§ Lords Amendment:
§ In page 7, leave out lines 12 to 16.
§ The LORD ADVOCATEI beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment, taken in conjunction with the next Amendment which it is proposed to insert instead of the words which are now taken out, is really a drafting Amendment. The benefit of the substituted Amendment is that it deals with loans not only where the interest is stated but also where the rate of interest is not stated. Another objection to the original draft is that it uses the phrase "document sent under this Section." The words substantially have the same effect in their redrafted form.
§ Mr. RHYS DAVIESAs one who is supporting the fundamental principles of this Bill, I am not at all satisfied with the explanation of the Lord Advocate, because the cause of this Measure is the sending of circulars by moneylenders broadcast. I should have thought that the words in the lines we are now discussing covered the very point we dealt with in Committee upstairs. I do not think the Lord Advocate has given us a sufficient explanation as to what the deletion of these five lines of the Bill mean. For instance, we delete the words "any advertisement, circular, business letter, or other similar document." I want to know whether prohibition against sending circulars occurs in the Bill later.
§ The LORD ADVOCATEWords are substituted.
§ Mr. DAVIESThe Lord Advocate knows very much more about the law than I do. It is very seldom I pay a tribute to a Scotsman in that way. But if he had sat in the Committee upstairs when we dealt with the Bill, I feel sure he would have heard of the difficulty that people experience in connection with the receipt of circulars from moneylenders. Until we get an explanation from the Lord Advocate that the word "circular" or the word "document" will cover circular as included in the Bill elsewhere, we cannot accept the Amendment. I do not know whether the Lord Advocate can give that explanation, but we cannot leave the matter where it stands at the moment.
§ Mr. J. BAKERI sympathise with the difficulty of the Lord Advocate, because he is in exactly the same mess as we were in when we discussed this Clause in Committee and could not get legal advice to help us. If the hon. and learned Gentleman had turned up at the Committee probably he would not have got us out of the fog, because he has not done so now. This was one of the thorny questions before the Committee—as to whether moneylenders should be allowed to send out a business card, and if they did, at the request of someone, send out something, what they should state on the document. It was for that reason that two nights ago I helped to block this Bill, because I thought that this House was not being treated fairly. This Bill was on the Order Paper two nights ago, but it was only yesterday morning that I received the Lords Amendments. If it had not been for an accident, this House might have put the Bill through two nights ago without an opportunity having been given of discussing these Amendments which, to say the least, are complicated and comprehensive, though they may make the matter clearer than it was made by the Committee. I am not raising objection to the Amendment, but merely to the method that the other side have adopted in transacting their business in connection with this Bill.
§ Lords Amendment:
§ In page 8, line 1, after the word "sum," insert "or other valuable consideration."
§ The LORD ADVOCATEI beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
It was suggested in another place that there might be a consideration other than that of money which might be used for the purpose, and therefore it was right to put in these additional words to cover such a case.
§ 10.0. p.m.
§ Mr. DENNISONI would like to have from the Lord Advocate some explanation as to what may be meant by "other valuable consideration." It is a very wide term. In Committee we discussed this matter at considerable length. We had four King's Counsel and other members 1612 of the Bar on the Committee, and they all differed as to what was meant by a phrase something like this. Now we have the Lord Advocate telling us that he agrees with the Amendment, and I think the House is entitled to know what he means by "other valuable consideration." I have read the Report of the Debates in another place, and there was there no explanation whatever given as to what the words meant. As a much more responsible body this House is entitled to know what the members of the legal profession, and particularly those in the Government, mean by "other valuable consideration." We were very much neglected in Committee by not having legal advisers present, but as the Lord Advocate is present to-night perhaps he will be prepared to tell us what these words mean.
§ The LORD ADVOCATEMay I make clear that I was not a Member of the Committee upstairs, and could not be present. I propose to take part in the Debate now because I am present. If the hon. Member will look at the Bill, he will find that the words are, "demand or receive directly or indirectly any sum by way of commission or otherwise for introducing or undertaking to introduce to a moneylender any person desiring to borrow money." The word "sum" clearly means a money sum, but it might quite well be that something, such as a side of bacon, was offered, something in kind, instead of a sum of money. That is an equally reprehensible method. The phrase "valuable consideration," as I understand it, would include both money and a consideration of any other kind. For that reason it is proposed to add these words so as to cover the alternative form of inducement.
§ Lords Amendment:
§
In page 8, line 3, at the end, insert:
(4) Where any document issued or published by or on behalf of a moneylender purports to indicate the terms of interest upon which he is willing to make loans or any particular loan, the document shall either express the interest proposed to be charged in terms of a rate per cent. per annum or show the rate per cert. per annum represented by the interest proposed to be charged as calculated in accordance with the provisions of the First Schedule to this Act.
§ The LORD ADVOCATEI beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is the consequential Amendment to which I referred previously. These words are more comprehensive.
§ Lords Amendment: In page 8, line 17, leave out the word "void," and insert "illegal."
§ The LORD ADVOCATEI beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
If a contract or a transaction of this kind is only void, then it merely means that the law will refuse to help that contract to be enforced. That is not what was meant by this House. In that sense the Amendment is a drafting Amendment.
§ Mr. DENNISONI think it is well that we should have one or two more observations from the Lord Advocate as to the difference in meaning between the word "void" and the word "illegal." As I have already intimated—
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member must not repeat the remarks which he has made on a former Amendment.
§ Mr. DENNISONWith all respect to you, Mr. Speaker, it is sometimes necessary to repeat oneself. My view is that if it were necessary to substitute the word "illegal" for the word "void," surely we could have had that put in during the 10 days in which the matter was discussed very carefully upstairs by people, who, at any rate from the point of view of the country and of this House, are as capable of knowing what was the right word as those who are in another place. There is a considerable difference between the word "illegal" and the word "void," and it is not well for this House lightly to pass over this. This Bill affects a considerable proportion of the community, not necessarily moneylenders only, but it affects borrowers as well. I am speaking on behalf of both sections, not because I am going to borrow or to lend, because, as a Scotsman, I do not lend. My second reason for not lending is because I have nothing to lend. There is a great deal of difference between the word "void" and the word "illegal." [Interruption.] Very well; hon. Members opposite will be able to express their views, and I 1614 shall be very glad to hear them. If it is legal, it means that from the very commencement of the transaction the whole business is illegal. If it is void, it means that a contract has been entered into in all good faith, and it is a matter for the people who entered into the contract as to whether they will honour their obligation. It was never the intention of the Select Committee or of the Committee upstairs that the whole transaction should be illegal. If it had been, they would have put the word "illegal" in instead of the word "void." Therefore, I strongly object to this Amendment. It was certainly not the intention of the Committee of this House or of the Select Committee that it should be inserted.