, E.

Albemarle, E.

Berkeley, Bs.

Craigmyle, L.

Allerton, L.

Birdwood. L.

Denham, L.

Alport, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Amulree, L.

Byers, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Auckland, L.

Caccia, L.

Eccles, V.

Avebury, L.

Carnock, L.

Elles, Bs.

Barrington, V.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Falkland. V.

Ferrers, E. [Teller.

Mancroft, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Fortescue, E.

Margadale, L.

Sandford, L.

Gage, V.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Selkirk, E.

Gainford, L.

Merrivale, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Gowrie, E.

Meston, L.

Simon, V.

Grenfell, L.

Milverton, L.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Henley, L.

Monson, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Hurcomb, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Swansea, L.

Ilford, L.

Mottistone, L.

Swaythling, L.

Inglewood, L.

Mountevans, L.

Tanlaw, L.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Teviot, L.

Killearn, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Oakshott, L.

Vernon, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Ogmore, L.

Vivian, L.

Limerick, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Wade, L.

Long, V.

Redesdale, L.

Willingdon, M.

Lothian, M.

Reigate, L.

Wolverton, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Young, Bs. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Hayter, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Bacon, Bs.

Helsby, L.

St. Davids, V.

Beswick, L.

Henderson, L.

Samuel, V.

Birk, Bs.

Hood, V.

Segal, L.

Brockway, L.

Hoy, L.

Shackleton, L.

Burntwood, L.

Hughes, L.

Shepherd, L.

Burton of Coventry, Bs.

Jacques, L.

Slater, L.

Caithness, E.

Janner, L.

Stamp, L.

Champion, L.

Kennet, L.

Stocks, Bs.

Chorley, L.

Lee of Ashridge, Bs.

Stow Hill, L.

Collison, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Davies of Leek, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Strang, L.

Diamond, L.

Loudoun, C.

Strange, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Morris of Grasmere, L.

Summerskill, Bs.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Nunburnholme, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Gardiner, L.

Peddie, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Garner, L.

Phillips, Bs. [Teller.]

White, B.

Granville of Eye, L.

Platt, L.

Wootton of Abinger, Bs.

Granville-West, L.

Popplewell, L.

Wright of Ashton under Lyne, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Raglan, L.

Hale, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Hanworth, V.

On Question, privilege Amendments agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
5.13 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 17, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Baroness said: Clause 1(2) follows closely a similar provision for blends and mixtures which appeared in the Merchandise Marks Act 1926. In the debate in another place the question of blends and marks was raised. Although no difficulties came to notice under the earlier legislation, reconsideration in the light of criticism made during the Bill's passage through the other place has caused me to think again about this and discuss it further with the people concerned. Justification for some such exclusion was not that the goods which
bore the United Kingdom name or mark were a blend or mixture, but that there was something which made it unreasonably
1330
difficult to comply with the Bill's provisions regarding a particular blend or mixture. For example, a mixture of materials might have originated in several different countries and materials fed into the automatic blending and packaging plant might have been varied according to what was available at the time.
There might be a real problem of compliance if several countries of origin had to be shown on goods, and an even greater one where the supplier could not readily establish which were the countries of origin, or the constituents or blends, or the mixtures which were being used. However, because your Lordships have already agreed that the word "imported" in the last Amendment should be allowed as an alternative indication of the country of origin many of these problems have to a great extent been solved. Anybody supplying a blend or mixture of material from different countries should now be able to comply with the provisions

1331
of the Bill by marking the goods "imported", and to such limited extent as there may remain any problems over the origin marking of blends or mixtures we shall be able to consider them under the provisions of this clause. I beg to move.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: I am very glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, has moved this Amendment and I should like to support her in what she has said. Noble Lords who have read the proceedings in another place, both on Second Reading and on Committee, will remember that there was much confused argument about the meaning of blends and mixtures when applied to textiles within the phrasing of a particular clause in the Bill. Indeed, this was so obvious that during the Committee stage on April 14, the Minister in another place undertook (col. 1611) to clarify the clause or arrange for its deletion in your Lordships' House. Of course we remember that during our own Second Reading on May 4 (col. 878) the noble Earl, Lord Limerick, made the suggestion which we are now discussing. Without going into wearisome details, I think the Committee will agree that blends or mixtures of textile fabrics can be produced only by a process of manufacture. Furthermore, this will apply to any woven fabrics where the weft is of one fibre and the warp is of another. Obviously, twisting and weaving are both processes of manufacture.
The Committee will recall that Section 36 of the 1968 Trade Descriptions Act sets out clearly and adequately the definition of origin; that is that,
"goods shall be deemed to have been manufactured or produced in the country in which they last underwent a process or processes resulting in a substantial change."
Section 36, as the Committee will know, goes on to provide means of settling or deciding any contentious question of origin. It seems to me that so far as textiles are concerned, if Section 36 of the 1968 Act is kept in view there would be no need for any confusion or for any separate definition, exemption, or whatever, under the Trade Descriptions Bill. I am very glad to support the noble Baroness and I hope that the Committee will agree to support her Amendment.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 19, at end insert—
("() Subsection (1A) of this section does not apply to second-hand goods.").
The noble Baroness said: The aim of this Amendment is to take second-hand goods outside the scope of the provisions of the Bill. There will, I think, be practical difficulty requiring United Kingdom names or marks on certain second-hand goods to be accompanied by an indication of origin. The first problem will be to establish whether or not the goods have originally been imported. There can be no assurance that even if some indication of origin had appeared when the goods were new it would still be there when they were second-hand. It might have disappeared because of ordinary wear or tear, or the private purchaser might himself have cleaned off the mark. He is not, of course, when he re-sells bound by the Bill's provisions that they are not applicable to supply by a person not carrying on a trade or business, so that by the time goods get into the hands of a second-hand dealer the problem of establishing whether they were originally imported could he almost impossible. I can see that there will be a limited range of second-hand goods in which the prospective purchaser might he influenced by a United Kingdom name or mark. In such cases he is protected by the provisions of the main Act from the full array of false trade descriptions, including a false or misleading indication of origin. I beg to move this Amendment.
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: Amendment No. 5 is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 20, leave out ("(1)") and insert ("(1A)").—(The Earl of Limerick.)
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 1, line 22, at end insert—
"() Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to books, periodicals and other printed matter.")
The noble Baroness said: I rise to move the Amendment standing in my name on the Marshalled List. While declaring an interest as President of the

1333
Association of Mail Order Publishers, this Amendment covers problems relating to books, periodicals and other printed matter. I am hoping that the obvious defects on this aspect will be apparent to all sides of the Committee and that this Amendment will be found to be acceptable. Your Lordships will remember that on Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, asked for the exemption or safeguarding of magazines and books. I should feel happier with outright exemption: hence this Amendment.
As the Committee knows, Clause 1(1) of the Bill states that where a United Kingdom name or mark or one likely to be taken as such,
"is applied to goods manufactured or produced outside the United Kingdom, … a conspicuous indication of the country in which the goods were manufactured or produced"
must accompany the name or mark. The words "country in which the goods were manufactured or produced" mean that country in which they last underwent a treatment or process resulting in a substantial change. Here, in conjunction with this Bill, as we mentioned in connection with something else a minute or two ago, we have to read Section 36 of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968. If I may return to the word "conspicuous", which I mentioned a moment ago, any name or mark satisfying the conditions indicated in this Bill must be accompanied by a conspicuous indication of the country of origin. The words "accompanied by", according to the legal experts of the Department of Trade and Industry, mean "right next to that name or mark". This explanation was given in another place during the Committee stage on April 14 last, and the relevant column numbers are 1595, 1598 and 1599.
To take an example, the Bill as at present drafted will require a mail order publisher to put "Made in Italy" et cetera alongside every imprint of his own trade name wherever that occurs. So, if his trade name appears on the spine of a book, the statement" Made in Italy would have to appear there, too. Equally, it would have to appear on any of the pages inside, or again, on every piece of promotional literature printed abroad. I want to emphasise this. It is certainly not concerned only with mail order. As the Bill does not limit the
1334
origin indication in the main, or to any other appearance of the mark, the origin indication will have to appear wherever and as often as the name or mark appears. This could, for example, be on every page of a magazine and several times in and on a book. I believe that this point of view is confirmed by the Department. How ridiculous can you get?
I am sure that I have said enough for it to be evident that there is a need to make a special case for books, periodicals and other printed matter. Equally, I am sure that all sides of the Committee will agree that to apply this new law in this way would be absurd. I should have thought that essentially what a purchaser needs to know is where the book is edited and who takes responsibility for its content. Where it is printed, I should have thought, was less important. As the Committee will know, the law already requires a printer to state his name and usual abode of business on every book that he publishes. The Newspapers, Printers and Reading Rooms Repeal Act 1869 applies to printers in this country, and it has been satisfactory for many years. Surely, if it is tactically necessary to have a statement indicating where a book is manufactured, this can be achieved by requiring all books, wherever manufactured, to carry an origin marking. The existing law in Section 8 of the 1968 Act is adequate. It would be enough, I think, to extend the existing—and Victorian—law to all books by having the printers' name and address on the first page.
LORD MOUNTEVANS: I should like to support this Amendment moved by the noble Baroness. I, too, would declare an interest in the mail order business. The only point that I wish to raise is that in a particular case with which I am concerned the name of the country in which the book was printed appeared, and it appeared because it was thought to be an advantage for it to appear: but it appears just once. I think the acid test here is that, if it is thought to be an advantage when it appears once, surely that would be enough to satisfy the spirit of this particular Bill.
BARONESS WHITE: I do not go quite so far as this Amendment—although I should not strongly object to it—because I think that books, periodicals and other printed matter should not be entirely

1335
exempt from indications of origin. I have been enlightened by the speech of my noble friend Lady Burton, because from what she says they are already by law obliged to indicate at least where they are printed; but not where they are bound, or the countries from which the illustrations might have come. It seems to me that to have a single indication, usually on the back of the title page—not on the first page, if I may suggest it to my noble friend—is sufficient. Where periodicals are concerned, the normal place to indicate the place of printing is at the foot of the table of contents. I am not very familiar with mail order catalogues, but I have no doubt that there is some convention with them also as to where the imprint is normally to be found. I should have thought that that was quite sufficient, because if one carries it any further, then, as my noble friend has pointed out, one reaches the completely ridiculous situation when one would have to disfigure a book by indicating on the jacket or the spine of the book the fact that you have the coat of arms of one of the older universities, or the ship by which Messrs. Longman are known, or the mermaid by which Michael Joseph's publications are recognised and so on.
I hope that we may have an indication from the noble Earl the Minister that it is certainly the intention of the Government not to apply the Bill to books, periodicals and other printed matter beyond the obligations to which I understand they are already subject. That, I think, is essential. I am interested in where a book is printed. I am also interested in where Lord Thomson of Fleet's periodicals are printed. Lord Thomson's name is on the Marshalled List in support of this Amendment, but he does not appear to wish to speak to it. I hope that we may have some explanation from the noble Earl as to the attitude of the Government to this matter and on whether this Amendment is necessary to achieve the kind of safeguards that my noble friend Lady Burton has in mind.
5.30 p.m.
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: I was indeed aware that the Newspapers, Printers and Reading Rooms Repeal Act
1336
1869 already requires printed matter consisting of a single sheet to bear the name and address of the printer on the front; and pamphlets, books, et cetera, have to be marked similarly on the first or last leaf. Equally, I appreciate that what amounts to a "United Kingdom name or mark" may appear at many different places in a book or periodical and it is hardly necessary to insist that every one of them needs to be qualified by an indication of the place of production. And I am by no means sure that the buyer of a book or periodical is much concerned with its place of physical production. I am conscious, therefore. that there is a strong prima facie case for the special treatment of books and periodicals, and if my right honourable friend is given appropriate powers of exemption or relaxation by Clause 1(4) he will certainly be prepared to consider very sympathetically a proposal for their exercise in this instance. But I am bound to say that I very much dislike the idea of writing express exemption for this, or any other class of goods, into the Bill.
As regards this particular Amendment, there is another consideration: I am not sure that we are justified here and now in deciding that everything falling within the meaning of "all other printed matter" deserves exemption. Not all such matter is subject to the provisions of the 1869 Act to which I have referred, and I would not at this stage be prepared to accept that greetings cards should enjoy the same claim to exemption as do books and periodicals. Moreover, there is an irrevocability about an express exemption, in the sense that it can be remedied only by further legislation. No one can forecast the development of an industry, or of its marketing methods, with sufficient confidence to be certain that we would never at some point in the future want the provisions of the Bill to affect particular products. Who would have forecast a few years ago the development of printed paper dresses, for example? The more flexible procedure of directions by Statutory Instrument, which can reflect the current circumstances of any particular trade yet may be varied if and when that situation changes, is a far more desirable approach.
I shall certainly ensure before Report stage that if any changes appear necessary in Clause 1(4) to enable us to make

1337
appropriate relaxations in respect of books and periodicals and any other such deserving cases, these will be placed before your Lordships. Having been chided on an earlier Amendment for lack of enthusiasm in contemplating the wholesale use of exempting powers, I hope that this may be welcome, and I trust that with this assurance the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the Amendment. Otherwise I should feel bound, for the reasons I have just mentioned, to ask your Lordships to reject it.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: I thank the noble Earl for his remarks. Obviously I have no intention of pressing this Amendment because I shall gain much more by not doing so; but I should like, if I am in order, to ask him to clarify one point. I understood from Clause 1(4)—which of course we are not discussing at the moment but it has been mentioned by the noble Earl—that the Secretary of State was empowered to confer exemption or alleviation on those who experienced special difficulties under the measure. I think the noble Earl said that he did not feel himself able to say at this moment—nor indeed perhaps in the future—that specific exemption would be offered to the industries that I have mentioned. He told me (if I have it right) that he hoped an Order would be laid which would exempt books, magazines and other printed matter from this Bill and that he would hope to have something drafted in time for us to consider on Report stage. I wonder whether I have got this right? May I just ask the noble Earl to tell me?
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: If I may clarify this point, the noble Baroness is not quite right. I said that there may be some doubt about the powers which are at present conferred under Clause 1(4) as to whether these are sufficiently wide to deal with all the cases that we might wish to see exempted. This is a separate question. What I said was that if there is any doubt about it we would take steps to ask the House to give us these extra powers and we would expect then to be able to give the exemption for which the noble Baroness is asking in this particular case. I believe this also answers the point made by my noble friend Lord Redesdale, because it would
1338
leave the law exactly as it now stands with regard to books and periodicals.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: Before the noble Baroness withdraws the Amendment, as I think she is going to, may I say that I hope that on Report stage the noble Earl will feel able to come to this House and give a quite definite assurance that there will be an exemption made. I do not see any reason why this should not be done. He has gone a long way: he has said that it will be considered sympathetically and that if necessary the Bill will be amended to allow such an exemption. But what I should like to see before the Bill becomes law is an undertaking that the spirit of the noble Baroness's Amendment will be preserved and that there will be some exemption along these lines.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: I am much indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. I agree entirely with what he has said, and I would therefore ask the permission of the Committee to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: Amendment No. 7 is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 1, leave out ("(1)") and insert ("(1A)").—(The Earl of Limerick.)
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: Amendment No. 8, is also consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 10, leave out ("(1)") and insert ("(1A)").—(The Earl of Limerick.)
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
5.37 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS BARONESS PHILLIPS moved Amendment No. 9:
After Clause 1 insert the following new clause:
Misleading absence of marks of origin
". Any person who supplies or offers to supply in the course of any trade or business any goods on which the country of manufacture of production is not conspicuously indicated shall be guilty of an offence."
The noble Baroness said: I am quite sure that the noble Earl the Minister will

1339
assure me that this is a defective Amendment, but I should be rather betraying those who have approached me if I did not take this opportunity to put once again the point about the country of origin. We now move into a different group altogether. This Amendment is not in any way related to a United Kingdom mark: it is asking that any imported goods shall be marked with the country of origin. Until December last, goods which were not marked were assumed to be British because imported goods were marked, and so the idea has grown up in people's minds, whether your Lordships accept it or not, that those goods which are not marked are British.
There has been a great deal of discussion this afternoon about cans of pineapple and salmon. I was at a consumers' meeting the other evening, attended by a large number of young married women. One of them cited the example (and I did not stir this up in any way, though I was tempted to do so, knowing that we were to have this discussion) of having bought some apples which she thought were Cox's. Now we all know that the Cox's apple has a unique flavour: there is no apple quite like it. She went entirely by the colour and the look of the apple, and when she got the fruit home she found that, to use her words, "it was some rotten old foreign apple which had no taste at all." This is a very simple illustration of the need to know the country of origin. What we make and grow in this country is unique. I stand here quite unrepentant and say that our workmanship is the best in the world, and certainly the fruit and vegetables that we grow here have a flavour which no other country has been able to touch. If any noble Lord could produce a tomato from any other part of the world that equals a British tomato I should be willing to give it a consumer test.
During the Second Reading debate I referred to the wishes of the consumers in this field and to a Sunday Times survey. I have since been sent another survey. It was a simple question put to only a thousand people; nevertheless it was a very good sample. The question was to this effect: "Up to now imported goods have had to be marked with the country in which they were made. From the end of this month (December) there
1340
is no longer any need to do this. In general, do you think it is in your interests that the country of origin should be shown on the goods in the shops?" The replies were: "Very definitely", 47 per cent.; "Definitely", 36 per cent.; "I am not sure", 5 per cent.; "Not particularly", 11 per cent.: "Not at all", 2 per cent. In other words, the overwhelming number of the customers (I am not now talking about anyone but the customers) want the goods marked with the country of origin.
I outlined in an earlier discussion the number of manufacturers who want the goods marked with the country of origin. I know that my friends on the Liberal Benches are going to accuse me of being protectionist. I make no apology for this. We need work for our own people, and in every market in the world British goods are up against one type of barrier or another, and a common one is the marking of the particular goods with the country of origin. If I may quote the British ceramics manufacturers, they say that in tableware and cooking-ware there are worldwide regulations for control of toxic emission from glazes and decorations. As a considerable amount of imported table and cooking ware is sold in the United Kingdom they believe that the Government will be forced to consider the means by which they will be able to trace the offending manufacturers of imported goods if they do not require the goods to be marked with the country of origin.
There is an overwhelming case for goods to be marked with the country of origin. I do not accept that this will make the goods more expensive. We heard this argument advanced over the years when we asked for simple things like information regarding the size of some goods; for information whether something should be dry cleaned or washed. We now have this information. Let us have simple marking as well in order to guide us, to provide more work for our people and assist our own manufacturers. I beg to move.
LORD BARNBY: In speaking to this Amendment I must remark that it suggests what I took the liberty of trying to emphasise on Amendment No. 2. Amendment No. 2 was successfully pressed in spite of the charge that it digressed from conventional procedure.

1341
I readily accept that. The remarks that the noble Baroness has made emphasise the difficulty in this field of categorising different articles. It is on those grounds that I readily accept and support the Amendment. I cannot avoid taking the opportunity of repeating that I hope that the noble Earl will emphasise to the D.T.I. that certain sections of industry, such as textiles, call for specialised treatment which under the original Act the Minister had power to deal with. Having asked him to make sure that he will bear that in mind, I am satisfied to say no more on this clause.
LORD SAINSBURY: I rise to support the Amendment moved by the noble Baroness. I believe the Amendment strengthens the Bill. I am completely unconvinced by the arguments of interested parties. There are, rightly or wrongly, many people in this country who do not want to support South Africa economically because of their hatred or dislike of apartheid. In this matter I should have thought that the Liberals would know which way to go if this Amendment were pressed to a Division. Traders at the moment, because they know that a lot of people dislike purchasing South African products, whether manufactured products or processed food—this is not an argument applying to food alone—mark the goods, "Imported". Firms—and I will not mention any names—who do not want in any way to disguise the origin of the goods they sell, and mark on the goods "South African", are at a distinct disadvantage, because certain firms get accused of selling South African produce and other firms escape as they do not put the true origin of the goods on the articles. Therefore this is a Bill that, as has been said previously, is not only in the interests of manufacturers, producers and merchants, but is also in the interests of the consumers and people in this country. They are entitled to know the name of the country where the goods and products originated. I hope that my friends on the Opposition Front Bench will press this Amendment, whatever the result, to a Division.
5.44 p.m.
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: I do not want to deploy all over again any arguments which I made on Amendment No.
1342
2. There is no doubt that the consumers want this information. I am afraid that when it comes to marking orders the Government do not say, "Is a marking order practicable? If it is, we will bring it in". They will bring it in only if there are the strongest reasons for doing so. I should like to do what I can to persuade the Government to take this situation rather more seriously. If this Amendment is not accepted, undoubtedly something else would be brought forward at Report stage. On the other hand, that might show that a lot of people are determined to get more country-of-origin markings.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips. She was perfectly right, I misunderstood some words that she said with regard to an earlier Amendment. On the matter of marks of origin I am not in favour of what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, and others. We are a great trading, international nation; we are at the present moment leading international power in Europe and elsewhere. We are members of trading agreements, of GATT and EFTA. We are encouraging people to exchange goods and trade with each other. We are hoping that when we go into the Common Market the fact that there are 350 million people in Europe will mean that we shall be able to increase our trade with them.
I do not want to do anything in this Bill, or any other, that is going to hamper the trade between ourselves and Europe, or, indeed, any other country that wants to trade with us. I do not care about the political implications which the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, has put into his speech. I dislike South Africa and apartheid as much as anybody else. I do not care about the politics or Governments of the countries of other parts of the world. But when we want to do as much trading as we can to help our own country as well as the rest of the world, I think we should not bring in political implications all the time. That is the wrong approach. We wish to get for the consumer—and nobody is more in favour of helping the consumer than I am—the best goods at the most reasonable price and of a quality that consumers want. If the goods are marked with the country of origin there is no reason why that should not be so; there is nothing

1343
in this Bill that stops anybody from marking goods with their country of origin. But what this Amendment says is that every single article that comes into this country must be marked with its country of origin. That is simply complicating matters enormously, and this is in a sense, although it may not have this effect, rather a protectionist Amendment.
Although Free Trade is no longer an issue in these matters, I am in favour of trying to increase our trade with the rest of the world and I should not like us to do anything which makes other countries retaliate against us. That, in my opinion, would not be advantageous to manufacturers, producers or consumers here. To put this provision into the Bill is restrictive, rather than something which is going to help our consumers and make our trade wider. This issue has been raised many times. When I was on the Consumer Council we were continually being asked to sponsor the marking of goods that came from abroad, and we never thought it was in the interests of the consumer. It is in the interests of the consumer only in so far as some goods are, as I said in my speech on Second Reading, masquerading as British when they are not. That is something which can be caught—
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness but I think I should say that after she gave up the chairmanship of the Consumer Council this matter was discussed and the Council were at that time virtually, or very nearly, unanimously in favour of marking the country of origin on all goods.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: I apologise to the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth. Certainly when I was there that was not the case and we resisted any suggestion that we should do this. However, that is apart from the point. We are discussing this Bill to-day, not what happened five or six years ago.
LORD BARNBY: If I might interrupt the noble Baroness, she is rightly saying that she is riot interested now in what happened six years ago. But the noble Baroness opposite quoted a consumer poll taken recently which established that 94 per cent. of those answering the poll insisted on the marking of the country of origin.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: I listened to the noble Baroness with interest and I am quite sure that the information she gave us was entirely correct. But on this point I myself am not in favour of what I believe to be an action which would be restrictive of trade. In the interests of everyone in this country, more trade and not less trade is wanted. Therefore, I am not in favour of supporting this Amendment.
LORD SLATER: At this particular juncture we are not debating the Common Market, but the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, referred to the Common Market and the number of people who will be in it. It must be understood that we are still doing business with the people of Europe, and not only of Western Europe but of Eastern Europe also. In speaking about the marking of place of origin we are apt to leave the people of this country—and I think it is about time this was said—under a cloud. It is a cloud of suspicion that we are afraid of letting them know where products are coming from. Some of us who have made trips abroad have gone to various parts of the world and been able to see pumping machinery and suchlike with the trade mark "Made in the United Kingdom", and with the mark of the particular firm, and so on. Why should we be afraid of marking the place of origin? I cannot understand the mentality of people who object to the appeal that was made on this particular issue by my noble friend in moving the Amendment. If the people of this country read this debate, if it is publicised in the Press to-morrow morning, they will begin to wonder why this non-elected Chamber should take a stand on behalf of the Government in being afraid of informing them where products originate from. People have a right to know where products come from, and I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, will have second thoughts on this matter.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: May I correct something the noble Lord has said? I am not the least afraid of any marking at all. Under this Bill or any other, anybody who wants to mark a product may mark it. Ali I am saying is that it is restrictive to say that every single commodity that comes into this country must be marked. I am delighted

1345
that a "United Kingdom" mark should be seen all over the world in regard to ships or pumping stations or anything else. Nothing could be better. All I am saying is that I do not want every single commodity that comes into the country to be marked. But I am not afraid.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: May I take up one point with the noble Baroness before the Minister replies? The noble Baroness made the laudable point that if goods are coming in we do not in any way wish to restrict trade. Would she not agree that the Danes, particularly, and the Scandinavians are very proud to name their furniture as coming from their own country? I had a case brought to my notice in which very inferior furniture was described as "Danish style". I do not know where it was made; I should not like to suggest. Naturally, that kind of manufacturer does not want to declare his country of origin. But good manufacturers have nothing to hide, and these are the people we want to support. I feel that the noble Baroness is wrong in thinking that this Amendment would operate against manufacturers. We all know that French wine is marked "A product of France" and so are certain woollies. Such marks give information to the customer. I do not think it will restrict trade in any way if more information of this kind is given.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: I hope we shall not run away from this issue. Let me be frank and say that I am always a little unhappy if I have to oppose the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, because I always like to refer to her as "my noble friend" since most of the time she shows a great deal of balance. But I should like to put forward a point of view which is possibly my own although I am sure it is shared by a number of noble Lords of this side of the Committee. It is that many of us feel that we must know where the goods we buy from week to week come from. It may be that we are misguided in wanting to refuse goods coming from a certain country in favour of goods which come from another. It may be restrictive on our part; it may be quite short-sighted. But for some of us it is a matter of principle. I do not think we can argue against this Amendment simply because it may restrict trade in the sense that it may
1346
restrict sales. For some of us—I think, many of us in the country—a matter of principle is involved. This is why I feel that this particular Amendment should be accepted by your Lordships' Committee.
5.58 p.m.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: The name of the Liberals has been invoked twice in this short discussion. If there is any likelihood that this Amendment will be taken to a Division I should like to say why one Liberal will be going into the Not-Content Lobby. I emphasise it is one Liberal, because I do not know that I speak for any of my noble friends; nor do I think that this is in any way a Party matter. But I do think that this is a protectionist Amendment. It is a Chauvinist Amendment, as an awful lot of thinking behind this marking of goods is. While I may be a male pig, I am not a male Chauvinist pig. It is an unnecessary Amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, will know, because we have worked together, that I feel as strongly as he does about the nature of various régimes in the world. But I have never in fact regarded a boycott of goods as effective or really as a valuable weapon of any kind in this sort of situation. I may be wrong; I do not want to open up the whole of this subject but I should like to say to the noble Lord. Lord Wells-Pestell, that I do not think it is necessarily a justification for passing a law and putting in a new clause which puts in a new obligation to enable people who wish to conduct a boycott to be able to do so the more easily. One must have a better reason than that for making laws, and the Liberal principle that I myself will call in aid if this matter comes to a vote is that I do not think that rules and regulations and laws should be multiplied unnecessarily. This is a major new provision. I think that on balance it is unnecessary and therefore I cannot support it.
LORD AUCKLAND: The question which we have to ask ourselves on this Amendment is, surely: will it benefit the consumer if we accept it? Much as I sympathise with the implications behind it, I do not think it will. We import into this country jam from Rumania, Bulgaria and Poland, and we import matches from Communist China—countries with whose regimes we do not always agree. What worries me is this. If anything is found

1347
to be defective with these products, does the consumer have a legal right vis-à-vis the retailer? I believe this is a question which may bother a number of people. If the consumer has a legal right—as I believe he does—it seems to me that the Amendment, taken to its absolutely literal conclusion, is protectionist. The fact of the matter is that nowadays, whether we like it or not, we have a number of international treaties to honour, and if we insist on an Amendment quite so rigorous as this I believe we run the risk of losing out on trade, albeit with countries with whose régimes we do not agree, but whose trading potential nevertheless benefits our economy.
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: The effect of this Amendment would be to require origin marking of all goods, whether of domestic origin or imported, and whether or not a United Kingdom firm's name or mark had been applied to them. This is indeed a far-reaching Amendment, which has the effect of duplicating the requirement as regards goods already affected under Clause 1(1) and, further, of contradicting the exemptions contained in Clause 1(2) and (3) and would therefore produce an intolerable confusion.
I know how strongly the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, and many others feel about origin marking, but that is not the purpose of this Bill, as I have said before. There are really two separate questions: the general proposition of universal origin marking, and the effect that it would have on this Bill. I believe, with respect, that the noble Baroness was mistaken in one thing which she said, if I heard her aright. It was not the case that up to November 30 last all imported goods had the origin mark. Only those specified in Orders in Council had such a mark. This was an erratic selection—even among consumer goods—and even in these cases there was an obligation to mark "Empire" or "Foreign" on the one hand or with the actual country of origin.
As my noble friend Lady Elliot said when introducing this Bill:
"It is not the object of the Bill to insist that all imported goods should have the mark of origin, but only those which might masquerade as British manufacture when they in fact are not."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4/5/72; col. 860.]
1348
Let us also remember that this is a Privvate Member's Bill whose sponsor in another place declared that his main object was to protect the consumer from deception. The proposition that even goods which bear no marks upon them should be labelled with their country of origin would go a little far, and would tend to under estimate the native intelligence of British housewives. It was on that basis that the Government supported the Bill.
We are a nation of traders, and one subject on which people of all political persuasions can agree is that it is in our interest as a nation to have international barriers to trade reduced. Origin marking requirements, which may vary from country to country in their specification of language, form, position and even determination of the country of origin, can be a very real barrier to trade, since they involve exporters in maintaining separate stocks for each market with consequent increases in their cost. So we have subscribed in GATT and in EFTA to recommendations that compulsory origin marking be reserved for the bare minimum of cases in which it is really necessary, a principle which we can impress, whenever the opportunity arises, on other countries maintaining or contemplating such requirements. To-day there are only ten countries which operate universal origin marking requirements and only one of these, the United States of America, is a major trading nation. For us to abandon the internationally recognised principle by introducing compulsory origin marking of all goods, including many on which it would serve no useful purpose for buyers here and would merely amount to an unnecessary nuisance for other countries, would at once invite retaliation and weaken our ability to resist such retaliation.
In rightly providing for the demise three years later of the limited origin marking requirements which existed under the old Merchandise Marks Act 1926, the Trade Descriptions Act 1968—introduced by the previous Administration and supported by my Party—established an essentially selective approach to marking requirements. This is certainly the proper approach, for to require all goods to be marked with their country of origin is superfluous. For those who are interested in the origin of any

1349
particular goods much information is already provided. British goods can be, and frequently are, marked with their origin to enable them to be identified as such; many foreign goods will continue to be identified voluntarily, particularly those which have a national reputation for high quality, such as Swiss watches and Japanese cameras.
If Clause 1(1) of the Bill is passed, all goods to which a United Kingdom firm's name or mark is applied will also have this mark qualified by an indication of origin. Further, if any cases emerge in which we are satisfied that knowledge of the origin of any goods would give the buyer reliable guidance in the selection of the goods best suited to his needs, we already have powers to make new origin marking orders under Section 8 of the main Act. For the remainder, those concerned about origin can make inquiries of the shopkeeper, and the provisions of the Trade Descriptions Act are designed to protect him against false or misleading statements of origin, including oral statements. Bearing all these factors in mind, I really must ask your Lordships to reject this Amendment.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: I thank the Minister. I did not expect that either the sponsor of the Bill or the Minister would accept this Amendment, but since the Minister has pointed out to me that I made a mistake, I wonder whether I dare point out to him that I think he made a mistake in his brief. Towards the end of his remarks he said that goods had to have the mark of origin and he quoted the part of Clause 1 which surely he has now amended. Am I right?
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: I think the noble Baroness is quite right. I accept that I had overlooked the effect of my own Amendment.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: He also made a very cogent plea that we do not put muddle on muddle. I would be the last one to wish to do that, and I did not think that this Amendment would sit neatly in this Bill. I moved it quite deliberately because I wanted to raise this point. I can only say—and I give notice of this—that I do not intend to let the matter rest here. I represent a large number of consumers and I work
1350
for them. They want this change and I shall return to it in whichever form I can. But in the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 [Defences]:
6.10 p.m.
LORD JACQUES LORD JACQUES moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 2, line 37, after ("and") insert ("unless he had no reasonable grounds for suspecting that the goods were manufactured or produced outside the United Kingdom, that he")
The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment to Clause 2(1)(a) which lays down the defences that a person charged can raise. He has to prove three things: first, that lie himself did not apply the United Kingdom name or mark; second, that he did not know the goods were imported; and third, that he could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained that the goods were imported. Since the conjunction used is "and" and not "or", it follows that the person who did not himself apply the United Kingdom name or mark and who did not know the goods were imported, could nevertheless be charged because he did not use "reasonable diligence". What is regarded as reasonable diligence may vary from one magistrates' court to another, even on the same facts. It is, I think, in the public interest that if Parliament has something in mind it should say what it means and give guidance to the court. The most obvious way of showing reasonable diligence is to inquire of the supplier whether the goods in question were imported. I venture to suggest that Parliament does not expect the trader to inquire of the supplier in respect of all goods which he receives. Parliament expects him to be on the alert and to inquire where he has reasonable grounds for suspicion that the goods may have been imported. If that is what Parliament means, it should say so; and that is the purpose of this Amendment.
This Amendment gives no protection whatever to anyone who applied the United Kingdom name or mark himself. It gives no protection whatever to the person who knew that the goods were imported. It gives no protection whatever to the person who had reasonable grounds for suspecting that the goods

1351
were imported. It protects one class only; the person who did not apply the United Kingdom mark himself, did not know the goods were imported and did not have reasonable grounds for suspecting the goods were imported. I suggest that as a matter of elementary justice that person is entitled to the protection given by this Amendment. I beg to move.
LORD SAINSBURY: I would support my noble friend Lord Jacques; I think this is a very justified additional safeguard to the retailer. I will not detain your Lordships any longer, but I support the Amendment.
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, gave notice on Second Reading that he intended to move an Amendment of this kind. I have complete sympathy with his objective of achieving clarity, as I am sure all your Lordships have. But if we reflect a little we shall I think see that the solution he proposes is not really a satisfactory one, nor likely to achieve his object and desire of avoiding confusion in the courts. The basis of the trade descriptions legislation, of which we hope this Bill will become part, is that a person supplying goods must accept a high degree of responsibility for any trade description, since he expects to profit from that description applied to them. Thus if a false trade description is already applied to goods when he gets them, he cannot simply take refuge in the fact that it was somebody else's lie. The consumer must rely primarily on the man from whom he actually buys the goods.
Section 24(31 of the 1968 Act provides:
"In any proceedings for an offence under this Act of supplying or offering to supply goods to which a false trade description is applied it shall be a defence for the person charged to prove that he did not know, and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained, that the goods did not conform to the description or that the description had been applied to the goods".
As I understand the noble Lord, he has two criticisms to make of the present formulation. The first is that "reasonable diligence" is an imprecise concept which magistrates may interpret in varying ways as respects a particular case. There are many matters which under the criminal law have to be left to the judgment of the magistrates in the light of
1352
the evidence before them, and the precise extent of what diligence would be reasonable in a particular case is clearly for them to determine. I must point out to the noble Lord that his Amendment, far from making the task of the courts easier in this respect, or bringing greater precision to the definition of "reasonable diligence", would have exactly the opposite effect. It would mean the the courts would first have to decide whether the supplier had "reasonable" grounds for suspecting the goods to be imported, and if they concluded that he had they would then have to go on, as at present, to consider what diligence in further inquiry was "reasonable". While sympathising with the noble Lord's laudable aim, I must point out that this would be a step backwards rather than forwards.
The noble Lord's second argument is that the supplier ignorant of the fact that the goods are imported should be under no obligation to make any further inquiries unless he has "reasonable grounds for suspecting" them to be imported. I regard that as unnecessary to deal with the case of the man on whose part special inquiries would not be warranted. If a retailer has been buying British-made pencils for years from a thoroughly reputable wholesaler, and otherwise identical imported pencils are substituted without warning, how could it possibly be contended that any inquiry on his part as to the origin would be reasonable"? I really cannot credit such a contention being acceptable.
On the other side of the medal, however, I do not accept that the duty to exercise reasonable diligence should not arise unless the supplier has "reasonable grounds for suspecting". That, to me, implies something far too positive in the way of suspicion to be tolerable. There are obviously stages short of positive suspicion which call for some reaction by the supplier—for instance, doubt or uncertainty; or even the fact that he is patronising a new wholesaler whose trustworthiness has not been established by experience. I am sure that the proper course is to leave this defence as it is, in perfect harmony with the comparable provision in the main Act, which has not, so far as I am aware, given rise to any unwarranted difficulties. I must therefore ask your Lordships not to accept this Amendment.
LORD JACQUES: May I point out that the main Act is dealing with something a little different, and circumstances which could arise under this Bill could make it a little more difficult for the trader. To keep the record straight, is the Minister suggesting that it is just that a person who did not apply the mark himself, did not know the goods were imported, had no reasonable grounds for suspecting the goods were imported, should in fact be charged? If he opposes this Amendment, in point of fact that is what it comes to.
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: I do not believe that that is the case. What I am saying is that if we have difficulties under the present law, I think they must be made worse if this Amendment is accepted. Would the courts be likely to be any more consistent in their conclusions on the noble Lord's criterion as to the "reasonable grounds" for suspecting? The effect of the Amendment would be that the courts would have to reach conclusions on two points, first whether there were reasonable grounds, and secondly whether the supplier exercised "reasonable diligence". This would increase the possibility of conflicting verdicts on the same facts.
LORD JACQUES: I should have thought it would give greater protection to the innocent trader, and that is the purpose of the Amendment. However, it is quite obvious that the Amendment is not going to be accepted, and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments.

BRITISH LIBRARY BILL [H.L.]
6.20 p.m.
THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (VISCOUNT ECCLES): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Viscount Eccles.)
On Question, Bill read 3a.
The Schedule [The British Library Board and its Advisory Councils]:
VISCOUNT ECCLES VISCOUNT ECCLES moved as an Amendment to the Schedule:
Page 8, line 16, at end insert—
("(6) Any movable property vested in the trustees of the British Museum (Natural History) may under section 9 of the British Museum Act 1963 be transferred by them to the Board, where the trustees and the Board are satisfied that it would be more appropriately held in the British Library.")
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the Amendment before the House is only a small addition to the Schedule at page 8, line 16. My noble friend Lord Cranbrook, who is sorry he cannot be here this afternoon, welcomed the new provision which we moved on Report, that the British Library should have power to transfer material to the Natural History Museum, but he asked why this power should not also be given in reverse, as it is in the British Museum Act 1963. Even with the Bill as it is now before us, it would be possible for the Natural History Museum, if they wished to hand material to the British Library, to do so via the Trustees of the British Museum; but we agreed with my noble friend that this roundabout method was not entirely satisfactory, and that it was better to write the reverse power into the Bill. This Amendment does that. I beg to move.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I think we are indebted to the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, for pointing out that omission from the Bill on Report. It is an important point, and I think it is only right that there should be transfers back from the Natural History Museum to the British Library, if such are required. We are very grateful to the Government for meeting this point and for moving this Amendment on Third Reading. I think it will be an improvement to the Bill.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, I beg to move the privilege Amendments.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Viscount Eccles.)
BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE: My Lords, I have no wish to detain your Lordships' House unduly, but this Bill is of immense importance to scholarship for so many years ahead that I think we want it to be as perfect as possible. I have either heard or read every word said in your Lordships' House, and I shall certainly follow with the closest interest the course of this Bill in another place. I do not want to be discourteous if I say that I think there are certain dangerous elements in the Bill as it leaves your Lordships' House. I am not saying that the dangers will be realised, but there is nothing in the Bill, as it now stands, which would prohibit the government of this vast enterprise resting with a small management committee of self-perpetuating salaried officials. We had certain assurances during the debates, but at the end of the day, of course, we have to remember that Governments change, Ministers change; and we have to go to the actual wording of our Acts of Parliament when we want to be precise about what may or may not be done.
My uneasiness is based on the Pay-master General's desire that the Board he intends to create should be a management committee and not a trustee structure. I would rather have the best of both worlds. Of course three or four members of the Board at least will be fully paid, fully employed—if you like, in the broadest sense, they will be civil servants, fully paid officials, properly remunerated and with pensions. My Lords, I cannot think of any project which is more in need of the refreshment of lively part-time members, and I am a little afraid—though my fears may be quite unjustified—that this Board may be too narrow, too bureaucratic.
Ministers and Governments, of course, often do not like trustees of independent mind. But we have a great tradition in this country of running museums, galleries, libraries, our Arts Council, theatres, and the rest of it with a combination of business management and also the refreshment of people of distinction and experience bringing in their various points of view. I entirely agree with the Paymaster General that we do not want a managing board of delegates—certainly not. But we want it to be representative; and if it is to be representative of our universities, our great libraries, the public
1356
interest (and the Open University is a rather special thing) we need to have those part-time members who have the vision of what this great service for the entire country is going to mean in the future.
I am also unhappy about the proposal to give salaries to the part-time members. I do not say that out of any spirit of meanness; I should like them to have adequate expenses paid. But this country has a wonderful tradition of most of us earning our living and then giving voluntary unpaid service. I repudiate the idea that it is only the well-to-do who can give unpaid service. We have built our political Parties, maintained our churches, our sports organisations; and there are the people who work very hard for the care of the old and for the sick. I believe that all this adds status to the individual; it enriches the individual's life, as well as that of the community. So I find it very hard to believe that while we can get citizens who find it an honour and take a pride in giving voluntary service in so many fields, yet when we come to our vice-chancellors, the leading librarians, and others, they cannot do it. I do not believe it.
I have been collecting voices from various sources—and this is in no sense a Party issue but is a matter of judgment. A professor with a salary is not going to have his salary docked if he comes to London or somewhere to attend meetings of trustees. There is much that is still uncertain about this Bill; for instance, how often the general body of trustees will be meeting, and what specifically will be their responsibilities. I am uneasy. If a wage-earner is appointed under this Bill and he loses his day's work carrying out his duties, of course he should be recompensed. Or there may be a professor who loses teaching time. I do not think that anybody should be out of pocket; it is right that the margin should be safely on their side. But I prefer the voluntary principle, with remuneration given for part-time members when they do attend, but not a salary which would be effective whether they attended or not.
The last point that I should like to make is that as the Bill is now worded, it is possible for this Board to be self-perpetuating. Of course we want the

1357
full-time members to be permanent, and the Minister assured me earlier in the course of our deliberations that it would be only a very exceptional part-time member who would be asked to serve for more than five years, or whatever term may be decided upon. I put before your Lordships the possibility of an Amendment which would mean that no part-time member would serve for more than seven years consecutively, but that was not accepted. So the basis of my fear is that we are legislating for the future, and as the Bill now stands it is literally possible for this Board to be self-perpetuating. I do not want it to develop like an in-growing toenail. I do not want it to be too rigid and bureaucratic. This is a scheme of such magnitude that it will require not only the best experts in our land to run it as full-time officials, but the refreshment of part-time members, serving for short periods, with others coming in possibly representing other parts of the country and so on.
Apart from that, this is a wonderful Bill and we all support it. When it goes to the other place, it will again be fully supported in its general principles. But I hope that before it finally becomes an Act of Parliament we shall look carefully at whether we can incorporate this delight, this pride in voluntary service, which has meant so much to so many of our institutions and, above all, that we shall take great care that we do not find ourselves entrusting such an enterprise to too narrow, too bureaucratic, too rigid a governing body. With those qualifications, I add my congratulations to those of so many others to the Minister, for all the hard labour and great care which he has displayed.
6.32 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I also should like to congratulate the Minister on bringing the Bill to this stage, and to thank him as well for his great interest and co-operation in answering the various points which we have raised. I think it is generally agreed that the Bill has been greatly improved during its passage through your Lordships' House. Six Amendments have been accepted, which is not bad for a fairly short Bill. Important Amendments have been moved by the Government, by the noble Lord, Lord
1358
Trevelyan, and by myself on behalf of the Opposition, and others which have arisen from the important suggestions of the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, and other noble Lords. Those Amendments have covered such subjects as loans, disposals and transfers, staff conditions and now, to-day, transfers back to the main Board from the Natural History Museum Library. We have also had the great benefit of the views of my noble friend Lady Lee of Asheridge, which she has given us again to-day, and it has been very important and useful to hear them. It is also important that we should have had this preliminary discussion in this House before the Bill goes to another place. I am sure that the report of what my noble friend has said will be read with the greatest interest by everybody concerned in these matters. The Bill, therefore, is now in much better shape than it was when it first came before the House. I wish it well and I look forward with other noble Lords, and with all of us who love books and learning, to the realisation of this great project, so that the British Library can rise like a Phoenix out of the ashes of the former controversy.
6.34 p.m.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, in rising to reply, I should like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debates on the White Paper and on the Bill, and, in particular, the noble Baroness, Lady Lee of Asheridge, and the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, on the Front Bench opposite. I have had the impression throughout our debates that the House fully realises the importance of what we are doing: we are writing the birth certificate of a child who has been long desired by the British Museum and by all who care for books and scholarship. I do not take the view that those who come after us will discard reading books in favour of some electronic devices. Of course they will want to acquire information by the most effective method, but they will also want to enjoy themselves as individuals and to withdraw from the hurly-burly of a world which looks like becoming more crowded, more restless and more noisy. For that reason I think that for as long as any of us can look forward our library system will be a real asset in the quality of life of this country; and at the top of

1359
that system we are now creating the British Library.
The Bill itself is designed to establish an institution which can anticipate change in library techniques and in the needs of users. Only those who are immersed in library administration can fully appreciate how formidable that task will be, and of course it is the conception of that task which has dictated the structure of the Board to which the noble Baroness referred. Our immediate difficulty will be to find those who are fit and willing and enthusiastic to fill the key posts. I can assure your Lordships that we shall leave nothing undone in the search for the talents required. The noble Baroness had two criticisms of the structure, both of which we argued upon on previous occasions, but I think she is wrong in saying—and I believe she used the word three times in her speech—that this could be a "self-perpetuating" Board. A "self-perpetuating" Board means a Board which can elect itself. Nothing of the kind can be done, with either the full-time or the part-time members. It is always the Secretary of State who appoints a member to the Board, and when the term of that member's office—which I think runs for a maximum of seven years—expires, it is the Secretary of State who decides whether or not to give him a second term. We do not all anticipate that the same Secretary of State will be there for ever. This is exactly what happens in regard to boards of other national institutions, and I cannot see that the adjective "self-perpetuating" can possibly be applied in this case.
BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE: My Lords, I am perfectly well aware that it is the Secretary of State who will invite a part-time member either to terminate his service or to continue it. But we know that Secretaries of State do not work in a vacuum, and I do not want to see a situation where the part-time members are rather limited in number, where they begin to regard themselves as salaried officials with too permanent an interest, and where the Minister—whoever he is—is taking the advice of this closely-knit group. What I am pleading for is full-time officials, and then a pretty wide change of different personalities, with different
1360
points of view, coming in from time to time to serve.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, I understand what the noble Baroness is saying, but it is not self-perpetuating. "Self-perpetuating" means that the Board can keep itself going with the same members. It is always the Secretary of State who decides. We have given some guide-lines to the Secretary of State about the kind of person to whom he should give preference in making the selection. Of course we want a lively Board. It is precisely for that reason that we will not have a representative Board. If the noble Baroness had had as much experience as some of your Lordships of boards which are made up of representatives from outside, she would know that, over and over again, a person who is admirable in his own field is not always the person you want in a complex administrative machine like this. I entirely agree that it is of the greatest difficulty to get the right people, but we have put the power in the hands of the Secretary of State, we have made clear what are the duties of the Board, and we must now do our best to recruit the right people.
My Lords, on a previous occasion the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, asked me to take particular care in our relations with the staff of the constituent bodies which are to form the British Library. I should like to assure him and the House that the Government, and without question the Board of the British Library when it is constituted, will attach great importance to establishing good relations with the staff of the Library. The representatives of the staff of the constituent institutions would like a scheme of consultation based on Whitley Council practice, and I should like to say now that it is our intention that arrangements of this kind should be introduced. My Lords, I wish once again to thank all noble Lords who have improved this Bill and have assisted its passage.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

DEFECTIVE PREMISES BILL
6.42 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a

1361
second time. I should at the outset apologise for, at the very end of the day, inflicting upon the House a technical Bill. I would be hardly candid if I told the House that it was a Bill without importance. If your Lordships pass it, it will affect a great many purchasers of houses and lessees of premises generally, and it may have quite wide application. It is a Bill which is perhaps peculiarly susceptible to further examination on Committee, and therefore I hope that I may be able to discharge my duty of explaining its general purpose to the House on Second Reading a little more expeditiously than might otherwise be feasible.
My Lords, it is a Bill which is designed to give effect to recommendations made by the Law Commission in their Fortieth Report, in which they examine the law of the civil liability of vendors and lessors of defective premises. It is a Private Member's Bill which comes from the other place, and there it had a slightly unusual history in this sense, that my honourable and learned friend Mr. Ivor Richard introduced it on Second Reading in a very succinct and reasonably brief speech; there was only one other speech, from the Solicitor General, who welcomed it; and no other speech was made at all during the passage of the Bill through the House—not on Committee or on Report, or on Third Reading. So it comes to this House having been the subject of two addresses only.
The Bill is designed, in effect, to bring up to date and to make more consonant with reality some aspects of the law relating to the sale of houses and the lease of premises. I think I should at the outset call the attention of the House to three broad principles of law which, as matters stand at the moment, affect the sale of private houses and the letting of premises. Those three principles are these. First, in the case of the sale of private houses there is the principle known by the Latin tag caveat emptor, under the terms of which, if you buy a house, unless you have insisted upon the vendor of the house to you undertaking responsibility for defects in the house that you buy, you yourself have to bear the consequences. If you buy an elderly, Victorian mansion and the day after you move into it the ceiling collapses on your head and on that of your wife, you
1362
have no remedy against the vendor of the house unless you have insisted, and he has agreed in the documents of sale to you, that he should undertake a contractual responsibility in respect of that. The house can collapse, and in the absence of some specific contractual liability accepted by the landlord you have no remedy against him. That is the first matter with which this Bill seeks to deal.
The second principle of law is that which affects the liability of lessors of premises. Certainly until Section 4 of the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 was passed, a lessor was not liable for defects in premises which he let. He was under no liability to the lessee, and he was under no liability to the lessee's friends or family who might be injured as the result of a defect in the premises let. Again, it was the lessee who had to hear the burden of any defect. This was of course subject to any specific contractual liability that the lessor might, by agreement with the lessee, undertake. For the sake of accuracy, I think I should also say that some slight limitations of that general doctrine had been introduced in the case of small dwellings by Section 6 of the Housing Act 1957 and by Section 32 of the Housing Act 1961, but these exceptions were limited in scope and it is broadly true to say that up to 1957 the law was as it had been stated in 1863 by Chief Justice Earle in a famous case called Robins v. Jones; that is, that there was "no law against letting a tumbledown house". That was the position of lessors and lessees.
The third principle of law to which the Law Commission addressed itself was more general in character, and it was this. We are all of us, everybody, under a general duty to take care in order not by our negligent, thoughtless act to cause injury to persons who might be affected by our want of thought and carelessness. That was a general principle that was reasserted by this House in a famous case called Donoghue v. Stevenson in 1932, and the doctrine is known as formulated in a very famous judgment by the late Lord Atkin. That doctrine, in the case of negligent acts generally, imposed, as I have said, a general duty on all of us. We must ask ourselves: If we are careless in what we do, may we by so doing cause injury to persons who are, as it were, in sufficient proximate relationships with as

1363
to be affected by our carelessness? That was the general principle: but in the case of land it was subject to an exception, again in favour of persons who disposed by sale or otherwise of the land. If you were an occupier of land and you negligently did something on that land which caused injury to somebody coming upon it, you were liable in damages to that person. For example, if you carried out dilapidations and left a dangerous wall standing and it collapsed on somebody, then, if you could be said to have been negligent in leaving that wall and injury was caused to the person upon whom it collapsed, you were liable in damages to that person. But the odd exception to that general principle that was incorporated in the general law related to this situation: the situation in which you had done something negligent on your land but then disposed of the land—you sold it; you sold premises on the land. As from the moment you sold those premises your liability towards a person who might be injured through your negligent act came to an end. That was the third principle of law which the Law Commission felt could be changed and to which it addressed itself.
With that general preface, may I say that the Bill implements three of four recommendations that were made by the Law Commission and in respect of one of the three makes a change which I will indicate later to your Lordships. To address myself to the first principle of law—namely, that which affects the sale of private dwelling houses—the view that the Law Commission took may be stated as being that the law required no alteration in so far as the purchase of dwelling houses in general: the elderly Victorian mansion, the Elizabethan manor and that sort of thing; but where a person was buying a house which had been newly constructed he should be given a remedy which otherwise he would not have had. That remedy is conferred by Clause 1 of the Bill.
Clause 1 of the Bill in effect does this. Where persons have taken on work for the purpose of providing a private dwelling for a purchaser, then a statutory duty is imposed by the clause upon those persons who undertake that work to ensure in the first place that it is carried out in a workmanlike manner or, if an individual such as a surveyor or an architect
1364
has carried out professional services, that the work is carried out in a professional way with professional skill; in so far as the work involves the use of materials, that the materials are proper materials; and, finally, in so far as the particular work carried out by the individual is concerned, that the house shall as a result, and in so far as that work affects it, be fit for human habitation. Clause 1 therefore makes an exception to the general principle of caveat emptor in the case of the sale of a private house in favour of those who buy, in effect, new houses.
As I have said, the duty is imposed upon those who take on work in relation to the provision of that house. But the clause goes rather wider than imposing a duty on the actual person who carried out the work—the architect, the builder, whoever it may be—because it includes among those upon whom a statutory duty is imposed a person who procures the work to be done in the course of business or in the exercise of statutory power. By that I mean a developer-builder, a property developer, who procures building to be done under a contract which he enters into with the builder or a local authority which causes a house to be built for use as a dwelling house by labour engaged by the local authority. All those people are placed under this completely new statutory duty.
This new duty has some other important aspects to which I shall call attention. In the first place, Clause 6 provides that a person cannot contract out of the duty. The vendor of the house cannot, by contract with the purchaser of the house in the case of a new dwelling of that sort, contract with him that he, the vendor, shall be exempt from that new duty. Whether he so contracts or otherwise, he remains under that duty. Secondly, not only is the duty owed to the purchaser of the house; it remains owing to anybody who succeeds the purchaser in title. Your Lordships may ask, "How long? Will it be for ever? If an accident happens one hundred years hence owing to a defect, will the vendor still be liable?" My Lords, the answer to that is that his liability is terminated under the terms of the various Statutes of Limitation at present on the Statute Book. There are three of them. Broadly speaking, the period in question will be

1365
six years. Where there is personal injury, the Statute of Limitations provide a shorter period of three years. That is the remedy which the Law Commission propose and which this Bill adopts for the first of these three principles.
I then go to the second of the principles which relates to lessor's liability. With respect to the lessor's liability, the Bill in Clause 4 makes the following provision. The lessor is placed under a new, completely different liability in respect of defects in premises in cases in which, under the letting, he either has the duty or has the right to go upon the premises for the purpose of carrying out the repairs—a liability he owes not only to the lessee but to all who go upon the premises. I referred earlier to Section 4 of the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 as inhibiting the general freedom from liability of the lessor. What Clause 4 of the Bill does is, in effect, to annul Section 4 of the 1957 Act and to re-enact its general provision in a way which avoids certain defects in its existing provisions. It avoids those defects and makes it impossible for the provisions of this Bill, if enacted, to be evaded. I will not trouble the House with the nature of the actual defects. That is the change which is made in the position of the lessor. I do not think I need elaborate further.
I go on to deal with the third principle, the principle which I referred to as laid down by the general case of Donoghue v. Stevenson. I should say that there is some doubt as to how far that principle (which I stated as being not applicable in the case of the owner of land who disposed of it) is still part of the law. Some doubt was thrown on it by the case of Dutton v. Bognor Regis Urban District Council which was decided in 1972. The noble and learned Lord, the Master of the Rolls, thought that the doctrine was really different and not so rigid as I have formulated it. In that view he was supported by one other learned Lord Justice, but the third learned Lord Justice did not agree and thought the law remained in the rigid uncompromising form in which I sought to state it. At any rate, what Clause 3 does is to provide that an owner of land who does some negligent act upon it remains liable in respect of the consequences of that
1366
negligent act (subject always to the periods stated in the Limitation Acts), notwithstanding that he may sell the land or otherwise dispose of it. In other words, it negatives that exception which is thought to exist under the existing law in favour of the owner of land who disposes of it. That is the third provision.
The fourth recommendation which is contained in the Report is not given effect to in the Bill, and therefore I will not trouble your Lordships with it. Again it deals with liability of vendors and lessors of premises. But I intimated earlier that one of the recommendations enacted was subject to a change, and it is about that change that I should now like to say something to your Lordships.
The change is included in Clause 2 which provides that the general duty created by Clause 1, about which I have told your Lordships, is not to be applicable in cases where the Secretary of State approves a scheme which gives protection to the purchaser of the house. The object of that exception is to protect a scheme which has been operated since 1965 by the National House Builders' Registration Council. The scheme is elaborate. The Law Commission Report says that the benefits of the scheme will in general exceed those which can be created by a change in the law; namely, the change which now appears in Clause 1. For example, the scheme provides that the whole resources of the Council shall be behind any builder who is sued, and who cannot himself, out of his own resources, pay the damages which may be awarded to the house purchaser. And there are other respects in which the scheme gives the purchaser greater protection than the change proposed by the Law Commission which now finds its place in Clause 1. Broadly speaking, what the scheme does is to require the registration of builders; and a builder who is registered is expected to enter into an approved form of contract which gives certain guarantees both to the purchaser and also to his successors in title. Those guarantees as stated in the approved contract are more generous than those conferred by Clause I. The purchaser has the advantage of being able to avail himself of all those rights in the case of a registered builder and in relation to premises for which a certificate is issued

1367
by the Council stating in effect that the provisions of the approved contract are available to the purchaser. Those I think are the main provisions of the Bill and it will be apparent that they make very substantial changes in the law in so far as they cover it.
I think I may deal with the other clauses quite briefly. Clause 5 enacts that the Crown is bound, subject to the various limitations contained in the 1947 Crown Proceedings Act. Clause 6 I have already referred to; it is the clause which prevents contracting out. Clause 7 provides that the Bill shall come into force on January 1, 1974. The object of that provision is to enable insurance companies, who will of course be greatly affected by these changes, to make the necessary changes in the insurance that they are prepared to provide to vendors, purchasers and builders, and to the premiums that they will expect to receive in relation to the new liabilities covered. My Lords, that is the general scope of the Bill. I hope that your Lordships may feel that it is acceptable to both sides and all Parties in this House, as was the case in the other place, and that your Lordships will think fit to give the Bill a Second Reading; I move accordingly.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (Lord Stow Hill.)
7.5 p.m.
LORD GREENWOOD OF ROSSENDALE: My Lords, I apologise for speaking when I have not put down my name beforehand, but I think it would be a pity if in your Lordships' House we did not pay a rather greater tribute to the National Housebuilders Registration Council than my noble and learned friend Lord Stow Hill has paid. I have on previous occasions declared my interest in building and in building societies, but I admired the work of the National Housebuilders' Registration Council long before I developed those interests. It is I think a peculiarly British form of consumer protection. As your Lordships will know, it is a scheme by which, at present, almost 100 per cent. of private houses are built with the guarantee of the National Housebuilders' Registration Council. That means that the purchaser of the house, caveat emptor or not, has a firm guarantee that the
1368
house is of good workmanship for a stated period. A builder who falls foul, and does not provide a good house can be struck off the register of the National Housebuilders' Registration Council; and the sanction against that is that if a builder is not on the Council's register it is almost impossible to get a mortgage from a building society. So this very strong sanction has been introduced, and I think that your Lordships' House should pay a special tribute to this scheme.
It is a scheme which initiated from the industry itself. It is operated largely by the industry and by the building societies, and, under the direction of Mr. Tate it has, I think, done a remarkably good job in virtually putting an end to jerry-building in this country. Only a week or two ago there was a report that a further eight builders had been struck off the register for had workmanship. So although I welcome the Bill, I do so because it will fill in a few loopholes left by the Housebuilders' Registration Council, and I know that your Lordships will join me in expressing our appreciation of the work that the Council has done.
7.7 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS): My Lords, this afternoon the House has regaled itself with a varied and rich diet, and I am sorry that a few more of your Lordships have not remained to enjoy the "savoury course". Perhaps the Title of it is not one of the most attractive, but nevertheless I endorse what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, has said about the importance and the width of application of this Bill. The noble and learned Lord is quite right. It could have a very wide significance and it is quite an important change in the law. If your Lordships thought while listening to the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, and the very well-deserved tribute that he gave to the National Housebuilders' Registration Council, that there are not some loop-holes that Clause 1 will fill in, your Lordships would have been mistaken, because, of course, there are still some houses not built under this insurance guarantee scheme, and the people who buy them—particularly if they are not the original purchasers—may not, as the

1369
law stands at the moment, have any recourse at all. So I think that Clause 1 is very necessary.
My Lords, I am speaking from this Box in place of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, who is abroad on an important engagement. It is a general change of role. It was yesterday that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, made a thoughtful speech from the Opposition Front Bench on the Civil Evidence Bill and was comlimented by my noble and learned friend. My noble and learned friend said a good deal about the public spirit of Private Members of both Houses who introduce these law reform measures. Now I can say the same thing to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill and to his honourable and learned friend the Member for Barons Court, in another place. The other change is that instead of it being as it was yesterday, the Law Reform Committee who are congratulated on their work, it is the Law Commission. Having heard the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, if noble Lords wish to till in the details which the noble and learned Lord did not have time to explain, they should look at the full Report of the Law Commission which, in the usual way, sets out the full argument and follows it with profound and detailed explanatory notes on every clause. I do not think that any further explanation is necessary from me.
LORD GREENWOOD OF ROSSENDALE: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Viscount would give way? I appreciate what he has said, but I am informed by the Printed Paper Office that the Report is out of print and I had to get the only copy available which was in the Library. Perhaps the noble Viscount can remedy that defect.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I am sorry to hear that. I have in the past had difficulty in getting Law Commission Papers. For some reason they are not printed as Command Papers, and there has always been difficulty in getting them in the Printed Paper Office of your Lordships' House. I remember that when I sat on the other side of your Lordships' House and had to undertake arguments with the noble and learned
1370
Lord, Lord Gardiner, I had the same difficulty. I will see whether I can do anything about this one. Nevertheless, if one can get hold of a copy it is very well set out.
In those circumstances I do not think I need say a great deal more about the merits of the Bill. Clause 1 does what the Law Commission suggests, subject to the qualification that has been explained, that we do not now need to cover the whole field, because in Clause 2 it has been decided to exclude those cases where there is a reputable scheme such as that mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, to take the place of the statutory duty imposed by Clause 1. The present scheme need not be the only one. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State can approve further schemes if he wishes to and if they come up to the proper standards and the necessary machinery is there in the clause.
Clause 3 has also been explained by the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, but for those who do read the Law Commission's Report it is right that he should have referred us to Dutton v. Bognor Regis U.D.C. which is a more recent case than the date of printing of that Report. One is always glad to be reminded of the most notable and famous snail in the history of the world, whether or not it really existed: the one that occurred—or, as the case may be, did not occur—in the case of Donoghue v. Stevenson. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, will know that the doctrine set down in outline in that case seems to be ever capable of being extended; but the fact remains that as a result of the decision of the Court of Appeal in the Dutton case there are now confirmed the doubts which the Law Commission had in mind about the liability in negligence of the owner of land who builds a house upon it and then sells it. This situation is being put right by the clause. It is a comparatively simple matter, or will be if the Bill is passed, to sue the man who is responsible for the damage.
As to the absence from the Bill of the fourth of the Law Commission's recommendations, this is a matter upon which I think, if any noble Lord wished to debate it on Committee or Report stage,

1371
we would have an open mind. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, is right that it should not be in the Bill, but I would not in any way wish to suppress discussion upon this important matter. There are, however, difficulties about it which have been pointed out by some of the learned professions and others who have been consulted on this Bill, and it is not as straightforward as some of the other provisions which appear in the Bill.
Again I do not think that there is any necessity for me to go into the subsequent clauses except to produce the result of my one piece of personal and profound research: namely that in the rubric to Clause 6 there is a printing error. I think it should read "supplemental" as opposed to "supplement" in order fully to conform with what the Law Commission suggested. That may sound facetious. In principle, the Government welcome this Bill. We are grateful to those who took it through another place. We are particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, for explaining it so carefully to-day. That is no formal statement. His explanation is of real assistance to this House and will assist those who wish to consider it further. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, for what he has said.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, if I may have the permission of the House to reply shortly I should like to thank the noble Viscount sincerely for his most elegant and kindly speech which I greatly appreciate. May I also thank him for the correction which will have to be made, changing the word "supplement" to "supplemental". I entirely agree. I have been searching for corrections and I have found three, and that will be the fourth. May I repair a grave omission of which the House was
1372
reminded by my noble friend, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale. He speaks with a wealth of experience as a result of the high office he has held in this field. May I associate myself with him in his reference to the National House-builders' Registration Council. It has over the years done admirable work and, as he points out, the Law Commission said that practically all builders, though not all, are registered builders within the scheme.
There is one final omission—and this is an omission we have all made. We have become so used to the admirable work done by the Law Commission that neither I nor my noble friend, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, nor the noble Viscount thanked them. I apologise—the noble Viscount did thank them. That is another fault on my part. He did thank them and I apologise. We are so used to their brilliantly argued Reports, which give us such great assistance in our efforts to reform the law, that I am afraid I fell into the error of forgetting their work. One takes it for granted. They have done a remarkable piece of work. Their Report is full and informative and I read it with the greatest pleasure, as well as with great advantage, in preparing to present the Bill to your Lordships' House.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

WESTMINSTER ABBEY AND SAINT MARGARET WESTMINSTER BILL [H.L.]
Report from Her Majesty's Attorney General received and ordered to lie on the Table: Bill reported with Amendments.
House adjourned at seventeen minutes past seven o'clock.