Clause 34 - DEFINITE AND INDEFINITE LICENCES
Consumer Credit Bill
9:25 am
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.