| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Points of Order
1.35 pm
Mr. Oliver Heald (North-East Hertfordshire) (Con): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In circumstances where the main Opposition party has made it clear that it is prepared to extend the existing terrorist legislation and have offered the alternative of a short period of legislation in order to protect the position, is it in order for the Leader of the House so grossly to misrepresent the position of the Conservative party, when it is his party that is reckless and prepared to go ahead without proper respect for the House?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): The matters to which the hon. Gentleman has referred will be debated in the near future.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. During business questions I asked the Leader of the House about the funding of school trips to this Parliament. I think he misunderstood me and I wonder whether it would be possible for me to have a written answer on that subject or, obviously, a reply now.
Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not really a point of order for the Chair, but the Leader of the House is here; he will reply.
Mr. Hain:
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sorry that in the general hubbub from the other side of the House I misheard what my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Tami) said. I will certainly send him a reply on the matter.
3 Mar 2005 : Column 1122
Orders of the Day
Consumer Credit Bill
As amended in the Committee, considered.
'(1) In section 101 of the 1974 Act (right of hirer to terminate regulated consumer hire agreement) after subsection (8) insert—
"(8A) If it appears to the OFT that it would be in the interests of hirers to do so, it may by general notice direct that, subject to such conditions (if any) as it may specify, this section shall not apply to a consumer hire agreement if the agreement falls within a specified description; and this Act shall have effect accordingly."
(2) In subsection (8) of that section for the words from "this section" onwards substitute ", subject to such conditions (if any) as it may specify, this section shall not apply to consumer hire agreements made by the applicant; and this Act shall have effect accordingly".'.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
1.36 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Under section 101 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, regulated consumer hire agreements are cancellable after 18 months. Section 101(8) allows for the Office of Fair Trading to direct that regulated hire agreements from an individual applicant can be non-cancellable for a period of longer than 18 months, where it is in the hirer's interest. This amendment enables the OFT to direct that a whole class of hire agreements can be non-cancellable for a period of longer than 18 months, although the agreement must meet specified criteria.
This new power is necessary as the OFT has been receiving large numbers of very similar applications for directions. The need for individual directions can lead to significant delay with few benefits to those concerned. A particular example is that of the home computing initiative, which encourages employers to set up schemes to provide access to home computers for their employees. However, to make this economical for employers, hire agreements must be non-cancellable for more than 18 months. The increasing popularity of the scheme means that the OFT is receiving a high number of individual applications, which is resulting in significant delays for applicants. This is a barrier to the success of the home computing initiative.
Mr. Graham Allen (Nottingham, North) (Lab):
Would my hon. Friend, in respect of this new clause and many others in the Bill, express his view on the timing of the legislation and its progress in the other place? Is it not important that the Bill gets to the other place quickly and that the other place takes it seriously, given that so many constituency interests are involved for Members in all parts of the House, particularly on those provisions relating to retrospectivity in respect of the loan shark parts of the Bill? Will he take the
3 Mar 2005 : Column 1123
opportunity, when it is in order, to make the appropriate comment, because many of us are very concerned about this matter?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. I think those are points for Third Reading.
Mr. Sutcliffe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) for making those points and I am sure that I shall return to them at the appropriate time when it is in order.
To return to the point about the home computing initiative, which is a key plank of the Government's policy of increasing access to the internet in UK homes, this amendment would enable the OFT to grant group directions in this and other cases where it would be in the interests of hirers to do so. It is not necessary for the OFT to approve each application individually to provide adequate protection for hirers—that wastes time and resources; it can simply identify general criteria, which will ensure that agreements under the scheme are in the hirer's interest. The new clause will cause no reduction in consumer protection, but there is a real benefit associated with the costs and efficiency of the process.
Mr. Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con): I want to deal with the new clause only briefly and in general terms. We made the point on Second Reading and, indeed, I made it at considerable length in Committee—I think that the Minister anticipates what I shall say—that we are really concerned about increasing the power of the OFT. I should be ruled out of order if I repeated the arguments that I put forward on Second Reading and particularly those that I gave in Committee, but the extra powers that the OFT will get from the Bill are a matter of concern to a great many people—in the industry and generally—and to hon. Members.
Mr. Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath) (Con) rose—
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con) rose—
Mr. Robertson: I see my hon. Friends queuing up; I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins).
Mr. Hawkins: My hon. Friend is making an extremely important point. As he and the Minister are aware, I used to work as a corporate lawyer before I came to the House in 1992, and I spent part of my career in the consumer credit industry. Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the success stories of Britain in the latter part of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century has been the creation of a flexible and successful consumer credit industry? We do not want cowboys to be involved in it, but equally we want to make sure that we do not give power to over-mighty regulators. Does my hon. Friend agree that reputable organisations in the industry, such as the Finance and Leasing Association, have expressed concerns about giving too many unfettered powers to the OFT?
Mr. Robertson:
My hon. Friend is right. We have a very flexible and successful industry. I was going to say that we support the principles of the Bill, but that we are
3 Mar 2005 : Column 1124
concerned about aspects of it—which we explored in Committee and can explore this afternoon. My hon. Friend has put his finger on one of those.
The OFT is already a powerful organisation. It was not created by the Consumer Credit Act 1974, but it has been given an awful lot of powers. I bored hon. Members at length in Committee and on Second Reading—
Mr. Robertson: The Minister says that I did not.
I discussed at great length in Committee my problems with another matter in which I have a constituency interest—the horse racing industry. As we approach the great week at Cheltenham, it is probably appropriate to remind the House that the way in which the OFT was looking at the horse racing industry was very clumsy.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |