HC Deb 05 June 2000 vol 351 cc47-8

Lords amendment: No. 11 in, page 8, line 38, at end insert— ("(5A) An order under subsection (5) may, in particular, provide that subsection (1) does not apply in relation to communications—

  1. (a) of a specified description;
  2. (b) originating in a specified country or territory outside the United Kingdom;
  3. (c) originating in a country or territory which falls within a specified description of country or territory outside the United Kingdom; or
  4. (d) originating outside the United Kingdom.

(5B) The Treasury may by order repeal subsection (3).")

Mr. Timms

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 12 to 18, 172 to 174, 272 and 296.

Mr. Timms

Clause 19 prohibits financial promotion unless the communicator is an authorised person or the promotion is approved by an authorised person. Clause 231 prohibits promotion by authorised persons of collective investment schemes unless the scheme is either authorised or recognised. Both clauses were extensively debated during the Committee stage in this House. The amendments debated in the other place were largely technical, tidying-up amendments made in response to concerns expressed by hon. Members in Committee.

Amendments to clauses 19 and 231 allow for some exemptions to be made, including exemptions dealing with the territorial scope of each prohibition. Amendments to clause 137(1) on financial promotion rules ensure that the limits of this rule-making power are consistent with the limits on promotions by unauthorised persons. There are also some technical and consequential amendments to clause 19. I commend these amendments to the House.

Mr. Flight

There were two big issues in this territory. One arose from clause 19 and the issue of the FSA being empowered to regulate cyberspace and anything that could affect a UK person. Our understanding is that the exemptions that have been published achieve what we felt was appropriate to be dealt with in clause 19.

Secondly, we were particularly concerned that managers of UK-based collective investment schemes who were seeking to market those schemes outside the UK but within EU jurisdiction would be subject to competing regulatory jurisdictions. As the Bill was drafted, they would have been obliged to conform with the FSA's regulations and with those in the jurisdiction in which they were marketing the scheme. Again, we understand that the Government have addressed the issue satisfactorily. I merely ask for confirmation that that is so in both cases.

Mr. Timms

It is certainly my view that all those concerns have been addressed satisfactorily. I hope that the House agrees.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 12 to 18 agreed to.

Forward to