|
Mr. Morley: I do not disagree with that. I do not want any wording that would supply a loophole for companies to exploit when there is a legitimate reason for providing the information. Under the Bill the authority can obtain information from companies if it is relevant to the complaint. The problem with the amendment is that it would remove the power to add information as well as the power to remove it. The Bill already provides for regulations that will mean that everyone is clear about what can be withheld. That will be spelled out so that people can see that there is a valid reason for it. Companies will not be allowed to withhold information unreasonably.
Norman Baker: I listened carefully to the Minister. Earlier he used the phrase ''commercial confidentiality''. Can he explain to me—I may have misunderstood what he said—what would happen if a company believed that a matter was commercially confidential but the council did not?
Mr. Morley: The council would appeal to the authority, which would make a judgment. If the authority agreed with the council, the information
Column Number: 248
would be obtained. There might be commercial information to which it would be important to have access to resolve a complaint. The council could make other appeals if it was dissatisfied. Nevertheless, I believe that the authority would respond to the consumer council, unless there was a good reason for the information not to be provided. Commercial confidentiality would not, in all cases, be an adequate reason.
Mr. Wiggin: I am grateful to the Minister, and to the hon. Members for Guildford and for Lewes for their comments. If the consumer council cannot get the information, it will be difficult for it to do its job. The Minister said that the council will be able to get that information, so perhaps our amendment is less necessary than I first thought. If the new consumer council is to be able to do more than is possible in the current situation, it may wish to have further powers to fight on behalf of consumers, and to do that successfully it will need such information to be available. We must therefore get the balance right. However, I feel that we have discussed the matter adequately, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment made: No. 258, in
clause 47, page 57, line 36, leave out 'such'.—[Mr. Morley.]
Clause 47, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 48 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 49
Consumer complaints
Mr. Wiggin: I beg to move amendment No. 57, in
clause 49, page 59, line 39, at end insert—
'(12A) Where a report is made to the Authority pursuant to subsection (10), and the report shows that, in the opinion of the Council, the relevant undertaker (in respect of any matter relating to its functions) by failing properly to consult the complainant, or by acting unreasonably caused the complainant to suffer loss or damage or be subjected to inconvenience, the Authority may direct the relevant undertaker to pay to the complainant an amount, not exceeding £5000, in respect of that loss, damage or inconvenience.
(12B) The Authority shall not direct a relevant undertaker to pay an amount to a complainant pursuant to subsection (12A) in respect of any loss, damage or inconvenience for which compensation is recoverable under any other enactment except in so far as it appears to be appropriate to do so by reason of the failure of the amount of any such compensation to reflect the fact that it was not reasonable for the relevant undertaker to cause the complainant to sustain the loss or damage or to be subjected to the inconvenience.
(12C) The Authority shall not make a direction pursuant to subsection (12A) unless it has given the relevant undertaker and the customer the opportunity to submit evidence and make representations.
(12D) A person to whom any amount is directed to be paid by a direction under this section shall be entitled to recover that amount from the relevant undertaker against whom the direction is made by virtue of this section.
(12E) The Secretary of State may by regulations substitute a different amount for the amount for the time being specified in subsection (12A).'.
Column Number: 249
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment No. 154, in
clause 49, page 59, line 39, at end insert—
'(12A) Where a report is made to the Authority pursuant to subsection (10), and the report shows that, in the opinion of the Council, the relevant undertaker (in respect of any matter relating to its functions) by failing properly to consult the complainant, or by acting unreasonably caused the complainant to suffer loss or damage or be subjected to inconvenience, the Authority may direct the relevant undertaker to pay to the complainant an amount, not exceeding £5000, in respect of that loss, damage or inconvenience.
(12B) The Authority shall not direct a relevant undertaker to pay an amount to a complainant pursuant to subsection (12A) in respect of any loss, damage or inconvenience for which compensation is recoverable under any other enactment except in so far as it appears to be appropriate to do so by reason of the failure of the amount of any such compensation to reflect the fact that it was not reasonable for the relevant undertaker to cause the complainant to sustain the loss or damage or to be subjected to the inconvenience.'.
Mr. Wiggin: We have a curious anomaly in which my amendment and that tabled by the hon. Member for Lewes are very similar. In fact, mine goes just a bit further, but that is the good thing about being a Conservative. I hope that the points that I make, and those made by the hon. Member for Lewes, will be taken into account by the Government, because the amendments concern money, consumer complaints and the authority's behaviour.
We seek to change the way in which the authority reports, and to ensure that there is a certain amount of proportionality—I am beginning to get addicted to that word—in its behaviour. We seek to add provisions that prevent it from doing more than it should.
Proposed new subsection (12D) states:
''A person to whom any amount is directed to be paid by a direction under this section shall be entitled to recover that amount from the relevant undertaker against whom the direction is made by virtue of this section.''
I agree that that is pretty wordy stuff, but we are trying to build in a proper sense of balance. I hope that the amendment will be acceptable to the Government and, if it is not, I am keen to hear why that is the case, so I will take up no more time. I also know that the hon. Member for Lewes will be keen to make his own points.
10.45 am
Norman Baker: It is spooky, as not only have we used the same words in the amendments, arrived at by some process of synchronicity or telepathy—
Mr. Wiggin: Good judgment.
Norman Baker: Indeed. Moreover, the comments that I was intending to make are almost word for word those that we have just heard. If two parties independently reach the same conclusions, that suggests to me that we are making a strong case. I therefore commend the amendment to the Minister.
Mr. Thomas: Not having tabled my own amendment, I support one or other of the two under discussion.
The central case addressed by the amendments—redress to the consumer, and how the council will operate—is important. I am concerned that if the
Column Number: 250
amendments are not accepted, or if the Government do not adopt a similar approach, the new consumer council will be no more powerful than an MP is when he intervenes on behalf of a voter. What would then be the point of the consumer council? Any MP can do what the consumer council would do under the Bill: intervene, intercede, exchange letters, write to authorities, water companies or the National Assembly, publicise the issue in the local press or gain information. We are ultimately talking about how we ensure that those who have not undertaken their duties correctly are in some way brought to book.
It was interesting to hear the Minister reply to the earlier debate on clause 47 when the hon. Member for Lewes asked what would happen if there were a disagreement about commercial confidentiality. He answered that there would be an appeal to the authority—so the Government have already acknowledged that the authority can be an arbiter between the consumer council, or consumers and general society as a whole, and the water companies. It is the authority that can say what is or is not commercially confidential information.
The amendment quite correctly brings in the authority as a third party arbiter where there are disagreements about whether a consumer's complaint has been successfully resolved. It is to be commended, and I hope that the Government will have an amazing change of mind and introduce a similar set of words, perhaps on Report.
Mr. Morley: Of course it is right that the consumer bodies should, on occasion, press for compensation from the water companies. What is important is the mechanism for doing that. The authority and the consumer councils have powers that MPs do not, particularly the power to obtain information. We can ask companies for information, but we cannot force them to give it to us. There is empowerment in the legislation. That is one of the slight differences.
The consumer councils have been very successful in pursuing claims on behalf of consumers. They do that by negotiations with the company. Formal powers are not needed for negotiations with companies and the taking up of consumer complaints. Water Voice has been successful in negotiations. In 2002–03 alone, it obtained something in the region of £535,786 in compensation and rebates for consumers. That was quite an achievement. I understand that since 1991 Water Voice has managed to obtain compensation and rebates to the tune of £8.1 million.
I have no problem with the principle of compensation, which is right and proper, or with the idea that the consumer body should pursue that on occasion when consumers make complaints. That, too, is right and proper. But the problem with the amendment is that we get into difficult legal waters when we give the authority the power to impose compensation on companies. There may be situations in which companies are adamant that they are not responsible. Such cases are quasi-judicial and the authority is not really geared up to handle those.
The proper procedure is for the consumer council to approach the water companies. We have already
Column Number: 251
discussed how they can appeal to the authority, and how, if the council wants more information, the authority will back it up, take care of negotiations and, hopefully, come to a conclusion. If there were a real dispute, however, it would probably be most appropriately dealt with through the courts, because they are geared up for such disputes.
|
