Consumer Credit Bill

My Lords, I have outlined why the Government believe that amendments—including those tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon—which attempt to define ““unfair relationship”” will not work. This amendment, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, seeks to compel the court to have regard to specific things which are considered to be important in the context of vulnerable borrowers. This attempts to come at the issue raised previously by noble Lords from another angle: that of the vulnerable consumer. I make the general point that if a debtor raises an issue, the court may consider it, so any matter may be relevant. That deals with the points that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, is making. The amendment is based on an opinion prepared by Mr Alan Murdie in relation to the unfair relationships provisions of the Bill, and was provided to noble Lords by the Zacchaeus 2000 Trust, of which he is a trustee. The trust is actively concerned to improve the lot of the vulnerable in British society, not merely in relation to debt issues but across a range of important social issues. Its work in drawing our attention to these issues is to be commended. However, neither Mr Murdie’s opinion nor the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, cause the Government to alter their position on the provisions. I explained in Grand Committee why the Government have adopted their position. I have also set out why we do not accept Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4, tabled by noble Lords on the opposition Benches. The position outlined in Mr Murdie’s opinion is no different in practical effect, in the Government’s view, to the types of approaches suggested by the noble Lord and other noble Lords on the Benches opposite, and for the same reasons, we do not believe that such an approach is appropriate.