Orders of the Day — Regulation of Financial Services (Land Transactions) Bill

House of Commons, 20 July 2005.

Ivan Lewis (Labour, Bury South)

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Third time.

The aim of the Bill, as I am sure hon. Members already know, is to extend the full protection of Financial Services Authority regulation to consumers purchasing home reversion plans and ijara sharia-compliant home finance products. That will help people to make informed choices about what may be the most significant financial decision that they make and ensure that there is a level regulatory playing field in the equity release market, much of which already falls within the FSA's remit.

I am grateful to Opposition Members for constructive debate in Committee and for their continuing support for this useful and important measure. Indeed, the Bill may have gone through its various stages at record speed, although I do not want to tempt fate.

As the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) pointed out in Committee, it is when there is unanimous support for a Bill's objectives that it is perhaps most important that proper scrutiny of its detail should take place. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Susan Kramer), who is not present this afternoon, on ensuring that scrutiny took place constructively and effectively. I should also like to place on record my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Caton) for so ably steering our scrutiny of the measure in Committee. I think it was the first time he had performed that role and we were all grateful for the efficient and effective way in which he did so.

Our deliberations in Committee focused on two main points: first, whether a de minimis limit should be applied to regulation; and, secondly, the need for continuing parliamentary scrutiny of the costs of regulation.

I hope that I was able to assure the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster that the Government had considered the de minimis threshold carefully when drawing up the Bill. Indeed, we included a specific question on whether a de minimis limit was appropriate in our public consultation. As I made clear in Committee, the Government do not believe that it is appropriate to set a de minimis threshold for the regulation of home reversion plans and ijara home finance products because of the risk that less scrupulous providers might exploit it by offering multiple loans just under the de minimis threshold to the same borrower. The risks to the consumer of cumulative borrowing would be no different from those attached to a single plan for more than £50,000. We also believe that that could create a potential distortion in the market. The view received unanimous support in the consultation.

The respondents to the consultation included a wide spread of home reversion providers, industry representative bodies, not-for-profit organisations and consumer representatives.

The second issue is the proper and appropriate scrutiny of costs. The debate in Committee focused on this issue, particularly in relation to regulation in this area, in order to ensure that the costs remain proportionate. I made it clear to the Committee that ensuring proportionality of regulation is hard-wired to the DNA of the Financial Services Authority. The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 obliges the FSA to ensure that regulation for which it is responsible is proportionate and takes into account the effects on competition, innovation and international competitiveness. Should the Bill pass successfully through Parliament, the FSA will consult publicly on the detailed rules that it intends to apply to home reversion plans and ijara home finance products. Included in the consultation will be a full cost-benefit analysis.

Furthermore, the FSA is already accountable to Parliament. Its annual report is subject to parliamentary scrutiny and must set out how the authority has met its statutory objectives and principles of good regulation throughout each year. Those principles include the requirement always to ensure that the costs of regulation are proportionate. I was therefore able to reassure the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster that the proposed amendment requiring additional impact assessments was unnecessary and would simply create an additional burden for industry, without providing any clear benefit.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

The Minister is prudent to have regard to the importance of proportionality. Given the commitment that he has just made to proportionality and to keeping regulation to a necessary minimum, what assessment has he made of the merits of incorporating some of the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act 1980 and of the Small Businesses Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 1996, both of which hail, as he knows, from the experience of the United States?

Ivan Lewis (Labour, Bury South)

As we develop our better regulation agenda, we consider the lessons to be learned from the global marketplace. Where there is a case of regulation being done better and more effectively, we should of course take account of it. However, it is important to place on record the fact that, in any international dialogue about best practice in regard to financial services, the FSA comes out very positively indeed in any analysis.

The point that I have been making since I got this job is that it is not inconsistent to say that, while the FSA is an excellent example of best practice in regulation, there is always room for improvement and always room to work with the industry to consider better regulation, both in terms of domestic regulatory measures and in terms of those that emanate from the European Union. In this country, the FSA, the Government and the industry have been quite successful in ensuring that the financial services regulations that emanate from the European Union are consistent with many of the principles that we want to see applied in terms of proportionality and best practice. That does not mean that we always win the argument, but I think most people would accept that, largely as a result of the respect that the FSA commands, we have been able significantly to influence the agenda relating to the regulations for the financial services sector that come from the European Union.

To respond further to the hon. Gentleman, we are keen to look at the regulatory bodies in the United States, as well as globally, in achieving a level playing field in the regulation of the financial services sector. That is not easy to achieve, and there is an argument that liberalisation and the opening up of the market should be the greatest priorities for financial services. However, we certainly want to see an increased emphasis not only on internal regulatory systems within the European Union but on looking outwards to our relationships with the United States and with the emerging economies of India, China and elsewhere.

The better regulation agenda needs to be considered domestically, as well as from a European Union point of view. It also needs to be considered in the context of the global market and the global economy. We are rightly proud of the leading role that Britain plays in that regard. There is always a difficult balance to be struck: we must protect the interests of consumers but not stifle the innovation of business, particularly in the financial services sector. We know the tremendous contribution that the sector makes to the success of the British economy, and long may it continue. I therefore hope that the hon. Gentleman is reassured by my response to his extremely interesting question, about which I may speak to him on another occasion.

The issue of the costs of regulation, which has been raised by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) previously, has been the subject of some discussion. It is important to know that the costings in the published regulatory impact assessment remain estimates, as I have said before. They are derived from figures published by the FSA in relation to the existing mortgage regime, and are based on future projections of market size, which have left considerable room for dynamic market growth. In addition, the precise nature of the regime that will apply to home reversion plans and ijara products will not be finalised until the FSA has consulted on its detailed rules. As it is statutorily obliged to do, the FSA will issue a detailed cost-benefit analysis alongside its consultation on the detailed rules. That CBA will enable us to further refine the costings in our RIA currently, and it is possible that in the wake of a more detailed market analysis and definition of a tailored FSA regime, the projected costs of regulation will fall.

While there is always cost to regulation—to be fair, hon. Members on both sides of the House have accepted that in this context—it is important to remember that in this case the industry is willing to bear that cost, because of the benefits that it believes it will bring to the home reversion market in terms of improved consumer confidence. In the industry's view, that will allow the reversion market to continue its dynamic growth. A deeper and more liquid market in these products should in turn create new opportunities for market entrants. I would therefore encourage Members not to see regulation in this case as purely a deadweight cost to industry, because it clearly has potential benefits and can reduce reputational risks for lenders. I therefore remain convinced that, on balance, the benefits of regulation, both in terms of consumer protection and in terms of securing the confidence necessary for future market growth, outweigh the projected costs.

Having briefly outlined our discussions in Committee, let me conclude by reaffirming that the Government believe that this Bill will benefit both consumers and providers of home reversion plans and ijara home finance products. Regulation, as facilitated by the Bill, will help people to make informed choices when purchasing such products and offer valuable consumer protection in the event of any mis-selling. It will also ensure a level regulatory playing field in the equity release market and should generate the increased consumer confidence that is essential if this market is to continue to grow.

On that basis, I would ask Members to support the Bill. I commend it to the House.

Mark Field (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

I realise that any self-respecting Opposition spokesman would by convention claim on reaching Third Reading that at least some of his party's concerns remained unresolved. I suppose that that is the case, although Her Majesty's Opposition cannot really claim that this Bill is an improvement on the one initially published in May. The fact is that our collective deliberations have made not one jot of difference to the wording of the Bill before us today. In fairness, that might owe more to the fact that this politically uncontentious piece of legislation contains the princely sum of two clauses. Perhaps it might be down to my effectiveness or that of my parliamentary colleagues—at least that is the story that I am sticking to.

In the four weeks since Second Reading, however, not only have we had a constructive Committee stage but we have lived through some tumultuous times nationally. The terrorist atrocities in London and the G8 conference in Scotland followed hot on the heels of the more uplifting, triumphant announcement that our capital city will host the 2012 Olympic games, and the UK's hosting of the series of Live 8 concerts. All of that has been packed into the past few weeks, during our consideration of this Bill.

We have also learned of eventful times for the Economic Secretary, who sped back to his native north-west from the Second Reading debate to attend his sister's wedding celebration. I know that it is common for young men to be fearful of their fathers-in-law, but I suspect that the newest arrival to the Lewis clan will have more cause for trepidation in his relationship with his new brother-in-law. The Economic Secretary also revealed in Committee his split allegiances: red in his political affiliation, and blue—well, sky blue at least—in footballing terms. I sincerely hope that, if only to ensure harmony around the dining table in the Lewis household, the Economic Secretary's new brother-in-law is not divergently schizophrenic in his own football and political allegiances. I am sure that if he were a Tory that would be bad enough, but for him to be a Manchester United supporter as well would be a step too far.

As I warned in Committee, the universal political support for the Bill makes its scrutiny, however brief, all the more important. I should reiterate my own view: I would welcome any move to increase public confidence in home reversion or equity release schemes, not least in the light of the adverse publicity in the financial press that such schemes have received in recent years. It is important to stress, however, that the Bill's proposals are likely to apply far more widely in the years ahead than may be envisaged now.

Equity release will not be the preserve of elderly folk wishing to remain in the family home while releasing capital to make up for inadequate pension provision during retirement. I believe that the single biggest demand for such schemes in the years ahead will be from middle-aged people in the workplace demanding the opportunity to release equity in their homes to give their children a lift on to the otherwise elusive property ladder. In many ways that should be regarded as a welcome trend, but it also reflects the tendency towards greater indebtedness among people in their 20s, especially those choosing to attend university and staying on for post-graduate study.

As the Minister said earlier, during the Bill's progress we have received reassurances from the Treasury about its willingness to review the operation of the legislation carefully in its early years to ensure that the regulatory burden is kept to a minimum. I accept that our probing amendment to introduce the de minimis provision might in itself have led to unintended consequences. Certainly it is not our desire to lay open the risk of home reversion plans and ijara home finance products being exploited by unscrupulous lenders offering multiple loans to the same borrower at a level just below the threshold that Parliament might set. Nevertheless, I hope that attention will be paid to our concerns. Our main worry is that the sheer cost of regulation and administration is such that some larger providers might be dissuaded from involving themselves in equity release schemes just below a certain level. The risk is that that might result not just in diminished choice, but in a deterioration in the quality of service for some of the more vulnerable people seeking to benefit from the Bill.

We have also tried to express some of our more general anxieties about the operation of the Financial Services Authority. I am sure that we shall return to that theme, both in general debate and in debating other legislation. Let me stress again that we consider it crucial, if London and indeed Edinburgh are to remain highly competitive global financial centres, for all regulation to be practical and pragmatic in its approach.

There is little doubt that many market professionals here in London regard the emergence in the United States of Sarbanes-Oxley rules as a substantial hindrance to US competitiveness in financial services. As ever, their true effects will take time to work through the system. We accept that the FSA needs to get the balance right between consumer protection and promoting competition and competitiveness in a global financial context. We should, however, see the situation in proportion. The expansion of the FSA's powers to take in equity release, home reversion and ijara home finance products cannot be seen as an enormous expansion in the regulator's power.

We entirely accept the need for more consumer confidence about these products, particularly given even stronger evidence that property is being used as a proxy for more pension planning by a generation of savers currently in their thirties. Market profitability and product innovation will be of key importance in a relatively immature market, and I have been reassured by the Minister's acceptance that his Department will keep the matter under regular review.

I thank my hon. Friends the Members for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Gauke) and for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper), who provided such sterling support in Committee. It occurs to me that both were born in the 1970s. They are a constant reminder to those of us who are members of a slightly older generation that there may be some urgent self-interest in equity release schemes before the world is too much older. I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for Basingstoke (Mrs. Miller) and for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone) for their contributions on Second Reading.

Notwithstanding the absence of contentious debate, this Bill's passage has provided a useful opportunity to place some of our concerns on the record. No one disputes the importance of placing equity release schemes and home reversion plans under the regulator's auspices, but we do hope that the FSA will keep its costs and those passed on to consumers to an absolute minimum.

As you may have gathered, Madam Deputy Speaker, amid the serious and worthwhile debate there have been some opportunities for levity. For example, the Economic Secretary is now well aware of my rather obsessive knowledge of the pop music charts. I have to confess that I needed to look in a reference book to discover what was number one in the UK charts on the very day that he was born, in the first week of March 1967. I have to report that in the context of this Bill, the song in question—"Release Me"—could scarcely have a more appropriate title. In truth, I suspect that Engelbert Humperdinck may have had other things on his mind than equity release and home reversion plans, but his words were strangely prophetic as he sang, "Please release me, let me go."

On that hopefully not too discordant note, I, too, am happy to commend this Bill to the House.

Vincent Cable (Liberal Democrat, Twickenham)

The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) has said essentially what I wanted to say. This Bill has been well managed in an harmonious spirit and on the basis of great consensus, both on Second Reading and in Committee, where my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Susan Kramer) represented my colleagues and me.

I thank the Economic Secretary for referring at some length to regulatory costs, which were my main concern. He made the entirely valid point that what is relevant here is not so much the Government's activities as those of the Financial Services Authority. I hope that the FSA has heard our concerns, and that it will take them properly into account in drafting the regulations that will flow from this legislation. The Economic Secretary also made the valid point that the danger with consensual legislation is that things can slip through the cracks. I want to mention a couple of cases where that might have happened, one of which could be quite serious and relates to the ijara proposals. It is clearly too late to introduce amendments, but it is worth flagging up these issues so that the Government can reflect on them before the Bill proceeds to the other place.

There were three basic motives behind the Government's decision to introduce legislation on home equity release schemes: consumer protection; raising confidence in products, so that the market can expand; and creating a level playing field to prevent what the experts call regulatory arbitrage—in other words, preventing capital from flowing from regulated products into unregulated ones, because the costs associated with the latter are lower. On Second Reading, I asked whether this legislation should cover areas that appear to have been excluded from such regulation and from mortgage regulation, such as buy-to-let properties. Having subsequently discussed this issue with bodies such as the Council of Mortgage Lenders, I have been persuaded that doing so would not be appropriate and that the Government were right to exclude them.

However, those bodies also referred to a gap in mortgage regulation that might well lead to regulatory arbitrage. This problem relates to property investment clubs, which are rather different from buy-to-let schemes, in that they do not involve conventional professional landlord management relationships. We are talking about people who are looking to make speculative gains out of housing equity, and in many cases they are driven by the same motives as those that underpin the transactions with which this legislation deals. There is undoubtedly a great deal of abuse of consumers. Some of us will be familiar with the glossy leaflets distributed in our constituencies, advising people to ring a strange telephone number—no address is given—and to turn up to a meeting, where they will then be briefed on how to make themselves very rich by entering into particular property transactions. A good deal of money is undoubtedly being teased out of people in the form of, for example, hidden charges.

I understand that the Department of Trade and Industry has used existing regulation to crack down on a couple of such schemes. I ask the Minister to consider whether it might be sensible to cover them with a relatively modest enlargement of the scope of the Bill when it goes to the other place.

My other point is more serious and relates to the provisions governing ijara finance. We all welcome the idea of creating a form of finance that our Muslim constituents can use comfortably because it meets their religious as well as market requirements. It is an eminently sensible idea and we all rush forward to endorse it. People in the property business and, more particularly, in the Law Society have pointed out, however, that we may be unwittingly creating problems for many of those families by encouraging them to take ijara mortgages without adequate legal protection.

The nature of ijara transactions generally means that the property remains in the ownership of the lender. A person who would normally be a mortgagee is, in fact, a tenant—an assured tenant, but the person who is acquiring the house through ijara finance is not the owner of the house. The equivalent of the mortgage lender is the owner, which presents two serious problems.

First, the occupant of the house is in a much weaker position in respect of disputes over arrears. Under the Housing Act 1988, the lender or owner of the property could evict after two months of arrears, whereas under conventional mortgage arrangements, the mortgagee has security of tenure. In those circumstances it is a matter for a court and a court order has to be obtained. The ijara borrower is therefore in a much weaker position than the conventional mortgage borrower.

Secondly, another difficulty applies either when someone wants to pay off their obligations or to foreclose. Under a conventional mortgage, the mortgagee is protected in that the mortgage lender is obliged by law to secure the best possible price and to make available, if he sells the property, a full account of the transactions. Under an ijara arrangement, however, the provider has no such obligation. According to lawyers, we could unwittingly place people who undertake ijara transactions for perfectly good reasons in a very weak legal position with respect to the providers of those products.

I ask the Minister to consider, as the Bill proceeds to the other place, whether a couple of legislative changes could be made. I am not in a position—this is not the proper context—to draft amendments, but I hope that the Minister will at least reflect on the idea of making a couple of changes to protect the many people who may want to take advantage of the provisions. One change could provide that any contract for funding under an ijara scheme should allow the party receiving those funds to repay them at any time during the term of the arrangement. The other could ensure that the party receiving the funds had the same protection as that afforded to a mortgagor on realisation of security by a mortgage. These are technical and legal points, which I ask the Minister to reflect on. They are mentioned in the spirit of attempting, at this late stage, further to improve a Bill that we strongly support in principle.

David Gauke (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)

May I begin on a personal note as a new Member of the House? This is the first Bill for which I have been present for all House of Commons stages. I have to say that, if this is what to expect, passing law is a somewhat more painless and quicker process than I was previously led to believe. I take note of the Minister's comments about the Bill's passage possibly being a record. I certainly do not intend to go on for long and threaten any speed records for legislation passing through the House. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] I thought that that would be a popular remark. I have also noted the point that the greater the all-party support, the greater the scrutiny that legislation deserves. However, I think that the Bill has received adequate, if brief, scrutiny.

The Bill has been welcomed by all parties. As I said on Second Reading, I represent a constituency with a lot of property-rich but cash-poor people. They are faced with many increased costs such as higher council tax, and welcome the opportunity for equity release. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) said, parents with children in higher education also find that some sort of equity release can be beneficial.

The key, however, is how the FSA will enforce the Bill. Its role has been discussed as the Bill has made its way through the House, as has the tension that appears to exist between Treasury Ministers and the Prime Minister. Treasury Ministers often say that the FSA is one of the best regulators in the world. I do not necessarily disagree, but on 26 May the Prime Minister said in a speech that there is

"something seriously awry when the FSA, established to provide clear guidelines and rules for the financial services sector and to protect the consumer against the fraudulent, is seen as hugely inhibiting of efficient business by perfectly respectable companies that have never defrauded anyone."

In Committee, the Economic Secretary took a skilful line in trying to reconcile that with the position of the Chancellor and other Treasury Ministers, who have said that the FSA is wonderful, world class and the envy of the world. He remarked that some people saw the FSA as the Prime Minister had described and that it was inevitable that the regulated would so perceive the regulator.

The perception that the FSA inhibits business is, however, a serious matter, because such a perception can drive away business and reduce innovation, and the Prime Minister was right to identify that concern. We should all recognise that, whatever the reality, the perception of the FSA is significant.

The FSA adopts a risk-based approach. That is to be welcomed, but it means that FSA employees tend to err on the side of caution and follow the box-ticking route. As the Prime Minister also said:

"The regulator who fails to regulate risk that materialises will be castigated. How many are rewarded when they refuse to regulate and take the risk?"

That is one of the difficulties with the FSA. Whatever is said at the top of the organisation, FSA staff will always err on the side of caution. My concern is that the financial services sector as a whole might become too heavily regulated, with rules that are too strict and enforced too rigidly. That concern is widespread in the City and in the financial services sector, despite what the Economic Secretary has said while the Bill has passed through Parliament.

Finally, we must be aware of how the FSA treats the financial services sector, and of the dangers of overregulation that we face in this country.

Ivan Lewis (Labour, Bury South)

With the leave of the House, I should like to reply to the debate.

First, may I say that the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) has applied himself to this debate with common sense, as he does to every debate? That is probably why he is not a candidate for the leadership of his party. However, I want to let him into a secret: the first chairman of the FSA was a Manchester City supporter, and the current chairman is one too. Given that the club has just decided to swap Shaun Wright-Phillips for Andy Cole, it is possible that we could do with that expertise to advise us in the boardroom.

I should also like to tell the hon. Gentleman that, when he identified the song that was No. 1 in the charts on the day of my birth, the Paymaster General asked that he do a similar job for her during the recess and report back when the House resumes. I am sure that he will agree to undertake that job.

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

Order. We have gone from football to the pop charts, so let us now get back to the motion before the House.

Ivan Lewis (Labour, Bury South)

I accept your wise counsel, as ever, Madam Deputy Speaker; but, seriously, I thank the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster for his constructive approach to what is a consensual Bill.

The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) raised a reasonable issue about property investment clubs. When he spoke about the glossy leaflets offering obscure information, strange telephone numbers and dodgy advice that were being delivered, it brought to mind the "Focus" leaflets that are distributed in many of our constituencies—but I will not go there, Madam Deputy Speaker, in view of the advice that you have given to me.

On a serious point, the FSA is considering the concerns about those property investment clubs and will, of course, take appropriate action, if necessary, and advise Ministers accordingly.

I want to respond to the hon. Gentleman's comments on ijara products generally and the danger of unintended consequences. Obviously, I do not ignore his concerns, but it is important to say that those schemes are legal and already in use. In those circumstances, the FSA regulations will ensure that consumers benefit from full and clear advice. Despite the danger of unintended consequences, that is undoubtedly a significant step forward, although we will keep an eye on the concerns that he has expressed.

The hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Gauke) tends to move about during debates—he was nearly called twice on one occasion recently, as a consequence of such a manoeuvre. He referred to the FSA. It is important that we are clear about the fact that this is not a complex issue: the FSA is regarded globally as a world leader, but does that mean that it is perfect or that it need not engage in the Government's better regulation agenda, as other regulators must do? Of course it does not mean that.

Do we accept that there is always a concern in any organisation that the principles and objectives articulated at the most senior level do not always play further down the organisation in terms of day-to-day interactions? That is a genuine, authentic concern. The management of any significant organisation of any nature, whether in the public sector or the private sector, must have regard for that concern. It is important that the objectives and principles that apply in respect of that organisation's leadership are also reflected in the day-to-day dealings between the regulator and those who are regulated.

The hon. Gentleman's overall point was about those in the financial services choosing to invest in this country. The FSA has arguably contributed to the fact that the financial services sector continues to regard this country as almost the best place in which to do business. Far from detracting from that, the fact that we have leading regulatory practice in the financial services sector makes this country a very attractive place to do business. Yes, we need to continue to ensure that the better regulation agenda applies. We do not want to be smug or complacent because the FSA has rightly earned global respect. Equally, we do not want to face false and bogus choices. We should not suggest that, on one hand, the FSA is somehow not doing its job in the most effective manner possible, while on the other, not recognising the fact that we must achieve the right balance between consumer protection and not stifling innovation and enterprise in the financial services sector. Thus far, the FSA has maintained that balance reasonably well, and we should support the work that it does.

The FSA does a lot of important work on behalf of this country in responding to regulations emanating from the European Union. Our partnership with the FSA is important in that respect because much of the regulation in the financial services sector flows from the EU rather than from domestic legislation. It is extremely important that the Government and the FSA have a constructive relationship in ensuring that this country's vision of an appropriate landscape for financial services regulation is the one that prevails in any argument that arises, not only at EU level, but in the international or global economy.

Now that I have responded to the points made during the debate, let me say a little about why the Bill is important and why putting it on the statute book is justified. We believe that its provisions will help people to make informed choices, offer valuable consumer protection and ensure that there is a level playing field in the equity release market, most of which already falls within the scope of FSA mortgage regulation.

FSA regulation will extend valuable consumer protections to elderly consumers when they are making one of the most important financial decisions that they are likely to take—a point that has not been mentioned in the debate. It will ensure that Muslim consumers are able to access all elements of the growing market in sharia-compliant home finance products while benefiting from the protections afforded by FSA regulation. It will also help people to make informed choices about the home finance products they purchase, create a level regulatory playing field in the equity release market and, by helping to improve consumer confidence in such products, facilitate future market growth. On that basis, I am pleased to commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.