I will take the points individually. I understand the point the noble Earl makes in suggesting that it is too difficult for professionals. In the Bill, we seek to strike a balance between proper protection for the consumer and not unreasonable burdens on lenders. I repeat the point: there is a real difference between a business being able to set out in advance when it wants to send out its statements and having to tailor specific requirements for each loan, other than in circumstances where there are events of potential default and arrears where other provisions kick in.
The noble Earl suggested that we might trial the provision in Scotland. If it is administratively difficult to do so nationally, to encourage lenders to try it with the additional burden of identifying where the lender or the borrower is in relation to Scotland will add an even greater burden. I think that on reflection he will see that. For those reasons, we would still ask for the amendment to be withdrawn.
Consumer Credit Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord McKenzie of Luton
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 8 November 2005.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Consumer Credit Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
675 c147GC Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand CommitteeSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-22 02:12:30 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_280771
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_280771
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_280771