| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Andrew Tyrie (Chichester): Will the Minister say whether the Labour party in opposition ever pressed for carry-over provisions to be introduced?
Mr. Tipping: The introduction of such provisions is one of those matters that the House must consider very carefully indeed. For my part, I have long advocated the notion of carry-over. As I said, the Financial Services and Markets Bill has satisfied the conditions for carry-over set by the House.
The Government gave the earliest possible notice of their intention by announcing at the time of last year's Queen's Speech that they would seek agreement to carry the Bill over.
Mr. Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham):
Does the Minister think that carry-over would have been necessary if the original draft Bill, which was published
Mr. Tipping:
The Bill is a complex measure, and it has the support of the City. Clearly, such Bills can be improved by parliamentary scrutiny, and I am delighted that this Bill was able to benefit from new procedures. A Joint Committee was able to look at the Bill and make recommendations, many of which have been accepted.
Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham):
The Minister's emollient style--it resembles that of a good general practitioner--is almost universally admired in the House. It seems, however, not entirely to atone for the relative weakness of his argument. Will the Minister reflect on the fact that, if the logic of his answer to my hon. Friendthe Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton)--that a good and complex Bill can be improved by scrutiny--is pursued too far, it may come to justify rolling over every legislative measure that the Government introduce to the House?
Mr. Tipping:
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his generous comments--emollience in a great dose. For my part, I admire the hon. Gentleman's more usual rough and ready style. Individual Bills must be judged on their merits. The Government do not seek to carry over a host of Bills to the next Session. We made it clear at the beginning of the current Session that the Bill was complex and that we would seek to carry it over.
Parts of the Bill were published in draft form in July 1998 and April 1999. The Joint Committee was set up to consider the draft Bill in March. It conducted a thorough examination, and the Government have agreed many of its recommendations. The Financial Services and Markets Bill is detailed and complex. It has been improved by the Joint Committee, and I expect further improvements to be made by the Standing Committee and during the remaining parliamentary stages.
Mr. Loughton:
If such great consideration and so much time was given, why had the Joint Committee less than two months to complete its deliberations before the deadline for the first report? The Committee was limited to looking into only six areas among the 367 clauses of the Bill. If the Government offered time so generously, why was the Committee, which was so important and which did such a good job, not given more time for scrutiny?
Mr. Tipping:
I thank Lord Burns and the Joint Committee for their work on the Bill. My impression is that the Committee examined the key points and made helpful and valuable adjustments to the Bill, many of which the Government have been prepared to consider. The Committee's report, when it eventually came, was unanimous, but--let me be emollient again--we are proposing a new procedure and it may be that we should in future look again at the timetabling of Bills.
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory (Wells):
The Minister has outlined a case for modest constitutional reform in line with the proposals of the Select Committee on Modernisation. I approach such proposals with considerable caution. As a member of the forces of conservatism, I recognise that these proposals are not always brought forward entirely with the public good in mind. There is usually a strong element of party advantage in any reform proposal. A healthy dose of scepticism is, therefore, in order when reforms are proposed. I do not go quite as far as the Duke of Wellington who, when presented with a proposal from one of his Ministers, is supposed to have responded: "Reform! Reform! Aren't things bad enough already?"
Nevertheless, without going quite as far as that previous leader of my party, I believe that any proposal of this nature should be carefully approached and circumscribed. For instance, I do not accept the Minister's observation that the occurrence should be a regular one and that the carry-over of Bills from one Session to another should take place more than infrequently. This proposal--if used--should be used with great precision; for example, it is certainly not appropriate to use it when a Bill has become bogged down in another place. Furthermore, it should be considered only when the Bill in question is of a technical nature.
After those opening observations, I turn to the Financial Services and Markets Bill, which could have been dealt with in one Session of Parliament if it had been brought forward more speedily and in better order. Undoubtedly, in the past, the rule of the House has been that a Bill should complete all its stages in both Houses in a single Session. This Bill--currently in Standing Committee--could have satisfied that rule if the Government had better understood, earlier, the complexity with which they were dealing.
The proposal to reform the regulatory arrangements for financial services was announced soon after the 1997 general election. At that time, the important issues of justice and fairness were not fully understood by the Treasury; nor was the possible conflict with the European convention on human rights--a convention which the Government are simultaneously incorporating into British law. The Bill published a year later, in 1998, was seriously defective; indeed, it was unworkable in a number of respects. To improve that draft Bill, it was submitted to a Joint Committee. It was planned that the Committee would sit in January this year, but it was eventually convened in March. As I pointed out on Second Reading, all participants found that the innovation was successful. The Committee did not examine the whole Bill; because of the shortage of time, it concentrated on only six areas. It produced two reports--the latter of which appeared in May this year.
The Government accepted the majority of the Committee's conclusions. I am glad that they did so. Indeed, they stated:
Mr. Loughton:
My right hon. Friend is being overly generous to Treasury Ministers. The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, said that "very many" of the Burns Committee's recommendations had been accepted and that was later downgraded to "many", whereas my right hon. Friend has said that "most" of the recommendations were accepted. In fact, analysis of the final Bill shows that fewer than half of the Burns Committee's recommendations were taken on board when drafting the Bill.
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory:
In the light of my hon. Friend's remarks, I shall briefly outline some of the Bill's provisions that were recommended by the Joint Committee. The Bill introduced in July was an improvement on the original draft. However, I and others, including my hon. Friend, said on Second Reading that the improvements, welcome though they were, left considerable gaps in the legislation and that we expected further major improvements to be made thereafter.
"The Government finds itself strongly in agreement with the great majority of the Committee's conclusions, although in some cases our proposed way forward is not identical to that recommended by the Committee."
25 Oct 1999 : Column 710
Based on the recommendations and the Government's statement, the Opposition agreed that an amended Bill should be introduced immediately, and that its Committee stage should start in July and carry over to the next Session. Thus, we intended that the financial services industry should acquire a Bill that it needs urgently--indeed, without legislation, the present uncertainty is damaging to the market. It is also damaging that, in effect, the Financial Services Authority is operating without proper statutory cover. On the one hand, our intention was to get a Bill on the statute book without unnecessary delay. On the other hand, we intended further to improve the Bill--especially to ensure that the recommendations of the Joint Committee were fully implemented.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |