| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Laurence Robertson: I suggest that regulation by Parliament, when we can debate it and when it is in the Bill, would be far better. I ask the hon. Gentleman to comment, if I am in order in doing so, on the closing remarks of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). For the courts to consider whether something is unfair, it will largely be up to the debtor to take the issue to court. I think that I am right in saying that. How many debtors will have the confidence to take a matter to court when it is not even established what will constitute an unfair relationship or agreement? Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me on that point?
Malcolm Bruce: My understanding is that the debtor can take the matter through various routes—through the Office of Fair Trading, through trading standards or through the ombudsmen. There are various mechanisms. Given the representations that we have had from a variety of interest groups, it seems that test cases will almost certainly be taken up on their behalf. I do not want to be contentious. I think that the Government have set a framework and an approach that is constructive and worth trying. In my view, it might well lead to lower rather than higher levels of regulation.
I have expressed the view before that the Office of Fair Trading often disappoints us, but we have tried to give that body a framework and a clear understanding of what the Bill is designed to achieve, which it should be able to apply. We hope that it will then produce the practical results that we want, which is to bear down on extortionate and excessive interest rates, to ensure a spread of information better to enable people to take appropriate decisions about credit, and to discourage lenders from reckless lending.
We have debated all those matters and amendments have been tabled and discussed. We concluded—as far as I am concerned, by consensus—that we want the unfairness test to make all that happen and we want better practice established in a relatively short period of time. The reality is that we either do it that way or write every single bit directly into the Bill. From the start, we all accepted, including Conservative Members, that the Bill provides a way forward. Conservatives have always had some reservations but, at the end of the day, we have to go one way or the other: there is no halfway house that could operate consistently. As I have already made clear, my party believes that the ideas of reasonableness and fairness have a wider application and I would contend that they should lead to lower rather than higher regulation. The practice will no doubt test the argument and I am pleased that we will be able to proceed in that way.
I should like to acknowledge the role of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge), who is unable to be with us today, but who made a useful
3 Mar 2005 : Column 1179
contribution in Committee. On a slightly wider basis, I should also like to mention my hon. Friends the Members for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), a member of the Treasury Committee, and for Twickenham (Dr. Cable). They have both been active in making the case for this legislation to combat some of the abuses in the credit market and I appreciate their contributions.
I am rather intrigued by the style and approach of the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien), who comes to this place, rebukes the Secretary of State for not being present—I make no comment on that—and characteristically enters the debate towards the end, making a long and, frankly, boring Third Reading speech, which bore very little relation to our preceding debate. He then raises some issues that have been discussed—in particular, he expressed his concern about the need to review regulation. I tabled amendments expressly to deal with that matter, yet the hon. Gentleman's party tabled no such amendments. If he is so concerned about regulation, why did he not ensure that some amendments were tabled about it? [Interruption.] What I am saying is most certainly right.
I hope that the issue of regulation will crop up again in the other place. Although I cannot order my noble Friends what to do, I want to make it clear, on behalf of my party, that we support the Bill and want it to come into law. We certainly do not want it to get caught up in any of the other arguments that might well be happening in the other place. Such amendments as my noble Friends table will be designed simply to improve the Bill, and the matter of regulation and its review could be one that they will want to deal with further.
I believe that the spirit in which the Bill has proceeded through the House has been extremely constructive. Many of us do not look forward to taking a Bill through its Committee stage: it is not always the most inspiring part of our work and it can be time consuming and somewhat tedious. However, that has not been the case with this Bill. It has been an interesting and lively process throughout.
I should like to express my appreciation of the Minister's considerable courtesy. Throughout the different stages of the Bill, he made regular contact with me and, I am sure, with other Members, to inform us of progress and liaise in order to ensure the smooth progress of the Bill. We have all had the opportunity to express our views in an orderly and constructive way. I have to say that the Government could well use the Minister in other Departments—[Interruption.] What I am saying is that not every Minister is as diligent and attentive to taking a Bill through Parliament as this Minister has been. It is greatly appreciated. I believe that it helps the Government, the parliamentary process and—[Interruption.] I seriously believe that it helps us to produce better legislation and I am happy to put that on the record.
The Bill will make an important contribution. I shall follow the operations of its mechanisms with interest. I hope that they will be a model for how other matters can be dealt with. I repeat that the outcome should be lighter, not heavier, regulation. I hope that that will happen. It is a good Bill and I am happy to support it.
3 Mar 2005 : Column 1180
4.59 pm
Mr. Allen: I should like to tell the House a story about several hundred Lords and an ordinary person. I have observed the hard work done here today and I have followed it in Committee, and before Members go off for their well-earned rest, they deserve to be tucked in with my story.
The story concerns an ordinary constituent, Mr. Frederick Jones, who wanted to improve his house, do a better job for his family and ensure that his wife was well looked after. To do that he borrowed £8,500. He now owes £123,000. That is not a fairy story; more like a nightmare.
Today's Third Reading gives Mr. Jones some hope of a happy ending. I will not give the House the full details of the long story, which stretches over seven or eight years to my certain knowledge. It has been a nightmare for Mr. Jones. He has done nothing to deserve the treatment that has been meted out to him. Indeed, he has paid the original loan many times over. I believe that he has paid back something like £24,000 already on an £8,500 loan.
The hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) referred to being stuck in Committee. Sometimes it is not the greatest parliamentary perk available. It is hard work. I hope, however, that Committee members feel that their work is valued, not just by other Members, but by many constituents, supporters of Conservative, Labour, Liberal and other parties, throughout the land. All hon. Members have stories similar to that of my constituent. Those people are right to look to us for redress. It is one of the main functions of the House. Committee members and Front-Bench spokesmen have done a great service in their hard-working Committee for many people.
Several hundred Lords who enter this story at a late point have a great deal on their plate. There are grand issues of state, matters of fundamental import to our democracy and great constitutional issues. As many colleagues have said today, we hope that they do not allow those issues to overtake and suffocate the good work that the Committee and the Chamber have done in progressing the Bill to Third Reading. I hope that the Bill does not become a party political football and get lost in the maelstrom of events in the other place.
One might say ungenerously that their Lordships may not be involved too much in this end of the loan market and that they might not have personal experience of taking out loans from, not a loan shark—let us call a shark a shark. One might stereotype them and say that they are not particularly interested in this. I refute and reject that. They are interested. I hope that, despite the significant issues on their plate, they consider the story of Mr. Jones while these high matters of state fly between the two Chambers. I hope that they consider seriously the possible rescue of Mr. Jones from his predicament.
The main reason why I ask their Lordships to think seriously about the issue relates to the important clause on retrospection. We all heard the Meadows family case. It was the fundamental case in reviving the possibility of a reasonableness test on whether a loan was extortionate. I welcome that, and it will be a great relief to many of my constituents. I hope that those who
3 Mar 2005 : Column 1181
take out loans in future will have a strong rope—the bonds that have already been referred to—to help them through any difficulties.
Retrospection is important for another group of people who, like my constituent, went through the legal process prior to our consideration and prior to the Meadows case. They are entirely dependent on retrospection to obtain justice in their various cases. Much as my constituent wishes the Bill to go forward to help other people, he is dependent on retrospection, as are so many others, to help him to obtain justice. Just looking at the figures—a loan of £8,500 resulting in a debt of £123,000—is case enough to make to their Lordships, and I hope that they would consider that seriously.
Even as an outsider, in that I was not a member of the Committee, although I followed its proceedings carefully, I would like to place on record my thanks for the way in which it conducted its business, and I particularly thank the Minister, who did not just follow his brief but clearly cares about the issues concerning my constituent that I have been trying to raise with him for some time. I also thank the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) for the way in which he marshalled his arguments in Committee, and other members of the Committee.
The way in which the matter has been dealt with so far shows the exemplary way in which the House helps individuals throughout the country. I hope that their Lordships will take that responsibility equally seriously and give the Bill a fair wind so that it can help people like my constituent.
5.7 pm
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |