PROTECTION OF PASSENGERS (FARES) BILL (Hansard, 16 July 1974)

§ Mr. George Lawson (Motherwell and Wishaw)
I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to limit the extent to which forfeiture of fares, including deposits paid, may be included in contracts for the carriage of passengers. I have been provoked into asking for permission to bring in the Bill because of the experiences of two of my constituents—[Interruption]—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. Will hon. Members conduct their conversations outside?

§ Mr. Lawson
I was saying that I was provoked to ask for permission to bring in the Bill by the experiences of an old couple in my constituency who had arranged to go on holiday to Australia, a holiday which would cost them virtually all their life savings. The return fare to Australia would cost them over £1,000. They arranged the trip having been required by the conditions of their contract of passage to pay the full fare there and back before hand.
The company concerned, Chandris Shipping Lines Ltd. is a private company. Its chairman is a Greek, by name Chandris, and I understand that one of the other directors is his brother. This is a private shipping company with £500,000 £1 shares, of which 400,000 have been issued. All of those 400,000, with the exception of two, are owned by another company, a private company called Fountain Company Ltd., registered in the Isle of Guernsey. So the chairman, Mr. A. Chandris, and his brother, who is also a director, have one share each. The company operates mainly through travel agencies by taking passengers to Australia. It insists as one of the terms of contract that the full payment be made a substantial time before hand.
What happened in the case of my constituents is that Mr. McMillan of Wishaw fell ill—there was no question about his becoming ill; he is 75 years old—and they 267 were obliged to cancel the trip. They were able to give only 21 days' notice of the cancellation. The company, which had already received the money, insisted on retaining the full fare from this country to Australia, returning only the fare from Australia back to this country. That part of the fare that they retained amounted to £599.50, that is, £600. The company insisted that the terms of the contract entitled it, unless it had been given 28 days' notice, to retain the full fare out.
Various appeals have been made to the company. I have written to it, as have the solicitors for my constituents. The company turned down the appeals on the grounds that the old couple had not properly insured themselves. I phoned the company and spoke to someone describing himself as the public relations officer. I said I would like to come and discuss the matter with the Chairman of the company, Mr. A. Chandris, and he said that he would get in touch with me after seeing whether it would be worth my while meeting Mr. Chandris.
I was subsequently told that Mr. Chandris was not prepared to meet me. I phoned later and asked whether it would be possible to discuss the matter with Mr. Chandris over the telephone. After another delay, I was told that Mr. Chandris was not prepared to discuss the matter with me, even over the telephone. We have, therefore, a situation in which an old couple's life savings have been—perhaps I should not use the word "confiscated"—forfeited to this company. No appeal that can be made to the company makes any difference. The company is simply insisting that because the old couple failed to insure against cancellation nothing can be done. In going into this matter I have formed grave doubts whether the couple were properly advised about cancellation and how important it was that they should insure against cancellation. But I leave that matter aside.
I am emphasising that we have circumstances in this country in which companies can apparently draw up terms and conditions of contract and that someone accepting those terms may have virtually no knowledge of what they are. A clerk in a travel agency, perhaps, or a bank selling 268 an insurance policy, may go over part of these terms and conditions of contract and may himself sign to say that he is authorised to say that people understand the terms. Perhaps I have put that wrongly. He may get them to agree that they understand the terms and conditions of contract although he himself may not be clear as to what they are. This having been done, it means that nothing else can happen and that the law is wholly on the side of the person or firm who impose the conditions.
I have with me the document which carries these terms and conditions of contract. The terms and conditions are contained on a single sheet of paper which carries more than 3,000 words. It will be seen that it is not a question of reading the small print but of reading the microscopic print. On that basis, this firm is enabled apparently, according to the law, to hold on to this sum, which is virtually £600, and say, "Come what may and do what you may, no matter what appeal you make or what the moral case is, or how hard up you are, we have got this money and we shall hold on to it." Unfortunately, the law as it stands will do nothing about it.
The Bill would seek, first, to ensure that terms and conditions of contract are laid out in such a fashion that there can be no dubiety as to what is meant. On important matters such as this, we should be perfectly clear about the terms and conditions. Secondly, we must have a law which imposes a limit on what can be charged. It should not be 100 per cent. confiscation—I use that word—but a definite although naturally relatively small and fair limit as to how much can be charged. We should also insist that there should be some means whereby there can be proper arbitration in disputes of this kind. This firm does not belong to any organisation. It goes on its own way. Clearly, we should not be prepared to permit this kind of thing. The Bill would ensure proper means of arbitration in these matters. That is the purpose of the Bill.