---

Investment Exchanges and Clearing Houses Bill

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I shall check Hansard, but the term has been used from the Opposition Front Bench and, I think, by my hon. Friend. ““Light touch regulation”” is a phrase that has been used, and that rings little alarm bells for me. I wanted some reassurance from the Minister, and I have some. Until the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire spoke in the stand part debate, there has been little discussion of consumer protection and shareholder protection, which I have mentioned in interventions. Can the Economic Secretary clarify whether the phrases in clause 1(3)(b)(i) and (ii)—"““it is not justified as pursuing a reasonable regulatory objective””" or"““it is disproportionate to the end to be achieved””—" encompass consumer protection and shareholder protection, particularly the latter,"““disproportionate to the end to be achieved””?" If an investment exchange or a clearing house proposed rule changes that the FSA might deem to be excessive, would consumer and shareholder protection be considered if the investment exchange or clearing house stated that the end to be achieved through the tightening of its rules was greater consumer or shareholder protection? I am not sure whether ““reasonable regulatory objective”” would encompass consumer or shareholder protection. That is part of the equation that we must examine. Like other hon. Members, I want London to continue as a thriving premier international market, but I want protection for individual shareholders and consumers and for businesses and organisations, not only because that is right in moral terms, but because London will not continue to thrive as a premier financial location without that platform of regulatory control, so that those who might invest in that market do not fear losing their shirts because of poor regulation. I hope the Economic Secretary can deal with those issues.