|Previous Section||Back to Table of Contents||Lords Hansard Home Page|
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend could give us some reassurance on that point. He referred to the code of practice in relation to vehicles, including aircraft. Can he say whether or not that code of practice will be available during the passage of the Bill?
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I feel that it might be best if I were to write to my noble friend on that point. I hope that the timetable on this Bill will allow for as much useful information as possible to come forward. If it can be made available to noble Lords, I should certainly be very happy that that should be the case.
I must not detain noble Lords much longer. There are issues which I have not had time to address in depth. I am conscious that my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch brought up the case for carcass tagging. That is a subject which needs more than two or three sentences. It involves the provision of information to the Deer Commission, there are some hygiene aspects and there are some poaching dimensions to the whole subject of carcass tagging. I do not want to fail to do the matter justice. Perhaps I may seek a meeting with my noble friend so that we can look at the wisdom of addressing that subject further.
I trust that the answers I have had time to give will go some way toward explaining the rationale behind the Bill. Following this debate, I shall make available some Notes on Clauses which will give further clarification on the details of the Bill. I look forward to discussing the Bill at all stages with noble Lords, especially given the weight of considerable expertise in this House on such matters. We want to create a revised legislative framework which will give the Deer Commission and deer managers the powers that they need for the new century to ensure that wild deer in Scotland can continue to live successfully as an integral part of our natural and cultural heritage, in harmony with other land uses and with their habitat.
I refer my noble friend Lord Glenarthur and the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, to that sentence when they read Hansard as our definition of what sustainable management of deer involves. I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate and commend the Bill to the House.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th October be approved [17th Report from the Select Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as your Lordships may be aware, the Government completed their wide-ranging review of the Building Societies Act 1986 in February this year. The review was in two stages. At the end of the first stage, the Government announced three specific measures to extend societies' powers by first, allowing them to make loans to businesses, without the security of a mortgage on land; secondly, allowing them to own general insurance companies writing buildings and contents insurance and mortgage payment protection policies; and, thirdly, increasing from 40 per cent. to 50 per cent. the maximum limit on funds they can raise in the wholesale market.
The first of these measures came into force in April this year. The second will be contained in an order under the Building Societies Act, which it is intended will come into force in July next year. The third is one of the measures contained in this order.
Many of the findings of the second stage of the review are reflected in a draft Building Societies Bill, which is to be published for consultation early next year, with the aim of introducing new legislation during the life of this Parliament.
The Government are keen to promote economic growth, widen competition and enhance the future for building societies, by removing rules and regulations which place unnecessary burdens on them. The Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 contained a number of useful amendments to building society legislation, allowing societies to issue deferred shares at a premium; to lend on security of land owned by a third party; and to participate in syndicated lending directly, rather than through a subsidiary.
This is the second order to be debated in your Lordships' House which has been made under the general order-making powers in the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. It represents a significant improvement in our ability to bring forward speedy legislation to ease the regulatory burdens on business.
The order has been comprehensively examined since it was first laid in draft form before both Houses of Parliament in May. The scrutiny committees examined the proposals most carefully and the Deregulation Committee in another place took evidence from government officials. We owe to the Deregulation Committee the amendment to Article 5(2)(a), which makes it clear that the day referred to in that article is the one on which Article 5 of the order comes into force and not the day on which the rest of the order does. Your Lordships will see that Article 5(2)(a) of the draft order has been amended accordingly. Both the Deregulation Committee and your Lordships' own Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee have since reported that they are now content with the order and made no further proposals for amendment.
Turning to the detail, Article 3 will remove the restriction on building societies acquiring and holding premises outside the United Kingdom for the purpose of the business of a subsidiary or other associated body.
Article 5 will remove the statutory obligation on building societies to meet the liabilities of their subsidiaries and certain other associated bodies incurred on or after the date on which the article comes into force; it does not affect those relating to obligations entered into before that date.
Article 7 will remove the duty on the seller of land mortgaged to a building society to send the particulars of the sale of a mortgaged property to the mortgagor, where it has reason to believe that he will not receive it. If the mortgagor has left a new address, there will be no problem. But if he has not and the society knows that he no longer lives at the address of the property it has just sold, there is no point in sending a letter.
All of those proposals are sensible in themselves and together they add up to a worthwhile package of measures which will enhance the efficiency with which societies can go about their business. I commend them to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Viscount Chandos: My Lords, I welcome the introduction of this order by the Minister. These are modest measures to amend and update the 1986 Building Societies Act, an Act which your Lordships may conclude has been generally successful. In the past decade building societies have been allowed to adapt, modernise and compete in the fast-moving retail financial services industry of the time. But we have successfully avoided any replication of the disasters that occurred in the United States savings and loans industry in the previous period. Your Lordships may be interested to know that the costs borne by the US Government of bailing out the savings and loans industry exceeded, at least in nominal terms, the cost of fighting the Vietnam war.
There is widespread popular support for building societies from people as both depositors and members. Even after the Abbey National converted to a PLC and became an authorised bank, it was careful not to include the dreaded word "bank" in its name for fear of driving away potential customers.
There is particular support for building societies from these Benches, first, because of the diversity of the status of the business provided by a mutual society. Corporate status has much to recommend it, but it is not the only status that can lead to the efficient management of business. It is worth noting that mutuality for a building society is not necessarily as easy to justify in terms of the benefits provided to members as is true in the case of life assurance societies where the long-term
Almost the most important benefit in the building societies industry at the moment is the great regional strength that exists among societies. Unlike so much of the rest of the financial services industry, which is concentrated first and foremost in London and then to a considerable but lesser extent in Edinburgh, the building societies industry has enormous strength, particularly in the North East. Therefore, while we support in principle the continuation of mutual status, we are in no way opposed to change in the light of the rapid changes that we see in the retail financial services industry.
Building societies must be allowed to change and they should then take advantage of deregulation. A degree of consolidation among societies is necessary and desirable to create institutions of a size able to compete effectively with banks and other corporate entities. The paramount objective that we would seek in any new measures to regulate or deregulate the building societies industry would be, first, the fostering and promotion of competition and, secondly, the maintenance and enhancement of the regional base of the industry.
If we test the changes proposed against those objectives, the most important measure is that contained in Article 4, which would permit the wholesale funding that may be undertaken by building societies to increase from 40 per cent. to 50 per cent. and the exclusion of capital instruments such as permanent interest-bearing shares from the calculations. The creation of PIBS was crucial in allowing the maintenance of mutuality in many cases as a source of third party capital to allow societies to maintain their growth without conversion to public limited company status.
The second most important change is that contained within Article 5; that is, the repeal of Section 22 of the 1986 Act to create a level playing field between the building societies and the banks that have corporate status to allow the subsidiaries of the building societies to stand on their own feet. It is worth bearing in mind in this case that there would remain tight controls over the type of business that may be undertaken by those subsidiaries. At the same time there would remain the strong moral obligation to support those subsidiaries that apply to companies, even if there was no legal obligation to support them.
The other issues are even less controversial. The ownership of land overseas is a reasonable step to allow building societies, to the extent that they wish, to develop business outside the UK. The article which allows the auditor's report not to be read at the annual general meeting reconciles the practice for building
Finally, while the requirement to notify mortgagors of the sale of land may give cause for some concern that it may disadvantage the consumer, I believe that the Building Societies Commission will take care to ensure that consumers are adequately protected.