Consumer Credit Bill

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, is correct that if this amendment had been tabled earlier it would have been grouped with Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4, which we have just discussed; the substance of his point is that of that debate. As I said on the previous amendment, it became clear when we discussed these matters in Grand Committee that there were only four options for dealing with ““unfair relationship””: first, as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, there should be an attempt to define ““unfair relationship”” in the Bill; secondly, as was the approach of the amendments in the last group, the definition should be through regulation, coming back to the House; thirdly, it should be left substantially to guidance from the Office of Fair Trading; and, fourthly, that it should be left entirely to the courts. We have debated that at considerable length. The Government’s position is clearly that of a combination of the third and fourth options—substantial guidance from the OFT and thereafter to the courts—and that it is not a matter for either the Bill or regulation. I indicated in Grand Committee that I shared the view of the Conservative Benches and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, that this should be dealt with either by the Bill or in regulations. Having extracted the generous concession from the Minister on getting OFT guidance out before this Bill comes into force, it would be churlish of me to continue the argument at this stage. Much as I would like to support the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, I think that we ought perhaps to reflect on what the Minister said about the timing of OFT guidance in relation to the Bill coming into effect. Therefore, I am afraid that I cannot support the noble Lord’s amendment tonight.