My Lords, before business begins, I take the opportunity to inform the House that I am to host a lunch in honour of the Speaker of the Hungarian Parliament on Wednesday, 29th March, when the House will sit. Accordingly, I trust that the House will grant me leave of absence.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

What action they are taking to ensure the success of the forthcoming United Nations Millennium NGO Forum.

My Lords, the Government believe that the millennium forum should make an important contribution to the deliberations of the United Nations' role in the 21st century. We have offered the forum financial assistance and have contributed to the United Kingdom preparatory event. We also support plans for the forum to be represented at the intergovernmental millennium summit in September.

My Lords, as ever, I thank my noble friend for that encouraging Answer and in particular for the reference to financial assistance. Will she confirm that the Government have taken a commendable lead in encouraging the United Nations to summon the millennium assembly and the millennium summit to discuss its future role in promoting peace, security and development?

But does she agree that unless the bones are to remain dry, it is essential to involve civil society in those discussions and that that is the purpose of the forum? Given that it is due to take place in May of this year and that many delegates from less privileged areas are relying on financial assistance to pay their fares, how much money are the Government proposing to contribute; when is it likely to be available; and who else has made any contribution?

My Lords, first, I say straightaway that I endorse wholeheartedly what my noble and learned friend said in relation to the importance of the summit. The Government strongly support the idea of the millennium forum. It is a unique occasion for global civil society to consider the challenges facing the United Nations in the 21st century and to propose initiatives to tackle them.

The Government are to make a contribution. We have, in principle, offered to contribute towards the costs of securing developing country representation at the forum to ensure that it is truly representative of the global civil society. We also provided £15,000 to the United Kingdom United Nations Association to help fund the national preparatory event in February which sought to frame the national civil society input to the forum. Unfortunately, I cannot tell my noble and learned friend the precise nature of the further contribution but we are hopeful that it will be substantial.

My Lords, will the Minister tell the House where the forum is to be held? I was involved in the World Conference of Women and I remember clearly the NGO forum there. Will the Minister tell me also whether the NGOs will be adequately housed in one huge area? In the past, the problem has always been that there has not been adequate space for all the representatives to be together. Their value is greatly diminished if they have to be separated.

My Lords, I can tell the noble Baroness that the forum is to be held in New York. I cannot give her the precise location in New York but I am sure that I can write to her with that information if that is what she requires. We believe that the forum will be extremely important and that accommodation will be available for those who attend. I hope that that is a full answer to the noble Baroness's question. I can certainly take forward those matters and if I am able to cull further details from the information available, I shall write to the noble Baroness in relation to it and make available a copy of that letter to other Members of the House.

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that since the UN Charter refers to "We, the peoples" of the United Nations and not "We, the governments", and since this country has one of the largest proportions of NGOs among the UN members, it is entirely appropriate that this Government should give a lead in supporting the forum?

My Lords, I respectfully agree with my noble friend. It is extremely important that civil society plays its full part in that regard. We are most encouraged that the forum is to take place and are very hopeful that there will be a full and frank exchange and that there will be opportunity at the summit for the results of the deliberations to be communicated more broadly.

My Lords, does the Minister not agree that this is an ideal opportunity for this Government to pledge greater financial and other support, beyond that which the Minister mentioned, to our two outstanding British export successes—the BBC World Service and the British Council—both of which could and would make a major contribution to ensuring the success of that NGO forum?

My Lords, as the noble Baroness will know, we already give extensive support to both the British Council and the BBC World Service. They have worked extremely hard and well with Her Majesty's Government, as they have with previous governments. We shall certainly continue to be supportive in the links that we have and in the partnerships and working together which we believe will evolve over a period of time.

My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend has welcomed the universal support that the project has received in the House. Will she give the House some idea of the extent to which other countries are participating?

My Lords, other countries are participating in the event. We are hoping that our partners in Europe also will make a contribution. I am not able to tell noble Lords the precise nature of their contribution, but I am aware that they are deliberating as to financial and other participation. The forum is being welcomed by a number of our partners.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

When they will bring forward a revised Data Protection (Designated Codes of Practice) Order to comply with the Press Complaints Commission's revised code.

My Lords, we are checking whether there are proposals to amend any of the other codes designated under Section 32 of the Data Protection Act 1998. We shall bring forward a draft order shortly after Easter in the light of those checks and after consulting the Data Protection Commissioner.

Viscount Astor: My Lords, will the Minister apologise to the House for bringing forward an order on 7th February which referred to a code that was out of date? The changes of which he was not aware then, but he is now, were made on 20th January. Does that not show that the consultation promised by the Minister did not take place? Will he assure the House that it will take place in the future? Does he agree that the changes are important because they relate to the identification of juvenile victims and juvenile witnesses to crime?

My Lords, it is most regrettable that we were unable to designate the appropriate code. That must be common ground. I regret that there was a temporary breakdown in communication. Such things happen from time to time. We need to ensure that we get consultation absolutely right so that we designate the appropriate order. The changes reflected in the order are minor in extent but they are important. They reflect important changes in other aspects of public policy, partly in reaction to the Thompson and Venables case.

My Lords, will the code of practice take account of the use of the new form of the electoral register for commercial purposes under Section 9 of the Representation of the People Act without the consent of the person registered, in context with the provisions of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights? Also, will the order be subject to affirmative resolution?

My Lords, the code of practice to which the Question relates does not bear any resemblance to the noble Lord's question. I am more than happy to consider the issue raised in his second point and to communicate with the noble Lord to clarify any issues of concern.

My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the Data Protection Commissioner has been notified that the code designated was out of date? Will he say what steps are being taken to inform journalists who, looking at the present code published by the Press Complaints Commission, might believe that it was the one with which they should comply? In fact, they should be complying with a code that dates from three years earlier. What steps are the Government taking to help such journalists, who may be put in a position where they might unintentionally break the law due to the error made by the Government?

My Lords, we are in contact with the data protection registrar on those matters. In response to the noble Viscount's second point, we take the view that journalists could rely on the current code in any event, simply and primarily because there is no major difference between the two codes on privacy matters, which are obviously the issues of primacy concern. We are safe on those terms. As I said earlier, we intend to bring forward an amended order shortly after Easter so that we may deal with those matters. I believe that that will put the matter to rest.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

What steps, if any, they are taking to appoint a football regulator.

My Lords, the majority report of the football task force's report, Football: Commercial issues, proposed an independent regulator for foot ball—the football audit commission. The Government are considering their response to that proposal and to the football authorities' alternative proposal for an independent scrutiny panel. Ministers have had a number of useful discussions with the football authorities and other interested parties over recent weeks and the Government will respond to the report shortly.

My Lords, I am extremely encouraged by my noble friend's response. However, I should like to draw to his attention and to ask for his views about the current negotiations taking place with the television companies, which are likely to produce over £1 billion in funding over the next five years—a 20 per cent increase. Is he aware that on the last occasion that a deal was struck with the television companies, all the increased income went into the pockets of players? There are now over 100 players earning £l million per year from football. At the same time, the cost to fans for admission to the grounds is soaring. The lower clubs are finding it extremely difficult in such outrageous circumstances. Does the Minister believe that the appointment of a regulator would go some way to correct those disastrous circumstances?

My Lords, it is important to consider those parts of the report of the football task force upon which there is agreement rather than the single issue of the nature of the regulator, upon which there is disagreement. All members of the football task force recognise the seriousness of the points raised by my noble friend concerning the needs of the less rich clubs and the need for affordat le access to football. That is linked to the television agreements, which are still to be concluded.

My Lords, can the Minister advise me to whom he believes the regulator should report? Will it be the noble Lord, the Government, the football authorities or the fans, like myself, who paid £7 to stand in freezing conditions on Saturday with little in the way of facilities?

My Lords, it sounds as though the regulator should report to the noble Lord, Lord Lyell! That would do the trick. If there is to be a single regulator, rather than an independent scrutiny panel, it is important that that position is set up by the Government rather than the football authorities. The exact terms of reference would still be a matter for discussion.

My Lords, I declare an interest as vice-chairman of the football task force and as a signatory to the majority report to which my noble friend referred. Is he aware that a number of us who were majority signatories, including supporters' representatives, met his colleagues, the Secretary of State and the Minister for Sport, last Thursday? We were gratified to learn that the football authorities have made considerable progress on their own plans on matters such as consumer representation, financial compliance and the independence of the regulatory body. We believe there is now some prospect of an agreed solution being presented to my noble friend and his ministerial colleagues which will satisfy the expectations of supporters and substantially take the game forward.

My Lords, I am glad to be able to confirm the meeting at which my noble friend was present. I confirm too that a meeting took place with the authorities on 16th March which was also constructive and had the benefit of a detailed presentation from the football authorities. All that underlines the importance of making progress on those parts of the report of the football task force which are agreed without waiting for a final decision on the nature of the regulatory person or body.

My Lords, can the noble Lord confirm that the ordinary fans will have a say in the matter; that the football regulator will formally or informally consult the ordinary fans?

My Lords, one of the proposals contained in the report of the football task force was for a supporters' direct unit. That unit is already in place in shadow form, providing advice to fans who are interested, in particular, in taking part in the management of football by setting up trusts. That confirms the importance we attach to ensuring that fans have a voice in football.

My Lords, did not the Minister read in yesterday's paper that the right honourable Jack Cunningham, MP is already lined up to be appointed as football regulator? What is the veracity of that story? Is it a "star signing" or an "own goal"?

My Lords, the noble Lord knows perfectly well that I am no good at sporting metaphors. However, I can inform him that there is no truth in the report to which he has referred.

My Lords, if there is to be an appointed regulator, I believe, from these Benches, that the appointment of Jack Cunningham would be a good choice. Does the Minister not agree that it is about time we, the British people, had more Davieses, Clarkes, Evanses and Joneses playing in the premier league?

My Lords, I thought that those with Welsh grandfathers tended to come from New Zealand.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether, in the light of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development conference in Edinburgh on genetically modified foods and health, they will promote the use of genetically modified crops in the developing world.

My Lords, we support demand-led research directed at the needs of poor farmers in developing countries using whatever technology is most appropriate, cost-effective and safe. Genetic modification (GM) technologies could produce considerable benefits if applied safely and responsibly to the crops on which the poor rely. We shall continue to support the development and dissemination of beneficial technologies which poor farmers can afford and use to create sustainable livelihoods. We shall also consider how we might help developing countries to develop the capacity they need to handle and assess GM technologies.

My Lords, are the Government aware that at the Edinburgh conference, which it was my pleasure to attend, two matters became absolutely clear? First, there was not a shred of evidence that GM foods are harmful to health. Indeed, hundreds of millions of people have now consumed them for over a decade without any apparent ill effects. Secondly, there was enormous enthusiasm among representatives from the developing world for the new technology, which they regard as essential to the fight against hunger and disease and, indeed, which was already shown to be having beneficial effects in countries such as China and South Africa. In the circumstances, is there not a moral imperative on the Government to do everything they can to encourage and promote the spread of such technology?

My Lords, the Government aim to protect public health and the environment by taking a science-based approach to GM crops and food. We are pro-safety, pro-environment and pro-choice. As regards the question raised by the noble Lord on the developing world and the new technology, we are aware that in developing countries there is a concern that the focus has been on the developed world rather than on the way in which GM technologies can be used in the developing world. We are supporting developing countries to develop their capacity in that area. We are also supporting research on rice, for example. Bearing in mind that we are pro-safety, pro-environment and pro-choice, the Government are doing all they can with regard to the issue in developing countries.

My Lords, there are important scientific questions to be answered about GM crops. Such questions will not all be answered negatively; they could be of great benefit to the third world. Does the Minister not agree that there are no less important social, economic and political questions to be answered? It would be possible for small farmers to switch to monocrops using the so-called "terminator" seeds and to find themselves totally in the hands of the large trans-national corporations.

My Lords, I agree with the right reverend Prelate; there are social, economic and political considerations. DfID is funding research which supports the safe development and testing of affordable GM technologies which have the potential to benefit poor farmers, improve food availability, human well-being and the environment. We are also funding research designed to assess the economic, environmental and social impact of GMOs on poor farmers. The concerns expressed are being taken on board by that department.

My Lords, will the Government ensure that in areas of the world in which small farmers save their own seed for the next crop, such farmers are not supplied with a so-called "terminator seed" which could not be used for their next crop?

My Lords, the Government do not support the development of the terminator seed. The noble Lord may be aware that last year Monsanto, which had conducted the most research on this issue and was within five or 10 years of concluding that research, decided not to take it forward. We are not supporting any kind of development of any kind of terminator gene.

My Lords, will the Minister bear in mind the lessons learned from the profusion of toxic chemicals which have been spread around the world and have caused enormous damage? Slogans such as that used by the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, regarding the absolute safety of chemicals have proved to be untrue. Would the Minister bear in mind that, with genetic modification, there is no going back? We are playing with the basic building blocks of life and must be absolutely sure of safety before we use them.

My Lords, that is why the Government's approach is science-based and money is invested in research so that we do not facilitate the use of GM crops in areas where developing countries have not put in place the basic infrastructure or legislation that will enable them to use this technology beneficially. We want to see developing countries use this technology in a way which is beneficial for them and to ensure that they have the capacity not only to develop the technology in ways that suit them but also to market it to their own advantage.

My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that the alternatives to genetically modified crops tend to be pesticides which are ecologically damaging and expensive, in particular when they are used on marginal land, which so many poor people are reduced to farming?

My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. It is important that developing countries are included in an elective and inclusive dialogue on the risks and benefits of GMOs. However, it is also important to remember that much of the research has to date been focused on the use to be made of GMOs in the developed world by large commercial organisations. We want to see the technology used to assist developing countries in the ways that suit them best.

My Lords, did not Watson and Crick win the Nobel Prize for their research on the basic building blocks of life, and is anything wrong with that? Furthermore, does the noble Baroness agree that all the opinions so far expressed on GM crops have come from the developed world? Does she further agree that it is about time that the third world, where the benefits of GM crops may well be felt the most, should have their say as well?

My Lords, I entirely agree that a public debate is needed on this issue. We need a public debate that focuses not only on the developed world but also includes the developing countries. For that reason, DfID provided funding for some developing countries to send representatives to the Edinburgh conference so that their voices could be heard. I hope that their voices will continue to be heard.

My Lords, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ely has so rightly said, in the Middle Ages the Church condemned surgery because it interfered with God's handiwork, and we must follow science rather than emotions. With that in mind, does the Minister agree—taking into account all the necessary precautions that have already been mentioned, including the TRIPS agreement—and the fact that at least 30 million hectares worldwide were planted successfully with GMOs in 1998, saving many starving people in the developing world, that the Government should promote GMOs far more?

My Lords, I believe that I have already addressed many of the points raised by the noble Baroness in her question. As I said, we are funding research but we are not yet at a stage where we will fund crops in developing countries unless those countries have in place the necessary legislation and infrastructure. We will continue with this work. Furthermore, we want to involve people in developing countries by helping them to build the capacity to take this technology forward.

My Lords, perhaps I may take this opportunity to thank the noble Baroness for the Government's change of heart on GM technology and for demonstrating their greater awareness of public unease. I believe that the Government have also shown a greater awareness of the environmental dangers of this technology. Perhaps I may make two points, both of which have been touched on but have not yet, I think, been answered satisfactorily. First, some NGOs, in particular Christian Aid, have taken a very negative view of this technology and have considerably influenced developing countries against it. While I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, has said about expressions of enthusiasm for it on the part of many developing countries, can the noble Baroness say a few words on the Government's relationship with NGOs? Secondly, is there any prospect of progress on some kind of international agreement on the vexed question of intellectual property rights in GM technology? That question lies behind much of the fear and unease.

My Lords, first, perhaps I may say to the right reverend Prelate that there has been no change of heart by the Government. We have said consistently that we need to have an open debate about these matters. To enable us to have that debate, we need to gather the right information. The Government have consistently argued that some of what has been said in the press has been inaccurate and that we have tried to address that. Indeed, in the Government's response to the Science and Technology Committee's report on this matter, we expressed the concern that we needed to see greater understanding and greater probity on the part of all the players involved. As regards the attitude of NGOs, I think it is important to ensure that dialogue continues between all NGOs and the Government on this matter. We have done our best to promote that dialogue.

In response to the point made by the right reverend Prelate on international agreements, we are of course constantly discussing ways in which we might take those international agreements forward.

My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend the Leader of the House will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement being made in another place on the Special European Council in Lisbon.

My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

Moved, That the Fourth Report from the Select Committee (HL Paper 45) be agreed to.— ( hairman of Committees.

My Lords, I should like to raise two points with the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees. Perhaps I should declare an interest, in that the first section of the report will allow my own daughter to sit on the Steps of the Throne. I very much applaud that ruling.

However, I believe that many other matters should be of concern to the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees and the House authorities. First, what facilities will be made available for those sitting on the Steps of the Throne? Secondly, and more important, are we pressing the other place—when they have acquired 200 offices at a cost of £1 million each in Portcullis House—to concede 200 offices to your Lordships' House? If not, why not?

My Lords, as regards the first point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, it is proposed that those mentioned in the report of the House of Lords' Offices Committee should be given the facility of being allowed to sit on the Steps of the Throne, if that is acceptable to your Lordships this afternoon. No other facilities were envisaged in relation to those concerned.

So far as concerns office space, which the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, has mentioned, that is not a matter which arises out of this report. I believe that I would be trespassing on the indulgence of noble Lords were I to venture into that matter this afternoon. However, perhaps I may indicate that matters connected with accommodation are very much in the minds of those committees of your Lordships' House which are concerned with these issues.

My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees will agree that it would be wise if he were to take away the question put to him by his noble friend and give it a great deal more thought than he has been able to give it so far? Personally, I should hate it if he were to leave the Chamber without having it clearly in his mind that a great many noble Lords agree with what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett.

My Lords, will the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees explain the meaning of the word "or" used in the sentence quoted at the end of the first point, where it states, "or the eldest son"? "Or" can mean one of two things: it can mean one but not both, or it can mean "and/or". Am I right to assume that here it means "and/or", in that, where an eldest son is sitting but his sister is older, she will be able to sit on the Steps as well? That would seem to me to be an entirely correct recommendation.

My Lords, can the noble Lord, Lord Boston, give the House an indication as to whether or not the committee discussed the agenda of its next and future meetings? Also, will the whole question of repairing and bringing up to a tolerable standard the acoustic properties of the various committee rooms of this House receive more than a perfunctory consideration?

My Lords, I take this opportunity to thank the committee for extending the rights of females to sit on the Steps of the Throne. Perhaps I may remind the noble Lord that new incumbents will have will far less of a battle than I had with the noble Lord, Lord Denham—I see he has just taken his seat—when he was Chief Whip. When I sought to persuade him that my daughter, who is also my heir, should be allowed to sit on the Steps of the Throne, after a lot of excuses which did not stand up, he said that I might produce a son. I said that I could produce a certificate to prove that I could not and he finally gave way.

My Lords, as hereditary Peers who have been excluded from this House were granted as a concession the right to sit on the Steps of the Throne, should not the order be amended?

My Lords, perhaps I can deal with the last point first; that is, the one raised by the noble Lord, Lord Boardman. Hereditary Peers in fact already had the right to sit on the Steps of the Throne. On the point raised by the noble Countess, Lady Mar, I can only say that I am grateful to her for what she said, and am happy that she is happy.

The noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, mentioned the matter of the House of Commons and House of Lords offices arising from the question raised by the noble Lord. Lord Barnett. There is no lack of interest in your Lordships' committees on this matter; indeed, it is being actively dealt with in the committees. I can give the noble Lard that assurance. However, I hope he will forgive me if I do not go further today because these matters will be referred to at a later date, though they are very much in people's minds.

The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, raised the question of repair of committee rooms. As your Lordships will he aware from earlier reports, there is a continuing and extensive programme of work along the lines mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce. I can assure him that those are being pursued with vigour. If he has any problems in mind relating to specific rooms and will let me know outside the Chamber what they are, I will look into those to see whether they are being dealt with.

The noble Lord, Lord Peston, raised a point in relation to the word "or". That word has its legal connotation and therefore it is used to indicate the alternative, not both.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee. — (Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)

My Lords, the Minister proposes that we should now go into Committee. The House should be aware that we have some difficulty with this.

There is deep concern on these Benches in relation to the conduct of this Bill through this House. This Bill changes the face of regulation of Britain's most successful industry. The Government take the view that this Bill is the best of all possible Bills in this best of all possible worlds. So it should be; it is the single biggest piece of legislation that this Government have introduced.

The Bill is 215 pages and 408 clauses long. In its epic 18-month passage through another place it attracted 1,450 amendments. The standing committee sat for 17 hours in 35 sessions and a fine Joint Committee of both Houses, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, prepared a set of 37 recommendations. Yet after all that, the Government have now tabled 254 more amendments and say that they have hundreds more to come. Few of those amendments are in response to the Opposition's substantive amendments in another place.

I stress that this is not a complaint about the Minister, who graciously apologised to the Committee for the scale of government amendments we are being asked to consider. Nevertheless, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Government are almost redrafting the Bill as it goes along. First, the Government seem to be trying to correct bad drafting; secondly, they are introducing new concepts, some of which they say we shall not see in their final form until Report stage.

This is a complex and technical Bill whose 30 parts are highly interconnected, but under the avalanche of government amendments the Committee of your Lordships' House is unable to see the Bill in the round. I therefore ask for the Government's co-operation in this because we support the primary effect of this Bill; that is, the creation of an overarching financial services authority. But what explanation can the Minister give for the large number of government amendments, given the level of pre-legislative scrutiny this Bill received?

If the Bill is as perfect as the Government claim, one is entitled to ask why they are having so many second thoughts about it. To express our concern, I give notice of our intention to vote against the first government amendment in Committee this afternoon as a form of gentle protest.

My Lords, I give modified support to the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi. As someone else who is attempting to deal with the government amendments as they are brought forward, I find it extremely difficult to deal with such a huge volume of highly technical amendments on which one sometimes needs outside advice at short notice. The Minister made it clear at the beginning of proceedings that there were likely to be a large number of amendments, and he has certainly been right.

As a general principle, we support the idea that government amendments should come forward in due time. But the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, about the long process through which this Bill has gone, is absolutely valid. There was a pre-legislative committee on the Bill; it went through the Commons some time ago. Although the Bill is complicated, it is unfortunate that the Government should be tabling so many amendments to it.

However, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, will not mind if I disagree with him on two points. First, I notice from my supplementary list of amendments tabled on Friday that all bar one came from the Conservative Front Bench and we are facing the same difficulty in relation to late amendments from that front as we are from the Government. Secondly, I am not convinced that the best way to express our displeasure is to vote against an amendment with which we may agree, and therefore we do not propose to do so from these Benches.

My Lords, I give warm support to my noble friend and to the points he made. Nobody can possibly say that my noble friends on the Front Bench have been other than extremely temperate so far in their opposition to the Bill.

I also echo one point made by my noble friend; that is, I exempt the Minister, who handles a difficult, long and complicated Bill in a civil and courteous fashion, from any criticism. Having said that, I extend to him my strong personal sympathy that he should now find himself in loco parentis to such a monstrous child. It is an unfortunate and embarrassing position in which to find oneself. In saying what I now say, I am not in any way underrating the parliamentary skills of the noble Lord, but they will be fully exercised in defending the Government's rather sloppy conduct with this specific measure.

The Minister finds himself in charge of a baby which has put on an enormous amount of weight in a record space of time. Indeed, even now, it shows further signs of extremely undesirable growth. I hope that the Minister will realise how very sorry we all are for him in the terribly unfortunate role that he finds himself having to play.

My Lords, if the noble Lord accepts the role of parenthood perhaps we may invite him to sign a certificate such as the one mentioned by the noble Countess, Lady Mar, which she offered to my noble friend Lord Denham a while ago? However, if the noble Lord was not present during Question Time, he may not see the point of that request.

On a more substantive matter, could the noble Lord put this Bill into context? I agree with other noble Lords that the Minister finds himself in a position with which one can sympathise, but is not the real problem the fact that this Committee stage has been scheduled too soon, before all the government amendments have been thought through? We receive government amendments almost daily through the post, accompanied by very helpful notes. Can the Minister say whether this haste arises from the pressure of other legislation that the Government propose to bring forward? Further, can the noble Lord remind the House of the total number of main programme Bills that the Government propose to bring to this House and tell us how many Second Readings are still ahead of us?

My Lords, I should like to support what my noble friend Lord Saatchi said. Like him, I have particular sympathy for the Minister. Indeed, I spent many hours in Committee in another place on regulatory Bills. They are always very complicated and difficult to handle, especially when they are dealt with single-handedly by a Minister. But the problem with this Bill is not simply its length and the number of amendments that have already been tabled—and, indeed, the number of further amendments that are due to be tabled—but the fact that not only are some details of the Bill still unclear at this stage but also certain issues of policy still need to be resolved. That is the great difference between the present position and what I thought was the tradition in Parliament; namely, that one does not debate Bills in Committee unless the policy has been established, even if the amendments to implement that policy have not been brought forward.

During the passage of the Building Societies Bill in the 1980s—for which, for my sins, I was responsible—a large number of amendments were tabled in this House. That was a great pity. However, we took the greatest care to ensure that the import of all government amendments of any consequence that were due to be tabled was already known and published. I am afraid that that is not a position that we enjoy in relation to the present Bill.

My Lords, I should very much like to endorse what my noble friend from the Front Bench said and to make one or two suggestions. I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, for the care that he has taken to ensure that those of us who are taking part in the proceedings on the Bill have at least one or two days' notice of the amendments that the Government are tabling. I very much welcome and thank the noble Lord for the accompanying notes. However, with the greatest respect, I do not think that the noble Lord has taken on board the difficulty that faces those of us on this side of the House who are seeking to understand the Bill and to deal with it. These really are shifting sands. One thinks that one has understood a clause to which amendments may well have been tabled, but then one finds that the whole clause is to be left out and replaced with an entirely new one. Therefore, as my noble friend said, the context in which one is trying to debate the Bill seems to shift almost day by day.

Perhaps I may indicate to noble Lords exactly what we have been confronted with. On 22nd March, 81 new amendments were tabled and nine new clauses; on 23rd March, 23 amendments were tabled, together with three new clauses and one new schedule. All this actually runs into many, many pages on the Marshalled List. Therefore, having tried to understand the Bill, one then has to grapple with the detail—in this case, over the weekend—in an effort to try to understand the changes. I frankly concede that many of the amendments are properly described as "minor drafting amendments". I have no doubt that the Minister will use those words to justify such amendments. If there are a dozen or even half a dozen minor drafting amendments, one can cope; but it is extremely difficult to cope if there are hundreds because one has to satisfy oneself that a whole string of amendments really are just minor drafting amendments and that they will not change the policy significantly.

However, it goes further than that point. In an effort to be helpful, the noble Lord has already given some of us notice regarding amendments that will be tabled on Report to parts of the Bill that have already been dealt with. I have with me a copy of the notification that we were sent, which is headed, "Draft Decision-Making Amendments to Parts III to IX". As noble Lord may be aware, we shall begin to consider Part X later this afternoon. The problem with those amendments is that their references are to the Bill in the form that it appears before the Committee; but, when they are tabled, they will refer to the Bill as amended in Committee. I am sorry, but I just do not have the resources to begin to go back and look through the Hansard reports and the Marshalled Lists to find what amendments have already been made to the clauses that the Government now propose to amend still further on Report. I am certain that the noble Lord was trying to be helpful, but I have to tell him that it is almost useless for one to try to understand what is intended to happen. Indeed, it emphasises my point that it is very difficult to find firm ground on which to stand.

Perhaps I may take up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Newby. I am not trying to keep in touch with a number of experts in the field—namely, legal advisers and others—because, if I may say so, my noble friends on the Front Bench are doing that wholly admirably. But life is made extremely difficult for some of us as regards trying to understand what is happening when things change day by day. I totally support the protest made by my noble friend Lord Saatchi.

My Lords, I should like to add my support to the concerns that have been expressed regarding the amendments that have been tabled. Indeed, the amendments that arrived at the end of last week were such that, quite clearly, they should have required me to stay up late all weekend in an effort to understand them. One receives much comment from commercial interests with which one was previously connected. Those concerned have very strong views on the amendments that are being made. It would be helpful if one were to have the opportunity to discuss such amendments with them and to take note of their points, but one never seems to have the time to do so.

Like other noble Lords on this side of the House, I have no complaint to make about the personal approach of the Minister. Indeed, he has been most helpful. Although I understand the problem with which he is faced, he must, nevertheless, understand ours. We are experiencing much difficulty in the proceedings on this most important Bill. I hope that something can be done to ease the situation.

My Lords, I hope that my noble friend is not taken in by all the flattering remarks that the Opposition are making about him. I certainly have no intention of associating myself with all those kind remarks. It seems to me that the Opposition are now learning that it is a tough job being in opposition. When they have spent as many years on the Opposition Benches as I did, they will realise how difficult it is to scrutinise technical Bills.

This is a difficult Bill. But, in a way, the Government cannot win. They are trying to improve it. We made the terrible error of having this Committee stage in the Chamber of the House rather than proceeding with it in the Moses Room, which is much more suitable for such technical matters. But, as I understand it, the Opposition did not want us to deal with it in a much more professional way in the Moses Room.

I have seen the difficult amendments to which reference has been made. They are technical; indeed, I have yet to see anything from the Government'side that suggests a fundamental change in policy. It was not clear from the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, whether he feels that there has been a change of policy at some point. I have seen no evidence to support that view. I have seen adjustments because, quite rightly, the Government are thinking matters through. The alternative—this shows that they can never win—would be for the Government to decide not to think it all through in order to get it right. However, they would then be told off for that reason.

Having thoroughly enjoyed the debate of the past quarter of an hour—indeed, it is rather more interesting that the Bill itself—I feel that we ought to get down to business and actually look at some of the incredibly boring material that is set out on the Marshalled List for today.

My Lords, I hope that I may say a few words on this matter. I can recall, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Peston, can, precisely the same kind of complaint being made when the Labour Party was in opposition as is now being made by the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, and his noble friends. That is to some extent inevitable although I think that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, should take the complaints seriously, as I hope that he will. However, the thing which worries me—which was referred to by my noble friend Lord Newby—is the number of starred amendments. This really is highly objectionable; it means that they were tabled on Friday. Many Members of the House looked at both Government and Opposition amendments for the first time this morning. That is most unsatisfactory.

Quite apart from this Bill, we have had two other examples in recent weeks where major issues of principle appeared on the Order Paper with a star beside them. I do not say that we should object in principle to all starred amendments but there should be some discussion through the usual channels, with the Government Chief Whip and others, to see whether we can avoid repetition of incidents of this kind which are not in the interests of this House.

My Lords, I shall try to be as civil and courteous as the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, and my noble friend always are. I read in the press this morning—I do not know whether this is true—that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, the Leader of the Opposition, now has it in mind to make matters extremely difficult for the Government in your Lordships' House. The noble Lord is shaking his head; I am delighted that the report is untrue. However, I am not sure whether he nodded or shook his head; he did both!

However, as has been said, the Bill is complex. It is non-party political in any sense. Indeed, the Official Opposition have made it clear that they support the Bill. However, when a Bill is as complex as the one before us it is not too surprising that the Government should table amendments to it. Indeed, if they had not tabled amendments, I should have thought that the Opposition would be rather annoyed about that. But to take to a vote an amendment with which they broadly agree as a form of protest is rather silly. I would not have expected the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, to associate himself with that kind of nonsense.

My noble friend Lord Peston was absolutely right to say that a Bill as complex as the one before us should be discussed in Committee off the Floor of the House, as in another place, and then returned to the Floor of the House on Report. To discuss these kind of technical matters at Committee stage on the Floor of the House seems to me to be quite wrong.

My Lords, will the noble Lord who is to reply on behalf of the Government cast his mind back 23 years? He need look only at the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, who is seated one row behind him. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, may also remember that in 1977 I had the honour of attempting to work out, with the valuable help of the government Front Bench of that time and of my noble friend Lord Belstead, the then Patents Bill. There were 650 government amendments for amateurs such as myself and my noble friend Lord Belstead to consider between Second Reading and Committee stages. I tactfully remind the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that the then government successfully got their business through. The noble Lord, Lord Barnett, will remember those days well. Those were technical and professional amendments. The House discussed them until late at night but the then government got their business through. If the noble Lord, Lord Peston, wants to go over the ball, he will find someone here who can do it too.

My Lords, I was the Minister in charge of the then Patents Bill. There were so many amendments because representations were specifically made by people who were technically expert in the patents profession. That is the reason for the number of amendments that were tabled. I cannot remember whether there were 550 or 650, but certainly there was a large number. They were tabled because technical experts made representations to the then government which received a positive response.

My Lords, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Peston, I have not had the experience of 17 years in opposition. Therefore I perhaps have more sympathy with the Opposition than he does. I would have much more sympathy if they had not decided on the stunt of pressing the amendment to a vote. The Government's dilemma is absolute. Every day that we do not have this Bill, the present, rather ramshackle system—I speak as a board member of one of the SROs—has to trundle on. The sooner we get the Bill, the better. We could have the amendments in better shape in two or three months' time, but the ramshackle system would have to continue for another two to three months. It is sad but inevitable that we have ended up as we have.

My Lords, in agreeing with my noble friend Lord Saatchi, I respond to a number of points that have been made by the noble Lords, Lord Barnett and Lord Peston. First, it is not the fact that the Government seek to improve the Bill that is at fault, but that they should try to do that while at the same time debating parts of the Bill that they already admit need further amendment. The answer surely therefore is to allow more time for the Committee stage. That is, of course, an option very much up to the Government.

Secondly, I say to the noble Lord who spoke from the Liberal Democrat Benches that the first amendment concerns Clause 129. It is apposite to oppose any amendment to Clause 129. Here I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. When I raised the need for further amendment to Clause 129, the noble Lord conceded that there might be a case for doing so and invited me to a meeting to discuss it. This morning staff from his office contacted me and sought to arrange that meeting. I believe that Clause 129 needs further amendment. It is a good moment to reflect on whether we should seek to amend it further before it is in its final form.

Rather than seek to point up the historical significance of opposition and government performance in the past, will the Minister continue with his positive and constructive attitude of inviting noble Lords to discuss parts of the Bill, take his foot off the accelerator and give us time to ensure that we get the Bill right, as the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, said? It affects the competitiveness of one of our most important areas of the economy; namely, the City, the insurance market, banking and financial services. It is vital that we get it right; that is why I so strongly support my noble friend Lord Saatchi.

My Lords, I do not know how clear it will be to those who are relatively new to this House how familiar I am with the arguments that have been put forward from the Opposition Benches. I put them forward from the Opposition Benches over a period of 14 years before the previous general election. However, I must confess that before doing so I usually thought that it was proper to give the then government notice of that, which did not occur in this case. However, I say that with all the mildness at my command.

Of course the Bill is immensely complicated. It is inevitably immensely complicated because it deals with immensely complicated markets which change from day to day. It is for that reason that the Bill tries not to be unduly prescriptive about the coverage of the regulation system of financial markets. It seeks to provide the flexibility which protects not only the financial markets themselves but—this is equally, if not more, important—also the people who use those financial markets; the consumers of financial products and investments. That results, inevitably, in this being a complicated Bill. The procedure which was adopted in the months and years preceding the arrival of the Bill in your Lordships' House is unprecedented in being the subject of a report by the Treasury Select Committee in another place and in being scrutinised by a Joint Committee of both Houses. It is unprecedented in the sense that a draft Bill was produced following the Joint Committee and the Government's response to the Joint Committee—and yet the natural and inherent complexity of the subject has still mad, it necessary to have further amendments. That is inevitable.

If anything has changed during the past week or so, it has not been that the Government have tabled more amendments. On the contrary, the Government have managed to concentrate their amending obligations so that the number of amendments to be tabled is substantially fewer than the 500 or 600 of which I gave notice at Second Reading.

What has given rise to some of the indignation —which I do not deny is understandablev—is that, in describing what the amendments would be about, I have given as much notice as I conceivably can in advance of the amendments, at the time of the amendments and subsequently. In other words, I have been flooding noble Lords opposite and my noble friends with explanatory material about the amendments. I hope that those who have received that material will recognise that we are improving the Bill but not fundamentally or significantly changing its policies; we are reflecting the inevitable complexity of the subject matter.

Of course I apologise to noble Lords for their difficulties in understanding the Bill and the changes being made. As my noble friends have pointed out, those difficulties are paralleled by the very late stage at which opposition amendments have been tabled. That has meant that some of us have had considerable difficulty in dealing with them over the past weekends. We are not used to dealing with manuscript amendments on major Bills of this kind, but we have had to—and they have not been government amendments.

We have to do what we have to do in order to obtain the best Bill. Many of the government amendments are entirely positive in the sense that they reflect our reconsideration of points made by the Opposition and others during the passage of the Bill; they may be entirely neutral in the sense that they are purely drafting amendments which need not detain the House or the Committee; and some of them involve not a change of policy but a rethink of the way in which that policy may best be achieved.

We appreciate the difficulties involved. We do not believe this is unprecedented—and we certainly do not believe that it justifies the price to be exacted in the form of a vote in Committee today against the first amendment, which the Opposition may well support on its merits.

As my noble friend the Leader of the House is ready to repeat the Statement made in another place, it may be as well if I seek leave to withdraw the Motion that the House resolve itself into Committee on the basis that I shall reintroduce it after the debate on the Statement. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion standing in my name.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat a Statement which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:

"With my right honourable friends the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I attended a special meeting of the European Council in Lisbon on 23rd and 24th March.

"Ever since this Government took office, my right honourable friends and I have consistently advocated the need for comprehensive economic reform within the European Union. From the first European Council I attended at Noordwijck, through the launch of the British presidency and since, we have made clear that the central European economic issue for Britain in this Parliament is reform: how we modernise the European social model; how Europe embraces the enterprise agenda and seeks to match the dynamism of the United States, while at the same time preserving our commitment to social justice.

"The idea of holding a special summit at Lisbon on economic reform was originally put forward as a joint British/Spanish initiative. The Portuguese presidency has been rightly praised for the energetic and thorough way in which it took the issue forward.

"The challenge facing Europe today is fundamental. In many aspects of the new knowledge economy, the United States has established a clear lead. Seventy per cent of all e-commerce business in the world is presently conducted in the US; less than 20 per cent in Europe; and despite the gathering strength of Europe's economic recovery and the advances we have made in some key areas— for example, mobile telephony—15 million European men and women are without jobs.

"The Council marks a sea change in European economic thinking. It points Europe in a new direction—away from the heavy-handed intervention and regulation towards a new approach based on enterprise, innovation and competition.

"As part of this fundamental reorientation of economic policy, the Council agreed a whole series of concrete measures, with clear deadlines, including: rapid agreement this year on an effective legal framework for e-commerce within the EU; a fully liberalised and competitive telecoms market by the end of the next year; access to the Internet for all schools by 2001; electronic access to the main basic public services by 2003; the introduction of a European diploma for basic IT skills; a Community-wide patent by the end of 2001, making European patent protection as simple, inexpensive and comprehensive as anywhere in the world; and government and community procurement to be fully on line by 2003.

"The need for reform is not confined to the "new economy". We agreed at Lisbon on the need for urgent measures to make the European economy as a whole more competitive, flexible and dynamic. To support this objective, the Council concluded that: there must be faster liberalisation of previously protected sectors like gas, electricity and transport; there should be further support for European R&D, with the EIB making an additional one billion euro available for venture capital to support SMEs over the next three years; there should be a general reduction in the level of state aids throughout the Union; the financial services action plan should be implemented in full by 2005, with earlier progress in priority areas; for example, the introduction of a single prospectus for companies raising capital across the EU and the elimination of barriers to investment in pension funds; and a European charter for small firms should be developed, to clear away the obstacles to the growth of small businesses.

"In these and other areas, we agreed to benchmark each member state's performance and progress, not just against other countries in Europe but, where appropriate, against the best in the world.

"We also agreed that EU social policy must be modernised to respond to changing employment patterns, increasing life expectancy and deepening social exclusion. Again, the European Council agreed on a number of specific measures to take this new agenda forward: we agreed action to combat social exclusion, with member states setting targets in specific areas—unemployment, youth unemployment, overall employment, child poverty and so on; we agreed to halve by 2010 the number of 18 to 24 year-olds excluded from the labour market because of low educational qualifications; we finally opened up the issue of the long-term sustainability of member states' pension systems and the need to reform them across the EU; we agreed to establish a new Europe-wide database on jobs and learning opportunities; we agreed to put life-long learning at the centre of job creation, and to monitor each member state's progress against a series of agreed aims; we agreed to improve equal opportunities, increase the provision of childcare and promote greater flexibility in the management of working time. Each year, the European Council will meet to examine progress and agree further action specifically on economic reform.

"The Lisbon European Council represents a turning point in Europe's approach to economic and social policy. With a sound macro-economic framework in place and the euro safely introduced, the concrete actions agreed at the Council should help to deliver an increase in the EU employment rate over the next 10 years, from an average of 61 per cent today to something close to 70 per cent. I have no doubt that this is achievable. In the last three years, we have created over 800,000 new jobs in Britain; in Spain there have been over a million new jobs; and in France, too, employment has risen by over 800,000 in the last two years, in part reflecting new measures to cut the cost of labour.

"Above all, the European Council agreed that once again in Europe we can seriously contemplate a return to full employment. That post-war goal, achieved 30 or 40 years ago, but then abandoned, is back on the agenda and quite right too. Each citizen unemployed is a resource wasted.

"But we have the courage to recognise that the aspiration cannot be met unless we are prepared to make the fundamental reforms necessary to equip our countries for the modern age, a new 21st century economy. It is in the combining of traditional aims and values with modern means and reforms that the true significance of Lisbon lies.

"We had a full discussion of the situation in the Balkans, including the continuing problems in Kosovo and Montenegro. We agreed that the countries of the region need to be brought more into the European mainstream, and committed ourselves to enhance economic assistance, including through early trade liberalisation. The Lisbon Council recognised the immense progress made since the Kosovo conflict began a year ago, but agreed that a more coherent approach by the international community was needed. We asked the Council Secretary General and the European Commission to come forward with early recommendations on how to strengthen the impact of the European contribution and enhance co-ordination of the overall international effort. We believe this will enable Javier Solana and Chris Patten to promote a more coherent international strategy for Kosovo and the region.

"Finally, we discussed relations with Russia on the eve of the presidential elections, agreeing on the need for a full partnership between the European Union and Russia, and emphasising our concerns again about the situation in Chechnya.

"I spoke to President Putin this morning to congratulate him on his emphatic election victory. He was very conscious of the weight of responsibility on his shoulders, both to restore order and democracy in Chechnya and to rebuild the Russian economy.

"Lisbon was a highly successful summit. By getting our way in Europe, we are standing up for Britain's economic interests. Making Europe more dynamic benefits Britain. More competition in Europe means new markets for British business. More enterprise in Europe means more jobs in Britain. More e-commerce means more opportunities for British companies. More jobs, cheaper goods and easier access to the Internet are good for Britain.

"Once again, constructive engagement has been shown to be the right policy for Britain and for Europe".

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. Will the noble Baroness will join me in welcoming the presence in Lisbon, with such strong popular backing, of Prime Minister Aznar of Spain? Does she agree that his influence on future discussions is likely to be far more constructive than the rather outdated attitudes of M. Jospin?

We welcome the fact that at last some EU leaders seem to accept the need to reduce regulation and increase competitiveness. We welcome the fact that the EU has realised that it is not internationally competitive and that the crucial services sector is underdeveloped. But we do have to ask why it has taken so long. We have been saying this for decades. And has anyone told the EU Commission, which still seems to be working with undiminished zeal on measures for harmonisation and regulation?

There are many fine words in the Lisbon communiqué. In fact, I have rarely read such a torrent of aspirations—the small print of which amounted to the Prime Minister and his colleagues confessing, "We"ve over-regulated, overspent and overtaxed". But words are not enough. The commitment to deregulate must be matched in action. Small business people in Britain and throughout Europe are crying out at the cost of the regulation and nannying interference that they now face in running their businesses. In the spirit of the Lisbon summit, can the noble Baroness undertake to review all those regulations imposed on small businesses in the United Kingdom since the signing of the Social Chapter by the Prime Minister?

We welcome the commitment in principle in Lisbon to deregulate in the fields of telecommunications and utilities. But how does that sit with the Government's plans to introduce more regulation on these industries in the current parliamentary Session? Will the Lisbon discussions affect that legislation in any way? And, when will all this happen? Were target dates set for the liberalisation of markets in gas, electricity, water, postal services and transport? If so, what were those target dates? Will the Utilities Bill currently before Parliament be dropped?

Why did the Prime Minister commit himself to the so-called "pending tax package"—tax harmonisation by another name?

On research, where again there are worthy aspirations, most of them are best met not by states, but by the private sector. What is meant by giving the Commission powers to "build a European Research Area", including mechanisms for monitoring research and using tax policies to promote research? I wonder whether this represents an extension of Community taxation competence. It sounds as though it does.

We read in paragraph 21 of the conclusions that the Ministers want to,

"eliminate barriers to investment in pension funds".

How does that sit with the Chancellor of the Exchequer's smash-and-grab raid on pensions investments with his massive increase in taxation of dividends?

We welcome the commitment to lower taxes on low-paid workers. But does not the American model point to the urgent need to lower taxes in the European economies overall? Therefore, will the Government set a lower tax target for the UK? Does not this commitment at Lisbon suggest that the huge increase in the tax burden since May 1997—now of course admitted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—is taking Britain in precisely the opposite direction to what is needed?

We welcome another Lisbon aspiration, which is to facilitate cross-border investment. We need and support such a free market. But when will the Government wake up to the fact that unless sensible action is taken this could represent a threat as well as an opportunity to our most vital national interests in the City of London? Will they reconsider their decision in the Budget not to reduce or eliminate stamp duty on transactions in shares, given the fact that UK rates are now becoming increasingly uncompetitive in Europe? We do not want to wake up to a world in which business drains away from the London market because of the determination of the Chancellor to cling to stamp duty.

As usual, a number of initiatives were suggested at Lisbon. Perhaps the noble Baroness will indicate to us how she believes they will be paid for. Will any addition be requested to current EU funds?

Perhaps I may turn briefly to foreign affairs. We welcome what is said about securing the stability of south-eastern Europe. But when do the Government expect navigation on the Danube to be opened, as called for in paragraph 51? What part will the UK Government play in this? Do the Government envisage any further burdens falling on our magnificent servicemen and women in the Balkans?

Finally, the most absurd part of the summit was the body language of the Prime Minister when sitting next to the Chancellor of Austria. For how long do he and his EU partners intend to go on with the futile boycott of the democratically elected government of Austria? Will he still be boycotting Austria while congratulating Mr Putin, who has presided over a catalogue of human rights abuses in Chechnya, or feting President Jiang Zemin, who has done the same in Tibet? Was not the "musical chairs" in Lisbon another example of the frankly rather adolescent Blair doctrine on human rights: hector the weak, but lick the boots of the strong? Is this now the policy of the British Government?

What is needed in Europe following Lisbon is not what we were presented with—a further addition to the mountain of Euro-rhetoric—but a radical shift of direction, to lower tax, less regulation and more open competition. There can be no sense of a sea change in European economic thinking until we see less interference from Europe in the nooks and crannies of business and our private lives.

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for repeating the Prime Minister's Statement. Despite some discussion of Kosovo and of Russia, the Lisbon summit has been given the convenient title of "the Internet summit". That is what I shall address my remarks to.

As the House will recall, the whole question of the preliminary paper for the Lisbon summit was discussed by the Select Committee on the European Union, which reported to the House in its sixth report. If I were to summarise the tone of that report, I would say that it was a healthy scepticism about what the summit might achieve. It referred to the uncertainty of the underlying rationale of the special council and to the danger that it would be long on objectives but short on the means to achieve them. That was very much the mood when, on the initiative of my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire in tabling an Unstarred Question on 15th March, the House debated the Lisbon summit. In reply to that debate the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, said:

"This summit is ultimately about making Europe the best place in the world to do business".— [0fficia/ Report, 15/3/2000; col. 1674.]

That was a very good summary and we should attempt to judge the achievements of Lisbon against that criterion. I prefer to use the word "criterion" because I am still not quite sure what a "benchmark" is. Indeed, the verb "to benchmark" finds no place in the Larger Oxford English Dictionary, but I take it to mean "to measure against objectives". In a sense, that will be the test of Lisbon: whether, given the aspirations of Lisbon—that is what they mainly were—we will be able to measure achievement positively against what was discussed and agreed last weekend. As a result of Lisbon, will Europe be the best place in the world to do business?

Put like that, on the basis of the communiqué itself, the answer is plainly "no". I do not think that the Prime Minister or the Leader of the House would claim that Lisbon has solved the problem of how to make Europe the best place in the world for business. The most it has done is to take some steps in that direction. The achievement will depend on a persistent will on the part of the Union itself and its member countries over a long period. Very many decisions will be required—most of them not by governments and most of them not yet taken—if we are to achieve the aspirations of Lisbon.

On my part, I have divided thoughts: welcoming what was achieved but perhaps suspending judgment on whether history will show that it was mainly rhetoric or there was real substance behind it. Certainly, in historical terms, it is too soon to sustain the Prime Minister's main claim that it is a turning point. It may be. It could be a turning point for the better, but we cannot even say that for the moment.

The emphasis in the Statement is on modernisation and liberalisation. Those are the fashionable "buzz words" but they are not the whole language of politics.

I have two principal mainstream reservations about the Statement. First, I cannot share the passionate belief in markets solving all problems. Liberalisation is not all good. For example, would it get rid of poverty; and what would be the cost in dislocation and personal security? That is what we have to set against the advantages of liberalisation, although they can be recognised. Secondly, I found no reference in the communique to the danger that Europe may become a rich island in a poor world. If it is successful, if the aspirations of Lisbon are fulfilled, we shall be very rich indeed. We shall be growing at 3 per cent per annum. We shall be a competitor to the United States. But where does that leave the rest of the world? Will the rich be getting richer and will the poor be getting poorer? If that were to be the case, it would be right to have reservations on whether Lisbon has been a turning point or at least a turning point in the right direction.

Although we broadly welcome the Lisbon communiqué and congratulate the Prime Minister both on writing the Lisbon agenda and the communiqué in Downing Street—that is precisely what I think happened—I hope that there will be no attempt to lecture other European Union countries on the way we would want them to run their own economies. Even for those of us who are strong Europeans, that is further than any European Union communique should go. Perhaps it would be a good time to say again that if Britain is to play its full part I hope that the strong, clear leadership that was the theme of the Prime Minister's own statement about his achievement will soon lead to Britain's participation in the single European currency.

The noble Baroness will be very glad to know that I have only one question on the Statement. Although there was no reference to it in the communiqué,will she say whether there was any discussion of the single currency—if not in the Council itself then in the margins—and whether the Government have moved any further forward to taking a more positive view on this issue, which is central to the part that Britain will play in the Union in the years ahead?

My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords who have, I think it would be fair to say, broadly welcomed the Statement. I am glad that both noble Lords acknowledged that the Statement was the result of the positive leadership role played by the United Kingdom Government on the agenda. I remind the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, of the scope of the agenda which, I am sure the Government would acknowledge, did not include all of the global picture which he rightly identified as being of relevance to the Union. But, as the title or "theme", if one wants to so describe it, of the particular meeting was employment, economic reform and social cohesion within the Union, perhaps that broader global context, although it would be relevant to discuss it in another forum, was not the main subject of the agenda for today.

The noble LOrd, Lord Rodgers, also said that many of the decisions and items for discussion within the context of the Statement and the agenda at Lisbon were not those to be taken necessarily by government but were in a sense more relevant to the private market place. But he is right in saying that the underlying theme of the summit, at least from the UK Government's perspective, was to ensure that the European Union is the best place to do business. That was particularly relevant to the e-commerce agenda and all of those issues that flow from that.

Both noble Lords were somewhat sceptical about the precise points that had been agreed by the summit and any form of action that had been set out on a specific timetable. It is right to say that in the conclusions and in the Statement there is indeed a new emphasis both on deadlines and specific objectives. For example, it has been agreed that a fully integrated and liberalised telecommunications market should take place before 2001. The charter for small firms, which is particularly relevant to the new economy, is to be agreed by June of this year. A financial services action is to be implemented by the year 2005. There is to be procurement on-line by 2003. There is to be a Community-wide patents agreement by 2001 and teachers are to be skilled in the Internet and multimedia resources by 2002. Those are all specific objectives with specific timetables which do not stand up to the criticism that the Statement or the conclusions of the summit were related only to rhetorical ambition rather than a specific programme.

The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, asked whether what had been agreed would make any difference to the Government's position on tax in the European Union. I am sure the noble Lord is aware that Her Majesty's Government have long made it clear that we will not sign up to EU tax measures which bring any form of tax regulation under the QMV arrangements or any that are harmful to the City. Those positions were protected at Lisbon and the conclusions demonstrate that.

The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, mentioned Austria and asked whether what was said was simply symbolic. As the noble Lord will be aware, the UK Government and their European partners have said clearly that the Austrian Government must be judged by their record in government. It is still too soon to draw any conclusions. We shall continue to monitor developments and implement the measures agreed, and see what comes out of that in the long run.

Overall, it is true that the constructive leadership given by both the United Kingdom and Spain—the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, rightly drew attention to the role that the Spanish Government had played—and by the Portuguese presidency, together with the very good preparation achieved by a large number of bilateral contacts and statements by various European partners before Lisbon, have produced this very practical outcome. I challenge both Lords that this is a sea change. As a result of Lisbon we have seen riot only the specific set of goals and programmes for change that I have listed, but also the important achievement of a different approach to the liberalisation of certain important matters. I have already mentioned the telecommunications and utilities issue. Maintaining common issues of social justice has also been important in the bilateral discussions. Noble Lords will not be surprised to hear me refer to my portfolio as Minister for Women. I am particularly pleased, for example, that the conclusions contain references to an improvement in equality of opportunity and improvements in the numbers of jobs for women within the European Union; they contain also a specific reference to childcare.

My Lords, I should like to ask my noble friend two questions. First, perhaps I may rebut slightly the scepticism expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, in regard to the Select Committee report. My noble friend will be aware that the report was produced only on the basis of the presidency paper, and that subsequent to the presidency paper there were seven further Commission papers, three Council papers and four others which substantially improved input to the European summit and made it more focused and much clearer, especially in regard to macro-economic objectives.

One point that is lacking in both the Statement and in the presidency conclusions is any interface between the decisions at Lisbon and the future enlargement of the European Union. If this Lisbon Statement is to produce real actions—as I believe it should and can—does it not somewhat alter the goal-posts of the acquis communautaire for those countries seeking to join the European Union? Is it not therefore necessary for the Government to address at some future stage, with ministerial colleagues from the rest of the European Union, the question of what support there will be for the applicant countries aspiring to join the European Union, in order that many of the high objectives agreed at Lisbon can be partly implemented in those countries so that they are not further behind us when enlargement takes place?

My Lords, my noble friend raises an important question. It is right that the matter of the IGC should be seen along the lines developed at Lisbon. My noble friend makes more specific the general point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, about seeing the conclusions of the Lisbon summit in a broader context. The broad context of the IGC process and the applicant countries is the more precise and immediate one.

Clearly the objectives of the discussions and the proposals at Lisbon must not, as it were, take existing members of the European Union so far out in front in such matters as e-commerce arrangements that it becomes impossible for other countries to come alongside them in terms of Community regulations and understandings. My noble friend is right on that point. I am sure that that matter will be taken under the umbrella of the IGC as discussions progress. That process is only just beginning.

My Lords, can the noble Baroness help me to solve a puzzle? First, if Lisbon really is a turning-point, leading Europe in new directions of flexibility and liberalisation, why on earth was there no review of the Working Time Directive or the provisions of the Social Chapter—which everyone recognises have been a major force of paralysis in European reform?

Secondly, did it occur to Ministers assembling at Lisbon that the major explosion in recent years in e-commerce and Internet enterprise has come about in areas that are so far removed from government that they have had nothing to do with government? I refer, for instance, to enterprises in Silicon Valley and Bangalore which have prospered almost despite government, and which are in great fear of the worst slow-down on these developments—namely, too much regulation. Was that idea in the minds of leaders at Lisbon? If so, might it not have been wise for them to demonstrate a little more candidly that they understood that the e-commerce revolution lies outside the realms of government control?

My Lords, I made it clear in my initial response to the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, that it was understood—possibly not as explicitly as the noble Lord might have liked—that many of the matters discussed at Lisbon were indeed the prerogative of the private markets and of private enterprise. I believe that the noble Lord will agree that there are many ways in which governments, acting collectively or individually, can support much of the new investment and activity needed to stimulate, for example, small business investment in e-commerce. That was precisely the direction that was intended from the point of view of the specific arrangements made.

In regard to directives under the Social Chapter, I am afraid that I disagree with the noble Lord. For example, I should have thought that the introduction of the minimum wage and the discussions now being negotiated about the part-time working directive were achieving precisely what the Prime Minister described in his Statement; namely, an improvement in the economic direction of Europe for the new economy while at the same time retaining the appropriate attention to social justice.

My Lords, will my noble friend agree that the Lisbon Council has been big for small businesses— not only because of the 1 billion euros provided for small businesses through the EIB but also because of the European charter for small businesses? Will she take this opportunity to repudiate the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that the Government are trying to snarl up the single market for small businesses? Indeed, my noble friend mentioned the minimum wage. It is the subject of a report today indicating that British businesses have demonstrated an enormous welcome for the minimum wage and wish to see the amount raised. Finally, does my noble friend agree that there is still much work to be done to complete the single European market—the inspiration of the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield—which will be the best solution and opportunity for British businesses and for jobs and prosperity?

My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. In replying to his specific point, it may be helpful if I reply to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, which I did not do in replying to his general remarks. The noble Lord asked whether the proposals would cost a great deal of money. That is not the case. The conclusions make it clear that achieving the strategic and specific goals that I have mentioned will depend on mobilising resources available on the markets. I emphasis again that this is predominantly a matter for the private sector. Naturally, the UK Government and their partners hope that, where appropriate, public/private partnerships can also he utilised.

My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness will allow me to return momentarily to the question of Austria. In his interesting intervention, the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, said that he hoped we should not get into the habit of interfering in the internal economic arrangements of other countries. I should like to add that I hope we shall not interfere too much in the internal political arrangements of other countries.

In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, the noble Baroness said that we would keep an eye on the behaviour of the Austrian Government to see how well they did. Is that not the same as saying that the Austrian Government are assumed to be guilty until they have proved themselves innocent? If so, is that the right way to treat a sovereign government? Perhaps I may repeat the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde: how long is this period of probation to last? Do we wait until the Austrian people change their government? What are the criteria? For how long is Austria to be cast into the outer darkness because of a democratic decision taken by its own people?

My Lords, I hesitate to argue with the noble Lord on questions of international law or relative constitutionality. However, I believe that a distinction should be drawn between the internal democratic processes of a member government of the European Union, as the noble Lord suggests, and the requirement that member governments fulfil their obligations along the lines of what may be described as the values to which the European Union in general has collectively agreed. The noble Lord asks me how long the process will take. All I can do is repeat what I said in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. The view of our European Union partners is that sufficient time has not elapsed to ensure that there is a consistent commitment to European Union values by the new Austrian Government, and that is something that they will wish to continue to monitor.

My Lords, paragraph 50 of the Council's conclusions state:

"The European Union…will … continue to support the democratic opposition [in Serbia], but will also develop a comprehensive dialogue with civil society [in that country]".

In view of the continued presence of Mr Milosevic, how is that support being given, and how will that dialogue be developed?

My Lords, as I believe was fairly clear from the Statement, there is some disquiet within the European Union about the need for,

"a more coherent and action-oriented strategy",

to quote the conclusions dealing with the Balkans. That means that there are ways to achieve that particular form of dialogue other than those agreed under the Stability Pact and other bilateral interventions by individual European countries. I do not have details of the specific methods of engagement with the Serbian Government. I can only express the general understanding about trying to extend the existing channels with the Serbian Government. Obviously, there is a belief within the European Council that something more pro-active must be done to establish a better situation there. If I receive any more specific information about the particular channels with the Serbian Government, I shall write to the noble Lord.

My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the EU high level group on benchmarking. l t may assist if I explain what that is, given that the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, said that he had to look it up in a dictionary. This was an initiative taken more than a year ago by the European employers' organisation UNICE as a new half-way house between over-regulation and simply letting free markets operate. It has been widely welcomed by the Council as a means of introducing best practice in Europe. Does my noble friend agree that in Lisbon a new philosophy in regard to both the public and private sectors has been developed so that we can emulate best practice in different parts of Europe to try to improve the performance and competitiveness of Europe's economy? In that connection, does my noble friend also agree that that initiative has strong support? For example, the leader of my group was the chairman of Ericsson in Sweden; another member was the director-general of the organisation of small businesses in Germany. This is not a concept that is opposed by small businesses. Does my noble friend agree that the Social Chapter is compatible with that, in that minimum standards are one of the results of benchmarking? For example, one finds minimum standards in connection with the percentage of women in the labour force. Requirements in relation to such matters as the protection of those in part-time work and fixed-term contracts pro rata with men are exactly the concepts which emerge from this kind of analysis.

My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt the noble Lord, but perhaps I may remind him that we are here to ask questions, not to make speeches.

My Lords, I believe that my noble friend did ask a general question. I hope that he also helped the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, in understanding the concept of benchmarking. I am inclined to sympathise with the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, about the infelicity of the verb "to benchmark". However, benchmarking as a concept is probably well understood. I agree with my noble friend that the process of assessing best practice is very well understood in the public and private sectors in this country. I was grateful for my noble friend's authoritative experience of the engagement by both small and large EU businesses in this subject. That again demonstrates, particularly to noble Lords opposite, that this is something with which the free market, the private sector and business in Europe agree.

My Lords, while I appreciate the Statement repeated by the Leader of the House and the language of the Lisbon Summit, there is one small technical question the answer to which interests me, although perhaps it is the subject for another debate. It seems to me that this is the first time that the objective of raising the employment rate from 61 per cent to nearly 70 per cent has played an important part in Statements of this kind. Why has this particular benchmark entered the debate, especially in view of the fact that one of the main instruments to fight unemployment in many European countries is the extension of primary education and early retirement?

My Lords. I should not like to challenge the noble Lord on his statement that this is the first time the matter has been mentioned in this form. The noble Lord is probably right; I do not know otherwise. The point about the relative rates of employment was simply to put into context the overall attempt to increase the number of jobs, particularly those in the new knowledge economy. The noble Lord is right to mention the relative value of what we in this country call "lifelong learning". That is specifically mentioned in the conclusions as something of very great importance to the successful implementation of much of the policy. I believe that what is conveyed by the Statement is that employment has risen significantly in the various member states of the Union, and therefore it is perfectly legitimate to attempt to aspire to (to use a fashionable phrase) a percentage rise in employment to achieve the 20 million extra jobs, to which the Prime Minister referred. To put on my hat as Minister for Women, one of the UK's economic predictions is that probably 1.7 million new jobs will be created in this field in the next decade, of which 1.3 million will be for women. Therefore, it appears that the overall percentage is an aspiration that is worth setting down.

My Lords, perhaps I may press the Leader of the House on two of the answers that she has given, one to my noble friend Lord Strathclyde and the other to my noble friend Lord Howell. I thought I heard the noble Baroness say in reply to my noble friend Lord Strathclyde that the Government would not sign up to any tax harmonisation measures which they did not like. Presumably, the Government have signed these conclusions of the presidency. In the fourth part of paragraph 21 one sees that they have agreed,

"to conclude, in line with the Helsinki European Council conclusions, the pending tax package".

In paragraph 22 one also sees that they have signed up to the statement:

"The opportunity provided by growth must be used to pursue fiscal consolidation more actively".

As regards red tape, I heard the answer the Minister gave my noble friend Lord Howell. However, in view of what is said in paragraph 14 of the presidency conclusions, can the noble Baroness tell the House unequivocally whether the Council agreed to withdraw any of the acquis communautaire or whether they remain sacrosanct? If so, how on earth can one possibly hope to meet the aims of paragraph 14?

Finally, I refer to another item which is not included in the somewhat rosy Statement of the Prime Minister. These Statements always appear to be the triumph of bureaucratic hope over what will certainly turn out to be the bitter experience dictated by the world market. I note in paragraph 21—perhaps the Minister can confirm this—that the Government have agreed,

"to make rapid progress on the long-standing proposals on takeover bids".

How can that be good for the British economy?

My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord did not mishear me or that I did not mis-speak. In relation to the tax issue, I thought that I said that the Government have made it clear over a long period that those matters of tax relating to our own tax situation will not be subject to qualified majority voting. If I said something different, I apologise; that is what I meant.

Tax was not explicitly discussed at Lisbon. The noble Lord is right to refer back to the conclusions at Helsinki. As he will know, discussions on the broad package are under way with our European partners.

On the paragraph relating to the acquis—the noble Lord referred, I think, to paragraph 14—it relates specifically to small and medium-sized enterprises. I do not have the information about whether there has been specific change to the acquis on that. I doubt it very much or it would have been made explicit. I can only refer the noble Lord back to the point I made to the noble Lord who asked me whether it was possible to align that with the existing acquis and IGC process. It is a live issue which would have to be set under that umbrella.

The noble Lord raised the tight timetable on the financial services action plan.

My Lords, I refer to the takeover directive.

My Lords, I am sorry; I have misunderstood.

My Lords, the takeover directive appears to be being pushed ahead with Prime Ministerial support.

My Lords, in that case I am not sure to which paragraph the noble Lord refers.

My Lords, paragraph 21.

My Lords, I was emphasising the previous part of paragraph 21.I apologise to the noble Lord.

The noble Lord is right to say that the issue will have to be considered in the broader context of the tax package. It was not specifically addressed at Lisbon. I refer the noble Lord back to the Helsinki arrangements which establish the package for tax reform.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee. — (Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne) in the Chair.]

Clause 129 [General rule-making power]:

moved Amendment No. 226D:

Page 60, line 6, after ("activities") insert ("or

(b) with respect to the carrying on by them of activities which are not regulated activities,").

The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment, I speak also to government Amendments Nos. 230C, 230G, and 277 B; and refer to opposition Amendment No. 231XA.

We begin today's Committee with a debate on Part X of the Bill—Rules and Guidance. It is one of the most vital, if technical, parts of the Bill. Rules are a key instrument by which the authority will give effect at working level to its statutory objectives and the principles to which it must have regard. The role of guidance is to provide information and advice to the regulated community—with respect to rules but also on more general issues.

The first clause of Part X is Clause 129, the authority's general rule-making power. This is a key clause in the new regime. It confers a power on the authority to make rules applying to authorised persons in carrying on regulated activities. Clause 130 gives the FSA power to apply rules to authorised firms' non-regulated activities where it is necessary in order to avoid an adverse effect on the customers of the authorised business.

The effect of Amendment No. 226D and my intention to oppose the Question that Clause 130 stand part of the Bill will be to integrate the authority's power to make rules which affect non-regulated activities as part of its power to make general rules. Amendments Nos. 230C, 230G, and 277B delete references to non-regulated activities rules elsewhere in the Bill.

There are two main reasons for this change. First, it will bring much greater focus to the authority's remit to make non-regulated activity rules. I shall come back to that point in a moment. Secondly, although in many respects Clause 130 repeats what is in Clause 129, one point in which Clause 130 differs is that Clause 129 allows the FSA to make rules even when there is no relationship between the authorised person to whom the rules will apply and the persons, that is those consumers dealing with persons providing regulated activities, whose interests are protected by the rules. This is necessary to cover situations where rules are necessary to control systemic risk. The absence of such a provision in respect of non-regulated activities could lead to doubt about when a rule applies.

Returning to the first point, the authority will be able to make rules under the integrated power—those were Clauses 129 and 130—only if it appears to be necessary or expedient for the purpose of protecting the interests of cansumers. It is worth emphasising that the people whose interests are being protected are limited to consumers dealing with persons who are carrying on regulated activities; and that the protection is focused on protection in relation to the carrying on of those activities. It is clear as a matter of common sense that what a person does otherwise than in connection with regulated activities is capable of having an effect on his regulated activities. But that is not a licence for the authority to interfere with the running of a person's non-regulated activities.

This Bill is about regulated activities. But there is an important qualification to this. Where there is a risk that a person's non-regulated activities could damage the interests of his regulated activity customers in relation to the carrying on of regulated activities then that is a matter for the Bill. It is right that the rule-making powers of the authority should extend to this type of situation. This is the effect of our amendments. They make it clear that the authority's powers are limited to this situation That is what our Amendment No. 229 (which we have already debated) says. It is worth remembering that we are talking here about a power.

It is at the stage when the authority makes its rules that it must consider whether there are situations where non-regulated activities could damage the interests of a consumer of a regulated activity. Even if it can identify such situations, the authority must also reach the view that a rule it made could provide protection for such a consumer and that it is necessary or expedient to make that rule, bearing in mind the authority's general duties as set out in Clause 2.

As a result of the amendments, Clause 129(1) will allow the authority to make rules to protect the interests of consumers. By bringing in non-regulated activity rules into Clause 129, it will be clear that the purpose of such rules is also to protect the interests of consumers; and by making this small change all the provisions of Clause 130 can be removed.

I turn to Amendment No. 231XA. Clause 141 allows an authorised person to be sued for damages if a private person—

I tried very hard to understand what the Minister said. I found it immensely difficult. I shall be surprised if I am alone. Is it possible for the noble Lord to sum up what he said during the past five minutes—I see he grins with horror at the thought—in something which is called the Queen's English? I listened very hard but found it incredibly difficult to understand. I do not think that I am the most stupid Member of your Lordships' House.

First, this part of the Bill is about the Financial Services Authority making rules. Secondly, Clause 129 says that it makes rules about authorised persons, who are the people covered by the Bill in activities which are regulated by the Bill. Thirdly, Clause 130 states that there might be occasions when the authority must regulate activities carried out by authorised persons which are not regulated activities. Therefore, the amendments take out Clause 130 and bring those provisions into Clause 129. However, there is one exception to that. Fourthly, there must be a restriction on which unregulated activities are covered by the rule-making power.

That is terrific. Why the hell did he not say it before? That told us exactly what we wanted to know. I stand gobsmacked in admiration for what the noble Lord said. That explanation was very good, but the other one was very difficult to understand. I thank him.

It might be difficult for Members of the Committee to understand and it was difficult for me to understand. I ran a management practice and having been in business all my life I used to say to people who wrote reports for me, "Tell me what that means". After they had told me what it meant, I would say, "Well, why didn't you write that?". Unfortunately, legislation and even Ministers' speeches about legislation are different. I have to cover the waterfront and go into more detail. It was true of the noble Earl's government, too.

Of that, there is no doubt whatever. I was not making a party political point; I was making a general point. I am immensely impressed by the Minister's explanation.

And, by the way, it is what the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, intends to vote against!

I turn to Amendment No. 231XA. Clause 141, which has nothing to do with Clauses 129 or 130, allows an authorised person to be sued for damages if a private person suffers loss as a result of the contravention of a rule. The effect of Amendment No. 231XA would be to prevent such actions for damages in respect of non-regulated activity rules.

As I explained in putting the case for the Government's amendments, we are proposing to remove the clause which confers the power to make non-regulated activity rules as such. That was the second point I made. In any event, we believe that the FSA's power to make rules relating to non-regulated activities is narrower than has often been supposed. We believe that under our new proposals it will be clear that the FSA will have a power to make rules only about non-regulated activities if it considers that it is necessary or expedient to do so in order to protect the consumers of regulated activities.

I believe that the same logic which results in the authority being given power to make rules in relation to non-regulated activities follows through to there being a right of action for breach of statutory duty in relation to contraventions of such rules. I keep looking towards the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, to make sure that he is still with me!

It is part of the necessary protection for consumers of regulated activities. The right of action for breach of statutory duty is of course only available to private persons. Perhaps I may give an example. Let us suppose that an authorised person who also carried on a non-regulated coin-dealing business were to operate an authorised collective investment scheme is a regulated activity and it is perfectly lawful to operate such a scheme as long as the operator is authorised.

However, it is not inconceivable that some rules might need to be applied to the coin dealing business—purely as a minimum—in order to make sure that the funds contributed by participants in the collective investment scheme—that is, the consumers of the regulated activity—are protected.

A rule might be necessary to require an independent valuation of any purchase for the scheme made using investors' funds which the scheme operator makes for his coin dealing business in order to avoid any conflict of interest he might otherwise have and to ensure that the scheme participants' interests are protected. It may be arguable that the rule would touch on the running of the non-regulated coin dealing business. However, it is clear that if he contravenes such a rule, and the coins are sold to the scheme at what turns out to be a disadvantageous price, there could be damage to the interests of the scheme participants. Are we together on this?

The noble Lord deserves great credit. I believe that I am with him on the pennies, yes.

That is why we believe that the FSA must have the power, exercisable only in such cases, to make rules which affect the carrying on of a non-regulated activity. It follows that if an authorised person were to breach such rules, a private person should be able to bring an action for breach of statutory duty in any case where he suffers loss or damage as a result of the rule breach. The two propositions go hand in hand.

I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.

I do not want to add to the Minister's already heavy burden, but could we have five Haringey bullet points at the beginning of each government amendment? That would make them a great deal easier to understand.

The risk of oversimplification is great. The case of Pepper v. Hart states that what Ministers say at the Dispatch Box when explaining Bills can sometimes be taken into account in a court of law. It is dangerous.

I am not suggesting that he should dispense with the Treasury rhubarb, but we should all be helped by starting with such a punchy introduction.

My rather furtive expression exhibits my fear that when I subside my noble friend might rise again!

Our Amendment No. 231XA is an amendment to Clause 141. Under that clause, the contravention by an authorised person of the authority's rules is actionable at the suit of a private person who suffers loss as a result of the contravention. Members of the Committee are also aware that, in such circumstances, compliance with the FSA's guidance is not a defence to the statutory right to bring an action for damages. Compliance with guidance does not provide a safe harbour against proceedings under Clause 141(1).

Our amendment would add a caveat to the application of Clause 141(1) by adding to Clause 141(4) the words,

"or a non-regulated activity rule".

Non-regulated activity rules are referred to in Clause 130. They are rules made by the FSA applying to authorised persons with respect to the carrying on by them of non-regulated activities. Rules made under Clause 131 are non-regulated activity rules. The proposed amendment would mean that the statutory right to bring an action for damages would be precluded in the case of contraventions of such rules. It is submitted that that is reasonable in principle because the statutory right in Clause 141 should be limited to breaches of the rules which apply to the authorised person's regulated activities.

For those reasons, we object to the Government's Amendment No. 226D. Our amendment draws the distinction between regulated activity and non-regulated activity, as does the Bill as drafted. We do not believe that the right to damages should apply in cases involving breach of non-regulated activities. The effect of the Government's amendment is to do away with that distinction, which we believe should be kept.

I commend Amendment No. 226D to the Committee.

moved Amendment No. 227:

Page 60, line 8, leave out from ("of") to end of line 15 and insert ("consumers.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

moved Amendment No. 228:

Page 60, line 17, at end insert—

("( ) The Authority may make rules under this section to require authorised persons to advise and inform persons referred to in subsection (1) about matters arising during the course of their use of the services referred to in that subsection.").

The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I assure Members of the Committee that it is not a technical amendment. The focus of the Personal Investment Authority with regard to consumer protection was on the selling of products and on ensuring that sellers knew their customers' needs and gave the best advice to meet those needs.

However, consumers' needs change. They may need advice and information at any time during the life of a product. Changes in consumers' needs may arise from changes in their circumstances. Consumers often need to cash in endowment policies early because they cannot afford to continue paying the premiums. There are several options for consumers, such as trading the policies, borrowing on the security of their value, or making them fully paid up. Those are often much more advantageous than simply cashing in the policies.

Consumers need to be informed about those options when they approach their life companies. Of course, some companies make a practice of advising clients in this regard. I am aware of that from my own experience some years ago when I sought to cash in a policy with my company (which was a mutual company). It advised me that I would probably be better off if I traded the policy. Not every company does that. If the client does not know, he may well lose out.

Some changes are caused by outside factors. Changes to assumptions about yields have meant that some endowment policies are not sufficient to pay off an interest-only mortgage; ISA mortgages are set up with the assumption that the investment will pay off the mortgage. If it is clear at some point that the investment will not be sufficient, consumers will need to be told early that that may be the case and what their options are. Sometimes changes in taxation will have an effect on products, and consumers will need to know about that.

The FSA should be able to make rules to require information and advice to be given in similar circumstances. Leaving it to the companies concerned may mean that consumers do not receive the information that they need at the right time.

I understand that the FSA believes that the Bill already allows it to make rules covering that, but that does not seem to me to be absolutely clear in the Bill. Therefore, I believe it necessary to have a provision on the face of the Bill which makes that absolutely clear. This may be extremely important to people at quite difficult times in their lives, when they need to have advice about the best options available. Therefore, I hope that the Government will be prepared to accept the amendment. I beg to move.

Our reaction to the noble Baroness's amendment is similar to the kind of reaction which the Minister has given to us on numerous occasions: we agree with it but we do not think it is necessary.

We think that because not only is the protection of consumers an objective contained in Clause 2(2)(c), but also in the way the objective is further elaborated in Clause 5(2)(c); almost the express terms of the noble Baroness's amendment are contained in the expression,

"the needs that consumers may have for advice and accurate information".

Moreover, under Clause 29, there does not seem to be any constraint on the scope of rules which can be made within the objectives of the Bill.

I do not wish the noble Baroness to be in any doubt about our commitment to the principles which underlie her amendment; but for all those reasons, we believe that it is otiose.

I do not believe that I have used the word "otiose" once throughout the whole proceedings in Committee. It is a lovely word; that is quite true.

My noble friend's amendment to Clause 129 proposes that the FSA should have power to make rules requiring authorised persons to advise and inform consumers about matters arising during the course of their use of the authorised person's services. She gave a very good example, which was also given in another place, of a requirement on an insurer to notify a surrendering endowment policyholder of the existence of the second-hand traded endowment market.

Stephen Timms, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, explained then that the FSA would be able to make rules using its general rule-making power, although it was for the FSA to determine whether and how to use its powers, having regard to its general duties.

I am happy to confirm that it is still the Government's understanding that the FSA would be able to make rules to deal with this problem on the basis that they would apply to authorised persons with respect to the carrying out of a regulated activity and would be for the purpose of protecting the interests of consumers. My noble friend cast doubt on that, but I really do believe that to be the case.

It is worth noting that such a rule could not have been made under the Financial Services Act 1986. Paragraph 4 Schedule 10 of that Act prevented conduct of business rules applying to a regulated insurance company, except in relation to the selling and advice of long-term policies or to the management of pension fund assets. That restriction has not been continued under this Bill and I hope that my noble friend will recognise that, in effect, we have brought her amendment into the scope of the Bill for the first time and that, therefore, she will not feel it necessary to press the amendment.

I thank my noble friend for his explanation in opposition to the amendment. It is obviously not my intention to seek to divide the Committee on I should like to think about what he said and to have a word with the people who have been advising me in this connection because it was our impression that without some wording of this kind on the face of the Bill, the FSA may very well conclude that it did not have authority to give advice in the circumstances which I have been suggesting.

However, in view of what the Minister said, I shall withdraw the amendment and consider what he said between now and Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendment No. 228A:

Page 60, line 24, leave out from ("rules") to ("may") in line 25.

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to government Amendment No. 230ZA and speak in a friendly tone to opposition Amendment No. 230A because I believe that our thinking on these matters is very much at one.

Subsection (1) of Clause 131 allows the authority to make requirements relating to the financial resources of particular authorised persons. Subsection (2) allows it to direct a particular person to hold a specified amount of capital.

Amendment 230ZA deletes those subsections. The substantive change we are making here relates to the removal of Clause 131(2). Under that provision, the FSA would have been able to notify individual authorised persons as to the level of financial resources that they must maintain. Subsection (1) of Clause 131 was included only in order to provide the basis for the proposition in subsection (2). Subsection (2) needed to be stated expressly because the sort of individual notification for which it provides is not the type of provision one usually finds in rules—the general idea being that rules are legislative acts which apply to all authorised persons or specified classes of such persons.

We now intend that individual financial resources requirements for particular authorised persons will be made using the power to impose requirements in Clause 41 (in Part IV).

General provisions about financial resources will continue to be able to be made using the rule-making provisions of Clause 129. This will cover general rules about the nature of resources that a person must have. It will also allow general rules to be made which apply to all authorised persons, or specified groups of such persons, which set out formulae and so on in accordance with which the level of resources a person must have can be calculated. The power to make the rules will of course be subject to the requirements of Clause 129(1); namely, that they are necessary or expedient to protect the interests of consumers of regulated activities, a mantra which I have repeated far too many times.

We no longer think that there is any need to deal with these matters expressly in Clause 131 if subsection (2) is removed. As indicated, Clause 131(1) is there only so that subsection (2) could hang on it.

The important change that we are making here impacts directly on the rights of individual authorised persons. As indicated, individual financial resources requirements will be imposed under Part IV. Under that part, the authorised person will be able to refer to the tribunal any requirement that has been imposed on him which he thinks is unfair or disproportionate. Depending on the circumstances, he may be able to refer the matter to the tribunal before the requirement takes effect or after it has done so. It may be necessary in some cases for a requirement to take effect straight away, but in either case the authorised person may challenge the authority's decision. The FSA will also have to go through a number of procedural steps in accordance with Part IV when imposing requirements in relation to particular authorised persons.

That is a significant change from the existing provisions. Under the Bill as it stands at the moment a person has a right to challenge the FSA's decision as to the appropriate amount of financial resources only if he disobeys the requirement and the authority takes enforcement action against him. Under the proposed procedures in Part IV a person may comply with the requirement so as not to jeopardise his standing as an authorised person while at the same time questioning the appropriateness of the particular level of resources.

Amendment No. 228A follows changes already made to Schedule 6 which allow for consolidated supervision of groups. Considering the overall structure of a group is important in terms of ensuring proper supervision of members of the group who are authorised persons. The change that we propose simply recognises that in the rules which relate to authorised persons it may be necessary to impose requirements on the authorised person which are not artificially limited to the financial resources of the group. The bottom line is that it will be possible to make only rules which apply to authorised persons and only if they are necessary or expedient to protect the interests of consumers of regulated activities.

Opposition Amendment No. 230A would also have the effect of making financial resources rules subject to the procedures of Part IV. In the light of our Amendment No. 230ZA, I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment. I beg to move.

Having heard the Minister's explanation I am still a little confused. From the way in which I understood what he said, I believe that deleting subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 131, which is the effect of the Minister's Amendment No. 230ZA—which, I must confess, I have only just seen; indeed, I have only just received his kind letter explaining the amendment—might well have a significant impact.

The PIA currently has discretion over certain aspects of the financial resources rules. The current wording of Clause 131 allows the Financial Services Authority a similar discretion. I understood that that was causing some disquiet within certain parts of the Government. I was therefore expecting to see some amendment to Clause 131(2)(a). That is why I am troubled by the conclusive deletion of both subsections (1) and (2).

As I understand it—perhaps the Minister can assist me—capital adequacy and expenditure-based requirements will remain the same. If Clause 131(2)(a) is removed, firms with limited financial reserves whose resources fall temporarily below the £10,000 capital adequacy limit could find themselves technically in breach. That is why hitherto the PIA has exercised discretion in that area in respect of, for example, subordinated loans and contingency liabilities. There could be other areas, but I have not had time to explore those further since I have seen the Government's amendments. I wonder whether I am right in my concern that the discretion hitherto exercised by the PIA will now be taken away from the FSA. If it is, that could have a significant impact across the financial services market in the sector to which I am referring.

I assure the noble Lord that there is no question of the discretionary power being taken away. It is simply being transferred to Part IV of the Bill instead of occurring here. Under Part IV the principal difference, as I said, is that it allows for an application to the tribunal to be made and for it to be made even before any rule takes effect. There is the additional complication of European Union directives and their definition of what resources are. Perhaps if the noble Lord and I are meeting tomorrow or on Wednesday, as I hope that we are, we may deal with the matter then rather than take up the time of the Committee.

I am extremely grateful to the Minister for that explanation. All I should say in passing is that Part IV deals with applications which bring into effect the whole bureaucratic process involving payments by the applicant and a whole series of administrative arrangements. I was referring to the discretionary power of the PIA which could be exercised without an application. However, as the Minister suggests, that is a matter on which I could perhaps reflect further in the light of his helpful comments.

If we were to meet, I could write a note at the meeting and send it to all noble Lords taking part in the Committee proceedings.

I am grateful to the Minister.

Having heard the Minister's explanation of his amendment, I can confidently say on behalf of the Opposition that it satisfies the problem which concerned us. In those circumstances, there will be no need for us to press our amendment.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

moved Amendment No. 229:

Page 60, line 35, at end insert—

("(7) "Consumers" means persons—

(a) who use, have used, or are or may be contemplating using, any of the services provided by—

(i) authorised persons in carrying on regulated activities; or

(ii) persons acting as appointed representatives; or

(b) who have rights or interests which—

(i) are derived from, or are otherwise attributable to, or

(ii) may be adversely affected by,

the use of any such services by other persons.

(8) If an authorised person is carrying on a regulated activity in his capacity as a trustee, the persons who are, have been or may he beneficiaries of the trust are to be treated as persons who use, have used or are or may be contemplating using services provided by the authorised person in his carrying on of that activity.

(9) For the purposes of subsection (7) a person who deals with an authorised person in the course of the authorised person's carrying on of a regulated activity is to be treated as using services provided by the authorised person in carrying on those activities.").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move.

moved Amendment No. 230:

After Clause 129, insert the following new clause—

LIFE ASSURANCE BUSINESS RULES

(". The Authority shall make rules requiring an authorised person who has permission to carry on a regulated life assurance activity to consult and account to with-profits policyholders for—

(a) any appropriation of reserves or surplus assets to shareholders, and

(b) decisions on the application or investment of assets or reserves which could adversely affect the rights of such policyholders.").

The noble Lord said: I declare an interest in that my family and I are with-profit policyholders in proprietary life insurance companies. The purpose of the amendment is to help protect the interests of with-profit policyholders in proprietary life insurance companies. Policyholders, while notionally owning the majority of assets in many life insurance companies, are normally not represented, consulted or even informed when decisions which could affect their best interests are taken by the directors. That is because the boards of such companies are elected by and legally accountable to their shareholders but not to their policyholders.

However, shareholders' interests do not always coincide with those of policyholders. Where such conflicts arise, boards of directors tend to focus on the interests of the shareholders who elect them. That is an entirely unsatisfactory state of affairs, aggravated by the fact that decisions taken by the boards are generally taker in secret and without any prior consultation with policyholders. There is not even a mechanism by which policyholders can obtain information on issues which are of vital importance to them.

The system is a model of opaqueness and lack of transparency. I shall seek to illustrate that claim by reference to a number of decisions taken by the Prudential insurance company. In so doing, I am not suggesting that that company is behaving differently from other companies in a similar position, nor am I seeking to impugn personally any of its directors.

The Prudential, as a result of the mis-selling of personal pensions, was obliged to pay compensation in the amount of approximately £2 billion to policyholders who had been mis-sold pensions. In order to find the resources to pay the compensation, it decided to utilise for the purpose what is variously known as its orphan estate, inherited estate or surplus assets.

The orphan estate does not, as may be imagined, consist solely of assets arising from unclaimed policy proceeds but rather more from surplus reserves arising from a number of sources, including in most cases underpayment of bonuses to previous generations of policyholders.

It is by no means clear who owns the orphan estate but many, including a number of actuaries, believe that policyholders might have the most valid claim to some or all of it. In practice, the Prudential may have appropriated resources arguably belonging to policyholders to Day for losses which policyholders, if they had been consulted, which they were not, could well contend had nothing whatever to do with them and should have been entirely borne by the shareholders who, after all, had elected the directors but failed to control their salespeople. Indeed, the views of policyholders on that issue may well be influenced by the findings of the Treasury Select Committee in its 9th report in 1998, paragraph 32 of which reads,

"The shareholders, who benefit from the profitability of the company, have a responsibility and should hear a substantial share of the loss from pensions mis-selling".

On that matter we concur with the judgment of the Consumers' Association that placing responsibility on shareholders will encourage better management in future.

In making the decision to pay the compensation for mis-selling out of the orphan estate, which incidentally was approved by the Treasury, neither the Prudential board nor the Treasury consulted policyholders nor, apparently, even considered the question of accountability. After all, if £2 billion of a company's assets have been lost, somebody must be accountable. At the very minimum, policyholders whose money it may have been, or who may have been prejudiced by its loss, should have been informed of why the misselling was not prevented and who was responsible so that they could take any action they felt appropriate.

However, there is a further interesting twist. The Prudential's orphan estate, even allowing for the depletion of the £2 billion paid to policyholders who had been mis-sold, will still have within it a balance of approximately £5 billion. The board of the Prudential decided that it would like to reallocate the orphan estate.

It is by no means clear to policyholders what precisely is intended by the board or the reasons for their new-found interest in clarifying the position relating to the orphan estate. However, policyholders may well speculate that the purpose of the reallocation is more to do with enhancing shareholder value than benefiting policyholders. Does the Prudential intend to appropriate the whole of the orphan estate to shareholders, 10 per cent, or some intermediate figure? The policyholders certainly have no idea. The Prudential has been locked in negotiations with the Treasury for several years. Policyholders have been unable to extract any information on what the Prudential would like to do with the £5 billion, give or-take a couple of billion.

The response to all questions to the Prudential and the Treasury is that it is price-sensitive information for shareholders, but it apparently occurs to no one that it is vital information to policyholders who might want to block any appropriation they consider contrary to their interests.

It is also instructive to note that the Prudential, the United Kingdom's mightiest insurance company, appears to make little or no effort to communicate with its policyholders. Its annual reports are replete with references to maximising shareholder value, but I could find nothing in its recent reports about maximising policyholder value or, indeed, virtually any reference whatever to policyholders. Based solely on its annual reports, one could be forgiven for-concluding that policyholders might be an extinct species.

I am pleased to say that there is, however, potentially some good news for policyholders on at least one issue. In my discussions with the Prudential it emerged that at long last the industry is planning actively to address the communications issue through a new project called "Project Salter" headed by Sandy Leech, chief executive of Zenith Life and chair of the Association of British Insurers. Although that initiative is to be welcomed, it is a voluntary code that is proposed. We all know, based on previous experience, that voluntary codes in the life assurance industry are disregarded by many of its members and that the standards which voluntary codes set tend to be watered down to the lowest common denominator in order to attract comprehensive industry support.

Nevertheless, I urge the Government strongly to support the Salter initiative, provided that it sets high standards, is universally agreed to by the industry, and meets its timetable of setting standards by June this year and implementation in the first half of next year.

I submit that the failure of companies to consult with, and account to, their policyholders is an untenable situation and that in the Bill, one of the objectives of which is the protection of consumers, steps should be taken to ensure that companies consult with and inform policyholders about issues which may affect their best interests.

In the draft regulations just published relating to stakeholder pensions, the Government have insisted on ring-fencing with-profits funds because of their opaqueness and have called for greater transparency. That is what the amendment also seeks to achieve for with-profits policyholders. The draft regulations also set standards for product design and communication with policyholders which could serve as a model for the Salter initiative and for the implementation of the resolution I propose.

I should also like to draw attention to the relevant precedent in relation to pension funds in which the rights of pensioners are protected through direct representation on pension trustee boards. The most effective protection afforded to policyholders would be for direct representation on the boards of life assurance companies, which I hope Government will soon require. However, I appreciate that to move such an amendment at this stage would be inappropriate. Instead, the amendment I propose should be seen as a first step towards protecting the rights of policyholders. I beg to move.

I spoke to this matter at Second Reading. The noble Lord, Lord Joffe, has put the case so well and in such detail that there is no need for me to cover the ground again. However, I indicate my support for his amendment.

Perhaps I may offer a word or two, having spent some years as chairman of a mutual life assurance company. I listened with great interest to the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, who made a convincing case. In the case of a mutual company, the policyholders have all the power in their hands. We were a statutory company. The directors were elected by policyholders and only policyholders had votes at the annual meetings. We were under considerable restraints, both under our rules and general laws, to the extent to which the board could use the policyholders' money in, for instance, taking over another company. There had to be procedures before a court with an assurance that the policyholders had been fully informed, were properly consulted, and had consented to the change.

If people want the benefits of a with-profits policy, they should go to a mutual company. Perhaps I may add that I now have nothing whatever to do with the company I chaired, nor have I been briefed by it. However, the problem faced by directors is what to do when the same policyholders learn that a bid has been made for their company. Policyholders want the money now. They put themselves into precisely the position described by the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, concerning the "Pru". I have always found that to be a disappointing trait in policyholders.

I had a short answer to questions I received in correspondence or those raised at an annual meeting. I would say, "You are in this for the long term. You have taken out a long-term life policy or pension policy in order to protect your family or yourselves in your old age. You cannot have it twice. If, when a company comes in and buys up the company, you take it as a payment, you are then a policyholder in a proprietary company and the amount of money you would have had when your policy matures will be reduced. You cannot have it twice".

I have a great deal of sympathy with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Joffe. I do not know whether it is susceptible to rules. However, it seems to me that the mutual companies are fighting a losing battle. It has been the same as regards the building societies. A few have succeeded—the Nationwide remains where it is—but most have succumbed. Why is that? Because most of their members wanted money now rather than money in a few years' time. My faith in this form of saving in modern society has been somewhat undermined, notwithstanding that of course very large sums of money are invested regularly and entirely properly for the long term—until a bidder comes along and makes an offer of money now.

I believe this to be a real problem and I hope that, in the course of its general work of protecting consumers and giving out information, the Financial Services Authority will be able to indicate that those who take out life insurance and pension policies for the long term should almost always be advised to stick with them for the long term rather than to take a quick buck now.

I am aware that after such expert speeches, a few words from me may be perceived as possibly otiose. However, I believe that it is worth emphasising that the Committee will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, for raising this matter.

In this area we are looking at very big bucks. Some figures were published in The Sunday Times: £7.8 billion for the Prudential; £1.4 billion for Britannic Assurance; £3.8 billion for CGU; £2.1 billion for Legal & General and £2.1 billion for AXA. That total would just about fund the defence budget for a year. These are very large sums. Surely in principle it is intolerable that such sums should be dealt with by secret deals made in the back room, free from the light of publicity which would allow all those with an interest to express their opinion. No doubt the Minister will address whether the Bill deals with this question.

While I do not necessarily press this particular amendment, I hope that in the course of our debate this afternoon we shall have at least forced the issue out into the open. If we ensure that the matter is dealt with, we shall have done a service.

While I understand the sentiments that lie behind this amendment, I have grave doubts about its practicality. If directors are conducting a business in the interests of their shareholders, the FSA has the right and obligation to put controls around the use of reserves so as to protect policyholders. However, to impose an obligation to consult with-profit policyholders on the use of those funds seems to me to present a complication in terms of who the directors are supposed to be serving and what would be the rules and appropriateness of taking decisions on the use of those reserves.

I believe that it would be cleaner if policyholders who have taken the decision that they want to invest their money in with-profits company then left it to the directors of that company to run the business so that it delivers returns in the long run that continue to attract new policyholders, and for the FSA to establish rules to ensure that policyholders are protected, rather than confusing the issue by imposing a duty of consultation. I can see that situation ending in a great deal of confusion and added bureaucracy on how decisions are taken.

I should disclose a professional interest in some of the questions that have been raised by this proposed amendment. Having said that, I wish to comment on the drafting of the amendment rather than on its underlying merit. Perhaps I may say only that I certainly agree that the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, has identified an area of real concern here.

So far as subsection (a) is concerned, on the face of it, it is confined to the need to make rules requiring an authorised person to consult in relation to the,

"appropriation of reserves or surplus assets to shareholders".

The example given by the noble Lord in his opening remarks concerned the activities of the Prudential, in particular the payment of victims of mis-selling. Subsection (a) would not help because the victims of mis-selling are generally not shareholders—they may be, but that would only be by chance. In that regard, the drafting is not adequate. I can think of one or two other examples, such as the use of such moneys for the payment of windfall tax. It may be that we have not yet seen the end of windfall tax. If we have not, this would obviously provide a way of meeting those liabilities. Furthermore—dare I say—there is also the possibility of such moneys being used for the purpose of paying directors' bonuses. However, I had better not say anything more about that. However, in subsection (a), the use of the word "shareholders" is not a satisfactory piece of drafting.

As regards subsection (b), I should like to home in on the word, "rights". My concern here is that the expression, "rights of such policyholders" is simply too vague and uncertain for the following reasons. First, there is no statutory definition of the expression, "reasonable expectations" in the context of a discussion about the reasonable expectations of policyholders. I believe that the only place where an attempted definition can be found is in the context of the obligations cast on a scheme actuary when he comes to advise the trustees; otherwise, one is not told what that expression means. It obviously includes statements that may have been made at the point of sale, but it could include all kinds of other things as well. Indeed, in a sense it is a highly subjective point, because one policyholder's expectation may bear little or no relation to that of another. That is one area of uncertainty.

The second area of uncertainty that I see is that, if these are rights as defined in subsection (b), I suggest that it will almost certainly be the case that what is being done with the money should not—ex hypothesi—be done with the money. That is because if the policyholders' rights are being infringed, the money should not be used for any other purpose. That leaves an inherent incongruity in the drafting which presupposes that there are rights which, so to speak, sit outside rights. That, of course, cannot be right.

The third area of uncertainty that I have identified is that it is not at all clear from the drafting of subsection (b) whether it would encompass the manner in which the money was invested. The subsection states:

"decisions on the application or investment of assets or reserves which could adversely affect the rights of such policyholders".

That might—I suggest that it would—encompass poor quality investment. However, how does one judge that or draw attention to it? How can one substitute oneself for the person whose professional role may be precisely to deal with the investment of those assets?

With respect, I suggest that the drafting is not adequate. However, viewed as a probing exercise, perhaps I may say that the amendment raises extremely important questions.

Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, could offer a little further clarification on an important issue? I apologise to the noble Lord if I should have gathered this already. If the policyholders are to be able to require the authorised person to be accountable to them, that suggests that the policyholders will hold something approaching a veto. The noble Lord may have already explained this, but what I cannot see from the drafting of this amendment is whose will is to prevail where there is a conflict of opinion between the policyholders and the shareholders? Either a nihil obstat, as it were, will prevail, or someone on the board must have the last word.

The intention is that policyholders would be consulted. But if the impasse suggested arose between the shareholders and the policyholders, at that stage the policyholders would have the right to apply to the court to protect their interests.

I support what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Grabiner. This amendment speaks of rates. Let me say I have no life insurance policies, but things may have changed since the days I took out with-profits policies with satisfactory results. I was always under the impression that my only right was a contractual right. If I looked in my policy, I would certainly be guaranteed a basic return—that is what I was after—but thereafter it would depend expressly, in contractual terms, on what bonuses were declared by the board.

Unless the animal has changed considerably, this amendment will leave me in exactly the same position as I was over the years; that is, I could go to the courts and say, "This company is going bankrupt", or, "This company is not going to meet its obligations", which were merely for the basic amount.

This amendment, in its present form, will not do, as a number of noble Lords said. But the thought behind it is important. I hope that one of the consequences of this short debate will be that the FSA will look at this area and see whether there are steps it can take to encourage greater transparency.

There is no doubt that the with-profits element, whether of a life policy or a personal pension fund, is determined in an arbitrary fashion. I strongly support any measures which make it clearer on what basis the figures are plucked out of thin air, not only to judge whether the resources of the company—whether it is an incorporated business or a mutual—were being reasonably allocated between different types of claimant on that fund, or the other comparison with the outside world as to how it was genuinely performing in relation to its competitors rather than just on the figures for a specific year.

There seems to be a gap which has widened in recent years between the information available to other sorts of investors who have benefited from a lot of initiatives by the FSA and its related bodies (a general encouragement in advertising and accounts to provide more information so that investors know where they stand) and this corner of an old system which remains unduly obscure and where it is difficult for any with-profits element to have any idea whether or not it is being fairly treated. Therefore, although I do not support the amendment, I strongly support its message.

The answer of the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, to my question with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, show that the effect of the amendment is merely to produce a piece of machinery which in some cases, but not all, will bring to court matters which otherwise may not have gone to court. As I understand it, it is a way of enabling policyholders to realise that they have a means of testing rights which they might otherwise not have.

Many of the people we are talking about are not sophisticated policyholders and one has a great deal of sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, is trying to do. But this points in the direction more of some sort of ombudsman or referee rather than yet another apparatus within this legislation. If we are leaving thoughts for the FSA when it comes into being under the Act, that may be a better route rather than the route taken by the noble Lord, Lord Joffe.

I should declare an interest, first, as a policyholder with Sun Life of Canada and with Scottish Widows, both of which propose to demutualise. I voted against demutualisation in both cases. I was overruled and shall be receiving cheques and/or shares in due course. So my conscience is clear.

I shall make a long boring speech and then summarise it in five or six points for the noble Earl, Lord Onslow. Of course, there can be conflicting interests between shareholders and policyholders. This amendment relates to a specific type of life insurance where policies are described as being "with profits". Commonly, "with profits" policies are insurance policies with a savings element. There is an expectation that bonuses will be paid from time to time, usually annually, depending on the performance of the fund in which the premiums have been invested. These bonuses go to increase the benefits that will be payable to the policyholder at maturity.

Current industry practice in shareholder-owned life offices is generally to distribute surplus in the fund in the proportions: 90 per cent as bonus to with-profits policyholders and 10 per cent to shareholders, although there are some exceptions. In the case of mutual life offices, all the surplus will be distributed to policyholders as there are no shareholders. However, to ensure fairly steady returns to policyholders year on year, the insurance company does not each year distribute the whole of the year's profits earned by the business. Like prudent companies in other walks of life, it creates a reserve for undistributed assets within the with-profits fund. That is called the "estate" or, in certain circumstances, the "orphan estate".

In some cases, the estate has been allowed to grow up over a long period of time and has been passed on from one generation of policyholders to the next. That is called an "inherited estate"; that is really what the orphan estate is. The estate may reach a point which exceeds that considered necessary for the efficient management of the business. We were given some figures and they are pretty big figures. In such circumstances, the company may wish to manage down the level of estate by distribution to policyholders and shareholders.

The question is: who does the undistributed sum, the inherited estate, belong to and how should it be distributed? Although inherited estates have been built up over many years, the status of the funds within them and the appropriate basis of attribution are clear. However, in a small number of shareholder-owned offices this is not so. Over the years, policies and practices in these offices may have changed so that there are doubts about the respective interests of shareholders and policyholders in relation to the attribution of surplus.

The guiding principles in relation to the attribution between shareholders and policyholders of assets from a firm's inherited estate are those set out in a statement on 25th February 1995 by Mr Jonathan Evans who was then Minister for Consumer Affairs and responsible for insurance matters within the DTI. The Government have since confirmed their agreement to those principles.

Where there is lack of clarity over the origins of the inherited estate, the regulator (whether the DTI, the Treasury or the FSA on behalf of the Treasury) has taken the view that the compatibility of any proposed attribution with these general principles needs to be considered in the light of the particular circumstances of the case. Therefore, in practice a dialogue takes place with the company over any proposed attribution. Before a final decision is taken, the regulator will also request a report on the proposals from an independent actuary and that policyholders are consulted.

This case-by-case assessment is conducted in the light of Section 45 of the Insurance Companies Act which enables the regulator to impose requirements on a company to ensure that the criteria of sound and prudent management are met. Those criteria include,

"having due regard to the interests of policyholders and potential policyholders".

The phrase, "policyholders' reasonable expectations" which has been the subject of debate, occurs in Section 45 of the 1982 Act, but is not used in this Bill which refers here, as throughout, to the "interests of consumers".

The Act contains further safeguards for with-profits policyholders. Sections 28 to 31A provide controls over transactions involving and distributions from the assets attributable to the with-profits fund. Section 2C provides controls over transfers of business between companies; and Sections 18 to 23 require insurers to submit annual re turns to the Treasury incorporating a valuation by an appointed actuary and to make copies available to any policyholder or shareholder who asks for one.

I listened most carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, said about the lack of transparency on the part of life insurance offices. We must consider whether the provisions in the 1982 Act, which seem, on the face of it, to answer the complaints that he made, are actually being implemented. This is a matter that I should like to consider between now and the next stage of the Bill.

The Bill will provide for the continuation of the existing protections under the Insurance Companies Act 1982. Clauses 129, 134 and 330 will enable the FSA to make rules that maintain the existing statutory safeguards in the interests of with-profits policyholders. Indeed, I understand that the FSA proposes to reproduce these in its draft interim prudential rules contained in Consultation Paper 40a. The FSA will be able to use its guidance power under Clause 148 to continue and, if necessary, supplement the existing advice and information that has been given.

Part VII of the Bill will also provide a statutory framework for the transfer of with-profits business between companies to replace Schedule 2C to the 1982 Act. Finally, the FSA will be able to impose particular requirements on an individual insurer for the purposes of protecting consumers, including of course policyholders. So the Bill will—I put it no higher at the moment—in no way reduce the existing protections available, and the FSA will be able to intervene to protect consumers using its Part IV powers.

However, the noble Lord's amendment would go further and require the FSA to make rules requiring insurers to consult and account to policyholders—I must say that I would pay more attention to the phrase "account to" than I would to "consult"—on each and every appropriation to shareholders, and other decisions that could adversely affect the rights of policyholders. Again, I listened to the debate about whether policyholders have rights that go beyond contractual rights. Clearly, this is a very difficult issue.

Clause 129 would give the FSA powers to make such rules if they appeared to be necessary or expedient for the purpose of protecting policyholders. Similarly, Clause 148 would allow the FSA to issue individual or general guidance consisting of advice or information to that effect.

However, there is a balance to be struck in deciding what degree of protection is appropriate for with-profits policyholders given the FSA's general duties in Clause 2. In particular, the FSA will need to have regard to the principle that the burdens that its rules or regulatory guidance would impose should be proportionate to the benefits. For example, in the ordinary course of events, the distribution to shareholders of their share of the surplus should be unexceptional. Similarly, it would be unusual to require an insurance company to consult policyholders about operational decisions such as asset allocations and investment decisions, which may obviously affect their investment but will usually be within the company's own discretion both as a matter of company law and under its contracts. To require companies to do this would force them to reveal commercially sensitive information about their business, which cot Id potentially prejudice the interests of both shareholders and policyholders.

Where insurance companies will owe duties to their policyholders, as they do currently, will be in relation to their policies and the actual bonuses that they declare. Companies are already required to provide an annual notice to their policyholders setting out the bonuses allocated to their policies, as well As explaining the background to the declaration.

Therefore, we do not think that the Bill should require the FSA to make rules which would make insurance companies accountable to their with-profits policyholders for operational decisions or decisions relating to shareholder distributions. This does not, of course, prevent the FSA adding to the existing requirements in response to particular problems that may arise. However, we believe that it should be a matter for the FSA to decide in the light of its general duties, consultation and cost-benefit analysis in the usual way.

Perhaps I may sum up my response for the benefit of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow. First, the Bill will certainly enable the FSA to carry on providing the sort of protection that it has in the past in relation to orphan assets. Secondly, the powers will be at least as wide and effective as those available under the Insurance Companies Act. Thirdly, we believe that those powers give a perfectly adequate regulatory response to the potential difficulties. Fourthly, the general presumption of a 90 per cent/10 per cent split will not change as a result of the Bill, but the formula must be able to take into account particular factors in some cases; for example, where there is a transfer of business and something on which a court might rule. Fifthly, the ability of the FSA to obtain independent actuarial reports on the funds and liabilities is an important tool of regulation.

I apologise for the length of my reply, but this is clearly an important issue. The fact that the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, has raised the matter has been widely welcomed by Members of the Committee. It is important for us to continue to reflect on the adequacy of the protection that is already provided. In the mean time, I hope that the criticism that has been made about the "warm wording" of the amendment will encourage the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, not to press the matter. We are certainly prepared to discuss these issues with him at any time between now and the Report stage.

Before my noble friend the Minister concludes, there are two questions that I should like to ask him. I listened to this debate as a layman and was most impressed by the analysis of the problem put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Joffe. Two matters struck me as being of overwhelming interest. The first is the transparency question. It was not clear from my noble friend's reply whether he is satisfied with the transparency aspect of the matter, or whether what he said forms part of his further reflection on the matter.

The second matter which, as a layman, rather horrified me was the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, seemed to be saying—he cited but one example, but that may well have been for the sake of brevity—that certain actions were getting very close to being unlawful in terms of the use of funds. I do not speak as an expert but as someone who has simply listened to the debate. If there were any danger that these enormous amounts of orphan assets were being used in, to say the least, a doubtful way, did I understand my noble friend to say that the matter could be drawn to the attention of the FSA, which would then deal with it? Is my noble friend saying that he is confident that that is at least one response to the noble Lord, Lord Joffe? I ask these questions purely because I have been listening to the debate and am quite interested in the answers for their own sake, quite apart from the practicalities involved.

My noble friend's first question was about whether the existing rules were being adhered to. I read out to the Committee what I understand the Insurance Companies Act 1982 provides as regards transparency and reporting to policyholders. It seems to me that the Act makes certain provisions which the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, said were not being implemented; in other words, that particular insurance companies are not obeying those rules. I do not know whether that is the case, but it is certainly a matter that needs further investigation.

As regards uses that may be unlawful, the particular point made by the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, referred to the suggestion that such orphan assets should be used in compensation for pensions mis-selling. As I should have said before, the Government made it entirely clear on 1st July 1997 (very soon after we came into office) that surplus assets in a company's with-profits fund should be used only to meet pensions mis-selling costs, first, where any profits from the pensions business concerned would also be attributed to the with-profits fund; and, secondly, to the extent that use of such surplus was consistent with policyholders' reasonable expectations. Indeed, we have returned to the "reasonable expectations" problem. However, that is the responsibility of this Government. We did try to make it as clear as possible.

Perhaps I may comment briefly on some of the points made in the debate. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, that policyholders often act irrationally and seldom take account of their best long-term interests. However, the distinction between a mutual and a proprietary company is that in a mutual company there is a mechanism for policyholders to object because they are the owners; in a proprietary company, which is the main subject of my amendment, the policyholders have no rights whatever other than the contractual rights that they have in relation to their policies. Perhaps I may remind the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, that in the Nationwide case the members actually rejected the money—the bribe—offered to them.

On the question of practicality, I refer to a distinction here. The noble Lord said that one elects directors, one takes out a policy and one leaves matters to the directors. However, the distinction in the life assurance industry is that these are long-term contracts; they often run for 30 or 40 years. The directors who are elected today may be very different from the directors in charge in 20 or 30 years' time.

I think that I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, for his comments on the wording of my amendment. I agree with him entirely that the amendment as phrased does not achieve its objective. Should I retable the amendment, I shall certainly take advice of the noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, on how to draft it.

There will be no charge!

I thank the noble Lord. I believe that for an ombudsman to have certain rights is a help but is not the answer because the ombudsman's powers are restricted. I am not sure whether an ombudsman would have the right to look into the position of with-profits policyholders, but I think that the awards that the ombudsman can grant are limited. I see that as a useful addition but not as a substitute for what I have proposed.

The Minister mentioned the regulator having all sorts of rights to protect the interests of with-profits policyholders. The lack of transparency and opaqueness with which the regulators operate is not something which policyholders would necessarily applaud. Policyholders have by no means complete confidence in what the Treasury and the Department of Trade and Industry have decided in the past in relation to these orphan funds. It is clear that there is a need for remedies which are not solely the prerogative of the regulators.

The question of unlawfulness was raised. I did not suggest categorically that the actions of the Pru and the other life assurance companies were in any way unlawful. The difficulty is that one does not know whether they arc unlawful because one does not know who owns the orphan assets and it is impossible for the consumer to find that out. One of the purposes of the amendment is to look into these issues.

I am pleased to hear that the Minister will reflect on these issues. I, too, wish to reflect on them before deciding what course of action to take. I thank all those who have participated in this short debate. I express my appreciation to the Minister for his patience in advising me as a novice on how to submit this probing amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 130 [Non-regulated activity rules]:

On Question, Whether Clause 130 shall stand part of the Bill?

I gave notice of my intention to oppose this Question when debating Amendment No. 226D.

Clause 130 negatived.

Clause 131 [Miscellaneous ancillary matters]:

moved Amendment No. 230ZA:

Page 61, line 13, leave out subsections (1) and (2).

The noble Lord said: This amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 228A. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

moved Amendment No. 230B:

Page 61, line 39, after ("person") insert ("carrying on a deposit-taking business").

The noble Lord said: Clause 131 deals with a number of miscellaneous and ancillary matters relating to the authority's rule-making powers set out in Clause 129. In particular, Clause 131(3) is concerned with the rules relating to the handling of money held by an authorised person in specific circumstances. These rules, I understand, are usually referred to as the client money rules.

Clause 131(4) provides that an institution, which is usually a bank, with which an account is kept in pursuance of the client money rules, does not incur any liability as a constructive trustee if money is wrongfully paid from the account unless the institution permits the payment, first, with the knowledge that it is wrongful or, secondly, having deliberately failed to make inquiries in circumstances in which a reasonable and honest person would have done so.

Given that the institution will almost certainly be a person carrying on a deposit-taking business, it would be more satisfactory if the reasonable and honest person test should apply to a reasonable and honest person carrying on a deposit-taking business. It would be difficult to judge what inquiries a reasonable and honest person would have made if that person was the proverbial man on the Clapham omnibus. It would be more sensible to apply the test to a reasonable and honest person carrying on the relevant type of activity. I beg to move.

This interesting amendment concerns an institution such as a bank at which an authorised person keeps a special account for its clients' money pursuant to client money rules under Clause 131. For example, when an authorised person receives money from his client, he may be required by rules to hold it on trust in a separate bank account until he invests it on his client's behalf.

The institution will be required to handle instructions from the authorised person in relation to the account. The problem for the institution is how to know if the authorised person is withdrawing money from the account to invest on behalf of his client or if he is acting fraudulently.

Under the ordinary common law a banker will not normally be liable to repay the authorised person's client unless he could be treated as a constructive trustee on the basis that he either knew the withdrawal was wrongful or if he deliberately failed to make inquiries in circumstances in which a reasonable arid honest person would do so.

For example, one might expect a reasonable arid honest person in those circumstances to be suspicious if the authorised person started taking unusually large amounts of money out of the account or asked for funds to be transferred to his own personal or business account. That test was included in the Financial Services Act and is reproduced in Clause 131(4). The amendment would add an additional clarification to that second test by emphasising that it was based on a reasonable and honest person,

"carrying on a deposit-taking business".

I fully agree with the intention behind the amendment. However, the courts have had no difficulty in interpreting the test of a reasonable and honest person in the context of the law of constructive trusts. I respectfully suggest to the noble Lord that the clarification is unnecessary.

The test is concerned with circumstances in which a reasonable and honest person would have made inquiries. Those circumstances involve the handling of funds which have been deposited in an account with that institution pursuant to client money rules. Therefore we are already concerned with the actions of a reasonable and honest person in circumstances in which he is carrying on a deposit-taking business. I hope that on that basis the noble Lord will not press the amendment.

As a listener to the debate, I had regarded the words that my noble friend seeks to insert into the clause as being some remedy for the presence of the word "deliberately" earlier in the paragraph. Can the Minister assure us that a failure through negligence by a person conducting this business is equally culpable under some other part of the Bill? Or is it that ignorance of the law is a defence, uniquely, in this position?

As I said, the law that applies is the law of constructive trusteeship. I would not dare to try to interpret that law. There is a great deal of case law on the subject; the issue is not a new one. I hope that the noble Lord will allow me to write to him on the subject.

With eager pleasure.

I shall avoid entering into that debate. The Minister is clearly in the frame of the mind where he says to the Opposition, "We entirely agree with the motive behind your amendment but, on the wording of the Bill, it is unnecessary". I shall reflect on his response. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendment No. 230C:

Page 62, line 4, leave out ("or non-regulated activity rules").

The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 226D. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 131, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 132 to 134 agreed to.

Clause 135 [Endorsement of codes etc. issued by other bodies]:

moved Amendment No. 230D:

Page 63, line 14, at end insert—

("(2A) At any time when endorsing rules are in force, and if asked to do so by the Panel, the Authority may exercise its powers under Part IV or section 65 as if failure to comply with an endorsed provision was a ground entitling the Authority to exercise those powers.").

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 230D, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 230E and 230F.

These are three technical amendments to Clause 135 in the light of discussions between the Treasury and the takeover panel. The clause confers a power on the authority to make rules endorsing the City code on takeovers and mergers (the takeover code) and the substantial acquisition rules, which I gather are known as "SARs". Generally, these endorsing rules cover areas where the FSA would not be able to make rules—that is, in relation to conduct during public takeovers. The effect of this clause is that the authority may exercise its disciplinary powers over authorised persons for a breach of the endorsed provisions of the takeover code or SARs, if the takeover panel has requested it to do so.

Amendment No. 230D proposes that a new subsection be introduced after subsection (2) enabling the authority to exercise its disciplinary powers under Part IV or Section 65 in circumstances equivalent to those set out in subsection (3). This will specifically enable the panel to invoke the authority's disciplinary powers with regard to approved persons in addition to its powers referred to in subsection (3). Amendment No. 230E, which proposes to delete the reference to Part IV in subsection (3), is consequential upon this new amendment.

Amendment No. 230F proposes that a new subsection be introduced after subsection (3) making it clear that a failure to comply with a requirement imposed, or ruling given, under an endorsed provision is to be treated as a failure to comply with the endorsed provision under which that requirement was imposed or ruling was given. This will ensure that proper account is taken of the exercise of the panel's discretion under the City code.

As I say, these are technical amendments. There is a much more important issue in relation to the takeover code which I have discussed with its representatives. I suggest that it would be more appropriate to deal with that when we come to the Opposition's proposed new clause which it seeks to have inserted after Clause 389. I beg to move.

I have a small question for the Minister. I apologise for not giving him notice of it, but it is probably very simple to answer.

It is apparent from Clause 135 what happens when the takeover panel makes a rule and the authority decides to endorse it. What happens to the endorsement when the takeover panel decides to withdraw a rule? There seems to be a machinery for putting endorsements in place; I take it that there is a machinery for removing them. I dare say that it is only the size of the Bill and the limited time that has prevented me from finding it, but I do not know where it is.

When these powers are being put into place, the issue is to make sure that there is not a gap—in other words, there is no period during which no rules are being applied. When a rule is withdrawn or repealed, that problem does not arise because no disciplinary action is called for.

We are perfectly content to endorse these amendments. As the Minister is well aware, we have other concerns about the relationship between the takeover panel and the authority. We raise these concerns in Amendments Nos. 276E and 276F.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

moved Amendments Nos. 230E and 230F:

Page 63, line 16, leave out ("IV,").

Page 63, line 18, at end insert—

("( ) For the purposes of subsections (2A) and (3), a failure to comply with a requirement imposed, or ruling given, under an endorsed provision is to be treated as a failure to comply with the endorsed provision under which that requirement was imposed or ruling was given.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 135, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 136 to 138 agreed to.

Clause 139 [Modification or waiver of rules]:

moved Amendment No. 230G:

Page 65, line 6, leave out paragraph (d).

The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 226D. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

In calling Amendment No. 230H, I should say that if this amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 230J and 230K.

moved Amendment No. 230H:

Page 65, line 18, leave out from ("may") to ("the") in line 22 and insert ("only give a direction if it is satisfied that").

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 230H, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 231A, as the grouping requires.

The noble Lord will have to speak also to starred Amendments Nos. 230J and 230K because they will be pre-empted if this amendment is agreed to. He will have to make up his mind which amendment he is going to go for.

I am most grateful to the Minister for pointing that out. I may need to sit down, reflect and stand up again before I move on to his agenda.

Amendment No. 230H relates to Clause 139. It is an important provision in the Bill which allows the authority to direct that all or any of the regulatory rules set out in Clause 139(1) are not to apply to an authorised person. It also allows the authority to direct that the rules can apply to such a person with such modifications as may be specified in a direction to be made by the authority. However, as I understand it, under Clause 139(4) the authority's power to give such a direction is qualified by two conditions. The first is that the authority must be satisfied that,

"compliance by the authorised person with the rules, or with the rules as unmodified, would he unduly burdensome or would not achieve the purpose for which the rules were made".

The second qualification is that the authority must be satisfied that:

"the direction would not result in undue risk to persons whose interests the rules are intended to protect".

The first qualification is a severe limitation on the ability of the authority to make use of the power of modification. It is likely that circumstances where rules would be unduly burdensome or would not achieve the purpose for which the rules were made would be rather rare. It is in a case such as this where some flexibility would be most desirable. This amendment seeks to remove the first qualification, with the result that Clause 139(4) provides that the authority may only give a direction if it is satisfied that the direction would not result in undue risk to persons whose interests the rules are intended to protect.

It is also worth noting that there are further safeguards in that under Clause 139(5) "a direction may be given subject to conditions", and the authority may also, under Clause 139(6), publish the direction in a way most suitable for bringing the direction to the attention of those most likely to be affected by it.

I turn to Amendment No. 231A which relates to Clause 148. Clause 148 relates to guidance. This amendment would ensure that an authorised person who acts in accordance with guidance is treated as satisfying the requirements of the relevant rule. The purpose of the amendment, principally, is not to forestall the authority bringing an action itself, but to prevent investors claiming that a firm has none the less contravened the rule and accordingly has brought an action for damages under Clause 141.

The issue of guidance is extremely important for the Opposition. As the Minister will be aware, one of the most important uncertainties in the field of action of the firm in the City is regulatory uncertainty. We believe that this uncertainty would be substantially reduced by a rule that stated that if an authorised person acted consistently with guidance it would make that person immune, not only from action by the FSA but also by action from a private party.

We recognise that the Minister might be reluctant to give us such a sweeping exemption. However, there is another way that this problem can be largely, if not entirely, met. That is by the authority being prepared to give specific guidance in instances where it is asked for. For example, a financial institution may, in innovatory mode, have a new way of approaching a problem which would create business not only for itself, but for the United Kingdom abroad.

If the financial institution comes to the authority and says, "I am not sure whether this complies", surely it must be in the interest of the authority to give clear guidance on whether it complies or not? What possible reason could the authority have for denying help in these circumstances? Yet, as I understand it, in another place, the Government was most reluctant to provide guidance in these circumstances.

Earlier on in Committee stage I made the statement that there seemed to me to be circumstances in which regulatory risk was a bigger risk for an operator in the City than the risk provided by the markets in which that operator conducted his business. I well remember a groan emitting from the Government benches.

This is the correct context in which to make that point again. The Government have a clear opportunity to make a statement now that if an authorised firm, operating in the market, complies with general guidance, it will be immune from suit. Or, alternatively, that to provide for an authorised firm that seeks the authority's help to decide whether or not what it is about to do might breach the law, the Government will introduce a clause in the Bill which requires the authority, within a reasonable time, to react positively to such a request. I beg to move.

We have had some difficulty in understanding these amendments because they are mutually contradictory. Amendment No. 230H deletes subsection (4)(a), which provides that the authority may not give a direction unless it is satisfied that:

"compliance by the authorised person with the rules, or with the rules as unmodified, would he unduly burdensome or would not achieve the purpose for which the rules were made".

But Amendments Nos. 230J and 230K, which would be pre-empted if 230H were carried, add an additional limb to the test. An authority may give a direction if it is satisfied that the purpose for which the rules are made can be achieved in a different manner from those specified in the rules.

Taking those amendments together, it is difficult to work out which is the one I have to reply to, whether we are being asked to delete subsection (4)(a) or simply expand it by adding the third criterion. I shall assume for the purpose of this debate that the noble Lords are advocating the deletion of paragraph (a) with the insertion of an additional test. I will first argue against the deletion of paragraph (a) and then I will argue against the additional test. That should cover the ground.

With regard to deleting paragraph (a), no one appears to disagree that the rules should not be waived, if the effect of the waiver would be to bring undue risks to the interests of consumers. We think this is not enough. Where a rule can be disapplied—remember we are talking about waiving rules, disapplying rules, not imposing them—without damaging consumer interests, a question might arise that the FSA should be looking at whether the rule as a whole is justified. The use of the waiver power is envisaged in circumstances where the rule has a particular exceptional effect on a particular authorised person. So it should be incumbent on the applicant to demonstrate the effect that compliance with an FSA rule would have on him. This is the purpose of putting in paragraph (a) which it is proposed should be deleted, and which we think should not be deleted.

Moving on to the additional test proposed by the noble Lord, Amendments Nos. 230J and 230K provide that the authority may only grant a waiver or modification where it is satisfied that:

"the purpose for which the rules were made can be achieved in a different manner than as specified in the rules".

As I have already said, it is unclear whether this is intended as an alternative to the tests already mentioned or to replace them. Either way, I must argue against them. It is not enough to know that the purpose of the rule can be achieved in some other way. The SFA would need to know that as a matter of fact the effect was being achieved by some other means; for example, that the firm was committed to not taking action of a particular kind. It is difficult to see that the authorised person would be unable to demonstrate that the rule was not either unduly burdensome or not achieving the intended effect.

It should be said that while the onus is on the applicant to show that the criteria set out in subsection (4) have been met, the FSA has said in its policy statement, the FSA's approach to giving guidance and waiver to firms in September of last year that:

"It will apply its general requirements in a way that allows them to be tailored to fit the circumstances of particular firms in accordance with its commitment to a flexible and differentiated risk-based approach".

It should be mentioned that the waiver power in Clause 139 is wider than that in the Financial Services Act 1986 in a number of respects. It covers a wider range of issues, including for the first time cancellation rules and collective investment scheme regulations. The purpose for which the rules were made test is new, a test that will be given proper weight when considering applications for waivers. Therefore, we believe subsection (4) should contain two limbs. These have already been correctly framed in the clause as it stands.

On the issue of whether the guidance can be relied on by an authorised person as a defence for a claim for damages under Clause 141—to which the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, referred at the opening of his speech—there is a difficulty. There is a balance to be struck between fairness to the authorised person who has done what he is told and the private person who may be deprived of a right of action that he would otherwise have. The difficulty is that if a person who has complied with the guidance is let off an action for breach of statutory duty, this has the effect of allowing the guidance to override the rule. Whether that is right in policy terms is difficult to know. But while there is this difficult balance, we think that it is important to preserve the principle that third parties, in particular, private investors, should not lose the opportunity for redress where they suffer from a breach of the law.

The noble Lord asked whether there should not be a requirement to give guidance in certain cases. In paragraph 246 of its first report the Joint Committee recommended that,

"a requirement would be an unreasonable burden and a restriction on its freedom of action".

Our response to the noble Lord, following the Joint Committee's report, has to be negative.