Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from James Brokenshire (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 29 March 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Consumer Credit Bill 2005-06.


Consumer Credit Bill

I shall wait to see whether the Bill applies to us all in relation to any loans that may or may not have been made. It remains to be seen whether another Committee will decide to investigate its relevance to such matters. The time allowed for industry to prepare for the Bill is of critical concern. We have already heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford that the proper implementation of the measure could take 18 months. I appreciate that the Minister can probably only take limited action in providing guidance and greater clarity, so such things may be left to secondary legislation and guidance from the OFT. I hope that that is sufficient to ensure a smooth transition for the industry. Throughout the Bill’s progress, there has been a great deal of cross-party consensus about the need for a measure to update the Consumer Credit Act 1974, which is not fit for purpose, so I hope that we will use this final opportunity to do so. Lords amendment No. 4 is a technical amendment. As a lawyer and a purist, however, I believe that it should refer not to ““the officer”” but to the ““relevant officer””, given that that term is used throughout clause 50. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister would confirm that ““the officer”” is indeed the relevant officer cited in that provision.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
444 c991-2 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Consumers Disadvantaged Credit agreements Credit Credit unions Licensing Loans Office of Fair Trading Money lenders Regulation
Legislation
Consumer Credit Bill 2005-06
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk