Financial Services Bill

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, has expressed some doubt about Amendment 9, but only a small amount of the doubt that the Government have about it. The amendment considers who the Treasury formally consults when revising the statement. The Bill requires the Treasury to consider the other organisations that provide members of the council—namely the Bank of England and the FSA. What is being suggested here is that there should be much wider consultation, even approaching a full public consultation, on the matter. We do not consider that either necessary or appropriate. I emphasise that the council’s terms of reference are about how the three authorities work effectively together in tackling financial stability. We agree that the high-level objectives of the council are a matter of clear public interest—hence their inclusion in Clause 1(3). It is obvious that those high-level objectives are part of public concern and should be for public debate, but we do not consider that the details of how the council goes about its work to deliver these overarching objectives is a matter for wider public consultation. That is why I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw Amendment 9. There was greater agreement between the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, on Amendment 10. However, that requires responses to consultation to be published. As I indicated, we do not think that that public consultation is appropriate in any case. Therefore, for obvious reasons, we do not think that the issue of the publication of a consultation which ought not to take place should be in the Bill. The Government’s position is clear. We have real reservations about Amendment 9. From those reservations, it follows logically that we could not possibly accept Amendment 10.