I thank the Minister for her full response and recognise much of what she said about the work currently going on. We are back in the same territory. The body will not work as we are beginning to envisage it if at every turn blockages are put up. It will be an insolvency service behind a different departmental boundary—it is in BEIS and not in DWP—making decisions of primary importance about clients coming to the single financial guidance body and the debt advisers seeking help with a problem. I accept that it is way the world is, but if it became clear after the reviews and further consideration of the points made here—there are many other people who can send in evidence—we might want to change that, having missed the opportunity to do so in the Bill. I appeal to the Minister to think again about this and to see whether it might be sensible to have a power somewhere in the Bill giving the single financial guidance body the opportunity to make proposals at least. In my view, we have the power to change it to help the consumers that it tries to deal with, but I realise that may be a step too far at this stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Financial Guidance and Claims Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 19 July 2017.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Financial Guidance and Claims Bill [HL].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
783 c1667 Session
2017-19Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberLibrarians' tools
Timestamp
2018-04-16 10:45:53 +0100
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2017-07-19/17071967000033
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2017-07-19/17071967000033
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2017-07-19/17071967000033