Consumer Credit

HC Deb 02 April 1998 vol 309 cc1409-10

16. Dr. Vis

What plans she has to consult consumer groups about reforms to consumer credit legislation. [35988]

Mr. Nigel Griffiths

I issued consultation documents in February and March to, among others, the National Consumer Council, the Consumers Association and the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux.

Dr. Vis

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Is he aware that millions of people throughout the country are grateful to the Government for the work that they are doing on consumer protection after 18 years of virtual absence of such protection? Will my hon. Friend comment on what he might have in mind concerning mortgages, especially with regard to non-status lenders?

Mr. Griffiths

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support for the policies that we are pursuing. As for non-status lenders, we are increasing the financial limits that are governed by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 from £15,000 to £25,000 to ensure that many more people are offered the protection of the Act, including those who may be subject to the worst mis-selling practices of the mortgage companies at the lower end of the market.

Mr. Hawkins

The Minister is aware from work that we did together during the previous Parliament on a cross-party campaign of my long-standing involvement in consumer credit issues. Will he confirm that in the reforms that he is talking about there will be a concentration on promoting best practice, and that the Government will ensure that praise is given to those major financial institutions that have managed to promote the use of plain English in documents for consumers while staying within the sometimes necessarily complex provisions of consumer credit legislation?

Mr. Griffiths

I am obviously grateful for all the support that we have for plain English and for ensuring that unfair contracts are not allowed to be foisted on consumers. I welcome the action that the Office of Fair Trading took specifically on unfair contracts in respect of one company that was peddling mortgages in a way that was found not to meet the highest standards that the House would expect.