I am glad that the Government have proposed some provisions for excluding professionals who are regulated through their own bodies. I ought to declare an interest as a chartered accountant, although I do not intend to practise—at least not for a bit. [Laughter.] I hope that I will be the judge of the timing as well.

The Economic Secretary alluded to the fact that we debated this matter in Committee and that there was concern, not least from the Law Society of Scotland, that professionals up there would suddenly find themselves regulated by the FSA and that higher fees would be levied. Of course, there was sensitivity that they would be regulated from London instead of Edinburgh—a curious form of reverse devolution.

I presume, although the Minister did not say so, that the clauses have resulted from consultation with the professional bodies. She might say whether they are broadly happy with the way in which the proposals are set out.

I believe that it could be difficult to qualify for an exemption because the provision has been restrictively phrased. For example, the professional in question must not receive from a partner other than his client any pecuniary reward or other advantage which he does not account to his client, arising out of his carrying out of the regulated activities.

I can imagine a situation in which a solicitor or an accountant provides advice to a business client about taking over the lease on a shop or factory next door. Presumably, that would count as a regulated activity, and although the professional in question would receive no direct reward from an outside body, he would receive a pecuniary reward or advantage, because he would be paid by his firm for providing that advice. It could be said that he would be caught by new Clause 37 and would fall to be regulated by the authority. Will the Economic Secretary clarify what she understands subsection (3) of that new clause to mean? It might be unduly restrictive and catch many people who are giving advice or engaging in regulated activities as part of their normal tasks, especially if they work for firms that provide a wide range of services to clients.

As the Economic Secretary said, the rules of the professional bodies are to be checked and authorised by the FSA. That is understandable, but there is a danger that professionals working for such firms and regulated through their professional bodies will attempt a form of dual authorisation. They will be content to be regulated by the Law Society or the Institute of Chartered Accountants, as appropriate, but—so that they can with impunity break the rules of their professional body on authorised activities—they will also seek to be authorised directly by the FSA. It might not work, but it would be an unhealthy development. If that approach were to become a trend among professional people, it would be unfortunate and counter-productive. I invite the Economic Secretary to say a few words about her discussions with the professional bodies and regulators concerned. Do they also have lingering concerns about the wording of the new clauses?