Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Carrying on Regulated Activities by Way of Business) (Amendment) Order 2011

My Lords, I am somewhat shocked that the noble Lord, Lord Newby, feared that our proceedings might be concluded before the photographer arrives; I have my customary one-hour speech on a statutory instrument, so there is no call for anxiety on that front. I thank the Minister for both the clear way in which he presented the issues around the SI, and for the sympathetic way in which he addressed himself to those who may be involved in this exercise by being forced by financial circumstances to engage in this operation. As he rightly says, there is an obvious imbalance between the professional service of those who provide the resources and seek to strike the agreement and the householder who most often is already entering into these arrangements through fairly dire financial circumstances. As the Minister accurately said, they are unlikely to think of recourse to financial advice or even to be able to afford it anyway, even if they thought it was a good idea. This is consumer protection legislation, after all, and we are at one with the Government in seeking to enhance it, particularly as it is derivative from the 2009 Act passed by the previous Labour Administration. However, I ask the Minister to address himself to several points. First, because the order follows reasonably quickly from its predecessor, it is suggested that there was no need for further consultation. On the whole, all such SIs of this kind, prepared by the Treasury and other government departments, should be subject to consultation beforehand. After all, the previous consultation took place against different terms from this order. I am therefore somewhat surprised that no consultation took place specifically on this order. Secondly, will the Minister address himself to the important point that the noble Lord, Lord Newby, expressed? I am sure that the Committee will be grateful for the clarification—and, I hope, confirmation—that the Minister will be able to give about the nature of the rent position regarding the law and this order. However, what about agreements already entered into? Is there anything in this order that helps those who may indeed have signed up to such arrangements? They may have done so considerably to their disadvantage. Is it just the fact that caveat emptor applies in these circumstances, or is there any way, given the sympathetic way in which the Government are addressing this matter, that anything can be said about agreements already entered into? My final point is perhaps obvious, but I hope that it gave rise to the Minister’s sympathetic approach and a recognition of the brutal economic realities that we all face. I do not want to exaggerate the position. However, I see that the latest figures show that there were 18,100 repossessions in the past six months. That is a large enough number, in all conscience, because it represents people losing their homes and having to make other arrangements through the economic exigencies they face. I do not wish to exaggerate the position, but I could not possibly exaggerate it because I recently returned from Michigan where I visited the city of Detroit. You cannot go to such a city, see the depredation on homeowners there and not appreciate how much more fortunate we are in this country, and how much more successful we are in defending the consumer and the householder over what is, after all, their most valued and important possession—their home. Detroit is a clear illustration of the devastation that can be effected upon ordinary people when there is significant economic collapse and they lose their livelihood to the extent that their homes are repossessed. We are not in that position but we are not in an improving position either. The noble Lord knows already that the economic travails of this country are causing considerable difficulty among our fellow citizens—and the worst is of course yet to come. Those measures that really will bite upon those of limited resources are still very much in the pipeline, in the loss of jobs and the cuts in support for citizens from government or local authority resources. They are still to wreak their considerable damage upon significant numbers of our fellow citizens. That is why this statutory instrument is pertinent and important. I am glad that it has been presented at this stage and that the Minister has done so in such a sympathetic way. However, I hope he will also reply to the discrete points that have been made in this short debate.