§ 4.6 p.m.
§ Mr. Arthur Davidson (Accrington)I beg to move,
§
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to regulate doorstep selling.
§ In view of the generous trailer which you allowed me during my supplementary question yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I can be very brief today.
§ The purpose of the Bill is to give greater protection to the consumer against the operation of salesmen who gain entry into private homes by pretending, through a skilful use of words, that they have called for a totally different purpose. Once inside the home they proceed, by another carefully prepared piece of chatter which again is carefully designed to conceal what they are really up to, to sell the householder expensive goods often involving hundred of pounds worth of commitments. Even after that, the householder is so beguiled and bemused that he thinks he is taking part in some worthy educational project or some piece of useful social research.
§ The practice, which is on the increase, has been condemned in a series of articles recently in the Daily Mirror, which has shown beyond doubt that great hardship has been inflicted on innocent people as a result of this particularly nasty and dubious form of selling. The Consumers' Association has also condemned the practice and, indeed, has infiltrated these organisations in order to learn at first hand the techniques used.
§ Very simply, the salesmen are taught deliberately to conceal the true object of the visit in every case. One firm says "We are calling on all the householders in the area and it is just a matter of interviewing you and your wife together for a few moments. It is about brand indentification." It is not about brand identification. It is about selling encyclopedias.
§ Another firm, which sells expensive record and stereo equipment, instructs its salesmen to use the following opening gambit "I am doing some research work in this area this evening, and there are a few question which I have to ask husband and wife together." He does not have any questions to ask the husband 1144 and wife, either together or separately. He is out to sell inferior stereo equipment.
§ Yet another firm has instructed its salesmen to say "We are not actually selling anything. We just want to show it to you." What they want to show, and what they want to sell, is a TV magnifying screen.
§ Another firm instructs its salesmen to say "I am in this area discussing fire prevention. Do not worry; it is not about insurance." If it were about insurance, the householder might be better off.
§ In all cases the approach is thoroughly dishonest. The householder is left without any protection and often lands himself in considerable debt. The first thing my Bill seeks to do is to make it obligatory for a salesman to reveal that he is a salesman. This would mean that the firm which deliberately coached its salesmen in these techniques would be encouraging them to commit an offence and the law would, therefore, be able to catch the real victims, who are the firms themselves, rather than merely the salesmen.
§ The second protection the Bill would give would be to enable the householder, the consumer, to have the same four-day cooling-off period as exists under any normal hire-purchase agreement.
§ I agree that the Bill is not perfect. It will not stamp out completely this sort of technique. It will, however, at least make it more difficult for these dishonest types of sales techniques to continue.
§ Mr. Alan Williams (Swansea, West)On a point of order. Are you aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that a difficulty has arisen in that my hon. Friend has raised a matter of considerable importance to the public and the House, yet there is not in his place a Minister to represent the relevant Department? Will you arrange for this debate to occur again at a time when a Minister is present at least to hear the arguments before closing his mind to them?
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris)I think the hon. Gentleman is under a slight misapprehension. It is not necessary on the raising of a Ten-Minute Rule Bill for a Minister to be present, and frequently Ministers are not present on these occasions. It is for the House to decide, having heard the hon. 1145 Member presenting the Bill, whether to grant leave for its introduction. If another hon. Member wishes to rise to make a short speech opposing the Bill, that is in order. Other than that, I now only have to ask whether the hon. Gentleman has the leave of the House to bring in his Bill.
§ Sir Harmar Nicholls (Peterborough)On a point of order. So that the record will not be lopsided on this matter, may I draw your attention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to the fact that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is one of the most senior Cabinet Ministers, has been present to hear the case adduced by the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. Arthur Davidson)? To suggest that the hon. Member's comments have not been noted by the Government is a wrong and stupid thing to counsel from the benches opposite.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerI do not wish to enter into any argument on this subject. It is up to the House to decide whether to give the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. Arthur Davidson) permission to introduce his Bill.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Arthur Davidson, Mr. Charles Morrison, Mr. Alan Williams, Mr. Wellbeloved, Mr. Goodhart, Mrs. Doris Fisher, Mr. Cormack, Mr. Alfred Morris, Mr. Carter, Mr. Crouch, Miss Fookes and Mr. Robert C. Brown.