New clause (Hansard, 5 June 2000)

§ Mr. Flight
I beg to move an amendment to the Lords amendment, in line 8, at end insert— '(4) The Authority's statement must be published in such manner as the Authority considers appropriate.'. The Government tabled the new clause on Third Reading in the other place in response to pressure from Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members. It concerns when the FSA disagrees with the view expressed or the proposal made by the practitioner or consumer panels in representations to the FSA. Under our amendment, the FSA would have to give the relevant panel a written 45 statement of its reasons for disagreeing. The Economic Secretary referred to that just a few minutes ago. As presently drafted, it is not clear under the new clause whether the FSA's statement should be made public. Our amendment would make that clear. We understand that the Government confirmed in the other place that such statements would be made public.

§ Miss Melanie Johnson
The new clause proposed in Lords amendment No. 6 responds to points raised in another place in connection with representations made to the FSA by the practitioner and consumer panels. In line with suggestions made by Opposition Members, it will improve arrangements for giving feedback to the panels.
The new clause will require the FSA to consider representations made to it by either panel in accordance with arrangements under clause 7 and, where the FSA disagrees with those representations, to make a written statement of its reasons for disagreeing. The new clause will add, in a structured way, a greater degree of transparency and therefore improves on the arrangements for the panels.
I was rather surprised to discover that the Opposition had tabled their amendment, especially given that their colleagues in another place welcomed the new clause so warmly—I believe that Lord Kingsland described himself as delighted by it. When the new clause was introduced, Lord Kingsland asked whether reasons given by the FSA would be made public; my noble Friend Lord Bach explained that they would. It is self-evident that if the FSA issues a formal response to a formal representation, by the very act of doing so it puts its reasons into the public domain.
It is a different matter to require, as the amendment would, that every such response is to be published by the FSA. To do so would be as likely to confuse as to shed light on discussions between the FSA and the panels. For example, it would be odd if the FSA were to publish its response to a representation that had, for whatever reason, not been published in the first place by the panel. Requiring automatic publication, without any regard to the nature of the issue involved, might also involve unnecessary and inappropriate expenditure by the FSA.
It is quite possible that one of the panels might make a representation to the FSA in connection with a serious flaw or loophole that it had identified in the rules; the FSA might not agree with the panel's proposed solution, in which case it would have to write to the panel to explain why. However, I find it hard to imagine that the FSA, the panels or the vast majority of consumers and practitioners in general would want the existence of such a loophole to be exposed before an appropriate solution had been identified.

§ Mr. Flight
Will the Economic Secretary explain clearly what the Government meant by giving a verbal assurance in the other place that the reasons would be made public? Either they will be set out, published and made public, or they will not—I do not understand why the Government appear to want to I have their cake and eat it.

§ Miss Johnson
Ultimately, it will be for the panels to decide whether to publish statements made by the FSA when the FSA has decided, for its own reasons, not to do 46 so. I have no doubt that both the FSA and the panels will give full and proper consideration on a sensible, case-by-case basis to whether publication is appropriate. I urge the House to accept the new clause and to reject the Opposition amendment.