Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page


Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, does the Minister believe that complicated professions such as psychotherapy should be regulated? Their practitioners have to deal with extremely difficult problems and there could be cowboys in those fields.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I know that concerns have been expressed as to whether counselling professions in general should be regulated. The health professions council, along with provisions in the Health Act 1999, allow us to extend regulation. We have no specific plans to extend regulation in the

9 May 2000 : Column 1372

way suggested, but we are talking to stakeholders in that field. We shall consider the matter further in the light of those discussions.

Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, does the Minister accept that, while professional self-regulation has been criticised in several quarters over the past few months, and while full lay representation on the new council is entirely right and appropriate, it would be extraordinary if qualified members of each of the 12 professions to be regulated were not to serve on the council so that they could present the professional view?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Lord for the contribution he has made over many years to self-regulation, in particular within the General Medical Council. I can assure the noble Lord that there will be one qualified person from each of the professions serving on the new health professions council. However, I believe it is right to balance that by increasing the number of lay representatives. Self-regulation works, but it is vitally important that there is a strong element in place to represent the public interest. In that way, the public will have confidence in what the regulatory organisation does when acting on its behalf.

Business

3.19 p.m.

Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord McIntosh will repeat a Statement on Rover which is being made in another place.

Horserace Totalisator Board Bill [H.L.]

Viscount Astor: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make provision for the transfer of the properties, rights and liabilities of the Horserace Totalisator Board to the Secretary of State, and to make provision for the Secretary of State to dispose of those properties, rights and liabilities. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.

Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.--(Viscount Astor.)

On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Carers and Disabled Children Bill

Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill

Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

9 May 2000 : Column 1373

Business of the House: Debate, 10th May

Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Peston set down for tomorrow shall be limited to five hours.--(Baroness Jay of Paddington.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Financial Services and Markets Bill

3.21 p.m.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.

Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.--(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Clause 131 [Legal assistance scheme]:

Lord Saatchi moved Amendment No. 149A:


    Page 63, line 16, leave out ("under section 123(4)").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Kingsland will address this group of amendments. In the meantime, with your Lordships' leave and having given notice to the Minister, I should like to ask the Minister for clarification of a significant development which has occurred since the last Report day of this Bill in your Lordships' House.

Do any noble Lords who participated in our many days of debate on this Bill share my uneasy feeling that since we last met the ground has been shifting under our feet? I refer to the merger of the London Stock Exchange with the Frankfurt Stock Exchange. That appears to raise many questions in relation to this Bill and I shall be grateful for the Minister's response to them.

As a consequence of amendments introduced by the Government in your Lordships' House, the FSA is now the responsible listing authority for the London Stock Exchange and the relevant order affecting that has already been passed in both Houses of Parliament. In the light of that, can the Minister set our minds at rest on some of the issues?

Why does the chairman of the Swedish Stock Exchange say that this merger has political undertones? If that is true, is that an appropriate role for an independent regulatory authority to play? Why does the National Association of Pension Funds say that it could lead to a mismatch of pension fund assets and liabilities? Is it true that all technology companies will in future be quoted in euros in Frankfurt? Who will be the competent listing authority for those companies? Was this merger envisaged by those who designed this Bill? What amendments to the Bill will be required at Third Reading to reflect the merger? Will the merged exchange be a recognised investment exchange under Part XVIII of the Bill? How will the FSA discharge its supervisory role of the merged

9 May 2000 : Column 1374

exchange? What assurance do we have that the FSA will not itself be merged with the German regulator or with a new European super-regulator without coming back to Parliament first?

I hope the Minister can give us a response to some of those questions at the end of the debate on the amendments. I beg to move.

Lord Elton: My Lords, I do not know what the procedure is under these circumstances, which might have taken place before we resolved to discuss the Report stage at all. But as we are on the question of the parameters within which we are working, I am only just taking on board the significance of what my noble friend said. It seems to me that there are parts of this Bill which may need to be recommitted and that we ought to be looking at the timetable for the whole Bill and not merely for today.

Lord Northbrook: My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend Lord Saatchi. Perhaps the Minister can tell us whether the merger of the London and Frankfurt Stock Exchanges contradicts the provisions of Clause 2, subsections (3)(e) and (3)(g), which state:


    "In discharging its general functions the Authority must have regard to ... the international character of financial services and markets and the desirability of maintaining the competitive position of the United Kingdom [and] ... the desirability of facilitating competition between those who are subject to any form of regulation by the Authority".

Lord Boardman: My Lords, I share the concern expressed by my noble friend. The Stock Exchange is central to this Bill. The changes recently announced and the introduction of Frankfurt throw fresh light on large parts of the Bill. I wait to hear what the Minister says on that point.

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, it is my task to address Amendments Nos. 149A, 158C and 158D.

If Amendment No. 149A is accepted, legal assistance will not be restricted to market abuse proceedings, which are the subject of Section 123(4), but will extend to all disciplinary proceedings initiated by the authority under the Bill. As the Minister is well aware, legal assistance is expressly provided for under Article 6(3) of the European Convention of Human Rights; that is to say, it expressly applies to criminal offences. However, as the Minister is also aware, in three recent cases in the European Court of Human Rights, it has been held that the right to legal assistance is also inherent in the protection provided by Article 6(1). The leading case is, perhaps, Rowe v. Davis, where the court stressed that Article 6(3) merely sets out examples of a fair hearing; the obligation is already contained in Article 6(1). Indeed, that point was dealt with almost a decade earlier in the case of Edwards v. the United Kingdom.

In short, it is our contention that the protections provided by Article 6 apply to the determination of all civil rights and obligations, not merely to the rights in relation to criminal accusations. Therefore, all

9 May 2000 : Column 1375

disciplinary proceedings under the Bill should, in appropriate circumstances, attract legal assistance to the aggrieved party.

As regards Amendments Nos. 158C and 158D, the Government have already accepted what has come to be known as "Saunders proofing" for proceedings under that part of the Bill which deals with market abuse. In that context it is worth mentioning that in the Saunders case, in which the United Kingdom government were the defendant, the European Court of Human Rights said that non-admissibility as regards evidence was required by the fair hearing provisions of Article 6.1 not just by the provisions of Article 6.3.

In brief, it is our contention that Saunders proofing ought to apply to disciplinary proceedings under the Bill and not just to proceedings concerning market abuse. I beg to move.

3.30 p.m.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, before I move to the amendments before us, perhaps I may thank the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, for drawing the attention of the House to the proposed merger of the London Stock Exchange and the Deutsche Bo rse and other noble Lords who have supported him in his expression of concern. I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, without hesitation that the full details of the merger have yet to be worked out. The FSA will need to look carefully at the regulatory implications of what emerges.

However, I understand that the intention is that the merged company will be based in, and managed from, London and that the market for blue chip shares in London will continue to be a recognised investment exchange overseen by the Financial Services Authority. The London Stock Exchange and the Deutsche Bo rse have also said that it is not envisaged that there will be any change in the regulatory arrangements for national markets. The regulatory framework provided by the Bill is an appropriate one and therefore there is no need for any amendments to the Bill.


Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page