Consumers, Estate Agents and Redress Bill [HL]

In rising to oppose the Question that Clause 23 shall stand part of the Bill I shall speak also to Clause 27. These amendments are intended to elicit the precise functions of Clauses 23 and 27. Clause 23 enables the National Consumer Council to order any service provider, the Office of Fair Trading, a designated regulator or any other person specified by the Secretary of State to provide information as would be specified in a notice given under subsection (1). The clause is reinforced by Clause 25 which enables the NCC to apply for an order through the courts to enforce the giving of information and paying of costs incurred during the process should any of the parties fail to provide the information required by a notice under Clause 23. Clause 27 enables the Secretary of State to issue regulations which exempt parties from providing information. While Members on these Benches believe that the NCC should have the power to extract information from relevant groups in the carrying out of its functions, it seems that the combined effect of Clauses 23 and 27 represents a case of using a rather clumsy sledgehammer to crack a nut, especially in respect of smaller businesses that provide services. I am concerned too that Clause 27, which provides exemptions from giving information to the NCC, could frustrate the effectiveness of the council. Once regulations are made preventing the giving of information, they will be very difficult to reverse, and it concerns me that circumstances could arise where, while it is important to have access to information, that access could be curtailed by the Secretary of State’s regulations. Indeed, the principle of Clause 27 seems to go against the principle of Clause 23. I would be grateful to the Minister if he could inform Members of the Committee of the types of information he expects the Secretary of State to withhold from the NCC and whether regulations will contain caveats where extenuating circumstances would justify the giving of that information. I was pleased to see that Clause 23 includes a caveat that encourages minimising costs, yet there is no corresponding caveat in Clause 25. Clause 23(5) states that the NCC must, "““have regard to the desirability of minimising costs, or any other detriment, to the person to whom the notice is to be given””." But where an order is made under Clause 25 to force a company or person to provide information who has not already done so, subsection (4) of the clause states that an order could force the defaulter to pay all the costs or expenses of the process. Could there be a case where the National Consumer Council requires information from a person and fails to have actual regard to the need to minimise costs, and the person is simply unable to provide the information due to the cost? The provisions under Clause 25 could then result in an unfair financial burden on the so-called defaulter. The answer may be to come back with an amendment on Report to tighten the duty of the NCC to ensure that costs are not extortionate. I would be grateful if the Minister explained what penalties the NCC would suffer if costs incurred by Clause 23 were extortionate, and what thresholds he envisages would constitute unreasonable costs imposed on a regulator, an individual service provider or the OFT. I beg to move.