Consumer Credit Bill

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord De Mauley, who has moved this amendment with great clarity. As the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, so clearly delineated, the Minister has rejected the argument that there should be greater specificity in terms of the duties in the Bill, as well as in terms of defining what constitutes unfairness between borrowers and lenders. I am certain that my noble friend Lady Miller and the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, will ensure that we return to these issues at Third Reading, which is something we must do. My reason for supporting Amendment No. 9 has nothing to do with those earlier arguments concerning good regulation. There are other principles in terms of good regulation which this amendment to the new clause meets extremely well. It does so first by specifying in subsection (2) the regulatory objectives. That provides clarity, and the Minister’s arguments advanced earlier should not apply to objecting to the statement of objectives. Subsection (d),"““avoiding unnecessary and disproportionate burdens on business””," sets out a clear principle that deserves to be repeated in the Bill not only in relation to consumer credit, but also to other matters. Finally, it makes clear the most important principle that:"““In discharging its functions to issue guidance and regulate the conduct of licensees, the OFT must have regard to the principle that a burden or restriction . . . should be proportionate to the benefits””," arising from the regulation. Again, it is admirable that this amendment has been moved so that we can get it into the Bill. I hope the Minister will show some sympathy to the motives that lie behind it.