COMMONS AMENDMENT (Hansard, 6 July 1964)

§ LORD DRUMALBYN
My Lords, during the Report stage of the Bill, I said that the Government would be bringing, forward proposals with regard to the jurisdiction of county courts. The new clause contained in Amendment No. 41 is the result. There are consequential Amendments in Schedules 2, 4 and 6. These are Amendments Nos. 101, 127, 141, 143, 144, 148 and 150. At present, all actions to enforce a right to recover possession of goods under hire-purchase agreements to which the principal Act applies where one-third of the hire-purchase price has been paid must be brought in the appropriate county court. In addition, any claim for any sum payable under the agreement, or under a guarantee, must be brought in the same action. When the Bill becomes law, this jurisdiction of the courts will automatically be extended to actions for the recovery of goods under hire-purchase agreements not exceeding £2,000, or such larger sums as may be substituted by Order in Council under Clause 1(3). Since the owner will be compelled to bring his action in the county court when one-third of the purchase price has been paid, that court will have jurisdiction. 837 There are, however, actions in connection with hire-purchase agreements which the 1938 Act does not require to be brought in the county court and to which therefore the ordinary county court limit of £400 will apply. These are, first, actions for the recovery of goods before one-third has been paid (with or without a money claim) where the value of the goods or the value plus the money claim exceeds £400; secondly, a money claim exceeding £400 for payment under the agreement or damages where no action for the recovery of the goods is brought; thirdly, claims for damages exceeding £400 for breach of warranty; and, fourthly, claims exceeding £400 when the owner has recovered possession of the goods in contravention of Section 11(1) of the Act.
The new clause introduced by Amendment No. 41 deals with actions in the first category. Subsection (1) provides that if the owner wishes to sue for the recovery of the goods where less than one-third of the hire-purchase price has been paid, he must bring his action in the hirer's local county court. Subsection (2) enables the county court, in such an action, to entertain any claim by the owner for a sum due under the agreement or any related contract of guarantee.
In not giving the county court the power to entertain a money claim alone where it exceeds £400, we are following the pattern of the 1938 Act, which did not give the county court any special power to entertain a money claim alone. Such a claim might be for damages for breach of warranties or conditions. The county court has no particular expertise in dealing with claims of this kind and there seems no reason why it should be given power to entertain an action which may be far beyond its ordinary monetary jurisdiction. In the case of credit-sale agreements the ordinary limits of the county court jurisdiction will apply, since there is nothing in the 1938 Act which compels a seller to bring his action on the county court. In the case of such agreements there is, of course, no question of the recovery of the goods. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.

§ LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH
My Lords, I am sure that we are all much obliged to the Minister of State for his explanations. I only want to raise a point with the House on procedure, on which the Lord Chairman of Committees has been good enough to advise us, and we always treat his advice with the greatest respect because it is meant to be helpful. My difficulty is that, though listening to the Minister of State very carefully, I do not understand a word of it. That is not his fault. It may be my fault. But how many noble Lords understand a word of what he has been saying in his somewhat comprehensive observations? I gather that nobody in the House intends to quarrel with the Commons on these Amendments. For myself, I am prepared to take the word of my noble friend Lord Shepherd, who has been through them very thoroughly and thinks that there are no objections to them.
I wish we could find a procedure to help. Of course, if any noble Lord has any objection to any Amendment, he should be heard, but I should like to avoid this rigmarole—and do not let the Minister of State take that as objectionable, because I do not mean it in that way. But these are lengthy explanations, which noble Lords really do not understand. I wonder whether the Committee on Procedure could consider a procedure whereby any noble Lord who wishes to raise a point could give notice and otherwise the Amendments could be put pro forma from the Woolsack. I raise this point only for the convenience of the House, because it seems as if we shall be sitting here for a while dealing with these Amendments in a way which I think could be avoided and which is a bit farcical from the point of view of Parliamentary procedure.

§ LORD DRUMALBYN
My Lords, I should like to comment on what the noble Lord said. I very much appreciate the spirit in which he has raised this matter. The real point is that I undertook on Third Reading to look at certain points and it was known then that they would come back to the House. If I may say so with respect to the noble Lord, a good 839 many noble Lords who sat through long hours discussing this Bill—and especially those who have been following the Bill in another place—will probably know what I am talking about and will understand the changes that have been made. I am entirely in your Lordships' hands, but I thought I owed it to the House to give this explanation.

§ LORD SHEPHERD
My Lords, I appreciate the intervention of my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth, and also the point of view of the Minister. I was one—and looking round I see a number of other noble Lords—who did sit long hours on this Bill, and we are now very pleased to see some of the fruits of our labours. I suggest that if we could have an explanation of Amendment No. 42 and those that go with it (because I think this represents a major break-through in hire-purchase agreements and consumer protection), the rest of the Amendments might be taken en bloc. Most of them are of a drafting and consequential nature. There are some dealing with Scotland, but I do not think there are any Scottish Peers present who took part in the hire-purchase debates. Perhaps the Minister and the noble Lord who sits on the Woolsack might care to consider that suggestion.

§ LORD SILKIN
My Lords, I think it would be a good idea if this matter could go to the Procedure Committee. My noble friend's statement applies not only to this Bill but to a great many other Bills that come back from another place, where we have a long series of Amendments which are of no particular interest to anybody in this House, on which we could save a good deal of time. There was one Bill in which every Amendment was read out to the House before it was put. It was quite unnecessary even to read out the Amendments; they could have been taken en bloc.
On the other hand, there is an obligation on the Government to explain to this House Amendments of a material character which have been made in another place. I think this is due to us. In the busy life that we lead, we may miss some of them, and it is right that our attention should be drawn to these Amendments, although not necessarily at great length. I hope my noble friend 840 will not mind my saying this: he did not understand a word of the explanations, but I did because they happened to be of a quasi-legal character, and I have followed the Bill. I thought the explanations were very clear. But that does not affect the question that my noble friend has raised. We could save a good deal of time if we confined discussion to those Amendments in which this House is interested. I suggest—I am sure the noble Lord who is in the Chair will take notice of this—that we should consider whether it is worthwhile taking this matter to the Procedure Committee.

VISCOUNT GOSCHEN
My Lords, I think we all agree with what has been said about taking these Amendments en bloc. I think the best thing would be to take Amendment No. 42, as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said, and then take the remaining Amendments en bloc. But we can take together only consecutive Amendments; we cannot dodge about all over the place in the list. Later, through the normal channels, we can discuss whether this whole matter should go before the Procedure Committee.