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