HC Deb 17 May 1956 vol 552 cc2290-3
Mr. R. Gresham Cooke (Twickenham)

I beg to move, in page 23, line 29, at the end to insert: retail purchase; means any purchase irrespective of the price paid where the goods are obtained for the purchaser's own use and not for resale. This Amendment is designed only to deal with the question of loss-leader. Where a manufacturer lays down a price, at present, under Clause 21, it appears that a trader could go into a shop next door and buy goods retail and then sell them off as loss-leaders. This Amendment, providing for a definition of "retail purchase ", means that the purchase must be for the purchaser's own use and not for resale.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft

I agree with the intention in this Amendment, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for having moved it. The intention here is to prevent a consumer from being proceeded against under Clause 20 for reselling his goods at a lower price than he paid for them. The object is really to ensure that only a genuine consumer-purchaser should be exempt, and I think that that is what the Committee would really want.

I am not very happy about the wording, but I do agree that some provision to this effect is required. We do not want consumers to be proceeded against for loss-leading. On the other hand, we want to be quite certain that we catch anybody else. If my hon. Friend would withdraw his Amendment, I will look at this point before the next stage of the Bill.

Mr. Gresham Cooke:

Having had that explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft

I beg to move, in page 23, line 36, at the end to insert: and for the purposes of this Act any buildings, structures or other works so constructed or carried out shall be deemed to be delivered at the place where they are constructed or carried out. The purpose of this Amendment is the necessary one of deciding into which category and, therefore, into which part of the Bill these various matters will fall. We have to have some test to ascertain whether it is home trade or export trade, or whether it is supply of goods overseas, in which case it would not be in the Bill. The test really must be that which is laid down here. The test shall be the place where they were constructed and carried out. I think that is as convenient and sensible a test as any, and I suggest that the Committee should adopt it.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. E. Fletcher

I beg to move, in page 23, line 37, to leave out subsection (3).

The object of this Amendment is to ask the President of the Board of Trade why this subsection is necessary. As I read it, it is designed to leave out from the purpose of the Act those companies which carry on business in this country through an agent. There are many such companies. Quite a number of important companies with headquarters overseas have either a subsidiary company or an agent here, and may yet make restrictive agreements of the kind which have to be registered so that the public may know about them and further inquiries can take place if necessary.

The President has just said that, on the whole, he is in favour of publicity. Therefore, I would have hoped that he would have agreed that there is no obvious need to exclude from the ambit of the Bill companies which carry on business in this country through an agent.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft

The answer is that it really is barely necessary. It is declaratory of what the law is. At the same time, we have put this subsection into the Bill, and quite rightly, because while it may be plain to everybody here I think that this position ought to be plain to people overseas as well.

An American company, carrying on business in New York and represented by an agent over here, is manifestly not within the scope of the Bill. It could not be, and it would be foolish to try to place such a business within the scope of the Bill, because we would have no power to deal with the situation or to control it in any way. The only time when we could take control of the situation would be if, in fact, such a company were carrying on business over here. The arrangement whereby agents are not treated as carrying on business is common form in this matter.

As I say, on a strict interpretation doubt whether the subsection really is required at all. I have discussed this matter with my advisers and, on the whole, I am inclined to keep the subsection in the Bill in order to make quite plain to everybody what the situation is.

Mr. Jay

Can the right hon. Gentleman say that these words would not enable a United Kingdom company to appoint an agent also in the United Kingdom who would then carry on the business in the United Kingdom and then argue that he was outside the provisions of the Bill? It does not say anything about the company having to be outside this country.

Mr. Thorneycroft

I think that is all right, but I will look at the point.

Mr. E. Fletcher

I take it from what the President of the Board of Trade says that if the agent makes an agreement in this country for his overseas principal, the overseas company is thereby carrying on business in this country and that such an agreement would be registered. I gather from what the President has said that the operative words in subsection (3) are …by reason only of the fact:… and that that is the strength of his contention that it is doubtful whether the Clause is necessary. I also gather, from the spirit in which he spoke, that this subsection will not exempt overseas companies which carry on business in this country and make agreements here.

Mr. Thorneycroft

That is quite right. the words …by reason only of… are important. Assuming that the companies were carrying on business and entering into the mutual arrangements mentioned in Clauses 5 or 6, they would be caught up in it, but this deals simply with purely agency arrangements.

Mr. Fletcher

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 30, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.