2. What plans she has for increasing the use of environmentally friendly manufacturing processes. [219463]

The Government's Envirowise programme promotes the cost-benefits of improved environmental performance. Companies using the programme are saving more than £220 million each year. Many of them have done so using more environmentally friendly manufacturing processes. Furthermore, £50 million has been allocated under the DTI technology programme to support collaborative research and development projects in waste management and minimisation.

Newport has become a major centre of recycling where 750,000 fridges are degassed cleanly and efficiently every year, and 450 end-of-life vehicles are dealt with every hour. The weakness is in finding secondary uses for all the glass, steel and plastics created by the recycling process. When can we organise our plans to ensure that we no longer export plastics to China and, possibly, batteries to France for recycling? We should be working on the secondary uses of recycled materials in order to build an environmentally benign green dawn for British manufacturing.

Well, I know that my hon. Friend is a very able advocate not only for Newport, but in respect of this issue more widely. He has raised the matter with me before at Trade and Industry questions. I recognise the case that he makes for Newport, which has led the way in developing sustainable manufacturing. My hon. Friend identified facilities for capturing CFCs from recycled fridges and for shredding end-of-life vehicles. It is precisely because of the development of such facilities that the UK has sufficient capacity to meet the needs of the end-of-life directive and the waste electrical and electronic equipment directive, which will come into force in the next couple of years. My hon. Friend makes an important point about what subsequently happens to that waste. I reiterate the Government's support through the technology programme, which could cover innovative uses of such waste. The Department is also working on the national industrial symbiosis programme—a business-led programme that brings together businesses to turn waste into resources. With that sort of Government support and the innovations developed by the industries in my hon. Friend's constituency and elsewhere, we should be able to make important progress in this sphere.

Following on from the Minister's point about the end-of-life directive for vehicles, how confident is she that the extra costs involved will not simply result in the dumping of more vehicles in the countryside, as happens extensively in my constituency, rather than in a more environmentally friendly approach to manufacturing, as was the original intent?

It is precisely to avoid such effects that the directive is being put in place. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would welcome the fact that the end-of-life vehicles (producer responsibility) regulations laid before the House in February are due to come into force today. They take into consideration what is known as the "own mark" approach, whereby companies take back the vehicles that they have produced. That restricts the sort of dumping that the hon. Gentleman mentioned and enables the recycling of vehicles to take place. I believe that it will be good for the environment, good for our communities and good for the customers of those vehicles, because they will know where they should be returned to.

In respect of environmental manufacturing, what is more environmentally friendly in the production of power than nuclear power stations? Some of us believe that the sooner we get on with building another power station at Hinckley, another at Sizewell and another at Hunstanton, the better for all concerned.

I hear my hon. Friend's concerns. He will know that the Government's position, spelled out in the energy White Paper, is to keep that option open. It is also important to invest in the sort of opportunities provided through renewable energy—investment that would, of course, be cut by the Conservatives if they had the opportunity.

Does the Minister acknowledge the importance of environmentally friendly disposal and recycling such as rubber tyre shredding and re-use? What are the Government doing to support and promote that important sector?

I know that that sort of activity is important, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) outlined. Important developments in a range of sectors involve recycling and, in some cases, reuse of materials. I identified in my initial answer the considerable investment that the Government are making through the technology programme to examine the whole area of waste minimisation and waste use, particularly encouraging companies to work together with scientific establishments to develop the sort of innovative processes that will enable us to achieve business and environmental benefits in the future.

3. When she last met trade union representatives from the coal industry to discuss the future of the deep coal industry. [219464]

I last met trade union representatives on 24 February 2005.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for meeting representatives from Welbeck colliery just last week and for previously meeting representatives from Ellington colliery. These are the most efficient miners in Europe: they are prepared to work flexibly. The Government are prepared to back their efforts with coal investment aid. What pressure can the Government put on the major coal owner, UK Coal, to give the industry a long-term future in our energy plans?

It is enormously important that the coal industry should have a long-term future, not least because the profitable colliery of Dawmill is in my constituency. We want to ensure that pits like Welbeck continue. Obviously, at Ellington, there were issues to do with geology and flooding. We engaged in discussions with UK Coal and sought further drainage at Ellington. UK Coal was unwilling to undertake such work. It is a privatised industry and that is a decision that it is entitled to take. We are continuing to work to keep open Welbeck. We are looking at applications for funding and we believe that once we have studied the details of the proposals from UK Coal, it is highly likely that we will continue to provide some funding.

Given that in a debate in Westminster Hall on 19 January the Minister said:

"gas supplies might be tight if demand rises to high levels in the coming winter or the one after that,"—[Official Report, 19 January 2005; Vol. 429, c. 265WH.]

is it not important to halt the decline in the mining industry? I am thinking particularly about pit closures—[Interruption.] I am talking about today and the future of energy supplies. The Government may not want to be concerned about the future of energy supplies, but we are. As the Minister has admitted that gas supplies might be tight in the coming winter or the one after that, is it not important that we consider how we might help the coal industry through clean coal technology, rather than just bury our heads in the sand?

It is almost as if I could not imagine a Conservative spokesman having the brass neck to stand up in the House of Commons and suggest that the actions of this Government, who have put so much into supporting the coal industry, could in any way be compared with the destruction of the coal industry under the Conservative Government. It is beyond belief that any Conservative Front-Bench spokesman could have the brass neck to do that. We have put substantial amounts of coal aid—£57 million worth—into the coal industry.

That is just words.

No, it is not just words; taxpayers' money is supporting the coal industry to ensure that our coal industry has a long-term future. We are also providing to the cleaner coal technologies project further funding—some £4 million—in support of new technology, and we are in the process of developing a further carbon abatement technology strategy, which we hope will be announced later this year. The Government are making significant investments, unlike the destruction that the Tories wrought.

While agreeing with my hon. Friend that there is often more rejoicing in Heaven when one sinner repents, what we have just heard stretches the imagination a bit far. Does he recognise that it is all very well to talk about successive technologies, but we have coal-fired power stations capable of being switched on in far shorter periods than virtually any other technology? It is in that way that the gap can be filled. If we are to be committed to coal, we must recognise that it will nevertheless be dirty and that there will be a need for balancing technologies, such as those provided by nuclear.

Certainly we have to ensure that any new carbon abatement technology for fossil fuel power generation—we hope to publish that strategy shortly—will need to consider the need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. A key way of doing that in the long term is by developing sequestration and carbon capture. The research into that, both in the private sector and with Government support, is something that the coal industry can look to for the long term. Of course, we want to see diversity in our energy supplies and in the coming decades that will include not only coal, but nuclear power.

Does my hon. Friend the Minister recall that on this day, 3 March, 20 years ago, the miners' strike ended? At that time, we had 170 pits, a clean coal technology plant in the offing in the south Yorkshire coalfield, and the coal industry was publicly owned. By 1997, when the Tories were kicked out, all those had gone and only 17 pits remained. If we want to sustain the tiny remains of our coalfield, we need to get rid of the major producer, UK Coal, because it is interested only in the development of its 49,000 acres of land. It is a property company in disguise, and we should do what we did with rail—intervene and put someone else in charge. Then we could save the remaining pits and introduce the new clean coal technology that the Tories got rid of. Then we would be doing something right.

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the past and the way in which the Conservatives destroyed the coal industry. When I was first selected to stand for Parliament, my constituency had four pits: it now has one, and we want to maintain it. As for UK Coal, it has taken advantage of the support offered by investment aid and is also investing £150 million between 2004 and 2006 to access reserves and maintain employment in viable mines. I have met recently with the bosses of UK Coal and made it clear that we are looking to them to ensure that we have a long-term coal industry in this country and to keep the investment flowing.

4. What recent representations she has received from United Kingdom companies concerning trade with the United States. [219465]

My Department and I are in regular contact with British companies on trade issues, including in relation to the US. Recent subjects covered include closer EU-US economic co-operation, the Boeing-Airbus trade dispute and technology transfer.

Well, I am glad that the Secretary of State mentioned technology transfer, but I am surprised that she did not mention the representations that she will have received from British Aerospace and other defence contractors about the disastrous effects of lifting the EU embargo on arms to China. Is she aware that Richard Lugar and Joseph Biden, the Senate leaders from both parties, have made it clear that defence technology transfers from the other side of the Atlantic to our defence industries will be banned if the arms embargo to China is lifted? Which is more important—selling arms to a corrupt regime in China with an appalling human rights record or sticking up for the British defence industry and Anglo-US relations?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have pressed the Administration and Congress to lift long-standing and unjustified restraints on technology transfer to British defence companies. As for the arms embargo on China, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has spelled out not only our position on that, but the reasons for it. Let me reassure the hon. Gentleman, as my right hon. Friend did, that we already have in place some of the strictest controls on the export of arms and dual-use technology in the world and they will continue to apply to China, as they do to every other country.

Will my right hon. Friend remind the House of just how important our trade relationship with the US is? It is by far our biggest trade partner. Since Labour came to power, our policies have hugely increased our trade balance with the US, from less than £500 million under the Conservatives to £14,500 million. The longer we keep our strong trade relationship with the US, the better. Nit-picking at the corners, as the Tories do, does not help one little bit.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The performance of British exporters in the American and other world markets has been absolutely superb, helped of course by the fact that we have a strong economic policy here in Britain, and also by the unprecedented investment that we are making in science and innovation, which of course is what will keep British business competitive in the United States and in the rest of the global economy. That investment in our science base, in technology and in innovation would all be put at risk by the public spending cuts that the Conservative party is promising.

Is not the Secretary of State concerned that BAE Systems is withdrawing from its European investments in Scandinavia? It has done so, and the report is that it will sell its stake in Airbus, shedding thousands of jobs in the UK in order to increase its presence in the United States, on the basis that this is the only way that it can secure defence contracts. Is not that a pretty poor return for being America's closest ally?

On arms control, can the Secretary of State comment on reports that her Department is considering privatising the export control organisation? What signal would that give for tighter control and accountability, not just to the United States but also in the middle east and the far east and countries such as Indonesia?

Well, the hon. Gentleman mentioned Airbus. Let me say that that is one of the most successful companies that we have in Britain; British Aerospace understands that very well. We have recently seen, of course, the launch of the A380, which would not have been possible if it had not been for the commitment of the British Government to launch an enormously successful programme—one that the Conservative party would wish to scrap.

On the issue of the Export Credits Guarantee Department, I have not seen the reports that the hon. Gentleman refers to, but let me say that there are no plans to privatise that organisation; indeed, we are strengthening it and have just put in new management.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is an enormous export market in the United States, but that the United Kingdom is rapidly becoming a country of small and medium enterprises—not very large enterprises—and that it is those enterprises that need to access the American market? Does she agree that there are some very big hurdles and barriers for small and mediums? What is this partnership that was much vaunted between the Foreign Office and the Department of Trade and Industry that was supposed to be so helpful to small businesses? Is the Duke of York still employed there, and what is he doing?

Let me reassure my hon. Friend that UK Trade and Investment, which is the agency jointly funded and sponsored by the Foreign Office and my Department, is enormously successful, particularly in relation to small and medium-sized companies. Through UKTI, we are helping unprecedented numbers of smaller companies to break into export markets—many of them, I am delighted to say, through passport to export, are now succeeding in entering and selling in the United States market. I am sure that my hon. Friend and everyone else, at least on the Government side of the House, would welcome UKTI's success and deplore the proposal from the Conservative party, which would effectively do away with UKTI.

rose—

Order. Now that we have had a few propaganda statements, may we just have questions and answers?

Why is it that the United States' export credit agency is so much more effective and internationally competitive than our own ECGD? Could it be because we have wasted hundreds of thousands of pounds on losing court cases? Does not the Secretary of State think that it would be right to issue an apology to the Treasury, or indeed to the taxpayer, for the court case she has just lost?

I am astonished that the right hon. Gentleman should seek to attack our export credits agency by comparison with the United States. If there is any difference in the support provided, it is only because a larger subsidy is given in the United States.

As for the recent court case, we did not lose it; we settled it. [Interruption.] We settled it because, although I believe that the ECGD made the right changes to its procedures last December, I accept that it would be helpful to consult more widely on those changes in the interests of our exporters, as well as transparency in the system. That consultation is now under way, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will contribute to it.

6. What steps the Department is taking to tackle data protection scams. [219467]

The Department for Constitutional Affairs has policy responsibility for the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Information Commissioner is responsible for administering and enforcing the DPA.

I believe that the question actually relates to fake invitations for people to renew their internet domain names. I should like to thank my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to warn members of the public about that kind of dishonesty. If in doubt, people should consult their internet service provider, their domain name registration company or their trading standards department before responding to any invitation to part with their money.

My constituent, Mr. Ray Woods, runs one of many small businesses in Erdington that have recently had intimidating letters telling them that to comply with new data protection regulations, with which they are apparently failing to comply, they need only send a relatively modest cheque to a strangely anonymous address and everything will be sorted out. It is obviously a fraud and a rip-off. What will the Minister do to track those people down and put a stop to it, and what may be done about some stiffer penalties to make it less worth while?

We have given greater powers to the Office of Fair Trading through stop now orders, but I agree with my hon. Friend that we must educate the public about the vast range of scams of this kind, which cost the British economy millions of pounds. There are sanctions, but it is no good just looking at the enforcement side. I am pleased about the number of campaigns that are taking place either through the Office of Fair Trading national scams campaign or through the media, which I want to praise for highlighting many scams. There are penalties for fraud, but we need to educate people not to part with their money unless they are certain of the information that they are given.

Further to the point made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Simon), will the Minister confirm that more and more scams are now being perpetrated against small businesses, and that, since those cannot be dealt with by stop now orders issued by the Office of Fair Trading, it is necessary to rely on the Control of Misleading Advertisements Regulations 1988? Is not it time now for more comprehensive and decisive legislation to deal with scams?

We always keep under review the need for more regulation, if that is appropriate, but clearly, we do not want to put burdens on business. However, organisations such as Nominet already have powers and pursue complaints and prosecutions against companies that perpetrate such acts. We shall continue to review this, because the number of scams, and the number of types of scam, are increasing. We want to try to remain ahead of the game, but we always keep such matters under review.

7. What steps she is taking to implement the Government's opportunities for all and energy White Paper commitments to a 2002–12 solar photovoltaics programme; and if she will make a statement. [219468]

The Government are committed to supporting the development of the photovoltaic sector and other small-scale renewables. I announced a £6 million extension to the major PV demonstration programme last September. The programme is expected to continue until March 2006, with spending taking place on projects until March 2007. It is intended that a low-carbon buildings programme should supersede those two initatives.

Does my hon. Friend accept that other countries—particularly, Germany, Japan and the United States—have moved much further and faster than the United Kingdom in the development of solar photovoltaics? Does he also accept that continuity of support is essential if that embryonic industry is to grow strong in the United Kingdom? Is he still committed to the original target of between 70,000 and 100,000 solar photovoltaic roofs to be constructed by 2012?

We have long-term commitments that we seek to maintain. Also, the budget for major PV programmes increased from £25 million to £31 million last September, and the budget for the clear skies programme increased from £10 million to £12.5 million, showing the Government's continued commitment. My hon. Friend is right to say that the industry needs long-term commitments because of the stage that it is at. We are prepared to make those commitments, but we need to review the way in which the funding is directed, and ensure that it is directed to the maximum benefit.

The simple fact is that no matter how exciting some of the new technologies for renewables are, they are still embryonic. The United Kingdom faces an energy crisis in the next 10 to 15 years, when the nuclear reactors are closed down and the 20 per cent. of UK energy that they supply is not made up in renewables. What is the Minister going to do to tackle the UK's energy problems without recommissioning nuclear reactors?

There is certainly substantial investment in developing alternative energy sources; companies such as e.on and others are looking at improving and expanding their power stations; and the rest of the industry is considering developing new power stations. The Government have an open mind on whether we need to move towards a nuclear future. As we set out in the 2003 White Paper, we will look at the issues if and when a proposal comes forward. Today, there is no proposal on the table for any nuclear power station from any private sector source. If one comes forward, we will look at it. It is currently probably uneconomic, and there is also the issue of waste, which needs to be resolved. Until we have some clarity on those matters from the private sector and a serious proposal is made, it is difficult to see that there will be such a programme.

The Minister will know that Tower colliery in my constituency supplies local power stations and that this year it is celebrating 10 years as a workers' co-operative. It is a major employer in my constituency despite the best efforts of the Conservatives to close it down; they argued that it was uneconomic and had geological faults. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the colliery has a future, and an important one, in supplying energy sources in this country and overseas?

Consulting mining engineers have just completed their assessment of Tower's revised coal investment aid application, and my officials are carrying out their own assessment. I hope to be able to give a decision to my hon. Friend shortly. The Margam project may not however qualify for support under EU regulations, but we are prepared to explore the possibility of state aid with the European Commission. Indeed, I am meeting the Energy Commissioner, Andreas Piebalgs, this afternoon and I hope to refer the matter to him.

The Government talk about investment in renewables, but they seem to be obsessed for some reason with wind turbines. The Minister knows that wind turbines work only to a third of their capacity and that when it is too windy they have to be switched off. Is it not about time that he looked more comprehensively at the energy suppliers in this country, and considered solar power as one of the more exciting possibilities, taking some of the subsidies away from wind turbines and putting them into solar power in order to secure a better future for everyone in this country?

As I understand it, the Conservative party says that it too is committed to a future with renewables and to the sort of targets that we have set. Unfortunately, while the Government have a clear strategy for hitting those targets, the Conservative party has a big gap in its strategy—indeed, it does not have a strategy and just wants to play the opportunist game as usual.

We are investing £117 million in capital grants for offshore wind farms, approximately £66 million in biomass capital grants, £31 million in solar, £12.5 million in the clear skies programme, £50 million in marine renewables, £19 million in industry-led research and development, and £4 million in research under the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council's Supergen project. We are investing in renewables; when the Conservatives were in government, they did nothing.

8. What the take-up of the clear skies initiative has been since the start of the initiative. [219469]

The clear skies programme to promote renewable energies was launched in 2003. The target was to achieve 2,800 projects for individuals and households and 275 community-based projects by 31 March 2006. However, the scheme has already benefited 4,767 households or individuals—more than 70 per cent. above our target, with 13 months and two rounds of funding of the scheme to go—and 274 community projects, which is one short of our target.

I am grateful for that reply, which shows that the Government are seriously committed to supporting micro-renewables. The clear skies website shows more than 300 products now accredited under the programme. Given that the programme has just over a year left to run, is my hon. Friend satisfied that new companies bringing to the market new products for which they seek accreditation will be able to benefit from clear skies?

Yes, I am. Yesterday, I spoke to a pioneering manufacturing company that was full of praise for the DTI's staff and contractors, who helped it to overcome the technical and safety issues that are common in new technologies. With application forms for consumers who want to take advantage of the programme being two pages long and those for contractors, manufacturers and producers eight pages long, I think that we have done everything we can to ensure that those who have bright technological ideas can benefit from that fantastic programme.

9. what assessment she has made of the prospects for the engineering sector in the west midlands. [219470]

Engineering is central to the strength of our manufacturers and the Government are committed to a strong and vibrant engineering and manufacturing economy. Advantage West Midlands predicts that, by 2010, west midlands manufacturing will contribute 24 per cent. of the region's gross value added compared with 17 per cent. nationally. The west midlands regional economic strategy identifies the strength of the engineering sector as an opportunity, particularly in the exploitation of environmental technologies.

Is the Minister aware that companies feel that the west midlands engineering sector's successes, of which there are many—a fact that we should celebrate—are achieved despite the Department of Trade and Industry, not because of it? Apart from the manufacturing advisory service and aspects of export promotion, they can identify nothing of any value that the DTI does. They believe that the Department now exists to put obstacles in front of enterprise, not to support it as it should. What is she going to do about that?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the success of the west midlands engineering sector, which we should celebrate, but I strongly disagree with him about the views of engineering and manufacturing companies. At a recent event on manufacturing organised by a west midlands chamber of commerce, I was pleased to hear about manufacturers' support not only for services such as the manufacturing advisory service, which he mentioned, but for grants supporting innovation, which the Conservatives would cut, and about companies that have benefited from regional selective assistance, now selective finance for investment, which the Conservatives would cut. Of course there are challenges for our—

Order. I have given an instruction to Ministers on how to conduct themselves at the Dispatch Box. They will not defy the Chair.

I know that the Minister will endorse my congratulations to west midlands manufacturers on the massive productivity gains that they have made in recent years, but in the Department's otherwise admirable efforts to civilise our working conditions, especially through family-friendly policies, will she remain acutely aware of the disproportionate impact on smaller companies of maternity leave and other important measures and the need to keep those measures under constant review?

My hon. Friend is right not only about the support that has been provided, but about the impact on small and medium-sized companies of the important changes that have been made—often by the companies themselves in recognition of the importance of retaining high-quality workers, particularly women while they have families. That is why the consultation document that we issued on Monday makes it clear that we will consult business and that we need to look for ways to bring more certainty into the system for small and medium-sized enterprises.

Last week, the Secretary of State admitted that, under the Labour Government,

"one of the biggest frustrations for everyone running a business today is the amount of regulation coming out of Europe."

We all agree, therefore, that European regulation is a crushing threat, impeding the prospects of the engineering sector in the west midlands and of all parts of British business. Will the Minister now confess what proportion of the £8.9 billion-worth of extra regulation heaped on British business last year came directly from Europe, how much came from Ministers and officials gold-plating EU requirements, and how much was dreamt up by the Labour Government themselves?

We go out of our way to ensure that we do not gold-plate European legislation and we have argued strongly for better competitiveness impact tests in Europe. We have done so with great effect with respect to the chemicals directive and billions of pounds-worth of burdens have been reduced because, while the Government are willing to engage in Europe and to recognise the benefits, we are also prepared to make the arguments for competitiveness. It is only by being willing to engage in that way that we can secure the benefits that we have secured.

The complacency of that response cannot disguise the fact that more EU directives have been implemented under the Labour Government than was the case in the preceding quarter century of our membership. Engineers and manufacturers know exactly who is to blame for the ballooning burden of regulation, which is now heading towards a staggering £40 billion.

Another key concern of west midlands engineers is skills. The most recent study by the Engineering Employers Federation on manufacturing productivity compares the UK with France and Germany, and shows that only UK managers rated the skills available to them as having a negative impact on their attempts to improve productivity. What urgent measures are the Government taking to abolish the inefficient Learning and Skills Council and to create a scheme of vocational grants, with funding following the students so that young people in the west midlands and the rest of the United Kingdom receive the skills training that employers demand and which the Conservatives have promised?

I recently had dinner with people representing business leaders and skills providers in the west midlands and we looked at what we can do through the regional skills partnerships to make sure that, as the Government have promised, employers' voices are central to the delivery of skills. I would also point to initiatives such as the automotive academy, which received funds of £15 million following the report by the automotive innovation and growth team. It is based in the west midlands and is making a genuine difference in developing the necessary skills to ensure the continued success of our automotive industry. Those practical initiatives, backed by investment, will make a difference to skills in the west midlands and to support for our engineering and manufacturing companies.

May I draw the Minister's attention to a problem that has emerged among some small and medium metal forming companies in my constituency? It appears that the steel supplier is demanding unusually restrictive credit terms, so they have cashflow problem because they have to pass those restrictions on to their customers. In the past, the Department has always said that big suppliers and companies must treat their customers fairly and equitably. Can the Minister do anything to reinforce that message?

My hon. Friend takes very seriously the concerns of metal forming companies in his constituency and I was pleased to meet a delegation that he recently brought to see me. His concern is fair, given the fact that the steel industry was in difficulties for several years but is now in a much more profitable and successful position. I would certainly expect major steel companies to look at the pressures that they are exerting on their customers and to make sure that their success is passed down through the chain. If there are specific examples that my hon. Friend would like to raise with me, I would be interested to hear them. However, the current success of the steel industry puts a responsibility on the supplier to deal fairly with the important companies in my hon. Friend's constituency.

10. What plans she has to improve work-life balance for older people. [219471]

Many employers offer flexible working to all their employees, including older workers, because they know that work-life balance policies are good for their business as well as for the employees. Earlier this week, I launched a consultation on our proposals to extend the scope of the existing flexible working law to carers of sick and disabled relatives.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's initiative, certainly with respect to carers. As there is a disproportionately high number of carers among older workers, should we not consider extending to them the same kind of flexibilities that we have accepted are necessary for younger families to enable them to have a proper and functioning family life? I hope that my right hon. Friend will pursue that and not listen to those who seek to divert her, because this is a part of the working population that really does need such assistance.

I welcome my hon. Friend's comments. He is absolutely right. The law that we introduced nearly two years ago for parents of young children has already had a dramatic effect. Nearly 1 million parents changed their working hours in the first 12 months of that law coming into effect, and the vast majority of employers say that they have no difficulty in accommodating those requests for a change in working hours. My strong view is that carers of elderly and sick and disabled people, who are doing a wonderful job for the whole community and whose efforts deserve even greater recognition, should be a priority in any extension of that successful law.

Given the unique contribution that people of maturity can bring to the workplace, not least here in this very House of Commons, is the Secretary of State looking positively at what can be done to make it easier for older people to continue to work and make a contribution, given our undoubted skill shortages and the desire of older people to work on and to make that contribution? Will she consider this in a comprehensive way and satisfy herself that everything is being done that can be done to make it as easy as possible for older people who want to continue to work to do so?

Speaking as a 56-year-old, perhaps I can declare a personal interest in the subject. I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's support for the steps that we are taking, such as the age discrimination law that will come into effect next year, and the accompanying measure that spells out that retirement enforced by an employer before someone reaches the age of 65 will no longer be lawful unless it can be justified on objective grounds, such as health and safety reasons. For people over the age of 65 who want to carry on working, we will be extending the right to request flexible working, which, as I said, has already been so successful in the context of parents and young children. I look forward to his support for those new regulations that will help business and older workers alike.

My right hon. Friend knows that now we consider older workers to be those aged over 65. When do we intend to extend employee rights to post-65s in employment?

That is exactly the issue that we have been considering in the context of the age discrimination law that we will bring into effect next year. After much consultation, we reached the view that, as I have just said, it makes sense to keep a default retirement age, but only at 65, which we will review after five years, and we will introduce the flexible working laws for workers above the age of 65. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions recently said, we will also ensure that, if someone over the age of 65 is made redundant, their service beyond 65 will also count towards the calculation of their redundancy payment.

11. If she will make a statement on her policy with regard to European legislation on software patents. [219472]

The Government believe that it is important to permit the patenting of certain types of software-related inventions that are vital to many high-tech industries, but at the same time we are also concerned to prevent a drift towards widening the scope of patentability. The current draft text of the computer implemented inventions directive achieves that balance.

Does not the fact that those who are crying foul about the directive's text are among the small software developers in our constituencies, and those who are enthusiastic for it are the monopolists and oligopolists, give the Minister some unease and pause for thought?

Of course patents can be of great assistance to small and medium-sized enterprises when taking on larger businesses, although I know that the matter is of concern to the hon. Gentleman and in particular to one of his constituents. That is why there have been discussions with the Patent Office and my noble Friend Lord Sainsbury, and why we have facilitated a series of workshops on the nature of the harmonisation. Invitations to participate in those workshops have been extended to approximately 540 individuals and organisations. If it would be of assistance to either the hon. Gentleman or his constituent to attend one of the workshops in the weeks and months to come, I can ensure that an invitation is forthcoming.

20. What opportunities are available for women to undertake apprenticeships in science, engineering and technology-related subjects. [219482]

Apprenticeship opportunities are open to all candidates, regardless of gender or ethnicity. However, the Government recognise that women and girls have traditionally not taken up apprenticeships in those subjects in significant numbers. We are working across Government to tackle the barriers that hinder female participation in science, engineering and technology, including through apprenticeships. For example, through our work in the manufacturing forum, we have established a sub-group on the image of manufacturing to look at promoting the sector to key audiences, including women.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the publication of the Equality Bill yesterday, with the intention to establish an equality and human rights commission. That is a marvellous step and I am proud to be associated with it.

My right hon. Friend will know that I am a fitter by trade and had a wonderful career in the engineering profession. Many people in this country could enjoy a career in that profession, but we have a perennial problem attracting women, so I am delighted with the initiatives that the Government are taking. How will we use the women's resource centre that is being established to get at the statistics that will allow us to determine whether we are being successful and to target our resources appropriately, supporting young and old women who wish to go into engineering, which will lead to a productive and rewarding career?

My hon. Friend is a good role model and advocate for women in that respect. She points to the Government initiative to establish the UK resource centre for women in science, engineering and technology, which was formally launched on 16 September last year, and to which I think she will contribute in the near future. She is right that an important function of the centre is to maintain, collect and disseminate statistics on women's involvement in the sector. However, another function is to ensure that we promote good practice among employers and advise them about the sorts of things that they should do to encourage women into the sector and to keep them there.

That, along with a range of other activities, can make a practical difference to ensuring not only that women have opportunities in science, engineering and technology, but that those opportunities help employers to deal with the skills shortages that they undoubtedly face. Those employers would be helped in that if they recruited from the whole pool of talent in the country, as they would be doing if they focused on women and girls.

In supporting what the hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) said about the importance of attracting more young women, let alone young men, into engineering, technology and allied subjects, does the Minister accept that the way to do that would be to put greater emphasis not on higher education but on vocational education, both post-16 and even earlier, in secondary schools? That would enable young people—young men and women—to develop a skill that they could put to good use in their adult lives, to the betterment of the prospects of engineering and technology in this country.

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, which is why I am sure he joins me in welcoming the announcements that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills made in response to the Tomlinson review. I refer in particular to the proposals for a new 14 to 19 diploma framework, to the greater emphasis on vocational education while also ensuring that young people have the basic literacy and numeracy skills that are so important, and to the work on developing new ways of offering apprenticeships, which may well include the opportunity of doing an apprenticeship and then studying for a foundation degree. Higher education and vocational education are therefore not in conflict with each other. Some people can take advantage of both routes and the reforms being introduced by the Government will ensure that they have equal value and the support that they deserve.

21. What representative groups she has met in the past three months to discuss the needs of parents. [219483]

I regularly meet a wide range of representative organisations to discuss the needs of parents.

I thank my right hon. Friend for the work that she does in this field, but has she had an opportunity to look at the report from the Relationships Foundation entitled "Keeping Time for Children", which was compiled by the National Centre for Social Research? It shows that parents now have to spend much more time at work, and therefore away from home. Will she meet foundation representatives to discuss the report and find ways to lessen the pressure on parents to work extra hours to make ends meet?

My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. I have not had an opportunity to have a look at that report, but I shall do so with interest, and of course I should be delighted to meet representatives from the foundation to which he referred. I completely agree that we must do even more to make it easier for parents to manage the stress incurred by making a living and bringing up children. Many people have to care for elderly parents as well. That is exactly why the consultation that I launched on Monday is looking at how we can improve maternity leave by, for example, extending paid leave by another three months and making it possible for that leave to be transferred to the father. Another of our aims is to extend flexible working hours. I am glad to say that the Government's implementation of the flexible working hours legislation and the working time directive means that Britain's long working hours, which rose inexorably for over a decade, have fallen over the past three or four years.

I welcome the Secretary of State's action: after eight years of this Government, she has announced yet another consultation process, but at least she is going in the right direction. Does she agree that parents—and especially mothers—do not need to be patronised by central Government and told what they have to do to look after their children and balance the difficulties of a working life and parenthood? Many women in Britain today in effect do two jobs. Does she agree that those women should be thanked, supported and given the flexibility demanded by the fact that every family is different? Should not they be able to choose their own arrangements for child care and the care of elderly relatives?

It is precisely because we want to help parents give their children what they see to be the best start in life that this Government have doubled maternity pay since 1997, raising it from £55 to £104. We have also doubled paid maternity leave, which lasted for three months when we were elected but is now six months. We intend to increase that to nine months by 2007 and to 12 months over the next five years. That is also why we introduced the law on flexible working, although I regret that some Opposition Members said that that was just another burden on business and did not recognise how crucial it was for parents. It is why we have also extended nursery provision. Parents can now ensure that their three and four-year-old children have nursery education. Those are the sorts of practical measures that give parents choice and support. At least on this side of the House, we believe in action not words.

Many of the poorest families in my constituency find that they have two main needs. First of all, they need a few extra hours in the day, but I know that my right hon. Friend can do nothing about that. However, their second need is a decent income, so that they can look after their children properly. The recent increase in the national minimum wage will make a dramatic difference for many of my constituents, but how can we make sure that the other forms of support available for poorer families get through to them?

My hon. Friend is right about the minimum wage and I am delighted, as I know he is, that, thanks to our strong economy, we were able to announce last Friday that it will indeed rise to over £5 an hour this October. That will be a huge help to hard-working families and we both know that, alongside the working tax credit and the child tax credit, the minimum wage is delivering enormous practical help to low-income families in our constituencies and across the country.

22. What steps she plans to take towards closing the differential in pay between men and women. [219484]

We set up the women and work commission to recommend action to tackle the causes of the gender pay gap, and I look forward to its interim report later this month. But the Government have led by example and I am proud of the fact that all 88 Government Departments and agencies have completed equal pay reviews.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that the chair of the women and work commission, Margaret Prosser, recently talked forthrightly about the undervaluing of the work that women do. This is an issue in both the private and public sectors, the latter having real implications for the Government. None of us expects the problem to be resolved overnight, but are the Government prepared to commit themselves to ensuring that we put the necessary resources into achieving a narrowing in the gender pay gap?

Absolutely, and my hon. Friend is right: we need to address not just occupational segregation but the value that we place on jobs that have traditionally been done by women. Of course, we have already taken action in the public sector, such as the national health service's "Agenda for Change" initiative. Instead of depending on traditional views of work and the associated pay, we have taken a proper look at what such work involves and remunerated it accordingly. In doing so, we have of course put considerable investment into the health service—indeed, we have a responsibility to do that across the public services—and I give my hon. Friend a commitment that that will continue to happen.

I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 11, line 27, at end insert—

'( ) In section 32(1) of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1971 (c. 58) (regulation of civil procedure in sheriff court) after paragraph (l) insert—

"(m) permitting the debtor or hirer in proceedings for—

(i) a time order under section 129 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (time orders), or

(ii) variation or revocation, under section 130(6) of that Act (variation and revocation of time orders), of a time order made under section 129, to be represented by a person who is neither an advocate nor a solicitor."

( ) In section 32(2B) of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980 (c. 46) (offence for unqualified persons to prepare certain documents)—

(a) after "represent" insert "—(a)";

(b) after "cause" insert—

"(b) a debtor or hirer in proceedings for—

(i) a time order under section 129 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (time orders); or

(ii) variation or revocation, under section 130(6) of that Act (variation and revocation of time orders), of a time order made under section 129".'.

I promised to introduce this Government amendment in response to the concerns raised by several. Members on Second Reading about Scottish time order applications. The amendment enables Scottish courts to allow debtors or hirers to be represented by a person who is not a solicitor or advocate in proceedings covering time order applications or the revocation or variation of time order applications. That will put Scottish consumers on an equal footing with those in the rest of the UK, enabling them to be represented by, for example, a money adviser or Citizens Advice Scotland employee. I am happy to address the matter to ensure that the situation in Scotland is equivalent to that in the rest of the UK.

I thank the Minister for moving the amendment. There was clearly an anomaly, in that, for historical reasons, the situations in Scotland and England differed. The Consumer Council has made representations to that effect. Clearly, accessibility will be made easier and cheaper than it was under the old unnecessary requirement. People can still use a solicitor or other professional if they wish, but they will be able to make their own choice about how to make representations, and that is very welcome. I am grateful to the Government for bringing Scotland into line.

Given the subject matter of the amendment, I should declare an interest as a member of the Faculty of Advocates, even though it goes against that interest. Like the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce), I welcome the amendment and the fact that the Government have recognised the concern raised by several Members from Scotland when the issue was raised early during the Bill's process. Citizens Advice Scotland has taken the lead in pushing for the change and is pleased that the amendment has been tabled at this stage. I spoke to CAS representatives earlier this week and they were delighted.

On the face of it, the amendment is a small one, but it will have important implications, together with the extra funding that the Government and the Scottish Executive are giving to the Money Advice Trust and organisations that work in the area. We should now see a bigger take-up of the opportunities given to those who represent debtors who find themselves in difficulties. The amendment is worth while and I am glad that the Government have tabled it. I commend the Minister for moving so quickly.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 17 — Interest payable on judgment debts etc.

Amendments made: No. 6, in page 12, line, leave out 'on the day' and insert 'immediately'.

No. 7, in page 12, line 12, leave out first 'on' and insert 'at the end of'.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]

Clause 19 — Unfair relationships between creditors and debtors

I beg to move amendment No. 21, in page 13, line 19, at end insert—

'(2A) For the purposes of this section, an agreement shall be automatically unfair if the court determines that—

(a) at the time of making the agreement the debtor could not reasonably have been expected to maintain the level of payments required under the agreement; or

(b) the lender made inadequate attempts to determine the financial circumstances of the borrower at the time of entering into an agreement.'.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendment No. 8.

Amendment No. 22, in page 63, line 2 [Schedule 3], leave out paragraphs 14 and 15 and insert—

'14 The court shall not make an order under section 140B of the 1974 Act in connection with a credit agreement made before the commencement of section 20 of this Act.

15 The repeal by this Act of sections 137 to 140 of the 1974 Act shall not affect the court's power to reopen an existing agreement under those sections.'.

The purpose of the amendment is to address the accumulation of credit, putting some responsibility on providers of credit to ensure that people who are given it have the capacity to repay. Members will understand why such an amendment is justified, even if this one is not in quite the right format. The Minister has referred to the maturity, development and sophistication of the UK credit market, but we have reached the point at which people no longer have to ask for credit. It arrives on our doorsteps, sometimes in piles. We receive offers for credit cards with substantial limits, cheques and bank loan offers. We have all received them. Open the envelopes, and we find that a £7,500 cheque can be ours today to send to a bank. No security is required, and seductive letters suggest we might want to go to Hawaii and do this or that. All we have to do is bank the cheque.

Most of us probably have several credit cards, and if we look at the limits on all of them we might be surprised to find how much access we have to instant credit. For most of us, I hope, it is more than we would wish or intend to use, but some people get themselves into a complete mess. It seems disreputable, to say the least, for large financial institutions—we are talking here about the biggest, most reputable brand names in the business—to offer credit without making any attempt to find out what other lines of credit we have, whether we have a mortgage, what security we can offer and what our circumstances are. They are relying simply on the fact that the majority of people will act responsibly and in their own interests. The majority of people do manage, and do whatever they will do—but some people will take full advantage of all the credit made available, then find it impossible to manage their debt.

I am very interested in the amendment and have great sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman is saying. However, paragraphs (a) and (b) talk about the obligations of lenders to find out the total indebtedness of the person to whom they are lending. To what degree can one put responsibility on the lender when it may be that the person borrowing the money will not disclose all the borrowing he or she has? A person may need the money desperately, and if that happens is the hon. Gentleman saying that the lender should be held responsible?

I hope not. I hope that the amendment is worded to address that. It says that the debtor

"could not reasonably have been expected"

and that

"the lender made inadequate attempts".

My concern is that, in some cases, the lenders make no attempt to find out circumstances. I am certainly not trying to cover the situation in which someone has wilfully misrepresented their circumstances to the lender, or saying that that should place an obligation or blame on the lender. I want to cover the case where the lender has not taken reasonable and responsible steps to ensure that the person to whom they are offering credit has the capacity to repay.

There are two reasons for that. The first is a basic duty of care, an obligation or a responsibility to ascertain that people have that capacity. Secondly, there is an extraordinary contradiction here with the way in which financial institutions usually work. If we want a mortgage or to take a bank loan for a specific purpose, we have to fill in forms and forms and forms, often involving declaring things we hardly remember to calculate, such as our council tax payment, golf club subscription, salary, wife's salary or donations received from great-aunt Matilda or whatever. We have to give all that before institutions consider whether to offer a loan for a car or a house or whatever it may be.

Yet on to our doormats drop credit cards such as the one that fell on mine with a £7,500 limit if I just phoned the number so that I could use it immediately. The issuer had no idea what my circumstances were or what credit I had. Citizens advice bureaux and many newspapers have had cases; indeed, this is a rich seam for many tabloids because they can find cases of people in hardship every day.

No matter what the ultimate fate of the amendment, there is great sympathy across the House for what the hon. Gentleman is saying. When letters arrive on our doormat, however, we can at least ignore them. Does he accept that an even more difficult and unacceptable situation arises for the consumer when some credit card issuers harass people at such places as airports, just when they are going off on holiday? Does he agree that it is even more outrageous effectively to invite people to take on an extra debt of thousands of pounds at the very time when they may be most vulnerable to such appeals? Is that not an example of the kind of practice that must stop? Should not the lenders who engage in such practices take that message away from both this debate and the general debate we have been having on such subjects?

I understand that point: whenever I go to Edinburgh airport I am accosted, and I am frequently accosted at Aberdeen airport, too. Usually, I am accosted by people on behalf of the best-known brand names: Shell promotes at Edinburgh, as does the Royal Bank of Scotland.

I must balance what I am saying by adding that consumers, of course, have some responsibility and should have a sense of care for themselves. One could say that many people who get into difficulties do so knowingly, but they will say, "The money was available and I could not resist the temptation or did not see how fast I was building up debt." We can say we have no sympathy for those people and ask why they do it. In reality, they could not have done it if the credit was not made so easily available. What I am trying to say is that we need to show the financial institutions that we expect them to take some responsibility by not putting that degree of temptation in the way of people who will get themselves into difficulty.

In a particular case, covered, I think, in the Sunday Mirror, someone managed to take out £125,000 on 11 credit cards and in six loans while on a salary of £16,800. The person in question says that he was stupid and brought the situation on himself He describes how the heavy mob was effectively sent in. He says that the debt

"will never go away, it will follow us until we die."

It is awful when people get into such a situation. I am not suggesting that people should not be educated at school about personal finance and responsibility, which is a point made by the Daily Mirror and the "debt on our doorstep" campaign. Frankly, however, part of the education process should be undertaken by the providers of credit.

First, such providers should always try to ascertain whether people can afford a product, so they should find out about people's circumstances by getting honestly presented evidence of their income and other loan obligations. Secondly, the providers should give advice about the appropriateness of their products. I am worried about the number of people who take out credit on credit cards when it would be much more appropriate to obtain such credit through a bank loan or another product that would be cheaper, more manageable, more organised and less likely to lead to considerable difficulties.

Products are promoted not only when people are going on holiday, but through 0 per cent. introductory offers. I have already said that I am not against the 0 per cent. special offers—indeed, I have taken advantage of them. They are, however, an easy way of seducing people. People are encouraged to take out £10,000 of credit with no interest to pay for six or even nine months. The problem is that they do not have the ability to pay after that time, so under the credit card companies' calculations, they must pay an interest rate of 15, 18 or 20-plus per cent. However, the companies do not say to people, "Now that you are in this mess, you should convert the credit to a loan or a cheaper product." However, that goes slightly wide of the mark of my amendment.

Amendment No. 21 would make it clear in the Bill that the providers of credit would be obliged to take reasonable steps to determine the circumstances of people to whom they provide credit. That suggests to me that unsolicited credit should not be offered without a second test. People such as the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) might well think that unsolicited credit offers should not be sent out at all, but I am not sure that I would want to inhibit product development in such a way. However, it should be made clear that such credit is being offered as long as the provider can satisfy itself that people have the ability to pay. The providers should make it clear to people that they have to answer specific questions satisfactorily before the credit is given.

For the sake of clarity, would the provision apply not only to financial institutions, but to car retailers and furniture vendors? Such businesses advertise regularly on television and offer nothing to pay for six months, 10 months or a year, after which time people must pay for the credit.

Yes, but there would be a reasonableness test. I agree with what I anticipate the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) would say at this point. I want flexibility and choice in the marketplace. I am certainly not against special offers or inducements. A genuine offer of 0 per cent. interest for six months is a valuable commodity, provided that the price of a product is fair. If a person is buying a car for a given price and has one offer involving paying 0 per cent. interest for six months and another offer that would lead to charges immediately, one deal is incontrovertibly better than the other. I would not want to do anything to close such options. All I am asking is for the providers of credit to take reasonable steps to ascertain people's circumstances, thus protecting them from their lack of responsibility or self-control. I qualify that requirement with the words "reasonably" and "inadequacy", which are used in the amendment.

I think that the Minister will acknowledge that the expansion of such credit and the increase in bankruptcies, default and personal debt has much to do with the fact that it is excessively easy to access unsolicited credit. Such credit was not available 30 years ago. Credit was hard to come by then, not least because we had credit squeezes when the Government made things more difficult. I do not think that any of us wants to go back to those days, but we want a little discipline. Frankly, the providers of credit are the people best able to achieve that, rather than the Government or a third-party regulator. We simply require a reasonable test of how people should pay for credit. People should also receive advice on the products that they require. Why should they pay credit card interest rates when they could pay bank loan rates? It is distasteful that banks encourage their own customers to take credit on credit cards when they could offer cheaper credit through other products.

I imagine that the Minister will say that my amendment would have the disadvantage of qualifying the unfairness test, as he has said about other amendments. I understand that, but I hope that he accepts that my amendment is drafted in the spirit of many of the findings of the Treasury Committee. The Committee is not hostile to the expansion of credit or the availability, variety or flexibility of products, but it is worried that many people find themselves in serious financial distress because credit is too easily available and the providers of it do not determine responsibly whether people can afford it. They do that because they assume that they will get their money back from most people by using ruthless methods and making people's lives a misery, so they decide that the odd default will not matter given that the vast majority of people will struggle, but pay. However, for such people, the glamorous offer of credit that was supposed to enhance their quality of life leads to long-term misery. Surely we do not wish to encourage such a credit regime.

As was the case when we debated an earlier group of amendments, I wholeheartedly support the aim of amendment No. 21. I said in Committee that we must remedy a series of mischiefs in the market. It is true that credit card companies and other lenders wish to perpetuate a cycle. They want someone who has one credit card and pays it off every month to choose not to pay it off every month and thus start to accumulate charges. They want people with only one credit card to end up with several, and hope that those who have several cards will take out a personal loan secured against their home. The process is designed to increase the amount that people borrow and the length of time for which it is borrowed. The aim is for the lender eventually to provide a person with a secured loan so that it knows that it will not be out of pocket.

Although the vast majority of us understand the market, accept that caveat emptor is a good principle and are aware that people should appreciate that there is an onus on them to attempt to understand the precise nature of a loan agreement before entering into it, there is none the less such competitive stress in the market at present that pressure exists on all businesses to perpetuate and increase that cycle. In many parts of the country it is an entirely virtuous cycle, but in some parts it ends up as a vicious cycle into which individuals and families can all too easily fall because they do not understand either the nature of the agreement or whether they can afford the debt. We all know of individuals and families in our constituencies who have ended up in terrible difficulty for all sorts of genuine and complex reasons—not for devious reasons or because of their fecklessness. Debt can place significant stresses on families and individuals.

The amendment would go some way towards addressing the mischief of not only indiscriminate marketing—all marketing is indiscriminate to a degree because it is pumped out to everyone—but indiscriminate direct mail marketing. It is the stuff that lands on someone's doorstep with no check having been made on who that person is. I mentioned in Committee that I received correspondence from HFS. The letter was headlined "Debt Busting Loan". I do not understand the concept of a debt-busting loan; it seems to be a debt-increasing loan to me, but clearly the approach works. HFS sent me another letter. The first was sent to my apartment in London and the second to my house in Wales, to ensure that I got the message that I could take out a loan and that it had already approved a loan. I had to answer only a few questions, and not a question about the amount that I earn every year or one about other debts. One question was whether I was 18 years of age. I was slightly flattered—well, very flattered.

If an organisation is sending a letter asking someone to prove that they are over 18, by definition it does not know whether the person is over 18. I believe that that contravenes the banking code of conduct, and in turn suggests that the organisation should not be marketing to people who are under 18. It suggests that it is feckless about establishing to whom it is marketing. It may be legitimate to use poster boards or to advertise on television or radio—obviously that type of marketing is less discriminate—but with direct mail, the organisation should be required to ensure that it has established who it is marketing to.

I want to ensure that the hon. Gentleman mentions contact by telephone as well. MBNA is a company that uses a firm in Bangalore to phone people to ask them to take out credit cards. How much research has been carried out in Bangalore when such a contact is made? Unfortunately, I have never been asked whether I am under 18.

Not even when that was the case?

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. When I telephoned the Royal Bank of Scotland two weeks ago to confirm that I had received my new debit card, I was asked whether I wanted another credit card. The person on the phone knew that I already had a credit card, but I was asked whether I wanted another. It seems that some of the credit card companies have an addiction. They want to push more and more cards at us. I sometimes wonder whether people are being paid by results. In other words, people are paid more if they persuade people to take out more cards, regardless of whether it would be sensible to do so.

New cards are issued, and people used to think that the purpose of a credit card was to buy a product. However, after three or four days of issue, a phone call is made, saying, "We can transfer the entire credit limit from this card to your bank account today by authorisation from you over the phone." That is making it incredibly easy for people to get into difficulties—I suspect much, much too easy.

I agree. The second half of my conversation with the Royal Bank of Scotland was to do precisely that. That is the telephone version of the unsolicited blank or filled-in cheque. I am sure that hon. Members will know about receiving a credit card cheque through the post. The individual thinks that it is probably more likely to be a credit card loan. He or she probably does not expect that interest will be charged from the moment that the cheque is paid into their bank account. The process deliberately makes taking out extra loans too easy, in my understanding.

The hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) referred earlier to cheques that have a certain amount filled in, but I believe that blank cheques are even worse. On my HFS loan card I could actually fill in the amount on the blank cheque with whatever figure I wanted. I could pay it into my bank account and, lo and behold, from that moment I would be paying interest at a fairly high APR.

All these problems are endemic in the industry, which needs to roll itself back from this position—partly for its own good, because there may come a time when interest rates rise and people find it much less affordable to sustain their present level of debt. The Minister rightly argued earlier that, as a percentage of people's income, the amount of money expended on servicing debt is now, because of lower interest rates, considerably less than it was 10 years ago. The truth is that if interest rates did have to rise for whatever reason, many people would find themselves hideously exposed, and the industry would find itself exposed, too. That is why the industry should do some of its own rolling back. Of course, many in the industry have written to us to say that they have already done some rolling back. The new banking code, which comes into practice this spring, imposes some further restrictions on what companies should or should not do.

I will not support the amendment because of what I suspect the Minister will argue. I expect him to say that it would conflict with the unfair relationship clause, which we debated in Committee. I am nervous about the fact that so much is hanging on a fairly slender thread. We do not really know whether it will be a slender thread or a hefty rope capable of sustaining the weight. My metaphors are becoming too complex nowadays, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I feel that I should draw my words to a conclusion.

I hope that the Bill will manage to operate in precisely the manner outlined by the hon. Member for Gordon and that it will help to roll back these practices. I believe that they currently expose people to excessive risks. They are irresponsible and feckless. We want a mature industry that provides people with opportunities to manage debt responsibly, and we need to ensure that that is made possible for everyone in the country.

I want to deal mainly with amendment No. 22, which relates to retrospection, but I also want to add a few thoughts about our debate on amendment No. 21, which was ably moved by the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce). He touched on many important issues and I agree that it is far too easy for people to take out credit these days.

The hon. Member for Gordon rightly drew attention to the fact that when a £150,000 mortgage is applied for, every nook and cranny will, quite rightly, be examined. It is a major commitment on behalf of the lender, as well as the borrower, which is why such an application is so seriously looked into. Unfortunately, that does not happen when someone wants to borrow just £3,000. I know from private conversations that lenders do not really look into the proposal too seriously. If they lost one or two lots of £3,000 here and there, they would still be making enough out of the interest on the many other lots of £3,000 for it not to matter that much. They tend not to bother too much about applications for relatively small amounts. The problem is, of course, that people can borrow £3,000 from this company, another £3,000 from that company, and so forth. One lot of £3,000 is not very much, but when they are all added together, it could represent a significant debt for an individual.

I well understand how easy it is for people to get into great difficulty. While we were debating the Bill in Committee, I recall hearing a report on the "Today" programme—a very sad report that featured a widow whose husband had committed suicide because he had got into terrible debt as a result of having 22 credit cards. That really set the tone of debate in Committee. Tragic though it was, the radio programme did a useful service for our considerations, but we all wished that the tragedy had not happened in the first place.

I was concerned about the issue and tabled an amendment on data sharing. Unfortunately, it was not selected, but it would have required many changes to the Data Protection Act 1998, which we are not considering; we are amending the Consumer Credit Act 1974. In it I sought to make it easier for lenders to share information on potential debtors. The credit reference agency carries many details on people who have defaulted or been late with payments or who have county court judgments. That is fine, but often they do not share information on how many credit cards people have or what their level of income is. That is where the problem begins because it is so easy to take out many credit cards.

I do not wish to add to the anecdotes, but over Christmas I had such an experience. I bought several items from Marks and Spencer. I was not paying much attention to what I was doing. It was hot in the store and I just wanted to get out and get home. I ended up signing up to what I thought was just a points card but turned out to be a MasterCard, with which I could instantly spend up to £7,500 anywhere in the country. I did not ask for that or want it. That is how easy it is to take out a credit card. The minimum number of checks was done. Presumably a credit check was carried out, but the store had no idea whether I had other credit cards and no proof of my income. I am probably reasonably safe with that credit card, but many people are not. In my amendment I wanted to enable lenders to have access to information in that situation.

If I may, I should like to help the hon. Gentleman on data sharing. I understand the principle of what he was trying to achieve, even if I do not understand why it was not ruled in order. I received a draft paper from the Financial Ombudsman Service on issues surrounding data sharing. Officials are currently working closely on it with stakeholders. We believe that data sharing is a necessary and important means of ensuring responsible lending. I put that on the record so that the hon. Gentleman knows that work is being carried out on the issue.

The Minister is as helpful as ever. We have made enough points on that amendment, and I agree with him in principle.

Amendment No. 22 relates to retrospection with particular respect to the unfair test which replaces the extortionate test in the 1974 Act. We approve of the change of test of an agreement's legality from extortionate to fair. It fits with the reasonable requirement and test of English law—"reasonable" being the most important word in English law. Given the nature of this business, it is possible that some retrospection is necessary. For example, is it not the case that a respectable company would only ever enter into what could be considered a fair agreement with an individual? If an unfair agreement continues to run, is it not right that the courts should be allowed to look at it and bring to an end the suffering of the weaker party? I accept that there are some reasons for retrospection.

Several problems result, however. Philosophically, legislation is not normally retrospective. Indeed, it is a principle of legislation that it should not be retrospective because it is unfair in itself for someone to be fined or punished or have their business disbanded because some years previously they behaved in a manner that complied with the law then, but the law has subsequently changed. As the Finance and Leasing Association has said, applying laws retrospectively is equivalent to recording a motorist driving 40 miles an hour on a 40 limit road in 1995, but fining that motorist in 2005 because the speed limit has subsequently been reduced to 30. That sums it up. As all students of history will agree, figures of the past should be judged by the standards of the times in which they lived, not by the standards that exist now.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is unfairness throughout the financial services and that the code of practice relates to that? The concept of fairness exists, and the industry is trying to do something that we resisted in the discussion on interest rate ceilings. If the test is tightly defined, there may be omissions, and vulnerable consumers may be left in a worse position.

I am grateful to the Minister, but I do not entirely accept that putting something on the face of the Bill means that something is left out. I suppose that by definition it is, but it is possible to put on the face of the Bill some examples of what the courts might want to give credence to. That does not mean that the courts cannot look at other things as well. Many Acts of Parliament contain clauses that end by saying, "and the Secretary of State shall do whatever else he thinks fit"—I paraphrase, but I think we all recognise that such a provision appears in very many Acts of Parliament. I think it is called a Henry VIII clause or something like that. So I do not accept that stating some examples of what the court should take into account means that it cannot take into account other things.

To summarise, I stress that we welcome the change from extortionate to unfair. We accept that some retrospection is necessary—perhaps even desirable—in this type of legislation, but we do regret the lack of detail as regards what constitutes an unfair agreement. We also regret the fact that retrospective legislation is effectively being introduced by the courts, and possibly the OFT and Ministers, but not Parliament. That is the point. It is, as I said in Committee, "a double whammy". It is retrospective legislation, introduced other than by Parliament. That cannot be the right way of carrying out what is generally appropriate legislation, and therefore I would ask the Minister to reconsider his approach in this respect.

I shall be brief. When I took the Consumer Credit Bill through Parliament in 1974, I did not expect to be able to stand here 31 years later discussing its amendment. I am amazed that it has lasted quite so long, and indeed that I have lasted quite so long—politically, I mean, not physically.

Too long.

In which respect?

The Act.

I have every sympathy with what the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) said, and the spirit of the debate so far, but it seems to me that we are choosing the more difficult alternative of making increasingly complex definitions of what is fair without trying to cut through the knot.

When I was taking the 1974 Act through Parliament, I appalled the credit reference agencies by announcing that for the first time they were going to be subject to the law of libel. At that time they literally depended on gossip—the local milkman, the local bread delivery man and so on—without verification. I remember being asked to go to Croydon to discuss it with them. I put it to them that if they could not get their act together, it was for them to bear the consequences; it was not for me to exempt them. In fairness, despite all their protestations that the credit reference agency industry was about to collapse, they actually did get their act together, have become very professional, and could become more professional.

I hope that you will bear with me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if you think that I am straying slightly from the amendment—I will be very brief. It seems to me that data sharing by the credit industry with the credit reference agencies is the way of cutting through the complexities of ever more amendments stating what is fair and what is not, trying to meet the manoeuvrings of the industry. Because if there is a focal point at which information is available, from which one is expected to obtain information on creditworthiness, and that body has collectively what no individual card issuer has—a knowledge of what other cards a customer has when he applies for his 50th or 60th or second or third—it would seem to me that that is the way through. I know that I have a very old-fashioned approach to legislation, but if it were me, I would be looking to credit reference agencies as a way of short-cutting to the objectives that we all hope to achieve.

That is all I want to say; my apologies to the Minister for delaying him.

I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) is in his place, and I congratulate him on the 1974 Act, which has stood the test of time. I understand that it took nearly six years to put that Act together. I spoke earlier about the maturity of the credit industry. Who would have recognised, when my right hon. Friend introduced that legislation, that the availability of products would change so dramatically? I shall refer later to the data sharing that my right hon. Friend talked about.

I want to speak briefly to Government amendment No. 8, which is a minor technical amendment to clarify the wording of proposed new section 140A(4) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The new wording is more precise and makes it clear that the court would be able to apply any provisions where all or any of the parties had no further duties under a credit agreement covered by the new unfair relationships provisions. The amendment will not alter the test or change the circumstances in which the provision applies to agreements. It will clarify the wording to improve understanding.

I understood clearly where the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) was coming from when he outlined the proposals in his amendment No. 21. He spoke about marketing techniques and the need to provide education all the way through school about handling money and developing ideas about it, and it is amazing to me that although we teach youngsters about everything, money and how to handle it is not at the forefront of that. A lot of work is being done on that, not least with the new financial inclusion fund.

An aspect of the Bill that I am passionate about is the momentum that we have developed, through the White Paper and surrounding issues, and the fact that there is an acceptance that things must change. We affect people's lives. The hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) raised the issue of the "Today" programme and the unfortunate case of the man who committed suicide. I have, as a Consumer Minister, had too many approaches for my liking from hon. Members with constituents who have had great difficulties and in some cases have committed suicide because of the spiral of debt that they have got into. Surely we have a responsibility to promote legislation to help to avoid that.

The industry must have a job to do. The sentiments of the hon. Member for Gordon are right and proper. Perhaps he will expect me to say that the wording of the amendment is not quite right—I shall come to that a little later—but the message from all hon. Members is clearly that the industry must look at its marketing techniques and its responsibilities.

We can and will pass legislation, and we try to do that in a way that is as business-friendly as possible, but supports consumer groups and consumers. The industry has a major role to play. The availability of credit is important to all the groups that we have mentioned, but it must be available on a responsible basis. The Bill will enable us to look at instances in which the industry does not operate properly.

Data sharing is vital. At conferences that I have attended, the industry has raised the point that the Data Protection Act 1998 and other factors prevent the sharing of information, with, for example, credit reference agencies. I have made it clear that, as I have said already today, the 1998 Act should not be used as a barrier to the sharing of that information. I am pleased that work has been carried out with organisations such as the Finance and Leasing Association, that members of the Association for Payment Clearing Services agreed data-sharing principles in September 2004, and that the DTI has been discussing further measures to improve current levels of data sharing within the credit industry.

As the Minister, I shall, as far as I can, ensure that we pursue the industry to honour its commitments to ensure that people cannot accumulate debts of low amounts on many different credit cards; I do not think that is acceptable.

Clause 19 is wide enough to allow the courts to take into account the factors that the hon. Member for Gordon listed, as well as any other relevant matters. Therefore, amendment No. 21 is unnecessary. The unfairness test is concerned not with specific types of behaviour but with the unfairness of the relationship between the debtor and the creditor. It allows the courts to decide on the basis of the widest possible range of behaviour without being constrained by market practices or issues of concern. We want the test to be able to deal with the ingenuity of those seeking to exploit and harm consumers. Therefore, the court can consider the types of practice that the hon. Gentleman identified, and can provide remedies when such practices make the relationship unfair.

The transitional period may give businesses time to adjust, but the question is—adjust to what? That is not in the Bill.

I fear that we will disagree on this issue. Let me move on and see whether the following helps the hon. Gentleman.

As the transitional period will last for at least 12 months after commencement, existing agreements will not be subject to the new test for at least two years after Royal Assent. However, that is not set in stone; we will consult on whether the period should be extended. It is important to realise that provisions will not apply to agreements that come to an end before the completion of the transitional period. I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern about the effect of the new unfair relationships test on existing agreements, but the position that we have reached is not without precedent. When the extortionate credit test was enacted in 1974, it applied to all agreements whenever they were made. The new test, as I have said, does not do that. Moreover, the current test does not allow consumers to challenge post-agreement conduct effectively.

The Minister refers to the 1974 Act, and yes, it was retrospective—but my point is that the items with which businesses had to comply were in that legislation. They have been repealed and replaced with nothing. That is my objection to the retrospective nature of this Bill.

They have not been replaced with nothing; they have been replaced with the unfairness test. I will resist until the end, and will not give a prescriptive list of circumstances.

Go on.

Despite my hon. Friend's plea, I will not give a definitive list, because that would undervalue the test.

It is not in the Bill.

As I have tried to explain to the hon. Gentleman—in Committee and this afternoon—the concept of unfairness is enshrined in many areas of financial services.

It is not in the Bill.

The courts will be able to reflect and consider the issue of unfairness. The concept is well established, for example, in the banking code and the mortgage code, subscribers to which are instructed to act fairly in all their dealings. The Financing and Leasing Association's code of practice states that its members promise to

"act fairly, reasonably and responsibly in all our dealings with you",

and the Financial Services Authority requires the businesses that it regulates to treat customers fairly.

Is not the truth of the matter that if businesses are uncertain or nervous about whether a product that they are about to sell, or a marketing process, such as direct mail marketing, in which they are about to engage, might be unfair, they would probably be best advised not to proceed?

That was a better attempt to get me to say yes. I hear what my hon. Friend says.

I have tried to show that we have consulted fully on the Bill and I have left the door open to further consultation with the industry. I do not think that amendment No. 22 will take us further forward, and I ask the hon. Member for Tewkesbury not to press it. I also ask the hon. Member for Gordon to withdraw amendment No. 21, although I accept and understand the principle of what he wants to achieve.

I appreciate the Minister's response and the terms in which it was couched. I did not say so when I introduced it, but I regard the amendment as probing. In fact, I agree completely with him about the unfairness test and the desire not to qualify it. On the other hand, I believe that when passing a Bill that updates 30-year-old legislation, it is important to have a proper debate about how it should be applied. In our debates, we are trying to give the authorities that are to implement the legislation some idea of our expectations regarding its application. The Minister is in a particular position, in that what he says carries some judicial force, whereas what the rest of us say has no consequence, but I am optimistic enough—some might say naive enough—to believe that the authorities that apply the legislation in such a specialist area will read the Committee proceedings and our debates to inform themselves about the thrust of what we are trying to achieve.

Without putting words in his mouth, I think that the Minister has, in essence, gone as close as he can—without restricting the test's application—to stating the Government's view that consideration of the unfairness test should take on board the issues that have been raised. He knows that my colleagues and I favour the principle of applying the duty to trade fairly, or the duty not to trade unfairly, much more widely. In the present context, I agree with him: there is no point in having a test and then surrounding it with qualifications.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree, however, that there is a difference between the 1974 Act being retrospective when the details of what was required were on the face of the Bill, and the present Bill being retrospective when the details are not on the face of the Bill? Is it not wrong to pass retrospective legislation when the details of its application are to be left to the courts to establish in a piecemeal manner?

The hon. Gentleman puts me in a slightly difficult position—indeed, he is trying to do so, which is fair enough. As a general principle, I am not in favour of retrospective legislation. The difficulty is that we are trying to change a culture. I examined the amendment that he tabled—a similar proposal came across my desk—but could not support it, not because of what I felt about retrospectivity in principle, but because I was worried that there would come a time when people involved in long-term credit agreements would see that all new agreements applied a completely different test, but their own could not be revisited because of a hangover from an Act dating back 30 years or more, which had, in effect, been repealed.

The Minister says that there will be a transitional period, which might be extended. Although I have reservations and I understand the concern voiced by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury, my feeling is that we have identified many things that the industry has not got right and that there is a spirit of compromise in operation. In principle, retrospectivity is not a good thing; on the other hand, we are trying to change a culture. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 8, in page 13, line 25, leave out 'one or more' and insert—

'all or any of the'. —[Mr. Sutcliffe.]

Clause 26 — Enforcement of agreements by unlicenced trader etc.

Amendments made: No. 9, in page 18, line 33, leave out 'business' and insert—

'consumer credit business or a consumer hire business (as the case may be)'.

No. 10, in page 18, line 41 [Clause 26], leave out 'business' and insert—

'consumer credit business or a consumer hire business (as the case may be)'.

No. 11, in page 19, line 4, leave out 'business' and insert—

'consumer credit business or a consumer hire business (as the case may be)'.

No. 12, in page 19, line 21, at end insert—

'(8) This section (apart from subsection (1)) does not apply to a regulated agreement made by a person if by virtue of section 21(2) or (3) he was not required to be licensed to make the agreement.

(9) Subsection (1) does not apply to the enforcement of a regulated agreement by a person if by virtue of section 21(2) or (3) he is not required to be licensed to enforce the agreement.'.

No. 13, in page 19, line 22, leave out subsection (5). —[Mr. Sutcliffe.]

Clause 32 — Winding-up of standard licensee's business

Amendment made: No. 19, in page 25, line 20, leave out subsections (8) and (9) and insert—

'(8) The procedures set out in subsections (6) and (7) shall be carried out concurrently with the OFT's consideration of whether it should take the step falling within subsection (2).

(9) Accordingly, the OFT's determination of any application of the licensee shall be made at the same time as its determination to take the step falling within subsection (2).

(10) If an appeal lies from the determination of that application, the step falling within subsection (2) shall not be taken before the end of the appeal period in relation to that application and, in the case of a step falling within subsection (2)(a) or (b), section 29(4) shall apply accordingly.'.— [Mr. Sutcliffe.]

Clause 33 — Consequential amendments relating to ss. 27 to 32

Amendment made: No. 14, in page 26, line 10, leave out subsections (1) to (5) and insert—

'(1) Where—

(a) a consumer credit EEA firm makes an application for a standard licence, and

(b) the activities covered by the application are all permitted activities,

the OFT shall refuse the application.

(2) Subsection (3) applies where—

(a) a consumer credit EEA firm makes an application for a standard licence, and

(b) some (but not all) of the activities covered by the application are permitted activities.

(3) In order to be entitled to be issued with a standard licence in accordance with section 25(1) to (1AB) in relation to a type of business, the firm need not satisfy the OFT that it is a fit person to carry on that type of business so far as it would involve any of the permitted activities covered by the application.

(4) A standard licence held by a consumer credit EEA firm does not at any time authorise the carrying on of an activity which is a permitted activity at that time.'. —[Mr. Sutcliffe.]

Clause 35 — Charges for indefinite licences

Amendment made: No. 15, in page 29, line 15, leave out from 'on' to end of line 16 and insert

'such day as may be determined in accordance with provision made by regulations.'.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]

Clause 36 — Extension of period to pay charge for indefinite licence

Amendments made: No. 16, in page 29, line 34, leave out from 'made' to end of line 35 and insert—

'before such day as may be determined in accordance with provision made by the OFT by general notice'.

No. 17, in page 30, line 6, leave out subsection (5). —[Mr. Sutcliffe.]

Clause 52 — Power of OFT to impose civil penalties

Amendment made: No. 18, in page 44, leave out lines 12 to 17 and insert—

'rate for the time being specified in section 17 of the Judgments Act 1838.'.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]

Schedule 1 — Schedule A1 to the 1974 Act

Amendment made: No. 20, in page 57, line 45, at end insert—

'(4A) Where—

(a) the Tribunal disposes of an appeal against a determination to take a step falling within section 34A(2) of this Act, and

(b) at the time it made that determination, the OFT also determined an application under section 34A(6) in relation to that step,

the Tribunal may do one or more of the things mentioned in sub-paragraph (2)(a) to (e) in relation to the determination of the application.

(4B) The Tribunal—

(a) may exercise its power under sub-paragraph (4A) even if no appeal has been made against the determination of the application under section 34A(6); and

(b) in a case where such an appeal has been made, may exercise that power instead of disposing of the appeal.'.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]

Order for Third Reading read.

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

I would like to return briefly to the consumer credit White Paper, in which we said:

"We want a modern framework that encourages and rewards vigorous competition, innovation, choice and enterprise, while stamping out irresponsible and unfair lending practices."

I hope that hon. Members agree that the Government have produced a Bill that not only fulfils those commitments but in many cases goes beyond them. It is the keystone of the most ambitious reform of consumer credit legislation since the Consumer Credit Act 1974 was introduced. Its passage through the House has justified the Government's position on all counts. I would like to thank hon. Members from all parts of the House for their contributions. In particular, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Benton) for their effective joint chairmanship of the Committee. I am also grateful to the hon. Members for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) and for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce), as well as everyone else who served on the Committee.

I am extremely encouraged by the support that the Bill has received from consumer groups, the industry and Members from all parts of the House. That support is reflected in the speed with which it has progressed through Parliament. Second Reading provided an insight into problems experienced by both consumers and the industry. In Committee, we had discussions of more specific and detailed concerns. In our final debate, I would like to conclude discussion on matters of particular interest, including unfair credit relationships. Hon. Members will recall the extreme care that I took in explaining the concept of unfairness.

The Minister took excessive care.

Indeed. I have no intention of being drawn back to that point. The Government have addressed the issue with extreme sensitivity. We have considered extensive arguments made by people across the sector, and I believe that the Bill provides an effective solution. Hon. Members are well aware that the market has evolved quickly and know that it will continue to do so. We cannot predict future market changes, nor should we. The Government's solution provides comprehensive and flexible protection for consumers and for the industry both now and in the future.

We must ask ourselves some critical questions. Should the body that enforces the Consumer Credit Act have the power to investigate wrongdoing? Should consumers be able to operate confidently in the market, safe in the knowledge that they are dealing with responsible lenders? The answer to both questions is obviously yes.

As the Minister said, it is indeed an evolving market. I am pleased that he opened our debate on Third Reading by quoting the objectives of the White Paper, because the Bill is an excellent measure that goes a long way towards meeting those objectives. However, as that quotation made clear, the Bill tries to deal with irresponsible lending. The White Paper gave as an example of irresponsible lending the unsolicited issuing of credit card cheques. When we debated that practice in Committee, the Minister undertook to take action to end it. Now that we have reached Third Reading, does he believe that the Bill will achieve that outcome, and if not, does he have other means of achieving it?

If my hon. Friend can wait a few moments, I shall come to credit card cheques and what the Government intend to do about them. However, I pay tribute to him and to the Treasury Committee for their work in exposing the issue in the context of responsible lending.

The Bill provides a regime that is based on fairness for consumers and competition for the industry, and which gives regulators the powers they need to keep it that way. Those proposals are not a luxury addition to the Bill but are vital and necessary foundations on which to build a modern and effective consumer credit market now and in the future.

Unfortunately, misconduct will be found in almost any market, and the consumer credit market is no exception, so the Bill ensures that proportionate sanctions are available to the regulators. The importance of those sanctions is not simply that they punish wrongdoing; it is that they are a flexible deterrent to unscrupulous lenders, now and in the future.

If we enable the regulators to penalise misconduct, we must also enable consumers to resolve disputes for themselves. That means introducing a system that is cheap, fair and easy to use. The alternative dispute resolution system is all of those things. Not only will it empower consumers to act with confidence in the market, it will ensure stable competition throughout the credit sector, now and in the future.

Hon. Members will be aware how successful the Bill was in Committee. That was due not simply to the hard work of my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Watson), who unfortunately is not in his place, but to the contribution made by all hon. Members with the detailed knowledge that they brought to the Bill at all its stages.

I hope that the Government listened to what was said—and we shall continue to do so. That is highlighted by two additional commitments that I have made in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Plaskitt). In any market there are often key factors beyond even the control of the regulators—factors that have the potential to cause consumer detriment. I have acted on the wishes of many and have committed the Government to looking further into the issue of credit card cheques and their unsolicited nature, under secondary legislation. In addition, comments from consumer groups and Members from Scotland have prompted me to act on the issue of lay representation in Scotland. That is another example of the Government listening to and acting on what people say.

It does not matter where one lives or what one does, consumers should all have the same rights. I hope that I have clarified and reaffirmed the Government's position on some of the more significant points of the Bill. I have no doubt that we will revisit them further, both now and as the Bill progresses through the other place. I hope that it progresses through the other place as swiftly as possible, whatever the Prime Minister's thinking on the date of the general election. I would be sad to see the Bill thwarted in the other place, for whatever reason. The momentum that we have established is important. The industry, consumer groups and all those affected by the Bill understand the need for the discussions to continue. If the Bill were not enacted, that would be to the detriment of consumers, and the industry would not be clear, and would be unable to deal with its rogues.

The Bill is an important package of reform. It caps the work that has been done over the past four years and brings together the Government's proposals for a 21st-century consumer credit market. It delivers everything that we set out to achieve. It benefits consumers, industry and the regulators, it promotes responsibility and fairness across the sector, it encourages effective competition, and it allows for comprehensive and unbiased enforcement. I commend it to the House.

I pay tribute to the Minister for his steadfast conduct of the Bill on the basis of careful consideration and patient dealing with the questions raised. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson), who has worked diligently to ensure that the issues have been properly considered, as well as to all my right hon. and hon. Friends who have served on the Committee.

It has been just over 30 years since the last Consumer Credit Act. Since then the credit market has undergone a process of rapid and radical transformation. The liberalising reforms of the last Conservative Government not only opened up financial markets, but brought new opportunities and new sophistication to consumer behaviour. In general, and importantly in the context of this Third Reading debate, during the past 30 years consumers have become more and more powerful in driving the marketplace. Effective access to credit is indispensable to economic growth. It not only provides a way for people to manage their finances; it enables risk taking and entrepreneurialism, which in turn, via Government revenue, pay for schools and hospitals.

The present legislative framework governing the consumer credit market might have been adequate for a world in which only one type of credit card was available, but it is certainly not adequate for a world in which there now exists a choice between more than 13,000 such cards. In particular, it is apparent that the extortionate credit test provides, at worst insufficient, and at best unclear, protection to consumers. Indeed, only 10 cases have succeeded under that test since the Consumer Credit Act 1974 was passed.

As the legislation has become increasingly dated and unsatisfactory, the problem of consumer debt becomes more acute. I am sure that we all know from our constituency casework of debt-related problems tackled by citizens advice bureaux, which do an outstanding job, especially on managing debt that has become difficult or unsustainable, on behalf of our constituents. The number of problems with which the CABs deal has risen by 75 per cent. since 1997. Under the Government, the savings ratio has almost halved and, in 2004, household debt broke the £1 trillion barrier for the first time. As the Bank of England recently warned, with consumer credit running at approximately £1.5 billion a month and increasing by 15 per cent. every year, we are

"building up vulnerabilities for the long term".

For all the reasons that I have outlined, I made clear on Second Reading my strong support for a new consumer credit Bill to crack down on unscrupulous lenders, make credit agreements more transparent, and provide consumers with an effective means of redress for unfair credit agreements. However, the support of Her Majesty's Opposition was not—and never is—unconditional. There are genuine and important anxieties about the Bill's timing, the manner of its passage through Parliament, and the significant but somewhat ill defined powers that it will transfer from Parliament and thereby from people—the consumers—to a policing regulator, who, by definition, is remote from consumers.

The Prime Minister described the Bill as

"an important piece of legislation",

but the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was not here either for today's debate or on Second Reading. However, like me, she was here for Trade and Industry questions earlier today. Her absence is therefore by choice. Of course, I cast no aspersions on the Under-Secretary who is in his place, but we must draw our own conclusions about why the Secretary of State felt that it was not important to present and defend her Bill, which the Prime Minister described as

"an important piece of legislation".

I fear that the problems of consumer credit and debt are too low a priority for her to trouble to come to the House and take responsibility for the measure.

Although I am conscious of the strong tone of happy consensus on many aspects of the measure—I am not necessarily about to fracture that spirit—it is our duty to point out when things are not what they seem and especially when they are not supportable. The delay in introducing the Bill to tackle the menace of unsustainable delay can be explained by the fact that the Government are demonstrably incapable of maintaining spending in line with the growth of the economy, with the inevitable tax rises that that would entail should they be re-elected. I hope that that will not happen.

The delayed and subsequently somewhat hurried timing—I am sure that that has nothing to do with the proximity of a general election—is at least partly because the EU Commission has just announced a consultation on a new draft consumer credit directive. Consumer credit legislation is like buses: you wait for more than 30 years for a new law and then two come along at once. Moreover, the proposed new directive will cover unfair terms, contractual information requirements, licensing of creditors and credit intermediaries. The directive and the Bill therefore deal with similar if not identical issues.

Parallel legislative proposals from the UK Government and the EU Commissions hold a danger of creating a confused and duplicating legislative structure that places unnecessary burdens on business. That is an especially sensitive matter, given the Government's serious reservations, which I acknowledge, about the draft consumer credit directive. The Department of Trade and Industry's consultation on the directive, which was published last month, stated that the Government

"continues to have concerns with the current draft Directive. We believe that some of the proposals place unnecessary burdens on business."

It goes on to press for

"substantial amendments to specific provisions contained in the Directive to ensure an appropriate balance between costs to business and benefits to consumers".

One such provision that the Government would like deleted from the directive is the proposed duty on lenders to advise consumers of appropriate credit products. I hope that the Minister will confirm that the Government, for once, will stand up for British business and make it clear to the Commission that they will not implement the directive in the UK if the amendments that they seek are not adopted.

Is there not the greater danger that the DTI will not only adopt the directive but gold-plate it? The temptation in the UK is always to over-regulate, whereas our European competitors do the opposite—or, at the very least, adopt a directive without any gold plating.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but his intervention should not be interpreted as a criticism of the diligence and expertise of those officials who must deal with the implementation of EU directives into UK law. Although I do not want to go too far down this road, my hon. Friend's question is pertinent and deserves a direct answer. Reconciling administrative and legal systems in all EU member states presents a permanent challenge. In Britain, our legal system causes us to adopt an approach based on means as well as on ends. By contrast, member states in continental Europe have inherited legal systems based more on the Napoleonic code, which leads them to prescribe the ends and to leave the means to discretion.

The British approach causes us to gold-plate directives, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) said, and to over-implement them. That is becoming a menace, as it applies friction to the competitiveness of British business. The directive in question directly contradicts some of the proposals in the Bill, and it is important that we draw attention to that. I know that the Government are seized of that already, as they have made their representations on the matter known, but it is worth putting the issue on the record.

I forgive the hon. Gentleman for his attack on the Government, but the consumer credit directive is a serious matter. The first proposal was adopted in September 2002. In all our work on this Bill, we have kept in touch with the industry and monitored how it and other groups have felt about the proposals. However, the potential impact of the directive is outside the scope of the Bill. We had to decide whether to wait for the directive to win agreement among member states, or to get on with work on the Bill, given that 30 years had elapsed since consumer credit was last subject to legislation.

I understand why the Government have made the judgment that they have made, but I am sure that the Minister will accept that this is a matter of principle and that it is right, in a Third Reading debate, to ensure that it is placed on the record.

Representations were made to the Government during the consultation process, but the Minister will know that the industry is constantly in touch with members of all parties on these matters. That is understandable, as it sometimes feels that the consultation process with the Government does not carry great weight and that another approach has to be adopted to ensure that matters are given an appropriate airing. The tendency to gold-plate directives identified by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield, and the potential discord over implementation are worth putting on the record, not least so that those in the other place are aware of all the issues that have been raised in this debate when it is their turn to consider this Bill.

As I said, the burdens imposed by this Bill on the consumer credit industry are not insignificant. According to the Department of Trade and Industry's website:

"licence fees will approximately double to around £220 over five years for sole traders and to £550 for incorporated bodies . . . There are also new requirements for provision of post-contract information, which we estimate to be around £1,000 one-off for a small business, £5,000 for an intermediate business and £20,000 for a large business."

I am also concerned that implementing the provisions in the forthcoming EU consumer credit directive will further jeopardise one of the Bill's aims. I took note of the Minister's saying that the issues under discussion are, in his view, largely outside the scope of the directive as it is anticipated, but that the idea is to make it much easier to challenge unfair loan agreements. On that point, we coincide.

Already under this Bill, there are at least three ways of dealing with unfair or inappropriate lending practices that affect consumers. They can challenge unfairness through the new "unfair relationships" provisions in clauses 19 to 22. Under clauses 59 to 61, they can take disputes to the Financial Ombudsman Service for resolution. Alternatively, they can complain to the OFT or to their local trading standards authority, which, under the Bill, have enhanced powers to deal with lenders through a reformed licensing system.

I am not sure that the Government have necessarily considered the confusion that this array of options could cause for consumers. So I hope that the Minister will explain the basis on which consumers are expected to make an informed choice between the courts, the FOS, the OFT and their local trading standards authority. I hope that he will also confirm today that there are no plans to introduce further options for challenging unfair agreements, if and when the new directive is transposed into UK law. The current options in the Bill seem more than sufficiently widespread, and could already lead to lack of certainty and confusion.

It is possible to argue that the Government's motive in introducing this Bill and its rather rushed passage through Parliament are unimportant issues. Of course, people will draw their own conclusions, but given the need for such legislation and the general support for it from the official Opposition, from the minor political parties and from business organisations and consumer groups, should we not simply trust this Government, take their word for it and rubber-stamp the Bill? The answer, of course, is no: we cannot and we should not. It is not possible, in my view, to trust a word that this Government say any more, particularly given their addiction to presentation. Moreover, we must scrutinise the Bill as best we are permitted—in this House and in the other place—given this Government's command of the parliamentary timetable. We owe that to those who back the principle behind the Bill—as, indeed, do we—but who have serious and justified doubts about some of the detail, or lack of it.

In particular, the provisions relating to unfair relationships and the OFT's new licensing regime have given the consumer credit industry cause for concern. As I made clear on Second Reading, I share reservations about the wording of—if not the intention behind—the relevant parts of the Bill, and I also believe that both these provisions reflect this Government's potentially unsatisfactory habit of seeking to empower regulators in order to absolve themselves of all possible blame. This has the twin effect of encouraging regulatory creep—the flow of regulations has increased by 50 per cent. under Labour—and of dispersing and undermining proper parliamentary accountability.

The major Government regulators now spend three times the amount spent before Labour took office, with twice the number of bureaucrats. It is surely unacceptable that, on top of this, the regulators' regulator, the so-called Better Regulation Task Force—a highly questionable title—is forced to admit that there are now so many regulators that no one in government knows how many there are.

Returning to the "unfair relationships" provisions in clauses 19 to 22, it is surely a statement of the obvious to say that good regulation—not to mention the comparative "better regulation" favoured by the Government—should set out clearly and simply what is intended and what the obligations of business will be in order to meet the new requirements. The CBI has made clear its view:

"Clause 19, which sets out the substance of the new test, is too wide and too imprecise to bring about necessary certainty and clarity in the legislation. This is particularly when it is combined with Clause 22 (4) which states that when an agreement is challenged on the grounds of an unfair relationship it will be for the creditor to prove to the contrary. This is extreme and provides far too high a burden on traders."

This lack of clarity is also a serious problem for parliamentarians, who are unable to fulfil their democratic duty to scrutinise Government legislation, as well as for businesses, which face uncertainty as to their new obligations. For those reasons, I specifically asked the Minister on Second Reading for his assurance that OFT guidance on draft relationships—it is important to make it clear that I am referring to the guidance on draft relationships, not the guidance on fitness—would be made available before the Bill entered Committee. I would be happy if the Minister were to correct me, but as I understand it, although the OFT draft guidance on fitness was provided in Committee, the guidance on unfair relationships was not. According to the Library, where I checked yesterday, that guidance, which I was promised on Second Reading, was not available in Committee.

I hope that the Minister will produce that guidance. The matter is important, because it raises the suspicion that the OFT is not ready and has not thought the matter through. I am sure that the OFT is the last organisation that would want to embarrass the Minister, who wanted to make all the information available, and I hope that the explanation does not involve incompetence. We must see the draft OFT guidance on unfair relationships. My hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury used the guidance on fitness in Committee, and he has kept me fully informed.

Whatever the reason why the guidance on unfair relationships was not produced, it damaged our ability to scrutinise the Bill. The Minister is surrendering authority to a regulator that clearly feels no urgent duty to be accountable via him to this House and to the citizens, consumers and businesses represented by hon. Members. I am sure that the other place will focus on that issue, and if the OFT has still not lived up to the Minister's promise, their lordships will be justified in being highly critical and in considering delaying the passage of the Bill. I hope that a delay will not be necessary, but the matter will be taken seriously in the other place.

We all know that the absence of necessary detail makes for bad law, and that is also true of the retrospective implementation of the unfair relationships provisions for all existing agreements following a 12-month transitional period. As the guidance in the 1974 Act on extortionate arrangements is being repealed, until the new legislation is tested in the courts, companies have no clear idea of which adjustments they should make. I acknowledge the point about transitional arrangements, but the legislation is designed to enable companies in particular to achieve clarity and certainty, which is why the guidance should be on the face of the Bill.

The unsatisfactory provisions on extortionate credit are being replaced with, at least in the short term, a legal vacuum. The Council of Mortgage Lenders has said:

"This flies in the face of assurances from DTI as late as September 2004 that while retrospection would be adopted in principle, lenders would not be financially liable for mistakes occurring before the Bill became law."

Members of the Committee and I have received numerous representations in the same vein from across the consumer credit industry.

The amendments tabled by the official Opposition would have avoided uncertainty for businesses by ensuring that the provisions would not apply to agreements which were established before the Bill's enactment, and I regret the fact that that the Government did not have the good sense to adopt them. I am confident that their lordships will study the advocacy of my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury in representing those concerns and in providing the Government with an opportunity to restore clarity, fairness and balance in line with the long-held principle and custom that legislation should not, save in the most exceptional cases, apply retrospectively. I foresee that that particular issue will consume much of their lordships' time and expertise, and it could delay the passage of the Bill, although I hope that the Government will avoid that outcome. That serious concern remains unresolved, however, and it continues to generate many representations to me and my hon. Friend.

The OFT guidance on licensing is available, which is all the more the reason why the guidance on unfair relationships should have been available in Committee. The issue remains that the Secretary of State and the Government will have no direct influence over the OFT once the Bill has transferred powers away from this place. I am not often to be found arguing that Secretaries of State should be given further statutory powers, still less that they should do any more "nannying". However, it should not be forgotten that an independent regulator and a Department of state have very different remits. The Department of Trade and Industry has a responsibility to promote the health of the consumer credit industry and business competitiveness in general, while the OFT has a duty, and consequently a regard, only to protect the consumer. There are therefore consequences of transferring powers in the way proposed in the Bill.

I regret that the Government have resisted the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury that would have given the Secretary of State the right by order, subject to affirmative resolution, to vary guidance to the OFT, or issue further guidance, about the issuing of standard licences. Where guidance exists, it appears to be beyond accountability to Parliament; where it does not exist, there is no possibility of adequate scrutiny.

In Committee, the Minister told my hon. Friend that he did not entirely challenge the statement that the Bill was "wholly vague". That sounds to me like a polite way—the Minister is unquestionably polite—of partly accepting that the Bill is partly vague. I agree with that. I support the Bill on the basis that the present legislation is badly in need of revision, but I regret the fact that consumers, businesses and Members deserve and require more detail than has been provided in the Bill, particularly on its face. I am confident that the other place will carefully note those concerns, which centre on the Government's reluctance to publish the OFT guidance, at least in draft, in relation to unfair relationships. That is integral to proper consideration of the Bill. In addition, there are the Government's inadequate attempts to justify breaking from long held and well founded parliamentary convention not to legislate retrospectively so long as it is unclear what companies need to do.

I was struck by interventions during the last group of amendments on Report. The Minister was, in an adjective I used at the outset of my remarks, steadfast in resisting publishing a list of what companies have to do. He was supported by the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) in the suggestion that there is a cultural issue, which, at least in part, there unquestionably is, but it would be helpful to know whether he has a list that he thinks it would be unhelpful to publish or whether there is no list at all. If there is none, I am even more concerned that the Government are taking a deliberate risk and that it is being left to the courts to set benchmarks, standards and precedents. Inevitably, the difficulty will be that that will be piecemeal. We cannot predict what set of circumstances, what facts, and which plaintiffs and defendants—with what financial resources—will go all the way through to the courts.

I hope that the Minister will take note of that important consideration, and that it will get a broader airing in the other place. On that basis, and anticipating their Lordships' consideration, we are content to let the Bill proceed and do not wish to divide the House. We wish the Bill well, but we wish for further clarity and detail in future.

I congratulate the Government on an important Bill. From my constituency I know—and others in the House will feel the same—that all too many families and individuals have been caught in a vicious cycle of debt that has made ordinary family life impossible. Sometimes that may be their own fault, and sometimes there are feckless buyers and borrowers. However, in many instances the consumer credit industry has been reckless in the way in which it affords loans and hands out credit cards, making it all too tempting for people to run up debts that they cannot afford and that the credit card companies and loan providers did not know whether they could afford.

I am grateful to the Government for bringing forward the Bill and to the Minister for the way in which he has handled it. I also thank him for listening to much of our debate in Committee. Although we have not been able to tempt him down the road of being explicit about what he understands to be an unfair relationship, he has none the less made it fairly clear that he hopes that the law will be used robustly and that we will thus row back from the vicious cycle of more loans and debts that are doled out irresponsibly.

After listening to the speech made by the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien), I felt that he had not been kept well abreast of what was debated in Committee—perhaps he could have listened more carefully to his colleague, the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson). He inveighed against the Government, albeit in his usual charming way, by saying that unfair relationships are still too vague under the Bill, but he missed the point that the Minister tried to make. If we were to make the provisions too precise, there would be the danger that we would not row back from the culture of over-indebtedness that has grown up over the past 30 years.

The hon. Member for Eddisbury said that the Bill had been hurried through the House. The programme motion allowed for eight Committee sittings, but we needed only four to provide absolutely adequate scrutiny of the Bill. We had a full exploration of many important issues, so his comments were rather unfair. However, I think that it should be hurried through the next part of its passage so that it will arrive on the statute book.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

The hon. Gentleman has not been here for the rest of the day.

indicated dissent.

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has been here all day, but perhaps he has been hiding behind the Dispatch Box and I am being ungenerous to him, so I shall be generous and give way.

I might not have been in the Chamber all the time, but I have been present for a significant part of our proceedings. May I remind the hon. Gentleman that I sat through all the Committee? My biggest regret is that the Bill lacks any firm proposals to deal with the aggressive direct marketing of debt. It is all very well to talk about fairness and interest rates, but the Bill does not contain any firm measures to deal with the direct marketing of debt to vulnerable people who are at the end of their tether.

The hon. Gentleman was present for all of our Committee sittings, but he cannot have listened to our proceedings carefully, because we had a substantial discussion about that matter. We debated several amendments that I tabled.

rose—

Will the hon. Gentleman contain himself for a moment and let me finish my point?

There was considerable debate on the matter both in Committee and on Report—I am not sure whether he was in the Chamber for that part of our proceedings. The Committee and the House felt satisfied by the Minister's answer that the unfair relationship provisions would make it perfectly possible for the courts to strike down a credit agreement merely on the basis of irresponsible direct marketing that might have been entered into. We decided that it was better not to insert further measures in the Bill, but to leave the matter open. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman wants to intervene again; he looks satisfied by what I said.

The hon. Gentleman did table amendments and there was a great deal of debate. However, I would not say that all the points that were raised and debated will be dealt with by the measure to which the hon. Gentleman refers. The problem is addressed only partly. People are still worried about the aggressive direct marketing of debt, especially to the most vulnerable people in society.

The hon. Gentleman is right about aggressive direct mail marketing and I think that everyone in the Chamber hopes that the industry will correct its behaviour on that. Of course, it has made some movements this year by changing the banking code. However, I hope that courts will feel free to strike down agreements on the basis of unfair relationships due to the feckless and irresponsible way in which a product was marketed. That would be possible if it could be established that the credit card company or loan company had not determined an individual's ability to pay, or had used irresponsible marketing of any kind. I would gently point out to the hon. Gentleman that he did not table any amendments to that effect, so it is slightly difficult for him to argue on Report that the Bill is not adequate because the point had not been met.

I hope that the House of Lords will consider the Bill with adequate scrutiny, but swiftly. The two main periods of the year when credit card companies and loan companies are at their most aggressive in direct mail marketing are in the run up to the summer holiday period and at Christmas. I hope that we will not have to go through another summer holiday period and a Christmas without new legislation being on the statute book. That being so, I hope that it is possible for the Bill to pass through all its remaining stages in the other place in time for the general election, whenever that may be. Further, I hope that even the Lords Spiritual will consider that this is an important measure. I guess that what we are talking about, in their terms, is the sin of simony.

Several Members have mentioned the issue of extortionate rates of credit and the change introduced by the unfair relationship. I think that the entire House hopes that the Bill will roll back the vicious cycle of over-indebtedness. This is either a thin thread on which we are hanging a great deal of hope or, as it is to be hoped, the courts will take the Bill in earnest and ensure that it is a hefty rope that is able to bear the burden of our expectations.

The hon. Member for Eddisbury seems to be suggesting that the Bill will be yet another example of regulation in the context that the Government regulate too much. It is said that we have doubled the amount of regulations since being elected in 1997. However, so many of the measures that we introduce are necessary pieces of legislation. They are added to the list of regulatory measures by the Opposition, even though they support them. The deregulatory measures that we introduce are never taken into account. I believe that we are dealing with an area in which further regulation has been needed for more than a decade, and it is good that it has now been introduced. I hope that the Conservatives will not be wittering on about the over-regulatory nature of the Government.

My final point—

Good.

The hon. Gentleman is in a generous mood this afternoon.

My final point is that the proof of the pudding will be whether individual members of the public feel that they are able to take advantage of the proposed legislation. I believe that there will be a necessary process of providing information to the public.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I have already been told that I have been going on for too long by the hon. Member, who was whispering in the ear of the hon. Member for Tewkesbury, so I think that it is unnecessary for me to continue any further. Therefore, I will not give way.

We are completing the passage of the Bill and I think that we have had constructive debates on Second Reading, in Committee and throughout today.

Many of us have tried to explore the practicalities of how the Bill will work while understanding the process at the heart of the Bill, which is to apply the test of unfair relationship and then set a framework within which that will be determined, rather than to define the Bill in detail. The first problem, if we defined the Bill in detail, is that it would probably be three or four times as long, it would be prescriptive and it would be regulation by Parliament as opposed to regulation by practice, which I think most of us feel might be a better approach.

I suggest that regulation by Parliament, when we can debate it and when it is in the Bill, would be far better. I ask the hon. Gentleman to comment, if I am in order in doing so, on the closing remarks of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). For the courts to consider whether something is unfair, it will largely be up to the debtor to take the issue to court. I think that I am right in saying that. How many debtors will have the confidence to take a matter to court when it is not even established what will constitute an unfair relationship or agreement? Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me on that point?

My understanding is that the debtor can take the matter through various routes—through the Office of Fair Trading, through trading standards or through the ombudsmen. There are various mechanisms. Given the representations that we have had from a variety of interest groups, it seems that test cases will almost certainly be taken up on their behalf. I do not want to be contentious. I think that the Government have set a framework and an approach that is constructive and worth trying. In my view, it might well lead to lower rather than higher levels of regulation.

I have expressed the view before that the Office of Fair Trading often disappoints us, but we have tried to give that body a framework and a clear understanding of what the Bill is designed to achieve, which it should be able to apply. We hope that it will then produce the practical results that we want, which is to bear down on extortionate and excessive interest rates, to ensure a spread of information better to enable people to take appropriate decisions about credit, and to discourage lenders from reckless lending.

We have debated all those matters and amendments have been tabled and discussed. We concluded—as far as I am concerned, by consensus—that we want the unfairness test to make all that happen and we want better practice established in a relatively short period of time. The reality is that we either do it that way or write every single bit directly into the Bill. From the start, we all accepted, including Conservative Members, that the Bill provides a way forward. Conservatives have always had some reservations but, at the end of the day, we have to go one way or the other: there is no halfway house that could operate consistently. As I have already made clear, my party believes that the ideas of reasonableness and fairness have a wider application and I would contend that they should lead to lower rather than higher regulation. The practice will no doubt test the argument and I am pleased that we will be able to proceed in that way.

I should like to acknowledge the role of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge), who is unable to be with us today, but who made a useful contribution in Committee. On a slightly wider basis, I should also like to mention my hon. Friends the Members for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), a member of the Treasury Committee, and for Twickenham (Dr. Cable). They have both been active in making the case for this legislation to combat some of the abuses in the credit market and I appreciate their contributions.

I am rather intrigued by the style and approach of the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien), who comes to this place, rebukes the Secretary of State for not being present—I make no comment on that—and characteristically enters the debate towards the end, making a long and, frankly, boring Third Reading speech, which bore very little relation to our preceding debate. He then raises some issues that have been discussed—in particular, he expressed his concern about the need to review regulation. I tabled amendments expressly to deal with that matter, yet the hon. Gentleman's party tabled no such amendments. If he is so concerned about regulation, why did he not ensure that some amendments were tabled about it? [Interruption.] What I am saying is most certainly right.

I hope that the issue of regulation will crop up again in the other place. Although I cannot order my noble Friends what to do, I want to make it clear, on behalf of my party, that we support the Bill and want it to come into law. We certainly do not want it to get caught up in any of the other arguments that might well be happening in the other place. Such amendments as my noble Friends table will be designed simply to improve the Bill, and the matter of regulation and its review could be one that they will want to deal with further.

I believe that the spirit in which the Bill has proceeded through the House has been extremely constructive. Many of us do not look forward to taking a Bill through its Committee stage: it is not always the most inspiring part of our work and it can be time consuming and somewhat tedious. However, that has not been the case with this Bill. It has been an interesting and lively process throughout.

I should like to express my appreciation of the Minister's considerable courtesy. Throughout the different stages of the Bill, he made regular contact with me and, I am sure, with other Members, to inform us of progress and liaise in order to ensure the smooth progress of the Bill. We have all had the opportunity to express our views in an orderly and constructive way. I have to say that the Government could well use the Minister in other Departments—[Interruption.] What I am saying is that not every Minister is as diligent and attentive to taking a Bill through Parliament as this Minister has been. It is greatly appreciated. I believe that it helps the Government, the parliamentary process and—[Interruption.] I seriously believe that it helps us to produce better legislation and I am happy to put that on the record.

The Bill will make an important contribution. I shall follow the operations of its mechanisms with interest. I hope that they will be a model for how other matters can be dealt with. I repeat that the outcome should be lighter, not heavier, regulation. I hope that that will happen. It is a good Bill and I am happy to support it.

I should like to tell the House a story about several hundred Lords and an ordinary person. I have observed the hard work done here today and I have followed it in Committee, and before Members go off for their well-earned rest, they deserve to be tucked in with my story.

The story concerns an ordinary constituent, Mr. Frederick Jones, who wanted to improve his house, do a better job for his family and ensure that his wife was well looked after. To do that he borrowed £8,500. He now owes £123,000. That is not a fairy story; more like a nightmare.

Today's Third Reading gives Mr. Jones some hope of a happy ending. I will not give the House the full details of the long story, which stretches over seven or eight years to my certain knowledge. It has been a nightmare for Mr. Jones. He has done nothing to deserve the treatment that has been meted out to him. Indeed, he has paid the original loan many times over. I believe that he has paid back something like £24,000 already on an £8,500 loan.

The hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) referred to being stuck in Committee. Sometimes it is not the greatest parliamentary perk available. It is hard work. I hope, however, that Committee members feel that their work is valued, not just by other Members, but by many constituents, supporters of Conservative, Labour, Liberal and other parties, throughout the land. All hon. Members have stories similar to that of my constituent. Those people are right to look to us for redress. It is one of the main functions of the House. Committee members and Front-Bench spokesmen have done a great service in their hard-working Committee for many people.

Several hundred Lords who enter this story at a late point have a great deal on their plate. There are grand issues of state, matters of fundamental import to our democracy and great constitutional issues. As many colleagues have said today, we hope that they do not allow those issues to overtake and suffocate the good work that the Committee and the Chamber have done in progressing the Bill to Third Reading. I hope that the Bill does not become a party political football and get lost in the maelstrom of events in the other place.

One might say ungenerously that their Lordships may not be involved too much in this end of the loan market and that they might not have personal experience of taking out loans from, not a loan shark—let us call a shark a shark. One might stereotype them and say that they are not particularly interested in this. I refute and reject that. They are interested. I hope that, despite the significant issues on their plate, they consider the story of Mr. Jones while these high matters of state fly between the two Chambers. I hope that they consider seriously the possible rescue of Mr. Jones from his predicament.

The main reason why I ask their Lordships to think seriously about the issue relates to the important clause on retrospection. We all heard the Meadows family case. It was the fundamental case in reviving the possibility of a reasonableness test on whether a loan was extortionate. I welcome that, and it will be a great relief to many of my constituents. I hope that those who take out loans in future will have a strong rope—the bonds that have already been referred to—to help them through any difficulties.

Retrospection is important for another group of people who, like my constituent, went through the legal process prior to our consideration and prior to the Meadows case. They are entirely dependent on retrospection to obtain justice in their various cases. Much as my constituent wishes the Bill to go forward to help other people, he is dependent on retrospection, as are so many others, to help him to obtain justice. Just looking at the figures—a loan of £8,500 resulting in a debt of £123,000—is case enough to make to their Lordships, and I hope that they would consider that seriously.

Even as an outsider, in that I was not a member of the Committee, although I followed its proceedings carefully, I would like to place on record my thanks for the way in which it conducted its business, and I particularly thank the Minister, who did not just follow his brief but clearly cares about the issues concerning my constituent that I have been trying to raise with him for some time. I also thank the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) for the way in which he marshalled his arguments in Committee, and other members of the Committee.

The way in which the matter has been dealt with so far shows the exemplary way in which the House helps individuals throughout the country. I hope that their Lordships will take that responsibility equally seriously and give the Bill a fair wind so that it can help people like my constituent.

This Third Reading debate epitomises where we need to be with the Bill and its effect on our constituents. We all know constituents with tremendous debt and credit problems. I shall put the matter in context. We have discussed how matters have evolved since the 1974 Act with increased confidence because we have had a stable economy and people have been able to use credit as a tool for good. I referred earlier to how important it is to consider the amount of disposable income that is spent on personal debt.

The hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) said that debt is a problem and out of control. I do not accept that. The organisations involved in debt relief accept that a small number of people have debt-related problems, but that most people can handle credit as a useful tool. It is important to legislate 30 years on to ensure that the industry acts responsibly with appropriate marketing strategies and that consumers know the full facts of what affects them when they enter an agreement.

The hon. Member for Eddisbury knows that I always try to be open and to make information available. I am grateful for the comments of the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce). I have tried to keep Opposition spokespeople in touch with developments.

I did not have the chance to speak on Third Reading, but I thank the Minister for the open and courteous way in which he has treated the official Opposition throughout the Bill's proceedings.

In that spirit, if the hon. Member for Eddisbury feels that the issues he raised were not dealt with in Committee, I will write to him about the detail. He referred to guidance and the Office for Fair Trading, and I want to respond to that major point. I wrote to him before the Committee about the OFT and he was kind enough to take the point about its enforcement activity. I think that that is where the confusion has arisen, because we never intended the OFT to decide on the test of unfairness—it will respond to the outcome of the courts' decisions—so there is no list. There can be no list, for the reasons that I have stated, in terms of the unfairness test, but that is not to accept the point that there is no association with unfairness. As I have said throughout the debate, the variety of bodies are clear about what fairness and unfairness mean and I am sure that it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that we can work within that framework.

Does the Minister agree that the Bill in large measure depends for its bite on the effectiveness of the Office of Fair Trading? He will know, because I expressed this in Committee, that I, along with other hon. Members, have some doubts about the historic effectiveness of the OFT. That is particularly the case in relation to an inquiry on late payment charges—penalty charges on credit card holders, many of whom are on very low incomes—which the OFT has been conducting for nearly a year but for which it still cannot give a concluding date. After this debate, would the Minister, to give Members some confidence, make a point of ensuring that the OFT comes to a fairly speedy although considered conclusion to that inquiry?

I undertake to do that, but my hon. Friend has made the point and he knows that the OFT is regulated. It has to produce an annual report and it has regular meetings with the Secretary of State and me, and clearly we can raise these issues at those meetings. It was Parliament that decided to give powers to the OFT, through the Enterprise Act 2002 and the Competition Act 1998, and I hope that hon. Members will respect that.

The Bill is a vital piece of legislation and I hope that the other place will recognise that. It is true that there can never be unconditional Opposition support for Bills, but I think it is agreed that this has not been treated as a party political Bill, perhaps with the exception of the contribution by the hon. Member for Eddisbury, for understandable reasons. It has been generally a matter of consensus.

While we are having a tiny bit of knockabout, let us not lose sight of the fact that Her Majesty's official Opposition are not dividing the House on this issue and indeed are supporting the Bill's progress. I am grateful to the Minister for recognising that he might want to write in relation to some of the points that have been raised. Particularly as, for once, we are not in a time-limited Third Reading debate so we can explore these matters, it is important to state that the letter that he wrote to me, for which I was very grateful, following Second Reading, said that the OFT would provide a note to the House Library, before the Bill reached Committee stage, on the guidance that it would issue. The Library says that it never received that, which is why I was concerned. I am grateful for his explanation, and if it can be made available before the Lords stages I dare say that would help to clear the matter up.

In the same spirit, I will try to clarify the situation.

I do not want to detain the House, which has not even divided on this legislation. I am grateful for the amount of work that has been done by the Bill team and all those who have been involved. It is important that the House of Lords recognise the spirit of consensus in this place and bear that in mind when it addresses the issues that we have raised. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.