HL Deb 20 March 1996 vol 570 cc1350-62

7.52 p.m.

The Earl of Bradford

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.—(The Earl of Bradford.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Burnham) in the Chair.]

Clause 1 [Service and cover charges]:

Viscount Mountgarret moved Amendment No. 1: Page 1, line 7, leave out from ("above,") to end of line 14 and insert ("no charges shall be made in addition to the price advertised to any consumer of food or drink that is for sale by retail for consumption on any restaurant premises or premises offering similar services other than any charges which must be shown separately in respect of entertainment.").

The noble Viscount said: I beg to move this small amendment, which is self-explanatory. The clause, as drafted by my noble friend—and I hope that he will not mind too much if I suggest this—is somewhat verbose, rather ambiguous and convoluted. I believe that the amendment, as drafted, and shown on the Marshalled List, is a better way of putting it. It is clearer and more concise. I very much hope that my noble friend will feel able to accept that point.

Lord Monson

I believe Amendment No. 1 to be much clearer, more concise and less open to misinterpretation than the wording of the Bill, as currently drafted. That is why I am pleased to add my name to this amendment.

Viscount Thurso

I, too, would like to add my name to this amendment. My principal concern about the Bill is the effect on remuneration of waiting staff and to see that, as far as possible, their remuneration is protected. I am advised that the effect of this clause, as originally drafted, could possibly include tips and gratuities, which would have a negative effect on their remuneration. Therefore, I prefer the amendment as I believe it tidies up that point and helps to make clear that gratuities and tips cannot also be drawn in.

Lord Rathcavan

I add my support to Amendment No. 1. Perhaps I may also add my support to Amendment No. 3 while I am on my feet. I totally agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, that the existing wording of the clause confuses the difference between a compulsory service charge and an optional gratuity or tip. I know that the staff prefer to retain the troncmaster. The restaurant owners prefer it and also the British Hospitality Association. I strongly support the rewording suggested in Amendment No. 1.

The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie)

It may be helpful if I briefly intervene at this point to indicate that the position the Government take on this Bill is unchanged, believing that further regulation in this area is not necessary. Accordingly, it will be noted that we do not propose to move any Government amendments either to this clause or indeed to any other part of the Bill.

I appreciate that the amendment is designed to overcome the flaw that my noble friend identified at Second Reading, that price indications which indicate that a separate service or cover charge is payable are not at all misleading, and that it is contradictory for the Bill to define them as such. I fully agree with my noble friend on that point.

The solution which he proposes is to replace the offending drafting by a provision which would prohibit the levying of any charges in addition to the advertised meal price, except where such a charge was made for the provision of entertainment. I have to say that I understand the support that has been offered for that proposal, but the provision itself suffers from a number of drawbacks.

We are concerned that it does, in some respects, obscure rather than make clear to consumers what elements are in fact included in the cost of a meal. It would also effectively nullify the requirements of the Price Marking (Food and Drink on Premises) Order 1979, to which reference has been made at earlier stages of this Bill, which requires non-optional charges to be clearly and legibly displayed at or near restaurant entrances.

Most fundamental of all—and it is an important point—is that the amendment would in our view be outside the scope of Part III of the Consumer Protection Act 1987. This extends only to making provision with respect to the giving of price indications, but not to what charges may or may not be made. I offer that advice to the Committee. But as I have already indicated, the Government's opposition to this Bill remains.

The Earl of Bradford

While I accept that the purpose behind this amendment is to simplify, the advice that I was given as regards its wording was that it had to fit in with the Consumer Protection Act 1987, and if it was going to be added to that Act, it needed to be phrased and tabled in this way. The purpose of the amendment is certainly not totally to discourage tips.

Basically, there are two purposes here: first, that a service charge should not be levied and, secondly, a cover charge should not be levied except in respect of entertainment. The Minister has advised us that we are all deficient in our drafting and that we may have to rethink this matter at a later date. I very much hope that he will accept that those are the two purposes behind the wording and not tipping.

8 p.m.

Viscount Mountgarret

I listened to my noble friend with interest. I am a little disappointed that the Government are not supportive of the Bill because I think that consumers should be protected in restaurants. There may well be the Consumer Protection Act, but nonetheless at numerous establishments all kinds of sums are added to bills and people can become very confused. However, having said that it is fairly clear from what my noble friend said that this falls outside the Consumer Protection Act and I would not like to suggest anything that will make life more difficult. Although I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, it seems that it may be better to leave the provisions as they stand in the clause.

However, the point has been made. If the Consumer Protection Act can he improved, perhaps we are better to follow that course. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 [Code of practice]:

Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 2: Page 1, leave out lines 21 and 22.

The noble Lord said: Paragraph (b) of Clause 2 is surely excessively restrictive and paternalistic. Why should not people be free to decide at the last moment to add a tip via their credit card if they so wish? Not everybody carries enough cash around with them to constitute a tip and if they do have enough cash, it may well be of the wrong denomination. Anyone in the income bracket which makes them eligible for a credit card must be supposed to have sufficient nous not to be thrown or intimidated by a blank space on the credit card slip which he or she is perfectly free to complete or to ignore. I beg to move.

Lord Cadman

Although I appreciate the sentiments behind the amendment, I think that we should resist it. Apart from the implicit suggestion contained in the practice, in many cases the money raised in this way does not get into the pockets of the staff; rather, it is applied for their benefit. The provision of coffee and drinks machines in staff rooms is one such application. I am informed that free transport to, say, staff sporting events or staff outings is another. I am sure that restaurant staff would be much happier if they could receive any gratuities personally rather than at the behest of their employers. Also, if the customer is careless and neglects to fill in the total, as is quite common, there is a possibility that fraud may he encouraged.

Lord Bramall

I should first declare my interest in that for six years I was chairman of the Dorchester Hotel and still keep in close touch with the hotel. That has enabled me to carry out some research there recently. I must confess that I see no problem with the clause as drafted. I think that we are all agreed that people should be able to go into a restaurant, look at the menu and see exactly what they will pay for a particular course without having to take into account a lot of hidden charges.

It is not a question of whether or not the staff actually get the tips. They get some tips anyhow because the service charge is included in the price. The point is that unless the customer particularly wants to do so, he should not have to pay twice for service.

Many people pay by credit card. When a customer is given his bill he has an opportunity to say whether he wants to give anything in addition. He is not expected to do so because it is all included in the price, but he has that opportunity. The customer can either give an extra tip in cash or, when he is giving his credit card to the waiter, he can say, "Now, go and make out the credit card form and put in x per cent. (or £x), bring it back and I will sign it". That is perfectly proper. However, if the customer does not want to give anything extra and the debit slip is returned with a gap, the total box not having been filled in, that is putting a pistol to his head and saying, "Service charges are indeed included, but, as you can see from the gap, you are expected to pay something else as well". That seems to me to be putting undue pressure on the customer.

I find the provisions as drafted acceptable. I know that establishments such as the Dorchester Hotel and others of that calibre follow that practice already. Their menus make it perfectly clear that the price includes all cover charges (if there are any), VAT and the service charge. If a customer does not specify to the contrary, the debit slip for the credit card is returned completed. If the customer then makes up his mind that he wants to give something extra, there is a third alternative: he can say to the waiter, "Will you go away and tear up the debit slip and make out a new one?" The customer can do that, but it is easier if he pays the tip in cash or tells the waiter of his intentions in advance when he gives him his credit card. I can see no objection to the provisions.

The Earl of Lindsey and Abingdon

I too would like to see the clause retained in the Bill. Perhaps I may give as an example what happened to me last night. I shall not give the name of the restaurant, but the menu made it absolutely plain that service and cover charges were included. However, when I asked for my bill and sought to pay by credit card, a gap for gratuities was left at the bottom of the slip. That invites double-tipping. I raised that matter on Second Reading because I think that it is entirely wrong. I put a line through the gap and tipped the waiter cash as I left because, as has been said, we do not know where the gratuities go. They do not necessarily go to the waiter concerned. The money goes into a pot and we do not know whether it goes to the management. It is all right if the place is properly run, but that is not always the case. That is why I should like the clause to be retained in the Bill.

Viscount Mountgarret

My Lords, perhaps for a moment I may take issue with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, who said that if you wanted to add a little more by way of your debit card, it would not be difficult to ask the waiter to tear up the first slip and to start again. I do not know what other noble Lords think, but it seems to take long enough to be given one credit card slip to sign at the end of a meal in a restaurant, let alone having to ask someone to tear that up and to bring back another.

We are presupposing that the service charge to which noble Lords are referring as inclusive in the price is actually specified. One restaurant may decide to put, say, 5 per cent. on to the price of a steak while another restaurant decides to add on 10 per cent. However, in that case the consumer does not know one way or the other what the service charge is on his bill. The customer will simply go to where he receives the best value at the best price, whatever the restaurant.

Diners 'must be entirely free to give tips. As has been said, one sometimes wonders just what happens to the gratuities that one may add to a credit card slip. On that basis, I think that the amendment is flawed. I believe that my noble friend has it about right and the amendment should not be supported.

Lord Bramall

I did not suggest that the tearing up of the credit card slip was a standard procedure. That is only for the benefit of those who have not made up their minds earlier. Normally, they will do it in advance or will pay cash. As far as getting the best value for money is concerned, the Dorchester has no difficulty in getting clients, even though it adopts that particular procedure.

Viscount Thurso

I put one point to the noble Lord, Lord Cadman. I believe that as a matter of law gratuities left by clients, as opposed to service charges, are the property of the staff for whom they are left. Therefore, it is illegal for that money to be used in any way other than for the benefit of the staff. That is not so in the case of the service charge which Clause 1 seeks to abolish.

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie

I have listened keenly to this interesting debate. However, I wish to be clear that at the moment we are dealing with Amendment No. 2 rather than Clause 2 in its totality. For the benefit of a number of Members of the Committee who have shown an interest in this matter but did not have an opportunity to participate at Second Reading, perhaps I may repeat the follo0wing to set the matter in context. The Government have undertaken to revise the guidance on restaurant service charges given in the current code of practice for traders on price indications when the code is reviewed. When that review takes place we shall consult widely with all interested parties on the advice which it will be appropriate to include. No doubt the issues addressed both by the clause and the amendments proposed to it will be considered.

As I hope I made clear on Second Reading, however, the approach adopted in the Bill of seeking to regulate a specific sector through primary legislation, which has application to price indications for virtually all goods and services, is fundamentally unacceptable. To seek to change the scope of the provisions of Part III of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 to include regulation of practices within a specific sector can have the effect of casting doubt on the application of that part of the Act to all price indications. While I understand what is sought to be done—whether those who participate are in favour of the clause or wish to restrict it—I am concerned that in a broader legal context it will have some seriously undesirable effects.

As regards this particular clause, a further objection is that it will produce the impracticality of requiring any code of practice approved under Section 25 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 to include the three matters specified in the clause, regardless of the subject matter of that code. Therefore, the deletion proposed in Amendment No. 2 will in some respects overcome the objection to which I have made reference. In that respect the amendment will be a welcome one. I say for the convenience of the Committee that that applies equally to Amendment No. 3.

As far as concerns Amendment No. 2, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that it is not appropriate for the Bill to deal with the non-closure of credit card slips. The issues around this practice were debated on Second Reading. If a further remedy is needed—it is clear from the debate that there is a widespread view that something ought to be done to attack this extremely undesirable practice—I regret to say that I cannot indicate to the Committee that this is an appropriate vehicle to bring about such a change.

The Earl of Bradford

I was delighted that my noble and learned friend the Minister felt that this subject needed to be looked at and considered in a code of conduct in the future. It is there to protect the public. Sadly, at the moment there are practices, all too rife in the restaurant industry, which try to persuade the customer to part with more money than he should have to. Recently, a noble Baroness asked me about a certain restaurant to which she intended to go. She asked me what she should do. I said that when the bill arrived she would find that the restaurant had added on 12½ per cent. for service and that her credit card slip would be left open. The following week she thanked me fulsomely and said that without the advice I had given she would have added an extra tip in the place indicated.

The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, made some cogent points. When somebody is paying a bill and wishes to leave a tip it is easy for him to request that so much should be added to it and that it should be put on his credit card, or he could leave it in cash. I accept what my noble and learned friend the Minister said; namely, that it is inappropriate for this provision to be included. Therefore, if there are strong objections to it and the amendment is supported I shall have to withdraw the clause.

Lord Monson

I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken and for the wide range of views expressed. I agree with the noble Lord who spoke immediately after me. All too often service charges go in whole or in part into the pocket of management rather than the staff. This is a deplorable practice. I tabled an amendment to the Bill to outlaw that practice but was told that it was inconsistent with the Long Title and therefore had to withdraw it.

The noble Earl, Lord Lindsey and Abingdon, told us of his experience last night. I suggest that what he has said justifies my amendment. He did what anybody else would do in similar circumstances: he put a line through the credit card and paid cash. He was exercising his judgment and was perfectly free to do so. But he might not have had any cash with him and have preferred to add something to the credit card slip in lieu. As the noble Viscount has told us, by law that must go to the staff and not the management.

I have received support from the Government and the noble Earl, Lord Bradford. If the Government's view is that this is not an appropriate Bill in which to abolish the practice of leaving open credit card slips it may be right for the amendment to be accepted. I am in the hands of the Committee. If it is the Government's wish, perhaps the view of the Committee can be tested.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Deputy Chairman of Committees

If Amendment No. 3 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 4 to 7.

Viscount Thurso moved Amendment No. 3: Page 1, leave out lines 23 to 25.

The noble Viscount said: In moving Amendment No. 3 I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 4 to 7 and Amendments Nos. 8 and 10. The effect of Clause I is to abolish service charges. For the benefit of noble Lords who are not familiar with the industry, perhaps I may make clear the difference between service charges and tips or gratuities. Service charges are obligatory or optional charges that are applied by the management, managed by them and handed out to the staff. As the noble Lord, Lord Cadman, pointed out, those charges may be used for their benefit. That has now been abolished. Tips and gratuities are entirely at the discretion of the client. The client may or may not leave them, as he thinks fit. The purpose of Amendments Nos. 3, 8 and 10 is to ensure that tips and gratuities are not actively discouraged.

The amendment proposed by the noble Earl, which he will move if this amendment is not agreed to, would mean that VAT and service would he stated to be inclusive. If one has just abolished service, it is impossible then to state on a bill that service is included. It would make clients think that some form of payment was going to the staff, when in fact the effect of the Bill is to remove service charges. To say, "inclusive of service" is more misleading than the current situation.

Secondly, to state "inclusive of VAT" brings into the Bill an element which was not present on Second Reading. Furthermore, as the Minister said, it cuts across a great deal of other legislation. I am grateful to the Minister for pointing out the effect of the clause. So, rather than go through all the arguments I had rehearsed, I shall say that a code of practice is set up by Clause 2. If a code of practice is set up with Amendments Nos. 8 and 9, which require the Secretary of State to consult the industry, any point can be considered and included in the code of practice. However, if paragraph (c) is allowed to remain, then the Secretary of State will be obliged to do so. Therefore what the noble Earl seeks can still be achieved if the amendment is agreed to. If it is not agreed to, what I seek cannot be achieved. I beg to move.

Lord Bramall

Perhaps I may ask the noble Viscount a question. He may know something that I do not know. When talking about the service charge, he used the words, "that has now been abolished". As I understand it, the service charge has not been abolished. It is still there, but it is merely included in the price. So the customers will know when they are ordering their Dover sole, or whatever it is, that the price is inclusive. Included in the price is the service charge which is still passed on to the staff.

Viscount Thurso

I am sure that the noble Lord is aware that there is a difference between an optional service charge and a compulsory one. An optional service charge suffers from neither national insurance nor VAT. So, when it is given to the staff, it is of greater benefit to them. By making the service charge fully inclusive, by definition, it is no longer optional. It is then an obligatory service charge. Whether it is said to he included or not, it is obligatory. At that point, national insurance and VAT come into play.

I cannot see proprietors becoming suddenly more generous and paying their staff more. There is enough pressure on customers to pay. I do not see the prices going up. The only effect would be to cause earnings, effectively, to go down. If the service charge is compulsory, it does not exist. One pays a set amount of money for one's dish of Dover sole. Whether the management chooses to pay a commission, which is effectively what a service charge has become, is another matter. The customer does not want to know that, any more than he wants to know whether there is a commission when he purchases an item of clothing in a shop.

Viscount Mountgarret

I support the amendment so ably moved by the noble Viscount. With the leave of the Committee, I shall refer to Amendment No. 10, which contains the important point. As the noble Viscount said, that amendment requires the code of practice to take account of the numerous issues which will arise in people's minds, and not just what is on the Marshalled List. There may be other factors.

The point was made on Second Reading that this is not a matter for government or legislation. It is not right for this place or the other place, or this government or any other government, to lay down the law as to how a certain industry conducts its affairs. It would be far better to require the Secretary of State to look at the whole problem of people being deceived, intentionally or accidentally, in restaurants. We recognise that there is a problem. So let us have the Bill with the requirement that the Secretary of State shall set up a code of practice.

As the noble Viscount rightly said, if we include in the Bill specific points which the code of practice must take on board, that takes away freedom of judgment and flexibility. It would be helpful for the Bill in its future stages to incorporate the amendment. Everything else should be included in the code of practice.

Lord Cadman

We should resist the amendment. My noble friend has recognised that the wording of the clause needs attention. He has tabled amendments to address the point. The Government have indicated that legislation in this area is inappropriate. In that, I am inclined to agree. However, the restaurant trade has failed to address itself to the fact that those of its members who are fortunate enough, in a competitive world, to get away with imposing a charge for the service of a meal has encouraged my noble friend to promote the Bill. The amendment would allow them to indulge in the practice without informing their customers of their intentions. Under the circumstances, I leave the Committee to draw its own conclusions.

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie

I can address the matter briefly. My objection to paragraph (c) of Clause 2 is the same as the objection I indicated in relation to paragraph (b), and my broader concern is that any code of practice, whether or not it related to a different range of goods and services, would have to include this provision. There are some fundamental problems with it. I cannot elaborate, but the one point that I should make clear is that, if the amendment were agreed to, for better or for worse, Amendments Nos. 4 to 7 could not then be moved.

The Earl of Bradford

To outline briefly what underlies the Bill, we must be the only country in the world where our restaurateurs confuse the public in the way that they do. If one goes to America, one knows clearly what is the standard procedure. One tips somewhere around 15 per cent. to 17.5 per cent. That is common to all restaurants. If one goes to France, everything is inclusive nowadays. If one goes to Japan, they would be insulted if one offered a tip.

In this country, some restaurants have tipping; some add service charges of between 10 per cent. and 15 per cent.; some have suggested service charges or gratuities, generally between 10 per cent. and 15 per cent.; and some restaurants charge all-inclusive prices. One should try explaining to tourists coming to this country what is expected of them when they go to a restaurant. All one can say is that they will be totally confused; they will have to study the fine print themselves to discover what they will be charged for.

All I am attempting to do in paragraph (c) is to make it clear that, if we have all-inclusive prices, that is what the customer can expect. However, I fully accept that to go ahead with the phrase: and staff do not expect a tip or gratuity", is going too far. I therefore propose to amend the paragraph so that we follow the French practice of saying that tax and service are included. I hear what the noble Viscount says: we cannot have service if service has been abolished. However, I believe that in such circumstances one has to make that clear to the customer, otherwise he will remain confused about the restaurant's policy.

I cannot agree to the amendment. I realise that there are deficiencies in the drafting of my amendment and I should be happy if the Minister were to assure me that a code of conduct will be introduced in the near future which applies to all restaurants in this country. However, codes of practice have been attempted many times. The other day I had a highly dispiriting experience when sitting in a committee meeting of the Restaurateurs Association of Great Britain listening to intelligent restaurateurs arguing but producing no consensus view whatever. I tried to stay out of the argument.

The industry is fragmented. We are alienating the customer and upsetting tourists in particular. All I seek to do is to put everyone on the same fair footing. Clause 2 would seek to create for the customer a clear understanding of the way that he is charged.

Viscount Thurso

I am sympathetic to the noble Earl's objectives but I do not believe that the clause achieves them. He said that we have a code of practice that is not working but he seeks to put another code of practice before us. Why should this code of practice work if the other does not?

The Earl of Bradford

The codes of practice which were introduced in the past were not backed by statute. They were voluntary codes of conduct or were put forward by Her Majesty's Government. We are seeking to establish a code of conduct to which everyone must abide. It is easy for people to say, "Yes, that sounds like a good idea but I am not going to let it apply to me". I should like to see a code of conduct apply to everyone.

Viscount Thurso

I thank the noble Earl for making the point that I was trying to make; that the previous codes of conduct were voluntary but that this is statutory. Therefore, one would be imposing on the industry an obligation with which by no means everyone in the industry agrees or has been consulted about.

If the clause remains in the Bill it must appear in the code of practice. If, on the other hand, the amendment is agreed to and the clause is removed from the Bill there is nothing to stop a code of practice making some reference to it. I ask the noble Earl to save his firepower for that stage.

As the noble Earl referred to other countries I must tell him that there is a huge difference between the law of this country and that of others. Having spent five years in France running a hotel, I am aware of the raft of social legislation behind the whole management of service. I believe that it is the Loi Goddard, which was passed in the 1930s. That makes clear exactly what goes to the staff, how it goes to the staff and the way in which it is taxed. With great respect to the noble Earl, it is not as simple as saying that if a procedure works in France it should work here.

As the noble and learned Lord the Minister has advised that the provision in the Bill would not be acceptable, I feel that the amendment should be put forward and I wish to test the opinion of the Committee.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 4 to 7 not moved.]

Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.

8.30 p.m.

Clause 3 [Short title, commencement and extent]:

The Deputy Chairman of Committees

If Amendment No. 8 is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 9.

Viscount Thurso moved Amendment No. 8: Page 2, line 3, leave out from ("Act") to end of line 4 and insert (", other than this section, shall come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by order appoint.").

The noble Viscount said: In moving Amendment No. 8 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 10. They provide for a consultative process for the trade. I have spoken at length about why the trade needs a consultative process. I understand that the noble Earl has no philosophical objection or objection in principle to the amendments. The hour being late, I shall rest my case. I beg to move.

Lord Monson

My Amendment No. 9 could have been advantageously grouped with Amendments Nos. 8 and 10. The noble Viscount and I are at one in believing that three months is an insufficient period in which to prepare for the major changes that the Bill would entail if enacted. The advantage of Amendment No. 9 is that a fixed time limit may galvanise the parties concerned to get their act together more speedily than they would if the matter were left on a more flexible basis. On the other hand, if the noble Viscount, with his great experience in the hotel and catering trade, believes that such flexibility is essential I am entirely happy to accept his judgment and I shall not move my Amendment No. 9.

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie

I have some sympathy with the principle behind Amendments Nos. 8 and 10. As I noted on Second Reading, a further objection to the Bill is that it would override the discretionary powers available to the Secretary of State under Section 26 of the 1987 Act to make regulations relating to the circumstances and manner in which particular price indications may be given and the requirement in that provision for consultation before any such regulations are made.

The formulation of the noble Viscount's proposals, however, does not fit well with the existing provisions of the 1987 Act. In particular, Section 25 of the Act, which sets out the provisions for issuing a code of practice, already obliges the Secretary of State to consult the Director-General of Fair Trading and such other persons as he considers appropriate before he can make any order approving, modifying or withdrawing a code.

These amendments do, however, highlight another aspect in which the Bill is defective, in that since the existing code of practice approved by order does not meet the requirements of the clause, it would infringe the provisions of the Bill once they had come into effect. Transitional provisions would be needed.

In view of the Government's position on the Bill, I have no comment on Amendment No. 9. As regards Amendment No. 11, the disapplication of the Bill to Northern Ireland would be technically correct because Part III of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 itself does not apply in the Province.

The Earl of Bradford

After 17 years of discussion within the industry and of trying to bring restaurants into line in order to stop confusing the public, whether the time limit is three or six months, or however long the Secretary of State may deem fit, is irrelevant. My noble and learned friend the Minister has made it clear that we shall not proceed too much further with the Bill. However, I urge upon him the absolute necessity of getting together all sections of our industry in order to agree a consensus of the way in which we charge customers in restaurants in this country.

That is vital because we are doing harm to an industry that has made enormous strides forward in the past 20 years. I believe that everyone accepts that today London is counted among the culinary capitals of the world. We have a choice of restaurants and a tremendous enthusiasm among young British chefs. We are offering a product that is vastly better than that offered 20 years ago.

Sadly, we are still doing harm to ourselves. Whatever decisions are made regarding my Private Member's Bill, I urge the industry, with the encouragement of the Government, to try to reach a voluntary consensus view of the right way forward. In that way, we shall all gain because staff will be treated differently and in a more professional manner and waiting staff will be properly rewarded. Therefore, so far as concerns time, I shall leave the matter to the Committee.

Viscount Thurso

In view of the advice offered by the Minister, I believe that it is only correct for me to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 9: Page 2, line 3, leave out ("three") and insert ("six").

The noble Lord said: I am sorry that Amendments Nos. 8 and 10 which were tabled by the noble Viscount were shot down. Having heard the noble Viscount speak, I believe that his amendments were probably superior to mine. However, Amendment No. 9 is second best in my view and is certainly preferable from the practical point of view to the Bill as it stands. I do not believe that any technical objections could possibly be raised against it. Therefore, even if the Bill has a very poor chance of going ahead, I wonder whether it might be accepted so as to give everyone a little more time for preparation. But, of course, that is a matter for the Committee to decide. I beg to move.

Viscount Mountgarret

I believe that it would perhaps be better if the noble Lord, Lord Monson, refrained from taking his amendment any further. We have heard the advice from my noble and learned friend the Minister and, indeed, what my noble friend Lord Bradford had to say as regards ambivalence about the actual timing, and so on. Moreover, following my noble and learned friend's advice, the noble Viscount said that we should let the matter rest. Therefore, I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, will feel likewise.

Lord Monson

In the absence of any support, I can only beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 not moved.]

Clause 3 agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported with an amendment.

House adjourned at seventeen minutes before nine o'clock.