§ Mr. Neil HamiltonTo ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he has yet reached a decision on the concordat's proposals for regulations on misleading price indications under part III of the Consumer Protection Act 1987.
§ Mr. MaudeAfter careful consideration, in consultation with the concordat and others, and in the light of revision of the draft code of practice on price indications, I have concluded that there is no need at this stage for further regulation in three of the five areas proposed by the concordat.
The issues of introductory offers, worth and value claims and substantiation of price indications are now adequately covered by part III of the Consumer Protection Act and the draft code of practice. I have, however, concluded that there is a good case for regulations on the 28-day rule for comparisons with previous prices and on recommended prices, although in different terms from those proposed by the concordat. As required by the Act, my Department is today issuing a consultation paper seeking views on draft regulations to remove any possible uncertainty about whether comparisons which comply with the 28-day "rule" meet the requirements of the Act and to define "recommended price" and similar terms so as to ensure that comparisons with articial recommended prices are caught by the general offence. At the same time, we are seeking views on a revised and I believe much improved version of the draft code. Subject to the outcome of this consultation, I aim to bring the new legislation on price indications into force on 1 September 1988. Copies of the consultation paper will be placed in the Library.