Consumer Credit Bill

moved Amendment No. 6:"Page 15, leave out line 24." The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Government propose to amend Clause 20 by removing subsection (4). This provision was intended to prevent the court from setting aside judgments previously made, so as to give effect to the rule that a statutory jurisdiction to reopen a transaction does not enable the court to reopen a transaction that has been subject to a previous judgment made by the court. It replicates a provision in the 1974 Act. In Grand Committee, the noble Lord, Lord De   Mauley, tabled an amendment in the same form but for somewhat different reasons to those for which the Government make this amendment. Having said that, I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising these points and the Government recognise the issues raised by the noble Lord and by others in discussions which the department has had with interested practitioners. We have reconsidered the impact of this provision in the light of current court rules operating in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. We have concluded that subsection (4) would in practice serve as an impediment to the Government’s policy intention, which is to enable consumers to access effective redress from the court under these provisions and that the court rules should be allowed to apply to these provisions in the normal way. If we left the provision as it stands, it would lessen the benefits of the Government’s policy on unfair relationships. Therefore, the provision is best removed. I beg to move.