Clause 14

Part of Financial Services Bill – in a Public Bill Committee at 11:45 am on 15 December 2009.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Rob Marris Rob Marris Labour, Wolverhampton South West 11:45, 15 December 2009

I entirely agree, which is why I was saying that I have some sympathy with amendment 3 and new clause 1. That to me is the way to balance the “innocent until proven guilty” aspect of our system—which I support, as I suspect do all hon. Members—with the need to protect consumers. The way to protect consumers is along the lines put forward by amendment 3 and new clause 1, because it is to do with consumers making an informed choice. However, amendment 3 is not currently worded in a way I could support, because it refers solely to suspension, whereas proposed new section 206A(1)(b), which would be inserted by clause 14—referred to by the amendment—refers to “limitations or other restrictions”. It is important for that to be included—not just suspensions—because I envisage a situation when a firm offering financial advice has a member of staff who is restricted in what he or she can do, but other members of staff are not.