Sitting of 19 March 1971

Preamble
The House met at Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORDERS OF THE DAY
  UNSOLICITED GOODS AND SERVICES BILL
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
New Clause 1

  UNSOLICITED PUBLICATIONS
  (1) A person shall be guilty of an offence if he sends or causes to be sent to another person any book, magazine or leaflet (or advertising material for any such publication) which he knows or ought reasonably to know is unsolicited and which describes or illustrates sexual techniques.
  (2) A person found guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £100 for a first offence and to a fine not exceeding £400 for any subsequent offence.—[Mr. David Steel.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  11.5 a.m.
  Mr. David Steel: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
  I wish, at the outset, to draw the attention of the House to an interesting exchange relevant to this debate which took place at Question Time yesterday between the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) and the Home Secretary. In a supplementary question, the right hon. Member for Ashford asked:
  "Is my right hon. Friend aware that, while hon. Members are unlikely to agree on what constitutes an obscene publication, probably we all agree that the mailing of unsolicited and offensive material at random which is designed to advertise such publications is a growing and indefensible public nuisance? Is my right hon.
  1876
  Friend satisfied that the law bites on this abuse?".
  The Home Secretary replied:
  "Yes, Sir, and I am aware of the concern. The Post Office Act, 1953, prohibits the sending by post of material that is obscene or indecent. My right hon. Friend will have seen in the last few days that a conviction has been obtained under the Act. That shows that the law bites."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th March, 1971; Vol. 813, c. 1637.]
  With respect to the Home Secretary, he did not answer the precise question that his right hon. Friend had asked, because his right hon. Friend was probably referring to unsolicited and offensive material and not to the sending of obscene and indecent material, which is covered under the Post Office Acts. It is this trend of sending unsolicited material, including advertisements in publications which are not necessarily obscene but which are nevertheless offensive to many people, that has caused so much concern and has been the cause of a growing volume of correspondence which I have received from the public.
  This particularly arose with a circular from Julian Press, about which Questions were asked in the House some time ago. I received a number of copies of this circular and letters about it from constituents. The circular advertised "A Manual of Sex Technique," and while the sending of this to certain individuals might be regarded by them as offensive, the real objection is that the literature was sent to individuals named on envelopes and, in some cases, presumably in error by the company, to school children.
  In one case it was sent to a constituent of mine, a woman recently widowed, and this naturally upset her. In another case a man wrote to me complaining that a copy of the leaflet had been addressed to his father who had recently died. One can easily see how offensive this practice could be. It is clear that this sort of thing cannot be caught under the Post Office Acts, because neither the leaflets nor the publications they advertise are necessarily obscene or indecent.
  It seemed appropriate that, while the Bill was proceeding through the House, we should take the opportunity to debate this matter in the hope that the Bill, which is designed to protect people from receiving unsolicited goods, might be made to deal with the matter. My first

  1877
  task, therefore, was to frame a new Clause which would make it an offence to send offensive matter through the post, but of course this proved a difficult one. It is almost as impossible to define "offensive" as it is to define "obscene" and "indecent". I found that it was not a practical proposition.
  Following the publicity which the new Clause received on being tabled, a journalist, Miss Angela Ince, wrote an article in the London Evening News which began:
  "Liberal M.P. David Steel, talking last week about the Unsolicited Goods and Services Bill, said: 'People have a right to be protected from receiving unsolicited in their homes literature which they find offensive.'
  Mr. Steel was in fact talking about sex manuals, pornographic pamphlets and unpleasant literature that you's rather the children didn't sec, but he could well widen his scope.
  Only recently a pamphlet which I found extremely offensive and certainly didn't ask for thudded through my letter box.
  It has thudded through a lot of other letter boxes too, and would indeed have gone to just about every home in the country had the postal strike not mercifully intervened.
  Lavishly produced and illustrated, with explicit line drawings and full frontal photographs, it is pretty apparent that no expense has been spared in the production of this pernicious little manual.
  It is called Your Guide to Decimal Money, and it is offensive, as far as I am concerned, because it has finally destroyed any hopes I may have had of coming to grips with decimal currency."
  That article illustrates the difficulty of trying to define "offensive", because many people would regard as offensive literature such as election addresses of certain candidates, which are received unsolicited. We cannot enter into the mind of every recipient of every piece of literature in an attempt to define what people will or will not find offensive.
  In framing the new Clause I have tried to deal with a problem which caused so much initial concern in the House and which is still a main cause of concern. I refer to
  "…any book, magazine or leaflet (or advertising material for any such publication)…"
  which the sender knows is unsolicited and
  '…which describes or illustrates sexual techniques."
  I am well aware that the new Clause does not cover some types of publication
  1878
  which are still offensive. An example of this kind was sent to me through the post the other day in the form of an unsolicited leaflet from a certain hook service. The leaflet stated:
  "An associate company offers a wide range of publications for sexual groups including homosexual, bi-sexual, lesbian, heterosexual. An illustrated brochure of books is available covering our extensive range…Please state your requirements below."
  To receive that unsolicited would be extremely offensive to many people, but it would not be caught by the new Clause. I believe that we must try to relieve people of the distress and repugnance they feel on receiving such publications, and the Bill gives us the opportunity.
  I hope that the new Clause will be acceptable to the sponsors of the Bill, because although I agree that it is by no means perfect I should like the House to add it to the Bill now, so that when it goes to the other place both the sponsors of the Bill and, in particular, the Government will have an opportunity of satisfactorily improving it in order that we may deal with a menace which is causing grave concern to the public.
  11.15 a.m.
  Mr. Phillip Goodhart: I have the greatest sympathy with the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel), and I, too, would like to see an end put to the practice he has described. He has mentioned the Julian Press. I believe that that organisation is now out of business, but some months ago it caused substantial embarrassment to a number of my constituents who then complained to me, and I wrote to the then Home Secretary.
  But while I support the objectives of the new Clause, I believe that in practice there are certain difficulties. It seeks to make it illegal to send advertising material for
  "…any hook, magazine or leaflet which describes or illustrates sexual techniques."
  When I learned, Mr. Speaker, that you intended to call the new Clause, I turned to the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary for a definition of "technique". The definition given is:
  "Manner of artistic execution or performance in relation to formal or practical details as distinct from general effect, expression, sentiment, etc.; the mechanical or formal part of an art, especially of any of the fine arts,

  1879
  also skill or ability in this department of one's art; mechanical skill in artistic work."
  That is a very wide definition.
  Having looked at that definition, I found by the side of my dictionary the spring list of a most reputable firm of publishers, Weidenfeld and Nicholson, who are, I believe, to be entrusted with the grave responsibility of publishing the memoirs of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Huyton (Mr. Harold Wilson). They are certainly not publishers of pornographic literature.
  The first book advertised in the list is "Memoirs of Hope: Renewal 1958–1962" by Charles de Gaulle. I have not read the book but I assume that none of the material in those memoirs could conceivably come within the scope of the new Clause.
  The second book advertised is "Mary", by Vladimir Nabokov. The advertisement contains, in its turn, an advertisement for "Lolita". I cannot remember very much about that book, but I should not like to swear that in it there is no description of sexual technique, and in this catalogue we certainly have an advertisement for "Lolita".
  The third book is "St. Urbain's Horseman", by Mordecai Richler. Again I have not read the book but the publishers' "blurb" reads in part:
  "In 1967, while four hundred and fifty million people were starving and, in England, at least eighteen per cent. of this happy breed lived below subsistence level, and society's golden rule was alcoholism, drug addiction and inchoate brutality, Jacob Hersh, descendant of the House of David, was paid £15,000 NOT to direct a fun film, made love to his wife on crisp clean sheets.."
  and so on. That book describes some form of sexual technique, if only that of making love to one's wife on clean crisp sheets.
  The next book in the list is "Love Child", by Maureen Duffy. The "blurb" states:
  "This is a novel of ambiguity, of age, sex and intention. On holiday in their villa in Italy, a love affair develops between the mother and the father's secretary."
  Again, it seems probable that somewhere in its pages this book describes some sexual technique.
  Then we have "Zee & Co.", by Edna O'Brien. The "blurb" reads:
  1880
  "Her aura is crimson, her body beautiful but barren, her manner a trifle raucous, her face masked with mechanical gaiety, her wardrobe of clothes vast.
  In the city of London in the year 1970, Zee is vicarious wife to Robert, a successful architect with a new found mistress…".
  I suspect that somewhere in this novel by Edna O'Brien there is a description of sexual technique.
  The next book advertised is "Going all the Way" by Dan Wakefield. A description by Mr. Kurt Vonnegut is:
  "I have read it and I am crazy about it. It is the truest and funniest sex novel any American will ever write."
  Again, one presumes that somewhere in its 320 pages there is a description of sexual technique.
  Mr. Arthur Palmer: I do not wish to add to the hon. Gentleman's literary list unduly, but he could include Shakespeare's "The Rape of Lucrece."
  Mr. Goodhart: I would expect that if the Clause were adopted as it stands anybody advertising the complete works of Shakespeare might find himself in some difficulty.
  I have gone through this list because Weidenfeld and Nicolson is, as I have said, a most reputable publishing firm and certainly five of the first six books appearing in its spring list might render it liable to prosecution merely for sending out its spring list. If the Clause were accepted as drafted, it would necessitate considerable changes in the publishing habits of all our leading publishers.
  Indeed. I wonder where the Government would find themselves if we were to put on to the Statute Book the Clause as it stands; because, after all, it is not related only to human beings. Artificial insemination is a sexual technique of some importance in agriculture. I have no doubt that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has sponsored works of artificial insemination for farmers which are advertised by the Ministry and which, curiously enough, if the Clause were to be adopted as it stands, would render the Minister liable to a fine of £100, absurd though this result would be.
  The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles is also a distinguished and leading light in the family planning movement. Can he lay his hand on his

  1881
  heart and say that absolutely no material is issued by the Family Planning Association which could conceivably under the very wide definition of "technique" be held to describe a sexual technique?
  Mr. David Steel: It is certainly not sent unsolicited to people at random.
  Mr. Goodhart: I am delighted to hear that. It may well be that some of the leaflets advertising the service and works of the Family Planning Association are distributed by well-meaning volunteers of the association in a way of which the hon. Gentleman is not wholly aware. That is not beyond the realms of possibility. If it is so, the hon. Gentleman and his movement would be liable to prosecution under the Clause as it stands.
  I entirely support the hon. Gentleman's objective, because my constituents, like his, have been embarrassed by the types of literature which he has described, but with the very best will in the world I believe that we should get into very deep water if we were to accept the Clause as it stands, and its ramifications and possible application could lead to results which the hon. Gentleman and myself would not wish to bring about.
  Mr. William Hamling: I am not sure that reputable publishers would need to worry unduly about the effect of the Clause, because I cannot think that Weidenfeld and Nicolson or any other publishers, for that matter, issue lists to thousands of people at random. I received that list, but only because I have a personal involvement in literature, because I buy many books, and because I asked for the list. Similarly with O.U.P.'s list and Allen and Unwin's list. I should think that most publishers do not issue their lists at random in the way that Julian Press did and in the way of which the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) complained.
  I have great sympathy with the new Clause. The House knows full well that I am against censorship and that I introduced a Private Member's Bill which sought to abolish all forms of censorship and to abolish the Post Office Act, but I object to the practice of Julian Press. I wrote to Julian Press and said so. I said that the reason I objected to it was that this brought the cause of freedom
  1882
  into disrepute, that it aroused a great deal of unnecessary antagonism to the free publication of books, and that this was a commercial practice and I greatly doubted whether Julian Press was very interested in the free publishing of books: it was interested in selling that book.
  I have not seen that book. I do not know what it is like. I have no particular interest in it. I am getting a bit past it. I have no doubt that this type of book is quite useful to many people. If people want it there are other ways of obtaining books, not the way resorted to by Julian Press.
  The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles mentioned election addresses and the booklet explaining decimal currency. Parliamentary registers are used for issuing election addresses. That is the use for which they are intended. They are not intended for the use of commercial advertisers and are not published for that purpose.
  Some criticism has been expressed of the wording of the Clause. When the Minister examines the Clause sympathetically, as he doubtless will, he may well conclude that it could be drafted differently so as to prevent the sale of parliamentary registers to commercial advertisers. This might be another solution. I can see difficulties in that, but certainly I think there is a point here.
  11.30 a.m.
  I am not very worried about the publishing of the sort of book mentioned in this Clause. What I object to is the widespread dissemination of advertising material to people who have not asked for it, and to people who the publisher knows very well have not asked for it. People ought to be protected from that sort of thing. I do not refer only to books on sex. A lot of awful rubbish for which we have not asked comes through our letter boxes, and the people who organise parliamentary lobbies ought to look at the rubbish bins of this House when they would find what happens to most of the stuff that they send. It finds its way into the dustbins unopened.
  The people who resort to these techniques are commercially stupid because they send out a lot of stuff for which nobody has asked and which nobody will read. I received the Julian Press leaflet, but I did not read it. I

  1883
  threw it away unread. I only read it when some of my constituents wrote to me about it. There are certain things that I never read at all. I merely look at the envelope and I know by the postmark or sometimes by the little inscription on the top left-hand corner of the envelope who has sent it, and it goes into the dustbin unopened. I refer to "South Africa Today", or one of those things which arrive about three times a week.
  I certainly think that the Minister ought to consider this Clause. He might not be satisfied with the wording, but certainly there is a good intention here and I think the public ought to be protected from this great mass of unasked for advertising material of one sort and another. I hope the Minister will be able to provide some sort of protection for the consumer from this great mass of rubbish which comes flooding through our letter boxes. I am not very worried about books on sexual techniques. I think that many of these books are most useful. But there are other ways of advertising that are not offensive. There are other ways by which people who want books like this can get them. I only wish that the law was changed so that literature was much freer. However, that point is not covered in this Bill and I would be out of order if I carried on along those lines. However, I sympathise with the intentions expressed in the Clause.
  Sir Stephen McAdden: This is the second Bill which has been brought before the House to deal with unsolicited goods and services. In the last Parliament we had the Inertia Selling Bill which was introduced by the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. Arthur Davidson). It is unfortunate that this excellent Clause did not appear earlier. However, that does not detract from the fact that it contains very worthy aims which I certainly support.
  No doubt, many of our constituents have been grossly offended by some of the literature which has gone through their doors, advertising some of the things which are mentioned in this Clause. Some of this literature has been sent to most extraordinary addresses. I know of a case in which the literature was sent to a convent. It seems to me, therefore, that there should be some control over
  1884
  the sending of unsolicited material of this description and we ought to do all we can to control it.
  Nevertheless, I can see the full force of the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) when he points out that we would enmesh a large number of innocent people if we adopted the particular wording of this proposed Clause. He mentioned the Family Planning Association. It may be that the Family Planning Association does not send out unsolicited material, but I am sure my hon. Friend is right when he says that a good deal of that organisation's literature is available unsolicited in places where it can be picked up. I am sure my hon. Friend knows that amongst university students and some schoolgirls in the higher age groups literature informing them of the services of the Family Planning Association is available. It is not our purpose to debate whether that is good, bad or indifferent. It is merely a fact that it is so, and we would involve the Family Planning Association in some difficulties.
  Mr. David Steel: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the Clause he will see that it states that it is an offence to send such material to some other person. If books or advertising material are available on bookstalls, this is not sending them to another person.
  Sir S. McAdden: That is a matter for the lawyers to argue, and I am not a lawyer. Whether it could be argued that by putting such material in a place where a person could pick it up, one is sending that material is a legal point that I would not attempt to argue.
  I am not worried only about the Family Planning Association. I am worried about my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services who sends unsolicited material to local authorities advising them to make family planning advice available, which presumably would include something about sexual techniques, and presumably the local authorities would take his advice, in which case the Secretary of State would be in trouble.
  I should now like to say a word on the subject raised by the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) about the Parliamentary Register. I understand that there is an abuse of the use

  1885
  of the Parliamentary Register, but it is wrong to assume that it is printed solely for the purpose of conducting elections. That is only one of its purposes. There are many legitimate organisations which make use of the Parliamentary Register for proper purposes.
  Mr. Hamling: The particular abuse to which I object is the use of the Parliamentary Register for commercial advertising purposes.
  Sir S. McAdden: What I am saying is that we must not fool ourselves into believing that it cannot be used for some other perfectly proper and legal purpose.
  While I hope the Minister will give some moral support to this proposed Clause, as I am sure we all do, I think lie will find that the practical difficulties standing in its way—certainly the evidence cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham—will show that, like so many well-meaning proposals, it will not come to fruition in the form in which it is drafted.
  Mr. John Farr: I congratulate the sponsor and supporters of the Clause, which is an admirable attempt to achieve what hon. Members on both sides of the House have said is much needed in the country.
  For a long time I have been in correspondence with successive Governments, Home Secretaries, Attorneys-General, and they have all given very good reasons for saying that something ought to be done but cannot be done at the moment. I should like to read a couple of extracts from letters that I have received. The first one was from the then Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department last year, dated 18th December, in which she concluded by saying that she was sorry to have been
  "unhelpful in a situation which I am aware is causing anxiety to many but I hope that what I have said about the difficulties of changing the law will make clear the objections to such a course. I am, however, looking into these matters at the present time."
  After we had a change of Government I wrote to the present Attorney-General on similar lines, expressing to him some of the fears which had been expressed to me by my constituents about these unsolicited circulars and documents which had been flooding into my constituents'
  1886
  homes in Leicestershire. He rather poured cold water on the idea of the Government being able to do anything at present. He concluded by saying:
  "The Home Secretary, who would be responsible for any legislation, is considering the problem of unsolicited circulars of this nature."
  I have seen no concrete results from the consideration given to the matter by Ministers of the previous Government and by the present Home Secretary. I am delighted, therefore, that at last something definite has been attempted by back benchers on both sides. No doubt, the new Clause has its flaws, though I do not think that there is much validity in some of the criticisms made on that score this morning. At least, it is an attempt to bring some control into this matter.
  One of the reasons why I object to the flood of unsolicited circulars which has been going on throughout the Midlands for a number of years now is that they are directed in so haphazard a manner. I have a file here of letters from constituents who have complained that they never wanted or asked for the documents which have been sent to them. For example, to the 12-year-old daughter of a family in Leicestershire a circular was sent by the Julian Press, in a plain envelope and addressed personally to her as "Miss So-and-so". The enclosed circular was headed to the effect that here was something which all married women should know.
  Surely, it is gross carelessness to send such a leaflet to an unmarried person, as was clearly indicated by the style of address, let alone to a child of 12. It is that sort of practice by the Julian Press and others who many of us on this side have found offensive.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) gave one or two reasons why he thought the new Clause would be ineffective, but I felt that he missed the point. The Clause specifically says that such circulars have to be unsolicited. He gave what I thought the ludicrous example of the Minister of Agriculture perhaps being in trouble if he sent out certain leaflets relating to artificial insemination. I assure my hon. Friend that the Minister does not send such leaflets round. If he were to send a highly detailed and technical illustration of some method of artificial insemination to a famly, without being

  1887
  requested so to do, however, my view would be that the Clause would serve a useful purpose in preventing a repetition of that practice.
  The object of the Clause is to make things more difficult for those who make a living by purveying pornography. In spite of its flaws, it will, I believe, make life much more difficult for them. At the last election, I promised my constituents that I would try to make life more difficult for such people. For that reason, if for no other, I shall support the hon. Gentleman the Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) if he takes the matter to a Division.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): thank the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) for raising this matter. There is, I think, no hon. Member whose constituents have not been troubled by the receipt of these circulars, and the whole country, I believe, would like to find a satisfactory way of dealing with the menace.
  I find myself in some difficulty personally because I am straying a long way from the preserves of trade and industry, but I shall enter this difficult field because I personally, and the Government as a whole, feel that there is here a problem to which a solution must be found, that is, to prevent the haphazard sending of unpleasant circulars on sexual matters, these circulars so often arriving, as has been said, in unfortunate and unhappy family circumstances which make the problem much more serious.
  There has recently been a growth of interest both in what one might call straightforward biological matters to do with the nature of reproduction in both humans and animals and in the subject of sex education. There has been a greatly increased volume of publications in this field, a large proportion of which are entirely serious or academic. At the same time, and quite independently, there has been a tendency for more books to be advertised by the use of mailing lists in the way which has been described.
  We wish to avoid penalising these two growing tendencies, neither of which is anything but good, for straightforward advertising by circular is in no sense
  1888
  objectionable, and the growth of knowledge in the whole subject of reproduction is clearly in the interest of nations.
  11.45 a.m.
  The other general point is that we must make a distinction between the book, the work itself, and the circular. Often, the circular is throughly objectionable but the book is quite innocuous. Equally, it is possible that the circular could be innocuous and the book itself, if one sent for it, rather objectionable. Examples were cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) of perfectly straightforward material advertising well known classical books which could lead to an offence under the Clause because those books, although not objectionable, contained descriptions of sexual techniques.
  Clearly, therefore, we must be careful to analyse what the menace is. The menace is the invasion of people's privacy by the indiscriminate sending of circulars for which they have not asked and which in themselves cause offence. I hope that the House will bear with me if I identify what we are seeking to prevent, that is, the menace of unsolicited circulars of an unpleasant nature such as have been troubling many people, including many of my constituents, and which I wholeheartedly condemn.
  If no other message goes out from our debate today than that the House of Commons is unanimous that this sort of thing is not to be tolerated, we shall at least have done a considerable service in that respect.
  Mr. Hamling: I hope that the Minister will not direct attention solely to books about sex or matters like that but will have in mind also political pamphlets and publications, and so on.
  Mr. Ridley: I shall come to the hon. Gentleman's speech. If I may, I shall develop that argument in my own way.
  What is the present state of the law? The Obscene Publications Acts of 1959 and 1964 make it an offence to publish or possess for publication for gain an obscene article, one having a tendency to deprave or corrupt. I must say that this has not proved a particularly effective definition in that in few cases has it been possible to prove depravity or corruption, so I should not rest on that.

  1889
  The other relevant Act is the Post Office Act, 1953, Section 11 of which makes it an offence to send not only obscene but indecent material through the mails. I expect that the House will be aware that at the Central Criminal Court earlier this week a trial concluded in which a publisher was prosecuted in connection with practices of the very kind which we are discussing. He had advertised by circular a certain book and was charged under the obscenity legislation in respect of the book and under the Post Office Act in respect of the circular. The interesting point is that the jury found that the book was not obscene but, by a majority verdict, that the circular was indecent. The circular was one of those which have caused much of the complaint which hon. Members have received. It is clear from this instance, however, that the existing law perhaps goes further than many have thought to make it possible to deal with the problem.
  Having described the existing law and announced my complete sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's intentions—I think that the House is at one on this—I must look at the proposed Clause. The objections to it could to some extent be remedied by drafting, but the main objection is more one of principle. First, the Clause seeks to make it an offence to send unsolicited books, magazines or leaflets describing or illustrating sexual techniques. The nuisance is the advertising, not the book itself. It would be very hard if we were to convict people who had not done anything other than to publish serious books when the people we are trying to get at are those who send unsolicited, lurid circulars. To concentrate the effect of the Clause on the advertising rather than the publication of the book, we should seek to amend it if it were accepted. I do not want to make much of that, but there is a technical point here.
  But the big objection, that mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham is the matter of principle as to how we define "sexual techniques", and why we find these circulars repulsive. The definition of "sexual techniques" is very nearly as wide as life itself. Indeed, life itself derives from them. I am advised that the definition would include encyclopaedias, where sexual techniques
  1890
  are described in many cases. It would include learned treatises on the reproductive life of the newt or similar animals. It would include sex education books for children and a large amount of admirable modern fiction with love interest, such as my hon. Friend referred to. I am sure that the Rape of Lucrece and even Romeo and Juliet would be described as books containing sexual techniques. But the definition which the hon. Gentleman has put forward excludes such things as prison camp atrocity stories, drug addiction stories, violence of all kinds, racial hatred and matters which some would find even more obnoxious but which are without his definition.
  The truth of the matter is that to define what it is that we find obnoxious about sexual pornography has never proved possible in this country or any other. To say that one is against pornography and to define it as writings about sex, violence or anything like that inevitably includes things one would prefer not to include and leaves out things one would prefer were in. The definition of what is obnoxious in pornography has defied lawyers and draftsmen throughout history. The hon. Gentleman admitted that it had defied him in drafting the Clause. I feel that it will always continue to defy anyone who sets his hand to trying to find a satisfactory definition. Moreover, if we succeeded it would not be many months before someone found a way round it. It is the sort of problem where there will always be a way round.
  The third point about the Clause is that what people find objectionable is, as the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) said, having circulars for which they have not asked pushed through their letter box. They may be to do with violence, sex, race hatred, obnoxious politics from another party, or even just rubbish. It is a question not so much of obscenity but of the invasion of privacy. That is why I believe that it would be better to tackle the matter along the lines of how we can protect the privacy of the individual from such treatment. After all, leaflets and books illustrating sexual techniques can be picked up on bookstalls and in bookshops all over the country, and no offence has been taken to this. I am certain that it is the menace of the invasion of privacy that we are really after.

  1891
  A Committee of inquiry is considering the whole question under the chairmanship of Mr. Kenneth Younger. It would be discourteous to the Committee if the House legislated now, prejudging its conclusions and pre-empting the report which will shortly be presented. That is a tactical objection to accepting the Clause. Would not it be better to see how Mr. Younger proposes to deal with the truly identifiable part of what we are trying to get at, which is the invasion of privacy rather than the sending of unsolicited leaflets on sexual techniques?
  The hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir S. McAdden) mentioned the Parliamentary Register. I confirm that the Register is not only made public, as it must be, but is used for a variety of official purposes. It would be impossible to restrict its use entirely to electoral purposes. I do not think that there is a way to deal with that matter. Even if we did, there are such things as telephone directories and lists of possible victims for direct-selling techniques; and if we tried to block that loophole all those ways round would be found.
  Therefore, I advise the House that the Clause has an excellent and worthy intention but is probably wrongly drafted and, moreover, is probably in the wrong Bill. The Bill defines the public's right in matters of high-pressure salesmanship where unsolicited goods are sent to the recipient. It does not make it an offence to send unsolicited goods. That matter was argued in Committee, when it was decided that it would be wrong to make it an offence to send unsolicited goods. The Long Title of the Bill states that it is
  "To make provision for the greater protection of persons receiving unsolicited goods,…"
  whereas the Clause seeks to make a person guilty of
  "…an offence if he sends or causes to be sent…"
  unsolicited circulars and literature.
  Whilst I am entirely at one with the hon. Gentleman's intentions, I suggest that the House would be wiser to await the publication of Mr. Younger's report and see whether he has found a remedy to what we all agree is the menace here, the invasion of privacy, because if we were not careful we might do more dam-
  1892
  age to innocent and educational—indeed, cultural—activities by passing the Clause now than we would do good in suppressing the evil that the whole House seeks to end.
  12 noon.
  Mr. Arthur Davidson: Like the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel), I have never disguised the fact that I am very strongly against censorship. But I also have a great deal of sympathy with the motives and intentions behind the proposed new Clause. Every hon. Member who has spoken has said the same thing. I, too, have had complaints from constituents about the receipt through their doors of leaflets from the Julian Press. These have been most offensive to widows, spinsters, and family men who do not want their children to read such leaflets.
  I think that the Minister was right to say that the most offensive part about this practice is the invasion of privacy that is involved. The people who send out these leaflets are usually in no way concerned about publishing an educational book or one which has any literary merit. They are merely concerned about using whatever hard-selling technique they can to get across their rather tatty work. The easiest and cheapest way of doing it is to push leaflets through the doors of private houses.
  If I thought that the Clause would deal effectively with that menace, I should support it fully. However, for the reasons which have been advanced already, I am afraid that I do not regard this as the right Bill, nor do I think that this definition would prove effective.
  Our discussion has proved one point. However much we use the words "pornographic", "obscene", and "offensive", it will never be possible to frame legislation which will satisfy everyone. What is offensive to one person is not necessarily offensive to another. It is a matter of personal taste. Some people are very easily offended. Others are offended by nothing. Even if the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles succeeded in tightening up the definition, some people would still receive leaflets which they personally and with the best of motives would regard as offensive.
  I was interested to hear what the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart)

  1893
  said about the "blurbs" advertising new books from the most impeccably respectable publishers. I cannot imagine any advertisement for an Iris Murdoch novel, for instance, which did not describe sexual techniques. Her novels are all about sexual techniques. Without the descriptions, probably there would be no Iris Murdoch novels or plays. For that matter, probably there would be no Iris Murdoch.
  It occurs to me, for instance, that the free newspapers which come through the doors of private houses quite unsolicited might well describe an Iris Murdoch novel in an advertising blurb, though why we should stick on Iris Murdoch, I do not know. It might be a film, and I do not mean necessarily a sex film as such but a film which had passed the censor and been well reviewed but which contained scenes of hinted sexual techniques. I think that the House will agree that the aims of the Clause would be defeated if such innocent and useful publications were to be caught in this way.
  I agree with the Minister. This is essentially a matter of the invasion of privacy and, as such, it should be dealt with by the Committee looking into these matters, which is no doubt laboriously going through the whole wide subject. It does not neatly fit into this Bill. Though the definition is probably the best that the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles could devise, I do not think that it is in any way watertight. Even if we passed it, I am sure that there would still be masses of correspondence from constituents complaining that leaflets that they had received were offensive in that they dealt with race, colour, politics, or some other contentious topic. The House would then find itself having to consider passing a new Measure.
  If legislation of this sort is to be passed, it is worthy of a Government Bill, and it may be that the Younger Committee will come up with some constructive suggestions. While I have great sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's motives and intentions and while I detest the practices of people who send out literature which they know to be offensive, I feel that the Clause is not sufficiently well drafted to deal with the
  1894
  matter. I am content, therefore, as the Minister suggested, to leave it to the Younger Committee.
  Mr. David Steel: With the leave of the House, perhaps I might reply to some of the remarks which have been made about the Clause.
  Let me say straight away that, as I indicated previously, I do not defend the definition as it stands. I accept that successive Attorneys-General and Home Secretaries have found this matter extremely difficult. I do not pretend to have found it easy or to have come up with the right solution. One other solution suggested to me by lawyers whom I consulted was to include a reference to publications which might offend persons likely to receive them. That is also open to difficulty.
  The Minister referred to possible amendments that he would like to see if the House approved the Clause. I am not, therefore, standing by my definition, and I accept many of the criticisms of it that have been made. However, it is interesting that all the speeches to which we have listened this morning have supported the objective of the Clause. No one has said that he disagrees with the intention or the desire to put right the grievance felt by many people at the moment. For that reason, I ask the House to reflect further on the Clause and, at the conclusion of my few remarks, I shall suggest what we might do.
  The debate is not about censorship or obscenity. I think that the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) made a valid point when he said that those who believe that the greater freedom in literature is possibly to the benefit rather than the detriment of society nevertheless have a greater responsibility to ensure that those who find the present trends offensive are protected, especially in their homes, from receiving either the literature itself or advertisements for it. That is the point at issue.
  Clearly there is no intention here of obstructing the work of serious publishers or authors, whether of the past or the present, still less the Minister of Agriculture or the Secretary of State for Social Services. It is not my intention to seek to damage the freedom of publication or circulation of serious works.

  1895
  But the House has to come back to the fundamental question of the right of people to be protected in their homes from receiving literature which, for various reasons, they may find offensive and which, in other circumstances, other people might not find offensive.
  I was interested to hear that one hon. Gentleman opposite was able to quote a letter written in November by the Home Secretary saying that the Government were seriously considering this matter. We did not hear the Minister refer to that serious consideration today, though I accept that he is not speaking from the Home Office point of view. But the one point on which I disagree with both Front Bench speakers is that this matter should be left to the Younger Committee. I do not accept that. After generations of lawyers have been unable to come up with a definition, I do not think that we can expect suddenly to find a way out of the problems by having confidence in a committee which is considering the
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 3

  DIRECTORY ENTRIES
  Mr. Ridley: I bag to move, Amendment No. 1,in page 2, line 41, leave out from first 'a' to 'subsection' and insert:
  'payment in respect of a charge would, in the absence of a proper note of agreement to the charge, be recoverable from him in accordance with the terms of'.
  whole subject of privacy. I believe that it would be wrong for us collectively to wring our hands this morning and then do nothing about it.
  I suggest that the best course, if we are agreed on the objective, would be that, while accepting the weaknesses of the Clause, as a matter of parliamentary tactics we should add it to the Bill. It is, after all, a Bill to make provision for the greater protection of people receiving unsolicited goods. The Clause would then go to another place where it would receive further discussion, and there is nothing like a Clause in a Bill to concentrate the mind of the Government on an issue. Although at the end of the day it might not be possible to pass it into law, that is certainly the course I recommend, and I shall therefore not withdraw the Clause.
  Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 39, Noes 7.

  Division No. 261.]

  AYES

  [12.11 p.m.

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne.W.)

  Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)

  Richard, Ivor

  Crouch, David

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Davidson, Arthur

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Leonard, Dick

  Stallard, A. W.

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Lipton, Marcus

  Taverne, Dick

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Longden, Gilbert

  Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)

  Freeson, Reginald

  Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

  Grieve, Percy

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

  Moate, Roger

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES

  Hamling, William

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Mr. John Farr and

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Mr. Greville Janner.

  Hattersley, Roy

  Pavitt, Laurie

  NOES

  Driberg, Tom

  Pounder, Rafton

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test}

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Mr. Philip Goodhart and

  Homsby-Smith. Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

  Rost, Peter

  Sir Stephen McAdden.

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  This is very nearly a drafting Amendment, but as it has a point of substance I will briefly explain it. Although an unscrupulous directory publisher might in certain circumstances ensnare a victim in what might, but for Clause 3(1), amount to a contract, this is certainly not the normal situation. It is, therefore, most important that subsection (2) should cover a case in which there is no contract and not just one in which there is.
  On a second look, we have some doubt whether the existing wording adequately

  1897
  achieves this. At lines 40 and 41 the criminal offence is limited to a case in which a note of agreement to a charge is required by subsection (1), and there is a possibility that this might be construed as relating the offence only to the case in which there exists a contract. By dealing instead with cases in which a payment, if it had been made, would be recoverable by virtue of subsection (1), an issue which does not depend on the existence or absence of the contract, the Amendment, essentially one of mere drafting, avoids that risk. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that it slightly improves the Bill by blocking up a potential loophole.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  12.42 p.m.
  Mr. Greville Janner: May I first congratulate the sponsors of the Bill on an excellent and useful piece of legislation and draw attention to the Title of the Bill, which is somewhat misleading. The Title suggests that the Bill covers unsolicited goods and services in a broad sense. That is true of goods but not of services. The only services which are covered—and very well covered—are directory entries. It follows that the public should be warned that, while they will be acquiring a substantial benefit under the Bill, there are certain matters involving unsolicited services which are not covered. I will briefly quote three examples.
  The first is the extremely common case of the man who takes his car into a garage for certain work to be done upon it. He agrees that a specified—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is not entitled to talk about things which are not in the Bill but which he thinks should be in it. He can deal only with what is actually in the Bill.
  Mr. Greville Janner: May I respectfully say, Mr. Speaker, that I was hoping to point out not what I thought should be in the Bill but, having regard to the Title of the Bill, what is in the Bill. It is important to note three simple items that are not there, so that the wrong impres-
  1898
  sion is not given. I appreciate that it is a nice point but I beg you, Mr. Speaker, as I shall be speaking for only three minutes, to allow me to do so.
  Those who go into a garage, ask for work to be done, agree on the work that shall be done and then find that a great deal more work has been carried out than originally ordered but cannot get their cars back unless they pay for the unsolicited services must know that the Bill does not cover them. It is up to them to take care. The word "services", which stands in the Bill as part of the Title, does not cover that sort of service.
  Secondly—and I appreciate that this is a matter which cannot be brought into the Bill—those who acquire goods under scandalous and spurious guarantees and warranties and receive unwanted services must recognise that the Bill will not assist them. Such a provision will, I hope, come later and I hope the Minister will be good enough to say whether the Government intend to bring in such Measures and, if so, when.
  Thirdly and finally, I point out to the public that the rule caveat emptor still applies, even where goods and services are unsolicited, except in the specific cases covered by the Bill. It is still for the buyer of goods to make sure that he gets what he wants, and to beware of those unsolicited documents known as "guarantees" or "warranties" that come with them. It is still for the buyer to beware of extra work done when he does not want it. He is in the position that the repairer has a lien or a right to hold onto his goods, so that he cannot get them back until the work is paid for. Even though that work was unsolicited, in practice, if not in law, he finds himself in grave difficulty.
  Subject to these matters, I add my congratulations, as well as my respectful thanks to you, Mr. Speaker, for having allowed me to add these few words.
  12.25 p.m.
  Sir S. McAdden: I am glad that you have ruled, Mr. Speaker, that on Third Reading we shall discuss only what is in the Bill, because it is something in the Bill that I want to talk about. I also take the opportunity of paying my compliments to my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) who

  1899
  inherited the Bill which was so admirably dealt with in the previous Parliament by the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. Arthur Davidson). They both deserve praise for the way in which they have proceeded with this legislation, and I congratulate them on having brought it to Third Reading.
  I am glad that the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Grenville Janner) has remained, because by his use of language I deduced that he was a member of the legal profession, which indeed he is. I see that two more members of the legal profession are also present, and they will be able to help me on a point which causes me some concern. I know, Mr. Speaker, that you are very learned in the law, but you are not in a position to help me with these problems, and I therefore have to seek help from my legal colleagues in the House.
  Clause 4, which I support entirely, refers to a body corporate and goes on to talk about:
  "…neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary, or other similar officer of the body corporate…"
  In proceedings on the earlier Bill I raised this question, because I had been told that only two persons in a body corporate had legal significance, one a director and the other the secretary, and that people like managers do not exist in a legal sense in a body corporate. If this is so, I wonder why there is all this flapdoodle in the Clause. If the Clause extends to people other than the legal entities recognised in a body corporate, how far up and down the scale will this go?
  I hope that my legal colleagues will be able to confirm or deny the accuracy of what I have said.
  12.28 p.m.
  Mr. Palmer: I join in congratulating the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) on this useful and necessary Bill and on bringing it to what I am sure will be a successful final stage in the House. I should do less than justice to him if I did not also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Accrington (Mr. Arthur Davidson), whose Inertia Selling Bill was the close forerunner of this Bill. The Inertia Selling Bill was
  1900
  brought down by the General Election, but such is his energy and determination that I believe my hon. Friend still has a final point to make on this legislation.
  I did not serve on the Standing Committee, but from reading the proceedings of the two mornings of debate it is obvious to me that this Bill, in many senses a simple one, was given the most serious consideration, although, broadly speaking it came out of Committee as it went in. If it is accepted that the processes of the House produce workable laws, it seems to me that that was a tribute to the soundness of the Bill's first principles. Those principles are, first, to give to the citizen in his home protection against the nuisance of having goods forced on him and being forced to pay for them, which I should have thought was even more irritating, and, secondly, to make illegal the practice of publishing fraudulent directories.
  In consumer matters, as in life, we often get nearer to the truth of the description or the name on the packet if that description or name is relevant to understanding the contents. That is true of this Bill in relation to its forerunner, the Inertia Selling Bill. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Accrington will forgive me for saying that "Inertia Selling Bill" was a somewhat puzzling and outlandish title. This Bill, having the same intention, has been named the "Unsolicited Goods and Services Bill" and, as a result, we know where we are.
  It is often said against consumer legislation that it is over-protective and fussy and that if we leave the market economy to work out its processes all will be right in the end. My difficulty, as a Socialist, is that when people bring forward this morsel of theory and use the term "the market economy", I do not take to it very well. However, if it is referred to as "freedom of choice", I am certainly your man, Mr. Speaker, because freedom of choice in life fits my democratic instincts. Therefore, this is the true test of all good consumer legislation in a free society. If it adds to or restores freedom of choice it is by definition good consumer legislation.
  The Bill satisfies that test because under its provisions one will not be obliged to pay for something which one

  1901
  did not want or did not ask for. It therefore adds to the freedom of the citizen and is good. I hope that the other place will take the same view.
  12.33 p.m.
  Mr. Farr: I should like to add my congratulations to the sponsor of the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart), and his colleagues on their efforts on the Bill and on achieving for it, as they will do shortly, a Third Reading. It is a much needed measure and incorporates many improvements, not the least of which is the new Clause.
  I should like my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to explain a couple of points to me because, like my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir S. McAdden), I did not have the chance of serving on the Committee.
  I am not sure why it is necessary to have paragraph (b) as well as paragraph (a) in Clause 1(2). Surely all a recipient has to do is to sit tight for six months, after which the goods become his. I am not clear about the recipient's obligation in response to a request from a supplier to return goods by post. If he declines to do so because, as is the case with many unsolicited samples, the postage would be very heavy, is he committing an offence and will he be considered under the Bill to have refused to permit the sender to regain possession?
  I hope sincerely that the new Clause which we have added this morning is not removed in another place. It has several flaws and imperfections, but so has much of our legislation. [Laughter.] My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary laughs, but he is aware that one can still be hung for setting fire to a Royal Dockyard or committing piracy on the high seas but that penalty is never likely to be imposed. Nor is somebody likely to be prosecuted for distributing a leaflet describing the sex life of newts. The new Clause will do what the Lord Chancellor said at the last election the Conservative Party would try to do, namely, make life more difficult for the pedlar of drugs and the purveyor of pornography. I therefore hope that it will have the support of Members on both sides in another place.
  I conclude by again congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham on his initiative. He has made a fine effort and I wish the Bill speedy progress
  1902
  and hope that it will receive the Royal Assent in an unaltered condition.
  12.36 p.m.
  Mr. Percy Grieve: I should like to add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodheart) and the other sponsors on getting to this stage a Bill which is very necessary in the circumstances of modern life. Those of us who have been Members for a few years are well aware of the considerable nuisance, to put it no higher, suffered by large numbers of members of the public by being recipients of goods which they have not solicited who are subsequently dunned for payment of them and made victims of something which, in some cases, comes very close to money being demanded by menaces.
  The Bill will meet that nuisance. In fact, it will go much further. It will be a salutary way of putting a stop to it altogether, because when it is passed, as I have no doubt it will be, the advantages which the purveyors of unsolicited goods through the post and in other ways gain by imposing their wares on people will no longer appear to them to merit the risks involved, particularly the risk which they will run under Clause 1. Our constituents will be saved from something which has been an increasing nuisance over a large number of years.
  I should like briefly to say a few words about the new Clause which we added this morning. I share the reservations about its drafting of many of my hon. Friends and, I think, of the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel). However, I entirely applaud the principle and I was happy to go into the Lobby in support of it.
  Those of us who have been Members during the period in which the Julian Press has been active in sending its literature, if that word can be used in the circumstances, to our constituents will be heartily thankful, as will our constituents, that at last something is being done to stop prurient material being pushed through people's letter boxes.
  I am the last person, if I may say so, to wish to extend the field of censorship. The censorship laws have always to be on a knife edge, on the one hand taking the fullest regard for the liberty of the

  1903
  people and their freedom to read what it appears to them to be right to read; but at the same time the general public in this country must be protected against prurient, polluting matter being forced upon them, and although this Clause clearly needs to be rethought and polished in its drafting, the principle is one which I believe will not be disapproved by any Member of the present House of Commons—on either side. For that reason I believe that this morning's new Clause is a most useful addition to the substance of a Bill of which I heartily approve and which I commend to the House.
  12.41 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Rost: I, too, have followed the progress of this Bill with considerable interest and support and I wish to add my own word of congratulations to its sponsors and to the sponsors of the previous Bill which was similar in outline but did not quite make it.
  I am particularly pleased that the Bill does not curtail the genuine, respectable activities of a fairly wide section of commerce upon which customers have come to rely—for example, the sale-or-return type of business, which is particularly valuable to a large number of people who are housebound. I think particularly of this form of trade in books, gramophone records, many household articles, which are sent with the option to return if they are not required.
  Nor does the Bill curtail the public's right to impulse buying. We must accept that people like to look around the shops and sometimes buy impulsively. This is a natural instinct. It should not be curtailed, I believe, in a man's home if he wishes to do it. I am pleased that the Bill does not restrict the distribution of genuine, respectable catalogues of various types sent in a genuine attempt to tempt people to buy under this impulse buying. Many people enjoy having this facility, and this Bill does not restrict that facility, and that is an important point.
  Thirdly, the Bill does not curtail the activities of the respectable mail order houses and their type of business. Here, too, we must be very careful. The Bill makes safguards so that genuine busi-
  1904
  nesses of mail order houses are not restricted, while safeguarding against abuses through less honourable activities which have been clearly outlined in the debates on the Bill.
  Fourthly, the Bill does not restrict the genuine types of respectable directories. A lot has been said, particularly during Second Reading, about directories and, rightly, attention has been drawn to the abuses, but little has been said about the more responsible types of directories which fulfill a most important function in our society and our commerce. It would not be right to restrict them, and I believe that the Bill has safeguarded the rights of the senders of those directories to continue their respectable businesses.
  Having said that, there is, however, one aspect of unsolicited goods and services about which I should like clarification either from my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) or, perhaps, the Minister. This is an aspect which is causing me a little concern and, I believe, a wide section of the public as well. It relates to important infringements of the privacy of the individual. I refer to unsolicited telephone calls.
  I well appreciate that one cannot deliver goods, solicited or unsolicited, by telephone, but one can deliver services, and there is an increasing trend which, although not yet a major abuse, could become so, I believe. There is an increasing use of the telephone as a selling medium for solicited and unsolicited services. There was, fairly recently, fairly widespread abuse by an organisation trying to promote dancing lessons—selling dance lessons by telephone, offering by telephone to members of the public dancing lessons if they would come along on a certain date. These were completely unsolicited offers by telephone. There are organisations which by telephone offer wine tastings in one's home—again, unsolicited offers. Salesmen are increasingly making use of the telephone to attract the public in a captive market. We have to watch this very carefully. I should be happy if, before the Bill passes, I could hear a word about whether in some form or another the Bill takes care of the infringement of privacy which the increasing use of the telephone involves.

  1905
  After all, if something is dropped through the letter box it is not of itself disturbing to the individual in his home, unless the person dropping it through the letter box is particularly noisy. That is up to the individual when he opens the missive or whether he opens it at all. It is in his own time and at his own choice that he opens it. A telephone ringing is another matter altogether. If the telephone rings in one's leisure hours, in the evening, one is disturbed. One is inevitably obliged to answer the telephone. For one thing, it does not stop ringing till one does; in any case one does not know who may be telephoning and it may, perhaps, be a call from someone from whom one is expecting to hear and one never knows but that it may be about something important. This is a medium of communication which penetrates into the depths of one's home, and very often against one's will, and it can be an infringement of personal liberty and privacy. There is increasingly the danger of the telephone being used as a form of harassment and I think it right to draw attention to this, because I believe that it may not be long before we have to look again at this matter, perhaps with a view to amending this Bill, even when it has passed.
  In conclusion, I would again offer my best wishes for the progress of the Bill through its Third Reading, and give it my wholehearted support.
  12.48 p.m.
  Mr. David Steel: As one of the passive sponsors of the Bill, I should like to congratulate very warmly the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart), and his predecessor, the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. Arthur Davidson), on the tremendous amount of work they have put into this Bill and on the success which they have had in bringing the Bill to this stage. I have somewhat long and anguished memories of taking part in private Members' legislation, although this is a less contentious matter than that in which I was involved, but I recognise that this has not been a particularly happy Session for private Members' legislation, and I think that the hon. Members deserve our particular congratulations on their success with their Bill which, as a whole, will, I believe, be welcomed, although, in my
  1906
  view, it has not had the public attention and publicity which it ought to have had.
  Many people have become increasingly disturbed and perplexed by the situation of finding themselves having to pay for goods which they have not ordered but which have been delivered to their houses. That this abuse will be ended is a great step forward in the long struggle for consumer protection.
  It is also a step forward in the struggle to prevent unscrupulous people demanding money for services which have never been sought. A few months ago I was handed an example of this. It was an account sent to a garage in my constituency—and this sort of thing will be illegal under the Bill. The account was headed:
  "Your entry will appear in our trade register classified as: 'GARAGES'."
  Beneath it was printed:
  "To annual subscription—£13 10s. 5% discount if paid within ten days of above date."
  The final figure given was £12 16s. 6d. It had obviously been sent to many firms in the belief that those paying the accounts would assume that somebody else in authority had ordered such entries to be made in that fairly useless type of register. The fact that firms have been almost defrauded in this way shows that legislation was required
  I accept that the new Clause should not be passed into law in its present form. One never knows what will happen in this House, and I was pleasantly surprised at the outcome of the Division. I hope, as a result, that the Minister will convey to his colleagues the concern that has been expressed today by hon. Members in all parts of the House on this issue. I trust that the Law Officers and the Home Office will get together and perhaps produce an acceptable solution to a problem which has vexed people for so long.
  12.53 p.m.
  Mr. James Hill: Although I come armed with an ill-prepared speech—because I was not aware that I would be called to take part in this debate—I wish at the outset to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) for submitting an extremely worthwhile Bill which

  1907
  we hope will proceed through its remaining stages at maximum speed.
  I regret, however, that the new Clause represents a haphazard way of dealing with the problem. Any hon. Member who has canvased will know that the voting register is by no means a satisfactory document to use for this purpose. I have found many of the names on the register to contain the names of children younger than 18.
  Mr. Farr: But not under 12.
  Mr. Hill: At the last election I canvassed two voters on the list, one aged three and the other eight. I could get neither to agree with my policies.
  While we all applaud the principles of the new Clause, I went into the "No" Lobby against it not because I am against any legislation which would protect people from having the privacy of their homes breached but because the spokesmen on both Front Benches thought that the Clause was badly drafted and that, in any event, we should await the finding of the Younger Committee.
  Perhaps I did not understand their remarks sufficiently well, perhaps I should not have stayed up so late last night —with others, I was here till about 2.30 a.m.—or perhaps I nodded off during important parts of their remarks. Be that as it may, I found myself in the "No" Lobby because I do not like the idea of badly thought out legislation being on the Statute Book. Having voted according to my conscience, I was surprised to find the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer). who had been an occupant of the Opposition Front Bench, coming out of the opposite Lobby.
  Mr. Palmer: I was anxious, with others, not to lose the Bill. There was a procedural danger of that happening
  Mr. Hill: Those of us in the "No" Lobby were more concerned with passing a better Bill and, at the same time, being courteous to the Younger Committee by awaiting its findings.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. It is also a question of keeping in order.
  Mr. Hill: Thank you for reminding me of that, Mr. Speaker. Having been
  1908
  brought into the debate at a late stage, there are certain difficulties which I must surmount, one of them being the need to keep in order.
  As a new hon. Member, it was not my privilege to be here for the debates on the earlier Bill, though, as a candidate, I applauded what was said on the Inertia Selling Bill. I have the privilege of coming in at the tail end of this legislation.
  I am rather worried about Clause 1 (2) (a) which refers to
  "the period of six months beginning with the day on which the recipient received the goods the sender did not take possession of them and the recipient did not unreasonably refuse to permit the sender to do so".
  If the article is, say, a small book, then that might be all right. If, on the other hand, it is a baby elephant, a vacuum cleaner or anything similar that has been misdirected, should one keep it for six months or must one go to the extra trouble of trying to persuade the sender to collect his goods? We know how difficult this is in the commercial market. Six months seems too long a period for this purpose and I suggest that three months would be adequate. Further, at no time other than when the first letter is received should any further communication with the sender be required.
  I had the pleasure of receiving from Holland some Time-Life books. For my children's sake I signed the original order for three or four of these magnificent books at 50s. per copy, and the children tore open the parcels as soon as they arrived, so that it took me some time to find the invoice. We all read them, and I gained a lot of knowledge, especially about the animals of the New Forest. Thereafter, I was flooded with books from this very able and worthwhile company, complete with invoices produced by a very adequate computer invoicing system. I got four books on mythology and various antiquities and, again, the children tore open the parcels long before I got home, and the invoices were scattered about the house. When I received my computerised threatening letter I paid up.
  When I reached the great status of parliamentary candidate, I sought to impress on the firm the fact that I did not wish to receive any more books, but no notice was taken of my letter—perhaps because I did not write in Dutch.

  1909
  Then I got four more books. By this time it was beginning to get expensive—12 books at £2 10s. a volume. Then we found that the books were becoming repetitive. The covers had changed, but some of the articles were identical with those in the first books. I began to get desperate. I tried to get home before the books arrived, but the kids were always there before me. I wrote several very threatening letters to Holland and London: I felt like writing to New York also, but did not know where that would end up.
  If, once this Bill becomes law, I receive a book from Time-Life I will keep it for six months and then advise the firm. I hope that others of similar disposition will do the same.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost)—who has been doing excellent work in the Rolls-Royce crisis—mentioned sales by telephone. I do not know whether I am just a simple, gullible member of the public, but I was pestered by a Canadian firm to take out some fantastic life policy which would not only have beggared me but would have made me afraid even to have stepped outside my own front door. The telephone kept ringing on and on. The Bill deals with unsolicited services as well as goods, and should therefore include the selling of insurance by telephone.
  In my business I was the victim of the false directory. It is very easy for a gullible young secretary to sign a form that certain entry particulars sent by post are correct. This morning, for instance, I got a letter from a Mr. Roth with some particulars which he wanted me to verify. I expect that all hon. Members have received that letter, but it would have been better had he visited each of us personally. However, that is a side issue. The point is that almost anyone receiving through the post a statement of particulars will sign that it is correct, if it is, and return it. Then, blow me down, one finds the entry in the most unlikely magazines one could think of. It is nothing for an estate agency entry to end up in a health magazine—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant Ferris): I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he is wandering rather
  1910
  from the contents of the Bill, which are all that it is in order to deal with on Third Reading. Interesting as his remarks are, it is my duty to bring him to order.
  Mr. Hill: It is kind of you to bring me back to the straight and narrow path, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Clause 3(3) requires information about
  "…the proposed date of publication of the directory or of the issue in which the entry is to be included and the name and address of the person producing it…"
  None of that protects the man who has sent back a corrected entry—which is, in fact, an order. He does not mind about the proposed date of publication or the name and address of the person producing the directory: his basic interest is whether publication will do the maximum good for his business. In December, hon. Members quoted directories based on about 100,000 names, but I am sure that none of those persons was particularly concerned about the details listed in subsection (3) but only that the directory was aimed at a particular class of business. Nowhere does the Bill say that the seller of space in any publication must state the type of magazine or publication he has in mind. A sufficiently calm and confident salesman will be able to sell space to a farmer on the pretence that it will do him most good if his name appears in a telephone area or another area. The Bill has overlooked this point. The seller of a product should ensure that he is doing a service to the client as well as to his agency.
  It was pointed out in December that innocent persons like myself were being diddled of £1½ million a year by bogus entries in various directories. If the Bill goes any way towards curing this incredible wrong, which will have a small effect on inflation and on unemployment, it will be a very worth-while Bill.
  I applaud the principles of new Clause 1. The wide-open drafting of the Bill created ambiguities. Accepting all that, I am its most fervent admirer.
  1.12 p.m.
  Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: I hope that the House will forgive me, too, for not having been present throughout the whole of this debate on Third Reading. I congratulate my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) on having successfully, as seems

  1911
  likely, piloted a successful Measure through the House.
  The problem with which the Bill aims to cope has reached the proportions of a menace. My hon. Friend and his associates are to be congratulated, not merely on having introduced the Bill, but also on having maintained a fairly robust attitude throughout its passage, a robust attitude which is perhaps consistent with the attitude of the present Government towards the country's problems.
  I draw attention to that part of the Bill which will cover what might be known as deliveries as part of a hoax. In a previous incarnation I was a prospective parliamentary candidate. That is not a particularly happy state of existence, even in Orpington. In that capacity I found that a number of people, whether constituents or not, took some delight in entering my name and address on coupon reply forms and no doubt in other places. During the period when I had the honour to be the prospective parliamentary candidate for the Conservative cause in Orpington, which was about three and a half years, I was the unhappy recipient of a very large supply of bulky mail order magazines, books—some of them quite good—maps, pictures, and samples of all kinds. The menace grew to such an extent that items of furniture were being delivered and had hastily to be put back on the delivery vans. At one time there was a team of people from a double-glazing firm anxious to commence work on my house.
  I suppose that this is a hoax of trio type to which people whose names and addresses are well known must be particularly liable. It was a nuisance to me, but it had to be accepted. I could not very well protest publicly about it at that stage without perhaps increasing the tendency for those who wished to play this form of practical joke on me to continue with their good work knowing that it irritated me. So I put up with it.
  The Bill may help to restrain such activities. Because of its fairly robust approach to the problem, and by stipulating that any right of the sender to the goods shall be extinguished in circumstances covered by Clause 1(2), the senders will be deprived of considerable common law rights. Therefore, the onus will in future be upon them to ensure
  1912
  that their rights are safeguarded and that they do not suffer from the activities of those who wish to play practical jokes on others.
  After the successful passage of the Bill, any firm which chooses to send goods—as a result of a hoax—to a person who has not requested them, will lose its rights to the goods. As I understand it, in future the only safeguard such a firm will have is to perform some check. The more valuable the goods, no doubt the more likely it is that the sender will want to perform such a check. Moreover, if having sent an invoice or demand for payment the sender does not receive a payment within a reasonable time, no doubt he will make inquiries; and again he will be covered by the provisions of the Bill.
  I wonder whether all those engaged in this trade realise the desirability of their being very careful in future about the methods by which they intend to sell goods if it depends upon the receipt by them of a telephone call giving a name and address or of a sample coupon containing a name and address. In Committee there were references to the position of suppliers who were the victims of hoaxes, and references were made to the types of hoax which were the fraudulent type, where a person arranged in another person's name to have goods sent to him and appropriated them on receipt so that the person who would be chased by the suppliers would not be the recipient. No doubt that would be fraudulent and there would be appropriate means of pursuing it.
  But in the case of an innocent party—an innocent supplier of goods and an innocent receiver of goods—where the perpetrator of the hoax cannot be discovered and probably will never be discovered, that seems to me to be a situation in which, as a result of the passage of this Bill, the suppliers will have to be very careful indeed about the property they send and about what happens to it after they have sent it.
  I have shared the experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Test (Mr. James Hill) in trying to persuade the suppliers of unsolicited goods to take them back or desist from sending correspondence and bills. I still have

  1913
  great stocks of the books and other articles to which I referred earlier in my speech. I have written from time to time and I have received replies suggesting that perhaps I had made a mistake and that, no doubt, I would send the remittance in payment for the property in due course.
  It seems to be clear that the correspondence sent by suppliers of this kind is initiated by a computer which takes no account of messages sent to it, with the result that one gets an interminable supply of invoices and bills, and eventually threatening letters, and that is certainly a most undesirable business practice which I am sure this Bill will help to prevent in future.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Test also referred to directory entries, and I agree with him about the difficulties. I am one of those who thought initially, for professional reasons, that it was undesirable to have one's telephone number and, therefore, one's address in the public telephone directory. This, however, seems to be regarded as undesirable for a politician. But if that is the case, and if every politician and Member of Parliament must have his telephone number and address in public telephone directories, it exposes them to this sort of practice, and perhaps they will correspondingly in future get some protection from this Bill.
  It seems to me that, on the whole, the honest firms, firms of good reputation which are in the mail order business, will not suffer by this Bill because they will be anxious to protect the standards of their business, just as much as we are, and for that reason a certain tightening up of their trade practices and a certain anxiety to ensure that they do not run foul of the law would be a very good thing indeed.
  For those reasons I welcome the Bill.
  1.24 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Davidson: I should like briefly to add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) on the way in which he has sponsored this Bill. I hope he has a little more success than I did in getting in on the Statute Book. As hon. Members know, my Bill was prevented from going through because of the General
  1914
  Election. Whilst I cannot promise the hon. Gentleman that I will use any influence that I have with the Prime Minister to prevent him calling an election at the moment, I none the less wish him every possible success with it.
  It is unnecessary to go over the ground that was covered fully in two Committee stages, two Second Readings and two Report stages, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's Bill will put out of business many of the more disreputable owners of bogus directory firms. It will also protect the innocent customer who signs a form and then, to his horror and astonishment, finds that he was signing something different from what he previously thought. He finds that a form which he was told by a salesman was a cancellation form suddenly becomes an order form. He finds that a form which he thought meant that he was ordering only one item in a directory becomes an order for several items in a directory spread over several years, or indeed, several items in several directories spread over several years. He finds that the signature that he put at the bottom of a form, which he thought was merely authenticating certain particulars, in fact binds him to an expensive and long-spread-out contract for his entry to be included in another worthless directory.
  I hope that the same technique that was used against me by the bogus directory firms to prevent my Bill going through will not be directed against the hon. Member. So worried were these firms at the loss of business which they would suffer if the Inertia Selling Bill became law that they even went to the lengths of trying to put up a candidate against me in the hope that it would draw sufficient votes from me, lose me the seat and thus the Bill would flounder. This was very naive because there was always the hon. Member for Beckenham waiting in the wings, and this was never, of course, a political Bill. It always had the support of the Government of the day and the Opposition of the day, as has been proved by the fact that the hon. Gentleman has so successfully had the support of the Government in his endeavours.
  There is, however, no doubt that the owner of one of these directory firms which have been mentioned, and about

  1915
  which hon. Members have had many complaints from constituents, put in and and paid for an advertisement in The Times asking for an agent to act on behalf of an independent Labour candidate for Accrington. There is no doubt that the person whom they were going to put up was an employee of one of those firms, and there is no doubt that the expenses were to be paid for by a consortium of firms in the bogus directory business. There was equally no doubt that the platform upon which he was going to stand was, of all things, that of immigration.
  Of course, there is absolutely no objection to anybody standing as a candidate in any by-election or election, as long as he reveals openly and honestly to the public the platform upon which he is standing and who his supporters and backers are. What is objectionable, I am sure all hon. Members will agree, is that it should be done in a sneaky, underhanded way and that the only purpose of the candidature is to prevent a Bill, which would have damaged some disreputable business interests, but none the less a Bill which had the support of all Members of the House and all of the public in general, from getting on the Statute Book.
  I am sure that all hon. Members will agree that if this practice were to become widespread, if private interests were to put up and pay for candidates for private purposes, it would be a very dangerous trend and one which would be thoroughly deplorable. It would be back to the days of Chicago when gangsters put up private candidates and financed them to stand against law enforcement.
  I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the way in which he has piloted the Bill through the House. I hope it becomes law shortly and I hope it achieves its object, which is to put out of business those who try to milk the public.
  1.30 p.m.
  Mr. Tom Boardman: I apologise for not being present throughout the debate, and, because of my absence, I shall confine myself to one or two of the main points which I wish to put on record.
  First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Good-
  1916
  hart on introducing the Bill. Tribute is due also to the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. Arthur Davidson) for initiating it in an earlier Parliament. It is a Measure which will command universal support save among those who have been exploiting the public by the practices which the Bill will now prevent.
  All hon. Members have so much experience of the practice of sending unsolicited goods not only to themselves but to their constituents that one need not add to the list of examples, but I feel that it should be said that one section of the public has been particularly severely affected, that is, those who are least able to defend themselves, People who are not very literate and who worry greatly when they receive demands and threatening letters.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) spoke of the selection of people of some distinction for their names to be included in bogus directories. In fact, those who have been subjected to this sort of exploitation have by no means always been persons of distinction or ability. Many people—hon. Members know this very well—who have received unsolicited goods, followed by threats, have not been sufficiently commercial-minded to realise that they could deal with those threats as hon. Members themselves could do and have been put to great worry on that account. The threat of proceedings and the threat of the process of law coming upon them has added great anxiety to their lives.
  Basically, we are a law-abiding people. The average citizen who receives a demand or threat, couched, very often, in pseudo-legal phraseology, has a natural fear and anxiety. To the extent that the Bill will do something to relieve the anxiety caused by exploitation of this kind, I welcome it with great satisfaction, and I feel that it reflects credit on all hon. Members who have participated in the work on the Bill during its passage through the House. Most hon. Members, and most people of commercial experience, who have received unsolicited goods of one kind or another would be inclined to tell the sender to "go to blazes", but, as I say, it is not necessarily such people who have been subjected to the sending of unsolicited goods in that way.

  1917
  My experience, unlike that of my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington, has not been to receive things which I particularly like. Most of the articles which have been sent to me have had little appeal. If I had been sent nice articles of furniture, handsome pictures or the like, perhaps I should have felt tempted not to worry too much about it, but the things which I have received have merely littered my various shelves and cupboards or found their way into the dustbin.
  I am delighted that there will be protection also against the directory racket. This has been a great abuse. The correspondence, as hon. Members know, is couched in ingratiating phrases, with flattering references and biographical details which, it is said, would appear in the published entry, and the recipient is, perhaps, only too delighted to acknowledge those references in some way as being correct, failing to recognise that by the small print he is placing an order for many years to come for repeat editions of whatever directory it might be. This is a particularly objectionable form of abuse, and I look forward to its being stopped.
  As I see it, another form of exploitation may well come indirectly under the Bill—I have not considered the argument sufficiently closely to be sure—namely, that form of exploitation which is carried on by or through pseudo-students who call at people's houses on some pretext about their paying their way travelling round the country during the vacation, or the like. They manage to persuade householders to sign forms the ultimate effect of which is that they have a year's subscription to some journal.
  As I say, I have not had the opportunity to consider whether those circumstances would be caught by the Bill, but it is a practice by which the sympathy of householders is exploited. The story goes that the young people are working their way round the countryside, seeing something of England while they are here, or they are trying to reduce the financial burden on their parents during the vacation. In this way, because of the sympathy which the householder feels, they manage to procure signatures on documents which commit the householder to obligations far in excess of anything which he had expected. I hope that that form of exploitation also will be caught by the Bill.
  1918
  The Bill has been welcomed on both sides of the House today, as it was in Standing Committee, where, I see, some very sensible Amendments were made. I congratulate my hon. Friend again on introducing it. I wish it a speedy passage to the Statute Book, and great success in achieving the worth-while objectives which we have set for it.
  1.38 p.m.
  Mr. Goodhart: I thank the hon. Member for Leicester, South-West (Mr. Tom Boardman) and all other hon. Members who have said nice things about the Bill and its sponsor. The hon. Member for Leicester, North-West said that the fraudulent directory racket was an important matter, and the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. Arthur Davidson) told us of how he was threatened electorally before the last election. I am personally if not politically delighted that he was able to withstand that assault. I hope that he remains the Opposition spokesman on consumer affairs for many years, indeed, for decades to come. His contribution to the preparation of the Bill has been most valuable.
  In fact, the hon. Member for Accrington was a reasonable target to be chosen by those who sought to threaten him because it has been largely due to his individual efforts that the Bill is so strong on the fraudulent directory side. I hope that it will now put an end to that important racket. It has been estimated that fraudulent directories take more than Ell million from firms in this country in the course of one year. I suspect that that estimate is right, because even during the postal strike I used to receive almost every day examples that people had taken the trouble to bring up to London to hand in to me at the House, in letters of complaint about the way in which they had been done by bogus directory firms.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) said that he was not sure why Clause 1(2,b) was necessary if we had Clause 1(2,a). My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. James Hill) took a rather different tack when he asked, "What should we do about baby elephants if they are unsolicited?" He cited baby elephants, but he clearly meant anything which was disagreeable to store. Clause 1(2,b) offers an alternative system of getting rid

  1919
  of the baby elephant or white elephant that one does not want on one's hands for six months.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough asked whether one would be required under the Bill to put unsolicited goods into the post. Being physically incapable of making up the smallest parcel, I assure him that I would certainly not wish to see any obligation put on members of the public to try to put unsolicited goods into the post in parcel form. The obligation in the Bill is to hand back to the supplier all the unsolicited goods if he calls for them.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) referred to the growing practice of approaching people by telephone and offering unsolicited services, mostly, but sometimes goods. The Bill will not deal specifically with telephone calls, but it does strengthen the right of the public as a whole in dealing with unsolicited goods. It will make it more expensive and riskier for the person who wants to adopt this form of high-pressure salesmanship. All one can do in the legislation is to build up the defences of the recipient. It is very difficult to wipe out any commercial practice, however obnoxious, by absolute prohibition.
  A reference to the unsolicited goods he had received from the Time-Life organisation was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test. The firm has its headquarters in New York and operates in Europe from Holland. It so happens that both New York and Holland have model unsolicited goods legislation. Yet it is curiously ineffective against one of the major practitioners of that form of selling. What the Bill does is to provide my hon. Friend with additional defences against it. I do not pretend that we can hope that all forms of unattractive selling will disappear as a result of it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) raised the question of hoax orders, which exercised my hon. Friends the Members for Oxford (Mr. Woodhouse) and Lewisham, West (Mr. Selwyn Gummer) both on Second Reading and in Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West suggested that a number of reputable
  1920
  mail order firms might be driven out of business by the Bill if it reached the Statute Book, and that the number of hoax orders might escalate sharply to a level of 20 or 30 per cent. I think that those fears are grossly exaggerated.
  After the Committee stage I asked one of the leading practitioners in the mail order business, a man who is no friend of Clause 1 (2) (a), what percentage of hoax orders he thought his firm was subjected to. He gave me the figure of 0·02 per cent. I am not sure whether that figure is right, but I have made one or two inquiries elsewhere and nobody I have met is inclined to dispute it. Now the losses through dishonesty in other forms of selling are very large. It is estimated that pilfering from food shops runs into more than £30 million a year and that the proportion of goods that disappears from all shops, either through shoplifting by customers or fraudulent activities by the staff, is substantially in excess of £100 million a year, which is about 1 per cent. on a turnover of £11,000 million a year. Most of the supermarket and retail shop organisations recognise that losses through theft are a major factor, certainly vastly in excess of anything that the mail order people have to contend with, and possibly 100 times greater than the burden of hoax orders on the mail order people at present.
  In fact, it is fair to say that the mail order business probably is less vulnerable to dishonesty than any other method of selling, and I hope that that position will not be changed by the Bill because it is not our intention to try to penalise the many wholly reputable mail order companies which provide the public with such an admirable service.
  I turn now to the Clause which was piloted into the Bill so skilfully by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel). He succeeded in persuading the House that the distribution of pornographic circulars indiscriminately to the public as a whole is a menace and that, even if his Clause has a number of defects, at least it concentrates the Government's attention on a problem and brings home to them the fact that they will have to introduce an Amendment in the other place.
  There is considerable merit in the hon. Gentleman's argument. We can now be

  1921
  reasonably assured that something will be done. But the fact remains that, if the Clause were to pass through the other place as it stands, it would have a curious effect upon the publishing business. In our efforts to do down the Julian Press, which is now dead, we would catch Encyclopaedia Britannica, the Oxford University Press and most other reputable publishers. For that reason, I hope that the Clause which has been added to the Bill will be amended in another place. But I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on drawing to the Government's attention so forcibly the nuisance which is caused to a lot of people.
  The hon. Gentleman's Clause introduces one fresh peril for the Bill in that, if it is drastically amended as everyone agrees it should be, it will have to be discussed again in this House. That means that the Government may well have to find time for that debate. I hope that the widespread support which has been expressed throughout all the Bill's stages will persuade the Government to do so. I appreciate the enormous help that my hon. Friend and his Ministry have given in guiding the Bill so far. I hope that we may trespass upon their generosity at a later date and ask for additional parliamentary time. It would be a pity if this Bill foundered at a late stage. The last Bill on the subject foundered because of the General Election. That hazard is not likely to menace the further progress of this Measure. I hope that the general goodwill and wishes that have been expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House will be translated at a later stage into the inscription of this legislation on the Statute Book.
  1.55 p.m.
  Mr. Ridley: As the last contributor to the debates on this Bill, for the time being, anyway, perhaps I might draw together some of the threads which have run through this Third Reading debate. I begin by paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) for his very persistent and skilful piloting of the Bill through all its stages so far. As my hon. Friend said, an Assyrian came down from the fold at the last moment, and he has to some extent put the Bill at risk because it is not at all certain how time can be found in this House to consider any Amend-
  1922
  ments which may be made in another place.
  However, these are matters for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. Having given my advice, I must accept the will of the House which is to accept a new Clause which may jeopardise the passage of the Bill, though I very much hope that my hon. Friend's Measure will see the Statute Book, without begging the question of whether it will contain the new Clause when it does.
  My hon. Friend has deserved the full support of the House and the country in following the strenuous efforts of the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. Arthur Davidson) to legislate on what, basically, are two separate subjects. The hon. Gentleman went through his hair-raising experiences at the General Election as a result of his sponsorship of the previous Bill. Although he was right to refer to these matters, I could not help feeling what an excellent political system we have whereby it is possible to consider standing for Parliament on the ticket of wishing to promote unsolicited goods selling. Equally, it is even more certain that one will be defeated by the good sense of the electorate, as happened in this case.
  Mr. Arthur Davidson: In fact, the firms concerned did not intend their candidate to stand on the ticket of unsolicited goods selling. The ticket was an entirely different one. The only good that came out of the early calling of the General Election from my point of view was that they were not able to put their plans into operation since they were counting on an October election.
  Mr. Ridley: Every person seeking to be elected to this House has at some stage found himself standing on ground which appeared to be a little shaky. There have been many instances' where the platform as a whole was not entirely to one's liking. One cannot be too fussy about these matters. The good sense of the electorate got the answer right in the hon. Gentleman's case in that it did not return a proper Tory. But it is a tribute to our system that these matters can be left to the electorate to decide.
  Two or three questions arose in Committee and I am sure that the House would like to have them answered. My

  1923
  hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham asked whether I thought that the publication of entries in a directory amounted to a service for the purposes of Section 14 of the Trade Descriptions Act. He also asked whether I would draw the attention of the authorities responsible for the administration of that Act to the passage of the Bill, if it were passed, and the resulting legal position in relation to that Act. He is anxious that these advertisements should be brought to the notice of the local weights and measures authorities whose duty it is to enforce the Act.
  The scope of Section 14 of that Act is ultimately for the courts to decide, of course, but the advice which I have conveyed is that it will certainly be within the scope of "services" for the purposes of Section 14. We would certainly consider helping to make sure that weights and measures inspectors were aware of this, but rather than circulating a Department of Trade and Industry circular, which is what my hon. Friend asks, it would be better to invite the Institute of Weights and Measures Administration to make the points in the circulars which it regularly sends to its members, and that I would do.
  My hon. Friend was worried about whether the term "entry" in Clause 3 in relation to directories caught the case in which something more elaborate than a mere entry was involved. He argued that an advertisement, for example, might not be regarded as an entry. My view remains that an entry unadorned will catch all we want to catch. In Committee I undertook to consider again whether there was anything that could be done, but, on taking further advice, I am definitely of the opinion that "entry" is sufficient to the purpose and that to widen the term by qualifying or adding to it in any way might have the effect of weakening rather than strengthening it. It is thus right to leave the term unadorned.
  The hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Greville Janner) asked me about the provision of garage services. They would not be covered by the Bill, because they are not unsolicited goods, but work undertaken by the garage, and whether the work should have been undertaken by the garage, is entirely a
  1924
  matter for the garage and the customer to sort out between them. It would not come within the scope of the Bill. Nor would amendments to the Sales of Goods Act, which he and I have previously debated and which I have already said is a matter upon which the Government would like to legislate and will certainly do so when it becomes possible to find time within the Parliamentary timetable.
  The hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir S. McAdden) asked a question which I owe it to the House to try to answer correctly. He was worried about Clause 4 and wondered how far an offence should be held to be the responsibility of the various officers of a company and whether it was right that the Clause should contain the words:
  "or other similar officer of the body corporate, or of any person who was purporting to act in any such capacity …"
  whereas normal company legislation puts responsibility on the officers.
  This form of Clause exists in other legislation and has caused no problems. It cannot be confined to persons who hold positions as directors, managers, or secretaries, as it would be ineffective in cases where a person carried on the functions of one or other post without being formally appointed to it. In other words, the Clause is concerned with the actual way in which the business is run and not with the formalities of appointments. The secretary and the director may be the only officers legally necessary although an offence is committed by those who direct, manage, or run the business. The law does not say who should run the business, but merely lays down the constitution of the company which applies when matters have to be settled by voting.
  The hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) said that he firmly believed in freedom of choice, and I echo the sentiment, but then repudiated any suspicion of being connected with supporting the market economy, which seemed to be a contradiction in terms. However, I must not get involved in a philosophical argument with the hon. Gentleman. We welcome his support of the Bill. I believe that freedom of choice is one of the great freedoms which must be preserved at all costs.
  Mr. Palmer: For the purposes of my argument it was a matter of calling things

  1925
  by their correct names; that it makes a lot of difference.
  Mr. Ridley: I accept that from the hon. Gentleman, and I would agree with him.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) asked whether it was possible to force people to return goods by post when they had been sent unsolicitedly. When he elaborated this question and the theory was taken up by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and we got to the point of considering whether baby elephants could be repacked in parcels and sent back to the senders through the post, I began to feel that the answer had been given. Of course it is not necessary, either under the Bill or under the present common law, for anyone to send back by post and return by post anything sent to him unsolicitedly. He is entirely able just to hold on to the goods for a period of six months, if he so wishes, answering no letter and making no other move to help the recovery of those goods.
  Mr. James Hill: When I mentioned baby elephants, I was emphasising, probably over-emphasising, that some items are large and that there is no room for storing them and that people might be forced by the Bill to store them or return them.
  Mr. Ridley: As my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham said, it is always open to the recipient of such goods, white elephants, if I may so describe them, to apply under Clause 1(2)(b) by giving notice to the sender to come and take them away. The Bill will make it much more difficult to get payment for unsolicited goods which are deliberately sent, and therefore there will be less likelihood of the unsolicited sending of large and expensive items. However, this provision will discourage a practice which is a nuisance to those who have to suffer it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) asked about telephone calls, as did my hon. Friend for Southampton, Test (Mr. James Hill). Unsolicited services cannot be supplied by the use of the telephone. All that can be done by telephone when a telephone call is made to an unknown
  1926
  member of the public is to make an offer. One can make an offer to supply services or goods on the telephone, but before it becomes a contract, the person receiving the telephone call has to accept that it should be so done. This cannot in any way be confused with the purpose of the Bill. The hon. Member was getting at the extremely unpleasant experience of being rung up and offered goods or having one's time wasted with completely frivolous suggestions. I do not believe that there is a better way of stopping this than by putting down the receiver smartly, and it is not possible to deal with this, certainly not in the Bill.
  Mr. Rost: I was emphasising the point of the invasion of privacy, particularly in one's leisure hours, but I was also concerned about the confusion that might arise if a service were offered on the telephone and the housewife or a junior member of the family on answering the telephone gave a misleading impression to the salesman which might lead to the delivery of goods or services, perhaps by accident or misinterpretation.
  Mr. Ridley: If that were to happen, I think I am right in saying that if a child were to say "Yes", not realising the implications, and if goods were delivered or services supplied, that stilt would not constitute a contract. Therefore, the provisions of the Bill would protect the recipient. I am wondering what would happen if the telephone conversation had been tape recorded. I feel that that would not be sufficient evidence of the existence of a contract, but I say that not being a lawyer and not having thought about this problem before. So it would be difficult to bring pressure to bear on a person offering unsolicited goods or services over the telephone.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test was concerned about Clause 3(3)(a) which deals with directory entries. He rightly said that there is no point in telling someone who is asked to make an entry in a directory the name and address of the producers, the date and matters of that sort. The person who is asked to make an entry requires to know the selling potential of the directory and the coverage, so that he will know whether it is commercially worth his while to make an entry in it. Clause 3(3)(a)(iii) states:
  (iii) if the directory or that issue is to be distributed free of charge (whether or not it is

  1927
  also to be put on sale), the minimum number of copies which are to be so distributed; and
  That, I think, is the best guarantee that can be given of providing the relevant information. Before a directory is published, no one can say how many copies will be sold. It depends entirely on the acceptability of the directory and its reception on the market, and it is therefore impossible to predict accurately the number of copies which will be sold. To say the number of copies which will be distributed is a big commitment. Before agreeing to print and distribute a certain number of directories considerable expense is bound to be incurred, and one must be certain that one intends seriously to enter the directory business. The inclusion of that sub-paragraph in the conditions is a protection for the person genuinely wishing to make an entry in a directory by enabling him to have knowledge of the commercial possibilities.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) mentioned hoax orders, which were discussed at great length in Committee. I think the Bill strikes the right balance between protecting the recipient of unsolicited goods and the genuine firm which sends items through the post as a mail order business. One trouble in this argument is that the unsolicited goods sender is not necessarily the same person as the genuine mail order firm. In trying to discourage the sender of unsolicited goods, we may well be making things more difficult for the genuine mail order firm, and we want to make sure that does not happen.
  Hoaxing must not be exaggerated but it is nevertheless a real problem. There are practical jokes hoax orders, and there are fraudulent hoax orders where someone orders goods for himself using another address or pretends that he has not made the order. Anything that encouraged that practice would be unfair on the mail order houses, and I do not believe that anything in the Bill encourages it. Equally, I do not think that there is any way of stopping it by legislation of
  1928
  this sort. I hope my hon. Friend will feel that this is as near right as possible.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South-West (Mr. Tom Boardman) raised the question of pseudo-students who sell magazines and peddle round the country trying to get unsolicited subscriptions to journals. This is not the same sort of thing as the matters covered in the Bill because it does not involve sending things to people, and the purpose of the Bill is to define the rights of the parties who receive and send unsolicited goods through the post, or stuff them through the letterbox. The student is in a different position, and I would not expect the Bill to apply to that problem. The evil effects of this can be grossly overrated, but it is really a question of door-to-door salesmanship which most of us have learnt to resist.
  To sum up, this is an important piece of consumer protection legislation. I am sure we are right to erect Acts of Parliament to define clearly the rights of the consumer and the citizen and to stop each abuse of the consumer, as it occurs, by an Act of Parliament. I regard this as one of an unfolding series of laws which will deal with abuses of the consumer as they arise. What is good about it is that the rights of the recipient and the sender and, in the wider context, the rights of the consumer and the manufacturer or trader, will be enshrined in an Act of Parliament. This is perhaps the right way to proceed rather than by too much publicity and excitement.
  I again congratulate my hon. Friend for bringing forward this Measure—which has had the full support of this Government and the previous Government—and the hon. Member for Accrington. I hope the House will give the Bill an unopposed Third Reading so that it may proceed to another place from which we hope it will eventually emerge successfully on to the Statute Book.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

CONSUMER PROTECTION BILL [Lords]
As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
2.20 p.m.
Mr. Tom Boardman: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
This is a small but nevertheless very useful Measure. Its objective is to improve consumer protection and to stop a loophole in the present legislation.
I should first pay tribute to the initiator of the Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Derwent. He is most active in consumer protection matters and his initiation of the Bill in another place has enabled us to debate it today.
I am glad that we have the opportunity to discuss the Bill because, although no Amendments to it have been tabled, benefit will result from further publicity being given to its purpose. The knowledge that the Bill will impose a sanction which did not exist before will have an inhibiting effect on such practices as might otherwise have continued in the sale of goods which break certain standards. The Bill has had general support on both sides of the House. It received constructive support in Committee. I believe that its objective will have the unanimous support of the country.
It may be helpful if I deal with the background so that the Bill can be set in its right context. It amends Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1961. It is intended to be read as part of that Act. It will therefore be necessary to refer to the 1961 Act and to show how its provisions will be amended by the Bill.
Section 1 of the Consumer Protection Act enables the Secretary of State to make regulations in respect of certain classes of goods to ensure protection from hazards to health and safety and to
"prevent or reduce risk of death or personal injury".
The regulations may extend to the
"composition or contents, design, construction, finish or packing of … goods"
which are in the opinion of the Secretary of State
1930
"expedient to prevent or reduce risk of death or personal injury".
The Secretary of State has made a number of regulations on such matters as the safety of oil heaters. The House will be aware of the dangers which existed and the accidents which occurred as a result of defective oil heaters. This is an illustration of the way in which regulations can be made to prevent the repetition of such accidents.
Regulations have been made concerning toys. The House will again be aware of the dangers which exist from, in particular, toys with a lead content. Many accidents can be traced to toys containing an element of lead in the paint. The majority, if not all, of the offending toys have been imported. Young children have picked up toys, licked them and have then suffered from the effects of lead poisoning. Regulations can prevent dangers arising from children's toys.
We have all read, and we hope that we shall not longer read, about the flammability of children's nightdresses and accidents which happen as a result of children standing in front of electric fires. Dresses were made of materials which went up in a blaze. Now materials can be used which are flame-resistant and they are therefore much safer for use in children's nightdresses. This is another illustration of the type of danger against which regulations are aimed.
The safety of carry-cot stands is another example. Accidents have occurred as a result of defective carry-cot stands. I do not pretend to know the details, but one can visualise what may happen if a stand is unstable and falls over and the child is tipped out, with the possible risk of injury, suffocation, and so on.
Another illustration relates to the colour coding of flexible cords attached to domestic appliences. I have some difficulty with certain colours. Those who do not suffer from that slight disadvantage recognise the need for clear coding on cables and flexes as vital to ensure that they do not connect the live wire to the earth socket. That is another example of a danger against which regulations are aimed.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has announced that it is intended to bring in a number of other regulations. In Committee he spoke of the type of

1931
regulations in contemplation. They are of the same nature as those to which I have referred.
Section 2 of the 1961 Act places a prohibition on the sale of goods which offend against the regulations. It provides that
"… no person shall sell, or have in his possession for the purpose of selling"
—I stress this part because it is very germane to the Bill—
"any goods as respects which or a component part of which any requirements of regulations under the foregoing section are in force unless all requirements of the regulations relating to the goods or component part are complied with".
Then the Section continues to amplify that prohibition which applies to the possession, or sale of goods which offend the regulations.
The Section of the 1961 Act which is amended by this Bill is Section 3, and it is that Section which has in it the enforcement provisions. By subsection (2) it provides an obligation:
"Any person who contravenes the foregoing section"
—that is, sells or has in his possession for sale goods which contravene the Section—
"shall be guilty of an offence and liable"
—to prompt imprisonment or a fine. Then there is a proviso to which I shall turn in a moment.
The Act is defective in certain respects, and it is because of those defects that so far it has very often not been possible to go to the real villain; it has not been possible to go to the man who is the guilty party in having manufactured or made the defective goods or who has imported defective goods. Under the Act it has been practicable to go only to the retailer, the person who has been selling the goods. The object of the Bill is to produce a by-passing procedure to enable the villain, the person who is really responsible, to be prosecuted.
The reason why it has not been possible to go to the person who is really the main villain is that the Act provides that prosecutions shall be brought by the local authority in the area where the offence is committed. This comes from paragraph 6 of the Schedule to the Act:
1932
"A local authority in England or Wales may institute proceedings for an offence under this Act committed in the area of the local authority."
It is the local authority, therefore, which must institute the proceedings for an offence which is committed in its area.
The offence of selling or having in possession for sale goods which offend the regulations is one which will be committed by anyone who either sells or makes and holds for the purpose of sale goods which do not comply with the regulations.
It may be wondered why this should in any way prevent the real villain, the importer or manufacturer of the goods, from being brought to book. The reason is that, in practice, offending goods will be found and traced only at the point of sale. I will explain the way in which they would be found. There may, for example, be electrical, domestic appliances with no colour coding for flexes. They will be found when the local authority inspector finds them in one of the shops. Having found the goods in a shop he will, having made the necessary tests, and so on, be in a position to believe that an offence has been committed and to institute proceedings against the retailer. The retailer, however, is only one of the persons who is responsible for the offence. The main offender in such an illustration would, no doubt, be the maker of the electrical appliance or the importer of the appliance, but the importer or manufacturer is in all probability carrying on business in some completely different area; he is not within the same area as the retailer. Proceedings brought by a local authority and brought against the importer or manufacturer must be brought against him by the local authority in the area where the manufacturer or importer carries on his business—the area of a different local authority.
It may be possible for the local authority in the retailer's area promptly to inform the local authority in the manufacturer's or importer's area and, as a result, for the second local authority to initiate proceedings, but there is a second hurdle which has then to be overcome, and that is that proceedings under the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952, and proceedings under the comparable Scottish Act have to be brought within six

1933
months of the offence having been committed, and under the 1961 Act the offence is committed at the time of the sale.
Therefore one gets a state of affairs where the importer has imported in January, 1969, goods which offend against the regulations, sells them to a distributor in a different part of the country, who sells them to a retailer, and some six or eight months later the retailer in possession of these goods is found with the goods which are in breach of the regulations, and in due course of time a prosecution is brought. The prosecution must be brought against the retailer within six months of the retailer's having had those goods in his possession for sale. That can, no doubt, be done, but even if the proceedings are initiated on the day on which the offending goods are found in the retailer's shop, similar proceedings cannot be brought by the local authority in the area in which the manufacturer or importer carries on business because the period of more than six months will have elapsed from the time when the importer or manufacturer sold the goods to the retailer.
Mr. Ian MacArthur: I am very interested in this point, and I apologise to my hon. Friend if I have misunderstood this subsection of the Clause, but what is the position if a local authority decides to raise an action against a branch of a multiple store which might be carrying, for example, a lead-painted toy which offends against the regulations governing the manufacture of such a toy? The case I have in mind is that this local authority might then raise an action against the branch of the store, but, under the terms of this Bill, presumably the importer would be equally guilty, and the importer would, presumably, not be in the same area as that local branch of the multiple chain. Who then initiates the action? What happens? Is it the local authority in whose area the importer resides? I am sorry if I have missed the point, but it is possible that actions of this kind could arise and it is very important that we should know where we stand in the matter.
Mr. Boardman: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend because he has made clear that there is a gap which I have
1934
left in my explanation of what happens, a gap which I hope I shall be able to fill as I develop my argument. May I first directly answer my hon. Friend's question by saying that in that instance the branch would be prosecuted. After this Bill is on the Statute Book the branch itself would be or could be prosecuted by the local authority in the area in which that branch is situated.
The supplier to the company, whether he be a distributor, a manufacturer or an importer, could also be prosecuted by the same local authority for the area in which the retailing branch was situated. The offence which the importer would be deemed to have committed would have taken place at the time when the branch committed the offence. I hope that in dealing with the effect of the Bill, I shall manage to clear up the point better than I have done so far.
I was explaining that the existing gaps in the law are twofold. First, there is the unlikelihood that the same local authority will be the relevant authority to conduct prosecutions against each of the offending parties. I should make it clear that each of the companies, businesses or individuals who sell or have on the premises for sale an offending article are guilty of an offence, whether they be importers, manufacturers, distributors, wholesalers or retailers. Thais the law today and that will remain the law when the Bill reaches the Statute Book.
It is the difficulty of enforcement or of prosecution of certain people in that chain which has produced the practical problems so far. In the illustration given by my hon. Friend, in which the branch can be prosecuted by the local authority, no doubt within the statutory period of six months, there is no problem. Suppose, however, that toys are imported from Hong Kong by an importer, are then handled by a wholesaler-distributor and then go to the branch of a store. The wholesaler-distributor will also have committed the offence at the time he sold the goods to the store. That offence can be prosecuted only by the local authority in whose area the wholesaler-distributor is located. That is the present position. The importer will likewise have committed an offence, and he will have done so at the time he sold the goods. Again, however, he can be

1935
prosecuted only by the local authority in whose area he carries on his business.
In that illustration, therefore, assuming that the importer, the distributor and the wholesaler all live in different local authority areas, each of the three firms is liable to be prosecuted, but by different local authorities. Each prosecution has to be brought within six months of the time when each firm committed its offence at the various stages down the line in the chain of sale. In the majority of cases, the result is that where defective goods are found, practical problems make it either impossible or impracticable for prosecutions to be brought against those whom I have described as the main culprits—for example, the importer.
Perhaps I may help my hon. Friend a little more. Section 1 of the 1961 Act empowers the Secretary of State to make regulations, and my hon. Friend has indicated the type of regulations that are contemplated for possible later introduction. In trying to be brief, I was, perhaps, too short in my description of Section 2, and it may be helpful if I read part of it.
Section 2 provides that
"Subject to the provisions of this section, no person shall sell, or have in his possession for the purpose of selling, any goods as respects which or a component part of which any requirements of regulations under the foregoing section are in force unless all requirements of the regulations relating to the goods or component part are complied with."
Thus, the offence is that of selling or possessing for the purpose of selling goods which offend the regulations. As I said earlier, there is a limiting factor in paragraph 6 of the Schedule to the 1961 Act concerning the institution of proceedings by a local authority for an offence which has been committed in its area.
It might be helpful to the House if I said a word or two about the problems of inspection and testing. The practical difficulty in enforcing the regulations is not only the finding of goods which are believed to cause offence, but inspecting and making what are, for an amateur or storekeeper, difficult tests to find whether the goods—for example, toys—have on them paint containing too large a lead content. I would not know whether a toy had lead paint on it, nor,
1936
I imagine, would many hon. Members know what degree of lead paint could be accepted on a toy without its being dangerous. Perhaps the answer is that there should be no lead paint on a toy—the regulations may so provide; I hope so. There is, however, the practical problem that someone has to find the goods and then decide that they offend. The work of the enforcement officers is a fairly specialised job. Local authorities have inspectors to deal not only with this activity but also with the provisions of the Trade Descriptions Act, 1968, and other matters.
It is not easy for the retailer to know whether something which he buys to put in his shop window offends the regulations. I cannot imagine that many village storekeepers or postmistresses who have children's toys on display at Christmas time, for example, have the necessary facilities to test the paint content of an attractive toy which may be seen in say, the village post office at Christmas time. Under the existing law, however, the inspector would probably go to the shop, see the toy in the window and, having made the necessary tests, say, "You are committing an offence. This toy does not comply with the regulations. In the words of Section 2 of the 1961 Act, you have in your possession for the purpose of sale a toy which does not comply with the regulations because it has too great an element of lead paint upon it".
The village postmistress or storekeeper—who, although perhaps guilty in law, might in moral terms be regarded as innocent—could be prosecuted by the local authority. He or she will have obtained those goods from the wholesaler-distributor, which may be a firm operating some distance away. Certainly another local authority will be involved. More than six months may have passed since the goods were supplied to the village shop and before that shopkeeper was prosecuted. It would, therefore, be impossible to bring proceedings against the distributor, even if it were possible to persuade the local authority in the area of the distributor that an action should be brought.
The inspector in Leicestershire will, I am sure, be anxious to see that offending toys are not displayed in shop windows in villages in Leicester and will be anxious to bring proceedings against offending

1937
shopkeepers. If it is found that the goods came from a warehouse in, say, Newcastle, the local authority there may not be particularly concerned about a few toys on sale in a village shop in Leicestershire. That authority may not want to be burdened with having to initiate proceedings.
The wholesaler-distributor may not have the full facilities—I am dealing now with toys and not with electrical appliances—to test for the lead content of paint. If somebody is in a sufficiently big way of business, he may have such facilities—perhaps he should have them in any case—but many small people will rely on their suppliers to see that the goods comply with the regulations.
Mr. MacArthur: Small shops often carry a large range of stock.
Mr. Boardman: Precisely. The small village shopkeeper will be selling, in addition to toys, all sorts of items. If, on the other hand, a shopkeeper is selling exclusively toys, one might say with some justification that he should have a testing device for this purpose. If, on the other hand, he is selling toys, sweets, nightdresses and a score of other items, the responsibility should not be placed solely on him. This brings me to the question of the importer, who will probably have imported the goods many months before.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. I do not like to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I suggest that he is going, at any rate in spirit, beyond what one should do on Third Reading. What he is saying is important and interesting, but I remind him that other hon. Members are waiting to speak. It would, therefore, be kind of him if he would curtail his remarks, and certainly come very directly to the contents of the Bill and, perhaps, towards his peroration.
Mr. Boardman: I am grateful for that guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I apologise if I have allowed my interest in this problem to take me into details which are outside the province of a Third Reading debate.
I come to the problem and the way in which the Bill would deal with it. I have probably explained at too great a length already some of the difficulties—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—that now exist, but I trust that it has been
1938
at a length which is justified by the merits of the cause.
Mr. MacArthur: My hon. Friend is making a very interesting speech.
Mr. Boardman: The Bill introduces a by-passing procedure in that it makes an offence committed, as in my example, by a shopkeeper equally an offence committed by a wholesaler-distributor or an importer. Thus, in my illustration of lead toys being sold by a retailer, at the time of that sale, and therefore at the time of the commission of the offence, it is equally an offence by the wholesaler-distributor and importer.
It will be for the local authority in the area to decide whether to prosecute the retailer and the wholesaler-distributor or importer, who will have been deemed to have committed the offence which the retailer has committed. The Bill overcomes the problem of needing another local authority to bring a prosecution. It also overcomes the time limit problem because they will have been deemed to have committed an offence at the time when the retail resale was made.
The defence in Clause 1(2)(b) has, after amendment in Committee, departed from the defence available under the 1961 Act which, in a proviso to Section 3(2), says that a person should not be convicted of an offence by reason of a contravention of, or failure to comply with, any requirement imposed if he proves that he had reasonable cause to believe that all such requirements were satisfied. That was a form of wording that had not previously been used in this type of legislation. It departed from the more conventional wording in such measures as the Trade Descriptions Act, 1968, the Fire Pecautions Bill, and the Weights and Measures Act, 1963.
Representations were made by local authority associations that those words were too imprecise, and left open too wide a defence. As it was the only wording in this sort of legislation there was no precedent for interpretation. So the local authority associations urged, and their view commended itself to the Committee, that we should adopt the wording now in the Bill, that the person should have taken
"… all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of such an offence".

1939
That wording has been used in a number of previous Measures and there is a considerable body of case law about it. It enables courts and those concerned with posecuting and defending to have a clearer and more precise understanding of what defence is available. I draw attention to this change, which was made, I believe, for very good reasons.
A number of points raised in Committee are of general interest in regard to the content of the Bill as a whole, and perhaps I may briefly touch on them—
Mr. Alec Jones: The hon. Gentleman keeps using the word "briefly". Will he indicate to the House what he understands by the word "brief"?
Mr. Boardman: The word must be used relatively to the importance of the subject, and we on this side think that this Bill justifies a fairly full explanation. It deals with the rights of the consumer, and it also affects the rights of traders, shop keepers, manufacturers and importers. If I have been labouring the point, as has been indicated from the Chair, it is because perhaps not enough attention has been paid to interests and rights about which we feel strongly—
Sir Elwyn Jones: The hon. Gentleman indicated that he was about to embark on the discussion of a number of interesting points raised in Committee. If that is his intention, I am sure that there will be an even more watchful eye from the Chair than before.
Mr. Boardman: I am sure that were I to embark on Committee points I should soon be brought to order.
A number of hon. Members were concerned about the Bill's effect on civil claims. The Bill does not directly alter rights as between supplier and customer.
Concern was expressed about the Bill's application to Scotland. My hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) may well have an opportunity to deal with that point, because concern was expressed whether Scotland lost out in this way—
Mr. MacArthur: I hope not.
Mr. Boardman: I assure my hon. Friend that there is nothing in the Bill
1940
which in any way reduces protection of those in Scotland. In fact, it increases that protection. One problem in Scotland is that with a rather more scattered population the enforcement of the law is somewhat more difficult. The problem, too, of goods very often having been manufactured outside Scotland makes enforcement more difficult. The Bill will considerably assist Scottish local authorities to enforce the law against those whom I described earlier as being, perhaps, the villains of the piece, who may be English manufacturers or importers of goods from Hong Kong. I mention that merely to allay any fears that my hon. Friend might have had.
Hon. Members have asked to what extent the 1961 Act has been effective. The measure of effectiveness has sometimes been taken to be the number of prosecutions. This is probably the wrong criterion. The 1961 Act has provided a deterrent and has cured some of the previously objectionable practices. Possibly one of the main militating factors against prosecutions being brought was the problem of bringing prosecutions because of the difference in local authority areas and because of the question of the time limit.
I apologise to the House if I have taken some time to explain a very short Measure. The Bill is of considerable importance and perhaps my explanation will have clarified doubts which otherwise would have remained. I support the Bill and hope that it has an easy passage.
3.6 p.m.
Mr. Arthur Palmer: It is often charged by the Chair against those who speak on a Third Reading of a Bill that they do not deal with the subject of the Bill. Whatever can be said in favour of the hon. Member for Leicester, South-West (Mr. Tom Boardman) no one could possibly accuse him of not having talked about the Bill.
This is the Third Reading of a small Bill which came from the other place and which has had general support. It is designed to close a draughty loophole in the 1961 legislation. As the hon. Gentleman has explained to the House at considerable length, the original legislation made it an offence to sell dangerous or harmful goods, particularly in this

1941
field toys, heaters and electrical appliances
On the question of the dangers associated with electrical appliances, as the House may know I am by fundamental profession an electrical engineer. The hon. Gentleman was right to refer to the dangers—indeed the fatal accidents—that can arise from the wrong connection of electrical appliances. At least one British Prime Minister has come to me for my expert advice, not on electricity legislation, not on the organisation of the industry, but on how to connect the black, green and red wires of an electric radiator—as was the case then.
But there was this loophole in the original legislation, as I say. The enforcement lay with individual local authorities which could only talk to or proceed against the immediate retailer. If the Bill receives a Third Reading, as I hope that it will, the local authority—I am putting shortly what the hon. Gentleman put at great length—can go to the true offender, which will be either the wholesaler or probably the manufacturer.
The need for this reform is so obvious that it is not necessary to labour the point. It has been laboured already, anyhow. I express my gratitude to those who took the initiative in the other place and in this House, such as the hon. Member for Leicester, South-West, in bringing forward this amending Measure. The new opportunity for enforcement now given to local authorities will presumably mean that there will be more work for local authorities and for their officials. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that these things are best done without prosecutions if possible. Nevertheless, whether in the end there is a prosecution, or one warns people or advises them at an earlier stage, certainly it will mean more enforcement work for local authorities.
The practical point that I wish to put to the Minister of State is this: is he satisfied that the local authority officials, their inspectors and others, already often overburdened with work, having to carry on so many tasks in a limited amount of time, will be in a position to take advantage of the new opportunities which are now presented for action in defence of the consumer? If we could have an answer to that practical point, it would be very helpful.
1942
May I add my thanks again from this side to all those who have worked to bring about this useful amendment to what, on the whole, has proved over the years to have been a very sound piece of legislation.
3.11 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Richard Sharpies): I am sure the House will wish to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South-West (Mr. Tom Boardman) on his Bill. The House will also be grateful to him for his lucid explanation of the Bill. This Bill did not have a Second Reading debate. There was a very short Standing Committee stage, and this Third Reading debate has given my hon. Friend an opportunity to explain its provisions.
I shall have something to say later about publicity, but it is important that the Bill should have some publicity and the effects and its intentions made known.
As I indicated when the matter was discussed in Standing Committee, the Government support and welcome the proposals in the Bill. We believe that the insertion in the Consumer Protection Act, 1961, of the by-passing or passing-over provisions will improve that Act and will enable the Regulations made under it to be more effectively enforced than they are at present. I do not need to go through the provisions. They were effectively explained by my hon. Friend.
It might be helpful if I were to say one or two things about other points which have arisen, including one or two points to which I was not able to reply during the Standing Committee debates. There is no doubt that the effectiveness of legislation of this kind cannot be judged by the number of prosecutions which are brought. Anybody who has any knowledge of work in this field will know quite well that the vast proportion of work done by inspectors is done in the form of giving advice to retailers, and, in fact, in the vast majority of cases a very good liaison has been built up between the inspectors and those with whom they have to deal.
Most retailers, if they are in doubt, will go to the inspector and will ask for his advice, and again the inspector, on his visits, is often able to give advice on the spot. It is only in the last resort that a prosecution has to be brought.

1943
None the less it is important that local authorities should have the power to bring prosecutions, and that when prosecutions are brought they should be effective and they should be brought against those who are most directly concerned. I think it is fair to say, too, that even in cases where there have been clear breaches, many local authorities are at present reluctant to prosecute retailers. I think this is especially the case where the small retailer is involved.
That view has been expressed to the Home Office by several important bodies, including the local authority associations, the Institute of Weights and Measures Administration and the Institute of Shops Acts Administration. This is particularly so where it is known that the real responsibility lies not on the retailer—especially the small retailer—but on the manufacturer, who may in some cases have deliberately evaded the Regulations.
My hon. Friend referred to the question of choice—
Sir Elwyn Jones: Could the hon. Gentleman say how many prosecutions have been brought and what the outcome has been?
Mr. Sharpies: I was coming to that. In the case of the toys Regulations, a sample survey was undertaken by the Institute of Weights and Measures Administration. It appears from that survey that prosecutions are being brought in less than 20 per cent. of the cases in which non-complying toys are found to be on retail sale. It is clear that the law needs amendment so that prosecutions may be brought against manufacturers and others, and this is the purpose of the Bill.
My hon. Friend pointed out that an important change was made in Committee which brought the defence provisions in the Consumer Protection Act much more into line with those in other consumer protection legislation such as the Weights and Measures Act, 1963, and the Trades Descriptions Act, 1968. There are obvious advantages for all concerned, industry and commerce as well as local authorities, in being able to operate in consumer protection matters under laws which, although addressed to different purposes, are as far as possible consistent with one another in questions
1944
of both prosecution and defence. The present Bill will be an important step in that direction.
My hon. Friend referred, as did the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer), to our proposal for bringing in regulations. As I said in Committee, we are now considering new regulations in respect of electrical toys, flammable play-suits, electric blankets, domestic electrical appliances, prams and pushchairs, the lead content in the tinning of cooking utensils and the toxic content of pencils and crayons. Since I spoke about that in Committee, some progress has been made which may be of interest to the House.
As regards domestic electrical appliances, Regulations are proposed relating to basic safety requirements such as insulation and earthing. Proposals have been circulated to a wide range of interested organisations, and the comments which have been received are now being studied and discussed.
Perhaps I should take up one observation made by the hon. Member for Bristol, Central which might mislead people outside the House. The correct colours for electrical connections are not as he described them but as follows: green and yellow for the earth, brown for the live, and blue for neutral.
Mr. Palmer: I am sure that the hon. Member would not wish to teach his grandmother to suck eggs. I am well aware of that. I was referring to the situation some time ago when a Prime Minister came to me for advice.
Mr. Sharpies: Quite so, but I should not have liked anyone, after reading the hon. Gentleman's speech, to connect the colours wrongly and suffer an electric shock in consequence.
The state of play is just about the same in respect of electric blankets, and the recommendations in both cases are based on the relevant British Standards.
We have also circulated the draft proposals relating to the lead content in the tinning on cooking utensils, and we are awaiting comments from those to whom they have been circulated. We are just about to circulate proposals relating to the lead content of pencils, crayons and similar writing and drawing materials. The proposals relating to the safety

1945
of push-chairs and prams and of electrical toys are in the course of preparation in the Home Office.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned the question of prosecutions. I was not able to give an answer on this matter in Committee, but I have now obtained the information. Between 1966 and 1969 inclusive—the only years for which I have figures—there were 155 prosecutions in England and Wales under the Consumer Protection Act, resulting in 146 convictions. In the time available I have not been able to obtain the similar information relating to Scotland, but I have no reason to think that the proportion is very different to that in England and Wales. I undertook in Committee to try to obtain the information, when it was suggested that there might be fewer prosecutions in Scotland because of the different legal procedures. I understand that a prosecution in Scotland must be done through the Procurator-Fiscal, but there is no information to suggest that that procedure is in any way inhibiting prosecutions there.
My hon. Friend mentioned publicity. Of course, in this legislation publicity is all important. We give wide publicity to any new regulations made under the Consumer Protection Act in the national Press. I have confirmed that this is also done in Scotland. We also bring the regulations to the attention of local authorities, which give publicity to them in the local Press and in the course of promoting local home safety campaigns. There is very close co-operation between the Home Office and the Scottish Home and Health Department on all these matters, including publicity, and this will continue.
I hope that I have answered the main points raised in this short but very important debate.
Mr. Palmer: Will the hon. Gentleman deal with my point about local authority staff?
Mr. Sharples: My understanding is that the amendment to the 1961 Act which the Bill makes has been made entirely at the request of the local authority. So far as I know, local authority associations, which are always quick to do so if the necessity arises, have not raised any question of inability to enforce the revised provisions through lack of
1946
staff. In some ways the Bill may almost make their task slightly easier. I do not think that the question of staff arises, although if it does it is a matter that I would certainly be prepared to look into.
As I have said already, I congratulate my hon. Friend on having brought forward this Bill. I am sure that the House will also want to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, who has played a considerable part in another place and made a very significant contribution to the formulation of this legislation.
The Bill is in the interests of consumers. I hope that it will now be given a Third Reading.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with an Amendment.

INTEREST ON DAMAGES (SCOTLAND) BILL
As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading) and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

MINEWORKERS' PROTECTION BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
3.27 p.m.
Mr. Alec Jones: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Having sat patiently throughout the day, I began to think that we should not reach this Bill. I am afraid that I cannot promise to be brief, as the hon. Member for Leicester, South-West (Mr. Tom Boardman) did, because I have to deal with a Bill which is of great importance to the mining constituencies and to the families of miners who die as a result of pneumoconiosis and other chest ailments.
No one is more conscious that I of the Bill's drafting deficiencies. All that I ask is that if the principle which I hope to enunciate is acceptable, the Bill will be

1947
given a Second Reading. We can then use the Committee stage to correct any legal or drafting anomalies.
Those hon. Members who have bothered to read the Long Title must concede that it is very widely drawn, perhaps too widely. That has been done because it was originally my intention to draft a Measure which would deal with a number of improvements in the safety, health and welfare of miners as well as making more generous provisions for the dependants of pneumoconiotic victims. If and when the Bill reaches its Committee stage, I shall seek to amend the Long Title since I have been advised that it will be more desirable to concentrate on dealing more generously with the dependants of miners who die having suffered from pneumoconiosis.
The Bill seeks to establish the right for dependents of miners as defined in Clause 2 to receive industrial death benefit, provided that the miner was certified as suffering from pneumoconiosis in his lifetime and that his death was the result of some subsequent chest or heart condition.
Some hon. Members may feel that this is a lot of fuss about nothing and that present arrangements for dealing with industrial death benefit are adequate. I hope to show that, while they may be in the case of normal industrial deaths, they are unsatisfactory in their application to the dependents of pneumoconiotic miners.
Hon. Members will have to forgive me for making what may appear to be a long-winded explanation. I suspect that many people are not aware of the problems faced by the dependents of pneumoconiotic miners.
When a young lad first starts work at a colliery in these more enlightened days, he is probably 15 or 16 years of age. In the past, he would probably have been 14, 13 or even 12. It is the dependants of these older workers who present the main problem. Their menfolk probably started work in the days when boys went into the pits at 12, 13 or 14.
When these men started work, the industry, the medical profession, society and the union were not aware of the existence of pneumoconiosis and certainly not of its consequences. For much
1948
of the working life of older miners, little was done about dust suppression in the collieries. Generally speaking, the disease is the result of the inhalation of dust over a period of years and most cases diagnosed today are the result of dust conditions of years ago.
Of the men employed in coal mining in whom pneumoconiosis was first diagnosed in 1969, eight were under 35, 43 under 45, 184 under 55, and 286 under 65. The figures clearly show that it is mainly among the older group, among men who began work in the collieries when dust suppression was almost nonexistent, that the disease is to be found.
To give more generous treatment to the older men is only to make some recompense for the neglect of past years, not neglect by one Government or another, but by society. Fortunately, today the industry, the National Coal Board, the National Union of Mineworkers and individual miners are far more knowledgeable about and far more determined to carry out extensive measures of dust suppression.
This is not all. The Coal Board now operates a scheme for miners to have their chests X-rayed every five years. Any miner who has reason to suspect that he may be suffering from pneumoconiosis has his case referred to a pneumoconiosis medical panel. The panel is composed of specially qualified doctors who examine the X-ray film of his chest. If the panel considers that the X-ray shows evidence that the claimant may be suffering from the disease, he is sent for a clinical examination by a pneumoconiosis medical board. The board consists of at least two of the specialists from the panel. There are two stages—the X-ray examination by the panel and the clinical examination by the board. It is the board which has the final say in most cases. The board decides two things, whether the man is suffering from pneumoconiosis, and the degree of his disablement arising from it.
Up to this point, there is no disagreement. We accept the opinions of the Board. What I assert in the Bill is that if miners have to accept the opinion of the board as to the extent of their disability and whether they are suffering from the disease while they are alive, this same opinion about the existence

1949
and extent of the disease should be accepted on death. If the experts certify that during his lifetime a man has suffered from pneumoconiosis, that decision should be equally binding when he dies and his dependants become entitled to industrial death benefit.
The Department of Health and Social Security has published a pamphlet, N.I.3, to assist claimants for industrial death benefit, paragraph 3 of which says that the decision of the board on whether or not a person is suffering from the disease will be conclusive. We are asking that the decision, which we say shall be conclusive, shall be equally as conclusive at the death of a claimant as it was during his lifetime.
Hon. Members may have thought that this was the natural order of things, but paragraph 13 of the same pamphlet says that the dependants of a person who dies of pneumoconiosis may be entitled to benefit in such cases and that a postmortem is usually necessary to establish the cause of death. The first question which the widow of a miner who has suffered from pneumoconiosis for years has to face, almost immediately after the death, sometimes within hours and certainly within days, is whether she will agree to a post-mortem. The trade union officials, usually officials of the N.U.M., tell her that if she refuses a post-mortem her chances of claiming and receiving industrial death benefit are negligible.
Hon. Members may think that a widow who refuses a post-mortem is acting unwisely and possibly illogically. While I concede that it would certainly be unwise for her to refuse a post-mortem, because by doing so she will lose the advantages of claiming industrial death benefit, I do not believe that it is illogical.
Widows with genuine religious objections to a post-mortem will refuse on religious grounds. Others will reason differently. A widow may have watched over her husband as he has struggled to continue at work while suffering from chest ailments, and then been forced to give up work because of a chest condition. She may have watched over him and nursed him for some years as he fights for breath, coughs and spits as a pneumoconiosis victim. If at her husband's death the widow is asked whether she will agree to a port-mortem she will say—and I
1950
have heard these words on many occasions—" My husband suffered during his lifetime, and I will not have him cut about again." This may be illogical, but it is natural and understandable. A widow will also say that the pneumoconiosis medical board made the decision that her husband was suffering from pneumoconiosis in his lifetime and therefore that decision should stick now that he is dead.
I am not suggesting, either personally or on behalf of any union or association, that post-mortems should be done away with altogether. Certainly the N.U.M. feels that there is a need for a post mortem in some cases, and that it serves a purpose in the diagnosis and treatment of pneumoconiotics. But it is inhuman to insist that a post-mortem shall be a condition of sustaining a claim for industrial death benefit. Many widows know that even when post-mortems are held the results are often very different from the original certification of the pneumoconiosis medical board.
A fortnight ago I examined the records of the South Wales National Union of Mineworkers, and I propose to refer to some of the cases I found. I will ignore the names of the people for obvious reasons. One man who died at the age of 62 was certified with a 40 per cent. disability. Another of 68 years of age died with a 50 per cent. disability. A man of 81 years of age had a 100 per cent. disability. Another of 49 years of age had a 100 per cent. disability. Whatever disability those men were certified to have during their lives, when they died their dependants were denied industrial death benefit because the medical certificate said that pneumoconiosis was not present.
Despite the disparity in the ages of the victims I have mentioned and in the degree of disability—40 per cent. compared with 100 per cent.—in no case was pneumoconiosis held to be the cause of death or to have contributed materially to death. Therefore, their dependants received no industrial death benefit. Take the case of the young man who died at the age of 49. He was told during his life by the pneumoconiosis medical board that he had a 100 per cent. disability because of pneumoconiosis. Yet after his death his widow received not a penny in industrial death benefit.

1951
I have heard it said many times in the House that hard cases make bad laws. I believe that it is merely a choice of words of solicitors and lawyers, because if there were no hard cases of the type which I have described we would not be seeking to amend the law to deal with the problem.
If the drafting of the Bill is not particularly good, if its wording is vague, or even if it is inaccurate in some parts, I ask the House not to reject it out of hand but to amend it and make it a good Bill so that natural and moral justice may be given on the widows and other dependants concerned in the cases I have described.
I have here a certificate relating to the father of one of my constituents. It is dated 1950 and concerns a man who worked in a colliery for 34 years—from 1909 to 1943. In 1943 he left the colliery and went to work in a factory because his chest was causing him trouble. He worked in the factory from 1943 to 1948. His health worsened and in 1950 the medical board certified that he was totally disabled by pneumoconiosis. Five years later he died. When a claim was made for benefit, it was found that the death certificate mentioned diseases like chronic bronchitis and emphysema but made no mention of pneumoconiosis, so his wife and family received no benefit.
The question which people ask is: if a man suffered during his life from pneumoconiosis to the extent of a 100 per cent. disability, what happened to it when he died? This is the sort of problem which is causing great distress to a very large number of people. I refer to that case not as a criticism of the original certification nor as a criticism of the final post-mortem but merely to indicate the very grave difficulties which the medical profession has to face in trying accurately to diagnose the nature of respiratory disabilities and ailments, and certainly in assessing the extent of the disability which arises from them. I pay my tribute to the valuable research which has been carried out over the years in diagnosing and in treating pneumoconiosis and, in many instances, rehabilitating pneumoconiotic victims.
The National Union of Mineworkers probably more than any other organisation, even though its members are
1952
not medical experts, has a fair and extensive—extensive rather than fair, perhaps—knowledge of the effects of pneumoconiosis. It believes that the difficulties which I have described can be solved only by a description of chronic bronchitis and emphysema as industrial diseases of coal mining. This is the union's policy. It is what the union would like, and I certainly would not dissent from that view, though at this point of time, and by this Bill which I am trying to persuade the House to accept, I am not proposing to go that far.
There is evidence that this view, that chronic bronchitis and emphysema ought to be scheduled as industrial diseases, has become acceptable in many parts of the world. I would quote some lines from the report of a symposium on pneumoconiosis held in Poland under the World Health Organisation. It says:
"Most countries accept disability caused by bronchitis and emphysema as occupational when accompanied by complicated pneumoconiosis. In most countries represented at the symposium disability from bronchitis and emphysema when accompanied by simple pneumoconiosis is not accepted as compensable"
So there is evidence that there are countries which are changing their minds as to accepting these two diseases, chronic bronchitis and emphysema, as being industrial diseases. I understand that certain countries in Eastern Europe have accepted them as being so.
I had sent to me a document which I thought quite astonishing. It is a photostat copy of a form MPH 239 C (M)(S) from the Department of Health and Social Security. It says:
"We have reviewed your war pension and have decided to continue your present award unaltered. The award is based on an assessment 6f the degree of disablement of 50 per cent. arising from bronchitis and emphysema."
Those are the only two diseases mentioned here. If this were what it appears to be it would solve so many of the problems. This refers to a man who had spent some time in South Africa and was certified originally in that country, though he has now returned here, and what this form indicates is that our Department of Health and Social Security is paying him 50 per cent. disablement benefit on account of chronic bronchitis and emphysema, a payment which we do not make to our own people because

1953
we do not accept those diseases for this purpose. This seems to me rather strange. I say good luck to that gentleman, but I hope that we may have some extension of this treatment in the treatment of our people here.
I know that there are legal difficulties and certainly I know that there are medical difficulties in this problem. I am not trying in any way to belittle them, but I am saying to the House that we ought not to be judging this as a legal issue, nor as a medical issue. We should be dealing with this as a social problem which can be solved only by the political decision of this House. If we try to pass the buck to the medical or the legal profession, we shall be dodging our political responsibility in the matter.
The Bill would benefit widows, for instance, of miners who die of compensatable industrial diseases like pneumoconiosis. The sums of money are not great. The difference between industrial death benefit paid to such widows and the normal widow's pension is a mere difference of 55p a week, but widows of miners who receive industrial death benefit would become entitled to other ancillary benefits.
First, they would be entitled to a colliery workers' supplement of £2·37½ a week paid from a fund to which the men contribute. Secondly, they would be entitled to a lump sum of £250 paid out of the Industrial Diseases Fatality Scheme. Finally, they would be entitled to a concessionary coal allowance in accordance with agreements made between the union and the National Coal Board.
Those ancillary benefits, however, are not paid to widows and dependants from public funds. In the main, they are payments which would be made to them from funds to which the miners had contributed during their working life. Thus, the benefits out of the Industrial Injuries Fund are relatively small. The benefits which the Bill seeks to give to these dependants are, in the main, benefits from funds established or contributed to by the miners themselves. Although not large, they would be of considerable assistance to widows and other dependants.
The Bill is short. Despite its deficiencies, I believe that it can be understood. The beneficiaries under the Bill would be the dependants whom I have detailed in Clause 2. In the main they
1954
are widows, and by the nature of things they would be elderly, although I have included the dependants as described in the existing National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act.
The purpose of Clause 1 is quite clear. Paragraph (a) uses the phrase "to a moderate degree". This may be strange to many people. It is a phrase which is understandable to pneumoconiotic experts. It is understandable to the union and to the men. It is, however, a phrase which could be altered, and I would certainly have no objection to redefinition if that were found to be necessary.
I have used the form of words used in Clause 1(b) because I realise that even if my wishes were accepted, it would be necessary to exclude pneumoconiotic victims who die from another accident. That is why I have used this form of words. Again, this is capable of being amended.
I had better resume my seat before I upset many of my hon. Friends. I conclude on this note and relate the Bill to present-day problems. We are suffering from a coal shortage, certainly of certain types of coal. At the same time as we are importing coal, the National Coal Board is conducting a recruiting campaign. I come from an ex-mining constituency; most of my mines are now closed. I believe that it is unrealistic to expect our young people from mining areas to join the Coal Board when they see around them in their daily life pneumoconiotics and their dependants, and Parliament, acting on behalf of our society, failing to meet the long-overdue obligation to these people. I believe that the Bill would go a long way to meet that obligation, and I ask the House to support it.
3.55 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael Alison): I congratulate the hon. Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Alec Jones) on the substantial care and concern which underlines the Bill which, as the principal sponsor, he has brought to the House. I also congratulate him on the terms in which he introduced it. I cannot think of any hon. Member from Wales, North or South, who could have advocated the Measure with the same skill and sincerity as he has done.

1955
I listened with special interest to the particular cases he described and I assure him that I will look into them in detail when I read the report of his remarks in HANSARD. If I find that they give rise to any special comment, in so far as they fit into the existing pattern of provisions under the various Acts, I will certainly write to the hon. Gentleman on the subject.
I must make it clear at the outset, against that background, that, regrettably, the Government cannot see their way to accepting the Bill—for the very reasons of principle in which he expressed some interest. The hon. Gentleman spoke of the possibility of ironing out some of the detailed objections in Committee and this, of course, is always possible. However, I am afraid that there is an underlying principle which we find unacceptable. For the purpose of the Bill, as he made clear, is to enable payments to be made out of the Industrial Injuries Fund when a sufferer from pneumoconiosis died of heart failure or of a chest complaint not peculiar to that disease.
The existing legislation requires a direct causal link between pneumoconiosis and death. Any weakening of this direct causal link, which I fear the Bill would do, would impose an unacceptable burden on the Industrial Injuries Fund as it now exists, and that, I am afraid, is the basic principle on which we find that we must advise the House to reject the Bill.
I will elaborate this and, in doing so, the hon. Gentleman will, I am sure, appreciate the difficulties with which we are faced. The effect of the Bill would be to extend the payment of industrial death benefit out of the Fund to certain dependants of the deceased where the deceased, first, was found to be suffering during his lifetime from pneumoconiosis to a moderate degree—that is the term of art with which we are concerned here, and the controversy and dubiety in law to which this term might give rise is one of the difficulties to which I shall come shortly—and, secondly, where the deceased died as a result of a chest or heart ailment. The dependants are, I understand, those already covered by the Industrial Injuries Act; namely, the widow, the children, the parents of
1956
the deceased, prescribed relatives and a woman having the care of the deceased's children.
Hon. Members will be aware of the present provisions covering these cases, and it is against those, by way of background, that we must set the hon. Gentleman's Bill. The Industrial Injuries Act, 1965, provides in Section 5(1) and Section 57(1) for three preferential benefits—injury benefit, disablement benefit and industrial death benefit—where incapacity, disablement or death results from an industrial accident or prescribed industrial disease.
Pneumoconiosis in its initial stages does not, however, give rise to incapacity, and injury benefit is not, therefore, payable in respect of that disease. The benefits available for pneumoconiosis are disablement benefit—which, in the case with which we are concerned, always takes the form of a pension—and, of course, death benefit. The disease itself is defined in Section 58(3) of the Industrial Injuries Act as:
"Fibrosis of the lungs due …"
It being Four o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed upon Friday next.

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS ACT 1876 (AMENDMENT) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Hon. Members: Object.
Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

URBAN AND RURAL ENVIRONMENT BILL
Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [5th February].
Hon. Members: Object.
Debate further adjourned till Friday next.

TELEVISION LICENSING (ELDERLY PERSONS) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Hon. Members: Object.
Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

CLOSING OF PRISONS BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Hon. Members: Object.
Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

PROTECTION OF PENSION RIGHTS BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Hon. Members: Object.
Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE (AMENDMENT) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Hon. Members: Object.
Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

PUBLIC HEALTH ACT (AMENDMENT) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Hon. Members: Object.
Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

EMPLOYED PERSONS (SAFETY) BILL
Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [12th February].
Hon. Members: Object.
Debate further adjourned till Friday next.

TRAVEL AGENTS AND TOUR AND CHARTER OPERATORS REGISTRATION BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Hon. Members: Object.
Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

FINANCE OF COUNCIL HOUSE BUILDING BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Hon. Members: Object.
Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

SHOPS (WEEKDAY TRADING) BILL
Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [29th January].
Hon. Members: Object.
Debate further adjourned till Friday, 16th July.

HARE COURSING (ABOLITION) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Hon. Members: Object.
Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

CHARITABLE CAUSES (MEDICAL RESEARCH AND DISABLED PERSONS) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Hon. Members: Object.
Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

SALE OF TICKETS (OFFENCES) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Hon. Members: Object.
Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (SERVICES)
Ordered,
That Mr. Garrett be discharged from the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) and that Mr. David Reed be added.—[Mr. Fortescue.]

QUEEN CHARLOTTE'S HOSPITAL, HAMMERSMITH
Motion made, and Question proposed,That this House do now adjourn:—[Mr. Fortescue.]
4.2 p.m.
Mr. Ivor Richard: I am grateful to have the opportunity to raise on the Adjournment the question of the future of Queen Charlotte's Hospital, in West London, which is in my constituency. The aim of this short debate is to try to obtain from the Government a specific and, I hope, a clear and unqualified assurance that despite the reorganisation of hospital facilities in West London, this hospital shall continue to exist.
As hon. Members may know, an attempt was made in another place on Monday of this week to raise this issue and to seek the same specific assurance. Unfortunately, no such assurance came from the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, the Minister who was then replying to the debate. I hope that his hon. Friend will be able to do slightly better than the noble Lord did on Monday last.
A great deal of public concern is now being felt both inside and outside the medical profession about the future of Queen Charlotte's Hospital and it is right to say that concern is certainly not confined to one side of this House or to any one political party. Hon. Members on both sides have expressed their concern to me within the last few days. Only yesterday I received a letter from the National Council for Women expressing deep concern about the possibility that the hospital might be forced to close.
This afternoon I want to look at some of the arguments advanced in favour of retention, and also to look at some arguments which appear to have been hinted at, if not openly expressed, in favour of abolition.
I say at once to the Government that many, I fancy, will approach the subject as I do; namely, we will require very strong evidence before we are prepared to accept the destruction of a fine hospital and a fine institution like Queen Charlotte's Hospital. If there is such evidence, it is important that the Govern-
1960
ment should present it. In the absence of a case being put, the Government must not be surprised if we draw our own conclusions.
What are the arguments in favour of retaining Queen Charlotte's? The argument is basically simple and it can be put in a few sentences. First, Queen Charlotte's exists, it is fully used, it is fully occupied, and it fulfils a need. Moreover, it is a hospital with a standard of excellence and of skill in its own specialist field which is unique in Britain.
In a leading article recently The Times described the hospital as a centre of excellence and went on to say this:
"It is renowned for the treatment of its patients. That is why it attracts so many from so far afield. It is also known for the quality of its research and pioneering in new developments. Moreover, it is a centre of postgraduate training."
To this must be added the hospital's training of midwives, which again is of very high quality.
Therefore prima facie, to use a lawyer's phrase, the arguments for retaining Queen Charlotte's are very strong. The onus which is on the Government, to use yet another lawyer's phrase, to justify Queen Charlotte's destruction is one which they will have to discharge to the full.
What are the arguments in favour of closing the hospital? Again as I understand it, there are two main arguments. First, there is the argument over the bed provision and the number of beds available in West London. Second, there is what I may call the Todd approach to closer integration of post-graduate and specialist facilities into a general and larger district hospital.
I will, out of order, deal with the second point first, because I shall be spending a little time on the first point. I am conscious that the Todd argument is the fashionable one at the moment in medical circles. I am also conscious that fashions change in medical circles, just as they change in any other circle. Indeed, I have no doubt that the Minister and the House will have seen the letter in The Times this morning, from which it would appear that the total integration argument is no longer fully accepted.
Even if the argument is a good one, and even if it is a principle which we

1961
would accept, as most of us probably would, nevertheless it can at best be only a persuasive argument. Were it an ideal situation one would say that a specialist hospital, particularly a postgraduate specialist hospital, ought to be integrated into a larger district hospital. Even accepting that principle, however, at best it can be only a principle to which one would subscribe, but it would in no way justify destroying an institution of the quality of Queen Charlotte's.
I therefore think that the argument must be met and analysed on the figures, particularly on the catchment area argument. It is important to try to analyse this, because the main argument, as I understand it, against Queen Charlotte's continuation is that there might be over-provision of maternity beds eventually in the three boroughs of Hammersmith, Kensington and Chelsea, and Westminster.
The first thing that strikes me about that argument is that the occupancy at Queen Charlotte's is higher than it is at most hospitals. It is certainly higher than it is at other maternity hospitals in this area. This must mean that doctors want to send their patients to Queen Charlotte's.
The second fact which must be borne in mind when the figures are being considered is that Queen Charlotte's turns down many who want to go there from outside the three boroughs which the Ministry has chosen as the hospital's catchment area.
Therefore, even if the Ministry's methodology and figures were right—I do not accept either, and I hope to show the House why the Ministry is wrong in both its figures and its methodology—the fact that the occupancy is higher and the fact that Queen Charlotte's has to turn down applications for beds coming from outside the area of the three boroughs must mean that the demand is very great. Even if beds were statistically being over-provided, nevertheless that demand would be met by Queen Charlotte's. It is inconceivable that beds in a hospital like Queen Charlotte's would be empty even if the Ministry's figures and projections were right.
What are the figures? In 1969 4,703 patients went into Queen Charlotte's. Of those 4,703, 4,492 came from the London boroughs as a whole. That means that
1962
95 per cent. of the patients at Queen Charlotte's came from the G.L.C. area. Taking the three boroughs of Hammersmith, Kensington-Chelsea and Westminster, if one looks at the number of patients that they sent to Queen Charlotte's in 1969 some interesting facts emerge. Hammersmith sent 1,401–29·8 per cent. From Kensington and Chelsea there came 379–8 per cent. From Westminster there came l01–2·15 per cent. It is perhaps not insignificant to note that if one looks at the figures for all the London boroughs, the 101, which is the number who came from Westminster, is the same as the number who came from Brent.
If one adds the percentages of those three boroughs—because this is the catchment area on which the Ministry have chosen to base their argument and analysis—one finds that only 40 per cent. of the patients at Queen Charlotte's in 1969 came from the three boroughs of Hammersmith, Kensington-Chelsea and Westminster. It is over-provision in those three boroughs which is supposed to be the basis for the Ministry's argument for closing Queen Charlotte's.
Again it is useful to look at some other statistics. Looking at three other boroughs—Ealing, Hounslow and Richmond—which are the next three on the list apart from the three which formed the Ministry's catchment area, we find that from Ealing there were 1,020 patients —21·69 per cent.; from Hounslow 735–15·63 per cent.; and from Richmond 279 —6·36 per cent. If one adds the number who came from those three boroughs outside the catchment area, it amounts to 42 per cent. More came from three other London boroughs to Queen Charlotte's than came from the three boroughs that form the catchment area which is the basis of the Ministry's argument.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: As a Member from the London Borough of Ealing, I should like to confirm what my hon. Friend says on the subject of grave public disquiet. May I ask him whether he is aware that when a hospital was due to be closed in one of those three boroughs the Member got official notification so that one was able to comment, as indeed was the case in the constituency of Brentford and Chiswick, but in this case I have had no notice except from the Press.
Mr. Michael Barnes: May I also say that my constituency of Brentford and Chiswick is the other side of the road from Queen Charlotte's Hospital. Many of my constituents in the London borough of Hounslow have been to the hospital, but many others have not been able to get in when they wanted to do so, and there is strong feeling that it does not make sense to confine too rigidly the catchment area when there is a hospital like Queen Charlotte's which has an international reputation.
Dr. Gerard Vaughan: May I add that professionally there is a great deal of anxiety about this. Would the hon. Gentleman agree that this internationally famous teaching centre has been the unfortunate victim of a circular situation? On the catchment area argument, the numbers have been decreased. It is argued that the teaching institute should be moved. Now, because the institute has been moved, it has been argued that its numbers should be decreased.
Mr. Richard: If I might interrupt my own speech. I accept the points which have been made by my hon. Friends the Members for Acton (Mr. Spearing) and for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Barnes) and the hon. Member for Reading (Dr. Vaughan). It would seem to me that it is extremely difficult, on the catchment area argument, to justify the possible closure of Queen Charlotte's Hospital. There emerge from all this two or three salient and, I think, unanswerable points. The first, which I think the Minister must accept, is that no fewer than 60 per cent. of the patients of Queen Charlotte's come from outside the catchment area which is the basis of the Ministry's argument; 60 per cent. of the patients come from outside Hammersmith, Kensington-Chelsea and Westminster. Indeed, more come from another three boroughs, as I say—Ealing, Hounslow and Richmond—than come from the three boroughs making up the catchment area which is the basis of the Ministry's argument.
In terms of usage, which, surely, is the factor which ought to weigh most of all in the Ministry's mind—that is, who uses Queen Charlotte's Hospital, not so much what is the usage in a particular catchment area—if one were to re-draw the
1964
catchment area so as to make it Hammersmith, Kensington-Chelsea and Hounslow, one would have a usage of no less than 67 per cent., and that would, perhaps, appear to be the most logical area.
As regards the way in which the figures have been used by the Government, if this is, in fact, the Government's decision —I hope that we shall be told if it is not —if it is the argument that the catchment area which provides 40 per cent. of the patients will be over-provided with maternity beds in a few years, I can only say that that argument is both fallacious and misleading. Pushed to its conclusion and applied, say, to public transport, one could say that if, for instance, only 5 per cent. of the people using Acton Town station came from Westminster, this would justify closing it, because there was no Westminster demand for it, provided, of course, one ignored the numbers using it who lived in Acton and concentrated only on those who lived in Westminster.
With respect, if that is the argument, it is the statistics of the madhouse, and it involves four propositions, all of which may be false.
First, it involves the proposition that one's catchment area is properly drawn. Why is this catchment area drawn in this rather peculiar way? I suspect that it is a hangover from the days when we had a London County Council and a Middlesex County Council, for Queen Charlotte's is directly on the boundary line of Gold-hawk Road between Hammersmith, which used to be in the old L.C.C. area, and Brentford and Chiswick, which used to be in Middlesex. If that is the only justification for retaining a catchment area comprising the three boroughs of Hammersmith, Kensington-Chelsea and Westminster, it is a point which one would have hoped had gone under the London Government Act.
The second proposition which may be wrong is that one has estimated accurately the birth rate in the area one is considering. In the past, as the Minister knows, predictions of birth rates have not been the most reliable of statistics on which to base any policy.
Third, the argument involves the proposition that one can safely ignore the re-provision of facilities for the 60 per cent. majority who come to Queen Charlotte's from outside the area.

1965
Fourth, it involves the proposition that one can reprovide the facilities for the 40 per cent. in the catchment area of the three boroughs somewhere else.
On that argument, however, it is proposed, so we understand, to scrap a hospital of proven worth and international reputation. Were it not so serious, it would be laughable, on that information. The Government really must think again about this proposal. It is a proposal which would be condemned, I am sure, by the medical profession. It would certainly be condemned by the people who live in the area.
The Government seem to have approached the matter on far too narrow a basis. It involves the destruction of an institution which has proved itself over 200 years to be of almost inestimable value to the health of the country and to the well being of the medical profession. I very much hope that the Minister can give us an assurance that this grave mistake will not be made.
4.18 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael Alison): I am much obliged to the hon. Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) for giving Parliament a further opportunity—he has already referred to the earlier opportunity which occurred in another place a day or two ago—to consider this important question. I am grateful to him for the matters which he raised, as I am to the hon. Members for Brent-ford and Chiswick (Mr. Barnes) and for Acton (Mr. Spearing) for intervening briefly, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Dr. Vaughan), whose comments will have been noted.
The hon. Member for Barons Court referred to the need in effect, to "Save Queen Charlotte's". I assure him and the House that this is precisely the Government's aim. There are many factors affecting the decisions facing us about the future of Queen Charlotte's Maternity Hospital and how best to secure for it a worthwhile future within the framework of change and development in our social services generally and of the National Health Service in particular. I am glad to have this opportunity to outline some of the special considerations affecting this case.
1966
Wonderful work has been done and is being done at Queen Charlotte's. I wholeheartedly support the view of the hon. Gentleman, his hon. Friends and my hon. Friend that it would be a tragedy if all that is best in the tradition and reputation of this famous hospital were to be denied to the medical and nursing professions, who have served so long there and benefited from it, and even more to the general public.
Because pregnancy is not an illness but a normal condition, it is possible, given the appropriate basic information about local populations and their age distribution, to define the upper limit of need for maternity services with a fair degree of accuracy. There was a time when women chose to have their babies at home wherever possible, and practitioners referred to maternity hospitals only those women who were suffering from a condition which needed specialist help which he was unable to provide.
Since the inception of the National Health Service immense strides have been taken—and we are still moving forward, of course—in maternity as in other medical and surgical specialties, to improve the quality of local hospital provision. As a result, most women have their babies in hospital as a matter of course, and those local hospitals are increasingly able to manage not only the routine and straightforward cases but those involving serious medical complications which at one time would have necessitated reference to a highly specialised hospital such as Queen Charlotte's.
Assessment of the need for hospital maternity services is made by the relevant hospital authorities on the basis of advice issued from time to time by my Department; it takes account of such factors as the estimated size of population and birth rate, the length of pre-natal and post-natal stay in hospital, and the needs and wishes of the local community.
A sub-committee of the Standing Maternity and Midwifery Advisory Committee recently reported on domiciliary midwives and maternity bed needs and recommended that sufficient facilities be provided for 100 per cent. hospital delivery. That report is still being considered, and I cannot yet say whether this recommendation will be fully accepted. However, in view of the trend towards shorter stay in hospital, in many

1967
areas a great increase in beds may not be necessary to achieve 100 per cent. hospital confinement. And, of course, we must respect the wishes of those women who wish to have their babies at home.
For the reasons which I have mentioned, I believe that members of the public welcome the development of better hospital facilities in their own local areas; one result of these developments is to be seen in a growing disinclination to travel unnecessarily far for hospital and specialist treatment. The London teaching hospitals, all of them situated in Inner London, have experienced this trend and are developing close links with other health services and with their own local committees accordingly.
When we look at the position in Inner London in particular, we have perforce to take into account the clear forecasts, particularly those of the Greater London Council, that its population is falling and to realise that in looking forward to what is likely to be the case at the end of the current decade—this is the time scale I ask the House to consider in this context —it is probable that this downward trend will continue. In Inner West London, that is, the London Boroughs of Hammersmith, Kensington and Chelsea, and Westminster, the proportion of births which take place in institutional care is already substantially above the national average, and to an extent that it would appear that the level of demand from the existing population is already being met.
Indications from statistics of hospital bed occupancy and throughput, however, are that the number of maternity beds available exceeds the number necessary to provide even this high level of service, and on service grounds alone we see a need to reduce the hospital maternity beds by half, from 600 to 300 by 1981. This number would still provide enough beds for 100 per cent. hospital confinement on the formula recommended in the report to which I referred earlier.
Looking more widely at the area from which Queen Charlotte's currently draws most of its patients, we see that the changing need follows a similar though less dramatic pattern.
Mr. Richard: The hon. Gentleman is being less than charitable. Not only
1968
is he reading a brief; he is reproducing in the same words the speech which his noble Friend the Minister of State read in the House of Lords the other day. I put a number of specific points to the hon. Gentleman about the nature of the catchment area. Will the hon. Gentleman now deal with that rather than giving the House a demographic view of London?
Mr. Alison: I am coming to the hon. Gentleman's points. He raised one about the catchment area. It is not confined to the three boroughs. The three boroughs contain several teaching hospitals. There is an over-provision of maternity beds in London as a whole, and the tendency not to wish to travel long distances rather reinforces my point.
In planning hospital services in West London, there is the additional consideration that most of the hospitals serving the local communities who live in the Inner West London boroughs are teaching hospitals. The conclusion we have reached is that even allowing for the continuing attraction to patients and their family doctors of the special skills of the teaching hospitals, the projected need cannot be seen as greater than a total of 350 maternity beds. But we have put on an extra 50 as a bonus, because of the special concentration of teaching hospitals in the area.
This conclusion has been reached in close consultation with and the complete agreement of the two regional hospital boards concerned, although we all recognise that given the uncertainties about the long-term effects on the birthrate of changes which have taken place in the law relating to abortion or the developments of family planning services and contraceptive techniques, this may well prove to be an over-estimate.
The appreciation by the University of London of the requirements for clinical teaching in obstetrics has taken due account of the service constraints—
Mr. Richard: On a point of order. This is exactly the same wording that the hon. Gentleman's noble Friend read to the House of Lords on Monday. With respect, this is not in order.
Mr. Speaker: I have no control over the content of the Minister's reply.
Mr. Alison: If I may use that as a point of argument and not a point of order, the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that we are a single government dealing with a single and extremely pertinent issue.
Mr. Richard: But we do not want the same speech.
Mr. Alison: One of the special constraints that I have described is the requirements for clinical teaching in obstetrics, and here I quote the description of the London University of the constraints which are relevant. One is:
"that in future the Institute of Obstetrics and Gynaecology should be sited in association with a general hospital which will provide the necessary collateral clinical investigative and research facilities, including the relevant basic medical sciences".
The other is
"that in allocating the scarce clinical facilities for teaching of obstetrics within the 3 Boroughs, priority should be given to the needs of the General Medical Schools".
In other words, the undergraduate teaching hospitals should have maternity beds, if necessary at the expense of postgraduate teaching hospitals.
As a result of this appreciation, it is now proposed by the University authorities that the Institute of Obstetrics and Gynaecology should be built at the Hammersmith Hospital, where it is proposed also to provide, with the help of a generous endowment, a peri-natal institute. In this connection, I should perhaps mention that the incidence of infant mortality has fallen from 34 per 1,000 in 1948 to 18 per 1,000 in 1969, and that deaths in children are now concentrated in the last stages of pregnancy, during birth and in the first week of life. For this reason we see a need for increasing liaison between obstetrics and paediatrics and for enabling those providing maternity services to enjoy the full supporting facilities which are available in a general hospital.
Indeed, I understand that evidence is becoming available which will show that provision of this type of intensive special care and support for babies which the proposed new unit will be able to provide in the context of a general hospital will not only help to reduce infant mortality still further but will prevent or reduce handicap, such as cerebral palsy, in those who survive.
1970
The more closely one looks at the combination of the factors affecting maternity services in West London, the more one is drawn to the realisation that since Queen Charlotte's will in any case cease to be a postgraduate teaching hospital when the postgraduate Institute with which it is associated is transferred elsewhere, its own future development as a centre of excellence both in clinical practice and research, might well lie in closer association with the undergraduate teaching. Charing Cross Hospital is being completely rebuilt on the site of what used to be the Fulham Hospital, and the disposition of maternity beds between this and the other hospitals in West London is the subject of discussions which are still going on between my Department and the various hospital authorities; and I would stress that a decision about the best means of securing the future of the teaching function at Queen Charlotte's Hospital has not yet been taken.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that no decision has yet been taken to close Queen Charlotte's Hospital. We want a future for it. Before any such decision could be made, there would have to be the formalities of consultations and proposals by the regional hospital board. The decision about the best means of securing the future of this teaching function has not been taken. The future is open and has not been determined, as the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members seem already to have decided.
I should like at this point to reject firmly the accusation that the views of the Board of Governors of Queen Charlotte's Hospital are being excluded from our deliberations. Hon. Members might be forgiven for thinking that members of the Board constituted a body completely independent of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, whereas in fact the chairman and every member is appointed by my right hon. Friend. In these circumstances it would have been inconceivable for him not to have taken the views of the board of governors who are his agents. It is true that the earliest discussions ranged over a wider area than that of any single hospital authority, but consultation with Queen Charlotte's was begun as soon as the issues could be brought into focus as I have tried to outline them today. And it is perhaps worth recording that

1971
the idea of reviewing hospital maternity services in West London has at no time been informed by considerations of administrative convenience. Our aim is to provide the public with the best possible services, as conveniently and economically as possible, consistent with meeting the legitimate teaching requirements of the University of London.
The hon. Member for Barons Court made some comments about the fact that what I have told the House has been similar to what was said by the Minister of State in my Department in another place. I must assure him that in the short time between the debate there and the debate which he has had the good fortune to secure this afternoon, it is extremely unlikely that any long-term plans could have been formulated to make it proper for the Government to make a different statement about new factors having emerged which had not been long considered.
1972
It is entirely proper that, paying careful attention to representations which have been made to them and which continue to be made, the Government should speak with one voice even though that voice emanates from two different bodies speaking in two different places. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that the gloomy prognostications for this hospital at which he hinted are by no means justified by the circumstances I have described. There are, nevertheless, factors which we have to weigh carefully as we consider the time scale which I have mentioned, and 1981 is a sort of—
The Question having been proposed after Four o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at twenty-eight minutes to Five o'clock.

AVIATION SUPPLY
  Rolls-Royce Ltd.
  Rolls-Royce Ltd.
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
EMPLOYMENT
  Industrial Training Boards
  Industrial Training Boards
  North East
  North East
  Tyneside
  Tyneside
  Average Wages
  Average Wages
  Regional Economic Employment Figures
  Regional Economic Employment Figures
ENVIRONMENT
  Surrey (G.L.C. Boundary Changes)
  Surrey (G.L.C. Boundary Changes)
  Bridge Research
  Bridge Research
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Diplomatic Immunity
  Diplomatic Immunity
  Peking (British Mission)
  Peking (British Mission)
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Police Act, 1969 (Section 1)
  Police Act, 1969 (Section 1)
  Official Secrets Act
  Official Secrets Act
  Police (Pay)
  Police (Pay)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Tourism, Cornwall (Credit Facilities)
  Tourism, Cornwall (Credit Facilities)
  Economic Growth
  Economic Growth
  Import Levies (Balance of Payments)
  Import Levies (Balance of Payments)
  Government Bookshops (Retail Sales)
  Government Bookshops (Retail Sales)
POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
  B.B.C. Broadcasts (Programme Content)
  B.B.C. Broadcasts (Programme Content)
  Post Office (Chairman)
  Post Office (Chairman)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Disabled Drivers
  Disabled Drivers
  Benefit Claims
  Benefit Claims
  Adenotonsillectomy
  Adenotonsillectomy
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Occupational Health Service (Tunbridge Report)
  Occupational Health Service (Tunbridge Report)
  Lead Pollution
  Lead Pollution
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Government Aid (Regional Distribution)
  Government Aid (Regional Distribution)
  Unemployment, Swansea
  Unemployment, Swansea
  Foundries (Works of Art)
  Foundries (Works of Art)
  Civil Airports
  Civil Airports
  Aircraft Noise (Prosecutions)
  Aircraft Noise (Prosecutions)
  Electricity Boards (Television Rental)
  Electricity Boards (Television Rental)
  China Clay Industry
  China Clay Industry
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  Australian Canned Fruit (Tariff)
  Australian Canned Fruit (Tariff)
  Industrial Development Certificates, Wales
  Industrial Development Certificates, Wales
  Industrial Waste (Reclamation and Recycling)
  Industrial Waste (Reclamation and Recycling)
SCOTLAND
  Local Government Reform
  Local Government Reform
  Residential Caravan Sites (Amenities and Rents)
  Residential Caravan Sites (Amenities and Rents)
  Kames Colliery Bing, Muirkirk (Landscaping)
  Kames Colliery Bing, Muirkirk (Landscaping)
  Pay Increases
  Pay Increases
  Highlands and Islands Development Board
  Highlands and Islands Development Board
  Islands and Remote Areas (Transport Rates)
  Islands and Remote Areas (Transport Rates)
WALES
  Hospitals (Waiting Lists)
  Hospitals (Waiting Lists)
  Hospital Beds
  Hospital Beds
  Special Medical Services
  Special Medical Services
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Meat Prices
  Meat Prices
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  Annual Price Review
  Annual Price Review
  Imported Feedingstuffs
  Imported Feedingstuffs
  Meat (Levy Schemes)
  Meat (Levy Schemes)
  Cereals (Import Levies)
  Cereals (Import Levies)
  Beef (Consumption)
  Beef (Consumption)
  Sugar (Consumption)
  Sugar (Consumption)