Consumer Credit Bill

I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lord, but I hope that I can help him with the thrust of the point that has been made. The amendment raises an important issue that has been the subject of considerable discussion through this Bill’s history in the other place and at Second Reading. This is in response to pressure to use the Consumer Credit Bill as a vehicle for addressing industry’s frustration at being unable, without asking permission from individual debtors, to share data on credit accounts that were opened before the late 1990s when it became routine to include fair processing notices in credit agreements which effectively give the borrowers’ permission to do so. As the Minister explained during his opening speech at Second Reading, the Government fully recognise the importance of the issue, but also need to ensure that any encroachment on the general public interest in data privacy is fully justified. This is therefore not an issue that we can necessarily consider in isolation in the context of the Bill. We need to fully understand the wider implications that such a provision may generate. We also need to consider carefully whether the potential benefits gained would be proportionate to the loss of the right of privacy for the individuals concerned. While I acknowledge that the ability to share historic data could facilitate the industry in its aims of responsible lending, the amendment does not ensure that the data shared would be so used. The amendment simply allows the sharing of any personal data that a creditor might have. We should consider carefully what and how much data should be shared. For example, should it include all or any of the following: the date of the agreement; the period of the agreement; the amount borrowed or credit limit; the updated monthly balance; the debtor’s payment history detailing whether they pay on time or fall into arrears; the date the account was closed or defaulted; the default amount if relevant; and the debtor’s previous balances or credit limits. We seek to persuade noble Lords that it would be wrong to rush an approach to this issue through amendment to the Bill. Instead, we would first explore the issue more fully by consulting on the issues raised by industry. My noble friend the Minister made a commitment that we would do so, and we are still wholly convinced that it is the right approach. When we have had the opportunity to review the consultation responses, we shall be in a better position to identify the appropriate response to this legitimate issue. Therefore, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.