Mr Laurence Robertson (Shadow Minister, Economic Affairs; Tewkesbury, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 32, in clause 34, page 27, line 39, at end insert—

'(1E) In all cases, the OFT shall state its reason for allowing for a limited period only, when the application was for an indefinite period, and those reasons shall be consistent with the guidelines the OFT itself sets out.'.

I, too, welcome you to the Committee, Mr. Benton. As the Minister said, it has been conducted in a professional and convivial manner. I am sure that that will continue under your chairmanship.

Amendment No. 32 deals with the length of time for which licences will be given. As I understand it, licences are currently renewed every five years. The clause will enable a move towards licences having effect indefinitely. However, there is a caveat, which is that the Office of Fair Trading can refuse to give an open-ended licence if it thinks that there is good reason why one should have effect for a limited period only. My amendment seeks to ask the OFT to state its reason for not giving an indefinite licence.

I accept that there are many instances when the OFT should look at the way in which a licensee conducts business. One of the Bill's general objectives is to allow the OFT to do that in between issuing licences, as legislation permits at the moment, but on a rolling basis when those licences are indefinite.

All I ask is that the OFT, when it varies the granting of indefinite licences, should give a reason for doing so. What I ask may be seen as yet another assault on the power of the OFT, and I make no apology for that. I have said previously, and will probably say again, that the OFT has too much power. It is rather a free spirit, and that has not always been to the benefit of the business that it is supposed to regulate. I make no apology for wanting to try to clip its wings a bit.

Mr Gerry Sutcliffe (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Employment Relations, Competition and Consumers), Department of Trade and Industry; Bradford South, Labour)

I recognise the spirit in which the hon. Gentleman moved the amendment—

Mr Laurence Robertson (Shadow Minister, Economic Affairs; Tewkesbury, Conservative)

But?

Mr Gerry Sutcliffe (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Employment Relations, Competition and Consumers), Department of Trade and Industry; Bradford South, Labour)

The hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) is right; there will be a ''but''. The amendment is unnecessary, and I hope that he will bear with me as I explain why. I am aware of his   continuing diligence in watching the work of the OFT, and I have come well armed today with defences of that organisation's role. I am sure that we can look forward to further debate.

I agree that people should be told why they are granted a licence that is different from the one for which they applied. However, his amendment is unnecessary because the OFT already gives reasons for its licensing decisions. The decision to grant an indefinite or time-limited licence is no exception: that is good practice.

Section 27(1)(a) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 requires the OFT to give reasons for issuing a licence on different terms from those of the application. The amendment also mentions OFT guidance, and clause 30 requires the OFT to have regard to the most recently published guidance. Therefore the OFT is already required to do what the amendment proposes. I hope that I have explained that to the hon. Gentleman and that he will withdraw his amendment safe in the knowledge that he does not have to clip the OFT's wings on this occasion.

Mr Laurence Robertson (Shadow Minister, Economic Affairs; Tewkesbury, Conservative)

The OFT may give reasons, but I do not know that it is required to do so. The Minister referred to the 1974 Act, which requires the OFT to give reasons. However, the Act does not refer to open-ended licences as they did not exist in 1974; the Bill will introduce them. My amendment is desirable for technical reasons, but on this occasion I shall not press it to a Division.

Mr Gerry Sutcliffe (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Employment Relations, Competition and Consumers), Department of Trade and Industry; Bradford South, Labour)

I am not trying to be dismissive, because the hon. Gentleman has a point that we shall consider in greater detail to ensure that it is covered. The aim is to strike a balance between the 1974 Act and the guidance contained in clause 30. However, we shall consider what the hon. Gentleman has said and not dismiss it out of hand.

Mr Laurence Robertson (Shadow Minister, Economic Affairs; Tewkesbury, Conservative)

I am grateful for that explanation. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 34 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 35 to 37 ordered to stand part of the Bill.