Clause 202 - Domestic infringements
Enterprise Bill
9:45 pm
Mr Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne, Conservative)
We join the National Consumer Council in welcoming amendment No. 167. It is an improvement, although it goes nowhere near as far as we would like. I am sure that the following is right, but I shall repeat it so that the Under-Secretary can intervene if she considers that I am wrong; all the important and useful enactments and provisions to which she referred are part of existing law, whether it
be primary or secondary legislation in this country or something that has emanated from Europe. There is no basis upon which the clause, even as amended, can deal with the new problems and scams that we have been discussing.
The National Consumer Council makes the point that the Bill aims to cover situations in which a consumer uses an agent or other intermediary—for example, an insurance agent, travel agent or mortgage broker—to act on his behalf and is entitled to services as part of a separate contract. The NCC has concluded that, as a result of the amendment, it would be possible to deal with problems caused by such intermediaries through enforcement orders, as envisaged in the Bill. However, it sounds a note of caution. It has concerns about whether the Bill covers everything that might go wrong and wants further information as to whether all the common law duties of agents will be covered. For example, would it apply to a situation in which an agent fails to set up an agreement, such as a mortgage broker failing to set up an endowment insurance policy? If the Under-Secretary does not know off the top of her head, perhaps she can write to me.
Although NCC would have preferred amendments Nos. 46 and 47, it supports the aim of this amendment in seeking to stop traders' exploitation of consumers' lack of knowledge of their rights by attempting to exercise non-existent or restricted rights against them. It says that there are many examples of people who, already in severe financial difficulties, are misled, intimidated and exhorted to release their property to bailiffs and other debt collectors without proper processes having been followed. It also points out that it is unclear whether the wording of the amendment would cover a situation in which a debt is enforced by a business that fraudulently or recklessly claims to have supplied goods or services. Apparently that has been a major problem in the United States, where a business supplying internet services fraudulently claimed to have supplied web addresses. The Federal Trade Commission had the power to bar the practice and to publicise the case.