Clause 12
Consumers, Estate Agents and Redress Bill
5:45 pm
Susan Kramer (Shadow Secretary of State for Trade & Industry, Trade & Industry; Richmond Park, Liberal Democrat)
I beg to move amendment No. 47, in clause 12, page 7, line 18, after ‘vulnerable’, insert ‘or otherwise disadvantaged’.
The clause discusses the investigation of complaints made by vulnerable designated consumers. The opening subsection states:
“Subsection (3) applies to a complaint which is made...by or on behalf of a vulnerable person in that person’s capacity as a designated consumer”.
The amendment would change the word “vulnerable” to “vulnerable or otherwise disadvantaged”.
I have serious concerns about the subjectivity of the use of the word “vulnerable” as a definition, as it is not a word that is widely and commonly used and there is not a wide and common understanding of it. There is an attempt to define it in subsection (2), which states:
“For this purpose a person is ‘vulnerable’ if the Council is satisfied that it is not reasonable to expect that person to pursue the complaint on that person’s own behalf.”
Again, that is an extremely subjective set of judgments. There is not a lot of history to it and most people might very much disagree about whether they are part of that vulnerable community. Honest people and those of integrity and judgment could disagree about whether they fell into that category.
We therefore propose not the removal of the word “vulnerable” but the addition of the word “disadvantaged”, about which there is a much broader sense of understanding. People on low incomes, older people and those with a range of disabilities would understand themselves to fall within the disadvantaged category. I feel that “vulnerable” is a fairly insulting notion, because it suggests that someone is short on the ability to understand or to be capable, when it might simply be that they find it difficult to exercise their rights, which can certainly be true.
We want to ensure that the category includes the people whom we recognise more typically as disadvantaged. We discussed a proposal, tabled by the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill, that had a much fuller listing of groups that I would have called vulnerable or disadvantaged, but which have disappeared from the set of definitions in the clause. I should be interested to hear the Minister’s comments on the issue and to have at least some reassurance that the intent of the clause and its language is to cover the group that we would consider to be disadvantaged, not to provide the opportunity for a very much narrower set of definitions, which is how I fear some will interpret the clause.