Previous SectionIndexHome Page


Sir Nicholas Lyell: On the matter of parliamentary convention, which my hon. Friend is dealing with, does he agree that it would be impossible for the Government to take the Bill through the House of Lords in this state? Were the House to vote the motion down, the Bill would fall. However, does it not follow from that that the maintenance of the convention in good faith is absolutely essential and that he is entitled to insist on it?

Mr. Flight: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend, who has brought out the point that I was seeking to make. The Bill is in no state to be guillotined and to go to the House of Lords. Given that 7 per cent. of our economy and the jobs of 1 million people are at risk, any responsible Member of the House would want the Bill to be put into proper shape. It would be irresponsible to take any other stance.

If you will briefly indulge me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall refer to areas on which the Burns Committee was silent, although it invited the Government to come up with proposals. Those are the areas in which the financial services industry itself is looking to the Government to sort out the various problems and to get the legislation right. The Bill attempts to regulate the business of non-UK branches and activities of UK-based businesses.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: This is out of order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I ask the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) to excuse me. I do not need sedentary advice from the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and wish that it would cease.

Mr. Flight: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Briefly, clause 56 not only empowers the FSA to determine remuneration throughout the industry, but could deny a livelihood to the 30,000 senior executives. It is substantially too powerful.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I delicately say that there is a distinction between the rulings given by the previous incumbent of the Chair and those that we have just been given? Perhaps you might clarify the position.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: There has been great consistency on the part of incumbents of the Chair. We have said that the substance of the Bill can be referred to when arguments are being made for or against the motion, but the weight of emphasis should be on the procedural aspects.

Mr. Flight: As others have pointed out, there is a major mistake in the proposed regulation of E-commerce.

25 Oct 1999 : Column 733

The Government want to support E-commerce in this country and make Britain a leader in it, but clause 19 will be extremely damaging to the interests of E-commerce.

Mr. Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath) rose--

Hon. Members: He has just come in.

Mr. Hawkins: I must apologise to my hon. Friend. Although I have not been in the Chamber, I have watched a great deal of the debate in my office between meetings.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The only way in which an hon. Member can truly participate in debates in this House is by being here.

Mr. Flight: The Government have not yet demonstrated that they are keeping their side of the bargain and following the Burns Committee recommendations on certain key issues. Neither have they, by further consultation or in their proposals, responded to several key issues of widespread concern to the many people who work in the industry. We look to the Government this evening to give us comfort on those issues.

I wish to make it clear that we support this carry-over motion in the interests of common sense and of the industry, where there is little alternative.

5.25 pm

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Miss Melanie Johnson): I shall endeavour to stick to your recent injunction, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to keep to the procedural points as closely as I can, rather than stray down the path of dealing with the substance of the Bill.

After this Government came to power, we announced that the existing patchwork of financial regulators--nine in total--would be replaced by a single statutory regulator, subsequently named the Financial Services Authority. This Bill is a prime example of the Government's aim to reform and modernise Britain. It responds to the changing face of the financial services industry, brings a fair deal to both consumers and providers, and reduces the current scope for duplication and inconsistencies.

As many hon. Members have said, the Bill is complex. However, it will bring a range of positive benefits, which are pro market confidence, pro consumer protection, pro consumer awareness and anti financial crime. It will enable the FSA to be tough on City crime, malpractice and abuse, including insider dealing, rogue trading, money laundering and market manipulation, and will give the FSA wide powers to deal with those unacceptable activities. In giving the FSA a coherent set of modern regulatory powers, it constitutes a thorough and necessary overhaul of the relevant part of the statute book. That is a major task, which is why the Bill is so complex. It is a task that this Government have not shirked and on which we have been determined to consult fully. We therefore listened to and responded to the views of many individuals, institutions and groups.

Opposition Members disagree among themselves about what their response should be to the Bill, the City and this carry-over motion. This evening's debate has reflected their disagreement. We have, however, heard some voices of sanity from those who wish to honour their

25 Oct 1999 : Column 734

commitment to allow the Bill to proceed through this carry-over motion. They recognise that the Bill is extremely important and will bring substantial benefits to the financial services industry and its regulation in the UK, and therefore to the future of the global industry. It will also bring substantial benefits to consumers.

Mr. Hawkins: Will the Minister give way?

Miss Johnson: No. The hon. Gentleman has only just arrived in the Chamber.

I shall deal with some of the points made by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell). I had some sympathy with his interest in the detail of this matter, but I sometimes felt as though I had already arrived in Standing Committee A, which will discuss the Bill tomorrow. The right hon. and learned Gentleman made a point about how much the Bill had been thought through beforehand. That needs to be addressed time and again. The purpose of the revised procedure, which the House supported, is that it enables us to produce better legislation by putting complicated Bills through the draft Bill procedure. At least two Opposition Members who are present today were members of the Joint Committee that looked at the draft Bill. That Committee arrived at its conclusions unanimously. That shows that consultation and discussion can bring about further improvements to legislation, which is why we have gone through this part of the process.

Mr. Loughton: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Miss Johnson: No, not at this point. I may give way later.

The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) suggested that there should be fewer Bills, so that they could be better scrutinised. The Bill has made slow progress because it is receiving such detailed scrutiny. Until the summer recess, the rate of progress was 19 or 20 clauses in 11 sittings. I am not criticising that rate of progress: I am merely pointing out that it is an important Bill and that some clauses require more detailed scrutiny than others. Consequently, we shall not make it through 367 clauses, and I have considerable sympathy with those who say that it would not be a good thing were the Bill to be guillotined.

The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) believes that there should be fewer Bills. He put that maxim into practice--although not with the popular consequences that he foresaw in this case--when he killed the private Member's Bill to ban fur farming. His actions did not have the public support and acclamation that he thinks that principle should receive.

The right hon. Gentleman is seriously at odds with his Front-Bench colleagues on this Bill. He believes that they are conniving with the Government. It is sad that Opposition Members who are working to try to improve a Bill--often in opposition to the Government, but not always--are seen as conniving with the Government.

The right hon. Gentleman also attacked the City, which is extraordinary, and shows another dimension to the odd views expressed by Conservative Members. Let me make

25 Oct 1999 : Column 735

it plain to the House that we have had much support from the City on this Bill. The British Bankers Association said that the


    "introduction of a single legislative framework for the financial services industry in the UK is welcome, as is the creation of a single industry regulator."

The Independent Financial Advisers Association said that it


    "broadly welcomes the objectives and provisions . . . fully support the objective of bringing all financial regulation under the control of a single authority."

From a different point of view, the Consumers Association said:


    "We are certainly enthusiastic about the Bill and we see a variety of advantages in having a single regulator".

It is a complicated task, and no one would deny that.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) asked whether this is an exceptional arrangement, and it is worth while addressing that issue. The agreement with the Opposition is that consideration will be given on a one-by-one basis. An individual Bill will be considered for carry-over if it has been agreed beforehand that that procedure could apply, and if the Bill is still before that House at the end of the Session. Those conditions will not vary: they are safeguards built into the carry-over provision. If we do not stick to them, there would be difficulties. However, there is no danger of our not sticking to the provisions that have already been made with the agreement of both sides of the House.


Next Section

IndexHome Page