text_body: --- DIVISION TITLE ---
  
  Backbench Business - Consumer Credit and Debt Management - Powers to Cap Costs of Certain Unsecured Lending
  
  --- MOTION EFFECT ---
  
  @ MP voted aye to clarify that no new powers are required to cap the costs of certain unsecured lending.
  @ MP voted no against clarifying that no new powers are required to cap the costs of certain unsecured lending.
  
  The majority of MPs voted to clarify that no new powers are required to cap the costs of certain unsecured lending.
  
  
  The motion voted for by the majority of MPs in this vote was:
  
  : amendment (a), to leave out
  :"alongside measures to increase access to affordable credit, regulatory powers that put"
  :and insert
  :"measures to increase access to affordable credit; urges regulators to consider putting".
  
  This would have altered the motion under debate which was:
  :That this House
  :''notes'' with alarm recent evidence showing a fourfold increase in the use of payday lending since the beginning of the recession and that high cost credit lenders advanced approximately Â£7.5 billion to low and middle income consumers in 2008 alone;
  :''recognises'' the problems of financial exclusion, lack of financial and debt management education, lack of price competitiveness in the unsecured lending market and the near monopoly positions of many large lenders which contribute to the high costs of borrowing;
  considers that without action these factors could worsen family debt, poverty and financial difficulties to the detriment of the economic recovery; therefore 
  :''calls upon the Government'' to introduce, alongside measures to increase access to affordable credit, regulatory powers that put in place a range of caps on prices in areas of the market in unsecured lending which are non price-competitive, likely to cause detriment to consumers or where there is evidence of irresponsible practice; and
  :''believes'' that such caps should take account of the desirability of maintaining access to affordable and responsible credit, the likely impact on the supply of credit and the cost of enforcement, that they should be regularly reviewed and that they should use the total cost of credit, calculated on a yearly basis, to ensure that lender avoidance and distortions in price are prevented.
  
  
  The line which the amendment affected changed from:
  
  :''calls upon the Government'' to introduce, alongside measures to increase access to affordable credit, regulatory powers that put in place a range of caps on prices in areas of the market in unsecured lending which are non price-competitive, likely to cause detriment to consumers or where there is evidence of irresponsible practice;
  
  to:
  
  :''calls upon the Government'' to introduce, measures to increase access to affordable credit; urges regulators to consider putting in place a range of caps on prices in areas of the market in unsecured lending which are non price-competitive, likely to cause detriment to consumers or where there is evidence of irresponsible practice;
  
  The MP who moved the amendment, Robin Walker (Worcester, Conservative)[1], explained it saying its purpose was:
  
  :to clarify that the answer is not necessarily new regulatory powers.
  
  ==
  
  * [1] [http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2011-02-03a.1060.1#g1081.0 Robin Walker MP (Worcester, Conservative), House of Commons, 3 February, 2011]
  
  --- COMMENTS AND NOTES ---
  
  (put thoughts and notes for other researchers here)
  