My Lords, I rise briefly to support my noble friend’s amendment. We had a preliminary canter over this ground when the Committee sat last week. I said then that I thought Amendment 53 was far more felicitously phrased than my amendment, and, indeed, it has so proved. The case is powerfully made. However, I take slight issue with the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock: this is not about age discrimination but about a consumer’s right to choose the way they receive bills and the way they wish to pay them. They should not face additional charges or discrimination in that sense. It does not matter whether they are 21, 81 or 101, that is the way it should be because that is the right the consumer should have. I support my noble friend’s amendment. I would like her to have thought of a way of ensuring that the banks do not charge for providing statements, which they are doing now increasingly, as statements are often important as a means of identification. Her amendment is much better than mine and I hope that the Government will be more sympathetic towards it than they were towards mine last week.
Consumer Rights Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 27 October 2014.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Consumer Rights Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
756 c357GC 
Session
2014-15
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2021-10-12 15:44:41 +0100
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2014-10-27/14102744000129
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2014-10-27/14102744000129
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2014-10-27/14102744000129