§ 2.46 p.m.
§ Lord DiamondMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they propose to prevent members of the public (and especially Lords) being bombarded with requests to invest in or subscribe to a variety of dubious schemes.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Lucas of Chilworth)My Lords, I assume that the noble Lord has in mind advertising by direct mail of financial and business opportunities. On that assumption I have to tell the noble Lord that the Government have no plans to restrict this sort of advertising generally, although there are now arrangements by which people can quickly and easily have their names deleted from the many mailing lists in existence.
§ Lord DiamondMy Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. I hope he will not mind, however, if I say that I find it a little disappointing. Members of your Lordships' House in receipt almost daily, certainly weekly, of applications to subscribe to a variety of very doubtful schemes may be in a position to judge the merits of such schemes. Less informed members of the public may not be in such a position. Does the Minister agree, on second thoughts, that further consideration should be given to this matter in order to protect less cautious members of the public?
§ Lord Lucas of ChilworthMy Lords, the noble Lord's Question dealt with the abundance of direct mail, rather than with that which was dubious. if he will advise me of the matters which he considers dubious, I may then be able to give consideration to them and see whether any fall within the general framework of legislation which currently exists as regards advertising.
§ Lord Boyd-CarpenterMy Lords, will my noble friend help your Lordships and others by distinguishing between the dubious schemes referred to in the Question and the equally dubious ones embodied in Alliance propaganda?
§ Lord Lucas of ChilworthMy Lords, my noble friend raises a very different issue. It depends on how these matters are put before the recipients.
§ Lord BarnettMy Lords, would the Minister care to give us his definition of "dubious schemes", drawing perhaps on his experience of government schemes?
§ Lord Lucas of ChilworthMy Lords, there is nothing dubious about any of the government schemes, all of which have borne fruit to the benefit of all those concerned. I can think of only one dubious scheme which is well outside the Government's realm, namely, pyramid selling.
§ Lord MonsonMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in addition to many dubious schemes involving the sale of time-sharing weeks, many thousands of unsophisticated first-time investors are being inveigled by direct mail shots into buying single-premium bonds, which happen to be much less tax-efficient for the majority of investors than, for example, investing in unit trusts, particularly in view of this year's Budget? Is he further aware that this happens mainly because of the very high commissions which can be obtained by pushing such investment bonds?
§ Lord Lucas of ChilworthMy Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Monson, raises two issues. On the issue of timesharing, I draw the attention of noble Lords and others to the leaflet Your place in the Sun which has been produced by my department. This gives warnings with regard to time-sharing.
On the noble Lord's other point, I shall look forward with anticipation to the noble Lord raising that when we discuss the SIB designation authority later this month, when I shall be able to give him a rather fuller response.
§ Baroness SeearMy Lords, does the noble Lord—and perhaps other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter—agree that we should get on rather more swiftly if we deferred blatant electioneering, at least until we know the date of the election?
§ Lord Lucas of ChilworthMy Lords, I had not noticed any great blatancy on election matters this afternoon.
§ Lord Jenkins of PutneyMy Lords, will the noble Lord be prepared to discuss with his noble friends the possibility of introducing legislation to forbid local authorities from selling their electoral registers? That enables any kind of organisation to distribute widely circulars which most of us would much prefer to be without.
§ Lord Lucas of ChilworthMy Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, raised two points. First, it has always been considered, certainly in company law, that the lists of the owners of companies should be open to everybody. That applies equally to local authorities. It would be quite wrong to deny people the opportunity of knowing who owns what and who is listed on an electoral role.
I do not think that the noble Lord's second point applies to this Question.
§ Lord MellishMy Lords, surely this Question is all about rubbish. Is this not one of the reasons why the wastepaper basket was invented?
§ Lord Lucas of ChilworthMy Lords, I look across the Benches opposite but I do not see the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, here this afternoon. He posed a very similar question in February to that now put to me. On that occasion I agreed with him, as I do now with the noble Lord opposite.
§ Lord Williams of ElvelMy Lords, is the noble Lord satisfied that the law as it stands—I refer to the Financial Services Act—gives proper protection to those people in receipt of direct mail for schemes, dubious or otherwise, so that they are not unnecessarily taken in?
§ Lord Lucas of ChilworthMy Lords, I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, will have been studying very carefully the published draft rules of the SIB, and no doubt he will soon address a number of questions to me. I shall then be in a better position to answer him specifically on the point he raised.
§ Lord DiamondMy Lords, the Minister was good enough to ask me whether I am aware of any dubious schemes. In the hope that he will consider prosecutions in appropriate cases, may I ask him whether he is aware that I have in my hands a letter sent to me at my home address appealing in a most barefaced manner for a subscription to a fund? All it says is:
You have my promise that whatever you give will be put to good use.It is signed by a chap called Norman Tebbit.
§ Lord Lucas of ChilworthMy Lords, I have not had an invitation to subscribe to a good-use cause. If the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, will let me know about that I shall be pleased to look into it.
§ Lord MolloyMy Lords referring to the dubious scheme just mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, will the Minister say whether those endeavours to get people to subscribe to the Conservative Party are classified as an electoral expense of Mr. Norman Tebbit?
§ Lord Lucas of ChilworthMy Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, stretches the principles of your Lordships' House. I said earlier (did I not?) that it is a long-established practice of company law that the public have a right to know who owns registered companies. Therefore anyone may obtain a company's share listing, including members of the Opposition, to use in any way they wish.
§ Lord MolloyMy Lords, the Minister has got it wrong. The request was to make a contribution to the Conservative Party and had nothing to do with a company.
Lord Maud of Stratford-Upon-AvonMy Lords, is my noble friend aware that as a matter of history there 8 is nothing new in what the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, refers to? It is on record that at the time of the South Sea Bubble a notice was issued which stated:
A profitable enterprise, but nobody to know what it is".
§ Lord Lucas of ChilworthMy Lords, my noble friend draws upon a better knowledge of history than I have. All I can say—and I am quite serious in this—is that there are a number of statutes which forbid the issue through the mail of a variety of pieces of information. The Government have taken strong note of breaches of the practice, as have all governments.