Proceeding contribution from Mark Hoban (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Monday, 4 July 2011. It occurred during Debate on bill on Finance (No. 3) Bill.
Finance (No. 3) Bill
Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. The provision of better education, information and guidance to help people manage their money is extremely valuable. That is why we have been very supportive of the Money Advice Service in its work to help improve financial capability and capacity. Sustainable solutions to the issues raised by the Opposition are not simple or obvious. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) said, an individual making the minimum repayment on their credit card could be subject to a higher total cost of credit than someone using payday lenders. The vast majority of people who borrow from payday lenders and then re-borrow pay off the amount that they borrowed by the third time. That shows that careful and considered thought needs to be given to the impact on consumers of a cap on the total cost of credit, and how it would be implemented in practice. The majority of available research focuses on interest rate restrictions rather than such a cap, but some of the same challenges apply. We need to gather evidence before we introduce new rules, or else risk unintended consequences. That was why we launched the consumer credit and personal insolvency review, and we are considering carefully the evidence that has been provided. The Government will announce the next stage shortly, and are committed to taking action when we can be sure that it will be effective. The Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr Davey), and I will continue to engage in the matter, along with the hon. Member for Walthamstow. However, I am afraid the new clause is not the right way to take things forward. It is flawed in both detail and effect. We need sensible, well-thought-through interventions to improve the functioning of high-cost credit markets and get better outcomes for consumers. The new clause would not achieve that, and I ask the Opposition to withdraw it. I know that it cannot be easy for the Opposition to work with the Government on this issue and appear to concede on the new clause. It could seem like a climbdown for them to accept that more work is needed before action is taken, but that is the sensible, responsible approach.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 530 c1296
- Session
- 2010-12
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Disadvantaged Directors Assets Corporation tax Banks Credit Advisory services Capital allowances Income tax Financial services Interest rates Low incomes Pay Nuclear power Loans Money lenders Social Fund Regulation Taxation VAT Tax rates and bands Tax yields
- Legislation
- Finance (No. 3) Bill 2010-12
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 17:25:02 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_756074
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_756074
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_756074