Lords Sitting of 30 January 1964

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Oxford

UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF RHODESIA
3.5 p.m.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what future financial arrangements have been made respecting the University College of Rhodesia in Salisbury, and what contribution will be made to its maintenance by Great Britain.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COMMONMWEALTH RELATIONS AND FOR THE COLONIES (THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, most of the recurrent costs of the College for 1964 have been met by the transfer of a Federal grant. Arrangements for financing the College after 1964 are at present the subject of negotiation between the Governments concerned. We hope to arrange for a meeting to be held in Salisbury to discuss the future of the College in the near future.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his Answer, and I am sure that he will recognise, as all of us do, that the delay in reaching a final decision with regard to the financial future of this very important educational institute, important not only to Central Africa but also to Africa as a whole, is in fact doing damage to it. I hope, therefore, that when the negotiations are started in Salisbury Her Majesty's Government will regard the part that they can play financially in the future of the University with as generous an attitude as is possible, particularly in relation to the new medical school.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I should like to associate myself
1244
with my noble friend in agreeing that the sooner this question can be settled the better for all concerned. I would add one word of warning. Of course, it is not our general practice to contribute to the recurrent costs of overseas universities.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, may I urge my noble friend that the Government should not close their minds to the possibility of having to make an exception to that rule in the particular case of this university, which has provided a very important forum for higher education on a multiracial basis in Central Africa?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, with these talks due to be held very shortly, I think it would be unwise of me to say anything which might prejudice them.

FORCES IN CYPRUS
3.7 p.m.
THE EARL OF SANDWICH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a statement of policy on the replacement of British Forces in Cyprus by contingents from NATO countries.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, after the opening session of the Cyprus Conference my right honourable friend the Commonwealth Secretary held a series of separate meetings with the representatives of Greece and Turkey and of the two Cypriot communities, with a view to finding a basis for the discussion of a settlement of the Cyprus problem. However, it soon became evident—and this was not unexpected—that the task of reaching agreement was going to be difficult and protracted. In the meantime the situation in Cyprus has been growing extremely tense, which inevitably increases the danger of a renewal of the earlier disorders. In these circumstances we felt it desirable that the present peace-keeping force should be enlarged by the participation of additional countries. Negotiations to this end are now proceeding. I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I do

1245
not go into greater detail at this juncture. I will make a further statement as soon as practicable.
THE EARL OF SANDWICH: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. May I ask him two short questions? First, was consideration given to the transfer of a British Division from Germany to a NATO commitment, obviously more immediate than the existing German commitment, and, if so, why that was not given effect to? Secondly, is it true, as I hope it is, as reported in The Times to-day from Washington, that the United States Administration requires Britain to remain in command of the peace-keeping Division, and does that mean that the force commander will be a British commander?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, with regard to my noble friend's first supplementary question, I said in my original Answer that we felt it desirable that the present peace-keeping force should be enlarged by the participation of additional countries. As that is so, I do not think that his first supplementary question arises. With regard to the second, this will, of course, be one of the matters to be discussed in the negotiations.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I should like to ask the Leader of the House whether Her Majesty's Government will give special consideration to the second supplementary question of the noble Earl. For, of course, though we all welcome the participation of other countries in a problem which certainly has wide international implications, Cyprus is still part of the British Commonwealth. Therefore, I would ask Her Majesty's Government whether they would not think it appropriate that, even if there are other contingents, the actual command should be in the hands of someone belonging to the Commonwealth.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the point which the noble Marquess has made will be borne very much in mind.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I should like to say to the noble Leader that we were very satisfied in general with his first Answer, and I think that at the present
1246
moment of negotiations I do not need to put any further questions.

LUGGAGE ACCOMMODATION ON BUSES
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM had given notice of his intention to ask the following Question:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, when buses are approved as an alternative to branch line railway passenger services, they will implement their promise of an adequate alternative, by ensuring that the buses have sufficient capacity for bulky luggage and that they provide reasonable connections with main line trains.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Stonham has asked me to apologise to the House because he is not present to ask his Question. He is indisposed and hopes to be present next week to ask it.

FIXED CHANNEL LINK
3.9 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government when they expect,

(a) to be ready for a further exchange of views with the French Government,

(b) to make a joint announcement of policy,

in regard to the Report Proposals for a Fixed Channel Link [Cmnd. 2137] which was presented to Parliament in September last.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM): My Lords, I regret that there is little I can add to the Answer my noble friend Lord Ferrers gave on Thursday last. The reply to both parts of my noble friend's question must therefore be, "Soon".
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, my noble friend will recall that one of the words used by his noble friend last Thurs-

1247
day was, not "soon" but "hope". Would he bear in mind that he who lives in hope has but a slender diet? Also, could my noble friend's right honourable friend not work to a more definite timetable, and therefore be more specific in his reply than my noble friend when he is considering the various aspects of this matter?
LORD CHESHAM: My noble friend must by now be aware that there are so many implications of national importance in this matter that I do not think they can be put down to be worked upon under a timetable.

EPISCOPAL CHURCH (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order).
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

PUBLIC WORKS (LOANS) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a and to be printed.
NEW TOWNS BILL
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill, within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911; read la; and to be printed.

HIRE-PURCHASE (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
3.13 p.m.
Report of Amendments received (according to Order).
Clause 1 [Extension of application of Hire-Purchase Act 1938]:
THE MINISTER OF STATE, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD DRUMALBYN)THE MINISTER OF STATE, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD DRUMALBYN) had given Notice of several Amendments dealing with bodies corporate, the first being, in subsection (1), after "shall" to insert:
"(except as provided by section (Exclusion of bodies corporate) of this Act)".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as your Lordships know, the Molony Com-
1248
mittee recommended that the Hire-Purchase Acts should apply only to consumer transactions. We did not follow this recommendation in the Bill as drafted. As I explained previously, there would have been great difficulties of definition. Instead, the Bill raises the monetary ceiling to £2,000 and we did not think it likely that practical difficulties would arise if purely commercial agreements up to that figure were brought within the scope of the Acts.
Since the Bill came before your Lordships' House we have received a number of representations about such agreements. There are, of course, many instances of commercial firms acquiring goods under hire-purchase agreements within the £2,000 ceiling; for example, there are acquisitions of industrial plant and motor vehicles. It has been represented to us that consumer protection safeguards are not really appropriate to such purely commercial transactions. Further, it has been represented that commercial hire-purchase agreements are concluded on terms which are quite normal between business concerns but which could not be made to satisfy the requirements of the Acts. As an example, there is quoted to us a variable rate agreement under which the parties agree that the hire-purchase charges shall vary during the lifetime of the agreement in sympathy with movements of hire-purchase rates generally. When the agreement is made the amount of the hire-purchase price and of each instalment is not known, so the requirements of the 1938 Act cannot be complied with.
My Lords, we have considered the matter further in the light of these representations. The protection which the Hire-Purchase Acts give to the hirer is something exceptional, in recognition of his comparative weakness and lack of knowledge in relation to the finance house and the dealer. There is no particular reason why normal business concerns should be so specially protected in their dealings with other business concerns. Our conclusion is that, particularly since the application of the Acts to purely commercial agreements could cause practical difficulties, we should deal with the problem by exempting from the scope of the Hire-Purchase Acts all hire-purchase and credit-sale

1249
agreements where the hirer or buyer is a body corporate. Your Lordships will recall that during the Committee stage I accepted an Amendment doing just this in relation to the cooling-off provisions. We have now decided to apply that principle generally. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 9, after ("shall") insert ("(except as provided by section (Exclusion of bodies corporate) of this Act)").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, this Amendment is the logical outcome of the Amendment moved from this side of the House excluding corporate bodies, particularly with regard to the safeguards in connection with the cancellation of agreements, and we would accept the point of view which indicates that corporate bodies should not come within the provisions of this Bill.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I do not disagree with this at all; I am just seeking some information. What exactly is meant by a "corporate body"?—because the Minister in his remarks referred to "normal business transactions" and "commercial concerns". I know that it would include the limited company, presumably public or private. Does it include a partnership or a one-man business?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No.
LORD HUGHES: Some of my noble friends say, No. I do not know whether they are saying "No" to a one-man business, or to a partnership. Some partnerships and, in fact, some one-man businesses are still very large concerns. Would they be excluded, or would they get the benefits of the Bill irrespective of their size?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I think that what is meant by "corporate bodies" is any organisation incorporated under the Companies Act, any corporation established by Statute or any corporation established by Charter.
LORD HUGHES: That means that a business partnership which was not a limited company would have the benefit of the Bill?
LORD DRUMALBYN: Only if not incorporated under the Companies Act. There is a great difficulty in drawing the
1250
line here. In theory, the easiest way would have been to define consumer transactions; but we found that it was not possible to do that. In any event, we do not want to take out of the Bill the small businessman, because often many of the hardships of repossession affect him in particular. What we do think is reasonable is to take out the body corporate, and that is the purpose of this Amendment.
LORD HUGHES: I think the position is that there are still a fair number of fairly large businesses which are not limited companies. On the other hand, there are a great number of very small businesses which are private limited companies. So that we can have the situation that the way this matter has been dealt with will deprive a very small company of the benefits of the Bill while conferring them on the organisations very much more able to look after themselves.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Hughes has raised a very important point, and I hope that the Minister will look into it between now and the time this Bill comes before another place. Some very large manufacturing concerns are still, of course, run as partnerships. All the disadvantages, in respect of sliding arrangements for prices and that sort of thing, will continue to apply to them. If some way out of this could be found, I am sure that it would be of great advantage to the commercial and industrial interests of the country.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I admit that there are anomalies; but I think that, whatever we did, there would be anomalies in this matter. I should have thought the large enterprises referred to are unlikely to be affected by this Act. For one thing, the provisions of the 1938 Act, on which this Bill is based, apply to a limited extent, and this Bill raises the upper limit of the transactions to £2,000. While it is perfectly true that large organisations who make hire-purchase agreements below the value of £2,000 will, if they are not corporate bodies, be covered by the benefits, I should not have thought that that fact had any great practical significance. We are perfectly willing to look at the position again to see whether we

1251
can define it more closely, but I think your Lordships will appreciate the great advantage of a clear division of this kind that will be well understood.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I beg to move that the new clause be agreed to.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
Exclusion of bodies corporate
". The principal Act shall not apply to any hire-purchase agreement or credit-sale agreement which is made by a body corporate (whether incorporated in the United Kingdom or elsewhere) as the hirer or buyer of the goods to which the agreement relates.".—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2:
Requirements relating to hire-purchase agreements and credit-sale agreements
2.—
(2) The Board of Trade may by regulations provide that in any document which constitutes a hire-purchase agreement to which the principal Act applies, or constitutes a credit-sale agreement to which that Act applies under which the total purchase price exceeds £20, the signature of the hirer or buyer shall be inserted in a space marked in such manner, and accompanied in the document by such words, as may be specified in the regulations; and the regulations may include provision as to the size and colour of the lettering of those words and as to their location in relation to the space in which the signature is inserted.
3.24 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON LORD SHACKLETON moved, after subsection (1), to insert:
Amendment of sections 2 and 3 of the principal Act
"(2) Section 2 and Section 3 of the principal Act shall have effect as if:—
(a) there were inserted after subsection 2(b) of each section—
(bb) the agreement contains a statement of the amount of any commission in any way attributable to the introduction or acceptance of the agreement if such commission is paid or to be paid to any person (in this subsection referred to as a 'dealer') or to the servant or agent of a dealer by the person to whom the dealer has supplied or is to supply the whole or any part of the goods comprised in or to be comprised in the agreement; and
(b) there were inserted after '(b)' in the provisos to subsection (2) of each section '(bb)'".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move Amendment No. 3, which deals once again with the question of secret commissions. This was a matter which we debated on a different Amendment, concerned with charges, moved by my noble friend Lord Shepherd on the Committee stage. This Amendment is a narrower one, and its purpose is to ensure that the agreement signed by the hirer reveals the amount of commission that is paid to the dealer. If I may take an example similar to the one that my noble friend Lord Shepherd mentioned on the Committee stage, on a car costing £1,000, which might be payable over two years, the payment to the dealer for negotiating the agreement, if it was negotiated with a motor agent who was in fact dealing with one of the Finance House Association members, might be £22 10s. 0d., while if it was another one it might be as much as £37, because the amount of the commission varies between 10 and 25 per cent. I have a later Amendment to restrict the amount of commission that shall be paid. Whether or not that is acceptable—and I can see that there are arguments against interfering in that type of arrangement—there surely can be no argument against revealing the facts to the average hirer of a motor vehicle.
It would be our submission, and the submission of those who support this Amendment, that the average hirer does not know how the charges are made up, and in particular does not know that there is a commission payable to, say, the motor car agent. The hirer comes along, chooses a car of a certain value and price, and then he has to think how he is going to pay for it. He does not know at any time that the motor agent, who he thinks is rendering him a service, is already being fully remunerated, for rendering little in the way of service at all. Indeed, it would be perfectly open for the individual to go direct to one of the Finance Houses and arrange his own hire-purchase; and if he were to do that, it would save him something like 1 per cent. of the charges he would pay in the course of the year.
I submit that there is everything to be said for bringing this situation out into the open. It does not occur to the average hirer, the average individual, to inquire the rate of the hire-purchase

1253
company's charges, or how they are made up. He has no idea at that stage what total he has to pay over and above the cash price (and this was the matter which my noble friend Lord Shepherd dealt with), and therefore has no inducement to find out whether he could get better terms elsewhere. We should like to see that it is brought home to the hirer that he is, in fact, having to pay quite heavily for this accommodation. We also think it is undesirable that there should be such a strong incentive to the motor agent who is selling the car—and I am relating this mainly to the motor car as the best example—to persuade the individual to take out a hire-purchase agreement, as opposed to paying cash; and, furthermore, to enter into an agreement which it is also in the interests of the agent to stretch over as long a period as possible, because, again, his own commission will be to that extent higher.
When we debated this matter on the Committee stage, the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, said that no case had been made out for this Amendment, but I should have thought it was a case which has only to be mentioned to be apparent: that it is highly desirable that people should know what they are dealing with. This is not just a single transaction; it is not lake going into a shop and buying a car for cash. It is an additional transaction. Whereas they may know the price of the car, the monthly charge and the total charge, they do not know the rate of commission payable to the dealer, and are not in a good position to compare one price with another. I hope that the Minister will be more forthcoming to-day than he was on the last occasion. This is a comparatively simple Amendment. Furthermore, it is one that I think most reputable people concerned in the provision of funds for hire-purchase would support. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 29 at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Shackleton.)
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, perhaps I might add a word in support of what my noble friend has said. In a previous existence (if I may put it that way) I had a certain amount to do with the motor car industry in my constituency, and I should not have
1254
thought that there was any real argument against the case put forward by my noble friend. I agree with him that most people have no idea that the motor agent gets this commission, and I should have thought it not a bad idea that they should know. I do not know about the rest of. your Lordships, but the wide range of possible amounts of commission quoted by my noble friend as charged by different agents was, to me, quite staggering. The Government at the moment seem rather concerned with the consumer—in the first place, that he should be supported, and, secondly, that he should also be able to buy things at the cheapest price available: that he is to have this freedom of choice—and I should therefore have thought that this particular Amendment might have carried more weight. I think that the House will agree that there seems no reason at all why, if commission is paid, the amount should vary to the extent indicated by my noble friend. Furthermore, I should have thought that if it were possible for the purchaser of a motor car to have a hire-purchase agreement which would cost him considerably less if he went to another source, at least he might be made aware of it. I hope that the Minister will be more forthcoming on this occasion.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I, too, should like to support this Amendment. I do not understand the need for commissions to be paid to dealers by hire-purchase companies. It seems to me that the finance companies confer a benefit upon the dealers by enabling them to sell goods which otherwise they would not be able to sell at all. I see the justification for what one might call a documentation fee to be paid to a dealer who fills in documents which would otherwise have to be filled in by the representative of the finance company, and at their expense. A properly worked out documentation fee, which recompenses the dealer properly for the work that he undertakes in filling in forms, I can understand and would agree with; but I cannot see the justification for commissions in excess of that sort of fee; and if one cannot see the justification for these commissions, one certainly cannot see a justification for their being paid in secret. I support this Amendment.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I support my noble friend, but perhaps from a different aspect. We now know that finance companies are paying varying rates of commission to their dealers. Those within the Association, I believe, have limited themselves to 15 per cent. There are others outside who are offering terms of 25 per cent., and some, at one time, were a good deal higher than that. Therefore the House will recognise that finance companies are under considerable pressure to increase their rates of commission. Those who are offering 15 per cent. may well see good business going to those hire-purchase companies that are offering 20 or 25 per cent. This means that the pressure is on the whole range of finance business. If we ever expect—and I think we should expect—charges on hire-purchase business to be reduced (and I think many would wish to see this, even those within the industry itself) it is quite obvious that if 15, 20 or 25 per cent. of the total charge of the agreement is immediately going to the dealer, the opportunity for a hire-purchase company to reduce its charges to its customers will be a good deal less. I think the House should recognise that the dealer receives his commission on a percentage basis of the total charge, and therefore the dealer will increase his rate of commission, his profit, if he can persuade the customer to take perhaps a three-year agreement—the longer the better so far as the dealer is concerned. Therefore, the pressure is not only upon the hire-purchase company for higher commission, which in itself must be a higher charge on the agreement, but also upon the customer for the length of the agreement.
But I think there is another danger in this connection. In practice, the companies that are offering these higher commissions are those which are the more likely to be found in what is called "snatch-back" or various other practices which have brought hire-purchase business into disrepute. At least the customer would be able to judge roughly the position of the hire-purchase company by the mere sight on his agreement of the amount of commission that that company was prepared to pay the dealer for the business to be sent to him. It would be a pretty good guide as to the position of the hire-purchase company.
1256
I am quite sure that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has read the Molony Report—I am sure he has read it two or three times—and he will agree that the Molony Committee were most strong on this matter. They felt, and they said in clear terms, that where these commissions were being paid the customer was entitled to know. I beg the House to support this Amendment, to see that the customer shall be aware of the charge that he will be paying on his agreement, and also that part of it which the dealer receives merely for introducing the customer to the hire-purchase company and perhaps assisting him in the filling in of the documents.
3.38 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I think that the way the House has to look at this matter is to ask what additional advantage the hirer will get from having this particular piece of information. The Amendment seeks to insert immediately after Section 2(2)(b) of the principal Act, a subsection which would make it obligatory to disclose to the hirer any commission attributable to the introduction or acceptance of the agreement. Paragraph (b) states that the agreement must contain a statement of the hire-purchase price and of the cash price of the goods to which the agreement relates, together with a statement of the amount of each of the instalments, the dates on which they fall due and a list of the goods. I think the House would wish to consider whether the information that is now being asked for is in line in any way with that and will really help the hirer to make up his mind whether or not to sign the agreement.
There are, after all, only two major figures with which the hirer is concerned. One is the cash price and the other is the hire-purchase price. He is perfectly able to see the disparity between the two. If he thinks that the hire-purchase price is too high, he will either proceed with the agreement or he will look around to see whether he can get better terms elsewhere. What this Amendment proposes is that the amount of commission Paid to the dealer should be set out separately in the agreement. I should not have thought that this would have been of direct concern to

1257
the hirer in reaching his decision, since any commission which is payable to the dealer by the finance house will already be included in the charges and therefore in the hire-purchase price. The purpose of the Hire-Purchase Acts is to make available to the hirer information which is essential for his purpose in deciding whether the extra costs of buying through hire-purchase are worth while. We shall certainly risk some confusion if we prescribe information which is not essential for that purpose.
One of the fallacies which lies behind this Amendment, if I may say so, is that the amount of the commission is necessarily an extra charge on the consumer. In so many cases there is a trade-in price given for the second-hand goods which are handed in as part of the transaction. Quite obviously, if the dealer gets a commission he is able to shade the price for those trade-in goods. It is not as if there were a fixed market price for the trade-in goods. There may not even be a fixed market price for the cash value of the goods which the hirer is going to acquire on hire-purchase. There is no fixity about this, and it may easily be that the amount of the commission is of advantage in this way and that part of the advantage may be passed on to the hirer.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, does this not discriminate against the hirer who has not got something to trade in?
LORD DRUMALBYN: What is to be borne in mind, surely, is this. The finance houses themselves are in business to lend money on hire-purchase transactions. They are not going to give a higher commission than is required to enable them to get the business. They are competing for business and if in such competitive circumstances they give too high a commission in relation to other finance houses they themselves will very soon be out of business.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves that interesting point, that the dealer shades his price, does he suggest he will have one price if there is a hire-purchase agreement and another if there is a cash transaction and that he will vary the price according to the rate of his commission? This is what the noble Lord is saying. He is saying that the hirer will be asked, before he is told what he is
1258
going to be given for his trade-in whether he is to enter into a hire-purchase agreement.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I do not know the answer to that in any particular circumstances, but, with great respect, I do not think it matters because the dealers are in business to dispose of their goods. They may make a higher profit on one transaction than on another, but they will be considering their business as a whole and their ability to make sales as a whole.
Quite apart from this, there is the practical point about these commissions. The provision in the Amendment could not be satisfactorily enforced. Apart from the possibility of cash payments which could not be traced, there would be obvious ways in which finance houses could make payments to dealers in cash or in kind which need not be related to particular hire-purchase transactions. Indeed, any figure given as the commission could not be readily proved or disproved. Whatever the merits of this may be it really is quite unenforceable. This was one of the reasons why Molony came out against compulsion in the general sphere of commission. I agree that the Molony Committee did not like them, but in the end it was forced to the conclusion that it was not possible to introduce compulsion into this field.
I strongly submit to your Lordships that this is not a matter on which it is appropriate to legislate. The two things the hirer is interested in are what he can get for the goods for cash and what he is being offered by way of a hire-purchase transaction. He may quite easily know what he is getting the goods for for cash—the cash prices of the goods may be much the same in a number of shops. Therefore, if he looks round he is able to compare what he could get the goods for on hire-purchase as between varying shops and can make up his own mind between them. It will not help simply to state the amount of the commission. That is only one element in the total charges, and I would ask your Lordships to reject this Amendment.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, I am sure the House will find little satisfaction in the reply given by the noble Lord opposite. He bases his objection to this Amendment, first on the ground that it

1259
is likely to offer little advantage to the hirer; and, secondly, on the ground that there are difficulties in regard to enforcement. I do not know on which particular argument he truly rests his case, but when we come to the question of an advantage to the hirer—an advantage which the noble Lord apparently doubts—the main virtue of this Amendment is that it would be a decided advantage to the hirer. Indeed, as the noble Lord has indicated, under the principal Act it is necessary for there to be a declaration of the cash price and the hire-purchase price, and the sole purpose of including those two pieces of information is so that the hirer will be able to assess truly the real cost of the credit. Therefore with the exclusion of this other element, the commission, he is not in fact in possession of information which will give him knowledge as to the true cost of that credit.
The noble Lord asked, "Will it help him to make up his mind?" Of course it will help him to make up his mind. It will enable the hirer to have clear knowledge as to what sort of commissions are being paid to dealers, motor car salesmen, and the like, in order to encourage the hirer to take up one hire-purchase transaction or another. Therefore, without any shadow of doubt it is to the advantage of the hirer and unquestionably will help him to make up his mind. It will at least help him to make up his mind with regard to the decision as to which hire-purchase company he deals with; there is no doubt about that.
In regard to the point made by the noble Lord, that it is a fallacy to say that the commission is a charge on the hirer, surely the House will not accept that. Is it seriously suggested that there will be no impact at all on the hirer in this regard? The House cannot possibly accept that argument. I would ask the House to compare the arguments advanced on both sides, and to come quite strongly to the conclusion that this Amendment unquestionably would strengthen the Bill for it would add to the ability of the hirer to understand the agreement and the true cost of the credit which he is seeking.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his
1260
support. I, too, found the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, quite astonishing. To start with, he rather suggested that the Amendment would not be enforceable. A good number of the finance houses regard it as being enforceable, would welcome it, and regard it as perfectly satisfactory.
There are three items in this. There is the basic charge which the hirer pays for the goods, for the motor car; there are the charges of the hire-purchase company, which are difficult to dissect because they include what they have to pay for the use of the money that they are lending, and so on; and there is the third item, which is the commission that the dealer gets and which is entirely concealed at the moment from the hirer. There is this argument that the Amendment would enable the hirer to look with rather clearer eyes at any pressure upon, any cajoling of, him to enter into a hire-purchase agreement—and there are such instances. There is a difference in the price that is paid for a hire-purchase agreement. It may be that we cannot restrict completely what that should be, but at least we can let people know what the components of the hire-purchase price are; and if they know that the dealer's commission ought only to be 10 or 15 per cent., and they see that it is 25 per cent., it will make them think. They might even begin to wonder whether they should sign a particular agreement.
The noble Lord suggested that hire-purchase companies could get round this provision. He talked about inducements, payment in cash or kind. I wonder whether he could specify what he means. Is he, in fact, implying some kind of corrupt practice on their part? I really think that, if this is a serious argument, we ought to know what this sort of practice is. I should have thought this was a perfectly simple proposition. It is regarded through large sections of the hire-purchase trade as entirely enforceable, and I really cannot see why the Government should resist this. In these circumstances, I hope the House will support this Amendment in the Division Lobby.
3.56 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 38; Not-Contents, 56.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Henley, L.

Peddie, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, E.

Hobson, L.

Rea, L.

Attlee, E.

Hughes, L.

St. Davids, V.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Iddesleigh, E.

Shackleton, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Killearn, L.

Shepherd, L.

Champion, L. [Teller.]

Latham, L.

Stonehaven, V.

Chorley, L.

Lindgren, L.

Strang, L.

Clwyd, L.

Listowel, E.

Summerskill, B.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

McNair, L.

Taylor, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Meston, L.

Walston, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Morrison of Lambeth, L.

Willis, L.

Gardiner, L.

Moyne, L.

Wilmot of Selmeston, L

Henderson, L.

Ogmore, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Milverton, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Falkland, V.

Mountevans, L.

Albemarle, E.

Ferrers, E.

Polwarth, L.

Allerton, L.

Ferrier, L.

Poulett, E.

Ampthill, L.

Forster of Harraby, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Auckland, L.

Gage, V.

Rothes, E.

Balerno, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Bessborough, E.

Greenway, L.

Sandford, L.

Bossom, L.

Hanworth, V.

Sandys, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Hastings, L.

Sandwich, E.

Chesham, L.

Horsbrugh, B.

Somers, L.

Conesford, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Spens, L.

Craigton, L.

Lambert, V.

Strange of Knokin, B.

Crathorne, L.

Lothian, M.

Strathcarron, L.

Denham, L.

MacAndrew, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Devonshire, D.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Suffield, L.

Dilhorne, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Merrivale, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Dowding, L.

Mersey, V.

Waldegrave, E.

Drumalbyn, L.

Mills, V.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.3 p.m.
LORD PEDDIE LORD PEDDIE moved, in subsection (2), to leave out all words after "and as to" and to insert:
"any other terms or statements contained in the document".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move Amendment No. 4. The purpose of this Amendment is to enable the Board of Trade to regulate the size and colour of the lettering of the whole of an agreement, and not merely one section of it, so that there will be the opportunity, by the exercise of this power, to emphasise particular aspects of a hire-purchase agreement which it is felt, in the interests of the hirer, should be emphasised. During the Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, in opposing this, said that such a deletion would reduce the power of the Board of Trade to warn the hirer that he is signing an agreement; but, in fact, it does not, for there is power in Clause 2, subsection (2), which says:
1262
"… the signature … shall be inserted in a space marked in such manner, and accompanied … by such words, as may be specified in the regulations;"
Thus there is power there to make certain that the hirer is duly warned. Important though the location of the signature is, what is much more important is how it is displayed.
On Committee stage the Minister indicated that he was prepared to look into this matter. He said that also with regard to many other Amendments, but he has apparently looked long and seen little. I hope that on this occasion he will accept this Amendment, because it undoubtedly strengthens the Bill. The clause as it stands limits the power of the Board of Trade to the control of only the marking of and location of the hirer's signature on the document, and the size and the colour of the lettering: it does not go beyond that. But this Amendment permits an extension of those powers. It would extend the Board of Trade's powers, which are now limited under the Bill to the signature box, to all the

1263
agreement. If there is virtue in bringing the attention of the hirer to a special section of the agreement—namely, where he signs his name—surely there is also same advantage in giving power to the Board of Trade to enable steps to be taken to enhance particular aspects of the agreement that are important to the hirer.
I might also make reference to another point, which is that, in the past, there has been considerable criticism of hire-purchase agreements in the courts, particularly with regard to the size of the type—the minute type. It is important to remember that even the most intelligent people are frequently deterred from reading a document when the type is exceptionally small. This Amendment, without doubt, helps to bring to the attention of the hirer the more important terms of the agreement. Indeed, I would say that if the only objection on the part of the Minister to this Amendment is that it deletes the reference to location, then there is nothing wrong at all, because I would be prepared to accept the retention of the reference to the location provided there was an acceptance of the principle involved in this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 38, leave out from ("to") to end of line 40 and insert ("any other terms or statements contained in the document").—(Lord Peddie.)
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, in supporting my noble friend, I do not want to say a great deal more on the merits of this particular Amendment. In fact, I want only to add this—because the argument was put very fully and clearly to the Minister on the Committee stage. He himself attached great importance to the box for the signature, and seemed to think that, provided the box was there and the signature was in the box, that was all the protection the consumer needed. I do not think he knows very much about the high-pressure methods of salesmen, who have little difficulty in getting the signature into the box. Proper print, which is large and which brings the main matters to the attention of the consumer very clearly, seems to me to be much more important.
1264
But what is worrying me is that, judging by the Amendments which are down on the Paper in the Minister's name, in spite of all the promises he made about giving careful consideration to these matters—though I have no doubt he has done that—he has not, in effect, made any concessions of any substance whatever. If he would indicate that the proposal of the noble and learned Lord, Lord McNair, which was to the effect that we should adopt the very successful procedure which has been applied throughout the Commonwealth of Australia (I think in all the different constituent States there) would be welcome to him and would receive Government support, that would go a good way: but he has done nothing of this—and not only in connection with this Amendment, but in connection with practically all the other Amendments. This really is reducing the value of our Committee stage on these Bills to a minute amount.
One of the great values of the work in this Chamber surely is that we have a proper Committee stage here, and that when useful Amendments are put forward there is a reasonable chance of their being accepted. If we are to be confronted with this sort of thing the value of the Committee stage in your Lordships' House is going to be greatly lessened. Indeed, it is not going to encourage Members of this House to spend the amount of time which my noble friends and I have been spending on this matter over these last weeks. I take a very serious view of this business; and I hope the Government will realise that if they go on in this way—and this is not the first occasion that this has happened—they will, in fact, be doing a great deal to destroy the value of the work of this House in connection with Committee stage. I hope that the Minister will realise what is going on.
It is difficult to know what is in the mind of the Government over this. These Amendments, quite obviously, are in the interests of the consumer; from time to time on Committee stage the Chairman of the Consumer Council has supported them. That seems to me to make no impression on the Government. The Government are obviously going to "play" the consumer interest in the General Election. That is pretty obvious from this Bill and from the Resale

1265
Price Maintenance Bill, and from all sorts of other straws that are blowing in the wind. I cannot myself understand the attitude they have been taking at the Committee stage and at the Report stage on this Bill. If that is their purpose, why are they rejecting these Amendments? It cannot be necessarily because they come from the Opposition, for several of the most important have come from the Consumer Council. Yet the Government make no sort of gesture in the way of acceptance. I hope that the Government will realise that this is quite a serious matter. There is time even now for them to change their mind over this business.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, I should like to support this Amendment. I supported it at Committee stage and I was attracted to the proposal of the noble and learned Lord, Lord McNair. It seemed to me highly practical. I cannot see why the Government should feel that just to print a document in which there is a clear space for somebody's signature is the only simple method of making the document intelligible. I have been reading several hire-purchase agreements, just out of interest, because they are so important in this Bill. Some of them are much better printed than others. But, on the whole, it would be very much better if the whole of the document were printed in a straightforward, honest-to-God type, of whatever size may be decided—and Lord McNair in making his proposal said that in Australia a certain type is used. I cannot see the reason why you want to have something which is readable but accentuate only one part: the place for the signature. The whole of the rest of the document is of great importance. I hope the noble Lord will see his way to look at this in a simple, practical manner. If somebody wants to read and understand a document it would be easier if all the type were good, clear type. I hope the Minister, even if he cannot accept this Amendment, at least may say that some regulation can be brought in insisting that the document shall be printed in proper, legible type.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, if my support would not condemn the Amendment, I should like to acid it. I was very drawn to the sug-
1266
gestion made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McNair, on the Committee stage, and I listened with great interest to what the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, has said. I think I remember what the Minister said in rejecting the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McNair, on the Committee stage. I believe it was to the effect that if we accepted this we might then have all the type made bigger and, in that case, nothing would stand out from the rest. think we all agree in this House or in another place that if we want to do something we can do it; and if we do not, then we can very easily find every reason in the world for not doing it. If the Minister were to say to his civil servants (if they are the people to whom one should say it), "This is a principle we are determined to have; we are going to have this printing made of whatever size it may be. You draft something to cover it", nothing will convince me that the civil servants could not do it. I would say to the Minister that I am quite convinced that wherever he went in this country or in Scotland, quite apart from any political points of view, there is not one person who would not agree with a suggestion that all typescript on hire-purchase agreements should be large enough to be read. I hope very much that the Minister will be able to give way on this particular point.
LORD McNAIR: My Lords, I wish to support the object of this Amendment. It comes very close to the Amendment that I put down when the Bill was in Committee, and which I have put down again in order to keep it alive. The object of that Amendment was to enable the hirer to read the document that he signs; and I think there is agreement in all quarters of this House that it is desirable that a man, especially a humble man who is not very familiar with business, should be able to read, and to the best of his ability understand, any agreement that he enters into.
The Amendment proposed by the noble Lords, Lord Peddie and Lord Chorley, raises the question whether the object of my Amendment ought to be achieved by specific requirements throughout the Bill, saying that this and that shall be in certain sizes of type prescribed by the Board of Trade, or whether it would be better to have a

1267
global clause, such as I envisaged, which could cover not only the whole of the hire-purchase agreement but all the notices and other documents that come into being as a result of it. The clause I put down was based on the Australian legislation. I am in no way wedded to the terms of that clause, and I wonder whether the Minister—who, without giving any promise, was very fair-minded and rather sympathetic to my Amendment—would, with all the resources of skilled Parliamentary draftsmen at his disposal, put down a clause of a global character which would either directly require the agreement and all other documents to be in a certain type or give power to the Board of Trade to require that these documents should be printed in a certain type. In that way I think he would without doubt be removing one of the evils which at present beset hire-purchase agreements.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the Minister and the House may remember that on the Committee stage I moved an Amendment to entitle the prospective hirer to have a copy of the agreement or proposal for his perusal between the time in which he had signed the proposal and the time he received the relevant documents. The Minister then said that what we wanted to ensure was that the prospective hirer should study the agreement before he puts his signature to it. I agree with him that that is what we want. We want the prospective hirer to read the document; but anyone who has seen a hire-purchase agreement—and I showed one to the Minister the other day—will see a long list of terms, qualifications, responsibilities, and the like, placed upon the prospective hirer and printed in such type that unless he gets very close to it, it is a mass of colour instead of letters. The noble Ladies opposite nod their heads and I am glad they agree. I think it is obviously in the interests of the hirer that the facts which the Government regard as necessary to be drawn to his attention should be clearly marked.
It might be argued that the drawing of special attention to particular parts of an agreement might draw the attention of the prospective hirer away from other parts. That is a question of judgment, as to which terms should be clearly marked and clearly identifiable as of
1268
essential importance to the hirer. This Amendment seeks to achieve that. If the Minister says that we should place on the hirer the responsibility of reading the document before he puts his signature to it, I would say that, taking into account the difficulty of reading present agreements and the pressures that perhaps may be used in getting a signature in a shop or store, or even in a home, we should ensure that the facts important to the hirer, not only in regard to the benefits he may gain from the agreement but also, above all, in regard to the responsibilities he has undertaken, shall be clear. I beg the Government to accept this Amendment.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just spoken begs me to accept this Amendment, yet the noble Lord, Lord Peddie, said earlier on that he would be quite prepared to have the Amendment varied, so to speak, and recognised that some of the words proposed to be left out should not be left out. Some fairly vigorous blows have been levelled at my head in the course of this short debate and I think I am entitled to reply to them. I think your Lordships recognise the difficulty that we are in—namely, that this Bill was taken fairly soon after Recess and so, in the nature of things, noble Lords were bound to put down Amendments fairly late and we did not have much time to consider them before Committee stage; and because of the many implications of a Bill like this we have not had much time to consider them since then. I think I should be entitled to ask at least for an understanding of this point.
Noble Lords asked me to accept the Amendment which they put down on Committee and which I agreed to consider, and they put down the same Amendment again on Report and expect me to accept it. If they want the principle to be accepted, by all means let us consider the principle, but if they want the Amendment to be accepted they have had time to revise it between Committee stage and Report. I am bound to ask what noble Lords really mean by this Amendment, because if we read the clause as it will read if amended, it will say:
"… and the regulations may include provision as to the size and colour of the lettering of those words and as to any other terms or statements contained in the document."

1269
Not,
"as to the size and colour of the lettering of any other terms or statements"
but,
"as to any other terms or statements".
Surely noble Lords do not want that. Surely they do not want the Board of Trade to dictate, by regulation, what the contents of agreements should be. Surely they cannot press this Amendment.
Having dealt with the text of the Amendment, may I deal with what I think is in the minds of noble Lords? As I said before—and I think it is important—the purpose of Clause 2(2) is to warn the hirer as clearly as possible of one simple thing: that by his signature he is offering to enter into a hire-purchase agreement. That is the purpose of this subsection.
LORD LATHAM: Which he cannot understand.
LORD DRUMALBYN: The noble Lord, Lord Latham, says, "Which he cannot understand''. Some of us may never be able to understand.
LORD LATHAM: Indeed, my Lords, he may not be able to read it.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I quite appreciate the noble Lord's point. What I am saying is that the purpose of this Amendment is different from that set out in the subsection. Even if it were right to provide this by regulation, it is not necessarily right to do so in this subsection. What Molony stressed was the need to make certain that the hirer should know that he was signing a hire-purchase agreement. This Amendment, as well as deleting the power to prescribe the location of, and draw attention to, the more important parts of the agreement, which I gather is not the noble Lord's intention, might equally not draw the hirer's attention to a particular provision, which in the end might turn out to be the vital provision so far as he is concerned, and he would have a grievance. It is difficult to ask the Board of Trade to distinguish in importance between the terms of a particular agreement, and this is what noble Lords are doing. This is quite a different purpose from that of the noble Lord, Lord McNair, which is that all parts of the agreement should
1270
be in legible type. That is not what this Amendment is asking us to do nor is it what I believe to be its purpose.
I said on Committee stage that I did not really see the need for this power, but, as I undertook to do, I have looked into the question further. The 1938 Act, as amended by Clause 2(1) of the Bill, already prescribes a statutory notice to be included in a hire-purchase agreement drawing the hirer's attention to his right to terminate the agreement, to the amount he will then have to pay and to the restriction of the owner's right to repossess the goods. To go further than this would be tantamount to deciding what parts were more important than other parts.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, later there is an Amendment providing that the quality of articles to be received under hire-purchase agreements must be up to the sample in quality. On Committee stage I drew attention to the fact that when the hirer signs a proposal form, he recognises that he receives the goods in good order and condition. I think that that is a point to which the hirer's attention should be drawn.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I think that the words used are "at the time of acceptance" of the goods, and that introduces a technical consideration.
If I may continue to deal with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord McNair—it may be convenient to do so now rather than later—I would point out that there are difficulties about specifying the use of a certain type face, like Times. It might be that in certain parts of the country, if the actual type face were prescribed, one would be able to place contracts for printing hire-purchase agreements only with printers who had that particular face. I do not think anybody really wants that. Secondly, as the Amendment is drafted, it would be possible to print the whole document in capitals and therefore make it practically illegible. I do not know whether we should actually discuss this. All I would say is that we are considering this matter carefully and sympathetically, but we are not at the present stage in a position to frame words that we think would do what noble Lords want done. With that, I hope that we can

1271
pass on to the next Amendment. I am sure noble Lords will not press this Amendment, because it really does not do what they want it to do.
LORD McNAIR: My Lords, may I point out to the Minister that my Amendment does not specify the particular fount of type. The words are:
"or be printed in type of a size not less than the type known as ten-point Times."
When I moved the Amendment in Committee I made it clear that, while the expression "ten-point Times" was current in Australia, I felt sure that the Government printer could advise the Minister as to an appropriate similar expression in this country. It is the size to which I attach importance, not the fount.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I entirely take the point. As I said, we do not feel we can accept these particular words. For one thing, it is the clarity of the type rather than the size of the type that is important. Also important, as has been said, is the colour of the paper used and the colour of the printing on that paper, which can make the text either practically illegible or very legible indeed. There are a number of different things. It may be better to leave this to be dealt with by regulations when the time comes, but we are carefully considering the whole situation.
LORD McNAIR: May I take it that I shall not be expected to move this Amendment again when we reach it, but that at a later stage the Minister will return to the matter?
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am afraid I cannot undertake that we shall necessarily be ready with an Amendment at a later stage, but we will certainly see whether the result of our consideration will permit us to be.
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: My Lords, it seems to me rather unlikely that hire-purchase companies will go quite so far as to use the most illegible types for those paragraphs which they do not want read. This would seem to go against them somewhat, and the cases in which they did it would be rare. So perhaps the Minister may feel that some Amendment to define the size of type,
1272
without being watertight, should achieve the result.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, the debate seems to have got into some confusion by mixing the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord McNair, with which we agree, and the Amendment standing in my name. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord McNair, for their support. I am somewhat at a loss to understand precisely the reactions of the Minister to this Amendment. He had something to say about not having had time to consider. May I assume from that that if he had had time, or more time, to consider it, the Amendment would have had a more favourable reception? Frankly, there is little in the way of argument advanced against the proposition incorporated in the Amendment, and much of the comment the Minister had to make related more to Lord McNair's Amendment than to the one standing in my name.
I cannot follow the point the noble Lord makes and the intimations he gives to the House that it would restrict the power of the Board of Trade to do what the Bill itself would permit them to do. I would draw the attention of the House to the precise words of the Amendment. I will read from Clause 2(2). That says:
"and the regulations may include provision as to the size and colour of the lettering of those words and as to"—
then comes the Amendment—
"any other terms or statements contained in the document …"
All that is asked is that power should be conferred to give emphasis to those particular aspects of the agreement to which it is necessary to draw the attention of the hirer.
The noble Lord went on to state that he may accept it in principle. My noble friend Lord Shepherd called for the acceptance of this Amendment, and I indicated a willingness to welcome the acceptance in principle. I recognise the necessity for changing words. I remember that on Committee stage, for instance, there was an acceptance of my Amendment with regard to the exclusion of a body corporate in connection with the question of non-acceptance of agreements. The Government have accepted that and extended it into other

1273
fields of this Bill. I have no objection to any variation of the words, provided there is acceptance of the principle that the Board of Trade should have wider powers to determine lettering and all other matters relating to the agreement itself.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I really must ask the noble Lord to consider this Amendment again, because I do not think he has said what he wants to say. He read it out, and he made it clear that the Amendment as drafted goes much wider than what he seems to have in mind. If I understood him correctly, what he really wanted was:
"the regulations may include provision as to the size and colour of the lettering of those words and as to the size and colour of any other terms or statements contained in the document. …"
LORD PEDDIE: Yes.
4.47 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD moved, after subsection (3), to insert:
"(4) If an owner or seller or any person who (whether by virtue of this Act or otherwise) is the agent of the owner or seller fails to comply with any one or more of the requirements contained in Section 2(2)(b) and Section 3(2)(b) of the principal Act (which
LORD DRUMALBYN: That is not what the noble Lord says. He says:
"as to any other terms or statements contained in the document",
which would give the Board of Trade power to regulate the content of any other terms or statements contained in the document. I do not believe he can mean that, and, in those circumstances, I should have thought it would be better to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD REA: My Lords, is this not Report stage, when each Member speaks once only?
4.40 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 4) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents 32; Not-Contents 45.

CONTENTS

Albemarle, E.

Henderson, L.

Shackleton, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, E.

Hobson, L.

Shepherd, L.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Hughes, L.

Summerskill, B.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Iddesleigh, E.

Taylor, L.

Champion, L. [Teller.]

Latham, L.

Walston, L.

Chorley, L.

Lindgren, L.

Williams, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Listowel, E.

Williamson, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Longford, E.

Willis, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Moyne, L.

Wise, L.

Gardiner, L.

Peddie, L.

Yarborough, E.

Hanworth, V.

St. Davids, V.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailwyn, L.

Falkland, V.

Radnor, E.

Ampthill, L.

Ferrers, E.

Rathcavan, L.

Auckland, L.

Ferrier, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Bessborough, E.

Forster of Harraby, L.

Sandford, L.

Bossom, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Sandys, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Greenway, L.

Sandwich, E.

Chesham, L.

Grenfell, L.

Somers, L.

Clwyd, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Stonehaven, V.

Conesford, L.

Lothian, M.

Strange of Knokin, B.

Congleton, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Strathcarron, L.

Craigton, L.

Merrivale, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Crathorne, L.

Mills, V.

Stratheden and Campbell, L

Denham, L.

Milverton, L.

Suffield, L.

Derwent, L.

Mountevans, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

prescribe the details of the hire purchase or credit sale agreement to be shown on the relevant document) as amended by Section 2(1)(b) of this Act, or fails to comply with regulations made by the Board of Trade in pursuance of Section 2(2) of this Act which may specifically refer to this section of the Act, shall be guilty of an offence under this Act and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds, or to a term of imprisonment for any period not exceeding three months, or to both such fine and imprisonment".
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I rise to move this Amendment. We discussed it on the Committee stage, but I think I am justified in raising it again because it was one of the points about which the Molony Committee felt extremely strongly. This Amendment applies criminal sanctions for failure by a dealer to provide details (which include the total purchase price, the cash price, the amount and dates of the instalments, and the description of the goods) on the offer signed by the hirer or buyer, and also for failure to comply with such regulations to be made by the Board of Trade under Clause 2, as may be deemed to attract these penalties. The purpose of these regulations is, of course, to draw the customer's attention to what he is signing by ensuring a clear method of presentation. As I have said, this Amendment has the same intention as one that I moved in Committee—that is, to deter the doorstep salesman from short-circuiting the customer's safeguards by obtaining a signature to a blank form or obscuring the nature of the transaction in other ways. I am asking the noble Lord to reconsider this Amendment, because I am trying to strike at the unscrupulous salesman who will always have an opportunity to confuse and abuse customers who are often alone in the house and cannot get redress. There are, unfortunately, too many such happenings at the present time.
On the Committee stage, the noble Lord said that the owners would be more effectively deferred by the fact that an improperly conducted transaction would be unenforceable by them against the customer. This may be true, but it is not the purpose of this Amendment. This Amendment is directed at the individual doorstep salesman, whose un-scrupulous behavour is often unknown to, or is denied by, the owner. It is a fact that some of the salesmen employ methods of which, I am sure, some of the owners might not approve in this door-to-door salesmanship business. My Amendment is directed at that type of salesman. In any event, criminal penalties falling on the dealer are not in substitution for, but in addition to, the fact that the agreement may be rendered void. The sanction against the owner of unenforceability remains.
There are inherent difficulties in the circumstances surrounding doorstep selling which make control extremely difficult. We on the Consumer Council are at the moment going into these problems. Many methods have been studied, and are being studied, and I do not lightly propose the introduction of criminal penalties where other means would serve. Knowledge of these circumstances fully endorses the comments of the Molony Committee, in paragraph 527 of their Report, which I shall quote briefly. After referring to the new requirements about the style of the agreement and the cooling-off period, the Committee go on:
"Our confidence that it would be universally honoured, and not cunningly discouunted in some way by a salesman, is not so high that we can forgo recommending that failure to comply should be a criminal offence on the part of the owner and any person knowingly participating in delivery of an agreement defective in the relevant respect; as well as making the agreement unenforceable without possibility of dispensation by the Court."
Those are strong words from the Molony Committee, who made a very careful study of these matters, and in the interest of protecting the buyer, the hirer, the consumer (whatever word you like to use) I believe that it is necessary to accept that failure to comply with the recommendations is something of a very serious nature indeed and could lead to very grave consequences for the buyer or the hirer. Therefore, I think that Molony was justified in asking that these matters should be treated very seriously indeed and should be brought within the terms of the law. I hope that the noble Lord who is taking this Bill will tell me whether or not he has reconsidered this matter, which I raised previously and which I raise again because this is one of the ways in which we could protect the buyer or the hire-purchaser in this matter. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 11, at end insert the said subsection.—(Baroness Elliot of Harwood.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, this Amendment which the noble Lady has moved does two things. It creates a criminal offence in regard to two separate contingencies. First of all, where Sections 2(2)(b) and 3(2)(b) of the 1938 Act are not complied with, and, secondly, where Section 2(2) of this Bil1

1277
is not complied with. Perhaps I ought to say with regard to the first, that I do not think there was any recommendation by Molony that there should be criminal sanctions in regard to what seems to have worked reasonably well in the past. I think there can be no doubt at all that if Section 2(2)(b) of the Act is not complied with—that is, the provision that requires a statement of the hire-purchase price, the cash price, the amount of each instalment and list of goods, and so on—the agreement would not be enforceable, unless, of course, the court agree that it should be enforceable. To add criminal sanction to a provision which has not had it so far, and which the Molony Committee did not recommend, is, I should have thought, quite unnecessary.
With regard to the second point, this is a case where the Molony Committee did recommend that there should be a criminal sanction, for the reasons that the noble Lady stated. It is where the agreement does not contain the box, as it has so been described, and does not comply with Section 2(2)(b) as to what should be in that box. We believe that, here again, the need for enforceability is the best sanction. If the contract is not enforceable, I should have thought that the salesman would be very wary indeed of trying to evade this in any way; and I really do not see how it is possible, since the contract is not enforceable unless these requirements are complied with. Enforceability, surely, is the main sanction, and we did not think, and still do not think, in spite of the fact that we have reconsidered the matter since the noble Lady put the Amendment down again in this form, that it would be right in this case or necessary to provide a criminal sanction. I am sorry, but I must resist the noble Lady's Amendment.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.57 p.m.
LORD PEDDIE LORD PEDDIE moved to add to the clause:
"(5) Any power of the court⁁

(d) under the proviso to section 2(2) of the principal Act, to dispense with the
1278
requirement specified in paragraph (d) thereof, or

(b) under the proviso to section 3(2) of that Act, to dispense with the requirement specified in paragraph (c) thereof,

shall not be exercisable except where the copy of the agreement has been sent to the hirer or buyer but not within the period of seven days of the making of the agreement."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment, which I moved at the Committee stage, is to restrict the exercise of the court's discretion in the same manner as is indicated in Clause 4(5) of the Bill. Here the provision relates to cases to which the cooling-off period applies, and the Minister on Committee stage quite rightly said that it was necessary to ensure that in no circumstances should the rights of the hirer be diminished in this regard; and with that I would agree. But I find it somewhat strange to hear the argument that because it is justified in one set of circumstances it must of necessity not be justified in another.
Under Clause 2(2) of the principal Act, the court is given discretion in cases where the non-supply of all relevant information was felt not to prejudice the hirer or buyer; and the information to which it refers is indicated in paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) of subsection (2) of the principal Act. These include the statement of the hire-purchase price and the cash price, the mode of determining the date on which the instalments should be paid, and the lists of goods covered by the hire-purchase agreement. It is true that the Minister said at the Committee stage that the exercise of this discretion had presented no difficulty in the past. We have no evidence to challenge the truth of that statement, but, even if it is true—and I will assume that it is—we have to remember that the past is past and new provisions and new circumstances are involved in this Bill. Therefore, the fact that the exercise of discretion by the court has created no difficulties since the passing of the 1938 Act, does not necessarily mean that we shall have the same set of circumstances following upon this Bill becoming an Act.
It was also said in the Committee stage by my noble friend Lord Chorley that the fact that the principle expressed in my Amendment is accepted in Clause 4(5) of the Bill could not be without

1279
its influence. To accept it in one clause of the Bill and not have it in another could have its influence; indeed, it could possibly be argued that the non-delivery of an agreement could not prejudice the hirer. No one believes that the non-delivery of an agreement would not be of prejudice to the hirer. Therefore, this Amendment simply ensures that all relevant documents are, with certainty, completed. That, surely, offers greater protection to the hirer or the consumer. But it does give the court discretion where a copy of an agreement is sent to a hirer but not within the period of seven days of the making of the agreement. In other words, if an agreement was sent after eight days or nine days, discretion could be exercised. I would urge as an argument in favour of this Amendment that the effect of the acceptance of this Amendment and its incorporation in the Bill would, without doubt, give the court greater guidance. I beg to move.
Amendment moved
Page 3, line 13, at end insert the said sub-section.—(Lord Peddie.)
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, may I say a word in support of my noble friend? The argument about this Amendment was deployed, I hope sufficiently fully, in the Committee, and the Minister really did not, in my submission to the House, deal with it. It is a very common experience among lawyers—I am sorry the noble and learned Lord, Lord McNair is not here; I am sure he would have borne me out—that if in one particular section of an Act of Parliament discretion is limited in some way by some condition or stipulation or something of that kind, and in another section an exactly similar discretion is conferred which is not limited in that particular way, then the obvious argument is that it was not intended to limit it, because if it had been, the same stipulation would have been used in that particular section as in the other. That argument has succeeded, time after time, in actions before the courts, and it seems to me that if the Bill is left in this state there is a very real chance that it may succeed again. The Government cannot do any harm by inserting the Amendment here. As the noble Lord said, the object is to "mak' siccar". I think there is everything to be said for that.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I took note of what the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, said in suggesting that the presence of a rather more limited power of discretion in Clause 4 (5)—that is, in cooling-off cases—might lend support to the argument that non-delivery of the agreement would not prejudice the hirer in other cases. We have been looking at the clause in that regard. But the hirers knowledge of his right to cancel the agreement in cooling-off cases may depend on the receipt of the notice required to be set out in the statutory copy of the agreement, and the ending of the period during which the agreement may be cancelled depends on the receipt of that copy. We therefore felt that in a cooling-off case there can be no question of dispensing with the requirement to send the hirer a copy of the agreement. But in non-cooling-off cases the court can dispense with the requirement to send a copy of the agreement only if it is satisfied that the hirer has not been prejudiced by that failure and that it would be just and equitable to dispense with it.
I have considered the point made by both noble Lords, but I can see no reason why the court, when making its assessment of the facts and deciding whether or not to exercise its discretion, should be influenced by Clause 4 (5). The court is given discretionary powers to dispense with some, but not all, the important provisions in Sections 2 and 3 of the 1938 Act for the protection of the hirer or buyer in relation to the making of the agreement. And surely the reason why it is given is to ensure that business is not impeded in order that there is no prejudice to the hirer. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, made a considerable point about this in several parts of this speech, and I should have thought that we do not want to interfere with business—and this is what he said—more than is strictly necessary. I think this matter can safely be left to the discretion of the court, and I would not recommend the House to accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
5.4 p.m.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved, after subsection (4), to insert:
"(5) Section 4(1) of the principal Act shall have effect as if for the reference to one-half

1281
of the hire-purchase price there were substituted a reference to one-third of the hire-purchase price."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the general purpose of this Bill is to make conditions easier—perhaps a better way of putting it would be more favourable—for the purchaser. That is the object of Parts I and II of the Bill, and I think it would be reasonable to say that the intention in Part III is to make things more sure for a second purchaser; to see that he is not acquiring something which the hire-purchaser has no right to sell. So, generally speaking, the entire purpose of the Bill is to make things more favourable to the hire-purchaser. But there is one exception. Perhaps because of shortage of Parliamentary time, or a desire of the Board of Trade to bring everything into its own hands, there is no separate Scottish Bill. One of the results of this is that the Government have decided to apply a less favourable English condition to Scotland than presently exists. The purpose of my Amendment is to seek to reverse that process and to follow what is the usual thing when on a is seeking to better the lot of individuals; that is, if some people have a good condition and others have a less good condition, when you equalise them you apply the better condition all round.
The present law in Scotland is that where a hire-purchaser, for reasons good to himself, wishes to terminate a contract before it has run its full course, he can do so without further obligation, provided that he has paid, or makes up his payments to a sum equal to, one-third of the purchase price. This power is subject to the further condition that if he has damaged the goods more than is reasonable during that period, he may have to make payments in that respect—and that is a second provision that is common to both Scots and English law at the present time. That position has existed since the first Hire-Purchase Act was passed for Scotland in 1932; and in succeeding legislation—for England in 1938, for both countries in 1954 and for Scotland in 1961—that principle is not altered so far as Scottish law is concerned. I doubt very much whether, contrary to common belief, English people are any more willing to throw away their money than Scots are, and it would be reasonable to assume that a
1282
person who enters into a hire-purchase transaction and finds he is unable to proceed with it will take every step he possibly can to carry the thing through to its conclusion, so that at the end of the transaction he has the ownership of the goods for which he has paid. And whether the payment is one-third or one-half he will make up the payment to such a sum and have nothing to show for it only if such action is quite unavoidable. In this connection, it seems to me to be quite unreasonable that this benefit which the people of Scotland have enjoyed for all this time should be withdrawn in favour of the less favourable English conditions.
It may be argued that there are other advantages conferred on Scottish people which more than make up for what they are losing in this connection. But I would refer to the Amendment we have agreed to, removing from the benefits of this Bill bodies corporate—and it was because I wanted to know exactly who was removed from it that I asked my question earlier on as to what was meant by "bodies corporate". These bodies corporate, and commercial bodies of that kind, will, in the main, be the people who will be entering into most of the larger transactions, except perhaps in the case of the purchase of motor cars. Much of this motor car business will, of course, be domestic transactions, and the higher figures in this Bill will apply to non-commercial purchasers. But leaving out of account motor cars, the vast bulk of hire-purchase business is done in things like articles of furniture, washing machines, refrigerators, television, radio sets, carpets, and to a certain extent clothing. And there will be very few cases where the aggregate value of the transaction exceeds the figure in the present law of Scotland of £300. I doubt whether other than a small minority of those buying furniture and so on on hire-purchase will be entering into a contract where the higher figure confers any greater advantage upon them.
If I am right in this supposition, it follows therefore that the vast bulk of the transactions, being for smaller sums, are not going to get any particular benefit from this Bill, but are going to lose the substantial advantage that they have at the present time. I should have thought that, having had for the first time in I do not know how many years

1283
a Scottish Minister at the Board of Trade, we would have seen a reversal of the conditions where the feeling in Scotland is—and, I must admit, with a great deal of injustice to the Board of Trade—that the Board of Trade is an enemy to be fought rather than a friend to be run after. The noble Lord, Lord Craigton, smiles, but he knows how often the Scottish Office is sought as an ally against the Board of Trade. Here is a case where a former Scottish Minister and a Scot lands at the Board of Trade, and in this Bill he gives away the one advantage that Scottish hire-purchasers have had over their English colleagues.
It seems to me that, if the Government wish to give the full benefit of this Bill to people in both Scotland and England, they will accept my Amendment, on the basis that the English, having suffered for some thirty years under these inferior conditions, are entitled to receive the benefits which we in Scotland have enjoyed during that time. I must admit that my prime reason for moving this Amendment is not to confer any such benefit on the English at all, but to preserve it for the Scots. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 13, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Hughes.)
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I feel inclined to support the Amendment so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, opposite. As a fellow Scot, I cannot add anything to what he has said, and I share with him the anticipation of the reply which we are to receive from the Minister at the Board of Trade
5.13 p.m.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, I should like to support the Amendment which my noble friend has moved, not only upon the convincing grounds which he has brought forward, but also from another point of view—namely, that if this Amendment is carried it will at any rate help to mitigate a fundamental injustice in this set of legislative provisions; that is, the fact that in many of these cases the amount which the hirer has to pay in order to get rid of his contract is quite excessive. This is related, of course, to the question of the true measure
1284
of damages which was raised on the Committee stage by my noble friend Lady Burton of Coventry.
Let us take quite a simple illustration. Suppose somebody enters into an agreement for the hire-purchase of a motor car under which the hire charges which he has to pay amount to £900. After he has entered into the agreement and it has become binding, some unforeseen chance occurs—he may meet with an accident; he may lose his source of living, or something else may happen—and he has paid, let us say, £50 by way of hire-purchase charges and he finds that he cannot go on. Under the Bill as it is drafted, he has to pay another £400, give up the motor vehicle which he has been hiring, and he is put to terrific expense. Of course, if he is wise he does not go about it in that way at all; he just fails to pay the instalments as they become due and so causes a breach of the contract, in which case he can escape. But if he does what the ordinary person, as an honest man, will do and says, "I am sorry, but I cannot go on with this", he becomes liable, after paying £50, to return the vehicle in perfectly good condition and to pay another £400. The Amendment which my noble friend has moved will at any rate reduce that position to a certain extent, and to that degree will mitigate the inequality which arises out of this totally arbitrary provision which has no relation whatsoever to the injury which the hire-purchase company suffers.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, started by offering us a picture of England and Wales having been groaning for thirty years under an intolerable injustice which he was now proposing to remove by bringing the position into line with that in Scotland.
LORD HUGHES: Just incidentally, you must admit.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I was going to say that this was just incidental. Later on, he made it clear that what he really wanted was to maintain the position as it is at present in Scotland, and to bring England and Wales into the same position. But, of course, there is something of the order of a package deal involved in this. I think

1285
perhaps the noble Lord rather underestimates the advantages which Scotland is to get under the present Bill—for instance, the power of a court to make a postponement order which does not at present exist in Scottish law, and not least the provision regarding the implied stipulations: what are called the conditions and warranties in England.
Here, I think we have a package deal of the kind which does not do an intolerable injustice to Scotland. It is true that, in relation to agreements under £300, the Scottish position will in future be slightly less favourable than it is now; but it is only in regard to agreements of under £300. One of the big factors in this Bill is, of course, that the upper limit is being raised to £2,000. This is of considerable significance. At the earlier stages of this Bill the implications of this were discussed at length. One of the most important of them is that hire-purchase agreements for motor cars will be subject to the provisions of the 1938 Act: that is, the hirer will have the right to terminate the agreement on payment of a minimum of one half of the hire-purchase price. I have explained why I think that on balance this is reasonable, and I think that on balance also it is not unreasonable since the benefits of the 1938 Act are being extended to the earlier Scottish Act which rather pioneered the hire-purchase provisions.
At any rate, under the 1938 Act the benefit of the later experience was incorporated into the Act for England and Wales, and it has been well recognised that for one reason or another Scottish legislation has never caught up except on this particular point in regard to the advantages to the hirer. As there are advantages to the hirer in the 1938 Act which are being still further extended under the present Bill, the combination of those advantages far more than counterbalances the difference in regard to the one-third and the one-half.
With regard to what the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, said, I do not think it should be too readily assumed that this provision is in any way harsh. One has to look at it from both points of view. There are many articles which lose a substantial part of their value—possibly up to 50 per cent.—in the first year of use. In addition to that, one has the outlay in initial charges and so
1286
forth. There has been no great demand for the half-price to be changed. The Molony Committee did not suggest that it should be changed; indeed, they suggested in this respect that Scotland should be prepared to sacrifice its advantage in return for the other advantages which it would gain under the Bill. I am sorry not to be able to accept the noble Lord's Amendment, but I think that in this package deal Scotland really gains an advantage.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I am most disappointed in that reply. It is certainly not one which is worthy of a Macpherson or a Drumalbyn. I just do not understand it. The suggestion is that this is a "package deal". My understanding of a "package deal" is that you have two parties negotiating: one wants to do a certain thing and the other wants to do something else. Neither gets exactly what it wants, but they both agree to the combined transaction and accept it as the best both can do to their greatest mutual advantage. In this transaction who has been asking that Scotland should give up a third? Who are the other parties to the package deal? Who is making the package deal? I thought that the Government were seeking to do the best they could for the country as a whole, and in that transaction we expected them to follow the usual position of seeking to apply the better conditions all round.
It looks from this as though the Government, or sections of the Board of Trade or perhaps the Board of Trade and the Scottish Office—have been "in a huddle" about it, and somebody has said, "Scotland has got to pay something for getting these other advantages", rather than the Board of Trade in England being told: "You have thought up a whole lot of things which are very much better than we thought of in 1932, and we are very happy to accept all the better things you have done". But the Board of Trade, or the English, whoever it may be, say: "No, we cannot admit that the Scots have thought of something even better than we thought of ourselves, and in order to get our advantage they have got to give away the one-third". I do not understand it and I am quite sure that neither Mr. Macpherson nor Lord Drumalbyn would ever have thought of that as being a

1287
perfectly good thing when he was on the other side of the Border. It shows that the normal Scottish reaction to the Board of Trade is well-founded. I am quite certain that the Board of Trade will hear quite a bit more about this in another place.
I should have pressed this matter to a Division to-night, because I feel that the Government have not a leg to stand on on this matter. But I recognise that to a certain extent I am at fault in having presented this Amendment for the first time at Report stage, and part of the price I must pay for having brought it in at such a late stage is not to force another Division and thus ruin completely the tea of those who have not yet had it. I will give the Government time to think about the matter again, in the hope that, when the measure is considered in another place, wiser counsels may prevail. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD PEDDIE LORD PEDDIE moved, after Clause 2, to insert the following new clause:
Amendment of Section 6 of the Principal Act
". Section 6 of the principal Act (which relates to the duty of owners and sellers to supply documents and information) shall have effect as if there were inserted at the end of subsection (1) the following:—
'(d) the amount or amounts which become payable by virtue of a rebate scheme that may be offered by the owner or seller to the hirer or buyer.'"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, my noble friend deployed very fully and very well the arguments in support of this Amendment, and the noble Lord opposite on that occasion stated that he had a great deal of sympathy with it. We have therefore put down the Amendment once again in the hope that we may be able to have from the Minister some clear indication of his willingness to accept the principle of this Amendment. Its purpose is quite clear. It is to make possible the application of a rebate scheme whereby a hirer who is in a position to pay off the contributions at an earlier date and settle the whole transaction will know from the start on what particular basis these rebates would be paid. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 2, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Peddie.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, as I said on Committee stage, I think that for finance houses to give rebates to hirers and to buyers who complete their payments ahead of time is a desirable thing and is recognised by many as such. But I have come to the conclusion that it would be neither practicable nor appropriate to make such voluntary rebates, which are not part of the terms of the agreement, the subject of a statutory requirement, as this Amendment would do. The Amendment only requires a finance house to tell a hirer what rebate he could get if that finance house has a rebate scheme. I feel that such a provision might actually discourage finance houses from having rebate schemes at all. If they had to give information about such schemes, they might not be prepared to operate a fixed rebate scheme at all.
In any case, the practical aspects of this matter are far from simple. The Molony Committee, in paragraph 553 of their Report, took the line that the moral case for conferring an entitlement to the hirer applied only to the interest element in the charges. The basic allowance would have to be shaded to take account of other elements in the deal—for example, earlier delays in payment by the hirer. In practice, the finance house decides in each case what rebate the hirer's performance justifies and what part of the charges they regard as interest and available for rebate. In the last resort the matter is one for a bargain between the hirer and finance house; unless the finance house offers a sufficiently attractive rebate, it will miss its chance of getting its money back early when it knows the hirer has it and is willing to pay. I believe that where the hirer is anxious to bring a contract to an early end, the matter is better left to arrangement between the parties.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I must say that I am rather disappointed with the reply. The Minister in his first few words welcomed the idea that a finance house should give rebates for early payment. The noble Lord is aware that the more responsible hire-purchase companies operate rebate schemes; it is

1289
part of their method of business. There may be discussion between the prospective hirer and the business house or dealer as to what should be the period of the agreement. It might then be pointed out to the hirer, "You can take a three-year agreement, but you have the right to pay off earlier and we operate a rebate scheme". This is part of the understanding when the agreement is signed. But at present the prospective hirer has no right whatsoever to a rebate scheme. As the noble Lord has said, it is at the discretion of the hire-purchase company when the hirer goes to them and offers to pay. The noble Lord said that the finance companies might welcome early repayment under an agreement. That is not true. The hire-purchase company makes its money by the length of the agreement. The longer the agreement is in existence the greater is the company's profit. Therefore, it is against the interests of the hire-purchase company for an agreement to be paid off earlier, unless of course in the judgment of the finance company a person may be a special risk because of his profession.
I am very sorry that the Minister has taken this line. He may feel that to lay a responsibility on a finance house which operates such a scheme, to state details and terms in the agreement, will be restrictive and make them feel that they should not commit themselves at an early stage when others are not so doing. But I hope that the Government, and the Minister in particular, will consider very much the question of perhaps having a. statutory scheme to govern rebates on all hire-purchase agreements, as I suggested was operating most satisfactorily in the United States. It would then be quite clear to the hirer and to the hire-purchase company what can be received if an agreement is paid off earlier. If they can operate such a scheme, why cannot we? I beg the Government to consider this matter between now and their discussions on this Bill in another place.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
5.33 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON LORD SHACKLETON moved, after Clause 2, to insert the following new clause:
Requirements relating to Commissions
".—(1) No person shall, in connection with a hire-purchase or credit-sale agreement offer, promise or give to any other person (in this section referred to as a 'dealer') or to the servant or agent of a dealer, nor shall a dealer or the servant or agent of a dealer seek or accept, a commission exceeding one-hundredth of the difference between the price at which the goods (in this section referred to as 'the relative goods') comprised in or to be comprised in the hire-purchase or credit-sale agreement could be bought for cash from the dealer and the amount of the initial payment or deposit paid by the hirer or buyer as the case may be nor a benefit of any other nature if:—

(a) Such commission or benefit is in any way attributable to the introduction or acceptance of a hire-purchase or credit-sale agreement, and

(b)All or any of the relative goods have been or are to be supplied by the dealer to the person by whom the commission or benefit is to be paid or given.

(2)Any person who contravenes the provisions of this section shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction:—

(a) If it is his first conviction of an offence under this section, to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds;

(b) In any other case, to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds.

(3) Proceedings for any offence under this section may (without prejudice to any jurisdiction exercisable apart from this subsection) be taken against a person at any place at which he is for the time being.
(4)Where an offence under this section committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate or any person who was purporting to act in any such capacity, he as well as the body corporate shall be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move Amendment No. 10, the purpose of which is to limit the amount of commission that can be paid to a dealer by a hire-purchase company for making arrangements with the hirer to have a hire-purchase agreement. On the Committee stage I moved a similar Amendment in the sense that the purpose was the same. But, if anything, this is even better than the one which the Government turned down, because whereas my previous Amendment was designed to limit the commission to one-tenth of the difference between the price at which the goods could be bought for cash and the hire-purchase or credit-sale price, this Amendment limits the commission to one-hundredth of the

1291
difference of the amounts mentioned in the Amendment. Therefore the rate of commission remains the same, however long the hire-purchase agreement may go on. It is not related to the variation in the amount paid in the way of charges, as a result of a longer type of agreement.
We discussed a little earlier a proposal to bring daylight to bear on these secret commissions. The last time we debated this matter it was interesting how even such well-informed Members as the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, were not only unaware of the existence of such commissions, but did not even know the rate that the individual hirer had to pay, so they were rather shocked, I think, to find how much he did in fact have to pay. There is little doubt, indeed I would say there is no doubt, that these commissions raise the price of hire-purchase. I have details of rates, and certain hire-purchase companies do in fact have two rates; one according to whether they have, so to speak, sold the hire-purchase through a dealer, and another according to whether they have sold it direct—the difference between them being as much as 1½ per cent. for a twelve months' agreement.
In limiting this commission to one-hundredth of the difference of the amounts in the Amendment, I am, in effect, establishing a rate somewhere around 10 per cent.; and this is a rate which I think would be acceptable to the majority of responsible finance houses. It has already been argued, particularly by my noble friend Lord Peddie and others, that this variation is a very expensive one for the hirer. The amount of the commission may vary between 10 and 25 per cent. If my Amendment is adopted we shall fix this, and this will be a definite contribution towards saving money and keeping the price of goods down.
On the Committee stage the Minister, who has been singularly unaccommodating in his usual very charming way, used against my previous Amendment a number of arguments which I have had an opportunity to consider further. He argued, for instance, that these commissions are no different from any other commissions introduced in respect of other types of business. The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, proceeded to point
1292
out that he was wrong in this. I would again say that this is an argument which is false. It has a certain specious analogy. If, for instance, we were to try to compare it with a retailer's mark-up we should find there was, in fact, no comparison. A retailer renders a service; he provides the goods. The motor agent provides a service when he brings a car to his garage and sells it, and he very properly gets his margin on it. But in this case the dealer does absolutely nothing for his commission. He may fill in a few documents, but I should have thought a small commission was enough.
In equity, one could even argue that he ought to have to pay for the loan, because he otherwise might not have been able to complete the sale. He does not have to do very much except possibly to look for the finance house which will give him the biggest commission. The unfortunate hirer does not know what this commission is, because the Government have refused to accept an Amendment designed to make that possible. Therefore, the secret commission goes on, and it goes on at a rate which definitely adds to the cost of the goods. I would argue that any analogy with an insurance agent is equally false, because the insurance agent usually has to go out and get the business. Although I know quite a number of people who act as insurance agents to their friends, and do not perhaps do very much in the way of getting business, none the less it is their job to get the business. But in this case the hirer is already captive. There is a subtle distinction. He is not free in these matters; he is not allowed to be given all the information he needs to judge these matters. Therefore, I would strongly argue that we should impose a limitation by this Statute.
This new clause would be perfectly fair to all parties, and I would urge that this is a perfectly reasonable proposition. I do not think the dealer has any particular right to commission; but, all right, let him have a small commission. I do not accept for one moment the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, that as a result of these commissions he is able skilfully to vary the price of the motor car which he is about to sell. I am certain he cannot do this in the individual transaction. He does not say, "If you have this hire-purchase agreement, I shall

1293
have the highest commission and you can have the car cheaper". He does not even say, "You can have it cheaper", without revealing the secret source of income. If the noble Lord is going to argue that that is fine, and it goes into the dealer's profits so it all comes out at the end, this is really to have a complete disregard for the rôle of the dealer in this connection. His rôle is to provide the cars and to do business; it is not to increase, possibly against the public interest, the amount of hire-purchase.
Indeed, it would be possible for an agent to go very aggressively into the hire-purchase business, and to be less inclined—indeed, he must be less inclined, because it is less profitable for him—to do straight cash sales. One can see the motor agent "ticking off" his sales manager and saying, "You are getting far too many cash sales; it is wholly against the interests of our company". But, my Lords, it is not against the public interest. I put this Amendment forward; and may I just add that it is one which would be acceptable to reputable finance houses. I hope, therefore, that the Government will treat this more kindly than its predecessors. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 2, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Shackleton.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, perhaps I ought to draw the attention of your Lordships to what the Molony Committee actually said, because I think the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, at one time quoted one sentence. I propose to quote that sentence and the following sentence. The noble Lord quoted the sentence:
"Like other secret commissions, this is a bad practice which ought not to continue."
The Committee were there talking about dealers' commissions. Then the Report goes on:
"However, we do not think that the prohibition of the Australian Acts ought to be adopted, for the reason, which we regretfully recognise, that it is impossible to stop such practices."
So the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, is moving an Amendment here to put a limit on a practice which the Committee say cannot be stopped. Surely there
1294
are practical objections to that, and practical considerations to be borne in mind. If a prohibition cannot be enforced, could a limitation be enforced? One knows what happens when a fixed limitation is imposed: normally, something of the order of a black market arises. The noble Lord says that the hirer is already captive in these transactions. But surely that is not so. The hirer is perfectly capable of breaking off negotiations and seeing whether he can get his hire-purchase transaction cheaper elsewhere.
On the other hand, does the noble Lord seriously suggest that an artificial limitation of this kind, however welcome it might be to those who have to pay the commission, would in fact result in people not entering into agreements because in effect they might be expected to pay more consideration to them? This is a very difficult question indeed, and I really do not think an artificial restriction of that kind would work. I say that because, apart from the possibility of cash payments (which, as I said before, would be very difficult to trace), there are obvious ways in which finance houses could make gifts of various kinds to dealers which would not come within the limit of the commission laid down. It might be anything from cases of whisky or boxes of cigars at Christmas to free summer holidays. That is the sort of thing which could easily happen. You prescribe a fixed commission and they work within that, no doubt, but they give additional incentives of one kind or another—gestures of friendship, as they might be described. You could not possibly avoid that; and, even if it could be established that a dealer had received payments in cash or in kind from a finance house, it would be impossible to relate these to particular hire-purchase agreements and to prove that they had been paid as commission on those particular hire-purchase agreements. They would be general concessions of one kind or another.
Moreover, there are many cases in which the dealer performs some continuing service to the finance house. He may, for example, act as their agent for the collection of instalments. He may quite easily be given a commission for that service; and it certainly would not

1295
be right to debar the dealer from being paid for such a service. But, equally, a finance house could easily conceal commissions for the initial transaction within payments of this kind. A dealer often performs the service of warranting the accuracy of the statements of the hirer regarding his earnings, and so forth, and his general credit-worthiness; and he is at risk in so doing. The noble Lord said, "The dealer does nothing, absolutely nothing"; but this is an important service, or may easily be an important service, so far as at least some of the finance houses are concerned. Admittedly, they will have their own means of checking up on creditworthiness as well, but, all the same, it cannot be said that the dealer carries out no service whatsoever—and it is very difficult to evaluate those services, certainly at one-hundredth part of the total of the charges.
I think noble Lords tend to have too fixed a view of the charges. They say that, of course, there are the interest rates and there are the administration charges, and then they say, as was the suggestion in the earlier Amendment, that all the rest ought to be stated as commission; but it does not work out as easily as that. There is a certain interplay between them, and I really do not think that this would be a practical Amendment at all. I must ask your Lordships to reject this Amendment for this reason, and on the basis of the advice which the Molony Committee gave—namely,
"…for the reason, which we regretfully recognise, that it is impossible to stop such practices";
and, equally, I think they would have said that it is impossible to limit commissions in this artifical way.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, has the Minister not been using an argument which the Molony Committee said they did not think much of, as they did in the words following those which the Minister quoted when he accused me of not quoting enough of the paragraph of the Molony Report?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, may I answer that question, with the permission of the House? I did not actually quote: I cited a service which is given. I quite agree that the Molony
1296
Committee considered that, so far as commissions were concerned, this service was irrelevant to their consideration of it; but I was pointing out clearly, in reply to the noble Lord who said, "The dealer gives no, absolutely no service", that this is the answer there.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, do I understand from the noble Lord that one of the arguments advanced in justification of commissions is that the agent or the dealer fulfils a certain function in checking the credit-worthiness of the potential hirer? That is something of a surprise to me. I rather think there is stronger force in the argument advanced by my noble friend, that he ought really to be paying a contribution himself, because in many cases the deal would never go through—the sale of the motor car, or whatever it may be—were it not for the fact that hire-purchase facilities were available.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, I think it is a little unfair for the noble Lord to cite the observations of the Molony Committee made upon a totally different proposition—namely, to prevent the giving of commissions altogether as an argument against the proposal which has been made by my noble friend. More than that, I am very surprised indeed, for the second time this afternoon, to hear an Amendment dealing with this subject rejected upon the ground, in effect, that all the companies giving hire-purchase facilities are so dishonest that it is absolutely impossible to give effect to it—for that is the substance of the argument which the noble Lord has used. I do not believe that that is true, and I think it is only an excuse for not dealing with something which the Molony Committee quite properly said was a serious abuse. The hirer does not know that the dealer has a financial inducement, in the shape of a commission, to place the business with a particular hire-purchase company; and he ought to know it.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I regard as very confusing the comments I have listened to, particularly the speech of the Minister. I was under the impression that this Bill was designed to protect the purchaser in hire-purchase transactions, but, having listened to the

1297
Minister, I begin to wonder whether, in fact, it was not designed to protect the interests of the salesmen involved. He made a passionate plea on behalf of the salesmen, saying that they did admirable work, obviously had to be recompensed for this, and were labourers worthy of their hire. It made one wonder why there were not minimum commissions so that the salesmen could charge 10 per cent. instead of 3 per cent. Surely, we must go back to the object of this Bill, which is to safeguard the purchaser. There are many matters which have been under discussion in this Bill where the purchaser needs safeguards. One of them, manifestly, is in this matter of commission which is paid to the salesman in any hire-purchase transaction. It is further manifestly clear that in certain cases it is very much in the interests of the dealer or the salesman that the transaction should not be for cash but should be on deferred terms, because his recompense will be more. Not only is that not in the interests of the purchaser; it cannot be in the interests of the country.
It seems to me extraordinary that a Government spokesman should defend something in this Bill which is against the interests both of the purchaser and of the country itself. So far as I can make out, the only reason he gives is that in certain cases—not in every case what the Amendment provides would be difficult to enforce. The Minister brings in what I respectfully suggest is the "red herring" of boxes of cigars and cases of whisky at Christmas. We know these things are given by some people to others. Unfortunately I am not one of the recipients of these. But that is a moral question, dealing with corruption of all sorts, and it does not really come into this Bill at all. If this Amendment is a good one, the fact that it can be got round by some dishonest people giving cases of whisky and boxes of cigars is not an argument which ought to carry weight with your Lordships. We should really listen to whether it is going to act in the interests of the consumer and whether, in the long run, it is likely to lead to a better form of hire-purchase and lower costs.
My view is that the original Amendment which was defeated earlier this afternoon was very much better, because
1298
it would have allowed the freedom—which we on this side of the House would like even more than noble Lords opposite—for people to charge different forms of interest, with the proviso that it must be made abundantly clear to the man who is eventually paying how much he is to pay and where that money is going. But that Amendment was defeated. As the second best, which is forced on us through the Government's action, this is the only way left now to protect the consumer. I hope your Lordships will not be led astray by the hard plight of the motor-dealer and other salesmen who deserve their 10 per cent., 15 per cent. or 22½ per cent., nor by the fact that this can be got round in some way by some dishonest people; but regard it solely on its merits and support this Amendment.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, think we are going to have to press this Amendment. The Minister has not given an answer. He could, of course, as my noble friend has said, have given an answer by accepting our earlier Amendment and letting the ordinary processes work. Incidentally, he referred to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. It was not the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, who quoted Molony; it was the noble Lord, himself; and he said that that is another point of view. The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, said he did not think it necessary to remind the noble Lord of what he said. But his arguments are simply these: that, first of all, a service is rendered. Well, we are prepared to concede 10 per cent. for that; and this is the view of many of the finance houses. He used the additional argument that the seller might have to supply some warranty. In how many cases, in fact, does the dealer supply that warranty so that he takes a financial risk? I doubt whether the Minister knows; I certainly do not. Secondly, he may render other services for which he is paid. That is certainly not an argument for being paid for this.
Finally, my noble friend Lord Walston pointed to the old cigars and whisky argument. The amount you can give away in this way is very limited. And, in any case, it is not possible to make up £500 or £1,000. Moreover, there are certain standards of business behaviour

1299
to consider. I do not know the motor dealers well enough, and therefore I would not pass any remarks; but I would suggest that there are some sections of industry who would not do this sort of thing. I am sorry that this argument has been used against a perfectly
Clause 3 [Right of cancellation of certain hire-purchase and credit-sale transactions]:
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment, which is consequential on the Amendments I moved to Clause 1.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 15, leave out ("not being a body corporate").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
6.5 p.m.
LORD PEDDIE LORD PEDDIE moved to add to subsection (1):
"A copy of the relevant document shall be retained by the prospective hirer or buyer and it shall contain particulars of the name and address of the person to whom cancellation may be delivered, and to whom goods may be returned."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope, with a high degree of optimism,
sensible proposal which is regarded as workable by the industry themselves.
5.57 p.m.
On Question, Whether the proposed new clause (Amendment No. 10) shall be there inserted?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 27; Not-Contents, 43.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Gardiner, L.

Rea, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, E.

Henderson, L.

St. Davids, V.

Amulree, L.

Hobson, L.

Shackleton, L.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Hughes, L.

Shepherd, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Latham, L.

Summerskill, B.

Champion, L. [Teller.]

Longford, E.

Taylor, L.

Chorley, L.

Meston, L.

Walston, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Morrison of Lambeth, L.

Williams, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Peddie, L.

Williamson, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailwyn, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Auckland, L.

Falkland, V.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Bessborough, E.

Ferrers, E.

Merrivale, L.

Bradford, E.

Ferrier, L.

Milverton, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Furness, V.

Mountevans, L.

Carrington, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Radnor, E.

Chesham, L.

Greenway, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L

Congleton, L.

Grenfell, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Craigton, L.

Hanworth, V.

St. Oswald, L.

Crathorne, L.

Hastings, L.

Sandys, L.

Denham, L.

Hawke, L.

Somers, L.

Derwent, L.

Headfort, M.

Strange of Knokin, B.

Dilhorne, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Iddesleigh, E.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Lothian, M.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Ellenborough, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

that this Amendment will receive a more favourable reception than others that have been moved this afternoon. At Committee stage, arguments were advanced from both sides in favour of this Amendment, which makes it necessary for a copy of the document to be retained by the hirer after he has first appended his signature. I think that your Lordships will agree that no one could dispute the common sense of having a copy of any document that one has signed. But the Minister, in reply, made great play with the fact that at the stage when the signature was first appended to the document, the agreement is not complete, and that when it is complete, both sides will have a copy. We are aware that upon the completion of the agreement, when the hire-purchase company has accepted the proposal, a copy of the agreement will be forwarded to the hirer. We are quite aware, too, that the four-day cooling-off period starts when the copy of the agreement is received.
The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, went on to point cut [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 254 (No. 25), col. 818]:
"We certainly do not prohibit the leaving of a copy. There is no question of denying a right to a copy if it is thought right by a finance house …"
That, to my mind, is an incredible statement. On the one hand, there is no argument against the point we made in favour of having a copy retained by the hirer, but there is a suggestion that if the finance company, on their part, think it necessary, then there will be no objection to it. The noble Lord goes on to make what, to my mind, is an equally incredible comment. He makes the suggestion, as an argument against this Amendment, that it is likely that the receiving of a copy at the time of signing will cause people not to read the agreement. I do not want to misjudge the point which has been made by the noble Lord. Therefore, I will quote from the OFFICIAL REPORT of that date (col. 818) his words:
"…it will tend still further to deter the potential hirer from reading the document before he signs."
In other words, the argument is that if a hirer receives a copy of the document he has already signed, that will cause him not to read it, because he has a copy. In the absence of a copy, he does not have any opportunity at all to read the document. So I am completely at a loss to understand the argument that was advanced at Committee stage against the Amendment.
Let me explain how the process would operate under the Bill as it stands. In the first instance, probably on the doorstep, the hirer receives no copy at all. Later on, when the hire-purchase company has accepted his offer, he then signs a completed agreement, and at that point, or subsequently, the hirer receives a copy of the agreement. The effect of this Amendment would be to lengthen the period of consideration on the part of the hirer—and that is the purpose of this Bill—without imposing any disability on the owner or any lengthening of the period before the completion of the transaction. Therefore, all the virtues are on the side of this Amendment. There is no disability so far as the hire-purchase company is concerned. There is no lengthening of the full
1302
period of consideration, because the hirer would have the copy at the time of signing and the four day cooling-off period will operate from the moment when the hire-purchase company signs the document.
I would also point out that Clause 3(4)(b) says
"in any other case, the service of the notice shall operate as a withdrawal of any offer to enter into such an agreement which is contained in, or implied by, the relevant document, and as notice to the owner or seller that any such offer is withdrawn."
I mention that because there seemed to me to be an assumption on the part of the noble Lord opposite that the cancellation could be exercised only after acceptance. In other words, one did not operate the cancellation of the agreement until the agreement was completed. But in Clause 3(4)(b) it is clearly laid down that it is possible to cancel or withdraw even before the agreement is completed, merely during the period when the offer is being made by the hirer. If that be the case, and the Bill anticipates the possibility of such a cancellation, surely there is every justification for ensuring that the hirer, the first time he appends his signature to the document, has the right to secure a copy.
I hope the noble Lord opposite will accept this Amendment. I know that the officials responsible for the Bill do not like anyone messing about with their draftsmanship—that seems to be the dominant factor underlying the brief from which the noble Lord opposite has operated. But, quite frankly, here is a proposition, supported on the last occasion by noble Lords on both sides, which imposes no additional liability upon the hire-purchase company. Without any question of doubt it brings advantage to the hirer, and it is in complete conformity with Clause 3(4)(b). In the light of these arguments, and in consequence of the support demonstrated on the last occasion from both sides, and since this is not a political Bill, one might on this occasion expect noble Lords on both sides of the House to give support to a point of view that I believe is in the best interests of the Bill and of everyone likely to be affected by it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 29, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Peddle.)
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, I supported the noble Lord, Lord Peddie, on this Amendment at the Committee stage, and I rise with great pleasure to support him again on Report stage. I endorse every word that he has said. He has put the question of the importance of this far better than I can. But I am thinking now of information that comes into the Consumer Office from all over the country—from citizens' advice bureaux and elsewhere—about this question of whether or not the terms of the hire-purchase agreement, the object of it, the way it is put out and so on; and how they can best be discussed by a husband and wife. Usually it is the wife at home who receives the man who comes to sell the object, and the husband is away all day. The transaction may be quite a complicated affair; it may be quite difficult for the wife to explain to the absent partner, when he comes home in the evening, what was in the agreement or proposal. We have been talking about the difficulty of reading the documents and of getting them into clear type so that people can read them. These things are not easy. If a wife receives a call from somebody, and signs a document which is then taken away, it is difficult for her, if she has nothing to show, to explain to her husband, when he comes home in the evening, what she has done. I should hate to have to do it, and I daresay I might be better qualified than some of those who are called upon to do it in their homes
As the noble Lord, Lord Peddie, said, there does not seem to be any reason why what I propose should not happen. It would, in my opinion, be in the interests of the people selling the goods, because they have the time, the patience and the interest. It is said that people do not read things—and I agree that they do not, if they are not interested. But presumably, if they want to buy the object, they want to know what the conditions are and are interested. Yet they cannot read anything about it if the document has been taken away by the salesman to his place of business. They have to wait for it to come through the post and then have time to look at it; but that may be quite a little time later. Perhaps the wife may be rather excited about the purchase; it may be something she desperately wants and
1304
longs to discuss it with her husband. The husband asks his wife questions, but she cannot answer them; and I do not blame her: she has nothing in her hands to show for it.
All the evidence that we get from the country points to this as being a perfectly simple proposal: it is not elaborate and complicated, but quite simple. I beg the Minister to consider this seriously. It will be to everybody's advantage. Of course it is to the advantage of the consumer, because he has much more time to look at the document. It is also to the advantage of the seller, because if the document is a good one, well drawn up and so on, perhaps the mind of the purchaser will be made up by the time it comes in the post and the transaction will go through much more quickly. In every way I think this is something that we ought to support, and I hope the Minister will reconsider it. As I say, it does not add any complications or costs. If any of us were going into, let us say, a store where we had purchases charged to an account, we should certainly be given a copy of whatever we ordered, whether it was on hire-purchase or in another way. We all know that a carbon copy is made of a bill which is torn off and you are given it and you go off with it in your pocket. If it can be done in a store, it can be done on the doorstep. The salesman has only to come along with a book containing a duplicate and it is as simple as can be. It does not seem to me that there is any complication about this at all. I beg the Minister to accept this Amendment. It would make a great deal of difference to the consumer.
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: My Lords, I support this Amendment, and I would make only one point. If you go away, having signed a document, you have not then got it. So you have no opportunity to find out whether you fully understand it until it comes through the post, when you have a four days' period. If there is something that you do not understand, and you want to go back to the hire-purchase company and find out, you have not time to do it without losing your option to cancel the contract. This is a small point, but I think it is important. Many people are not capable of understanding all the terms written

1305
down in this document, and they should have the opportunity of going back and inquiring about it from the hire-purchase company, if they so wish, without losing their option to cancel the contract.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I, too, should like to support the Amendment, because it tends to lengthen the four-day cooling-off period, which in all conscience is not too long. It may begin, for instance, upon the day on which a long-distance lorry driver sets out on a journey from the South of England to Scotland and back again. In those circumstances, four days is not a very generous cooling-off period. This Amendment, which tends to lengthen the time for consideration, is very much to be commended.
6. 20 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I think that there is nothing between us on this, that in this matter we are out to protect the consumer. One has to admit right away that, as between what is in the Bill and what is proposed in the Amendment, there is a much longer time in which to consider action. What we are not so certain about is whether action will so readily result if we have a copy. I may make myself plainer as we go along—I see the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, frowning. It is, I have no doubt, good practice to leave a copy in such circumstances, but there are many things that are good business practice which we should not wish to prescribe as a statutory duty. I do not lay any stress on the fact that this was something which was not actually recommended by Molony, but it is inconceivable, that, in their consideration of what the proper degree of protection should be in this case, they should not have considered this suggestion. Nevertheless, they did not recommend it.
I must come back to this again, and I do not think it quite deserves the scorn the noble Lord, Lord Peddie, poured upon it. What the Molony Committee were really after in their recommendation as to the box, and the necessity for the signature being placed in that box, was that the attention of the hirer should be drawn to the fact that the document was a hire-purchase contract. We feel that we should go even further than
1306
this. We want to make certain that as many people as possible read the contracts before they sign them. Noble Lords have been laying great stress on the point that the contracts themselves should be legible so that reading of them can be encouraged. Surely this is right. We want to encourage reading them before they are signed.
I know that this Amendment applies particularly to the cooling-off provisions, but outside those provisions it would be quite normal for somebody who is going to sign a hire-purchase contract to take a copy of the agreement and read it. This is what we want to happen. This is surely what we should be encouraging: that the document should be read before the signature is appended. In the cooling-off provisions we are talking of special circumstances where the salesman may be in a special position very strongly to influence a person in his own home to sign a contract, and we are providing special arrangements for that case. Those special arrangements are in accordance with what Molony has recommended. It is said that four days is a short time in which to consider this matter, but these matters have to be brought to a point. It is much more effective if they are brought to a crucial decision, when they have to make up their minds in a certain time and must get on with it and make that decision. This must have been in the minds of the Molony Committee when they suggested this four-day period, and the concentration on making the hirer understand that when a copy of the agreement itself came along he was able to exercise his right, if he wished to do so, to withdraw from the contract. If we lay a statutory provision that a copy should be left with the hirer in the first place, there is undoubtedly a danger that when the actual agreement comes along later less attention might be paid to it than otherwise would be. We do not want to give any salesman an opportunity of explaining away the cooling-off period. The salesman could quite easily say, if he were leaving a copy, "Of course, you will be receiving a copy later on. You need not take any notice of that. By that time you will have received the goods and, of course, everything will be fixed up." This is a danger, and I do not

1307
think it is a danger which should be underestimated.
One could refer to a technical point, which is that at the time when the hirer actually appends his signature the name of the finance house may not even be known. I know the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, thinks that this is a rare occurrence, but I am told that it is not as rare as he may think.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, on this point, is it possible legally to undertake to make a proposal to an unknown person—to make an agreement with an unknown person?
LORD DRUMALBYN: You are making a proposal through an agent who may be representing more than one principal. That is what it amounts to, does it not? I am afraid one has to face the fact that, in the pursuit of this kind of business, things do not run exactly according to the book, and I daresay that goes for other businesses. For that reason, if for no other, we must try to maintain the provisions as simple as possible in the interests of the consumer.
The point I was going to make is this. Supposing a copy is not left. What then? What is going to be the sanction? There is no sanction provided. Is it that the contract is to be unenforceable simply because a copy has not been left, simply because this additional period has not been given, in spite of the fact that the main Molony recommendation is being implemented in the Bill and that the person will have his cooling-off rights under the Bill? Is it seriously supposed that, simply because a copy is not left, the contract should be unenforceable? If somebody says, "Yes, it should be made unenforceable", how are you going to get the evidence? A dishonest hirer will say, "I never received a copy." A dishonest or a forgetful dealer who may have made an error may say, "I left the copy. Look, here is a duplicate. I have it here." But he may never in fact have left the copy at all.
This really is a very difficult field. I appreciate entirely the excellence of the motives of noble Lords opposite, and I think every encouragement should be given to the leaving of a copy. But it is a totally different matter to make it a statutory requirement to do so. It is
1308
always a principle of legislation that you should not legislate unless what you are legislating for is capable of enforcement and is sensible. I do not think that this would really be true here. I am bound to say that we shall go on considering this, because it has apparent merits. But, against that, I think there are weighty considerations, and so far I am bound to say that I am not convinced that this safeguard which noble Lords would like us to write into the Bill would prove to be an effective safeguard at all. I would ask noble Lords to allow us to consider this matter further and not at the moment to press this Amendment to a Division.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, it was perfectly obvious, at least from this side of the House, that the noble Lord opposite was in some difficulty in replying to the case made in support of this Amendment. I do not know whether he plays cricket, but if he plays it in the style in which he handles this Bill he will not be pretty to watch, because he does too much stonewalling. I think we have had an admirable example of stonewalling in his reply. Quite frankly, I think the noble Lord must come to the conclusion that there is little case in the argument that has been advanced against us. The suggestion is that it is good practice to leave a copy, and yet the Minister goes on to suggest that one need not have statutory authority to take up that good practice.
We have made it clear—and the noble Lord has accepted the point—that there is no disability and no extra cost involved in leaving a copy at the time when the document is first signed. And surely at the time when (to use the noble Lord's own words in Committee) the owner or the agent is "breathing down the neck" of the hirer, it is extremely unlikely that he will be able to give careful consideration to the document. But after the document is signed at the time of the offer, the leaving of the document would enable that person to make a very detailed consideration of what he had signed.
Surely the suggestion that less attention will be given to the agreement if a copy is left will not be accepted by any noble Lord; nor the suggestion that if a copy is left at the time of signing the

1309
hirer will be likely to give less attention to the document than later when he gets a copy at the end of the period when the hire-purchase company has accepted it. We have taken note of the point that the noble Lord will give consideration to this matter. Can we assume from that that there will be a serious attempt to accept the principle on the basis of this Amendment? I should be glad to have an assurance at this stage, because I was not quite certain about it. Can the noble Lord give us an assurance that he will accept the principle behind this Amendment?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, with the consent of the House I should like to speak again in answer to this point. I cannot, of course, commit myself to saying that we accept the principle. I cannot accept the principle of the Amendment, because it involves putting a statutory requirement to do something to which I am not yet satisfied it will be wise to apply a statutory requirement. I must be quite frank with the House: If am not at all certain that this will be the right thing to do. What I said was that I thought it would be good practice, but always with the qualification that at the same
time as the copy is left it is made absolutely clear that when the copy of the agreement arrives it is then that the time for action comes, not before. As I said before, the danger lies simply in the fact that if you leave the copy before, the emphasis on the right of the hirer to exercise that right when the copy of the agreement arrives, and to have four days in which to emphasise it, may be prejudiced. This is what we have to consider. I have said that I will go on considering, but I am afraid I cannot commit myself to acceptance even of the principle, because the principle involves a statutory requirement.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Lord is always fair, but my feeling is that we should commit ourselves this evening on the principle, and I hope that my noble friend will press this Amendment to a Division.
6.35 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 12) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 45; Not-Contents, 23.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Headfort, M.

Rea, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, E.

Henderson, L.

St. Davids, V.

Amulree, L.

Hobson, L.

Sandys, L.

Auckland, L.

Hughes, L.

Shackleton, L.

Champion, L. [Teller.]

Iddesleigh, E.

Shepherd, L. [Teller.]

Crook, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Somers, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Latham, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Lindgren, L.

Strang, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Longford, E.

Strange of Knokin, B.

Ferrier, L.

MacAndrew, L.

Summerskill, B.

Furness, V.

Merrivale, L.

Swansea, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Meston, L.

Taylor, L.

Gardiner, L.

Milverton, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Grenfell, L.

Morrison of Lambeth, L.

Walston, L.

Hanworth, V.

Peddie, L.

Williamson, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Bessborough, E.

Derwent, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Bossom, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Mountevans, L.

Carrington, L.

Falkland, V.

Newton, L.

Chelmer, L.

Ferrers, E.

Radnor, E.

Chesham, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Craigton, L.

Greenway, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Crathorne, L.

Hastings, L.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Denham, L.

Lothian, M.

Resolved in the affirmative and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved, accordingly, and on Question, Motion agreed to.

NEW FOREST BILL [H.L.]
6.40 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD CRATHORNE: My Lords, it occurred to me that it might strike some of your Lordships as curious that a North-countryman should be submitting this Bill for your consideration and asking the House to give it a Second Reading. But the answer is a very simple one: I was asked to undertake this task by the Promoters of the Bill. I readily accepted, for three very simple reasons: I am a lover of anything connected with the countryside; I am a lover of animals; and, thirdly, I feel that this is a good Bill and one that is required in the area for which it legislates. So I submit it with confidence to your Lordships.
As is stated in the Explanatory Memorandum, in the first sentence:
"The main purpose of the Bill is to reduce the number of accidents in and adjacent to the New Forest involving animals and motor vehicles by providing such fences and cattle-grids as may be necessary to contain animals within the New Forest."
This is really only a further extension of many Acts that have gone before, but the New Forest goes back far in our island history. From the researches I have made I find that the first record of the New Forest is as far back as the days of King Canute, when it was known as the Forest of Ytene, or, in other words, the Land of the Jutes. After the Norman Conquest, it was enlarged and became the New Forest; and it was, in fact, the last Royal forest to be created in England.
Since those days Parliament has from time to time interested itself in the wellbeing of the forest and of the people and animals who live in it. I do not propose this evening to go back further than 1851—and I shall deal with that only very shortly. In 1851 the Crown
1312
surrendered the rights to keep deer in the forest, and in exchange for that right the Crown received powers of inclosure which might easily have threatened the whole future of the forest. Shortly after that, in 1877, an Act was passed curbing the power of the Crown to a limited acreage for inclosure and reconstituting the Court of Verderers. Under that Act the verderers were charged with the duties of maintaining the open forest and ensuring the rights of the commoners. Unfortunately, at that time no adequate funds were provided for this purpose, and the verderers had to depend entirely on marking fees. These were fixed under the 1877 Act at the rate of 2s. 6d., and this maximum remained unaltered until 1949, which was the last occasion upon which your Lordships and another place were asked to legislate about the New Forest.
In 1949, as a result of the Baker Committee, a new Bill was introduced and passed into law. This Act did not fully implement the Baker Report—and that is important to note at this particular juncture, particularly in regard to adjacent commons, which this Bill now seeks to rectify. It did, however, apportion responsibility between the Forestry Commission and the verderers for the upkeep of the Forest, and also allow greater revenue to be obtained by charging extra marking fees. In point of fact, the scales of marking fees at this moment are 20s., plus 10s. per animal. But, above all, the 1949 Act reconstituted the Court of Verderers on the basis of five elected verderers, four of whom were nominated and are nominated, with the Crown appointment of an Official Verderer—and here I know your Lordships will be pleased to see the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, with us this evening, as having given up the arduous duties of the Forestry Commissioner he has now become Official Verderer for the New Forest. The mere fact of creating this body once again under the 1949 Act healed the running sore which had existed for many hundreds of years between the commoners and the Crown, and to-day I think I can assure your Lords, with complete confidence, that the verderers and the Forestry Commissioners work hand in hand for the benefit of all that goes on in that corner of our country.

1313
In doing this work they are both ably supported by various local societies. I will just mention the three perhaps most important. There is the New Forest Association. This is a semi-national body concerned with preserving the amenities of the public and the special fauna and flora of the New Forest. Then there is the New Forest Commoners' Defence Association, and they particularly concern themselves with trying to improve the grazing and thereby the standard of farming that can be obtained by those with rights over the New Forest. And, thirdly, there is the New Forest Cattle and Pony Breeding Association. Their special task is to consider the well-being and the standard of ponies in the New Forest; and strict rules are enforced as to the stallions which may roam in the Forest. One result of their work has been that the New Forest pony is now accepted as being one of the most popular breeds of pony in our country. All these associations support the Bill which your Lordships are considering this evening.
However much the 1949 Act did for the New Forest, much has happened since then; and during these last fifteen years, owing to the vast increase in motor traffic and the speed at which it travels, as well as the advent of the caravan (to give just one figure of interest, in the last two years the number of caravans in the New Forest has increased by over 100 per cent.), and because of new urban development in that part of the country (to give examples of that, the Fawley Refinery, the Monsanto Chemical Works on the East side, and on the West the big expansion of Bournemouth), it became clear to the verderers that further legislation was required.
In view of these facts, in 1961, three years ago, the verderers decided to approach the Hampshire County Council and to initiate discussions to prepare new legislation. These negotiations led to the establishment of an unofficial Committee, under the chairmanship of Sir Oliver Crosthwaite-Eyre, who, as noble Lords will know, is the representative in another place for the New Forest, to try to reach common agreement on the form that future legislation might take. The following
1314
bodies have taken part in and have expressed general approval of the Bill: the Forestry Commission; the Council for the Preservation of Rural England; the National Trust; the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals; the Commons, Open Spaces and Footpaths Preservation Society; the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents; the British Veterinary Association, and the National Farmers' Union.
So far as the National Farmers' Union is concerned, I must here tell your Lordships of a proviso. Negotiations are still taking place with one local branch, and it is hoped that these may be resolved before the Bill reaches its final stages through Parliament. Negotiations are, in fact, taking place at the present time, but I am not in a position to say that a result has been reached by the whole of the county branch of the N.F.U. The local authorities are also in general support of the Bill, and include the Hampshire County Council, the Wiltshire County Council, the Borough of Lymington, Ringwood and Fordingbridge Rural District Council, the New Forest Rural District Council, the New Forest District Association of Parish Councils and the Salisbury and Wilton Rural District Council.
There is just one general criticism I have heard in regard to this Bill. It has been said in certain quarters, and especially by those who have petitioned against the Bill, that it is a personal Bill of Sir Oliver Crosthwaite-Eyre. But I have his authority to state to your Lordships that, whilst he had the honour to be the Chairman of the Committee which framed this Bill, it is in no sense his own personal Bill. All the various bodies who attended the meetings of the Committee made it clear at those meetings that they must report back before committing themselves to any proposed legislation. This has been done, and no Petitions have been submitted by any local authority against the Bill.
Now if I may, I would turn to the detailed clauses of the Bill. Clause 1 alters the perambulation of the New Forest so as to take in certain common and other land adjacent thereto and so as to extend the powers of the verderers to the added areas. In addition to taking in certain areas, it also excludes certain

1315
areas, and these two areas almost balance each other out. Under subsection (1) the effect of the alteration is the addition of approximately 7,500 acres and the exclusion of 9,000 acres. These definite areas are shown on the plans which have been deposited in connection with the Bill. One further point with regard to subsection (1) which is of importance is that if your Lordships agree to give this Bill a Second Reading tonight, Amendments will be proposed during the Committee stage under which part of Wiltshire known as "No-man's-land" will be excluded from the proposed added areas.
Subsection (2) extends to the added areas the powers of the verderers under the present enactments relating to the New Forest. Here I should like to emphasise that, except to a limited extent to which I shall refer in a moment, the powers of the Forestry Commissioners under those enactments (which, broadly speaking, are confined to the part of the existing New Forest in Crown ownership and subject to common rights) will not be extended to the added areas. The verderers' by-laws are mainly directed to protecting the health of animals. Under subsection (3) it is proposed to extend the Forestry Commissioners' bylaws under Section 2 of the Forestry Act, 1927, to the parts of the added areas already subject to common rights. So far as this subsection is concerned, it is proposed to introduce an Amendment during the Committee stage to make the position somewhat clearer than it is at present under subsection (3) as drafted. In this connection, it may be mentioned that by-laws made under Section 2 of the Act of 1927 may not take away or injuriously affect any right of common without the consent of the person entitled thereto. The Forestry Commissioners' by-laws relate to such matters as the lighting of fires, camping, the parking of motor vehicles and the prevention of nuisances. So much for Clause 1.
Clause 2 really contains the machinery provisions for preparing the additional plans to which I have already referred. The proposal amounts to reopening what is known locally as "the atlas"; that is to say, the plans prepared by the Forestry Commissioners under the New Forest Act, 1949, showing the lands to
1316
which are attached rights of common within the New Forest as it exists to-day. The clause also contains provisions for appropriate consultation, and also confers rights to object to the additional plans when they have been prepared. These rights are the same as those conferred by the Act of 1949.
Clause 3, which is an important clause, deals with fencing. By subsection (2) the verderers are enabled to erect fencing along or adjacent to the altered perambulation for the purpose of containing animals. This fencing, with the cattle grids to be construced by the Hampshire County Council as highway authority, will provide a protective seal around the New Forest which will prevent animals from straying outside the perambulation and so help to reduce accidents.
Under Clause 3(4) the verderers will also be able to erect what is known as "drift fencing" within the New Forest. This is a safeguard, because animals become accustomed to crossing highways within the New Forest, for example to reach a watering-place, at a point which is extremely dangerous from the traffic aspect, especially near some blind corner or other. Drift fencing would enable the animal to be diverted to a safer crossing place. It would be of benefit to the animals themselves and also to the general public and the motorist. It is emphasised that the powers for both perimeter and drift fencing are confined to the open waste lands of the Forest—that is to say, Crown land subject to common rights —and to a small portion of land which is marked on the deposited plans. This clause also contains certain safeguards in respect of highway matters and amenity. Since the erection of fencing amounts to an interference with private rights, notices had to be served under the Standing Orders upon the owners, lessees and occupiers of the lands concerned. No Petition has been deposited against the Bill by any such owner, lessee or occupier.
I turn now to Clause 4, which contains permissive powers to fence the main road A.35 from Southampton to Christchurch where it traverses the New Forest. These powers are similar to those conferred by the Act of 1949 in respect of the trunk road from Cadnam to Ringwood. Again, these

1317
powers are intended for the reduction of the number of accidents. There is one further point I should mention, at the request of the noble Lord, Lord Molson (who is unable to be in the House this evening), on behalf of the Commons, Open Spaces and Footpaths Preservation Society. It deals with possible interference with public rights of access if and when A.35 is fenced. I should like to assure your Lordships that wicket gates or stiles will be provided at points where defined paths meet this main road and that the appropriate bodies will be consulted about the location of these wicket gates or stiles.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord for one moment? Does that mean—and I may have misunderstood the noble Lord—that access will be only at a point where there is a side road; that there will be no access on a long stretch of road where there is not a side road?
LORD CRATHORNE: The noble Lord has misunderstood me. The point with which I was dealing was the importance of not interfering with public rights of access to the New Forest if fences are created along the main road. I was thinking more of paths rather than side roads. The public would be prevented from getting access unless these stiles or gates were created.
I turn now to Clause 5. This clause is intended to preserve the protective seal around the New Forest when it has been created. It prescribes that no alteration is to be made so as to provide or enlarge a means of access to the New Forest unless a cattle grid or other works are installed to prevent or restrict the passage of animals. It will be appreciated that, for example, the building of a new housing estate within the altered perambulation, with a new highway to give access thereto cutting across the protective seal, might allow animals to stray outside the New Forest. This would defeat one of the main objects of the Bill. Clause 6 is an amendment of Section 18 of the 1949 Act. It does not extend to the added areas and calls for no comment.
Clause 7 deals with an entirely different subject, the question of pannage. Pannage is the term used to define the time when one is allowed to turn out
1318
pigs. I am not an expert on this subject. Up to now, the existing time of pannage has been September 25 to November 22 in each year. This has been found to be inconvenient in practice, and power is now sought under this clause to enable the Forestry Commissioners to fix pannage time (of not less than 60 consecutive days) after consultation with the verderers. This clause has no application within the added areas.
Clause 8 enables verderers to make temporary enclosures for the purpose of preventing the suffering of animals during severe weather. That is a measure which would be used, such as in the severe weather of last year, to give temporary shelter. Clause 9 seeks a permissive power to pay the reasonable travelling expenses of the appointed verderers in attending official meetings.
Clause 10 would enable the verderers to authorise the Forestry Commissioners to create new ornamental woods and to enclose land for the purpose. These powers are restricted to the part of the New Forest now owned by the Crown and subject to common rights, and therefore do not extend to the added areas. Here, again, the noble Lord, Lord Molson, has asked me to raise a point on this clause. He feels that some maximum acreage that may be used for ornamental planting should be inserted in the Bill. The verderers accept in principle that the powers under Clause 10 should not be over-used, but there would be great difficulty in arriving at a proper figure for the purpose of describing a maximum acreage in respect of enclosures made under the clause. However, the verderers would, of course, consider carefully any suggestions which might be made on this point. It may be worth noting that the verderers' powers cannot be exercised except "on a presentment". This is a form of procedure before the Court of Verderers which gives an opportunity for objections by interested parties. Your Lordships will see that in the clause as drafted no one enclosure made by virtue of this clause shall exceed 20 acres in area.
Clause 11 refers to the Forestry Commission by-laws. Clause 12 makes provision for the increase of certain maximum fines for offences under the verderers'

1319
by-laws. The present maxima were fixed as long ago as 1877 and are now considered to be out of date. Clause 13 makes similar provision in respect of the Forestry Commission's by-laws. Clause 15 safeguards the position of the National Trust, and this clause has been approved by them. That concludes the detailed clauses of the Bill.
It remains for me to inform your Lordships that two Petitions have been deposited against the Bill; one by a small minority of commoners who allege that they hold rights over parts of the added areas; the other by the New Forest Society for the Prevention of Straying Animals. If the Bill is given a Second Reading by your Lordships, these Petitions will stand referred to a Select Committee upstairs. My Lords, this Bill is a necessary Bill; it is a helpful Bill; and I hope your Lordships will see fit to give it an unopposed Second Reading. I move.
Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Crathorne.)
7.10 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (LORD ST. OSWALD): My Lords, I do not propose to speak for more than a few minutes on this Bill, especially since my fellow-Yorkshireman felt it necessary to explain why he was involving himself in the affairs of the New Forest. It seems to me that it will be far more useful to hear the views of noble Lords on this complex and, to some extent, controversial subject: and I may say that the Government are anxious to hear such views. Indeed, this is why I have sought to speak rather earlier to-day than is customary for a Government spokesman on a Private Member's Bill.
My noble friend Lord Crathorne has stated with clarity and force and feeling the objects of the Bill, and I do not need to tread the same paths. From the point of view of Her Majesty's Government, the provisions of the Bill seem to have two sides, requiring separate treatment. The first is the question of the gridding and fencing of the perambulation or perimeter of the Forest. In this connection I understand that the County Council have
1320
put in certain sections of gridding and fencing to fill in the gaps between existing fences. This fencing follows closely the perimeter line proposed by the Bill, but the powers conferred in Clause 3(2) will be useful in filling the relatively few gaps which I understand still exist. The Government can, therefore, give its support to this side of the Bill.
The second side of the Bill, and one on which I think it would be proper for Her Majesty's Government to maintain an open mind for the present, covers various proposals dealing with or affecting common rights. Some of these are controversial, and my noble friend has informed your Lordships that some owners of common rights in the area have presented a humble Petition to Parliament praying against the Bill. I do not think noble Lords will expect me to say more about this, which is essentially a matter for consideration under our Select Committee procedure. Your Lordships may be aware that this is fully in keeping with the quasi-judicial attitude which my right honourable friend must maintain towards applications in respect of common land which are put to him under Statute. My Lords, I look forward to hearing the views of your Lordships on this Bill.
7.13 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Crook, I am speaking from this Despatch Box, but I should make it clear that I am not speaking officially on behalf of the Opposition. I suppose that it would be right if I were to declare an interest. I am a constituent of Sir Oliver Crosthwaite-Eyre, though deprived of the right to vote either for or against this matter, and there are common rights attached to my small property in the New Forest. Anyone who knows the New Forest will realise that this subject is one which is of great importance, not only to people living in the New Forest, but to tens of thousands of people who enjoy the quite extraordinary beauty and amenity of that area. It is an extraordinary thing that you can walk off the road and you are then, suddenly, in country as wild as you can find anywhere.
The fact that there are so many qualities in the New Forest does not make it particularly easy to legislate. I would congratulate the noble Lord, Lord

1321
Crathorne, on the extremely agreeable and uncontroversial way in which he introduced this Bill, but it would be quite mistaken not to recognise that this is a controversial Bill. The fact that the majority of commoners in the New Forest support it does not alter the fact that public interests are involved; and, indeed, the interests of others such as the National Trust commoners—those from outlying areas—who are also affected. The Bill is, of course, subject to the Hybrid Bill procedure and, as the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, said, a Select Committee of this House will have an opportunity to hear the Petitions. We cannot, however, give the Bill its Second Reading unless we at least give some consideration to the arguments for and against; and the Petitions themselves go very much to the heart of the opposition to this Bill.
If this Bill has an easier passage than the last New Forest Bill, it will be doing well; because I well remember (and I think the noble Earl. Lord Radnor, will remember) that that Bill aroused passionate feelings. Indeed, the New Forest commoners almost came out with their reaping scythes, if they had any, prepared to defend their rights against the King's Woodsmen. It is ironic that the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, who shortly after became Chairman of the Forestry Commission, was, in fact, the biggest commoner of them all. But, one way and another, thanks to the wisdom of this House, passions were assuaged and a solution was reached which I think it will be agreed on all sides has worked extremely well, whatever difficulties there may be. One thing we can be quite certain about is that, even if this Bill is passed, there will be a large number of difficulties still to be resolved in the future. I must say straight away that, despite my doubts about this Bill—and I shall refer to them, because I think it is right that we should consider them—I am inclined to give it qualified approval. Indeed, I would recommend that it should have its Second Reading. But we shall have to rely a great deal on wisdom upstairs to solve some of the difficulties.
I must refer, first of all, to the problem of the outlying commoners. The outlying commoners' position is an obscure one legally. If, one day, the Government
1322
found time in their timetable, they might deal with the question of commons; indeed, this matter really ought to be the subject of Government legislation. I congratulate the sponsors of this Bill upon producing such a very ambitious Bill and bringing it forward, when clearly there was no chance of the Government's doing so, possibly because they were afraid of getting their fingers burnt as a previous Government did with a New Forest Bill.
But some of the outlying commoners have a genuine complaint. There is the man who has been turning out animals. I know of one case—I think it is true; I was told of it by a leading figure in the New Forest—of a man who is every day turning out 50 head of a dairy herd and bringing them in for milking, and they never stray into the New Forest. At present, he turns them out free, but in future he will have to pay marking fees equivalent to £50 a year. We ought not lightly to take away rights of this kind. Common rights are inevitably very contentious things, and of a doubtful legal validity. None the less, so far as that individual is concerned, he reckons that he has these rights; and his fathers before him, probably. If there is any considerable number of these outlying commoners who are aggrieved at the proposal, we must clearly try to persuade them, though efforts so far appear to have failed.
I rather regret that the noble Lord called them, I think, "just a small minority". How small? I am told that there may be 50, 60 or more; and of course, as the noble Lord knows, there is one branch of the N.F.U.—probably not a very largely attended meeting—which voted against this change. We must recognise that the opposition has not yet been satisfied, and I think it will be for the Select Committee (I will not go too far into this aspect to-day) to see whether a solution can be found. But certainly I think it a very dangerous precedent to take away rights of any kind by means of a Private Member's Bill of this sort. It may well be that some kind of compensation, some undertaking to delay the demands for marking fees, will meet their particular problem.
When we turn to fencing, all I can say is that anyone who knows the New Forest must very greatly regret the idea of having these endless fences along either the A.35 or the A.31. It is one

1323
of the glories of the New Forest that you can drive along, stop and then walk off straight into the forest, and that it is open with a spaciousness that is not found anywhere else, at any rate comparably as beautiful, in the South of England. The fencing is not going to be attractive. The original suggestion, to build ha-ha fencing (if that is the correct term), is not, I am told, likely to be possible, and I can well imagine that it would be prodigiously expensive. I do not know why nothing has been done to fence the upper road, the Cadnam—Ringwood Road, under the 1949 Act, but we have to face the fact that it must be done. My Lords, this is going to be very expensive; and to fence the A.35 is going to be even more expensive. A charming thing about this Private Member's Bill is that if, in fact, the public authorities choose to exercise the powers given to them, it will enable them to spend between £80,000 and £100,000 of ratepayers' and taxpayers' money. Clearly, this is not a matter about which, by Private Member's Bill, one can do anything, but the power is to be given.
Even then, my Lords, this problem of animals on the road will not be solved. Anyone who knows the New Forest knows that these animals are a perpetual hazard. I doubt whether there is any resident in the New Forest who, if he has driven regularly, has not been involved at one time or another in an accident. I myself have been. The slaughter of animals on the roads is pretty grim at the moment. It is distressing how often one comes across a car with a dead animal, or possibly an animal that is not dead, lying beside the road. If the Government and the authorities decide to do so, we shall fence the main roads, but there will still be many miles of forest roads which will not be fenced; and drift fencing will not solve this problem.
There is an argument that animals should be kept in enclosures within the forest. This is a proposal which, to my prejudiced mind, I admit, is a rather alien one. The essence of the New Forest is that animals have been able to wander at large. It is they who have to a large extent created the countryside. But this was before the days of motor cars; and people and animals
1324
will continue to be killed. I have details, with which I will not bother the House now, of animals that have been killed on back roads. I have known motor-cyclists from my own village who have been killed through running into an animal on a dark night—and there are, of course, a number of animals which are particularly difficult to see. There are some black steers which wander around the New Forest at night, and, with a car approaching from the other direction, the chance of seeing them is very slight indeed.
We shall not solve this problem by this particular Bill, and it is a matter for consideration, even if we do pass it, whether, in the light of the present circumstances, there should not be set up a further Committee of Inquiry, comparable to the Baker Committee. There is some controversy, of course, as to whether the forest is over-grazed or under-grazed. I have always been brought up to believe that it was under-grazed, but there are those who suggest that it is over-grazed. We have to take into account (and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Crathorne, will correct me on this) the fact that if these outlying commons are brought in—and I shall be interested to know why one particular common is to be excluded; the noble Lord will no doubt tell us why during the Committee stage—this may bring an extra 2,000 animals into the forest. My Lords, it will probably be necessary—indeed, I think public opinion will demand it—for the agistor service to be considerably strengthened, and particularly for powers to be given for quicker action in regard to the destruction of animals that have been injured. Had the proposal been to enclose certain areas and to confine animals to them, it might well be that there would be plenty of grazing to sustain them; but I am concerned about what would then happen to the edges of the Forest that would be visible to the roads. I have a feeling that the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, might be involved in some toxic chemical-spraying exercise: his propensity in this direction is well known to us all. I think we should all regret this.
I think the economics of this scheme need to be looked at. A number of differing views have been expressed on the cost, and we have to face the fact

1325
that, to preserve the New Forest as it is, to preserve it for the commoners, the taxpayers and the ratepayers will have to pay a great deal of money. But I must also make it clear that I do not regard the commoner as someone who is exercising a right which works only to his own advantage: it certainly works to the advantage of the whole area.
There is one point about which I am concerned, and that is a point which I mentioned to the noble Lord, Lord Crathorne: the extent to which there genuinely is local authority approval. I was informed—and this may or may not be aecurate—that the Hampshire County Council had not specifically lent support to this Bill. I think this is a matter of much importance—because, in a way, this is a matter of great concern to the authorities—that their views should be at least as well represented as those of either the verderers or the commoners, or of the voluntary societies. It would be helpful to know in what terms the County Council, the Ringwood District Council or the New Forest Council actually gave their support. I am particularly concerned with Hampshire, since they presumably will be the highway authority.
My Lords, I shall not take up any more of your Lordships' time now, other than to remind the House again that this is not a straightforward, simple proposition. Individual rights are involved—the rights of the outlying commoners—as well as the safety, survival and relief from suffering of large numbers of animals which at the moment suffer an unpleasant death and also cause the death of human beings. These are matters that the Committee may be able to resolve, but we shall undoubtedly have to look at this Bill again after it emerges from the Committee. I hope that those who are supporting and sponsoring the Bill will go as far as they possible can to meet the very real objections that have been made against it.
7.29 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I rise to support the Second Reading of the New Forest Bill. I speak not as one who has any special knowledge of the New Forest, or even lives in the area, but as one who is keenly interested in both forestry and the adjustments of the countryside that are necessary to meet present-day conditions. Large numbers
1326
of interested parties are concerned with the New Forest, and although this Bill set out originally to be both non-political and non-controversial, the petitions lodged have proved that not all parties agree. Whatever one's views on fencing animals in special enclosures, or on carrying out the intentions of the Bill, it must be unanimously agreed that some immediate steps must be taken to prevent the needless slaughter of the animals that occurs year after year. Indeed, the Forest is earning itself a bad reputation in this respect, and the verderers are virtually powerless at present to act. For this reason I am supporting the Bill, and, in my opinion, new legislation is urgently required.
The argument expressed by the Society for the Prevention of Straying Animals in their Petition is economically sound, as regards fencing. But I wonder whether it would be the right answer in practice. First, the character of the Forest would change, and this is something that everyone for generations has jealously guarded. Secondly, the number of animals will be restricted severely. Finally, the areas outside the enclosures would require continual maintenance and expense. I believe the power this Bill will give to the verderers in regard to fencing would make a considerable difference, and if it were coupled with a speed limit imposed on all roads (except the trunk roads) crossing the forest this could well be a successful combination.
The most controversial part of the Bill would appear to be Clause 1. Much as I respect everyone's private and public rights in this country, I feel that for the good of the Forest the perambulation should include the areas specified in the Bill. I understand that if it does not then it will not be practicable to fence off the Forest, and further slaughter and unnecessary danger to the animals will result. It is my opinion that the benefits of the grazing of the whole Forest, which many of those who petitioned do not at present have, coupled with the care in winter and the all-the-year-round supervision by the agistors more than outweigh the present marking fee of 30s. per animal.
Under Clause 6 the question of camping sites is dealt with by the Bill, and here again I feel that this legislation

1327
is long overdue. The present unrestricted sites used by the public are proving a disgrace to the Forest; and over 7,000 milk bottles alone were picked up last year, together with tons of rubbish. It seems very sensible that the verderers should have the power to allot certain camping sites and prevent the whole Forest from being made into a disorderly mess. I should like to conclude by saying that, in my opinion, this Bill gives the powers necessary for the verderers to manage the Forest in a proper manner in the interests of the Forest itself, the animals and the public. I therefore trust this Bill will pass during this Session of Parliament as speedily as possible.
7.33 p.m.
LORD DOWDING: My Lords, when I first heard that a Bill was to be introduced to reduce the number of accidents to motorists and animals on the roads of the New Forest I was delighted, because these accidents have for many years been something of a blot on our civilisation. But when I read the Bill I was sadly disappointed. It seems to me that the Bill is really an elaborate means of giving powers to all the authorities to do nothing. This may seem rather an extreme statement, but my reason for saying this is that the Bill is permissive and not mandatory. It says to the highway authority and to the verderers of the Forest, "You may do this or that"; but it does not say, "You must do this or that, and do it without delay." We can see the result of this type of permissive legislation by looking back to the Act of 1949 in which permission was given for the fencing of the A.31 trunk road from Cadnam to Ringwood. I recently asked how the work was getting on and if it was nearing completion. I was informed that the work was not started until the autumn of 1963. Fifteen years' delay in starting to implement a permissive Act of Parliament! The trouble is that this Bill will still contain the permissive element. So much for the highway authority.
This Bill also gives permission to the verderers of the Forest to carry out certain operations: to fence the new perambulation which is intended; to enter into an agreement with the high-
1328
way authority concerning the provision and maintenance of cattle grazing; also to erect such drift fences as may be considered necessary for the safety of animals and such other fencing as will obviate dangers to persons or animals. But I am informed that the verderers are at present unable to maintain more than four agistors.
If any noble Lord does not know what the duties of the agistors are I will tell him. They are a small body of men enrolled and paid by the verderers and they are responsible for the food, drink and general welfare of the animals in the Forest. The commoners and those who turn out animals into the Forest relinquish the right or duty of looking after their animals to the verderers, who engage the agistors to carry out the work; but they are unable to pay more than four agistors for the whole of the Forest, and that number is not enough. For one thing, if a pony is wounded or injured on the road and has to be killed an agistor has to be sent for to put it out of its misery. It is at present imperatively necessary that that number of agistors should be increased.
Of course, if a large area is to be added to the Forest then still more agistors will be necessary; but I understand from what the noble Lord, Lord Crathorne, said in his opening address that the amount of land which will be subtracted from the Forest will be roughly equal to that added. The verderers are already committed to a sum of £7,000 for the work with which they were saddled in connection with the fencing of the A.31 fifteen years ago. They are in no position to pay that sum. I am informed that their accounts show that their total possessions—investments and cash in the bank—fall far short of that amount. How, then, can they be expected to take on these new commitments with any hope of fulfilling them in the foreseeable future?
As to the cost of the scheme, the A.31 fencing is estimated to cost £53,000 (I am taking figures based on the findings of the Hampshire County Council and the Ministry of Transport), subject to an increase when the dual carriageway is built—that is to say, certain fencing that is put up for the single carriageway will have to be pulled up

1329
and moved farther back when the dual carriageway is built. The perimeter gridding and fencing is estimated to cost £55,000. Fencing the A.35, which is a new operation, sanctioned by this Bill, will probably cost £88,000. Then we must consider the compensation to be paid to the commoners for the loss of grazing rights on the verges, and that will be quite considerable. The total cost for the fencing of these two main roads, with the ancillary work, is likely to come to over £200,000. This is so far as the Bill takes us; but it would be absurd to fence in the A.31 and the A.35 and leave the A.337, running from North to South, and the 36 miles of B-class road, unfenced. So, the job of protecting against animals by fencing the roads would ultimately cost something in the neighbourhood of £400,000 of public money.
An alternative plan of leaving the roads unfenced and making enclosures within the Forest has much to recommend it. A tentative plan to make four enclosures of about 2,000 acres each within the Forest has been worked out, and the cost is estimated at £39,000, including cattle grids, stiles and other devices to allow the public to have free access to the enclosures. One of the arguments that have been raised against these enclosures in the Forest comes under the heading of amenities—that is to say. People may object to seeing lines of fences stretched across open spaces of the Forest. I think the people would have to be very aesthetic to allow that to worry them very much. At any rate, I would put to them a question: Which would they rather see—some fences running across the Forest, or dead and dying ponies on the road?
I am now coming to a very important point. The verderers could not possibly be expected to find such a sum of money, but it is only about one-tenth of the ultimate cost of protecting the lives of the stock in the Forest by fencing the roads. I suppose it would be possible to find some way of making the money available out of the great saving which would accrue to the highway authorities if this plan were to be accepted. After all, it is all public money, and if the highway authority is saved a very large sum it ought to be possible to find the
1330
much smaller sum for the alternative plan.
It is no job of mine to try to reform the somewhat archaic procedure of the verderers' organisation, but I think that it is important that the verderers should have some source of income adequate for the duties which they are called upon to perform—putting up safety fencing, cattle grids and so on. I do not know whether the suggestion that I have to make will commend itself to the authorities, but it is as follows. There are commoners and non-commoners who graze their stock in the Forest. The commoners have what amounts to an immemorial right to graze their stock in the Forest, but the non-commoners, who have been allowed to graze their stock, so far as I can understand without any limitation to the number of head that any non-commoner may introduce, have rights which are much more modern and much more tenuous. My suggestion is that the fees which non-commoners pay for grazing their stock should be raised so as to give the verderers a working income for the duties which they have to perform.
At present, supposing the highway authority is blamed for being slow in getting on with the work, they can always say that the verderers owe them £7,000 for this, and when the verderers pay up what they owe, they can get on with the work. As I say, I think it is important that the verderers should have an adequate income for the duty which they will always have to perform, whether the scheme adopted is the fencing of the roads or enclosures within the Forest.
There is one other point which I will mention in conclusion. If the insurance companies would adopt a self-denying ordinance and refuse to pay insurance on ponies that were killed on the roads, I am sure that the accident rate would almost certainly decline. At present, for a dead pony an agistor has a power of signing the death certificate up to a value of £50. He signs two copies of the certificate, one going to the insurance company and the other to the knacker. If the pony is valued at over £50, then the certificates have to be signed by a veterinary surgeon.
The present situation is strongly criticised by a large number of voters in the

1331
New Forest area. They are indignant at the continued mass slaughter of animals on their roads. It may be thought, perhaps, that this Bill will allay their indignation by the prospect of some early and practical steps being taken; but I fear that such expectations will be disappointed, especially when the voters consider the fifteen years' delay which followed the last permissive Act of this nature. This Bill, in my opinion at any rate, is too basically unsound to be licked into shape by any Amendments in Committee. I earnestly hope that it may be withdrawn, and an alternative mandatory Bill, such as would have the effect of putting an early stop to this slaughter on the roads of the New Forest, substituted in its place.
7.56 p.m.
LORD CONGLETON: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will not mind if I do not follow him in the arguments he has put forward. Like the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, I must declare my own position, because, in spite of having a North-country name, I was born and brought up in the New Forest, and I live there and farm there. I can confirm what my noble friend Lord Crathorne was able to say in his preamble. I am also a member of the Council of the New Forest Association. I was a member of the small committee which met on several occasions during the last two years and advised Sir Oliver Crosthwaite-Eyre on his Bill. I may say that some of the things he wished to do we advised him not to do, and he did not get it all his own way.
I approach this Bill from a slightly different angle than any that has been put forward so far. I should like to go back to the Baker Report: that is the Report of the New Forest Committee which reported in 1947. Various things in that Report were not included in the 1949 Act. At that time I was not in this country, and I do not know why this was not done. But it is interesting to look now at some of the recommendations and comments that they then made and see what has happened. First of all, I should like to look at page 45, which refers to war-time encroachments. There they refer to the aerodromes in the Forest and to the danger of industrial development immediately adjacent to the Forest, particularly in the area between
1332
Southampton Water and the New Forest. In their recommendations they recommended that on no account should industrial development be allowed, because they thought it would be injurious to the Forest.
On page 69 they refer to the growth of population and the effect that house building, the increase of population which would result, and subsequently more house building, would have on the New Forest. The Industrial Revolution has now arrived, subsequent to the war, alongside the New Forest. A large oil refinery has been built in this area, where it was recommended that there should be no development. Factories are following; and of two large power stations, one is built and one being built. This has necessitated a considerable influx of population to work in the area. There was not housing available for these people to live in, and, in the first instance, they had to be brought considerable distances to work. Those houses are now being built or have been built. Roads have had to be laid to approach the factories and the new housing estates. Electricity pylons have had to be put up to carry the electricity from the power stations. There was not land in this small strip for all these things to be done, and part of the Forest has had to be taken and used for this purpose. I am sure that this was a warning sign which made it imperative that the boundaries of the New Forest should be established quite definitely so that this process should not continue. I cannot think of any way of doing that other than by putting a fence round the whole area, much though that goes against the grain
I think it is also of interest to look at page 70 of this Report and to observe that it was the view of the planning authorities that this sort of development should not be allowed. On page 81 the Report also recommended that the adjoining commons should come within the New Forest and under the jurisdiction of the Forestry Commission. That obviously raises difficulties. But, if I may revert for one moment to the social question, housing in the New Forest is now a difficulty. The population is changing. There is the old commoner population of horticultural, forestry, and agricultural workers and employers who belong to the area and are natives. But coming in are the commuters and a large

1333
number of retired people. A great many of these people come to the area not realising quite what they are coming to, and they are not altogether in sympathy with their surroundings or the conditions under which they live.
For instance, one of the new housing estates put up for the people who are to work in new factories was an open-plan housing estate and, quite naturally, the inhabitants of these houses were very angry to find that their gardens had been trampled and spoiled by forest animals. There is only one way to get over that problem in so far as I can see, and that is to put something between these people and the animals. That, surely, must mean a fence.
When it comes to the accidents on the roads, I think it is true to say that in recent years at least one-third of those accidents have taken place outside the boundaries of the forest. Animals have strayed from the forest. This also can be stopped only if the animals are to be kept within the area, and that difficulty can be overcome by fencing.
If I may now revert to the Bill, I see that the provision; within it are all in line with the Report of the Royal Commission, but I will not bore your Lordships with the detail. The amending schemes and the planting of trees and the cost of fencing are all deliberately mentioned in the Royal Commission on Common Land, and so far as costs go it was the opinion of the Ramblers' Association at least that the cost of such things should be met from public funds. Clause 1 of the Bill, dealing with the alterations of the perambulations, and including certain of the outside commons within the New Forest, I find very complicated indeed. But as I understand it, the commoners who turn animals into the New Forest have also the right to turn them on to the exterior commons. The commoners who turn their animals on to the exterior commons do not have the right to turn their animals into the Forest. This, if I may say so, is a ridiculous situation. It could be solved by including the commons within the New Forest, and giving the commoners of the exterior commons the right to turn their animals into the Forest as well.
There are certain difficulties to which the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. re-
1334
ferred, and I think these probably are better dealt with upstairs. As to the fencing of the main roads, provisions were put in in the 1949 Act and an excellent scheme for putting up ha-has was included. Part of that work has been done, and I hope that it will be finished under the ha-ha scheme. As you drive along the main road you see on the left or right of you a bank, and beyond that you see the open forest. You do not see a fence, bys, posts and the rest of it. As you look from the Forest you look up to an even bigger bank, and if you are lucky you do not see cars. They can go along the road and not be seen. I think that achieves the object for which this scheme was developed, and I hope that will be continued. It is my personal hope that it will be unnecessary, when the scheme on the Cadnam-Ringwood Road is completed, to fence the land from Bournemouth to Lyndhurst, because, as in the instance to which the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, referred, I think it will be entirely against everything which I have known and have been brought up to believe in so far as the Forest is concerned. It will, in fact, cut the whole Forest in two, and there will be a considerable restriction on both the commoners and on the public.
Next may I turn to Clause 7, which deals with the alteration of the time of pannage and the turning out of pigs. This is an old fixed date which is fitted in with other arrangements for shutting up animals in the Forest. It is true, however, that the acorns and beech mast do not stick to a fixed date, and the object of turning pigs out into the forest is to clear up the acorns and beech mast which fall. Provided the period of 60 days is included, as it is, I can see that there can be little objection to the date being adjusted year by year in order to coincide with the fall of the food the pigs will eat, the acorns and the beech mast.
Clause 10 refers to the creation of new and ornamental woods. One of the particular difficulties here is that there are in the forest individual trees which are of interest. They may be landmarks, or special trees which are situated in the open common lands of the forest, and they do not come under the jurisdiction of the Forestry Commission. Quite a number of these trees are reaching the state where they are dying and about to

1335
fall down. Nobody can do anything about replacing them at the present moment because they cannot fence an area, put up a tree and leave it to grow, eventually taking away the fence. Under this clause this will now be possible.
May I turn now to what my noble friend Lord Kinnoull said about the camps? I should not like the House to have the impression that the establishment of fixed camping sites would stop people camping in the Forest. It is the inalienable right of the public in general to camp, walk or caravan in the Forest where they like; and while they may be directed to sites, they may still camp anywhere in the Forest. That is written into the Bill, and this new Bill does not in any way alter that existing right. As to the position of the commoners on the adjacent commons, I find myself in great difficulty. I am sure that there will be objections here, but, the owners of these commons, (who in time to come might get some benefit from them if this area were allowed to be developed; and it is possible that that might happen in the future) have not objected, and in this instance they are sterilising a possible improvement of an asset which they have.
My Lords, having seen some of the background to this Bill, I can only commend the Bill to your Lordships and hope that you will give it a Second Reading. Then, when the Select Committee have dealt with the arguments upstairs, we may again see it and be able to consider it in detail at that time. I give my wholehearted support to the noble Lord, Lord Crathorne.
8.10 p.m.
LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, I rise to express strong support for this Bill, but at this hour I feel that it will not be necessary for me to say very much more than that. The noble Lord, Lord Crathorne, in introducing the Bill gave such a comprehensive explanation, both of the background to the Bill and of the individual clauses, that it would be futile for me at this hour to go over any of that ground. Also, if I may say so with due respect, I listened with great interest and appreciation to the very fair speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, in which he sketched the
1336
difficulties inherent in this Bill; and no doubt more will be said about them at a later stage in this House. All these, however, are matters for the Select Committee in the first place, and I will not waste your Lordships' time now by attempting to go into them.
This question of the New Forest is one of the oldest in the land. It goes back to the days of King Canute, and over the centuries there has been a constant series of disputes between representatives of the Crown and commoners. The only time when one could safely say, without fear of much contradiction, that that situation ended was in 1949, when the Act was passed as a result of the recommendations of the Committee of 1946 I think it would be fair to say now that the day-to-day life in the Forest has shown a noticeable improvement of atmosphere since the 1949 Act came into operation, and the relationship between the Forestry Commission, acting on behalf of the Crown, and the commoners and the general public, has been unquestionably that of friendly co-operation and understanding. But experience has shown that some revision of the Act is now needed to bring the administration of the New Forest into harmony with modern thought and modern conditions. This is what this Bill endeavours to do, and I strongly support its Second Reading.
8.12 p.m.
LORD CRATHORNE: My Lords, at this late hour certain of your Lordships would not want a second long speech from me, but I should very much like to thank all the Members of your Lordships' House who have taken part in this debate and who have made such extremely interesting and constructive speeches. I should like to answer the two main criticisms which the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, brought out extremely well and which, of course, are very difficult to answer. The first deals with the outlying commoners. He kindly gave me notice of this when we were discussing this Bill, and I have done my best to look into it. No doubt we shall all have an opportunity of studying it before the later stages.
It is impossible to answer precisely how many outlying commoners will be affected by the Bill. When I said that a Petition had been submitted by a small minority,

1337
I used the words advisedly, because however we like to look at it, it is a minority. How one can get exactly at the right figures it is very difficult to know. In the villages concerned the number of holdings, which corresponds to the number of ratepayers, is 1,846. So if, for instance, you accept (which I understand the Promoters do not) that all the 60 signatories to the Petition represent 60 separate holdings, then it would be 60 out of 1,846. Another way, which might give a better comparison, would be to take the number of electors on the electoral roll. For those parishes the number of electors in the area concerned is 3,830: and compared with that figure 60, of course, is smaller. Those are the two possible ways of making the comparison, but it is very difficult to give a precise answer, for no precise figures are kept.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? Would he then tell us the number of commoners who exercise their common rights in the New Forest, and the number of electors?—because he would find the minority was about the same. I do not think these comparisons are at all valid.
LORD CRATHORNE: They are pretty reasonable.
LORD SHACKLETON: No.
LORD CRATHORNE: All right; but they are the only figures you can get. You cannot get precise figures, and it is for the noble Lord's colleagues in the Select Committee to try to analyse the figures of those who have sounded the position and see whether these signatories do, in fact, all represent different holdings.
The other point which I should like to clear up to the satisfaction of the noble Lord is in regard to the local authorities' consultations. From the inquiries I have made, I am perfectly satisfied that the consultations have gone on all the time, although it is quite fair to say, as the noble Lord indicated, that no local authority has actually passed a resolution saying that they were in favour of the Bill. Throughout last year there were various meetings. Although it was an unofficial body, there were two local meetings during 1963 attended by the representatives of the local authorities concerned. Minutes were circulated and the local authorities were given drafts of
1338
the Bill before it was introduced. Therefore, there has been full consultation with them.
So far as the Hampshire County Council is concerned, which the noble Lord quite rightly said is most particularly concerned with the Bill, being the highway authority, while they support the Bill in general, they at the outset had certain points to raise on clauses, but these have been met. Although I cannot say for certain, I am informed that at me next meeting of the appropriate committee of the County Council in early March they are likely to accept the Bill. It is for the future to determine what happens. For all those reasons, I think the noble Lord will agree that it can properly be claimed that the Bill meets with the general approval of the local authorities, since no local authority has thought fit to petition against it. Some of the other points raised by the noble Lord are more for the Government than for me, but all points will be given most careful consideration.
The noble Lord, Lord Dowding, was in a rather gloomy frame of mind, and I prefer to take the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and my noble friend Lord Milverton, to the effect that, although the 1949 Act was far from perfect, the results since it came into force have been all for the better. My noble friend Lord Congleton, who actually lives there, referred to the Baker Report, and although he, again, regretted that more was not put into the 1949 Act, he also intimated to your Lordships that there has been improvement since then.
LORD DOWDING: My Lords, my interest is almost entirely concerned with the ponies on the road; and very little has been said about them this evening. That is the problem which I consider to be the most important.
LORD CRATHORNE: Thank you very much for those remarks, but I think the whole of your Lordships' House is equally anxious and worried about the ponies as the noble Lord, Lord Dowding, himself is, and it is thought that, although it may not be, as the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton said, the complete answer, if this Bill, as eventually agreed, I hope, by this House comes upon the Statute Book, it will do much

1339
to help in regard to the mortality of ponies in the New Forest.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I do not think I would ever have said "although it would not produce the complete answer". I think it is very doubtful how much of an answer it will produce; I am genuinely doubtful about that. As the noble Lord, Lord Dowding, said, it is an Enabling Bill, and whether anybody is going to do anything about it I do not know. I do not think we want to be too optimistic.
LORD CRATHORNE: We do not want to be too optimistic, but I think we want to be more optimistic than the noble Lord, Lord Dowding, who, I thought, was very gloomy. There were other parts of his speech which deserve very careful thought and will be given very careful thought by all those concerned, and I thank him very much for that. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, also for his contribution to the debate, and hope that your Lordships will now give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Select Committee.

FINANCIAL TREATMENT OF RHODESIAN EX-PUBLIC SERVANTS
Following is the letter referred to in yesterday's OFFICIAL REPORT (Col. 1128) in the initial Answer by The Minister of State for Commonwealth Relations and the Colonies (The Duke of Devonshire) to Lord Colyton's Starred Question on the results of Her Majesty's Government's further discussions with the Staff Association of the former Federal Public Service of Rhodesia and Nyasaland:
"In my reply to your Question on the representations of the Staff Association of the former Federal Public Service of Rhodesia and Nyasaland on 29th January I undertook to let you have a written reply covering the detailed points on which you sought information.
"Your first point concerned the provision of a sterling basis for the calculation of pensions. In view of the local character of the Federal Public Service and the nature of the Fund from which pensions will be payable, the Governments concerned did not feel able to accept the proposal that pensions should be calculated and paid in sterling. They have agreed, however, that arrangements should be made for every pensioner to have an option between
1340
having his pension paid in the currency of one of the constituent territories of the former Federation, the choice of territory being his own, or in the currency of all three, in the proportion Southern Rhodesia 5. Northern Rhodesia 4 and Nyasaland 1. In the event of a pensioner failing to make an option his pension will be paid either in the currency of his home territory, his territory of residence, or if he has neither home territory nor territory of residence in the proportion already indicated. Pensions will of course continue to be paid in Federal currency until separate territorial currencies are introduced.
"You enquired whether the suggestion of the Staff Association that Federal Pensions should be brought within the scope of the United Kingdom Pensions (Increases) Act had been accepted. This Act provides for the payment of pension supplements to Officers of Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service and certain other persons, for example, members of the Sudan Political Service, for whose recruitment the British Government was responsible. The position of ex-Federal Officers is basically different since they were recruited by their own Government as members of a locally based Service and not by or on behalf of a Secretary of State. Moreover for the British Government, unilaterally, to provide for payments to ex-Federal Officers under the Act would have been inconsistent with the agreement reached on this matter between the Governments concerned.
"You also enquired about the Staff Association's proposals for compensation. They suggested that, to give effect to the undertaking by the five Governments to give sympathetic consideration to cases of hardship among officers to whom no offer of further employment was made, there should be a general scheme of compensation, over and above the terminal benefits for the Public Service on which the five Governments had previously agreed (and for which provision was eventually made in the Order in Council). Proposals on these lines were carefully considered, at the instance of the Federal Government: but the territorial Governments and the British Government took the view that a scheme of this nature would go beyond the intentions of the undertaking that had been given and would involve reopening the principles of the agreement on terminal benefits already reached. The Governments have, however, agreed to a scheme for the relief of individual hardship in the case of Officers unable to obtain suitable employment and to the appointment of a Special Commissioner to deal with such cases.
"On the question of future security of employment in the Territories. Federal Officers accepting pensionable employment in Northern and Southern Rhodesia will become in all respects Officers of the Public Service of those territories and entitled to the same consideration and treatment as other locally recruited officers. The British Government are confident that the Governments of Northern and Southern Rhodesia accept this position.
"Finally you referred to the arrangements for supplementing the Pensions Fund to enable requirements for payment of pensions to be met. The obligations of the three Territorial

1341
Governments and the British Government to contribute in agreed proportions towards any deficiency revealed by actuarial examination to the extent needed to meet pensions and terminal benefits as laid down in the Second Schedule of the Order in Council will be set
1342
out in the Public Officers Agreement between the Governments, negotiation of which is nearing completion."
House adjourned at twenty-two minutes past eight o'clock.