| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
9.44 pm
Mr. Flight: This is the largest piece of legislation introduced by this Government. As described, it will affect 1 million people, our biggest industry and our biggest exporter. It is not exactly a red-hot sphere of party politics, but I think that the Government could be forced to accept that the Opposition's opposition has endeavoured to be constructive, to scrutinise the Bill in huge detail and to get it right--for the sake of our country, the industry and the people who work in that industry. I offer our thanks particularly to the lawyers who have advised us in our task, and who are sitting under the Gallery.
Although I am pleased to note that the Government have concurred on many of the issues that we have raised--that is largely why Report has taken so long--there are, as I said when we began our consideration, certain key points of principle that we wanted the Government to acknowledge and to put right. We feel that those principles continue to be fudged, which is undesirable for the legislation's success. My colleagues have dealt with those principles in our debates.
If a body as powerful as the FSA is to enjoy legal immunity, there will have to be, as Burns recommended, a clearly independent complaints procedure empowered to award recompense. The Government have come close to making such provision, but why will they not fully accept it?
The FSA's regulatory mandate should be to accept and to promote both domestic competition and international competitiveness. The Government have added their cumbersome machinery--including the Office of Fair Trading, the Competition Commission and the Treasury--but such an addition makes no sense unless the FSA is instructed up front that its regulatory activities are to be essentially pro-competition.
The FSA is a leviathan. It is the governor of a particularly large industry and is able to go forth without having to hold elections on its actions. It is surely right that its starting mandate should be to be reasonable, fair, open, accountable and proportionate. The Minister said that that is what the Bill says, but it does not--although the Opposition tried on several occasions to get it in there.
A body as large as the FSA surely should be subject to periodic independent reviews of its operation, efficiency, cost and cost-effectiveness.
On the chief executive, we have agreed with the Government that we should let Howard Davies sort out the issues. Thereafter, however, it must be right to follow the private sector's precedent of good practice by having a non-executive chairman and giving the non-executive board responsibilities analogous to those performed in the private sector.
It must be wrong to have a situation in which United Kingdom firms are damaged in their overseas business by attempted United Kingdom regulation. It must be completely wrong to pass legislation that the Government themselves have essentially accepted will damage our e-commerce.
Miss Melanie Johnson:
It is my great privilege to bring to a close the House's very extensive consideration of this necessarily very extensive Bill.
My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has already paid generous tribute to the work of the great many people, inside and outside the House, who have contributed to this work. I strongly endorse that tribute, as does my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. We should like also to endorse the work of our predecessors and of the Burns committee.
This has been a model process of how to deal with important, but technically very complex, legislation. We have had extensive public consultation, followed by pre-legislative scrutiny of the most important aspects of the Bill, followed by constructive and co-operative line by line consideration. The Government would be the first to acknowledge that the Bill has been significantly improved at each point of the process. There is likely to be further scope for refinement in another place before the Bill returns to us for final consideration.
I have been much entertained by the speeches during the debate. I was pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) felt able to rejoin the debate this evening, and I appreciate the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Beard) and other members of the Select Committee who have contributed positively to the Bill. I was much entertained also by our debates on fine targeting with the Liberal Democrats.
I was particularly entertained by the comments of the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) and his heavily laboured analogy concerning the birth of the Bill. I was somewhat bemused, as one of the reasons why the Bill has had so many amendments--the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) did say this--is that it has been much improved, and some of the amendments have been in
response to points made by the Opposition. Some Opposition Members have dug themselves into opposition and kept digging, despite the fact that the Government have responded so positively to the many points that they raised.
The Bill will give the Financial Services Authority a coherent set of modern regulatory powers, and, as such, it constitutes a thorough and necessary overhaul of a relevant part of the statute book. The result will be to enable the FSA to operate as an effective, fair and accountable regulator. The reforms to be facilitated by the Bill are pro market confidence, pro consumer protection and pro consumer awareness. They are anti financial crime, anti-abuse and anti-malpractice. Scams, malpractice and market abuse will do nothing for a world-class industry, and consumers must be protected. That has been one of our overriding concerns, along with making sure that we have a first-class regulator.
One wonders why the Opposition are voting against the Bill, and what that will do for a world-class industry. The 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 industries, and it will bring a fair deal to those operating within one of our most successful industries, as well as to those who use and rely on financial services for their well-being and prosperity.
The industry is well regulated in the UK, and it has been maintained and secured. It is that success, the high standards and the high regard in which financial services in the UK are held around the globe, that the Bill seeks to maintain. The Bill is central to maintaining and enhancing that success. It will increase accountability, and it will have regard to competition. It will make sure that competition is at the heart of the consideration that the FSA gives to its work as a regulator. It will protect consumers.
Above all, the Bill will strike the right balance. It will provide light-touch regulation, and protection where necessary. It is a new regulator for a new millennium, and I trust that the House will support the Bill tonight.
Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:--
The House proceeded to a Division--
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |