One of the most frequent criticisms levelled at this Government is that it pushes through legislation with “indecent haste”. But the crackdown on the credit card industry trumpeted this week has been introduced with all the speed of a tortoise with swine flu.

Moves to ban companies from raising borrowers’ credit limits without their consent, outlawing unsolicited credit card cheques and restricting interest rate rises make perfect sense. They also look remarkably similar to the reforms demanded more than five years ago by that formidable ally of the consumer, the Treasury Select Committee — reforms that, at the time, were soundly ignored.

The picture since then has been far from pretty as our addiction to credit has spiralled out of control. When the committee’s damning report into the “deceitful and misleading” practices of credit card companies was published at the end of 2003, personal debt stood at about £900 billion. Now it is more than £1.4 trillion.

The committee’s proposals alone might not have stopped us going on this borrowing binge. Consumers have to take some responsibility for their actions. However, it would at least have removed some of the temptation to grab what we could not afford.

No doubt the Government will argue that it did not act earlier because it had more important things to deal with. Depressingly, though, it looks as if it was willing to turn a blind eye when borrowing was fuelling the economy. Only now, as consumers try desperately to rein back their debt, has it plucked up the courage to take up the cudgel.

Even now, the Government’s bravado is still in question. The only part of the Consumer White Paper that will definitely go ahead is the ban on unasked-for credit card cheques. However, that is unlikely to be introduced until next year at the earliest.

All the other proposals have been put out for consultation, and consumers are going to have to wait until next year before they will know which will be given the green light. But if the Government believes that its measures are in the best interests of the public, why the delay?

In the meantime, credit card lenders will be mobilising all their might to convince ministers that a clampdown will threaten consumer choice. The Finance & Leasing Association, the arch apologist for the credit card fraternity, has already climbed on its soapbox to warn that this “torrent of new regulation” will have “serious implications for consumers”.

There is only one reasonable response to such claims: bunkum. While ministers have debt at the front of their minds, they should push for even heavier regulation.

Most of the measures in the Consumer White Paper focus on stopping consumers from racking up problem debt in the first place. It is weaker on help for overindebted consumers, for whom such protections are already too late. But, arguably, this is where tighter, or at least clearer, regulation is needed even more urgently.

With about four million people expected to seek debt advice this year, business for companies offering to help to reduce or wipe out consumers’ debts is booming. However, regulation of the advice that they give is surprisingly lax.

The relationship between the debt adviser and customer is one entirely based on trust: you hope that you are being advised properly, but really haven’t a clue whether you are. It is an extraordinarily murky world, given that the guidance provided can transform a person’s life.

Go to one debt adviser and you might be told that an individual voluntary arrangement is right for you. Another might tell you that a debt management plan is the way forward. An increasing number of people (see graph) are being advised that bankruptcy is the best way out.

Each can work, but only if it is the right solution for your individual circumstances. Regulation and standards for debt advisers already exist, but the current set-up is a mess. The Office of Fair Trading issues guidance and has the power to fine or remove licences to operate. The Debt Managers Standards Association, the trade body, has its own voluntary code of practice. The Ministry of Justice is also involved, but there is no evidence that any of them are policing the advice system adequately.

Debt advisers should be brought under one set of rules, to be enforced by a single regulator. There should be clear precepts, not only covering the advice given, but also to ensure that the client understands how much is being paid to the adviser and whether this comes directly out of the client’s pocket or as “commission” from the lender.

The Financial Services Authority would seem the natural body for the job, given that debt managers are a branch of the financial services industry. However, given that the City watchdog is already buckling under its existing workload, perhaps appointing the Ministry of Justice would make more sense.

Returning to the White Paper, one of the plans mooted is an online “self-help toolkit” to help to reduce the time that people need to spend with a debt adviser — from about five hours to 90 minutes. It is a commendable idea, but only if consumers can be sure that the advice they receive is the best.