I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

With this we shall consider the following amendments to the new clause: Amendment (a), leave out subsection (3).

Amendment (c), in subsection (4), leave out '£1,000' and insert '£500'.

At the same time we shall consider Government Amendments Nos. 21, 32, 33, 39, 40, 41, 42, 58, 59, 83, 87, 89 and 94.

Perhaps I may say a few words which put the clause in context. The Bill gives flexible and, where necessary speedy procedure and powers to protect consumers from death and injury caused by products, from which there is an appalling toll. It is to be seen in the context of the amount of injury that there is, not always because of carelessness by manufacturers, but quite often because of carelessness by consumers. Those are circumstances in which information and warnings may be as helpful as the safety of the product itself.

Since 1945 almost as many people have died in accidents in the home as died on the battlefields in the last world war. When we are considering amendments, we need to look at the whole matter in that context. The House gave full approval to a Bill to protect children against pornography and being photographed for that purpose. Children are among the most vulnerable and this Bill protects both the young and old against other kinds of injuries, which can leave scars not on their minds but on their bodies and can disable them for the rest of their lives.

But it is necessary not only to look at the protection of the consumer but always to strike a balance between the needs and practicalities of industry as well as the safety of consumers. Some criticism was expressed in Committee and outside the House about the structure of what is now Clause 1—not the new clause, but Clause 1. The criticism was to the effect that under that clause regulations would prescribe not only safety standards but the offences and defences and could even shift the burden of proof.

I promised that I would consider that criticism. I have done so, after full consultation with the hon. Member for Tyne-mouth (Mr. Trotter), and as a result of listening to the criticisms and as a result of the consultations I put forward the new clause.

Subsection (1) creates in the substantive legislation the offence of supply contrary to safety regulations. The offence will be not in the regulation but in the statute itself. Subsection (2) creates offences of failing to test for safety, but only where regulations are made. The offence is in the Bill and not in the regulations.

Subsection (3) introduces a provision about misleading marks—offences again to be in the Bill and not in the regulations. I know that hon. Members are concerned about this. There are two evils at which the regulations should aim. First of all, there is the entirely misleading stamp on goods. I came across, for instance, some Brazilian crackers the other day which had on their side the insignia:

"Approved by Her Majesty's Inspectors of Explosives."

Those crackers had not been so approved. It was misleading to put that on the side of this tiny firework. That is the sort of thing at which we should aim in subsection (3).

There is also the problem of the manufacturer or importer who places upon an article a sign or insignia which is very much like an approval sign and which is put there to mislead the public. Both of these matters ought to be able to be dealt with by regulation.

To reassure me and the general public, may I ask the Minister to state whether, under existing regulations, there are sufficient powers to deal with a blatant abuse such as that which he has described? Can action be taken to prevent statements such as those he has referred to on the Brazilian crackers?

As I understand it, there are powers to make regulations concerning information on packages but the powers to make a prohibition notice or order do not exist. If there was a highly misleading sign on a consumer product and it was necessary to deal with the matter speedily, the powers concerning prohibition orders and notices could not be exercisable under current legislation. That is one of the loopholes with which the Bill deals.

This is, in effect, a Second Reading debate on what is clearly an important and complicated clause. Would it not be helpful if the Minister, before going into what is in the new clause, told us what the law is now and how matters are being enlarged or safeguarded?

Frankly I do not want to go as wide as that. The new clause ensures that the offences and defences, and the way in which the burden of proof must lie, are contained within the statute. This is in answer to criticisms raised in Committee and outside. I do not believe that there are substantial changes as a result of the new clause. It ensures that people know what sort of offences can be created and what are the defences available to them. The changes in the law come in later clauses and broadly speaking concern the new power to make a prohibition notice or order and the power to require warnings. I have not brought out all of the changes. Those are the changes which take place and they come in later clauses.

I jump now from subsection (3) to subsection (8). This provides that no new offences shall be created in the regulations. Again, that is an assurance sought in Committee. It is now given. Subsection (4) deals with penalties. I believe that these are appropriate. They are the same penalties as are contained in the Trade Descriptions Act. I know that the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) has tabled an amendment on this point. I believe that, on consideration, it is right, that if there is a penalty of £1,000 for an offence under the Trade Descriptions Act, the same penalty should apply to a breach of the safety regulations.

11.15 a.m.

Subsection (5) provides that where the commission of an offence under subsections (1) (2) and (3) is due to the act or default of some other person, the other person shall be guilty of an offence and proceedings may be taken against either or both. That is very much in line with current law. Not only is the retailer liable; the importer or the producer of a product is liable as well. There may well be circumstances in which it is much more appropriate to take proceedings against the producer or the importer rather than the person who has innocently been selling the product.

The Committee wanted defences set out in the primary legislation and in subsection (6) the defence of diligence is set out. The requirement that the accused should give notice containing information identifying the person whom he alleges by his act or default caused the commission of the offence is designed to enable enforcement officers to investigate such designations before trial. What it amounts to is that if someone comes to the court and says "It is entirely someone else's fault not mine" prior notice of that defence must be given.

Subsection (7) sets out the provisions which may be included in safety regulations. Two of these are designed to ensure that where regulations are made in very general terms consistent enforcement can be maintained. Again, this meets the criticisms and concern expressed in Committee.

Paragraph (a) of subsection (7) enables the Secretary of State to provide in regulations that he may give directions to enforcement authorities while paragraph (c) provides that regulations may provide that a prosecution may be brought only by or with the consent of the Secretary of State or the Director of Public Prosecutions. This latter power will be exercised only where it is not possible to impose specific requirements in regulations and where the power to give directions would be inappropriate or inadequate to secure consistent enforcement.

Where regulations impose requirements in very general terms it will be possible to provide in regulations by virtue of subsection (7)(b) that compliance with a specified standard is deemed to satisfy any requirement for the purpose of criminal liability. If such provision were made and if goods complied with the specified standard a supplier would not commit an offence of supplying goods which do not comply with regulations.

This is an extremely important assistance to industry. The professional engineer, the quality controller and the designer can very much better understand a standard that is written in their language rather than one written in the legal language of regulations. I know that industry very much welcomes the ability in future to legislate by reference to standards and to know that compliance with a standard will be a defence to a charge concerning breach of the regulations.

Subsection (7)(d) sets out the provision set out in Clause 1(2)(i) as currently drafted. It enables the time limit for prosecutions to be extended from the usual six months to 12 months. If a retailer is found to be selling dangerous goods which are in breach of the regulations it may take some time to discover where production takes place and to find the producer or importer. That is one of the reasons why the period allowed for prosecution has been extended to a year.

Amendment No. 21 deletes from Clause 1(2) those provisions which are rendered unnecessary by the new clause while Amendments No. 58 and 59 make adaptations of the new clause for its application to Northern Ireland.

Amendment No. 32 is self-explanatory. If a matter comes to trial the person whose defence is that of blaming someone else has to give seven days prior notice of that defence. Amendment No. 33 is purely technical, bringing the wording of Clause 2(4) into line with the wording of a similar provision in subsection (4) of the new clause. Amendments Nos. 39, 41, 42, 83, 87, 89 and 94 are consequential upon the introduction of the new clause. I believe that I have dealt with the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Pudsey dealing with penalties and I hope that I have satisfied the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Cope) in respect of his Amendment (a) to the new clause.

I welcome the new clause. The Bill is a fairly complex piece of legislation. There was a limited amount of time available for drafting before Second Reading. There has fortunately been a considerable time available thereafter for consultation, and very wide consultations have been held. About 300 firms and organisations were asked for their views. I am gratified to be able to say that some excellent comments on the original draft were received.

There was general concern as to the way in which I drafted the Bill originally. The new clause, which the Minister has kindly helped to draft, through parliamentary counsel, deals with these problems. In particular, as the Minister has outlined, it delineates the offences and the defences.

It is perhaps unfortunate that the rules of the House require us to consider the new clause before we consider Clause 1. In the new clause we are talking about the offences against safety regulations which we have not yet considered because they are in the original Clause 1 of the Bill. I assure the House that the re-drafting is very much in line with the fears that were expressed by the Confederation of British Industries and many other organisations that the original drafting was too wide.

There is general support for the principle of consumer safety. It is interesting that the existing consumer safety measures were both private measures, introduced in 1961 and 1971. In the Bill I have sought to plug the loopholes and expand the powers necessary to deal with the problems of consumer safety in the light of the experience which has arisen since 1961 and 1971. I shall be expanding on that later today. The offences and defences are, in my judgment, best delineated in the Bill and not in the regulations. That was the original proposal in my first draft.

The amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) would reduce the fine from £1,000 to £500. I can assure my hon. Friend that I did not pluck a figure out of the air. The figure is in line, according to the legal authorities, with that for similar offences now being introduced in other similar legislation.

I turn to the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Cope), who added very considerably to our discussions in Committee. Unfortunately, he cannot be with us this morning as he had a prior engagement in his constituency. He would have very much wished to take part in the debate, having shown great interest in the Bill since its early stages.

In my opinion, my hon. Friend's amendment would be unhelpful, in that it would prevent powers being taken to deal with the position where misleading information on an article is given. One can envisage the sort of position that might arise. Indeed, the Minister gave one example relating to Brazilian crackers, where the inference from the wording was that the article had been passed. That seemed a little blatant—perhaps almost actionable— but one can envisage other cases where clever words could be used about a product indicating that it had approval, and implying to the public that it had official approval when that was not the case. I feel, therefore, that my hon. Friend's amendment, well intended as it is, would not be helpful in attaining the object of the Bill.

The new clause is wholly in line with the views expressed as a result of the considerable consultation which has been held over the last couple of months since the Bill had its Second Reading, and I welcome it.

I apologise that I was not here at the beginning of the debate and perhaps have not heard an explanation from the Minister with regard to the new clause. But I am a little puzzled by subsection (8), which reads:

"Safety regulations shall not provide for a contravention of the regulations to be an offence."

I am puzzled about the legal effect of that, because the wording at the beginning is

"To move the following Clause:—

(1) Where safety regulations prohibit a person"

—and so on. Those are all contraventions. What is the legal effect of subsection (8)? What does it mean?

What it means is that the regulations may not create new offences. If my hon. and learned Friend will look at subsection (1) of the new clause, he will find that the breach of a regulation is an offence by virtue of the primary legislation. The concern of people inside and outside the House was that there should be such a wide order-making power that one could not only prescribe safety standards for goods but also prescribe the offences in the regulations. The offences are now contained in the primary legislation and not in the regulations.

I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me, but it seems to me that the legal effect is that subsection (8) is in direct contradiction to the rest of the new clause.

This is clearly an important piece of legislation. A great deal of thought has gone into the drafting, and the whole House must applaud the objectives which it is concerned to secure. At the same time, it is our duty, in thinking of it from the point of view of our constituents, to consider the implications for certain categories of citizens.

I have particularly in mind the retailers, especially the small shopkeepers who, if I read the new clause properly, will be caught and liable quite as much as anyone else in the chain in passing on any of the goods which it is sought to prohibit. We ought to be concerned in this House to see that some protection is given to them and that they do not find themselves unwittingly liable under these complicated provisions.

Subsection (6), to which the Minister referred, contains the words:

"It shall be a defence to a charge of committing a relevant offence to prove that the accused took all reasonable steps and exercised all due diligence to avoid committing the offence"

How far would that protect a small shopkeeper who, in total innocence, accepted or brought one of these articles for sale without any means of knowing the possible dangers of the article in question? Ought there not to be some provision in the legislation by which a shopkeeper or retailer can be protected? Is it not possible that some scheme could be worked out whereby goods could be labelled as certified safe under the test of this legislation? That would at any rate provide some safety, some security, for a small shopkeeper. I should like the Minister to tell the House whether this has been looked into, because it seems to put an impossible burden on a large number of potentially innocent people.

An enormous amount will be done by way of regulations. This, I take it, will be done in terms of the general power conferred on the Minister in Clause 1. I imagine that, in order to cover all the possible situations which the legislation is designed to protect, the regulations may have to be complicated and may have to be numerous.

The House is entitled to ask the question which we ought always to be concerned to ask in these cases: when these regulations are issued, will they come to us by the negative procedure or the affirmative procedure? We have an excellent Committee which looks into these regulations—I take it that these will be Statutory Instruments of the ordinary kind—and this is a matter that we should be concerned to know.

11.30 a.m.

We ought to look rather hard at subsection (7) of the new clause. It reads:

"Safety regulations may contain provision…for requiring persons on whom a duty is imposed by virtue of section 4 of his Act to have regard in performing the duty so far as it relates to a provision of safety regulations, to matters specified in a direction issued by the Secretary of State with respect to that provision."

That seems to introduce a new feature into what we call subordinate legislation. Apparently, obligations can be put on a citizen by means of regulations which are themselves triggered off by means of a direction issued by the Secretary of State. The Bill seems to make no limitations at all on the power of the Secretary of State to issue directions of this kind. I think that we are entitled to a more detailed explanation of what this would involve.

The power to give directions is a power to give directions to the enforcement officers and not to members of the public. It was brought in upon us that to ensure consistency of enforcement, there should be a power of direction to the enforcement officers. It is not an arbitrary power to give directions to members of the public or to small shopkeepers. It is a power to give directions about the way in which certain regulations are enforced, and that is for the benefit of industry and trade. It is not to their detriment.

I am grateful to the Minister for that intervention. It is always awkward to be debating the new clauses first, and it may be that I have not looked with sufficient care at the Bill. If I understand the Minister aright, he is saying that Clause 4 related not to the public but to officials whose duty it will be to enforce.

There was some discussion about the fines. I am conscious that we live in an age of inflation and, whether we put in £500 or £1,000, are we involved in any general or special provision whereby these maximum fines can be increased if inflation continues to increase even at the optimistic rate now forecast by the Government?

I must first apologise to the House and to the Minister for the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) is not able to be present today. She had a long-standing engagement which she was unable to break.

Having said that, obviously there are no sides of the House in relation to this measure. We are dealing collectively, I trust, with the much-needed overhaul of consumer protection legislation. It has a long history of requirement, and I think that the Minister will agree that many of the Bill's provisions go back to the hazardous products legislation of 1973 and that there has been a consistent need since then to bring into line consumer protection legislation.

If we are to do this effectively in relation to the clauses and amendments before the House, we have to recognise that in the special circumstances of a Private Member's Bill we are limited in the extent to which we are able to expound our arguments. The Government must take some portion of the blame upon themselves for not finding time of their own to bring together this necessary compilation of consumer safety legislation. However, I do not say that with any sense of bitterness. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) on having the sagacity to choose this topic, which is long in need of new legislation.

We are dealing with New Clause No. 1 which has now appeared in two different forms on two consecutive days. There was a draft on Monday of this week, which was subsequently altered on Tuesday, and I think that that is symptomatic of the considerable rush in the production of these new clauses and of certain amendments that were required. It is also symptomatic of the fact that under the Private Member's procedure there was only a formal Second Reading with no argument in debate, and a Committee stage which lasted only one sitting of the Committee. So it is not surprising that we find ourselves having to deal on Report with a considerable number of amendments, many of them generated by my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth and by the Government, who are clearly giving him full support in securing that his measure reaches the statute book.

New Clause No. 1 is a very wide-ranging amendment, and it is rightly related to the regulations which were discussed in Committee and to deciding that it would be better if they formed part of the Bill. I support that as a matter of principle. However, there are a number of questions which arise from it.

Subsection (7) of the new clause, which deals with safety regulations, might have easily been more appropriately placed in Clause 1(1) or (2) instead of being introduced as a new clause, and I shall be interested to hear from the Minister why he feels it necessary that the safety regulations should be handled separately.

I assume that New Clause No. 1 will take its place in the Bill as Clause 2, so that it follows immediately upon Clause 1 which deals with safety regulations in respect of goods. I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that.

I turn to two specific matters in relation to the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Cope), who, again, is unable to be here today. He tabled Amendment (a), and he did so with a fair point in mind. It was to draw attention to this definition of "inappropriate" information. The Minister gave an example of what he felt would be inappropriate information, and I concede that there are many marks or descriptions of products which could be held to be undesirable and against consumer interests. But the definition of what is appropriate and inappropriate is somewhat novel.

I do not know whether "appropriateness" is a term in law. The Minister has the advantage of me not only by his professional qualifications but also by the advice he receives. But I think that we ought to ask him whether the idea of appropriateness or inappropriateness is a novel one. I can understand "correct", "true", or "false", but what is appropriate and what is inappropriate?

My hon. Friend also had in mind who decides what should be appropriate or inappropriate. The general drift of the Bill is that the Secretary of State, no doubt on advice, would decide the definition of an appropriate or an inappropriate piece of information. But as this is a fairly novel procedure, I think that the House is entitled to a more detailed explanation.

My own amendment (c) relates to the fine. My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. More) has already drawn attention to the question of the small shopkeeper, and the rate of inflation. But I did not place this amendment on the Order Paper for that reason. My hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth is recommending a level of fine that is comparable with those in other pieces of legislation.

Although the Trade Descriptions Act deals with what goes on at the point of sale, we are covering a much wider concept in the Bill. We are dealing with safe and unsafe products. The liability for their arrival at the point of sale is shared to some extent, or it may rest completely with, those who manufacture and produce the products that are found to be unsafe or dangerous. We shall discuss the definition of that term at a later stage.

A trader inadvertently receiving, at the long end of the chain, an article which carried "inappropriate information", may not be quite as culpable as a trader seeking to deceive under the Trade Descriptions Act. Is the Minister satisfied that he is not being too swift and simple in applying a standard rate of fine? The trader may be quite unwittingly in receipt of goods that are subsequently recognised as unsafe for sale to the public. That offence is quite different from one under the Trade Descriptions Act, and possibly a more modest fine could deal with it. I realise that we are dealing with optimum figures—a maximum fine of £1,000 or a three-month sentence. I urge the Minister to consider that we are dealing with people who probably have a lesser degree of culpability than those who offend under the normal operations of the Trade Descriptions Act.

We understand what the Minister has in mind in bringing forward New Clause No. 1. We welcome the idea that the regulations and the powers attached to them should be confirmed as part of the Bill. I draw the attention of the Minister to a minute error in drafting in line 33 of New Clause No. 1. Reference is made to "this subsections." Surely he means "this subsection". Perhaps the fact that I can locate only a singular error of drafting in a new clause which has been totally redrafted twice in 24 hours and rushed through so quickly is a tribute to the achievements of the noble professionals advising the Minister.

We accept the intention of the clause and during the passage of Report stage we are anxious to ensure that the Bill is clear and sensible. One of the problems about the short time available is to ensure that such a complicated piece of legislation goes through with a maximum amount of careful consideration.

I appeal to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for a reasonable ration of Celtic charity if we find ourselves discussing some amendments which may verge on matters more appropriate for discussion on Second Reading. But our Committee stage was reduced to one day and we found that there were certain matters that should be aired subsequently at greater length than is usual at Report stage.

It is particularly appropriate that we should be discussing a measure of consumer protection today, because it is exactly one year to the day since I was elected by the consumers of Ashfield. The key issue at my by-election was prices—that is the subject that brought me to this House. Since then I have followed matters of prices and consumer protection with particular interest.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) on introducing this Bill. It is unfortunate that it should have been left to him to introduce it, but it is a growing practice for Private Members to be expected to introduce measures which would be more appropriate for the Goverment. However, because of the Government's legislative programme, they are unable to do so.

The way in which the Bill has been dealt with so far has also been unfortunate. There was no Second Reading debate and the Committee stage came so quickly that outside organisations had insufficient time to consider the implications of this very complicated measure. The Government did not address themselves to the fundamental issues involved, and as a consequence we are considering the new clause—one of substantial importance—today. The new clause meets one of the most important points raised at Committee stage—the fact that the Bill as originally drafted left almost all the key issues to be dealt with by regulations.

It is quite wrong that criminal offences and defences to these offences should be left to regulations. I welcome the new clause as it makes a considerable improvement, even though I think that the Bill is still unnecessarily complicated and will be bureaucratic in its operation.

I have sympathy with my hon. Friends who want to see subsection (3) removed. The words "inappropriate information" are somewhat novel, and it is not clear what they mean. I wonder whether the Trade Descriptions Act would cover this subsection. I understand that a prohibition order would not be appropriate for the Trade Descriptions Act, but I am not sure whether it is relevant at all.

It is always open to the Secretary of State or the Minister, if it appears that a product such a crackers, for example, comes to his attention as being labelled in a misleading way, to use the normal publicity channels to draw the public's attention to the fact. I think that this would be sufficient to have the desired effect without embarking on the action proposed in the Bill.

I give the hon. Member an assurance that if a warning or non-statutory action would have the desired effect, of course that is the way in which we would proceed. The use of regulations or statutory action is a last resort.

I am very grateful to the Minister for that assurance. That is the right course of action. However, I think we need a little more information about the meaning of the words "inappropriate information".

My reading of the subsection is that it is aimed at the offence of misleading. It says:

"either by means of misleading marks or otherwise"

It would be better for the subsection to read:

"If a person contravenes a provision of safety regulations which prohibits the provision of misleading information."

Surely that is a term which would be intelligible and capable of absolute definition in a court of law. The word "inappropriate" is hopelessly vague—too vague, in fact, to bring before magistrates or law courts.

I agree that my hon. Friend's proposed wording would tighten up the subsection and make it more specific. It would eliminate the word "inappropriate" and also the words "or otherwise" because it is not at all clear what sort of marks that would refer to. That alteration would be very important.

First, I should like to deal with the points made by the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. More). The hon. Gentleman, and his hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw), wants a gradation of offences for the retailer. If we tried to do that, we should have an unduly complicated provision. The maximum fine is £1,000. I should think that magistrates will take into account the degree of blame which attaches to a retailer in fixing the amount of the fine. However, that is not the retailer's only protection.

The other protection is the defence of due diligence. It is not possible to exempt the retailer from liability in all circumstances. There will be cases where the retailer has to rely on information supplied to him by his wholesaler or manufacturer because he cannot carry out a test, because the goods do not appear to be inherently dangerous or because he is not put on notice of the possible danger. Therefore, he relies on what seems credible notice or instructions. In such cases, the defence of due diligence may be sufficient and there will be no question of a fine being imposed.

But circumstances can vary. Goods which did not appear to the retailer to be dangerous and for which he was at first able to rely upon the care and diligence of the wholesaler or producer may change in their nature if he is put on notice that the goods are dangerous. For example, recently we issued a warning notice about gondolas which could cause electrocution.

I may be ignorant, but I have heard of a gondola only in the context of Venice. What is a dangerous gondola?

Perhaps I should move away from gondolas, because of the possibility of death in or from Venice. That is an example which might lead to proceedings.

I shall take electrical product X. A retailer may have no reason to believe that electrical product X is dangerous, but subsequently a warning notice may be given about that electrical product which tells the public and retailers that it has a potential danger. Once that has happened, the retailer has a greater responsibility to exercise diligence and care than previously, when he had no notice. That illustrates the difficulty of trying to have any kind of complete exemption for the retailer. The due diligence defence is available and there is the discretion of the court in the way that it fixes the penalty.

Surely there must be occasions when articles are perfectly safe when first accepted by the retailer but which, as a result of the effluxion of time, become dangerous. Would such cases be covered by regulations of this kind?

Yes. If goods are kept for so long that the insulation on the electrical parts wastes away, there would rightly be responsibility on the retailer.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether it would be an affirmative or a negative resolution. In a later debate I shall advise the House—this is unusual, because it has been the negative resolution procedure since 1961—in view of feelings which have been expressed, to accept the affirmative resolution procedure for general regulations. I shall not trespass on a future debate.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether the fine was high enough. One hon. Member suggested that it was too high and another suggested that it might not be high enough in the light of inflation. The Government's record on inflation will be pretty good in future. The level of fines is reviewed from time to time in the Criminal Justice Acts. I think that is the right place for a review, as happened in the Criminal Justice Act 1977.

I am told that the clause should be placed after Clause 1. That will be done.

We then had the argument about the word "appropriate", or "inappropriate". The word "appropriate", or "inappropriate" relates to regulation-making powers. There is no question of anyone being prosecuted because information on a product is by itself appropriate or inappropriate. The precise information will be spelled out in the regulations. Those regulations would be preceded by a long period of consultation with consumers, producers and those in the trade. In other words, the word "appropriate" permits the inclusion in regulations of specific obligations or prohibitions on what kind of information should or should not be there.

I was asked whether the word "appropriate", which has been chosen, was in the law already. It is not, but I hope that it will be in future in this Bill. The word "appropriate" is rather wide, but it is necessary. For instance, it may be necessary to specify not merely the dangerous properties of goods and details about how such goods should be used, but in some circumstances who should be contacted in the event of an accident. One notices that vehicles conveying dangerous products carry not only a warning of the danger, but details of telephone numbers to ring in case of an accident. The word "appropriate" is wide enough to include that kind of information. There will not be an offence of being inappropriate. The offence would be to breach a specific obligation which was spelled out in the regulations after a good deal of consultation.

Is the Minister saying that the words "appropriate" and "inappropriate" will not appear in the safety regulations?

I do not say that the words will not appear, but the regulations will have to spell out with particularity what is intended to be made either obligatory or prohibited.

The Minister made an important point about "appropriate" and what it might mean. Will he consider including the definition, as he described it, in Clause 8—"Interpretation"—so that we may know what this new term means? If he could also include in the interpretation clause the fact that this is a subject for discussion and agreement, as he implied in his opening remarks, that would be helpful.

On the latter point about this being a matter for discussion and agreement, that obligation is made clear and will be strengthened even further by other amendments to the Bill. Of course, there must be prior consultation. I cannot do more than promise to think about whether the word "appropriate" should be defined. But it carries no further obligation. I shall certainly consider the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

I think that we should be clear about this matter. This subsection specifically creates an offence. I did not follow the Minister when he implied that "inappropriate" would not be of the essence of the offence. Surely the supplying of inappropriate information is the gist of the offence. Is not "inappropriate" the word on which the courts will have to rule? Is that not so on the reading of subsection (3)?

I do not think that is the right reading. Subsection (3) begins

"If a person contravenes a provision of safety regulations which prohibits the provision of inappropriate information relating to goods either by means of misleading marks or otherwise".

The obligation has to be spelled out in the regulations. It does not arise solely as a result of subsection (3). It has to be translated into the regulations.

That is assuming we are to have a safety regulation which includes provisions about "inappropriate information". Is it not on the basis of the regulations that a prosecution will be brought?

I think that it is easier to deal with the matter by way of example than by concept. If a regulation were made which permitted or required the display of the reversed epsilon, the imprimatur—I really dare not say this in the presence of the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate)—of the European Community for the safety of a product, it might be right to say that any mark which resembled, was intended to mislead or appeared to be like the official reversed epsilon mark which allows the free passage of goods throughout the member States, should be debarred. That would be "inappropriate information" because it would give the impression that it was an approval stamp when there was no such approval.

I am at a disadvantage in considering this new clause because I have not previously taken part in the proceedings on the Bill since I was not a member of the Committee. I approach the Bill with a degree of diffidence. I waited for the debate on the new clause before advancing one or two views.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) on having taken on the measure. Essentially, it is a long overdue Government measure. I wish my hon. Friend well with it. I hope that it will make rapid progress. That we had no debate on Second Reading is an advantage. However, if one draws an analogy with the Unfair Contract Terms Act, that is also a disadvantage, because there is no opportunity for hon. Members to explore the provisions of the Bill in principle. This new clause enunciates some broad principles. It deserves and requires adequate scrutiny by both those who served on the Committee and those who did not. I have read the proceedings of the Committee. It went through in one session, lasting two hours. There is, therefore, a need for further examination of the Bill's provisions.

Subsection (3) of the new clause has aroused most interest. The Minister explained that this provision is required to cover a possible gap in present legislation. This is becoming a frequent and somewhat alarming trend in legislation. There are too many overlying layers of legislation, duplicating the principal provisions of enacted statutes, solely in order to plug a small gap. A valid cause for complaint among the long-suffering public, professional people and those who have the onus of implementing legislation is that we are over-burdening this small island with reams of paperwork and legislative provisions.

I make one complimentary comment about the Minister. He has seen it to be an advantage to introduce into the clause both the nature of the offence and, unusually, the nature of the defence, rather than leaving this to regulations. All too often in relation to consumer legislation is the set of regulations not only left for later but not even prepared in draft at the time that the Bill is published. This makes it difficult for hon. Members to consider the implications. It is right that we should have a detailed New Clause No. 1 which sets out the offence and the defence to it.

I turn to subsection (3). The Minister gave an illustration of Brazilian crackers being marketed as having been approved by Her Majesty's inspector of explosives. I hope that he was referring to Christmas crackers and not cheese biscuits. The prospect of exploding cheese biscuits is alarming, and itself a justification for the Bill.

If such Brazilian crackers are imported, go through the various stages of inspection and eventually arrive at the retailer, it is, as the Minister acknowledged, difficult for the retailer not to accept them as being what they appear to be at face value—namely, a familiar and homely product which has been available for many years and which appears to conform to such safety requirements as seem reasonable in the circumstances.

That being so, I wonder whether the provisions will catch the wrong person. Perhaps there is too much of a burden placed on the man at the end of the line. Perhaps the check should take place earlier.

I understand that according to the new clause the safety standards will be the responsibility of the local authorities. That means that the check will be left until far too late. Surely, if such a claim is made, it could be tested at the port of import. Otherwise one would find that the goods had been brought into the country and distributed through the chain to retailers, and were being sold by general retailers and market traders. Only when an incident occurs are the dangers discovered.

I have noticed that such goods as electrical gondolas, for instance, have been imported from the less developed countries. They have not, on the whole, come from the leading industrial nations of the Western world. One must look carefully at the nature of the offence, the person who is liable to be guilty of such an offence, and the penalties that are to be imposed on that person. I agree with my hon. Friends that we should seek greater clarification on this. It might be a legislative commonplace that the person who commits an offence

"shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months and a fine of an amount not exceeding £1,000".

Does that mean, in legal language, that a guilty person will be liable to both imprisonment and a fine? In everyday language, if it were intended that these should be options the phrase "and/or" would be used. That is familiar, and would be easily understood. To say that a person will be liable to a term of imprisonment and a fine means that both are effective in all cases. If that is so, it seems to be a harsh penalty, particularly in the circumstances which I have outlined involving an innocent and possibly reputable retailer observing high standards.

I concede that these are maxima for imprisonment and fines. In my constituency there is a long-established and successful market, which has been there for many hundreds of years. Defective and dangerous products are often sold in places that are not subject to the same constraints as apply to established traders selling from retail premises. I believe that the penalties are rather disproportionate.

It is not inconsistent with that view to ask whether the £1,000 fine and the maximum three months' imprisonment are the going rate. It would be interesting to know what other offences involve similar penalties. One could then judge whether they are in line and whether we are imposing unduly onerous penalties.

I mentioned earlier the enforcement provisions under subsection (7). The Minister has made it plain that the Secretary of State will be responsible for giving a direction in relation to enforcement of these regulations when they appear. As I have also indicated, my understanding is that the enforcement officers will be those commonly known now as trading standards officers working for a weights and measures authority such as a local authority, and the enforcement of these provisions will be by the local authority.

I should like some reassurance that there will be uniform application of such enforcement. Again, I have a very recent experience which gave me some cause for apprehension. Hon. Members will know that I sought to introduce on Tuesday of last week a Private Member's Bill under the Ten Minutes Rule to regularise the position that has arisen from lack of uniformity of enforcement of a duty imposed upon local authorities. In this case, it related to the Shops Regulation Act.

My point was that some traders are able to open after hours for the organisation of promotional evenings on their own premises. This is done in many boroughs, but is not allowed in my borough. The reason for this disparity of treatment is solely that local authorities themselves see the matter differently. Some see themselves as having scope for such approval. Others see the law as imposing on them a duty not to allow such promotional evenings.

My hon. Friend has raised a most important issue. I had occasion in the Chamber some three months ago to raise, by way of a Ten Minute Bill, the question of enforcement by local authorities. This related to the case of a fishmonger who operated in two adjacent local authority areas and was prosecuted and severely fined in one area on the issue of labelling of food. Since then I have taken a particular interest in this matter. I have been at pains to look at shops in different local authorities' areas. It appears to me that there is a total diversity on this issue. Quite clearly, not all local authorities are enforcing the law in the same way. Clearly, this could be of importance in the context in which my hon. Friend is now speaking.

That adds another illustration of the problem that I can foresee in the application of the Bill if it becomes an Act. Again, my knowledge of the position is that successive Governments having imposed considerable duties on local authorities, in particular in this area, not all the present provisions, under current legislation, are carried out by weights and measures officers and trading standards officers. Inevitably, they have to adopt a priority of their own in choosing what work they carry out and what work is not carried out and to which, by necessity, they are obliged to turn a blind eye.

Therefore, I seek a further explanation of the direction to be issued by the Secretary of State, rather than, in the case that I have cited, a general provision of the law, which has been on the statute book for very nearly 30 years, and of the degree to which that direction will have a greater force to ensure that the provision of the new clause is carried through.

I wonder whether my hon. Friend could enlighten me on one point. I am not quite clear whether this diversity between different local authorities arises because of a shortage of staff and, therefore, an inability to be able to enforce the various regulations, or because of some defect in the regulations themselves, the consequences being that there are a number of different interpretations.

My answer to that would be "Both". In the particular illustration that affects me and my constituency, which I have cited, and which was the subject of my Ten Minute Bill, it relates to a different interpretation of the same provision of the law. But I know that many of the present obligations of weights and measures authorities are not observed, or at least, are observed very infrequently.

Although we are here dealing with what would be more specific and more urgent issues—namely dangerous products, in relation to which a minute lost might mean a life lost—none the less, I make the point because it is relevant. We could have a situation develop in which, the direction having been given to carry out this provision, a dangerous product appeared on the market, perhaps being not widely available but available in certain parts of the country. Local authorities might move in to outlaw such a product and ban its sale and others might not be quite so punctillious or prompt in doing so.

I should like to revert to the question of the duplication inherent in the new clause in making it an offence under this Bill, whereas one would think it more appropriate that an existing Act would do the job in most cases.

On the question of inappropriate information, there is wide scope for disagreement about what is a properly exercised care in the issuing of information and what is not. It has been my experience, in the question of labelling products, and how they should be used—this could apply very much to the Venetian gondola—that the instructions are often in appalling English. I say that meaning that they are obviously drafted by people of the native tongue of the country from which the products have come. When they seek to explain to a fairly simple-minded layman such as myself what is intended, they are often incomprehensible. Although I do not have examples with me, I am sure that all of us have had the experience that it is not always clear how the product should be used.

Therefore, on the question of inappropriate information, I can see that there will be considerable scope for disagreement. After all, an offence must imply intention. Having been warned, not to respond to that warning would obviously be an offence. But I am thinking more of the inadvertent offence which arises under the new clause.

In fairness to foreigners, I think that they do their best to translate into English as much as they can, but they are not always successful. I remember lunching once in a restaurant in Turkey. The whole menu was translated for our benefit from Turkish into English, and there was one special lunch advertised as a lunch for educated shepherds. We took that to be a ploughman's lunch.

My point does not relate only to the translation, but I think that this is a common fault in regard to many complicated products, particularly electrical products. The instructions do not always explain matters in language that people can understand. I find very often, just as with the signposting of some important route across the country, that very often one reaches a point in the instructions on how to use or how to assemble the item concerned when there is a gap in the sequence of instruction and one is left somewhat bemused as to what to do.

In the new clause we are providing a considerable duplication of legislation. The Minister said that the Trade Descriptions Act, for example, would cover a great many of such offences that would arise under the new clause. As I understood him, he said that it could well be that the instance cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. More)—I forget the exact illustration—would be covered by such legislation, but that this Bill would provide the further opportunity of a prohibition order.

One can see that this is attractive to the Minister. As he said in Committee, he has responsibility. In matters of consumer safety, they may literally be matters of life or death. He wants to be able to exercise responsibility properly. But I question whether it is wise for us to seek to close every small nook and cranny—every possibility—by means of new legislation of this weight and complexity. Surely, in life there will always be some small instances, which perhaps cannot even be foreseen now, which will not be within the scope of legislation. If we seek by our legislation process to cover every contingency, we shall continue to overburden the working public. That is not to their advantage.

My hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert) has not got the point about the Trade Descriptions Act. I asked the Minister whether the Act would be relevant in the context of subsection (3). Unfortunately, the Minister did not deal with that point when he responded. It would be helpful if we were told the answer.

In Committee reference was made to medicines. The Minister conceded that most of the necessary provisions were provided by the Medicines Act. He said that medicines, as would be expected, were already covered considerably by present legislation, as, quite rightly, they should be. None the less, to make sure that no door was left open and that there was no opportunity for anything to slip through, the Bill was made to cover that area as well, in connection either with the labelling of medicine or the safety closure.

It seems to me that the new clause is a considerable steamroller further to crack a nut that has already been substantially cracked. The intentions of the Bill are wholly good and to the advantage of the public. I hope that, subject to such critical comment as they may receive today, those intentions will eventually be enacted.

The Minister sought to put the new clause into context. I do not think that, in the context that he described, there will be any quarrel with the objectives of the legislation. We are faced with a massive and unacceptable level of accidents in the home. There are products on the market that can cause injury when purchased by the consumer. When it is seen that there is a threat to safety, particularly of children, it is understandable that there is outrage and anger. If there are hazardous toys, inflammable materials, sharp or protruding parts of toys or anything of that kind, it arouses the anger of people. It is right, therefore, to ensure that there is legislation that allows the Government's enforcement officials to act promptly to prevent the sale of such dangerous goods. About 7,000 people die every year in the home. One realises from that figure how considerable is the problem.

However, in passing may I say that I would have been more impressed by the Government's posture had they sought to introduce this legislation. That would have been a greater testimony to their determination to deal with the matter rather than leaving it to Private Member's legislation. I would have been more impressed by the desire of the Government to protect human life had they maintained their resolve to introduce seat belt legislation, which, alone, would save about 1,000 lives a year and prevent 10,000 serious injuries on the roads. Their failure to do that is a continuing cause of anger and disillusionment with the intentions of the Government as regards life saving. They have failed.

Therefore, whilst I welcome the Bill, we should record that it has been left to my hon. Friend the Member for Tyne-mouth (Mr. Trotter) to introduce the legislation. I congratulate my hon. Friend on that. Nevertheless I emphasise that this is not the sort of legislation that should be dealt with on a Friday as a Private Member's Bill.

The new clause demonstrates the inadequacy of these procedures. In many respects we have been talking about matters that should be considered in Committee. Yet on Report, we are faced with a new clause. It is more than a new clause. It is almost like a new Bill. We are having a Second Reading on the broad principles of a matter which deserves minute attention by a Committee. The Bill will leave the House and go to another place, and I hope that the other place will do its job, as one would expect. However, how are we to know, without minute examination of the new clause, whether there are other defects in it?

I welcome the principles of the new clause. It is eminently right that we should try to incorporate in the Bill as many specific matters as possible and try to avoid the dreadful trend of giving to the Government more and more regulatory powers. I say that as one who sits on the Joint Select Committee on Statutory Instruments.

I have been encouraged by references to that Select Committee during the passage of the Bill. I am glad that the Government acknowledge the important role of that Committee. It is not my part in that Committee that deserves such recognition. It is particularly the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page).

We know that.

I am glad to note what the Minister says. Despite that, the House should be careful about placing too much faith in the power of a Select Committee of that kind. Though Government Departments usually respond readily and promptly, that it not always the case. In the last report of the Select Committee there were plenty of criticisms of Government practices. However, Departments generally try to respond readily to representations and requests of the Select Committee. In the Standing Committee on the Bill, it was said that it was much better to leave the question of consultation procedures to be supervised by the Select Committee of the House rather than to put it into the Bill itself.

I did not say that.

I am not trying to distort the situation. I was only trying to paraphrase what the Minister said.

I said that it was much better that the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments ensures that the consultation procedures have been carried out properly rather than the High Court. I said that it was a matter for the House of Commons rather than for the judiciary.

I was not seeking to distort what the Minister said. It is beyond the powers effectively of the Select Committee to enforce consultation procedures. We cannot in every case examine the detail or ensure that consultation procedures have been properly carried out. That is all that I am seeking to say. I am glad of the recognition given to the Select Committee, but I do not suggest that the House should place too much reliance on it.

It is gratifying that, on this occasion, the Minister has listened to the views expressed and has tried hard and successfully to incorporate in the original Bill many of the specific matters. I hope that he will encourage his colleagues to do likewise. It is also encouraging that he volunteered the point that he wished to make the general regulations subject to the affirmative procedure. I would question only his use of the word "general". We are talking about the safety regulations. I do not know whether the safety regulations would also be subject to the affirmative procedure. If that is so, it would deal with certain of the points made by my hon. Friends.

Many of the safety regulations would be technical and specific. If they are as narrow as that, perhaps they need to be technical and specific in order to introduce all the elements to satisfy the professional people who will have to apply these standards. Perhaps in that sense they would not be general regulations but would be subject to the negative procedure. Therefore, such matters as the use of the word "appropriate" or "inappropriate" would not receive the scrutiny that they deserve.

I can assure my hon. Friend that the general regulations would be included. What may be excluded—it is up to the House to decide on later amendments—is whether the affirmative resolution procedure is appropriate for speedy action to secure the removal from the market of particularly dangerous objects.

That is helpful. I look forward to the later discussions.

I give a broad welcome to the principle in the new clause and I thank the Minister because it is a helpful recognition of the importance of allowing the House to lay down these matters in legislation rather than leaving it to subsequent regulations.

However, even now the Bill leaves wide open the question of the powers at a later stage. It still gives enormous regulation-making powers to Departments, and this is an alarming trend. I go along with what my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert) said about the danger of such steamroller legislation. I accept that we must have effective means of controlling hazardous products, but the consultation document issued by the Department includes in the introduction the reassuring statement:

"Generally, the present system works well."

That is an important statement. Having accepted that there are many injuries in the home, some of which could be avoided, it is incumbent upon the Minister and the promoter of the Bill to demonstrate that there is no way of closing the loopholes by specific legislation. If there are loopholes, they should be closed instead of our taking these sweeping powers with considerable legislative and legal effects.

This is a broad-ranging Bill which will affect every manufacturer, retailer, trader and importer in this country. Everyone dealing with trade will have to read the Bill carefully to understand its impact. The effectiveness of the law will be tested over many years. The Bill will have far-reaching consequences.

Is it necessary to do it on this scale? I am not saying that it is not, but I am a little worried that we are taking such wide-ranging legislative powers to deal with matters that could be dealt with in specific legislation which would be much clearer in its impact on people in trade in this country.

Will my hon. Friend draw attention to the point that has struck me that, although the Minister, in Committee and earlier today, prefaced his remarks by indicating the enormous number of accidents in the home, it is important to put the matter in perspective and to realise that the Bill will not cover a great many of those accidents?

My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) said that in the list of reasons for accidents in the home, drugs took seventeenth place and playthings sixteenth place. Many of these dangerous products are the sort of inferior toys produced in cheap labour countries. We must put the matter in perspective. We are not dealing with all such accidents. That adds force to my hon. Friend's argument.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to that point. I think that the Minister said that these accidents are not always due to faulty manufacture but are sometimes due to the carelessness of consumers. Any objective analysis would, I suspect, show that the vast majority of accidents are due to human carelessness. That is a matter of great regret, but it would be misleading if we thought that any legislation could make a dramatic impact on the number of accidents in the home.

We should be raising hopes too high if we said that this legislation could deal with anything more than a minority of accidents in the home. I do not quarrel with that aim, but I am not sure whether the Bill is the right means of achieving that aim. However, I have only an element of doubt and it does not make me feel that the legislation should not go through.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rom-ford was concerned whether the Brazilian crackers mentioned by the Minister were not cream crackers. I think that we can be fairly sure on this point. I cannot believe that the sale of biscuits would be encouraged by a statement on the side of the box that the biscuits had been approved by Her Majesty's Inspector of Explosives.

Not even bangers and mash?

No, not even bangers and mash. I was a little worried about the Minister's response when that point was made earlier. I should like to feel that he believes that existing powers are sufficient to enable him to take prompt action. I deduced from his answer that he felt that the powers were not sufficient to enable him to take prompt action in preventing the sale of dangerous goods.

It will be some time before the Bill is on the statute book, and hazardous products sometimes get on to the market. I hope that, despite what the Minister has said, consumers can feel reassured that they can look to the Government and local authorities to take prompt action if such goods appear on the market.

I referred earlier to the overall effect of such wide-ranging legislation. The new clause offers a defence to retailers of due diligence, but I wonder whether this helps shopkeepers, because they can have little control over the goods about which we are talking. In the nature of their business, they rely to a large extent upon their traditional suppliers, manufacturers and wholesalers.

What due diligence does a shopkeeper have to exercise to ensure that a product is safe? Shopkeepers receive a large amount of stock and have to look at it fairly casually. They cannot dismantle the goods, but have to rely upon labels and statements made on the packets and assume that they are safe. There is little difference between normal diligence and due diligence.

I do not know why the hon. Gentleman makes out that small shopkeepers are a load of zombies. Of course they are not. They have heavy civil obligations as a result of the Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act 1973 passed by a Conservative Government. If anyone is injured as a result of their selling the goods, they are absolutely and strictly liable for a breach of the civil obligations. Shopkeepers who let things pass through their hands, relying on one person selling to another, already have civil liabilities.

I wish that the hon. Gentleman would not portray shopkeepers as being semi-morons. They are intelligent men who read the newspapers and have some idea of the possibilities of danger. I hope that he will not portray our nation of shopkeepers as being men of limited intelligence.

That was the most extraordinary interpretation of what I said. Anyone who can read that into what I said must be a devious sort of magician. I said no such thing and meant no such thing.

However, by answering in that way, the Minister has indicated that powers already exist to bring to account the careless retailer who sells dangerous goods. I was saying that, generally, the retailer is the least culpable party in the dispensing of dangerous goods because he is so reliant upon the wholesaler and the manufacturer. There are limits on how far he can go to check the safety of the goods that he sells.

Obviously, there must be reasonable diligence, but the shopkeeper is so limited that "due diligence" is not a very strong phrase in this respect. Might there not be a case for grading penalties as has been suggested by my hon. Friends?

We should try to remove some of the fears of small retailers that, although they could not be regarded as guilty in any other sense of the word, they could be charged and found guilty within the terms of the Bill if it becomes an Act.

In regard to subsection (6) of the clause, I would point out that if a person were to rely on the defence that the commission of an offence was

"due to the act or default of another person or due to reliance on information supplied by another person",

The Minister said glibly that it seemed eminently reasonable that the prosecution should have prior notice that that is the defence. I imagine that that is reasonable generally speaking, but that it is not always the case. If the prosecution has a year in which to decide to bring proceedings, it is reasonable to say that within seven days of going into court the defendant must have given notice that he intended to rely upon what would presumably be the frequent defence—that he was relying on information given by other people or that the offence was due to the neglect of another person? The provision appears to be restrictive. Although it would normally be in order, I believe that that defence should not be ruled out on the ground that proper notice had not been given. Could that point be examined?

The hon. and learned Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Mr. Weitzman) mentioned subsection (8), which he said contradicted the rest of the clause. He is an hon. and learned Gentleman and one has considerable respect for his powers of observation. It is clear—and I approve the intent—that new safety regulations shall not introduce any new offence.

I am sure that the House will applaud that, but when we are faced with the bald statement

"Safety regulations shall not provide for a contravention of the regulations to be an offence",

one senses a contradiction between that and the preceding provisions. Why could one not simply say "Safety regulations shall not provide for the introduction of any new offence"? That would have made the point clear and would not give rise to subsequent disputes in court. Therefore, the hon. and learned Gentleman had a point, and it should have been answered.

The last point relates to appropriateness, which has already been examined in some depth. However, I am not sure that the question was satisfactorily answered. The Minister gave one example. He said that frequently it can be required that there should be a notice stating the name and address of the people whom one should contact in the event of such a requirement. If that were omitted, presumably the Minister would regard that as an error or contrary to the regulations.

But that would represent the omission of appropriate information, not the inclusion of inappropriate information. We have not yet had a clear example where inappropriate information could be given which could be the subject of an offence. It seems to me that one should link inappropriateness to misleading information. If there is an intention to mislead, let us include the word "inappropriate". But that word which has not yet been interpreted in law. If regulations are to be laid at a later stage, there will be little scope for arguing the meaning of "inappropriate" or "appropriate" and it would be better to delete the word. Perhaps my hon. Friend could improve that wording.

Although I have some hesitation about the procedures for examining a Bill of this importance, I welcome the clause and, generally speaking, offer my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth on the way in which he introduced these provisions.

It is unfortunate that because of the way in which the business of the House proceeded we were prevented from having a Second Reading debate on the Bill. Therefore, it was inevitable and advantageous that points should have been made this morning, because the redrafting of these provisions has led to much relevant discussion. The 1961 legislation took 17 hours of parliamentary time, and until this morning this Bill had occupied only two hours in Committee. Inevitably, there is much still to be said today.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ash-field (Mr. Smith) thought that there was not enough time between the Bill's formal Second Reading and its going into Committee. The contentious nature of the Bills that were to be dealt with ahead of this legislation meant that an unduly long period elapsed. The date set for the Second Reading was on my birthday, 27th January, and the Bill went into Committee on 12th April. A period of 10 weeks elapsed between one stage and the next.

In that period, hundreds of people were written to and asked for their views. I spoke to a large number of organisations and consulted them on their fears and worries. Therefore, there has been a great deal of consultation.

The need for balance in the Bill was very much in my mind from the earliest stages. There was clearly a need to extend consumer safety legislation. The practice since the 1961 and 1971 Acts came into force has revealed some glaring loopholes. There is no doubt in my mind that those needed to be plugged. For example, there is now no means for the taking of urgent action to stop dangerous goods continuing to be supplied on the market if the supplier does not co-operate. Most suppliers are horrified if they find that they are selling anything that is dangerous and they co-operate, but a few do not, and there is now no speedy method of dealing with them. The exercise is protracted and long drawn out. The Bill seeks to introduce provisions to deal with the position.

The CBI and other manufacturing organisations have told me that business men are punch-drunk at the amount of legislation that pours out of this building week by week. I have been very conscious of that fact, but I believe that this Bill provides the minimum needed to deal with the problems of consumer safety. It is unfortunate, but there is no way of drafting legislation that will apply only to the sharp character who wishes to take advantage of the customer. It has to apply to everybody.

Although the Bill may be complex in its terms, I believe that it will be simple in its operation. The regulations will be self-explanatory. If there is a regulation applying to the lawnmower industry, it will be self-explanatory and the manufacturers of lawnmowers will need to go no further than that regulation to satisfy themselves as to the requirements.

The use of the Bill will be limited. The previous practice has been for there to be voluntary consultation, and the Minister has assured me that that practice will continue.

There have not been all that many regulations in the past dealing with safety. They total about 14 or 15, and there are perhaps another half-dozen in the pipeline. There has been a rate of one or two regulations a year. I do not see that there will be a flood of regulations following the enactment of this Bill.

These regulations are preventive. They set down the standards to be followed by toy manufacturers. Toys were covered by regulation for the first time in 1974. Once those standards are established the industry will know the parameters within which it should operate. Other parts of the Bill deal with the enforcement of provisions in respect of those who have not complied with the regulations, or who are selling dangerous objects not covered by safety regulations.

We cannot legislate for carelessness. The statistics show an extraordinary range of objects with which people injure themselves. For example, 162 people were injured by dogs in one year. I defy any hon. Member to draft a Bill to prevent that. Furthermore, 101 people injured themselves with fruit or vegetables. Again, I cannot see how we can legislate against that happening. There were 71 cases of injury with money. I suppose we could make our coins with dissolving metal. Having regard to the fall in their value, that might even be considered appropriate. Sixty people injured themselves with dustbins, and here again I doubt that any regulation could deal with that.

But, however that may be, there are many cases of people being put at risk by the sudden release of dangerous goods on to the market. To give one example, there was an electric panel radiator imported into this country not long ago. I should add that many of these offending products are imported, as one of my hon. Friends said, from the lower-wage countries of the world. These electric radiators were designed to be used on a 220-volt supply, not 240 volts, but imported they were, and the surface temperature of some of them when in use went up to 150 deg. Centigrade. Plainly, there was considerable danger.

That is an example of the need for powers of this kind if people are bringing into the country objects of such potential danger.

I believe that the Bill strikes a balance between, on the one hand, the genuine concern of business not to be beaten over the head with excessive legislation and, on the other, the consumer's need for protection.

I understand that the amendments to the new clause are not to be moved.

Not moved, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

We may consider at the same time the following amendment to the new clause:

(a), at end of clause insert—

'A summary of these reports should be laid before Parliament by the Secretary of State as soon as practicable'.

In company with some other hon. Members who have spoken thus far, I took no part in the earlier stages of the Bill, but my interest in the matter covered by the new clause goes back for some time, to the period when there was great concern about defective and dangerous second-hand oil heaters. Many quite appalling tragedies occurred as a result of fires caused by such oil heaters, and it then seemed that it would be valuable if local authorities made returns showing how far they had been dealing with the problem and how successful they had been.

In February 1967, I asked a Question of the Home Secretary, who was responsible for safety legislation, about giving local authorities the duty to submit annual returns of their test purchases and so on. The then Minister of State replied:

"my right hon. Friend has no power to require the submission of such returns".—[Official Report, 23rd February 1967; Vol. 741, c. 326.]

Eleven years since then is quite a long time, and it has always seemed to me that any safety legislation should have powers of this kind written into it. For that reason, I move the new clause today, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will feel that the framework of the Bill gives him the necessary power to accept it. I hope also that the promoter of the Bill, the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter), will regard it as a useful addition.

The wording of the clause is based on Section 60 of the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963, and it seems to me that Schedule 2 to the present Bill gives the Minister power to implement such a provision.

There is no question but that to require annual reports from local authorities would be helpful in the operation of this legislation. In the earlier debate, the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert) mentioned the diversity of implementation of legislation among local authorities. As he said, there are probably various reasons for that diversity, but I believe that if all local authorities were required to submit an annual report this would be helpful in encouraging some of those which have, perhaps, not been so active as they might otherwise have been. On a more lighthearted note, perhaps it might encourage some of the diligent inspectors who have been active to feel that they are no longer flowers born to blush unseen but are getting some recognition at Ministry level.

The preparation of such annual reports would require virtually no additional expense or work. The records which were kept in local authority departments could be collated quite easily and simply. But the collection of such annual reports would, I am sure, give a valuable bird's eye view of the situation across the country and would pinpoint areas or specific goods in respect of which there was special difficulty.

If such reports stated the types of article or goods inspected or purchased for examination during the year—whether they were second-hand, or whatever other details seemed necessary—this would be helpful to all concerned in judging the situation throughout the country.

Reverting to the example of oil heaters, I must tell the House that, despite the length of time since the legislation on oil heaters was introduced, it is still possible in many parts of the country to find defective and dangerous second-hand oil heaters and electric appliances, some of them as many as 25 years old, on sale in markets and other such places. That shows that legislation needs constant attention of this kind if it is to remain effective after the initial period of enthusiasm.

In addition, I believe that such a requirement as I propose would be helpful to us in seeing how effective the legislation is, how well it is working, whether it is on the right lines, and so on.

More important in this connection, however, is the matter raised by my hon. Friend the Minister when introducing his New Clause No. 1, namely, the importance of giving information to consumers and reminding them of the danger of home accidents through the misuse of apparatus and so on.

When they prepare annual reports local authorities invariably send copies to the local Press. Although comparatively few people will have heard my hon. Friend's words about dangers in the home, those who read their local newspapers and see what the local Press has picked out of an annual report by a local authority, giving specific examples of danger in their own area, will have the matter drawn to their attention. I am sure that this will help them to become aware of the need for greater safety.

How does the hon. Lady envisage the system working? Her clause requires that a local authority shall make a report. It does not require that such reports shall be collated and then be published generally, on a national scale. Presumably, for the dissemination of the information which the hon. Lady seeks, each local authority's report would need to be made available to all others, would it not?

Not necessarily. All the annual reports will be made available to the Minister. The Minister will have the possibility of collation. But at local level there is nothing to prevent dissemination of the information. In fact, it is the usual practice of a local authority making any annual report—for example, the annual report of the officer of health—to make it available to the local Press.

My emphasis is on interest in the locality. Consumers in general are much more interested in what happens on their own patch than in what happens countrywide, and I believe that it would be valuable if such annual reports were prepared and circulated to the Press so that the Press could pick out particular dangers in its own area. For example, if a lot of defective oil heaters had been discovered in a certain area, the public's attention could once again be drawn to the danger and, indeed, the illegality of selling second-hand apparatus of that kind.

It seems to me that such a new clause is an essential addition to the kind of legislation that the hon. Member for Tyne-mouth is seeking to promote. I apologise to him for the very short notice he has had of the clause. I shall quite understand if he feels that he needs more time to consider the wording or the exact form that the clause should take, but I very much hope that he will accept its principle and that my hon. Friend the Minister will feel that it can usefully be added to the Bill.

Perhaps I may deal now with the new clause and the amendments in my name in this grouping.

There is a great deal of merit in what my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler) says about reports from local authorities. It would certainly be useful for our Department to receive reports of local authorities' activities in carrying out their enforcement functions. There is already a precedent in the Weights and Measures Act, under which reports are provided annually on the enforcement of the authorities' responsibilities under that legislation. But I should not like to see an undue burden imposed on local authorities in the preparation of reports.

The Minister referred to amendments in his own name. The new clause and the amendment to it that we are discussing are not in the hon. Gentleman's name. Can the hon. Gentleman tell us to which amendments he is referring?

I said "in this grouping". I beg the pardon of the House. If the amendments are not grouped, I shall deal with them later.

I had just said that already local authorities make reports to my Department on their weights and measures responsibilities. They report to the Director General of Fair Trading about complaints and inquiries that they receive. This would be a third obligation to prepare a separate report in relation to their functions under the Bill. We must see that there is not a proliferation of reports. The more one proliferates, the less well reports are received. We do not want to impose a financial and manpower burden unnecessarily.

I suggest that my hon. Friend seeks to withdraw her clause. I meet local authorities from time to time, because of my responsibilities, and I undertake to take the opportunity to discuss the proposals with local authority associations before any obligation to submit reports is written into the Bill. If the clause is withdrawn, such discussion will be arranged as soon as possible, with a view to the introduction of a suitable amendment in another place.

I turn now to the amendment of the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) to the clause. The precedent there is again in the Weights and Measures Act, under which a summary of reports is submitted to Parliament every five years. I cannot with precision give a response to the hon. Gentleman's amendment, but I should like to consider the possibility of a summary, trying to achieve the same objective of reducing as far as possible the amount of manpower and cost involved, but pointing up the information which comes through local authorities' reports and making it available to Parliament. To do that every year might be too great a burden. If the drip occurs too often people do not hear it.

It is always a pleasure to be able to hear the reply to one's amendment before one has moved it.

I support the new clause. The reasons for it that the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler) enunciated become more important as year succeeds year. We are discussing a major extension of consumer protection legislation. Frequently the Secretary of State, or more likely the House, is in real doubt as to how effective the legislation is.

Three principles have come out of our debate so far today. One is that this is a complicated piece of legislation. Secondly, it has a very comprehensive reach through most sectors of the distributive and manufacturing trades. Thirdly, if it is to work effectively there must be a great deal of understanding in its application.

All three principles suggest to me that there is great wisdom in the hon. Lady's suggestion that we collate information on how the measure is operating by those who are most proficient in collecting that information—the trading standards officers—and that that information is reported to the Secretary of State.

My modest amendment is to ensure that Parliament can have from time to time—I accept the Minister's point that every year may be a little too frequent—the opportunity of reviewing a piece of its own legislation in action. I think that the hon. Gentleman would agree that the concern expressed by industrial and distributive bodies about the way in which the Bill might affect their trading is such that we owe it to them to say that from time to time we shall debate a report on how the Act is operating.

I should like to add one further point in support of the hon. Lady's recommendation. There is a degree of difference in the way in which standards are applied. We have heard a passing reference today to the fact that in one part of the country in regard to prices action was taken in respect of one product that did not appear to be taken in other.

When we come to the point of this Bill, which is that regulations may be made in regard to hazardous, unsafe products, there should be no discrepancy in the way in which the measure is applied. It should be applied uniformly to standards which the Secretary of State, on advice, lays down. There should be no discrepancy between one trading standard area and another.

The report that the hon. Lady has in mind, plus a regular report to Parliament, if the Minister agrees, would help to demonstrate that there is not that disparity. In that way we should be able to see that the consumers were as fully, properly and fairly protected as the sponsors of the Bill would wish.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) will accept the clause and my modest amendment. If the Minister seeks to redraft it in another place in a way which would meet the spirit of what the hon. Lady seeks and the spirit of a regular report to Parliament, which I recommend, that might satisfy all of us.

I welcome the concept behind the clause, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler) for her suggestion. There is a practical problem about the clause, in that the figures for local authorities are made up to 31st March, not 31st December, but that is a minor matter.

I welcome the Minister's assurance that he will look into the question further with a view to tabling an amendment in the other place, if possible. I hope that it will be possible, because I think that it would be useful to do so.

I have before me the figures for Newcastle, where those concerned have already prepared for their own council complete figures of premises visited, the number of objects examined and the number found incorrect. I suspect that all the relevant information is already in the files of the local authorities and that it is simply a matter of bringing it out in a national form.

I hope that the proposal will not lead to any competition in the way that one sometimes suspects there might be competition among traffic wardens to see who issues most parking tickets. Seriously, there is clearly merit in trying to ensure that the regulations are enforced in the same way all over the country, and the sort of publication proposed could well help to achieve that, as well as educating the House and the public.

I welcome the hon. Lady's proposal. I hope that she will seek leave to withdraw the motion on the assurances that the Minister and I have given.

I, too, endorse the spirit of the clause. It can only be helpful if information secured by the proceedings under the Bill is widely disseminated. That should result in a more uniform treatment of these matters throughout the country. I agree that that should be right. But I have one or two doubts about the clause as it is drafted. I hope that certain improvements can be made. I am sure that if she withdrew the motion the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler) would allow those improvements to be produced.

I am happy to agree with one observation by the Minister. I refer to his concern to avoid placing further undue burdens on local authorities. We are concerned that in various ways we are imposing further requirements to make reports and produce statutory plans. There is no doubt that these are time consuming and cost local authorities a good deal of money. We want to make, sure that such things are cost-effective and that we are not imposing further burdens unnecessarily. I hope that before the Minister brings a fresh draft of the new clause forward in another place he will have discussions with the local authority associations and will be able to say that they agree with the procedures.

I have said that I will do so.

I am sorry, I must have have missed that. That is a sensible approach.

The clause requires a report of

'proceedings under this Act during the twelve months".

What proceedings are we talking about? If we are talking simply about court proceedings, that is quite clear. No doubt there would be a list of the actions taken by the local authority in enforcing the safety regulations. We would have a list of court actions and convictions. If, on the other hand, local authorities were to report cases in which companies had been proved innocent, we should not expect that to be publicly reported. If we are simply to record the number of visits made by the enforcement authorities, I am not sure how helpful that would be.

If we are trying to disseminate information, about oil heaters, for example, all that we want to do is report that there have been a number of successful prosecutions. Perhaps in those cases we could quote the names of the companies or he the nature of the product, the nature of the defect, the action taken and the penalty. I can hardly believe that it would be right to publish the names of all companies or retailers against whom legal proceedings may have been taken but who had been exonerated by the courts. It would be helpful to know what sort of information the hon. Lady would expect to see in the report.

It seems that the main object of the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) is to spread information as widely as possible and to allow the exchange of information across the country. While the readership of a local newspaper might be interested in what happens in its locality, we are also concerned to prevent the sale of, say, defective oil heaters throughout the land. Therefore, an annual report, or a summary to Parliament, if it could be done sensibly, would be helpful in bringing pressure to bear, by way of the weight of national public opinion, to prevent sales of these goods. I would hope that the Department would be so much on the ball that once it started getting its information it would act promptly.

There is already an exchange of information between the Department and local authorities. It is not published because it is information about suspected offences and obviously, for the protection of firms and retailers, it is not a public document. There are systems for the exchange of information to ensure consistency, and to ensure, when a dangerous product is discoved in one area, that information is circulated to other areas.

In a way the Minister confirms what I was saying about the need to discriminate between what should be published and what should not be pub- lished. I accept that there are sensible procedures at the moment which produce swift action. Sometimes public information and public opinion can prompt action rather more quickly than behind the scenes governmental discussions. I think back over several years to when we did not have much of this legislation on the statute book. Then it took many years to galvanise Government Departments into action.

In 1970 my second speech in this House was during the proceedings on the Fire Precautions Act, when I spoke from the other side of the House during the period of a Conservative Government. I recall the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) saying that the Government had been delaying taking action for years on the issue of dangerous, inflammable materials used in car seats and chairs. Polyurethane foam was the material in question. It took a long time for the Government to take action.

If information is made available on a national scale I suspect that, as a result of opinion in this House, and of the national newspapers taking up the matter, it will speed up the way Government Departments deal with these issues. My hon. Friend's amendment is right in principle and I hope that something like it can be incorporated in an annual report if that is what is finally decided by the House.

It will come as no surprise to the House and to the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler), after what I said earlier, to know that while I welcome the spirit of the new clause, I believe that it does not go far enough. That is why I wish to concentrate on the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw), since I believe that it deals with a more important aspect of this matter. My hon. Friend was obviously overwhelmed by the Minister's generosity in acceding to the principal point of the amendment and did not, therefore, expand on the subject. I should like to amplify it because my experience has shown that it is important that there should be a uniformity over the country in the implementation of this Bill, not only to secure the safety of the public but so that there should not be injustice as between one trader and another.

Although the Minister has sought to reassure us, particularly in his last intervention, that he does seek consistency, my experience, as I have shown by way of illustration, is that that is not always so with Government Departments having responsibility for the consistency or the enforcement of the law. Let me highlight the point that I was making earlier concerning evening trading on retail premises after normal trading hours. Not only is there a disparity between different parts of the country, between places as far apart as Aberdeen, Warrington, Luton or London, but there is within London, within contiguous boroughs, a difference in application.

The principal example I can give concerns a motor car company which has showrooms in each of a number of London boroughs in East London and which is able to hold these functions in several boroughs but not in my borough of Havering. When it is brought home as closely as that when the disparity is enhanced by differences in interpretation, it brings out the point that there is a duty on the Government to ensure that, if effect is given to legislation, the legislation should be carried out to its full effect in all places.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) reminded us, there has been a case in recent memory of the Government taking what might seem an inordinate length of time to take action about a dangerous substance, namely combustible foam in furniture. There was such a case in my constituency when some children died a horrible death in a fire. The hon. Lady made it plain that her intention in the clause was to bring out the interest which people would have in their localities concerning what was being done in relation to hazardous products.

I very much support the view that by far the most important aspect is to ensure that, if such ghastly incidents occur in one locality—while it is of interest to those nearby—people are made aware of the danger throughout the country. The means suggested by my hon. Friend is that there should be a summary of such reports laid before Parliament. The Minister has told us that there is a sen- sible interdepartmental procedure for keeping an eye on what is happening in local authority areas. That procedure should be enforced and the Minister should give some thought to the suggestion that such a report might, as a matter of discipline, be published once a year rather than once every five years. The precedent he had in mind was the weights and measures legislation.

If we had evidence, under the provisions of the Bill, that there were hazards, that the implementation was patchy and the enforcement lacking in certain areas, that must be brought to his attention at an early stage, because five years is such a considerable length of time that the immediate practical advantages of the provision proposed in the new clause would largely be lost.

Having made those comments, which are generally in support of the intention both of the mover of the new clause and of the mover of the amendment, I hope that the Minister will go that far in any proposals he may introduce in another place.

I should like to make clear that in moving the new clause I assumed that there would be the normal procedure between Government Departments and local authorities. I was asked how I expected the annual reports to be made up. It was assumed that the usual consultations would take place and that the form of the annual report would be agreed between the Department and the local authorities. I could see that the form of the annual reports might possibly vary from year to year. They might start off in one form and then local authorities and the Minister together might agree that next year's report should pick out some particular item or put it in such a way that it would be more helpful in that form. I do not think that one can lay down hard and fast rules. I think that it must be left to the usual procedure for carrying out such legislation.

I very much welcome the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Giles) and the Minister's assurance that some kind of collation and publication would be undertaken. One is always reluctant to withdraw anything, being a little nervous as to what the future will bring if one does so. But, on the assurance of my hon. Friend the Minister and the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) that account will be taken of the purpose of the new clause, and accepting that the wording of it is somewhat defective in its present form, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new clause.

I beg to move Amendment No. 2 in

page 1, line 5, leave out from 'may' to end of line 14 and insert ', for the purpose of securing that goods are safe or that appropriate information is provided and inappropriate information is not provided in respect of goods, make regulations containing such provision as is authorised by subsections (2) and (3) of this section;'.

With this we may take the following amendments:

Amendment (a) to Amendment No. 2, leave out from 'safe' to 'make'.

No. 3, in page 1, line 7, after 'securing', insert

'so far as is reasonably practicable'.

No. 4, in line 7, after 'kind', insert 'when property used'.

No. 5, in line 7, leave out

'or are used or kept in a safe way'.

No. 7, in line 17, leave out 'include' and insert 'contain'.

No. 18, in page 2, line 32, leave out from 'inappropriate' to end of line 34 and insert

'information is not given in respect of goods either by means of misleading marks or otherwise'.

No. 19, in line 34, at end insert—

'(ff) for prohibiting persons from supplying, or from offering to supply, agreeing to supply, exposing for supply or possessing for supply, goods which the Secretary of State considers are not safe and goods which do not satisfy requirements of the regulations;'.

Amendment (a) to Amendment No. 19, leave out from third 'supply' to 'goods'.

No. 20, in line 35, leave out 'the supply of, and other transactions relating to,' and insert

'persons from supplying, or from offering to supply, agreeing to supply, exposing for supply or possessing for supply,'.

No. 26, in line 29, leave out subsection (5) and insert—

'(5) In this Act—

(a) none of the sections of this Act shall apply to, nor shall any regulations or orders be made thereunder in relation to the making or processing of goods, their composition, contents, design, construction, finish or packaging or their conformity with standards where these aspects are now or may in future be the subject of separate requirements to the same effect under existing legislation;

(b) subject to paragraph (a) above nothing in subsection (2) or (3) of this section and sections 2, 4(3), 5 and 6 shall be construed as derogating from the generality of subsection (1) of this section'.

No. 27, in line 29, leave out subsection (5).

Amendments Nos. 2, 7, 19 and 27 are very largely consequential on the insertion of New Clause No. 1 and the restriction of powers as they stood in the Bill as first drafted.

Amendment No. 2 limits the powers to make regulations consequent upon New Clause 1.

With regard to Amendment No. 7, the word "contain" is rather more restrictive than the word "include".

Amendment No. 19 seeks to restore in another place some of the words which would be deleted by Amendment No. 2, and Amendment No. 27 is again consequential.

Amendment No. 18 seeks to explain the reference to inappropriate information by providing that this includes misleading marks—for example, a mark closely resembling a mark which informs persons that goods comply with a particular standard. In a previous debate, the question of the Trade Descriptions Act 1972 was raised. We have looked at this. The basis of offences under the Trade Descriptions Act is the inducement of a person to enter into a contract. It is all based on the correct contractual relationship, and it is not possible to deal with these matters under the Trade Descriptions Act. That is why there is a reference to inappropriate information in a safety context. It would not be appropriate to deal with these matters solely under the Trade Descriptions Act.

Amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 5 are in my name. If we accept Amendment No. 2, the Minister's amendment, my amendments will not be necessary.

I think that Amendment No. 2, which is consequential on our inclusion in the Bill of New Clause No. 1, is a considerable improvement on the wording of Clause 1 in the Bill as amended by the Standing Committee. My amendments seek to introduce a form of words which would tighten up the existing Clause 1.

With regard to Amendment No. 3, there would have been, by the introduction of the words

"so far as is reasonably practicable"

after the word "securing", the opportunity to challenge whether the regulation was a reasonably practicable one.

Equally, Amendment No. 4 seeks to introduce also into the first line of the clause the words "when properly used". It is possible for consumers to buy goods and then to use them for purposes which would have nothing whatever to do with the purposes intended by the manufacturer. I think that that is an important point.

Amendment No. 5 is the same as Amendment No. 24 in Committee, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Cope). This is an important amendment. We seek to delete the words

"or are used or kept in a safe way"

because we feel that it is not possible to legislate for the safe keeping of products in a consumer's home. We cannot provide for what the consumer does with the product once it has been purchased.

Taking the three amendments together, the object of the exercise was to try to tighten things up, because at the moment the clause is so broadly drawn that it could make life very difficult indeed for the manufacturer if the regulations followed the existing wording.

Amendment No. 2, which has been moved by the Minister, is a considerable improvement, as I have said, and if it is accepted my amendments will not be necessary. However, it still includes the the words "appropriate information" and also "inappropriate information", therefore we come back to the same point that we were considering on New Clause No. 1, namely, the definition of the words "appropriate" and "inappropriate". At the moment, as has been pointed out, there is no definition of these terms.

The Minister has said that the regulations will be specific, and that these words apply only to the purpose of regulations, and that when we have the regulations they will be specific, so that there will be no question of trying to determine what is appropriate or what is not appropriate. When I asked the Minister whether that meant that the words "appropriate" and "inappropriate" would not appear in any regulations, he was not able to give that undertaking. We may still have to try to determine what is appropriate and what is not appropriate. So although Amendment No. 2 is a considerable improvement, there is scope for further improvement.

My hon. Friend had the advantage of serving on the Standing Committee. He said just now that it was not possible to secure the safety of people acting in their own homes. He will know that shortly, no doubt, we shall have proposals from the Government on product liability, and a strong possibility is that it will be a total liability on the manufacturer and that contributory negligence will be no defence. Is my hon. Friend aware of that, and does he believe that what he is saying is necessarily consistent with the possibility that we may have such provisions in other legislation?

I am aware of the draft EEC directive on product liability and, although I support the concept of strict liability, I believe that the concept of contributory negligence is not inconsistent with it. One is talking about liability in one case and damages in the other. It is important to establish that where, for example, the consumer fails to take due care or uses the product for a purpose for which clearly it was not designed, damages should be reduced accordingly. It might be that, although there was strict liability, damages were reduced by as much as 95 per cent. or even, in an exceptional case, 100 per cent.

The safe keeping of products in consumers' homes was a matter touched on briefly in Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) said that if he read Amendment No. 24 correctly,

"it is an attempt to suggest that we cannot legislate for the safe keeping of products in a consumer's home. It is true that we cannot legislate for carelessness in a home. On the other hand, legislation is necessary to cover the packaging of products in homes so that there may be suitable warnings displayed to prevent danger arising in that respect."—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 12th April 1978, c. 4.]

I feel that that has now been covered in subsection (3) of New Clause No. 1, so, on the assumption that we do not accept Amendment No. 2—and I expect that we shall—I should still like to press Amendments Nos. 3 and 5 for the reasons that I have given.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Smith) was right to conclude his remarks by saying that there were some important elements in his amendments. We are now dealing in Clause 1 with the start of the "nitty-gritty", namely, safety regulations in respect of goods.

The Minister moved Amendment No. 2, and we are also considering Amendment (a) which deserves some mention from me. The view has been expressed that if we say that the object of the regulation is to secure that goods are safe, that in itself is virtually a comprehensive statement, and that to have following from that

"or that appropriate information is provided and inappropriate information is not provided in respect of goods",

as Amendment No. 2 suggests, does not necessarily make the goods any safer in the way in which they are defined for the purpose of these regulations.

It seemed to the Opposition, as it did to the CBI, that the phrase

"securing that goods of any kind are safe"

was wide enough and full enough to cover both packaging and informative labelling.

Some goods cannot be made absolutely safe. For example, bleach is dangerous per se. No one wants to prohibit the sale of bleach, but it is important to have appropriate information about what is likely to happen if a child swallows it accidentally. That goes to protecting from injury, although it does not ban bleach specifically. It simply says that this is an inherently dangerous substance and that if it causes injury, this is the appropriate way to deal with the injury. It helps to deal with what we dealt with in an earlier debate—the carelessness of the consumer or the accident to the consumer, as well as the liability of the producer.

I take that point. I think that the average person in the street assumes that goods are goods as and when purchased and that the container of the goods is as much part of the goods as the contents. But I see that there is this distinction between the contents of a product and the container and the label which surrounds the container. The object which the Minister seeks to achieve is clear. He seeks to ensure by issuing regulations that goods are safe.

The extent to which it is the labelling which makes goods safe is a matter which we can discuss. But if the labelling is totally convincing in describing the contents as safe it will not in effect make the goods safe. It merely provides a warning that the goods are not safe. I see the distinction from the legal point of view. My only reservation is that there is no way in which goods can suddenly be prevented from being unsafe simply by labelling them. Obviously they would still be dangerous. The question is whether the goods are dangerous or not.

I accept that there are occasions when a regulation to provide information labelling would help the consumer to understand the danger of the product. It would not necessarily inherently make the product any more safe by having the labelling. That was the purpose of Amendment (a) to Amendment No. 2, and I shall not press that very far.

When we come to Amendment (a) to Government Amendment No. 19, we are dealing with a somewhat different topic. In Amendment No. 19, the Minister proposes to insert a reference to

"goods which the Secretary of State considers are not safe and goods which do not satisfy requirements of the regulations".

Consideration by the Secretary of State reflects a matter of opinion. I am sure that the Minister does not mean to reflect that. It is a matter which has to be defined rather than a matter of opinion, and presumably the Minister will in time issue regulations which are sufficiently definitive for it not to be a matter of consideration or opinion and that goods can be proved to be safe or otherwise. I have no doubt that later in our discussions he will indicate how regulations will be made and on what criteria the definition of safe or unsafe products will be based.

We have discussed products such as bleach or iodine. Many products can be unsafe if they are misused. However, there may be those products which are so unsafe that they should not be marketed at all. I have in mind a product constructed with a radioactive substance which could be so dangerous and so capable of misuse that it should not come on to the market at all. That is the distinction brought out in Amendment No. 19.

In those circumstances, it would be necessary for the opinion of the Secretary of State—the words used are "the Secretary of State considers"—to be backed up by powerful evidence. We are coming on to discuss the procedure of affirmative resolution, and I think that this lays even greater stress on the importance of the affirmative procedure.

We are dealing with an interchange of information between a manufacturer or supplier and the officials of the hon. Gentleman's Department. It should be possible to arrive at fairly clear distinctions to decide where the borderline of safety lies. It should not be a matter of ministerial whim, as I am sure it is not designed to be.

Amendment No. 26 is more important. The chemical industries have stressed that it is very important that none of the regulations in issue under this clause or the new powers that the clause provides should conflict with safety regulations already in operation. We would be very foolish if we found ourselves issuing conflicting regulations.

This amendment will ensure that any safety regulations made under the Bill will not duplicate or conflict with similar regulations under existing legislation. There are many sectors of British industry which already operate under fairly close controlling legislation. It has been indicated already by the Department that the food industry, for example, is exempt, no doubt in the light of the food and drugs legislation that controls it. There are other industries for which regulations and standards have been issued. I hope that the amendment will be acceptable to the Bill's sponsors.

I refer first of all to the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Smith). The words that he seeks to remove will be removed anyway if we accept Amendment No. 2. I hope that the House will accept that amendment which is part of the major redrafting that we discussed on New Clause No. 1 and arises out of consultations held in the substantial period between Second Reading and Commmittee. As the words covered by Amendment No. 2 will be deleted, I fail to see how Amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 5 can apply.

The effect of adding

"so far as reasonably practical"

would limit the powers in an unacceptable maner. The principle that safety is seldom if ever absolute is well accepted and this is taken account of in the definition of "safe" in Clause 8.

The effect of inserting the words "if properly used" after the word "kind" prevents the regulations from taking account of any reasonable foreseeable misuse of the goods. It is interesting to note that British Standards themselves take foreseeable misuse into account.

One of my hon. Friends referred to the next possible stage of legislation which might lead to the manufacturer or supplier being entirely responsible for any damage relating to the use of his product. That goes far beyond the scope of this Bill and is something about which I would have grave reservations and doubts.

Some years ago a friend of mine who worked for a well known firm of detergent manufacturers told me of the case of a woman who washed her husband in scouring powder and wrote to complain because he came out in blotches all over. I would be very unhappy if we had legislation under which that woman's husband could have claimed any damages whatever from the firm. To give that degree of liability is a matter which would need very careful consideration. I do not believe that Amendments Nos. 3, 4 and, 5 are technically correct if Amendment No. 2 is passed, and I do not support them in priciple in any case.

I turn to Amendment No. 19(a). There is a clear need for the Secretary of State to have power to deal with goods that he considers unsafe. An example is the case of the South American beans which are strung together to make necklaces and which are highly toxic if eaten. The supply of these beans has been prohibited in North America. While most people would not want to eat a bean from a necklace, some small child might try, and in such cases outright prohibition may be necessary. There is no great market in this country for the beans at present, but someone could decide to bring them in as a gimmick, and then it might be necessary to prohibit them from sale.

Before making such an order the Minister would have to think very carefully and explain his action. If the affirmative resolution procedure is passed by the House this afternoon, hon. Members can question this. In fact, if they are interested, they can try eating the beans to see what effect they have personally.

1.45 p.m.

Amendment No. 26 seems to be unworkable in the way in which it is drafted. I understand that it would prohibit the regulations from being made under the Bill, which in future could find themselves in conflict with future legislation elsewhere. If my interpretation of that is correct, one could not make any regulation under this Bill because one would not know what future legislation there might be.

I understand the principle behind the amendment—that there should not be superfluous enforcement of regulations. I do not think that will happen in practice because I do not think there will be a number of different bodies all trying to enforce the same regulations. Therefore, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) will withdraw this amendment.

I have considered whether it is possible to construct an amendment that makes the point of the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw). There is bound to be an overlap of goods. Goods used at work would be covered by the Health and Safety at Work Act. Goods used at home might require more or less stringent safety provisions and should be dealt with under consumer protection legislation.

If one tries to do it by defining the goods one will get into difficulties immediately. If one does it by defining the powers used, one finds it difficult to differentiate between powers under the Medicines Act, for example, and powers under this Bill. We have had 17 years of experience of making general regulations under the Consumer Protection Act 1961. A lot of experience has been gained and there has been no difficulty.

I give my undertaking and assurance that where the specific powers exist—for example, powers to deal with medicines —these powers would be used primarily, rather than the powers under this Bill. The administration of this would be no different from the practice of 17 years with the Consumer Protection Act which has given rise to no complaints at all.

I know that the words "reasonably practical" have been imported from the Health and Safety at Work Act. But these words are in that Act only in relation to the general duty of care. They do not relate to regulations. That judgment about a safety requirement being "reasonably practical" is made when one constructs a particular regulation. It is made after consultation at great length—consultation which often takes more than a year. It is a judgment which must be endorsed by the House when it gives consent to the regulations.

If one tries to write restrictions into the regulation-making powers one finds the process becoming unduly restrictive. It is at the point when one constructs one's specific requirements for electric lamps, electric fires, dummies, cots, prams or whatever that one makes a judgment about whether it is reasonably practical or not. Therefore this amendment would be unduly inhibiting.

I, too, am concerned about the question of overlap. Among other things it affects the manner in which Members table Questions to Ministers. If Members seek to have an order made to cover a class of goods which is seen to be dangerous, the amendment can have some effect on the direction in which those Questions are tabled.

Theoretically, I imagine that it would be acceptable that all Questions whether an order should be made pursuant to this legislation, unless it is amended by Amendment No. 2, should be directed to the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection. Yet the Minister indicated that we may experience, as we often have in other directions, Ministers passing Questions from one to another. Therefore, a Question that is tabled to the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection may be passed round a number of different Departments.

As you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will be aware, the Scottish Office, for instance, combines within its purview the functions of quite a number of different Departments of State which apply in England and Wales but not in Scotland. Therefore, a different practice about transferring Questions may be adopted by the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection, depending upon whether the Member who tabled the Question for that Department had a constituency in England, Wales or Scotland. I think that this is a series of amendments on which matters of this kind should be clarified.

Perhaps I may take a specific example. It is well known in medical circles nowadays that the hazards associated with toughened glass windscreens in motor vehicles, as opposed to laminated glass windscreens, are entirely avoidable. In most civilised countries there is legislation prohibiting toughened glass windscreens.

The reasons are twofold. First, there is a finite number of accidents each year caused by opacity of the windscreen when it implodes either after being struck by an object external to the vehicle or because of disproportionate distortions in the surround of the windscreen in the vehicle concerned. It is not unknown, when a windscreen implodes in that manner, for the driver or the passenger beside him to breathe in little fragments of glass which cause untreatable abscesses inside the lungs.

That is the kind of obvious question that Members might want to raise with the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection after the Bill goes on to the statute book. Experience has taught Members that pressing for legislation to make toughened glass windscreens illegal in Britain falls unaccountably on completely deaf ears in the Department of Transport.

I have not tried my luck with the Scottish Office. There is an apparent logic in saying that the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection, under this legislation unamended, should be the recipient of representations from Members on matters concerning consumer safety and that it should by all means discuss those matters with other Departments of State. Nevertheless, I fear that if this series of amendments becomes embodied in the Bill, Members will be caught up in a process which ought to be undertaken by the Minister.

I should be grateful if the Minister would give us the benefit of his advice on how the Government intend to treat Questions and representations from Members, on the one hand, if the Bill passes unamended into statute law and, on the other hand, if it passes into statute law as amended by this series of amendments.

My hon. Friend is a great authority on the procedure of this House and he has spoken pertinently, in particular on the matter of the Secretary of State for Scotland. However, he will have observed that Clause 10 contains an elaborate code adapting this legislation to Northern Ireland. Specific references are made to a number of Acts which apparently also relate to Northern Ireland. Will my hon. Friend tell the House how we stand in respect of Questions about Northern Ireland under this legislation?

My hon. Friend has raised an important matter, in respect of which any answer could be of temporary relevance only. That is because we do not assume, I take it, that the present system of government in Northern Ireland, after the suspension of Stormont, will necessarily be there for all time. Therefore, in so far as the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland currently answers Questions in this House which previously would have fallen within the remit of the Administration at Stormont, my hon. Friend's perspicacious question is unanswerable, because the present administrative arrangements in Northern Ireland must presumably be regarded as temporary.

Although the Government are clearly coming to an entirely timely end, the indication is that they will endure for a few more weeks or months. Therefore, it is appropriate for the Minister, on behalf of the Government, to speculate whether matters of this kind will be within the remit of what the Government have in mind for the future constitutional settlement in Northern Ireland.

Order. I wondered where we were getting to. We are discussing a straightforward amendment, No. 2, together with a whole series of amendments. The hon. Gentleman is now raising matters which, in my opinion, are wholly irrelevant to the amendments under consideration. If he wants to raise the question of which Department is to answer Questions tabled by hon. Members, I suggest that it would be more appropriate when we come to the Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time. He can then raise the whole matter generally. Frankly, I do not see that it arises on the series of amendments under consideration.

If you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would prefer me to raise the matter at a different point in our proceedings, I naturally defer to your wishes.

I raised the matter in this context because, as I read this series of amendments, it seemed that if this series of amendments was embodied in the Bill the answer to the question that I was putting to the Minister would be different from what it would be if the amendments were not embodied in the Bill. If the Minister takes the view that the answer would be exactly the same whether the amendments were embodied or not, I shall be glad to give way to him on this point, because that would have the effect of foreshortening any comments.

I do not think that it makes the slightest bit of difference. Powers in Bills nowadays are always expressed to be exercisable by the Secretary of State, not by a named Department. Therefore, the question of division of responsibility is a division of areas of work allocated to different Departments and would not turn on the way in which the statute was framed. My guess is that if the hon. Gentleman were to have a Question on medicines he had best put it to the Department of Health and Social Security, but if he were to have a Question on consumer goods, he had best put it to me.

It was precisely because the Minister made comments of that kind a few minutes ago that I sought to intervene in the debate.

2 p.m.

For instance, in the example of laminated glass, which is entirely germane to the Bill, if one takes the guidance that the Minister has just given it looks as though—although it is not certain—Questions asked of the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection—for the reason that in the past no one has got anywhere with such quests to the Department of Transport or its predecessor the Department of the Environment—may end up being transferred from the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection to the Department of Transport.

I must ask the hon. Member not to pursue that line at this stage. It has nothing to do with the Bill.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. More) intervened to put a question to me about Northern Ireland. I understood that was in order, since you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, did not intervene.

I never intervene in interventions, because it takes far too long and leads to long speeches.

I shall not stray into that province any further, except to say that the Minister presumably is appearing on the Bench on behalf of other Ministers not only in the functional sense but—in the case of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, for instance—in the jurisdictional sense. If the answer to the question of my hon. Friend for Ludlow is that we are likely to encounter difficulties in tabling Questions, I hope that the Minister will find out from the Northern Ireland Office whether the answer that he gave in general terms for Great Britain also covers Northern Ireland. Does it extend to the whole of the United Kingdom?

I beg to move Amendment No. 8, in page 1, line 18, leave out from "(a)" to "with" in line 19.

With this we may take the following Amendments: No. 9, in page 1, line 18, leave out from "respect" to "to" in line 19.

Government Amendments Nos. 10 and 11.

The effect of Amendments Nos. 8, 9 and 10 is the same. I believe that we all agree that these three amendments should be taken together and that we wish to see those words deleted.

Amendment No. 11 reintroduces the same thing in different words. It will result in the Secretary of State being able to make safety regulations which include provisions

"with respect to other matters relating to goods".

The hon. Member's drafting is so brief, so economical, so inspired and so brilliant that if the House carries Amendment No. 8, I shall not move Amendment No. 10.

I am grateful to the Minister. Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 are identical.

I return to Amendment No. 11. There is no reference to safety in that amendment. There would have to be safety regulations, and the amendment gives the widest possible scope to the Secretary of State in making them. We are concerned because this is a consumer safety Bill. It is supposed to provide safety regulations for goods. Although we accept that safety regulations should include provisions

"with respect to the composition or contents, design, construction, finish or packing of goods"

we do not accept that such regulations should include provision for the making or processing of goods. Such regulations would constitute a gross interference with the manufacturing process. Manufacturing companies are already overburdened with regulations. One takes no exception to regulations under the Health and Safety at Work, Etc. Act which provides for the well-being of employees on the factory floor, but there must be a limit to the degree to which the Government are able to interfere in the manufacturing process.

If it were possible to introduce regulations that interfere with that process a manufacturer might be required to introduce new machinery, the cost of which could not be justified, and he would have to cease to produce a particular product. Apart from the cost of interference that this would involved, it is difficult to think of specified examples for which a requirement would be necessary.

Safety regulations which deal with the

"composition or contents, design, construction, finish or packing of goods"

sounds pretty comprehensive in themselves. It is difficult to imagine an example that is not covered by that part of the clause.

I am aware of only one extreme—that of aerosol cans which, by their nature and because the contents of the can are packed under pressure, require special attention in the manufacturing process. Although that is true, it is a bad example, because, as we know from the recent Price Commission report, the Metal Box Company has a monopoly in that sphere.

All the aerosol cans produced by Metal Box are manufactured in my constituency. I have had an opportunity to see at first hand the efficient and safe way in which they are produced. Safety regulations should be aimed not at companies with the highest reputation and standing, such as Metal Box, but at the one or two firms which refuse to take any notice of warnings by the Government and continue to produce unsafe goods.

I have spoken at length about this example because it is the only example that has been given. I do not think that it is a good example. I should be interested to know whether there are any other examples of consumer goods which are not embraced by the second half of subsections (2)(a).

It is my view that the words

"with respect to the method of making or processing goods"

go far further than is necessary in a Bill that is designed to deal with consumer safety and safety regulations in respect of goods, and would constitute a gross interference with the manufacturing process. I am not at all happy with Amendment No. 11, because, far from limiting this subsection, it would have the effect of widening it much further. As I say, there is not even a reference to safety in the new words that are proposed to be introduced by Amendment No. 11:

"or with respect to other matters relating to goods"

The safety regulations could go very wide indeed, and I think that at least that amendment should say:

"or with respect to other matters relating to the safety of goods."

But I would not support the amendment at all. I believe that this subsection needs to be tightened up, rather than opened up further.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Smith) has moved a very sensible amendment. I hope that the House will find it acceptable. I hope, too, that it will also follow my hon. Friend's advice and not find acceptable Amendment No. 11, proposed by the Minister, to insert the words

"or with respect to other matters relating to goods."

It seems to me that the words that my hon. Friend says should be left in—namely,

"Safety regulations may include provision with respect to the…composition or contents, design, construction, finish or packing of goods"—

cover pretty well everything that we should want to cover. I cannot see the argument for going further and saying that we should cover the method of making or processing of goods. It seems to me that what we are concerned with is a proper control on the finished product and that standards should be applied to the finished product, and that we should be very careful about allowing a great deal of examination and, perhaps, interference with the process itself. That would be giving an unnecessary power of bureaucratic intervention, and we should hesitate very much before doing that.

If we relate this provision to the discussions that we have been having about the hazards themselves, surely we find that the latter wording is quite adequate. If we are talking about inflammable materials, we find that they are covered by "contents", so one has power to exer- cise control over contents. Be they inflammable materials or any dangerous substance present in a finished product, they are already covered. If one is talking about design or construction, one realises that nearly every hazard that has been cited as giving a raison d'etre for this legislation is covered by the specific words:

"the composition or contents, design, construction, finish or packing of goods."

Why, then, do we need to go further back in the process and allow the Government the powers to examine the method of making or processing of goods? It would seem from that that although the earlier words are quite specific and the Government might have had something specific in mind, it is more likely that all that the Government were seeking to do was to extend their powers generally, in order to give themselves a general power. The Minister shakes his head, but nevertheless, that suspicion is reinforced by the nature of Amendment No. 11, which says

"at end insert 'or with respect to other matters relating to goods'."

That means that the Government are seeking, as it seems to me, anyway, a blank cheque.

The words are virtually identical with those in the 1961 Act, which were missed out in the drafting of this Bill.

I take note of that point. Is the Minister saying that the wording contained in Amendment No. 11 was omitted in the drafting?

indicated assent.

Nevertheless, it seems that a very wide ranging power is being sought, as compared with the rather more specific words that the Minister is seeking to delete. Whatever the pedigree of the phraseology, the fact would be that the Government would have powers to consider the method of making or processing of goods under this general phraseology,

"or with respect to other matters relating to the goods."

This seems to run counter to the representations that one has received and, perhaps, to some of the observations in the consultation paper.

I notice that it quite specifically says, in paragraph 72, on page 20, under the heading "Requirements as to manufacturing processes and quality control"

"Generally, it has been found adequate"

—adequate—

"to prescribe safety requirements with which the product must comply at the time of sale."

So far, therefore, generally it has been found adequate to deal with goods at the time of sale.

2.15 p.m.

The consultation paper, the Government's own document, goes on further to make the point that

"Since it would not be possible to ensure compliance with any such requirements in manufacturing processes in respect of imported products, such a provision could only be applied to goods produced in this country"

—which would be very hard on United Kingdom manufacturers who would be subject to this inspection on the process of manufacture, whereas imported goods would not be so subject. That is the implication of the Government's comments—that this would be an unfair penalty on British manufacturers.

Then the paper goes on to deal with the very specific point concerning aerosols mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield. There may be other examples, but I gather that this is the only one that has been cited in terms of requiring inspection under the provisions concerning manufacturing and the production process. The paper goes on to say:

"the EEC's optional harmonisation directive on aerosol dispensers requires anyone marketing aerosols which bear the symbol denoting conformity with the directive to guarantee that each aerosol so marked has satisfied certain prescribed tests, and similar needs may arise in other areas."

The point here is that it is clear from the existence of that directive that if the Government wish to exercise control over aerosols, they have the power to do so without necessarily having the broad wide-ranging power in the clause. They can do what they require in regard to aerosols simply by pursuing the course of action allowed them by the optional directive of the EEC.

Another advantage of membership.

My hon. Friend regards that as an advantage of membership. I have never thought it necessary for the EEC to suggest sensible courses of action. We should be capable of doing that ourselves, if we so wish. But in this case, if it is a sensible course of action, that course can be pursued by the Government without having the wide-ranging power, and certainly under the wording as it stands but also as it would be imported by the acceptance of Amendment No. 11.

Even if that wording already existed in Acts, it would seem that by introducing it here one is running counter to the proposition invited by the Government's consultation paper and contrary to the views expressed by the Confederation of British Industry. I have a note from the CBI, which I imagine has been widely circulated, stating:

"We consider that regulations relating to making or processing of goods are unnecessary and possibly restrictive. Consumer safety regulations should be concerned with safety requirements."

The CBI then goes on to quote the consultation paper, quoting the paragraph to which I have referred, and then says:

"There are obvious difficulties in judging compliance by imported goods."

Therefore, it seems right and proper that we should delete the words

"the making or processing of goods"

and confine our judgment to the finished product.

I cannot really believe that the workings of the legislation would be inhibited in any way by restricting it in the manner suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield. The enforcement authorities could still be in a position to make all the proper judgments about the quality and the contents, and the dangerous features or other features of the finished product, and that would be enough. They could simply say that Brazilian crackers are dangerous, and that would be enough. They could ban them. They do not have to go back into the manufacturing process and say "The way in which these dangerous Brazilian crackers were made is undesirable and, therefore, we shall intervene and prevent that happening." Therefore, I hope that there is general acceptance in the House that we can delete these unnecessary words. If they are left in the Bill, they could result in unreasonable or unnecessary powers of interference in manufacturing industry. If there is agreement that we should leave out these words, largely because the other wording is already satisfactory and gives adequate powers, I do not see the case for then going further and adding in this blanket general power,

"or with respect to other matters relating to goods."

The Minister has been very understanding and helpful generally. He is trying to lay down in the Bill more precise legislative requirements rather than doing it by legislation-making powers. In this respect he seems to be wanting broad powers, and uses the wide phraseology:

"with respect to other matters relating to goods."

That is too broad a phrase. I hope that the Minister will concede that that wording, too, is unnecessary. I warmly support the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield.

I want briefly to support my hon. Friends and to say, particularly in regard to the Amendment No. 11, that surely in everything we are discussing we must bear in mind that we are leading up to offences under the criminal law and criminal proceedings.

As I said in relation to a previous amendment, when one is dealing with the criminal law it is necessary to be specific and to make it clear what the offence is and to leave the citizen in no doubt. It is wrong that in a clause concerned with safety regulations we should finish up by giving the Minister a blanket power, with the words

"or with respect to other matters relating to goods."

My hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Smith) suggested that at least these words should be qualified so as to make it unequivocally clear that anything done by way of regulations under the clause should specifically relate to safety. I reinforce that point and suggest that it would be better if, instead of the phraseology used by the Minister, it is made clear this is restricted to considerations of safety and that we should have a form of words "or with respect to other matters relating to the safety of the goods."

I should like to respond briefly to that suggestion. The words that I seek to include in Amendment No. 11 are almost exactly the same as words in the Consumer Protection Act 1961. There is, however, one difference. In the 1961 Act the words that I am seeking to put into the Bill are qualified by the provision that the requirements have to be expedient to prevent or reduce death, risk of death or personal injury.

It was never intended when I sought to insert these words, which are almost identical to those in the 1961 Act, that they should provide any broad powers controlling processing and production. If the House accepts my amendment I shall seek to provide a qualification similar to the other qualification provided in the Consumer Protection Act 1961. The hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. More) has put his finger precisely on the point, and I shall try to meet his point.

I beg to move Amendment No. 14, in page 2, line 7, leave out "may" and insert "shall".

With this we may take the following amendments:

No. 15, in page 2, line 9, leave out "of which particulars" and insert "that".

No. 16, in page 2, line 10, leave out "in" and insert

"or organisation that is recognised within".

No. 17, in page 2, line 11, after "elsewhere", insert

"as being a competent authority in regard thereto".

No. 28, in page 3, line 31, at end add—

"(6) Safety regulations made in accordance with subsections (2) and (3) of this section shall recognise compliance with British Standards as being deemed to satisfy the requirements of such regulations.

(7) Safety regulations made in accordance with subsection (3) of this section shall not provide standards for goods that amend, alter or vary British Standards.".

I have indicated by not moving two amendments that I am prepared to make progress. These amendments deal with the maintenance of standards, in particular, British safety standards. It has been represented to us that it is important that none of the regulations issued under the Bill should conflict or distort the standards already available, which run across many sectors of manufacturing. Some doubt has been expressed that the regulations could interfere where British standards have already been set. The suggestion, therefore, for these amendments, is that the standards should be set by reputable organisations, such as the British Standards Institute, and that there should not be duplication or confusion by British standards being issued which might conflct with standards that have found wide acceptance throughout industry.

I do not think that there will be any conflict. The regulations have always imposed an obligation. The new concept is that the standard provides the defence. There is no way in which the legislation could interfere with standards. It would simply be a matter of selecting the appropriate standards as defences.

The reason why there is no reference to the British Standards Institute is that it would be restrictive of the standards which could be incorporated as defences. Sometimes it might be necessary to use an international standard, sometimes a European standard—it would be helpful if we could have one for toys—and sometimes a British standard. Occasionally we have used American standards. The definition of "paraffin" used in our regulations is the American standard for kerosene. The body which makes the standard will have to be a reputable one. The important thing is the selection of the standard itself rather than the body itself. If one limits it to too few bodies, there will be difficulties about selecting the right sort of standards.

I met representatives of the Chemical Industries Association the other day to discuss this matter. There may be a small matter on which an industrial association has its own standard. If the Government think that that standard is a good and adequate one, and if, after consultation, it is agreed and the House agrees, the standard will be incorporated in the regulations as a defence. If we try to do it in any other way it may be restrictive, and rebound on industry.

The Minister has accepted the point being made that there should not be confusion and that with consultation on the factors for which he is considering regulations it should mean that the standards are preserved. With that undertaking, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

I beg to move Amendment No. 22, in page 3, line 20, leave out from 'appropriate' to end of subsection.

With this we may take Amendment No. 23, in page 3, line 20, leave out 'including' and insert 'except'.

The amendment deletes the reference concerning the burden of proof in regulations—consequent upon an undertaking that I gave to the Committee.

I briefly refer to Amendment No. 23. There was some discussion in Committee about the burden of proof. The Minister will recall a discussion with my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Cope). The amendment is tabled to clarify the position. The Minister said that he would consider that. Will he comment on whether the point raised in Committee on the question of the burden of proof has also been accepted by him under the amendment?

Yes, it has been, because there is no question of shifting the burden of proof. The defence is now clearly stated.

In Committee I gave an example of how in practice the burden of proof turns out. It can depend partly on the way in which the regulations are phrased. If there is a totally prohibited supply of a particular product, if one has that product in one's possession, one could be committing an offence, but that arises from the way in which the regulation is phrased. The examples that I gave to the Committee are unchanged, but there is no way in which the regulations can otherwise shift the burden of proof.

I beg to move Amendment No. 24, in page 3, line 25, leave out from "such" to "and" in line 26 and insert

"organisations as appear to him to be representative of interests substantially affected by the proposal and such other persons as he considers appropriate".

With this we may take Amendment No. 25, in page 3, line 26 after first "regulation" insert

"and the Director General of Fair Trading".

Amendment No. 24 incorporates the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Cope) in Committee. He withdrew it on the undertaking that an amendment on the lines of his proposal would be presented now. The amendment fulfils that undertaking except that it does not include the word "reasonable". My hon. Friend sought to include the word "reasonable" in his amendment. I have not felt able to include that because that would involve all sorts of extremely complicated legal implications. The amendment deals adequately with the points raised in Committee.

Amendment No. 25, in my name, is of considerable importance. This is the first occasion on Report that we have had the opportunity to relate the Office of Fair Trading to the operation of the Bill. Many of us recognise that the OFT is probably the most likely office to be able to operate in the best interests of the consumer on such matters as devising regulations or cures for hazards that the consumer comes up against.

I had intended to table an amendment providing that regulations could not be issued except on the recommendation of the OFT, but that was rightly ruled out of order. I feel strongly that the influence of the Office should be brought into the operation of the Bill.

The Bill provides that the Secretary of State should make safety regulations and that it will be his duty, before making them, to consult such persons as he considers appropriate. We feel that the Director General of Fair Trading should be one such person. It would be an error if he were not consulted at that stage in the preparation of regulations.

With the possibility of changes in the office of Secretary of State and in the policies pursued by the Department, it is important that there should be oversight by an independent third party of the general policy applied to regulations affecting consumer safety. The OFT is an appropriate body and its continuity would be important in helping to design consistent regulations that were not at the whim of various pressures.

The OFT has not been in existence for very long, but it has secured an enviable reputation for being able to adjudicate in difficult matters and being able to help industry and consumers when they find themselves in difficulty with regulations. It is both logical and correct that the Office should have a prime influence in consultation before the making of regulations.

The clause refers to the Health and Safety Commission because the sponsor and the Minister no doubt felt that the Commission was the vital force to consult on regulations relating to goods suitable for use at work. We feel that the OFT is a comparable body to consult in relation to regulations on hazardous products.

Under the original concept of hazardous goods in the 1973 Act, it was envisaged that the OFT would be wholly responsible for the operation of that statute. That is consistent with the way in which we have been viewing the development of the Office in recent times.

I press the sponsor and the Minister to consider including the OFT as one of the bodies to be consulted in the preparation of any proposed regulations.

I regret that I do not find myself in sympathy with Amendment No. 25. The Office of Fair Trading has no expertise in consumer matters and it would be necessary to set up yet another bureaucracy that would involve duplication between the Department and the Office and would lead to delay, additional cost and, perhaps, even internal wrangling.

As an accountant, my experience of the Office has not been happy. The Office is bureaucratic and fixed in its views and, as a result, practising accountants have to spend £40 a year to obtain a certificate that says that the Office of Fair Trading regards them as fit people to advise clients on their debtors and creditors.

There is no check on this because members of the institute are examined under the institute's professional examinations. The Office of Fair Trading has no expertise, yet we have set up under the Consumer Credit Act a large bureaucracy to administer the licensing of accountants—something that was never considered when the Bill was going through the House.

I give that example to show the attitude of mind of the Office of Fair Trading. I should be happier to leave the matter to the Minister and the Department. It is interesting that in my discussions on the Bill over many months, I have come across no justifiable criticisms of the way in which the Department has operated under its existing powers in this area.

We are not suggesting the setting up of an additional and separate bureaucracy but the use of the OFT as one of the bodies to be consulted before regulations are made. My hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) may have misread the intention of the amendment. We are seeking to amend Clause 1(4) in which the Secretary of State has to consult certain persons when considering the making of regulations. It is not a matter of setting up a bureaucracy, comparable with that operated by the Department, to oversee the enactment of regulations. We regard the Office as a source of influence that would be appropriate at that time.

In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) laid great stress on the value of the Office in trying to persuade Departments to look at things from the point of view of the consumer. The Office has had considerable experience in dealing with consumers on matters of protection and fairness. It was designed to do that, and it could not be regarded as an inappropriate body.

On the question of expense, the Director General and the OFT are in existence. We are not asking that the Office should take on more people to deal with the regulations. I understand that the regulations will be issued sparingly and only when there are substantial reasons for doing so. I do not think that expense enters into the argument.

The Office is staffed, and I am suggesting that it should be used for one of its due and proper purposes—to influence consumer protection and provide fair trading conditions. I should have thought that the definition of what constitutes safe or unsafe products came well within the ambit of the OFT which has the sort of experience that would be valuable to the Secretary of State when he was seeking to draft regulations.

I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth and the Minister to reconsider this matter. The amendment would not affect the operation of the Bill because consultation is germane to the clause that we are seeking to amend. What it would do would be to write into the Bill that the OFT would have a role to play in the design of regulations. We consider that role to be wholly beneficial and based on an experience which frequently the Department may not be able to provide. It would also add a certain element of confidence to those who have to carry out the regulations and who are affected by them—namely, those in the manufacturing and distributive trades—if they knew that the OFT would be consulted as of law, and if that were built into this Bill, before regulations are issued on their business or products.

I am sorry that my hon. Friend does not feel that this is a worthy amendment but regards it as an unnecessary and expensive extravagance.

Let me try to build a bridge between the two hon. Gentlemen. Where the Director General of Fair Trading has an interest in regulations which are being made he would have to be consulted. But it would be unduly restrictive to say "You cannot make regulations unless the director recommends or insists on being consulted on every set of regulations".

The director's function is economic. Indeed, the previous Administration insisted on it. There was quite a battle between the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) and his hon. Friend the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) on whether the word "economic" should be in or out of the Fair Trading Act. According to a television film on the subject, I noted that after a time in the Division Lobby the right hon. and learned Member won and persuaded his hon. Friend to withdraw her wording. That is why the director's function is mainly economic. It is best to handle the matter pragmatically rather than unnecessarily to involve people in the OFT when they have no direct interest in the regulations.

I beg to move Amendment No. 30, in page 4, line 8, leave out "dangerous" and insert "not safe".

With this we may take the following amendments:

No. 31, in page 4, line 15, leave out "dangerous" and insert "not safe".

No. 51, in clause 8, page 9, leave out lines 22 to 27.

No. 57, in page 10, leave out lines 2 and 3 and insert

'might be used or kept';'

No. 64, in Schedule 1, in page 12, line 33, leave out from "State" to end of paragraph and insert

'the risk of danger connected with the goods to which the order relates is such that the order must be made without delay'.

No. 65, in page 13, line 15, leave out "dangerous" and insert "not safe".

No. 66, in line 19, leave out "not dangerous" and insert "safe".

No. 67, in page 14, line 10, leave out "not dangerous" and insert "safe".

No. 69, in page 14, line 35, leave out "from" and insert "connected with".

No. 70, in line 41, leave out "dangerous" and insert "not safe".

No. 71, in line 44, leave out "not dangerous" and insert "safe".

No. 73, in page 15, line 29, leave out "not dangerous" and insert "safe".

No. 74, in page 16, line 33, leave out "dangerous" and insert "not safe".

No. 75, in line 36, leave out "not dangerous" and insert "safe".

This amendment arises out of the consultation that took place between Second Reading and Committee. It was not possible to table these amendments in time for Committee.

The main purpose of the principal amendment is to delete the word "dangerous". It was felt that confusion arose in the original Bill because we had a definition of "dangerous" and a definition of "safe" and it was considered that they were not the opposite of each other. The word "dangerous" is now being deleted, and we are left with either an object being "safe" or "not safe"—"not safe" being the alternative to "safe".

Normally the Department's policy has been—and I understand will be in future—to seek voluntary co-operation with those who are selling objects found to be causing risk to the public. That co-operation is normally most readily offered, but occasionally it is not forthcoming. It it then necessarily for the Department to make an order creating a prohibition notice on the sale of the goods or a warning notice requiring the person supplying or manufacturing goods to issue a warning in respect of the danger provided by the goods.

Originally there was a difference in degree in the Bill under which the Minister could make orders with great speed where there was a particular danger. Removal of the word "dangerous" from the Bill will mean that there will have to be a subjective judgment by the Minister as to the degree to which goods are unsafe. We must leave that to the commonsense of the Minister at the time.

Amendment No. 57 is different. It is a drafting amendment, because the circumstances in which goods are designed to be used were originally too narrow. They exclude many elements of foreseeable misuse. Even the British Standards Institute recognises that when goods are passed they should be passed on the basis that some misuse can be foreseen. The suggested wording deals with that contingency.

My hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) sought comfort from the Committee proceedings in his soothing introduction and reassuring explanation about the significance of this group of amendments. It is not entirely a matter of semantics that the phrase "not safe" is an alternative description to the word "dangerous" as originally included in the Bill.

My hon. Friend said that the new wording will provide an opportunity for the Minister to exercise a subjective judgment. In that respect I see no difference because there is no scientific or other valid definition of "dangerous". What can be said is that by this change my hon. Friend has considerably broadened the powers in the Bill. For a product to be "not safe" in the estimation of most people need not necessarily mean that it is dangerous. These are matters of degree.

I know that the CBI, in a brief containing its views received only this morning, has considerable apprehensions about the extension of powers implied by this change. Clearly, the two definitions "safe" and "not safe" cover all products. A product must either be "safe" or "not safe" in the terms of these amendments, whereas as the Bill was originally drafted there were categories of product that were said to be safe and other products which were said to be dangerous. Presumably there were other goods of more doubtful quality in between.

Does my hon. Friend by "not safe" mean actually not safe or potentially not safe? We spoke earlier of the contributory part played by the user of products. Will it be held that a product which is apparently safe if used according to regulations and according to instructions might become unsafe if otherwise used? We need to have some greater reassurance as to what is intended and whether my hon. Friend is not extensively enlarging the area covered by the Bill.

My hon. Friend mentioned earlier the difficulty involved in the Bill going through "on the nod" on Second Reading and not perhaps having had the airing, prominence and publicity it should have had so that its provisions could be fully understood and appreciated by all those likely to be affected by it outside the House. The CBI is one organisation which is concerned, and I have no doubt that there are others. I am sure that further explanation of what is intended would be valuable.

As I said, there was considerable consultation with literally hundreds of organisations and individuals between Second Reading and Committee. It took the form of a letter asking for views. Unfortunately, some of the views came in only within the past few days. Some bodies seem to take a considerable time to arrive at their views. The CBI was not in that category. It replied quite promptly, and I have had a series of meetings with its representatives.

I have not had the benefit of a communication from the CBI this morning. I assume that it is on its way. I am not therefore aware of the latest views of the CBI. I met its representatives earlier this week to discuss the amendments to be put down for today, and I asked whether they would let me have their comments. To be fair to the CBI, we are considering a large number of complex amendments today, so perhaps its representatives have not had time fully to consider them.

If there is anything in the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert), perhaps I can get together with the Minister before the Bill goes to another place. I assure my hon. Friend that the whole purpose here is to deal with problems outlined by other people who were consulted. The general tenor of the views expressed to us after the consultation was that the original drafting was too wide. It is in no sense the intention of this amendment to widen it yet further. On the contrary the purpose is to limit and simplify the definition.

The definition is in Clause 8, and I hope that it is self-explanatory. As I say, the intention here is not in any way to widen the scope of the Bill but to simplify matters and deal with the worries expressed to me during the past few weeks.

On the question of "potentially not safe", I must say that it is difficult to get one's words exactly right on this subject, but I think that one has to consider things which may be potentially not safe, because one has to bear in mind possible uses to which they might reasonably be expected to be put. I am not thinking here of the scouring powder to which I referred earlier. I am speaking of reasonable misuse of products, and that is something which must be taken into account by those who place goods on sale to the public.

I beg to move Amendment No. 34, in page 4, line 40, after "or", insert "to serve or revoke".

I suggest that it will be convenient to take at the same time the following amendments:

No. 37, in page 5, line 40, after "or", insert "to serve or revoke".

No. 76, in Schedule 1, page 17, line 8, leave out from "21" to end of line 9 and insert

"the words 'or vary' and the words from 'or, as' onwards were omitted".

Amendment No. 76 has the effect of removing the Secretary of State's power to vary a notice to warn. After consideration, it is felt that there is no need for such a power. It will still enable the Secretary of State to revoke a notice to warn, but not to vary it. Amendments Nos. 34 and 37 are consequential upon No. 76.

I beg to move Amendment No. 36, in page 5, line 29, leave out paragraph (a).

I suggest that it will be convenient to consider at the same time the following amendments:

No. 38, in page 5, line 40, at end insert

'or

(e) for the purpose of enabling the Secretary of State to fulfil a Community obligation; or

(f) in a prohibition notice, a notice to warn or a warning published as required by a notice to warn or a warning about goods which is published by the Secretary of State.'.

Amendment (a) to Amendment No. 38, at end insert

'to the extent necessary to identify the goods in respect of which the prohibition notice, notice to warn or warning is published'.

No. 84, in Schedule 2, page 19, line 10, after 'disclosure', insert

'was made for the purposes of proceedings for a breach of duty mentioned in section 5(1) of this Act and does not disclose a manufacturing process or trade secret or'.

No. 85, in Schedule 2, page 19, line 11, leave out '(a) to (d)' and insert '(b) to (f)'.

The effect of Amendments Nos. 36 and 38 is to delete the proviso which permits the disclosure of information obtained by virtue of Clause 3(1), with the consent of the person on whom the notice requiring the information was served, and to extend the purposes for which such information may be disclosed. That follows an assurance which I gave in Committee.

Amendment No. 38 enables one to use the information obtained for the purpose of fulfilling a Community obligation. This is a rather technical matter, and I do not suppose that the procedure will be used very often, but if we make a safety regulation which conflicts with a European directive, we have to give notice to the Commission of the reasons why it is done, and we might need to disclose information for that purpose.

Amendment No. 85 is consequential.

I wish to direct attention to the point which the Minister has just made with reference to the Community. Earlier today, I expressed concern about duplication in Bills in relation to legislation already enacted. The Minister said that his amendment would enable the Secretary of State to fulfil a Community obligation, and I hope that he will expand on that.

As I see it, there will be many cases under other enactments which will require such a proviso to be entered. Is it particular to the present Bill that such a safeguard or fall-back provision must be inserted in relation to the European Economic Community, or is this likely to be a frequent feature of such legislation in the future?

I do not think that it will happen very often. Perhaps I explained the matter too briefly. Let us assume that the Minister decides to make a prohibition notice on, say, goods which are not safe—to use the new language—in respect of which action needs to be taken without delay, but it appears that prohibiting the supply of those goods on the market clashes with, say, an authorisation which has been given under a European directive.

In such circumstance, there is a conflict between the prohibition notice and the directive. As I understand it, in that case the EEC directive is not overruling—the safety of the subject comes first—but there would be an obligation on the Government to notify the Commission that we had made a prohibition notice which was in conflict with a general authorisation given in a directive.

I hope that that explains how the matter arises. As I say, I imagine that such circumstances would be pretty rare. The purpose of this new provision is to enable us to use the information obtained in order to fulfil our obligation to notify the Commission.

May I press the Minister a little further on this question? I apologise for being out of the Chamber when he first presented the matter. Obviously, some of us have at the back of our minds the development of the product liability directive of the EEC and the extent to which that is germane to the matter under discussion.

I assume that what the Minister is endeavouring to do here is to set out in the Bill regulations which are easily adaptable to the generality of Commission legislation, but in the particular case of hazardous products I take the liability point to be crucial.

On this clause, therefore, does the Minister feel that the Government's present posture is correct on the product liability question? He has had the Pearson Report. Is he now considering the question of injury and so on? Is this something which has entered his mind during the drafting of his amendment? Are we here to foresee something of what the Government believe will be the case when they eventually settle their view on the product liability directive? I assume that that must affect all hazardous products. They will have to carry the onus of liability when that EEC directive is eventually agreed. Would the Minister care to make a few comments on that, in so far as it is relevant to the question of integration with EEC legislation?

The only comment that I should like to make is that there is no conflict. This is legislation which imposes a criminal penalty for breach of safety obligations. The product liability directive creates civil rights.

I beg to move Amendment No. 43, in page 7, line 37, leave out 'person who was purporting to act in any such capacity' and insert 'other person'.

The amendment, which appears on the Notice Paper in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Cope), follows an amendment in Committee, to be found at column 17 of the Official Report of our proceedings. The question was whether a person not designated to be a secretary, manager or director of a company should be exempt from the operations of the Bill. The dis- cussion in Committee raised the point whether a person other than a secretary or director or someone who purported to be such was exempt.

I am sure that the Minister will want to make it clear that any person should be liable under the Bill in dealing with hazardous products and that there should be no exemptions. As the clause is drafted, it is at least our belief that it does not specify that any—I emphasise "any"—person of any kind, be he honest factory worker or honest shop steward, should be liable. It is confined to those who purport to be secretary, director or manager of a company. I am sure that this is a modest clarification which the Minister will be able to give to the House.

Under the earlier provisions of the Bill, any one contributing towards an offence is liable. The words appear here only because the clause is a supplemental clause and deals particularly with those who might be sheltering behind a corporation. But those directly responsible for the commission of an offence are primarily liable. There is no loophole in the Bill.

The Minister said that they were supplemental provisions. I hope that he will forgive my ignorance on this matter, but I do not see why supplemental provisions are different from any other provisions. Is there a gradation here that I do not understand? I assume that the fact is that, whatever the provision, any person can be held liable for a hazardous product under the Bill.

Yes, Sir. Any person can be held liable, and the clause appears here to deal with the particular positions of companies and partnerships.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

I beg to move Amendment No. 44, in page 7, line 47, leave out from first 'instrument' to end of subsection and insert

'but no regulations shall be made in the exercise of such a power unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.

(7) A prohibition order shall be laid before Parliament after being made and shall expire at the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which it was made unless during that period it is approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.

The expiration of a prohibition order in pursuance of this subsection shall not affect the operation of the order as respects things previously done or omitted to be done or the power to make a new prohibition order; and in calculating the period aforesaid no account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days'.

With this we are to take Amendment (a) to the amendment, at the end of subsection (7) leave out 'both Houses are' and insert 'either House is'.

We are also to take the following amendments:

No. 45, in page 7, line 47, leave out from first 'instrument' to end of line 4 on page 8 and insert

'but no order or regulations shall be made in the exercise of such a power unless a draft of the order or regulations has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament'.

No. 46, in page 8, line 1, after 'containing', insert 'safety regulations or containing'.

No. 47, in line 4, at end add—

'(7) No safety regulations shall be made unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament'.

No. 60, in Schedule 1, page 12, line 8, leave out from '"order")' to end of line 23 and insert

it shall be his duty before making the order to consult, in such manner as he considers appropriate having regard to the subject matter and urgency of the order, with such organisations representing interests to be substantially affected by the order as he considers appropriate'.

No. 63, in line 31, leave out paragraph 5.

There are two choices before the House in dealing with this group of amendments. I was conscious in the early days of the Bill's passage that there was a strong feeling that there should be an affirmative resolution procedure in dealing with this sort of delegated legislation. The precedent is not in the Consumer Safety Acts of the past. There was an attempt in one of the earlier Acts to introduce an affirmative procedure, but that was negated on a Friday afternoon by about four to one.

Considerable worry and concern have been felt about excessive legislation of any sort and the way in which it is imple- mented. It has been a problem for many years that there is no way of legislating for Ministers and their Departments to operate efficiently and sensibly.

It is interesting that in 1961, on the first of the Consumer Safety Bills, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) said:

"In passing a Bill of this kind, Parliament must assume—and it is reasonable and proper to assume—that in administering the Bill, the Government will act sensibly and consistently. Parliament has, of course, the last word, because of Parliament's control over any regulations that may be made.—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 8th March 1961; c. 118.]

That remains as true as when it was said 17 years ago.

In view of the fears that have been expressed—I believe unjustified but understandable fears—I think that the affirmative procedure is basically the better way of controlling the subordinate legislation. I believe that as Back Benchers we should be able to carry out our role much more effectively if there were a great deal more affirmative as opposed to negative resolution procedure. I am happy to move the amendment, as I promised in Committee, to bring that about.

There is a problem, because the proposals in the Bill fall into two broad categories. One is basically the establishment of regulations prescribing safety standards. For that, I can see no reason why the affirmative procedure should not apply. The second type of proposal in the Bill is to deal with the very isolated case where somebody has transgressed, is selling something dangerous and does not—as is normally the case—willingly agree to remove the public's opportunity to purchase it.

In such a case there is undoubtedly a need for speedy action. We have already had examples. In that instance I see that the affirmative resolution procedure may well not be appropriate because of the need for urgent action. I stress that this is something which will not happen often. On that basis there is a second amendment aimed at confining the affirmative resolution procedure to the first of the proposals I mentioned, basically the safety regulations. I refer the Amendment No. 46 with which is coupled Amendment No. 47. I hope that the House will accept Amendments Nos. 46 and 47 and not Amendment No. 44.

This group of amendments raises an important point of principle. The issues involved were not fully dealt with in Committee. I fully understand the point about the distinction between safety regulations on the one hand and prohibition orders on the other. The Government have conceded that in the case of safety regulations an affirmative resolution will be necessary before they can take effect.

However, we are told that in the case of prohibition orders such a procedure would not be practicable because of the need to introduce such orders urgently and at short notice. For example, during a recess there could be an inordinate delay such that dangerous goods continued to be available to the public. I am not a constitutional expert but I was under the impression that it was possible to have the affirmative resolution procedure and still to have the order taking effect before the House had considered it, so that a resolution would cease to take effect if the House decided not to give it its approval.

In saying that I have in mind the current Price Code order which, as I recall, took effect on 1st August 1977. We did not get round to discussing that until nearly three months after that. That did not mean that the order did not have effect. I am in a difficulty because I am not clear about the constitutional position. The point which those of us seeking a change in this respect wanted to make was that this Bill goes beyond current consumer safety legislation. If that is so, all of the orders and the regulations should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.

I welcome the change being proposed but am still in some difficulty about the prohibition orders because I would have thought that it was still possible to issue such an order and for it to be considered subsequently under the affirmative resolution procedure. If it did not meet with the approval of the House it could then be annulled. I may have misunderstood the constitutional position. No doubt the Minister will put me right.

The advice that I put forward is that we should accept Amendments Nos. 46 and 47. These amendments would make general regulations. Those are regulations which follow a long period of consultation, have general application and do not apply to a particular item or firm. They would have to be made by affirmative resolution. For 17 years they have been made by the negative resolution procedure without any difficulty. I sensed that it was the wish of the Committee and the House that the orders should be affirmative, and I bow to those wishes.

With regard to the prohibition orders, congratulations are due to the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) on making the options available to the House on this occasion through his amendment. The amendment would enable the affirmative procedure to apply to the prohibition order, and it would also deal with a situation where the House is not sitting. I think it was conceded that it would be quite wrong to have to delay the making of an order in respect of a very dangerous product for three months during the period of the Summer Recess. The amendment provides the option of the order being effective during the period when the House is not sitting. But I still advise the House not to accept Amendment No. 44, and I hope that it will not be pressed.

As presently drafted, the Bill states that 28 days' notice of intention to make a prohibition order must be given, to give an opportunity for the person or persons affected to make representations. There is a catch involved in accepting Amendment No. 44. It is that the notice of intention to make the order would no longer be necessary. That was associated with the negative procedure. We cannot have it both ways. Either we give 28 days' notice or we lay the order straight away and seek confirmation. The catch for the firms affected is that they may well prefer to have 28 days' notice of intention to make an order, and the chance to make their representations, which they could present speedily and directly to the Secretary of State. If we accept the affirmative procedure, there is a risk of delay and of having hybridity proceedings. But, worst of all, there is the risk of robbing people of the opportunity to have 28 days' notice before any order is made, to make their representations to the Secretary of State and to muster support in Parliament before the order is laid. I think that that would be preferable, on the whole, and that the reasonable compromise would be to have the affirmative procedure for general regulations, leaving the Bill as it stands in respect of prohibition orders.

I think that the whole House will be very grateful that the sponsor of the Bill and the Minister have agreed that the affirmative procedure should be the one mainly followed in the Bill. There can have been few occasions when a Government have willingly granted the affirmative procedure in regard to Statutory Instruments and orders made by Secretaries of State. We welcome the principle.

I take the Minister's point that the crucial factor, when a prohibition order or regulation is to be made, is that there should be a period within which there can be consultations with those who are to be penalised, whether in relation to fines levied against them or, more importantly, penalties against their trading, that is to say, the restraint of goods and loss of trade. That seems to me to be of vital concern.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Smith) referred to the operation of the price code regulations. There appears to have been no real conflict in laying the order and making the change, and having that debated under the affirmative procedure as and when the House resumed, if the House happened to be in recess at the time. That is a precedent which has been observed, and it should not make it more difficult to operate the affirmative procedure in relation to the Bill, if and when it becomes an Act.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Cope) was unable to be here but nevertheless his presence during our debate has been formidable. His reason for putting down Amendment (a) to Amendment No. 44 was purely to take account of the fact that there have been certain occasions in recent times when the other place has been sitting at different times from this House.

If the procedure requires, as it does, both Houses of Parliament or Parliament in the general sense to be involved in the procedures, we have to recognise that one half of Parliament sometimes operates at different times from the other. Hence the suggestion in Amendment (a) to delete "both Houses are" and to insert "either House is". It is a modest technical point, but it has some relevance if we expect both Houses to affirm the procedure.

3.15 p.m.

I turn to the more important consideration, which is that if we operate the affirmative procedure, the House will want to be able to consider the draft regulation or the proposals of the Secretary of State in good time. The 28-day rule is a sensible one. It is the kind of period which should allow most interested and affected parties to have their say with the Department. But one problem that we have is that these orders tend to come on fairly late, usually in the middle of the night, at relatively short notice and not always accompanied by all the facts available to the Minister laying the order. That is understandable, because the Department is in total control of the decision whether to lay a regulation or order. But hon. Members who have to scrutinise and approve the order have not the source of information which the Minister has.

I put it to the Minister and to my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth that, although we welcome the use of the affirmative procedure to give us greater parliamentary scrutiny of government by order, we require to have all the necessary information made available to us. In times past, frequently we have come up against an order being laid where all that we have had is a departmental brief drafted with the speed, skill and no doubt accuracy which has been absent from some parts of this Bill, but very little time to check whether these were terms and conditions acceptable to those affected by the order.

I do not think that we should applaud too greatly the decision of my hon. Friend and the Minister to allow the affirmative procedure. We have to ask whether it will operate in a manner which allows hon. Members to express their considered views having had all the information available to them and having had the opportunity to consult those affected by the order.

This is no reflection on the Minister, who has always been able to make available both himself and his Department to help us when we have been discussing an order of this kind. But it is one of our difficulties in proceeding by the affirmative method that frequently we find ourselves unable to make the considered judgments which are necessary.

Having explained why Amendment (a) has been tabled, and having said that this is a procedure which we welcome, I must say that I hope that regulations making use of this procedure will be issued sparingly. We recognise that consultation is of the essence and that if Parliament is to play its part to ensure that Ministerial power is not used to an excessive extent, the affirmative procedure is the best method available.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

I beg to move Amendment No. 48, in page 9, line 3, after 'agreement', insert

'or under an agreement for the hiring of goods (other than a hire-purchase agreement)'.

With this we may take Amendments Nos. 49 and 50.

This amendment arose as a result of consultations with the Finance Houses Association. The original drafting of the Bill dealt with goods under hire-purchase agreements. The company providing the finance for the hire-purchase agreement in the normal way never even sees the goods involved. Obviously, therefore, it would be wrong for that company to be held responsible if those goods were found to be dangerous. However, hon. Members will appreciate that the ownership of the goods under the agreement rests with the hire-purchase company. The Bill was correctly drafted, so that there would be no liability for the hire-purchase company.

However, the drafting did not take account of the fact that nowadays there are hiring agreements which operate in a similar way to hire-purchase agreements. They work on the same sort of principle as hire-purchase agreements but are technically different. This is a technical amendment to bring hiring agreements into line with hire-purchase agreements.

I beg to move Amendment No. 52, in page 9, line 35, leave out 'and' and insert 'or'.

With this we may take the following amendments:

No. 53, in page 9, line 37, after '1970', insert

'and medicinal products as defined in section 130(1) of the Medicines Act 1968'.

No. 54, in page 9, line 37, at end insert

'or medicinal products as defined in section 130(1) of the Medicines Act 1968'.

The purpose of these three amendments is to add to the list of exclusions to the goods definition contained in Clause 8—medicines and drugs covered under the Medicines Act 1968, which would then be added to the other exclusions—food under the Food and Drugs Act 1955 and feedingstuffs and fertilisers under the Agriculture Act 1970.

When I came into the House to listen to the debate earlier today, not having been a member of the Standing Committee, I was interested to hear the discussion on the definition of the words "safe" and "not safe". It brought to my notice the additional reasons for excluding medicines and drugs from the Bill, because so much of what is safe and what is not safe in the medical sense depends upon the metabolism of the person who is receiving the drug.

The Minister may be allergic to penicillin, for example, but that antibiotic, which might not be safe for him, has benefited millions of people throughout the country.

I am allergic to Faversham.

However, I hope that the Minister will not mind if I say that I did not find his reply to a general debate on this matter in Committee entirely satisfactory. The underlying reason for moving this amendment is to avoid duplication of controls. While I would be the first, and I am sure the Minister would be the second, to agree that the safety of a person who is using a medicine or drug is paramount, I shall seek to show that existing restrictions and requirements that are available, not just to the Minister himself but to the Department of Health and Social Security, are entirely sufficient. I hope to show that this clause, unamended, will lead to a multiplication of bureaucracy and legislative requirements, and may well lead to inefficiencies and extra cost to the public in the supply of drugs.

In this connection I point out to the Minister that his colleague, the Secretary of State for Social Services, is pressing for the extension of the Prescription Pricing Authority with the express purpose of trying to cut the cost of drugs prescribed on the NHS.

Further, the clause will lead to potential conflicts between Departments of State—between the Minister's Department and the DHSS. Finally, it will lead to uncertainty among manufacturers, particularly in the pharmaceutical industry, who have already been bashed fairly hard.

Asked about these overlapping powers in Committee the Minister said:

"I reaffirm that other Departments, such as the Department of Health and Social Security, would not use the powers in the Bill if the powers under, say, the Medicines Act were adequate."

When pressed to give examples of where the Medicines Act would not give sufficient powers, the Minister was forced to reply:

"To be blunt, I cannot think offhand of any example under the Medicines Act. I can think of examples in relation to the construction of motor vehicles."

Later he referred to a specific case:

"What I had in mind is that warning that is issued where a product has broken the regulations and there has been a slip in quality control. Where the product is on the market it is necessary to tell everyone, for example, to be careful of drug XY2, Batch 10, because something is wrong with it."—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 12th April 1978; cc. 36–40.]

If the Minister thinks that he has a case on the above grounds, I do not think that he has been entirely fully briefed by his colleagues in the DHSS. Obviously it is not his Department, and I do not suggest that he is at fault. I am not being critical of him. However, the truth is that the DHSS has extensive powers over this highly complex and difficult subject.

I refer the Minister to the regulations made under Part I, Schedule 1, to the Medicines (Standard Provisions for Licences and Certificates) Regulations 1971. I should like to quote three paragraphs which seem to meet the thrust of the point that I want to make. Paragraph 6 states:

"The licence holder shall keep such documents as will facilitate the withdrawal or recall from sale, supply or exportation of any medicinal product to which the licence relates."

Paragraph 7 states:

"When the licence holder has been informed by the licensing authority that any batch of any medicinal product to which the licence relates has been found not to conform as regards strength, quality or purity with the specification of the product or with the provisions of the Act or of any regulations under the Act that are applicable to the medicinal product, he shall, if so directed, withhold such batch from sale, supply or exportation, so far as may be specified by the licensing authority."

Finally, paragraph 8 states:

"The licence holder shall notify the licensing authority forthwith of any decision to withdraw from sale, supply or exportation any medicinal product to which the licence relates, and shall state the reason for that decision."

The legal interpretation of the phrase "withdraw from sale" implies, I am told, the total withdrawal of the product from the market, and "recall" refers to the removal from the market of a specified batch or batches.

Therefore, we are dealing with a matter over which the Minister, not directly but through his colleagues in the DHSS, has considerable powers. The only area not specifically covered is the Minister's powers under Clause 2(1)(c) to compel publicity.

Does the Minister seriously suggest that a responsible drug company will knowingly allow to go on sale and will continue to sell faulty drugs? I suggest that he only has to imagine the damage to that company's reputation in such circumstances. Indeed, it would want to publicise the danger, because in that way it would be likely to be able to limit the potential liability that it would face in the courts for having sold a faulty medicinal or drug product.

The Minister will note that the tide is going still further against drug manufacturers. In the report of the Royal Commission on Civil Liability and Compensation for Personal Injury, Lord Pearson, in paragraph 1253, states that

"Subject to any element of contributory negligence—we discuss this defence below—we recommend that it should not be a defence for the producer merely to prove that he had withdrawn, or attempted to withdraw, his product."

That part of the Pearson Commission's Report relates specifically to problems with drugs.

If the Minister says that we are dealing with only a small number of yet unspecified rogue drug companies, I suggest that colleagues at the DHSS have totally adequate powers in this respect. First, the DHSS can publicise the matter. Secondly, a faulty drug is the kind of thing on which the newspapers, television and radio seize and publicise. The National Health Service is the largest single buyer of drugs and medicinal products in the country. It has enormous powers as a semi-monopoly buyer.

3.30 p.m.

In any case, the powers under the Medicines Act are enormous. The Act is a massive tome, with 165 pages, 136 sections and eight schedules. It covers all the matters that could possibly be considered and it involves all the powers that the Minister is seeking.

The Act often refers to the power to make regulations. Under the Medicines Act the Secretary of State for Health and Social Security has considerable powers which he has used. There are over 70 Statutory Instruments under the Medicines Act and more are on the way. Further Statutory Instruments are in draft and are the subject of discussion between the Department and the drug companies. These will be an addition to the already wide range of powers that enable the DHSS to compel the pharmaceutical companies to comply with the rules governing drug manufacture.

We must not forget that we are talking about a 10–12 year period of commitment for drug companies. Millions of pounds are involved which would be put at risk if the company acted irresponsibly. The commercial requirements of the companies and the needs of the drug user are already pulling in the same direction. Where they are not, the Medicine Act takes care of it. Statutory Instruments cover content, manufacturing methods, packaging, labelling, usage, dosage and shelf life.

I have a summary of the Statutory Instruments that cover labelling. It involves several pages and schedules. That deals only with labelling. By seeking to bring the pharmaceutical industry within the terms of the Bill the Minister is taking a sledgehammer to crack an invisible nut. The system already exists and is highly developed and complex. It involves the drug industry, drug users, the medical profession and the DHSS.

The industry pays for this administration and advisory service. The Medicines Act imposes a levy of ¼ per cent. on turnover. There are also levies for product and manufacturers licences. If the amendment is not passed, another complicated and unnecessary legislative requirement will be imposed upon the industry.

I turn to the question of divided masters. I think that it was Clausewitz who said "Better a bad general than a divided command". The industry will be responsible not only to the DHSS but to the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection which has no experience of drugs, side effects or usage. This makes one wonder whether there could not be a political conflict if the Secretary of State in one Ministry wished to make his reputation by making specific and special demands upon the industry.

I wish to draw to the attention of the House the complexity of the field over which the Minister is proposing to trample. I hope that the Minister will not mind if I use the word "trample", because even the DHSS does not always get it right. My hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) talked about the incidence of Statutory Instruments coming in in a hurry. Earlier this year we had the ludicrous situation in which we were going to have to withdraw Dr. Collis Browne's cough remedy because there was an inability on the part of the DHSS to communicate and laise with the company producing this well-known family remedy.

We shall have more regulations, more difficulties, and two Ministries.

I should like to repeat the assurance that I gave earlier today. We shall not have two Ministries dealing with the problem. One Ministry will be dealing with the problem. The drug manufacturers for whom the hon. Gentleman is speaking will still be dealing with the DHSS. The DHSS would use the powers in this Bill only if they did not exist in the Medicines Act. There are one or two cases where the powers do not exist. The hon. Gentleman has cited powers that can be exercised, but those are mostly in relation to licence holders, and it is the rogue person, not the licence holder, to whom the warning may have to be issued.

There would not be a duplication of Departments and there would not be a duplication of powers. The powers under the Medicines Act would be supplemented by the powers in this Bill only where supplementation was absolutely necessary. I am not trying to curtail the hon. Member too much, but I give that assurance.

I hear what the Minister says. I hope that he will hoist on board the fact that I mentioned the rogue company that was not prepared to accept the spirit of the regulations. None the less, we are talking here about very carefully defined medicinal products. Section 130 (1) of the Medicines Act defines the areas with which we are concerned. We are not talking about just a wide range of products. We are talking about carefully defined products within that Act. They are listed there, and the Minister's civil servants can show him how carefully this matter is defined. I do not want to quote it at length, because I want to finish my speech.

I must say that if the Minister feels that we should have exclusions for the Food and Drugs Act and exclusions for the Agriculture Act in regard to feeding-stuffs and fertiliser, I believe that the Medicines Act and the drugs and medicinal products that are covered by that Act should be similarly excluded.

I do not find the Minister's example so far to be impressive. I did not find his remarks in Committee to be impressive or persuasive. If he is not able to produce specific concrete examples, I must ask him to accept the amendment, because this matter is very important. We do not want to have increased and unnecessary bureaucracy, more costs for the public and more uncertainty to the manufacturers in an industry which is already probably the most heavily regulated of any in Britain.

The hon. Gentleman asked for examples, and I shall give them.

The most likely situation in which the powers in the new Bill would be of use in relation to medicines is by way of notices to warn. There is no provision akin to this in the Medicines Act. A similar obligation can be imposed on licence holders by licence conditions but the facility is of no help if the manufacturer or distributor concerned does not hold the licence in respect of the activity concerned. This can happen either because the firm concerned has been acting illegally or because its position in the distribution chain is such that it does not need to hold licences in respect of the product. So the warning notice is a supplement. It fills a loophole there.

Secondly, it is envisaged that it might sometimes be appropriate to use the powers to issue a prohibition notice under Clause 2(1)(b). This power could be used, for example, to prohibit a particular retailer from continuing to supply dangerous goods. The licence conditions do not in general apply to retailers, so that the only way of prohibiting action by any particular retailer would be by the process of a statutory prohibition order under Section 62 of the Medicines Act.

If the Minister is bringing forward specific examples, that is fine. Why, then, does his colleague in the DHSS, who is responsible for the administration of the Medicines Act, not take those powers under that Act by Statutory Instrument?

I am coming to that point. The answer to that is that it is not possible to exercise these powers by Statutory Instruments under the Medicines Act, but when the opportunity arises for the introduction of legislation to amend the Medicines Act, the appropriate provision will be inserted in the Act so as to provide the powers that are at present lacking. It will then be possible to exclude medicines from the scope of the consumer safety legislatioin, but this should not be done at present.

I have never been happy about including medicines, food and fertilisers excluded, and I have been conscious that medicines are a subject already under very careful control. There is a considerable volume of legislation. A massive Act has been shown to us this afternoon. I can see the advantages of including it. It would enable speedier action to be taken in a few directions.

I am also conscious that no examples have been quoted to me of the problems that have resulted from those powers not being present in the past. I believe that the tidier solution is an amendment of the Medicines Act. That would keep the whole question of medicines under one Act, would be tidier, and therefore I am prepared to accept Amendment No. 53.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

I beg to move Amendment No. 72, in page 15, line 25, at end insert—

'18A. All such representations made under this Schedule shall be in confidence.'.

I do so formally.

May I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment? There is some substance in what he intends to achieve in the amendment. It is right that if a trader wants to make representations in confidence, he should be allowed to do so. There is a similar provision in the Price Commission Act, though it works the other way round. It is possible to ask for an open hearing, though no one has yet done so.

The drafting of the hon. Gentleman's amendment is deficient because the person to whom representations are made could not treat them totally in confidence. He would have to tell the Secretary of States otherwise there could be no decision. However, the principle is right. There should be a choice for the person involved and he should have a reasonable degree of confidence, apart from the disclosures that are essential to transmit the findings to the Secretary of State. I promise to consider the point raised by the hon. Gentleman and to look at the drafting in another place.

I did not move Amendment No. 68, because I realised that the drafting was deficient. I accept what the Minister says about the deficiency in the drafting of Amendment No. 72, but I am grateful for the undertaking he gave. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

The history of this Bill goes back to the Maloney Committee of 1960. We have seen the development of consumer safety since then in the Acts of 1961 and 1971 and in today's Bill. Throughout the proceedings I have sought to strike a balance between the need to improve the safety of goods in the hands of consumers and the need to protect business from unnecessary interference. I have been conscious of the fact that the consumer pays for legislation of this nature and its enforcement.

I believe that the powers that are included in this Bill will be wholly to the benefit of the consumers of this country. Fears have been expressed during consultations that the powers would be wrongly used. I do not believe that that will be the case. There is no record of such misuse in the past and I do not believe that it will be the case in the future. I am happy that the House has seen fit to accept the amendment providing for the affirmative resolution procedure for most of the procedures in the Bill. This will enable proper consideration to be given to proposals brought forward by the Department in future.

Other fears have been expressed that the duties of what I still call the weights and measures inspectorate—I think that "trading standards" is the correct description—will be transferred to other Departments. I can assure the House that there is no intention that there will be any transfer of powers in the normal way from the Department. The provisions in the Bill which give the Minister the power to transfer certain matters deal only with exceptional circumstances, for instance when dealing with a radioactive object, when the normal trading standards department would not have the necessary skill and ability to handle such an item.

A further fear was expressed concerning prosecutions. This was answered by the Minister in Committee. I was delighted to have his assurance to the effect that there is absolutely no requirement under this Bill for trading standards officers always to prosecute anyone who has transgressed the regulations. Prosecution will be entirely discretionary, as it has been in the past.

The standards laid down in the Bill will be capable of incorporating Common Market provisions affecting consumer safety when they are brought into force. I do not believe that there will be a flood of such regulations but such regulations as there will be will prove to be of great benefit to the consumer, not least in so far as they will enable the Minister and his Department to deal with the need for adequate labelling of dangerous products.

There is no change in the provision for civil liability except that the trading standards officers can now give evidence in a civil case in a way that they could not do before. The whole question of civil liability will have to be considered again by this House when the recommendations of the Pearson Committee are being considered. The main aim must be to secure preventive regulations to ensure that dangerous goods do not come on the market.

Normally, when dangerous goods are observed on the market, manufacturers are only too willing to withdraw them, usually expressing great concern that they have been in any way responsible for the goods being marketed. Occasionally one comes across anti-social firms which are not prepared to co-operate with the Department. This Bill will enable speedy action to be taken against those few antisocial importers—it is often importers of foreign products who are involved—and manufacturers.

I have been delighted to have received the support of both sides of the House for my Bill. I pay tribute to the Minister for the full co-operation he has given me. I thank the Department for its full co-operation in the past few months. I thank hon. Members for the support that I have had on all sides.

We all congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tyne-mouth (Mr. Trotter) on his achievement in bringing the Bill thus far on its way to the statute book. I couple with those congratulations a deep debt of thanks to the Minister and his Department for helping my hon. Friend to process the Bill, which we all recognise to be of vital significance for consumers.

However, it behoves us in this short Third Reading debate to make one or two observations about consumer protection legislation. During our proceedings today, we have had to omit debate on certain amendments touching important aspects of this matter. For example, the question of loss and consequential loss might have been discussed on Amendment No. 95, but perhaps the presence of that amendment on the Paper will enable the other place to discuss it in due course. It is a subject which ought to be properly aired since, if the regulations are applied, there could be the risk of major loss among traders.

I have dwelt for a moment upon that disincentive feature, and I come now to some other matters. As an Opposition, we believe that there should be an undertaking to review the working of the Bill after it has been in operation. It would be unwise to allow it to remain on the statute book without such a review after a certain time.

We have already had from the Minister his welcome undertaking about the use of the affirmative resolution procedure for regulations, but none the less we owe it to industry, to trade and to consumers to review the working of the Bill from time to time so that we ensure that it does not bear too harshly upon those who will inevitably be involved in its consequences.

Second, although this is a consumer protection measure which we all welcome, it has been taken through in something of a rush. The Minister will be the first to agree, I know, that it has not had the detailed scrutiny which it deserves, involving, as it does, the levying of many obligations on the citizen to carry through and conform to regulations the nature of which we have not yet seen developed. For this reason also, we think it necessary to review the Bill's operation from time to time to make certain that the powers are used sensibly and that all those affected by its operation will find it to be a useful measure.

That is one reason why we were glad to know that there will be a regular review by report on how the trading standards operate in the field.

It should be said that the genesis of the Bill began a long time ago. It originated—rightly, I think—in the 1973 Act dealing with hazardous products. My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) has gone on record many times as pressing the Government to bring forward legislation. I am sorry that she is not here now to welcome the Bill on Third Reading and see it on its way. However, the fact remains that a private Member has been able to bring together the various forms of consumer legislation and make sensible provision against hazardous products.

There are still some important outside interests which feel that the Bill is oppressive and that its regulations will reach too far into industry and commerce, which are already well loaded with legislation of one kind and another. I recognise that, the Minister recognises it, and so does my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth.

However, there have been tragic accidents in the home involving many thousands of persons over the years, and there has not been adequate power to enable quick action to be taken. That must be set against the effect of the Bill in adding a bit of onerous responsibility and work to business and commerce, and, although that is a burden which is not to be set at nought, we recognise the Bill as making an important contribution to safety.

We wish the Bill a speedy passage to the statute book. It is our earnest hope that it will be operated sensitively and sensibly. The Minister will have great powers at his hand, if he wishes to use them, but, from the way in which the Minister of State has acted today, we believe that those powers will be used sparingly and sensibly and, above all, in consultation with all who will be affected. We are happy to give the Bill its Third Reading.

I beg to move Amendment No. 10, in page 2, line 16, at end insert—

'(cc) the employer had not applied to the Service for a variation or revocation of the recommendation under section 13 of the Employment Protection Act 1975 or otherwise challenged the validity of the recommendation in an application to the High Court; and'.

The amendment flows from an assurance given by the sponsor of the Bill in Committee. We were then talking of what would trigger off the procedures laid down in the Bill. I think that the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) agreed—

Object.

Second Reading, what day? No day named.