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

The hon. Member for Wealden is less vociferous in his opposition to the OFT than was the hon. Member for Hornchurch, who spoke from the Front Benches on the last occasion on which we discussed the matter. His hon. Friend was concerned because anything to do with the OFT excited his well-known interest in horse racing and the OFT's deliberations to that effect, to the point at which his opposition to the OFT became almost obsessive.

As I reminded the hon. Member for Hornchurch this morning, hon. Members would do well to look at the Enterprise Act 2002 and the Competition Act 1998 with regard to the need to separate Ministers from interfering in markets that are performing well. It is right that we set the framework, and I do not believe that the OFT is completely unfettered, as the hon. Member for Wealden suggests. The way the OFT should act with regard to its consumer credit functions is set out in sections 1 to 5 of the 1974 Act. That includes keeping under review both the Act and the relevant social and commercial developments; enforcement and working of the Act; production of information; advice; and annual reporting obligations on the operation of the Act.

The provisions of the Bill should be read in conjunction with the provisions of the Enterprise Act 2002 relating to corporate governance and the OFT board requirement for annual reports. The OFT's general functions are set out in sections 1 to 8 of that Act. The ground rules for the operation of the OFT were laid down when Parliament debated the 2002 Act. The OFT is subject to the usual range of accountability measures, such as scrutiny and appearance before Committees of the House. In addition, as a signatory to the Cabinet Office enforcement concordat, it is under an obligation to act proportionately. It is committed to minimising the cost of compliance for business by ensuring that any action that it requires is proportionate to the risk, and   by taking into account the circumstances and the attitude of the operator.

The OFT is, therefore, already required to do what is required by the new clause. I hope that, having heard that explanation, the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the new clause—unless he, too, has an obsession about the powers of the OFT going too far.

See this speech in context