THE "REASONABLENESS" TEST (Hansard, 28 July 1977)

§ Mr. Michael Ward (Peterborough)
I beg to move, That this House doth not insist on its amendment in line 7.
I shall be moving similarly concerning the Commons amendment in line 10.
The amendment to which the Commons amendment referred is concerned with the test of reasonableness on certain clauses in contracts to which a money limit should be fixed. Their Lordships made an amendment to the Bill which was acceptable both to the sponsors of the Bill and to the Government which would have forced the courts to have regard to certain matters in relation to such clauses, a point to which objection was taken by the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Taylor).
The hon. Member moved an amendment on the clause which, had we been able to muster 40 or more Members at the time, would not have been accepted by the House. However, it was carried, and the amendment was remarked upon severely by Lord Hailsham, whose clause had been amended. I think the House will agree that, having read the Lords proceedings, we should take our originally proposed course of action, which was to leave Lord Hailsham's clause unamended. I have consulted my hon. Friend the Minister of State about the points which were made by the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West, which were general points relating to the position of sole proprietors and partnerships in this situation. I hope he will be able to say that he can take the general point further but that it is not a point that should be considered in the context of the Bill.

§ The Minister of State, Department of Prices and Consumer Protection (Mr. John Fraser)
As a matter of honour, I should say that although the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Taylor) is not here he gave a promise that he would agree not to press the amendment if I agreed to give him one assurance and one undertaking. The assurance was that he should have the opportunity to raise this matter in the future. The Law Commission's report on the law of contribution has been approved in principle by the Govern- 1398 ment and we will introduce legislation at the earliest possibility, which we hope will be soon. The hon. Member will therefore have that opportunity to debate again the question of contribution.
Secondly, I undertake that I will go to the Lord Chancellor and see whether the problem which has arisen about the joint and several liability of partners, its effect on the general law and its effect resulting from the Bill are suitable subjects to be referred to the Law Commission. I gave that undertaking to the hon. Gentleman and he in turn promised not to press the amendments any further. I now place the matter on the record.

§ Mr. Michael Neubert (Romford)
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Taylor) will be pleased to see the Minister's remarks on the record. As this is the third successive Friday on which I, in common with the Minister and the sponsor of the Bill, have been in attendance for its benefit, and as you, Mr. Speaker, on those occasions were acquiring legal laurels to adorn your distinguished brow, may we all profoundly hope that this is positively the Bill's last appearance in the House?
I pay tribute to the tenacity of the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Ward) in promoting the Bill's passage through Parliament. I have a special reason for doing so. He is my constituent, and although he has recently moved from the constituency his name remains on the electoral register. I hope therefore that if there should be a General Election—and I very much hope that there will be—the hon. Member will give considered weight to the support I have given to his estimable Bill from both Front and Back Benches.