HL Deb 29 June 1978 vol 394 cc474-87

7.53 p.m.

Lord MOTTISTONE

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 Mottistone.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]

Clause 1 [Safety regulations in respect of goods.];

Lord MOTTISTONE moved Amendments Nos. 1 and 2: Page 1, line 5, after ("may") insert ("make regulations containing such provision authorised by subsections (2) and (3) of this section as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.") Page 1, line 8, leave out from ("goods") to second ("and") in line 9.

The noble Lord said: With the leave of the House I should like to move Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 en bloc. These two Amendments, which are in parallel, are what might be described as a "technical" Amendment to improve the wording of the Bill so that it is legally sounder. It is possible that regulations made under Clause 1, as at present drafted, could be challenged in the courts. perhaps in the course of criminal proceedings for breach of regulations, on the basis that they did not secure that the goods were safe; that is, that any risk of death or personal injury was adequately reduced.

The question whether safety regulations impose appropriate provision is better decided before the regulations come into force; that is, when the regulations are approved by Parliament. The proposed new wording—and this is important—does not widen the scope of the regulation-making powers conferred on the Secretary of State as they are qualified, as your Lordships will see, by reference to provisions authorised by subsections (2) and (3 of the clause.

Finally, the proposed two Amendments will bring Clause 1 more or less into line with Section 2 of the 1961 Act in this respect, and your Lordships will remember from Second Reading that it is in replacement of the 1961 Act that this one is now before your Lordships. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Lord MOTTISTONE moved Amendment No. 3:

Page 2, line 21, at end insert— ("(ee) with respect to the ways of dealing with goods of which some or all do not satisfy a test prescribed by the regulations or a standard connected with a procedure so prescribed;").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 3. Your Lordships will see that Clause 1(2)(e) enables the Secretary of State to make regulations with respect to the testing or inspection of goods—a power which may be used in appropriate cases for the purposes of prescribing quality control procedures designed to ensure that goods which reach the market are safe. There is, however, no express power in Clause 1 to include provisions in regulations requiring goods which do not satisfy a prescribed test or inspection to be dealt with in such a way as to separate them from those which do and ensure that they are not marketed. We are talking about the fate of a batch which does not pass the test. The Amendment is designed to make provision in the regulations to deal with that sort of situation. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord MOTTISTONE moved Amendment No. 4: Page 2, line 32, leave out from ("goods") to end of line 33 and insert ("in respect of which requirements of the regulations are not satisfied").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 4 and at the same time I should like to speak to Amendment No. 5. This is a tidying-up Amendment. As it stands, Clause 1(2)(g) enables regulations to be made prohibiting the supply of goods which do not satisfy requirements relating to the goods themselves—for example, design and construction et cetera. But it does not enable regulations to prohibit the supply of goods which are required under Clause 1(2)(f) to be accompanied by specified information such as safety instructions.

Your Lordships will see that at present the goods are dealt with, but not the goods when they have been marked in accordance with Clause 1(2)(f). The Amendment seeks to remedy that situation by enabling regulations to prohibit the supply of goods in respect of which the requirements of the regulations are not satisfied. Amendment No. 5 is consequential on Amendment No. 4 because it will no longer be necessary if Amendment No. 4 is agreed to. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

On Question, Whether Clause 1, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord MOTTISTONE

As regards Clause 1(2)(c), it has been represented to me that many industries are very concerned that the standards which are specified in the regulations should be fully acceptable and in many cases they would prefer a British Standard. When the Bill was in another place, the Minister of State, at column 1895 on 23rd April, gave an undertaking which assured persons that the standards that would be included in the regulations would be suitable and that people would be consulted about them. It would be much appreciated if the noble Lord who is to reply on behalf of the Government could give the Committee a similar undertaking.

Lord WALLACE of COSLANY

I shall be very happy indeed to give the noble Lord the assurance that he seeks. It has been Government policy for some time past for regulations under the Consumer Protection Act 1961, relating to the safety of consumer goods, to be made whenever possible by reference to relevant British Standards or parts of standards. Alternatively, in some instances the regulations have been based on the provisions of the appropriate standards.

The Government intend to continue to make full use of British and other published standards—these may include internationally recognised standards—in consumer safety regulations and, in particular, where these regulations impose generalised requirements, to include "deemed-to-satisfy" references to relevant published Standards whenever practicable, subject, of course, to consultations with all the interested parties. I hope that that assurance will satisfy the noble Lord.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2 [Offences against the safety regulations]:

Lord MOTTISTONE moved Amendment No. 5: Page 3, line 12, leave out from ("supply") to end of line 16.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord MOTTISTONE moved Amendment No. 6: Page 3, line 33, leave out from ("provision") to ("then") in line 35 and insert (", by means of a mark or otherwise, of information of a particular kind in connection with goods").

The noble Lord said: When Clause 2(3) was debated on Report in another place the words "inappropriate information" were criticised on account of their vagueness in relation to an offence. The Minister of State undertook to consider this point. The reference is column 1842 of the Official Report of 28th April. The information which was prohibited in relation to goods will be spelled out in regulations containing provisions of the kind referred to in Clause 1(2)(f). The proposed Amendment makes this clear and deletes the reference to "inappropriate information". I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3 [Orders and notices to prohibit supply of goods or give warning of danger from goods]:

On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord MOTTISTONE

With regard to Clause 3, I should like to make a correction to my Second Reading speech. At column 1465 I said: The penalties for unauthorised disclosure of information include a prison sentence, while those for other offences under the Bill do not". As your Lordships will see in Clause 3, in its last subsection, and in Clause 4, my remarks were incorrect. I should have said that: … penalties for unauthorised disclosure of information have considerably more serious prison sentences". I should not have implied that the other sort of offences did not have one at all.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Clause 4 [Power to obtain information]:

Lord MOTTISTONE moved Amendment No. 7: Page 7, line 7, leave out from beginning to ("except") in line 10 and insert ("No information obtained by virtue of this section shall be disclosed").

The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, I should like to speak to Amendment No. 10, as well. It is important to ensure that the prohibition in subsection (3) of Clause 4, of disclosure of information provided in response to a notice served by the Secretary of State, applies not only to the Government Department officials who first receive the information but also to any other person to whom that information is made available; for example, a trading standards officer who receives it for the purpose of criminal investigation, and there may be others. The proposed Amendment is designed to make this clearer. Amendment No. 10 is a consequential drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord WALLACE of COSLANY moved Amendment No. 8: Page 7, line 22, after ("State") insert ("or a Northern Ireland Department").

The noble Lord said: Although Community obligations are normally imposed on the Government of the United Kingdom, the European Communities Act 1972 makes it plain that a Northern Ireland Department may also be under a Community obligation. This Amendment provides that information obtained under Clause 4 may be disclosed for the purpose of enabling a Northern Ireland Department to fulfil a Community obligation.

Such an obligation can arise under Article 100 Directives relating to the safety of consumer goods. These directives usually include a "safeguard clause" which enables Member States to prohibit the sale of goods, even though they comply with the provisions of the Directive, if they are considered to be dangerous. When this is done the Commission must be informed of the prohibition and the reasons for it. It is in these circumstances that it may be necessary to disclose information of the kind obtained under Clause 4. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord WALLACE of COSLANY moved Amendment No. 9: Page 7, line 27, at end insert ("but the prohibition on disclosure imposed by this subsection does not apply to publicised information.").

The noble Lord said: With the permission of the Committee, I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 22. It should not be a criminal offence to disclose information which has been made public, for example, in a warning issued as required by a notice to warn. This Amendment provides that the prohibition on disclosure in Clause 4(3) does not apply to information which has been published in criminal proceedings, in proceedings under Part III of the Fair Trading Act, in a warning published as required by a notice to warn or in a warning published by the Secretary of State. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord MOTTISTONE moved Amendment No. 10; Page 7, line 28, leave out ("contravenes") and insert ("discloses information in contravention of").

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 5 [Enforcement]:

Lord WALLACE of COSLANY moved Amendment No. 11:

Page 8, line 19, at end insert— ("(3A) If the Secretary of State directs a person on whom a duty is imposed by virtue of subsection (1) or (2) of this section to make a report to the Secretary of State, in such form and containing such particulars as are specified in the direction, on the exercise of the person's functions under this Act or, while the Consumer Protection Act 1961 remains in force, under this Act and that Act, it shall be the duty of the person to comply with the direction.").

The noble Lord said: With the permission of the Committee, I think that it would be desirable and helpful for me to speak also to Amendments Nos. 14 and 38, because they are all relevant and with your Lordships' consideration of time in mind it would help. These Amendments implement an undertaking given by the Minister of State, the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection, in another place to consider the question of annual reports by local weights and measures authorities on their enforcement activities under the Bill with a view to seeking a suitable Amendment in your Lordships' Committee. Discussions, which have since taken place between the Department and the associations representing the local authorities, have indicated that the associations are strongly in favour of voluntary arrangements for the reporting of this information.

In the case of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968, local weights and measures authorities are required, if the Secretary of State so directs, to make him a report on the exercise of their functions under the Act. No reports have so far been called for because local authorities provide the information in question voluntarily, usually together with the annual reports which they submit—as are statutorily required— about their activities under the Weights and Measures Act 1963. Arrangements can, no doubt, be made for information relating to enforcement activities under the Bill, and the Consumer Protection Act 1961 (until it is repealed), to be supplied voluntarily to the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection.

If, as is proposed by the Amendment to Clause 9—that is, Amendment No. 14—the Secretary of State is to be under a duty to lay before each House of Parliament from time to time a report covering, inter alia, the exercise of the functions of enforcement authorities, it seems necessary that he should have power to require reports from these authorities so as to ensure that he himself is in a position to comply with his statutory duty to report to Parliament. The Amendment enables him to do so. I beg to move.

Lord LYELL

I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, can help me on this. So far as I am concerned, I think that there is a slight problem here with regard to Amendment No. 14. I see that the Amendment mentions reports to the Secretary of State. I believe that there could be a case—and it could clash with what the noble Lord mentioned earlier about confidentiality and disclosure of some information—where a report might disclose some information on various companies against which proceedings might not have been brought, or alternatively where those proceedings had been brought unsuccessfully. I wondered whether he would be able to tell me whether there has been any problem with the existing disclosures which he was mentioning under the Trade Descriptions Act and the Consumer Protection Act.

Lord WALLACE of COSLANY

I am unable to give the noble Lord a full assurance at this point. There is a clause later on dealing mainly with this point, but at the moment I am unable to give him information on that point. I shall contact him later.

Lord MOTTISTONE

Perhaps I might be able to help my noble friend because I should think, although this would be subject to confirmation from our advisers, that Clause 4(3) lists the areas under which information can be used without breaking the regulations, so to speak. This does not include the report. Therefore, when the report is compiled it will have to be compiled in such a way as not to give away the kinds of information which are described in the Bill.

Lord LYELL

I am grateful to my noble friend for enlightening me on this point. May I return to this later? I think that it is a reasonable point. It is not of any great substance and I am sure we can resolve it, although not necessarily tonight.

Lord WALLACE of COSLANY

When we come to the other Amendments involved in this group I may be in a position to give the information.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 6 [Civil liability];

8.12 p.m.

Lord MOTTISTONE moved Amendment No. 12:

Page 8, line 34, at end insert— ("(2A) References in the preceding provisions of this section to an obligation imposed by safety regulations do not include such an obligation as to which the regulations state that those provisions do not apply to it.").

The noble Lord said: The wording that your Lordships are being offered in the new subsection (2A) is extremely obscure to the reader, and we spent a certain amount of time seeking ways in which this could be made clearer to the ordinary reader. I am satisfied that every effort to do that has been made, with the proviso that it has to be legally sound. Clause 6, as at present drafted, goes too far in providing a breach of any of the obligations imposed by the safety regulations to give rise to civil liability. The effect of the comparable provision in the Consumer Protection Act 1961 is confined to making the sale of goods which do not comply with safety regulations a breach of statutory duty. Accordingly, this Amendment is designed to limit the civil obligations that a person may be involved in in this general process. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 7 [Supplemental]:

Lord MOTTISTONE moved Amendment No. 13:

Page 10, line 6, at end insert— ("(8) In subsection (4) of section 2 of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 (which provides that a description or mark applied to goods in pursuance of an enactment mentioned in that subsection shall be deemed not to be a trade description) after paragraph (f) there shall be inserted the words "(g) the Consumer Safety Act 1978", and in subsection (5)(a) of that section (which provides that where, under certain Acts including the Food and Drugs Act (Northern Ireland) 1958, the application of a description to goods is prohibited except in certain cases the description shall be deemed not to be a trade description when applied in those cases) after the figures "1958" there shall be inserted the words "or the Consumer Safety Act 1978".").

The noble Lord said: This Amendment ensures that where information is applied to goods as required, or as expressly permitted by safety regulations, there is no risk of committing an offence under the Trade Descriptions Act 1968. The problem is that where safety regulations require goods to be marked with specified information, this information might in certain circumstances be a false trade description. An example of a case where this might be so is if goods were required to bear the name and address of the manufacturer or importer into the European Economic Community, the name and address of the importer into the EEC might be taken to be an indication of the origin of the goods and, by virtue of Section 3 of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968, might be held to be a false trade description. It is for that reason that this Amendment seeks to avoid such a situation. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 8 [Expenses etc.]:

Lord WALLACE of COSLANY moved Amendment No. 14:

Page 10, line 15, at end insert— ("(2) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to lay before each House of Parliament from time to time, and in any event not less than once in every five years, a report on the exercise of the functions under this Act and, while the Consumer Protection Act 1961 remains in force, of the functions under that Act, of the Secretary of State and of persons on whom duties are imposed by virtue of section 5 of this Act.").

The noble Lord said: I shall probably be able to deal with the question of the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, at Amendment No. 38, if the noble Lord agrees. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 9 [Interpretation]:

8.16 p.m.

Lord AIREDALE moved Amendment No. 15: Page 10, line 17, leave out ("if and").

The noble Lord said: I think it is well settled that the draftsman is not permitted to call in aid the Queen's Printer to emphasise the parts of the Bill which the draftsman thinks are important by such devices as italics, underlining, heavy type, or capital letters. I think it follows that the draftsman must not seek to achieve the same effect by the use of extravagent language. Here in Clause 9 we have the expression "if and only if". What that means is "only if". The two words I seek to leave out merely add emphasis.

Some years ago there was a Bill in which I moved an identical Amendment to this one. I lost the battle in this House, as I rather expected I would, but the Minister in charge of the Bill, God bless him! took up the point and moved the Amendment in the other place and, not surprisingly, won the day; and the words I seek to leave out of this clause were left out of that clause. I hope that the Committee will take my word for this precedent, because if they do not I shall have to spend the time between now and Report stage in the Library searching among Commons' Hansards, and I should much prefer to go out and enjoy the sunshine of this glorious summer. I beg to move.

Lord MOTTISTONE

I was aware of what the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, probably had in mind, having known him to provide correction in the matter of the Queen's English in many a Bill during the time of both of us in this House. I spent some time talking to the advisers to see how we could accommodate the noble Lord. May I take his first point, which I rather think was a question of economy for the Queen's Printer in black ink and just the little extra bit of paper used on that point. I should have thought that it was not unreasonable for emphasis to be made where it is thought to be particularly important, even at the expense of the extra ink and paper. Therefore, I would not go along with him there.

I am sure that he must be right over his precedent, and maybe that is what is going to happen again, but he still has a Report stage. Perhaps we could discuss the matter in the meantime. I should be only too happy to help him in the Library, but until that is over perhaps we could agree, because I am strongly advised that this cannot be deleted, that perhaps the Amendment could be withdrawn at this stage. I should be happy to do anything I could in the meantime.

Lord AIREDALE

That is a very fair offer, which of course I cannot refuse. Between us we shall find in Hansard exactly what the Minister said about the expression I complain of. In the light of that, we may be able to come to some agreement. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

8.20 p.m.

Lord MOTTISTONE moved Amendment No. 16: Page 10, line 40, leave out ("for re-sale").

The noble Lord said: While it is likely that those who carry on a business of repairing and reconditioning goods will sell the goods in question after repair or reconditioning, it is possible in some cases that such goods will be supplied by way of hire. A reconditioner of television sets might, for example, hire the sets out after they have been serviced. It is illogical to make it an offence to supply goods to such a person while accepting that, if the reconditioner sells the goods after he has restored them to safe working order, the supply of goods to him is exempt. The Amendment seeks to remove that anomaly.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

8.21 p.m.

Lord STRABOLGI

I beg to move that the House be now resumed.

Several noble Lords

No!

Lord LYELL

Noble Lords will see that I have down an Amendment numbered 23A. According to my stop-watch we have been going 28 minutes since this stage of the proceedings was started. Could we just finish the clause with which we are dealing? If not, it would mean my missing the opportunity of moving my Amendment tonight and I shall have to move it at a later stage. Would the Committee bear with me in this matter?

Lord STRABOLGI

It would be some time before we reached that Amendment, would it not? We have just dealt with Amendment No. 16 and the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, wants to be able to move No. 23A. The arrangement, which I think was announced by the Chief Whip, was that we would go back to the Scotland Bill at 8.20 p.m.

Lord MOTTISTONE

That was on the understanding that we would not have a Third Reading which took half an hour. It seems unreasonable of the Government to have committed us to that half hour of lost time, because our Bill was organised some time ago and I was led to understand that I could have the whole of this period. No doubt the Government thought the Third Reading would take only a couple of minutes. It may well have done had the noble Lord not had down an Amendment. Be that as it may, I think we could probably get through by just after 8.30 p.m, if the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, would be willing to accede to my noble friend's wishes.

Lord STRABOLGI

I am sorry, but it was the arrangement that we should go back to the Scotland Bill—a great many speakers have indicated their wish to speak—at 8.20. We have tomorrow to continue the Committee stage of this Bill and I am sure it would be acceptable to the Committee to adhere to the arrangement that was made and agreed through the usual channels.

Lord AIREDALE

We are of course used to Private Members' Bills being squeezed out, particularly late in the Session, but this is no ordinary Private Member's Bill; this is a Bill to which 13 Amendments are down in the name of a Government Minister, and a Bill in which a number of the other Amendments have the ring of having been Government-inspired. We are not being treated very fairly this evening.

Lord WALLACE of COSLANY

I agree that I was under the impression that we might have the whole of this time; but I, too, wish to emphasise that we have practically the whole of tomorrow to deal in greater time with this matter. The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, will agree that we have been racing a little to get as much as possible done today for our personal convenience tomorrow, but that has been a matter for your Lordships to decide. There will be plenty of time tomorrow.

Lord LYELL

I have had a Parliamentary engagement for tomorrow for six weeks—the noble Lord, Lord Winter-bottom, will support me on that—though I suppose I could put it off. I suggest that the course proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, will result in considerable inconvenience for a loss of, I should have thought, five or ten minutes; but I am willing to take the opinion of the usual channels on this matter.

Lord STRABOLGI

I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

House resumed.

Forward to