|
Gregory Barker: My hon. Friend makes a good point. He was able to handle a situation regarding inaccurate information. However, I have dealt with a number of such cases in my constituency of Bexhill, which has a large elderly population. Several of my elderly constituents become very distressed if they think that inaccurate information is being held on them, particularly when it is connected with debt or finance. These people live on small fixed incomes and have no margin of error in their household budgets. My hon. Friend's amendment would help.
Mr. Robertson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Some people can deal with those situations, although that does not mean that it is not stressful, time-consuming and costly for them. However, other people are unable to deal with such problems.
The Data Protection Act 1998 gives people the right to find out what is on their record. However, as I found out, it is difficult to get the record changed—even for someone as bolshy as I am. There must be some form of redress if demonstrably wrong information is being released. That is the mischief that I seek to remove with the amendment.
Mr. Sutcliffe: I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentlemen's impressive and articulate double act to promote the case for the amendment, but I hope that I can reassure the hon. Member for Tewkesbury that his amendment is not needed. Although I agree that it is important that credit records are accurate and up to date, the objectives of the amendment are covered in large part by the Data Protection Act 1998.
In part I of schedule 1 to that Act, paragraph (4) states:
''Personal data shall be accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date.''
''Personal data'' means data relating to a living individual who can be identified from the data or
Column Number: 78
from other information that the data controller holds or is likely to obtain. That covers all data relating to individuals, sole traders and some partnerships. It means that companies holding credit records on those people are subject to the requirements of the Data Protection Act 1998.
Section 13 of that Act also allows a person to seek compensation if the Act is contravened. Section 159 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 allows people to correct the information on their files. It is a criminal offence if someone has agreed to correct an entry and does not comply with that notice of correction.
The Data Protection Act 1998 does not cover information about companies and organisations. However, most credit records relate to individuals. The 1974 Act allows individuals, but not companies and other bodies corporate, to correct their credit records. Moreover, and perhaps more importantly, the Office of Fair Trading's licensing powers will allow it to take into account poor practices undertaken by businesses holding credit records, and that might form part of its assessment of fitness to hold a licence. The OFT may impose a requirement on the licensee if it is dissatisfied and believes that a requirement could improve matters.
Although I agree with the sentiment of what the hon. Gentleman is trying to achieve, the provisions of the Data Protection Act and the OFT's licensing powers are adequate. Therefore I ask him to withdraw his amendment.
Mr. Robertson: I am pleased that the problem is in part covered elsewhere. However, I am still concerned as the Minister said that the provision relates only to individuals. Therefore although that provision is welcome, it needs to be extended. I do not wish to detain the Committee if, by and large, this point has been covered. However, I ask the Minister to consider, through this Bill or another bill, extending the provision to companies because, as I said earlier, a company can be one man or woman.
Mr. Sutcliffe: The whole of the Bill relates to individuals. The initial clause deals with the definition of ''individual''. It includes sole traders and partnerships consisting of three persons or fewer. There is an issue about credit references for business, but it is not applicable to this Bill. The hon. Gentleman asks me to examine that in another context, and I am happy to do that.
Mr. Robertson: Given the Minister's response, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 27
Charge on applicants for licences etc.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Robertson: How will the charges for licences be set? It is not entirely clear. What right of appeal would applicants have?
Column Number: 79
Mr. Sutcliffe: Licence applicants will be required to pay a charge towards the OFT's costs of carrying out its functions, which is the case under the current system. Payment will be required on application and periodically after that—probably every five years. The OFT will issue a general notice setting out the level of the charges. It is likely that the charge will increase from its current level. The provision is subject to full consultation, and approval of the Secretary of State and the Treasury will be required before charges are set.
The OFT may set licence charges according to the category or subcategory of activity entered into, and those will reflect the cost of monitoring. Very narrow licences may attract a reduced charge, and licences in high-risk sectors may attract a higher charge. Some types of licences will not attract an application or maintenance charge. The increased charge will fund more effective monitoring of licensees, ensuring that they remain fit to hold their licences. Monitoring will include visits to business premises where appropriate. The charges will enable the OFT to use the additional powers that the Bill provides to investigate applicants and licensees. I hope that that was the explanation that the hon. Gentleman required.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 27 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 28 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 29
Issue of standard licences
Mr. Sutcliffe: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in clause 29, page 21, line 39, leave out 'has applied to' and insert 'would'.
The effect of varying the licence may be to make the licensee's name misleading, as there would be no new application by the licensee to be licensed under a particular name. The amendment resolves that conflict. For example, the name of a business may reflect the fact that its licence covers several subcategories. If the licensee became unfit to operate in one of the subcategories, the Office of Fair Trading should be able to vary the licence. That would prevent the business operating in that subcategory and would protect consumers. However, it may also make the licensee's name misleading. Without the amendment, the OFT could be prevented from taking that step. If it were, it could breach proposed new section 25(1AD). The amendment provides for the OFT to vary the licence.
The OFT retains the power to vary a licensee's name by compulsion if the name would be rendered misleading by the licence variation. I stress that this is a technical amendment to address a potential conflict.
Amendment agreed to.
5.15 pm
Mr. Robertson: I beg to move amendment No. 26, in clause 29, page 22, line 33, at end insert—
'(4) The Secretary of State may, by order by Statutory Instrument, subject to affirmative resolution, vary the guidance or issue further guidance to the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) with
Column Number: 80
regard to this section, and the OFT shall then be required to have due regard to this guidance.'.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 27, in clause 30, page 22, line 46, at end insert
', and shall have regard to the regulations issued by the Secretary of State.'.
Mr. Robertson: The amendment gives the Secretary of State the right, by order subject to affirmative resolution, to vary the guidance or issue further guidance to the OFT about this section. The OFT is then obliged to have due regard to that guidance.
Over recent months, I have become increasingly concerned about the OFT's considerable powers, which it does not always use in the most fair, sensible and sensitive way. About 15 or 16 months ago, an Adjournment debate in my name was held in the House of Commons on horse racing. The OFT was investigating the way in which horse racing was being operated and regulated. The industry was fearful of the outcome of that investigation. The matter was of particular concern to me as a lover of horse racing, but more relevantly, it is very important to my constituency; the Cheltenham racecourse is, some might say, the jewel in its crown. It was frustrating to discuss that issue in the House of Commons, because it became apparent that there was nothing that we could do to influence the OFT's deliberations. In fact, it refused to meet us; I realise that the Minister would have had greater access. That the OFT could act as a court, seemingly exempt from anyone's jurisdiction, was wrong. Even the Minister was unable to affect its decision. I hope that he will not mind my quoting his words at the time:
''I am sure that the hon. Member for Tewkesbury will understand that the matters being considered by the Office of Fair Trading fall within its ambit, so it would be inappropriate for me as a Minister with responsibility for competition to seek to intervene in its deliberations.''—[Official Report, 18 September 2003; Vol. 410; c. 1136.]
I understand that to an extent. However, what that means is that a Member of Parliament has no right to take a case to the OFT, regardless of its importance to their constituency. There was nowhere for me to go. That rather long preamble is the background to this amendment.
The OFT should be under parliamentary control. I do not want to see everything centralised or the Minister running the OFT on a day-to-day basis. That is not why the OFT was set up, and I would not find that desirable. However, it can be demonstrated through Parliament that there is something wrong with the way in which the OFT goes about its business. Given that the Minister generally accepts the points made—as he, and indeed the Sports Minister, did on that occasion—and that we are powerless to do anything, Ministers should have the ability to act when they consider it to be reasonable. That is the basis of amendment No. 26.
| 
