Consumer Credit Bill

I believe that at this stage I am withdrawing Amendment No. 28. The Minister is right when he says that the effect of the amendment—which is obviously crude—would be to withdraw the rights that consumers need. That is, of course, the purpose of it. The whole point of having a sunset clause in any legislation is to force the government, more specifically government managers, to introduce the appropriate legislation to ensure that consumers are not deprived of those rights. If it was not a very blunt instrument, it would not have that effect and there would be no point in proposing the amendment. That is the intention. Now is not the time not to press Amendment No. 39; that will occur almost at the end of our proceedings. However, I should like to reiterate the point. With respect, I fundamentally disagree with what the Minister said. He did not answer the point I made or even address the amendment. No one is suggesting in the amendment that if there is a lengthy agreement payments made under that agreement after the transitional period comes to an end and the agreement comes into effect will not be subject to the unfair relationship provisions. The amendment says that the agreement,"““shall not require a sum paid before the end of the transitional period . . . to be repaid””." That is a critical point. However, let us look at the matter again when we return to it on Report. The representations I have had on the matter—I suspect like those that the Conservative Party has had on it—do not indicate that the industry, and in particular the securitisation industry, are happy with this. In fact, they are quite unhappy. I think that we need more representations, and no doubt, the Minister and the Government will receive them. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clauses 23 to 29 agreed to. Clause 30 [Guidance on fitness test]: