Clause 165
Banking Bill
3:15 pm
Colin Breed (Shadow Minister, Treasury; South East Cornwall, Liberal Democrat)
I beg to move amendment No. 10, in clause 165, page 86, line 27, at end insert—
‘(4) Any scheme agent who reneges on their contract of employment will be subject to a penalty.
(5) The Chancellor of the Exchequer may make such regulations as are necessary for the establishment of a penalty.
(6) The power to make regulations under subsection (5) is exercisable by statutory instrument.
(7) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (5) may not be made unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by resolution of the House of Commons.’.
I shall not detain the Committee too long. I just want to tease out from the Minister the purpose behind giving the FSA powers to appoint a scheme agent. I understand that the FSA is the scheme manager. I suppose that, as much as anything else, my concern revolves around responsibility. We always like to put layers between us and decision making. I want the FSA to be responsible. If it has to employ someone new to be the person who organises matters, let it do so. I am not particularly in favour of saying that it delegate functions. Even the explanatory note states:
“Before entering into arrangement the FSCS must be satisfied that the person is competent to carry out the function”.
I should jolly well hope so, and that the person is given sufficient direction. Our excellent staff have drafted a rather convoluted amendment, but is there an absolute necessity for such a provision. Let us leave the FSA to get on with it and to be responsible for managing matters and not delegate that responsibility to other people. While such people may well be able to do the job properly, we all know of wonderful examples of when the Government have delegated powers to contractors and agents, and things have gone belly up. I do not know why it is absolutely necessary for the FSA not to be wholly responsible for such matters. If it wants to employ some proper people to do the job, that is fine, but why must delegated power be given to some sort of scheme agent?