Consumers, Estate Agents and Redress Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 15: Page 2, line 18, at end insert ““, or ““( ) a person resident in the United Kingdom, who purchases, uses or receives, outside of the United Kingdom, goods or services which are supplied in the course of a business carried out by the person supplying or seeking to supply them.”” The noble Lord said: The amendment is straightforward. We have legislation that provides a degree of protection for consumers when they make transactions emanating from the United Kingdom, most likely by means of the internet, although it could just as easily be done by telephone. We have a situation at the moment where the pound-dollar exchange rate is something like 2:1. When I came through Edinburgh Airport this morning—taking rather longer than I would have anticipated because the temperature fell below zero which, in an age of global warming, is something of a surprise to the airport authorities, who had made no provision for the de-icing of planes—there was rather a large queue of people waiting to travel to the United States. A number of those people will be going there for Christmas, and a number will be going for what can only be called last-minute shopping. They will be getting into Newark, taking the fast train to Penn station, dashing across the road into shops such as Macy’s, and doing all the things that sensible shoppers do—of course in line with the customs regulations when they return to the United Kingdom. Those people will be making purchases and doing deals, and they will return to the United Kingdom to find that maybe not all their bargains were as attractive as they thought when they laid down their credit cards or, sadly, perhaps even paid dollars. This clause is trying to take account of transactions made outwith the United Kingdom by British citizens and afford them a degree of protection that they might not be able to access going to the authorities in Manhattan or elsewhere outside the United Kingdom. Caveat emptor is a principle that many of us have learnt to live with, sometimes uneasily, but sometimes when we go abroad we are the victims of rather more systematic difficulties. One thinks of the people who go on holiday who, albeit foolhardily, enter into the purchase of timeshare accommodation and the like, without very much protection. They are not afforded any degree of protection at the moment in UK legislation. Those people may in many respects be hapless consumers, but none the less it is incumbent on us, when we are looking at legislation that is seeking to reassert the rights of the consumer, to afford them a degree of protection that, frankly, we have not been able to provide in the past, partly because legislation of this nature does not come up all that frequently. I made that point earlier. One of the problems that we have in the UK is that our system of legislation is not always that responsive to changes, so we only get such an opportunity once every 10 or 15 years. I remember dealing with matters, for example, relating to mental health, I think in 1983. I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, will remember that. It was about that time just before the 1983 election that legislation on mental health was going through both Houses. It transpires about once every 25 years. Legislation relating to consumers often comes up as frequently as that. There was the Consumer Credit Act 1974. This idea has slipped through the net. We now have vast numbers of our population travelling abroad, entering into financial transactions and making purchases and not always having an understanding of the consumer protection legislation of the country in question. You could say that they should do that and hell mend them if they do not. It is necessary for us to have a national consumer body that is capable to act where appropriate. We are not saying that every tuppence-ha’penny transaction should be taken up and that people should be cosseted and protected at every turn. We know that there are unscrupulous dealers, property developers and the like who fleece a number of our citizens who are less sharp than they ought to be. Therefore, it is not unreasonable that the National Consumer Council should have sufficient powers to deal with matters of this nature and take up the problem on behalf of British citizens, not necessarily in every case—I stress that—but where there could be the equivalent of a class action. Therefore, an amendment of this nature could well be necessary. Does the Bill cover this issue? If a British tourist—albeit somewhat hapless—going abroad enters into a transaction that is not sensible, is he or she entitled to any degree of advocacy, if not protection? If it becomes apparent that there is an element of doubt about this, the National Consumer Council should be given the powers to take this up with the appropriate authority in the appropriate country. A number of people go abroad who, frankly, almost deserve to get taken apart. However, the fact that they are not the sharpest tools in the box does not deny them the right to a degree of advocacy and protection. To what other body can they look than the National Consumer Council? If a number of cases come up at a particular time and a systematic mis-selling of goods abroad does not attract the attention of the consumer bodies in the European Union, let us say, it would not be inappropriate for the National Consumer Council to take up cudgels on people’s behalf. Doing so would afford a degree of protection. We should not encourage people to enter into foolhardy transactions, but the vast numbers of our citizens who travel abroad regularly and, probably for the worst of reasons, enter into these kinds of deals, should be afforded a degree not necessarily of protection but of representation. That is what we are asking for, and it would not be inappropriate for the National Consumer Council to be given that responsibility. I beg to move.