Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
I have no doubt that the Minister, with his long and experienced industrial record, does not wish to intervene in these things, but who knows what itchy fingers will follow him on the trigger of this particular gun? The voluntary system is working perfectly well at present and, frankly, the technical suggestions now made for cumulative disclosure, where a fund manager can reveal all his accumulated shareholdings, seem to us to destroy any value that might have been in the procedure in the first place.
The Government keep on talking about deregulation. They keep on saying how they want to keep the regulatory burden down, but they keep on ensuring that they pull powers. I am not referring to powers that are necessarily being used now but ones that are there for them to use at some date in the future should they feel they want to use them. I do not think that that is good enough and I wish to test the opinion of the House.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 988A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 74; Not-Contents, 133.
Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 989.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[Amendment No. 989A not moved.]
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 990.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[Amendment No. 990A not moved.]
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 991.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[Amendment No. 991A not moved.]
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 992.
This amendment, which relates to disclosure of information under the Enterprise Act 2002, will permit disclosure to be made for civil proceedings overseas. When the clause was considered in this House, it allowed for disclosure for civil proceedings within the UK only. However, it was agreed in Committee in another place to consider a proposal put forward by the Opposition to allow disclosure for overseas civil proceedings for intellectual property rights holders only. It was also agreed to consult further with interested parties to determine whether the disclosure provisions for overseas proceedings should be extended to business and consumers as well as IP rights holders. That was because the disclosure provisions in this clause have been drawn up on the basis that business and consumers are treated equally. In general, the majority of those we spoke to agreed with this view, although I recognise that the CBI has concerns.
We have had a long debate on whether this gateway should be limited only to intellectual property rights holders. However, we support a more balanced approached in that consumers and business should
2 Nov 2006 : Column 509
The reason we decided to make this amendment to the Enterprise Act was because stakeholders, business enforcers and consumer groups told us that there was a problem. We listened to those views and acted accordingly. I hope that I can reassure noble Lords that we are continuing to speak to interested parties about how the secondary legislation will look. My officials will be meeting representatives of the CBI shortly to take forward these discussions.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 992.(Lord Sainsbury of Turville.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 993, to which I spoke with Amendment No. 1.
Moved, That the House to agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 993.(Lord Sainsbury of Turville.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 994. It removes subsection (3)
2 Nov 2006 : Column 510
The insertion of this wording is termed the privilege amendment. The other place have now approved the charges on the public fund in the Bill and removed subsection (3) by Amendment No. 994.
In moving the amendment I claim three recordsfor the longest Bill to come before Parliament, the largest list of amendments from the Commons, and, finally, for the longest list of amendments moved en bloc.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 994.(Lord Sainsbury of Turville.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 995 to 1029, to which I have already spoken.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |