I move amendment No. 1:
In page 4, between lines 33 and 34, to insert the following:—
"(b) An applicant for a casual trading licence shall be required to obtain a bond of not less than £5,000 from a licensed assurance company, for the protection of consumers purchasing goods or property to which the licence relates.".
I recommend that this amendment should be inserted between lines 33 and 34 of the Bill. The Minister is aware that there are many people involved in the commercial and business life of the country who deal with transactions involving large sums of money and who are required to obtain a bond from an insurance company or some other body or have some form of indemnity. One that comes to mind offhand is an auctioneering bond.
The Minister will recollect that my reasons for requiring this amendment were that a situation could arise where, in the course of a day, a casual trader could sell ten colour televisions each costing £400. That would be a business transaction of £4,000. It could happen that the television sets would be duds, completely useless and utterly unsuited for the purpose for which they were originally intended. Alternatively, it could happen that the person who sold them was not the owner but had acquired them in some way or other. I am just taking the example of colour televisions but other types of goods of equal value could also be sold.
A person who purchased one of the television sets and sought redress from the trader could find that the trader had no means whatever. He would be left with a completely useless television which could not be repaired and he would have parted with his money and have no redress. Such a person has no remedy whatever. Unless there is a safeguard inserted in the Bill it provides a loophole for those who wish to be unscrupulous.
The Minister will probably say that this would be an infringement of the rights of casual traders because shopkeepers do not have to have a similar bond and that would be an expense on the casual trader. A person who is established in business and who perhaps has a dwellinghouse or family ties with a particular town does not have to take out a bond. However, there is a great difference between the two cases. The Minister should reconsider the line of argument he put to us on Committee Stage.
A casual trader has to have a licence but it is of little comfort to a person who has parted with £400 and has no redress to know that the trader will be refused a licence the following year. The cost of the bond is an expense but a reputable casual trader who has means and is able to satisfy an insurance company or similar body will have little difficulty in taking out such a bond. A bond may cost £70 or £100 but it is not a big expense. The Minister should adopt my proposal.
We have put through a lot of important legislation to protect the consumer — the housewife, working man, old age pensioner and so on — and the Minister and his Department have a responsibility to add this amendment to the Bill. It will cause little problem to the casual trader but will provide a remedy and redress for anyone who purchases goods and later finds that they are unsuitable for the purposes for which they were intended.