Clause 29 - Issue of standard licences
Consumer Credit Bill
10:30 am
Charles Hendry (Shadow Minister, Trade & Industry; Wealden, Conservative)
May I push the Minister for clarification on the clause, and particularly on its retrospective nature? On page 18 of the explanatory notes, there is a list of practices deemed to be inappropriate. One of them is “has practised discrimination”. That is clearly in the past tense. Some forms of discrimination that are now illegal were not illegal a while ago. For example, we would have found discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation or of gender morally reprehensible, but if they were not illegal at the time when they occurred, could they be taken into account by the OFT? There are also continuing acts of discrimination—for example, in relation to the sale of goods and services, and on sexual orientation. If an organisation were to practise that sort of discrimination now, would that also be grounds for refusing it a licence?