Clause 22 - Further provision relating
Consumer Credit Bill
4:45 pm
Mr Laurence Robertson (Shadow Minister, Economic Affairs; Tewkesbury, Conservative)
I beg to move amendment No. 24, in clause 22, page 16, line 6, leave out 'alleges' and insert 'demonstrates'.
I was concerned by the word ''alleges'', because it is easy to allege without substantiation. In discussing on the previous clause, I spoke at great length about being clear as to what was an unfair agreement. The subsection that I seek to amend states:
''If, in proceedings referred to in section 140B(2), the debtor or a surety alleges that the relationship between the creditor and the debtor is unfair to the debtor, it is for the creditor to prove to the contrary.''
The question is whether that shifts the burden of proof. I understand that the Minister will respond by saying that it does not, but it depends: if a creditor takes the matter to court, that is one thing, but for a debtor to take the matter to court is quite another with regard to the burden of proof. However, if the debtor only has to ''allege'' that it is unfair in order to require the creditor to prove to the contrary, that is not a strong enough word. There must be some demonstration from the person who has taken the matter to court that it is unfair. Otherwise, there could be frivolous claims.
The Bill seeks not necessarily to achieve anything for consumers or for lenders, but to achieve fairness in dealings. To ''allege'' something is a bit weak, and I would rather replace that with ''demonstrate''.