|
Mr. Robertson: I appreciate the Minister's attempt to define reasonable force, which could simply mean breaking open a locked cupboard, but it could also mean much more. If I may draw an analogy, we had a spirited debate recently in Parliament about the use of reasonable force to protect one's home, and there is much uncertainty about what that term means. It troubles me that reasonable force may include much more than breaking open a locked cupboard. I am concerned about giving that degree of power, which ordinarily is given only to police officers—who are directly accountable—for entering premises. What grade of officer will be given the power to use reasonable force? I am very troubled by subsection (3)(d), and I ask the Minister whether he is prepared to reconsider it.
Mr. Sutcliffe: The short answer is no. That is not being unreasonable because the powers are commensurate with our goals. The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) spoke earlier about prevention being a good cure—to ensure that things do not happen. When I mentioned the powers of the
Column Number: 102
Enterprise and Competition Acts, I was referring to cartels. Those are the same powers that we have included in the clause. The OFT must have reasonable grounds; it must convince the legal jurisdiction that it has reasonable grounds; and it must operate—as was mentioned during the debate on an earlier clause—in a professional and reasonable manner. I reassure hon. Members that that was my thinking when I set out the written conditions and situations.
I worry about the hon. Member for Tewkesbury's concerns over the powers of the OFT, which are probably creating an imbalance in his thought patterns. I do not mean that discourteously, although it may sound that way. It is a safeguard that all reasonable steps to get to that position are being taken. Licensees who give credit to people who, in certain circumstances, would be very vulnerable must be given the proper opportunity to gain information that is required to ascertain whether those people are fit borrowers. OFT staff are also told that force can never be used against people. That should reassure hon. Members.
Alistair Burt: What would happen if someone were to stand in front of the cupboard?
Mr. Sutcliffe: If an illegal use of force were an issue, there are other mechanisms, such as phoning the police or asking OFT officers for assistance. Through a series of reasonable processes that are designed to elicit information, people will have been asked to do the right thing. However, a consumer could have been seriously harmed, and we must ensure that the OFT has the necessary powers. It could be that groups of people—cartels—may be operating in tandem to damage consumers, and legislative powers already exist relating to cartels.
I acknowledge the views of the hon. Members for Tewkesbury and for North-East Bedfordshire, but they may be overplaying the issue, albeit in the right way. Sufficient safeguards are in place. I shall write to the Committee and give details about situations in which these powers will be used.
Mr. Robertson: I am sorry if the Minister thinks that I have become unbalanced. I assure him that I am not unbalanced—not in this instance anyway.
Proposed new section 36D(3)(b) states that the warrant gives the right
''to search the premises and to seize and detain any information . . . specified in the warrant''.
Therefore courts are already aware of the documents that are required. In a short but telling intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire highlighted the uncertain nature of subsection (3)(d). What happens if a licensee stands in front of a cupboard or at a front door? The Minister tells us that force cannot be used against that person. Courts know what documents are required, and given that it is normal practice for them to call for documents, would it not be better to do that when the case comes to court?
Mr. Sutcliffe: That would complicate the situation unnecessarily. OFT officers are bound to act reasonably and professionally, so there are
Column Number: 103
safeguards. The OFT must convince the court about the reasonableness of the request for information. People must be protected from rogues.
Ms Keeble: How would my hon. Friend rate the chances of an incriminating document that is held by a loan shark lasting long enough to be used in a court case? I would rate the chances at zero.
Mr. Sutcliffe: My hon. Friend may be right, and that explains why the OFT should have those powers. I have tried to describe the circumstances, and I have offered to write to the Committee giving further details. I have acted as reasonably and professionally as possible.
Alistair Burt: I acknowledge the perfect good sense of the hon. Member for Northampton, North. However, the same worries would apply when a warrant application was made. If a rogue had received a series of written applications requesting information and had refused to co-operate, documents could still go missing. As the hon. Lady said, people who do not wish to comply will take steps to remove incriminating evidence. That could apply at any stage in the process, and documents may have disappeared by the time the application is made. My hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury and I recognise that there are powers to catch rogues, but we want to ensure that the right people are targeted. Powers should not be so sweeping that innocent people are affected. The law should not be brought into disrepute by using the over-powerful arm of the state in the wrong context.
10.30 am
Mr. Sutcliffe: This is not about an over-powerful state. This is about achieving a necessary balance; it is about protecting documents that could be tampered with, even though those documents may be destroyed. Hon. Members are right to have probed me. My powers of eloquence will either persuade them or otherwise on this matter, and I hope that the Committee will support the clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 48 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 49 and 50 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 51
CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
RELATING TO INFORMATION
Mr. Robertson: I beg to move amendment No. 36, in clause 51, page 42, line 43, at end add—
'(9) The OFT shall maintain a record of all visits to premises carried out by virtue of the relevant sections of this Act, and those records shall be made available to the appeal authorities set up by this Act.'.
This relates to records of visits to premises. It is desirable for the OFT to maintain a record of all visits to premises carried out by virtue of the relevant proposed new sections to be included in the 1974 Act. That would include voluntary visits to premises—when the OFT does not have a warrant—or visits when it has a warrant. It would make those records
Column Number: 104
available to the appeal authorities that the Bill will set up.
This is not an assault on the OFT; it might actually help the OFT in certain deliberations. I do not intend to speak to the amendment for long. I request only that the Minister consider whether it might be helpful.
Mr. Sutcliffe: The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear that I agree that the OFT should maintain records of monitoring visits. I reassure him that that will happen even without his amendment. Every monitoring visit that is undertaken by the OFT, or by officers acting on its behalf, will be recorded in writing. That is essential if the evidence gained is to be used to monitor fitness. Without the written record the visits are useless. Any records that relate to licensing decisions will be made available to the appeals tribunal, should the need arise. Those will include records of the monitoring visits. I hope that I have assured the hon. Gentleman that his amendment is not necessary and that I can persuade him to withdraw it. The written record will be used at the tribunal.
Mr. Robertson: I am delighted to hear that. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 51 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 52
POWER OF OFT TO IMPOSE CIVIL PENALTIES
Mr. Robertson: I beg to move amendment No. 37, in clause 52, page 43, line 16, at end insert
'This amount may be altered by the Secretary of State by Statutory Instrument.'.
This issue was raised several times on Second Reading, particularly by Labour. Members. It relates to clause 52(3), which states:
''The amount of the penalty shall not exceed £50,000.''
It is probably correct to put a figure in the Bill, but Labour. Members were concerned that that figure might not be high enough in certain cases. More particularly, there is no provision in the Bill for the Minister to amend that figure by statutory instrument. It may be that, if we take another 30 years to revisit consumer credit—which we may or may not do; I do not know—that figure of £50,000 could become rather paltry.
We have relatively low inflation at present, but that may not always be the case, especially if we continue with the level of spending and debt that this Government seem determined to pursue. It might not be long before £50,000 is not much more than a slap on the wrist for some companies. I am trying to help the Minister by tabling the amendment. I am disappointed that none of his hon. Friends did so, because the point was raised several times on Second Reading.
The amendment does not alter the maximum penalty set out in the Bill. I do not suggest that the figure of £50,000 be changed; I suggest that the Minister should be able to vary the figure in future if he thinks it necessary, given the conditions at the time and, possibly, the seriousness of any offences that may
Column Number: 105
be committed. We do not know what will happen in future, so it would be helpful for the Minister to have that power.
I am not normally one for giving too much power to Ministers, but we must be realistic. The Bill could become irrelevant if it is another 30 years before the issue is revisited. Why is that power not in the Bill? The Bill leaves many areas open in which a Minister can intervene; some of which are desirable, some of which perhaps ask too much of a Minister. I am surprised that this subsection cannot be changed, and I look forward to hearing the Minister's explanation.
| 
