Financial Services Bill

My Lords, it goes without saying that I have some sympathy with that view but I imagine that I will have difficulty in persuading the noble Baroness and those behind her that that is the way in which we should proceed. Therefore, we are dealing with what look like minutiae. The Government have already indicated how they intend these issues to operate. The first shadow minute of the council in January clearly set out the different views of the attendees at the meeting, which is the basis of the concern that all noble Lords have expressed. The noble Baroness was absolutely right when she anticipated that "the Minister will say that these should be in the terms of reference". So I do. I said that in the debate on the previous amendment and I am not going to change my view with regard to this one. That is where we think these issues should be placed. Of course, I entirely accept her objective and the objective of all noble Lords who have spoken that the minutes should be clear about who says what. That is the real burden of the issue. I merely say to the noble Lord, Lord Stewartby, that this is not an executive body; it is a body concerned with strategy. What the individuals say in these discussions is of the greatest importance but it is not an executive body and does not have executive responsibility in quite the way that the noble Lord gave the impression of being the case. In terms of objectives, I do not think that there is anything at all between us. We all agree that the record of the council’s meetings has to be clear and open about who contributed what and who said what so that there is a very clear perspective of the deliberations. We have already provided for that in the Bill and I do not think that the noble Baroness’s amendment adds significantly to it. Therefore, I hope that she will withdraw this amendment, as she did the previous one.