Clause 11 - Super-complaints to the OFT
Enterprise Bill
9:45 am
Mr Tony McWalter (Hemel Hempstead, Labour/Co-operative)
As hon. Members will know, the problem is that when MPs raise these issues with companies, some do not reply at all and some say that a particular employee has been exceeding their duties. Indeed, that was the standard response of the
company concerned. It was only the full investigation by The Guardian, which must have taken longer than 60 days, that made me and my constituents realise that there had been a systematic use of powers against the interests of those who were seeking to disentangle themselves from the contracts into which the mobile phone company had ensnared them.
We are talking about businesses that act in such a way. Indeed, the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) used the word ''scam''. When I hear about that sort of practice, my first instinct is not to rush for protection, but to try to find out if there have been dubious practices and then to see what the law says can be done about them. As it stands, however, the law is inconsequent in respect of many such practices. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman has tabled an amendment that lists such offences. I welcome that list, as I hope my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will when we reach that debate.
It is important to act where there are recognised holes in the law and a company is trying not only to profit from them itself, but, as a result, to drive into the ground those other companies that are not willing to use heavy-handed business practices. That needs to be said consistently, because it has not yet been said by the Opposition. It is vital to protect those other companies.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will address the tenor of the Opposition contributions, which are rather unhelpful, and ensure that super complaints still have teeth after she has tackled the matters to be raised in the debate.