| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. Forth : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his advice as to how I should present my public image--presumably he is an expert in such matters. If I want to enrol with his charm school I shall ask him if I might, but, in the meantime, I am entitled to give my explanation to the Committee in response to the questions put by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne.
Column 854
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett : This is a filibuster.
Mr. Forth : I shall happily give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Bennett : I am sure that the Minister accepts that he spent a lot of time this morning orchestrating his hon. Friends to talk on the procedural motions so that we did not get to the merits of the Bill. It is rather odd that a Government who could guillotine the Social Security Bill could also double the amount of time available to debate the procedural motion before us today. Does the Minister want the Bill or not?
Mr. Forth : The hon. Gentleman is right that I spent a lot of time this morning discussing this matter, unlike him. It is regrettable that the hon. Gentleman should come floating in here after 2 pm when we have been here since 9.30 am giving serious and careful consideration to some difficult procedural, substantive matters. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reconsider his case and perhaps cool his temper a little. He should think more carefully before he intervenes again, but I am always happy to give way to him as that helps me enormously.
We were talking about the money resolution and the way in which it underpins the Bill. Earlier we made reference to the fact that the Government and I have used our best endeavours to assist the promoter to reach at least this stage in our proceedings.
My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne asked several questions and I shall go through them as quickly as I can. The enforcement provisions of the Bill put a duty on the weights and measures authorities in Great Britain and the district councils in Northern Ireland. We shall return to Northern Ireland later as an amendment deals with it. That would follow from the application of section 27 in part IV of the Consumer Protection Act. Such a duty would include, except in the case of weights and measures authorities in Scotland, where appropriate, bringing criminal proceedings for offences under the Bill.
Enforcement authorities would have various powers--for example, to make test purchases and carry out searches--as a result of the application of part IV of the Consumer Protection Act. An enforcement authority includes the Secretary of State and any other Minister of the Crown in charge of a Government Department and any such Department, as well as weights and measures authorities in Great Britain and district councils in Northern Ireland. Money may be spent by enforcement authorities in the exercise of those powers. There is, therefore, a role for the Secretary of State in that respect. The application of section 34 in part IV of the Consumer Protection Act means that an enforcement authority would be liable to pay compensation in certain circumstances in respect of the seizure and detention of goods. Money would be required to meet any such liability. I do not wish to go into tedious detail, but those points begin to illustrate the powers of local authorities, trading standards departments and the Secretary of State and the necessity, where appropriate, to pay compensation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne asked the reasonable question : at this stage in our deliberations, how do we estimate the costs? I cannot give a definive answer. I suggested earlier that one could make only a best estimate, given our experience in these matters. I can say no more than that the figure in the money resolution is
Column 855
appropriate. This complicated Bill introduces major new duties, powers and responsibilities. We are therefore entitled to be a little wary of the money resolution.The further payments provided by Parliament under the money resolution encompass
"(i
(any expenses incurred or compensation payable by a Minister of the Crown or Government department in consequence of the application by the Act, in relation to its enforcement, of Part IV of the Consumer Protection Act 1987, and)
(ii
(any increase attributable to the Act in consequence of such application in the sums payable out of such money under any other Act ; and)
(b
(the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.") This is necessary to deal with the situation that would arise as a result of the application of section 35 in part IV of the Consumer Protection Act, under which an enforcement authority may, in certain circumstances, recover the expenses of enforcement. If it does so, the money recovered is required to be paid into the Consolidated Fund. No one has yet touched on that rather interesting provision, but we may want to return to it if we give the Bill greater scrutiny.
I have tried to set out in simple terms the basis on which the Committee may want to proceed in considering the relationship between clause 12 and the money resolution. I hope that I have helped the Committee. If other matters arise, I may seek to catch your eye again, Miss Boothroyd.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Bill reported, with amendments ; as amended (in Committee and on recommittal), considered.
Ordered,
That the Bill, as amended, be considered in the following order, namely : Amendments to Clauses, Amendments to Schedules and New Clauses.-- [Mr. Martyn Jones.]
2.15 pm
Mr. Martyn Jones : I beg to move amendment No. 133 in page 1, leave out from line 5 to line 10 on page 10.
I understand that with this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 134, in page 15, leave out from line 2 to line 20.
The amendments would delete all the consumer guarantee provisions of the Bill, leaving only the Law Commission's proposals on the Sale of Goods Act 1979. I have tabled them with considerable regret but, faced with insuperable opposition and deliberate blocking tactics, I felt that there was no alternative. I see no point in hearing the Bill talked out in such artificially engineered circumstances. Most of the other amendments have been drafted by the Government or the Department, and the message must be clear : it is not that what I sought to achieve cannot be done ; it is that the Government do not want it to be done.
The Minister's assurances that he will look again at guarantees will be examined for action at an early date. It is as if the Minister is deliberately snubbing his predecessor, Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes who instigated the review that led to the Bill. It appears that he is snubbing the National Consumer Council a body whose members are appointed by the Secretary of State. It is as if he is snubbing the numerous Conservative Members who have given me much welcome and strong support and
Column 856
disregarding the views of many of his hon. Friends. I am afraid that he is also snubbing the House. He did not vote against the Bill on Second Reading--indeed, no hon. Member voted against the principle of the Bill. He neither moved nor supported a single amendment in Committee and he has tabled not one amendment for debate today. That is either because those amendments in the names of other Conservative Members emanate from his Department or because his Department is indolent. The title, "The Department of Indolence" would suit the Department better than its present title "The Department for enterprise".The Department sets the examples for business that the Government want to set. Nothing could be clearer than its failure to support the Bill, which would provide a voluntary guarantee--a statement made by business about the quality of its product, which would encourage competition and benefit business as well as the consumer. What is left in the Bill--the implementation of the Law Commission's proposals--has some value, especially to Scotland. For the rest, the people of this country will simply have to put up with shoddy goods and lousy service for another 18 months or so. Then this Bill--or, rather a similar Bill--will be re- introduced, because a Labour Government will be strong on substance, not on form, and strong on rights, not on words.
Mr. Squire : On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Are we discussing only amendments Nos. 133 and 134, or are we discussing all the amendments?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd) : We are discussing amendment No. 133 with amendment No. 134.
Mr. Squire : And all associated amendments?
Madam Deputy Speaker : And the associated amendments, yes.
Mr. Viggers : This is rather confusing. The promoter of the Bill said that he was moving amendment No. 133 but we are actually discussing new clauses 1 to 3, amendments No. 133 and 134, all other amendments to parts I to IV of the Bill, all amendments to clauses 16 to 23, except for amendment No. 4, and all amendments to schedules 1 to 4. As I understand it, that is the selection. That means that we are discussing the whole range of the first batch of amendments as selected by Mr. Speaker, which covers the whole Bill.
I regret the situation in which we find ourselves. I made my position absolutely clear at the very beginning on 26 January, when I was the first person to intervene in the speech of the promoter of the Bill to point out that I thought that he was being over-ambitious and that schedule 2 was too widely drafted. I drew his attention to the fact that serious concern had been expressed by a number of people who felt that as the schedule was so widely drafted, it would catch areas for which there had not been proper consultation, and damage would be caused. On 26 January, I made my position clear.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Viggers : I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, who is probably the world's greatest expert at wrecking private Members' Bills.
Column 857
Mr. Bennett : I make no apology for the fact that on occasions I filibuster in the House, but I always make clear what I am trying to do. I object to Conservative Members claiming that they are in favour of a Bill while busily trying to talk it out. It seems that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends who have been filibustering have achieved what they wanted : my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) has tabled amendments that would delete most of the Bill. Surely the kind thing to do would be to sit down and let us have a vote. The hon. Gentleman is speaking in support of what the promoter is being forced to do by these filibustering tactics. The hon. Gentleman has go what he wants, and it shows ill grace to destroy the Bill. He will not even allow the last bit of the Bill to be put to the vote.Mr. Viggers : I am not normally regarded as someone who takes more time than is necessary to make a speech. I spoke for only nine minutes this morning. The hon. Gentleman asks me to explain my position. On the basis of my study of the Bill, I would have been content to see it proceed, provided it contained my amendments Nos. 78, 79 and 80, which reduce the scope of appendix 2, and amendments Nos. 72 and 73, which deal with the powers of the Secretary of State to extend appendix 2. However, on further study of the Bill, I realised how wide-ranging it would be and how seriously it would affect existing trading arrangements.
During the debate on clause 12, we talked about the cost of the Bill to the taxpayer. It has been said that the Government are good at providing obligations but not very good at providing the resources to meet them. I should like to expand on obligations elsewhere, but, in order to make progress I shall not do that.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment made : No. 134, in page 15, leave out from line 2 to line 20.-- [Mr. Dorrell.]
Order for Third Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
2.21 pm
Mr. Forth : We have now arrived at the stage at which I had hoped we would arrive, and that gives me some cause for encouragement. We have given careful thought to the Bill, not only on Second Reading and in Committee but during today's debate. We have been in and out of Committee today, which is an unusual procedure, and with the co-operation of the promoter of the Bill and other hon. Members, we now have a Bill that I can recommend to the House.
I shall explain briefly why that is the case. Throughout the passage of the Bill, Opposition Members have asked about my position. I hope that the Bill's promoter will agree that I have always made my position and that of my Department and the Government quite clear.
Mr. Forth : I hope that the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) will have a quiet word with the promoter, who I am sure will confirm what I am about to say. The hon. Member for Clwyd South-West (Mr. Jones) came to see me at the outset and asked me about my attitude to the Bill. I said that I could not support it in the form in which he brought it to me. We have discussed the part of the Bill
Column 858
which is now before the House, and as a result of deleting parts I to IV, the Bill now consists only of part V. I recommend it to the House.I told the Bill's promoter that it would be good for consumers if he could see fit to promote such a Bill. Subsequently, there have been other consultations and conversations between me and the promoter and representatives of the National Consumer Council. Those consultations took place at all stages of the Bill, when thought was being given to what sort of Bill the Government could support. Opposition Members have taxed me on this matter again and again. I have always made it clear that the Government had serious reservations about parts I to IV. The reasons for that related to the principle and, even more important, to the practice. On more than one occasion--I think on Second Reading and in Committee--I said that the Bill was irredeemable and unworkable in the form in which it existed. I should say--I hope that I am not divulging any great confidences of Government or relations between Ministers and officials--
Mr. Wilshire : My hon. Friend has returned to a point that he made some time ago. It is that the Bill, as it stood, was unworkable. Does he agree that with the change that has been made, it is eminently workable and eminently sensible? Does not that prove that those of us who have had to receive a huge amount of criticism and attack for wasting time have been vindicated for having fought throughout for the objectives of better service, better products and better competition? Have not we been proved to be right and to be the people who really care? Does my hon. Friend agree that common sense has finally broken through?
Mr. Forth : I should not want to go down that road with my hon. Friend.
I welcome the co-operative spirit of the promoter, the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones). I believe that if he supports the Third Reading of the Bill, as I urge my hon. Friends to do, we shall have a Bill in the name of the hon. Gentleman that will do a great deal for consumers and advance consumer law considerably. I beg my hon. Friends and Opposition Members to support the Bill's Third Reading.
2.26 pm
Mr. Nigel Griffiths : First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones). His stalwart efforts have done more than any of those expended by others in recent times to highlight the problems that consumers are facing. He gave consumers some considerable hope. It is a tragedy that we are left only with part V. I know that it was not his wish--it was certainly not the wish of the Labour party--that we should be left only with that. I pay tribute to hon. Members on both sides of the House for the support they have given my hon. Friend and the Bill, and I know that they will be equally disappointed.
I have with me a file which contains more than 100 letters, many of which provoke considerable soul-searching. I am sure that the Minister would agree with me if he were to read them. The file contains letters from disabled people who cannot obtain suitable replacements for the new goods which they bought. The Bill in its entirety would have entitled them to justice in the first year
Column 859
--to a replacement if the product was out of commission for two or four days, depending on significance, and to a replacement if it was out of action for more than 21 days.It is terrible that neither the Minister nor the Government could accept those modest provisions. It is sad that they have done so much damage to consumer affairs by not accepting the Bill in its entirety. They could find it in their hearts only to accept a small part of the Bill. I welcome the small part that has been accepted. The next Labour Government will seek to introduce provisions to cover the original Bill.
2.28 pm
Mr. Martyn Jones : As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) said, the Bill before us is not the one that I hoped to see. I hoped that the many consumers who suffer from shoddy goods, including Friday afternoon motor cars and tea-break washing machines, would have some protection, some guarantee in law. I regarded that as necessary to improve product control in British industry. I sought to set out in legislation the facts of a guarantee, the sort of guarantee that consumers would like to have for refunds or replacements. The Minister has said that he will continue to examine guarantees, and I hope that he will do so. I shall continue to press for that examination and for legislation. I believe that we shall see relevant legislation at the Minister's behest, at that of the European Community or as a result of the action of the next Government, which will be a Labour Government.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.
Raoul Wallenberg (Memorial) Bill
Order for Second Reading read.
2.29 pm
Mr. David Amess (Basildon) : I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Raoul Wallenberg saved the lives of more than 100,000 Hungarian Jews. Last year, I tried to secure honorary British citizenship for him. I feel that the least that the House can do is to approve the Second Reading of my Bill, whose aim is to erect a monument to a man who saved so many lives.
It is 45 years since the disappearance of Raoul Wallenberg ; probably the only person who knows what happened to him is Andrei Gromyko. He has been honoured by countries throughout the world. Surely the least that we, the British people, can do is agree to this brief, simple Bill.
It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
Column 860
Private Members' Bills
PERFORMING ANIMALS BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd) : Bill not printed. Second Reading what day? No day named.
ADOPTION (AMENDMENT) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 20 April.
TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT 1984 (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 20 April.
POLL TAX (RESTORATION OF INDIVIDUAL PRIVACY) BILL Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 27 April.
RAPE IN MARRIAGE (OFFENCE) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 27 April.
Mr. Harry Cohen (Leyton) : On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member--such as myself--to name the objector as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick), the Government Whip, and thus put his name on the record?
MOTOR TRADE (CONSUMER PROTECTION) (No. 2) BILL Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 20 April.
NEWLY QUALIFIED DRIVERS BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Madam Deputy Speaker : Not moved.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ACCESS TO INFORMATION) (DISABLED PERSONS) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 11 May.
BLASPHEMY BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Madam Deputy Speaker : Not moved.
Column 861
TAX RELIEF FOR HOUSEHOLD EMPLOYERS BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Madam Deputy Speaker : Bill not printed.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 20 April.
| Next Section
| Home Page |