Consumer Credit Bill

I rise to speak to this amendment because of the common thread which the noble Lord said runs through all the amendments. I consider this amendment unbalanced. It does not adequately take account of the dangers in the reverse direction of a failure to regulate adequately and sufficiently a market that has expanded with very destructive consequences. I recall that, at Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, took me to task for not honouring the beneficial effect of the more widespread availability of credit in the present market. I happily honour the fact that more widely available credit has conferred benefits. But in common with many who are engaged in work connected with debt—a word we try not use, but that is what we are talking about—I reckon that we have had far too much of what subsection (3)(c) of the new clause calls ““a competitive market”” and far too much innovation, with the result that the amount of credit has exploded. I would be open to the type of regulation suggested if it was also going to be the case that the need to regulate—that is to say, keep in check—the explosion of the credit market was included in the amendment, but it is not. I understand that that is not in the interests of the noble Lord who tabled the amendment. The whole thrust of the amendment is in the direction of what used to be called ““liberalising””—a word used in a somewhat different sense from that in the title of the noble Lord’s party—the credit market and therefore its future uncontrolled expansion. In common with every religious tradition, the tradition in which I stand, and the one therefore in which this society stands, is deeply suspicious of uncontrolled expansion of credit and deeply aware of the dangers that that creates for society. I shall not continue to repeat things that I said on Second Reading, but it is the unbalanced nature of these amendments that makes me consider them most undesirable.