I move amendment No. 1.
In page 4, line 4, to delete "hire-purchase, sale upon credit and letting" and to insert "letting, whether under hire-purchase agreements or otherwise, and the selling by credit-sale agreements".
Committee on Finance. - Hire-Purchase (Amendment) Bill, 1957—Report Stage.
Amendment No. 2 is consequential and perhaps amendments Nos. 1 and 2 could be discussed together.
Before I deal with amendment No. 1, which I propose in consequence of the point raised by Deputy McGilligan on Committee Stage, I should like to refer to another point he mentioned and explain in respect of it why I am not taking any action. It referred to Section 10 (2) which deals with disclosure of information obtained by virtue of the powers conferred by Part II of the Bill. Deputy McGilligan suggested that disclosure of information by an authorised officer should not be the subject of any action against him, if the disclosure is given for the purpose of legal proceedings. He suggested that that should be sufficient protection for any authorised officer and, therefore, paragraph (a) of subsection (2) is not necessary, that is, "a communication made by an authorised officer in the execution of his duties under this Part of this Act."
Paragraph (a) is intended to deal with disclosure of information by the authorised officer to his own Department, the Department of Industry and Commerce, which information would be necessary to enable the Minister and, if necessary, the Attorney General to decide whether or not a prosecution should be made against an individual. I am advised that for that purpose paragraph (a) should be continued in subsection (2), as well as paragraph (b). I think that should satisfy Deputy McGilligan.
The second major point made by the Deputy and which is the subject of amendment No. 1 was that in Section 6 the powers of regulation conferred on the Minister were too wide in so far as they permitted the Minister to make orders for regulation and control in respect of sale upon credit as opposed to credit-sales. Deputy McGilligan's point was that "credit-sales" is a term which is well known and which is, in general, part of the hire purchase code, that sale upon credit is far too wide. While he did not give this instance, perhaps, I could give the example of the procuring by a housewife of groceries upon credit, perhaps, by paying her bill at the end of a month or even at the end of a week. The definition as it stands would catch such transactions and it is not the intention of the Bill so to catch them. For that purpose, I propose to have Section 6 amended by submitting the amendment now before the House. The point made by Deputy McGilligan was a good one and I think I have met it in this amendment.
The amendment, as the Minister says, improves the section and we agree to it. Could I inquire at this stage from the Minister if it is clear from sections 9 and 10 that officers who visit premises are confined entirely to hire-purchase transactions and any matters connected with hire-purchase, or is it possible that they could investigate other matters not covered in the Bill?
I think it is clear now that the officer's inspection would be confined to such matters, but when I agree with the Deputy in this respect, I should like to use the term "hire-purchase" in a broader sense to include credit-sales and the letting of goods in circumstances which might indicate there was an attempt to evade regulations made to control hire-purchase. If I might expand that, during the period of the operation of the order made under the Supplies and Services Act of 1956 and even under the current restrictions on hire-purchase in Britain, the intention was to ensure that the letting of goods, say, for a period of 12 months at a certain rental, would not ultimately evolve into hire-purchase.
Let us suppose goods were let for a period of 12 months at half-a-crown a week and at the end of 12 months, the owner of the goods, the person letting them, said: "I have so many of your half-crowns. I shall treat that as a deposit and from now on it will be an ordinary hire-purchase transaction." The intention is to ensure that such transactions will be caught by the regulations and to ensure that there will be no evasion of the Act. Therefore, when I say that the activities of the investigating officers will be confined to hire-purchase, I should like the Deputy to understand that it includes such transactions as well.
But a trader carrying on business other than on a hire-purchase basis need have no fear of an inspection being carried out on his premises?
Oh, no.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 2:—
In page 4, section 6, subsection (2), 40 to delete paragraph (a) and to insert the following paragraph:—
"(a) the form of the agreements referred to in subsection (1) of this section."
Amendment No. 2 is consequential on No. 1.
Yes, it is a drafting amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Bill recommitted in respect of amendment No. 3.
I move amendment No. 3.
In page 9, between lines 39 and 40 to insert the following new section:—
"Section 5 of the Principal Act shall not apply in relation to hire-purchase agreements made after the commencement of this Act in respect of plant or machinery (other than mechanically propelled vehicles) which is intended for use in an industrial process and the cash price (within the meaning of section 3 of the Principal Act) of which exceeds two hundred pounds.
Recommittal is necessary in respect of this amendment because it involves a new matter which did not arise on Committee Stage. This amendment arises as a result of a suggestion by the Industrial Credit Company having regard to their experience of creating hire-purchase facilities for the provision of industrial machinery. Under the 1946 Act, it was provided that a person who had goods on hire-purchase could at a certain stage return the goods and absolve himself from any further liability. He could return the goods as long as he paid any arrears of rentals due at the time of the termination and as long as any payments he had made, including all arrears and otherwise, made up half the hire-purchase price. For instance, in the case of a radio if a person, having paid half the hire-purchase price, could terminate the hire-purchase agreement and return the radio, the owner of the goods would then have the benefit of the repayments and of the return of the article hired.
In the case of industrial machinery, and particularly industrial machinery of a very specialised character, it would be inequitable, to say the least of it, if a person, having used the machinery for a short period, and having paid half his hire purchase commitments, were permitted to return the machinery then, and more particularly in the case of machinery subject to a high degree of obsolescence. It would be impossible for the owner, in this case, let us say, the Industrial Credit Company, to realise anything near the outstanding value of the machinery, perhaps because of the limited market, or perhaps because of the degree of obsolescence from which the machinery had suffered in the meantime.
The intention is, therefore, to introduce a section to take out of the Act hire-purchase agreements in respect of industrial machinery for that reason. I think it is a sound reason and, if the amendment were not adopted, the danger would be that the Industrial Credit Company, having regard to their experience in such matters, would have to restrict the facilities they offer to industrial firms in this respect.
I notice this includes mechanically propelled vehicles. Does that include attachments to mechanically propelled vehicles as well, say, agricultural equipment attached to a tractor?
Agricultural equipment is not involved. The type of machinery envisaged is fixed machinery.
Amendment agreed to.
Bill, as amended, reported.
Bill received for final consideration.
Fifth Stage ordered for Tuesday, 10th May, 1960.