| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: I should start by saying that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee raised no objection to this clause. As my noble friend has just said, the clause does not appear in all Bills but it is certainly used sometimes. The effect of this amendment would be to remove Clause 42(2); that is, the Assembly's ability by order to amend, repeal or
25 Jan 2005 : Column GC421
revoke an enactment, whether primary or secondary legislation, where the amendment is consequential on the provisions of the Bill.
As we all know, this is the Henry VIII power. As I said, it is not unusual to have such a provision in the Bill. While it is intended that the Bill itself should deal with most minor and consequential amendments to other Acts, there is no guarantee that it will have picked up all such amendments. A power is therefore given by order to make such amendments or repeals after the Bill is enacted. The power will not, however, extend to an enactment in an Act of the UK Parliament which is passed in a Session after that in which this Bill is passed. So the power is limited in that respect.
As I said, this is not an unusual provision. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment. Before he considers doing so, however, I must again acknowledge that his amendment has caused us to reflect further—this time in relation to the precise wording of Clause 42(3) and, in particular, whether the words "or under" should properly appear in the Bill. We will consider that further and, if necessary, bring back an amendment on Report.
I spoke to Amendment No. 51 with Amendment No. 50 to Clause 42. As I said then, the purpose of Clause 43 is to give the Assembly the widest flexibility in relation to the making of orders or regulations under powers conferred by the Bill. The effect of deleting Clause 43(2)(a) would be to restrict the flexibility of the order and regulation-making powers of the Assembly under the Bill by removing the power to make different provision for different purposes.
The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, asked which Bills will be affected by this after the Queen's Speech. Certainly the national offender management and sentencing Bill may require amendment under this power because it contains provision for a prison ombudsman. I hope that the noble Lord is satisfied with the answer I have given and that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: I am satisfied by the noble Lord's reply. I am grateful to him not only for what he said in reply to these terminal amendments of our Committee stage but also for what he said, which has been helpful to the Committee, on other amendments put before him. Incidentally, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to our debate.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I, too, should like to thank the Committee for the way in which this business has been expedited. I associate myself with the other remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy.
25 Jan 2005 : Column GC422
He has himself worked extremely hard at producing the amendments, many of which have been very relevant. I thank him for that. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Rowlands, and other noble Lords for their contributions.
I particularly appreciate what the Minister said. However, I have picked up one drafting matter. Reference has occasionally been made in the Bill to the Assembly First Secretary; yet, in responding, the Minister has referred to the Assembly First Minister. I assume that the same situation pertains. Was there a specific reason for the reference? I do not want an answer now. However, perhaps the terminology could be straightened out and corrected between now and Report. I should like to know the answer as there appears to be a divergence between the Bill and the Minister's remarks. I shall leave it at that.
I thank the Minister very much for the way in which the Bill has gone through. I also thank the Lord Chairman and his predecessors for the way that it has been conducted. I am very grateful.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: Perhaps I may very briefly add my thanks to everyone. I should like in particular to thank those sitting behind me who have done a wonderful job in getting the file together under great pressure and worked late and got up early. They have really done a terrific job. I am very conscious of the fact that I have this support whereas my noble friend—and I will call him that—Lord Roberts of Conwy, who has produced a very considerable number of interesting amendments, does not have the support mechanism that I have had.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: We have even less.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: It is a tribute to all of you. Thank you all for the spirit in which the Bill has been approached. It is terrific that we can all go home on Thursday lunch-time rather than come back to the Moses Room. Thank you all very much indeed.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 43 [Orders, regulations and directions]:
Bill reported with amendments.
The Committee adjourned at eighteen minutes before eight o'clock.
Written Statements
Tuesday 25 January 2005
25 Jan 2005 : Column WS47
Regional State Aid Reform
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My honourable friend the Minister for Trade and Investment (Douglas Alexander) has made the following Written Statement:
On 14 June 2004 my right honourable friend the Minister for Industry and the Regions, (Official Report, Commons, cols. 19-20WS), announced that the European Commission had published proposals for amending the guidelines that govern regional state aid, which define assisted areas and aid intensities allowed within them, for the period 1 January 2007 to 31 December 2013, and that her department would shortly be issuing a consultation document seeking the views of all interested parties on the Commission's proposals.
My department today published the results of that consultation exercise. Copies of the summary of responses, and the Government's latest letter to the Commission, have been placed in the Libraries of the House. The Commission issued a further paper on its approach before Christmas, and is to hold a first joint meeting with national officials on 1 and 2 February. It then plans to issue detailed proposals in May, for adoption in September this year. The Commission's further paper is available on its website and my department has written to consultees drawing their attention to it.
Directors' Remuneration Report Regulations 2002
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Hewitt) has made the following Written Statement:
As announced in my Written Statement on 25 February 2004 (Official Report, Commons, cols. 51–52WS), my department commissioned a report on compliance with the Directors' Remuneration Report Regulations 2002 ("the regulations") during the course of this year's AGM season, including an assessment of changes in remuneration practices. Deloitte and Touche
25 Jan 2005 : Column WS48
LLP was appointed to carry out the work following a competitive tender process. Its report is today being placed on the DTI website at www.dti.gov.uk/cld/Deloitte–Rep–DRRR–2004.pdf and in the Libraries of the House.
The report underlines the positive impact of the regulations and the effectiveness of the Government's action in subjecting directors' remuneration to closer scrutiny by shareholders. It reveals high levels of company compliance with the regulations, better clarity of disclosure on remuneration, improved communication between companies and their shareholders, and changes in companies' remuneration policies and practices improving the link between pay and performance. It also suggests that further legislation in this area is neither necessary nor desirable and that further improvements to disclosure and the linkage between pay and performance are best pursued through the development and implementation of best practice guidelines.
In the circumstances, while I will continue to keep the position under review, I have concluded that further changes to company law requirements in this area are not needed at this stage.
The report suggests some minor changes to the regulations in order to clarify what is required and improve transparency and the quality of the information provided. My department will be considering the need for these changes in the light of views expressed by stakeholders and better regulation principles. If, as a result, we consider that changes are made, these should not involve additional costs or additional regulatory burdens on companies or shareholders.
In my February Statement, I welcomed the action taken by the Association of British Insurers and National Association of Pension Funds and by the Confederation of British Industry in producing guidance on directors' contracts. The report provides a basis for the further development of this guidance. I now call on these groups to work towards providing a common set of guidelines by the end of the year.
While the report is encouraging, there is no room for complacency. The challenge for remuneration committees and their advisers remains to produce rewards packages which tie pay and performance targets to the creation of long-term value for shareholders and are transparent to shareholders. Shareholders, for their part, should satisfy themselves that remuneration arrangements for directors are in the best interests of the company. They must also be vigilant and ensure that situations where directors enjoy rich rewards while companies perform poorly and shareholders and employees suffer are challenged.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |