Sitting of 5 May 1961

Preamble
The House met at Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORDERS OF THE DAY
  CONSUMER PROTECTION BILL
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  CONSUMER PROTECTION BILL

    New Clause—(EXEMPTIONS.)
    Nothing in this Act shall authorise the Secretary of State to make regulations under section one of this Act in respect of any article or substance in respect of which there are for the time being in force regulations made under the Food and Drugs Act, 1955, or the Food and Drugs (Scotland) Act, 1956.—[Mr. Dudley Williams.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    11.5 a.m.
    Mr. Dudley Williams: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
    I should not refer to the Food and Drugs (Scotland) Act, 1956, but unfortunately I have been unable to obtain a copy of the Food and Drugs Act, 1955 because, I presume, other hon. Members have borrowed the copies from the Library in order to study it. I have been fortunate in obtaining a copy of the Food and Drugs (Scotland) Act, 1956, and to the best of my memory—I was in the House when the Acts were passed—I believe that those Acts are very similar, and I do not think that I shall be misleading the House in any way if I confine my remarks to the Scottish Bill and do not deal with that which concerned England and Wales.
    I have never concealed from the House that I do not like this Bill. I spoke against it on Second Reading and in Standing Committee C. What I think is happening under the Bill was described eloquently by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Major Hicks Beach), in Standing Committee C:
    "I am trying to be helpful, but we are getting into rather a muddle—"—[OFFICIAL
    1754
    REPORT, Standing Committee C, 22nd February, 1961; c.51.]
    I think that that is happening as a result of the Bill. We are getting several aspects of our legal affairs into a muddle because we have not related the Clauses of the Bill to past legislation, which I maintain is liable to be seriously impeded as a result of the powers given to the Secretary of State in Clause I.
    Since Standing Committee C in its wisdom passed the Bill through the Committee stage, I, being a believer in the democratic process, have naturally accepted the Committee's decision, but the new Clause is an attempt to tidy up the Bill. I am sure that the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. R. Edwards), who introduced the Bill in such an eloquent way on Second Reading, will see the force of the argument which I am about to present. Under the Food and Drugs (Scotland) Act, 1956, very comprehensive powers were given to the judiciary to ensure purity in food and drugs.
    Notice taken that 40 Members were not present;
    House counted, and, 40 Members being present—
    Mr. Dudley Williams: I am glad that there has been a reassembly of hon. Members in the Chamber so that I may continue my speech. I take the applause that greeted the announcement that there were 40 Members present to mean that several hon. Members wish to hear what I have to say further regarding the Bill.
    In Clause 1, comprehensive powers are being given to the Secretary of State to prescribe what should be the regulations covering the sale of various classes of goods. He can give instructions regarding the composition of any packaged goods, their design and construction, and so on, provided that the goods are liable to lead to death or injury. That is the qualification that he has to bear in mind before issuing regulations under Clause 1.
    My submission is that that cuts straight across the Foods and Drugs Acts, under which provision is made for the proper packaging and composition of goods which are sold and which might be liable to affect the health or cause the death of people. For example, if one

    1755
    turns to the Food and Drugs (Scotland) Act, 1956, one sees from the arrangement of the various Sections what a comprehensive Measure it is. Section 1, for instance, specifies offences in connection with the preparation and sale of injurious foods and adulterated drugs. That is a wide field to cover.
    Section 2 of the 1956 Act states:
    "If a person sells to the prejudice of the purchaser any food or drug which is not of the nature, or not of the substance, or not of the quality, of the food or drug demanded by the purchaser, he shall, subject to the provisions of the next following section, be guilty of an offence against this Act."
    I will not bore the House with the "following section", but it shows that stringent regulations are to be laid down regarding the sale of drugs and food.
    That was a Government Act. It is the sort of Measure that should be passed through the House, because it does not leave everything to be decided subsequently by the Secretary of State by regulation. I dislike delegated legislation very much. That is one of the reasons why I oppose the Bill. If we have a Food and Drugs Act in being, as we have both for Scotland and for England and Wales, it would be quite wrong for us under this Bill to give powers to the Secretary of State which may well supersede the provisions of the Acts to which I have referred.
    11.15 a.m.
    We can always get the argument that the Secretary of State is a wise man, as I am sure he is, and that he would not seek to do under the Bill anything that was already covered by the earlier Acts. That, however, is not quite true. Situations have changed in the course of the last four or five years. Whereas in the Acts of 1955 and 1956 we prescribed precisely the regulations under which food and drugs should be sold, the Bill is a short and simple one and is introduced, not by the Government of the day, but by a private Member, and it gives wide powers to the Secretary of State.
    My hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department explained to me in Standing Committee C that the words "Secretary of State" cover all Secretaries of State. That means that all Secretaries of State will be able to introduce regulations under the Bill—
    Dr. Alan Glyn: Does my hon. Friend mean that the Secretary of State either for War or for Air, or any other Secretary of State, could issue regulations under the Bill, if Parliament is so foolish as to pass it, and that they would have the force of law?
    Mr. Dudley Williams: This matter was discussed upstairs. Possibly, my hon. Friend was not in the Committee when it was explained. I understood my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary to say that the office of Secretary of State was indivisible and that the term "Secretary of State" applied to every Secretary of State. I find this difficult to understand, because the Navy is under the direction of the First Lord of the Admiralty, who is not a Secretary of State, whereas both the Air Force and the Army are under the control of a Secretary of State.
    In the event of regulations having to be issued under the Bill, if it passes through this House, I imagine that what would happen would be that one Secretary of State would become the issuing authority for any regulations prescribed under the Bill. Who the Secretary of State would be, I do not know, but in view of the fact that my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary is here this morning, I assume that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department would be responsible.
    Unless the new Clause is added to the Bill, we may well find that the Secretary of State issues regulations which conflict with what is laid down in the existing Acts, which obviously received careful thought when they went through the House of Commons. The Scottish Act, for example, has 61 Sections and three Schedules and there is another Act for England and Wales. If a Measure is given that amount of consideration by the House, having been introduced by the Government of the day, it would be undesirable for a Private Member's Bill, introduced here on a Friday when few Members are present, to give to the Secretary of State powers that would allow him to overthrow certain Sections of the earlier Act. It is reasonable, therefore, that we should ask the House today to consider and possibly to accept my new Clause.
    The Food and Drugs Act is comprehensive. We all know that unless care is

    1757
    exercised, it is possible to suffer grave injury as a result of irresponsible people disposing of food and drugs. It was quite right that Parliament should spend a lot of its time in passing the earlier Acts.
    Examining the question of drugs, I am not sure I should not have drawn the new Clause a bit wider, because I believe that the goods which are sold under control of the Poisons Act should also have been specifically included in this Clause. I have a copy here of the extra "œia", 23rd edition, 1952. I can let my hon. Friend have a copy if he wishes. Looking through the extra "Pharmacopœia", 23rd edition, 1952, you realise, Mr. Speaker, what you are up against. There are described in this volume no fewer than 18,000 poisons of various sorts which can be sold from the various retail establishments in this country—18,000.
    I believe that, if my new Clause were accepted by the House, then the goods which are listed in the extra "Pharmacopœia", and which are sold, would be covered by the Food and Drugs Acts of 1955 and 1956. I have examined those Acts with considerable care, and I believe myself that if this Clause were accepted, then the poisons and so on which are sold in this country would be covered by the Food and Drugs Acts, 1955 and 1956. I think that it would be quite wrong for this House to pass this Bill today only to find that, as a result, those earlier pieces of legislation, which were drawn up very carefully under expert guidance, would be superseded by the powers which might be used by the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he were to decide to issue regulations under Clause 1 of the Bill. I should not have thought that in those circumstances those powers should be used.
    It may, of course, be argued that under this Clause regulations relating to the canning industry could be issued by the Secretary of State for the Home Department. We all know that canning is a complicated business in which goods can become poisonous due to fermentation, and so on, and the Secretary of State might well decide to issue regulations under Clause 1, to cover that aspect of the canning industry, and, in consequence, he might decide that he would be in conflict with the earlier legislation.
    1758
    I have some experience of canning, and I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that it is a very difficult industry indeed. Goods first of all have to be in a prime state before they are even collected to go to the canning factory, and during the process of canning, if the procedure is not proper, one may find that the goods come out in such a condition that they begin to ferment when inside the can—which is the American term: "tin" is the one we use in this country—and as a result gas is released, the can begins to expand, a leak can be caused, and the whole thing can go wrong and be bad.
    Regulations to cover that sort of danger should, in my submission, be covered by the earlier legislation. It would be quite wrong for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department to issue regulations under the Bill to cover that aspect of our affairs.
    I do not know whether the hon. Member for Bilston, the sponsor of this Bill, would like to give any indication of what he would like to do regarding this new Clause or Clause 1 of the Bill, or whether my hon. and learned Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department would like to make any statement upon that, but I think that this is a perfectly reasonable new Clause, that it cannot be held to be a wrecking amendment, that it is perfectly reasonable and should be accepted by the House. I hope that we shall find, as the discussion goes on today, that it will be possible for this Clause to be accepted. If it were, I think it would be a great improvement to the Bill.
    Mr. John Wells: During the Second Reading debate on the Bill there was not a great volume of attention given to matters such as my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Dudley Williams) has just been dealing with—food and drugs, and so on. One or two hon. Members did mention the matter of various poisons possibly being in the wrong bottle and so on, and chemical substances used in agriculture were, of course, also mentioned.
    I should just like to draw the attention of the House to this matter and to the speech of the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Dodds), who said:

    1759
    "Since the war, chemists have run rampant concerning the nation's food, not for the sake of bringing about purer and more nutritious food, but largely for private profit."
    The hon. Member went on to say:
    "I could not help thinking the other day of the wise words of one of our greatest nutritionists, Dr. Bicknell, who said that chemists are using it in such a way that there is in this nation a tired feeling which before the war was often to a doctor a symptom of some very serious disease, but is now so universal that it ceases to be any good to doctors, because, in effect, we are being slowly but surely pickled in chemicals. Here, there is great scope for consumer protection."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th January, 1961; Vol. 633, c.545.]
    I suggest to the House that if we accept the new Clause proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter we shall be bringing food and drugs into their proper perspective, although I agree with the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford. I am sorry that he is not with us this morning. What he said is absolutely true, that chemical substances are properly to be regulated for consumer protection, but I submit that the existing legislation which, as my hon. Friend said, was a Government Measure, is better left as it stands, and I hope that the House will accept my hon. Friend's new Clause.
    He himself said that, perhaps, it should be more widely drawn. I, too, think perhaps it should. I think that the exemptions which he indicates in his new Clause might indeed have been much wider. For instance, the Food and Drugs Act, 1955, which I have in my hand—I am sorry if I have deprived the hon. Member of the only copy evidently available—deals with many widespread matters including regulations affecting motor vehicles. If we are to protect the consumer properly we must include regulations affecting motor vehicles. As the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. R. Edwards) said when he first spoke upon the Bill, it is his intention—as I remember—that this Measure should have application to motor vehicles.
    The Food and Drugs Act, 1955, travels over the widest range of substances—in particular, of course, Sections 6 and 7 dealing with false labelling or advertising of a food or drug, and regulations as to the labelling and description of food. I think that that was one of the
    1760
    matters which worried a number of us, lest there should be any extension of wrong labelling. I suggest that this matter is perfectly adequately covered already in Sections 6 and 7 of the existing Act, which goes on, in Section 8, to deal with food unfit for human consumption. That was a substantial improvement.
    Section 10 deals with the matter of food offered as prizes and so on. It is becoming an increasing feature of advertising of one sort or another to offer cash or semi-cash inducements in the form of gifts of food. It is difficult to deal with this matter without mentioning proprietary names and one does not want to get it wrong. The advertisements tell the consumer that if he buys such and such a product he will receive another product from the grocer free every month.
    11.30 a.m.
    This giving away of all sorts of articles is a new feature of trade. The consumer is adequately protected in the matter of labelling, but I know that a number of hon. Members and particularly hon. Ladies have been somewhat concerned about this and also lest consumers do not get proper value for money in the matter of packet size. This comes very properly within the scope of the words of the rubric of Section 10 of the Food and Drugs Act, 1955.
    "Food offered as prizes, etc.".
    Who shall say where the "etc." begins and ends?
    The 1955 Act provides for the most express regulations about food hygiene. It is really so extremely comprehensive that I think that the House will be well advised to accept the new Clause which makes this exemption. I do not think, however, that my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter has drawn his new Clause nearly widely enough. I would have liked to see other exemptions made.
    Mr. Dudley Williams: I think my hon. Friend is probably right in saying that I have not drawn the Clause widely enough, but we must deal with this Clause today. Would my hon. Friend like to say to what extent it ought to be wider? Then perhaps we can have an Amendment to the Clause set down in another place.
    Mr. Wells: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I had in mind in particular, as I have already mentioned briefly, certain exemptions relating to motor vehicles. No doubt the promoter of the Bill, the hon. Member for Bilston, could arrange for a new Clause to be moved in another place, in view of the interest that he has expressed in safety regulations concerning motor vehicles. It is within the memory of hon. Members that the hon. Member was particularly concerned about safety belts.
    Mr. Dudley Williams: I am sorry to continue to interrupt, but the regulations which can be issued under Clause (1) of the Bill are so complicated that they increase the complication of other legislation. They conflict, for instance, with the Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations. If we are to bring motor vehicles within the scope of the Bill it will be necessary to repeal some of the earlier regulations.
    Mr. Wells: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point, but I was not trying to deal with it. I am a much newer Member of the House than he is and I am not as skilled or as knowledgeable about the procedure involved in having an Amendment put down after the Bill leaves this House. I did not want to show my ignorance on procedural matters. As my hon. Friend rightly says, the construction of motor vehicles is something very much in the public mind at present. We are all seeking every possible method of increasing road safety and obviously the improved quality of construction of motor vehicles has a bearing on the matter.
    Section 14 of the Food and Drugs Act, 1955, is the Section which deals with the power of the courts to disqualify a caterer. This is very important. The great majority of caterers are doing a very satisfactory job. They are helping the balance of payments situation with the excellent facilities that they offer to overseas visitors, and so on, but there are, of course, a number of caterers who are not so good and I think that the House welcomes the Public Health (Washing Facilities) Bill which is down for Second Reading later today and is designed to improve standards of hygiene among catering and other establishments.
    1762
    Section 14 (3) of the 1955 Act states:
    "A person subject to an order under this section shall be guilty of an offence if, while the order is in force,—

    (a) he uses the premises to which the order relates as catering premises, or

    (b) he participates in the management of any business in the course of which the premises are so used by another person."

    I mention this because my hon. Friend's wording of the Amendment is perfectly simple.
    The third line of the new Clause reads:
    "…for the time being in force regulations made under the Food and Drugs Act. 1955…."
    I do not think the wording of the Clause goes wide enough in this respect, because in the 1955 Act there is this much wider interpretation of the use of premises, which goes a long way to meet the hon. Member for Bilston, whose anxiety, as is that of all of us, is to protect the consumer. We do not want to alter the law where the consumer is already adequately protected. Therefore, although I welcome the new Clause in that it says that
    "Nothing in this Act shall authorise the Secretary of State to make regulations…"
    in a matter that is already covered, there is nothing about regulations covering the hygiene of premises.
    Mr. Dudley Williams: It is my submission that if the new Clause is not accepted the public will be less adequately protected. Under the 1955 Act the penalties are severe. On summary conviction a person could be fined up to £100 or imprisoned for a period not exceeding six months, and on conviction on indictment the penalty could be £500 or one year's imprisonment or both. It has never been suggested that under this Bill penalties of that order will be introduced. If they are to be introduced, we should know about it, but the Bill should not reduce the powers already available under an earlier Act.
    Mr. Wells: I must have been expressing myself badly. I was urging the importance of accepting the new Clause but at the same time trying to express my regret that it had not been drawn wider still by referring to the Food and Drugs Act, 1955.
    Mr. Speaker: The intervention of the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Dudley Williams) was in order, but at present I have difficulty in following how the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. J. Wells) is in order on this point, because the virtues or defects of provisions relating to premises in the Food and Drugs Act, 1955, would be wholly unaffected by the question whether or not the House were to accept the new Clause now before it.
    Mr. Dudley Williams: On a point of order. Will you clear my mind on this subject, Mr. Speaker? I accept your Ruling without question, of course, but surely my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. J. Wells) would be in order in saying that if the new Clause is not accepted the powers under the Food and Drugs Act, 1955, would be adversely affected. I thought that that was the point my hon. Friend was making.
    Mr. Speaker: Not adversely affected. I thought that the argument was that the hon. Member's new Clause was drawn too narrowly and should have copied the same provisions relating to premises in principle which are contained in the Food and Drugs Act. That, of course, is most difficult in relation to the terms of this Bill, which both hon. Members are seeking to amend. That is why I thought that the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. J. Wells) was out of order.
    Mr. Wells: I am very grateful to you, Mr. Speaker.
    I now turn to Section 16 of the Food and Drugs Act, 1955, which deals expressely with he manufacture and sale of ice cream and sausages. It may be said that it is a far cry from consumer protection, but I do not think that that is so at all. There are few substances in regard to which it is more important to protect the consumer than these foodstuffs, because it is possible for them to pick all sorts of infections. Naturally, the handling of these foodstuffs on manufacturers' premises is done in the most excellent manner. Many hon. Members have in recent months had the opportunity of visiting a large works in north-west London and of seeing some wonderful new processes of food manufacture.
    I suggest, however, that the existing legislation is quite good enough, and
    1764
    therefore I ask the House to accept my hon. Friend's new Clause, but, at the same time, I must repeat my regret that it does not go wider. In particular, I ask the promoter of the Bill, if he is able to accept the new Clause, whether he will consider, when the Bill goes to another place, getting some noble Lord possibly to put in a further new Clause—
    Mr. Dudley Williams: Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Stansgate?
    Mr. Wells: Yes, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Stansgate may like to do it—a new Clause dealing with the matter of the licensing of vehicles.
    Mr. Robert Edwards: The hon. Members for Exeter (Mr. Dudley Williams) and Maidstone (Mr. J. Wells) have submitted their case for this new Clause in a very moderate and constructive way. I wish, however, that any words of mine could convince them about the folly of their new Clause. After all, we have discussed this matter at very great length and for many hours during the Committee stage, and all the eloquence of my colleagues and of the Secretary of State failed to convince the two hon. Members of the soundness of the Clause in the Bill as it stands. Therefore, I do not hope to succeed where a more eloquent advocate failed during the Committee stage.
    We have made it perfectly clear that Clause 1 covers many codes, but we did not define just what consumer goods are. This was quite clear, and there was no question of hiding it, but the regulations have to come before this House. Furthermore, any regulations made under Clause 1 would be issued only after the very closest consultation with all the elements involved—consumers, the State Departments and industry, in fact, every element involved and affected by them. These interests would be consulted before the regulations are even drafted. As a matter of fact, we amended the Bill to allow for the closest consultation before the regulations are issued.
    Mr. Dudley Williams: I do not doubt the hon. Gentleman at all, but could he tell me in which Clause of the Bill this question of consultation is dealt with? I do not doubt his word for a moment, but I just want to see it.
    11.45 a.m.
    Mr. Edwards: The hon. Gentleman will find it in Clause 1 (5). In Committee, we accepted an Amendment, which I think the hon. Member supported, calling for the closest consultation with industry and consumers' organisations before any regulations were issued.
    Mr. Dudley Williams: The words of subsection (5) are:
    "It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State before making any regulations under this section, to consult with such persons or bodies of persons as appear to him requisite."
    There is no width in that provision, which provides that the Secretary of State shall consult with those whom he thinks should be consulted, but not with any others.
    Mr. Edwards: This clearly involves every Government Department, which will be consulted before the regulations are issued. The manufacturers and the consumers will also be consulted, and therefore the point made in this new Clause is not valid. I am sure that the hon. Member himself knows perfectly well that it is not a valid point. Therefore, I do not feel that it is necessary for me to deal with this at length, because I am sure that I shall not be able to persuade the hon. Member to withdraw the new Clause.
    The Government Departments, before issuing regulations, will consult one another. Possibly, this is done every day in the week, but these Departments are dealing with difficulties relating to all the points that have been made in connection with the Poisons Act, the Petroleum Act and all the regulations and codes which govern the protection of the consuming public. This new Clause would not perform the functions which the hon. Member for Exeter has in mind. It would perform only a very limited function, with which he has dealt. If he feels strongly about the matter, I am sure that after consultation with some of his hon. Friends, he may be able to do something about it in another place. I hope that he will not press the new Clause, because I do not think it adds anything to the Bill, and I do not think for a moment that it will serve the purpose which he has indicated.
    Dr. Alan Glyn: The hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. R. Edwards) has expressed the feeling which all of us have expressed, namely, that what we want is consumer protection. The difference between us is how to effect it. I thought that I detected, both in Committee and on Second Reading, a wide cleavage of opinion as to the way in which it should be done.
    I was interested in what the hon. Member said about regulations being laid before the House, but I cannot agree with him on this point. The regulations have to be laid on the Table, and hon. Members have an opportunity to examine them, but I suggest that this is not the right way to conduct our business. Hon. Members are extremely busy. I—and I am sure this applies to many other hon. Members—sometimes let regulations go without proper examination. It is easy for such regulations to be passed without the proper supervision of Parliament.
    I warmly support my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Dudley Williams) on his new Clause, and although my reasons for doing so have already been given, I should like to reinforce them. First, there is nothing in the subsection to which the hon. Member for Bilston referred to indicate which goods will be the subject of regulation. It has been emphasised that it could apply to almost any range of goods. In Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter pointed out that any Secretary of State—because the office is indivisible—could issue regulations under the Bill.
    I see no logical reason for not accepting the new Clause. There is already an Act which prescribes penalties for offences in connection with food and drugs. Why try to override it? Why not leave it to those Parliamentary provisions to provide the proper penalty? I do not know whether my hon. Friend was correct, and no doubt my hon. and learned Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State will give an assurance on the point, but if regulations are made under the Bill the penalties imposed will in some cases be less than those imposed by the Food and Drugs Act. It appears that there could be a prosecution under either Act, and that is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs.
    During the discussion it has been suggested that we might like the new

    1767
    Clause to be wider. Like many of my hon. Friends I should like the scope of the new Clause to be widened. Why not motor vehicles and other categories of articles?
    I see no reason why the new Clause should not be implemented. May I read the House an extract from a decision made many years ago in a popular case known as "The snails in ginger beer bottles case." It was the case of Donoghue v. Stevenson in which the House of Lords made a definite decision whereby the manufacturer was held to be already responsible. I draw the attention of the House to this case to reinforce my hon. Friend's argument and to show that although the new Clause is designed to exclude food and drugs because they are already covered by another Act of Parliament, there is a legal decision in which a second security is given.
    As far as I remember, the plaintiff in this case consumed a bottle of ginger beer which contained a snail, and he sought redress from the courts for the damage which he had sustained. The court ruled that
    "where the manufacturer of a product intended for human consumption"—
    and that has considerable relevance to the subject which we are discussing—
    "sends it out in a form which shows that he means it to reach the ultimate consumer in the form in which it left his factory"—
    in other words, provided that it is in a sealed container—
    "then he has reason to believe that it will reach the ultimate consumer in the condition in which it left his factory."
    The quotation continues,
    "with no reasonable possibility of intermediate examination by the retailer or consumer and with the knowledge that want of reasonable care on his part in the preparation of his product may result in injury to the consumer, the manufacturer owes a duty to the consumer to take such a care and will be liable to the latter in damages if he suffers injury through the failure to take such care."
    It was held in an action for damages brought against the manufacturer of the ginger beer by the person that he or she had been poisoned from ginger beer bought from a retail dealer in a sealed bottle in which it left the manufacturer's premises and which contained a decomposed snail.
    Most lawyers have been brought up on this famous case, which illustrates
    1768
    that the public have another remedy, in addition to the Food and Drugs Act. If regulations in connection with food and drugs overlap each other, as I think they must if the Bill is ever passed, would it be open to the prosecution to decide whether to prosecute under the Bill or under existing regulations covered by the Food and Drugs Act? Will my hon. and learned Friend answer that question?
    There can be no reasonable ground for failing to accept the new Clause. I was in no way swayed by the hon. Member for Bilston, and I do not consider that the acceptance of the new Clause would detract in any way from the value of the Bill. Many hon. Members will have much to say on other parts of the Bill but surely it would be to the advantage of both sides if the hon. Member for Bilston accepted this new Clause. I know that the Bill has the Government's backing—a point on which I feel strongly. I know that the promoter has not entirely a free hand and I also feel that Friday is not a day on which the Government should interfere with Private Member's Bills. There seems to be no valid reason for not accepting the new Clause. Let us exclude food and drugs, which are already covered by other legislation. I ask the House to accept the new Clause.
    12 noon.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Renton): There is undoubtedly opportunity of overlapping between the powers to make regulations in Clause 1 and the powers to make regulations under Section 4 of the Food and Drugs Act, 1955, and the equivalent Section of the Scottish Act of 1956. Generally speaking, I am sure the whole House agrees that when legislating we should avoid overlapping and duplication. To that extent my hon. Friends were right in Committee—and again today—to have drawn attention to the possibility of overlapping, and to have invited the promoter of the Bill, and the House, to consider how overlapping can be avoided.
    I pointed out on Second Reading, and did so more fully in Committee, that here we are in a dilemma. I hope that the House will bear with me if I take the opportunity of repeating what I said on those two occasions. It is tempting

    1769
    to paraphrase, it is tempting to ask hon. Members to read what I said, but I do not think that would be quite enough in the circumstances. I apologise for repeating what I said, but at least it has the advantage of consistency.
    On Second Reading I said:
    "I have already referred to the very wide scope of Clause 1 (1). It refers to 'any prescribed class of goods' without limitation. I take the intention to be that the Bill should be used only in respect of what are commonly called 'consumer goods,' but that is a very wide definition. We can see no way expressly to limit the Bill to such goods, because they would defy definition. If we started to make such a list I do not see why the list should ever end. There is a draft dilemma there, but we feel that with reasonableness on the part of all concerned it will work. The powers in the Bill can be applied to goods which are already regulated under other legisation, for example"—
    and I gave just those examples that have been discussed today:
    "foods, drugs or poisons.
    We recognise, however, the difficulty of excluding such goods which arises from the fact that some of the other codes of legislation have also given very wide powers, the extent of which sometimes may be uncertain. Then there is the point that those wide powers are never fully exercised. Although there is an apparent danger of overlapping, we do not think it is likely to be a real danger and, in any event, consultation between the Government Departments concerned will avoid any difficulty which apparent overlapping might cause."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th January, 1961: Vol. 633, c.505.]
    The hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. R. Edwards), replying to my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Dudley Williams), quite rightly pointed out that the Standing Committee amended Clause 1 by adding subsection (5), under which it is the duty
    "…of the Secretary of State before making any regulations under this section, to consult with such persons or bodies of persons as appear to him requisite."
    I have to tell the House that in this context the word "persons" includes other Ministers.
    It is in the light of that that I would ask the House to consider what I said in Committee. I said:
    "In passing a Bill of this kind, Parliament must assume—and it is reasonable and proper to assume—that in administering the Bill, the Government will act sensibly and consistently. Parliament has, of course, the last word, because of Parliament's control over any regulations that may be made. Surely, the ordinary process between members of the Government
    1770
    ensures proper co-ordination and avoidance of overlapping or of inconsistent regulations. It cannot be supposed that any Home Secretary would make regulations under the Bill which were in any way inconsistent with other regulations made by another Minister in the same field or inconsistent with another Minister's policy.
    This whole matter is best left to something that exists—that is, common sense and sound administration—instead of trying to make the most elaborate provisions in the Bill to prevent overlapping, and doing it in such a way that the job would be done imperfectly."
    I added a point that impresses me, but which does not, I am afraid, impress my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn):
    "In the last resort, Parliament will be able to reject regulations which it does not consider to be justified or satisfactory."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C, 8th March. 1961; c.118.]
    Mr. J. Wells: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is not the matter with which the Minister is now dealing covered by the next new Clause standing in my name?
    Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that I was guilty of a momentary inattention. I was looking at a point on a Standing Order. As I do not know what the Minister was saying, I must have his assistance in order to rule.
    Mr. George Darling: With respect, Mr. Speaker, as this was in order in Committee on a similar new Clause, would it not now be in order on this new Clause?
    Mr. Speaker: What next new Clause was available in Committee, I do not know, and I would not be governed by the decision of the Chairman there. Would the Minister be good enough to tell me what he was saying?
    Mr. Renton: I had made this point, repeating what I said in committee, that if in spite of the process of consultation that goes on between Ministers there is nevertheless an apparent inconsistency between regulations made under this Bill and Regulations made under previous legislation, the remedy for preventing that inconsistency being translated into law lies in the hands of Parliament, because Prayers can be made against any regulations under the Bill. With respect, Mr. Speaker, I should have thought that that was in order on this new Clause.
    Mr. Speaker: I shall have to rule. I do not think that gets anywhere near impinging on the question raised by the next new Clause in the name of the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. J. Wells).
    Mr. Renton: I would ask my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham not to lose faith in the procedures of this House and the opportunities that those procedures give to hon. Members. After all, Parliament very frequently provides that there shall be an opportunity for a Prayer—a negative Resolution—and it is quite often the case that those opportunities are used.
    One realises, of course, that inevitably there is no opportunity for an Amendment in a case like that, but surely if there were a patent inconsistency between what was put forward in a regulation made under this Bill and Regulations made under previous Statutes, that would not be an occasion for Amendment but for outright rejection of the regulation before the House. Therefore, as I say, I hope that my hon. Friend will not lose faith in our procedures and will realise that this is a very real safeguard—
    Dr. Alan Glyn: I do not think that my hon. and learned Friend has interpreted my remarks aright. I was not in any way saying that this procedure for laying down regulations and the mechanism for Prayer was inadequate, but one has to recognise that with an omnibus Bill like this the number of regulations that could be laid down is very great. My hon. and learned Friend says that that will not happen, but, with the greatest respect, I suggest that we are still giving Ministers an extremely wide scope—I would hazard a guess that it is probably the widest scope we possibly could give them, and is even greater than that under existing Acts of Parliament. If it were only a matter of giving powers to make one or two regulations, I am sure no one would object, but this Measure gives Ministers very wide powers indeed. They might not intend to use them, but the powers are still there.
    Mr. Renton: We are here dealing not with the whole scope of the Bill, but with the question of whether the Bill should contain powers to make regulations in relation to food and drugs and whether there is a conceivable overlapping
    1772
    with the Food and Drugs Act. I do not think it would be in order for me to deal with the more general point that my hon. Friend has just made as to whether or not the powers in the Bill are too wide, but let us compare the powers given by Section 4 of the Food and Drugs Act, which has been referred to by the three hon. Members who have so far spoken, with the powers in the Bill.
    As was pointed out on Second Reading, this is virtually a safety Bill. Clause 1 (1, a) says that it is
    "to prevent or reduce the risk of death or personal injury."
    The Food and Drugs Act, by implication, also had that object to some extent, but it did not have it as an express object. The Food and Drugs Acts are mainly concerned with the purity and quality of food and drugs and with ensuring that purchasers shall not be defrauded in any way, or let down innocently.
    We therefore reach the situation that although the powers in Section 4 of the Food and Drugs Act are wide, it is conceivable that a dangerous practice would arise that would not be covered by the Act and which might be required to be covered by the Bill. Therefore, although, as I have stressed, there is a considerable potential opportunity for overlapping between the Bill and the Act, there is also just the possibility—rare it well may be—for the Act not to contain a power which could be provided in the Bill. For that reason alone, it would be as well if we stuck to the terms of the Bill in order to avoid the possibility of confusion.
    Mr. Dudley Williams: This is the whole burden of our criticism of the Bill and why we want the Clause accepted. Hon. Members on this side of the House do not like any more delegated legislation than we have to have. The Food and Drugs Act is very comprehensive, and if my hon. and learned Friend is nervous about something not being covered by that Act, the right thing for the Government to do is to introduce amending legislation and have the matter thrashed out, and not to allow a Private Member's Bill to go through so that regulations can be issued under it.
    Mr. Renton: Either my hon. Friend has missed the point—that the promoter of the Bill wishes to prevent or reduce the risk of death or personal injury to members of the public—or, if he has not missed the point, for some reason, which he has not yet explained, he does not agree with the Bill. If one accepts that this is a laudable motive for legislation, namely, to prevent or reduce the risk of death or personal injury to those who are buying goods, the main purpose of the Bill is one which should be accepted. In any event, on this new Clause the only thing with which we have to concern ourselves is whether the fact that there is already very wide provision in the Food and Drugs Act for dealing with matters such as the purity and quality of goods and their contents should preclude us from taking a power in this Bill of the kind which is there.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. J. Wells) referred to Section 16 of the 1955 Act and paid tribute to our food manufacturers. I am sure that the House will agree that tribute should be paid to them, for they have reached very high standards of cleanliness and service to the public, and I like to think that Parliament has helped them to reach those high standards by means of the Food and Drugs Act.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter referred to the position of the Home Secretary as Secretary of State. The position is as I stated it in Standing Committee:
    "The office of Secretary of State is one and indivisible, and for the past 250 years or so there has always been one office holder. Therefore, the powers given by Parliament to any one Secretary of State are given in constitutional theory to each of them."
    My hon. Friend was good enough to say on that occasion:
    "Now we know."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C, 15th February, 1961; c.32.]
    The Interpretation Act says that the powers given to one Secretary of State may be exercised by any of the others.
    Mr. Dudley Williams: My hon. and learned Friend's remarks have caused some hilarity on the other side of the House. My point is that some Ministers can act as Secretaries of State while other Ministers with similar responsibilities, such as the Service Ministers and the First Lord of the Admiralty, cannot.
    1774
    That is the point I was making and I think that it is valid.
    Mr. Renton: It is not for me to compare the relative distinction of great offices of State. The point is that the Secretary of State is an office well established in our constitution. There are several holders of that office, and it has been recognised by Parliament that each of the holders of the office may exercise the powers given to any of them. That has often turned out to be a matter of great administrative convenience.
    Mr. Ede: But only a Secretary of State can use those powers, and no other Minister, not even the Prime Minister.
    Mr. Renton: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman who has completed the picture.
    This is not a Bill which is promoted by the Government, and I am therefore in the position of merely advising the House to the extent that such advice may be helpful. In view of what I have said, I hope that the views expressed by the hon. Member for Bilston, namely, that the Clause should not be accepted, is the view which will prevail.
    Dr. Alan Glyn: My hon. and learned Friend has said that Government Departments would be very careful that there was no overlapping of powers. By that he has destroyed his own case, because the new Clause would prevent that very thing from happening. In other words, it would prevent overlapping of two Acts of Parliament.
    Mr. Renton: I do not wish to repeat myself and I have already explained the drafting dilemma once we try to avoid all overlapping with all previous legislation on all the matters which the Bill can cover, but I hope that my hon. Friend will rest assured when I say that if there is power in one of the regulations already made under the Food and Drugs Act, then obviously there will not be a regulation made under the Bill, because it would be a complete waste of time and effort to do so.
    Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—
    The House divided: Ayes 2, Noes 49.

    Division No. 159.]

    AYES

    [12.19 p.m.

    Farr, John

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)

    Mr. Dudley Williams and

    Mr. John Wells.

    NOES

    Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics. S. W.)

    Holman, Percy

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

    Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia

    Pike, Miss Mervyn

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

    Burden, F. A.

    Hughes-Young, Michael

    Renton, David

    Castle, Mrs. Barbara

    Hunter, A. E.

    Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

    Cullen, Mrs. Alice

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Sharples, Richard

    de Ferranti, Basil

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Doughty, Charles

    Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

    Sumner, Donald (Orpington)

    Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

    Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

    Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    Evans, Albert

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Williams, Ll. (Abertillery)

    Finlay, Graeme

    Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

    Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

    Gammans, Lady

    Lawson, George

    Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

    Goodhart, Philip

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold(Huyton)

    Grimond, J.

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Marsh, Richard

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

    Mason, Roy

    Mr. Darling and Mr. Oram.

    Hastings, Stephen

    New Clause.—(COMPLIANCE WITH REGULATIONS TO BE DEFENCE.)
    If any person suffers death or injury in consequence of the use of any goods in respect of which regulations made under section one of this Act are for the time being in force it shall be a good defence in any action brought by or on behalf of such person against the person from whom such goods were bought that the requirements of such regulations have been complied with.—[Mr. J. Wells.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. J. Wells: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
    The Clause is simple and straightforward. Its object is to provide a better defence in cases where there may be some doubt. What concerned some of us on the Standing Committee was the difficulty in which a small shopkeeper in a remote area might find himself. By the Clause we hope to provide a reasonable defence where there has been compliance with the regulations or a belief that they have been complied with.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn), who I understand is a lawyer, said on the previous Clause that lawyers were brought up on snails and ginger beer, which is an extraordinary diet. My object in moving the Clause is much simpler than trying to bring about any long-winded education of lawyers. I am trying to assist in bringing the Bill more into line with the ordinary provision of the common law, as I understand it.
    Clause 1 (1, a) provides that regulations are to be made in the interest of preventing or reducing the
    "risk of death or personal injury".
    1776
    The manufacturer or seller of goods will be at a disadvantage. I have in mind particularly the small shopkeeper who may be short of staff and have many other difficulties. I do not want to weary the House by restating the grounds we went over in Committee. It is the smaller traders who must be protected. As I see it, as the Bill now stands, these people will be at a definite disadvantage if they have to comply with two completely different sets of standards for securing the same purpose, namely, the standards laid down in the regulations which the Minister may or may not bring in and the ordinary standards of the common law which are better known to hon. and learned Members than to myself.
    12.30 p.m.
    It has been said by the Minister and others that they hope that they will not have to bring in any regulations. The idea is that the negotiations referred to in Clause 1 (5) will obviate the need for having to introduce regulations. It seems, then, in view of what my hon. and learned Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State has said, that the Bill is quite unnecessary. He hopes that his negotiations with the manufacturers and the wholesale and retail organisations will prevent his ever having to bring regulations in. But, of course, if he were to bring in regulations, it would be most unfortunate if they were to conflict with the ordinary common law duty of the vendor of goods.
    We have heard about the case which arose out of a snail in a ginger beer bottle. The vendor of the ginger beer

    1777
    was proceeded against, and the basis of that action was the common law liability of the vendor. It did not arise out of the Food and Drugs Acts or any considerations which come into this Bill. There is already a safeguard for the consumer at common law, and it would be unfortunate if there were two completely separate sets of standards. The new Clause is simple, short and goes straight to the point. I commend it to the House.
    Mr. Dudley Williams: I support the plea so eloquently made by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. J. Wells). Without this new Clause, there will be very great confusion in the public mind in years to come about what are the responsibilities of, and the penalties to be imposed upon, the shopkeeper if regulations under the Bill are issued.
    The shopkeeper is not really the man we are trying to get at by the Bill. We are all keen to ensure that rubbish which can cause death or injury is not sold to the public. I was surprised to hear my hon. and learned Friend at the Home Office say a little earlier that he was not quite clear whether I wanted to prevent dangerous goods being sold to the public. Of course I do, but what I want to ensure is that Bills which pass through the House of Commons impose penalties on the people who deserve to suffer them and not on people who really are not responsible at all. In my submission, under this Bill we may find actions being instituted against small shopkeepers for offences for which they bear no moral responsibility.
    The new Clause defines the position more clearly. Without it, we shall have a conflict which it will be very difficult to resolve in the courts. Under Clause 1 (1, a) Regulations may be made to prevent or reduce the risk of death or injury to any person. That is what we want to achieve, but we ought to ensure also that people who are not really responsible for any damage done to the individual do not suffer as a result of the regulations.
    I sometimes feel that the present state of the law is unsatisfactory. I am not at all sure that a shopkeeper should be liable under common law for injury caused by articles he sells, when he is not the man really responsible. He may well buy in good faith, for instance, one
    1778
    of the electric fires we have heard about which have done damage recently because they were unguarded. But he buys in good faith. He is subject to sales pressure. Sometimes, he has difficulty in finding out where a travelling salesman has come from. Salesmen travel about the country taking articles around and delivering them on the spot.
    It would be quite monstrous if the present situation were interfered with and a shopkeeper who bought in good faith were to be subject to proceedings of the kind proposed. In my view, the most that the shopkeeper should be liable to is a claim at common law, which is entirely different from penalties imposed under a Bill like this which makes him subject to criminal prosecution, albeit of a minor nature. The new Clause should be accepted. If it is not, there will be endless trouble.
    I dislike intensely the business of passing into law Bills which are not clear in their impact. Moreover, as hon. Members well know, I dislike intensely Bills which give power to Secretaries of State or Ministers of the Crown to issue regulations. We should try to protect people in the distributive trades who are likely to be attacked if this Bill becomes law.
    The new Clause is a perfectly reasonable one. I am sorry that the new Clause I introduced a short time ago was not acceptable to the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. R. Edwards), and I hope that on this occasion he will tell us what are his reasons for disliking the new Clause now before us. If he is prepared to accept it, of course, our discussions can be more brief. He ought to put us clearly in the picture and say why he thinks that a small shopkeeper providing a service to the public—there are 75,000 of them in the country—should have to suffer penalties when in fact he is not the person we are trying to get at by the Bill.
    Much as I dislike legislation in general, I think that the Bill has some merit in it. We are trying to get at the manufacturer of shoddy goods, the man who makes rubbishy goods.
    Mr. Percy Holman: What about the importer?
    Mr. Dudley Williams: I agree that imports present even greater difficulties. It is even more difficult for the distributor, the shopkeeper, who buys goods in

    1779
    good faith from a traveller or a distributive organisation to safeguard his position in that case. If there were any question of shoddy imports, then, I think, the right thing to do would be to introduce a Bill giving powers to the Secretary of State to restrict such shoddy imports. That is the way to tackle that. I do not agree that the shopkeeper should have his present legal position made worse.
    Mr. Holman: How would the hon. Member deal with the responsibility of the importer? Also, a retailer may purchase goods from an unknown traveller, and some of the goods may have been obtained in an illegal or disreputable way.
    Mr. Dudley Williams: Does the hon. Member wish to stop a retailer purchasing goods from a traveller? There is no reason why he should not do his business in that way, if he buys in good faith. He may well know the traveller. The fact that the goods have been imported is not the responsibility of the shopkeeper. It may be improper conduct on the part of the importer if the importer has brought into the country shoddy goods, and in such a case there might well be an argument for the Government, or even a private Member on such a matter, introducing a Bill to give the Secretary of State powers to restrict undesirable imports. If that sort of Bill were introduced I would give it my support, but it is quite wrong to place the penalties on the shopkeeper. I think this Clause puts the shopkeeper back into the position where he was before. He is subject to common law. I am not at all sure that he should be subject to common law, but at least this Clause puts him back where he was before. Under this Bill the shopkeeper is going to be severely penalised for something for which he probably has no responsibility. It may be a widow running a small country shop—
    Mr. Holman: The responsibility surely lies with the importer of the goods.
    Mr. Dudley Williams: Because we cannot get at the importer it is not right that we should penalise anybody else. If the hon. Gentleman
    1780
    man wants to take his argument to its logical conclusion he should sue the purchaser and say, "Why did you purchase these articles and cause your children such serious injury?" Surely the hon. Gentleman is not in favour of taking that step.
    Mr. Holman: People should purchase goods only from reputable firms.
    Mr. Dudley Williams: A person may well purchase goods from somebody he knows—
    Mr. J. Wells: I do not think the hon. Member for Bethnal Green (Mr. Holman) can have read the last few words of my Clause. He will see that
    "…is shall be a good defence…that the requirements of such regulations have been complied with."
    That is quite simple. I am most anxious that we should get on, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman will realise that such a defence is provided only where the regulations have been complied with.
    Mr. Holman: My intervention arose out of a remark made by the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Dudley Williams).
    Mr. Dudley Williams: I find it difficult to know how to say anything further to the hon. Gentleman which will convince him of our case. I am all for getting at the person who is responsible, but I am not in favour of getting at people who purchase an article in good faith and who are informed that the regulations have been complied with.
    I believe this Clause should be accepted. Its acceptance would improve the Bill and would lead to a considerable falling off in criticism by myself and some of my hon. Friends.
    Dr. Alan Glyn: In supporting my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Dudley Williams), I would say that most of the points have already been covered, but I should like to add that there is a genuine interest on this side of the House in defending the small shopkeeper against the great difficulties with which he will be faced under this Bill. This new Clause to some extent tends to mitigate those difficulties. I do not wish to go into the disadvantages and the hardships which the small shopkeeper will suffer from this Bill if it is unamended. I shall reserve those remarks for the Third Reading.

    1781
    Mention has been made of imports by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green (Mr. Holman). The proper way to deal with this aspect of the matter would be to introduce import restriction and control, but I cannot see that that raises any objection to this Clause. In fact, if anything, it strengthens the argument in favour of this Clause.
    The hon. Member said something about the necessity for dealing with reputable travellers. But all this is highly theoretical, and I am sure the House will appreciate that a retailer who has to deal with a variety of goods has a real difficulty in being aware of all the regulations and the goods to which they apply. I submit that there could be a conflict not only between the common law and this Bill but also between the standards laid down in the regulations and those provided by the British Standards Institution, which already has a large number of rules, regulations and standards for almost every kind of article.
    12.45 p.m.
    One of my hon. Friends tells me that a large manufacturing company is at pains not only to be aware of the existing regulations but to ensure that those regulations are observed. This is a company with great resources in wealth, laboratories and staff, and if this firm finds it difficult to interpret the British standards I submit that it would be much harder for the small manufacturer and, indeed, almost impossible for the retailer to understand the interpretation of those rules.
    I am not one of those who feel that the public should not be protected. They should be protected.
    Mr. Dudley Williams: Hear, hear.
    Dr. Alan Glyn: One knows from one's own constituents that often when they buy articles they are completely unaware of the dangers connected with them. In Committee reference was made to things like nylon stockings, nightdresses and a whole variety of goods which could be a potential danger to the consumer. None of us on this side of the House wishes to weaken the law in respect of the measure of protection which is given to the consumer, but I feel that this is a very reasonable Clause and I may say that many of us in Standing Committee, including myself, put down much stronger
    1782
    Amendments which would have changed the character of the Bill and, in my submission, would have made it much fairer. This is a very moderate and reasonable Clause and I hope the House will accept it.
    Mention has been made of travellers and people who buy goods from unauthorised sources. Of course, it is not the intention of this Clause to protect people who sell shoddy goods. The intention of the Clause is to protect retailers and people who sell goods in a bona fide way. The House would do well to include this Clause in the Bill.
    Mr. R. Edwards: I must resist this Clause. I do not see the need for it. We debated at great length a similar Amendment in Committee. Nobody in the House, and certainly none of the sponsors of the Bill, wants to harass the small shopkeeper, but the purpose of the Bill is to protect the consumer from the hazards which frequently arise from the sale of faulty and dangerous goods.
    If the Clause were accepted, the main concentration of the Bill would be directed against the manufacturer and not at the shopkeeper. Only the manufacturer would be expected to conform to safety regulations and to new designs and be receptive to suggestions for protecting the consumer against a whole range of products which can be positively dangerous. However, it is not enough to place all of the responsibility on the manufacturer. It should be no defence for a small shopkeeper to say that he did not know what this was all about.
    In any case, there is nothing revolutionary in the proposals in this Bill. The penalties in Clause 3 are quite modest and conform to an Act which is already on the Statute Book.
    Dr. Alan Glyn: Does the hon. Member consider £100 a very small fine?
    Mr. Dudley Williams: Or three months imprisonment?
    Mr. Edwards: The penalty for the first offence is exactly the same as in the Oil Burners (Standards) Act. The Act was warmly applauded by the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Dudley Williams). He spoke very eloquently about this very positive contribution to the safety of the consumer. I cannot see the point of his suggesting that what is good about the

    1783
    Oil Burners (Standards) Act is evil as it relates to this Bill.
    Mr. J. Wells: The Oil Burners (Standards) Act, which we all admire and appreciate as a useful piece of legislation, deals with one small, specific, individual type of commodity that had been causing widespread alarm. In the last few days we have read and heard about an unfortunate fire. Every hon. Member, I am sure, welcomes the Oil Burners (Standards) Act; but this Bill concerns a very much wider matter. The goods concerned will be handled by an enormous number of shopkeepers in a much wider way, and I think that they should be given some additional, reasonable protection. My new Clause is very reasonable.
    Mr. Edwards: Last year there were two million accidents in the homes of this country. Last year there were 7,000 deaths in the homes of this country—over 1,000 more deaths in the homes through fatal accidents than on the roads. There were thousands more fatal accidents in the homes than fatal accidents in industry. We really must have a Bill that has teeth in it to prevent this appalling massacre.
    Mr. Dudley Williams Mr. Dudley Williams rose—
    Mr. Edwards: Must we continue to have these interruptions? I am ready to accept legitimate interventions.
    I know perfectly well that all I say will not convince the three hon. Members opposite who, if I may say so with all due respect, have indicated that it is their intention to kill the Bill—at least the hon. Member for Exeter said that he intended to kill the Bill. He thinks it is a Socialist Bill. I do not see anything Socialist in it, and that is why I am not prepared to accept the constant provocations and interventions, the purpose of which is to try to talk the Bill out. I am asking the House to reject the new Clause. I do not think that it serves any useful purpose.
    No one, I repeat, wants to harass the shopkeepers. The only shopkeepers who need to fear the penalty regulations in the Bill are those shopkeepers who are abusing their position, exploiting the consumer and not prepared in harmony with most shopkeepers in this country to give
    1784
    the consumer satisfaction. It should be the purpose both of the manufacturer and of the shopkeeper to satisfy the consumer. If they are unwilling to submit to the penalties—the very modest penalties, in the light of the problem we are trying to deal with—embodied in Clause 3, I do not feel that they need further protection.
    I admit that the new Clause necessitates some legal advice. I am not a lawyer; I am a trade union general secretary. During the proceedings in Committee I was very happy that we had the very active co-operation of the Home Office and of the Secretary of State. I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary of State will intervene to assure the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. J. Wells) about the important legal point he made, which I do not feel competent to deal with because I am not a lawyer.
    Mr. Renton: The new Clause would make it a defence in any action—and I stress "any action"—for the defendant to prove that the requirements of any regulations made in relation to the goods have been complied with. There are three possible kinds of action which might be brought: an action for breach of statutory duty, an action for negligence, or an action for breach of contract.
    On the first of these, an action for breach of statutory duty, a defence of this kind would be available anyway and therefore we do not need to legislate for it. On an action for negligence or for breach of contract, a defence of this kind might be irrelevant. That is the short position. Perhaps I may elaborate it a little by way of explanation.
    Before I do so, may I say how very sorry I am that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Major Hicks Beach) is not with us today, partly because he so often has illuminating things to say on Fridays and partly because he is not well. I am sure that we all wish him a very quick recovery. If he were here, I am sure that he would agree that Clause 3 (1) is perfectly clear as it stands. It makes it clear that the obligation to comply with the regulations made under the Bill is such that if there is non-compliance it would be a breach of duty which is actionable. There

    1785
    would be an action for breach of statutory duty. But subsection (3) includes, in brackets, some very important words:
    "…(subject to the defences and other incidents applying to actions for breach of statutory duty)."
    If the action were derived from Clause 3 (1) and there had been no contravention—that is either if the complainant failed to prove that there was a contravention or if the defendant succeeded in proving that there was not a contravention—that would be the end of the matter. Therefore, my hon. Friend's fears are unfounded to that extent.
    I quite agree with both of my hon. Friends, the hon. Members for Maidstone (Mr. J. Wells) and Exeter (Mr. Dudley Williams), who said that we should be zealous to protect the interests of the small shopkeeper. I think particularly of the small village shopkeepers in my constituency who perform valuable service to the public. They do not become very rich by it, but they perform a valuable service, and by making complicated and difficult laws we do not want to lead them into an impossible position at any time. They will not be led into an impossible position by the requirements of Clause 3. It is clear that if they were to be sued for a breach of duty in relation to goods covered by regulations made under the Bill, and they proved that they had complied with those regulations, that would be the end of it.
    1.0 p.m.
    But let us take a different circumstance, which the Bill does not cover—an action for negligence or for breach of contract. Then, as I say, the question of the safety requirements imposed under the Bill might be irrelevant to the question of liability. They could conceivably be relevant; in some cases they might well be. But if there were an action for a breach of contract and one of the parties was relying upon Section 14 of the Sale of Goods Act—which is the Section dealing with implied conditions as to quality or fitness—the buyer could bring an action against the seller for breach of an implied warranty that the goods were reasonably fit for the purpose for which, to the seller's knowledge, they were required. Even if the goods in such a case did comply with the safety requirements under the regulations made under the Bill, the seller would surely be liable, in an appropriate case—if the
    1786
    buyer were injured owing to the goods being unfit for the purpose for which they were sold, which might have nothing whatever to do with the matter covered by the regulations.
    I hesitate to give examples, but let us suppose that an electric razor was sold and that regulations had been made covering the question of the electrical safety of electric razors, so that people did not get electrocuted by them. Let us further suppose that the razor complied with the safety requirements but failed to take the stubble off the chin. Clearly the buyer would have a good case, if he based it on Section 14 of the Sale of Goods Act, because he would be able to say, "This electric razor is not fit for the purpose for which it was required, and I relied upon the seller's skill and knowledge as to whether or not it was fit for that purpose." It would then be quite immaterial merely to say, as a defence, that it complied with the safety regulations.
    I hope that that fairly clear illustration will show my hon. Friends that this Clause is misconceived if it is sought to make it a defence to every kind of action which can be brought in respect of the sale of goods.
    Dr. Alan Glyn: Surely in the case postulated by my hon. and learned Friend everything would depend upon the definition of "stubble".
    Mr. Renton: It has been said today that lawyers are brought up on snails and ginger beer. I think that if any lawyer were asked that he would say that there was a certain standard of reasonableness which everyone had to observe in his daily affairs. This has sometimes been referred to as the standard of reasonableness of the man on the Clapham omnibus. On this occasion my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn) must use some common sense. I hope that I will not be considered too frivolous if I suggest that if snails and ginger beer are to be consumed by lawyers, like reasonable men they should consume them on the Clapham omnibus.
    There is one other important point which I should make. We cannot be certain that regulations which are made in order to protect the public against one hazard which might cause death or injury will necessarily provide against

    1787
    every conceivale hazard. There may be hazards which are simply not foreseen when the regulations are made. I mention that point largely in order to complete the picture, and to show that it would be going much too far to legislate in the way envisaged in the new Clause. The hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. R. Edwards) is right to say that he, as promoter of the Bill, is not prepared to accept the new Clause, and my advice to the House is that it should not be accepted.
    Mr. Dudley Williams: Would my hon. and learned Friend say that the Clause would be more acceptable if, in another place, it were amended to exclude any actions brought under the Sale of Goods Act?
    Mr. Renton: No. With respect to my hon. Friend it would not, because the Sale of Goods Act, although an important part of the law of contract relating to the sale of goods, is not absolutely comprehensive, and also because we must consider the possibility of actions for negligence, and any Clause which purported to provide a defence in an action for negligence of a categorical kind like this might well be misconceived. I offer one crumb of comfort to my hon. Friend: in an action for negligence it is open to the defence to put forward evidence showing that the defendant was not negligent, and such evidence might well be to the effect that the regulations made under the Bill had been complied with, and that might get the defendant some of the way home. I am sure that that will be a comfort to all concerned. But to say that we should go as far as the Clause goes, or anything like it, would be quite wrong.
    Mr. J. Wells: In view of the very helpful explanation of my hon. and learned Friend and the very reasonable attitude of the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. R. Edwards), it is my intention to ask leave to withdraw the Motion, but perhaps I may say something before so doing, by leave of the House. My hon. and learned Friend was kind enough and wise enough to pay tribute to the small shopkeepers. I would remind the House of some of the remarks made in Committee about the service rendered by small shopkeepers. I am sure that the eyes of the retail trade will be on the
    1788
    extremely sensible and good explanation of my hon. and learned Friend, and in those circumstances I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
    Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause I.—(SAFETY REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS.)
    Mr. J. Wells: I beg to move, in page 1, line 8, to leave out "or otherwise relating to".
    The Amendment is aimed at making the Bill a little more precise. I cannot help feeling that it is too vague altogether at the moment. Section 16 of the Food and Drugs Act, to which we referred earlier, has a rubric ending with the word "etc." It is this sort of vagueness that my hon. Friends and I dislike in legislation.
    I do not like "etc." and vagueness of any kind. If the words "or otherwise relating to" were deleted, the Clause would be much more precise and would read:
    "The Secretary of State may by regulations impose as respects any prescribed class of goods,—
    (a) any such requirements, whether as to the composition or contents, design, construction, finish or packing of goods of that class…."
    The words "or otherwise relating to" represent a glorious bit of waffle and, as such, would be better kept out of the Bill. Any extra precision that can be given to the Measure is desirable, and I do not wish to detain the House for long since I am myself urging greater precision and fewer unnecessary words. I hope that the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. R. Edwards) will accept the Amendment in order to make the Bill simple and straightforward.
    I accepted the explanation that was given on my previous new Clause and I thought that that explanation was reasonable, as a result of which I withdrew it. Until hearing that explanation I had thought that that new Clause was reasonable. Equally, I consider this Amendment to be reasonable, and I offer it to the hon. Member for Bilston as a definite constructive improvement to his Bill, because we have discussed at some length today the problems of the small trader. The words "or otherwise relating to" are woolly and unnecessary. I urge the House to accept the Amendment.
    Dr. Alan Glyn: I support the Amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. J. Wells) summed it up by saying that the words "or otherwise relating to" are woolly. I suggest, with the greatest degree of humility, that if the Under-Secretary wishes to put some other definition into the Bill, that definition could possibly be inserted in another place.
    The words proposed to be left out spoil an otherwise well-drafted Clause. The House would be well advised to accept the Amendment and to leave out these rather indeterminate words which do not enhance the quality of the Measure. My hon. Friends and I consider that, as drafted, the Bill is too vague. The removal of these words would result in more precision and better definition.
    I see the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. R. Edwards) shaking his head. I do not know whether he agrees with me so, in order to clear the matter up, I hope we shall have some learned comments from my hon. and learned Friend on the Amendment. The Amendment would in no way spoil the Bill. It would enhance it. I agree with the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone that if additional words are thought to be needed, they should be inserted in another place.
    Mr. Darling: Perhaps there is some substance in what hon. Members have said about these words being somewhat unnecessary, but since we are thinking ahead to regulations that may be imposed on articles that have not yet been invented, the definition at present in the Bill may prove to be necessary in the future. It may be desirable at some future date that more regulations should be introduced, and hon. Members will be critical of themselves if, by including any limiting words, or by deleting any comprehensive words, they find that they are unable rapidly to bring in additional regulations.
    While it is true that my hon. Friend the Member for Bilston (Mr. R. Edwards) is the promoter of the Bill, my hon. Friend will not have to administer it. It will have to be administered by the Under-Secretary's Department, and I should like to hear the views of the Under-Secretary on whether this rather wide definition is required for the purposes of the Bill.
    1.15 p.m.
    Mr. J. Wells: Hon. Members can surely think of many articles that might be dangerous—even an unthought of article, if it is possible to think of the unthought of. It has contents. It was designed. It has construction, finish, and it might possibly have a packing. Surely there can be nothing more comprehensive than that. The hypothetical razor mentioned by the Under-Secretary undoubtedly had contents—its electrical works. It was obviously designed and it obviously had construction, even though that hypothetical razor was perhaps of bad construction. Possibly the finish was bad, and, no doubt, before it was used, the razor had packing. Surely this definition covers every eventuality of every item it is possible to sell.
    Mr. Renton: My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. J. Wells) has done a service by drawing attention to these words. They are somewhat vague, although comprehensive, and hon. Members will agree that the Government should legislate as accurately as possible in order to cover the circumstances which we want to anticipate when legislating. These very general and vague words "or otherwise relating to", useful though they may be, are the sort of words which should, if possible, be avoided.
    We have so far advised the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. R. Edwards) that if we were to delete these words it might unduly reduce the scope of this power which is contained in Clause 1, I must concede that it is difficult to think of an example for a need for the retention of the words, but we have to face the fact that the range of possible hazards is so varied that a fully comprehensive enabling power is desired.
    I suggest to the hon. Member for Biston that, although this Amendment should not be made to the Bill at this stage, he should consult a noble Friend in another place with the view possibly of inserting such words as "characteristics," "propensities," or "properties"—or words which indicate only the composition or contents of the goods—not even the size, design and construction of them—or words which relate to what the goods may or may not do.
    It might be found that the help of the draftsman, which I gladly offer, would enable the use of an expression such as

    1791
    "characteristics," which would serve the same purpose as the words my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone wishes to leave out. If that course is acceptable to the hon. Member for Bilston, it would be the best way of meeting the situation.
    Mr. R. Edwards: Needless to say, I do not desire to reduce the scope of the Bill. We have had a lot of co-operation so far, and, if the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. J. Wells) is prepared to accept the suggestion of the Under-Secretary, I will willingly give my promise to ask for co-operation to find new words to meet the point he has made. If the hon. Member is willing to withdraw the Amendment on that understanding, I will happily give him that assurance.
    Mr. J. Wells: In view of the assurance given by the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. R. Edwards) and the generous co-operation of the Joint Under-Secretary of State in providing the necessary drafting assistance, and in the hope that the Bill will be made clearer in another place, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Wells: I beg to move, in page 2, line 9, to leave out from the second "shall" to "House" in line 10 and to insert
    "not have effect unless approved by resolution of each."
    I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Dudley Williams) has had to be absent and is unable to move this Amendment, which he put on the Order Paper. As I understand his mind, the purpose of the Amendment is to provide that regulations made under the Clause should be subject to affirmative Resolution of both Houses of Parliament. Hon. Members who served on the Committee on the Bill will recollect that I spoke about Prayers in the House. As a relative newcomer, I have never been greatly impressed by the efficacy of Prayers against regulations, and I should like to see the affirmative Resolution procedure required here. Both the present Opposition and the Conservative Party when in opposition have used the procedure of Prayers to the best advantage, but in the past the procedure was not found very satisfactory and we
    1792
    have new procedure. I doubt the power of a back bench Member of the Opposition to get anywhere very successfully with the present procedure.
    As this is a Private Member's Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter is anxious that regulations made under it should be open to control by private Members. It could be unfortunate if the Prayer procedure were the only procedure available. Very wide powers are being given in the Bill to the Secretary of State, and it is imperative that the regulations should not be brought into effect until approved by both Houses. The hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. R. Edwards) said that he intends to make use of another place in the later stages of the Bill, and the work of another place is much in the minds of hon. Members in all parts of the House.
    I urge the hon. Member to accept the Amendment. I have tried to be as reasonable as possible in the last two debates by withdrawing my new Clause and my Amendment, but this is a matter of greater substance. As his party are in opposition at the moment, he should agree with what I have said this morning and in Committee.
    Dr. Alan Glyn: I very much support my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. J. Wells) in what he said. The Amendment could go a long way to meet many of our fears on this subject. If the regulations were the subject of affirmative Resolution of both Houses of Parliament, then every facility would be given to all Members of both Houses to examine the regulations closely and, if they thought fit, to reject them.
    I have not been in the House for very long, but it seems to me that this machinery would be much more effective than the Prayer procedure. The powers given under the Bill are very wide, for they relate not only to marking, quality and the type of goods but to a wide range of specifications of goods and to dangers which may be involved. Very sweeping powers are given. If the regulations were subject to the affirmative Resolution, it would go a long way to meet some of our fears.
    I do not think that hon. Members opposite will disagree with me when I say that, especially as this is, or is supposed to be, a Private Member's Bill,

    1793
    we should be reluctant to see regulations made without sufficient check. The affirmative Resolution of both Houses gives Parliament the chance to supervise the regulations. I am sure that the regulations will be sensible, but it is essential that in a busy and rushed Session we should have the opportunity to examine very carefully any regulations which are made.
    I think that both the Joint Under-Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Bilston said in Committee that very few regulations would be made under the Bill. That lends great strength to the argument for the Amendment, because it means that the affirmative Resolution will not often be required and that both Houses will not frequently be troubled by having to consider such regulations. I urge the hon. Member for Bilston to go as far as this with us and to institute these checks which a number of my hon. Friends think desirable.
    Mr. A. E. Oram: Where are those hon. Members?
    Dr. Glyn: I do not think that we are very much thinner on the ground than hon. Members opposite, except perhaps during the luncheon hour.
    I earnestly entreat the hon. Member for Bilston to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. Darling: Generally speaking, and particularly on the Opposition side of the House, hon. Members prefer the affirmative procedure in dealing with Statutory Instruments, but I will suggest briefly that there are two very good reasons why the procedure laid down in the Bill should be retained.
    First, the regulations which will be introduced will be regulations for which a need has been proved. People will have been injured or killed by some kind of appliance or product on the market and there will be a general desire for speedy action by the Government to dealt with the situation. But before the Government can do anything at all, the officials in the appropriate Departments must have consultations—and they would have to have consultations even if Clause 1 (5) were not in the Bill. They must have consultations with appropriate bodies including, I imagine, in every important case, the British Standards Institution. Those consultations will be largely technical, perhaps of an engineering or scientific character.
    1794
    1.30 p.m.
    Then there is the draftsman's job to put these technical provisions into regulations which eventually come before Parliament. With all the urge for speed, it would be wrong at that stage to go through the slower procedure of an affirmative Resolution. The provisions in the Bill provide for the fullest consultation with everybody concerned, including Members of Parliament. Many of us would be associated with the campaign to get something done and, therefore, to some extent, would be associated with the consultations. At least, we would see what was happening—
    Mr. J. Wells: Does the hon. Member recollect what length of time was taken on the Oil Burners (Standards) Bill, which was new legislation starting from scratch, a most important matter on which everybody felt a great sense of urgency?
    Mr. Darling: Whatever the time was, it was too long in the circumstances. In any event, the present Bill arises from our experience in that situation, when it was desired that instead of passing a separate Bill whenever the need for regulations arose, we should have this comprehensive Bill to get the job done more quickly. That is the purpose of the Bill. The fullest consulation would be held. Consultation takes a little time. The need for urgency would be present throughout and my view is that the procedure as laid down in the Bill should be retained.
    Mr. Renton: I agree with the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) and with the two reasons which he has put forward, although there are two other reasons which I find even more compelling. The first is that the affirmative Resolution procedure, which, as the hon. Member said, is slower than the negative procedure, is appropriate only where the enabling Act has delegated to a Minister the power of making a Statutory Instrument when he has important policy-making powers to exercise in that delegated legislation. In those circumstances, Parliament quite rightly reserves to itself the right to give its positive, affirmative approval to the subordinate legislation.
    In the present case, the Bill does not do that. It does not give broad policy-making powers to the Secretary of State,

    1795
    because the Bill itself embodies the principle of policy that safety standards should be imposed in appropriate cases. It leaves to the Secretary of State the detailed decisions as to the particular classes of goods in respect of which standards should be imposed and what standards, which may be of a technical nature, should be imposed in relation to those goods.
    The second reason is that owing to the technical nature of the content of the regulations—we anticipate that they may often be very technical—the regulations themselves may have to be amended from time to time to keep abreast of technical developments. If the affirmative Resolution procedure had to be carried out every time we had an amending regulation, it might take up too much of Parliament's time as well as being much too slow. For these two additional reasons, my hon. Friends would be well advised not to press the Amendment. My advice to the promoter of the Bill and to the House would certainly be not to accept it.
    Mr. Ede: I support the line advocated by the Under-Secretary of State. I assure the hon. Member for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn), whom I heard the Under-Secretary earlier urge not to lose faith in the procedure of the House, that the Bill requires the Secretary of State to make the regulations. Once they are made, they are Government policy. No matter whether it is the negative or the affirmative procedure, the Government Whips will be on. The hon. Member need have no fear about what would happen in those circumstances.
    This is the usual sham battle that we have when it is desired to delay the procedure of a Bill. I am interested in Orders Nos. 11, 12 and 13 on today's Order Paper and I am anxious to get to them. I hope, therefore, that we may accept the position that whether it is the negative or affirmative procedure, the Government Whips will ensure that the regulations submitted shall be adopted and that we can make as much progress under one method or the other. I hope, therefore, that we need not spend much more time on a matter that has been discussed, during my membership of the House at least, a thousand times with the same result on each occasion.
    Mr. Dudley Williams: If there was anything that would have convinced me that I was right in putting down the Amendment, it was the speech of the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). It is monstrous that powers should be sought under a Private Member's Bill whereby the only opportunity of defeating the regulations is that they should be prayed against, especially when the Motion will be debated with the Whips on. Had this been a Government Bill, there would have been considerable Amendments by the party opposite. They would have been thrashed out during the week when masses of hon. Members were present, keen and alert to ensure that no injustice could befall anybody. Here, however, we have a Bill which is discussed on a Friday, when only a handful of Members are present. It will give the Government power to make regulations and the Government will use all their power and authority with the Whips on. This will make it much more difficult to upset the regulations by praying against them.
    I was interested to hear that the right hon. Member for South Shields is interested in the Obscene and Profane Words Bill—
    Mr. Ede: I am more interested in that than in listening to the hon. Member.
    Mr. Dudley Williams: I am glad to have your protection, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, against any verbal assault of the right hon. Gentleman. Unfortunately, however, that Bill is rather a long way down the list and I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor) is here to move the Second Reading of his Bill—
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): The hon. Member cannot discuss another Bill which comes later.
    Mr. Dudley Williams: I apologise, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I realise that I was completely out of order, but I was merely making a small point against the right hon. Gentleman.
    If the procedure of having to pray against the regulations is accepted as the system by which the regulations are to be annulled, we shall come up against the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. J. Wells) in

    1797
    Standing Committee C on 8th March, when he said that
    "Prayers are tabled for a variety of exercise purposes, but they are seldom, if ever, tabled for the serious purpose of the Opposition or back bench Members indicating genuinely that they dislike the Order against which they are praying."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C, 8th March, 1961; c.119.]
    I think that is true. I think it is absolutely right. If we are to have regulations made under this Bill, they should have to be subject to affirmative Resolution of the House. I agree that if the Government bring in a Bill which is adequately threshed out in the House with a full attendance that is certainly different from all those long, dreary sittings of Standing Committee A or B or D or E upstairs which, I am glad to say, I am not on this year; and if it is thrashed out here in a full House then it is right that the Government should be able to table regulations which can be prayed against only, and that we should rely on the opposition to see that any unfair regulations are prayed against.
    But these are to be regulations as the result of a private Member's bit of legislation. There is no question about it that this is a Private Member's Bill. I have already said in Standing Committee C that I do not accept the suggestion of some people that this Bill came out of the Government Whips' Office. If it did come out of the Government Whips' Office then I think it monstrous—monstrous that such a Bill could come out of the office of the Whips of a Government made up by the Conservative Party. No, this is the Bill of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bilston (Mr. R. Edwards). He has done very well, but it has had completely Socialist support. No Government Member of the House, I think, has supported it, and, in my view, it should probably be looked upon as a party Bill. I do not object to that at all, but if it is only a Private Member's Bill which one side only of the House of Commons supports then I think we are right to say that any regulations made under it should be subject to affirmative Resolution.
    Moreover, this is such a comprehensive Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields, at least, will remember the late Sir Stafford
    1798
    Cripps saying that what they wanted when the party opposite got in was an enabling Bill. This is very nearly just such an enabling Bill. People could be put out of business by this Bill if the Secretary of State should make regulations sufficiently ruthlessly. If the party opposite were in power we on these benches should find it very difficult to pray, at any rate with any hope of success of throwing them out, against regulations made. I am not going to support this suggestion that it should be possible under the Bill to make regulations which could be prayed against only. I think that that is quite the wrong approach. If we are to have regulations issued under Clause 1 of the Bill they should be subject to affirmative Resolution of the House, and that would do something to stop the Government issuing too many regulations.
    I believe that earlier we were told that not many regulations would be issued under this Bill, that there would be discussions going on with all the people interested, that masses of groups would be consulted, and that there would be no injustice to anyone. If the Government are going to do all that there will be not much chance of issuing many regulations; they will issue only three or four a year. If they are going to do that, I think it is right that the Government should have to come to the House of Commons, too, and should have to put down their regulations so that we can examine them and discuss them on either side of the House and vote upon them and perhaps throw them out.
    I hope that if regulations are made under this Bill and they are debated here we shall not have the Whips on, because this is a Private Member's Bill and I do not think it right that the Government should make regulations under a Private Member's Bill and then stick the Whips on. If my hon. and learned Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State will get up and indicate that there will be no Whips on when regulations made under this Bill are debated here I shall be very pleased indeed to support the Bill and, perhaps, to support the regulations when they come out. It would be a very amusing exercise. I have for a long time wanted to be in Opposition, but I cannot get there. I am always living in hopes that one day the party

    1799
    opposite will heal the breaches in its ranks and succeed in being elected to Government thus enabling me to make my statements from that side of the House.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is going far beyond the Amendment.
    1.45 p.m.
    Mr. Dudley Williams: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I am sure you are right.
    As I said, I believe that these regulations should be subject to affirmative Resolution. I do not think that it is so very much that we ask. After all, if this Bill is to become law, very great powers will accrue to the Secretary of State for the Home Department as a result. I think that if we are to have this Bill passed into law it is not very much for us to ask that the regulations made under it—after all, only three or four a year, we have been told: everybody is going to be consulted, and there will be no unfairness—should be subject to affirmative Resolution. That is all we ask, that the Government should come down to the House with their regulations, when they make them, and put them on the Table of the House of Commons, and give us an opportunity to vote upon them. That is all we ask.
    That is a very different thing, as the right hon. Gentleman for South Shields knows quite well, from the negative procedure, for, as he knows quite well, regulations are constantly being issued, and he knows that it is very difficult to keep track of them when they are subject only to the negative procedure. It is difficult to keep track of them and to pick them up and to stick down a Prayer to annul them.
    Dr. Alan Glyn: There is a point I should like my hon. Friend to enlarge on. It is a very different thing if the Bill is a Government Bill. Then, I think, we would all be prepared to accept it. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) quite appreciated what I said. There is a difference between having a Private Member's Bill and having regulations made under that, and having a Government Bill and regulations made under that.
    Mr. Ede: There is no distinction in law between a Private Member's Act of Parliament and a Government Act of Parliament.
    Mr. Dudley Williams: There may not be any distinction in law but there is a distinction in the minds of some hon. Members of this House. We know jolly well that Acts of Parliament which begin as Government Bills are introduced after discussion by the Government with their supporters in the House of Commons and very often as a result of an appeal to the country; but a Private Member's Bill is introduced at the whim of the Member concerned.
    I do not use the word in any offensive way. I think that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bilston has done a good job in introducing his Bill. I disagree with the fact that it can apply to the retail trade, though let me say at once that I have no axe to grind and that I have no personal interest in the retail trade. I do think, however, that he has gone right off the beam when he has made his Bill apply to the retail trade.
    That is why I want to see regulations issued under Clause 1 of the Bill made subject to the affirmative Resolution procedure of the House of Commons. I do not want to repeat myself because, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, you will very rightly call me to order, but I think that the regulations issued under Clause 1 of the Bill should be subject to the affirmative Resolution procedure and not to Prayer only for their annulment. I think that is quite wrong, and I hope, therefore, that the House will see fit to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. J. Wells: Before my hon. Friend sits down will he—
    Mr. Ede: The hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Dudley Williams) has already spoken on this Question.
    Mr. Wells: I am asking my hon. Friend before he sits down.
    Mr. Dudley Williams: I am just giving way.
    Mr. Wells: I wonder if my hon. Friend would draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) to the second part of my remarks which he quoted and which I made in Standing Committee

    1801
    C. They exactly bear out what the right hon. Gentleman has said. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman should support us in this matter.
    Mr. Dudley Williams: I willingly do that. I know that the right hon. Gentleman is always prepared to accept advice from whatever quarter it comes.
    Mr. Ede: No, but I listen to advice
    Mr. Dudley Williams: A very subtle difference, but still the right hon. Gentleman does listen to advice.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Maid-stone, having been interrupted by the hon. Lady the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater), went on to say on that occasion
    "It happens occasionally, I admit, but not often. Therefore, to say that Parliament can reject rules that it does not like simply is not true. We have no power of scrutiny. Invariably, the Whips are on for all Prayers, and that is the end of the matter. That is most unfortunate.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C, 8th March, 1961; c.119.]
    Certainly that last sentence must be very true. So the right hon. Gentleman will see that my hon. Friend and he are in agreement upon that point. Of course, that is the burden of the appeal which I have made to the House today.
    I must confess to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bilston that he has shown great skill, that he has put his points very well, both in the Standing Committee upstairs and again here on the Floor of the House. I say that even though I disagree with him, but I think, with great respect to him, that legislation of this nature, under which regulations can be issued, should not be private Member's legislation, and that regulations of such a nature as this should be subject to the affirmative Resolution procedure so that we should not have to rely simply on praying against them to have them annulled.
    Mr. R. Edwards: Far be it from me to delay the proceedings, but one of two points arising on the Amendments demand a reply. Hon. Members opposite keep harping about a Private Member's Bill and its relation to the Government, but this point does not seem to me to be at all valid. It happens frequently in the life of Parliament that an hon. Member who is fortunate enough to come early in the Ballot decides to consult
    1802
    with those who have the power to make legislation on what social problems are urgent.
    Indeed, the House takes a poor view of an hon. Member who comes up early in the Ballot and then decides to promote a Bill which has no chance of becoming an Act. It is almost sacrilege. It is like playing a saxophone in a cathedral, and if an hon. Member promotes one or two Bills of that kind it is regarded as pure propaganda. I felt that I had some responsibility because I came second in the Ballot. I have many majestic ideas that I would enjoy writing into a Bill, but I accepted my colleagues' advice that I should be practical.
    The hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Dudley Williams) seems to overlook the fact that an important Committee on consumer protection is still sitting. In April, 1959, it submitted an interim report. This Bill is based on the recommendations in that Report. As this was a Government Committee and I wanted to promote a Consumer Protection Bill, I of course consulted the Government indirectly. That is not a crime. There is nothing wrong with it. I hope that it will always be done.
    I am pleased to say that we who are interested in the Bill received the very active support of the Government and of the Home Office in drafting it. My Bill was originally aimed at many more targets than this Bill is aimed at, but in the process of indirect discussion the Bill was very much reduced to take in the interim recommendations of the Molony Committee's Report.
    The very fact that if the Bill becomes an Act the Government will have power to issue regulations will make it quite unnecessary for the House to be flooded with regulations. The very fact that the Government will have sanctions which they do not now possess will limit the number of regulations. If that is so, as I am certain it is, it makes nonsense of our determination, accepted by both sides of the House, to protect the consumer against the known hazards from faulty and dangerous appliances, if we want to make it difficult for regulations to be submitted and for protection to the consumer to be provided. For these reasons and for the reasons given by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling)

    1803
    and by the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department I must resist the Amendment. My hon. Friends and I cannot accept it and I hope that it will be withdrawn.
    Mr. J. Wells: As I had the honour to move the Amendment on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Dudley Williams), I hope that I may be permitted to say a few words about it now. I listened closely to the arguments of both the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. R. Edwards) and my hon. and learned Friend the Joint Under-Secretary, whom I am sorry to see has had to leave the Chamber. The argument of my hon. and learned Friend which impressed me most nearly was the point which he made stressing that an affirmative Resolution is normally resorted

    CLAUSE 2.—(PROHIBITION ON SALE, ETC. OF GOODS NOT COMPLYING WITH REGULATIONS UNDER S. 1.)
    2.0 p.m.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think it would be convenient to discuss, with the Amendment to page 2, line 34, the following three Amendments also in the name of the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. R. Edwards)—
    In line 37, leave out "part" and insert "parts".
    In line 38, at end insert:
    "or
    (d) where he is selling, or as the case may be is in possession for the purpose of selling, the goods or component parts as scrap,
    to only on important matters of Government policy.
    I quite appreciate that this type of regulations in no way would represent an important point of policy, but we have been assured by my hon. and learned Friend, and it has been stated on both sides of the House and by the hon. Member for Bilston in particular, that it is hoped that there will never be any need to introduce regulations. It is said that this is a power to have regulations—a deterrent. Therefore, if it is seriously suggested that the regulations will never be made, I submit that the whole matter is an exercise in deterrence and I am therefore unwilling to withdraw the Amendment.
    Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill:—
    The House divided: Ayes 42, Noes 13.
    that is to say for the value of the materials of which the goods or parts are composed and not for use as finished articles; or
    (e) in the case of goods or component parts which have been damaged by, or in consequence of, fire or flooding, where he is selling, or as the case may be is in possession for the purpose of selling, the goods or component parts to a person who carries on a business of buying damaged goods and repairing or reconditioning them for resale, or to a person by whom the goods or parts were insured against damage".
    In page 3, line 5, after "section", insert "(other than paragraphs (d) and (e) of subsection (3))".

    Division No. 160.]

    AYES

    [1.58 p.m.

    Barter, John

    Hunter, A. E.

    Redmayne, Rt, Hon. Martin

    Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Renton, David

    Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S. W.)

    Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

    Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

    Brockway, A. Fenner

    Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

    Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn

    de Ferranti, Basil

    Kershaw, Anthony

    Sumner, Donald (Orpington)

    Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

    Lawson, George

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Ledger, Ron

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    Finlay, Graeme

    Lindsay, Martin

    Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    Lipton, Marcus

    Williams, Ll. (Abertillery)

    Gammans, Lady

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

    Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Marsh, Richard

    Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

    Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

    Mason, Roy

    Holman, Percy

    Mendelson, J. J.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Hughes-Young, Michael

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Mr. Darling and Mr. Oram.

    NOES

    Aitken, W. T.

    Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia

    Renton, David

    Bishop, F. P.

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Grimston, Sir Robert

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Gurden, Harold

    Longden, Gilbert

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Maddan, Martin

    Mr. Dudley Williams and

    Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

    Dr. Alan Glyn.

    Mr. R. Edwards: I beg to move, in page 2, line 34, to leave out "part" and to insert "parts."
    Mr. Dudley Williams: On a point of order. With great respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I feel that there may be a difference between the third Amendment and the other two, and I should have thought that it would be convenient that the House should discuss the first two Amendments together, and then take the third Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. R. Edwards) separately. I do not know whether that would find favour with you, but I think it might be more convenient to the House.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Mr. Speaker advised me to take the other course.
    Mr. Edwards: This is a very simple Amendment. It is a paving Amendment, and the second one is consequential upon it. In view of the time and of the fact that I am interested in getting this Bill through today, I do not want to delay the House by discussing it, unless it is a matter of controversy.
    Mr. Kenneth Lewis: This Amendment is one which turns the singular into the plural, and if we accept the fact that this Clause is bad in the singular, then it would be doubly bad if it were amended.
    I am rather surprised that the Clause is in this Bill at all, because at the present moment we are extremely concerned about exports. Ministers and Members of Parliament have been spending a good deal of their time going round the country exhorting industrialists and manufacturers to give less attention to the home market and to go out for exports. It is probable that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who is on the Front Bench, has himself been involved in this, and probably the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department has, too. I cannot see the virtue of asking the country to give its attention to exports, and of having a Budget the main object of which is to help exports—
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I am not quite sure how the hon. Member relates this to the Amendment before the House.
    Mr. Lewis: The Amendment deals with a Clause which indicates that none of these regulations will apply to any
    1806
    goods sold abroad, and the Amendment increases the impact of the Clause. Therefore, I think I was quite in order in dealing with the question of exports, which I shall endeavour to relate to the Bill.
    If we are to protect the home consumer, which is the object of this Bill, clearly, if the home consumer requires protection, we must endeavour to make regulations which will make sure that the goods we are selling abroad are equal in quality to the goods we are putting on the home market. We have always gained our business successes overseas by the quality of our goods, and I should have thought that this would have included the safety of our goods. If we say that we want to introduce regulations to prevent somebody being blown up or injured, surely, equally, we ought not to say that it does not matter if we produce goods for export and somebody overseas gets blown up or injured. Therefore, I think this is a weakness in the Bill.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman's argument seems to be against subsection (b). It does not seem to relate to the Amendment.
    Mr. Lewis: I am trying to keep in order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but it is a little difficult. I agree that I am dealing with what is in the Clause. I should like your Ruling on this, because I am dealing with an Amendment which doubles the impact of the Clause. The Amendment increases the range of goods to which the Clause applies.
    Mr. Darling: Perhaps I might help the hon. Gentleman. We discussed this on Second Reading, and dealt with the matter again in Committee. The hon. Gentleman will find that the reference to exports has nothing to do with the quality of our exports but relates to the fact that the standards in this country may be different from the standards in the countries to which the goods are going. Here we are dealing only with safety standards which may have to be altered because the standards may be different in the countries to which the goods are going.
    Mr. Lewis: The hon. Gentleman has helped me, and I hope that he has helped you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to keep me in order. If one is talking about the

    1807
    quality of goods, one must include the regulations about safety and other things which relate to them.
    I want to go a step further on this. In the coming months we may or may not go into Europe in a bigger way. To a considerable extent we are already in it. It is frequently said that when we go into Europe what we shall really be doing is enlarging the home market.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman again, but I cannot relate his remarks to the Amendment, which seeks to delete "part" and to insert "parts".
    Mr. Darling: Mr. Deputy-Speaker, this is only a drafting Amendment.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: But it is preparatory to the next Amendment.
    Mr. Lewis: If we go into Europe, it will be important that there should be some similarity between the regulations which exist here and those which exist in Europe. I should have thought that this would have meant that the Clause would make it more difficult for us to line up with the regulations in which we may find ourselves involved in due course in the Six or the Outer Seven.
    Mr. R. Edwards: The Clause deals only with regulations affecting the British consumer, and does not relate to regulations governing the export of goods. Of course, the quality must be high, but the safety regulations in France, Italy and all the Common Market countries may be entirely different. If we impose regulations on British goods to protect the home consumer and apply the same regulations to exported goods, it will damage the export trade because the regulations abroad may be quite different and the goods will then not be marketable. It is only with this relationship that the Bill deals.
    Mr. Lewis: I find myself in a difficulty in answering the hon. Gentleman, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I shall probably have to go out of order to do so. What I am suggesting is that there ought to be a Clause in the Bill which would permit the Government to bring in regulations to cover goods for export as well as goods for the home market.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That does not arise on this Amendment.
    2.15 p.m.
    Mr. Lewis: As I said, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that was precisely where I should gat out of order, but I had to do it in order to answer the hon. Gentleman. I think that I have made my point that this is a weakness in the Bill. Perhaps I shall have the opportunity to develop the matter further on Third Reading.
    Mr. Dudley Williams: I do not wish to make a lot out of the first two Amendments, which I agree are probably only drafting Amendments. I do not think that the language in the subsections is very good. I should have thought that a better expression would have been "the goods or any component part," but I will not make anything out of that. If the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. R. Edwards) has been advised that "parts" is more suitable, I am prepared to accept it.
    I do not like the third Amendment. If the Bill is to be passed, I do not think the subsection (d) should be inserted. If we are to have the Bill, nobody should sell anything which is likely to do damage or injury or to kill anyone, even if they are selling it to people who will use it as scrap. I wonder whether there will be a legal aspect if, say, a cartridge becomes dangerous because it has been allowed to degenerate, perhaps having around the cap cellulose acetate which may make it liable to discharge. I feel that that may be possible if we are to have the Bill, though I should not like to be too emphatic on the point. I should have thought that articles sold for scrap would come within the provisions of the Clause as well as anything else.
    Subsection (e) refers to:
    "the case of goods or component parts which have been damaged by, or in consequence of fire or flooding"
    and the man is selling them to a person—
    Mr. J. Wells: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I apologise for interrupting, but I should like to have your Ruling on why we are able to discuss scrap in relation to the third Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. R. Edwards). I have in mind the earlier Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Dudley Williams), in page 2, line 11, which

    1809
    dealt with second-hand goods, which seem to be in much the same category. Are we in order in discussing scrap?
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Dudley Williams) was not selected by Mr. Speaker. We are now discussing four Amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. R. Edwards), and the arguments must be related to these Amendments.
    Mr. Dudley Williams: I was saying that in subsection (e) there is reference to goods which are sold to people who buy damaged goods and possibly repair or recondition them. My criticism of this subsection is similar to my criticism of subsection (d). It may well be found that in the process of deterioration through fire, water or other means goods have become dangerous to handle. I can think of some chemicals which would be dangerous to handle in such cases. If I went through the Pharmacopoeia I could find many chemicals which become far more dangerous when they have become damaged by water than they are before that happens. If we are to have the Bill—I have very strong criticism of it in its present form—I feel that it is right that such goods should come within the scope of the regulations to be issued by the Home Secretary.
    We hear that the Home Secretary never issues regulations unless he is certain that no injustice is done. I will not argue that today because I should be out of order in doing so, but I can think of many regulations made from time to time which have led to grave injustice, and to considerable disturbance in this House, and even in many cases to the tabling of Prayers, to annul the regulations. It would be wrong to assume that the Home Secretary is always wise in his decisions about the regulations which he issues. If we are to have the Bill—I consider that it ought to have been a Government Bill thrashed out during Government time—all goods should come within its scope.
    It is not sufficient to exclude one or two items such as this. With great respect to the hon. Member for Bilston, he has not given an adequate explanation for the exclusion of these two classes of goods from the Bill, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will develop the reasons for doing so. If
    1810
    we are to have the Bill at all, these classes of goods should be included, but if they are to be excluded sound reasons should be advanced not only by my hon. and learned Friend but by the promoter of the Bill. Eloquent speeches from them might avoid our dividing on these two issues.
    The Amendment in page 2, line 38, seeks to insert two new paragraphs—(d) and (e)—and I think that these should have been taken separately. I can conceive that some hon. Members might like to vote for (d) and not for (e), or vice versa—
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The Amendments we are discussing will, of course, be put separately.
    Mr. Dudley Williams: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for putting me right there. I had thought that that Amendment included both paragraphs. There is not a further Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Bilston to insert (e), but if you tell me that we are to vote on (d) and (e)—but I see the hon. Member for Bilston shaking his head—
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. Hon. Members can vote on each Amendment as put.
    Mr. Renton: With respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Dudley Williams) is making is that this Amendment covers two separate points, each of which is dealt with by a separate paragraph, and there would not be a separate Division on those two points because both are within the same Amendment.
    Mr. Dudley Williams: That is the very point I was trying to make. Some hon. Members may wish to vote for one of these paragraphs and some for the other—and some, no doubt, will not wish to vote for either of them. I know that I want to vote against both—
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am sorry if I misunderstood the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Dudley Williams). The proper course, if the hon. Member so desired, would be to put down an Amendment.
    Mr. Dudley Williams: With great respect, it is a little late to do that, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. We should have to do

    1811
    that in another place. We are now on Report—
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I was not suggesting that the hon. Member should do it now. I was pointing out his remedy.
    Mr. Dudley Williams: I agree, and I must plead guilty to being a little careless in not watching the Order Paper as closely as I should have done. I was so engaged in putting down my own Amendments that I did not realise that such far-reaching Amendments as this would be put down by the hon. Member for Bilston—
    Mr. John Hall: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. As this is a matter of great interest to hon. Members, would you accept a manuscript Amendment at this stage?
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No, I would not accept a manuscript Amendment.
    Mr. Dudley Williams: I was afraid that you would not, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, though my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) has put an interesting point.
    I take the view that another Amendment is desirable. I do not make a great issue of substituting "parts" for "part", but I do not like the two new paragraphs suggested by the third Amendment. I hope that others of my hon. Friends, who, I am sure, will also wish to speak on this matter, will indicate to the House whether they, too, feel that they can support the Amendment in page 2, line 38. I think that it is a bad Amendment, and I hope that when we divide against it we shall see a substantial majority against it.
    Dr. Alan Glyn: I agree with what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. K. Lewis) about changing "part" to "parts". To do so largely increases the powers under the Bill, and thereby raises a very important principle. We are here legislating for two different categories of goods, one for home consumption and the other for consumption abroad. I said in Committee that this might make our Continental and world customers think that there are two standards.
    I am sure that we would all agree with the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. R. Edwards) that standards, quality and
    1812
    specifications are quite different in different countries, and that, in essence, the purpose of this Clause is to protect our own manufacturers from having to produce goods to specifications which rule in other countries. I can see the object of that, because, if the Amendment were not accepted, the exemptions to which goods designed for export were subjected would be limited considerably.
    I shall not oppose this Amendment, because I think that if we are to exclude any we must exclude all, but I hope that it will not be thought that by passing this Clause, either in its original form or amended, we feel that we can sell second-rate goods to our Continental and foreign customers. As the hon. Member for Bilston said, this is purely a matter of machinery whereby we can protect our own manufacturers, and I think that this point should be fully expounded in the interests of our very important export trade.
    The paragraphs in the Amendment in page 2, line 38 would exclude a very wide range of goods—scrap, goods that have been subjected to fire, salvage and the like—and I should have thought that such goods were more dangerous then than in their original state. Admittedly, the customer should pay great attention to the goods before he buys them, but in some cases the articles may come from a demolished arms factory or chemical factory. After there has been such a demolition, articles that may be part of the equipment or stock in trade of that factory, warehouse, shop or building are not known even to the owner.
    2.30 p.m.
    A simple example is that of a metal case which is taken out from a fire, or from salvage, or during the demolition of a building. Nobody knows what is inside but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Dudley Williams) suggested, it might contain some noxious gas. It might contain dry carbide which the purchaser might take home and allow to get damp so that there would be a gas which might cause risk to life and limb. There is the case of a possible fire in, or demolition of, premises containing carbide or other material of that nature which the bona fide purchaser would buy from the scrap merchant. I am sure that many hon. Members have been to scrap yards where purchasers

    1813
    might buy something in good faith but of whose contents they would know nothing.
    I do not see any reason why we should exclude what is possibly the most dangerous source of goods of which the contents are not known. The would-be purchaser might look at a very nice steel box, possibly from ex-Army goods, but it might contain dangerous chemicals and even explosives. This is one of the categories of merchandise to which the Bill ought to apply.
    Mr. R. Edwards: It would still be an offence under the Bill to sell it other than as scrap.
    Dr. Glyn: I am grateful to the hon. Member, for that is my point. We have only to cross the river to get to one of the biggest scrapyards in London—Messrs. J. Warrington—to see an extraordinary variety of things sold. Does not the hon. Member agree that there should be a much more rigorous degree of scrutiny than in the case of other goods? In the normal chain there is the manufacturer who checks the goods and the wholesaler and retailer and finally the purchaser. In this case there is none of those checks and the goods are simply moved in bulk to a large scrapyard in the centre of London or the outskirts, often in an eastern part of London, and the would-be purchaser knows nothing about their condition or what is inside them. I should have thought that this was a dangerous source of goods and that we ought to insist that a greater control should be exercised.
    Mr. Darling: That would probably be true if the words
    "and not for use as finished articles"
    were not in the Amendment.
    Dr. Glyn: In many cases, builders and others for example, they are purchased for use as finished articles.
    Mr. Darling: Then that is an offence.
    Dr. Glyn: But not in all cases. I do not know what the definition of "finished article" is, but I can think of many occasions when goods are bought not as finished articles but as secondary scrap. One scrap dealer often purchases from another. I do not want to go into too many details, but I think that this is a class of goods which ought to be included in the Clause, if the Clause is to
    1814
    be accepted at all, even though some of us still have our doubts about the Bill in its present form.
    Mr. J. Wells: I shall refer only briefly to the first two Amendments which are drafting Amendments, but I disagree with the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. K. Lewis) about their effect. I think that they are very satisfactory and necessary to promote and ease our export trade. Several hon. Members have expressed doubts about the implications of the Bill for overseas buyers. On Second Reading I quoted paragraph 44 of the Molony Report and said:
    "That is an extraordinarily cynical remark to come from a Committee of this distinction."
    —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th January, 1961; Vol. 633, c.487.]
    The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hills-borough (Mr. Darling) was kind enough to agree with me that that phrase was unfortunate.
    The two drafting Amendments will ease the situation. Overseas buyers will realise that we are trying to conform with their standards and they should not have further anxieties. In Committee the point was made of the importance of different standards and of conforming to the rules of different countries, and Canada's standards were mentioned. I ask my hon. Friends to welcome the drafting Amendments on the clear understanding that exporters will continue with their high quality. It is essential to the good name of our country that exports should in no way be spoiled by our deliberations on the Bill.
    I see the third Amendment in a rather different light from my hon. Friends. In or near their constituencies, both my hon. and learned Friend and the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. R. Edwards) have large tractor dealing businesses. These wholesale buyers of ancient tractors get them from farms at very nearly scrap price. The hon. Member for Hillsborough said that the offer for sale of such goods as finished articles would be an offence, but it is very difficult to draw the borderline in this case. Hon. Members with more experience in this matter than I will agree that it is possible to buy a very old tractor for 30s. and then to sell it to a farmer on a remote hill farm who will be extremely

    1815
    glad to get it for £20 or £30 after it has been "done up". This scrap dealing must be excluded from the Bill and for that reason I welcome paragraph (d) which I regard as excellent.
    However, I was worried by the remarks of the hon. Member for Hills-borough. He said that selling an item as a finished article when it had been bought as scrap might be an offence. One can only hope that in issuing any regulations the Home Office will bear in mind the difficulties of the scrap yards, particularly those of dealers in ferrous scrap and agricultural equipment. We all know that tractors go not only to remote hill farms, but from East Anglia to foreign countries. The overseas buyers are fully aware of the position and do not believe that they are buying new British goods. They know that they are getting old stuff. They think that they are getting very good value for their money. For this reason, I welcome paragraph (d).
    Paragraph (e) is rather different. I hope I see in this paragraph some concession from the hon. Member for Bilston to remarks I made in Committee, which appear in column 69, dealing with job stock buyers. I was very concerned about the position of a man who buys goods which have been damaged.
    Mr. R. Edwards Mr. R. Edwards indicated assent.
    Mr. Wells: I am grateful to the hon. Member for introducing paragraph (e), but I am not altogether happy about its wording. Although I am grateful to him for the principle, I hope that he will think about it again. I do not know if it is possible to divide paragraphs (d) and (e), or whether he can withdraw the whole Amendment, although I am in favour of the principle, with a view to tabling it again with altered wording.
    My reason is that there is no specific mention in paragraph (e) of transactions being done by people whose exclusive business it is. The paragraph contains these words:
    "selling…the goods or component parts to a person who carries on a business of buying damaged goods and repairing or reconditioning them for resale…."
    That is all right as far as it goes, but it is not an exclusive business. Somebody
    1816
    body carrying on another business may well stray into this business and do it occasionally. That is where grave dangers can arise.
    The promoter has said repeatedly that he does not want to harry the small retailer. We accept his words in that spirit. He seeks to protect the consumer. We are all anxious that the consumer should be protected. It is my belief that the purchaser of second-hand goods which have been damaged or repaired after damage knows what he is getting. He thinks that he is getting value for money. It is reasonably simple for him to be protected. He looks after his own interests. The vendor needs this safeguard.
    There is the difficulty of the man whose trade is quite different but who once in a while strays into the reconditioning of damaged goods. He might display damaged and repaired goods alongside wholesome goods. That is where there might well be a genuine danger to the consumer. It will be of great advantage if the promoter can alter that between now and the final stages of the Bill.
    There is another aspect of the scrap question. There have been questions and comments, in the House and outside, about certain scrap dealings in the North. It is essential that people should be clear in their minds about the valuable service which the scrap-dealing community provide for the rest of us.
    That may sound a surprising remark, but people living in certain rural areas who are anxious to maintain the beauty and amenity of the countryside and do not have a full refuse collection service are frequently in grave difficulties in disposing of bulky articles. The scrap dealer, the sort of man who will be protected by paragraph (d) and (e)—I have more in mind the iron and ferrous dealer who will be protected by paragraph (d)—provides a useful service to the community, particularly in rural districts. Therefore, we should provide him with every protection. Such a dealer is a familiar figure in country lanes. The prices he pays are not always high, but the farming community welcome his visits and are glad to have the place cleaned up. He provides a real service which local authorities do not, and indeed should not.
    2.45 p.m.
    Unlike some of my hon. Friends, I welcome the Amendments in lines 34 and 37. I welcome the Amendment in line 38, with reservations. I repeat my expression of appreciation to the hon. Gentle man for meeting the point I made in Committee, but I shall be very grateful if he will go a little further towards meeting my difficulty.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In line 37, leave out "part" and insert "parts".
    In line 38, at end insert:
    "or
    (d) where he is selling, or as the case may be is in possession for the purpose of selling, the goods or component parts as scrap, that is to say for the value of the materials of which the goods or parts are composed and not for use as finished articles; or
    (e) in the case of goods or component parts which have been damaged by, or in consequence of, fire or flooding, where he is selling, or as the case may be is in possession for the purpose of selling, the goods or component parts to a person who carries on a business of buying damaged goods and repairing or reconditioning them for resale or to a person by whom the goods or parts were insured against damage".
    In page 3, line 5, after "section", insert:
    "(other than paragraphs (d) and (e) of subsection (3))".—[Mr. R. Edwards.]

    Schedule.—(PROVISIONS AS TO INSPECTION, TESTING AND ENFORCEMENT BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES.)
    Mr. R. Edwards: I beg to move, in page 6, line 43, leave out "on premises".
    This is a very simple Amendment. It arises fundamentally out of representations made to me by Committees actively concerned with home safety, particularly the Romford Home Safety Committee. I am happy to say that that Committee takes a very active and intelligent interest in the Bill. It suggested that the Bill should be amended in the form suggested so as to allow for search of and control over stalls at markets, and mobile shops. This seems a reasonable Amendment, and I hope that it will be accepted.
    Mr. J. Wells: I very much welcome the Amendment. In parts of the country where there are large new towns the mobile shop has become a great feature of post-war years, providing a service
    1818
    to the community on large housing estates. It would be very unfortunate if mobile shops were not covered by this provision.
    Dr. Alan Glyn: I am sure that we all welcome this Amendment, but I am a little uncertain about one point to which the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. R. Edwards) made. I think he said that the Amendment would have the effect of including stalls—
    Mr. R. Edwards: Market stalls.
    Dr. Glyn: This is what I am not sure about. I had always understood that one of the features of the marché ouvert was that it was not subject to inspection, that stolen goods or any goods could be sold there, and that it was one place where there was practically no restrictions on the sale of goods whatever. Many of us will know about the market in the Portobello Road and the old Caledonian Market in London. I have always understood that those were places where goods were displayed for sale, almost without any restriction, and that title, for instance, was very difficult to establish once an article had been through the marché ouvert.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Maid-stone (Mr. J. Wells) has drawn my attention to Section 49 of the Food and Drugs Act, 1955, which provides:
    "Subject to the provisions of this section, the council of a borough or urban district and, with the consent of the Minister of Housing and Local Government, the council of a rural district may—

    (a) establish a market within their district;

    (b) acquire by agreement (but not otherwise), either by purchase or on lease, the whole or any part of an existing market undertaking within their district, and any rights enjoyed by any person within their district in respect of a market and of tolls, and, in either case, may provide—

    (i) a market place with convenient approaches thereto;

    (ii) a market house and other buildings convenient for the holding of a market."

    I think that that serves to illustrate that these markets are part of our institutions in this country.
    The first object of the Amendment is to include mobile shops. I am in favour of that, but I should not like to see our ancient and established customs disturbed. These markets are held all over

    1819
    the country, and I should not like the goods there to be subject to inspection so that the whole character of the markets was altered.
    I am not sure that I have understood the hon. Member for Bilston aright. I should like to have his comments. Also, I should very much welcome the advice of my hon. and learned Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State. He is here only to help and advise us, but I should be greatly obliged if he would let us know whether the Amendment would extend the application of the Bill to the marché ouvert, because that would be a very sweeping change in the common law of this country, a change in an established principle or custom which has lasted, I should imagine, for seven or eight hundred years.
    Mr. John Barter: Will my hon. Friend agree that the principal reason for markets of this kind is that they provide a place where the buyer hopes to see a variety of objects displayed for sale and pick out for himself a bargain at a bargain price, the whole principle of the system depending upon the maxim caveat emptor, that the buyer must beware of what he is buying if he hopes to find something at an extremely advantageous price? The buyer takes the article at the risk that there are inherent defects in it when he buys it. Is there not a little more at stake here, namely, the question whether it is right for the buyer to be relieved of his legal obligation to beware of what he is buying?
    Dr. Alan Glyn: I am grateful for that intervention by my hon. Friend who has put the point much more clearly than I have. There is our well established principle of caveat emptor which, though my Latin is a little rusty, I understand to mean that one must take cognisance oneself of what one is buying. All manner of goods are sold on the market stall, and the intending buyer can go round—I have in mind particularly the Portobello Road and the Caledonian Market—in order to secure for himself a bargain.
    I want to know whether this Amendment will upset the machinery which has been in existence for hundreds of years and which is now part of our English way of life. I should be very loth to see inspectors going round our markets and treating them as shops which,
    1820
    virtually, is what would happen. That is how I understand it. Perhaps I have misinterpreted the effect of it, but the word "stall" used by the hon. Member for Bilston leads me to suspect that that was the category of selling place or market at which he was aiming.
    I am sure that it would not be the hon. Member's intention to damage that tradition, and I should like to know exactly what it is intended to cover. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State will give us his advice, supported by his weighty knowledge of the law, so that he may be quite sure, when we accept this Amendment, that we are not upsetting the age-old procedure of the marché ouvert which, I believe, has existed almost since the days of the Conquest.
    Mr. Darling: There is nothing novel here. It is not a new idea. If I recollect aright, the hon. Member for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn) himself voted for a provision of this kind, that stalls in market places should come under inspection in respect of goods covered by safety regulations, when he voted for the Oil Burners (Standards) Bill. That Bill, which is now an Act, provides for the inspection of oil burners sold anywhere on stalls, in markets or wherever it may be. It is rather regrettable—I say this with all due deference—that the hon. Member at this stage should suggest that unsafe appliances could be sold in markets, having regard to the principle we have accepted in previous legislation.
    Dr. Glyn: The hon. Member has not quite understood my point. I am not so much concerned with the selling of the goods. The point is that it would upset the whole machinery of the marché's ouverts of this country so that they would be subject to inspection. They would have to be. I agree that we did, perhaps, accept an omnibus power under the Oil Burners (Standards) Act, but I see no reason why that precedent should be followed in another Measure which is much more comprehensive and which relates to almost any conceivable article. The oil burner is but one article. We let the other provision go through without realising, perhaps, that it would mean the inspection of markets. This Bill is very much more comprehensive, as my hon. Friends have repeatedly

    1821
    stressed. As I understand it—I may be wrong—what is here proposed would mean—
    Mr. Darling: Is this an intervention?
    Dr. Glyn: I am sorry.
    Mr. Darling: I will reply very briefly to that intervention. Where there is a choice between the old traditions of markets and the health, safety and welfare of the people, I choose health, safety and welfare.
    Mr. Dudley Williams: I always like to show how fair I am when dealing with private Members' legislation and that I am not taking a purely party line. In this case I am not in favour of the attitude taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn), although I understand the force of his argument. I rather favour the view of the promoter of the Bill. I thought that he would be touched if he were assured that he had this support and if he were made aware of the fact that I am approaching this matter without any prejudice.
    It would be wise to accept the Amendment. Indeed, it would be unfair not to do so. It would be unfair on the ordinary shopkeeper, with whom I am particularly concerned, if he had to conform to certain regulations while the person who sells his goods in an open market was not subject to similar regulations. For that reason I advise my hon. Friends who have been extremely critical of this Bill—and who I think have been perfectly justified in being critical—that on this occasion it is right that the Amendment should be accepted.
    Perhaps my hon. and learned Friend the Joint Under-Secretary will tell us whether he thinks this is a desirable Amendment. In my view, it is, and I shall support it unless my hon. and learned Friend can put forward any strong views to the contrary.
    3.0 p.m.
    Mr. Renton: I certainly have no hesitation in advising the House that this is a desirable Amendment, partly for the reasons expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Dudley Williams).
    My hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn) asked me to explain one point, which I gladly will.
    1822
    He asked whether it will be possible to apply this schedule to goods sold in market overt—for example, in the Caledonian market and similar markets elsewhere. The answer is "Yes", but in that connection one must bear two things in mind. First, when making regulations under paragraph 3 of the Schedule it will be for the Secretary of State to decide to what extent, if any, the Schedule is to apply. That is the first modification of the general principle, that the Schedule will apply to goods sold in market overt. The other is that a great many of the goods sold in market overt are goods which are excepted in any event from the provisions of the Bill by Clause 2 (3), and one has to remember that by an Amendment which we discussed a short time ago, an addition has been made to subsection (3) in two respects.
    What it comes to is this, that although this Schedule and the powers of inspection which it gives may apply to goods sold in the Caledonian market and elsewhere, there are a good many things sold in that market which cannot be made the subject of regulations under the Bill—or, to put it more accurately, there are goods which are excluded from the operation of regulations which may be made under this Bill.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
    3.4 p.m.
    Mr. Dudley Williams: We are now considering the Bill in its final form and we have to decide whether it should receive a Third Reading. I have never concealed my dislike of this Bill. I spoke against it on Second Reading; I spoke repeatedly against it in Standing Committee, and I have done so this afternoon with one exception—on the last Amendment.
    In my opinion, this is a badly conceived Bill. If it is to become law at all, the Bill should have been introduced by the Government of the day and not by a private Member. I have said so repeatedly. We have the Food and Drugs (Scotland) Act, 1956, dealing with the problems and conditions under which food and drugs are sold, and we have the Firearms Act, both of which important Measures were introduced by

    1823
    the Government of the day. Now we have a Private Member's Bill which affects the retail and manufacturing trades in a most comprehensive manner. I hope that I shall not be out of order in referring once more to Clause 1. Clause 1 gives very comprehensive powers indeed to the Secretary of State. I would mention, shortly, what they are. First, he can prescribe any such regulations as he thinks fit to
    "…the composition or contents, design, construction, finish or packing of…"
    any goods sold. That, as I interpret it, means that he has almost authority on design. He may say, "I am not going to approve this design. It is not in accordance with what I think is the right design for these particular goods." The design may not affect the lethal or near-lethal quality of the goods. He may not like the design of the goods, without any regard to the fact that they may be dangerous. It is a very comprehensive power given to the Secretary of State, and I am against it and always shall be.
    Of course, the Secretary of State is restricted under the Bill to deal only with those catering for goods which are liable to cause death or injury. But that can be very widely read. On Second Reading, I raised the question of footwear, and I was called to order by the Chair. But some footwear can cause death or injury. For instance, there are the boots made for mountaineers. A badly-constructed mountaineering boot may well cause death or injury. This is the sort of tangle we get into when a Bill of this kind is passed through the House.
    It is a very comprehensive Measure to pass, and I do not think that it should go through on a Friday when it is well known that few hon. Members attend. It is not only the powers given to the Secretary of State to which I object. I also object to the impact that those powers may have on vast sections of the population. That is the point that I made in particular in Standing Committee.
    I have always taken the view, and I persist in it to this moment, that it is wrong that under the Bill regulations should be made and penalties inflicted upon people who have no responsibility for the goods at all, except that they happen to sell them. It is all very well
    1824
    to say, as one hon. Member who is no longer in the Chamber said, that shopkeepers should not buy goods from travelling salesmen; they should buy them from reputable firms only. That seems to be a bit hard on the travelling salesman with a reputable career. I get salesmen calling at my house in Devonshire from time to time. They sell reasonable goods. Many of them are ex-Service men trying to earn a living. I personally have nothing against the travelling salesmen with a little bag of goods who says, for instance, "I have a new line in washing gloves and I want you to buy them". I do not think that we should say that a shopkeeper cannot buy goods from travelling salemen and that he ought to buy them from a well-established wholesaler.
    The Bill will not affect the big chain stores. They are quite capable of looking after themselves. They have departments to see that they keep within the law. They have departments which make certain that the goods they sell conform with ail the regulations issued from time to time. They are not the people who will get into trouble.
    But even if they did get into trouble I should be sympathetic towards them, because they are not the people whom we are trying to catch. The people we want to catch are the unscrupulous manufacturers who produce shoddy goods and unload them on the public, and nobody in this House or outside it who has any sense of responsibility would support that kind of person. It is monstrous that that sort of behaviour should be permitted, and I should support the Government if, later on, they introduced legislation to deal with such gentlemen. They are not admirable, and I do not think that anyone supports their activities.
    But that is not what will happen under the Bill. Clause 2 gives very wide power to the Secretary of State. It says:
    "Subject to the provisions of this section, no person shall sell, or have in his possession for the purpose of selling, any goods"
    and so on. That is what I object to. I am not concerned about the manufacturer. He naturally must take responsibility for what he manufactures, and if he desires to manufacture an inferior sort of appliance—a firearm, or

    1825
    a piece of electrical equipment—he should have sufficient technical resources at his disposal to make certain that when that article reaches the public it is not likely to cause injury or death. It is right for Parliament to pass laws making it incumbent upon such individuals to see that they do not unload lethal goods on the public.
    But it is quite wrong that similar penalties should be applied to those in the distributive trades. It is monstrous to apply the same penalties to the small shopkeepers, of whom we have between 500,000 and 750,000, and to make them responsible for the sins of the manufacturers. Much play has been made of the fact that some of the goods they buy are imported. There may be a case for introducing a Measure to give the Government control of imported goods which are likely to cause serious injury or death. But that is not a responsibility of the distributive trades. Shopkeepers buy the goods, and they must assume that in a law-abiding country such as this those goods are suitable for the purpose for which they are sold.
    My hon. and learned Friend referred to the Sale of Goods Act, but he knows as well as I do that if goods are brought in from abroad the chances of the shopkeeper recovering any damages under that Act are remote. There is probably a case for legislation of that nature. But the penalty should be applied to those who are doing the mischief, and not to those who are in no way responsible, but who have taken the goods in good faith and are acting the part of distributors for those goods. I could not give support to a Bill of this nature, and I hope that it will not receive a Third Reading.
    It could be argued that action should have been taken before the Bill reached this stage, and that it could have been rejected on Second Reading. You know as well as I do, Mr. Speaker, that some Bills commence their passage through the House when we are so busy that we find it difficult to keep track of what is happening. In those cases it is only when the Bill is presented to a group of Members in Committee, or to the House on Report, that we realise what its impact is likely to be upon society. In those circumstances, there can be no criticism of the fact that the
    1826
    Bill received a Second Reading. That was quite understandable.
    It had a bitter contest in Standing Committee and now it is proposed to take the final step which, if the Bill receives a Third Reading, will result in it leaving this House for another place. I should not like the Measure to leave the House without it being made clear that it still requires considerable amendment. If it is given a Third Reading—and I hope it is not—I hope that noble Lords will take note of these remarks and realise that the Bill requires drastic alteration before it reaches the Statute Book.
    If those in another place decide that it needs drastic amendment, I hope that they will give particular attention to the impact of the powers of the Secretary of State on the retail trade by regulations which he can issue under the Bill. I hope also that certain products will be excluded from the impact of the regulations, although I realise that to pursue that subject would be out of order.
    It is wrong to give the Secretary of State the powers embodied in this Bill—powers that are so comprehensive that they will hit the small people hardest. For that reason, if a Division is called I hope that I shall have enough hon. Members with me to ensure that the Measure does not receive a Third Reading.
    3.17 p.m.
    Mr. Darling: I hope that the Bill receives a Third Reading and I hope also that hon. Gentlemen opposite who have been listening, and who perhaps intend to support the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Dudley Williams), will bear in mind that most of the hon. Member's arguments were thoroughly examined in Standing Committee. Upon study of the proceedings of that Committee, hon. Members will agree that a substantial case was made for the Bill as it stands.
    It is a simple Measure, although it has wide scope, and it is worth while, so that the records shall be kept clear, that I should comment on the arguments adduced by those who wish the Bill to proceed no further. It may be that, in the course of the next few years, we shall see domestic and other appliances on the market which can cause danger. If

    1827
    the need for safety regulations against such appliances is proved—such as oil burners where there were deaths and disasters—the Government have power to introduce safety regulations to apply to those products.
    It would be impossible to lay down categories of goods and appliances to which this power of making regulations should apply, because no one knows what kind of goods we shall be dealing with in the future. Perhaps, in the years to come, we shall have infra-red ray cookers, instead of the present types, and perhaps new regulations will have to be enforced. In my view, there is no danger in the comprehensive nature of the Bill, because the regulations which will be introduced under it must have the sanction of this House.
    This is a Bill to protect people, not against manufacturers who may be deliberately making unsafe appliances and putting on the market dangerous goods, but against manufacturers who do not know, when they first design their goods, that they are dangerous. That, of course, was the situation the Government faced with regard to oil stoves, when reputable manufacturers were making stoves that were up to the standards laid down by the British Standards Institute. It was not until we had many unfortunate disasters, which I wish hon. Members opposite would occasionally mention, that we knew that these standards were not satisfactory, and new standards had to be brought in. Reputable manufacturers accepted them straight away.
    But we are faced with this question: do we make those standards compulsory on all manufacturers? The Government and my hon. Friend the Member for Bilston (Mr. R. Edwards) believe that we should; that is why my hon. Friend introduced the Bill. We believe that all the standards should be made compulsory. There is a very good reason, and it is to ensure that all the appliances on the market are safe.
    The Bill gives protection not only to the consumer but to the reputable manufacturer—and that is a point which has not been clearly brought out by hon. Members opposite who criticise the Bill. One of its main functions is to
    1828
    protect the reputable manufacturer, the reputable wholesaler and the reputable retailer, all of whom are in the majority in their various trades. The Bill gives protection not only to consumers but to the reputable people engaged in business.
    For those reasons we think that the Bill should have a Third Reading. Speaking for myself, I cannot for the life of me think of any arguments for refusing the Bill a Third Reading and for doing anything to prevent its quick passage to the Statute Book
    Mr. Dudley Williams: Will the hon. Member bear in mind that those of us who take exception to the Bill have never said that we want to protect anyone who is unscrupulous? We have said that we should go for the unscrupulous manufacturers but that we do not want penalties inflicted on an unfortunate retailer who may not know that he has bought an article which is below standard.
    Mr. Darling: It was made clear to the hon. Member in Committee that anybody who is in that position has a perfect defence if brought into court.
    Dr. Alan Glyn: This is the point which fundamentally divides the two sides of the House. In Committee we pointed out that it was far better for the manufacturers to bear the burden and that the administration would be far easier to conduct and to check in that case. We pointed out that the average shopkeeper could not be cognisant of every possible regulation and that it was unfair to expect him to be so.
    Mr. Darling: That point was covered in Committee. We agree with the hon. Member that the main point of inspection and the real onus of responsibility must be on the manufacturer. That is implicit in the Bill.
    3.23 p.m.
    Mr. Philip Goodhart: I join the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) in hoping that the Bill will get a Third Reading. But we should recognise that this Private Member's Bill will give the Government wider powers than probably any other Private Member's Bill introduced into the House this century. It therefore does not seem to me in the least improper that

    1829
    a number of my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friends the Members for Exeter (Mr. Dudley Williams), Maid-stone (Mr. J. Wells) and Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn), have sought to give the provisions of the Bill very thorough scrutiny. The powers are exceedingly wide.
    It is a point of interest that although the powers are of such immense breadth very little representation about them has been made by industry or, as far as I know, by the retail trade. There are a number of very vocal trading and industrial organisations in this country and most of us receive a very large post every day, including observations from these various organisations on the Government's conduct and on legislation which is passing through the House. Although I spoke in the Second Reading debate—I was not on the Committee—I have received no representations of any sort from the industrial or retail trading organisations that the provisions of the Bill should be changed. My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter in particular speaks on behalf of many shopkeepers, but no official representations have gone out. If there were real concern about the way in which the Bill could be changed for the better, one would have thought that by this stage those representations would have been made.
    The hon. Member for Hillsborough referred to the number of accidents to oil heaters which one would not say were caused in any way by a standard that was out of keeping with the times. If, however, the Bill is to be effective, concomitant with it we must have a constant review of the safety standards for a large number of goods. The Government will have to face the fact that this will mean a bigger grant for the British Standards Institution, which will have considerably increased scope and a considerably increased rôle to play.
    Mr. Darling: That would be one way of avoiding the introduction of a lot of regulations. The bigger the job that the B.S.I. can do voluntarily to get standards raised, the less need will there be for regulations in Parliament.
    Mr. Goodhart: I agree. The Government's duty by no means ends with the
    1830
    enforcement of the Bill if and when it reaches the Statute Book.
    Consider the case of inflammable nightdresses. It is theoretically possible under the provisions of the Bill to ban the manufacture of nightdresses made of any material that is non-non-inflammable, if I may introduce a triple negative into the argument, not for the first time today. Clearly the Government will not introduce regulations of that sort. No hon. Member, on either side, would consider the time ripe for such sweeping action.
    Meanwhile, these tragic accidents occur. In the last few days, alas, in my constituency, a young woman died as a result of her nightdress bursting into flames. The Government have a positive responsibility, apart from the negative powers given in the Bill, to encourage the use of non-inflammable materials for garments such as nightdresses and children's clothing and to encourage safety in a number of positive ways. Thus I welcome the Bill, which gives the Government the widest possible negative powers. I remind my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary that the Government have considerable positive duties to fulfil also.
    3.29 p.m.
    Lady Gammans: I am glad of the opportunity to take part in a debate on this important Measure which affects so many people and will have such far-reaching effects on all sections of the community. As a member of the Home Safety Committee, I have made a special study of the problems connected with personal safety and there are one or two points in Clause 1 concerning chiefly safety measures which I should like to emphasise.
    The Bill will give long-term and permanent powers to enable the Secretary of State to make regulations so that there will be no need for a lot of new separate Bills whenever there are new items of consumer goods which we use in our daily lives and which appear to be dangerous. This is particularly important in view of the fact that recently the number of accidents has increased tremendously, particularly accidents in which people are burned. We have all read of the terrible instances when

    1831
    children and adults have been burned by accident.
    I hope that strong representations will be made to the Committee which is still sitting to review the subject of inflammable materials and their dangers. The Interim Report of the Committee gave us definite guidance about those materials. I know, however, that the views of one of the major firms producing material for making fabrics non-inflammable, and of another firm which has produced something quite new, were not sought by the Committee. I imagine that was because the Committee was asked to produce a report rather quickly. It seems obvious that the Committee did not have time to take all the evidence about these various new processes. It was set up because of the special need to review the situation owing to the trouble with the oil heaters.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mrs. McLaughlin), who, unfortunately, is not able to be here today, has said, standards generally for consumer safety are laid down but are not in force. To my mind, these safety standards need constant review, not just review now and again, but constant review, because, as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) mentioned just now, we are living in a mechanical age when we are handling all kinds of dangerous appliances, things quite different from those we used to have to deal with.
    Some of us are not experts and do not understand all these appliances such as electrical appliances, or all the medicines there are, such as aspirins which do not agree with everybody, such as pink aspirins which children consider sweets. Then there are, for instance, polythene hot water bottles which tend to burst; some bicycle lamps and rear lights which do not reflect enough light; a hundred and one other things which we can all think of—sun-glasses with bad lenses which injure the sight; rims of glasses which are, perhaps, impregnated with dye injurious to some people's skins; things like those rotary lawnmowers which cause very dangerous accidents. I myself had an accident with one of those. There are all these kinds of things which we can all think of and which are used in our daily lives.
    1832
    We all, and especially those of us who are not experts, need the protection of these safety standards, which should be constantly reviewed, because we need to be protected. I have always been against spoon-feeding people. I do not think that people should be helped too much. They should be careful about what they buy and understand what they use and not rely too much on help from others, but, because of all these difficult new things which we have to deal with, I think that we should be helped by having safety standards and having them reviewed continually.
    Lastly, I think that there should be some safety kite-mark on as many goods as possible—I would hesitate to say all—so that it will be easier for the ordinary man and woman to know that he or she is buying an article which has been tested and passed as safe. Most of the points that I intended to mention have been made already and I will not repeat them now, but I am all in favour of the Bill and I should like to see it have a Third Reading.
    3.35 p.m.
    Mr. Barter: I am substantially in support of the important points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Dudley Williams), but nevertheless, happily for the promoters of the Bill, I reach a different conclusion about the support that I should give it. The point that we should bear in mind is that the stated purpose of the Bill is absolutely unexceptionable. If one were to ask whether it was generally desirable or undesirable to protect consumers, there is no doubt that everybody would say that it is desirable so to do. Therefore, it is difficult to vote against a Measure of this kind.
    We in the House and in Standing Committee have had the duty of considering not only the purpose of the Bill and to ask what are the desirable objectives which it sets out to achieve and whether we are in favour of achieving them. We have also had the responsibility of considering its side-effects. We have had to consider what precisely will be the effect on various members of the community who will be involved if the Bill is to do any good at all.
    I am deeply concerned about the position of the small retailer. I know that

    1833
    the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. R. Edwards) has said that this has been adequately dealt with in Standing Committee and in the House today and that we have had repeated assurances on the point. I recollect from my attendances in Standing Committee and the many discussions in which I took part that we were given some assurances. They boil down to this—that the powers conferred on the Executive by the Bill will not be widely used.
    That may be a comforting assurance to receive. It may be interesting to know that the Government feel that they are in a happy position if they have powers to bring regulations into force if they want them. But how can we who have been elected to the House to preserve the community know that that is the case? How can we be sure that these assurances are valid and that in future retailers, particularly small retailers, will not be inundated by a flood of regulations under this Measure which make their already difficult life more difficult?
    This is one of the side-effects that cause me concern. While we may set out with the best intentions to make regulations for the protection of the consumer, in due course, as a result of this Measure being wrongly applied, we may be having regulations made to the disadvantage of the consumer because the small retailers find it increasingly difficult to carry on business under regulations with which they are unable to cope.
    If this Bill were to be applied stringently, if the powers conferred by it were used to a considerable extent, I can very well foresee that the small retailers may find it an added burden to the many burdens already imposed upon them. As it now stands, they are the first persons who are responsible for any goods they sell which prove to have produced some danger to the consumer if they are prescribed under the Bill. If, as I surmise, it is possible that the regulations are imposed to a considerable extent, and if it is possible that the small retailers find them increasingly difficult to carry out, the result of that situation will be to the substantial disadvantage of the consumer.
    We have also heard this afternoon about another effect which is quite substantial,
    1834
    and that relates to the question of marché ouvert. This Bill will represent a substantial change, in certain respects, in the legal situation with regard to responsibility for the suitability of goods for the purposes to which they are to be put after purchase. I think we all have a duty to consider not only the desirable objective which has been stated as being the purpose of the Bill, but also the many side effects which spring from it.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) in his speech, to which I listened with great interest, referred to the fact that he had no complaints from any of the retail organisations. I do not think myself that that is conclusive evidence that the retail organisations are necessarily aware of the possible effects of this Bill, or that they are fully aware of the consequences that may spring from it. I should have liked to have asked my hon. Friend, if he had given me the opportunity of intervening in his speech, which he did not do, whether he had received any substantial representations from consumers as to the need for the Bill, and whether, in fact, bearing in mind that there are many more consumers than retailers, the need for the Bill became evident from the number of comments he received. However, he did not give me that opportunity.
    Mr. Goodhart: I apologise to my hon. Friend for not having given way to him. I did not see him.
    Hon. Members: Order.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Would the hon. Member please address the Chair?
    Mr. Goodhart: I would have given way to my hon. Friend if I had seen him, but I should like to say to him that surely the time for consumers to make their representations in very large numbers was when the Molony Committee was considering this point. I understand that very wide representations were made by consumers at that particular time. I should have thought that the terms of this Bill are drawn so clearly by the hon. Member for Bilston that any organisation of retailers would be able very easily to understand the very wide implications of it.
    Mr. Barter: I should like to comment on what my hon. Friend has just said to this extent. The observations which we have made in the course of the Committee stage and other stages of this Bill have been such as to give adequate notice to everybody affected by the possible consequences which might flow from it. For my part, I commenced my observations by saying that I had reached a different conclusion from that reached by my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter.
    That different conclusion is based firstly upon the assurance given by my hon. and learned Friend the Joint Under-Secretary that he does not anticipate that it will be necessary to use the powers very widely, and, secondly, on the assumption that the needs of consumer protection are so considerable as to warrant some attempt to regulate them in the way laid out in the Bill.
    However, I should like to seek an assurance—I hope that it may be possible yet to receive it, although many attempts have so far been made and have failed—that if it is found that the effects of the Bill in operation are too wide and that the consequences which I have suggested are taking place as a result of this Measure and the other Measures which are confronting the smaller retailers, the opportunity will be taken at a later stage to reconsider it. In the meantime, I am very happy to lend my support to the Bill, with the reservations which I have put before the House and which I am sure will be clearly understood.
    3.46 p.m.
    Mr. J. Wells: Like other hon. Members, I support the concept behind the Bill, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. R. Edwards) not only upon his luck but upon having got the Bill so far, and also upon his very hard work today and before today for the idea on which we are all so keen. But from there on I am afraid that I differ from him. There are many details of the Bill which I still dislike. I am, however, most grateful to the hon. Member for his assurances that he will endeavour to get certain matters rectified, in particular the substantial matter in the last Amendment that he moved. I am also very sorry that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Major Hicks Beach), who was so
    1836
    helpful to us in the Committee, is so ill that he is not with us this afternoon.
    On this very important Bill the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) has dealt at some length with the idea that there will be new items of equipment and goods as yet un-thought of, and that there is constantly a change in the type of goods which may be dangerous. I fully realise that we are living in times of great technological advance. It might well be that twenty years ago my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Lady Gammans) might not have cut her toes in a rotary lawn-mower because rotary lawn-mowers were not then in existence. In a further twenty years' time the mechanical gardener may have some other hazards.
    Times change, and I appreciate the hon. Member's point that a Bill to protect the consumer must be so worded that there is scope for alteration. Even so, I dislike some of the vagueness of it. I dislike these large nebulous powers which have been given to the Government by a Private Member's Bill. I have great objection to that. Furthermore, I do not believe that one can protect a fool from his own folly. That is quite impossible.
    I am the father of a number of small children, and I know the hazards that we all have who are parents. [Laughter.] I am being very serious about the hazards which arise when one is bringing up a small family. One may cook by electricity or gas. There are many risks which parents see their children taking every day. No amount of legislation will stop, nor should it, a small girl learning to cook working alongside her mother, and occasionally there is a disaster. It is a great tragedy that that sort of thing occurs. We are anxious that such protection as is reasonable should be available; but it is the protection of the wise and well-informed parent, the protection of the sensible person going shopping on his own behalf, and not that achieved by specifying a lot of goods which are potentially dangerous.
    I am sorry to return to the subject of the rotary lawn mower, but it is an item of equipment with which most of us are familiar. I am sure that my hon. Friend was doing her best to work the machine

    1837
    as well as possible, and she knew the risks of using it at all. Within the next 48 hours I shall probably be using one myself. I shall do so as carefully as I can, but the fact remains that if I come to the House on Monday with no toes on my left foot, no amount of legislation will put them back again. Therefore, I do not think that the Bill, as it stands, is effective.
    It has been suggested by various hon. Members that our debates on this Bill may, or could possibly, do damage to our export trade, and that is another of my great objections to the Measure. I do not like the idea of imputations that British manufacture is not what it ought to be. That just is not true. British manufacture is of the very best and finest quality in the world, and it would be a tragedy if our debates should give a wrong impression to the countries to which we export.
    I am also very anxious that those countries that send goods to us should not gather from what we have been saying that they, in turn, can send us shoddy goods. Different standards apply in different parts of the world. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Cheltenham made some point about the British Standards Institution. That very excellent body should, if possible, have more Government support, and I suggest that it is by a raising of standards and not by means of a Bill like this that the consumer should be protected.
    I turn to the question of where the burden of responsibility should lie. The hon. Member for Bilston very rightly said that he did not wish to harass the small retailer. We quite appreciate his sincerity, but the fact is that there are three substantial categories of people who ought to bear any burden that emerges from legislation for consumer protection. The first is the manufacturer, the second is the substantial wholesaler, and the third is the substantial importer.
    My hon. and learned Friend the Joint Under-Secretary told the Standing Committee that he was an honorary member of his local small retailers' association, and spoke of the very good work done by these people. That is perfectly true, but many small retailers are in grave difficulties with regulations. They are short-staffed, and are harassed by Government
    1838
    and local government rules and regulations at every turn. I should be very loath to see any further legislation brought in that would have any further adverse effect on the small shopkeepers' way of life and mode of business. The small shopkeeping community provides a great and useful service, particularly in the remote areas. Both the hon. Member for Hillsborough and myself have spoken of the very excellent and valuable service provided by mobile shops. Those providing services like that should not be harassed. They should be free to do their best.
    It has been said that no regulations will be made under this Bill; that it is a nice big threat. I do not like nice big threats, and I should be very upset if I thought that as a result of this Measure it would be within the power of the Government or anyone else to threaten any section of the community. The small business community does its best, and the manufacturer does his best. Therefore, if the Minister really thinks that as a result of the very excellent provisions of Clause 1 (5) no orders will ever be made, I urge him to spend more money on the British Standards Institution and on voluntary negotiations, and not get involved in such a Bill as this.
    3.55 p.m.
    Mr. Renton: I make an appeal to that small but valiant body of my hon. Friends who have been opposing the Bill. They have been doing so for three reasons. First, they say that it is not fit for private Members' business. On that may I say that we had a discussion of five hours on Second Reading, seven hours in Committee and more than four hours on Report, while we have been discussing the Third Reading for the last three-quarters of an hour. For a Bill of this size, even if it had been a Government Bill, it is not likely that more time would have been provided. I congratulate my hon. Friends on the opportunities which they have made, but I appeal to their sense of fair play and sportsmanship to let the Bill have a proper Third Reading decision this afternoon.
    Their second ground of objection is that the powers in the Bill are very wide. The promoters and all in favour of it have never denied that it is wide. It

    1839
    contains a useful reserve power which will provide a valuable protection to the public. Obviously, the ideal circumstances would be that that power would never have to be used, but it is quite inconceivable that it would have to be used very often and we need to regard it in the light of that proposition.
    The third ground of objection is that there is not enough safeguard for the small retailers. When the Molony Committee was considering the matter—and it was the Report of the Molony Committee which led up to the Bill—the retailers gave evidence and made various representations which have been met in the Bill. I remind my hon. Friends of the safeguards in Clause 3, when there are civil proceedings taken as a result of Clause 3 (1), or criminal proceedings when the proviso provides a most valuable defence whereby the retailer has only to show that he had reasonable cause to believe that the requirements were satisfied, when he gets off. I do not know that it would be possible to do more.
    My hon. Friends have felt, subsidiary to that point, that the manufacturers should be made liable in all cases. Of course the manufacturer can be made liable in many circumstances, and it would be for the prosecution to decide whether to sue the manufacturer or the retailer when the option to sue was there. But to write into the Bill that the manufacturer must always be the person to be sued, when the retailer might well be liable, would not be reasonable, and we could never carry the House with us.
    The Bill also happens to have been introduced by a Member of the Opposition and it is supported by the Opposition. It also has the support of a vast number of my hon. Friends and I would say the great majority. It also has the full support of the Government. In those circumstances, while fully appreciating the zeal which my hon. Friends have applied to the matter, I earnestly appeal to them to allow the Bill to have a decision on Third Reading this afternoon.
    3.59 p.m.
    Dr. Alan Glyn: I cannot agree with everything which my hon. and learned Friend has said. This is a private
    1840
    Members' day. My hon. and learned Friend said that the Bill had full Government backing, but I must put my objection to it very shortly. The Bill places heavy weight on a section of the community which is not capable of bearing it. It would have been administratively much easier and far more just if the burden had been put on the manufacturers. In that case we could have checked the goods at the source of issue rather than at millions of points throughout the country.
    Many of us endeavoured with reason to put forward Amendments in Committee but, I am sorry to say, we were not supported and no give and take was allowed in Committee. I am convinced that the feeling behind the Bill—the protection of the community—is perfectly correct, but I must register my protest in no uncertain way about the manner in which it has been carried out.
    Mr. Robert Jenkins: As one of those who have not taken part in either the Committee stage or in the debate today—
    It being Four o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
    Debate to be resumed upon Friday, 9th June.

  SMALL ESTATES (REPRESENTATION) BILL
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered; to be read the Third time upon Friday, 9th June.
  COURT OF CHANCERY OF LANCASTER (AMENDMENT) BILL
  Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered; read the Third time and passed.
  RURAL WATER SUPPLIES AND SEWERAGE BILL
  Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time and passed.

  PUBLIC AUTHORITIES (ALLOWANCES) BILL
  Read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Reynolds.]
  Committee upon Friday, 9th June.

  PUBLIC AUTHORITIES (ALLOWANCES) BILL

    ADJOURNMENT
    Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Finlay.]
    Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes past Four o'clock.

ROYAL NAVY
  Personnel (Overseas Deaths)
  Personnel (Overseas Deaths)
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Personnel (Overseas Deaths)
  Personnel (Overseas Deaths)
BAROTSELAND
  Paramount Chief (Visit to United Kingdom)
  Paramount Chief (Visit to United Kingdom)
EDUCATION
  Coventry (Grants)
  Coventry (Grants)
  Burnham Committee (Teachers' Panel)
  Burnham Committee (Teachers' Panel)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Fire Service (Salaries and Conditions)
  Fire Service (Salaries and Conditions)
  Whitehall Demonstration
  Whitehall Demonstration
  Preservation of Public Order
  Preservation of Public Order
EMPLOYMENT
  Cost-of-Living Index (Food Group)
  Cost-of-Living Index (Food Group)
PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Personal Case
  Personal Case
POST OFFICE
  Post Offices, Liverpool (Modernisation)
  Post Offices, Liverpool (Modernisation)
SCOTLAND
  National Theatre
  National Theatre
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Social Services (Expenditure)
  Social Services (Expenditure)
TRANSPORT
  Coventry (Grants)
  Coventry (Grants)
BRITISH ARMY
  Germany (Revaluation of Deutschmark)
  Germany (Revaluation of Deutschmark)
  Housing Accommodation, Germany
  Housing Accommodation, Germany
  Personnel (Overseas Deaths)
  Personnel (Overseas Deaths)
  Territorial Army (Reorganisation)
  Territorial Army (Reorganisation)