Consumer Credit Bill

In supporting the amendment moved in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, and myself, I do not wish to repeat the noble Lord’s remarks, but I shall make a couple of general points. First, as the Government will realise, there is a common thread running through a number of the amendments that the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Opposition have tabled to the Bill—that is, we are seeking more parliamentary involvement in the form of the regulation of consumer credit and rather less simply being left to the regulator. Secondly, I have listened with care to the arguments made on earlier amendments by the Minister and to what was said in another place, but I have still not grasped why the Government wish not to implement the normal procedure when a regulatory body is given powers—that Parliament controls in some way, either lightly or in some cases more strongly, the exercise of discretion by that regulatory authority. I have not yet heard an argument from the Government as to why an exception is being made in this case. For example, the opening sections of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, which set up the Financial Services Authority, were accepted by the Government; they contain the ground rules upon which the Financial Services Authority will comply with the powers that they have to exercise. Although I was involved in that process, I cannot remember whether that happened after pressure from the Opposition or whether the Government did it themselves, but that is what the Act says. On the other hand, it is thought that the consumer credit market should not be regulated in that way. I find it very difficult intellectually to understand why that is the case. I would be grateful if the Minister would explain why it is thought to be better to have one set of parliamentary principles established for the financial services market and another for the consumer credit market.