|
Mr. Sutcliffe: The hon. Member for Tewkesbury showed through his horse-racing analogy that he has a particular view of the Office of Fair Trading. He was right at that time on that issue. The quotation that he read out related to a specific issue concerning that
Column Number: 81
industry at that time, and the investigation into that industry by the Office of Fair Trading. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Government, during the debates on the Enterprise Act 2002 and the Competition Act 1998—with assistance from all the parties in the House—wished to take direct responsibility for many of the competition issues away from Ministers. It was felt that those matters would be better addressed through bodies such as the Competition Commission and the Office of Fair Trading.
I understand the hon. Gentleman's concerns, but unfortunately they do not apply to the issues that we are discussing, and particularly the hon. Gentleman's amendments. The hon. Gentleman said that the OFT is not subject to parliamentary scrutiny, but he will be aware that bodies must appear before the Treasury Committee. It may have been straight after the investigation that the chairman of the OFT appeared before the Select Committee. Parliamentary scrutiny exists in that MPs can question the activities of the OFT.
As for amendment No. 26, as hon. Members are aware, the Office of Fair Trading is already required to provide guidance on how it will apply the fitness test. Hon. Members have a copy of the draft guidance in the Committee packs that I was asked to provide on Second Reading I am pleased to say that that occurred. The Government believe that the amendment would add an extra layer of information for which the OFT must have regard when assessing fitness. That would not only be an extra layer for the OFT, but applicants and licensees would have to comply with DTI guidance, as well as OFT guidance. That could confuse applicants as to which guidance applied.
I commend the hon. Gentleman's intention to provide everyone with as much information as possible, but I am sure that he would not wish to add to bureaucracy, or to be chided by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West for supporting and promoting even more regulation. He would not wish to go down that route. We want to keep the application process as simple as possible. As hon. Members can see from their packs, the draft OFT guidance is already comprehensive, and that will be subject to full consultation before it takes effect. As the hon. Gentleman said, the OFT is an independent regulator, and it is responsible for policing the licensing regime.
Mr. Robertson: If the Minister finds that the OFT is not issuing appropriate guidelines to bring about the intentions of the Bill, particularly that of providing fairness, is there anything that he can do without resorting to primary legislation? I am keen to avoid bureaucracy, but I believe that my way of avoiding it is less cumbersome than his.
Mr. Sutcliffe: The OFT will be involved in full consultation while the guidelines are in draft form. I am sure that the industry and other stakeholders who are not happy with those draft guidelines will seek to have them changed. The Minister will be inundated
Column Number: 82
with requests to explain the spirit and intention of the Bill and what it was aimed at achieving. In that respect, I believe that an opportunity exists to influence the final detail of those guidelines.
I do not think that I will ever convince the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] My notes say that I have full confidence in the OFT and its experience, and I do. What we tried to do goes back to our consultation o the Bill with stakeholders.
Mr. Robertson: The Minister said that there was no crossover between the horse racing analogy and this matter, but his answer proves that there is. I asked a direct question. Can he intervene and bring about a change in the guidance? His answer was longhand for no.
Mr. Sutcliffe: No is the answer to that. It was not a long way of saying no; it was right to say that the guidance that is being put forward, which is in draft form for consultation, does not supplant the intention of the law. The intention of the law is clear, and the Office of Fair Trading will act accordingly. If things are not working properly, we will address that through the review processes contained in the Bill.
Mr. Robertson: How?
Mr. Sutcliffe: We are encouraged by the Opposition to reflect on many of the Bills that come before the House, to review the question of application and how Bills are working. That was not done in the case of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. That Act has never been reviewed during its 30 years, until now. That will not be the case with this Bill because of the nature of the sector.
I fully understand and acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's concern about the Office of Fair Trading. If that concern is great, the Minister can arrange for him to meet that body. I am sure that that would be an exciting meeting, and I would look forward to hearing the outcome of discussions on the matters that he raised. The Government believe that the amendment would add to bureaucracy. We are trying to keep matters as simple as possible and not add burdens to business. In that spirit, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment, but I shall understand if he does not wish to do so.
Mr. Robertson: The analogy that I drew was an exact one. The Minister admitted that he could not instruct the OFT to—
Mr. Sutcliffe: No, no, no.
Mr. Robertson: I inferred that the Minister said that he could not instruct the OFT to change the guidelines.
Mr. Sutcliffe: The hon. Gentleman has known me long enough to know that if I wished to say that, I would say that, but that was not my answer. I am content with the answer that I gave to the hon. Gentleman, which was that there is an ability to change the draft guidelines, and the OFT cannot supersede the law.
Mr. Robertson: We must leave that for history to judge, but it strikes me that if we do not put in the Bill something along the lines of my amendment, it could
Column Number: 83
lead to inappropriate guidelines, and that would in turn lead to the same situation that we saw in the horse racing industry. That situation could have been terminal for that industry. It was very serious, and I do not wish to see it replicated. I have made my point; I look around the Committee Room and see that I am unable to win the vote, even if I were to press it. I shall not waste the Committee's time in so doing. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Robertson: May I just take a few moments of the Committee's time to ask—[Interruption.] I do not know whether that refers to me. I ask for clarification as to why subsection 2A(d) is relevant to the Bill. In so asking, I am happy to condemn discrimination on the grounds of sex, colour, race or ethnic or national origins, and, indeed, many other forms of discrimination. During the lunchtime break, I asked a question in the Chamber on Ethiopia and Eritrea.
Column Number: 84
International development, as you are well aware, Sir John, is one of my passions. However, I do not see the relevance of that to this clause. I hope that vexatious litigants will not seek to prevent otherwise good-standing people from running their businesses and being awarded licences. I can see the relevance of that paragraph to general life, but I cannot see the relevance to the clause. I would appreciate an explanation.
Mr. Sutcliffe: I can explain very quickly, in the time permitting, that the clause represents the current test, so it already falls within that test with reference to equality issues.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 29, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Watson.]
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes to Six o'clock till Thursday 27 January at twenty-five minutes past Nine o'clock.
| 
