Financial Services and Markets Bill
Wednesday 7th September 2022
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberFinancial Services and Markets Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I inform the House that neither of the reasoned amendments has been selected.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Richard Fuller)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The provisions of the Bill create the conditions for the United Kingdom to roll back or reform all European Union legislation for financial services that remains on our statute book. The Government will move at pace to implement a more agile and more internationally competitive set of rules that will harness the potential of UK financial services to stimulate growth across the United Kingdom.
Financial centres in the European Union, in the United States and across Asia are engaged with the United Kingdom in a global competition to attract financial services expertise, and to be the most successful in adopting the benefits of technology-driven change that may radically alter the shape and reach of financial services. The Bill will enable the United Kingdom to assert its leadership, and to drive forward change to capture a greater share of the global market for financial services. As the Prime Minister has said, the financial services sector is the
“jewel in the crown of the UK economy”,
and we are committed to supporting its ability to realise its full potential. An effective, efficient and easily accessible financial services sector is a vital foundation for the ease of daily life and for the national economy. The Government are therefore taking forward an ambitious set of reforms in this landmark Bill.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
The Bill contains a new statutory objective on competitiveness and growth, which ranks those elements above the UK’s legally binding nature and climate targets. Given that a thriving economy depends on a thriving environment, will the Minister look at this again and consider introducing a climate-and-nature-specific statutory objective as well, so that there are two statutory objectives rather than a statutory objective and a regulatory principle, which are not the same thing?
Richard Fuller
The hon. Lady is right to point to the importance of the objectives that are set for the regulators in financial services, but surely she will accept that the most fundamental principle for each of them should be the stability of financial services in the United Kingdom, and we pay regard to that in the Bill. We have added, as she pointed out, some focus on global competition and on achieving growth across the United Kingdom. Those are the fundamental demands that the British people have of the financial services sector. However, it is important that we have regard to the issues that the hon. Lady has mentioned, and I am sure we will discuss them, and the priority that should be attached to them, in more detail in Committee.
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con)
May I pursue the point about environmental issues? I take my hon. Friend’s point about the need to secure the stability of the sector—that is not in dispute—but one of the things we have not done in this country is to take steps to place a duty on financial institutions not to invest in businesses that support deforestation around the world. Our combat against deforestation has run through a range of policies that the Government have pursued, and it should be continued. I will be asking my hon. Friend, as we go through this process—ahead of, possibly, tabling amendments on Report—to consider placing such a duty on the financial services sector, so that before it invests internationally, it at least asks the question “Will this lead to deforestation?”
Richard Fuller
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that addition to the debate. It is clear that there is interest in the House in debating the priority that is given to these particular issues, and I look forward to hearing the contributions of my right hon. Friend—and those of Opposition Members—in Committee, to establish whether we have got these matters right.
Richard Fuller
I will give way one more time, and then I will make a little progress.
Dame Angela Eagle
There is much on the Bill for which I think there will be cross-party support, but there are some elements that worry me, and I wonder whether the Minister can reassure me about them. I refer to the Henry VIII powers, and the fact that a great deal of extra power will be given to the regulators and the Treasury. I worry about a lack of appropriate accountability to the House. Can the Minister give us some reassurances on the Henry VIII powers, and can he give us proper undertakings that he is not creating a system that will leave the House out?
Richard Fuller
Not surprisingly, the hon. Lady has put her finger on one of the most fundamental elements of the debate that we need to have on the Bill, which is the accountability of regulators, as expressed through the House and, if I may say so, through the Government. I can assure the hon. Lady that that will be a fundamental part of our debate throughout the Bill’s progress, and, indeed, I will say more about it later in my speech.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
Will the Minister give way? This is further to that point.
Emma Hardy
I think that one of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle) was not just about regulation post-Brexit, but about the power grab in the Treasury. Clause 3 deals with the Treasury’s powers during the transition, and it states that the primary legislation in schedule 1 will be bypassed, with powers given directly to the Treasury because of the need to move EU regulations speedily into domestic law. That, I think, is where one of the problems lies. It is a question of how much power is going directly to the Treasury and bypassing Parliament entirely.
Richard Fuller
The hon. Lady has made a useful point. She has identified the fact that there is an extensive amount of change in this Bill. As we repeal EU legislation, there will clearly be some measures on which there is a common view that they can easily be repealed and are unnecessary. It is right that the Treasury, and the Government, should be able to take those actions directly. Equally, there will be measures that will require full consultation by the House through secondary legislation, and I can give a commitment that that will be done apace, but with the ability for parliamentary colleagues to debate those measures fully. It is important that we achieve the primary objective of the Bill, which is to make the United Kingdom a solid global financial service centre.
In fact, the Bill has five objectives. They are to implement the outcomes of the future regulatory framework review, which involves reshaping our regulatory and legislative regime as an independent state outside the EU; to bolster the competitiveness of UK markets and promote the effective use of capital; to promote the UK’s leadership in the trading of global financial services; to harness the opportunities of innovative technologies in financial services; and to promote financial inclusion and consumer protection. I will take each of those in turn.
Let me deal first with the implementation of the outcomes of the FRF review. Clause 1 and schedule 1 repeal retained EU law for financial services so that it can be replaced with a coherent, agile and internationally respected approach to regulation that has been designed specifically for the UK. This will build on the existing model established by the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, which empowers our independent regulators to set the detailed rules that apply to firms. They do this while operating within the framework and guard rails set by the Government and by Parliament.
Schedule 1 contains more than 200 instruments that will be repealed directly by the Bill. While in some cases these rules can simply be deleted, in many areas it is necessary to replace them with the appropriate rules for the UK, in our own domestic regulation. These instruments will therefore cease to have effect when the necessary secondary legislation and regulator rules to replace them have been put in place.
As we have already heard from Members today, giving these measures effect will require a significant programme of secondary legislation to modify and restate retained EU law. I can confirm that in most cases, this will be subject to the affirmative procedure in the House.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
I welcome the Minister to his new post. Is it not a fact—I mention this partly for the benefit of those watching our proceedings who may be unfamiliar with it—that the House has the choice of taking or leaving each piece of secondary legislation that is presented to it, and Parliament will have no opportunity to amend secondary legislation if it does not think it is good enough?
Richard Fuller
As the hon. Gentleman will know, there will be plenty of opportunities for him to review each of the 200 measures in Committee, should he so wish, and to make recommendations. He will also be aware that the Government have already undertaken significant consultations with industry and others, and that there are ongoing reviews of a number of measures that are in place, some of which are contained in schedule 2. I do not feel that what he fears will actually be the case. There will be a process of consultation on a number of these measures, and there will be ample time for questions to be asked in the House as those consultation proceed.
As I have said, we have already undertaken fundamental reviews in some areas to ensure that we are seizing the opportunities of leaving the European Union, and this Bill delivers their outcomes. Let me touch on these briefly.
The Bill gives the Treasury the powers to implement reforms to Solvency II, the legislation governing prudential regulation for insurance. The Government are carefully considering all responses to their recent consultation and will set out their next steps shortly. The Bill also allows the Government to deliver on the outcomes of the UK’s prospectus regime review, taking forward key recommendations from Lord Hill’s UK listings review. These reforms will ensure that investors receive the best possible information, help to widen participation in the ownership of public companies and simplify the capital raising process for companies on UK markets. This can help to boost the UK as a destination for initial public offerings and optimise its capital raising processes.
The Bill also delivers, through schedule 2, the most urgent reforms to the markets in financial instruments directive—MIFID—framework, as identified through the wholesale markets review. It will do away with poorly designed and burdensome rules, such as the double volume cap and the share trading obligation, which will allow firms to access the most liquid markets and reduce costs for end investors. We intend to bring this into effect shortly after Royal Assent.
In reforming our regulatory framework, it is right to think about the regulators’ objectives so that they reflect the sector’s critical role in supporting the UK economy. For the first time, the Prudential Regulatory Authority and the Financial Conduct Authority will be given new secondary objectives, as set out in clause 24, to facilitate growth and international competitiveness. The FCA and the PRA will do this within an unambiguous hierarchy that does not detract from their existing objectives.
It is critical that these new responsibilities for regulators are balanced with clear accountability both to the Government and to Parliament. This is addressed in clauses 27 to 42, alongside clause 46 and schedule 7. The Bill includes new requirements for the regulators to notify the relevant parliamentary Committee of a consultation and to respond in writing to formal responses to statutory consultations from parliamentary Committees. The regulators are ultimately accountable to Parliament for how they further their statutory objectives, so these measures recognise the importance of the Committee structure for holding the regulators to account. While I welcome the new Treasury Select Committee Sub-Committee, it is ultimately for Parliament to determine the best structure for its ongoing scrutiny of the financial services regulators.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
I was on the Treasury Committee a number of years ago when we were looking at the Financial Services Act 2012, when competitiveness was not properly addressed. Is my hon. Friend convinced that the Treasury Committee will be able to instil a sense of urgency in the regulators and convince them that competitiveness is incredibly important? It is one thing to hold the regulators to account, but another to be able to drive them to implement the will of Parliament.
Richard Fuller
My hon. Friend opens up what was an area of particular personal interest to me when I was a Back Bencher, and I therefore feel tempted to stray, during what might be my rather temporary position on the Front Bench—[Hon. Members: “No!”] That was a cheap attempt for a laugh, but if I may just say this without straying too far, I think it is recognised across the House that the role of Parliament in holding regulators to account needs further investigation. The Bill is quite remarkable because we are building on a structure from the year 2000 that put tremendous power in the hands of the regulators. We think that is right. We do not think that we should have the same prescriptive statute-based approach as the European Union, because we feel that is too rigid, does not promote competition and does not help growth. But we must recognise, as we take the Bill through the House, that we have a responsibility carefully to ensure that those structures of parliamentary oversight are appropriate.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
I very much enjoy serving on the Treasury Committee, but it has an incredibly busy agenda. What the Government are doing here is taking a huge amount of scrutiny of incredibly important structural issues relating to financial services from 650 Members of Parliament and giving it to a Committee of 11 and a perhaps yet smaller Sub-Committee. Does the Minister really think that is adequate?
Richard Fuller
The hon. Lady tempts me to talk beyond what is really the responsibility of the Government. She is raising questions that are correctly and appropriately for the parliamentary authorities to respond to. On her more general point about whether the system is correct to rely on the regulatory framework that was established in 2000, I think the answer is absolutely yes. As I have just mentioned, it provides the ability for an agile, pro-growth, competitive set of financial services regulations, and I believe that Parliament itself is capable of providing that democratic oversight over the regulators. If she is concerned about that, I encourage her to take it up with the parliamentary authorities in the usual way.
So I welcome the Treasury Sub-Committee. I have said that ultimately it is for Parliament to determine the best structure for the ongoing scrutiny of financial services regulators. The Bill also includes a new power for the Treasury to require the regulators to review their rules when that is in the public interest. Following any such review, the final decision on potential action would be for the regulators to make.
Following the repeal of retained EU law, the Government will have no formal mechanism to bring public policy considerations directly into rule-making. It is right for the democratically elected Government of the day to be able to intervene in a matter of financial services regulation where there are matters of significant public interest. The Government’s intention is therefore to bring forward an intervention power that will enable Her Majesty’s Treasury to direct a regulator to make, amend or revoke rules where there are matters of significant public interest. The Chancellor will take a final decision on the precise mechanics of the power and the Government will table an amendment in Committee.
Let me now turn to the Bill’s second objective: bolstering the competitiveness of UK markets and promoting the effective use of capital. I have already spoken about the improvements to the UK’s regulation of secondary markets in this Bill through reforms to the MIFID framework in the wholesale markets review. These changes will lower costs for firms and align our approach with that of other international financial centres such as the United States. To improve the smooth functioning of markets, we will introduce a senior managers and certification regime for key financial market infrastructure firms. We will expand the resolution regime for central counterparties to align with international standards, and enhance the powers to manage insurers in financial distress.
The next objective of the Bill is to strengthen the UK’s position as an open and global financial hub. Outside the EU, the UK is able to negotiate our own international trade agreements, including mutual recognition agreements—MRAs—in the area of financial services. The Government are currently negotiating an ambitious financial services MRA with Switzerland. Clause 23 enables the introduction of any necessary changes through secondary legislation to give effective to this and to any future financial services MRAs. Schedule 2 contains measures that enable the United Kingdom to recognise overseas jurisdictions that have equivalent regulatory systems for securitisations classed as simple, transparent and standardised, allowing UK investors to diversify their portfolio while maintaining the level of protections they currently enjoy.
The Bill takes the UK further forward as a centre for financial markets technology. Clause 21 and schedule 6 extend existing payments legislation to include payments systems and service providers who use digital settlement assets that include forms of crypto-assets used for payments, such as stablecoin, backed by fiat currency. This brings such payments systems within the regulatory remit of the Bank of England and the payments system regulator, allowing for their supervision in relation to financial stability, promoting competition and encouraging innovation.
To foster innovation, clauses 13 to 17 and schedule 4 enable the delivery of a financial markets infrastructure sandbox by next year, allowing firms to test the use of new and potentially transformative technologies and practices that underpin financial markets, such as distributed ledger technology. In parallel, the Bill promotes the finance sector’s resilience by allowing the financial service regulators to oversee the services that critical third parties provide to the sector.
Let me turn to the Bill’s final objective, which I know will have the commendable focus of colleagues throughout the House: the promotion of financial inclusion and consumer protection. The Government will continue to foster an industry that supports everyone so that individuals do not feel left behind by the rapid advancement in financial technology. There is an extensive programme of ongoing work related to consumer protection, especially in the areas that were legislated for in the Financial Services Act 2021, such as buy now, pay later agreements and the FCA’s rules on the consumer duty.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister is relatively new to his role, but he cannot help but be aware that it is now almost two years since this House recognised the real threat to our constituents’ bank balances posed by buy now, pay later and its lack of regulation. There is agreement throughout the House that these legal loan sharks must be regulated. The Minister may say that this is a complex policy area, but political will and the cost of living crisis demand fast action. Why is the necessary regulation not in the Bill? It could have been the perfect vehicle, ahead of Christmas, when these companies will profit again, to act to protect our constituents.
Richard Fuller
The hon. Lady is right to talk about the urgency and complexity of the issue. She understands that it is complex and will invigorate us all to move as quickly as possible. I note that even as recently as 19 August the FCA has followed up with the buy now, pay later companies to remind them of the rules that they have to operate under, and that the Government have committed to bring forward the consultation on the draft legislation before the end of the year. I look forward to discussing matters further with the hon. Lady.
The 2021 Act made legislative changes to support the widespread offering of cashback without a purchase by shops and other businesses. Clause 47 and schedule 8 go further and give the FCA the responsibility to ensure reasonable access to cash across the UK. The FCA will have regard to local access issues and a Government policy statement on access more generally. The Treasury will designate banks, building societies and cash co-ordination arrangements to be subject to FCA oversight on this matter.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
I very much welcome the provision in the Bill, because access to cash is an extremely important issue not only for rural communities that I represent but for deprived areas. Will the Minister make sure that when the various reviews and mechanisms are put into place they focus on the specific needs of rural and deprived areas in their determination of cash requirements?
Richard Fuller
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. He will know that the question of access in urban areas is very different from that in rural areas. I can give him the assurance that he seeks.
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)
I, too, welcome all the provisions, but will the Minister confirm that when he says “access to cash” what he actually means is free access to cash, not paid-for ATMs.
Richard Fuller
When I say “access to cash” I mean access to cash. My hon. Friend raises the question of whether that access should be free; that is a matter to which we will return in Committee, but I cannot give him that assurance at this stage.
As the country faces cost of living pressures, we must ensure that the door to affordable credit is open to all. The credit union sector plays a crucial role in this respect by delivering for its members and providing an alternative to high-cost credit. Clause 63 allows credit unions in Great Britain to offer a wider range of products and services to their members. To improve consumer protection, the Bill will strengthen the rules around financial promotions. Clause 62 enables the Payment Systems Regulator to mandate the reimbursement of victims of authorised push payment scams by payment providers, for all PSR-regulated payment systems, and places an additional duty on the regulator to mandate reimbursement in relation to the faster payments service specifically.
Clause 48 and schedule 9 give the Bank of England new powers to oversee wholesale cash infrastructure, to ensure its ongoing effectiveness, resilience and sustainability. Clause 47 and schedule 8, on cash access, will ensure that the FCA has regard to local access issues and a Government policy statement on access more generally. The Treasury will designate banks, building societies and cash co-ordination arrangements to be subject to FCA oversight on this matter.
Richard Fuller
I am afraid I am going to conclude.
This is a significant Bill and I look forward to the House considering each measure in detail as it makes its passage through Parliament. The Bill has a single vision: to tailor financial services regulation to the UK’s needs, to promote global competitiveness and innovation, and to contribute growth in our economy. I commend it to the House.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. Before I call the shadow Minister, I want to point out what is probably obvious, which is that this debate is very well subscribed. I hope that, in considering their speeches, right hon. and hon. Members will bear that in mind.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
I thank the Minister and his officials for all the information about the measures in the Bill that they have shared in recent weeks and for how they have co-operated with me.
As the Minister said, the Bill implements the outcomes of the future regulatory framework review and attempts to set out a clear direction of travel for the regulation of the City post Brexit. It is important that the UK is able to take advantage of this opportunity to create a more competitive financial services sector and to strengthen our regulatory standards for financial stability and consumer protection outside the UK. After more than a decade of stagnant growth, averaging just 1.8% a year, and with the current dangers that face our economy, enabling the City to thrive will be fundamental to the delivery of the tax receipts we need to fund public services and support people through the cost of living crisis.
We on the Opposition Benches broadly support the Bill as it stands. In particular, we welcome clauses 1 to 7 and 8 to 23, which empower the UK, the FCA and the PRA to tailor regulation to meet our needs outside the EU. The Labour party recognises that the City is now in a place very different from where it was in 2016. The consensus view across the sector now is that the ship has sailed on regulatory equivalence with Europe, but regulatory divergence with the EU has the potential to produce many opportunities for the sector and the wider economy, such as the reform of Solvency II to unlock capital for investment in the green transition.
EU regulation can often be over-restrictive, particularly in respect of financial technologies, as the Minister will know, and we welcome the fact that the Bill enables regulators to take a more outcomes-based approach to areas such as fintech. However, Europe will always remain an important market for our financial services sector. In 2021, exports of financial services to the EU were worth £20.1 billion—that is 33% of all UK financial services exports.
Since 2018, the value of UK financial services exports to the EU have fallen by 19% in cash terms, and there has been little progress in securing trade deals for our financial services around the world. I have to say to the Minister that the sector is disappointed that the Government have so far failed to finalise a memorandum of understanding on regulatory co-operation, or to negotiate with the EU for the mutual recognition of professional qualifications for our service sectors. I hope that when the Minister sums up he will tell us what impact he believes the Bill will have in securing those important agreements with the EU and boosting financial services exports more generally.
The Minister will know that I like to ask a series of questions when I deal with him, and I am afraid there is more to come. Let me turn to clause 24. We support the principle that there is a role for the FCA and PRA to advance international competitiveness and growth. We on the Opposition Benches are strongly committed to supporting the City to retain its competitiveness on the world stage and to ensuring that the UK remains a global financial centre outside the EU. But it is also right that financial stability and consumer protection remain the priority for regulators. Any compromise on those important objectives would be self-defeating.
Caroline Lucas
I completely accept the hon. Lady’s point about our being a competitive financial centre, but does she agree that there is a real opportunity to be a competitive green financial centre? As that opportunity is time-limited—other countries are moving faster than we are—does she agree that a secondary objective in respect of climate and nature will be essential to ensure that we regulate in a way that allows us to make the most of that potential?
Tulip Siddiq
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I will come on to that issue later in my speech. It felt as though Conservative Members did not agree with her, but I agree with what she said.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Further to the previous question, does the hon. Lady agree that one does not exclude the other?
Tulip Siddiq
I had to think for a second about what the hon. Lady was referring to, but she is absolutely right. I agree with her on that, and I will address it a bit later in my speech.
The Opposition particularly welcome the inclusion in the new secondary objective of a focus on the medium-term and long-term growth of the UK economy. Financial services are already an important driver of growth in the UK, but much more can be done to support the sector to invest in companies in every sector and every region in the country, to deliver long-term growth and well-paid jobs in the real economy. I understand that clause 26 requires the PRA and FCA to report annually on the new secondary objective, but will the Minister confirm in his closing speech whether that will include being held to account specifically on the advancement of long-term growth in the real economy?
That brings me on to the provisions in clauses 27 to 46, which deal with accountability more broadly. The Bill facilitates an unprecedented transfer of responsibilities from retained EU law to the regulators. We recognise the need for a rethink of how the FCA and PRA are held accountable by democratically elected politicians and Governments. We particularly welcome clause 36, which will formalise and strengthen the role of the Treasury Committee in holding regulators to account. However, as my hon. Friends the Members for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle) and for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) said, we need to be able to scrutinise decisions taken by the Treasury, and I hope the Minister will elaborate on that. Any new powers allowing greater involvement of and policy input from Government in the FCA’s and PRA’s rule making process must be carefully balanced with the need to protect their regulatory independence. We will be scrutinising these provisions closely in the weeks ahead.
The UK’s reputation for regulatory independence is a key driver of our competitiveness on the world stage, as I am sure the Minister will agree. Equally important, however, is ensuring that the City has a clear direction of travel on post-Brexit reform. I was worried about that, because over the summer the now Prime Minister made a series of off-the-cuff policy announcements and people around her were spreading rumours, which left the sector in a state of uncertainty about her Government’s plans for this Bill. The Minister has today confirmed that the intervention powers, or so-called call-in powers, will be included in the Bill through an amendment. I am disappointed that the Government have decided to cause greater uncertainty in the City by introducing a significant change at this stage, and I hope he will reassure me that they will publish the details of these new powers as soon as possible. I would also be grateful if the Minister would confirm in his closing remarks whether the Government have plans to abolish the FCA and PRA. That would seem to undermine many of the provisions in the Bill.
I also wish to discuss the issue of access to cash and banking services, which some Members have spoken about. The Opposition broadly support the Bill, but we are concerned that there are some serious gaps in it as it stands. Of course, we strongly welcome clauses 47 and 48, which will finally, after years and years of Government delay, protect access to cash. The industry, and particularly the major banks, should be applauded for coming together to help protect cash services at the end of last year, in advance of this legislation being put on a statutory footing. But the Bill does nothing to protect essential face-to-face banking services, which the most vulnerable in our society depend on for financial advice and support.
On this Government’s watch almost 6,000 bank branches have closed since 2015, and the “Community Access to Cash Pilots” report found significant overlap between those reliant on cash, estimated at about 10 million people, and those who need in-person banking support. Those without the digital skills to bank online, people in rural areas with poor internet connection and the growing number of people who are unable to afford to pay for data or wi-fi as the cost of living crisis deepens are at risk of being left behind. Banking hubs or other models of community provision, such as banking kiosks, will need to be part of the solution. These are spaces where dedicated staff can provide vital face-to-face support for those who need it, and tackle digital exclusion by teaching people how to bank online.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend share my concern that although a great deal is offered by the hubs, they do not deliver? They certainly do not for those of us who live in cities, as people require the bank most days if they are dependent on cash, and they are just expected to get the bus.
Tulip Siddiq
I agree with my hon. Friend, and I have seen examples of that in my constituency, especially the parts where people are from lower socioeconomic backgrounds.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The hon. Lady is outlining the case on behalf of those who live in rural communities, who comprise about 50% of my constituents. A number of banks have closed in our constituency—I believe there have been 10 or 11. Each of those banks—Danske Bank, Ulster Bank and all the others—has made exorbitant profits. I am not saying that they should not make a profit, because they should, but their profits are so high that they could well keep their branches open to ensure that people who live in a rural area can have access. Does she agree with me on that?
Tulip Siddiq
I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s point, especially as regards constituents in rural areas. I hope the Minister will take on board the comments that are being made.
I was delighted to hear the announcement from the Cash Action Group this week that the sector will be launching additional banking hubs on a voluntary basis, but these services must be protected by legislation. Will the Minister kindly set out in his summing up when the Treasury will be publishing its cash access policy statement, and whether it will ensure that in-person services are protected under the legislation?
It is also disappointing that the Bill fails to address the growing problem of financial fraud. Labour fully supports clause 62, which enhances protection for victims of authorised push payment scams, but the Bill does nothing to strengthen fraud prevention. Under this Government, the amount of money stolen directly from the bank accounts of hard-working people and businesses through scams and frauds has reached an all-time high of £1.3 billion. That would be bad in a normal time, in the best of times, but it is especially bad when we are in the middle of a deepening cost of living crisis. This Government have completely failed to get to grips with modern fraud and scams, such as identify theft and online scams, which have seen people’s lives stolen and their economic stability put at risk.
The former Business Secretary, who is now the Chancellor of our country, was asked about fraud earlier this year. He dismissed it, saying that fraud and scams are not a part of most people’s everyday lives. That is breathtakingly out of touch. Why does he think that? It is shocking. Martin Lewis, the money saving expert, said at the time that
“denigrating the experience that people in this country have with scams, and the lives that have been lost or destroyed because of scams, is an outrage. And he must and needs to apologise if he has any shred of decency in him.”
We still have not received an apology from the Chancellor, but he can put things right by taking immediate action to rectify the amount of fraud and scams that people are facing. I ask the Minister to explain in his closing statement why his Government continue to fail to take fraud seriously and push responsibility solely on to the banks. The Bill ignores the fact that digitally savvy criminals are increasingly exploiting a range of financial institutions, such as payment system operators, electric money institutions and crypto asset firms, to scam the public. In his summing, can he also please explain why the Bill would only provide for the reimbursement of fraud victims who send money using the faster payment system, and why other payment systems have not been included? That seems baffling.
Another area in which I feel the Bill lacks ambition is support for the mutual and co-operative sector. While clause 63 contains some welcome and long-overdue provisions, such as enabling credit unions to offer a wider range of products, the Bill does little to address the outdated regulatory regime faced by credit unions, building societies and co-operative banks. We have seen numerous building societies threatened with demutualisation in recent years, while the number of mutual credit unions has plummeted by more than 20% since 2016. Unlike the USA and many other European countries, the UK is uniquely lacking in mutually or co-operatively owned regional banks. That lack of diversity in the financial services sector has had devastating consequences for financial inclusion and resilience, with many desperate families forced into the arms of unethical lenders. I have seen that first hand in my constituency, especially in Kilburn.
A clear first step in addressing this issue would be to require the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority to have an explicit remit to report on how they have considered specific business models, including credit unions, building societies and mutual and co-operative regional banks, to ensure they are given parity of esteem with other providers. I would be grateful if the Minister addressed that in his closing remarks—I recognise that I have asked many questions that I want him to answer.
Turning briefly to food speculation, Global Justice Now has brought to my attention concerns that the Government’s proposed reform to the position limits regulations under MiFID II have not been adequately assessed for commodity market speculation risks. I ask the Minister to provide some reassurance that these reforms will not adversely impact commodity prices, such as energy and food prices, in the midst of a cost of living crisis, and to explain what role the regulators will play in monitoring this.
Finally, turning to the points that have come from the Opposition Benches, it is striking how little the Bill has to say about green finance. We of course welcome clause 25, which formalises the responsibilities of the FCA and PRA under the Climate Change Act 2008—introduced, I remind the House, by the last Labour Government—but the Government promised much more radical action. Indeed, we were promised that the UK would become the world’s first net zero financial centre, but instead, we are falling behind global competitors.
A recent report from the financial services think tank New Financial revealed that the UK is a long way behind the EU in both share and penetration of green finance in capital markets. It is possible that the Minister has not read that report; I am happy to send him a copy. If he reads it, he will see that it says in black and white that the UK is behind the EU. It found that green finance penetration in the UK was at half the level of the EU, and roughly where the EU was four years ago. When the Minister closes, if he does not agree with me, will he please explain why nothing in this Bill commits the Government to introduce sustainability disclosure requirements, a green taxonomy plan, or a green finance strategy for the sector? If he does not agree with the report I have quoted, could he tell me whether it is wrong?
I look forward to debating and, hopefully, addressing these issues with the Bill when it is in Committee. Once again, I thank the Minister in advance for his closing remarks, which I am sure will give detailed answers to all the points I have raised today.
Rishi Sunak (Richmond (Yorks)) (Con)
It is a pleasure to contribute to this debate—albeit from a few rows further back than I had originally anticipated—and to follow the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq). I start by paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) for the fantastic work he did as the longest-serving City Minister to get this Bill into the fantastic shape it is in, where it is now admirably shepherded through Parliament by his very worthy successor, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller). I also pay tribute to the fantastic team of officials, led by Gwyneth Nurse, who have spent the best part of the past year preparing what is, I believe, the most radical and significant piece of financial services legislation that this House has seen in years, if not decades.
There is so much in the Bill to comment on that in the interests of time, I will briefly focus on three things. First, the Bill appropriately seizes the opportunities of Brexit to scrap retained EU law and move to an agile system of regulation that is tailor-made for the UK. Secondly, it reforms regulations to make sure that we support economic competitiveness. Lastly, it keeps the UK at the forefront of harnessing innovative technologies and makes sure that we keep pace in a fast-moving sector.
Rishi Sunak
Not for now.
First, on Brexit, with the future regulatory framework, the Bill represents a significant move away from relying on retained EU law as a means of regulating the UK’s financial services sector. Clause 1 provides for a full sweeping away—a full revocation—of essentially all the retained EU law concerning financial services in the UK. This is radical and this is right. Indeed, it is what Brexit was all about and this Bill delivers it.
We will move appropriately to the Financial Services and Markets Act 2020 model where the Government set the overall policy approach and delegate the operational implementation of those regulations to the independent regulators. As my hon. Friend the Minister said this is the internationally respected gold standard for how to do this. I was pleased to hear the Minister comment on the call-in power, and I urge him and the Government to quickly bring forward the means for that power, because both my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury and I believe it is the right thing to do. We talked about accountability earlier in this debate. It must be right for a democratically elected Government, with the consent of this House, on an exceptional basis, to intervene on financial regulation in the public interest, and I hope that the Government will follow through with those plans.
On what this Bill does to support competitiveness, for the first time, our financial regulators will have a new statutory objective to support international competitiveness and growth, moving us in line with jurisdictions such as Australia, Singapore, Japan and Hong Kong. There will be new statutory panels to give better external scrutiny and challenge on the regulators’ cost benefit analyses. We heard much about the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive over the past several weeks and I am pleased that the Bill brings forward those reforms to MiFID: to remove restrictions such as the double volume cap when trading in wholesale capital markets to improve pricing for investors; to modify the transparency regime in fixed income and derivatives to remove unnecessary burdens; and to modify the commodities position limits so that market activity is not unreasonably restricted.
There are three areas on which I urge the Government to consider going further than I think we heard in the Minister’s opening remarks. First, to improve the efficiency of capital markets raising, there is an opportunity to reform European regulations in the prospectus directive. I hope the Government will bring forward draft statutory instruments for us to consider during the Bill’s passage. Secondly, the European packaged retail and insurance-based investment products directive is ripe for reform. I suggest repealing PRIIPS and replacing it with a tailor-made regime specifically for UK markets. This will eliminate a counterproductive regulation, broaden the range of products available for UK investors and, indeed, increase UK retail participation in our financial markets.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the Bill sufficiently challenges the Financial Conduct Authority to speak up and support consumers?
Rishi Sunak
Yes, I do: the Minister touched on provisions that increase consumer protection. My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury spent a lot of time ensuring that consumers would have that protection, particularly with regard to scams, as the Minister outlined in his opening remarks. That is an area that needs attention.
Thirdly, on ringfencing, I suggest that the Government not only accept the recommendations of the independent Skeoch review, but consider going further. I know that this is a Government with a deregulatory zeal for growth, so I suggest two areas in particular: first, to review the threshold limits, which have not been looked at since they were initiated; and secondly, to take a fundamental look at the ringfencing regime in light of the fact that it was established after the financial crisis and that we now have a full stand-alone resolution regime.
It is worth recalling that more than half of Europe’s fintech unicorns are based in the United Kingdom, so it is important that the Bill continues to support innovation. I am pleased that it does so in two specific areas. It builds on our pioneering and world-leading regulatory sandbox to include the opportunity to pilot new sandboxes for distributed ledger technology in financial market infrastructure. That has the potential not only to lower costs and improve efficiency, but to improve financial stability. I am glad that the Government are also proceeding to bring stablecoins into the payments legislation, because that will create the conditions for stablecoins issuers and service providers to operate and grow in the UK.
I ask the Minister and the Government to consider implementing all the fantastic ideas that were contained in the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury in April regarding blockchain and crypto, notably proceeding with a sovereign gilt issue using distributed ledger technology, but also enabling the trading of exchange-traded notes on crypto on UK exchanges, where we risk falling behind Europe if we do not act.
Why does all this matter? It matters for three specific reasons. The first is jobs. The industry provides more than 1 million jobs, and not just in London and the south-east; two-thirds of those jobs are in places such as Southampton, Chester, Bournemouth, Glasgow, Belfast, Edinburgh and Leeds. It is incredibly important. Secondly, it is one of the most important industries for our economy in terms of contribution to our GDP and tax revenues, and it is something that we as a country are genuinely world-class at. There are only a handful of industries where a country can say that, and financial services is one of those for us. It deserves the support of hon. Members on both sides of this House to ensure its continued success.
Lastly and most importantly, this Bill serves as a template for what the Government want to do across the rest of their business. It takes advantage of the opportunities of Brexit, radically reforms our regulations to support innovation, growth and investment, and, although I would like the Government to go even further, it has my full support.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
It gives me pleasure to speak on this Bill on behalf of the Scottish National party. I am going to agree with the former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak), for the first and probably the last time in either of our careers, in placing on record my thanks to his colleague the former Economic Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen), for the constructive and courteous way in which he conducted a large number of debates with me during his time in office.
When the SNP decided to table a reasoned amendment asking the House not to give this Bill a Second Reading, we did so with a significant degree of reluctance, because there is a lot in the Bill that we see as not only desirable, but essential and, in some cases, long overdue. It is disappointing that the Government have chosen to package them with other provisions that give us very serious concern, and to package them in such a way that it will probably prove to be impossible to amend the Bill to take out the damaging parts.
For example, we welcome the provisions relating to the regulation of digital settlement assets or cryptocurrencies and on access to cash—we would have welcomed them several years ago, if the Government could have been bothered to bring them in. Our only real concern is that they do not yet go far enough. However, the dangers posed by other more substantial parts of the Bill are so great that they may be too high a price to pay to get those necessary pieces of legislation on the statute book.
In the Queen’s Speech we were promised a Bill that would,
“strengthen the United Kingdom’s financial services industry, ensuring that it continues to act in the interest of all people and communities”.
This Bill does not do that. In fact, the former Chancellor has confirmed what the Minister strongly hinted at: the Government’s main objective here is to force through a damaging, totally unnecessary divergence from our European Union neighbours, for no other reason than that they can.
The very first sentence in clause 1, which the former Chancellor thinks is a great idea, invites us to wipe out well over 200 pieces of legislation with no idea what will replace them. The Bill gives the Treasury the power to decide when and if each of those 200-plus laws is revoked and the Treasury gets the power to decide when, if ever, it will bring forward replacement legislation for them. Despite the Minister’s apparently not understanding our concerns earlier on, if that is done through secondary legislation in delegated legislation Committees, there will be no opportunity for the House to amend it, to make it better or to insist on legislation’s coming forward if the Government do not want to bring it.
The Bill gives the Treasury the power to amend or revoke Acts passed by this whole Parliament, and to revoke laws passed under devolved authority by the elected national Parliaments and Assemblies of three quarters of the supposedly equal partners in this Union. A Treasury whose Ministers were appointed by a Prime Minister who got the first-choice votes of 14% of her own Members of Parliament will be allowed to overrule Parliaments elected on a franchise of more than 8 million citizens. How can that be anything other than an unacceptable power grab? That is because of the Government’s obsession with purging our four nations, even those that wanted to stay in, of anything that they regard as tainted by contact with the European Union.
There has not been any attempt to sift the 200-plus pieces of retained EU law to identify which are helpful and necessary and which are potentially damaging. If it has an EU tag, it has to go. There is even a sweep-up provision in part 5 of schedule 1 that says that if they discover any other EU legislation hiding somewhere that was missed from the schedule, that will automatically go as well. We have literally been asked to agree to revoke legislation that none of us knows is there. Even the people who drafted the Bill do not know what that legislation might say. That would be a gross abdication of our responsibility as Members of Parliament.
I find it comical that barely 24 hours ago the sacked Prime Minister was still spouting nonsense about getting Brexit done. Now we are told that not only are there hundreds of bits of Brexit that have not been done yet—and that is only in financial services and markets—but that no one knows where they all are, how many there are or what they say. Brexit has not been done by a long chalk.
Turning to the specific powers in other parts of the Bill, we generally welcome the new regulatory powers and related matters in part 2, but the Minister will appreciate that we will want to look closely at the detail in the Bill Committee. I am concerned that the Committee will be pushed for time, despite the number of days that it has been allocated. Members will be well aware of concerns I have often raised about the inadequacies of the Financial Conduct Authority’s powers and resourcing, as well as its reluctance to use the powers that it has.
The Labour spokesperson mentioned the lack of effective anti-fraud measures in the Bill, which is a major concern. Financial fraud and scams are becoming a bigger menace every day, and they hit hardest the people who can least afford to be hit. Something I have noticed about a lot of the financial scams I have looked into on behalf of my constituents is that they have features that are not immediately obvious. They often involve company directors effectively soliciting loans from the general public in order to finance their own investments. Rather than put their own money at risk, they put someone else’s money at risk. If the investment goes well, the directors win; if it goes badly the victims lose and the directors walk away Scot free. That was an obvious feature in the Blackmore Bond scandal, but exactly the same thing happened with Safe Hands funeral plans. Safe Hands appeared to be a funeral plan scam, but that was not the case. The company blatantly lied to its customers about how their money would be safeguarded, and it used it to invest in potentially profitable but high-risk offshore investments. Although it appeared at first glance to be a funeral plan, Safe Hands was in fact a good old-fashioned financial services scam.
When Safe Hands was on the way down, regulations were coming into force that meant that funeral plan providers had to be registered with the Financial Conduct Authority, which I warmly welcome. However, we should provide the same degree of regulation and the same protection to customers for other “pay now, collect later” schemes. If a customer gives their money to a company that blows it and they lose their money, it does not matter whether they thought their money would fund at some future date the cost of a funeral, a wedding, their children going to university, or anything else. The risks are the same and the opportunities for fraud are the same, so the protection offered to customers should be the same in all those schemes.
We should not have to go through measures industry by industry picking up where scams take place. The key point is that it is not about the product or service that the company claims to be selling—it is about making sure the customer’s money is kept safely until the time comes for that product or service to be provided. We should legislate to prevent company directors from gambling recklessly with money that belongs to their customers. It is possible to address this with a fairly simple amendment to proposed new section 71K of the existing Act, and I hope to have an opportunity to table that in Committee.
There is more that we could do with a bit of imagination. I like the idea of designated activities as well as regulated activity—that is a positive step. There are ways that we could significantly improve the accountability of companies carrying out designated activities and, importantly, improve enforcement against those that go rogue. We could reduce the exemptions that they have, which many of them abuse to avoid having to produce meaningful financial statements. We could look at extending the circumstances in which directors of high-risk companies can be held personally liable for their faults.
I realise that the disjointed way that the UK regulates businesses means that those things fall under the remit of the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy rather than the Treasury, so it may not even be competent to introduce them for consideration in Committee, but I ask the Minister and his BEIS colleagues to find a place in the Government’s legislative programme as soon as possible for these things to be considered. Too many directors of dodgy companies carry on with their scams because they think they can get away with it, and far too often they can.
As the Minister knows, because he responded to the debate, I spoke this morning in Westminster Hall about the regulation of cryptocurrencies. Incidentally, that is a good example of the fallacy in one of the arguments that the Minister advanced earlier. When we are talking about businesses, growth and stability are not the same thing. Some cryptocurrencies had almost supersonic growth and then evaporated. They had high growth but no stability whatsoever. Growth and stability may both be desirable—although, as the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) keeps reminding us, there have to be conditions attached to that growth and it has to be sustainable—but to conflate the two is a serious mistake.
The debate on cryptocurrencies is a useful reminder that the way that financial markets operate is changing at an almost bewildering rate. In fact, it is becoming difficult to define exactly what we mean by financial services and financial markets. The Bill makes provision for the Treasury to allow limited testing of new technologies or practices. It is effectively trying to legislate for things that have not been invented yet. I think the approach taken in clauses 13 to 17 is a sensible way forward, but we will be looking very closely at how the use of those powers is scrutinised. For example, Members should be aware, if they are not already, that clause 15 as currently worded will allow the Treasury to amend certain Acts of Parliament on the basis of a pilot test in one of the sandboxes without even waiting for the test to be completed to see what the results are.
Let me move on—briefly, because I am aware of the shortage of time—to some of the other matters covered by the Bill. I am extremely alarmed at the confirmation that the Government want to allow Ministers to call in and potentially overrule decisions by the regulators. Either our regulators are independent or they are not. The regulators must be accountable, but their accountability should be to Parliament. Accountability to a Minister is not the same as accountability to Parliament; it is a very poor substitute.
I share the concerns that have been raised about the lack of emphasis on sustainability, green finance and compliance with our climate change obligations. I also share the concerns that the provisions on access to cash do not go far enough and probably will not lead to action quickly enough. As I mentioned, the anti-fraud measures in the Bill are wholly inadequate.
The Government appear to think that the biggest problem facing financial services regulation is that parts of it were designed and implemented in partnership with our nearest neighbours and trading partners. I think the biggest problem is that, again and again, the regulators fail to act, or act so slowly that it is far too late, and effective enforcement becomes almost impossible. I remind the House that about half of the £46 million lost in the Blackmore Bond scandal was paid by customers to the company after the Financial Conduct Authority had been not only given full details of what the company was up to, but told exactly where and when it could go to witness its illegal activities at first hand. It did nothing for three years.
The Financial Conduct Authority tells us that it does not have sufficient powers to act in the way we would like it to act. It is certainly obvious to all of us that it does not have the resources to properly carry out the responsibilities we ask it to carry out just now, let alone the new ones we intend to give it. At the moment the Bill does not address that.
We will not oppose Second Reading this evening, but that should not be taken as a guarantee that we will allow the Bill to be read the Third time unopposed. If the Minister wants our support in the Bill’s final stages, he has a long way to go to persuade us that it will make things better, rather than worse, for the victims of financial crime.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I call the Chair of the Treasury Committee, Mel Stride.
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
I rise to broadly support the Bill. I echo the congratulations of my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak) to my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) on all his work, and I thank him for his appearances before the Select Committee in that regard—he probably bears the scars. I also welcome my good friend the Minister to his place and I thank him for setting out the Bill’s provisions with such clarity in his opening remarks.
The Bill occurs because of Brexit—because of the opportunities and the new freedoms that we have as a consequence of leaving the European Union. We have heard much about solvency II in this debate and more widely when we have discussed the new regulatory landscape that we are moving into. My right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) presented us with a rich tapestry of additional ideas about where he believes that the Government can go still further, which makes me feel that we should perhaps have him before the Treasury Committee again to tell us more about that; that might be a recurrent nightmare for him, however, so perhaps we will not inflict it on him at this moment.
With that greater freedom comes the critical issue of scrutiny by Parliament and by Government. When it comes to scrutiny by Parliament, I believe that the Treasury Committee is and should remain right at the centre of that process. We are moving from a bureaucratic, committee-based process within the European Union that literally goes through regulation line by line. It is important that it does that in the context of what were 28 member states, because an element of negotiation is involved at every stage of the scrutiny of those regulations. We are in a different environment now; we can be much more flexible and nimble, but we still need to be effective in that regard, which is why the Treasury Committee should be at the heart of that process.
As has already been mentioned, we have set up a Sub-Committee that will look specifically at regulation as it comes out of the statute book and cascades down to the rulebooks and manuals of the regulators. We believe that we can be selective, nimble and appropriate in the way that we address that. The Sub-Committee will have the same powers as the full Committee to send for persons and to have oral hearings. In fact, we have already had our first hearing into the Prudential Regulation Authority’s work around the strong and simple regime for the lighter-touch regulation of firms that do not come anywhere near the threshold for being potentially systemically important within the sector. In terms of staffing and resources, the Sub-Committee has the ability to, and will, take on additional resource by way of expert assistance, and it has the capacity to gear up and gear down as necessary, depending on the workload that comes its way.
I noted the Minister’s comments about the statutory duty that will come in for the regulators to inform the Select Committee when a review is published, and for the regulators to respond to its various consultations as they occur. I suspect that the Select Committee will look at some possible amendments to that, because we will be particularly interested in making sure that we have the power and authority at the centre of this process to effectively carry out the things that we need to do in that area.
I turn to the Government’s powers of scrutiny in the Bill, which touch on the balance between the independence of the regulators and the importance of holding them to account, particularly in terms of seizing the opportunities of this post-Brexit world. Prior to the Minister’s opening speech, my understanding was that there would be—as there is in the current Bill—a requirement that the regulators could be instructed by the Treasury to review rules on the basis of a public interest test and, in particular, where there had been significant market developments or where the rules were not meeting their requirements or purpose. It was to be used only in exceptional circumstances. At that point, if a review were held, as I understood it, it would not have been incumbent on the regulator to make any particular changes.
I think I heard the Minister say earlier, however, that an amendment will be tabled in Committee to allow the Treasury to have the power to direct the regulators to make changes, which is a significant shift. I know that that was welcomed a moment ago by my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks), and I understand the upsides of this. I think it is important that regulators are held to account, particularly when it comes to our competitiveness and so on. However, the questions arise: what is the threshold for this public interest test and how frequently will it be used? The fear must be there to some degree—this is something the Committee will want to look at very carefully—that this may be an overly overbearing power for the Treasury, which may impinge on the independence of the regulators themselves.
The Bill has the new secondary objectives for the FCA and the PRA, which I broadly welcome. I welcome the fact that they are medium and long-term objectives, not short-term objectives. I think that is very important because it means we are not going to take risks with the potential architecture, as it were, but focus on the medium and longer term when it comes to greater competitiveness. I also welcome the fact that they are secondary objectives and will not therefore interfere directly with the prudential objectives of those organisations.
Finally—I am aware of the time and know that many others want to speak—could I touch on the Bank of England and its mandate? I know that the Bank of England’s remit or mandate does not feature directly in this Bill, but much has been said about it and the importance of its independence, and I want to underscore that importance in this debate. There was a period, going back some weeks and months, when perhaps because, understandably, many Members and those who are now in government may have looked at the Bank of England and said that, because inflation is so far adrift from its target of 2%, it is therefore entirely unfit for purpose. I do not subscribe to that view. I do not believe that the Bank has been perfect, but I think it has faced extraordinary situations that have made its ability to keep inflation down to about 2% really a task that no central banker could have achieved.
It will be vital that the Bank of England maintains its independence, that politicians are kept out of monetary policy and that Chancellors do not determine interest rates if we are going to have a credible approach to monetary policy and all the benefits that brings. As my right hon. Friend the former Chancellor has said at the Government Dispatch Box on occasion in the past, if we take a 20-year view of the Bank of England’s performance, it has actually been spot-on at about 2%. Perhaps I can leave this debate with the thought that we must guard the independence of the Bank of England.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. It will be obvious to everyone in the Chamber that a great many Members wish to speak and that we have limited time. However, we do have quite a lot of time, so I will have to put on an official time limit of seven minutes, but not quite yet. After the next speaker, who has had no notice of this, there will be a time limit of seven minutes.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak in this important debate about these very significant issues of structural reform in our financial services, the accountability of our regulatory bodies and consumer protection. I am pleased that we have started to have some debate on the net zero policy and regulatory principle, and I want to endorse all the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) in her important opening speech on green finance. Unfortunately, the Bill does fall short of what I believe is needed to protect consumers, and I want to speak about three key areas: first, access to cash; secondly, and briefly, mutuals and co-operatives; and thirdly, action for mortgage prisoners.
First, access to cash is an issue on which I have spoken before and led debates in Westminster Hall. It is right—finally, we can all be very pleased—that the Bill aims to protect people’s access to cash and will introduce a legislative framework to ensure the continued provision of cash withdrawal and deposit facilities. I want to recognise the work that has been done by Access to Cash Action Group members, which have worked very hard on this issue, including Age UK, Toynbee Hall and banks such as HSBC, NatWest and Nationwide. It is a really important network, and it is right that they are taking steps voluntarily, but it is also important that there is an underpinning of legislation to back those steps. Indeed, the failure to act fast enough has cut millions of people off from a range of important vital services.
Last year I presented a petition to Parliament on behalf of constituents in Hounslow West in the light of the closure of the local Santander Bath Road branch. Since then, we have lost two more branches of Barclays in Feltham and Heston, leaving even more of my constituents without access to in-person banking services. I pay tribute to some of our local councillors—Councillors Bandna Chopra, Jagdish Sharma and Hina Mir—for raising this issue in their local wards, but the standard response we received from the banks was just not good enough. Around 6,000 bank branches have closed since 2015, yet the Bill does not seem to do anything to protect essential face-to-face banking services. It also makes no commitment to free access to cash—I was surprised that the Minister did not take the opportunity to confirm his commitment to that. It is important that the definition of the minimum distance between cashpoints is brought forward earlier, and I do not understand why the Minister cannot clarify the Government’s position on that. Surely he must have a point of view.
I am a Labour and Co-operative party MP, and it is staggering that the number of mutual credit unions has plummeted by more than 20% since 2016. If we have learned anything from the pandemic, it is the importance of community and community solutions in our local and public services. Although the Bill contains some welcome and long-overdue provisions, such as enabling credit unions to offer a wider range of products, the Government’s plans for the sector could be far more ambitious, and I wonder whether we could work cross-party on that issue. Labour has demonstrated an ambition to boost the size of the co-operative and mutual sector, and there is demand for that across the country.
I am a member of the Financial Inclusion Commission, and there is a slight frustration—or perhaps a bigger frustration when we consider the issues raised by Members across the House—that the Bill does not seem to prioritise financial inclusion as much as is needed, particularly given the cost of living crisis that we are now facing. In that context, I wish to raise the issue of mortgage prisoners. The Bill provided a vital opportunity for the Government to act to ensure that financial regulators are stronger in their ability to help mortgage prisoners. The UK’s 195,000 mortgage prisoners took out their mortgages prior to the financial crisis, with fully regulated high street banks such as Northern Rock. They were kept trapped on high standard variable rates, before their mortgages were sold by the Government to mortgage loan sharks such as Cerberus, Tulip and Heliodor. They cannot switch to different lenders.
As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on mortgage prisoners, I have heard from key workers, many of whom risked their lives to work through the pandemic, about the personal consequences for them and their families of being trapped into paying high mortgage interest rates. Imagine how it must feel to be a nurse who took out a mortgage with a high street bank, only to find that their mortgage was sold on by the Government to a vulture fund that does not have to treat them fairly or offer them a good deal. Those mortgage prisoners are suffering financial devastation from interest rate rises to their already high standard variable rates, and that comes on top of the pressures of rising energy bills and the cost of living crisis.
One of my constituents is a mortgage prisoner whose mortgage was sold to Landmark Mortgages and is ultimately owned by Cerberus. They are stuck paying an SVR, and are not being offered any new deals. They have now seen a rise in the SVR from 4.39% to 5.89%, and they are therefore paying more than £9,000 more a year than they would if they were with an active lender. There is nothing they can do to gain any certainty over their mortgage payments. Many mortgage prisoners are terrified at the prospect of future interest rate rises. Prior to the financial crisis, the gap between the Northern Rock SVR and the base rate was 2.09%. Since 2009 it has been more than 4% above the base rate.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
The hon. Lady is making interesting and key points about mortgage prisoners. At the time those loan books were sold, UK Asset Resolution made commitments to the Treasury Committee that those people would still be able to access market and fixed-rate deals, but that has not proven to be the case. It is very difficult for the Committee to get those kinds of assurances without having confidence that those assurances would be valid.
Seema Malhotra
I thank the hon. Member for his contribution and for his work for the all-party parliamentary group on mortgage prisoners. He is right, and those commitments need to be taken forward. It is surprising that there has not been more push on that from the Government.
The Government and the FCA have tried to claim that mortgage prisoners are not overpaying but paying similar SVRs to others in the market. However, that comparison is meaningless, because only 10% of customers of active lenders are paying an SVR, and many can typically switch to a new deal quickly. More than three quarters of consumers with active lenders switch to a new deal within six months of moving on to an SVR, but mortgage prisoners have been stuck on high SVRs for more than 10 years.
The all-party parliamentary group on mortgage prisoners has proposed two options that would provide mortgage prisoners with immediate relief by capping the high SVRs that they pay with inactive lenders and ensuring that they are offered fixed rates by their existing lenders. That would provide immediate relief to all 195,000 mortgage prisoners. Martin Lewis has supported a cap on SVRs for mortgage prisoners at inactive lenders, and organisations such as Surviving Economic Abuse also support that action.
The Government say that that would be an unprecedented intervention in the market, but the truth is that there is no market and there is no competition. It is the Government’s fault, because they sold these mortgage prisoners on to vulture funds, who are not treating them fairly. The APPG’s proposals are a targeted intervention and would have no impact on the wider market of active lenders such as the main high street banks who compete to offer new deals to their existing customers.
Although I support much in the Bill, there is much to clarify and improve and there are enormous gaps that need to be addressed. These reforms are important and urgent. I will be happy to meet the Minister to discuss mortgage prisoners with the APPG, should he find that helpful. I will listen closely to his response.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
We now have a formal time limit of seven minutes, but that is likely to be reduced later in the day.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
I welcome this ambitious piece of legislation. It is quite right that for a country and an economy such as ours, in which financial services play such a key role, we should be able to set UK-specific financial services regulation. I very much welcome the reframing of the regulatory objectives around long-term growth and international competitiveness. I want to speak to two specific aspects of the Bill that fall under “other miscellaneous provisions” but are nevertheless incredibly important: credit unions and compensation for the victims of fraud.
I turn first to credit unions, and in particular their role in financial inclusion and providing an alternative to high-cost, sub-prime lenders. Last night, I happened to be flicking through a well-thumbed copy of Hansard and looked at a debate from January 2014—hon. Members will remember it—when we were discussing payday lenders and the problems associated with them. We have come a long way since then. I think it is important sometimes to look back and say, “Where has regulatory change made a big difference?” We have had: the CMA report; the new FCA regime, including on payday affordability checks, roll-overs and restrictions on advertising; the measures on continuous payment authority, which I remember the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy)—no doubt, she would have wanted me to say this—championing so strongly; the cost of credit cap; and, most recently, the new FCA consumer duty.
More broadly, the Government put financial education on the national curriculum and, of course, supported credit unions with a commitment of up to £38 million for their development and further regulatory liberalisation.
Stella Creasy
I acknowledge what the right hon. Gentleman is trying to point out. However, does the evidence not show that it was the intervention of the financial ombudsman service that led to the downfall of companies, such as Wonga and Amigo, that were exploiting our constituents, rather than the intervention of the FCA, which oversaw unaffordable lending on its watch? Does that not show us why we need further FCA reform? It is the opposite of the point that he is making.
Damian Hinds
The hon. Lady makes an important point. It would be wrong—I am sure she did not mean to say it, even though it is what she just said—to say there was a single cause for those things. In fact, it is about changing the entire framework. In other parts of the market, for example home credit, there is a different set of reasons again why there has been a decline. We know the sub-prime segment shapeshifts the whole time, and we have also seen the recent growth of buy now, pay later. At a time of heightened financial stress, it is inevitable that new risks and new vulnerabilities manifest.
Wise heads always remind us that in seeking to curb the parts of the high-cost lending market that we do not like, there is always a danger that we instead push some part of that customer base into the arms of a high-cost lender whose idea of a late payment penalty is a cigarette burn to the forearm, so we must get the balance right. Regulation has been a success, but ultimately what we need is an alternative, because credit does form a part of people’s lives, and that is where credit unions and others, such as community development financial institutions, come into play.
We have seen development in the sector, but I would like to see a lot more. We have a great example in Northern Ireland—and indeed in the Republic of Ireland—of what a much more developed credit union sector can look like, and I would like to see that in mainland Britain. The proposals in the Bill will continue that development, amending the Credit Unions Act 1979 to allow for conditional sale and hire purchasing agreements to be undertaken by credit unions, along with the marketing of insurance services. I would only encourage the Government to go further, because our credit union sector is still small in Great Britain compared to Northern Ireland and there is much more that can be done. There is also more that can be done on CDFIs, whose growth, frankly, has been disappointing.
I encourage keeping an open mind on the regulatory aspects of the Bill. I do welcome the measures, but while the 3% per month interest cap is very reasonable, in some parts of financial services it is difficult to break even on that cap. Ironically, the demise of the market leader of the home credit business sector makes it more urgent for us to ensure there is very good provision from credit unions and other responsible lenders in its wake.
The other issue I want to comment on briefly is the provisions on authorised push payment scams and mandatory reimbursement. This gives me the opportunity to join others in the nice things they have been saying about my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen), the former Economic Secretary to the Treasury. I had the opportunity to work with him when I was Security Minister and he was bearing down on the awful growth in fraud. We have not just seen that growth in this country. Fraud and economic crime have been growing in countries throughout the world. There is a change in crime, and we need to respond accordingly. I welcome the change in the Bill, because it brings consistency and fairness and will enhance confidence for people using online financial services. One should never take away all responsibility from the consumer, of course, but that is a welcome move.
Very briefly, there are two things I would like the Government to look at, one for the Treasury specifically and one for the wider Government. First, for the Treasury, it is not clear to me why this provision applies just to the faster payment system. It is true that the vast majority of scams happen through faster payments, but they may not in future. It is right that the regulator should have the ability at least to extend that scope.
Secondly, a bigger point—not for my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary, he will be pleased to know, but for others in Government—is that we should extend the principle beyond the banks. It is difficult to get sympathy for banks and bankers, but right now they are bearing the entirety of the burden even though they are just the last link in the chain of the scam. They have responded very well, partly through regulation on such things as strong customer authentication and so on, but also by going further off their own bat. I think that is partly to do with their moral commitment to their customer base, but it is also about the liability they face through the contingent model. One wonders whether, if social media platforms, telecoms companies and others had had those same incentives, we might already have a lower level of fraud than we have today.
Save for those two encouragements to my hon. Friend the Minister for the Government to look at going further, I strongly welcome the Bill and all he is trying to do.
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you for calling me to speak in this very important debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friends the Members for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) and for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra). I welcome the Government introducing measures to protect access to cash, and I will use my speech to express my constituents’ concerns about that.
In Edmonton, between 2018 and 2021, a third of our free-to-use ATMs disappeared. I receive correspondence from my constituents telling me how the closure of banks and the lack of free ATMs is putting a strain on them. The importance of using cash on a regular basis is that it remains, for millions of people, simply the best way to budget effectively. Those facing digital exclusion or physical impediments, who are disproportionately elderly, will continue using cash.
I am not alone in saying this. The “Financial Lives 2020” survey found that around 2.4 million people aged 65 and over in the UK relied on cash to a great extent in their day-to-day life, representing around one in five—21%—of all older people. Also, small and medium-sized businesses, such as hairdressers, barbers and nail shops, survive off regular, frequent small cash transactions. I think about the small businesses in Edmonton, such as the nail salon or my hairdresser, Debbie’s, who did my hair for me—[Interruption.] Thank you. These businesses only take cash from customers. Small and medium-sized businesses simply cannot afford to run a card machine. Common charges include transaction fees of between 1% and 3% a sale, authorisation fees of between 1p and 3p a sale and merchant service fees of between 0.25% and 0.35%. Edmonton is one of the most cash-dependent areas in the country.
I welcome the measures to empower the Financial Conduct Authority to ensure that designated bodies must continue to provide “reasonable access” to cash, as I do the powers to potentially stop the closure of certain cash access points if there is no alternative nearby. However, to truly address this looming issue, we must acknowledge that attachment to cash has been much stronger in more deprived communities. Along with age, that is the greatest factor in its continued use.
Admittedly, rates of withdrawing cash have fallen off a cliff in wealthier constituencies, but during the covid crisis, cash withdrawals fell by only a quarter in less affluent areas. That figure would only increase if the free ATMs that have been removed were all replaced, but not with pay-to use machines. With a regular fee of £1.75 just to withdraw cash from a pay-to-use machine, it is a luxury that many cannot afford, yet the Bill makes no clear commitment to protect free-to-use over pay-to-use machines. The latter understandably have much lower usage rates. I hope that the newly appointed Chancellor will instruct the Treasury to differentiate between them clearly in its cash access policy.
We are also still waiting for the Government to define the meaning of “access to cash”. Without a clear maximum geographical distance between cash machines, we risk sleepwalking into a situation where cash deserts are commonplace. Also missing from the Bill is a provision to ensure that there is sustainable funding for free-to-use machines, which has seen serious strain recently. Providers must be compensated for providing this vital public service. Currently, we risk reaching a threshold whereby huge numbers of free ATMs become uneconomical and are forced to close. The funding model should also consider the demographics and economic deprivation in any area, which bears a strong relation to the need for cash access.
The Bill could be an important step in determining safeguards on access to cash in the long term, but sadly what we see is a narrow set of proposals with a lot of detail still unconfirmed. In the meantime, there should be a pause on removing free-to-use ATMs. Otherwise, more of my constituents will be further excluded.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
May I say what a great pleasure it is to speak in this debate? It will be of little surprise to the House that I support many of the measures in the Bill—20 separate measures, I think, over 335 pages. I would like to make a few comments on the process that led to the Bill, some observations on the policy content and, if I may, a few suggestions about some areas in which the Government might consider going further.
It has been the greatest privilege of my political career to have been Economic Secretary to the Treasury for four and a half years. When I started in the role in January 2018, there was considerable ambiguity about the direction of Government policy. It feels a little heretical to say it, but there was great uncertainty about how financial services would land after the Brexit decision. There was no consensus, and there were significant predictions of the demise of the City of London. Over those four and a half years, I was very pleased—I am not saying that it was all my doing—to see the resilience of the City of London. The global hub of financial services in London has proved itself phenomenally resilient over the past three years.
After a lot of discussion about dynamic alignments and thoughts about how things should be delivered, we had an election and we had clarity. We had a new, clear direction, eventually resulting in this Bill, which takes us back to the gold standard of the FSMA model. I welcome that. I also welcome the fact that the Bill has come about through deep dialogue with the City and the trade bodies that represent the financial services industry. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak) says, it is a critical industry for our country: it generates 10% of our tax revenues. That is why the framework that we are setting out today is so important.
I pay tribute to Miles Celic at TheCityUK, to David Postings at UK Finance, to Catherine McGuinness and now Chris Hayward at the City of London Corporation, and to Huw Evans and now Hannah Gurga at the Association of British Insurers. They were instrumental in the constructive dialogue with Treasury officials to ensure that the policy that we arrived at met the needs of this complex industry. I thank them for their engagement during my tenure.
At the risk of being accused of Stockholm syndrome, I also pay tribute to officials at the Treasury. Over the summer, a lot has been said about Treasury orthodoxy and about regulators. I put it on record that my experience of working at the Treasury over the past four and a half years was that Treasury officials worked under the direction of politicians, as we would expect, but that they were also extremely eager to find creative solutions at a time when there was no template, no rulebook and no preordained way forward.
I pay tribute to the work of Sam Woods at the Prudential Regulation Authority. The PRA provides a distinct role from the one that we perform in this place, but the professionalism that it shows in dealing with complex regulatory matters is something that we should be very grateful for in this country. I also want to speak about the Financial Conduct Authority, because the Bill will give the FCA and the PRA a significant degree of responsibility. As we put aside the retained EU law that we spent so much time in Committee sorting out, we now rely on them, under the growth and competitiveness objective, to come forward with new rules. We are not seeking to deviate from norms in other jurisdictions; what we are trying to do is rightsize those rules for the UK.
I want to say that I recognise that the implementation of the future regulatory framework has not come about on a whim, but has taken a great deal of work over a couple of years, along with a great deal of consultation. I also want to say that the EU legacy is not all bad. We in the UK played a significant role in shaping that legislation, and during my interactions with my counterparts when I was a Minister they were very complimentary about the role that we played, but—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) pointed out—that does not mean that we should not now be courageous in taking opportunities.
The wholesale market review presents a phenomenal opportunity to make changes to MiFID. It is one of 30 reviews that we have undertaken in the Treasury over the last year to ensure that we get this right. What we are doing with clearing—the middleman in trading—is also critically important, because the central clearing counterparties in London are instrumental across the globe and will continue to be so. They are efficient, they are world class, and no matter what the EU may wish to do to compete with our clearing environment, we can be certain that the Bill will ensure that those standards remain very high. We have needed to embrace innovation, and the sandbox for which the Bill provides is an important function enabling the FCA to do that.
As we look to the future, we must think about our relationships with other countries that have significant financial services industries. We will need to customise those relationships, and optimise them. I am therefore pleased about the mutual recognition agreement enablement provisions. I welcome the call-in power, although clear principles must be set out in respect of how it is applied; this is not about a random political intervention. I also endorse the moves to deal with packaged retail investment and insurance-based products and get rid of key information documents, and to introduce something that is appropriate in the UK.
I welcome the Bill, and I pay tribute to my successor. I wish him as long a tenure as I have had.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
I will not consume all my seven minutes. I shall try to give some time back to the House and allow others to speak. In any event, I am feeling absolutely lousy, and standing for more than three minutes may well prove to be a bit of a challenge.
The majority of people are using less cash. The technology which is available, and which we are encouraged to use, has seen cash acceptance and access to cash decline. For many people, including me, using a card or phone to pay for goods and services has become the norm. It is quick, it is convenient, it is practical—but it is not for everyone. As the cost of living has gone up, there is evidence that more people are turning to cash in order to budget. The Post Office reported record withdrawals in July 2022, and a survey commissioned by LINK has indicated that 10% of people are planning to use cash more to help them to budget.
We are not talking small numbers here: more than 5 million people in the UK are already relying on cash, and—quite disturbingly—55% of respondents to a survey of 500,000 people conducted by Cardtronics felt pushed towards cashlessness against their will. We need a sensible strategy that does not discriminate against cash users, who tend to be the elderly and the most impoverished in our society. The Government must provide clarity about the content of their access to cash policy statement. There is no reference to ensuring free access to cash, which is an absolute must. There are no baseline geographic distances applying to withdrawal and depositing facilities. When communities apply for such services, there is no feedback to explain why an application was unsuccessful. This process should be transparent and clear.
I urge the UK Government to make the consumer’s interests their priority, and to produce a Bill that safeguards existing cash users and ensures that firms have complied with their own regulatory obligations. Honestly, how hard can that be?
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
I was not expecting to be called quite so early in the debate, given the panoply of talent on these Benches and the Benches opposite. In the interest of brevity, I will briefly concentrate on three aspects of the Bill. First, I want to guide the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
This is one of the most significant Bills that this House is likely to look at in this Session of Parliament because, as the Minister has said, the realignment of the regulatory architecture offers a unique opportunity to become more nimble, more agile, more accountable—I hope—and more pragmatic in our approach to regulation. The most important parts of the Bill take forward the future regulatory framework. Requiring regulation to comply and to promote international competitiveness will address the widely held concerns that regulators have in the past used their powers narrowly and over-cautiously to reduce risk, thereby reducing innovation, increasing costs and decreasing consumer choice, which has overall been detrimental to competition.
Creating what is, let us be clear, a secondary objective of international competitiveness and growth is absolutely right. Having this objective in place will neither undermine the regulators’ independence nor cause any prospect of a financial crash. I also do not believe, as some have said, that it is in any way a push for the lowering of standards. The industry knows that proportionate and effective regulation by an accountable regulator is the key to international competitiveness. I was interested to hear the Minister say that he thought we in this House should look again at the accountability structures of regulators. I welcome this objective, and I also welcome the cost-benefit analysis panel, which again plays into the objective of ensuring a nimble, agile regime that protects consumers while taking up the opportunities post-Brexit.
However, with the secondary objective and the cost-benefit analysis panel, there is a concern that regulators must be accountable both to this House and to the Government, but in particular to this House. I welcome the setting out in practice of some of the key performance indicators for the regulator and I recognise and welcome the Sub-Committee of the Treasury Committee, but I hope we will be able to discuss this in Committee and I urge the Minister to think about whether amendments are needed to include an obligation on the regulators to state how any new regulation will meet and further the objective of international competitiveness. I hope he will also consider an annual report, at least on the delivery of those objectives, which should include some measurement against specified key performance indicators. There should be no suggestion that the regulators are being allowed to mark their own homework.
I am sure that the Minister will clarify this later, but the cost-benefit analysis panel needs either to have external members—that must be explicit—or to make it clear that it is taking external advice. It ought also to be clear exactly what criteria are being used to measure cost-benefit analysis. Those measures would help considerably in terms of accountability. I do not believe that scrutiny and accountability affect the independence of either the PRA or the FCA. As my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen)—who I have had the pleasure of questioning in this House a number of times—knows, I want to see this industry thrive. It is key to the whole of the United Kingdom, because two thirds of the jobs in the industry are outside London. I think he too would accept that scrutiny and accountability do not threaten the regulators’ independence. They are important if we are to have a regime that continues to be internationally renowned.
I have been fortunate enough to be a member of the Treasury Committee in the past, and I hear entirely what my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride) has said. However, I would suggest to him that as a result of the pressures on the membership of the Treasury Committee and the Sub-Committee—I accept that they have the same powers—caused by the extra work, we should open a debate on whether the House needs to think again about whether just having a Sub-Committee of the Treasury Committee is adequate, given the importance of this industry to jobs and growth across the country. I will ask the Minister, perhaps in discussions, to consider yet again a Joint Committee of both Houses on financial services, which is what happens in other jurisdictions.
I welcome so many measures in the Bill, but let me touch briefly on just one. Others will talk about the revocation of retained EU law and a number of other aspects about which Members have already spoken, but I urge the Minister to press ahead with mutual recognition agreements. They are another key way to ensure that the United Kingdom’s financial services remain at the forefront of global financial trade. It is extremely welcome that we are pressing ahead with Switzerland, but I urge the Minister to continue to press ahead with the powers that the Bill allows to be implemented and the regulators to give effect to. With those words, I warmly welcome the Bill, and I look forward to supporting it.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I hope there will be plenty of time to discuss the detail of the Bill both in Committee and on Report, so I wish to make some general comments on my worries about where it is situated. When J. K. Galbraith wrote about the 1929 crash, his advice for the future was that people could set up all the institutions they needed to try to prevent it from ever happening again, but the greatest protection would come from memory. I therefore want to go back in time to some of the lessons that we perhaps should have learned but did not.
I wrote about the big bang in the 1980s and I can remember the concerns we expressed about a wave of enthusiasm for deregulation similar to what we see today. That enthusiasm resulted, in effect, in a casino economy. The City of London and the finance sector are the most successful lobbyists in the history of politics in this country and they are incredibly powerful. Sometimes, that results in corporate capture, not just of Governments but even of Oppositions at times. That period of enthusiasm for deregulation resulted in a casino economy that eventually resulted in a series of crashes—we endured not just 2007-08 but other crises.
I was in this House in 2007-08 and was the first Member to raise the issue of Northern Rock. I remember that in the debate after Northern Rock, the Treasury itself spoke about the “excessive concern for competitiveness” that brought about elements of that crash. I worry that we are re-inserting into legislation an emphasis on competitiveness that could override so many other issues of concern.
Here we go again. We are introducing legislation and placing in it a reliance on the structures that we established after the 2007-08 crash, particularly the FCA. I believe the FCA has been a catastrophic failure. My constituents have gone through London Capital & Finance, Woodford and Blackmore Bond. We saw the FCA’s failure to address HBOS and RBS properly, and we are supposedly still waiting for the independent review of Lloyds that was established in 2017, yet the FCA has moved not one inch to take further enforcement actions. As I have made clear on the Floor of the House, I was concerned that the FCA chief executive at the time was accused—rightfully, I believe—of being asleep at the wheel. Before we even had the report on London Capital & Finance and so on, we appointed him as Governor of the Bank of England.
Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman is making an important and interesting speech. On that point about the FCA, will he explain to the House whether he supports changing the regulatory structure and having one super-regulator, or something of a similar description?
John McDonnell
The hon. Gentleman knows where my mind is going. We instituted a regulatory review a couple of years ago, and Prem Sikka, a professor of accountancy, and a team of corporate specialists and finance specialists introduced an excellent report. He is now in the Lords and I warn Members that he will shred this legislation when it goes up there. He outlined that 40 bodies are regulating our finance sector in some way and that there is a need for consolidation and to learn the lessons of the experiences of some of these bodies so far. That job is still to be done. I was hoping that the bringing forward of this legislation would coincide with the Government’s clear recommendations on where we go on that structure and, in particular, the role of the FCA.
I am also concerned about the fact that, although we are having the debate about this legislation, we are not debating potential future threats. I am anxious that in this legislation we are not addressing shadow banking, where we have already seen elements of individual firm collapses, particularly in respect of equity firms, that could create a domino effect and then produce a significant collapse.
I am also anxious about the move away from MiFID II. That issue has been raised and was derided by some in the House. We have recently seen the evidence with regard to speculation on both energy and food prices. Of course the cost of living crisis has been caused by a combination of the breakdown of supply chains, covid and the war in Ukraine, but there is significant evidence now that these increases in energy costs and food costs have been exacerbated by speculation in the markets. This is speculation where the paper markets are distinct from the reality of commodity supply. It is not just me expressing that; it has been expressed elsewhere, particularly in the States, but also by a number of global institutions. I regret that we have not addressed that issue in this legislation. We need to hold to the MiFID II, particularly the constraints on asset holding with regard to food commodities, as I am anxious about price speculation forcing prices up.
I was critical of Gordon Brown on some of his response to the banking crash in 2007-08, but one thing he did successfully was bring the world together, and there were international meetings where we looked at a global response to these problems. I believe that we now need to look at a global response to the food and energy speculation that is taking place, which is exacerbating the cost of living crisis that our constituents are facing. In that way, the Government’s approach is lacking. We will have the discussion tomorrow about their response to the energy prices increase and the cost of living crisis. I am hoping that from that, and as we move forward, we will recognise that there is an international role to be played by this Government in bringing people together, in the same way as Gordon Brown did.
I am particularly concerned about the issue of food. The UN special rapporteur Olivier De Schutter has said that what is happening now is that people are betting on people’s hunger. That cannot be right. Anything that we do that undermines in any way our own national legislation, which is against speculation in essential products such as that, is dangerous, but if we fail to ensure that we take up our international responsibilities, we will regret that for the future, as our people increasingly confront the problems of hunger and starvation.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
I fully support the recommendations in the Bill and it is noticeable that it contains a wide-ranging set of proposals. I am not going to dwell on the more serious issues, as they have all been covered admirably by my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen), by the Chair of the Select Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride) and, of course, by the former Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak). I am returning to the issue of access to cash, which has been raised by a couple of speakers.
It is not only cash, but the wider range of banking services that is crucial to our local communities. Proposals that have come forward in recent weeks affecting my own constituency involved the closure of what is, in effect, the last bank in the towns of Barton-upon-Humber and Immingham. I am delighted to say that in one case LINK, with which I have been working closely over those recent weeks, has designated Barton as one of its next banking hubs. That announcement came only yesterday, so it has slightly taken the sting out of what I was going to say, but of course, Immingham is still urgently in need of a financial hub. Proposals are being put together, and the local community and I will certainly take those proposals forward to LINK.
It is worth remembering that although when we listen to our constituents we hear tales of how reliant they are on their local bank and the services it provides and so on, we are all to some extent guilty when it comes to the change in the use of branches. I suspect that not one Member present in the Chamber can claim not to have used a credit card or bank card to make a payment when cash would perhaps have been a better option—we have all probably done so today. We have to recognise that; it is very easy to paint the banks as the bad guys, but they obviously have to amend the services they provide. However, it is interesting to note that more than 5 million people in the UK rely on cash on a daily basis, and it is estimated that 4 million adults do not have access to a smartphone and 1.5 million households do not have internet access. As such, while it is important that businesses make decisions in line with the general trends of customer behaviour, it is also important that we do not leave behind those who are in the more vulnerable groups.
As I said, I am delighted that the Cash Action Group and LINK have come together and announced that Barton-upon-Humber will receive a financial hub. That is great news, but we must also remember that it is not just access to cash that is important, so I urge the Minister and his team to think about the wider range of banking services. Until now, people of my generation, certainly, have been more used to face-to-face meetings with banks. Doing online transactions is fine, but when doing online applications for what can be life-changing decisions—a mortgage, for example—giving us guidance and making us think more seriously about the commitments we are making is an important part of the service that our financial institutions provide.
I welcome all that the Government are doing. As it stands, there is no existing legislative framework guaranteeing a minimum level of access to cash and wider banking services, or a single authority with overall responsibility for overseeing a cash system that works for everyone across the country. It is welcome that the Government seek to address that situation through the Bill, which will also empower the regulator to ensure that local communities continue to benefit from a cash withdrawal or deposit facility. I also repeat the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) made: access to cash should be free. One of the things that annoys me and, I am sure, many others is that we are paying to get our own money. I urge the Minister to insert the word “free” into the legislation, something that I am sure would have cross-party support.
Bearing in mind the constraints on time, I thank LINK’s staff for the work they have done in respect of Barton-upon-Humber, and appeal to them to take an equally sympathetic view when making their decision about a banking hub in Immingham. I also urge the Minister to think about inserting that additional word “free” into the legislation.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I do not want to disappoint my colleagues on the Government Benches, but I think that they know the issue on which I wish to focus in the time that is available to me. Before I start, I want to put on record, as a Co-operative and Labour MP, my support for the comments of my Labour colleagues on the importance of access to credit unions and of access to cash, which reflects the issue that I want to raise, particularly with regard to high-cost credit regulation.
I also wish to put on record some scepticism about the idea that there are wonderful opportunities as a result of Brexit. To my mind, there are simply problems that we will need to address, and I note that the former Minister, the hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen), talked about the unlikelihood of a derogation from the existing regulations. Some may wonder whether this is the best use of parliamentary time, but I am willing to look at the legislation.
There is a genuine philosophical disagreement here about the concept of consumer protection. It is the lesson of high-cost credit regulation in this country that I do not think this legislation learns and it is our constituents who will pay the price.
Let me start by highlighting the points of agreement. I agree with the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) when he talks about this as an industry that is shape shifting—that it evolves to meet the times that it faces. Let me also put on record my appreciation of the work of the former Minister, the hon. Member for Salisbury. He and I have had many discussions about this industry and how best to address the threat that it poses to our constituents. Although we may not have agreed all the time, I have certainly respected the fact that he has been listening and looking at the evidence.
I am here today as a Cassandra, a broken record, to warn again of these industries and the latest antics of the companies, particularly the buy now, pay later lenders. Two years ago, we started to say that those lenders must be regulated, and I would argue that that was probably 18 months too late from recognising the threat that they pose.
The lessons of payday lending, guarantor lending and hire purchase agreements show that we simply cannot wait until the harm is evident among our constituents, especially when the abuse that is coming is self-evident already. Now that we are in a cost of living crisis, such caution is frankly unforgiveable, because it is our constituents who are paying the price. I hope that we can return to this matter in Committee. I am sure that the Minister now dealing with this Bill will recognise that, especially as the £1.8 billion that this country owes in personal debt—a rise of £62 billion—has not come from nowhere. Credit card borrowing in this country has jumped at its fastest rate in the past 17 years as people deal with the cost of living crisis.
When a third of households with children are cutting back on food to be able to pay their bills, it does not take a rocket scientist to work out that too much month at the end of somebody’s money and mouths to feed mean that credit must be found, and our constituents are turning to the high-cost lenders in their droves. I would be surprised if Members do not know what buy now, pay later is, because it is on every single website in this country now as a result of the delay in action. It has massively exploded as a result of the pandemic and now the cost of living crisis. Those companies are offering the opportunity to spread the payments, but they do not do so out of the goodness of their hearts; they do so because consumers spend 30% to 40% more. Add that toxicity to the way in which people are borrowing now to make ends meet: we are seeing buy now, pay later companies offering to put people’s energy bills onto these processes. We are seeing them offering the loans not for fast fashion, which is where people originally thought this kind of regulation was needed, but for basic goods and essentials. Millions of people in this country are now using this form of credit and getting into a hole that they cannot get out of. Those are not my words; it is what the evidence is now showing us. The previous Minister well knows that the evidence of harm is there. Indeed, that is what the FCA told us more than two years ago.
The average buy now, pay later user is paying off £293 of buy now, pay later debt, but that is at current prices. With inflation rocketing in the way that it is, the only ones that will win from that are those that offer the ability to apparently spread the payments, but that simply gets people into further and further debt. Most of these companies will not be clear with their lenders about the consequences. Indeed, many people do not even realise that it is a form of credit; they just think that they are spreading the payments on the websites.
Shoppers were charged £39 million in late repayment fees on buy now, pay later loans last year. I dread to think what the figure is now. There is agreement across this House that we need to regulate these companies, but what there is not is the political will to make sure that it happens before the pressure points come. We have already been through one Christmas where one pound in every four spent was on buy now, pay later. There are millions of people still paying off those debts. On the regulatory timetable that the Government are talking about, we will not see action before some time late next year. Minister, some time late next year is far too late for our constituents.
John Glen
I cannot resist. I think there is great consensus in the House on this matter. It is not a question of a lack of political will; I can assure the hon. Lady that it is about the complexity of delivering that legislation. In fact, the intent’s having been stated will have a meaningful effect on market practices and will change, and is changing, behaviours in the marketplace.
Stella Creasy
I thank the former Minister for his intervention, but my question is what that means for consumers. The lack of regulation means that my constituents cannot go to the ombudsman to seek redress if they think they have been mis-sold this form of credit. As people are drowning in buy now, pay later lending, they cannot seek assistance except from the companies themselves. We now see mainstream banks moving into buy now, pay later—the very bank that looks at someone’s account to decide how much they can spread payments and how much more they can afford to borrow, because this is a form of borrowing.
The hon. Gentleman may argue that the market is moving, but constituents need help now, because it is now that they are getting into debts that they cannot get out of. The challenge for us all is that the pace of change is horrifically slow, and that is where the damage to our constituents will come. If we all agree that regulation matters, let us get on with it. Furthermore, let us ensure that some of those basic changes, such as the ability for the ombudsman to intervene, happen.
This legislation shows that that matters, because it was the intervention of the ombudsman that made a difference with payday lending. The evidence is clear; the Financial Conduct Authority was overseeing Wonga while it continued to make loans that were unaffordable to its customers. It was only when the ombudsman intervened that Wonga was finally held to account for its behaviour, and as a result it went bust—and Wonga is not a one-off. Our constituents need proper consumer credit protection.
The Minister will know that it is my belief that there should be a proper credit capping process for all forms of credit, so that we do not have to play whack-a-mole. The right hon. Member for East Hampshire reflected that when he talked about shape-shifting: as one of these companies is regulated, another one comes up. In the intervening period, however, it would be perfectly possible to bring in the ombudsman. If we set out a separate regulatory regime for those companies, we are setting a precedent for other forms of credit to come and ask for separate and, frankly, special treatment.
What our constituents need is clarity about who to go to when they get into trouble. We all tell our constituents to go to a debt adviser, but if they have rights, those rights need to be transparent. At the moment, if people are borrowing on buy now, pay later, they have no rights, because it is not regulated. They only have the indulgence of those companies, and asking turkeys to tell us whether Christmas is a good idea rarely ends in a present for anybody.
It is right that we act as quickly as possible. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Salisbury when he says that the political will is there, because frankly this could have been done a while ago. The timetable that the Government have set out, which does not seek any form of actual intervention until some time in late 2023—and even then, it is about consulting on further measures—simply will not wash. Every Member of this House will have constituents coming to them for whom buy now, pay later debt will be part of their debt make-up, who may have put their mortgage on it, because there are companies offering the opportunity of spreading payments. Little wonder, when after all the Government are telling us they are going to spread our energy bills; the Government proposals to date are a form of buy now, pay later.
I wish I was wrong. I wish I had been wrong about payday lending, but we waited too long, and there are still millions of people in this country who are owed money through the compensation scheme from those payday lenders because we waited too long to intervene. We must not make the same mistake again.
I put the Minister on notice, and I ask for support from across the House, because I do not think this is a party political issue; it is about the pace of change. I will be proposing an amendment to this legislation that will give the Government the same time period of 28 days that the buy now, pay laters give our constituents to bring in that secondary legislation and give our constituents the protection of the ombudsman. It is a necessary and vital measure in a cost of living crisis to ensure that when people who cannot choose between eating or heating—because they cannot afford to do either—turn to buy now, pay later, they are not creating further problems for themselves down the road.
I know that hon. Members across the House agree that this kind of lending is a problem, but it is time for clarity, it is time for simplicity and it is time for that legislation. I hope that I will find supporters on the Government Benches, and I know that we will find supporters in the other place. Above all, I know that our constituents deserve better.
Dame Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
I would like to begin by paying huge tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen), who in four and a half years as Economic Secretary to the Treasury achieved an enormous amount, and the Bill is testament to his huge commitment. It was a pleasure to deal with him on many issues in that period. Having done his job briefly for one year, I can absolutely understand what a huge commitment it was for him. I am torn, however, because I absolutely love the new Minister, with whom I have worked as a Back Bencher on many issues in finance. It is great to be in the Chamber and to be able to contribute to the debate.
Enough of the nice stuff. I think the Bill is essential and deals with a big area. People talked so much nonsense in the Brexit debate—“Oh, the City of London is going to collapse!” I remember going to a Dubai international conference where Xavier Bettel, the Prime Minister of Luxembourg, said, “Well, if the UK leaves the EU, the City of London will move to Luxembourg.” I remember thinking in my jet-lagged brain, “Surely, you could not fit just over a million people in Luxembourg. The queue for the coffee shop would go down the street.” There was so much nonsense, and the Bill is absolutely brilliant and long overdue. It is time that we took control of the City of London and its competitiveness. It is high time that it had a competitiveness objective and that we took advantage of this perfect opportunity to be the leader in the world in setting out financial regulation and in exporting to countries across Asia, where people cannot get mortgages or insurance and all those sorts of policies that we take for granted, which we can buy and regulate in the west. Leading regulation in finance around the world is absolutely critical.
Another huge opportunity for the UK is being the world’s leading green finance centre. My first question for the Minister is what are we doing about that? Is it in the Bill? In my view, it will happen. I think that the green industry is going to be an even bigger employer and an even bigger jewel in the crown than the financial services sector in future, but we should seize the opportunity to make that happen as soon as we can. Mutual recognition agreements are absolutely vital. Having left the EU, we have the freedom to make them, but will the Minister explain how those MRAs will be scrutinised by the House. That is a technical question—I am sure that there is already an answer to that.
Moving on from competition, which is at the heart of this measure and absolutely vital, to payments, I recall from my days on the Treasury Committee from 2010 to 2014, and then as City Minister, how dire our payment systems are, mainly because they have been around for a long time, held together with string, Sellotape and sealing wax. Someone said, slightly bravely, that we should feel sorry for the banks—never feel sorry for the banks—but nevertheless, it is their own doing that the ancient payment systems are very clunky. A lot of fraud today is the result of payment systems not being fit for purpose. Again, will the Minister explain whether there is a requirement in the Bill to improve payment systems and make them more robust? Will banks, particularly clearing banks, invest in those systems? How will new digital currency regulation interact with fiat money regulation and what protections will there be for people who, unfortunately, become victims in the digital money space? How will we protect them from fraudsters who claim that they are regulated by the Bank of England or the FCA? What are we doing about that? Have measures been written into the Bill?
On access to cash, back in the day, after the financial crisis, the big banks wanted to ditch cheques, for example, because they could not see the point of them. They were expensive to administer, but as MPs we know that many of our constituents rely on cheques to this day. Only recently, my daughter was sent a cheque and tried to cash it. People literally cannot do that unless they go to a bank. Otherwise they have to fill it in, take a photo of it and send it to the bank in an envelope with a stamp. That is absolutely ridiculous, as there are many people who depend on cheques.
What are we doing in the Bill to continue to protect access to cheques and, as others have said, access to free cash through ATMs? Those are disappearing at a rate of knots. As the last bank in town has started to close, post offices have picked up a lot of the slack, but that system is waning. A lot of the services that small businesses need are not available through post offices, and of course it is difficult for someone who is not digitally savvy to open a new bank account other than by going to a branch, which can be difficult for older people.
My final point is about credit unions. I am a big fan—always have been. What I love about them is that they teach people to save before they borrow. Like many co-operatives, credit unions have been great at reaching out to schools and teaching young people about the importance of saving and the fact that money does not grow on trees, so they get into the habit of saving their pocket money before they go out and start borrowing money for anything. As has been mentioned, a lot of Government money went into helping the Association of British Credit Unions to create a new, proper platform for credit unions. How is it doing? How is the co-operative movement doing? Is there anything in the Bill that will support not just those co-operatives but, vitally, financial education in schools?
Let me finish by saying that it seems to me that, although financial education is on the national curriculum, it would be so much more valuable to so many young people to know how to open a bank account, what a rental agreement is about, or how to fill out a mortgage form, a tax return or a credit agreement than to learn more geometry and the square root of nine.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
I am glad to see the introduction of the Bill. Its provisions for securing access to cash, which I think should be free, will be welcomed in Blaenau Gwent. I strongly endorse the focus in chapter 3 on improving the accountability of financial regulators. Which? magazine has described this as a “once in a generation opportunity to strengthen the UK’s financial services regulatory regime”—quite the mouthful—but much more still needs to be done.
Unfortunately, I have lost confidence in the main regulator, the Financial Conduct Authority. Its oversight of the British Steel pension scheme scandal was plain hopeless. I saw the stress and grief of steelworker pensioner constituents who had been ripped off, and I have seen in my own experience as a member of the Public Accounts Committee just how useless the FCA can be. Despite being duty-bound to ensure that consumers were given quality financial advice, the FCA displayed poor oversight of the adviser marketplace. It consistently failed to act, even though it was aware of the risks to pensioners transferring out of a defined-benefit scheme. It failed to regulate a marketplace rigged against the steelworkers.
A recent Public Accounts Committee report found that the FCA failed to protect BSPS members from unscrupulous financial advisers who were financially incentivised to provide unsuitable advice, and that the regulator was “behind the curve” in its response. As a result, after much prodding, the FCA itself found that a staggering 47% of transfer recommendations were unsuitable. This has meant that many BSPS members have suffered years of nagging worry and losses to their pension pots, and had their plans for retirement ruined.
The National Audit Office discovered that, in the claims made to the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, the average individual loss stands at an eye-watering £82,600. Due to the FCA’s failures, the final bill for the coming redress scheme will likely be in the hundreds of millions of pounds. Despite having the powers to respond to the thieving and poor adviser behaviour, the FCA has issued just one fine in relation to the BSPS case.
Although I welcome the FCA’s efforts to improve its consumer-facing work in recent months, I am not convinced that the proposed framework will ensure that consumers are properly protected. It is good that the Treasury will have increasing powers to direct the FCA to make, review and enforce new rules as and when the need arises—the Treasury needs to jump in where necessary—but we need a fit-for-purpose FCA that robustly defends its consumers at the outset. It needs to hold bad actors to account from the get-go.
Therefore, I believe that consumer protection should be better embedded in chapter 3 of the Bill as a key accountability of the regulator. That is why I hope to see amendments made to mandate a much sharper focus on consumer protection with statutory panels that centre on the consumer. In Committee, there should also be a review of the FCA’s enforcement powers, which may need boosting.
Confidence in the regulator to have the best rulebook, enforcement and a culture that stands behind the consumer is key. Financial sharks that rip off working people need to be netted. The FCA needs to look across our country as well as at the City of London. Therefore, I ask the Minister to make doubly sure that the Bill has the strongest possible provisions for consumers and that the regulatory culture at the FCA is fit for purpose—something much more like the Securities and Exchange Commission than the limp enforcement regime at the FCA now.
Experience shows that the FCA consumer panel needs the firepower to challenge the culture at the FCA. Will the Minister please look again at that topic? A strong consumer voice must be at the heart of all our financial regulators; it needs to be a fundamental guiding principle.
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak after other hon. Members who are interested in access to cash. The many people who need it cannot exist in this cashless society. I intend to speak briefly to clauses 47 and 48, which aim to put on a statutory footing some of the best conclusions of the independent access to cash review in 2019.
The Cash Action Group is already carrying out important work to ensure that those who need or want access to in-person banking services continue to have it. I support clauses 47 and 48 because they will encourage that activity, put it on a statutory footing and regulate it. In Belper in my constituency, the final high street bank branch, Lloyds, will close in November. That is very common and is happening all over the country as high street banks are closing their branches, much to the horror of the elderly population and of many younger people, particularly those on the breadline.
A significant minority of people in many communities, including Belper, still want to or can only use cash and in-person banking. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) talked about her daughter getting a cheque. What do people do with cheques these days? Many people need access to a bank. A survey that I ran locally revealed that more than 60% of respondents had used in-person banking services in the last month, and more than 35% never used online or virtual banking.
When high street banks take the commercial decision to close branches, one option is to open shared banking hubs, where the consulting room is occupied by a different bank one day each week. Every day, businesses and individuals can use the pay-in desk, staffed by the post office, to carry out everyday cash withdrawals and payments. In Belper, many small businesses need access to that service, to the point where the post office is overwhelmed by the number of people who use it.
Respondents to my survey overwhelmingly backed such a shared banking hub in Belper, and I was delighted that it was announced yesterday that Belper will indeed host a shared banking hub. I have been told that the data shows that such hubs increase footfall on the high street and improve cash practices for local businesses, having knock-on effects well beyond simply providing cash and banking services to people. This is in a way a social service for some often very lonely people who will come into Belper to have conversations with real people. They do not want to do banking online, and elderly people in particular, who can be isolated in their homes, need this service so that there is a reason to go into town and actually talk to people. I think this is such an important thing to happen.
In addition, these banking hubs are going to be good for the environment. In my survey, over 50% of those who currently bank with the bank that is closing in Belper said they would have to use a car to get to their new nearest branch and, worryingly, nearly 20% told me that they would have no way at all of getting to another branch. Therefore, the shared banking hub will actively reduce the amount of traffic and emissions Belper residents use while doing their banking. As Belper is a transition town, they are very keen to care for the environment. I am delighted for Belper with the success of this campaign, which I have run alongside local councillors.
I hope that shared banking hubs can be rolled out across the whole country, because I think they are the future. If it is not commercially viable to keep a bank open five days a week, it is much more likely that it can keep going one day a week, and that is where shared banking hubs will really win out. That is why I support clauses 47 and 48, which appoint the FCA as the lead regulator for access to cash and will mean that the Treasury can designate firms to be subject to oversight for the purpose of ensuring the continued provision of cash and banking services access. That should encourage even more banking hubs in communities that do not currently have good access to cash or banking, and I hope that all hon. and right hon. Members will support the Bill when we vote later today.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
It is a pleasure to take part in this debate. First, I would like to welcome the Minister to his position and wish him a long ministerial career. It is a privilege to take part in this debate with so many well-informed Back Benchers, which I would say has been a real feature this afternoon.
The Liberal Democrats welcome this Bill. Obviously, it is absolutely essential for the ongoing regulation of financial services and markets in this country, and we very much welcome the majority of its provisions. As the hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) mentioned, it is a very big Bill. It has 330 pages, and it is clearly the result of a great deal of hard work over many months by many individuals. However, I have to say that it is disappointing, given the flexible nature of the financial services industry and the fast-moving nature of the sector, that this Bill does not go further in anticipating some of the issues we think we will be experiencing. It was interesting to hear from the hon. Members for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) and for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) about some of the issues they are already experiencing in their constituencies—of course, those issues are not just confined to the ones they represent—that the Bill does not address, and I want to come on to a couple of those.
The main aim of the Bill is to establish a new regulator, and the role of regulators has come under microscope quite a bit over the summer. We have seen, for example, that Ofwat does not have powers to stop sewage being pumped on to our beaches and that Ofgem does not have powers to prevent massively increasing fuel bills for domestic consumers or businesses. I think it has come as something of a surprise to many of our constituents that the role of regulators currently in this country is perhaps not as extensive as they thought. I know that certainly many of my constituents will be expecting a regulator of financial services to have powers that go beyond what is provided for in this Bill.
I am particularly concerned about the focus on competitiveness, which has already been raised by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and others, at the expense of other statutory objectives, and I very much want to endorse what she said about the importance of reflecting net zero objectives. Indeed, this would be an excellent opportunity for the Minister to say a little more about that, perhaps in his concluding remarks. For all his many faults and failings, the previous Prime Minister was a massive champion of the net zero agenda. During the summer we heard some interesting signals from the new Prime Minister about her approach to that issue, and this is a great opportunity for the Minister to place on record that the new Prime Minister, and this new Government, will have the same commitment to those net zero objectives, and perhaps to talk more about why we do not see them enshrined in the Bill.
What concerns my constituents is that consumer protection is not as much of an important issue in the Bill as the strategic objective on competitiveness. We have talked already about fraud and scams, which are causing huge harm throughout our economy. I will not say too much about cryptocurrency, but there is no doubt that the landscape of crypto offers unseen, untold opportunities for future fraud, and we must get our heads around that. Fraud is causing huge harm to individuals and our economy, and current structures for tackling it are not fit for purpose.
I am surprised when I hear from constituents who have been victims of fraud, because it is not just vulnerable people or those who perhaps lack education, or older people who are not used to online banking; this issue affects vast swathes of people, and I am often surprised by how well educated, experienced professionals become victims of fraud. It is clear that we are not yet sufficiently on the side of the consumer in tackling it. Yes, there is always an element of buyer beware, but the scales are being tilted too far in favour of the fraudsters, and we need to be doing much more to give people powers to tackle that. I welcome the measures to tackle push payments, but I would like to see a great deal more about fraud. That is not just an existing and growing threat because, as I said, the prospect of threats in future is enormous. The onus is not just on the individual to protect themselves, because I do not believe they have sufficient powers to do that.
A further area of concern is access to cash. Much has been said about that already, so in the interests of time I will merely endorse what the hon. Members for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers), for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham) and for Edmonton (Kate Osamor) have already said. I particularly want to emphasise free access to cash. Obviously, rural and remote communities have particular needs, but the hon. Member for Edmonton summed it up well when she said that urban constituencies can also be poorly affected by that issue. I support the proposed community banking hubs, but currently their creation requires buy-in from existing banks, and we need something that can be independent of that.
In conclusion, the Liberal Democrats very much welcome the Bill, although we would like to see stronger powers to tackle fraud and more on access to cash. A point was made at the beginning of the debate about regulators. A regulator’s powers are granted by Parliament, which is why it is so important that Parliament has power to hold a regulator to account. The real weakness of the Bill is that so much is being delegated to secondary legislation that will not have scrutiny or oversight. As I said, we want to be at the forefront of financial services and their development. It is a fast-moving sector, and we in this country have the skills and experience for it to continue to be a key sector. However, it is vital that Parliament has the oversight that it needs regarding the set-up and ongoing activities of the regulator, and the Bill must be strengthened to ensure that.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. Most unusually, after I imposed a time limit of seven minutes, several colleagues have decided that they do not want to speak in the debate after all. I am therefore able, most unusually, to extend the time limit to eight minutes, starting with Paul Maynard.
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. What a lucky boy I am to have another minute to spend—gosh! I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a member of the consumer council for LINK, which not only manages the nation’s ATM network but is the overarching body that can get new banking hubs in place. It is important for people to bear that in mind in listening to my comments. I would have paid tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) if he were still here. Unfortunately, he is not, but he was always patient as I chased him around Westminster trying to ask about yet further nuance on access to cash.
One thing that we have learned today from listening to hon. Members is that access to cash is the wrong way to talk about the issue. It is about not just cash but access to face-to-face banking. Those who are reliant on cash, whether they are elderly or in financial need, must be able to speak to someone about their financial situation and not just interrogate a computer. We have heard from hon. Members about how reliant so many are on cash as a budgeting tool—increasingly so, given the cost of living crisis—with a jam jar approach to managing bills.
The Bill’s provisions on access to cash need to be about more than ATMs and ensuring that we can spew out cash to consumers; people need somewhere to spend it. The underlying problem is the economics of our cash system—the hidden wiring—and no one has mentioned the provisions in the Bill about the wholesale distribution of cash. If it costs too much for a retailer to use cash, why would they keep on accepting it? They need to be able to deposit it in an ATM just as much as a customer needs to be able to withdraw it to spend it in the first place. Far better still would be more local cash recycling, which would avoid the need for nationwide banknote distribution, if only for environmental reasons.
We must be careful not to accept the rather irresponsible narrative that, somehow, we are on the precipice of all ATMs disappearing. Some 94% of cash withdrawals are still from free-to-use ATMs, and LINK subsidises any ATM that was here in 2018 and no longer has an alternative within 1 km. Should that ATM disappear, LINK will fund a replacement. There is a strong backstop to ensure the presence of ATMs in our communities.
As I said, the debate has moved far beyond ATMs, and towards face-to-face banking, largely thanks to the Herculean efforts of Natalie Ceeney, who wrote the original access to cash review back in 2019. She has banged chief executives’ heads together across the banking sector to ensure that they move forward on banking hubs, which, as we have heard, are making such a difference in Belper and Barton-upon-Humber as well as more and more places across the country. LINK is doing a fantastic job, looking at already announced and planned bank closures to identify where access to cash and face-to-face banking is already being reduced. Where those gaps are appearing, it is working with the overarching company that has been set up to fill those gaps. It assesses each closure and recommends better cash services for places without any branch services left to be delivered by a dedicated operating company.
Some have expressed concerns about the slow roll-out of banking hubs. We have had two pilots that have proved that they are workable measures. However, things such as asbestos removal and finding the right location in a community need to be factored in by a sector that has not previously had to act as a property developer. Some delay is therefore perhaps understandable, and I would rather that we got it right in each community than rushed to buy any old place and hoped for the best.
The creation of an overarching duty for the Financial Conduct Authority is very much the icing on the cake for the work that has gone on so far. It should be seen as a reason to take satisfaction. I think that those criticising the Bill for not going far enough do not fully understand what has already occurred. They need to recognise a win when they see one and then raise it. However, I do seek some clarifications from the Minister. I have sought one already, and he has been uncharacteristically reticent at the Dispatch Box in telling me what I want to hear, and he is normally very good at telling me exactly what I want to hear. Now, he knows where I lurk most mornings, and I will be there tomorrow if he wishes to approach me over my coffee and whisper sweet nothings into my ear about having heard my plea.
There is no point in offering us access to cash if that access costs £2.75 at cash machines in the poorest part of my constituency. That diminishes access to cash, because people will find it even harder to access cash should that cash machine mean that a free-to-use ATM has disappeared. All of this is meaningless unless the word “free” is introduced into the debate.
Secondly, the Government are putting out their access to cash statement. Can the Minister reassure me that it will not just be some crude measure of geographical accessibility—two miles here, one kilometre there or whatever? That would not reflect the need in the likes of Mitcham and Morden, which is a very urban constituency rather like mine. My right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) spoke earlier. He has a vast rural area where one kilometre, frankly, will not mean much on the hills and the moorlands.
Alison Thewliss
The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent point on the proximity of cash machines and arbitrary limits. The city centre of Glasgow is right at the heart of my constituency. Putting a couple of kilometres around that would basically knock out every other cash machine that was not on Buchanan Street, so I agree with his point. Does he agree with me that the Government have to think more carefully about such limits?
Paul Maynard
I very much welcome that. The challenge for the Government is that the access to cash statement must reflect what good access looks like—not just to a cashpoint, but to wider in-person banking services. It cannot just be “Can I get a bank note out of a machine?” It has become increasingly common in my own local area for cash machines not to have been filled up. There is not much point in having a cash machine without any bank notes in it, as if it were a rather decorative antique object.
One important feature that does not require legislation, but which deserves a great deal of comment—more than the two minutes I now have—is the right for communities to review any decision taken on whether they should have a banking hub. Not only is LINK assessing any closure of a bank branch already announced, but the right for a community to request a review of cash access. I am sure every single Member worth their salt in this place will be sitting down looking at the map of their constituency and saying, “I need a review there, there, there and there.” I am sure LINK will not thank me for doubling or quadrupling its workload in that regard, but it is a fantastic opportunity and a mark of how far this debate has moved. In my view, the legislation should specify a simple, fair and independent process that allows communities to appeal decisions. That could easily be placed in the legislation as an additional duty for the FCA. It will help the communities, the banks and LINK by ensuring a fair, independent and transparent method for communities who are not satisfied to have issues quickly considered under the oversight of the FCA. There is a great deal of suspicion out there about the banks and their approach to their branch networks. I do not want communities to appeal or to ask LINK to have a look and then be very disappointed about why they do not get the banking hub they might think they are entitled to. The process must be clear and transparent for communities to have confidence in it.
In summary, the Government proposals ensure that the FCA has the powers it needs to tackle the issue of access to financial services. After many years—my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury is back now. He missed me saying well done to him. Don’t duck out for your starring moment! I don’t know. [Laughter.] This issue has taken far too many years to solve. It has not his fault either; it has been very complex. Too many communities have lost the banks they already had. Too many have been reduced to a single bank or to no bank at all. We now have a robust process in place to identify the locations, to find an alternative, to find a solution, without people having to drive miles away. For that reason alone, the Bill is to be welcomed. But it can be improved with one single four-letter word: free. Please, Minister, free me from my anticipation and make cash free to access.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
I want to start with a general point about the Bill, which puts an awful lot of faith in our regulators to be able to carry out the functions written in it. I have been approached by members of staff working for the FCA—in fact, staff representatives at the FCA—who have talked to me about the current climate there. There are issues around recruitment and, specifically, around the retention of skilled individuals, and how relations are breaking down to a rather concerning degree. If we want the FCA to do everything that the Government are saying they want it to, especially post-Brexit when we are moving regulation across, then we need a competent and effective FCA. I hope the Minister will take that point away. I am happy to have further conversations with him on the matter, so we can resolve the issue.
It seems particularly concerning that the FCA does not recognise any trade union. When comparable bodies such as the Bank of England recognise trade unions and the FCA does not, that seems to be indicative of the problematic workings of the FCA. I do not want to comment further on that, but I hope that the Minister takes that away as a serious point, because we cannot have effective regulation if we have ineffective working practice.
I was going to intervene on the Minister but I was pipped to it, because he sat down before I could. However, I wanted to mention clause 64, which is about providing insurance after terrorism incidents, so if insurance becomes too expensive, someone can continue to have insurance and the Government will step in. I thought that that was interesting because I have repeatedly raised in the House flood insurance, Flood Re, what happens if buildings are continually flooded and how we make sure that we have affordable flood insurance. It is very good that the Government want to introduce that provision for acts of terrorism, but I hope that the Minister will look more deeply into flooding and businesses’ concerns about that.
Let me turn to my main gripe with the Bill, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) will know exactly what I am going to say. As I mentioned to him in passing the other day, he is welcome to support any of my amendments, because he has heard all this before. I was disappointed that there was no provision on having regard to financial inclusion. It is great that there is a provision on having regard to the Climate Change Act 2008—the Labour party legislation—but there is nothing on financial inclusion. I will table amendments to give the FCA a cross-cutting “must have regard to financial inclusion” provision, and I genuinely call on Treasury Committee members to support them, as this was a recommendation from one of our reports. The proposals would include a statutory duty to report to Parliament annually on: the state of financial inclusion in the UK; the measures that the FCA has taken, and is planning to take, to advance financial inclusion; and recommended additional measures that could be taken by the Government and other public bodies to promote financial inclusion.
This is a bit of a no-brainer. We have a cost of living crisis, with people suffering from severe levels of debt and hardship. We have a Government who are potentially—though we are not quite sure—bringing forward massive amounts of borrowing to be heaped on taxpayers for years to come, and what I am proposing is free. When do we ever get to do that? I am proposing a small solution to the cost of living crisis that is absolutely free; it would address the poverty premium and ensure that the FCA “has regard” to financial inclusion.
I assume that the Minister will refer to the FCA consumer duty as an example of action that the Government are taking. However, that is not enforceable until July 2023—unless the new Prime Minister decides not to move it at all—and it does not address the fundamental problem of what happens to the clients that the market do not want. I am talking about those who are locked out and excluded from financial services. The previous FCA principles were about treating customers fairly, but that still does not address what happens if the market does not want someone.
What is the poverty premium, and what does that mean? In real life, that means people paying more for credit due to their credit rating, paying more for insurance because of where they live or past health issues and paying more for services, because they cannot benefit from direct debits or—as we have heard mentioned a few times—they need to use cash. I find it ludicrous that we have a situation where it costs more to pay in cash than it does in direct debit. We know exactly the kind of people that harms. Of course, the poverty premium is not limited to areas under the FCA’s remit. We have had previous debates about gas and electric and pre-payment meters, which I will not go into now, but the costs are very real.
Let me give an example from my Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle constituency, where nearly a fifth of constituents are affected. The poverty premium means that it costs them nearly £6 million more a year to access the same services and goods. If any Members who are listening are interested—especially those on their phones—they can look at the Fair By Design website, where they can look up their constituency and find out exactly how much the poverty premium is costing each and every one of them. This can be addressed by ensuring that the FCA “has regard to” financial inclusion.
Financial inclusion has been mentioned briefly, and I pay credit to the Government for what they are doing on credit unions. That is a good step forward, but this is always passed between the FCA, the Treasury, other regulators and Departments. Everyone nods very seriously and says how important it is. Someone says, “We must seriously do something about this but it is not actually our Department’s problem. It is someone else’s problem.” And the next person says, “Oh, this is really important. We must do something about it, but is not for our Department. It is their problem”—so the issue goes round and round with nobody actually taking responsibility. That is why having regard to financial inclusion is so important in terms of the FCA having a remit to actually look at this.
I am thinking particularly about insurance. A specific example is car insurance: people cannot drive without it, yet for so many it is simply unaffordable. That leads either to people driving without insurance or to their being unable to take on specific jobs because they simply cannot afford it. We need to do something about that.
My proposals, for which I will call for support across the House, will try to address it. They would end the current damaging situation by giving the regulator a clear remit and saying, “The buck stops here—you have regard to financial inclusion, so you need to look at this.” Sometimes that will mean the FCA taking a main role, and sometimes it will be others, but it will mean that the buck stops somewhere, so somebody has to take the issue seriously and look at the extra costs facing the most financially vulnerable in our society.
I also call on the Minister to introduce measures for groups facing digital exclusion and give them technological support with banking. Specifically, we need measures to ensure that blind and partially sighted people can access their finances and manage them independently.
I am very excited, because I keep asking to be on the Bill Committee and I think I have finally been given the nod. I look forward to discussing the Bill in more detail at every opportunity and through every clause as it goes through Parliament.
Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in support of the Bill. I will not repeat what so many hon. Members have said about the excellent work of the former Economic Secretary—my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen)—and the present Economic Secretary in bringing it to the House, but I want to bring up a couple of specific issues that may not have come up in the debate as much as they might have.
The former Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak), mentioned the call-in power. There has been some criticism in the press, which may or may not have come from people within the regulators or from people speaking on their behalf, suggesting that the Government’s call-in power will somehow damage our regulatory system or that it is somehow illegitimate for the elected Government or this House—in extremis, if they feel that something is badly awry—to override the non-elected regulators in a specific area of financial regulation.
I put it on record that those concerns may be well intentioned, but I think they are wrong. It is critical that this House and the elected Government have that power over something as significant as the financial regulation of the sector that is our jewel in the crown. The sector employs millions of people, two thirds of whom are outside London. We all accept, on both sides of the House, that we should champion the sector and work with it. It is almost unconscionable that such a power does not already exist, so we should stand firm if, in the other place or in Committee in this place, Members wish to reject the call-in power. I think it is critical.
Alison Thewliss
The hon. Gentleman speaks with a lot of expertise in the area. Could he give an example of when the power might be used? In what circumstances might the Government want to use it?
Bim Afolami
Lest anybody should think I have any particular specialist knowledge, I stress that this is entirely my own view, but I could imagine a scenario in which the Government, supported by this House, intended certain changes to a regulation such as MiFID II. A strategy document might say that the intention is for a, b and c to occur, but when the regulations were drafted, that intention might not appear to come through. In that instance, it would be very legitimate for the House or the Government to say, “No, what we intend is the following, and we will change the detailed regulation in order to achieve the aim—the democratic aim, supported by the Government and the House—that we seek to achieve.”
There are a couple of other areas in which I think the Government could have gone further in the Bill, and which I hope we will consider in the coming weeks and months. The first is the bank levy. I know that this is not always a popular thing to say, but in politics it is sometimes important to say unpopular as well as popular things. When we have an internationally competitive sector, if the tax burdens of jurisdictions with which we are competing for people, for capital, for institutions or for new investment reach a point at which they are significantly, or even a little bit, less than ours—and people may find those jurisdictions attractive for other reasons—we should consider finding ways of reducing our own tax burden, which has risen in recent years. The bank levy was one of those, but it came during the aftermath of the financial crisis, which happened quite a long time ago. I think we should consider getting rid of it, in order to emphasise as much as we possibly can that Britain is still the leading centre of financial services for the world.
I am not saying that this is a panacea; far from it. The Bill contains 300-odd pages because we have a great deal to do. However, the bank levy is a tax, and if we impose high taxes on internationally mobile capital or institutions, there may well be a penalty for this country in terms of attracting those institutions. I ask the House, and in particular those on the Treasury Bench, to reflect on that point.
My second point concerns ringfencing, which the former Chancellor mentioned. When I was at HSBC—I probably should have declared at the beginning that I worked at HSBC before I came to the House, and indeed in other institutions in the City—I had the good fortune to work for quite a long time on the internal restructuring of the bank as part of a strategy of which ringfencing was a huge element. HSBC and Barclays were the two big British banks that had big consumer retail bits and big investment banking bits.
Even at that time, it was obvious to many of us that the most critical part of what we were doing in ensuring the safety of those institutions—and indeed, because they were so big, helping to ensure the safety of the whole financial services sector—was the recovery and resolution power, and not just the ringfencing aspect. While I think the review that has been carried out is very capable and very thorough, I urge the Treasury to look a bit further, and to ask whether we still need ringfencing even under the terms of the way in which it has been reviewed. Can we look again at the thresholds? Can we make this less onerous for big institutions?
Why should we do that? I return to what I said about competitiveness. If there are ways in which we can improve our competitiveness without compromising on safety, I think we should consider them.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
Let me take the hon. Gentleman back to his earlier point about competitiveness, and the possibility of certain institutions being turned off from investing or establishing themselves, or removing themselves from the United Kingdom. Where does he think the single largest threat comes from, if there is a turn-off?
Bim Afolami
I would posit two particular jurisdictions. First, I think of the London stock exchange. The House may not fully appreciate the amount of capital that it has, through capital raising by means of initial public offerings and various other measures. However, we have seen a dramatic fall-off since even five years ago, let alone 10 years ago. Meanwhile, Amsterdam’s stock exchange is doing very well. I think that, although Amsterdam as a jurisdiction will never rival London or, I should say, the UK, because we have huge advantages and huge strengths, we need to consider the threat to the London stock exchange from that source.
Secondly, there is the middle east, where various jurisdictions, including some quite surprising ones—particularly Dubai—are trying hard to make themselves attractive to, in particular, capital from America and Asia, and to make themselves into a hub for some of this work. Again, they cannot rival us, but it is not necessary to match us fully to damage our competitiveness, and I think it important to bear that in mind.
Ian Paisley
Does the hon. Member think that that when it comes to those locations, especially the middle east, there may be an opportunity for, let us just say, funds to arrive at those destinations without being scrutinised to the same extent as they would be here in the United Kingdom? Is that a potential threat to the banking sector?
Bim Afolami
I do not want to cast aspersions on any other jurisdiction. It is clear that we should be proud of our own high standards. I know we will probably get to discussing illicit money from Russia later this year, as we did earlier in this Session. In this country we take action and we pride ourselves on our higher standards—that is not always the case everywhere—but that aspect of competitiveness is not a race to the bottom. This is a really important point. We can be competitive and have high standards. We should not say that the drive for competitiveness means that we drop our standards and end up with corruption, money-laundering and all the rest of it. That is not necessarily true. In this country we are proud of our institutions, proud of our sector and proud of our ecosystem, but that does not mean that nothing needs to improve, and this Bill contains a huge panoply of measures that can help to strengthen our financial services sector.
My last point is about mutual recognition agreements. These are quite dry technical things but ultimately they allow for the easing of doing business between one jurisdiction and another—for example, between the UK and Switzerland, with whom we have built a very good relationship. We should do much more of that, but we should work with the International Trade Department to ensure that our trade deals include much more in terms of services provision and not just mutual recognition agreements that are separate from that. Services trade will benefit this country more than pretty much any other country in the entire world, and we need to work with our International Trade Department, with the Foreign Office and with our international ambassadors to achieve that aim.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I see that eight Members want to speak, so we will have to reduce the time limit to six minutes to get everybody in.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) has already indicated that there is quite a lot to welcome in this Bill, but there also are a number of things that we Liberal Democrats do not agree with and would like to be improved. The Bill does not actively promote the leading green finance sector that we were promised. According to the WWF, we need $32 trillion by 2030 to tackle the climate emergency. The Bill in front of us could be a unique opportunity to develop the green economy that the future needs by providing routes to roll out net zero technologies and allowing UK businesses to capitalise on green transitions.
As the chair of the Climate Change Committee pointed out only this morning, tackling soaring energy bills—currently the most important thing we are considering—and tackling the climate emergency go hand in hand. Net zero technologies could reduce household bills by £1,800 a year—a reduction that is desperately needed by so many people. This Bill could be a unique opportunity to make that happen, but it falls dramatically short.
In its current form, the Bill prioritises competitiveness over net zero and accountability. Clause 25 adds the need to advance compliance with the UK net zero emissions target to the list of regulatory principles to be applied by the FCA and the PRA. However, the new principle—namely, that regulators must “have regard” to the UK net zero target—is not strong enough. Additionally, they will have limited margin to acknowledge the role of nature in achieving net zero. This approach is reckless. The Bill opens up the possibility, as has been mentioned today, of soaring food prices by throwing out reforms introduced in 2008 to protect consumers from volatile trading practices.
The Government always defend their net zero strategy by placing responsibility on the markets, yet before the 2008 reforms, food prices rocketed after speculative trading on future food prices drove up prices. Regulators are vital to ensuring that consumers are protected and that markets function well but not out of control. A former UN special rapporteur has said that speculators
“are indeed betting on hunger, and exacerbating it”.
Our country cannot afford to have another dimension added to the cost of living crisis.
Rather than volatile competitiveness, the Bill must provide clear legal obligations and a commitment to the UK’s net zero target. Net zero must have the same priority for regulators as economic competitiveness. The scale of the climate crisis requires massive shifts in approach that can be achieved only with explicit legal duties, which must include a new objective to decarbonise the financial system. As I have already said, regulations and net zero aims have to work hand in hand. The Government must add climate targets to the primary objectives and thereby give them a status higher than the one the Bill currently proposes.
We Liberal Democrats would go even further and ban new fossil fuel companies from being listed on the London stock exchange. We would also create new powers for regulators to act if banks and other investors do not properly manage climate risks. That is the sort of ambition that we need, but the Government’s ambition is lacking. We have less and less time to act on the climate emergency. The time is now. I urge Ministers not to miss this unique opportunity.
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)
My comments on this welcome Bill will focus primarily on its ability to improve access to cash and banking services. In my constituency, like many others, bank closures have become increasingly problematic. It is now seven years since the last bank shut in the city of St Asaph in the heart of my constituency, while Denbigh has also seen closures. Last year, TSB, Barclays and HSBC shut in Prestatyn, following the town’s loss of NatWest, Royal Bank of Scotland and building society branches in the preceding five years. Prestatyn High Street was left without a single bank or cash machine, despite being a busy regional shopping centre.
Cash remains important for many residents and businesses in my constituency. Following a campaign, and thanks to Cardtronics and Principality building society, three new free-to-use cash machines have now been installed in Prestatyn town centre. In addition, since June this year new legislation has brought about cashback without purchase services through various local businesses. However, banking services in the town remain lacking.
Last year, Derek French, a former executive of NatWest and the founder of the Campaign for Community Banking Services, identified the 50 communities in Britain where he believed shared banking hubs are most required. Prestatyn is one of the 22 of those communities that have already lost their last bank branch.
Earlier this year, the Royal Society for Arts, Manufactures and Commerce published a report suggesting that 10 million people would struggle in a cashless society. As incomes are squeezed, there is evidence that some people are turning back to cash to help them to budget. The Post Office reported record withdrawals in July 2022, while LINK ATM withdrawals still exceed £7 billion monthly.
Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP)
I appreciate that the hon. Member has highlighted a number of banks and areas that are being decimated by banks removing themselves from the high street. A section of our community who are not IT literate have a major problem and are being totally disenfranchised. We need to put in place legislation to ensure that those people are not left without access to the banks that they have used all their lives.
Dr Davies
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. I hope the Bill will go a long way to help that situation. I was coming on to say that 10% of people are planning to use cash more in the coming six months because of cost of living pressures.
The access to cash agenda owes much to Natalie Ceeney and her access to cash review. Following a landmark agreement at the start of this year, the banks and leading consumer groups formed UK Finance’s cash action group. LINK took on the role of assessing the impact of proposed bank branch closures on communities. As of 4 July, the agreement was extended to include communities where bank closures have already taken place. LINK can recommend new cash services, such as banking hubs and ATMs, according to the cash access needs in each community. New services will then be delivered by a new banking hub company set up by the banks, or, in the case of ATMs, by LINK.
This Bill puts this very welcome voluntary arrangement on a statutory footing. It confers on the Treasury a duty to prepare a cash access policy statement, which I understand is currently being drafted, and powers to “designate” banks and firms such as LINK and the Post Office to take steps in relation to that policy. Furthermore, it gives the FCA powers to take action on those designated firms.
This summer, I put forward Prestatyn for assessment by LINK for a banking hub. I am very grateful to Nick Quin, head of financial inclusion at LINK, for his visit to the town in January and for meeting me with his colleague Chris Ashton this week to discuss in detail my application on behalf of the town. A banking hub would facilitate cheque and cash deposits, and cash withdrawals, and banking staff from each of the big banks would be based in the hub on specific days to help customers with community banking issues. So this legislation is very much welcomed, and I extend my thanks to the Economic Secretary to the Treasury and, in particular, to his predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen), who I know has put an awful lot of time into this agenda.
I urge the Government to consider ensuring that assessments of the needs of communities by LINK should be transparently published and that there should be a formal process of appeal. I also ask that consideration of access to banking services through the Welsh language be referenced in the cash access policy statement. Furthermore, it would be helpful to explore the scope of the community banking services that banking hubs could potentially be mandated to provide—for example, opening a new bank account, amending direct debits and standing orders, applying for a loan, arranging third-party access or commencing bereavement procedures.
It is also important to clarify whether the Bill will give the FCA the power to prevent the closure of a bank branch, ATM or cash access point of another kind where there is no suitable alternative in place, so that in future new gaps in provision do not occur. I understand that in recent times LINK has protected 3,000 free ATMs in remote and deprived areas, and funded new ATMs in more than 100 communities. I hope the Government will commit to protecting free cash withdrawals and deposits, and that that can be explored in the policy statement. An indication by the Minister of the likely publication date of the policy statement would be particularly appreciated.
Other elements of this Bill will enable credit unions to offer a greater range of products and services; strengthen the rules around financial promotions; and enable regulatory action by the Payment Systems Regulator to require the reimbursement of victims of authorised push payment scams. All of that is very much to be welcomed, but I urge the Government to ensure that the authorised push payment scam regulations cover all feasible methods of payment, both now and in the future.
I fully support the Bill, especially as it responds to significant concerns over the availability of cash and banking services. It is important that the Bill be delivered as soon as possible so that existing cash infrastructure can be protected.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
It is an honour to be able to contribute on this important Bill this evening and a real pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Dr Davies), who gave us a masterful and detailed account of the problems and challenges that the loss of bank services and bank branches causes for rural communities in particular. I hope to emulate some of his mastery of the subject in my remarks.
I wish to begin by associating myself with some of the concerns raised by other Members, particularly my friend the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant), who talked about the transfer of responsibility and scrutiny power away from Parliament and more towards the regulators and, in certain respects, as regards the repatriation of some of the regulations, to designated legislation committees.
I also associate myself with the concerns that have been voiced about the need to strengthen as an objective for the regulators the need for sustainable growth and to ensure that they are very much aligned with some of the Government’s expectations on net zero. I do not think that we have yet heard an explanation as to why that statutory objective cannot be placed on the regulators. I see it as working hand in hand with sustainable growth and competitiveness; they do not necessarily need to compete with each other.
As I mentioned, I will focus my remarks on access to cash. In particular, part 2 of the Bill—clauses 47 and 48 —and the corresponding schedules 8 and 9 have a great deal to commend them. I put on record my support for some of those measures, which I believe will bring a real improvement, safeguarding access to cash for so many of our communities. Of course, we must note that a lot of communities, including in my own constituency of Ceredigion, have already suffered the loss of bank branches and ATMs. It has long been the case that people in those communities have had to travel 10 or 15 miles in order to access a free ATM, but the Bill at least puts in place a set of regulations and a process to ensure that no further gaps arise in future. For that, I do welcome it.
However, returning to a point that has been made by several hon. Members, including the hon. Members for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) and for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers), I ask the Government whether it would be possible to extend the remit of the access-to-cash clauses to include certain services, and in particular in-person services. Other Members have explained just how important continued access to in-person services—branch services—is for many individuals; we have heard about their particular importance to the elderly, and to those who are perhaps not IT literate. I would add that in some rural areas, of course, digital banking remains a distant dream due to a lack of connectivity, so the ability to access personal banking advice is an essential amenity for residents of those areas.
However, something that bears repeating—I admit that it is perhaps not something I have afforded enough attention to in the past—is the impact that the loss of in-person banking services has on small businesses and on charitable and community organisations. Over the past decade or so in Ceredigion, we have seen a number of towns lose their final bank. Nevertheless, they are still market towns; they try to plough for a prosperous future, but the loss of in-person banking services has had an impact on small businesses and on charitable and community organisations.
To offer a few examples, small businesses in Tregaron, in Lampeter, and increasingly those in Llandysul, will often have to travel to Carmarthen, which may be a round trip of between 45 and 60 miles, depending on where they are located. Of course, the banks open during business hours, which to small businesses entails either closing for a few hours in order to deposit cash or access other banking services, or going without. I know for a fact that many businesses are now having to amend their business practices in unhelpful ways in order to accommodate that new banking reality.
It has also been a real challenge for many charitable and community organisations to open accounts. For example, I have been told that a community pub initiative had to wait almost nine weeks to open a bank account due to the changes in services locally. Charities, in particular, have reported to me that banks just do not understand the specific requirements they have as account holders; they do not understand that changing mandates in person is a particular task for charities. In rural areas, as in many others, many of those charitable groups and organisations make a valuable contribution to communities. At the end of the day, they are staffed by volunteers, and forcing those volunteers to travel 60-odd miles just to change a bank mandate is unfair.
That is why I would be very interested to see whether the Government could extend the new access-to-cash requirements to include those banking services. At the moment, I am afraid, banks are not waking up of their own volition to the importance of maintaining those services in rural areas, and communities are being let down. That is where the Government could step in; that would be a very important intervention, and would be much welcomed on both sides of the House.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
The last Member with six minutes is Harriett Baldwin, and then we will go to five minutes, so everybody will have exactly the same amount of time.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
It is an honour to be called to speak in support of the Bill. In a way, it is an advantage to be called at this time because so many excellent points have been made by so many wonderful people, and I am pleased to say that I agree with most of them and that they have been expressed better than I could have done, including by the former Chancellor and the former Economic Secretary to the Treasury, who was responsible, I think, for putting together quite a large part of this Bill.
I recall the milestone of when the country voted to leave the European Union on 23 June 2016, because I was Economic Secretary to the Treasury at the time. Many questions came to the fore about what would happen to the regulation of our financial services, which have been referred to many times in this debate as one of our most important export and tax-paying sectors, providing many hundreds of thousands of jobs up and down the land. It is a very important sector, and over the past six years we have flirted with the idea of equivalence.
It is, I think, the EU Commission that has decided that equivalence does not suit it. Frankly, I think it is the EU’s loss, because obviously we are equivalent—or we were equivalent. It is the EU’s small businesses and growing firms that will lose easy access to the United Kingdom capital markets, which is a shame for them. I also know that discussions were had about the EU-Canada trade agreement and about the chapter on financial services, which is not in our current trade agreement with the EU. Clearly that has been rejected as a way forward, although there is scope for much more mutual recognition and the opening up of markets.
I welcome the decisions that have been made before the publication of this Bill, and the opportunities for divergence that are being seized in it. It is also welcome that the industry has been very much consulted and brought along with us on how Solvency II and MiFID II changes can help our economy grow.
However, the point on which I wish to focus has not been brought up much in this debate: the freedoms that this Bill gives us to look once again at the market for advice and guidance in this country. We have heard about many of the challenges that consumers face when they are making financial decisions on their own behalf. The cost of financial advice is high, and the guidance itself can be very generic. There is, of course, access to the Money Advice Service and to Pension Wise, which I encourage constituents to use if they can, but the Bill gives us the opportunity to look once again at the financial advice market and to have more customised guidance because of how technology has evolved and the important role that the FCA’s regulatory sandbox plays in allowing people to experiment.
I urge everyone who has spoken about consumers in this debate to support an amendment that I am planning to table with the help of the Investing and Saving Alliance. It would allow the provision of much more personalised guidance through the use of innovation and technology, helping consumers through difficult decisions such as moving pensions when they change employer. That would create a better informed consumer who would not necessarily fall so easily for some of the scams that we have been hearing about during today’s debate. We need to arm our consumers to be able to tackle those scams.
My final point is about the role of the regulator. Time and again in this debate Members have asked who regulates the regulator if it puts in place something with which we as MPs or our constituents disagree. There is an important role here for the Treasury Committee, on which I sit, and we will take that responsibility of scrutinising changes very seriously.
I also think one of the great strengths of our country is our common law; I know the Minister has been looking at the opportunities that have been outlined for bringing in some further rights of appeal through the common-law system against some decisions that regulators make. I know he has taken these points seriously, and I look forward to his responding to them at the end of the debate.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Just to inform everybody, the wind-ups will begin no later than 6.40 pm, and anybody who has spoken in this debate will be expected to be here at the wind-ups. With five minutes, I call Siobhain McDonagh.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
I am furious to report the imminent loss of yet another bank branch in Mitcham town centre. The year before last it was Nationwide, last year it was Barclays and this time it is Halifax—a bank that pretends to consult its long-standing and loyal customers about its branch closure, but then refuses to attend my public meeting to hear the concerns of those customers in person. Contrary to its slogan, “It’s a people thing”, it seems that Halifax does not care at all what people think, at least if they live in Mitcham and are elderly, disabled or rely on face-to-face banking services.
Every day this week I have stood outside the branch, gathering customers’ views and listening to their concerns. Their opposition is overwhelming; this latest bank closure is yet another nail in the coffin of access to free cash, and I have the evidence to prove it. When Barclays Mitcham closed last year, one of a staggering 650 Barclays branches to disappear since 2015, we surveyed more than 500 residents outside the bank. An extraordinary 50% did not use online banking and were reliant on that branch. Many did not have access to the internet. Some did not trust it. Others, particularly the elderly, only used cash. Then there were those who relied on the help and support of the staff, who they could trust with their money.
I do not believe these views are unique to Mitcham. When high streets lose their banks, the digital divide prevents far too many people from turning online. Age UK highlights that one in five older people still rely on cash for everyday spending. But Barclays did not care. Despite having three years still to run on the lease, it closed the branch and swapped it for a bus—yes, really, a bus—that pulled up randomly outside the empty branch, on the off-chance that a customer was fortunate enough to be passing by and willing to queue in the rain. That sounds safe as houses.
“Do not fear,” they said. “There are other branches just a bus ride—or two—away, or your constituents could just use the post office for their basic banking needs.” That is the same post office whose doorway was too small for my disabled constituent to access with her wheelchair, the same post office that no longer has a free cash machine outside. Fortunately, we still had Halifax—well, until now. Its loss is the latest hammer blow to our high street. Does the Minister agree that Mitcham now makes a perfect location for a new shared banking hub?
We are told that a community can demand access to free ATMs, but that is not the experience on the ground. People in Pollards Hill have tried for years to get a free ATM. Residents literally have to pay for access to their cash—small amounts of money that they get on a daily basis and for which they are charged. The nearest post office had one installed, but now even that has gone, and a ridiculous clause in the new Co-op’s lease prevents a free ATM from opening because there is a paid-for machine further down the terrace. How can that possibly make sense?
I believe that the need for access to cash is growing. The cost of living crisis has seen the return of money jars, with households separating their cash and counting out their pennies to ensure they can make ends meet. Of course I accept that we are in a changing society and reliance on cash has changed for many, but those on the wrong side of the digital divide are simply being cut off from society, made to feel not part of the same world that we inhabit.
Take Mr Barley, chair of Mitcham’s British Legion branch. Throughout the lockdowns, he relied on his milkman for milk delivery and the rest, but, as hon. Members will have guessed, Milk & More is now going online too and such loyal, long-standing customers no longer get that service. I say to the Minister that the Mr Barleys of this world are treasured in our communities. Halifax Mitcham’s remaining open is not a silver bullet to solving the problems they face with the digital divide and access to cash, but if we are not careful, and everything from milk to money moves online, then they are at risk of simply being left behind.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
I add my congratulations to Ministers past and present involved in introducing the Bill. It is an incredibly important piece of legislation for my constituents. Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner has a high level of employment in the City and in connected financial services, and the subject is close to my heart, as I belong to an even more cherished race of human beings than Tory MPs—I am a former banker.
There have been a number of exceptional contributions to this debate, so I shall try to confine my contribution to items that have not been covered in a lot of detail. First, the Bill is good and important because it will continue to support innovation in the financial sector, of which the UK has a long and proud. If we look at the role played by financial centres in London and Edinburgh in the development of financial products that have brought security and stability to people’s lives, we can see that for centuries the UK has been a leading light in the world. A piece of legislation that enables the sandbox concept, for example, continues to support that innovation and incredibly important to the sector.
Secondly, as we move away from EU structures and governance, we need to ensure that there is appropriate scrutiny of arrangements for regulation and of the implications of the mutual recognition agreements into which we propose to enter. Contrary to what is sometimes said about EU matters being dealt with by unaccountable bureaucrats in Brussels, if anything, our criticism in the UK was that there was often too much scrutiny and democratic involvement. With trade deals, for example, agreements had to be looked at by the European Parliament and the Committee of the Regions. They had to be signed off by the Council of Ministers. There were multiple levels of engagement in that process, and we need to ensure that organisations such as Zurich, which shared a helpful briefing with hon. Members—it certainly informed my thinking about the Bill—can have appropriate input so that we get the calibration right to support innovation, as the Minister is committed to do, and so that we have appropriate consumer protection.
Many Members have referred to the sector as a jewel in the crown of the British economy, which clearly remains the case. It is striking in the context of the Government’s levelling-up agenda that we see, for example, significant inflows of investment in Northern Ireland as a result of opportunities that have been created by the development of the economy there. That has created an opportunity to look at how we spread the benefits beyond the centres to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride) and my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) referred. That is critical for the reputation of the sector, and it is incredibly important for our economy too.
A key part of that is ensuring that we futureproof the regulation of financial services in the UK. There has been much mention of crypto, but I would like to add the need to ensure that non-regulated activity undertaken by regulated institutions requires scrutiny. Our thanks are due to Private Eye magazine, for example, for the detail that it has provided in shining a light on the activities of a number of organisations. The hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) referred to things such as funeral plans, but we also need to pay a good deal of attention to the activities of will writing organisations and trust services—for example, the Family Trust Corporation and the Philips Trust Corporation—because significant numbers of consumers may find themselves heavily disadvantaged as a result of advice that they thought came from a trusted financial source, but which was not regulated.
Finally, access to cash has been discussed a good deal. I specifically highlight the need, especially for small businesses, to be able to access banking for the purpose of transacting in coins. In my constituency, I have heard from a lot of small shopkeepers and small business owners that it is not just about consumers being able to get to an ATM—it is about their being able to pay in coin that they receive in payments from customers and being able to extract it for the purpose of having change for cash transactions, which for the most part they cannot do with ATMs.
In conclusion, I am pleased to support the Bill, which as the Minister said will support innovation in this key UK sector. It will ensure that our country remains a global market leader and, importantly, it will ensure that consumers in my constituency and across the UK are protected from scammers who may seek to do them financial harm.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Those who have participated in the debate should start to make their way towards the Chamber for the wind-ups, which will start at 6.40 pm.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to speak in the debate. The Bill is substantial and weighty, and rightly so. Our financial services sector is vital—perhaps never more so than today, given the cost of living, for people at the mercy of the financial institutions to lend them money to carry their businesses through this period, for families looking for a low-interest loan to fix their cars, and perhaps even for the housewife trying to buy a second-hand washing machine. Those are the ordinary things that people have to face.
The regulation of financial services is essential. We must get it right and rectify the remnants of regulation where Europe was unsuccessful in fostering businesses and protecting individuals. I am keen to support clauses 8 to 23, which will grant additional powers to regulators, allowing for greater regulation of financial promotions. This morning in Westminster Hall we spoke about cryptocurrency and cryptoassets. The Minister answered some of our questions, but that is a really important subject. It is estimated that some 2.6 million people across the UK, and 100,000 people in Northern Ireland, use cryptocurrency. Some 15% of people in Northern Ireland use it, and 38% say they have thought about using it but have not yet done so. The regulation of this up-and-coming form of investment and spending is necessary.
Clauses 24 to 46 seek to ensure appropriate democratic accountability for the regulators, given that the Bill gives the FCA and the PRA new secondary objectives to advance the international competitiveness and medium to long-term growth of the UK economy. I have spoken about this a number of times in the House, but I am not entirely convinced that the new regulations for the FCA are strong enough to make a difference, or that the Bill goes far enough in this respect.
I think regularly of one of my constituents, whose case I know exceptionally well. The episode of Panorama broadcast on 16 August, titled “The Billion-Pound Savings Scandal”, detailed a scheme in which some £47 million of life savings was taken from consumers. The initial figure was £16 million, yet although it seems the FCA had ample evidence of wrongdoing and the powers necessary to act, nothing was done. That constituent and a number of others have lost money through that scheme. I am not sure that the Bill goes far enough in that respect.
An essential component of the Bill must be the protection of access to cash. I am old-fashioned, Mr Deputy Speaker; I use cheques all the time, and I use cash. I have the jingle of cash in my inside pocket, and I have the pound notes—sorry, I am going back too far; I have the £20 notes here in my wallet. I heard the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) refer to her daughter getting a cheque. I get them every day, and I write them every day—that is who I am.
Access to cash and its use is essential, particularly for the small business with a small profit margin. The Post Office announced that just last month it handled more than £800 million in personal withdrawals, the most since records began five years ago. That tells me that cash is still king and we should not disregard it.
I am old enough to remember the ’60s and the early ’70s, when my mum and others, on a tight budget, used envelopes to set aside money for the gas, the electric, food and the rent. That meant that the management of the moneys for all the bills was done right. I believe that history will repeat itself and we will see that happening once again. Cash will be more important than ever.
The right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) referred to the growth of credit unions. In Northern Ireland, credit unions have been an incredible success. They can do better for everyone. In some cases, they have replaced banks where those have closed. Will the Minister say what can be done to ensure greater use of credit unions?
I am concerned that, as we approach the autumn and winter, many will suffer from malnourishment, freezing homes and depression in the coming crisis. I believe that the Bill will do more than just regulate the financial regime; it will ensure that we can support the people we are privileged to represent and keep them protected this winter.
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate on a Bill that is, frankly, the biggest reform of financial regulation in a generation. First, I pay tribute to the longest-serving Economic Secretary that we have known, my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen), who committed his work with great diligence and who is greatly respected in the industry to this day.
I care a lot about the financial services industry. I worked in it for many years, it taught me a lot about the world, and my wife works in it, so I personally want it to thrive, but given its significance to our economy and people, we all should. The Prime Minister was right when she said that it is the “jewel in the crown” of our economy. It is a direct benefit to businesses, savers and investors, and an indirect benefit to us all through jobs, growth and tax revenue. That is why it is important that we do everything we can to unleash its potential, as this Bill does.
I welcome the fact that the Bill takes advantage of our regulatory freedoms now that we are not in the European single market, gives more control to our domestic regulators and ensures that they are more focused on international competitiveness. All those who worry about that resulting in a decline in regulation should be assured that the primary objective remains intact, and that that mirrors established conventions in markets with highly regulated systems, such as Australia and Japan.
I welcome the moves to tighten the regulations on promotions by creating a new regulatory gateway for approvals. I also welcome the provisions to improve the co-ordination between the FCA and the PRA. As a member of the Treasury Committee, I welcome its enhanced role, but join others in saying that it is important that it has the resources and expertise to carry out that role effectively.
This is an excellent Bill that will help to drive the industry and our country forward. I have been struck that we all agree on one aspect, which I will talk about: the need to further democratise our capital markets. Despite the remarkable success in the finance industry, it genuinely bothers me that not enough of our people are directly participating in or benefiting from our capital markets. Although we are all stakeholders in UK plc, not enough of us are shareholders with a stake in our economic success.
We can do three things to address that. First, I am a huge advocate of extending auto-enrolment to those aged 18 to 22, so that they can get on the savings ladder earlier. That would create 900,000 new savers and £1 billion extra in savings for our economy, and it would do a great deal to encourage a better savings culture. Secondly, we should look at removing regulatory obstacles to people receiving investment advice, so that people do not just save, but invest. Thirdly, I want us to get on with reforming Solvency II, so that more pensioners can expand their investment universe into illiquids such as infrastructure. If we do those things, we can build on this excellent Bill and ensure that everyone shares in the success of our world-leading financial services sector.
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to close the debate on behalf of the Opposition. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) said, we broadly support this important Bill.
We recognise that regulatory divergence from the EU will produce opportunities for the sector, such as through Solvency II reform and making sure that the UK is a welcoming environment for fintech. We also support the principle of a secondary objective on international competitiveness and growth. Labour is committed to supporting the City to retain its competitiveness on a world stage and supporting the UK to remain a global financial centre outside the EU. This should not, however, mean any compromise on financial stability or consumer protections.
I also want to echo my hon. Friend’s point about recent Government infighting. This has undermined confidence in the City just when the sector needs clear direction on post-Brexit reform. The new Prime Minister’s off-the-cuff policy announcements during the summer and threats to abolish our world-leading regulators have left our financial services in a state of uncertainty. The Government must provide the City with the certainty it needs to thrive and to take advantage of opportunities outside the EU. I therefore hope that the Minister will use this opportunity to inform the House, the wider public and the financial services sector whether the Government plan to radically alter this legislation in the coming weeks and months.
While we will support the Bill, there are a number of issues that we believe the Government have yet to address. My hon. Friend raised a number of these important questions in her speech, which I hope the Minister will address in his closing remarks, including whether regulators will be held to account on the advancement of long-term growth in the real economy, and how the Bill will address the decline in the UK’s financial services exports to the EU.
I take this opportunity to thank the hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) for the work he did on this Bill. I, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn and the rest of our team, know that he was always communicative with the Opposition despite our differences and he was always respectful in his delivery. It is also pleasing to see the former Chancellor the right hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak) speaking in this debate, which shows that he is still taking this Bill very seriously.
I thank hon. Members on all sides of this House for their contributions. I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), who talked about how mortgage prisoners are impacted by the SVR. I hope that the Minister will take up the invitation to meet her, as she certainly has a lot of knowledge in this area.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor) spoke about how small and medium-sized businesses, such as hairdressers and nail salons, rely on cash payments and how her constituency is one of the most cash-deprived. The right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) referenced the need for free access to cash, and highlighted the points raised by Opposition Members. I hope that on this vital topic we can find common ground to resolve this issue in the best interests of all our constituents.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and my hon. Friends the Members for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) and for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) all raised concerns about the FCA. I am sure the Minister will agree that holding bad actors to account is very important, and I look forward to his comments in his summing up.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) made a particularly important point about how those using buy now, pay later lenders are drowning under the cost of living crisis. The wishy-washy intervention planned for 2023 will just be far too late. We need swift action right now, and my hon. Friend pointed out that there is a lack of strong will from the Government in this area.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) spoke passionately about the closure of bank branches in her constituency and the impact this is having on elderly and disabled constituents.
All the contributions from across the House were really valuable, but I want to raise a number of additional issues, such as cryptocurrencies. First, clauses 21 and 22 will bring stablecoins, a type of cryptoasset, into the scope of regulation when used as a form of payment, which as the Minister has said, will pave the way for their use in the UK as a recognised form of payment. He and I discussed this in Westminster Hall this morning, but the recent collapse in the value of cryptoassets, including several stablecoins, has put millions of UK consumers’ savings at risk.
The crypto trading platform Gemini has estimated that as many as one in five people in the UK could have lost money in the crash. Does the Minister agree that the crisis in crypto demonstrates that so-called stablecoins are not necessarily stable? How did the recent collapse in the value of cryptocurrencies inform the Treasury’s approach to clauses 21 and 22 of the Bill?
Will the Minister explain why the Government have opted to bring only stablecoins within the regulations? For example, the EU just agreed to a comprehensive regime for regulating the entire cryptocurrency industry, while the UK will not even consult on a comprehensive regime until later this year. In the absence of a comprehensive regulatory regime, the UK has become a centre for illicit crypto activity. According to Chainalysis, a global leader in blockchain research, cryptocurrency-based crime, such as terrorist financing, money laundering, fraud and scams, hit a new all-time high in 2021, with illicit activity in the UK estimated to be worth more than £500 million.
Meanwhile, misleading advertising and marketing of cryptocurrency projects is on the rise. In the absence of a comprehensive regulatory regime, how will the Government crackdown on illicit activity and misleading advertising and promotions, beyond the regulated stablecoins? Finally, how do the Government foresee the regulated stablecoins interacting with the future of central bank digital currency?
Let me express the disappointment felt on the Opposition Benches that the Bill has failed adequately to address financial exclusion. My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn has already touched on the need to address digital exclusion by protecting access to essential face-to-face banking services, and the Bill has failed to promote financial diversity and resilience by removing the regulatory barriers faced by mutuals, building societies and co-operatives. In addition to my hon. Friend’s important points, the Bill does nothing to address the poverty premium—the extra costs that poorer people pay for essential services such as insurance, loans or credit cards—and right now, those people will be feeling the impact of that.
Labour believes that everyone should have access to the financial services they need, whether that is saving schemes or insurance, and regardless of their income or circumstances. All too often, the most vulnerable in our society are unable to afford or are denied access to financial products and services that meet their needs. If the Government are serious about building a strong future for our financial services outside the EU, they should recognise that the Bill is an opportunity to rethink how financial resilience, inclusion and wellbeing issues are tackled in the UK. I hope the Minister will address those points in his response.
I realise that time is pressing, and I want to give the Minister the opportunity to respond to all the issues raised today. In conclusion, although Labour Members support the Bill, which will enable the UK to tailor financial services regulation to meet the needs of our economy, we will be pushing for bolder, more radical action in a number of areas including green finance, financial inclusion and economic crime, to make Brexit work for our financial services and the wider economy.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Richard Fuller)
With the leave of the House I would like to speak for a second time, and I will start by thanking right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions to the debate. As the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare) has just said, I welcome the broad support across the House for the Bill.
As has been clear throughout the debate, I am really a small person standing on the shoulders of the two giants responsible for the Bill—my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak). I will seek to address what I can of what has been said in the time available—[Interruption.] Shush. Where I am not able to, I shall write to colleagues where I feel that I can add something meaningful. I also look forward to Committee, where I will be able to address some of the points in more detail.
As I said in opening the debate, this is an important and ambitious Bill that seizes opportunities afforded by EU exit to make important reforms to the regulation of financial services. As my right hon. Friends the Member for Richmond (Yorks) and for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) and my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury said, the resilience of the United Kingdom financial services market as we exit Brexit has been much stronger and greater than the naysayers said. Once again, people who talked down our country have been proved wrong.
There were questions on a number of areas, but I will start with access to cash, which was raised by a several Members. The UK Government remain absolutely committed to protecting consumers and supporting inclusion. The impact of bank branch closures should already be understood, considered and mitigated where possible so that all customers, wherever they live, and especially the most vulnerable, continue to have appropriate access to face-to-face banking services. Meanwhile, innovative, shared bank hubs allow customers of participating banks to withdraw and deposit cash and seek support from a representative of their bank in person. It was pleasing to hear the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) regarding the hub at Barton-upon-Humber, and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham) about Belper. She mentioned the knock-on benefits that banking hubs can have on high streets both in Belper and in other parts of the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Dr Davies) and the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) spoke about the importance of financial hubs in their constituencies.
Those are an important part of access to cash, but the Bill also provides the FCA with powers to protect access to cash specifically. Where appropriate, the FCA could exercise the powers in the Bill to prevent a branch closure where in doing so it is seeking to ensure reasonable provision of cash access services. That may be the case, for example, if a closure would result in a significant adverse impact in relation to accessing cash in that area. The Government expect such situations to be exceptional and temporary while alternative arrangements to meet cash needs are put in place, but ultimately that access to cash must and will be protected.
The Bill allows the FCA to determine standards to ensure reasonable access to cash access services. In determining reasonable access, the FCA may take into account factors that it considers appropriate, which may include appropriateness of facilities for vulnerable users, including cost, security availability and accessibility for, for example, disabled people. The FCA is developing its regulatory approach for access to cash and will consult in due course.
Richard Fuller
I was about to come to that. As I said earlier, while I cannot give an assurance on free-to-use ATMs, I do expect us to return to the matter in more detail in Committee. I tried to write down those right hon. and hon. Members who used those four letters—F, R E and E—in describing their wish for access to cash. They included my hon. Friends the Members for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard), for Cleethorpes and for Mid Derbyshire as well as the hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy), for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and for Mitcham and Morden. As I said, we will return to these issues in Committee, particularly given the level of interest in them.
I turn to other matters. The shadow spokesperson, the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq), asked about the new secondary objectives for growth and competitiveness and whether they were aimed at advancing long-term growth in the real economy. Those secondary growth and competitiveness objectives will enable the PRA and the FCA to make rule changes to advance the long-term growth and competitiveness of the UK economy, including the financial sectors. The new objectives refer to the UK economy as a whole, including in particular the financial services sector.
The hon. Member for Richmond Park, who is in her place, and the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), who I do not think is in her place, talked in an intervention about whether the regulator should have a green objective. Including the net zero target specifically in the regulatory principles ensures that the Government’s commitment to reach net zero will be embedded in regulator considerations. Therefore, it is more appropriately progressed by regulators as a regulated principle, which means they will consider the Government’s target when they advance their own objectives. We heard a lot about what the Government are doing on green finance which did not pay enough regard to the progress the Government have made already on that. Let me just list it. The UK is rated No. 1 globally in the Z/Yen Global Green Finance Index. The UK has had the largest green gilt instruments globally. The UK had the first green savings account issued with the national savings fund. The UK is the first major economy to implement fully the taskforce for nature-related financial disclosures across both financial services and the real economy. The UK is the largest donor to multilateral climate investment funds. That is a record this Government can be proud of. That is a record that this country can be proud of as well.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle asked about having regard to financial inclusion. The Government believe that the FCA’s current and ongoing initiatives around financial inclusion demonstrate that it can already effectively support the Government’s leadership of this agenda through its additional operational objectives and regulatory principles.
The shadow spokesperson asked how seriously Parliament should take the speculated proposals to merge the regulators. There are no plans to merge the PRA and the FCA. Again, she asked about the independence of regulators and how we can ensure the continued independence of our regulators. The legislative framework underpinning financial services regulation in the UK provides for the regulation to be independent of the Government.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), who I think may be in his place, asked about whether we could commit to an annual report on the key performance indicators of the regulators. Both regulators, I am pleased to say, will be required to report on their performance against their growth and competitive objectives on an annual basis. This will be similar to the PRA’s current reporting requirements for its secondary competition objective. My hon. Friend also asked about the important issue of cost-benefit analysis panels and what the accountability of the regulators will be. The Government expect that the panel will operate in the same way as other statutory panels, where they appoint external members. Ensuring the right membership of panels is crucial to their success in promoting and challenging a range of expertise.
The Chair of the Treasury Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride), asked an important question about the Bank of England’s independence. I can tell him and the House that the Chancellor today met the Governor. I refer him and other hon. Members to Her Majesty’s Treasury’s statement on that meeting. The Chancellor affirmed that the UK’s long-standing commitment to the Bank of England’s independence and its monetary policy remit. The Chancellor and the Governor agreed that getting inflation under control quickly is central to tackling cost of living challenges.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) asked whether the European regulations on PRIIPS will be reformed. Yes, the Bill will repeal and retain EU law for PRIIPS. He also asked about ringfencing and whether ringfencing will be reformed. The Treasury welcomes the comprehensive set of recommendations to the Independent Panel of Ring-fencing and is committed to publishing a Government response later this year.
There were many other questions, particularly on MRAs—mutual recognition agreements—crypto-assets and other issues. I will have to write to Members, given the amount of time available. On the important issue of scams and fraud prevention, which was raised by many Members, I acknowledge the seriousness of the issues we face, but I do not accept that the Government and regulators are not taking action to prevent fraud, both in relation to financial services and more widely. The Government are clear that prevention is better than cure and that a multifaceted approach is needed to tackle fraud. The shadow City Minister asked what we were doing beyond financial services. I point to the Online Safety Bill, which the Prime Minister committed to in the House today.
There were many, many issues also raised that I have not had time to refer to today, but that just indicates the wide breadth and importance of the Bill. The Bill capitalises on our freedoms outside the EU by bringing forward an ambitious set of reforms that assert the UK’s global leadership in financial services, and I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Financial Services and Markets Bill (Programme)
Wednesday 7th September 2022
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberFinancial Services and Markets Act 2023 Read Hansard Text
Financial Services and Markets Bill (Money)
Wednesday 7th September 2022
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberFinancial Services and Markets Act 2023 Read Hansard Text
Financial Services and Markets Bill (Ways and Means)
Wednesday 7th September 2022
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberFinancial Services and Markets Act 2023 Read Hansard Text
Financial Services and Markets Bill (First sitting)
Wednesday 19th October 2022
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesFinancial Services and Markets Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 19 October 2022 - (19 Oct 2022)
The Chair
I have a couple of preliminary announcements to make. Hansard colleagues will be grateful if Members could email their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. Please switch electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings. Date Time Witness Wednesday 19 October Until no later than 10.10 am Prudential Regulation Authority Financial Conduct Authority Wednesday 19 October Until no later than10.40 am TheCityUK UK Finance Wednesday 19 October Until no later than 10.55 am Payment Systems Regulator Wednesday 19 October Until no later than 11.25 am Association of British Insurers Investment Association Wednesday 19 October Until no later than 2.25 pm The Bank of England Wednesday 19 October Until no later than 2.45 pm Which? Wednesday 19 October Until no later than 3.10 pm Access to Cash Group Fair by Design Wednesday 19 October Until no later than 3.10 pm New Financial Wednesday 19 October Until no later than 3.55 pm Association of British Credit Unions Ltd. Building Societies Association Wednesday 19 October Until no later than 4.10 pm CIFAS Wednesday 19 October Until no later than 4.25 pm Innovate Finance Wednesday 19 October Until no later than 4.40pm Mr Martin Taylor
We will first consider the programme motion on the amendment paper. We will then consider a motion to enable the reporting of written evidence for publication and a motion to allow us to deliberate in private about our questions before the oral evidence session. In view of the time available, I hope that we can take those matters formally, without debate.
Ordered,
That—
1. the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 am on Wednesday 19 October) meet—
(a) at 2.00 pm on Wednesday 19 October;
(b) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 25 October;
(c) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 27 October;
(d) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 1 November;
(e) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 3 November;
2. the Committee shall hear oral evidence in accordance with the following Table:
3. proceedings on consideration of the Bill in Committee shall be taken in the following order: Clause 1; Schedule 1; Clauses 3 to 7; Clause 2; Schedule 2; Clause 8; Schedule 3; Clauses 9 to 13; Schedule 4; Clauses 14 to 20; Schedule 5; Clause 21; Schedule 6; Clauses 22 to 46; Schedule 7; Clause 47; Schedule 8; Clause 48; Schedule 9; Clause 49; Schedule 10; Clause 50; Schedule 11; Clause 51; Schedules 12 and 13; Clauses 52 to 63; Schedule 14; Clauses 64 to 73; new Clauses; new Schedules; remaining proceedings on the Bill;
4. the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Thursday 3 November.—(Andrew Griffith.)
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Andrew Griffith.)
Resolved,
That, at this and any subsequent meeting at which oral evidence is to be heard, the Committee shall sit in private until the witnesses are admitted.—(Andrew Griffith.)
The Chair
Copies of written evidence that the Committee receives will be made available in the Committee Room and circulated to Members by email. We will now go into private session to discuss lines of questioning.
The Chair
Before we start hearing from the witnesses, do any Members wish to make any declarations of interest in connection with the Bill?
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
I guide the Committee and witnesses to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)
I chair the insurance and financial services all-party parliamentary group and am a former insurance broker.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
I have money saved and invested with Nationwide building society, which has submitted evidence on its own account. I am also with a credit union that I believe is affiliated to the association of one of the witnesses.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group on blockchain.
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)
I am a vice-chair of the APPGs on environmental, social, and governance and on financial markets and services. I also spent 14 years in financial services and my wife works in financial services.
Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)
I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group on financial resilience.
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
My husband and two sons work in financial services.
The Chair
Anybody else? No.
We will now hear oral evidence from Sheldon Mills, interim executive director of strategy and competition at the Financial Conduct Authority; Sarah Pritchard, executive director of markets at the Financial Conduct Authority; and Victoria Saporta, executive director of prudential policy at the Prudential Regulation Authority. Before calling the first Member to ask a question, I remind all Members that questions should be limited to matters within the scope of the Bill and that we must stick to the timings in the programme order that the Committee agreed. For this panel, we have until 10.10 am. Will the witnesses please introduce themselves for the record?
Sarah Pritchard: I am Sarah Pritchard, the executive director of markets at the Financial Conduct Authority.
Sheldon Mills: I am Sheldon Mills, the executive director for consumers and competition at the Financial Conduct Authority.
Victoria Saporta: I am Vicky Saporta, the executive director of prudential policy at the Prudential Regulation Authority.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Andrew Griffith)
Q
The opportunity of the Bill, which will be the first piece of ab initio legislation for 23 years in the financial services domain, is to help the effective functioning of financial markets in society and to help the economic prosperity on which we all depend. Will you talk a little about how you see the opportunities in the Bill? How do you think about the competitiveness of the UK regulatory corpus? How would you advise the Committee on making the best advantage of changes in technology—such as digital ledger technology, but that is just one—and of the opportunity to pare back the corpus of inherited European legislation to those purposes?
Victoria Saporta: Thank you, Minister. I very much agree with your comment that the Bill presents a unique opportunity to set a framework for financial services that is world leading and the best in practice internationally. In my view, the Bill as introduced on First and Second Reading achieves that.
I will pull out a couple of things that I think are particularly important. Best international practice, as set out by international standards setters and the IMF, is for operationally independent regulators to pursue technical rule making based on the framework and objectives set by Government. That is because there is plenty of empirical evidence that the operational independence of regulators is associated with better financial stability and economic stability outcomes. That is very much recognised among the financial regulatory community internationally, and it supports competitiveness.
That is important, particularly for a global financial centre, which we have the pleasure to have here in London and the UK, because, as the IMF said in its recent FSAP of the UK, financial stability is a global public good within the UK. Our actions over here, as we have seen in recent events, can spill over to other markets. It is therefore very important that we have this high international standing so that regulators who allow firms to come to London to be regulated by us can have trust in that.
The Bill achieves all of that, but it gives us greater powers, and with greater powers must come greater accountability. We at the PRA and the Bank really welcome that greater accountability. We always have seen our policy frameworks as being supported by accountability to Parliament, and the various provisions and amendments support that.
On competitiveness, there is a new secondary objective that did not exist before, which says that we must pursue competitiveness and growth in the medium and long term as a secondary objective. That is, as long as we are advancing safety, soundness and financial stability within the PRA’s remit, we should look at the options that advance competitiveness and growth in the medium and long term.
We think that is the correct balance. It will allow us to take a very proactive approach to competitiveness. The PRA issued our approach to the Bill, as it currently stands, to aid accountability to you. In that discussion paper, we set out some thoughts about how we would go about doing that. The Bill also has certain areas that would help fintech in the UK.
Andrew Griffith
Q
Sheldon Mills: I will be brief, in the interests of time. Clearly, the Bill represents a significant opportunity—almost a once-in-a-generation opportunity—to transform financial services regulation. There are a few components to that. The first is the fact that the regulators will be given the powers to transpose the retained EU law into UK law. That provides an opportunity for us to think in terms of the UK financial services system and what we need to support UK financial services and ensure that we are a leading centre, worldwide, for financial services.
We welcome the other opportunity in the Bill—the secondary competitiveness objective—on the basis that it provides a spur to us to think about growth and competitiveness as we pursue our primary objectives of competition, consumer protection and market integrity.
The final point, which goes to your point about the corpus of rules, is that I think some of the powers, and some of the exhortations in the Bill for us to review our rules, are important. It is important for us always to have an efficient rule book and system so that we do not place as much burden on business as we otherwise would, and so that the system is certain, consistent and effective. There are genuine opportunities in the Bill.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
Q
Sheldon Mills: Of course. It is a matter for Government as to what amendments they put to Parliament, and it is then a matter for Parliament as to what you do with them. You always have to be careful as a regulator not to tell Parliament what to do, but I will put some thoughts forward.
Independence needs to be at the heart of the regulatory system, so I think it will be important, if and when that amendment is put forward, to think about how the independence of the regulators is sustained. I understand from Government pronouncements that there is a commitment to the independence of the regulators, and that the proposed amendment, which I have not seen, is meant to ensure that where a public interest mechanism is needed—where the Government wish to think about the public interest—there is one to bring forward.
I have worked in regimes with public interest tests. I ran the mergers division at the Office of Fair Trading and the Competition and Markets Authority, and my learning from that is that, if put in place, such a test should be used exceptionally and with care, and that there should be specificity about the matters of public interest—in this case, financial services—on which it would be used.
We are working constructively with HMT in relation to this, and we would do so if such a power were introduced. The only point I would make—Vicky may come to this—is that the standing of the UK financial system is also built on its independence and its consistency of regulation, and it is important that we think through that as we design this regime.
Victoria Saporta: I very much agree with what Sheldon said. We have not yet seen the amendment, so we have to reserve judgment on it, but it will depend on the formulation.
A formulation whereby the Government can force or direct us to make or amend rules that we have already made, and that fall squarely within the statutory objectives that Parliament has given us, may be perceived as undermining operational independence and all the benefits that I talked about earlier. That could have adverse implications for our international standing and, ultimately, our competitiveness.
A formulation that is squarely outside our objectives—for matters of national security, for example—and does not have to do with safety and soundness, or the other objectives and “have regards”, could be a different matter if it is tightly done.
Finally, sometimes I have read in the press and in previous ministerial comments that it makes sense in a parliamentary democracy to ask the regulators to take another look. I just want to say that in clause 27 there is a review power that gives the Treasury powers to force us—to direct us—to take another look and, indeed, to appoint a third party to do so.
Peter Grant
Q
Sheldon Mills: Of course we have had discussions with HMT in relation to the proposed amendment. I personally have not seen it.
Peter Grant
Q
Sheldon Mills: That was some months ago, but I recall that in the context of the British Steel pension scheme we have a power that allows us to do some particular things that provide redress en masse for British Steel pension holders. That is what we are using. We have most of the powers that we need to support British Steel pension scheme holders. The Bill does not interfere with any of our existing powers. I do not think it gives us any additional powers that are relevant to the British Steel pension scheme holders issue.
Peter Grant
Q
Sheldon Mills: I think that what we would have said—I would need to look at the record to see the context—is that, effectively, we have to go through due process and understand the evidence and the data that would be there to see how those independent financial advisers are behaving. Therefore, the speed and processing of that may be what we were referring to.
If I remember at the time in relation to the British Steel pension scheme, the law was changed to allow people to exit their pensions under pensions freedoms. There was a range of issues in relation to understanding how independent financial advisers were going to respond to that. The speed and pace with which they did respond led to issues such as some of the challenges that British Steel pension holders have now. To confirm: there is nothing the Bill that specifically gives us additional powers in relation to those individuals.
Sarah Pritchard: I want to come in on a slightly broader point, which is that in the transfer of retained EU files, which encompasses part of the Bill, there are some EU files where, at the moment, the FCA will have limited lawmaking powers. The Bill will provide a framework that, file by file, the FCA will need for rule-making and enforcement powers to be considered at that time. That does not answer your question specifically in relation to British Steel, but it provides a mechanism, so you go through that analysis and assessment file by file.
Stephen Hammond
Q
Victoria Saporta: In the financial regulatory space, the only example I know of where there is a test whereby the Government—I am not talking about Parliament—can intervene and revoke regulatory rules is in Australia. APRA—the prudential regulatory authority in Australia—has never been exercised. Whenever the IMF has done financial sector assessments, it has been critical. There are provisions, again in Canada, but the US system does not have any. It is Congress who can revoke material pieces of regulatory standards within 60 days. This is my understanding of it in financial regulation, which is separate to how it might exist in other types of regulation.
Stephen Hammond
Q
Sheldon Mills indicated assent.
Stephen Hammond
I just wanted to ensure that was on the record. Can we talk a bit about the metrics and transparency you might use to show that you are meeting the secondary objective—that the cost-benefit panel’s analysis will be transparent—and also how you consider you will need to show that you have met the accountability tests?
Sheldon Mills: Sure. I am happy to start with that. We are waiting to see the final description of the clause on competitiveness. Its current iteration talks about competitiveness and growth. It also talks in terms of the medium and long-term growth of the financial services sector and the UK economy. We have started to think about what the input measures we might see. Those are the things we can act upon ourselves.
A good example of that would be our gateway—our authorisations process. Is it as efficient as it can be? Does it place unnecessary burdens on time, pace and the application of it? That can help with the entry of firms into the UK. That is important. We are doing work on our gateway now. That is something on the input measures, but we then need to think about the outcomes. It is important to think about what data and metrics are available that have a causal chain between some of the activity we have—our authorisations activity, our policy activity and so on—and the outcomes we are seeking to achieve. One of the challenges we have is that the data on the link between financial services activity and growth and competitiveness—regulatory activity—is not significant. That said, we are looking proactively to see what measures we can find.
There are also two components to those outcomes. There is the activity that our financial services industry is providing, such as lending and support in terms of insurance and so on to UK firms and overseas. Then there is an outward form of competitiveness, thinking about how our UK plc financial services industry is doing in exporting financial services across the world. Both of those will be outcomes we will need to find measurements on.
Finally, there is the meta outcome. There is certainly Office for Budget Responsibility data that talks about sustainable growth. What is the higher level growth-type outcome you can look at and seek to link? I do not have the full gamut of that, but we are working very closely on it, so that we can provide measures and metrics that can support our use of the objective.
Stephen Hammond
Q
Sheldon Mills: Of course, absolutely. We will be transparent on that.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
Q
The Government have opted so far to not have a “have regard” for financial inclusion in the Bill. Do you believe that such a “have regard” for the FCA would ensure financial inclusion as a greater priority for the regulator? What else could be done with the Bill to ensure that financial inclusion is given a greater prominence?
Sheldon Mills: I hope we won’t have the same conversation as before. We have done some more work on financial inclusion following our conversations. Our position is still the same: we do not think we need a “have regard” on inclusion. We don’t think that that would add to our ability to act within our remit in line with our objectives. We have our consumer protection power and we have put in place our new consumer duty, which asks firms to meet a higher standard. We feel that we have sufficient powers to fix any problems that we feel we need to solve.
As we discussed last time, the regulator’s role is to support firms and the market to deliver to as many consumers as possible, including those who are vulnerable or might be excluded. However, we do not do that alone; we do that with partners such as Government, local authorities, charities and others. In relation to that, we are taking a proactive role and arranging a financial inclusion policy sprint in the autumn, working with Fair4All Finance and others. We will bring as many actors as possible into that space, using our innovation labs to work through the types of innovative activity we can put the financial services industry to in terms of tackling financial inclusion.
At the moment, we do not think we need a “have regard” given our current remit and the powers we have.
Emma Hardy
Q
Sheldon Mills: I have worked with HMT and supported the inclusion of a few things in the Bill that might help with this matter. One reason why the financial services sector has adopted more of a risk-based approach to the customers it serves relates to the risks it faces of follow-on redress and other damages. There is always a balance between what you pay out to consumers who might well be harmed now and what happens with future consumers.
In the Bill, we have a duty of co-operation between us, the Financial Ombudsman Service and a few other regulators. We will try to ensure that we are managing some of the extensive use of claims management companies, which puts quite a lot of pressure on firms. Firms should pay redress and compensation where that is necessary, but there is a lot of pressure on those firms. We have to have a reality as to how things work in how the commercial world. That means that boards can then become more risk averse in terms of the services they offer.
I am keen to get some of our largest and smaller institutions innovating around expanding the number of customers they serve. People are keen, but we have to have the balance of how the system works in order to support that.
Another area in the Bill, or in our proposals, that will help is in relation to credit unions. After our action against certain high-cost, short-term credit firms, we are already seeing that credit unions are taking more of a share of credit being provided to people who might be in a category that borders on exclusion. Anything that can support credit unions safely expanding—I have the PRA to my left—will be really helpful for the communities underlying this discussion.
Emma Hardy
Did you want to add anything, Victoria?
Victoria Saporta: No, I think Sheldon has covered it.
Gareth Davies
Q
Sheldon Mills: I’m not aware of one. Vicky?
Victoria Saporta: Singapore has one. Its financial stability, however, is primary; it overrides the competitive objective, which is secondary. There is the Hong Kong Insurance Authority. Otherwise, it is not common, particularly for prudential authorities, which is what I know about.
Gareth Davies
Q
Sheldon Mills: We do not like to comment on other financial centres, but, yes, I would consider them to be robust financial centres.
Gareth Davies
Q
Sheldon Mills: Yes, in certain respects.
Gareth Davies
Which respects?
Sheldon Mills: I think they are competitors to the financial services system. The UK is extremely strong, varied, and has a multiplicity of financial services. Some of the competition that comes from some of those regions is quite specific in terms of what it seeks to compete with. We have a very broad-based financial services system.
Gareth Davies
Q
Sarah Pritchard: From an FCA perspective, it is very much as Sheldon has said. It is important to say we support the Bill as it is currently framed. We think a secondary competitiveness objective can work alongside our primary statutory objectives. It will give us another lens through which to look at the policy work and the development of the regulatory agenda that we are taking forward. Back to the points raised previously on transparency and accountability, it will give us another method by which we will be reporting and considering our outcomes against. We will take that into account. We think it can work as a secondary objective.
On the various elements that make up competitiveness that have been touched on earlier, I think that innovation and ensuring that we can stay ahead of the game with the pace of development across the financial services markets is really important. You can see the financial markets infrastructure sandbox proposals contained within the Bill. There are proposals there on critical third parties as well, so you can already see on the face of the Bill in those particular areas a real desire to make sure that the UK can stay in lockstep or stay competitive as a country enabled through the way in which the financial services regulatory framework is developed going forward.
I think the agility is important. We often hear that regulators are too slow. Sometimes we hear that regulators are too fast in terms of putting out too many consultations. Clearly there is a balance there. We have shown ourselves able to act at speed through the Russia-Ukraine conflict and introduced new rules on side pockets to enable support in that context of war. We will need to maintain that flexibility to be agile when we need to, while retaining the checks and balances that are really important in terms of transparency and accountability.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
Q
Sheldon Mills: Thank you very much for the question. The first framing point to this question is to understand that banking services have and are changing, and there are many, many benefits of those changes. The move towards digitalisation of banking services provides a huge amount of support to many people who are vulnerable. My mother is deaf and the change to a digital means of banking services has transformed her life completely.
The starting point must be that we have to consider the variety of ways in which people can provide banking services. That said, we know that, locally, branches can be important for communities. It is not just branches. It is a point at which people can deposit money and take out money. You can have a variety of those. They can be branches or post offices. They can be what we are trying to encourage the industry to develop when they close branches.
Siobhain McDonagh
Q
Sheldon Mills: I am coming to it. In the light of that, what we have sought to do as we have seen firms decide to close their branches in the face of changing to digitalisation—there is the cost of keeping branches, which are very underutilised—is ensure that they look very closely at the alternatives to those branches when they go through those closure plans. We have had branch closure guidance in place for almost a year now. We work very closely with all the largest lenders and institutions to monitor their branch closure activity and ensure that they are providing appropriate services to those who need them in those localities as they seek to close some of those branches.
In terms of access to cash, the majority of the population—99.7% of the UK population—is within 5 km of a free-access cashpoint. We welcome the Government’s proposals on access-to-cash legislation so that we can get greater powers to ensure certain aspects of access to cash.
Siobhain McDonagh
Q
Sheldon Mills: We are using our existing “treating customers fairly” principle in order to put pressure on banks to ensure that they are looking after those customers that you talk about, who are vulnerable, in those communities and providing them with alternatives to branches if they close. Our updated guidance, which is stronger, asks for those alternatives to be in place before they close that last branch in town. It also deals with partial closures and issues such as that. I have been out to many local communities in order to see the impact of branch closures, and I have been public in terms of saying to the banks that they need to pick up the pace in relation to the alternatives for those communities: banking hubs, mobile banking and other activity. We are working very closely with LINK, which is currently helping the banks with the banking hubs, and seeking to get them to pick up that pace.
Siobhain McDonagh
Q
Sheldon Mills: I would be very happy to do so.
Siobhain McDonagh
And I will show you around. It is a great place. I will even buy you lunch in one of the cafés.
Sheldon Mills: I am sold—I will come.
Siobhain McDonagh
Q
Sheldon Mills: Yes, these are real, genuine issues for people and I do understand them. We have researched some of the ways in which people access cash but also branches. It is important that all the institutions—I will not mention individual institutions—should be willing to speak to their customers and their communities as they close branches, because that is the way to understand what alternatives they need to be providing to those services. We recently worked with a major provider and we got it to pause its branch closures while it made a significant assessment and researched the needs of the local community, and then it was able to provide for that, so we are proactive in relation to this. I would be very happy to come to Mitcham and understand what is going on there.
Siobhain McDonagh
Q
Siobhain McDonagh
If people have to pay £1.99 every time they try to access £10 from a machine to keep them going for the week, that is a huge premium on being poor. In Pollards Hill in my constituency, we have only two pay-for machines, and that is what happens on a daily basis—people have to pay £1.99 for every bit of money that they get out. People take small amounts of money to try to control their budgets. We were delighted when the Co-op came to the parade, but it could not get free cash machines because its lease prevented it from having one.
The Chair
Order. I am afraid that brings us to the end of the time allotted for this panel.
The Chair
No. That is the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions.
Sheldon Mills: We would be very happy to write to you.
The Chair
I thank our witnesses on behalf of the Committee.
Examination of Witnesses
Emma Reynolds and David Postings gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from David Postings, chief executive officer of UK Finance, and Emma Reynolds, managing director of public affairs, policy and research for TheCityUK. We have until 10.40 am for this panel. Will the witnesses please introduce themselves for the record?
Emma Reynolds: Emma Reynolds, managing director of public affairs, policy and economic research at TheCityUK.
David Postings: David Postings, chief executive of UK Finance.
Andrew Griffith
Q
David Postings: Thank you, Minister. The UK is an extremely competitive financial services centre, and has been for decades. The exit from the EU provides us with some challenges and some opportunities. The Bill has been worked on by my team in conjunction with HMT and the regulators, and we are very pleased with the content, particularly with regard to wholesale and capital markets. The amendments to EU legislation that it contains are quite detailed and technical, but they help with the competitiveness of the market and of the UK in that market.
Andrew Griffith
Q
David Postings: They welcome it. I think it is really important. It gives us balance and the opportunity to make sure that the regulator has regard to that. Ultimately, being a more competitive financial services centre will generate greater tax revenues for the UK and growth—which are really important—as well as stability.
Andrew Griffith
Q
Emma Reynolds: Thank you, Minister. I reiterate that the UK is one of the world’s leading international financial centres. I agree with David that exiting the EU has brought both challenges and opportunities. On the opportunities that the Bill presents, we absolutely welcome the new secondary objective on international competitiveness and economic growth. The industry has been calling for that for some time. The Bill is a result of many years of the Treasury consulting our industry, and overall we are very supportive of it.
If the objective is done properly and the regulators meet it, it gives us an opportunity to tailor the UK’s regulation to our market. Obviously, we do not have 27 member states to negotiate with any more, so we have an opportunity to tailor to our market. However, we want high standards, not low standards. We want the benefits of regulation, and any changes to regulation, to outweigh the costs. We want regulation to be proportionate to the risk involved. Obviously, all that will be rooted in many international agreements to which we have signed up as a country.
We think there are great opportunities here to enhance our competitiveness, but the proof will be in the pudding, rather than the Bill itself. The Bill enables that to happen, but it is very important that the Treasury and Parliament hold the regulators to account on their new secondary objective.
Andrew Griffith
Q
David Postings: If it is true, it should worry us —absolutely. I think the Bill is a good first step in addressing some of those issues. We have had the Lord Hill review, and its recommendations are contained in the Bill. The changes to the double volume cap and the share trading obligation will help the UK’s competitiveness and our ability to grow that share.
Emma Reynolds: We are in a very competitive environment, and I think the UK is losing out to New York, when it comes to listings. We need to focus on that. We should not be complacent. Obviously, there is very big competition from the Asian international financial centres, too.
Tulip Siddiq
Q
Emma Reynolds: First, let me say that we have discussed this power with Treasury officials, and we have submitted a paper to the Treasury and this Committee about how it could be defined. As one of the regulators said earlier, with greater power—obviously, this Bill and the exit from the EU confer a lot of new powers on the regulators—comes greater accountability.
There is a balance to be struck between enhanced regulatory accountability and maintaining the day-to-day independence of the regulators, which is something that international investors and businesses appreciate, because it leads to a stable regulatory environment. If the intervention power is tightly defined and used as a matter of last resort, you can minimise the risks. We think it could be a very reasonable instrument and power to take, given the circumstances and the transfer of power.
David Postings: The EU regulation was constructed through primary legislation in the main, with the agreement of a number of countries in the EU. That is now being put into the rulebook in the UK, so the regulators have tremendous capability to amend those regulations. It is not unreasonable to have a power that allows Parliament to scrutinise that kind of thing. We have not seen a draft clause, but we have talked to the Treasury and the regulators about this.
The most important thing is that it is used sparingly and drawn tightly. The best overseas example that we could come up with was the Australian example. I believe that it has never been used, but it is there in extremis. It should be something that is very rarely used and not politicised. We need to get the balance between the scrutiny of the regulators and not politicising it. That is a very difficult trick to pull off, but we should be able to do it.
Tulip Siddiq
Q
Emma Reynolds: The first question is very difficult to answer. I think it is probably one for the Government, if you do not mind me saying.
The answer to the second question is that there are occasions where regulation is not designed to meet the expected outcome—there could be a case where the regulator is not aware of national security risks—so there are occasions where such a power could be used. As I said before, it needs to be tightly defined. Defining a trigger would be useful, but equally you do not want to define it so tightly that it could never be leant on or even used. Given the amount of power that the regulators are being given, we think it is important that the broader societal and economic impact of the regulation is something that both Government and Parliament have the power to have a say in, if that regulation is deemed not fit for purpose.
Tulip Siddiq
Do you have anything to add, David?
David Postings: I don’t really, no.
Stephen Hammond
Q
“The Financial Services and Markets Bill should be amended to include a power to require regulators to transparently report metrics”.
I wonder if you could comment on that a little, please.
Secondly, you have mentioned proportionality, and again in your written evidence to us you suggest that there may necessarily need to be more of it when we consider the risk, the nature and the scope of businesses, who they are there for and who their customers are. Does the Bill set the right tone for proportionality, or do you think there is still more we should consider?
Emma Reynolds: To take your first question, we think it is important that the regulators are not marking their own homework with regard to the secondary objective. We welcome what the PRA said earlier and the discussion paper it has put out, but we do think the Treasury could take upon itself a power to demand that the regulators report more frequently and when the Treasury has some concern about whether they are meeting the new secondary objective. We do think the Bill should go further in that regard. We do not want this objective to just be in an Act of Parliament and for it to never really be a reality. The question is, “Does this bite?” That is what a lot of our members are saying. We think there are ways that you could hold the regulators to account on that.
Does the Bill set the right tone on proportionality? At its core, it is an enabling Bill, so the proof will really be in the pudding. We hope so. Hopefully, the secondary objective will mean that the regulators will take that very seriously—that their regulation should be proportionate—so we hope so, but it remains to be seen.
Stephen Hammond
Q
Emma Reynolds: Indeed.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
Q
David Postings: I think it needs to be broad, because the digital asset environment can change quickly, and if you define things too narrowly, you risk missing the next wave of change. Yes, I think it is good and wise to define it broadly.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
Q
Emma Reynolds: The definition is broad and, as I understand it, it gives both the Government and the regulators a way to regulate in this area and bring things into the regulatory perimeter. It is our understanding that stablecoins will be the first of those digital assets. This is a very fast-moving area; the EU has its MiCA—markets in cryptoassets—regulation, which you will be aware of, which is a very broad framework. I think there is some advantage for the UK in being the second mover here, because there is some concern about some of the things MiCA has closed down. For example, it is not allowing stablecoin wallets to accrue interest. We are watching very carefully in this space, but I understand your concern about consumer protection. I think that is front of mind for our firms, and they want a level playing field as well.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
Q
Emma Reynolds: That could be a concern, yes.
Emma Hardy
Q
David Postings: I am not sure this Bill is the right mechanism for it. We have been working closely with Government and regulators on a fraud strategy for some time, so anything that takes the agenda forward has to be welcomed, because fraud is a huge burden on society and a rising crime, but I am not sure that this Bill is necessarily the right Bill.
Emma Hardy
Q
David Postings: The ability to share data is one of the key things in terms of helping to prevent fraud and, after fraud has taken place, sending money back to the right place. I would need to look at the wording, because that is not in the Bill at the moment.
Emma Hardy
Q
David Postings: Anything that we can do as a country to stem fraud has got to be welcome.
Emma Hardy
Q
David Postings: There is provision to do that already, or at least we have taken steps to do that.
Emma Hardy
Q
David Postings: Yes.
Gareth Davies
Q
David Postings: Yes, it will.
Gareth Davies
Q
David Postings: I do not have a view on that, I am afraid.
Gareth Davies
Q
David Postings: They can change the volatility in the market. They do not necessarily push the price up, but they can change the volatility.
Gareth Davies
Q
Emma Reynolds: I defer to David.
Peter Grant
Q
Emma Reynolds: From what is in the Bill, I do not think that is the Government’s intention. As I understand it, the Bill gives the power to the Treasury to transfer—restate—EU legislation, and we have encouraged the Treasury to think of this as a sequence, because we do not want big regulatory change in one go, as the compliance costs are quite high. We absolutely see that there is an opportunity to tailor EU legislation to our markets, so I do not think it is the case that this legislation would not apply; I think this is going to be done in a phased way.
Peter Grant
Q
Emma Reynolds: That is a matter for the Government. The Bill gives the Government broad legislative powers to amend the legislation that they have transferred, as I understand it.
Peter Grant
Q
David Postings: It is not in the Bill at the moment. We would need to see the wording of what was proposed and the timescale. If you think about your first point, which I did not respond to, the difference is that the regulation will now be through rules rather than in legislation. We have had a fruitful working relationship with the Treasury and the regulators over the past year and a half since Brexit to produce what is in the Bill. Those changes have been well thought through with industry involvement and therefore get the balance right between protection, regulatory stability and the ability to be commercial. I would hope that, as the rules get translated over time, that process would continue.
On the green agenda, it is difficult for me to comment on something that is not in the Bill at the moment. What I would say is that we need to be thoughtful about the transition to net zero, as opposed to just the taxonomy and the drive to get to net zero. There is a danger that, in prescribing that financial institutions have a balance sheet in a particular form by a particular day, you risk not having a transition to net zero, so that whole thing needs to be well thought through. We risk financial exclusion on the back of that for consumers as well. I would urge caution rather than lumping something into the Bill at this late stage.
Peter Grant
Q
David Postings: The banking industry is 100% behind that transition, but the transition is the important point, not just greening the balance sheets of the firms.
Emma Reynolds: May I add to that? There is a huge commitment from financial services, and we also represent related professional services, in playing a part in enabling the transition to net zero. Financial services and financial regulators are an important part of a much broader picture, which is why green finance is actually led by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, not His Majesty’s Treasury. It is about not just the supply of green finance, but the demand for such products. If we have a transition to net zero, it has to be about every sector pursuing a transition. Financial services has a critical role to play, but that has to be done in tandem with the transition in other sectors too.
Sally-Ann Hart
Q
Emma Reynolds: I certainly think there is room for a more commercial mindset in the regulators. This is not just about regulation by the way; it is about operational efficiency. One of the things we have been working on is delays in authorisations for senior managers, which can slow things down. There are other authorisations as well. We are encouraging the regulators to have a more commercial mindset and to be aware of the businesses’ priorities. It is not just about regulation; it is about how efficient they are. If, for example, you want to bring in a senior manager to a bank or other institution in the UK and it takes you 18 months to 2 years, you could be doing that elsewhere, and that puts us at a competitive disadvantage. So, absolutely, we think that there is room for improvement in having a commercial mindset in the regulator.
Sally-Ann Hart
Q
Emma Reynolds: Proportionate regulation and—we have not got into the cost-benefit analysis panels—careful consideration of the benefits of regulation to make sure that the costs and burdens of regulation do not outweigh the benefit.
David Postings: I agree with Emma. To give a couple of examples, the cost-benefit analysis of the consumer duty had costs but no benefits—no financial benefits. The intent in the Bill to ensure that the FCA and FOS are aligned is really important as well, because it is very difficult for a financial services firm to operate in an environment where we are not clear what the rules are when it comes to interpretation down the line. That makes people cautious, which can add to financial exclusion. The point that Emma made about authorisations is also really valid: there are still significant businesses awaiting authorisation post Brexit from large foreign institutions.
Sally-Ann Hart
Q
Emma Reynolds: And our competitiveness. If that can be done more quickly in another jurisdiction, business might well go there to set up or expand.
David Postings: Fundamentally, what we want is a competitive UK. We are only a small island off the mainland of Europe, but we want to generate big tax revenues to support growth in the economy. Anything we can do to help that is vital. Good, strong regulation is a key aspect of that. A nimble, commercially minded set of regulators to set that stronger regulation is vital.
Andrew Griffith
Q
Emma Reynolds: Sure. We represent the financial and related professional services industry, which employs 2.2 million people, and two thirds are outside London, contrary the characterisation that financial services are mainly in the City of London. We are the biggest net exporting industry, and more than 40% of our exports come from outside London.
David Postings: Yes, we produce higher-paid jobs, and there are big concentrations in Glasgow, Belfast, the north-east, the north-west and down on the south coast. It is a thriving industry and one that we need to support and nurture.
Sally-Ann Hart
Q
David Postings: Absolutely it will work. This is something that we have been working on. We kicked this off as an industry 18 months ago. I have worked with the Treasury, the FCA and the consumer groups for the past 18 months on this. The aim is to make sure that cash provision for the most vulnerable—indeed, for all of society—is protected. The Bill will absolutely do that—through cashback without purchase, ATMs that are free for consumers to use, post office counters and shared banking hubs. Twenty-five shared banking hubs have been announced so far, and that number will increase. All that will provide the right level of cash access going forward. The banks will be subject to LINK as a body to decide what goes where, based on detailed local analysis, and then there is an operating company that banks own, which will implement the solution.
Sally-Ann Hart
Q
Emma Reynolds: No. I defer to David. UK Finance provided leadership in this area—that is where the expertise sits.
The Chair
Order. I am afraid that brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions. I thank the witnesses on behalf of the Committee.
Examination of Witness
Chris Hemsley gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Chris Hemsley, managing director of the Payment Systems Regulator. For this panel we have until 10.55. Could the witness please introduce himself for the record?
Chris Hemsley: I am Chris Hemsley, managing director of the Payment Systems Regulator.
Andrew Griffith
Q
Chris Hemsley: First off, I agree with your premise. The payment systems sit behind our day-to-day lives. They underpin what our businesses can do and our daily experiences as individuals paying and receiving. They genuinely underpin our productivity, economy and society. I absolutely agree.
In terms of the opportunity in the Bill, one of the key things that we will no doubt pick up is that it provides an opportunity to correct a specific problem that we have today. Some of the powers in the original financial services banking reform framework that the PSR was created under were turned off by some European legislation, and that prevents us from acting with that full suite of powers. That is really important for competitiveness, because if we can get the rules in the system right, that allows us to build trust in digital payments, which will support the economy and growth.
The other issue that I would pull out is that there are some quite important definitional clarifications in the Bill that ensure that the payment systems regulatory framework works for cryptopayments—stablecoin. We are now a regulator of the sterling finality system, which is a distributed ledger system. That bit of future-proofing, again, allows us to seize that opportunity of new technologies and new ways of payment and to make sure that they are appropriately regulated.
Tulip Siddiq
Q
Chris Hemsley: I think that the short answer to that is yes, but it is a challenge. We are always seeking to recruit and make sure that we have the right balance of skills in the organisation. We have a range of specialists who cover different technologies and payment systems, so it is not something to be complacent about.
The other observation I would make is that some of the risks and issues—and some of the opportunities—presented by things such as cryptopayment and distributed ledger are familiar problems, but with a different technology behind them. We are worried about our consumers’ money. Is it safe? Are arrangements for getting access to these systems fair and open? Are there competition problems? It is really important—the Bill does this—to make sure that that regulatory framework to tackle those familiar problems is also turned on for these new technologies, and that is the balance we need to strike.
Tulip Siddiq
Q
Chris Hemsley: We need to continue working closely with the two other principal regulators that tackle these issues—the FCA and the Bank of England—as we do today. We do that today with other technologies. We want the full framework to be turned on. With the FCA, we for example ensure that individual payment firms protect people’s money. You are absolutely right; in a world where people might not understand what a particular asset is, and its potential to reduce or substantially change in value, there is a really important role for the FCA in ensuring that firms are dealing with their customers properly. There is then a role for us in ensuring that the systems work, and that the rules are open, transparent and protect consumers, system-wide. The Bank of England ensures there is sufficient security and resilience, so that the systems actually work when we need them to, as we increasingly rely on them.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
Q
I am glad to see that there is some regulation in the Bill, but you used terms such as “future-proofing”. With this technology, we bandy around terms such as “innovation” and “future-proofing”. What does that actually mean, in real financial terms? Frankly, it is not the type of language that I, as a legislator, would like to see used in regulation of a market. It is not just that it is unfamiliar; it does not seem like the correct kind of language or descriptives to use when we can have an impact, predominantly on consumers who might use these commodities and assets digitally. What do you mean by “future-proofing”?
Chris Hemsley: That is a very good challenge. I want to ensure that the full regulatory framework that we have in the UK is turned on and applies properly, so that we can manage consumer protection and competition risks. That is what I mean in terms of that definition. That applies particularly to how payment systems regulation works. We have some relatively broad definitions of what can be covered. The Bill helpfully clarifies that those broad definitions of where regulation can apply are sufficiently broad. The way that the regulation works is that it still requires the Treasury to issue a designation—the Minister issuing a designation of a system—and our statutory duties and checks and balances then kick in. It is shorthand. If I try a slightly more precise framework, you need to ensure that the initial definition is sufficiently broad, so that those subsequent decisions on if and how something should be regulated can apply.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
Q
Chris Hemsley: I agree with what you said. There are some familiar risks, and some new ones, that we need to be alive to. The fact that for the first time we could see the use of mass payment systems that are not linked to fiat is a new issue, and one that we need to manage.
I come back to an earlier point, which may help you to take decisions on the elements around definitions of what can be regulated. There is a series of gateways, almost: before something is regulated, it needs to fall within the definition of the Bill, and the Bill helps with that. There is then a test in the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013 that turns on the PSR’s powers: something needs to be designated by the Secretary of State for it to be regulated, and then our powers can apply. I want that to work. I want the definitions, the designation and our powers to work in this new context. I can see these new issues, as well as the familiar competition access issues that we have had to deal with in the past.
Emma Hardy
Q
Chris Hemsley: The short answer is no. There is an additional requirement for us to bring forward proposals on the faster payment system, and we have already set them out in anticipation of that. We fully support that. The Bill does something broader. It removes this unintended consequence of European law for all payment systems. We will have the ability to use our full suite of powers, including in respect of fraud prevention, for all the payment systems.
Our powers vary slightly depending on which system we are talking about. We could apply these issues to, say, the cheque system or the BACS system, not just faster payments. We take a different approach on those systems, but the Bill allows you to turn on our full suite of powers to tackle the issues across the full suite of payment systems.
Emma Hardy
Q
Chris Hemsley: I agree with what was said in the conversation you had earlier: it is really important to share data. I am not aware of particular barriers, but if there are any, I would of course support addressing them. The Bill gives us what we need: we need our FSBRA powers to be turned on. That allows us to move from the current approach, through which we have been indirectly tackling fraud, to being able to tackle it directly through the system rules.
Emma Hardy
Q
Chris Hemsley: Indeed. We have work under way to encourage and support that.
Sally-Ann Hart
Q
Chris Hemsley: This is principally a matter for the FCA, so it might be best for me to follow up on it in writing, and potentially with the FCA.
Sally-Ann Hart
That would be good.
Chris Hemsley: The PSR’s powers allow us to make sure that people have fair access to payment systems. The access to a particular payment firm’s services would be something for the FCA. I am happy to take that away and make sure that the Committee has a reply.
Sally-Ann Hart
Q
Chris Hemsley: Again, that is more for the FCA, but I can offer you a general view. It is in everyone’s interests that the same risks and regulations apply to people carrying out payments business, including payment systems and payment firms. That is my general answer, but perhaps I could pick that up in correspondence, given that it falls principally to the FCA.
Sally-Ann Hart
That would be great; thank you. Maybe we can take that up with the FCA.
The Chair
Order. I am afraid that that brings us to the end of the allotted time for this panel. On behalf of the Committee, I thank our witness.
Examination of Witnesses
Charlotte Clark and Karen Northey gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Charlotte Clark CBE and Karen Northey. We have until 11.25 am for this panel. Would the witnesses please introduce themselves for the record?
Charlotte Clark: I am Charlotte Clark, director of regulation at the Association of British Insurers.
Karen Northey: I am Karen Northey, director of corporate affairs at the Investment Association.
Andrew Griffith
Q
Charlotte Clark: Like all the other witnesses, we welcome the Bill. A lot of work has obviously gone into trying to get the right structure. That is really key in terms of how this works for the next generation. I think it was you who said that it had been 23 years since our last Financial Services and Markets Bill, so the legislation needs to work for a very long time.
On the specifics that you talked about, the competitiveness objective is key. Financial services regulation has been made in Europe for the last however many decades. As we onshore it, getting the structure right and making sure that the regulators balance different objectives is really key. We have argued for a primary, rather than secondary, objective around sustainable economic growth, partly because—as today’s debate has probably shown—competitiveness is quite a difficult thing to articulate, whereas for sustainable economic growth, it feels to me a bit easier to say how you are doing, why you are doing it and whether or not you are successful.
Culture change—I cannot remember who mentioned it—is important as regulators take on greater responsibility, particularly around policymaking. That comes to your point about the call-in power. None of us has seen it—I certainly have not seen it; I do not know whether Karen has—but nobody wants to undermine the independence of the regulators. It is incredibly important that they have their independence, particularly in their roles as supervisors and regulators. Political interference in that is not something that benefits the UK economy.
Policymaking, to me, is about trade-offs. If you are trading off economic growth against stability—we have mentioned financial inclusion and net zero—it is about balance. Sometimes, the regulator is not going to be all-knowing, and sometimes it is the role of Government and Parliament to step in and say, “Actually, we have a slightly different opinion.” I don’t think that is about undermining the independence of the regulators, though.
Karen Northey: I will focus on competitiveness and international competitiveness. The Investment Association represents investment managers in the UK who manage £10 trillion-worth of assets on behalf of clients. Of those assets, £4.6 trillion are from overseas investors. The investment management industry in the UK is truly global, and a global success story.
Our industry has two parts: the fund domicile and the activities that go behind the fund, and then the management of those assets—so the investment management side. We are a world leader in investment management, second only to the US, but the US is a very domestic market, whereas London—London and the UK; I must not forget my colleagues, particularly up in Edinburgh—is international. The international competitiveness is absolutely key to our industry.
We support the Bill. We support the secondary objective of international competitiveness; we think it is really important for our industry. Our position as an international global leader is at risk. We are the second largest and the most international, but we cannot be complacent about it. More can definitely be done to support our industry in continuing to be that world leader. That brings investment decisions closer to home. It enables greater opportunities, in terms of products and services for the wider economy, for investors, and for pension funds and so on in the UK.
Andrew Griffith
Q
Charlotte Clark: It is the United States, Bermuda, and Singapore—Europe as well, but particularly for reinsurance.
Karen Northey: For investment management, I mentioned before that the US is the largest investment management centre. We are seeing growth in other centres, close to home in Europe, but there is also a very significant China and Asia investment management centre. On fund domicile, which is more the back office where the funds are registered, Ireland and Luxembourg are obviously the key places where funds are often established.
Tulip Siddiq
Q
Charlotte Clark: I do not think that there is anything in the Bill specifically around net zero. I understand the debate about whether there should be an additional objective for the regulators around it. Obviously, net zero is incredibly important for the insurance sector. We bear the cost of climate events. The incentive on us to think about and support the transition, particularly financially, is very apparent.
I think our regulators do a pretty good job when it comes to net zero. If you think about the things they are doing, such as the stress test, the establishment of the climate financial risk forum and the work they are doing on disclosure, they are pretty much ahead of most other regulatory organisations on net zero. I guess one of the questions is: what would you want to do differently? This comes back to whether they have an objective. One of the concerns about them having an objective is whether it would be their responsibility to direct investment. Again, that comes back to what the role of the regulators in this is. In some ways, put bluntly, I think it is the Government’s responsibility to deliver net zero. We all have accountability in that, but I would not necessarily say that giving an objective to the regulator should change what they are currently doing, so I would question why you would do it.
Tulip Siddiq
Q
Karen Northey: Again, I would highlight that the UK is a centre for green finance and has done very well in it. It is a big part of what our members do. For risk management, investment managers have to take a long-term view, and that long-term view, by its nature, has to take into account climate change. Additionally, they play a huge role in directing finance towards transition, so there is a dual role for our industry.
In terms of a competitive and growth objective for our regulators, I agree with Charlotte that the regulators are generally doing a very good job. One of the key things in green finance is international standards and compatibility between them. There is a cross-border element to all forms of capital movement and investment, and alignment with international standards, so taking into account what is happening elsewhere is a key part of a regulator’s activity, particularly in green finance.
Craig Tracey
Q
Karen Northey: On your question of whether the secondary objective is enough to change culture, I think an objective is necessary but I do not think it is sufficient—so it is necessary but insufficient. Culture absolutely has to follow. What we do not want is for it to be a check in the box when you are making a new rule for the handbook—“Yes, it will contribute to this.”
There does have to be an overall culture change, but to do that you do need the objective. I think that a lot of the ideas put forward this morning by TheCityUK around, for example, disclosure and transparency reporting on exactly how the objective is being met in each decision, will be key to that. I think we will continue to work with our regulators on that, as we currently do, but we would definitely encourage more transparency and disclosure around how individual measures are meeting that secondary objective.
Craig Tracey
Q
Karen Northey: Parliament plays an important role. If I think of the various roles that, for example, the FCA plays as a rule-maker or a law-maker, as well as in supervision and enforcement, we are specifically talking about the rule-making function of regulators, which will be significantly increased. European directives are created through a process of Parliament, as well as through the Commission and Council, so if the regulators are taking on those responsibilities, it is important that Parliament then also plays a significant role in holding them to account. These are quite significant powers coming back from Europe and Parliament has a legitimate and important role that to play.
One important thing, from our perspective, is that that review and that holding to account of the regulators when they are being reviewed must be sufficiently well resourced and have access to sufficient expertise. Certainly our industry—I know this is true across financial services more generally—is willing and available to provide and help with that expertise, as appropriate. I understand that there are balances that need to be made, but ensuring that level of expertise is important, because there is a lot of this regulation and it is also very technical and across lots of different areas. Parliament absolutely has an important role to play and will need the resources and expertise to do that.
Charlotte Clark: My response is pretty similar. Part of the reason for arguing for the primary objective is that a lot of our experience is coloured or shaped by the debate around Solvency II. The Government proposed three objectives for the review of Solvency II. One was around a vibrant industry, the second was around policyholder protections and the third was around investment—getting investment in infrastructure, net zero and those sorts of things.
I would say that the regulator is still very focused on policy holder protection. While no one would want to undermine that—financial stability is the absolute bedrock of everything—it is a necessary but insufficient condition for everything else that needs to happen with regard to investment and growth. That is part of the reason why we have argued for the importance of a primary objective: that culture shift is needed. Could it be done through a secondary objective? I hope so. It is about whether there is the right reporting and the right accountability and whether the challenge is there.
These are very complicated issues. This is the joy of discussing Solvency II—I apologise if I have inflicted that on any of you. These are very complicated issues and it is very difficult to get that wider challenge. Those people who embed themselves in this day to day can slightly overrule things, rather than find a balance for the way these things are implemented.
Craig Tracey
Q
Karen Northey: I think that is a barrier. Previous conversations have covered authorisations of individuals and firms. If there is something unique in our sector, it is that our products also need to be authorised—the funds themselves need to be authorised. I mentioned the examples of Ireland and Luxemburg as key competitors in fund domicile: in Ireland it is possible to have approval for a fund within 24 hours. The FCA target is a month, but that does not always happen. There are definitely instances where in-depth review is important—we want to make sure that funds are meeting obligations—but sometimes they are very similar to previously authorised funds, run by managers who have a long history and so on. Definitely when it comes to fund domiciles it is something that is considered as important.
I know that the Bill focuses a lot on bringing EU legislation back, which is absolutely essential in terms of targeting certain areas so they are more fit for purpose for the UK market, but there are other areas of reform that are more homegrown that have led to challenges for our members in terms of our international competitiveness—the consumer duty was mentioned, for example, and there is the financial services compensation scheme and a number of others. It is not the only factor in making a decision, but it is definitely a factor.
Charlotte Clark: Similarly, I cannot recall a new insurance company being set up in this country—certainly not in the last 10 or 15 years. They are being set up in Gibraltar, Bermuda and other places where there is equivalent regulation. There is something about how we attract it, do it quicker and ensure that people feel that this is a good place to do business.
I will make a broader point with regard to investment and slightly contradict something I said previously about net zero. One of the things we talk about is that it is harder to invest in a wind farm than it is in coalmines. Those sorts of regulatory barriers need to be changed so that we are investing in the right things for the UK economy, particularly when it comes to net zero.
Emma Hardy
Q
Karen Northey: Financial inclusion is probably not relevant to our industry, in terms of access to bank accounts, but financial wellbeing is critical to our industry, in terms of how money is invested for the long term—particularly later in life—for individual investors. Three quarters of households use an investment manager through their pensions, for example, so it is about making sure they get the most out of their investments.
We have suggested that you address as quickly as possible the advice-guidance boundary. That might sound quite technical, but there are a large number of individuals who simply do not get financial advice because of the way the regulations work at the moment. We are encouraged to hear that the FCA fairly recently announced a comprehensive review of the advice-guidance boundary, but there are definitely things that can and should be done around enabling more people to get help, whether that be more bespoke guidance—there is lots of technology and innovation that will help without giving regulated advice, which absolutely should be the bedrock of complicated financial planning—or simplified advice. In terms of financial wellbeing, that is something we would like to see.
Emma Hardy
Q
Karen Northey: On financial inclusion, it is not something that we thought was necessary, in terms of the powers that the regulators have and the role that regulators have versus the wider Government on financial inclusion.
Charlotte Clark: Our position is similar. Nobody doubts the importance of financial inclusion. Particularly at the moment when people are making very challenging decisions, things like savings and insurance can feel like a luxury. The regulator and the FCA in particular have given great importance to things like consumer duty, vulnerable customers—not a title that I particularly like because it is basically almost all of us at some point in our lives—and ensuring services are available to people in difficult and challenging circumstances. The review of advice and guidance is really important. For us, the point of retirement is key. At the moment, less than 10% of people are getting advice at that point.
Emma Hardy
Q
Charlotte Clark: I think the Bill allows for a review of MiFID—this is horribly technical, isn’t it? There is a lot of regulatory change going on at the moment and we need to get the definitions right. Whether it is simplified advice, broader guidance or just more help for people, all those things need to be thought through. I am not sure that will be done in the time and space in which this Bill will be taken forward, but it certainly gives the FCA and the Treasury the powers to make the changes that could be helpful for people.
Emma Hardy
Is there anything you want to add, Karen?
Karen Northey: No, I think I covered it earlier.
Stephen Hammond
Q
Charlotte Clark: That language is really important. How do we get things like transparency and challenge into the system? I am not sure that writing it into legislation necessarily leads directly to it, but there is something about getting the right mechanisms, the right debate and the right challenge between Parliament and the regulators, without undermining their independence. This is such a big change. I do not think any of us could be completely certain that we have got it right, but it is about making sure that we have got the right balance and the right mechanisms to hold people to account.
Stephen Hammond
Q
Charlotte Clark: A good example is the cost-benefit analysis panel. At the moment, the regulators appoint people to that panel. That could be fine; it might not be. You might want a bit more independence in there and a bit more scrutiny. You might want to think about what those processes are. It is those sorts of areas where they could imbue cultural change. Dave Postings had the example of the consumer duty, whereby they told us what the cost was but not the benefits. We all have our favourite examples of regulatory change where we think, “You haven’t quite made the argument for this; you haven’t quite shown that this is going to be beneficial.” Making sure that changes is one of the things we would want to see.
Karen Northey: I will pick up on the second part of your question, on evolution versus revolution. It comes back to the fact that there is a significant amount of legislation to be reviewed. This is kicking off and enabling a significant review. Our members believe there are a lot of things in European legislation that work, and we do not want everything to go.
I harp back to the figures I mentioned before: £4.6 trillion out of £10 trillion is overseas assets. That relies very heavily on a concept called delegation, which allows UK asset managers to manage European funds. From our point of view, it is fundamental that we operate in a global regulatory framework in a way that does not put at risk what is a significant success story and a significant source of revenue and growth for our country.
The reviews that the Bill enables should be done in a targeted way, focused on those measures that will make the most amount of difference in terms of allowing the UK industry to work better. But we have always said that we are not looking for regulation to be torn up and suddenly having no regulation. This is about making modifications that will make a significant difference to our industry here in the UK.
Stephen Hammond
Q
Karen Northey: Absolutely, and I think the process that comes has to be done in a way that is sequenced in the right way to allow proper consultation and proper input.
Peter Grant
Q
Charlotte Clark: Why would you set up in Gibraltar and sell into the UK market? There is not a big market in Gibraltar.
Peter Grant
There could be a number of reasons why UK business owners choose to set up companies offshore, including in Gibraltar, and they are not always reasons that have the best interests of consumers at heart.
Charlotte Clark: I think that is fair. I am certainly not casting aspersions on the Gibraltar regime, because they should have the same regime as the UK—equivalence with Gibraltar was in the last financial services Bill. The question would be: why would they do that if we haven’t got the right regulatory environment for companies to set up here and to have the oversight of our regulators?
Bermuda is probably a good example. If you speak to the regulators there about how they think about it, how they work with businesses and what they need to do, they have a slightly different culture. I do not think that is to the disadvantage of consumers. The Bermuda market is very similar to the London market in insurance. I do not think it is to the detriment of consumers; it is to the advantage of business, and I do not think that those two things are necessarily against one another.
The Chair
Order. I am afraid that brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions and the end of this morning’s sitting. I thank our witnesses on behalf of the Committee. The Committee will meet again at 2 pm this afternoon here in the Boothroyd Room to continue to take oral evidence.
Financial Services and Markets Bill (Second sitting)
Wednesday 19th October 2022
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesFinancial Services and Markets Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 19 October 2022 - (19 Oct 2022)
The Chair
We are now sitting in public and the proceedings are being broadcast. We will now hear oral evidence from Sir Jon Cunliffe, deputy governor of the Bank of England. For this panel, we have until 2.25 pm. Could the witness please introduce themselves for the record?
Sir Jon Cunliffe: I am Jon Cunliffe. I am the deputy governor for financial stability at the Bank of England.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Andrew Griffith)
Q
I do not reach a conclusion on those matters myself, but I thought it would be helpful if we could start with your evaluation of the United Kingdom’s competitiveness in financial regulation, which is one of the core purposes of the Bill, and how well you think the Bill achieves that objective of improving our competitiveness. The other thing a number of our previous witnesses talked about was which markets in the world they consider to be our competitor set.
Sir Jon Cunliffe: I thank the Committee for allowing us to give some evidence on the Bill. This matters hugely to us. I will say at the outset—this goes to your questions, Financial Secretary—that the Bill is hugely important and it is hugely important for a number of reasons. This is relevant to the competitiveness question. The system we have at the moment is basically that we have onshored the European Union system. That system—I worked in it for many years in different jobs and have been involved in much of the legislation—is designed for, now, 27 member states. It needs to ensure the single market and, although the national competent authorities do the supervision, there is always concern in the single market that you will get differences among them. A huge amount of what in other jurisdictions’ best practice is done in regulators’ rules is hardwired in primary law, and you can see that if you look at the onshored law. That system is justified by the needs of the single market and the need to bring all these jurisdictions together. As a single jurisdiction, as the UK is now, we will have much more flexibility, and the ability to act nimbly and design regulation for our particular needs, than we had in the European Union.
I can give you some examples of that. For example, my colleague Sam Woods at the PRA has put forward ideas for a strong and simple prudential regulation framework for banking. We could not do that under the European Union because we were all locked in a maximum harmonisation phase. In the parts of the Bill that are more relevant to me, around payment systems, there is a schedule that deals with digital settlement assets, more generally known as stablecoins, where we can now develop a regulatory framework that is nimble and flexible on the financial market infrastructure side, where we will see huge technological changes brought about by some of the technology we now see around encryption and tokenisation. Again, we are developing a sandbox with the FCA and the Treasury, but we can bring those much more nimbly into rule. This is a much more flexible and adaptable system, which will help in competitiveness.
It will also help because many of the requirements and the processes in the legislation we have were designed for 27 or 28 countries, and not for one. We report on things—I was there when they were put into the legislation—that were important to other countries but not to us, so there is an on-cost in process. Things that are important to us are not always fully reflected, because all European legislation is a compromise. That flexibility and nimbleness will take time, because the European acquis is very large, but it is a huge advantage for us in designing the regulatory framework that we need.
But—and that is a very important “but”. I might not agree with all the people that have given evidence, and I know the Financial Secretary would probably not expect me to either, but this needs to be underpinned by a strong, credible, regulatory system, and the independence of regulators is a key part of that. It is best international practice, but I think it is particularly important for the UK in two respects.
You can measure our financial system in different ways. The last IMF measure was £23 trillion—that is about 10 times GDP. When that system goes wrong, the cost to the nation is huge. That is not theoretical; we saw that in the financial crisis over 10 years ago. The recovery from the financial crisis, in terms of growth, was slower than our recovery from the great depression in the 1920s. The objective of sustainable growth in the medium and long term is entirely right, but strong, credible regulation is a necessity for sustainable medium and long-term growth. In the short term, there might be trade-offs, but in the long term, we can see what happens to growth if you get a financial sector of the size of ours wrong.
I might touch on the question of a call-in power, because I know you asked my colleague, Vicky Saporta, about that this morning. We have seen the power or the proposed amendment the Government intend to bring forward. Of course, we are subject to Parliament and the framework that Parliament sets for us, and we will work within that framework. However, for the two reasons I gave, I think a power to call in and rewrite veto rules that the regulator had made would, frankly, give us—me, anyway—serious concern given the history I have seen over 30 years in the UK financial sector.
Actually, it goes to competitiveness. We are—I gave you my £23 trillion number—probably the largest international financial centre in the world and we are one of the largest exporters of financial services. Regulators and regulatory authorities of other jurisdictions need assurance and need to be comfortable; they need assurance that they will not import risk from the UK or by their firms using UK financial services. That credibility of the institutional framework is very important to the competitiveness of London as a financial centre.
Of course, it is also important to the firms that locate here. They want to ensure that if they use our infrastructure—I am responsible for clearing houses and settlement systems—and if their banks locate here or trade with our banks cross-border on financial services, then they can be assured of the robustness of the underlying system.
I beg your indulgence, Mr Sharma, as I have one last point. All of that—the nimbleness, flexibility and, on the other side, robustness of the framework—needs to be fully, publicly accountable and accountable to Parliament. We welcome what is in the Bill in this area.
To the question of where our competitors are, I think the US is a large competitor in wholesale financial services. We have competitors in Asia as well, but that is more niche. A lot of particular products, asset management and the like, are located in Ireland and Luxembourg and are used by the UK.
Financial services are not linear. A service will very often be a bundling of products that come from different jurisdictions. That is very important for competition. People need to be assured that they will not import risks by dealing with the UK, and that when financial services are put together with elements from different jurisdictions or when we are competing, we actually are in line with international standards.
Andrew Griffith
I thank the deputy governor for his comprehensive comments.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
Q
Sir Jon Cunliffe: I have not seen the proposed amendment. I have only seen the Financial Secretary’s comments to the Treasury Committee and comments from the previous Economic Secretary at the Treasury, so I would need to look to see. I would say that the Bill as drafted gives the regulator primary and secondary objectives to make the difficult decisions that some of the witnesses this morning were complaining about. It requires us to balance different things before we come to a decision, but underlying that is the primary objective of financial stability and the safety of the system.
I do not know how often a call-in power or an intervention power would be used, and I do not know what frameworks would be around it. Of course, one cannot always assume that the intention when introduced is actually what happens five or 10 years down the line with different Governments. It is something that gives Ministers the ability to take a second judgment on the judgment the regulator has made in line with everything in the “have regards”—the secondary objective—so it would, yes, affect the perception of the independence of the regulatory part of the Bank of England.
Tulip Siddiq
Q
“Anything that would weaken the independence of regulators would undermine the aims of the reforms”
implemented by the Bill. Do you think he was referring to the proposed intervention powers?
Sir Jon Cunliffe: There has been a lot of discussion. There was discussion in the consultation about a number of aspects that might affect either the independence or balance of the regulators. I know there was a discussion on the competitiveness objective, and we think it has been drafted in a very sensible way. That came up in the consultation. At that point there was also talk of an intervention power, so it would apply to that as well, I guess.
Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)
Q
Sir Jon Cunliffe: I should say at the outset that our responsibility is the prudential regulation. The FCA deals with a different market. On the prudential and infrastructure side that I deal with, there is not a huge amount of commerce with Singapore. Would I accept that the competitiveness of our financial sector relative to Singapore’s in the areas that I deal with has been damaged? No, I do not think I would. I do not know of any examples. I think the firms that you quoted were in the FCA area. The competitiveness of the financial system depends on many things. It depends on our openness to migration. One thing you hear most from international banks and the like is the overriding importance of getting the best talent. That is a huge advantage for the UK, which has been called into a little doubt recently, but I think is now being re-established.
The taxation regime plays a role, and then there are lots of things about the attractiveness of the location for people to live in. On making a comparison between two financial centres on how many firms have started one and how many firms have started another, and assuming that all of that is to do with the way regulation is designed, I would be careful about making comparisons on that basis. There is a lot more in it.
I will bring it back to my area if it helps. When I look at the technological changes that are coming, and when I look at the European Union, which is where we were, and look at areas where I know we have not had the flexibility to design the regulation that we would have wanted to design—there are pros and cons to being in the European Union, and we can argue about those—you have to be within a single market where the rules are pretty much set for everybody. On the rulebook as we have it now and instances where people have said, “We don’t like that part of the rulebook. We will set up somewhere else”, I do not have any instances where that has happened, but it probably has.
As these powers, which are now coming back to the UK and I think rightly coming into the regulator’s rules, are exercised, where does the regulator put the balance? What is the scrutiny of the regulator? Is there accountability? In the end, those decisions, if I can encapsulate it, lie in the way the Bill has been set up with the primary and secondary “have regards”, and those arrangements should ensure that we are competitive in future.
Craig Tracey
Q
Sir Jon Cunliffe: With the greatest of respect, I do not think I need my culture shifting, within the regulatory framework that we have at the moment. I have made a series of speeches on new technology and the benefits that new technology can bring and the importance of that, so I would not regard myself as in that position. Others might have a different view and are obviously entitled to it, but I certainly would not accept that, if I can make that point clear. You can look at the published statements of the Bank of England and the speeches we have made.
We welcome schedule 6 of the Bill because it will give us the powers to put in place a regulatory framework for stablecoin and digital assets used as payments. I would argue, because I hear this from lots of the fintech community in London, that they want a regulatory framework. They do not want a system where the public think, “This is unsafe. What happened to Terra and LUNA could happen to me. I could be scammed. I am betting in an unfair casino.” They actually want a regulatory system. They want it to be designed to recognise their technology.
There will always be tension between where we put the risk cursor and where the private sector would like it to be put. That is a discussion we have to have. The importance of this Bill is that it will give us the powers to get on and do it. I do not think I would accept the criticism that our culture is anti-innovation and inflexible. We need the powers and the tools to do that job and that this Bill will give us them.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
Q
“In baseball, it’s three strikes and you’re out. In cricket, it’s only the equivalent of one. For systemic payment systems, one is too many. If that means, as it must, very rigorous oversight and rules for private stablecoins, what would then differentiate them from CBDCs?”
First, could you answer the former Governor’s question—what then does differentiate them from a central bank’s digital currency? Secondly, I am glad to hear you rightly say that the industry wants good regulation; is this regulation rigorous enough to enable that to happen?
Sir Jon Cunliffe: I do not normally contradict my ex-colleague and boss, Mark Carney, but I would say a number of things. On the landscape, let us be clear about what we are talking about: we are not just talking about new forms of payment systems; we are talking about new forms of money. Most of us do not realise it, but when we use our credit card, phone or cheques—if we use cheques—we are exchanging private money, which is our deposits at commercial banks. What these stablecoin proponents propose to do is create a new settlement asset—that is, a new form of money—to be used in transactions. I think that is why Mark said that when a payment system—the money going through it and the mechanism for transferring it—breaks down, then one of the basically essential services in the economy, like water or electricity, breaks down and transactions cannot happen. So you do not get one strike: if the payment system goes down, people cannot transact at scale. This is fundamental infrastructure, if I can put it that way.
The money that travels through these payment systems is also fundamental to society. It needs to be robust and safe, and history has lots of examples of what happens when people lose confidence in the safety of the money they are holding and transacting. That is why these things are crucially important. However, 95% of the money that we use in our economy is not public money from the Bank of England but private money from commercial banks, and I do not see, a priori, a reason why a new form of private money could not emerge using different technology in the way that stablecoins have proposed. What I will say, and the financial policy committee at the Bank has said this very clearly, is that the money that they use and the transaction machinery that they use must be as robust as the money we are using from commercial banks or the Bank of England. The public should not need to think, “Which money am I using?” It should all be one money of equivalent value.
I think there is a world in which you have a CBDC, stablecoins, commercial bank money and Bank of England cash, which we will produce as long as anybody wants it, and those things are interchangeable and people use them interchangeably—we use the moneys of different banks interchangeably now—but the regulatory system has to be strong and make it very clear that if what you are offering is a better service, an innovation, that is fine, but if it works because it operates to a lower standard, that is not fine.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
Q
Sir Jon Cunliffe: No, no, it is fine. We are friends.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
He did say this, which I take in terms of stablecoin as well:
“Ultimately, crypto either has such extrinsic value without a use case, or has a use case as an NFT that perfects ownership (which is niche by definition in that it is non-fungible).”
His critique is that it becomes niche.
The Chair
Order. I am afraid that brings us to the end of the time allocated for the Committee to ask questions of this witness. On behalf of the Committee, I thank our witness.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
Q
Sir Jon Cunliffe: I would be very happy to write something on—
Emma Hardy
Crypto.
Sir Jon Cunliffe: We will bring out a regulatory framework for stablecoin, but I am very happy to write on how we see it, if that helps.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Paddy Greene, head of money policy at Which?. For this panel, we have until 2.45 pm. Will the witness please introduce himself for the record?
Paddy Greene: Good afternoon. I am Paddy Greene, the head of money policy at Which?. I welcome the opportunity to speak today. What is probably pertinent is that we have had some long-standing campaigns on access to cash and authorised push payment fraud.
Andrew Griffith
Q
Paddy Greene: I do accept there is a balance to be struck, so thank you very much. The simple thing is that we need to make sure, when we are talking about the financial services sector and consumer protection, that we have the appropriate consumer protection baked in, so that we have a basic level that means all consumers can participate with confidence and they know that whatever they are transacting in they are looked after and they have a form of redress. Then, once we acknowledge that we have that basic consumer protection, we obviously have some judgment to make on how far the other regulations go. I must add that when we are talking about consumer protections we mean that a protected consumer is confident, has trust in markets and will participate well, and that can lead to a competitive market, an innovative market and a market that can help with growth.
Andrew Griffith
Q
Paddy Greene: The trade-off between protections and consumer credit?
Andrew Griffith
Between putting in place—I am not making a point; I am just trying to open this up for the Committee—good, valuable seatbelts and protections versus over-protecting consumers to the degree that large numbers of participants exit the market and then consumers are left with door-to-door, unregulated providers of credit.
Paddy Greene: Affordable credit is absolutely essential for consumers, but we need to make sure that, first of all, access to credit is regulated. We do have a particular form of credit that people are accessing now with buy now, pay later, which is not regulated at all, but consumers presume that it is. There are some basic protections we need to build in. One is to ensure that the parts of credit that people access are regulated themselves and that it is clear that consumers understand what is regulated and what is not. Then there is some basic information, such as key terms and conditions.
I am aware that some of the details in the Consumer Credit Act 1974, which is exceptionally old, are onerous, and there will be a chance to review that—I think later this year. It is about making sure we have efficient information presented to consumers. There is a balance there, but there is key information that we must provide them and there are key protections that must be baked in.
Tulip Siddiq
Q
Paddy Greene: Yes, it is a cause for concern. When we are talking about consumers, for the objective in the Bill on access to cash to be met, consumers must have free access to cash. Without that, I think the objective may be undermined. It is the case that we have paid-for provision—it is in theory available now—but it does not serve the market. We must ensure there is free access to cash. A huge raft of people rely on cash. It is massive numbers, but it is also the case that they tend to be vulnerable and on lower incomes. If it is the case that it is not free, when somebody goes to take out £10, they are paying £2 to get it. That is just an example, but that doesn’t seem right. The fact is, we need to have a minimum, base level of free access to cash. We are delighted that the provisions have been brought forward and that we will have this in legislation, but for it to work effectively, it has to be free access.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
Q
Paddy Greene: I cannot speak for small and medium-sized enterprises—I am here to represent consumers—but fundamentally I do think that the regulatory framework in this country provides confidence. I think it has been robust, relatively speaking, over the years. If we compare it to some other international sectors, I think it is a framework that can provide people with confidence. We would be remiss to weaken that in any way.
Peter Grant
Q
Paddy Greene: We have some concerns about the current wording around competitiveness. I think we need to be mindful of that. I want to get across that whatever changes are brought in, the primary objectives of the FCA must not be inadvertently undermined. The FCA has a challenging time to balance those objectives at the moment. We would seek amendments that ensure that, from the consumer perspective, if we are going to see changes brought in, in no way shape or form do they undermine the consumer protections that are in place.
On the argument for competitiveness for consumer protection, I would add, similar to my earlier remarks, that a confident, well-protected consumer will lead to a competitive environment. It will lead to innovation and confident consumers interacting in that market.
Peter Grant
Q
I have had a number of representations, as I think other members of the Committee have, from individuals or groups of people who have been victims of financial services scams on a colossal scale. One of their common comments is that they do not think it is justifiable for the regulators to have such a strong degree of immunity from civil liability, even in cases where it is clear that the regulator has failed and that that failure has contributed to members of the public losing what for them are significant amounts of money. Do you have a view as to whether it is time to revisit that very broad immunity that so many of the regulators have?
Paddy Greene: I am struggling to hear your questions.
Peter Grant
I am sorry. I will try to speak into the microphone, so forgive me for not looking at you. Do you have a view on the numerous representations we have had from victims of financial scams who think it is time to revisit the very broad immunity from civil liability that the regulators have?
Paddy Greene: I will talk specifically to parts of the Bill. This is essential, but I am thankful for the provisions that have been brought forward to introduce a mandatory requirement for people who have been the victims of push payment scams to get their money back. In terms of a first step, that is crucial. On changing the regulatory framework, that is a first step and we welcome it.
Peter Grant
Q
Paddy Greene: Yes, I believe there is. It is right that the Bill starts with faster payments—I think 87% of APP scams are run through faster payments. We do not want to delay action. It has taken too long: it has been six years since our super complaint to get to this point, so we must not slow that down. The revisions—the two-month and the six-month provision in the Bill—are ones that we absolutely endorse. As I said, we do not want to slow that down.
We need to make sure, though, that there is an obligation for further action—for example, to look at CHAPS payments. UK Finance figures show that 79 million on CHAPS and on-us payments are already there. We know that scammers and fraudsters are very good at adapting to change, so they will move. I know there have been some debates about what the Bill does or could allow, but we need to make sure there is an obligation so that we know what will happen next. Just because there is provision for the regulator possibly to act in the future, that does not mean the regulator will—there is a lot of pressure on regulatory time and resources—so we would really like to see some clarity on what happens after the changes to faster payments are made. As I said, this is the opportunity to look at the future. We know that change is happening, so we should set out a timeframe for what happens next.
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
Q
Paddy Greene: I think we need community-based solutions. The fact is that it will not be one-size-fits-all. We need to recognise that communities have different challenges. When we look at the voluntary solution that the industry has put in place, it accepts that, first, we need not only a geographical spread but a community access point. We need the ability for communities to request a review of access in their areas.
Secondly, we need a raft of delivery channels. That again gets to the point of what is fit for purpose. An ATM might well be suitable in one town, but it might not be suitable for another town for a variety of reasons, be that geographical or the demographics of that part of that society. I do not think it is one-size-fits-all. It is very important that we get the policy statement from the Treasury soon, so that we and you can scrutinise properly what the close details will be, but it should be a basic geographical spread, with the option to interrogate further those who are not captured by the geographical spread and to ensure that we do not inadvertently leave people behind.
Sally-Ann Hart
Q
Paddy Greene: We need to acknowledge that if, let’s say, you came down to a certain kilometre base that might sound reasonable in broad terms, it would under-serve some communities, so we need to be alive to that.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
Q
Paddy Greene: I think we need to be specific about the need for consumers to have free access to cash. I have concerns that the Bill could be interpreted in a way that undermines those objectives. We absolutely welcome the provision of cash legislation and I am very happy to see it here, but this is our opportunity to get it right. Consumers need confidence that they will have free access.
Emma Hardy
Q
Paddy Greene: Absolutely. We need to see it and we need to see it very quickly. We are in the situation where a lot of people use such buy now, pay later. I acknowledge that a lot of people use it safely, but a growing number of people are struggling with repayments. It gets to the point where people presume that it is regulated. It is an unfortunate reality that lots of consumers do not really differentiate between types of financial products when it comes to the payments and credits that they use, but we need to have buy now, pay later regulated and we need to have it regulated very quickly.
Tulip Siddiq
Q
Paddy Greene: Yes. Similar to the comments that were made before, it is right to start with faster payments. We need to move to a model where we are absolutely confident—I heard the tail end of the previous evidence about different payment mechanisms and those that are emerging. We must have consumer protection baked in. We want consumers to have confidence and we know people are going to use such systems but, as we have said previously, they do not necessarily understand what is backed and the type of payment mechanism that is used.
In terms of what we want to see next, we are delighted with faster payments, but £79 million is already lost on CHAPS, on-us items and international payments. First, we need to make sure that the PSR and the Bank are talking properly about CHAPS, because when we are talking about CHAPS, we are talking about house purchases. For the people who are scammed during such a payment, there is a huge detriment, not financially but emotionally, and we know that fraudsters will adapt.
Our next steps, after we have got faster payments, are CHAPS and on-us, and we need to look at international payments. We need to make sure the regulator is looking at all the other designated payments and those that will come down the line, because we are seeing innovation, in order to make sure that the appropriate consumer protections are built in from the very start.
The Chair
If there are no further questions from Members, I thank the witness for his evidence and we will move on to the next panel.
Paddy Greene: Thank you very much.
Examination of Witnesses
Natalie Ceeney and Martin Coppack gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Natalie Ceeney, chair of the Cash Action Group, and Martin Coppack, director of Fair by Design. We have until 3.10 pm for this panel. Could the witnesses please introduce themselves for the record?
Natalie Ceeney: I am Natalie Ceeney. I authored the independent access to cash review four years ago. I now chair the Cash Action Group, which is leading the industry’s work to provide a voluntary solution, prior to legislation, for providing access to cash.
Martin Coppack: I am Martin Coppack. I am the director of Fair by Design at the Barrow Cadbury Trust. We exist to eliminate the poverty premium—that is, the extra costs that poorer people pay for essential services. I am also a commissioner on the Financial Inclusion Commission. Previously, I was a regulator, responsible for setting up the FCA’s approach to consumer vulnerability and its engagement with third sector organisations.
Andrew Griffith
Q
Natalie Ceeney: We very much modelled the voluntary scheme that we set up as if the Bill, as currently drafted, were implemented. The model starts with a community need base. The premise is that all banks will have a responsibility to serve their business and retail customers, and if they are not doing it through their own branches, they have to do it through another means.
The mechanism we set up is that anyone—any MP, any member of the public—can request that their community’s needs are reviewed. That is done independently by LINK. The form is very simple, free to fill out and on LINK’s website. LINK is already getting applications. Equally, every time a branch or an ATM is closed, LINK will review the needs of that community. If those needs are not being met, it will consider a new solution. Since 1 January, that has already led to 25 new hubs being announced and 13 communities where we are going to explore pilot services, including deposit services. LINK has also set up a significant number of ATMs; I do not have that number at my fingertips.
Andrew Griffith
Q
Natalie Ceeney: To be honest, we need both. There is a real competitive challenge for any bank that wants to go beyond what is necessary, because if it does that, it could be accused by its shareholders of wasting their money, unless all its competitors do the same. To be fair, it is the threat of legislation that has made everyone say, “Why don’t we work together?”. We do need this legislation for the industry scheme to continue in a viable way, but I am pleased that the industry has stepped up in advance of legislation.
We have worked hard not just with banks, but with consumer and small business groups, so the scheme we have designed truly has the input of everybody. We have run pilots for the last two years in communities to test that our models work, with really high satisfaction rates. We need both, but I think the scheme we have designed means that when the legislation is passed, we are ready to go; there will not be a gap.
Andrew Griffith
Thank you. I think you may get an invitation to some parts of the country.
Tulip Siddiq
Q
Natalie Ceeney: That is a very good question, and I am conscious that every time this issue is debated in Parliament or, frankly, every time I meet a community, the debate goes very quickly from cash to banking. It all merges. The reason is we are talking about the same population. If somebody needs face-to-face support with their money, which might be about getting money out, paying money in, a standing order or the fact that a payment they expected has not arrived, it is the same demographic group. We have recognised that in the voluntary scheme. When we set up a banking hub, it does not just have a counter where you deposit cash and get cash. There is also a private space where the banks provide a community banker to do basic banking services. As far as the legislation is concerned, the voluntary scheme we set up will cover that need on a voluntary basis.
There is one challenge that you might want to include in the legislation. I am going to stay neutral because of my members. The consumer groups and small business associations would say it should be included and the banks would say it should not, but if you do want to go there, defining what you mean by face-to-face banking services and particularly essential services is really important. I do not think anyone would expect you to offer wealth management or buy-to-let mortgage advice on every high street, but helping someone when they are stuck because a payment has not arrived or they have got locked out of their account feels different. Keeping that definition tight is important.
There is also a question about whether the FCA has the powers that it needs already. Those are the factors I would consider.
Tulip Siddiq
Q
Martin Coppack: Absolutely not. I have worked in this sector for 20 years and we have the biggest opportunity right now to make a systemic change to how people who are excluded are addressed by both the regulator and the Government, and we need to take it. Recently I provided evidence to the Treasury Committee, which supported our call for a “must have regard to financial inclusion” for the FCA—importantly, alongside a requirement to publish once a year the state of financial inclusion, what it can do, what it cannot do, and who else can act. That is so important. If I could just give a little more context about why that is so important, I would appreciate it.
Thinking about where we are now, Governments of all different colours over the years have asked people to take responsibility for their own financial affairs—be a good citizen and look to the market, whether that is saving for a rainy day, saving for retirement, or protection products for insurance—but what happens if the market does not want you? What if the market says, “You are a higher risk and more costly to serve, so we are either going to make our products more expensive for you or we will just exclude you.”? I think everybody can recognise that situation.
With competition-driven markets, we can all agree that firms will naturally design products that are profitable. That is okay if it is not an essential service, but if it involves basic financial products and services that everybody needs, some intervention needs to happen. Over the last 20 years or so, we have been asking amoral markets to make moral decisions about who gets what product at what price and who gets excluded. The biggest issues in the financial exclusion area that are not touched by the FCA’s consumer duty coming out or by its consumer vulnerability guidance are those that lurk around income when people cannot afford a product.
I will give one example to bring this to life. It is on insurance—we have talked about this before, Craig. Increasingly, insurers are becoming ever so good at finding individualised risk per person. Technology is great for that. As a rule of thumb, the mark-up works really well if you are healthy and wealthy. If you are not wealthy and healthy, you are a higher risk, and increasingly you are asked to pay more for your insurance product. We know, for example, that people in poverty pay about £300 more a year for their insurance because of their postcode, and they pay another £150 a year on top if they cannot pay up front and have to pay monthly. Those issues go across insurance. I and many of my colleagues in different organisations spend all our time going to the Treasury and saying, “This is an issue.” The Treasury says, “We have not got the data. Go to the FCA.” We go to the FCA and it says, “The pricing of risk is social policy. It is not for us. Go back to the Treasury.”
Then you go to the Competition and Markets Authority, then the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Everybody points back to the FCA as the only body, often by law, that can get access to this information, but it refuses to because it is not a priority and not within its scope. So we are simply saying there should be a “must have regard to financial inclusion” with a requirement to publish—not to do social policy, but to allow the consumer market organisations to have a conversation about these issues that have been going on for decades. As an ex-teacher, I have a handout, which explains it in one slide.
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)
Q
Natalie Ceeney: That is a really important question. When we look at some other countries, that has been the real crisis point. In Sweden, for example, the crisis point hit when shops stopped taking cash. If you are dependent on cash, there is no point having it if you cannot spend it.
I have spoken to literally hundreds of small businesses. The main reason that they do not take cash is not hygiene or anything like it; it is the ability to bank cash. If you go back three or four years, a small retailer used to shut up for 10 minutes at lunch time, pop over the road, deposit their cash in the bank and pop back. What they might now have to do, with the local bank 20 miles away and open between 10 and 3, is to shut up for an hour in the peak of the day, drive, park, queue and drive back. No wonder many shops say, “You know what? It is only 20% of my customers. I will go cashless.”
That is why in this legislation, deposit facilities are just as important as cash access. It is an area where the industry is behind. You can have deposit-taking ATMs—they are just as well tested as ATMs that issue cash. We do not yet have any mechanism in the UK for third parties to use them. It is something that I am working with the industry to solve, but this legislation is utterly critical. If small businesses can deposit cash easily, most will keep taking it.
Siobhain McDonagh
Q
Natalie Ceeney: Yes, I do. The one thing I would say as you consider the drafting is that the Bill covers small businesses as well as consumers. Small businesses, typically, via their contracts, pay for their cash access. As you draft amendments, limiting that to retail consumers is going to be important. I do not think that there is any appetite for banks to want to charge for cash access, so I do not think that you would get any opposition to putting that in the legislation or empowering the FCA to take it through to regulation.
Martin Coppack: There is absolutely a need for this. Bearing in mind today’s audience, I did a bit of research and looked at the poverty premium at a constituency level for different MPs. It might surprise you to know that a typical parliamentary constituency loses £4.5 million a year in terms of the poverty premium. That is money that could be going into your constituents’ pockets. We have linked that to research that shows that the poorer you are, the more likely you are to spend that locally. The reason I am talking about this point right now, as well as it costing £2.8 billion across Great Britain, is that the poverty premium very much exists for people trying to access cash.
If you lived in, let us say, the Conservative constituency of Vale of Clwyd, people are paying about £40,000 to access their own money. If, for example, you were in Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle, you would be paying around £70,000 to access your own money. Say you lived in the SNP constituency of West Dunbartonshire —I cannot say it; I should have practised that before I came—people are paying £64,700 in that constituency to get access to their own money. I hope that is a good representation of why we need to tackle it.
Craig Tracey
Q
Martin Coppack: Unfortunately, not a lot of progress has been made. We have had numerous conversations with the Treasury, signposting to the FCA. Some days we have the conversation about how we do not have enough data, which we cannot get hold of—firms have their own data on insurance, how it is distributed and how the calculations are made—so, unfortunately, nothing can be taken forward.
We have now done a second piece of work. We did one with the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries, which agreed that there is a real positive premium issue. We are doing a second report with the Social Market Foundation, calling again for the FCA to collect the data and for the Treasury to understand how far prices are a market problem, so regulation can tackle it, or how far it is a social policy problem, so social policy makers can tackle it. However, we cannot get further than that. I have probably been having this conversation for the past 10 years. In our world, as an ex-regulator, if it does not get measured, it will not get done.
Craig Tracey
Q
Martin Coppack: Importantly, when asking the FCA to do social policy, it would not allow it. What it is about is closing that complete spiral. Seventy-odd organisations have signed our call, and some firms. We are trying to close that loop so that we can have conversations about the most difficult things affecting the poorest of your constituents. That is all we are trying to do, and what I would urge you to support.
Emma Hardy
Q
Martin Coppack: Gosh, there was a bit there. Remind me if I do not get everything. First, the FCA will talk about the consumer duty and its vulnerability guidance. Neither of those touches anything to do with income. Vulnerability touches lots of things, like losing a partner or disabilities, which is great, but looking at income does not touch any of it. I have had numerous conversations with the FCA, and it is not supportive of this, but it recognises the issue, although it has not come up with an alternative.
On examples of how this would have worked well in the past—actually, I have a current one. How long has Natalie been trying to get some action here, on access to cash, before the infrastructure absolutely wilts away? It is a race against time. I was in the FCA 10 years ago, or whatever, and I saw all the letters going between Departments and the FCA to say, “Let’s not touch that. It is not in our remit.” That is a live one right now.
Past examples: the loyalty premium insurance everyone knew was an issue. It took Citizens Advice getting all its resources together to do a super-complaint to get any further on the loyalty premium in insurance. Access to basic bank accounts—Sian Williams at Toynbee Hall was going at this for years before we got any further. Those are the types of intervention that would be allowed.
On the difference at the ground level, I could go through a few more parliamentary constituencies. For example, tackling the insurance poverty premium would make a huge difference of £500 million to your constituents, James; it would make a difference of one million three hundred for your constituents, Emma. I could go on.
One other quick thing is that, when we talk to people in the community, they do not have a clue why the market is why it is. People like me can say, “Cost to serve—it’s a rational way the market is working.” But if you ring up and say, “I want car insurance,” they say, “We don’t serve you—it’s your postcode.” I have had people say, “If I cross the road in Glasgow, my life expectancy goes down by this much. The same applies in terms of my insurance going up.” People say they are lying on their insurance forms by putting different postcodes on, because they need their car because they are disabled. This is how consumers react to a system that does not work for them.
Emma Hardy
Q
Martin Coppack: No. We have Martin Lewis on board, for example. That might surprise some people. We have Andy Briggs, chief executive of Phoenix Group. We have Lord Holmes of Richmond, from the House of Lords. We have the Legal & General Group chief executive. That is as well as other organisations that you might expect, such as Citizens Advice. There are about 70. This is not a niche area. People see it and see the need for it. It is not just Fair by Design.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
Q
Natalie Ceeney: Yes.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
Q
Natalie Ceeney: I think that is absolutely true. One thing I would say, perhaps to connect to the points that Martin has made, is, “Wouldn’t it be nice if everybody could participate in a digital society?” There is a risk that we talk about protecting cash for its own end. The reason why we are talking about protecting cash is that the most vulnerable need it, because it works better for them than digital.
We also, in parallel, need to work to a society where everyone is included in a digital economy. If you are dependent on cash, you shop locally; you cannot shop online. That means that you pay more for your goods and services. You cannot do direct debits. You probably have a prepayment meter. Actually, your costs of living, if you live on cash, are much higher. But the people who use cash are not stupid. They are not doing it because they have not worked that out; they are doing it because they have not got a choice, so I think that in parallel—this is not covered by this Bill, but it should be something that we collectively work on post the Bill—we need to work on how we include everyone in a digital society.
That is broader than financial services. In Britain, 4.5 million people do not have any kind of smartphone; 1.5 million people do not have any broadband or mobile connectivity; and 1.3 million people do not have a bank account. There are some bigger societal issues to tackle, but we have to really make sure that this is an inclusion debate.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
Q
Martin Coppack: I am sorry: I just do not feel quite qualified to answer that one.
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)
Q
Martin Coppack: What do you mean by “best case”?
Gareth Davies
Q
Martin Coppack: We have a whole list. We deal with Bristol University. We do a range. We work out an average. And then we have figures that go much higher. If it is one in 10 of people who are in poverty, we would have a higher one. We have a whole range that we can present to you.
Gareth Davies
Q
Martin Coppack: I am not quite sure what you mean by “best case”.
Gareth Davies
Q
Emma Hardy
How they have worked it out is on the website.
Martin Coppack: It is published by the Bristol University Personal Finance Research Centre.
Gareth Davies
That still does not answer my question. If you are going to come to a Committee such as this, please provide your data.
The Chair
Order. I am afraid that brings us to the end of our allotted time for this panel. On behalf of the Committee, I thank our witnesses.
Examination of Witness
William Wright gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear from William Wright. We have until 3.25 pm for this panel. Would the witness please introduce himself for the record?
William Wright: My name is William Wright. I am the founder and managing director of New Financial, a capital markets think-tank.
Andrew Griffith
Q
William Wright: Thank you for the question and for the invitation to join you. Overall, the Bill gets just about the right balance between, on the one hand, the opportunity to reframe, tailor and recalibrate the framework for UK banking and finance, and on the other, to address the post-Brexit imperative to do so.
Inevitably, now that the UK has left the EU, we have to rework the financial architecture around regulation—the processes—now that it no longer goes through the European Parliament, the European Commission, the ECON committee and so on. The FCA, PRA and the supervisory architecture need to change to reflect that. I would add that the Bill draws the right balance, broadly speaking, in terms of not going too far, not trying to intervene too much in the specific legislative briefs in different sectors, and focusing much more on setting the framework.
On the second part of your question, on competitors, it is important to divide—for want of a better word—the City into two; it is a tale of two Cities. There is no competitor to the UK domestic side of the City, which is all about providing the right support and finance for UK companies and investors, and oiling the wheels of the UK economy. On the international side, of course, the competitive environment has changed quite radically over the past few years. We are now competing simultaneously with the US, with rapidly growing markets in Asia, and with renewed competition—some of it motivated perhaps more from a regulatory perspective than a competitive perspective—from European financial centres.
Tulip Siddiq
Q
William Wright: Part of that question relies on how you measure it, so I can only speak to how we at New Financial have measured it. We recently looked at and reviewed green finance activity—more specifically, green capital markets activity—in the UK and the EU. We found that, on two key measures, the UK is actually significantly behind the EU, which suggests that there is a disconnect between the widely accepted and widely stated position that the UK is already a global leader in green finance, and the widely received ambition to become the leading international green finance centre.
We looked at it in two ways. First, when you look at the UK’s market share of European activity in green finance, across equity bond and loan markets, it is about 14% of all EU plus UK activity. That is significantly lower—significantly lower—than the UK’s share of other capital markets and financial services activity. On a narrow definition of capital markets, the UK has a share of about 20% or 22% of EU 28 activity; on a broader definition of banking and finance, it has a share of just over 30%. Strictly in green finance, the UK has a share of half to two thirds of where you would expect it to be.
We also looked at the penetration: what percentage of equity capital raising—loan market and bond market capital raising—is green, in both the UK and the EU? In every single sector that we looked at, the UK lags behind in terms of green capital raising as a proportion of total capital raising. To give an indication of scale, last year roughly 20% of all capital markets activity in the EU was green; in the UK it was 9%.
There is a disconnect. I think there is an opportunity for the UK to catch up, but there is, shall we say, quite a lot of catching up to be done.
Tulip Siddiq
Q
William Wright: There is certainly a role for legislation; I am not sure that the right place for that role is this Bill in particular. It is important to step back and look at the huge amount of work that has already been done and is being done in and around green finance from a legislative perspective. The latest addition to that is the net zero review, and the green finance strategy is expected from BEIS early next year, maybe. There are sustainability disclosure requirements, the UK green taxonomy and the transition plan taskforce. That work, which is coming down the pipeline towards us, could contain a lot of the legislative impetus for the UK to close the gap.
More importantly, I think the industry is already beginning to fill the gap. Where the UK has a real opportunity in green finance in future is not so much in the level of capital raising by UK companies, but in the fact that it is in pole position to benefit from its existing expertise in markets such as risk management, derivatives and trading, as we see the emergence of a more sophisticated carbon market of green derivatives and green risk management, and in playing to its existing strengths, many of which have not been harmed or damaged in any significant way by Brexit.
Peter Grant
Q
William Wright: On the substance of that question, I will have to put my hands up and say it is not an area that we have done a huge amount of work on, although we have recently hosted some events on that theme—for example with Edward Lucas, talking about Russia, Ukraine and links back to the City.
One point I will make is that back in 2007, in a previous life as a financial journalist, I was at the official launch of NYSE Euronext—this was the merger of the New York stock exchange and Euronext, the European-based stock exchange. The founding chief executive, John Thain, who was then chief executive officer of NYSE, said he thought that London would come to regret its campaign in the previous five or six years to attract Russian companies to list on the London stock exchange. If we look back on those comments with the benefit of 15 years of hindsight, he was probably correct.
Peter Grant
Q
William Wright: I will have to fall back on saying that it is not something I have specific expertise on. I have opinions and views. I have recently read some of the works by Oliver Bullough on different aspects of this—“Butler to the World” and “Moneyland”—and it made me quite angry to read them, but it is not an area where I can claim any professional expertise to answer a question in this setting.
Sally-Ann Hart
Q
William Wright: That is sort of the trillion-dollar question, isn’t it? On EU rules, the Bill and the huge amount of work that the Treasury and others have done over the past three years address the obvious low-hanging fruit—the obvious areas of EU regulation and the framework that were not appropriate for the UK market, which has a unique dynamic within the EU. Most of those areas have been well addressed in the Bill.
On looking ahead at competitiveness, the Bill does create a more agile and nimble framework. By definition, one would hope that the UK can act more swiftly than the EU, and we are already seeing some signs of that. Again, it gets the right balance by making competitiveness a secondary objective and not a primary objective. It gets the right balance to ensure that it is something considered by supervisors and regulators but not something that overrides the fundamental purpose of supervisors to ensure a stable financial system that is competitive within itself, and where customers get appropriate protections.
We need to be very careful, in the debate on competitiveness, about assuming that competitiveness is a mechanical outcome of regulation and tax. One of the lessons we can take from the last few weeks is that a very important element of competitiveness is credibility, predictability and the robustness of independent institutions. It is important to bear that in mind when we talk about competitiveness.
In the short term, the biggest competitiveness threat to the UK—this comes back to the Minister’s opening question—is probably from additional pushback and pressure from the EU as it requires more EU business to be conducted inside the EU. We have this interesting dynamic: the UK is increasingly focusing on making people want to do business in the UK because it is an attractive environment, whereas the EU in many areas is trying to attract business by requiring people to do it there. We also need to be very careful in this debate—
The Chair
Order. I am afraid that brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions. I thank our witness on behalf of the Committee.
William Wright: Thank you.
Examination of Witnesses
Robert Kelly and Robin Fieth gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Robin Fieth: My name is Robin Fieth and I am chief executive of the Building Societies Association. We represent the UK’s 43 mutual building societies and seven of the large credit unions.
Robert Kelly: Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Robert Kelly and I am CEO of the Association of British Credit Unions Ltd. We represent 157 credit unions across Great Britain—roughly 62% of the market.
Andrew Griffith
Q
I would like to ask questions in both directions, if I may. First, does this legislation go far enough to meet your objectives? When I was in front of the Treasury Committee a week ago, I was challenged on the fact that it might give a greater ability to sell a broader range of products. That question came specifically in the context of co-operatives and credit unions. Do you have the necessary expertise and the regulatory rulebook to do that without prejudicing consumers? Sorry, there is a lot there, but hopefully that gives you something to open up with, and we will then hand the questioning to colleagues.
Robin Fieth: Shall I go first? We will try not to talk over each other. Thank you very much for the question, Minister, and thank you for inviting us this afternoon. From the very start we have been a strong supporter of the financial services framework review, and particularly of adherence to the original FSMA principles of setting a framework in legislation and delegating the vast majority of the detailed work to regulators.
On the first part of your question, the Bill largely achieves that objective. We can always ask for more. The areas in the framework side where we may be looking for further advancement are around, for example, the terms of reference or the operation of the Financial Ombudsman Service, as the third part of the regulatory framework. Within that, we have been very strong supporters of the PRA’s “strong and simple” initiative, which is a manifest example of how we move away from the single banking rulebook—the EU body of legislation —in a way that fosters real diversity in financial services and allows us to have a far more proportionate approach to the smaller, simpler, UK-based domestic organisations, like building societies and smaller banks.
On the third part of your question on enabling services, I would observe that the UK’s traditional approach to credit union legislation has been very much on a permissive basis: credit unions are permitted by legislation and regulation to do specific things and specifically not to do anything else. Perhaps the question that the Committee might like to consider more is the extent to which we can empower credit unions better to achieve their service to society and the communities that they are there to service, recognising that there is a regulator to make sure they do not stray too far. Those are my introductory comments.
Robert Kelly: Thank you for the opportunity to contribute today. I echo Robin’s comments in the round, in terms of the general objectives of the Bill. I welcome the opportunity to see, in a post-Brexit world for the United Kingdom, that there is a movement towards regulation and a legislative framework that is proportionate and delivers excellent consumer outcomes. That is certainly something we would echo every day of the week, so it is to be welcomed.
In terms of whether the legislation goes far enough, to echo Robin’s comments again, we have engaged on additional items with HM Treasury officials and regulators in recent times. We respect the fact that we are on a journey and that we have to ensure that a proportionality clause is applied. To go back to the Minister’s comment about whether we have all the expertise and whether the Bill goes far enough, I think those two things go hand in hand. We need to make sure that we continue to showcase the ability of the credit union sector to be a genuine competitor within financial services, that our mutuality and co-operative values shine through, and that we deliver excellent consumer member outcomes.
There are a couple of particular items that we referenced in recent conversations. We have to remember that the legislative reform agenda for the Credit Unions Act 1979 has been going on for a long time. We respect the fact that this is the most significant change since the Act itself in 1979. We are on an innovation journey and we firmly respect the fact that we need to continue to engage with all stakeholders, so we are delighted to see the possibility of additional new products and services being available to the credit unions that want to take advantage of the opportunity to provide them. Hopefully, credit unions can garner a wider share of financial wallets across households throughout the country and make sure that we serve more than the 2 million people we currently serve—that that number continues to increase.
There are a couple of examples that we have talked about. We believe there is a need for a future conversation around the common bond field of membership reform—something we have flagged to HMT already—and also around the possibility of innovation for credit union service organisations. That model is so prominent in and brings many, many advantages to the North American credit union system.
Lastly, in terms of the question about expertise, on the basis that we have had a long-standing conversation around legislative reform, we have been proactive in the background to make sure that we talk to our member credit unions, in conjunction with the BSA and other trade bodies and interested parties, to make sure we have the relevant conversation behind the scenes. We are preparing the ground for credit unions to understand that with the opportunity for new products and services come additional requirements around good consumer outcomes, compliance requirements and in-house training and development. That is something we have been doing in tandem with the legislative reform agenda.
I am firmly confident that we will be able to hit the ground running quickly as and when the legislation goes through both Houses, and that we have the ability then to expand our product and service range and make sure we can serve many more people with ethical finance across the UK.
Tulip Siddiq
Q
Robin Fieth: The first thing is to look at the tradition—the tradition of the UK has been that our regional mutual financial institutions have either been insurers or building societies, traditionally, or, in the last 30 or 40 years, credit unions—compared with the United States or large parts of Europe, where there is a very long tradition of mutually-owned community banks, co-operative banks, lifelines and so forth. Our tradition is very different. Apart from the Co-operative bank, we have never had a large, mutual, fully general-purpose bank. Nationwide is a full retail bank, but it does not do business lending, for example. We have never had that tradition.
As some of you will know, there are a number of small community banks in the mobilisation phase or coming to mobilisation phase. On the second part of your question, the Bank of England’s new banks team has been very good at helping challenger banks to get through the process and start up, and we have seen so many start up. I am not sure that they have the same experience and expertise in respect of what the mutual model looks like and why it is different. If you talk to any challenger bank, they will say it was much more difficult to get through mobilisation than it should be. If you talk to the community banks, they say it is very difficult to get through mobilisation. There are at least three that we are working with on the side, if you like, that are going through that process.
The real challenge, where perhaps there is a role for Government, is in creating the forms of capital that mutual start-ups can follow, because they cannot be venture-capital backed, so you need some form of mutual capital. We have suggested to both the main parties, for example, that whichever version of the British Business Bank you want, it could have a mandate for part of its capital being mutual capital.
Robert Kelly: Robin has covered the vast majority of the salient points, and we would agree with his comments. In terms of taking it maybe a step further or down in respect of the community banking model, as Robin mentioned there is a development agenda in a few areas of the country. There is certainly space for innovation and competition in SME lending and around transactional activity and transactional accounts and making sure there is something different from a competition perspective —maybe where the bigger banks are not necessarily in those spaces or where there is perhaps an opportunity for some more partnership and co-operation. We have talked to some of the community banking models about what space they and the credit union sector could co-exist in. We acknowledge that credit unions are already able to do corporate lending and SME lending, and some have done so. I think around 20 or 21 credit unions across the country have taken advantage of that. The ongoing PRA consultation on the future supervision and regulation of the credit union sector has some reference to that, in terms of additional checks and balances.
We recognise that there is opportunity for the credit union sector to do more. A big part of the legislative reform package that will ultimately impact credit unions can be described as an enabling factor that allows product and service innovation and development. Alongside the community banking and mutual banking model, the development that we have seen, and all the background that Robin has already mentioned, it should be made clear that we in the credit union sector believe that we can also fill some of that space. If the overall objective is around competitiveness and enabling competition, we should be ready to act, and to respond to the needs of communities and small businesses across the country.
Peter Grant
Q
Robin Fieth: Whether the term is “corporate takeover” or “demutualisation”, which was very much encouraged by the Government of the day, is a moot point, but you are absolutely right: there is or was a very proud trustee savings bank tradition, and of course it started in the lowlands—well, the borders—of Scotland. Sadly, the last trustee savings bank went into run-off within the last five or six years. That was the Airdrie Savings Bank. It is a tradition that we no longer have. Again, those institutions were not a full service of the kind that the shadow Economic Secretary was talking about. They were not a full service model. They were very much a savings and loans model, largely for retail purposes. That is the tradition we had, yes, but it is now sadly part of our economic history.
Peter Grant
Q
Robert Kelly: Yes, of course; thank you for the question. Credit unions play a unique role in the economic infrastructure of this country. I mentioned that we serve 2 million people, but we have huge aspirations to make sure that that goes much further. After this session, I am joining a call on the cost of living crisis and the impact that the credit union sector is having in different parts of the country. A really good example is Bradford District Credit Union, which is working in tandem with the local authority on a range of products and initiatives that have built financial resilience and financial inclusion in that part of the country. There are many more examples across the UK.
The financial inclusion agenda chimes perfectly with our objectives, our ethics and the co-operation and mutual model that credit unions are built on. The important point to state is that we believe that that work can be accelerated and amplified in a significant way. We can do much more. The phrase that we would use is that we manage to put in place a balanced demographic of membership. The credit union should be seen as a safe and innovative place for any member of society, any consumer, to go to. It goes back to the comment that Robin made on full service. We believe the legislative reform package that is on the table for the credit union sector will allow us to do that. It will allow us to be more competitive, to look at risk-based pricing and to make sure that we are seen as more mainstream—and to serve a wider part of the population. Doing that creates an environment where additional financial inclusion initiatives and objectives are made possible, because we are building sustainability and the strength of balance sheets for credit unions across the country; those things go in tandem.
We have worked closely with a range of Governments over many years to deliver great value, and also financial inclusion objectives, but we need to make sure that there is a balance of products and services, and a balanced demographic that allows us to do much more of that. We have said that in the past, credit unions have unfortunately been seen as the poor person’s bank. We have worked incredibly hard to move away from that area—with, I think, great success. The legislative reform package that is on the table for the credit union sector will allow us to do much more, and it should be seen as very positive.
Peter Grant
Q
Robert Kelly: I will give two examples. Credit unions will have, for the first time, the ability to offer car finance under personal contract purchase or hire purchase—conditional sale activity. We can also be immersed back into the general insurance mediation process. That means that we can diversify our product range. It should mean that we can diversify our income lines, which should result in greater sustainability for the sector. Those are two examples where we were very firmly part of the legislative programme that has been developed for the credit union sector.
On competition, we recognise that we are a small player overall in the financial services landscape, but we can do more, and have huge aspirations. We have that wider product and service range. Investment in technology will allow us to be seen as being more mainstream. A bigger part of the financial wallet for many households across the country could be maintained by the credit union sector. The Bill certainly has its elements there.
We talked about credit union service organisations. It is important that we continue to have that conversation with all relevant stakeholders, look at where in the sector there is innovation in the overall infrastructure, and consider how we can learn from the successes of the model used in North American and other parts of the world. The Bill goes a long way to allowing us to diversify, and to become more competitive and more mainstream. That is to be welcomed. There are certainly follow-on elements that we will undoubtedly talk to officials and regulators about in the weeks and months ahead.
Peter Grant
Q
Robert Kelly: We recognise the difficulties in terms of reputational risk, and the challenges that failure brings. We are working tirelessly with our member base. We are a very broad church. Our members have asset sizes from a couple of hundred thousand to well over £220 million, and everything in between. We recognise that failure is difficult and painful. We are working extremely hard behind the scenes collaboratively with the BSA and other interested parties. Credit unions that fail often have a couple of items in common. There tends to be a lack of good governance, and sometimes there is key person risk. Covid has exacerbated some of that, just in terms of volunteer burnout and sustainability challenges, demand for lending and bad debts. We have been impacted by insolvency and mis-selling in many cases as well. We have identified that it can be difficult to maintain a smaller asset range using a volunteer base—not always, but sometimes. We are working tirelessly behind the scenes to make sure that credit unions look at their business plans and numbers on a regular basis, and take the tough decisions.
Let me bring that to life, very quickly. The original development of the fiscal principles was in 2002. In that year, we had 698 credit unions in GB; we are now down to fewer than 250. Most of that reduction in numbers came through consolidation and mergers or acquisitions. Some of it has been failure. We certainly believe that the number will continue to come down. It would be appropriate to find solutions that allow credit unions to come together as part of mergers or acquisitions and maintain services in their local communities.
Siobhain McDonagh
Q
Robin Fieth: That is a great question; thank you very much. We are already part of the way there with the PRA. It has had a secondary competition objective since the 2014 Act, and it was subsequently enhanced at the BSA’s behest. Every time it consults, it has an obligation and a requirement to determine whether there are specific aspects that disproportionately affect the mutual sector, and that has been welcome. We have seen a real change in the PRA’s approach to the financial mutuals since the financial crisis, and it has been largely positive.
There is a very important question as far as the FCA is concerned. We saw it last year with the proposed demutualisation of LV. It was apparent that the FCA was entirely agnostic on the business model, in terms of their competition objective and the good competition that achieves better customer outcomes on the conduct side. There is certainly a case for the FCA to consider that far more closely. I am always very careful when we talk about conduct outcomes with the FCA because, as a consumer, you should not have a different outcome, but you might experience a different journey. There are some nuances in there. As to how it best achieves that without adding ever more reports and burdens, that is in its annual reports, which are obviously open to examination and scrutiny. In the regulator’s annual reports, it should report back on that; that would be the most straightforward way to achieve that.
Robert Kelly: Thank you again for the question. I echo Robin’s comments, but I will try not to duplicate them. Credit unions have an ongoing consultation with the PRA on future supervision and the regulatory environment. We have a long track record of working in tandem with the PRA, and there is a move towards making sure that the supervision model is in tandem with the legislative reform agenda, which seems eminently sensible. It also allows us to take cognisance of the fact that there are many more larger, asset-based credit unions than there were five or 10 years ago—we have to factor in whether that comes through consolidation, or just through business growth—which is hugely beneficial for all parties.
In terms of the FCA, obviously the credit union sector is dual-regulated. We have a relationship from the conduct side. It will be interesting to see how that approach develops. Again, I would echo Robin’s view: the FCA has such a broad remit, in terms of the firms that it looks after, and we are always championing the cause of proportionality. Consumer duties are an example of where we have to work in collaboration with all relevant stakeholders and interested parties to make sure that the good consumer outcomes that credit unions provide can be evidenced, and that we can go on that journey. There are live examples of those on both sides of the regulatory environment taking steps to be innovative and to future-proof the business development that we expect to see through this legislative programme. That is to be welcomed, but we are on a journey, and we are not yet at the end.
The Chair
Order. I am afraid that brings us to the end of the allotted time for this panel. On behalf of the Committee, I thank our witnesses.
Examination of Witness
Mike Haley gave evidence.
The Chair
We have until 4.10 pm for this panel. Would the witness please introduce himself for the record?
Mike Haley: Good afternoon. I am Mike Haley, chief executive officer of CIFAS, the UK’s fraud prevention service. We are a not-for-profit membership organisation of 600 members. Member organisations are, in the main, financial services—banks, fintechs, alternative lenders and mortgage providers. We also share data and intelligence on fraud and financial crime.
Sally-Ann Hart
Q
Mike Haley: Yes. One of the issues with a contingent reimbursement model in any compensation scheme is that it is not a fraud prevention initiative in itself; it really just says who suffers the risk of the fraud. It passes the individual loss on to the banks. The emphasis is on a large amount that you could get away with without thinking that you have taken it out of an individual’s pockets; a faceless bank will pay up to £1 million. Any limit of that size reduces any moral questions a fraudster might have about who they are stealing money from.
Tulip Siddiq
Q
Mike Haley: There are three interconnected reasons why scams have reached such frightening proportions. First, the reach of social media and online platforms means that scammers and fraudsters can reach millions of people—marks and vulnerable people—much more effectively.
Secondly, we have seen organised crime turn its hand to fraud because it is a low-risk, high-return crime. Their skills have grown in something called social engineering, which is how they to persuade someone that they are calling from the bank or from the police by impersonating others. They have become very skilled in that.
Thirdly, faster and instant payments mean that once a fraud has been successful, and you mandate a payment through your bank account, it is very hard for banks to tell that that is a fraudulent transaction, because it has been mandated by the customer. Then, there is a network of money mule accounts, which are either accounts that have been set up for those proceeds to go through, or accounts belonging to people who have been duped into allowing their accounts to be used for that money to go through. Instant payments mean that that is untraceable very quickly. I remember investigating a mass fraud—[Interruption.]
The Chair
Order. We resume our session. I think a question was put to you. Do you want it repeated?
Mike Haley: I do not need the question repeated.
On the question of what has created the significant increase in frauds—particularly authorised push payment frauds, known as scams—I was saying that there are three interconnected issues. First, there is the reach of social media. Secondly, organised crime has turned its attention to fraud. Thirdly, the faster payments regime has enabled fraudsters to quickly dissipate the scam funds.
One of the things we have seen with the dissipation of scam funds is that they often go into cryptoassets and crypto exchanges. That is why, as part of the Bill, we welcome extending the regulatory perimeter to cryptoassets—digital settlement assets—so long as, in that authorisation process, there is a risk assessment around economic crime. Authorised crypto firms should meet the same standards as banks, in terms of know your customer—customer due diligence—and should have in place the anti-money laundering, counter-terrorist financing and fraud operational standards that we expect from the other financial service players so that it is a level playing field.
Emma Hardy
Q
Mike Haley: I will take those in reverse order. Provisions that facilitate greater data and intelligence sharing, particularly on suspicions of fraud and financial crime, would have the biggest impact in helping to prevent this type of crime. It is a crime that is at scale and at speed in the online environment. To be able to share the mobile numbers that are being used, the devices and the IP addresses at speed across the whole of the environment—payment providers, fintechs and telcos—would be enormously powerful. This is a volume crime, and we need to have prevention at the core of any national strategy. That would have a massive positive impact.
I would like to see it go further. I would like it to be mandatory, because why should an organisation sit on knowledge about fraud or financial crime, and not share that with others to protect the whole of the financial services industry? There should certainly be strong leadership saying it should be done. For those who do not, I would like it to be mandatory, but it should certainly be facilitated. There should be something in the Bill that facilitates that sharing.
Emma Hardy
Q
Mike Haley: And that they can. A lot of the time, organisations feel, rightly or wrongly, that they cannot share this type of data and intelligence. They might quote the General Data Protection Regulation, but in my view the GDPR says that it is in the legitimate interests of businesses to share data to protect their services and consumers. There is a lack of confidence in doing that, so we should have something very explicit that says not only that it is allowable but that it is expected, because we are all part of the same ecosystem, in which people are being scammed and organisations are losing literally billions of pounds.
Absolutely, there should be a national strategy, and prevention should be at its core. We are looking forward to the Home Office publishing a national strategy; it has been much delayed, and it is very much anticipated. From what I have seen, I would like it to be more ambitious, and to cover the public and private sectors, as well as law enforcement. Fraudsters do not decide one day, “We only go after bounce back loans because that is a public sector fraud.” They will go after a loan from the Nat West bank, or a mortgage. A lot of data is not being shared between the public and private sectors and law enforcement. That would be a powerful set of data and intelligence, which would make us more effective as a country in defeating fraud.
Emma Hardy
Q
Mike Haley: If we are looking at some of the regulators’ new rule-making powers, and also with the panels that have been suggested, with any rule or policy change they should be thinking about what the economic crime impact will be.
Emma Hardy
Q
Mike Haley: Yes, because there can be unintended consequences some way down the line that were not thought of at the start. Faster payments are a really good example; they put the UK in a competitive position and most people would support faster payments. However, we find that they have been exploited. There could have been some thought about, for example, in what circumstances we slow that journey down to prevent fraud. With any new rule changes we should ask what the impact could be, and what unintended consequences there could be—does it open a gateway for fraudsters or criminals to exploit? I think that would strengthen the Bill and also give some real teeth to a regulator—to be held to account about whether they thought about it at the outset.
Andrew Griffith
Q
Mike Haley: Yes, I think we have seen in the past that regulators have not moved quick enough when there has been widespread harm. We might look at payment protection insurance, for example, where consumers brought plenty of reports into MPs’ and Government in-trays, and yet the regulator was rather slow in intervening in a market—a market that had been abused. I think that an intervention power could be very powerful.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
Q
Mike Haley: I think one of the problems of all legislation is how quickly it keeps up with changes in technology, and it being broad around principles. As I mentioned, with the authorisation of anyone who becomes a regulated entity dealing with digital settlement assets, it is important to have clear criteria for the onboarding—know your customer—and to know who the accounts are opened by. I find that already we are looking at money laundering through coin swap services, for which you do not need an account and may not be under this regulation. There are cross-chain bridges, where someone can move from one blockchain to another. I am not an expert on whether clauses 21 and 22 cover some of those services that have been created, which were probably not in the thinking when the Bill was starting to be drafted.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
Q
Mike Haley: There are a number of questions there. One is whether the legislation is broad enough to ensure that the regulator can act on some of those services. They need to be included in the perimeter. I do not think that some of these services—I talk about those coin swap services—are actually in the purview. There are cryptoassets and cryptocurrency exchanges, but some of these other services have been created, and from my reading of those provisions, I do not think they are covered.
The Chair
Order. I am afraid that brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions. I thank our witness on behalf of the Committee.
Examination of Witness
Adam Jackson gave evidence
The Chair
Q
Adam Jackson: I am Adam Jackson, director of policy and regulatory affairs at Innovate Finance. We are the trade association for fintech in the UK, representing, if you like, all of the new technology-based financial services that have emerged, maybe in the past 10 to 12 years, including payments, challenger banks, consumer credit and personal management tools—and crypto are part of that.
Andrew Griffith
Q
Adam Jackson: I think that is a good phrasing, Minister, of looking ahead. I think we have in the UK a great 10 years. We are No. 2 for investment in fintech in the world, and have been consistently. The question is, how do we maintain that at a time when we are on the cusp or in the middle of a new wave of financial technology?
The first wave of fintech was very much about consumer interfaces. I think what we are then seeing, and will see over the next 10 years, is the application of technology to the whole of financial services—to the financial systems—to the plumbing, if you like, of financial markets, not just that consumer interface. The question is, how do we build on our superb record until now to ensure that we are at the forefront of what will be digital financial markets? That then becomes not just, “How do we maintain our lead in fintech?” but “How do we ensure that we are a global leader in finance?”
If I then look at the Bill and think about what is needed, I tend to categorise it in three ways. First, is there regulation that needs updating? Is the regulatory rules system fit for purpose? Does it enable—or actually open up—innovation? Is how we regulate agile enough, particularly as technology and the economy move quickly?
Looking at the Bill and “fit for purpose”, the proposals, particularly on stablecoin, are really welcome. They tackle an issue that we have seen in the market this year and bring into scope that new technology.
Does it enable innovation? I think, there, the financial markets infrastructure sandbox is important for looking at how we support different ways of regulating. That gets into the agile regulators as well. Then, when we look at systemic stablecoin, that is about enabling innovation. We will only see stablecoin really developing as a fundamental part of payments systems, and therefore only see the UK maintain its lead in payment innovation, if we have new provisions around systemic stablecoins. The Bill covers all those.
Are there other areas that we would like to see? In terms of the regulatory behaviours, the competitiveness objective is very welcome. On the secondary objective, we would love to see it extended to the Payment Systems Regulator. We have heard quite a bit today about the Bill providing new powers to the PSR so there is a strong case for applying the competitiveness objective to them, as well as some of the other bits of the financial future regulatory framework.
On the question whether we could apply a competition objective to the Bank of England, when we think about things such as central bank digital currency, how that is implemented—as well as if—becomes really important. Central bank digital currency could crowd out innovation and stablecoin unless it is designed in a way that promotes competition. Sir Jon Cunliffe talked about how he absolutely sees a place for stablecoin and a CBDC alongside, but is thinking about some protections around that.
Then, two final pieces would be looking at whether there is scope to strengthen the competitiveness objective, moving from facilitate to promote, and finally, thinking about the Financial Ombudsman Service. A lot of our members raise concerns with us that they have agreed approaches with the FCA, only to find that FOS caselaw rules against things that they have already agreed with the FCA. So more to ensure that consistency, and if there is a way of ensuring that the FOS refers to the FCA for rulings on certain issues, that would help.
Tulip Siddiq
Q
The other thing I wanted to ask about is investment in the UK fintech industry, which was down to £9.6 billion in the first six months of this year, which is three times less than exactly the same period last year. Do you want to comment on the reason for that decline? What should we be doing as politicians to try and help with that?
Adam Jackson: Taking your first question, it is worth looking at the EU MiCA regulation and possibly the approach of a territory such as Singapore. It links a bit to the investment. We did some analysis of investment in just crypto alone, looking at that as a vertical within fintech, and again, the UK has always been the second location for crypto investment in the world, after the US, until the first half of this year, when we fell behind to Singapore. That might be a blip, but when you then look at regulatory mapping, you will see that Singapore possibly has the most forward regulatory system, particularly for stablecoin. The EU has a very comprehensive approach, but is has not come into force yet. Singapore has an established system, so I think that shows that if you get it right and have a proportionate regime, you attract the industry and the investment.
Is the EU approach right? There are strong arguments to say that it is possibly too comprehensive, and we come back to the notion that trying to find something that works for all 27 does not fit our circumstances. The UK is right to take a more iterative approach. We obviously have a common law approach as well, which means there are certain things we can do through case law. It is absolutely right that we are focusing on stablecoin and that is where some of the biggest volatility in the market was this year. The Bill addresses that, which will be really important in providing confidence for consumers and, critically, for investors in technology firms in that space.
The EU rule applies to not just stablecoin but cryptocurrencies more generally and exchanges, so should we also have a regulatory regime for other cryptoassets? I think the answer is yes. The question is how it fits within the Bill. The Government have said that they will introduce proposals for wider regulation of other cryptoassets. We expect something at some point, possibly soon.
That begs the question whether the Bill already enables the introduction of regulations. We probably need to ask Treasury counsel about the definition of a digital settlement asset. The Bill allows for the definition to be changed. Do the rules enable it to cover other cryptoassets? If it does, the powers are there to enable regulators to introduce systems subject to the proposals. If not, will we have to wait another 20 years before regulators are given the powers to regulate cryptoassets?
On cryptoassets, the important things that our members, including exchanges and cryptoasset firms, emphasise are an authorisations regime, a set of rules for initial coin offering—essentially, clear guidance on what information should be provided to consumers about individual assets—and custody. The Bill provides for applying rules on custody for stablecoin. If we do not have a parallel system, we will start to see some question marks over why those custody rules do not apply to cryptoassets as well.
On investment, there are different ways of looking at the figures from the first half of this year. Some investment, particularly VC, has really held up, but we know that globally we can expect a fall in investment, and we are just starting to see that trickle through. It is therefore a question of how the UK holds up against other countries. We might even see more mergers and acquisitions. At the moment, the pound makes the UK a nice place to come to buy fintech firms, so there may be a bit of difference there. It comes back to maintaining that competitiveness. Our members tell us that the most important thing is to get the Bill through. It provides important powers. If we can strengthen it in some of the areas that I mentioned to the Minister, that is also critical.
The other thing that I would flag is that there are two other pieces of legislation that are either before the House or slightly in limbo. They are also important for the competitiveness of fintech. One is the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill, introducing digital ID and open data, which will really transform the open banking we have into open finance. Australia already has that, so there is a risk of us falling behind. That Bill is also really important.
We have heard a lot about fraud. The provisions in the Online Safety Bill around making the places where frauds are advertised—the social media platforms and search engines—responsible for fraud, as well as requiring banks to reimburse, are critical. That is starting to be a factor in investment decisions. Whatever happens to that Bill, ensuring that those provisions are introduced as soon as possible is key.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
Q
Adam Jackson: I was not suggesting that we should necessarily compare the exact regulatory regime—the economy is a very different size—but I would take the wider point that a territory that has been seen to introduce some regulatory rules, as opposed to having none, is seeing increased investment.
The other place to look is the US. I was in Washington last month talking to policymakers, and the area where there is most likely to be a bipartisan Bill next year is regulating stablecoin. In terms of our international competitiveness, others are moving, and the Bill enables the UK to keep up.
The Chair
I am afraid that brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions. I thank our witness on behalf of the Committee.
Examination of Witness
Martin Taylor gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Martin Taylor, former external member of the Bank of England’s Financial Policy Committee. For this panel we have until 4.55 pm. Will the witness please introduce himself for the record?
Martin Taylor: I am Martin Taylor. I have spent a lot of my life in finance and in policymaking work for the Government. What probably most interests you is that I spent seven years—until the end of March 2020—as a member of the Financial Policy Committee at the Bank of England, which is to do with macroprudential policy.
Andrew Griffith
Q
Martin Taylor: None.
Andrew Griffith
Q
Martin Taylor: I have acted as an adviser to Gordon Brown, Alistair Darling and George Osborne—eclectic, you might say.
Tulip Siddiq
Q
Martin Taylor: Let me speak plainly, because it is late in the afternoon. I think this is a shockingly bad idea. I think it will certainly undermine regulatory independence —without any doubt—simply because regulators who are subject to the whim of Treasury officials or Ministers are not independent. It is a major erosion of the institutional framework. One could even say it is a corruption of the framework. For me, the institutional framework is hard-won and very precious. I can only suppose that those proposing the powers either do not understand it or do not care about it.
Stephen Hammond
Q
Martin Taylor: The wording that I have seen is of course not final, but what I find strange is that it suggests the regulators are not acting in the public interest. If they have to be overruled in the public interest, clearly you think they are acting in some other interest. For me, the regulators are the public interest made flesh.
Stephen Hammond
Q
Martin Taylor: The Government have enormous influence over the regulatory process. Sometimes people characterise the regulators as living in an ivory tower or something like that, as if they are academics who sit, removed from the real world, and think up rules without any feeling for what impact they might have. In fact, if you think about it, first of all, the independence of the regulators, such as it is, is circumscribed—it is set by Parliament. It is all set by primary legislation; that is No. 1.
Secondly, the wider Government and particularly the Treasury have tremendous powers to influence regulation. The Treasury appoints all the independent members of committees. The Governor and the deputy governors of the Bank of England are Crown appointments, so effectively No. 10 and the Chancellor have a certain say. The Treasury representatives sit on these committees and let the regulators know the Chancellor’s view. The Chancellor, whoever it may be at the time, writes to the committee and sets out their views on the things they ought to take into account.
There are very close working relationships between the Governor, the Chancellor and the permanent secretary, and then all the way down the chain at the Bank of England. The regulators swim in the soup like everybody else.
Stephen Hammond
Q
May I ask your views on the secondary objective?
Martin Taylor: The new secondary objective?
Stephen Hammond
Yes, the new secondary objective as proposed in the Bill.
Martin Taylor: I have a curious view that the fewer objectives you have the better, because the more likely you are to hit them. I have no objection to the secondary objective, if I can put it that way. It does not seem to me offensive. I was very pleased to hear the then Chancellor say in the Mansion House speech that there was a clear hierarchy of objectives, and that seemed to me to be fine. I don’t worry about that.
Stephen Hammond
Q
Martin Taylor: If that can be done, I would certainly welcome it. One of the difficulties that the Financial Policy Committee has always had is that if your job is maintaining financial stability, it is not always very easy to see if you are succeeding. One can see that recently, for example, the Monetary Policy Committee has not been meeting its inflation objective. That is an objective in hard numbers, and for the FPC and for other regulatory bodies it is harder.
Emma Hardy
Q
Martin Taylor: I do not want to exaggerate. I said this was a corruption of the system and corruptions work slowly, so it does not make us into Argentina or Turkey overnight but that is the direction of travel, if I can put it that way. Independent regulation is not an aesthetic choice; it is a practical one. I think the transparency of the regulatory process in London—the need for the regulators to explain themselves and especially the scrutiny by Parliament—is one of the cornerstones, along with the legal system and various other things we are familiar with, of London’s attraction as a financial centre. The UK’s reputation needs a bit of tender loving care at the moment, I would say, and bringing in unnecessary measures that risk damaging it seems to me unintelligible.
Emma Hardy
Q
Martin Taylor: Completely—just knock it out. I see no advantage in its existence.
Emma Hardy
Q
Martin Taylor: One of the problems that led to the recent turmoil—a very English description of what has just happened—was that the Prime Minister and the former Chancellor chose not to subject the mini-Budget to the scrutiny of the Office for Budget Responsibility. Had they done so, the OBR might of course have objected to various parts of it, which is perhaps why they did not do so.
However, international investors looking at London will have noted this and it has a bad smell, if I can put it that way. I am not worried about the bond traders who price the market day by day. The volatility was extreme and very dangerous. It has been settled by the Bank for the moment, I hope. I am much more worried about the people running really big blocks of money—big foreign sovereign wealth funds or big institutional investors—who look at London and say, “Is it worth having an allocation to gilt-edged stock? Do we want to be exposed to sterling if this is the sort of thing that goes on?”.
These are the strangers on whose kindness Mark Carney told us we relied and we antagonise them at our peril. That is what worries me more than anything else: that we suppose that foreigners will always want to buy gilts. Why should they? You could run a huge international portfolio and have zero allocation to sterling at the moment. If you were in Singapore or New York, you might be more tempted to do that than you would have been a month ago. We should not do anything else to make this worse. Everything is being done by the new Chancellor to steady the ship—thank goodness—but moves like this proposed measure just go in entirely the wrong direction as far as I am concerned. I think it is very dangerous.
Peter Grant
Q
Martin Taylor: I do not know. I probably have the same suspicions that you have. London has a huge financial sector and dirty money is easier to hide in places where there is lots of money than in places where there is not very much. I have never worked in, or with, the Financial Conduct Authority, but sometimes it gets blamed when things go wrong, which is a bit like blaming the police for crime, if you know what I mean. There is a lot of dirty money in the world and a lot of it will try to come here. I think the regulators do their best.
Peter Grant
Q
Martin Taylor: I would rather not accept the premise. We have to ensure that the world is happy to invest clean money in the United Kingdom. It is extremely important that we do that. No, I do not see us becoming a sort of sewer market—I mean, God forbid—but we have to be careful and we have to keep standards up. In taking out some European regulation—which we ought to do, because not all European regulation is good and valuable, and I am glad that the Bill allows us to do that—we need to be very careful. There are babies in the bathwater.
Peter Grant
Q
Martin Taylor: The FPC, for every quarter that I was a member of it—and I think it is still doing it—was saying that the intention was that the regulatory framework, when Britain left the European Union, would be a least as rigorous as the EU’s. In one or two places, it probably needs to be more rigorous than the EU’s, because there is some lowest common denominator there. In others, the EU has unnecessarily gold-plated things, but it needs to be done very precisely and carefully.
The Chair
Order. I am afraid that brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions. I thank the witness on behalf of the Committee. The Committee will meet again at 9.25 am on Tuesday 25 October to begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Joy Morrissey.)
Financial Services and Markets Bill (Third sitting)
Tuesday 25th October 2022
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesFinancial Services and Markets Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 25 October 2022 - (25 Oct 2022)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I have a few preliminary comments to make. Will Members who speak send their notes by email to Hansard in the usual way—it really helps? Will you ensure that you have turned off all your electronic devices, so that you do not disturb anyone? As ever, tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings—just a reminder. Everyone in Committee is experienced, but there have been a lot of changes over the past couple of years, so I will remind you about proceedings and how we run Bill Committees.
Today, we begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection and groupings list for the sitting is on the table—it is worth getting a copy—and it shows how the clauses are selected and the amendments grouped together for debate. Amendments grouped together are generally on the same or similar issues. I know you are aware of this, but decisions on amendments do not take place in the order in which they are debated; they are taken in the order in which they appear on the amendment paper. The selection and groupings list shows the order of debates. Decisions on each amendment and on whether each clause should stand part of the Bill are taken when we come to the relevant clause.
The Member who has put their name to the lead amendment in a group is called to speak first—so, I will call Peter first, because his amendment is the first listed today—and other Members are then free to catch my eye in the usual way. I urge you to make that obvious, as sometimes it is a little difficult to tell. A Member may speak more than once in a single debate. At the end of a debate on a group of amendments, I shall call the Member who moved the lead amendment again. Before they sit down, will they please indicate whether they wish to withdraw the amendment or take it to a vote? Will any Member who wishes to press any other amendment in a group to a vote please let me know in advance, because it helps the organisation of our proceedings?
Clause 1
Revocation of retained EU law relating to financial services and markets
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
I beg to move amendment 44, in clause 1, page 1, leave out line 6 and insert—
“(1) The Treasury may, by regulations, revoke the legislation referred to in Schedule 1.
(1A) The Treasury may not make the regulations referred to in subsection (1) if the Chancellor of the Exchequer considers that the revocation of legislation provided for in the regulations would have the effect of prejudicing the interests of consumers, unless alternative and adequate legislative provision has been enacted which mitigates these prejudicial effects.”
This amendment would mean that the Treasury cannot revoke retained EU law relating to financial services if such revocation would be prejudicial to the interests of consumers, unless other provision has been made to mitigate these prejudicial effects.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
That schedule 1 be the First schedule to the Bill.
Peter Grant
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this morning, Dame Maria.
As Members know, the SNP group came close to voting against the Bill on Second Reading. In fact, we tabled a reasoned amendment, primarily because of our concern about how the clause intends to take matters forward, but it was not selected by Mr Speaker. A sad fact for many of us is that the United Kingdom is no longer part of the European Union and that, therefore, all European Union legislation needs to be reconsidered. My problem is that it has already been decided in the Bill that, on financial services, all European Union legislation needs to be thrown out.
We hope that someone in the Treasury will at the same time, or very quickly afterwards, replace that legislation with something at least as good, if not better. I mean no disrespect to anyone here, to any Member of Parliament, the Minister or anyone working in the Treasury, however, when I say that I can have no confidence that that process, on that scale and at that speed, will work—we need only look at the number of amendments that the Government have had to table to the Bill because of mistakes in it, as published. In Delegated Legislation Committees on which I have sat, there have been instances where we have had to correct the correction to the correction of an initial piece of secondary legislation arising from Brexit.
It is simply not realistic to believe that all the revocations and repeals proposed under the clause can be replaced with equally good regulation without mistakes being made. When mistakes are made in the regulation of financial services, people get scammed, companies that should survive go under and the United Kingdom’s reputation as a dodgy place to do financial services becomes even worse. For all that I am not a big fan of the United Kingdom, I do not want to see that happen. I am not a big fan of the United Kingdom Parliament either, but I do not want to see its right to scrutinise in detail any suggested changes to legislation undermined, simply because it suits the Government of the day.
While it may be that the right thing to do with all 200-plus pieces of legislation listed in schedule 1 is to revoke and repeal every single word, Parliament should be given a choice, at reasonable speed, to decide whether that is correct. Ideally, at the same time as Parliament is asked to revoke the legislation, we should be given the chance to consider what will be put in its place.
My view on clause 1 altered slightly when we heard from the witnesses last week, especially those from the financial institutions. Some of them said that they genuinely felt that some of the existing EU legislation needs to go or to be changed significantly. I did not hear anybody asking for a wholesale revision of all 200-plus pieces of legislation. The motivation appears to be to take the European Union sticker off the number plate and put a Union Jack on it instead. If that is the only difference that is being made, what the Government suggest here is far too risky and undermines the right of Members of Parliament, including those who are not on the Committee, and their responsibility to scrutinise legislation that is crucial not only to the wellbeing of the economy on a big scale, but to the wellbeing of the economies of hundreds of thousands of our constituents. For many of them, this legislation has come too late, because they have been ruined by financial services scams that could perhaps have been prevented if this legislation had been introduced sooner.
It is my intention to press the amendment to a Division, Madam Deputy Speaker—I mean, Dame Maria. I do not know whether I should apologise for promoting you. Accepting the amendment would not significantly delay any legislative changes that the Government intend to introduce, but it would ensure that they are scrutinised properly to increase the chance that when mistakes are made in the replacement legislation, as they will be, they are picked up and dealt with before it is too late.
Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
Good morning, Dame Maria. It is a great honour to be on a Bill that you are chairing—I think it is our first time together in this iteration.
The Opposition do not have a problem with the principle of repealing some of the EU legislation, but I rise to invite the Minister to give us more detail on precisely how he envisages the wide-ranging power in clause 1 will be exercised in practice. I speak as a former member of the European Statutory Instruments Committee, which did a great deal of work in sifting all of the EU legislation to onshore it ahead of Brexit, including all the legislation covered by the Bill. We sat regularly and looked at thousands upon thousands of pieces of EU legislation, which we brought onshore ahead of Brexit. A great deal of work was done to achieve that, but a great many mistakes were made during the process in the drafting, the interpretation and the way in which powers were onshored in areas where we have not legislated directly for 47 years. This is a great accumulation of technical, but also extremely important, legislation that impacts on our constituents’ experience of everyday life as consumers and on how they use financial services and insurance, banking and savings products. If we get it wrong, there can be a great deal of detriment to our constituents.
Will the Minister give the Committee an idea of how the wide-ranging power to amend a large amount of legislation that has been on the statute book for many years will be done in a way that reassures all our constituents that we have the right balance between consumer protection and consumer rights on the one hand and our financial services industry and the way that it operates on the other? How will Parliament get to look at this? It is possible to argue that clause 1 would allow Parliament to be run over roughshod, without providing proper scrutiny, so will the Minister indicate how it will work in practice? How does he propose the powers will be exercised? What can Parliament do if we perceive that an issue that has been overlooked in all the technocracy impacts on our constituents? We need to ensure we have proper accountability.
I would be less worried if, as the hon. Member for Glenrothes said, we are just taking off an EU flag and sticking on a Union Jack, but I assume the Minister is taking these powers because he wants to use them. Will he set out in his comments on clause 1 precisely how he expects that to happen?
Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dame Maria. We often cross paths in these Committees and it is great to see you once again in the Chair.
I will speak briefly about amendment 44, following the comments of the hon. Members for Wallasey and for Glenrothes. The Government need to be nimble in how they lay regulations, particularly in this transitional period. Clause 1 provides the ability to be agile, particularly as we redevelop our financial services framework following our departure from the European Union. The Government clearly need the ability to do that. We are dealing with a vast array of regulation, primary legislation and laws that will require a significant amount of time to be developed, but at speed. Clause 1 enables the Minister to do that, and I trust my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs to develop the legislative framework in the right way.
Peter Grant
If there is such an urgent need for speed, why has it taken so long for the Bill to be brought before the House?
Shaun Bailey
Perhaps I should have finished my comments, which would have led to the point that the hon. Gentleman has made. There is a need for speed and also a need to make things right. I think that is the point that he and the hon. Member for Wallasey were making, particularly as it is so vital that we get it right. I agree with the hon. Lady that there is a place for scrutiny. Drafting errors are a concern, and we have to make sure that as we build the framework, it is done in the right way. I pay tribute to the work that she did on the EU sifting Committee, because it is a thankless task to go through.
Dame Angela Eagle
It was not the most fascinating thing I have ever done in the House, but it was one of those things that one has to do, or the statute book ends up in a right mess.
Shaun Bailey
I thank the hon. Lady again for the work that she has done.
I will round up my comments by saying that I think it is right that in clause 1 the Minister has the ability to do what he needs to do, but I do ask him to consider what Members have said about the safeguards to ensure that there is the right framework, particularly around drafting amendments and suchlike, so that we get this right. The Bill is needed and the Government are absolutely right to do what they are doing. As with any piece of legislation, it is about ensuring that we iron out the creases. I hope the Minister will give us those assurances today.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dame Maria, especially after our time together on the Women and Equalities Committee.
The Opposition recognise that enabling the City to the thrive will be fundamental to support the country and to help people through the cost of living crisis. We need a regulatory framework that allows our country to take advantage of opportunities outside the EU, whether by unlocking capital in the insurance sector for investment in green infrastructure or supporting the vibrant UK fintech sector to thrive.
The Minister knows that the Opposition are broadly supportive of the Bill. We welcome clause 1, which will empower the UK to tailor regulation to meet our needs outside the EU, but my questions are similar to those posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey. What reassurance can the Minister provide that clause 1 will not result in the Government diverging for divergence’s sake and, in the process, unnecessarily revoking rules that might boost the competitiveness of the City or protect consumers from harm? As my hon. Friend said, we want a bit more detail on clause 1.
I also have a few technical questions. Will the Minister confirm whether his Government still plan to revoke all retained EU law by the end of 2023? What assessment has he made of the impact of that date on UK financial services? The date seems a bit arbitrary and we want to know how much thought went into coming up with it. Does the Minister think there is a risk of creating uncertainty and extra costs for the sector by forcing financial services businesses to unnecessarily adapt their business models by the end of next year? A bit of information would help us gain clarity on the clause.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Andrew Griffith)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Maria. The Bill is central to delivering the Government’s vision for the future of the financial services sector. The hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn talked about some of the great opportunities that it unlocks. It seizes the opportunities of EU exit, although it is not exclusively about that. It tailors financial services regulation to UK markets to bolster the competitiveness of the UK as a global financial centre and to deliver better outcomes for consumers.
Clause 1 revokes retained EU law on financial services. That clears the way to regulate financial services in a way that works for the UK, building on the model established by the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. In response to hon. Members who asked how it will operate in practice, the settled position for some time has been that the FSMA model delegates the setting of regulatory standards to operationally independent financial services regulators, within the framework that Parliament sets. That is an internationally respected approach that historically has had support from all sides of the House, and I hope that continues.
As a result of our membership of the EU, the UK has been left with a patchwork—the hon. Member for Wallasey talked about her assessing role as that corpus of law was brought into the UK.
Dame Angela Eagle
I wonder about the sequencing. There is a list in schedule 1 of all the legislation that applies to financial services, lock, stock and barrel. The sifting Committee had oversight of that when we onshored it. Once the schedule is law, it does not all disappear at once, does it? Surely, we keep it there and have a look at things that might cause difficulty and at where we may wish to diverge.
Andrew Griffith
I am coming to the point where I will address the hon. Lady’s comments, but that is the substance of the position. The Bill enables the powers to do that, but we do not seek divergence for divergence’s sake. The whole purpose of the Bill and of giving the Treasury and regulators the necessary powers is to allow a thoughtful process that provides continued certainty to the sector—so no arbitrary retirement—and that allows time for those regulatory rules to be put on the UK rulebook in a way that is appropriate for the UK. That is the substance of what we are trying to do in the clause.
As to the question asked by the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn, there is no arbitrary backstop date. The technical repeal is in the Bill, but the rules will sit on the rulebook, providing valuable certainty and continuity to the sector until such time as the operationally independent regulators decide that it is appropriate to revisit the rules and tailor them to UK circumstances. That is what the clause is intended to do.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
As a member of the European Statutory Instruments Committee, I wonder whether the Minister can offer any assurance that there will be parliamentary scrutiny of the clause in the future. Can he offer any suggestions as to how we might be able to ensure that that takes place?
Andrew Griffith
The hon. Lady is right to talk about the important role of Parliament. We are giving regulators a great deal more power because we are importing a large body of European laws into the UK rulebook, which is one of the reasons why the Government have contemplated the public interest intervention power in the past. The large number of rules—the hon. Member for Wallasey talked about how large that body is, and painted a graphic picture of all that sifting work—does not lend itself to Parliament being the rule setter in each case. Again, that is at odds with the approach to rule setting in the UK historically, but Parliament will continue to have a voice where it feels the need to.
Dame Angela Eagle
I apologise for intervening, but Standing Committee is the time when we can ask detailed questions, so I hope the Minister does not mind my coming back in. [Interruption.] I think there was a Siri outburst there.
Dame Angela Eagle
As a member of the Treasury Committee, I can say that we are trying to get a handle on the scrutiny that will be applied as regulators come to look at these things. One assumes that they will announce that they are reviewing a particular area, and they may come up with some divergences. Regulators have their way of doing things, Government Ministers want particular things, and sometimes Parliament has a different view, particularly if something affects our constituents in unanticipated ways. Given the structure that the Bill sets out, I am trying to get a handle on how Parliament’s view on an issue would be put forward.
Andrew Griffith
I will try one more time, Dame Maria, but I want to emphasise that the approach that the Government envisage being taken is exactly the approach embedded in FSMA 2000. We should not be debating these points ab initio simply by virtue of the work that the Bill does in importing the EU rulebook into UK law. The Treasury Committee, of which the hon. Lady is a member, does valuable oversight work and spends a disproportionate amount of time interviewing the regulators. All the regulatory rules are required by statute to have a period of consultation.
We are straying off the clause, but the role of the Treasury Committee and its Sub-Committee is codified in the Bill to enhance the level of scrutiny. There is a Government proposal—it would be interesting to hear the views of the official Opposition on this—for a public interest intervention power, which would cover precisely the sorts of issues that the hon. Lady’s constituents may be concerned about relating to regulations. I say again that there is no substantive change to the way Parliament scrutinises the independence of financial services regulation, and I hope that is something on which we can all agree on both sides of the House.
In the interest of time, I turn to amendment 44, which would, as the hon. Member for Glenrothes said, mean that retained EU law relating to financial services could not be repealed, other than where it is prejudicial to the interests of consumers, unless replacement legislation is already in place. It is not the Government’s desire to sweep away retained EU law in financial services without ensuring that it is adequately replaced in UK law. I can assure the Committee that there is no arbitrary sunset—
Tulip Siddiq
I watched every minute of the Minister’s appearance before the Treasury Committee. He specifically said that the Government would revoke the retained law by the end of next year, in line with the previous Prime Minister’s policy. Is there now a change in that policy?
Andrew Griffith
That is not the position in the Bill, which does not contain that date. Whether or not the Government’s intention at the time was different, nothing in the Bill says that that will happen. The Government will not diverge for divergence’s sake, because we understand the need for continuity to give financial services companies the confidence that they seek.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
It is good to see you in the Chair, Dame Maria. Does that also apply to financial organisations based in Northern Ireland, Minister?
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
Will the Minister give way?
Andrew Griffith
One more time. I am being generous in giving way because we are at the early stages of the Bill, Chair.
Emma Hardy
The Minister is being generous, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey pointed out, we use Committee stage to scrutinise, question and ask for lots of detail that we would not ask for on the Floor of the House.
The Library briefing states that there is to be
“a ‘transitional period’ of undefined length…for each provision that is to be revoked.”
How will the decision be made on which provisions are to be revoked and when? What is the justification for revoking some at a different time from others?
Andrew Griffith
The Committee will indulge me if this sounds repetitive, but the thrust of the questions is the same: there is no change in the fundamental approach to UK financial services regulation, which is that the pen is held by the operationally independent regulators—primarily under the scrutiny of the Treasury Committee, to which they regularly give evidence—and they use the established statutory consultation procedure. That is the position, and will be the position going forward.
If the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle would like to table an amendment that would dispense with operationally independent regulators in the UK, so that Parliament holds the pen on rule making, the Government will consider it. That is not the Government’s view of what should happen, however, and I do not believe that it is the view of the official Opposition. I understand the important role of parliamentary scrutiny, but an embedded feature, and one that I hear hon. Members pushing back on or challenging, is that regulators—in consultation with industry, following the statutory consultation process—are that ones that make the rules.
I will make some progress. To address a point made by a number of hon. Members, the Treasury will, as it does now, work closely with the Financial Conduct Authority and other regulators to ensure that the transition from retained EU law to UK regulations is orderly and meets the need of UK consumers, and that there is no gap in protections or relevant rules. As I have said, that work will be subject to the statutory consultation process in the normal way.
Amendment 44, tabled by the hon. Member for Glenrothes, is about consumer protection. I can assure the Committee that clause 3(2)(f)—we are getting ahead of ourselves—specifically enables the Treasury to modify retained EU law to protect consumers and insurance policyholders. Clause 4 enables the Government to restate retained EU law in domestic legislation for the same purpose. Consumers of financial services are already assured of appropriate protections under the UK framework for financial services regulation. Parliament has given the FCA a consumer protection objective—one of its core objectives—to ensure an appropriate degree of protection for consumers, which the FCA is required to advance when discharging its general functions. As evidence of that, the FCA has, among other things, recently introduced a new consumer duty. I hope that assures the Committee that there are already adequate consumer protections, both in the Bill and in the wider body of regulation. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Glenrothes to withdraw his amendment.
I will now explain the approach that clause 1 and schedule 1 take to repealing retained EU law. Retained EU law is revoked by clause 1. Schedule 1 lists the retained EU law revoked by clause 1. Part 1 of the schedule captures retained direct principal EU legislation, which means EU regulations such as the prospectus regulation. Part 2 captures secondary legislation that was made to implement EU directives or other obligations. That includes statutory instruments made under the European Communities Act 1972, which implemented significant pieces of EU law, such as Solvency II and the markets in financial instruments directive, known as MiFID.
Part 3 captures EU tertiary legislation, including delegated regulations, implementing Acts and EU decisions. Part 4 repeals part of primary legislation that relates to retained EU law, in particular part 9D of FSMA 2000, which relates to rules defined in relation to the EU capital requirements regulation, and chapter 2A of part 9A of FSMA, which governs technical standards. Those parts of FSMA will not be necessary following the repeal of the retained EU law to which they relate. Part 5 acts as a sweeper provision: it revokes all EU derived legislation relating to financial services that is not directly listed in the schedule. That does not capture any domestic primary legislation; it simply captures the kinds of EU law covered by parts 1 to 3 but not specifically listed. I therefore recommend that clause 1 and schedule 1 stand part of the Bill.
Peter Grant
I thank all the hon. Members who contributed to the debate. I notice that the Minister did not explain why amendment 44 is a bad idea. He has not given any reason why it would make things worse. He has argued that it would not make things better, would make them only slightly better or would make them better in a way that is not needed.
I take the Minister’s point that later parts of the Bill give the Treasury the power to act in the interest of consumer protection. I want to go further than allowing the Treasury to protect my constituents; I want Parliament to force the Treasury to protect my constituents. We do that by not allowing the Treasury to revoke consumer protection legislation until we, the House of Commons, are on behalf of our constituents satisfied that there is a suitable replacement for it.
I draw the Committee’s attention to part 5 of schedule 1, on page 96 of the Bill. It essentially states, “We have listed 200 bits of legislation that we are going to revoke. There are probably lots of other ones that we have not found yet, so we are going to put in a catch-all clause, so that they will all be revoked as well.” That does not strike me as a good way for the House of Commons to revoke legislation. The Minister has repeatedly said that the Government do not expect all the legislation to be revoked overnight. In fact, the explanatory notes to the Bill point out that the Government think that changing all that EU law will take several years. What happened to, “We got Brexit done”? We have hardly even started on the financial services part of Brexit.
As I said in my opening remarks, although I was against the suggestion that that law needs to be changed, I accept that the United Kingdom has to start to change parts of EU law. The wholesale nature of the change intended in clause 1 is not necessary and is extremely dangerous to the interests of our constituents. Amendment 44 would not necessarily remove all of that danger, and I am still concerned about what we would be left with. I have nothing but respect for the Minister as an individual, but let us face it: if recent history is anything to go by, he will not be there when decisions on revoking legislation are actually taken. Who knows? Maybe he has his phone on just now, and is waiting for that call.
Let us be honest: over the summer, this has not been a Government who have honoured their promises. They have not honoured the assurances made to their own party members so that one Member could become Prime Minister—the Prime Minister who recently resigned. Promises made at the Dispatch Box have been unmade almost before the Minister making them sat down. This Government have severely damaged the tradition that assurances given by a Minister, either here in Committee or in the Chamber, will always be honoured. That does not happen any more. I am afraid the House is entitled to ask for a bit more than might have been accepted a few years ago, when the traditions of this House were actually respected by each and every member of the Government.
Dame Angela Eagle
Clearly, Pepper v. Hart applies when a reassurance is given by a Minister. That is partly why we ask questions in these proceedings. We wish to have on record reassurances about the meaning of the statute in front of us, how the Government interpret it, and what the Government’s intent was. If there is any subsequent doubt about that, the record can be looked at under the provisions of Pepper v. Hart.
Peter Grant
I am grateful for that intervention. I do not disagree with a word of it. My point is simply that whatever the conventions, traditions and proceedings of this House might tell us, in practice the doctrine of ministerial responsibility does not apply in the way that I just about remember learning about 50 years ago as a schoolchild, in what was then called modern studies. There are numerous examples of Ministers behaving in a way that would require them to go, if they believed in the conventions of the House. I am not suggesting for a second—
The Chair
Order. I remind the hon. Member that we really need to stick to the text of the Bill, rather than giving a lesson on constitutional law. That would be really helpful.
Peter Grant
Thank you, Dame Maria. I hear the Minister’s assurances, but this issue is too important for us to rely on the conventions of the House, which have been broken far too often. The protection of our consumers and the financial services industry is important enough that any changes to regulations that had to be at least initially consented to by this Parliament should be made only with the consent of this Parliament, to which power was supposed to be returned by Brexit.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 4 stand part.
Government amendment 2.
Clause 5 stand part.
Andrew Griffith
Clauses 3, 4 and 5 create the necessary powers to replace retained EU law, which we have just been talking about, when it is repealed through clause 1. While the Government will act quickly to repeal and reform those areas that offer the greatest potential benefits, some of the retained EU law listed in schedule 1 —this may give comfort to hon. Members—will remain in force for a period following Royal Assent.
Clause 3 creates a power for the Treasury to modify the retained EU law in schedule 1 during the transitional period—that is, the period from the Bill’s receipt of Royal Assent to the point at which the revocation of the instrument is commenced, whenever that is. That allows the Government to make proportionate and targeted—Members might like to note those words—modifications to retained EU law before it is repealed. That ensures that financial services regulation continues to function appropriately for UK markets, and that UK firms are not required to comply with outdated regulations while we put in place the new UK-designed rules.
Clause 4 allows the Treasury to modify and restate the retained EU law listed in schedule 1 of the Bill. The clause gives the Government the necessary tools to move, over time, to a comprehensive FSMA model of regulation. Under that model, the UK’s expert and operationally independent regulators will generally make the detailed rules for firms to follow, within a wider framework set by Parliament and Government. Under the FSMA model, the Treasury sets the regulatory perimeter through secondary legislation by specifying which activities should be regulated. Some elements of retained EU law perform a similar function and should therefore be maintained in domestic legislation. That includes provisions that set the perimeter of financial services regulation in which the regulators will operate, enforcement powers for the regulators, and the ability of the Treasury to make and give effect to equivalence decisions in respect of overseas jurisdictions.
The clause also allows the Treasury to modify the retained EU law that it restates. That is essential for the UK to seize the opportunities of Brexit, tailoring financial services regulation to UK markets to bolster the competitiveness of the UK as a global financial centre and to deliver better outcomes for consumers and businesses. The exercise of that power will almost always be subject to the affirmative procedure. The only exception is where the power is used to make transitional modifications to either EU tertiary legislation or legislation that was originally made under the negative procedure. In this case, it is appropriate to follow previous precedent and apply the same negative procedure.
Clause 5 empowers the Treasury to replace references to EU directives in domestic legislation through a statutory instrument. EU directives are EU legislative acts that do not directly have effect in the UK; however, there are various references to EU directives in domestic legislation, and those should be removed as we move to a comprehensive FSMA model of regulation. That is why the clause gives the Treasury the power to modify UK domestic legislation to replace references to EU directives. Sometimes, however, no replacement will be necessary, and amendment 2 simply clarifies that the power can be used to remove such references without replacement.
The Government will be able to exercise the powers given to them in clauses 3, 4 5 and in amendment 2 only in line with the purposes listed in clause 3(2). Those purposes have been drafted to be similar to the objectives of the FCA, the Prudential Regulation Authority, the financial stability objective of the Bank of England, and the special resolution objectives. That will ensure that, while retained EU law remains in place and constrains the action that regulators can take to further their objectives, the Government can act as appropriate.
I acknowledge that these are relatively broad powers, but they are appropriately constrained by reference to existing objectives, with appropriate parliamentary scrutiny and in relation to retained EU law. It is proportionate to the task ahead of us, which is to seize the opportunity of the EU exit to build a comprehensive model of financial services regulation tailored specifically to UK markets. I commend clauses 3, 4 and 5 to the Committee.
Emma Hardy
If I am correct, there was significant questioning of clause 3 and the powers during transition in the oral evidence sessions, particularly with Martin Taylor, who was the last person to give evidence. As the Minister may recall, he spoke about how this extra power that the Treasury will have could undermine the trust of the markets in the independence of the regulators. I was just looking to see if there was a copy of the Hansard of those oral evidence sessions, but I cannot seem to see one—[Interruption.] I have one now.
Martin Taylor’s significant concerns were, as we have recently, that when the markets believe there is not independence of the regulators, they react accordingly. Has the Minister reflected on that evidence, and what reassurance can he give the markets and others that the Treasury will not exert undue influence over the regulators?
One of the points that stuck in my mind, though I cannot remember who made it, was about the Treasury having the power to intervene when something is in the public interest. One of the witnesses said that that implies that sometimes the regulators will act not in the public interest, given that the Treasury have to intervene in the public interest and exert power and control over them. I wonder if the Minister has reflected further on some of those concerns that were raised during the oral evidence session.
Peter Grant
It is interesting that we have three clauses here, each of which give the Treasury the power to amend legislation in very, very closely defined and restricted ways, and every one of them needs regulations to be approved by Parliament. Most of them require approval by the affirmative procedure. However, two minutes ago we were told we could wipe out 200 different items of legislation in their entirety without Parliament needing to have any oversight of the process. It does seem a strange contradiction.
The way the clauses are worded and the restrictions that are placed on them mean that this is one of the very few occasions where I would be comfortable in allowing regulations to be used to amend primary legislation. However, I have to say that for some of the restrictions, one wonders why they are there. Subsection (6) to clause 3 requires the Treasury to consult the regulator, and subsection (7) basically says, “But the Treasury only needs to consult the regulators if the Treasury thinks it is a good idea”. Why on earth does that need to be put into an Act of Parliament?
If clause 1 had been worded in a similar way to these clauses, there would have been no need for my amendment. There would have been no question at all from my point of view about that clause being accepted. I hope the Minister can explain why it is that these very limited and restricted powers to amend legislation are subject in most cases to the affirmative procedure, whereby Parliament has to approve them, when all the legislation that was put up for repeal and revocation in clause 1 needs no further detailed scrutiny from Parliament.
As far as the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle, I think those comments perhaps related to an amendment that the Government have flagged that they intend to introduce that may well give the Government far too much power to direct the supposedly independent regulators. If and when that amendment comes forward, we will certainly have concerns about it. I do not think those comments were related to the clauses in the Bill as it stands. On that basis, I will not oppose the clauses today.
Dame Angela Eagle
I want to register some concern and get the Minister’s reassurances on the record about what are very broad-ranging powers for the Treasury, which are then subject to constraints. Was it necessary to have such broad-ranging powers? It is not a good way of approaching things unless there are no other options. Is the Minister worried that, over time, those constraints might loosen and the broad powers will remain? The dynamic of this kind of structure is what worries me, rather than the balance that he has explained the Government have currently set.
Shaun Bailey
I shall be brief. Broadly speaking, I support the three clauses and particularly clause three on the qualifications it puts on how the Treasury will utilise those powers. I do not know the inner machinations of the Treasury. I know there are people in this room, particularly the hon. Member for Wallasey, who probably know it better than me, but the practical reality needs to be an important part of this as we debate the clauses too.
I hope my hon. Friend the Minister will say to me that the Treasury will not fly solo without consultation with the regulator. Clearly, the Treasury has built a partnership with the regulators, which forms a key part of any sort of work within the scope of these three clauses, particularly amendments of regulation and the qualifications under clause three. I am just keen to stress the point to my hon. Friend that as the Bill progresses and is practically applied, that discourse with regulators is a key part of its implementation.
The hon. Member for Wallasey made a fair point about the loosening of restraints. The assurances we seek from my hon. Friend are just to ensure that the frameworks that in place are robustly monitored and maintained. That will be the key to ensuring that the constraints under which my hon. Friend’s Department is placed as he executes the provisions of these clauses are properly maintained.
Andrew Griffith
I welcome the contributions from the hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle and for Wallasey, and my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West. Both sides of the House are wrestling with exactly the same issue, which is taking what is acknowledged to be an unprecedented corpus of European law, which the Westminster Parliament had no opportunity to have oversight of or change—
Andrew Griffith
I will not give way at the moment. The issue is therefore about docking that corpus into an established framework of operationally independent regulators, with Parliament establishing the perimeter and ultimately having the right degree of scrutiny. That may be through the public interest intervention power that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle talked about, but which is not tabled in the Bill at the moment and is subject to continuing debate. That was the main thrust of the witness in the final session of last week’s sitting.
As currently written, clause three does not interfere with regulatory independence. Repealing retained EU law means the regulators will generally, as the default position, take over setting the detailed requirements, replacing the function of the European Commission and the European Parliament. However, that will take time and so we will not repeal those rules immediately. The regulators, under direction and intervention, as currently, from the Treasury Committee, will decide on the areas of most focus.
Emma Hardy
When will the details on those intervention powers be published so we can have a good look at them?
Andrew Griffith
I have previously given the assurance to the Treasury Committee that they will be tabled during the course of the Committee stage of the Bill. That remains the intention.
I have broadly addressed the points. I do not think Hon. Members oppose the Bill’s wording. I understand probing and I welcome the scrutiny of Parliament; we are here to provide precisely that function. However, I hope that I have been able to set out to the Committee’s satisfaction why these powers are necessary, but also the wider context in which they will be operated.
Dame Angela Eagle
I wonder whether the Minister could be a bit more forthcoming about when the amendment will be available, because that will give us a fuller picture of the Government’s decisions on the delicate balance that must be struck. Bearing in mind that the Committee sits for two weeks and at the end of today we will have had 25% of the Public Bill Committee proceedings on this Bill, I hope that the Minister will not publish the amendment at the end of next week.
Andrew Griffith
I am afraid that the hon. Lady will have to accept my previous commitment to the Committee. I also observe that mixed messages have come from the Opposition side of the House, because a lot of the thrust today is that Parliament should have greater ability to scrutinise or to intervene; previously, we have heard the opposite. But I have nothing further to add in terms of the timing.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5
Power to replace references to EU directives
Amendment made: 2, in clause 5, page 4, line 37, after “provision” insert “(if any)”.—(Andrew Griffith.)
This amendment clarifies that the power conferred by clause 5(1) to remove references to EU directives can be exercised so as to remove such references without replacement.
Clause 5, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6
Restatement in rules: exemption from consultation requirements etc
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Andrew Griffith
Clause 6 supports the efficient transfer of financial services regulation from retained EU law to the regulators’ rulebooks. As retained EU law is revoked, the regulators will take on significant new responsibilities for making rules in areas where EU law currently exists, within the framework set by the Treasury and Parliament through FSMA and enhanced by this Bill. Part of that wider framework sets out the processes that the FCA, the PRA, the Bank of England and the Payment Systems Regulator must follow when they make rules. Those processes rightly include requirements to conduct cost-benefit analysis, to carry out a public consultation and, in some cases, to consult other regulators. Such provisions are crucial to the functioning of our regulatory system and ensure that the impact of new rules on individuals and businesses is appropriately assessed and considered.
However, there are likely to be occasions when existing rules under retained EU law do not need to be materially altered and so, when the regulators bring forward new rules, they may remain broadly similar to the retained EU law that they replace. In those cases, the rules would not require any real changes for firms, compared with the existing retained EU law. The clause therefore enables the Treasury to exempt the regulators from cost-benefit analysis and consultation in those circumstances where they make rules that are “materially similar” to those currently in retained EU law. That will ensure proportionality and will therefore enable the regulators to focus their resources on those areas where reform will unlock the benefits that arise from tailoring regulation to UK markets.
I should reassure the Committee that the clause is framed as a power rather than a blanket exemption. Even when a regulator is proposing to make rules that are “materially similar” to existing requirements, a full consultation and a cost-benefit analysis may be appropriate.
Clause 7 is a technical provision that defines several terms used in clauses 1 to 6 and schedule 1. It governs how those other provisions should be interpreted. I will briefly set out the major elements of interpretation. First, the clause defines the word “regulator” as referring to the Prudential Regulation Authority, the Financial Conduct Authority, the Bank of England and the Payment Systems Regulator. Secondly, it excludes regulator rules from the definition of EU-derived legislation, meaning that where regulator rules implemented EU directives, they will not be revoked by the Bill. That is a necessary exclusion because many parts of the regulatory rulebook would otherwise meet the definition of retained EU law, but it would not be appropriate to repeal them as they are for the regulators to determine. The regulators already have the necessary powers to delete or modify them as appropriate. I therefore commend the clauses to the Committee.
Dame Angela Eagle
Could the Minister spend a bit of time explaining what “materially similar” means?
Martin Docherty-Hughes
I asked the Minister earlier about Northern Ireland, and SNP and Labour Members would be interested to hear what he means by “proportionality” when it comes to services, EU-derived legislation and what differences there will be between the UK and Northern Ireland. He never mentions Northern Ireland—he keeps talking about the United Kingdom.
Andrew Griffith
To the question asked by the hon. Lady, my understanding is that the terms will have the common law usage. It would be inappropriate for me to try to insert my own definition.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 6 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
Members will have noted that we now come to clause 2, which the Government requested we debate in this order.
Clause 2
Transitional amendments
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss that schedule 2 be the Second schedule to the Bill.
Andrew Griffith
We have already discussed the provisions the Bill delivers to allow us to replace the entirety of financial services retained EU law with domestic legislation that is in line with the established FSMA model. The Government will use the powers in the Bill and work closely with the regulators to give effect to that. However, it is important that we act now, where we can, to tailor our regulations to seize the benefits of EU exit and support our world-leading financial services sector. Clause 2 and schedule 2 do just that, making two sets of important and immediate transitional amendments to retained EU law. These are technical and important changes, so forgive me for taking some time to set them out.
First, schedule 2 makes a series of priority reforms to the UK’s regulatory regime for wholesale capital markets as identified through the Government’s wholesale markets review. The regime is predominantly set out in EU-derived legislation collectively known as the markets in financial instruments directive—MiFID—framework. The resilience, effectiveness and competitiveness of the UK’s capital markets rest on strong and effective regulation.
However, the MiFID framework was designed for the EU and intended to ensure detailed, harmonised rules across 28 jurisdictions. Many of the rules are therefore not calibrated optimally for the UK and, in a number of areas, have not delivered the intended benefits. This has led, for example, to duplication and excessive administrative burdens for firms or has stifled innovation. Such rules clearly do not work for a global financial centre such as the UK.
Parts 1, 2 and 4 of schedule 2 deliver the most urgent reforms identified through that process. The reforms will result in a simpler and less prescriptive regime that meets the needs of UK markets while still maintaining the highest regulatory standards. Part 1 of schedule 2 removes unnecessary restrictions on firms’ ability to execute transactions, deleting the share trading obligation and double volume cap. The EU argued that these restrictions would increase transparency in share trading, but evidence suggests that they have prevented firms from accessing the most liquid markets and therefore achieving the best price for investors.
Dame Angela Eagle
Obviously, this is an extremely complex area of technical regulation. It requires the regulators, alongside the Basel Committee and the international authorities regulating the flow of this kind of stuff, to operate effectively. If securitisation goes wrong or if markets begin to be opaque, with transparency going down, there can serious consequences for the countries in which such firms are based. That might also engage systemic threats to the banking structures of those countries. We have been through that before, and we know what happened when securitisation went wrong in the global financial crisis and what damage that caused to the global infrastructure.
Clearly, those tasked with ensuring that that does not happen again—those in the Bank of England, the prudential regulators and the FCA who have a handle on this, as well as the international regulators trying to set standards—have to be very aware of how such regulation might change and effect firms in the markets. However, there will always be a push in these markets to move the boundaries towards something less opaque and more profitable for those doing business, hoping that the risks can be left somewhere else. When risks crystallise, however, they are left on the balance sheets of nations that have to cope with cleaning up the mess. So, while I approve of modernising such regimes, little alarm bells go off in my mind when I think about attracting more such business. That kind of business is attractive if it is safe; it is not attractive if it is unsafe.
The Minister ploughed through his speech about all the technicalities of the shift away from EU-regulated systems and about how onshoring back to the UK will be done. Given how large our banking, financial services and insurance sector is, we are clearly at systemic risk if we get this wrong. We have to get the balance right between ensuring that any new regimes are transparent and safe enough to be hosted in our country. The Minister took us through some of the technical changes, but will he reassure us about the transparency and safety issues in the new regime that I have hinted at?
Peter Grant
If the sun moves much further, I will have to sit on the other side of the room to keep it out of my eyes, so my apologies for having to move seat during the debate, Dame Maria.
I thank the Minister for doing what I hoped he would have done in the debate on the revocations in clause 1: outlining in terms understandable to a lay person why some specific items of EU legislation are no longer appropriate for the United Kingdom—in fact, it is questionable whether they are appropriate elsewhere. I would have wanted to see that before the changes proposed in other parts of the Bill. On the basis of the Minister’s comments, and the fact that none of the regulators we heard from raised concerns, I am willing to accept that the changes suggested in the clause and the details in schedule 2 are appropriate.
I want to draw attention to a comment the Minister made earlier and to give him the chance to correct it. He suggested that this is EU legislation that Parliament never had the chance to scrutinise, but that is not the case. I spent several years, as other hon. Members did, on the European Scrutiny Committee. Every single piece of legislation the European Union intended to implement came before that Committee, which had the authority to call in Ministers and to put a stop on them approving things at EU Council meetings if the Committee was unsatisfied as to the impact. The House of Commons—the whole of Parliament—had the right to take action to prevent any of those directives from coming into force. The fact that Parliament seldom did that is a failing of this and previous Parliaments. The fact that Ministers had so much free rein to do what they liked, and could ignore Parliament if they wanted to, is not the fault of the European Union; it is because of the relationship between Parliament and Government. This Parliament is unfit for purpose, and Ministers from other members of the European Union would not have been allowed to agree to those directives without a vote in their respective Parliaments. I hope the Minister will be willing to correct the record. We can agree or disagree about legislation that the European Union put in place, but to suggest that this Parliament was somehow unable to have any impact on that legislation is simply not accurate.
Tulip Siddiq
Has the Minister picked up any feedback from the sector about the Government’s proposed reform to the position limits—a regulation under MiFID II—and the fact that they have not been adequately assessed for commodity market speculation risks? How does he plan to keep that issue under review? If he has heard of concerns, is he planning to address them?
Andrew Griffith
I am happy to stand corrected by the hon. Member for Glenrothes, but I am not happy to relitigate matters that the British people settled, given the chance in a referendum. I hope the hon. Member will reciprocate by looking forwards, not backwards, so that we can go forward with the best financial services regulation for the UK.
The matters raised by the hon. Members for Wallasey and for Hampstead and Kilburn are precisely within the scope of the regulators, and they have been consulted on. The hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn raised important points about the commodity market. The regulators are aware of those, and they will remain under constant review. Parliament itself has the ability, as always, to set the perimeter within which the regulators operate. Having addressed those points, I have no further comments.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clause 8
Designated activities
Peter Grant
I beg to move amendment 34, in clause 8, page 7, line 4, after “activity” insert—
“(c) the extent to which the activity has the effect of raising finance for any business purpose by means of soliciting financial contributions other than by—
(i) an authorised issue of shares, or
(ii) borrowing from an authorised financial institution.”
This amendment would allow the Treasury to designate and regulate businesses which seek to raise finance by soliciting contributions from the general public other than by an authorised share issue.
First, I welcome the intention behind the clause, because it seeks to close a number of loopholes that have become evident in the way financial regulators are allowed to regulate and in the way that activities come within or fall beyond their scope. Far too often we see dodgy operators deliberately choosing to operate in empty spaces between the remits of different regulators. Too often the regulators seem more concerned about arguing that something is someone else’s responsibility than about taking responsibility themselves.
It is not clear whether the amendment falls within the scope of this Bill or that of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill, which is about to start its Committee proceedings, so I am pleased that it has been ruled competent. Essentially, the problem that the amendment is designed to address is what Blackmore Bond and Safe Hands Funeral Plans became. Quite possibly, it was always the intention of the directors that they would move away from being businesses carrying out particular business activities, and towards being businesses of which the main purpose in life was to get the general public to fund those activities. Although Safe Hands was a funeral plan business on the face of it—that was how it was set up—it became a way for the director, who took over a few years before the company collapsed completely, to take money from people who thought their money would be kept safe to pay for their funeral when the time came. The director then used that money to speculate on wildly high-risk and potentially high-profit investments.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
I understand exactly what the hon. Gentleman is trying to do with the amendment, and I have a lot of sympathy, but I am not clear about its scope and extent. Is he trying to ensure that the Treasury starts to regulate crowdfunders? That is potentially what the amendment would allow. It is a very widely drawn amendment, and I seek clarification on this point.
Peter Grant
If it became clear to the Treasury or the relevant regulator that crowdfunders were using funds for illicit purposes, rather than for genuinely good causes, I would expect the Treasury and the relevant regulator to step in. My amendment is designed to put primary legislation in place to allow the regulators to step in, and to allow the Treasury to take action, if it becomes clear that there is a problem, regardless of whether that is through crowdfunding or any other method of raising finance. The important part of the amendment is about finances being raised as a way of raising capital. The amendment does not in any way imply that it would cover, for example, crowdfunding for a good cause or to raise funds for someone who has had a serious accident. That would not be covered by the wording of the amendment.
I can understand the concerns, and I am quite happy if someone can come up with better wording—possibly in an amendment to a different piece of legislation—that achieves the aim of the amendment, but I am utterly convinced that there is a serious weakness in our current regulation. As currently worded, neither this Bill nor the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill will close down that loophole sufficiently.
At Blackmore Bond, the abuse that was taking place was stopped after it was too late. At Safe Hands Funeral Plans, the abuse that was taking place was stopped after it was too late and people had lost their money. The selling of mini-bonds to the general public, which is what Blackmore Bond was up to, is now outlawed, so action has been taken on that specific kind of abuse. Funeral plans are now regulated, so action has been taken on that specific kind of abuse. I do not want the regulator or the Treasury having always to see where the next specific company disguise is going to be, however; I want them to have the power to regulate based on how businesses take money from the general public.
With those comments, I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response. If he is not minded to accept the amendment, I hope that we can get an assurance that the intention behind it will be addressed at a later stage.
Emma Hardy
I have a general question on the clause and the designated activities regime. In the consultation response document produced by the Treasury—“Financial Services Future Regulatory Framework Review: Proposals for Reform. Response to Consultation” to be precise—some consultation respondents were concerned about what activities would physically be regulated, what constraints were to be placed on the powers of the Treasury and what the consequences for failing to comply with the regulator’s rules would be. I have not yet seen their concerns answered by the Minister. Will he address that?
Stephen Hammond
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Maria. Will the Minister clarify quickly proposed new section 71S? The power in subsections (3) to (7) is an exceptional power, rather than a regular power.
Andrew Griffith
The amendment seeks to make it clear that offers of non-equity securities to retail investors—for example, as cited, retail bonds—can be brought into regulation through the designated activities regime. That is the important subject we are talking about. That regime—the DAR—has been designed to allow for the proportionate regulation of activities involving interactions with financial markets in the UK and conducted by many that are not traditional financial services firms. In essence, it is the core scope of regulation. The DAR includes a range of activities, such as an activity connected to the financial markets or exchanges of the UK, or an activity connected to financial instruments, financial products or financial investments issued or sold in the UK. Any of those can be designated under the DAR. Our contention is that it is therefore already sufficiently broad in scope. We will discuss that further when we consider clause stand part later.
Offers of non-equity securities to retail investors as proposed by the amendment would fall within the definition of the DAR should the Government wish to designate that activity in future. Indeed, proposed new schedule 6B of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, which is to be inserted by the Bill and which provides illustrative examples of the types of activities that His Majesty’s Treasury may designate, includes
“Offering securities to the public.”
I can therefore give my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon the comfort that he seeks, in that the provision does extend to crowdfunding, which was his specific point.
Peter Grant
I am grateful for that assurance, but does the Minister take my point that in the examples of abuses that I mentioned, people did not say that they were offering any kind of securities? They said that they were selling funeral plans. Next time, they will be selling school or university fees plans or Christmas hamper plans; it will not be presented as the selling of equities as he and I would understand it.
Andrew Griffith
We will refer to that in more detail when we return to the DAR this afternoon. The DAR is the important establishment of the perimeter. I hear the hon. Gentleman on how we set the scope and those definitions, but the position of the Government is that the Bill already enables the Government to take action to ensure that offers of retail bonds are appropriately captured by regulation.
In April 2021, the Government consulted on the future regulation of non-transferable debt securities such as mini-bonds. In response to the consultation, the Government decided to bring certain non-transferable securities, including but importantly not limited to mini-bonds, within the scope of the reformed prospectus regime. The Government confirmed that we would bring forward our reforms to the UK prospectus regime using the powers in the Bill to replace retained EU law—following commencement. I am therefore confident that the Bill as drafted can achieve what is needed to regulate such activities. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.
Peter Grant
I am still not sure that the Minister gets this. I will not push the amendment to a vote, but I sincerely hope that he will see the need for such a measure in financial services legislation or, more appropriately, in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill on its way through the House. If the clause as worded had been in place 20 years ago, Blackmore Bond would still have happened, Safe Hands would still have happened, and my constituents and all others would still have been scammed out of hundreds of millions of pounds.
A couple of years ago, when I spoke about Blackmore Bond, I said that I had a horrible feeling—an almost certain feeling—that it was already happening again somewhere else; six months later, Safe Hands collapsed and tens of thousands of people lost all their funeral plan money. I do not know the nature of the business that is being used as a cover for the latest scam, but deep in my guts I know that it is happening now, and that it will happen again next year and the year after. Nothing in this legislation as framed adequately clamps down on that.
I will not push the amendment to a vote, not because I do not think it is important but because I would rather not put it to a vote to see it voted down, which would be a serious mistake by the Committee. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Joy Morrissey.)
Financial Services and Markets Bill (Fourth sitting)
Tuesday 25th October 2022
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesFinancial Services and Markets Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 25 October 2022 - (25 Oct 2022)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Before we continue with consideration of the Bill, I have a correction to announce to an earlier Division result. In this morning’s sitting, the Committee divided on amendment 44. The result of the Division was incorrectly announced as two Ayes and 11 Noes. The Noes were, in fact, 10. Apologies for that. Although it does not change the substantive outcome of the Division, I wanted to notify the Committee. The correction will be reflected in the Official Report.
Clause 8
Designated Activities
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Andrew Griffith)
I beg to move amendment 22, in clause 8, page 7, line 7, at end insert—
“(7) The financial instruments, financial products and financial investments mentioned in subsection (3)(b) may include cryptoassets.”
This amendment clarifies that cryptoassets may be regulated using the new power in Part 5A of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (designated activities) which is inserted by clause 8 of the Bill. The new provision relies on the definition of cryptoasset inserted by NC14.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government new clause 14—Cryptoassets.
Andrew Griffith
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Maria. Cryptoassets and blockchain could have a profound impact across all forms of the financial services sector. We are still on the cusp of this breakthrough technology, and its uses are continuing to evolve. Clauses 21, 22 and schedule 6 will enable the Treasury to establish an effective regulatory regime for digital settlement assets. Those include cryptoassets referred to as stablecoins. The Committee will consider those clauses in a later session.
Following engagement with industry, the Government recognise the need to move ahead with regulating a broader set of crypto activities beyond stablecoins; that includes activities relating to the trading and investment of cryptoassets such as Bitcoin and Ethereum. Through the Bill, we want to ensure that HM Treasury has the necessary powers to deliver that. The Government believe that creating an effective comprehensive regulatory framework for cryptoassets has the potential to unlock innovation in the UK’s crypto sector and to boost growth.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
What do the Government mean by “innovation” in a piece of legislation? I wonder why such a term is used, because it is so broad. What does the Minister actually mean?
Andrew Griffith
If the hon. Gentleman will let me continue, I can offer some clarification. It is vital that the Government have the flexibility to develop a world-leading regime for cryptoassets in an agile way. The innovation itself comes from emerging new technologies or new uses for those technologies. The role of the Government and the Treasury in this respect will be to create regulatory frameworks that enable their safe deployment, which I hope all Members of the House agree with. Together, amendment 22 and new clause 14 will ensure that that happens.
Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
The Minister is quite right that all Governments have to think about how to deal with the emergence of cryptocurrencies, but using that phrase is a bit like using the phrase “genetically modified”. We would certainly want any coin that the Bank of England decided to back to be treated very differently from Bitcoin. Could the Minister say a bit more about how regulating for a piece of electronic money backed by the Bank of England would be different from regulating in a way that would make Bitcoin seem almost reasonable? We know that it is a gigantic gamble that no one in their right mind would want to invest in.
Andrew Griffith
I am cautious of time; this issue would be apt for a debate in itself rather than being discussed as part of the Bill’s technical clauses. Aspects of Bitcoin are already within the perimeter of the regulatory regime. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, that is an emerging area. The hon. Member for Wallasey is quite right that there are trade-offs, and we want to protect consumers while not shutting the regulatory regime off from an emerging set of technologies.
Andrew Griffith
I give way again, but I do not want to turn this into a debate about the underlying societal challenges of an emerging technology; I want us to confine ourselves as much as possible to the Bill.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
I am grateful to the Minister. I disagree that crypto is emerging; it has been around for quite a long time. In terms of parity of regulation and consumers, there are also the producers. It seems that there would be a halo effect: for example, larger companies would control stablecoin, but small or medium-sized companies that could produce stablecoin might be excluded. Will the Minister assure us of the Government’s intention to create equity in the stablecoin market?
Andrew Griffith
It is certainly not the Government’s intention to create anything other than opportunities for different participants to emerge and bring forward products in the sector. Those could include stablecoins, which are asset-backed cryptoassets. Over time, they could include central bank-issued currencies. The Government have indicated a desire to explore that, but have not yet confirmed that the Bank of England or the Treasury intend to issue.
Of course, we must ensure that products already out there being advertised to our consumers are appropriately regulated within the regulatory perimeter. We are not preferring or advantaging one or other part of that, but without the amendment and new clause we would not be able to bring forward the appropriate regulations, which the regulators will consult on with industry in due course. I hope that clarifies the Government’s thinking. Outwith the Committee, it will be appropriate in due course for the Government to update their set of policy objectives for this space. The subject that we are discussing today is somewhat narrower; it is just the remit of the Bill.
Amendment 22 clarifies that cryptoassets are within scope of the designated activities regime introduced by clause 8. We talked earlier about the designated activities regime—the DAR. By bringing cryptoassets within its perimeter for the first time, some of the societal outcomes and concerns that hon. Members have raised can be addressed. If we do not bring them within the perimeter, those concerns cannot be addressed.
New clause 14 clarifies that cryptoassets could be brought within the scope of the existing provisions of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 relating to the regulated activities order. The substance is that cryptoassets will be treated like other forms of financial asset: not preferred, but brought within the scope of regulation for the first time. That is the aim of the new clause. It will ensure that the Treasury is equipped to respond to developments in the crypto sector more quickly and deliver regulation in an agile, risk-based way that is consistent with our approach to the broader financial services sector.
The Treasury will consult on its approach with industry and stakeholders ahead of using the powers, to ensure that the framework reflects the unique features, benefits and risks posed by crypto activities. I think that is the assurance that hon. Members seek: that the Government will consult before seeking to use the powers. Any secondary legislation made to bring new cryptoasset activities into the regulatory perimeter would be subject to the affirmative procedure, so each House will have an opportunity to debate the legislation. That gives Parliament the appropriate oversight.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
We welcome Government amendment 22 and Government new clause 14, which we recognise would extend financial protection to cryptoassets. It is a welcome and important move that will help to prevent high-risk cryptoassets from being falsely advertised to the public.
Does the Minister believe that the definition of cryptoassets is broad enough to capture financial promotions of as yet non-existent cryptoassets? I also wanted to ask him how the broad-ranging definition of “crypto” used in clause 8 takes account of the fact that the Bill only brings stablecoins into payment regulation.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
I draw the Minister and his Department’s attention to the work of Dr Robert Herian, who is one of the primary academics on regulation. I am mindful that he says it is the technology that underpins stablecoin and other related cryptoassets that we seek to regulate through the legislation. I welcome that—it is a step forward—but he has also said that the technology
“may offer an opportunity to recalibrate the powerplay between those who would engage in aggressive tax strategies and planning, and those charged with regulating them”.
Can the Minister advise Members whether he believes that this approach to stablecoin and future innovative technologies, which are already there, will enable a recalibration, so that finance is not utilised in some type of tax dodge? Could he reinforce that point? Every time we hear a discussion about stablecoin and cryptoassets, there is a certain element of finance that I do not think anyone here would really support.
Andrew Griffith
On the question posed by the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn, I do believe that the definition is broad enough. If there are specific concerns or use cases that the hon. Member feels are not encompassed, I am happy to take that back offline or to write to her with advice. The intention is clearly to allow sufficient flexibility to broaden the perimeter.
I am not fully familiar with the works that the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire talks about, but I am happy to become more familiar with them over time. It is clearly not part of the Government’s intention to legitimise what would not otherwise be legitimate or to create the opportunity for issuers to evade responsibility to society. That is not the Government’s aim and objective.
Amendment 22 agreed to.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
I beg to move amendment 35, in clause 8, page 9, line 25, at end insert—
“(ba) in cases where the regulations make provision for liability, make provision for nominated representatives of organisations against whom liability has been found to be held personally liable for actions undertaken in relation to carrying out a designated activity,”.
This amendment would allow for nominated representatives to be held personally liable for the carrying out of a designated activity when an organisation has been found liable.
This is another amendment that attempts to improve the protection of consumers, small investors and others who in the past have been far too easy prey for unscrupulous company directors and other people in charge of companies. In a number of the recent financial services scams, we have seen that even once the investigatory regulatory process has been completed, which in itself can take five, even 10 years, any attempt to recover money from where it should be recovered from—the pockets of criminals—is frustrated by the fact that the companies at the centre of the scam have at best no money left in their books. Most of the time, they have been placed into liquidation long ago.
Part of that liquidation process is always moving the money into other companies, very often hidden in offshore anonymous companies owned by the exact same person. Effectively, the person who works the scam takes steps to get their money well out of the reach of the UK regulators and enforcers long before the liability of the company is established. Amendment 35 seeks not to require but to allow the designated activity regulations in specific circumstances to make regulations that say, “There will be occasions when individuals who have carried out the misconduct will be held personally liable to people who have suffered.” That means that those who have been scammed in a way that is not covered by the financial services compensation scheme at least have a chance of getting their money back. Possibly more importantly, the amendment would be a further deterrent to those who would carry out such scams, because it will at least partially close down the option of their hiding their ill-gotten gains in a different company, where they are no longer within reach of the regulator.
I appreciate that anything that starts to blur the distinction between a shareholder, a director and the legal personality that is a limited company should be used with caution. I fully understand why, in UK law, a company is its own person with its own legal identity, but there are times when we cannot allow the director of a company to hide behind that—times when natural justice says that if we know who is responsible for people losing their money, and know that they have buckets full of money sitting in a company somewhere, it is perfectly reasonable to say to them, “We will have that money to compensate the people you scammed.”
The victims of Blackmore Bond will never see their money again. I understand that one of its directors is now bankrupt, but the other definitely is not. Most of the victims of Safe Hands Plans will probably not see their money again. Remember, its director bought the company at a time when he knew that it would have to wind up in a year or two; we have to ask why he was so keen to buy it. He is not a poor person; he is extremely wealthy. He just managed to move his money out of that company and into others.
Clearly, the amendment could not be retrospective, but if it was agreed to, it would mean that if any person tried the same dodge in future, their victims could, in court, try to get their money back from the person who stole from them, rather than from the company, which will often no longer exist.
Dame Angela Eagle
I do not want to row in behind the hon. Member and support absolutely everything that he says on his amendment, but I know what he is trying to do: to put something in statute that would solve the problem of fraud, which is more and more prevalent in our financial system, especially in and around the perimeter that we have been talking about. There can be questions about whether a person is inside or outside the perimeter, or whether a bit of their company is inside and a bit outside. That kind of fraudulent hiding behind being regulated when the things being sold are outwith the perimeter does fool a lot of people, and a lot of money is scammed out of our constituents’ bank accounts in that way. Does the Minister have any observations on how we could—
Dame Angela Eagle
Before we were so rudely interrupted, I was saying that, although I do not support the detail of the amendment, it is a hook on which to hang the sheer frustration that many of our constituents feel about a system in which vast amounts of money are scammed. Some of those who have benefited are in plain sight, often with their ill-gotten gains, while our constituents have had their life savings wiped out. It seems that the law can do nothing to touch these people, and I share our constituents’ frustration.
We will get on to fraud and other issues later in the Bill, but I understand and respect the creativity of the hon. Member for Glenrothes in using the amendment to raise them now. In replying to the debate, will the Minister say how the Government think we could massively improve the attack on fraud in our financial system, because it is increasing rapidly? The risks for those who perpetrate fraud are tiny, but the rewards are huge, and that is surely driving the ongoing attacks on the life savings of many of our constituents. That makes engaging with financial services—buying and selling, and buying products from the system—difficult and potentially dangerous, and it puts many people off trying to make the provision for themselves that we would normally want them to make.
Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)
I, too, support the intentions behind the amendment from the hon. Member for Glenrothes, which were very well articulated by the hon. Member for Wallasey. We often see these people swanning around the place with their ill-gotten gains, while many of our constituents have been on the receiving end of a scam. Even when there has been some form of regulatory investigation, some people do not feel that justice has been done. The amendment tries to make tangible something that may appear quite abstract to our constituents. I support the amendment’s aim but, to follow one of the Committee’s themes, perhaps this is not quite the place for it.
That said, I echo the request for reassurances from the Minister on how we will construct a regulatory regime that makes our constituents feel that there is a degree of responsibility. As Members on both sides of the Committee have said, many of our constituents, particularly those who have been victims of fraud and scams, feel that although the letter of the regulatory system may have been followed, justice has not been done. As we consider the Bill, we need to keep that at the forefront of our mind. I can get on board with the intentions behind amendment 35, but we have to first consider its practical effects. I hope that in his summing up, the Minister will give the Treasury’s thinking on this issue.
Tulip Siddiq
Later, I will come to my amendment on the Bill’s fraud provisions, but I want to express my support for the intentions behind amendment 35. Does the Minister oppose in principle the idea of nominated representatives being held liable for the carrying out of a designated activity when an organisation has been found liable?
Andrew Griffith
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West for his reasoned response; I make common cause with him. The issue of liability compensation vexes the sector, and a huge number of regulatory interventions and compensation schemes are concerned with that. I say to all hon. Members that the battle against fraud and for recompense goes much wider than the Bill. It includes the Government’s fraud strategy, our endeavours on economic crime and the activities of various regulators, but I associate myself with colleagues’ remarks.
It is said that hard cases make bad law, and regrettably the Government feel that the amendment cannot be supported. We need to be conscious that limited liability is an important principle in UK law. Measures elsewhere in the Bill—we will come to them later in our discussions on clause 8—allow the Treasury to make regulations concerning liability and compensation in relation to designated activities. That goes some way to answering the question raised by the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn. In principle, the Government are absolutely on the side of victims; sometimes it is just a question of bringing forward the appropriate regulations that will not have unintended consequences.
Given the breadth and variety of activities that can fall within the designated activities regime, we need a tailored supervision and enforcement framework for each type of activity, rather than over-generalising. The Treasury can use powers in the DAR to design and create separate supervision and enforcement frameworks.
Proposed new section 71P, which will be inserted into the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 by clause 8, allows the Treasury to make regulations concerning liability and compensation in relation to designated activities. That means that the Treasury can make provision in secondary legislation for the Financial Conduct Authority to hold liable individuals—this answers the question—working for a company that is carrying out designated activity, where appropriate. We support that in principle, but it is for the FCA to bring forward the regulations for a particular type of activity.
Proposed new section 71Q to FSMA provides that designated activity regulations—
The Chair
Order. The Minister might want to pause his comments on clause 8 and focus for the moment on amendment 35. We will come to clause 8 stand part shortly.
Andrew Griffith
Thank you, Dame Maria. You are right: many of these matters fall within the domain of clause 8, which we shall discuss shortly.
Peter Grant
I thank Members on both sides of the Committee who have supported the intention behind the amendment. As I said in my opening remarks, I accept that it does not sit particularly comfortably in a financial services Bill under the Treasury, because the Treasury is not usually responsible for the general regulation of businesses. Nor does it sit comfortably in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill, which I understand is shared between the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Home Office. BEIS, through Companies House, is not responsible for the regulation of financial services and will not be responsible for the regulation of designated activities. Nobody is entirely responsible, and that is the problem.
To those who say, “Yes, we agree with you, but this is not the time,” I say, “If not us, then who, and if not now, then when?”. Tomorrow, some of our constituents will be scammed, and more will be scammed the next day. Every day that we delay, waiting for the Government to introduce the perfect clause that has no unintended consequences, causes unintended consequences for our constituents. I accept that the amendment might have unintended consequences, but the Government’s inexcusable delay in closing the loopholes once and for all has already led to unintended consequences. I intend to press the amendment to a vote for that reason.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Peter Grant
I beg to move amendment 36, in clause 8, page 10, leave out lines 22 to 27.
This amendment would remove the Treasury’s proposed power to make regulations which modify legislation of the Welsh Senedd, Scottish Parliament or Northern Ireland Assembly for purposes connected with the regulation of designated activities.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 37, in clause 8, page 11, line 38, leave out from the first “Parliament” to the end of line 40.
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 36.
Peter Grant
The amendment can be summed up in four words: “Hands aff oor Parliament”, whether that Parliament is the national Parliament of Scotland, Senedd Cymru or the Northern Ireland Assembly. Those who claim to respect the devolution settlement cannot do so with any credibility if they continue to give power to Ministers of the reserved Parliament to override decisions of the democratically elected national Parliaments of three of the four equal-partner nations in the Union. This is a power grab of the kind we have already seen in other EU withdrawal legislation. Some of those power grabs will now happen, because the House has voted for them, but that does not make them right or any less of an outrage against democracy. Amendment 36 must be agreed to for the Committee to be able to hold its head up in public and say, “We support democracy and we respect the devolution settlement.”
Amendment 37, although not technically a consequential amendment, is as close to one as makes no difference, because the wording that it would delete on page 11 would no longer be relevant if we agreed to amendment 36. It is my intention to press amendment 36 to a vote.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
I hope that when the Minister responds to the debate on the clause, he will cover proposed new section 71R of FSMA 2000 before reaching the point mentioned by the hon. Member for Glenrothes. Subsection (1) of the new section is a Henry VIII power that allows the Treasury to amend legislation, including primary legislation. Will the Minister outline when, why and how the Government intend to use those Henry VIII powers, and what safeguards we have in the Bill against their abuse?
Andrew Griffith
I hope that we can dispense with the amendments quickly. They are meant simply to prevent the Government from making amendments to devolved legislation. The clause deals with matters that are reserved to the UK Government. We consider new section 71R in clause 8 as an essential power that gives the Treasury the ability to ensure that legislation works consistently and effectively when changes are brought about by virtue of the DAR. It also permits the Treasury to amend legislation made by the devolved legislations. The position of the hon. Member for Glenrothes on that is clear, but it is not shared by the Government. Although we do not expect to amend legislation from the devolved Administrations, this is a precautionary power.
Let me reply to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle. There is no current legislation that we expect to be amended in such a way, but it is possible that legislation made by the devolved Administrations has some references buried within it to aspects of financial services and markets legislation, which is why the power is needed. There is precedent for that approach. Section 144F of FSMA contains a similar power that can be used for legislation made by the devolved Administrations. I hope that that reassures the hon. Member for Glenrothes—although I fear it does not—and ask him to withdraw his amendment.
Emma Hardy
I fear that the Minister did not fully address my point, which is that the clause contains Henry VIII powers. I do not think he clearly outlined exactly when those powers would be used. He has mentioned that there are similar powers in a different piece of legislation, but has not said specifically when the Government would use these incredibly powerful Henry VIII powers to overrule primary legislation.
Peter Grant
I hope that the record of the sitting will clearly indicate that the Minister was given the chance to reply to the hon. Lady’s question—twice, in fact—but chose not to.
It is a fundamental principle of the devolved settlement that the Conservative party insists that it wants to protect that if a decision is made by a devolved Parliament under its devolved powers, nobody should have the right to overturn or amend that decision other than that Parliament. The Minister has said that he is not aware of any circumstances when he would want to use the power, so why not wait until the circumstance arises? Why not speak to the devolved Parliaments then—or, indeed, why have the Government not spoken to them already—to say that devolved legislation is causing problems, and to ask whether they can agree, cross-party and cross-nation, to change it, rather than pushing aside the devolved nations and the devolution settlement, and imposing rules on our people against the devolution settlement? Let us not forget that 75% of our people voted for the establishment of the Scottish Parliament.
I do not agree with everything Senedd Cymru does. It is not my party that is in government in Wales; it will never be my party that is in government in Northern Ireland. I will not agree with everything they do, but I utterly respect the rights of those Parliaments to legislate in the best interests of their people. If the Minister is saying that he does not think that he will be able to trust the devolved Parliaments to make a sensible decision if and when that becomes necessary, we have a big problem.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
My hon. Friend talks about not trusting the Scottish, Welsh or Northern Ireland Government. Any legislation brought forward in those places receives the attention of senior legal advice, whether that be from the Lord Advocate or from others in the devolved Administrations. The amendment defends the legitimacy and independence of the legal advice given by senior legal officers to devolved Administrations.
Peter Grant
My hon. Friend makes a valid point. It is sometimes forgotten that the devolved Parliaments have a number of checks in place to prevent them from attempting to legislate on things that are clearly beyond their powers, and there is a clear example of that happening at the moment, but there is no statutory or constitutional check on this place’s ability to push aside the devolution settlement to legislate on matters that are clearly devolved. That is simply not acceptable. Remember, we were talking about what the Government still call the most powerful devolved Parliament in the world. How can it be anywhere near being that if the Parliament that devolved powers to it can grab those powers back at the drop of a hat or the stroke of a pen? I will not withdraw the amendment. Every time I see such a power grab in legislation, I will speak against it, stand against it, and vote against it.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
Given that amendment 36 has fallen, may I encourage the hon. Member for Glenrothes not to press amendment 37, which is similar?
Peter Grant
It does not make a lot of sense to press amendment 37 now that amendment 36 has gone. In fact, arguably, on its own, amendment 37 would weaken the position of the devolved Governments, so I will not press it.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss that schedule 3 be the Third schedule to the Bill.
Andrew Griffith
Clause 8 inserts a new regulatory regime into FSMA called the designated assets regime. I feel that it is already becoming an old friend; we have referred to it a number of times this sitting. Once retained EU law relating to financial services is revoked, the UK’s regulatory framework must be capable of regulating activities that are currently subject to retained EU law in a proportionate manner suited to UK markets. Under the FSMA model, firms must be authorised in order to conduct regulated activities. The Treasury determines, with Parliament’s consent, which activities are regulated by adding them to the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) Order 2001, the RAO. The type of activities in the RAO are those carried out by banks, and by insurance and investment firms, such as accepting deposits or offering investment services. Authorised firms are regulated as a whole entity. That means that regulators can make rules relating not only to the regulated activity, but to the wider activities of the firm.
Where retained EU law relates to activities covered by the RAO, the regulators already have sufficient powers under FSMA to replace any rules as appropriate. However, there are activities regulated under provisions in retained EU law that are quite different. For example, in retained EU law, there are rules relating to entering into certain types of derivatives contracts. A car manufacturer may enter into a metals derivative contract to protect itself from price fluctuations in the metal that it requires for manufacturing. It would be hugely disproportionate to regulate the car manufacturer entering into that contract in the same way as a bank that offers current accounts or mortgages to customers. However, there is no mechanism in FSMA for regulating these activities in a proportionate way. That is why the Bill introduces the DAR. Under the DAR, the Treasury can designate these activities and make regulations in relation to them, or prohibit them where appropriate.
The Government expect that activities will be designated for regulation under the DAR through the affirmative procedure in the vast majority of cases. However, there is an exemption where, for reasons of urgency, the Treasury must act quickly. The Government are content that this is the appropriate procedure. It is similar to the procedure for adding activities to the RAO. The FCA is already responsible for ensuring compliance with the rules set out in retained EU law, and the clause will ensure that the FCA can also determine what rules are appropriate in future. As the DAR will be a new part of FSMA, the FCA will be required to exercise its responsibilities under the DAR in line with its statutory objectives, which include the new growth and competitiveness objective. The FCA will need to be able to supervise and enforce designated activity regulations and rules.
Emma Hardy
I refer the Minister back to a point I made about the DAR and the response to the consultation by His Majesty’s Treasury. Some of the respondents asked for clarity on exactly what activities would be regulated by the DAR. Can the Minister provide that in writing during today’s sitting, or bring further details to another sitting?
Andrew Griffith
I will do my very best to respond to that question. It is a point of detail. Today we are putting frameworks in place to try to legislate for as many outcomes as possible. By definition, that means that there is not a definitive list, but I will write to the hon. Lady and share the letter with the Committee.
To that point, given the breadth and variety of activities that may be designated under the DAR, a tailored supervision and enforcement framework will be needed for each one. We all recognise that we might want to regulate insurance in a different way from investment banking.
Proposed new section 71Q of FSMA therefore gives the Treasury the power to confer appropriate powers on the FCA for the purpose of supervising and enforcing regulations and rules relating to designated activities. Some activities that the Treasury may designate already have criminal offences attached to them under FSMA—for example, part 6 of FSMA contains two offences related to the offering of securities. Proposed new section 71Q will allow HM Treasury to maintain an existing criminal offence of offering securities and to modify it, including by adjusting the scope of the offence to reflect the scope of the new designated activity. I imagine from comments made that that would get broad support.
The Government will be able to apply and modify only criminal offences that already exist in FSMA. The provisions will not enable the Treasury to create a wholly new criminal offence relating to this activity. Schedule 3 sets out proposed new schedule 6B to FSMA. The schedule is inserted by clause 8 and lists examples of the types of activity that the Treasury may designate using the power introduced by clause 8. That may be the source of my response to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle. At this stage, schedule 3 is indicative only. The Government intend that a number of market activities currently regulated under retained EU law will be designated for inclusion in DAR. It is anticipated that a wider range of activities will be designated in future to ensure that the regime supports an agile and proportionate approach in the UK.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
Will the Minister help with a quick clarification on proposed new section 71Q? It refers to “conferring powers of entry”. Would that be on His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs? It has UK-wide powers of entry. Does that refer solely and wholly to HMRC, or does it refer to others who might require entry under the legislation?
Andrew Griffith
I will write to the hon. Gentleman to confirm that. It is important that our model of financial services regulation be responsive to emerging opportunities and challenges, and that includes those that can be regulated in future but are as yet unknown. Hon. Members can understand the thrust of what we are trying to do through clause 8 and schedule 3.
Tulip Siddiq
Am I right in thinking that new section 71R gives the Treasury powers to introduce criminal sanctions without reference to Parliament? Does the Minister think it is right to side-step Parliament in this way?
Andrew Griffith
That is not the intent of the Bill. Its intent is essentially to future-proof existing criminal law under FSMA, but to modify its scope as new activities fall within the designated regime.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Clause 9
Rules relating to central counterparties and central securities depositories
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Andrew Griffith
Retained EU law contains frameworks to regulate a number of entities that facilitate the proper functioning of financial markets. These entities are collectively referred to as financial market infrastructure, or FMI.
FMI helps to maintain stability in the financial services sector and performs critical functions that help make markets safer and more efficient. To establish a comprehensive FSMA model, the regulators will need the power, when retained EU law is revoked, to make rules to appropriately supervise and oversee FMI. That is provided for in the clauses that we are considering.
Clause 9 gives the Bank of England, which I will refer to as the Bank, a general rule-making power over central counterparties and central securities depositories, or CCPs and CSDs. CCPs sit between two parties to a trade and ensure that if either firm defaults on its obligations, the CCP can fulfil the firm’s trade. This reduces the possibility of contagion to the wider financial system. CSDs settle securities trades—that is, they complete the trade by transferring ownership of the assets, such as shares or bonds, between two parties.
The clause delegates the setting of regulatory standards to the Bank as the expert, operationally independent regulator. That is in line with the overall approach taken to the financial services regulators in the Bill. With the new rule-making powers provided for in the clause, the Bank will be able to adapt the regulatory regime in an agile and responsive way—for example, to take account of changing market conditions, address emerging risks or facilitate innovation. This will be accompanied by appropriate accountability arrangements that will apply to the Bank when it is exercising these new powers; we will discuss those when we get to new clauses 43 to 45.
The clause also enables the Bank to apply some or all of the domestic rulebook to overseas CCPs that are systemically important to the UK.
Peter Grant
Can the Minister give us an indication of whether there are existing institutions that he believes would be regarded as CCPs that are systemically important to this country? Apart from the obvious factor of the amount of business that a body does with the UK, what other factors will be taken into account when deciding whether to designate an institution in that way?
Andrew Griffith
That is a matter on which we would consult and be advised by the Bank. The Bank is the body with the expertise in this space. It would not be appropriate to try to pre-empt its views. This is an emerging area, and we have to be cognisant of how global clearing houses are developing. The UK hosts a number of the most systemic, but that market share cannot always be assured. This provision allows the regulation to follow the market share, or indeed follow the emergence of new CCPs and new clearing houses. The provision reforms the overseas framework so that the Bank has the power to apply domestic rules to CSDs and non-systemic CCPs as well.
Clause 10 provides the Bank of England with the power to direct individual CCPs and CSDs, requiring them to take action to comply with their obligations or to protect financial stability. Using this power, the Bank may either impose a new requirement or vary or cancel an existing one. The power is equivalent to those that the FCA and the Prudential Regulation Authority have under FSMA in relation to authorised firms, and it contains the same procedural safeguards. That includes, for example, a right of appeal.
Clause 12 ensures that the Bank’s regulation of CCPs and CSDs is undertaken in a way that is consistent with the wider financial services regulatory framework under FSMA. It does this by restricting the general power of direction, which the Treasury currently has over the Bank, to provide that it does not apply to its regulation of CCPs and CSDs. That is in line with the existing exemption that covers the exercise by the Bank of its functions as the prudential regulatory authority, in line with the PRA’s position as an independent regulator.
Turning to clause 11, the FCA is responsible for the supervision of certain other entities that help underpin the proper functioning of markets. Clause 11 gives the FCA general rule-making powers over two types of entity: data reporting service providers and recognised investment exchanges. Recognised investment exchanges are bodies such as the London stock exchange that are recognised by the FCA to facilitate the buying and selling of financial instruments and so help drive investment. Data reporting service providers make trade information public to help market participants make informed investment decisions. They also ensure that the FCA has the information it needs to monitor financial markets and protect against insider dealing and other forms of market abuse.
Despite their importance, both data reporting service providers and recognised investment exchanges currently sit outside the core FSMA regime, as they are largely regulated under retained EU law. To ensure that the FCA has sufficient powers to effectively regulate these entities once retained EU law is repealed, clause 11 brings them into the FSMA framework, in line with the approach taken for CCPs and CSDs in clause 9.
Tulip Siddiq
On clause 9, how does the Minister think third country central counterparties and CSDs will be adequately assessed by the Bank of England for the risks they pose to the UK’s financial stability?
I also have questions on clause 12. I am not sure if the Minister wants to answer those now or to come back to them.
The Chair
I suggest that you make all your comments and then we invite the Minister to respond to all of them at the end.
Tulip Siddiq
We support clause 12, which will empower the Treasury to give directions to the Bank where it considers it necessary in the public interest. Does the Minister not agree that such a mechanism is sufficient to direct the Bank of England when the Treasury believes it needs to do so in the public interest? Does he therefore feel that a so-called intervention power is necessary?
In our evidence sessions, which the Minister and other Members were at, we heard very clearly from the deputy governor of the Bank of England and the former chief executive of Barclays that a future intervention power would endanger financial stability and undermine the independence of the Bank of England. There were stark warnings from our witnesses. Does the Minister agree that it would be reckless to ignore that advice from the experts?
Emma Hardy
I want to add to the points made by my hon. Friend on our concerns around clause 12 and the independence of the Bank of England, given that the Treasury has such significant powers over it. I refer the Minister back to the evidence given by Sheldon Mills from the FCA. He said:
“I have worked in regimes with public interest tests. I ran the mergers division at the Office of Fair Trading and the Competition and Markets Authority, and my learning from that is that, if put in place, such a test should be used exceptionally and with care, and that there should be specificity about the matters of public interest—in this case, financial services—on which it would be used.”––[Official Report, Financial Services and Markets Public Bill Committee, 19 October 2022; c. 7, Q3.]
That is the FCA asking for specificity—it is easy for them to say—on exactly when the power would be used and when it would not be used.
Victoria Saporta from the PRA stated:
“A formulation whereby the Government can force or direct us to make or amend rules that we have already made, and that fall squarely within the statutory objectives that Parliament has given us, may be perceived as undermining operational independence and all the benefits that I talked about earlier.”––[Official Report, Financial Services and Markets Public Bill Committee, 19 October 2022; c. 7, Q3.]
Those were really stark warnings from two of our key witnesses from the FCA and PRA, talking about the difficulties they had with this specific clause and how this could be seen as undermining their independence.
Martin Taylor went further in his evidence, when I questioned him on these intervention powers. He said:
“One of the problems that led to the recent turmoil—a very English description of what has just happened—was that the Prime Minister and the former Chancellor chose not to subject the mini-Budget to the scrutiny of the Office for Budget Responsibility.”
He continued:
“However, international investors looking at London will have noted this and it has a bad smell, if I can put it that way.”
Later, he said:
“If you were in Singapore or New York, you might be more tempted to do that than you would have been a month ago. We should not do anything else to make this worse. Everything is being done by the new Chancellor to steady the ship…but moves like this proposed measure just go in entirely the wrong direction as far as I am concerned. I think it is very dangerous.”–– [Official Report, Financial Services and Markets Public Bill Committee, 19 October 2022; c. 76, Q149.]
Every single witness seemed to talk about the concerns they have over the level of intervention the Treasury could have over the Bank of England. I would like to hear reassurances from the Minister that he has been talking to the FCA, the other regulators and the markets about this. What reassurance can he give us that this is not HMT trying to again overrule our independent regulators?
Peter Grant
Again, I fully understand the intention behind these clauses and I am not minded to move against them, but I am a bit concerned by some of the interplay between the clauses. I asked the Minister what factors he thought might be taken into account in determining that a CCP is actually a systemic third country CCP, rather than an unsystemic one.
The Bill, on lines 39 to 42 on page 13, suggests that a systemic third country CCP is
“any third country central counterparty that the Bank has determined is systemically important, or is likely to become systemically important, to the financial stability of the United Kingdom.”
The word “systemically” is doing quite a lot of work in that definition. As far as I know, there is no definition of “systemically” in this Bill, or indeed anywhere else, so I am concerned about whether the wording of the clause is tight enough that everybody, including the Bank of England, knows exactly when it can use these powers and when it cannot.
That is important because of the difference that being designated a systemic third country CCP makes. Under proposed new section 300G to the Financial Services and Markets Act, the Bank of England can exercise most of the powers
“only by the application of corresponding rules”,
according to proposed subsection (1)(a). However, proposed subsection (1)(b) says
“except in the case of systemic third country CCPs…only so far as authorised by regulations made by the Treasury.”
That seems to mean that if the Bank of England forms the view that it is dealing with a systemically important CCP, it is free to act in a way that is not explicitly permitted by Treasury regulations, whereas if the Bank decides that it is not systemically important, the ability to act becomes more restricted.
Dame Angela Eagle
My questions seek some reassurance from the Minister, since I think these clauses are broadly welcome and, indeed, vital in the context of the Bill. One would not want to have this system without giving extra powers to the Bank, the Prudential Regulation Authority and the Treasury.
Problems in some of these markets can erupt suddenly and pose substantial, systemic problems. We saw it happen just a couple of weeks ago in the pensions industry with the sudden increase in gilt prices, which suddenly made a lot of the investment strategies of our defined benefit pension fund managers quite perilous. We can all commend the Bank and the regulatory authorities for taking action to try to stabilise the situation with liquidity in the pension funds. I am sure that all of us want to be content that the structures in place for dealing with these kinds of eruptions will be as implied in these three clauses.
Given the extra powers for the regulatory authorities in the Bill, will the Minister give the Committee some comfort about the extra resources that will be made available to the regulators for their extra oversight? The Bill implies that there is much more work for regulators to do across the piece, and it is very important in the vast majority of cases. I worry that they will not be given enough resource to keep a proper eye on the very fast-moving, complex, interactive system that they will be charged with regulating, keeping an eye on and, if required, intervening in, for reasons of contagion or systemic threats to that very interrelated system. If they do not catch that early enough, we know where it can end. I would appreciate some comfort from the Minister, if he can provide it, on the resourcing implications of the powers. Is he satisfied that the resources are there to do the job adequately and properly?
Andrew Griffith
I will try to respond to all the points in turn. First, in answer to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle, clause 12 is not an intervention power. It clarifies that the power to direct is effectively removed in respect of the new regulations around CCPs. In many ways, it will give the Bank of England the independence and autonomy that the witnesses she cited sought, although in a more general context. There is a separate point, which is probably not in order for today, about the intervention power, as and when that is tabled. However, that is not the purpose of clause 12, which is a clarifying point in respect of the Bank of England.
The hon. Member for Wallasey raised the issue of resources. The Bill gives the regulators, including the Bank, powers to fund themselves using a levy. That is a stronger financial position than they are in today. The hon. Member knows that I am relatively new—that could change during the sittings of this Committee—but in all my interactions with the regulators, they have expressed themselves satisfied with the resources available to them, but we must be collectively careful about the burdens that we place on them and ensure that those are appropriate.
On the question of what is systemic and whether it is right to regulate overseas CCPs and CSDs, the thrust of what the Bill tries to achieve, and the broad thrust of the debate, is that those are precisely matters that should be decided by the operationally independent regulators in this domain. Although I and others may have views, it will be for the Bank to use its new powers—as now, and as in other domains that are in scope—in consultation with the Treasury, Parliament and others.
Peter Grant
To clarify, if the Bill is enacted as it stands, does the Bank have the option to create a different regulatory regime for overseas parties than it has for those that are based in the UK, or is the intention that the same set of rules will apply regardless of where the organisation is based?
Andrew Griffith
If an organisation is overseas, the approach will be that the Bank, in using those powers, will defer to the overseas regulator where that is appropriate, as it does now. I would not want us to fetter the Bank. It is for the Bank to lay out how it proposes to use the powers that the Bill enables, so as to be able to make the appropriate regulation that it feels comfortable with. I think we can all agree that this is a prudent enhancement of its powers. It broadens their scope, and allows the Bank to follow the risks to this country in a CCP, wherever those may lead it.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 9 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 10 to 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
Before we come to the next group, could I ask the Parliamentary Private Secretary to remove the brown paper bag? It is not appropriate to have our lunch out on the side.
Clause 13
Testing of FMI technologies or practices
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
That schedule 4 be the Fourth schedule to the Bill.
Amendment 38, in clause 14, page 19, line 35, at end insert—
“(d) the views of the appropriate regulator in response to the consultation mentioned in subsection (5).”
This amendment would ensure that the views of the relevant regulator are included in any Treasury reports on FMI sandbox arrangements.
Clauses 14 to 17 stand part.
Andrew Griffith
Clauses 13 to 17, along with schedule 4, enable the Treasury to set up financial market infrastructure sandboxes. One of the objectives of the Bill is to harness the opportunities of innovative technologies that could disrupt financial services. This is especially important for FMIs, which play an important role in providing the networks and services that underpin financial markets. However, there are currently barriers and ambiguities in legislation that prevent firms from using certain new technologies in FMIs or that prevent the benefit of new technologies from being fully realised.
An FMI sandbox is a safe testing environment that will help address this issue by providing temporary modifications to legislation to participating firms where existing legislation does not accommodate a new technology or practice. Those firms can then test and adopt innovative new FMI propositions while being subject to restrictions on their activities and close oversight from regulators. The provision in these clauses will allow the Treasury to set up FMI sandboxes, and I will now set out what each clause does specifically.
Clause 13 will allow the Treasury to set up an FMI sandbox via a negative statutory instrument that will set out the type of firms that are allowed to participate in a sandbox, the activities they can conduct, the temporary modifications to legislation that will be applied to participants, and the duration of the sandbox. Schedule 4 includes an illustrative list of provisions that could be included in a statutory instrument setting up an FMI sandbox, in order to provide guidance regarding how the powers are intended to be used.
To facilitate parliamentary scrutiny, clause 14 requires the Treasury to prepare and publish a report to be laid before Parliament on the arrangements for each FMI sandbox that is created under clause 13, having consulted the regulators. This will include an assessment of the effectiveness and/or efficiency of the FMI sandbox and how the Treasury intends to make permanent changes to the legislation.
Amendment 38 would explicitly require the Treasury to publish the detailed views given by the FCA and the Bank in response to the consultation. The Treasury is committed to ensuring that the regulator’s views are fully taken into account and represented fairly when any permanent changes are intended to be made to legislation. However, it is essential that during this engagement, regulators are able to express their views candidly, particularly about specific participants, and share commercially or market-sensitive information. It would not be appropriate for that to be published. I therefore hope that the hon. Members for Glenrothes and for West Dunbartonshire will not press their amendment to a vote.
Clause 15 will allow the Treasury to make permanent changes to the relevant legislation based on the outcomes of a sandbox on an ongoing basis. Clause 17 sets out the relevant legislation in more detail. As an FMI sandbox will be designed to test the right regulatory approach to new technologies, clause 15 enables the Treasury to legislate to set different requirements from those within the sandbox. This will ensure that if risks or unintended consequences are identified during the sandbox, these can be appropriately reflected in ongoing legislative changes. Where the Treasury proposes amending primary legislation, the Bill requires that the affirmative procedure is used. Where the legislation being amended is not itself primary, a negative procedure will be used instead. This is to ensure that Parliament gives the greatest scrutiny to the legislative changes that are the most significant—in other words, those that fall within primary legislation.
Clause 16 is intended to enable the Treasury to confer powers on the regulators as part of any statutory instrument setting up a sandbox, so that they are able to operate a sandbox effectively. It also sets out who the Treasury needs to consult before exercising the powers in clauses 13 and 15.
Finally, clause 17 sets out how the various terms and concepts used in the FMI sandbox clauses are to be interpreted. It includes a list of legislation that the Treasury is able to temporarily modify for firms participating in a sandbox, which provides an important constraint on the scope of the Treasury’s powers in relation to the FMI sandbox in the Bill. The Treasury is able to add to the list of legislation via a statutory instrument by using the affirmative procedure to ensure parliamentary scrutiny if the Treasury wishes to bring further legislation into the scope of a sandbox. To summarise, the measure will be a hugely valuable way for financial markets to innovate and enable industry regulators and the Government to learn and change in response to practical experience. For those reasons, I recommend that clauses 13 to 17, and schedule 4, stand part of the Bill.
Tulip Siddiq
We strongly support the clauses. A sandbox for financial markets infrastructure will support innovations in the fintech sector, such as developments in blockchain, which has the potential to boost the transparency and productivity of the UK’s financial services. Could he please explain, however, whether clause 13 gives sufficient flexibility for the sandboxes to be used to support innovation in a wide range of financial technologies? The Bill says that sandboxing testing will occur “for a limited period”. Will the Minister further define that and set out the minimum timescales that he believes are necessary to adequately test a new innovation in financial technology?
On clause 14 and the reports on FMI sandboxes, which criteria will be used in the reporting of sandboxes, so that Parliament can transparently assess their effectiveness in safely supporting innovation? On clause 16, which sets out that prior to conferring such a power, HM Treasury must consult “the appropriate regulators” or such persons that it considers appropriate. Will the Minister please share his understanding of the definition of “consultation”? Which stakeholders would have to be consulted, and what is the estimated timeframe for such a consultation?
Clause 17 provides the Treasury with a power to amend the list of relevant enactments by way of the affirmative statutory instrument procedure. Will the Minister elaborate on how he sees that working in practice? Would every individual amendment to the list of relevant enactments be brought before the House for scrutiny? I presume so, but I want to have that on the record.
Shaun Bailey
The provisions in clauses 13 to 17 are incredibly welcome, because we are dealing with a financial services landscape that is constantly innovating and changing. I should declare that prior to becoming a Member of Parliament, I worked for the legal team at a major big seven bank and saw these developments as part of my role there. The provisions are very important because they will ensure that, as the fintech sector continues to develop and the regulatory framework continues to advance and change, they can do so within the perimeters of the sandbox arrangement introduced by the Government.
I particularly welcome the clause 16 provisions on consulting regulators, and the fact that there is going to be a discourse with them. We cannot cut regulators out of the conversation. The clauses do not seek to do that, but the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn was right to raise queries. We need a bit more clarity on what the consultation will look like. I fully appreciate that it is not always possible to give instant clarity when introducing primary legislation, but it will clearly be incumbent on the Treasury to ensure that, as the process progresses, His Majesty’s Government are as transparent as possible about what the consultation will look like.
We should remind ourselves that the practical application of the clauses will change and develop as the landscape itself develops, because that is the subject matter that we are dealing with. On clause 16, with respect to the development and work with regulators, I urge my hon. Friend the Minister not to forget the important role that lawtech plays in the regulation and monitoring of a lot of the instruments that will be part of the sandbox regime. It is often not talked about, but fintech and lawtech work hand in hand, side by side, particularly in this financial services sector.
I support the clauses; they are the right thing to do. As hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have articulated, they allow not only the financial services sector to innovate and develop, but the regulation to be developed in tandem with them. I would, however, welcome clarity from my hon. Friend the Minister on the what the practical applications will look like, particularly as we build that framework.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
I do not want to be the fly in the ointment, but I would like some assurances from the Minister about the FMI sandboxes. The Clifford Chance briefing notes that
“the FSMA Bill permits HM Treasury to allow broad participation in FMI sandboxes which in practice could include FMI providers, and participants in these systems as well as, conceivably, unregulated service providers such as technology companies and any other person that HM Treasury specifies.”
I am looking for an assurance from the Minister and his civil service team on the notion of unregulated service providers having access to the FMI sandbox. It seems that the EU pilot regime is far more limited in its multilateral trading facilities and securities settlement systems, and that it makes no mention of recognised investment exchanges or any other persons. It is not, therefore, making itself a hostage to fortune with its pilot system. Could the Minister and his team provide reassurance on the broad scope of innovation that they seem to be going for?
Dame Angela Eagle
I find myself rising to try to elaborate on the important points that have been made. I do not think that anyone would argue against the need to think very carefully about how to pilot—or sandbox, to use the jargon—the very rapid development and potential of what is happening. It is also important in the context of financial market infrastructure.
Certain infrastructures in our financial system are really old. One need only consider how long it took to get the bank clearing process vaguely up to date to understand the importance of modernising infrastructures. I do not think that anyone would object to an attempt to come up with a structure that tests activities, which is what these clauses do.
The Minister, however, has not provided any detail on issues such as risk mitigation; whether parallel sandboxes involving similar infrastructures will be developed, almost in competition with each other; whether this will happen in just one area; or how the powers will be used to test whether potential infrastructures might be worth using. Could he add a little more colour to how he sees those things happening? How big will the sandboxes be? How long will they be allowed to continue? The Minister is grinning because this is the kind of detail that an enabling Bill does not contain, but it might be quite important.
Testing regimes in other areas are sometimes very limited. I would be worried if we had an unlimited testing system running for a long period, allowing unregulated organisations in, perhaps running in parallel with each other. If that is what the Minister is suggesting, I would be worried. If he is suggesting something much more minor and limited, to see whether the technology works and whether people can interact with it to redesign the way in which websites work, I would be less worried.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
I am delighted that the hon. Lady has allowed me to intervene. The technology is not new, and that is what concerns me in relation to a lot of the debate on the Bill. There is nothing new under the sun about a lot of the technology, which underpins sandboxes, cryptocurrency and so on, that we are talking about. It just seems that a lot of the terminology takes over the substance of the issue that we are discussing.
Dame Angela Eagle
That is true. Blockchain has certainly been around for quite a while. Its use has implications for transparency and for the levels of employment that there might be in the old, more bureaucratic banks.
What would be the use of artificial intelligence in trying to decide how automated these things could become? Would there be worries about over-automation? How would that be looked at in terms of regulation? How open are we going to be about the way in which AI is applied and how it might evolve in ways that might embed discrimination such that we get a system where certain people may be discriminated against and excluded? There are a range of issues that need to be tested in these kinds of environments. It is hard to do that under a negative resolution procedure. I take the Minister’s point, however, about affirmative resolutions. If one of these things worked during the trial period, was issued and became permanent, it is important, as the Minister has said, that any changes are subject to affirmative regulation.
There are a whole load of black boxes in the Bill that we might need to debate further. Could the Minister give us more colour on whether there will be parallel sandboxes, on transparency on what will be used and how it will be compiled, and on how large the sandboxes will be in terms of money on the exchanges or turnover, or however he wants to put it. Then we could consider whether risk is being mitigated and how we can develop a system using trundling and analogue legislation, if I may put it that way, in an environment where innovation is digital and rapid.
I understand what the Minister is trying to do, but this Parliament must still be aware that we need to be on top of the detail of this Bill, rather than just passing shells of enabling legislation that do not give us enough of a handle on what is intended.
Peter Grant
Thank you, Dame Maria, for clarifying earlier that we are talking about sandboxes, not sandwich boxes. Some Members seem to have been a bit confused about that. I am intrigued by the use of the term “sandbox”. To me, a sandbox can be a road safety feature: it is literally a gravel or sand pit on a bad bend in the road to allow someone who loses control to get off the road safely. Alternatively, a sandbox is something that any cat owner will be familiar with. I am genuinely intrigued as to which of those metaphors somebody thought was appropriate for what we are discussing.
The principle behind these measures is absolutely sound. By this time next year, new practices in financial services will have evolved that none of us can begin to imagine just now. That is how things are moving. I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire that the technology itself has not significantly changed—it is certainly not new—but the way in which people will use the technology is. The kinds of products that people will start to devise may well mean that existing regulatory practices need to be changed very quickly. The idea of being allowed to pilot something that is genuinely new in a safe space before letting it loose on the wider world is absolutely correct in my view. However, the devil, of course, is in the detail.
I am a bit concerned that the first in this group of clauses says that the purpose of the sandbox will be to test
“for a limited period, the efficiency or effectiveness of the carrying on of FMI activities”.
It does not say that one of the purposes is to test the effectiveness of any regulation that may go with it, which concerns me. Obviously, if someone knows that the activity they are carrying out in a sandbox will be looked at very carefully, they are going to behave themselves. How can we be sure that as well as being effective, it will work for the purposes of the providers? How do we know that the regulation that goes with it will also be effective? Again, that has to be effective as soon as the thing goes live. We cannot wait and regulate it effectively a few weeks later, because it will be far too late by then.
Emma Hardy
In relation to the sandboxes, and particularly in relation to clause 14, I draw hon. Members’ attention to the written evidence submitted by Spotlight on Corruption—in particular, if anyone wants to read along with me, paragraph 12. The recommendation from Spotlight on Corruption is that the Government should update their regulatory impact assessment
“to ensure that an analysis of the economic crime risks is included as part of the evidence base in each assessment.”
That seems incredibly good and sensible advice. As part of the way someone assesses how effective these sandboxes are, they could look at the potential economic crime risks. Spotlight on Corruption goes on to say that the RIAs should
“include a standalone ‘economic crime risks associated with this intervention’ section based on both quantitative and qualitative indicators. It should also include an assessment of the costs/benefits, and wider impacts as well as establishing how the Treasury intends to monitor and evaluate risks after the regulations come into place.”
If we are going to produce a report on how effective this measure is, one of the key things that I think we can all agree on is the need to look at economic crime. Although I have not tabled an amendment to that effect today, I hope that the Minister will look at the issue seriously and perhaps it is something we can return to on Report.
Andrew Griffith
I thank the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn for her party’s support for these measures, which I hope will be a useful addition to the financial services industry.
I will try to answer some of the questions. By their very nature, there is a discomforting element to trying to create safe spaces for innovation. Let me reassure the Committee that all the existing safeguards, whether they relate to economic crime or to consumer protection duties, relate to any changes that are, as it were, released into the wild after the period of experimentation. There is no attempt to create a back door or any diminution in the high quality of financial regulation throughout.
The overall level of scrutiny for this House was raised by the hon. Member for Wallasey. The statutory instrument would be laid in respect of each potential use of the sandbox. It would not be right for me to fetter whether that will be used in serial or in parallel, so we have to contemplate that there could be multiple sandboxes operating in some really quite separate domains at any one point in time. I do not think that would be a bad thing. In many ways, the test of this legislation’s success is that the sandbox is indeed used, and within that process we should contemplate that many of those pilots should fail, just as many should succeed; that is the nature of risk and innovation.
That statutory instrument would set out what categories are in scope of the sandbox, what sort of securities or products are included within it, traded or settled, the platform involved and what limitations there would be. There was a question about the minimum period of time. That would all be laid out in response to the individual applicant to use the sandbox, so that would be determined, and it would be reviewed by the regulators as part of the process of the Treasury laying the statutory instrument. It could well include any additional regulatory oversight, and the important issue of economic crime and prevention. However, to be clear, that is not the Government’s intention, nor would it be looked on favourably if anyone attempted to use that to create back doors for economic crime. The level of scrutiny of any pilot in a sandbox is generally higher than the level of scrutiny intervention from regulators in general.
Emma Hardy
I do not think that the evidence submitted by Spotlight on Corruption in any way implied that it would be the Government’s intention for these sandboxes to bring about economic crime. However, I think we all accept that economic crime is on the rise. Spotlight on Corruption specifically asks for it to be stipulated that the associated economic crime risks are looked at as part of the report into sandboxes. I would be grateful if the Minister could take that point away to consider further.
Andrew Griffith
I am very happy to take that point away and, if appropriate, I will write to the hon. Lady in response. The construct of regulation in this space is that we have a level of trust in our operationally independent regulators, and prevention of crime and of harm to consumers is at the core of the regulatory structure. She should have some comfort that that issue would not be overlooked.
I will try to give a little bit of colour regarding the intention to use the sandbox. It is the Government’s intention that the sandboxes be used rapidly after Royal Assent; indeed, consultations on the matter have already indicated a strong appetite for things such as the use of distributed ledger technology, both for settlement and for other aspects of the financial regime. Those things would be seen by the Government as an enhancement in many respects—whether dealing with settlement risk, credit risk or the speed of transactions. That is an example of the sort of use case that we would expect to be brought forward.
We talked about the regulatory outcome. The relationship with regulators was one of the first points raised. The Bill contains a provision to ensure that the regulators’ views are taken into account. The regulators will, de facto, have a very strong level of scope. Although we would not want to cut off participants by virtue of not being authorised—that would be to cut ourselves off from a source of potential innovation—it is expected that any participant would have had interaction with the regulators prior to entering a sandbox. As some hon. Members know, the regulators interact intensively with bodies such as the Treasury Committee, which we would expect to have a heightened level of interest in these matters.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 13 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Clauses 14 to 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 18
Critical third parties: designation and powers
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Andrew Griffith
Financial services firms increasingly rely on a small number of critical third parties to provide services, such as cloud computing providers. Although outsourcing can have many benefits, the growing dependence of financial services firms on this small pool of critical third parties also carries risks. A failure or disruption at a critical third party could have systemic impacts affecting market confidence and threatening the stability of our financial system. To mitigate that risk, the Bill grants the financial regulators powers to oversee the services that critical third parties supply to the financial sector.
Clause 18 gives the Treasury the power to designate a third party to the finance sector as critical, bringing the services provided by that third party into the regulator’s oversight. Only third parties whose failure could have a systemic impact on the sector can be designated in that way. Designations will be done in consultation with the regulators, taking into account a clear set of criteria. The first is materiality—that is, how important the services are to the delivery of essential services, such as making payments. The second is concentration—the number and type of firms that rely on that provider. The clause provides the FCA, the PRA and the Bank of England with new rule-making powers to ensure the resilience of services provided by critical third parties. The regulators have published a discussion paper setting out how they may use the powers.
Clause 18 also grants the regulators a power of direction and targeted enforcement powers. As an ultimate sanction, the financial regulators may prevent or limit a critical third party from providing services to the financial services sector. Clause 19 then makes the necessary consequential changes to FSMA to ensure that the regime functions properly, in particular in relation to the Bank of England’s ability to make rules. This approach is flexible and proportionate, addressing the systemic risk posed by outsourcing to keep the UK’s financial system safe, while targeting only the services that critical third parties provide to the finance sector. I therefore recommend that clauses 18 and 19 stand part of the Bill.
Tulip Siddiq
On clause 18, could the Minister set out the range of disciplinary powers that the Bank of England, the FCA and the PRA have at their disposal short of preventing a critical third party from providing new or current services to the financial services sectors? I want some reassurance from him that the clause will not produce an all or nothing approach.
Peter Grant
Again, I do not oppose the clauses, but I do have a couple of questions. First, the Minister pointed out that the ultimate sanction that the regulator can take is to prevent somebody from carrying out the actions of a critical third party. However, given that it becomes a critical third party because the system would collapse without it, is that not the nuclear button that can never be used? Simply trying to enforce the protective regulation could cause more damage than allowing the issue to continue. I understand that it is a difficult issue to square, but is there any proposal to, for example, introduce new criminal offences? Rather than being placed in a position where we would have to damage a system in order to protect it, are there proposals at least to give the option of taking criminal action against the individuals concerned?
I understand why the Bill does not go into detail about the kind of directions and requirements that might be appropriate, but will the Minister reassure us that there is no intention to use the powers to restrict the rights of people working for critical third parties to take industrial action, should they consider it to be important? That would take us into a completely different area of legislation, but the Bill does not say that the Government cannot do that. I would appreciate an assurance from the Minister that that will not happen as a result of the Bill.
Finally, proposed new section 312N refers to immunity. Certainly we must ensure that, if an organisation acts in accordance with the requirements of the regulator, they cannot be sued simply for doing what they were required to do. Is there a potential issue that they could be sued by an overseas party in an overseas court? Has the Minister considered how we might prevent that from becoming an issue? Clearly, this Parliament cannot legislate to give anybody immunity from being sued elsewhere, and there are people who will tout around the jurisdictions all over the world to find somewhere they can lodge a legal action. Is the Minister concerned that the inability to give international immunity might mean that some of the provisions become less effective than we might have hoped?
Andrew Griffith
Let me try to answer hon. Members’ questions. Nothing in the clause restricts people’s ability to take industrial action. That is not in scope. The powers are not anticipated as analogous to existing ones elsewhere, and the provision is not intended to be all or nothing. The powers are in essence an extension of scope into this domain and would relate to activities such as reviewing the senior manager regime, the ability to compel the requirement of information and looking at things such as resilience. They are not designed to be binary in that respect.
The hon. Member for Glenrothes made a point about the fact that the functions have been designated as critical, but that does not necessarily mean that they are monopolistic. With respect, while that is an important consideration, which we would expect the Bank, in this case, to take into consideration, it is also perfectly possible that, in the case of cloud providers, for example, a number of providers offer identical services. If one was not able to demonstrate a degree of resilience but another was, it would be possible to direct that one ceases to be used without causing the sort of systemic risk that the Bill seeks to prevent. I will write to the hon. Member in respect of what is a complex question about international immunity in law. I hope that he will respect the fact that I should not answer that on my feet this afternoon.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 18 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 20
Financial promotion
Peter Grant
I beg to move amendment 39, in clause 20, page 31, line 37, at end insert—
“(1A) Where the content of a communication for the purposes of section 21 has not in the first instance been approved by an authorised person, approval by another authorised person may only be sought the FCA’s approval for the other authorised person to do so being provided in writing.”.
This amendment would prevent operators from “shopping around” for approval from an authorised person where one authorised person has not given approval, unless the Financial Conduct Authority permits this.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
That schedule 5 be the Fifth schedule to the Bill.
Peter Grant
The amendment is quite simple. I understand the reason behind the concept of the authorised person. The Financial Conduct Authority will never have the resources or capacity to authorise every single financial promotion that somebody wants to publish, so that role needs to be outsourced. My concern is that, in some of the scams that my constituents have fallen victim to, the authorised person has sometimes been a key part of the web of deceit and concealment that has been laid for my constituents and others to fall into. Very often, when it all goes wrong, we find that the authorised person who approved the financial promotion has gone out of business themselves, so there is nobody left to take responsibility.
I am concerned that something that I have seen happen in a small number of cases might become more common. If someone takes a financial promotion that is clearly not compliant with legislation to an authorised person, the authorised person might well say, “No, I am not going to authorise it.” There is nothing to stop the person from then shopping around and finding someone who will agree to approve the promotion on their behalf. Because these promotions are so common, and because there are so many of them being authorised and then issued, it is very difficult for the regulator or anyone else to pick up on the ones that should not have got through. We are relying on the integrity of the authorised person.
The intention behind the amendment is to ensure that, regardless of which authorised person someone goes to, they get a consistent answer—either yes or no. If one authorised person refused to give approval for a promotion, it could then be approved only with the consent of the Financial Conduct Authority. I am not sure that I am minded to press the amendment to a vote, but I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic to the intention behind it. If he feels that the amendment is not necessary, or that its purpose could be achieved by a better route, I would be quite happy to hear his reasons.
Tulip Siddiq
We welcome clause 20, which we recognise would introduce tighter controls on those who approve financial promotions for others, to ensure that consumers are better protected. How does the Minister foresee the clause facilitating improved approver expertise, due diligence and challenges in exercising appropriate regulatory oversight?
Dame Angela Eagle
Obviously this is an extremely important part of the Bill because it creates a regulatory gateway for financial promotions. We know from what the FCA has reported that there is an issue with misleading financial promotions. We all know it from our constituency casework; we know it from some of the scandals that have been carried out successfully.
Part of the trouble is the closeness to the perimeter of regulation. A firm can have part of itself in the perimeter, while other parts are outside the perimeter, but in the promotions, it gives the impression that all the firm is regulated and all of what it is doing is within the perimeter, while advertising in a very misleading way things that are actually unregulated and therefore much riskier. We know that a lot of scams have happened that way. The way in which the FCA tries to deal with this situation is like trying to hold back the tide. The fact that so many of the promotions that it has managed to get a handle on—4,226 of them—have been withdrawn or amended to make them less misleading demonstrates that the FCA is doing its best. However, members of the Committee know that there is a constant battle with scammers, who constantly change how they present information to consumers and potential consumers through an ever-increasing number of gateways, even on things like TikTok. It is difficult for any regulator to get a handle on that, so anything that helps to battle the problem more effectively will be welcomed by all of us.
Will the Minister explain in more detail why he thinks that this is the right way to proceed, and how effective he thinks the powers in clause 20 will be in tackling the problem? We know—I think we will come on to this later in our proceedings—that cracking down on fraud more effectively will also be important. With the financial promotions and unauthorised third parties that deal with granting permissions, we know that the current regime can cause problems. We know that it is failing and that the FCA cannot be expected to do all this work with the resources it has, so will the Minister go into detail about how effective he thinks the measures will be, and say how he will be assessing this approach’s effectiveness? Clearly we want a reduction in the amount of scamming and fraud, and the number of promotions that are misleading or downright lie about the nature of the products they are pushing, so I will be interested to hear how the Minister sees clause 20 as the solution to this difficult problem.
Andrew Griffith
I thank the hon. Member for Glenrothes for raising the issue, which I understand is of concern to Members on both sides of the Committee. I also thank him for indicating that he will not press the amendment to a vote. I think the reason for that is that clause 20 is a genuine enhancement of the regulatory infrastructure. It creates a new, two-tier regulatory structure that speaks directly to the issue of those who have been authorising harmful financial promotions. It does so by introducing a new assessment by the FCA that requires that they be assessed as fit to do so. I will come on to what that could look like in a moment.
We understand what financial promotions are. They are inducements or invitations to engage in investment activity in its broadest form.
Peter Grant
The Minister says that we all understand what financial promotions are, but do we really? Is the existing definition agile enough? One of the dodgy directors I mentioned earlier has now set himself up on TikTok as a lifestyle guru. Everybody knows he is doing this to groom people. He will say to someone, “I’ve got this brilliant investment plan that nobody else knows about. Why don’t you do it?” Does that sort of thing count as a financial promotion or not? Quite clearly it is an inducement and an attempt to get someone to sign up to an investment that may or may not be legitimate.
Andrew Griffith
I am not familiar with the precise incident that the hon. Gentleman talks about. We have to reflect that there will be a continuum from someone being a lifestyle guru to someone promoting a financial product. Our job as legislators is to understand where those cliff edges lie and to bring forward procedures that mean that the scope is laid in the right place, so that cliff edges are legislated for appropriately.
Peter Grant
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 5 agreed to.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Joy Morrissey.)
Financial Services and Markets Bill (Fifth sitting)
Thursday 27th October 2022
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesFinancial Services and Markets Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 27 October 2022 - (27 Oct 2022)
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
That schedule 6 be the Sixth schedule to the Bill.
Clause 22 stand part.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Andrew Griffith)
Good morning, Dame Maria. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again. I thank all hon. Members who are with us again today.
The Government believe that certain cryptoassets and distributed ledger technology could drive transformational changes in financial markets, offering consumers new ways to transact and invest, and that such technology could pose risks to consumers and financial stability. The Bill therefore allows the Government to bring digital settlement assets inside the regulatory perimeter.
In the first instance, the Government are focusing on fiat currency-backed stablecoins used primarily for payment. These are a type of digital settlement asset that could develop into a widespread means of payment and potentially deliver efficiencies in payments. Clause 21 extends the scope of payment systems legislation so that digital settlement asset payment systems and service providers are subject to regulation by the Bank of England and the Payment Systems Regulator.
Today, the Bank of England regulates systemic payment systems and service providers to those systems, where the Treasury makes an order recognising a particular payment system. That is subject to a high bar. Among other criteria, the Treasury must be satisfied that a system’s potential failure may cause disruption to the stability of the financial system.
Clause 21 also extends the scope of the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013 to ensure that relevant digital settlement asset payment systems are subject to regulation by the Payment Systems Regulator. That will help to protect user interests, promote competition and encourage innovation.
The changes made by clause 21 and schedule 6 will ensure that digital settlement asset payment systems and service providers are regulated to the same high standards as traditional payment systems.
Clause 22 allows the Government to bring digital settlement assets into the UK regulatory perimeter where they are used for payments. Secondary legislation under this clause could give the regulators powers over payment systems and service providers in order to mitigate conduct, prudential and market integrity risks. It could also allow the regulators to place requirements on firms in relation to appropriate backing assets and capital requirements to manage potential stability risks.
Given the nascent and rapidly evolving nature of the cryptoasset market, these provisions give the Treasury powers to amend the definition of “digital settlement asset” through secondary legislation. That is necessary to ensure that regulation can keep pace with the fast-moving nature of the market. The affirmative procedure will apply to any statutory instrument that seeks to amend the definition.
Clause 22 will also allow the Government to apply existing administration or insolvency regimes to digital settlement asset systemic payment systems and service providers to manage potential failures. The clause therefore provides the Government with the necessary powers to ensure that our legislative approach to digital settlement assets is flexible and responsive, and fosters competition and innovation in this fast-evolving sector. I recommend that the clauses and schedule stand part of the Bill.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see the Minister still in his place. I speak to clauses 21 and 22 and schedule 6 together.
Properly regulated innovations that have emerged in the crypto space, such as distributed ledger technology, have the potential to transform our economy and the financial services sector. As the Minister will know, many innovative companies are embracing different forms of blockchain to improve transparency in finance and create high-skilled, high-productivity jobs across the UK. However, I draw his attention to the recent collapse in the value of cryptoassets, including several stablecoins, which has put millions of pounds of UK consumer savings at risk. I am sure he is aware that the crypto trading platform Gemini estimated that as many as one in five people in the UK could have lost money in the crash. Do the Government agree with Gemini’s estimate? If so, does the Minister agree that the recent crisis in crypto markets demonstrates that so-called stablecoins are not necessarily stable, and that their instability can pose a significant risk to the public? How did the recent collapse in the value of cryptocurrencies inform the Treasury’s approach to clauses 21 and 22?
The Opposition have yet to be convinced that Ministers have acknowledged the scale of the threat that cryptoassets can pose to consumers and our constituents. In our Public Bill Committee evidence session, Adam Jackson of Innovate Finance, which is the trade body for UK fintech businesses, pointed out that the Bill has failed to set out how regulated stablecoins will interact with a future central bank digital currency. Can the Minister shed some light on that interaction? I also hope he can explain why the Government have opted to bring only stablecoins within the regulation. I am sure he is aware that the EU has just agreed to a comprehensive regime for regulating crypto exchanges and cryptoassets more broadly, and Joe Biden has said that he is looking to do something similar, but the UK will not even be consulting on a comprehensive regime until later this year. Does the Minister agree that this risks leaving our country behind in the fintech and blockchain race?
Even more importantly, does the Minister agree that in the absence of a comprehensive regulatory regime, the UK risks becoming a centre for illicit finance and crypto activity? I looked at the analysis from Chainalysis—a global leader in blockchain research—which pointed out that cryptocurrency-based crime, such as terrorist financing, money laundering, fraud and scams, hit an all-time high in 2021, with illicit finance in the UK estimated to be worth more than £500 million. In the absence of a comprehensive regulatory regime, how do the Government think they are going to protect our consumers from such threats?
Will the Minister shed a bit more light on his strategy? Does he believe that the definition of “digital settlement assets” in clauses 21 and 22 is broad enough for regulations on a wide range of cryptocurrencies, other cryptoassets and crypto exchanges? Finally, on pacing this work, I want to know his intention. How long will the public and the fintech sector have to wait until the regulators are given the power that they need to regulate the types of cryptoassets that I have referred to?
Andrew Griffith
I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. In truth, I agree with the assessment that she has set out. The approach taken in the Bill is to start with stablecoins and those that are most likely to be used as a means of settlement. That is what the Government are taking powers for in the Bill. As she says, we have committed to come back and consult on the issue before the end of the year. The nights are getting darker, so she will not have long to wait.
I am mindful of the opportunities and threats that the hon. Lady set out well when citing the evidence that the Committee heard, and it is my intention that the Government now move at a greater pace than is currently provided for in the Bill, which has been in gestation for some time. We will come forward with the consultation, which will happen before Parliament rises for Christmas. It will be a really good opportunity for us to continue to discuss how we can address some of the issues.
The reason we have started with stablecoins is that there are challenges in bringing them into regulation for the first time. The hon. Lady would not want us to rush, because by bringing them into the regulatory perimeter, we confer a status on them that may lead to some of the consumer harms she mentioned. The Government’s position is to start with the most stable, least volatile coins, which are likely to be used by intermediaries as settlement currencies, and then to go forward and consult from there.
I think I have addressed most of the hon. Lady’s comments. I do not disagree with her about the scale of the threat. There are other measures, including those that regulate the online promotion of cryptoassets, that will help to protect consumers who suffer harm.
Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
Will the Minister give us a little more flavour on how he sees the evolution of this area? Does the clause give him enough powers to go with that evolution, or will we need to legislate again as the landscape changes? It is clear that we have to avoid the potential harm of allowing consumers to think that all digital coins are somehow the same. We know what Bitcoin is, and do not need to spend much time talking about it. We would not want to give people the impression that it is safe to indulge in investing in it.
At the same time, both sides of the Committee realise that digital payment systems and coins are a huge and rapidly developing area that national Governments must get a grip on. That is why we all welcome the fact that the Bank of England is looking at launching its own non-fungible token, or whatever we want to call it. We have to keep a very close eye and watch this space to see how it evolves. Will the Minister give us an impression of whether the clause is evolutionary enough for his purposes in that rapidly changing environment? Might he want to change it through some later piece of legislation?
Finally, we all know how much energy is used in the creation of Bitcoin. I confess myself ignorant about whether the creation of other non-fungible tokens is as energy intensive as the creation of Bitcoin. Perhaps the Minister can enlighten us. There is a green side to the issue as well.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
My point is further to those made by my hon. Friends the Members for Hampstead and Kilburn, and for Wallasey. My hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey asked whether the definition was evolutionary enough, and I want to pin down the Minister’s response. Does he believe that the definition of “digital settlement assets” is broad enough to allow for regulation to cover the wide range of cryptocurrency, other cryptoassets and exchanges?
Andrew Griffith
I thank hon. Members for their contributions. As currently envisaged, the definition successfully encompasses what it intends to today. The definition starts with the most safe, least volatile domain, which is the use of digital settlement assets. The Bill confers secondary powers, which are subject to the affirmative procedure, that allow the definition to change elastically over time. It is right that Parliament should have the opportunity to look at such changes. That achieves the balance that Members on both sides of the Committee seek. It does not rush headlong to confer legitimacy.
The hon. Member for Wallasey rightly raised the point about the energy used. The truth is that we do not know, but we all suspect that the activity is highly energy intensive. Partly due to the lack of regulation, there is no real data other than anecdotes that one hears that suggest the process is very intensive—even getting into whole percentages of world energy consumption, according to some anecdotes. That is the process of mining that things like Bitcoin and Ethereum are associated with.
Tulip Siddiq
The Minister has talked about regulated stablecoins, but I did not get an answer to my question about how they will interact with the central bank digital currency that we know is very much on the horizon. Have the Government thought about that?
Andrew Griffith
Stablecoins and central bank currencies are both new forms of money. They differ in the issuer: a central bank versus a private issuer. It is likely that a central bank digital currency would simply exist and be regulated alongside that. This is an area where the Government’s thinking continues to evolve. It is something that we will do in conjunction with the Bank of England, and therefore the hon. Lady will appreciate that I would not make commitments unilaterally, but we have committed to publishing a consultation later this year. The Government’s stance can fairly be described as forward leaning in this space, but there is more work to do. It is not a trivial exercise to create a new central bank digital currency. My own hope is that it is a “when”, not an “if”, but the hon. Lady will indulge me if I say, “Let’s wait for the joint Government and Bank of England consultation,” which she will not have to wait that many weeks for.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 21 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 6 agreed to.
Clause 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 23
Implementation of mutual recognition agreements
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Andrew Griffith
Having left the EU, we have a unique opportunity to take the approach to the UK regulatory framework that most suits our markets. The Financial Services and Markets Bill is delivering on that and will support efforts to build on our historic strengths as a global financial centre. That includes developing our relationships with jurisdictions around the world, attracting investment and increasing opportunities for cross-border trade.
Mutual recognition agreements are one of the tools that the Treasury has to support the openness of the UK’s international financial services, alongside free trade agreements, financial dialogues and equivalence regimes. MRAs are international agreements that provide for recognition that the UK and another country have equivalent laws and practices in relation to particular areas of financial services and markets regulation. They are designed to reduce barriers to trade and market access between the UK and other countries. The UK is currently negotiating its first financial services mutual recognition agreement, with Switzerland.
Giving effect to MRAs, including the agreement being negotiated with Switzerland, is likely to require amendments to domestic regulation. Clause 23 therefore enables changes to be made through secondary legislation to give effect to that agreement and future financial services MRAs. That secondary legislation will be subject to the affirmative procedure, to ensure parliamentary scrutiny of the proposed changes. That will be in addition to the parliamentary scrutiny of the mutual recognition agreement that Members will be familiar with under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, known as CRaG. Parliament will, therefore—I am anticipating questions that hon. Members may raise—be able to scrutinise MRAs in the usual way before this power is used to implement the ratified agreements.
Clause 23 can be used only to implement MRAs relating to financial services, not to make broader changes to legislation or to implement any other form of international agreement. Each financial services MRA will be different, but it is anticipated that clause 23 will allow the Treasury to confer the necessary powers or impose duties on the financial services regulators to give effect to the MRA. That could include a duty to make rules on a particular matter—for example, rules governing cross-border provision of particular financial services by overseas firms.
The clause requires the Treasury to consult the relevant regulator before imposing any duties. In financial services regulation, market access between the UK and other jurisdictions is generally delivered through the UK’s equivalence framework for financial services, and the mechanisms under that framework are primarily found in retained EU law and based on the EU model of equivalence. The MRAs negotiated by the Government may in some cases go further than, or simply function differently from, those equivalent mechanisms. The clause therefore includes the power to modify the application of existing equivalence mechanisms, or to create new mechanisms to reflect what has been agreed in the relevant MRA.
Together, those provisions ensure that the UK can negotiate and deliver ambitious MRAs and implement the agreements in a timely manner that maintains the UK’s credibility in negotiating future MRAs. I therefore recommend that the clause stand part of the Bill.
Tulip Siddiq
We support clause 23, but how does the Minister think it will help the UK to secure international trade agreements that are favourable to the UK’s financial services sector? I ask because the Government have made very little progress on securing trade deals for the City, including with the EU, which remains, as I am sure he will agree, one of our most important export markets.
We completely recognise that regulatory divergence with the EU on areas such as fintech and Solvency II will help boost our competitiveness on the world stage. However, we cannot ignore the fact that Europe will always remain an important market for our financial services sector. Last year, exports of financial services to the EU were worth more than £20 billion—I am sure that the Minister knows that—which was 33% of all UK financial services exports. I have been speaking to the sector and it is disappointed that the Government have so far failed to finalise a memorandum of understanding on regulatory corporation, or to negotiate mutual recognition with the EU of professional qualifications for our service sectors. I want to hear more about that from the Minister.
Since 2018, the value of UK financial services exports to the EU has fallen by 19% in cash terms, and very little progress has been made in securing trade deals around the world for our financial services. Will the Minister tell us how the clause will help secure important agreements with the EU? I also want to hear more from him about how he hopes it will turn around the Government’s record on boosting financial services exports.
Dame Angela Eagle
I want to focus on parliamentary scrutiny of these changes. They are quite technical, but they could be very important, including for consumers. If we do not get them right, they could have unintended consequences for financial stability and so on, because of the range of agreements under discussion. One assumes that those negotiating the agreements have a reasonable model of what they want to achieve, but that will also be the case for those with whom we are negotiating. The context is about gaining an advantage in the international competition for financial services. Indeed, both Front Benchers have hinted at that. If we are looking for a competitive advantage and growth, that kind of struggle for an advantage has obvious implications.
Until we left the EU, much of the negotiation on the financial directives that were promulgated went on within the European Commission. The UK had a great deal of influence over how those directives were negotiated, but it did not always win out; for example, the markets in financial instruments directive was a cause of some consternation for our financial services, because it did not fit with our kind of plan. We were always the country with the largest financial services sector, and were mostly likely to be impacted by agreements and compromises that did not clearly represent our best interests. We can now hope to move back towards that position, if we can come to an agreement. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn said, we are constrained by the fact that a great deal of our financial services activity happened within the EU. I suspect that the divergence is likely to become greater over time. What does the Minister think would constitute a timely attempt by Government to ensure proper parliamentary scrutiny of these things? Aside, that is, from Parliament potentially debating 50 pages of extremely technical statutory instruments.
We know that the Treasury Committee will have a say, but some of the changes negotiated in these agreements with other countries may have important impacts on consumer rights, and larger number of Members of Parliament might want a say on them. Perhaps the Minister could say how he envisages the process going forward. I presume we will have some agreements—there has been a slow start. How can Parliament keep an appropriate eye on the philosophy behind the agreements, and the way in which they are going, as we diverge more from our closest partner?
Emma Hardy
I want to probe the Minister a little further. Obviously, it is a huge disappointment that we do not yet have a memorandum of understanding with the EU. Will the Minister indicate when we will have one?
Andrew Griffith
The hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn is right about the significance of the European Union member states as trading partners for our financial services. It remains the Government’s intention to form the closest possible relationship with those partners, and to help our financial services businesses access those markets in the most frictionless way. Both sides will have to be involved in reaching any agreement. I do not want to stray too far off the point, Dame Maria, but yesterday I met my German counterpart; Germany is probably the state with the biggest market for financial services. I hope the Committee will take that as a statement of our intent to negotiate as many agreements as possible, whether at national or EU level.
As I said, it is not the Government’s position to diverge for divergence’s sake. The hon. Members for Hampstead and Kilburn, and for Wallasey, accurately identified some of the provisions on which there may be opportunities to diverge, based simply on a different fact pattern in our financial services industries.
Emma Hardy
It is positive news that the Minister has met his German counterparts. Could he give any indication of the progress made towards a memorandum of understanding, and of when we might see one with the EU?
Andrew Griffith
The hon. Lady will forgive me, but I cannot give an indication of timing. However, I will undertake to engage with the Treasury Committee, whose acting Chair is with us today, as we go through that process. To speak to the point made by the hon. Member for Wallasey, we have a diligent Treasury Committee that exercises oversight of this area. I consider it unlikely that we will suddenly procure an MRA that blindsides that Committee, and I certainly undertake to keep it informed, so that the detailed parliamentary scrutiny provided for in the Bill is adequately exercised.
Dame Angela Eagle
I thank the Minister for giving way. Flattery will, of course, get him everywhere. Given the nature of that complex negotiation, might it be possible for him to undertake to give the Treasury Committee a heads-up on progress before agreements are made, so that we can try to ensure that we can encompass appropriate consideration in our heavy workload?
Andrew Griffith
I will not fully bind the Government on that, but the hon. Lady makes a reasonable point. These are not matters of overly partisan division between us, and it would certainly be our intention to do that, so that the scrutiny under CraG, and the scrutiny required by the affirmative procedure, can be carried out, and so that the right resources can be dedicated to it.
The hon. Member for Wallasey talked about these MRAs being a struggle for advantage. There is that element to them, but another key element is that they are mutual. It is certainly not the Government’s position that they are a zero-sum game. The objective is to procure such agreements with as many different jurisdictions as possible, so that, as the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn mentioned, we can grow our sector and boost exports of not just financial services but related professional services, which the UK is extremely fortunate to have.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 23 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
We now come to amendments 43 and 45, in the name of Peter Grant. Would any member of the Committee like to move them? If not, we will move on to amendment 46.
Clause 24
Competitiveness and growth objective
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 46, in clause 24, page 37, line 13, leave out “facilitating” and insert “promoting”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 47, in clause 24, page 37, line 31, leave out “facilitating” and insert “promoting”.
Clause stand part.
Stephen Hammond
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dame Maria, and to serve under your chairmanship. I would again guide the Committee to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
For many of us, chapter 3 of the Bill is hugely important because it looks at the accountability of regulators. As the Bill could hugely increase their powers, the themes that many of us explored during the evidence session—of transparency, accountability and proportionality—are fundamental. Clause 24 deals with the secondary objective. Regulation and regulatory culture are some of the biggest factors affecting the competitiveness and attractiveness of a jurisdiction.
This is not about a race to the bottom. Any jurisdiction that is not well respected and well regulated, with tough regulation and an independent regulator, will fail on the international stage. It is about ensuring the regulator’s accountability, particularly for the objective. We heard evidence from major City trade organisations last week, and Emma Reynolds from TheCityUK said to us:
“it is important that the regulators are not marking their own homework”––[Official Report, Financial Services and Markets Public Bill Committee, 19 October 2022; c. 18, Q28.]
Charlotte Clark from the Association of British Insurers made a similar point.
It is clear that there is a track record, but we must make sure that the regulators stay on track and are held to their duty regarding the new secondary objective. Amendments 46 and 47, which are fairly simple, would change “facilitating” to “promoting”. Facilitating almost implies letting something happen, perhaps through disregard. There should be active promotion of the secondary objective to remain internationally competitive. Internationally, we would not be alone in taking such action. The Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority is required to take particular account of the effect that regulation has on competition, innovation and the international competitiveness of Switzerland. There is a very similar objective for the Monetary Authority of Singapore, and no one anywhere will suggest that those are not well regulated, competitive international markets.
London trade bodies, such as the London Market Group, suggest that in the UK, some regulatory costs are up to 14 times what they are in other places around the world. When we look at the one-size-fits-all approach sometimes taken by the Financial Conduct Authority, it is clear that a distinction needs to be drawn. If we are not careful, the objective could be subsumed in others and forgotten. If we want London to be the global financial centre, we should have regard to the secondary objective. I want the Bill to set out more clearly regulators’ accountability for this objective, the intention, and regulators’ role regarding the objective.
Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)
As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Maria. I refer to my interest, which I declared at the start of Committee proceedings. I welcome the Bill, and particularly clause 24 because of its competitiveness duty, for which I have campaigned for quite some time. I would prefer it to be a primary objective, and perhaps the Minister will look into that, but if we keep it in its current form, then we have to go further for it to be meaningful. There must be proper metrics to ensure that the regulator follows up on it. For that reason, I support the amendments put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon.
In the evidence sessions, I was surprised to hear that the FCA was not aware of any other regulator that had a competitiveness duty. That is quite worrying. It seemed slightly detached from what our competitors are doing. We need to ensure that the FCA is pressed hard on this issue, and that there is a clear, stated objective for them to promote competitiveness in the industry. To be clear, this is not at all about lowering standards. The FCA said in its evidence that it considers jurisdictions such as Hong Kong, Japan, Singapore and Australia to be robust financial centres. They all have a competitiveness duty, so a duty of that kind can be beneficial.
Let me put this into context by giving the example of insurance-linked securities. The FCA created regulations regarding them, which Singapore then lifted—took and used. Because of Singapore’s competitiveness duty, we lost one firm midway through the process. In the same timeframe, 15 firms have been regulated there, against five in this country. The estimated loss is around $700 million. That is money out of our economy that could come our way with just this simple change.
There is a similar story on captives. We do not have any set up here. The reason cited is over-burdensome regulation. The industry agrees that there needs to be regulation, but it needs to be proportionate, and we need to ensure that it does not block investment in this country. I hope the Minister will consider the amendments and see what can be done to strengthen the measures.
Dame Angela Eagle
I approve completely of having a competitiveness and effective competition analysis duty being attached to the regulators, and for them to report on it annually, which would allow us to see how much they are taking account of it. I would also like them to be thinking about financial inclusion, but that comes later in our proceedings.
Will the Minister tease out a little for the Committee how he thinks the regulator can go about discharging that duty safely? We have seen some of the carnage caused by bad regulation in the energy sector, where a superficial view of competition has led to problems in that market, with companies collapsing. There is an obsession with the idea that competition is about the number of firms, whether or not they are sound. If something similar were to happen in this context, it could be even more serious and even more costly. I broadly support the aims of clause 24, but would welcome the Minister’s thoughts on how the problems and the bad effects in the energy market caused by the regulator’s misguided attempts to prove that there was competition—the trap of thinking that competition is just about the number of firms—can be avoided in this context.
Tulip Siddiq
I will speak to clause 24. I was going to speak to amendment 43, but it has not been moved.
We strongly welcome clause 24. We are completely committed to supporting the City to retain its competitiveness on the world stage and we support the new secondary objective for regulators to consider competitiveness and growth. However, I hope the Minister will agree that financial stability and consumer protection must always remain the priority for our regulators. Any compromise on those important objectives would be self-defeating. The competitiveness and global reputation of the City depends on the UK’s reputation for strong regulatory standards.
Although supporting the financial services sector to thrive and grow will be key to delivering the tax receipts that we need to fund public services, it will not be enough. To get the economy growing, the Minister knows that we need to harness the power of the City to drive growth in every part of the economy and the country. The financial services sector will have to play an important role in driving our transition to a low-carbon economy and creating the green jobs and businesses of the future. Perhaps the most interesting part of the new secondary objective is how our regulatory system can incentivise medium and long-term growth beyond the financial services sector in the wider economy.
Andrew Griffith
I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Wimbledon and for North Warwickshire for raising some important matters, and those on the Opposition Front Bench for their support for clause 24. They clearly speak with a great deal of authority from their own experience, and the Government will take away their points and consider them further. Let me describe the clause, and then I will try to come back to the points that have been made.
The Bill asserts our domestic model of financial services regulation, whereby the Government and Parliament set a policy framework within which the regulators are generally responsible for setting the detailed rules. It is therefore necessary to ensure that the regulators’ objectives, as set out in the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, are appropriate, given their expanded responsibility and the UK’s position outside the EU. The Government believe that the regulators’ current objectives set broadly the right strategic considerations, but we also consider it right that the regulators’ objectives reflect the need to support the growth and international competitive-ness of the UK economy, particularly the financial services sector. I welcome Members’ support for that.
The clause introduces new secondary objectives for the FCA and PRA in relation to growth and competitiveness. The new objectives will require the FCA and PRA to act in a way that, subject to aligning with relevant international standards, facilitates the international competitiveness of the UK economy, including the financial services sector, and its growth in the medium to long term. For the FCA, that objective will be secondary to its strategic objective to ensure that markets function well—I believe the hon. Member for Wallasey mentioned the importance of that, which is clearly paramount—and to its three operational objectives, which sit below the strategic objective, to ensure that consumers receive appropriate protection, to protect and enhance the integrity of the financial system, and to promote effective competition. Again, the hon. Member for Wallasey mentioned financial inclusion, and we will talk about that when we debate later clauses. For the PRA, the growth and competitiveness objective will be secondary to the PRA’s general objective to ensure that UK firms remain safe and sound, and to its insurance-specific objective to contribute to the securing of an appropriate degree of protection for those who are or may become policyholders.
The new objectives do not require or authorise the FCA or PRA to take any action inconsistent with the existing objectives. I will come back to the hon. Member for Wallasey on that, but they are subordinate objectives and secondary to their financial stability and prudential objectives, which they talk about. The new objectives will give the regulators a legal basis for advancing growth and international competitiveness for the first time. It does not go quite as far as my hon. Friends the Members for Wimbledon and for North Warwickshire have suggested in the amendment. Nevertheless, it is a significant enhancement in that respect on the status quo. As they said, it moves us in line with other international jurisdictions. That is a balanced approach. By making those objectives secondary, we are nevertheless giving the regulators an unambiguous hierarchy of objectives that prioritises safety and soundness, and market integrity. I therefore commend clause 24 to the Committee.
Amendments 46 and 47 seek to amend the new secondary objectives and require the regulators to promote, rather than facilitate, the international competitiveness of the UK economy and its growth in the medium to long term. The wording of the objectives in clause 24 aligns with the PRA’s existing secondary objective, which is to facilitate effective competition. The vast majority of respondents to the November 2021 future regulatory framework review consultation supported the Government’s proposal to introduce new secondary objectives for the FCA and the PRA to facilitate growth and competitiveness.
I reassure my hon. Friends about the importance of the Government’s plans on growth and competitiveness. We expect that there will be a step change in the regulators’ approach to the issue that will be similar to the change that took place following the introduction of the PRA’s secondary competition objective in 2014, which led to a significant number of new policies to facilitate effective competition. I therefore ask my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon to withdraw the amendment.
In responding to the hon. Member for Wallasey, I will not assume to myself a degree of expertise about the energy market or any failings in that market. However, I completely agree about the need to avoid an overly binary or unbalanced approach to competition in any market. I think we all agree that we need to get the right balance. On how the regulators can safely advance the objectives, my response is as follows: with a balanced approach; with the right level and volume of resources, in terms of both the quality of expertise and the people they attract and retain; and with good governance. The hon. Lady herself, like all Members of Parliament, is also part of the regulators’ governance model.
Tulip Siddiq
The Minister sounds like he is closing his speech, and I have not heard what he thinks about TheCityUK’s suggestion of asking regulators to report their performance against criteria and metrics. Before he finishes, will he give us his opinion?
Andrew Griffith
The hon. Lady is right to pull me up on my failure to address her point, although later clauses and amendments also address it. I am familiar with TheCityUK’s proposal, and the Government are prepared to look at that area. She gave an example of the regulators helping the real economy through sustainable investments, and potentially reporting some metrics against that. That is worthy of consideration.
Stephen Hammond
I should have said at the beginning that I warmly welcome clause 24. The purpose of the amendments was to tease out the Minister’s exact thoughts. I was pleased to hear that he thinks there is regulatory step forward. I was also pleased to hear that the Government may look again at some of the wording in chapter 3. Will he meet me and colleagues, perhaps next week, or some time in the future? With that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 25
Regulatory principles: net zero emissions target
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Andrew Griffith
I will speak to clauses 25 and 26 in order. As I set out in previous comments, the Government remain committed to reaching net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, as set out in section 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008. Clause 25 reflects the Government’s commitment by introducing a new regulatory principle for the FCA and the PRA to contribute towards achieving compliance with the net zero emissions target. FSMA 2000 sets out eight regulatory principles that the FCA and the PRA must have regard to when discharging their functions. These existing principles aim to promote regulatory good practice across the regulators’ policy-making. The principle in section 3B(1)(c) of FSMA 2000 requires the FCA and the PRA to have regard to the desirability of sustainable growth in the United Kingdom economy in the medium or long term.
The November 2021 future regulatory framework review consultation proposed amending the sustainable growth principle to explicitly incorporate the UK’s statutory climate target. Following feedback to the consultation, and given that the Bill introduces new secondary objectives for the FCA and the PRA to facilitate international competitiveness and growth in the medium to long term, clause 25 removes the sustainable growth principle for the FCA and the PRA to avoid unnecessary duplication.
Clause 25 replaces the sustainable growth principle with a new regulatory principle to require the FCA and PRA to have regard to the need to contribute towards achieving compliance with section 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008. This new regulatory principle will cement the Government’s long-term commitment to transform the economy in line with our net zero strategy and vision to make the UK a net zero financial centre by ensuring that the FCA and the PRA must have regard to these considerations when discharging their functions. A similar requirement will be introduced for the Bank of England and the Payment Systems Regulator, which we will cover in more detail later.
Clause 26 makes consequential amendments to FSMA 2000 to take account of the new regulatory principle in clause 25, and the new growth and competitiveness objective for the FCA and PRA in clause 24. Clause 26 also requires the FCA and PRA to explain how they have advanced the new growth and competitiveness objectives, as well as their existing statutory objectives, in their annual reports to the Treasury, which are laid before Parliament. This requirement aligns with the PRA’s current reporting requirement for its secondary competition objective. I therefore commend clauses 25 and 26 to the Committee.
Emma Hardy
I have not tabled an amendment to the clause, but the Minister will be aware that on Second Reading there was a huge amount of support across the House for strengthening these proposals on net zero and nature. I hope we will see some movement on these issues as the Bill progresses through Parliament.
I want to start by saying why net zero and nature matter and looking at the situation in France and Germany. The German regulator already has a sustainability objective, with a focus on combatting greenwashing. The French regulator already looks at overseeing the quality of information and has set up the Climate and Sustainable Finance Commission. I want the Minister to note that our competitors are already moving ahead in this area.
One thing that came out of the written evidence, which I have just been re-reading, was the need for net zero transition plans and the establishment of a transition plan taskforce. The Minister has not really mentioned that. The purpose of the transition plan taskforce was to look at a gold standard for climate transition plans, but it is not stipulated in the Bill that companies will be expected to develop these and move them forward.
Disappointingly, although the Bill talks about net zero, it says nothing about nature. I wish I could recall who from the Bank of England came to give evidence to the Treasury Committee, but it was incredibly interesting to hear that, in looking at the risks to our country and our future financial sustainability, it is starting to look at the risk to nature and what the decline in nature will cost us all. We have heard much about climate change and the obvious risks it poses to our country and our financial sector, but people are starting internationally to look at the impact that a decline in nature has on our economic wellbeing. Again, nature is not mentioned in the Bill at all.
Craig Tracey
I will speak specifically to clause 26. It is really welcome that this measure has been brought forward, but I have a big worry that the wording of the clause is open to interpretation. I have therefore tabled a new clause that we will get to later. The main change is to amend the wording in the clause that the regulator has complied with the competitiveness duty, “in its opinion”. I think that is quite worrying. There is a worry that it will turn into a tick-box exercise. As Emma Reynolds from TheCityUK pointed out, there is concern that the regulator will end up marking its own homework. The regulator was not even aware that other jurisdictions had international competitiveness duties.
We should also find it concerning that Charlotte Clark from the ABI said in her evidence that she could not recall a new insurance company being set up in this country in the last 10 to 15 years, yet they are being set up in other countries, including in the EU—countries with which we have equivalence. The main reasons seem to be the time that it takes to get regulated and the cost. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon said, in some instances it is up to 14 times more expensive to get regulated here than in similar jurisdictions that are similarly robust.
I therefore think that the provision needs to be much tighter and to have some proper key performance indicators and metrics. It was good to hear the FCA say that it was looking at those, but we need to set them out clearly. The types of thing that could be in there are an understanding of who is leaving the country for other regimes and why; rule monitoring and evaluation; the level of duplication in the rulebook; the speed and responsiveness of the regulator; and our success in attracting new applicants. As I said, I have a new clause, which we will come to at the end, but it would be great if I could meet the Minister beforehand to talk this through and to see whether it can be incorporated into the Government’s thinking.
Dame Angela Eagle
Again, there is largely agreement about the aims of clauses 25 and 26. We are on the cusp of a complete transformation in the way our economies have to work. Sometimes, I think we do not quite understand the extent of the transformation that will be needed and the speed at which it will have to be done, given that we are so behind in our attempts to reach net zero and avoid catastrophic climate change. It really is the last few hours, in terms of the biodiversity and climate stability of the Earth, for us to be able to do this.
The scale of the required transformation is mind-boggling. Virtually every piece of infrastructure in existence in our society will have to be transformed. That will have to be done through public-private partnerships, investment to lead the market in areas where there is market failure and investment in innovation in financial services to help to provide that investment, but also through proper regulation, which is what these clauses are about. All those things have to be done in a timely way to create the circumstances for realising all the capital investment potential that will be needed to make this change happen, especially in established economies with old infrastructures, which are often the largest emitters of carbon, as it happens. All of that has to be done virtually in parallel, so that we can try to reach these important targets.
It is very important that, through these clauses, the Government have agreed to incorporate the legislative target of reaching net zero by 2050 into this part of financial services law. However, they have amended it by replacing what was there before—the “have regard to sustainable growth”—with the target. Is that the right way to go about it? By getting rid of that “have regard”, do we lose an opportunity to make progress, rather than just focusing on a future output? That is not a philosophical question; it is a practical one. Why have the Government decided to replace the “have regard”, rather than enhance it? Will the Minister reassure us that, in the context of having to retool the way we do almost everything in all our infrastructure, we could not have gone with both? Will there be the potential for people to think, “We’ll put everything off until closer to 2050,” because the “have regard” has been replaced with an end-date output target? Can the Minister justify why the Government thought that was the best approach?
When regulation is being refocused on net zero, there will be those who wish to greenwash what they are doing—I will use that phrase; the Minister understands what it means—in order to continue to attract investment and piggyback on the good will of people who wish this change to happen when, in the case of those companies, it is not happening. I suspect there is a little bit of that going on at the moment. How does the Minister envisage enforcement mechanisms and proper regulation being put in place to ensure that greenwashing is not going on everywhere? Such greenwashing would move us away from meeting the target. Not only would it be to the detriment of consumer interests; it would squeeze out more genuine activities, firms and investment if it were allowed to be too prevalent.
Stephen Hammond
I am not sure whether I am supposed to, Dame Maria, but I refer the Committee to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Like many Members, I welcome the thrust of clause 25 and think it is important that we are setting the principle of net zero in legislation. However, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire. Clause 26 amends FSMA 2000 in relation to the content of the annual report. I will not go through all the arguments that we may well make when my hon. Friend’s new clause is debated, but I want to register with the Minister my concern about the phrase “in its opinion”. There is a reputational risk for the regulator, as much as for anyone else, if someone were to examine it later. I will not detain the Committee any longer, but I will want to speak to this point quite extensively when my hon. Friend’s new clause comes up.
I ask the Minister to look at the phraseology and consider whether it is appropriate. As we have all said in Committee, during the evidence sessions and in widespread discussion of the Bill, the need for clear metrics, regulatory transparency and regulatory accountability is key. That is one of the things we have all welcomed in the Bill.
Tulip Siddiq
We welcome clause 25 and the new regulatory principles for the FCA and the PRA, which will require the regulators, when discharging their general functions, to have regard to the need to contribute towards compliance with the Climate Change Act 2008—legislation that, I remind the Minister, was brought in by a Labour Government.
However, we think that the Bill lacks ambition on green finance. The Government promised much more radical action. We were promised that the UK would become the world’s first net zero financial centre, but we are falling behind global competitors. In the evidence session, William Wright, the managing director of the New Financial think-tank, stated that the UK is a long way behind the EU on both the share and the penetration of green finance in capital markets. Research by the think-tank has suggested that green finance penetration in the UK is at half the level of the EU and roughly where the EU was four years ago.
I will discuss what the Opposition would like to see in the Bill on green finance when we discuss new clause 9. For now, will the Minister set out what assessment he has made of the impact that clause 25 will have on investment decisions and other financial service activities in the sector?
In the evidence session, William Wright suggested that there is “a disconnect” between the Government’s stated position that the UK is already a global leader in green finance and the ambition for the UK to become the leading international green finance centre. Does the Minister really believe that the provisions in clause 25 are sufficient to close that gap? How much further will the Government go on this agenda? Does the Minister think we have been as ambitious as possible in the Bill, considering that the problem is on our doorstep and is so important for future generations?
Andrew Griffith
A lot of valuable points have been raised by Members on both sides of the Committee. This is the right moment for colleagues to make those points, and I hope it is acceptable to the Committee if I take some of those points away and follow up with further information later, rather than dismissing them trivially here.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle raised something that is close to many of our hearts: nature. She is quite right that the Bill is focused on net zero and climate. She is absolutely right that we cannot achieve our climate goals without acknowledging the vital role of nature. That should concern us all, as it is part of the carbon ecosystem. I will take her points away to see whether there is anything else that can be done. I hope she will accept that the datasets and the maturity with which some aspects can be measured are not as sophisticated as in the science of climate change. That might be one impediment to the Government moving forward and baking it into statute, but I will take it away and follow up with the hon. Lady.
The hon. Member for Wallasey is absolutely right about the transformative scale of moving to a low-carbon economy. It will change every single aspect of how we generate energy, the activities we engage in, the homes we live in and our financial centre. We are at one on that. I believe that the wording of the clause and the replacement of the “have regard” achieves that objective, combined with the legislative commitment—by the Labour Government, if the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn so wishes—that is being incorporated into the duty by reference. It does do that. There is an ambition there, and we should seek to satisfy it.
Tulip Siddiq
Obviously I do not want to offend the Minister, but I point him to the facts. I would like to hear what he has to say in response to the evidence given by William Wright, who, I would point out, is not a Labour MP but is independent. The think-tank’s research found that green finance penetration in the UK is at half the level of the EU, and roughly where the EU was four years ago. When the Minister writes to me, will he point me to specific evidence that contradicts what we heard in the evidence session?
Andrew Griffith
I will. I look forward to writing to the hon. Lady to set out my case.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle mentioned transition plans. Our progress on those is absolutely on track and I look forward to that being another area in which the UK is leading.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 25 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 27
Review of rules
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Andrew Griffith
Clause 27 inserts four new sections into FSMA 2000 to ensure that the FCA and the PRA review their rules regularly, so that they remain fit for purpose. It is important for the FCA and the PRA to regularly review their rules after implementation to ensure that they remain appropriate and continue to have the desired effect.
Regular reviews improve ongoing policy development by providing the evidence to make better decisions and helping to develop a better understanding of what works, for whom and when. There is currently no formal requirement for the PRA or the FCA to conduct reviews of their existing rules. Proposed new section 3RA will introduce a requirement for the two regulators to keep their rules under review. There are a range of approaches for assessing the effect of rules, from monitoring a set of indicators to an in-depth assessment of the effect of a rule from both a qualitative and quantitative standpoint.
The Government expect that, under this new requirement, the regulator will decide on the most appropriate approach on a case-by-case basis. The requirement to keep their rules under review should lead to a more systematic approach by the FCA and the PRA, in turn improving regulation, as any ineffective or outdated rules will be removed or revised more consistently.
Alongside that requirement, proposed new section 3RB requires the regulators to publish a statement of policy on how they intend to conduct rule reviews. That will provide clarity and transparency for stakeholders on how and when rules are reviewed, thereby increasing confidence in the regulation of financial services. Under these new requirements, how and when the two regulators review their rules to assess whether they function as intended will be an operational decision for the regulators.
In addition to the new legislative requirements, the regulators have confirmed that they will consult publicly on the statement of policy to ensure that stakeholders have an opportunity to contribute views as the regulators consider their approach.
I reiterate that, as set out in the Government response to the November 2021 FRF review consultation, and in response to calls from industry, the FCA and the PRA have committed to ensuring that there are clear and appropriate channels through which industry and other stakeholders can raise concerns about rules. Those channels will be set out in policy statements in due course. However, without further provision, there will be no formal mechanism for the Treasury to require the regulators to conduct reviews of their existing rules.
As the FCA and the PRA take on increased regulatory policy-making responsibilities following the implementation of the FRF review, there may be occasions when the Treasury considers that it in the public interest for the regulators to review their rules—for example, when there has been a significant change in market conditions or other evidence suggests that the relevant rules are no longer acting as intended.
Proposed new section 3RC of FSMA provides for more effective regulation by allowing the Treasury to direct the regulator to review its rules when the Treasury considers that to be in the public interest. Proposed new section 3RD requires the regulator to report on the outcome of the review and the Treasury to lay that report before Parliament. Any reviews initiated under the power will be conducted by the regulator or, where appropriate, an independent person. The regulator will be responsible for deciding what action to take, if any, in response to any recommendations arising from the review. This measure offers a new avenue for challenge of the regulators’ rule making, where that is required, while maintaining their operational independence.
Respondents to the November 2021 FRF review consultation felt that there should be further measures on accountability, although there was no consensus on what they should be. The Government considered the responses and decided that, while we must still uphold our commitment to independent regulation, the accountability framework needs further strengthening, so on Second Reading the Government announced our intention to bring forward an intervention power to enable the Treasury to direct the regulator to make, amend or revoke rules when there are matters of significant public interest. The Government will provide a further update on that power in due course. With that in mind, I recommend that the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dame Angela Eagle
I have a few questions. The measure is sensible, but at the same time, it can be read as being quite sinister. Perhaps it depends on how the power will be used. The past is not filled with massive numbers of examples of the regulator falling out with the Treasury or the Bank of England, so the measure seems rather like a sledgehammer to crack a nut. The powers are to be used in exceptional circumstances, but those circumstances are not really defined; the Minister’s comment on that would be interesting.
If the measure is a sledgehammer to crack a nut, does it risk giving the impression that regulation in this country is not independent and can be overridden when that suits a Government, rather than when that is in the public interest? Might this compromise outsiders’ views of how our system is regulated? In other words, the cost-benefit analysis of whether the measure is an appropriate reaction might be in the balance. Will the Minister say a little more about how he perceives the power being used and what “exceptional circumstances” are?
We would still like to see what the intervention power that the Minister keeps talking about would actually look like. He has not come forward with the wording of it. Today, we will be halfway through the Committee proceedings on the Bill, and past the time when it may be relevant. Will he bring that wording back on Report, or will we see it while we are still in Committee?
Tulip Siddiq
We support the powers granted to the Treasury in clause 27 to require the regulator to conduct reviews of existing rules. We think that is a proportionate and sensible approach. We agree that mechanisms should be available to allow Ministers to ask a regulator to think again about a rule that may not be working in the public interest. However, while it is important that regulators are held to account, does the Minister agree that the operational independence of regulators must be paramount? Does he therefore agree that, with the powers to direct rule making already included in the Bill, a so-called intervention power would be unnecessary and dangerous?
During the evidence session, the deputy governor of the Bank of England, Sir Jon Cunliffe, said that an “intervention power” risked undermining perceptions of the central bank’s 25-year-long independence. He warned that, in turn, it would undermine the global reputation of our financial services sector. Even though the Minister was there, I will quote him:
“That credibility of the institutional framework is very important to the competitiveness”––[Official Report, Financial Services and Markets Public Bill Committee, 19 October 2022; c. 39, Q76.]
of the UK. Martin Taylor, a former Bank of England regulator and chief executive of Barclays said that, while it would not necessarily turn us into “Argentina or Turkey overnight”, that would be the direction of travel if such a power were introduced. I ask the Minister once again, echoing what my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey said: why does he believe that the powers in clause 27 are not sufficient, and why do the Government continue to ignore the advice of the Bank of England?
Andrew Griffith
We have debated this matter under a number of clauses already. My commitment to table the draft wording of the proposed intervention power during this Committee remains. That remains the intention. I do not accept the characterisation of a sledgehammer and a nut. What we are doing in the whole of the Bill is giving vast new powers to the regulators that were previously held and exercised, with potential oversight and intervention, from Brussels. We are bringing that into the UK rulebook. The proposed power here, and any proposed intervention power, is a proportionate response to the significant expansion in regulations of financial services, which touch and are capable of touching every aspect of human life in this country.
It is important that we give the Government of the day, subject to Parliament, that failsafe ability. It may one day even be the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn who is exercising that power, and she may be grateful for the foresight of this Committee in providing that, with the caveat that this is clearly anchored in the public interest. That is a well-understood concept. I do not want to rehearse all the points that the Committee heard from witnesses, but it is the Government’s view that this power is necessary. To the extent that we seek to go forward with what is called the public interest intervention power, beyond merely directing regulators to look again at rules, we should discuss that again in the context of what the checks and balances on that would be.
Tulip Siddiq
I am not sure, but I think the Minister was advocating for a general election; I am not putting words in his mouth. I understand what he is saying, but we asked the witnesses to come and give evidence for a reason, so he needs to respond to the concerns of those witnesses, who were clearly concerned about this intervention power. Those two key witnesses said they were worried about undermining the independence of the Bank of England. What is the Minister’s opinion about that?
Andrew Griffith
The Treasury has consulted widely on the future regulatory framework. One of the key points made by all the industry participants, very few of whom were part of the witness sessions—although we did hear from two particular witnesses, we did not hear the same volume of responses as in past consultations—was that industry is firmly of the mind that this is proportionate and potentially required.
I will clarify a couple of things for the Committee, because these matters are often misunderstood. First, we have operationally independent regulators. That is absolutely right, and no one is seeking to interfere in the findings of any particular regulatory review with respect to an industry participant. Secondly, none of this speaks to the scope of the Monetary Policy Committee. Sometimes the debate is couched in terms of monetary policy independence. What we are actually talking about is the regulatory rulebook. There are large public policy considerations for the insurance industry, for example, and in relation to consumer duty matters, such as access to cash and consumer protection, which we will debate in later sittings. Those are all matters that the Government consider and will continue to consider, notwithstanding the evidence given in that witness session. That is the right, proportionate response.
I should clarify that the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn will get her general election in due course, but I fear she will have some time to wait.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 27 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Joy Morrissey.)
Financial Services and Markets Bill (Sixth sitting)
Thursday 27th October 2022
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesFinancial Services and Markets Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 27 October 2022 - (27 Oct 2022)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 48, in clause 28, page 40, line 39, at end insert—
“3RF Requirement to publish specified information
(1) The Treasury may at any time, by notice in writing, direct a regulator to measure its performance against specified metrics and to publish such information if—
(a) the regulator does not already publish such information, or
(b) the Treasury consider the information published is insufficient for the purposes of holding the regulator to account.
(2) A direction under subsection (1) may—
(a) specify the element of the regulator’s performance to be measured;
(b) specify the appropriate metrics to be used;
(c) specify the period for which performance must be measured; and
(d) specify the date by which the performance information must be published.
(3) As soon as practicable after giving the direction under subsection (1) the Treasury must—
(a) lay before Parliament a copy of the direction, and
(b) publish the direction in such manner as the Treasury considers appropriate.
(4) A direction under subsection (1) may be varied or revoked by the giving of a further direction.”
I again guide the Committee to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Clause 28 amends the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. It gives the Treasury the power to make or to direct rules. A key element of our discussions has been transparency and accountability, and the amendment is designed to make things a little clearer by ensuring that regulators report regularly and transparently on key metrics. The regulators are already mandated to report to His Majesty’s Treasury in their annual reports, which have to contain some performance metrics; the issue is that those metrics are selected by the regulator themselves. At the moment, an oversight body has the power to send for “persons, papers and records”, but it does not have the power to mandate regulators to report on specific performance metrics over time. I think that that leaves a hole in terms of both accountability to Parliament and transparency of regulators.
I accept the evidence that Martin Taylor gave the Committee that Parliament and the Government have a huge amount of influence. Equally, though, the chief executive of the Prudential Regulation Authority, when asked elsewhere for his thoughts on the competitiveness objective, described a lot of it as a “red herring”. When asked how he would report on the competitiveness objective, he said that he had “no convincing answer”. It is important that there is a convincing answer, and that is, in effect, what my proposed new section 3RF of the 2000 Act would provide.
As I have stated quite clearly, I do not believe that this is about a race to the bottom. We need a well-regulated, tough regulated, transparently regulated jurisdiction. Regular accountability on performance is in no way an infringement of a regulator’s independence; I think that it would enhance the regulator’s reputation. The amendment therefore sets out a number of metrics on which a regulator might be asked to report. That could work relatively easily. For instance, the Treasury could use its powers to set out more clearly the elements on which the regulator should measure and report its performance. It could also set out definitions that are relevant to the measures themselves. I think that the direction potentially should be able to be scrutinised by the public, and particularly by Parliament and the Treasury Committee, and that the information should be published, and published more frequently.
My amendment is designed to ensure that the regulator not only has the objective, but has to report on it on a very clear set of metrics, which would then allow us in Parliament and the public to ensure that it is meeting the objective.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for tabling the amendment. In principle, Opposition Members are supportive of providing regulators with clearly defined metrics to assess their performance. We would need further information about how it would work in practice before we could lend our support to the amendment, but in principle we are in agreement with the views that the hon. Member has outlined.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Andrew Griffith)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon for raising this important issue, and I note the potential, in-principle support of the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn, speaking for the Opposition.
The Government agree that it is vital to have appropriate public metrics for holding regulators to account on their performance. FSMA already requires regulators to report annually on how they have discharged their functions, advanced their objectives and complied with their other duties. In addition, schedules 1ZA and 1ZB to FSMA provide that the Treasury may direct a regulator to include such other matters as it deems appropriate in the regulator’s annual report.
As part of their annual reports, both the Financial Conduct Authority and the PRA publish data on operational performance. The FCA annually publishes operating service metrics relating to authorisations, timeliness of responses to stakeholders, and regulatory permission requests, among other things. In April 2022, the FCA also published a comprehensive set of outcomes and metrics that it will use to measure and publicly report on its performance. The PRA annually publishes data on its performance of authorisation processes.
Amendment 48 seeks to allow the Treasury, in addition, to determine what metrics the FCA and the PRA should use to measure their performance and over what period, and other technical aspects of the measurement and publication of metrics. Let me reassure my hon. Friend of the importance that I attach to the matter he has raised. I have discussed it with the CEOs of the PRA and the FCA since taking up my role, and I will continue to do so. I am open to discussing the matter with my hon. Friend outside the Committee to see what further reassurance the Government could give, or what further measures we could take. I therefore ask him to withdraw his amendment.
Stephen Hammond
I thank the Minister for his response, and I thank the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn for hers. Clearly, there is a willingness across the House to look at this matter again, so I am going to take the Minister at his word—as I always do—and accept his kind reassurance. Perhaps he might ask the hon. Lady to join us in that discussion, because it would be beneficial. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Andrew Griffith
Clause 28 enhances FSMA by enabling the Treasury to place an obligation on the FCA or the PRA to make rules in a certain area of regulation. Equivalent provision for the Bank of England and the Payment Systems Regulator is made in clause 44 and in paragraph 7 of schedule 7.
FSMA requires that regulators advance their objectives when they make rules, set technical standards and issue guidance. The regulators must also take into account eight regulatory principles when discharging their functions. It is generally up to the regulators to determine what rules are necessary, but as set out in the future regulatory framework review consultation in November last year, that approach may not always be sufficient. There must be a means for the Government and Parliament to require the regulators to make rules covering certain matters, in order to ensure that important wider public policy concerns are addressed. That approach has already been established in legislation through the Financial Services Act 2021, which required the FCA to make rules that applied to FCA-regulated investment firms.
Clause 28 enables the Treasury to make similar regulations and place an obligation on the regulators to make rules in a certain area. The clause aims to strike a balance between the responsibilities of the regulator, the Treasury and Parliament now that we are outside the EU. It does not enable the Government to tell a regulator what its rules should be; it simply enables the Government, with the agreement of Parliament, to say that there must be rules relating to a particular area. The FCA and the PRA must continue to act to advance their objectives and take into account their regulatory principles when complying with the requirements set under this power. The Treasury cannot require the regulators to make rules that they would not otherwise have the ability to make.
I assure the Committee that this power will always be subject to the affirmative procedure. That is the most appropriate procedure, as it means that Parliament will be able to consider and debate any requirements set in this way. It also ensures that the Government are able to act to ensure that these requirements stay up to date with changing markets, rather than setting them out in primary legislation, where they could quickly become out of date. The clause enhances the FSMA model, enabling the Treasury to ensure that key areas of financial services continue to be regulated following the repeal of retained EU law and in the future. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 28 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 29
Matters to consider when making rules
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 29, page 41, line 7, at end insert
‘, and also to financial inclusion.
(2A) For the purposes of this section, “financial inclusion” means the impact on those who might be prevented from accessing financial services as a result of the new rules made by either regulator, or from accessing them on the same terms as existed before the making of the new rules.’
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 2—FCA: Regard to financial inclusion in consumer protection objective—
‘(1) FSMA 2000 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 1C (The consumer protection objective), after subsection (2)(c) insert—
“(ca) financial inclusion;”.’
New clause 3—FCA duty to report on financial inclusion—
‘(1) The FCA must lay before Parliament a report, as soon as practicable after the end of—
(a) the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, and
(b) every subsequent 12-month period,
on financial inclusion in the UK.
(2) A report under this section must include—
(a) an assessment of the state of financial inclusion in the UK;
(b) details of any measures the FCA has taken, or is planning to take, to improve financial inclusion in the UK;
(c) developments which the FCA considers could significantly impact on financial inclusion in the UK; and
(d) any recommendations to the Treasury which the FCA considers may promote financial inclusion in the UK.’
Emma Hardy
My amendments relate to the issue of financial inclusion, which those who serve on the Treasury Committee have heard me talk about many times before. I will start with an explanation, which is much better than the one I tend to give, that I found in the written evidence from the Financial Inclusion Commission of what financial inclusion actually is. It speaks about its vision for
“a financially inclusive UK where financial services are accessible, easy to use and meet people’s needs over their lifetime, and where everyone has the skills and motivation to use them.”
I would think that that aim and ambition would be supported by everyone. I will add that the Financial Inclusion Commission is a cross-party, cross-organisation group that recommends financial inclusion.
The commission also said in its evidence that
“over a million people in the UK do not have a bank account, one in four households lack insurance protection and one in five adults would not be able to cover more than one month of living expenses if they lost their source of income.”
Financial inclusion is a hugely important and relevant issue. Some 22% of UK adults have less than £100 in savings. The commission says that it believes the Financial Conduct Authority
“does not have the powers to adequately reflect vulnerable consumers’ interests when considering potential regulatory changes.”
That was its argument for my amendment, which is about “have regards”.
I also came across written evidence from the Phoenix Group. I was a little surprised by it, but in a happy way. The Phoenix Group is a FTSE 100 company, and it also argues for the FCA to have regard to financial inclusion. It says in its evidence:
“Financial exclusion is one of the biggest drivers of poor consumer outcomes in the UK – it is a clear oversight that there is no specific statutory requirement for the FCA to address, or even consider, financial inclusion issues across its work.”
It goes on to talk about this in relation to pensions, in particular. It said one of the problems it encounters in the
“long-term savings and pensions space”
is what it calls the “guidance gap” when it comes to making decisions about pensions. It believes that requiring the FCA to have regard to financial inclusion could start to address some of these issues. I have to say that before I read all of the evidence, I had not heard a FTSE 100 company arguing for that.
In oral evidence, the FCA pushed back on the need for a “have regard” for financial inclusion. We might have expected that; people tend to push back on having things added to their workload, even when the evidence says something else. The push-back tends to suggest that the FCA has a consumer duty and therefore does not need a “have regard” for financial inclusion. However, there is a big difference between the consumer duty and the “have regard” that I am talking about.
The consumer duty deals with people who are able to access products, but I am talking about the people who cannot access products at all because they are excluded from the financial market. The clients I am referring to are the ones the market does not want. That is happening more and more as we face the cost of living crisis. In real life, the people we are talking about end up being disadvantaged by paying more for credit, more for insurance and more for services, as we heard in evidence from Martin Coppack of Fair By Design.
The financial inclusion forum, chaired by HMT and the Department for Work and Pensions, addresses some issues, but it has been criticised as a closed talking shop. There are no selection criteria for who is invited and very little is published on what it does, what it discusses, or its actions and outcomes. Many of the organisations that back the “have regard” requirement for the FCA sit on that group already, and they recognise that what we have done is not enough, which is why they are calling for the requirement. In addition, we cannot get the toughest issues talked about at the financial inclusion forum—many allies have asked for the poverty premium to be on the agenda, but with no luck—and it does not seem to have many positive outcomes.
Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle, whose comments I wholeheartedly support. I suspect there will be widespread support among Committee members for the objectives of her amendment. Perhaps the Minister will argue that a “have regard” to financial inclusion is the wrong way to go about it, but I would argue that not having these things in mind when an industry is being regulated can make a situation worse.
We know the level of financial exclusion because my hon. Friend mentioned the figures. I do not intend to go over all that, but essentially what we have—this has developed because of the way the market works—is a retail financial services sector that is very focused on a set of quite complex products. It is also very focused on its distribution networks and not so much on the customer. Retail financial products have often focused on the relationship between those who introduce products and those who sell them on to the ultimate customer, often with quite rewarding levels of sales commission. The bad end of that kind of financial services model is that we get a structure that is not focused enough on consumers, and a range of ever-increasing complexity that costs more and excludes more people who might be on basic incomes.
Over time, the dynamic of that structure means that the financial services sector gets more and more complex, more and more focused on the distribution networks, and less and less focused on the end customer. One understands that when the industry starts complaining about the lack of financial education. There is some truth in that, but there is also truth in the fact that the opacity of the price mechanisms and the complexity of the products that the industry comes up with make it confusing, and of course that increases the cost base, which excludes more low-paid people.
A previous Administration that I might have been a member of tried to address the issue with stakeholder products that were meant to be much simpler with very up-front but capped pricing that everybody would understand. Those were throttled out of existence because the industry did not really want them to succeed, and what has happened since—not by anyone’s design but by the dynamics of the way the market works—means that there is less and less available for those who have small amounts of income because the products are simply not profitable in the current structure of our retail financial services.
This is a systemic issue that needs to be solved, because we need a financial services retail sector that serves everybody. We do not have one, and we are getting to a stage where market dynamics make it less and less likely that we will have one; they are actually excluding more people. I think that a “have regard” that prompts thought about structures and, perhaps, about the regulation of some simpler products that could be made available is a really important part of addressing that market failure.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle, I am worried that the Minister will say that we have consumer protections in place. This is not about those who are currently consuming the products; it is about those who cannot even afford to have basic bank accounts, those who have to go to money lenders because they are in such precarious circumstances, and those who pay the poverty premium because accessing financial services costs so much more as a percentage of their overall income than it costs someone on a higher income. I can tell the Minister—I am sure he has come across this in his own constituency—that many people who exist on very tight incomes, and who really have to budget, shy away from having basic accounts because they cannot afford to go into deficit and be charged a fee. That would destroy all their very careful balancing.
This issue is particularly important for people who are on benefits and have them paid into a bank account at a set time, but who have bill payments coming out at a different time. I would really appreciate it if the Minister would think profoundly about how the problem can be solved, so that our financial services sector can get to a stage where it can make profit—a modest profit perhaps, but some profit—out of dealing with people on much more modest incomes. After all, there are millions of them, and the dynamic of the market structures we have at the moment is moving provision away from people on lower incomes.
Emma Hardy
On my hon. Friend’s point about consumer duty, the evidence suggests that one of the unintended consequences is that it can make some currently marginally profitable products unprofitable, thereby excluding more people from them, so one of the things that the consumer duty is trying to address is actually making it more difficult for some people in society to have anything.
Dame Angela Eagle
I agree with my hon. Friend.
I will wrap up. Given that this is a systemic issue, a “have regard” is the best way of dealing with it. I hope that the Minister will think carefully about that and about how it might help us arrest the dynamic that is taking financial services away from people on modest incomes, and making it less and less profitable for the industry to serve them, leaving them much diminished in their attempts to engage appropriately in our society in ways that many people take for granted, such as by having a credit card and bank account, or being able to conduct electronic cash transfers and so forth.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle. Like her, I am on the Treasury Committee, and I have to say to this Committee: please pass the amendment, so she can stop talking about it in our meetings! [Laughter.] To be fair to her, it is something that she repeats and that bears repeating, because I fear that if the FCA is not responsible for having regard to financial inclusion, the responsibility continues to sit with us as MPs. Who became aware that closing bank branches in town centres was getting to be a problem? Who was concerned about access to ATMs, especially free ATMs? It was MPs, through their constituents raising the issue with us. This is a cross-party effort. It is not the sole responsibility or the sole campaign issue of one side of the House.
More and more of our hard-working, respectable constituents are being excluded from financial products. They desperately want to insure their cars, but if they pay their car insurance monthly, they pay more. They desperately want to contribute to their pensions and life insurance policies to give comfort to their families. They want to do all those things, but an increasing proportion of them are being excluded from those products. If the FCA had regard to how the issue affects an ever growing part of our society, we would at least have a different way of looking at it.
An issue that I know is close to your heart, Dame Maria, is women’s exclusion from many financial products, given the nature of their work, including part-time work and periods off work for raising children. In the end, the taxpayer picks up the bill if those products are not available. It is in the interests of all of us—our constituents and our parties—to support the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle.
Tulip Siddiq
When I was first elected, I was told by another MP here that I should pick an issue, stick to it and talk about it constantly. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle for following that advice to a tee. I follow in the steps of my hon. Friends the Members for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle, for Wallasey and for Mitcham and Morden, who spoke about financial inclusion and how it affects us all. Later, we will debate essential face-to-face banking services. For now, I want to focus on the poverty premium, which my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden mentioned: the extra costs that poorer people have to pay for essential services such as insurance, loans or credit cards.
We believe that everyone should have access to financial services—whether it is savings schemes or insurance—when they need them, regardless of their income and circumstances. If the Government are serious about building a strong future for our financial services outside the EU, they should recognise that the Bill is an opportunity to rethink how financial resilience, inclusion and wellbeing are tackled in the UK.
We support amendment 1 and new clauses 2 and 3, which would give the FCA a new cross-cutting “must have regard” to financial inclusion measure as part of its regulatory framework. As the Minister knows, that would mean that the FCA would have to consider financial inclusion across all its activities and report on its progress.
In our evidence session, Fair by Design talked about the higher costs that poorer people have to pay for insurance products. Research from the Social Market Foundation, with which the Minister will be familiar, has shown that those who are unable to pay for their car insurance in annual instalments face an average extra cost of £160. Surely the Minister agrees that that is unjust, and that regulation must play a role in tackling the poverty premium. If he accepts that principle, what is the argument against introducing a new “have regard” provision to empower the FCA to monitor how well financial services are meeting the needs of low-income consumers? For example, a “must have regard” for financial inclusion could allow the regulator to review practices such as insurers charging more to customers who pay for their insurance in monthly instalments.
Does the Minister recognise that exclusion from financial services is a growing problem in the UK? If he rejects the arguments for a “have regard”, what solution does he propose instead? It is something we all see in our casework as constituency MPs.
Andrew Griffith
I thank hon. Members for their contributions. I appreciate the work of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle. I have been to Hull, but I think that everyone has constituents who face precisely the problem of which she speaks, so I will depart from my text.
The Government oppose the new clauses and the amendment. However, we have heard from the FCA its opposition to this measure and its contention that it is not required. It would say that—I understand that point. I would be happy to consider how the Government respond. That is the most worthy response I can make; I am not inclined to dismiss any of the hon. Lady’s arguments.
Andrew Griffith
I will give way; I do not propose to speak for very long on this point, anyway.
Craig Tracey
I am very much in favour of financial inclusion, but we have to be careful about how we achieve it. I was an insurance broker before coming here. The reason I left was that the cost of regulation on our business meant that we disappeared from the high street. That meant that vulnerable people had less access to insurance. We see more and more access points moving out, and having to go online, so people are losing out. Does the Minister agree that, although we must ensure that we are looking after the most vulnerable people, more regulatory burdens will put up the cost and affect the availability of products?
Andrew Griffith
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He put it far better than I did, bringing to bear his personal experience, but that was precisely the point that I was making.
Siobhain McDonagh
Does the Minister agree, though, that unless we know what is happening and somebody keeps the figures, there can be unintended consequences? Martin Coppack from Fair by Design made the point that he has been trying to get this thing done for years and what he has found is that when he goes to the internal Treasury committee that considers financial exclusion, it says, “It’s not our job to keep the numbers. Go to the FCA.” The FCA says, “It’s not our job to keep the numbers. Let’s go back to the Treasury.” Surely it needs to be somebody’s responsibility, so that we understand and know the direction of travel.
Andrew Griffith
Once again, the Government will not oppose those points for the sake of opposing them. I would like to take this matter away. Powerful arguments have been made and the FCA has made its contention. I think it is entirely appropriate that the Government consider the matter further.
Emma Hardy
I will take Members back to the evidence given by the Phoenix Group as to why the FCA should “have regard”. I think there is broad consensus that financial inclusion is important. The difference of opinion is regarding what we do to achieve it. This point relates to that made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden. Phoenix said that the “have regard” responsibility should lie with the FCA because it is
“the single UK body with the clearest ability and access to information”.
That is the main point. We heard evidence from a Minister from the Department for Work and Pensions and a Minister from the Treasury, because there is a question around where financial inclusion fits into social policy and financial policy; there is a bit of a mush over who is responsible. Sometimes when we find that lots of people are responsible for something, in reality no one is responsible, because everyone can always say that it is the other person who is responsible and not them. That evidence from Phoenix Group was powerful.
The organisation also said:
“With many of the most pressing issues falling in between the remits of government and regulators, this makes addressing financial inclusion problems more difficult.”
We need the FCA to “have regard” for this matter, to act as that single body to gather the information and look at the issue more seriously, otherwise, we will be failing, as we have done for years, to achieve any real outcomes. I will therefore be pushing the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Andrew Griffith
Under the FSMA model, the detailed rules that apply to firms are generally set by the regulators, acting within a framework set by Government and Parliament.
FSMA requires the regulators to act in a way that advances their statutory objectives when discharging their general functions, including those of making rules, setting technical standards and, in the case of the FCA, issuing guidance. It is generally up to the regulators to determine which rules are necessary, and, when they make rules, to do so in a way that advances, and is compatible with, their objectives. They must also have regard to their regulatory principles. Clauses 29 to 32 ensure that relevant regulator actions, including rule making, are proportionate and reflect important matters of public policy as appropriate.
The objectives and regulatory principles in FSMA are cross-cutting and apply to everything the regulators do. They have not been designed to suit particular policy areas. That is why Parliament, through the Financial Services Act 2021, introduced a limited number of factors that the PRA and FCA must consider when making rules in certain areas—for example, when implementing the latest Basel standards.
Clause 29 therefore provides the Treasury with the ability to specify, by way of regulations, matters that the FCA and PRA must “have regard” to when making rules in a particular area. The regulators will be required to outline how they have considered these “have regards” in their public consultations, just as they do already for objectives and regulatory principles. The power for the Treasury to specify matters in regulations will always be subject to the affirmative procedure. That means that Parliament will be able to consider and debate any “have regards” introduced using the new power.
Clause 30 contains a mechanism to manage the interaction between the regulators’ rule-making and supervisory responsibilities and the Treasury’s deference decisions, including equivalence decisions. Deference is a process endorsed by the G20, in which jurisdictions and regulators defer to each other on relevant matters when it is justified by the quality of their respective regulatory, supervisory and enforcement regimes.
It is the responsibility of the Government to determine whether overseas regulatory and supervisory standards are equivalent to our own, and therefore whether to defer to an overseas jurisdiction. The rules that the regulators make will have a direct bearing on the criteria against which the Treasury assesses overseas jurisdictions for that purpose.
To manage that interaction, clause 30 creates a requirement for the FCA and PRA, when proposing changes to rules or supervisory practices, to consider the impact on deference afforded by the Treasury to overseas jurisdictions, and to consult the Treasury should they determine that the proposed action may lead the Government to review their deference decisions. That consultation process will allow the Treasury to provide regulators with its views on how their actions will impact existing deference decisions, and ensures that the regulators holistically consider deference when considering a change to their rules or supervisory practices.
Clause 31 has a similar purpose. It contains a mechanism to manage the interaction between the regulators’ rule-making and supervisory responsibilities, and the Treasury’s responsibilities in upholding the UK’s international trade obligations. The Government are responsible for ensuring that the UK complies with commitments arising from international trade agreements that the UK has agreed.
The clause supports the existing FSMA model by creating a statutory requirement for the regulators when making changes to rules or supervisory practices to consider whether there is a material risk that these changes are incompatible with an international trade obligation. They must give written notice to the Treasury before proceeding if such a risk arises. Clauses 30 and 31 are necessary and proportionate measures to manage the respective responsibilities of the Treasury and the regulators in these areas.
Clause 32 inserts new section 138BA into FSMA to enable the Treasury to allow the FCA and the PRA to waive or modify their rules where appropriate. Setting the same rules for everyone can sometimes come with unintended consequences. Recognising this, existing section 138A of FSMA already gives the regulators some discretion; however, the existing provisions require the relevant regulator to have determined that a rule is “unduly burdensome”, or would not achieve the purpose for which the rules were made, before modifying or disapplying rules.
We want our regulators to be more proportionate and more agile. The new power in clause 32 will therefore give the Treasury the ability to enable the FCA and the PRA to waive or modify their rules in a wider range of circumstances, which will make it easier for regulator rules to reflect different business models and practices where appropriate. Importantly, it will also ensure that some existing waiver regimes in retained EU law can be maintained. I therefore commend clauses 29 to 32 to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 29 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 30 to 32 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 33
Responses to recommendations of the Treasury
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Andrew Griffith
Under section 1JA of FSMA 2000 and section 30B of the Bank of England Act 1998, the Treasury must make recommendations to the FCA and the Prudential Regulation Committee at least once in each Parliament on aspects of the economic policy of His Majesty’s Government. The FCA and the PRC, as the governing committee of the PRA, should have regard to these matters when carrying out their functions.
Currently, there is no statutory requirement for the FCA and the PRC to respond to the Treasury’s recommendations and explain how they have had regard to them. Clause 33 therefore amends section 1JA of FSMA 2000 and section 30B of the Bank of England Act 1998 to create a requirement for the FCA and the PRC to respond annually. The response must outline the action the regulator has taken or intends to take, or the reasons it has not taken and does not intend to take action, on the basis of the recommendations. The response will be laid before Parliament by the Treasury.
The clause is therefore intended to increase transparency of how the FCA and the PRA have taken into account these recommendations. As a result, this clause aligns the FCA and the PRC with the statutory requirement for the Bank of England’s Financial Policy Committee, which is already required to respond to the recommendation letters sent to it by the Treasury. Finally, this measure formalises an emerging practice, as the FCA and PRC have previously responded to recommendation letters from the Treasury. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.
Tulip Siddiq
I have one quick question for the Minister. Are the Government required to consult or give advance notice before sending a policy letter to regulators? If not, is there a risk that the new “have regards” for different policy areas could be dropped on the regulators from nowhere, and could distract the FCA and PRA from their primary and secondary objectives?
Andrew Griffith
That is, of course, possible, but it would be unusual. There is regular discourse between His Majesty’s Treasury and regulators, and I consider the risk that the hon. Lady raises relatively small. The regulatory bodies would consult on that change if required.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 33 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 34
Public consultation requirements
Stephen Hammond
I beg to move amendment 49, in clause 34, page 47, line 38, at end insert—
“(2B) The FCA must publish a list of all of the consultees.”
Again, I guide the Committee to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The amendment is very simple. I welcome clause 34. It sets out public consultation requirements and, after proposed new section 1RA of FSMA 2000, inserts proposed new section 1RB, concerning requirements in connection with public consultation. The key word here is “public”. Proposed new section 1RB(2) states:
“The FCA must include information in the consultation about any engagement by the FCA with…statutory panels”.
That is a public consultation, or it should be. Therefore it seems only appropriate that the FCA and the PRA list all the consultees to the public consultation. That is what amendment 49, for the FCA, and consequential amendment 55, for the PRA, provide. That is a very simple request. If the Government cannot agree to it today, I hope that they will take it away about think about it very carefully.
Andrew Griffith
Amendment 49 seeks to require the FCA to publish a list of all respondents to any public consultation. I recognise that my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon intended for the requirement in amendment 49 also to apply to the PRA, where the same issues would arise.
The Government believe that policy making is at its most effective when it draws on the views, experience and expertise of those who may be impacted by regulation. Meaningful stakeholder engagement makes it more likely that final proposals will be effective, understood and accepted as fair and reasonable. The Government also recognise the importance of transparency in supporting the effective scrutiny of the regulators, and are bringing forward a number of measures in the Bill to support that.
I remind my hon. Friend that FSMA already requires the FCA to publish information regarding responses to their public consultations. In particular, section 138I of FSMA requires the FCA to publish an account, in general terms—I accept that that is different from what my hon. Friend proposes—of representations made in response to consultation, and of the regulator’s response to them.
Although I therefore support the ambition behind the amendment, there is a risk that the additional requirement on the FCA to publish a list of all consultees to every consultation could deter stakeholders that want to respond confidentially from engaging fully with the regulators’ consultations.
The Government sympathise with my hon. Friend’s point, but I ask him to withdraw his amendment. I am happy to meet with him, with officials, to see whether there is a different way in which he can obtain the comfort he desires, or in which we can take the matter forward.
Stephen Hammond
I am very pleased to hear what the Minister said, because he has broadly accepted the thrust of what I said. I think he is offering me the chance to explore with him the circumstances in which a body does not wish for its name to be published in respect of a consultation. I am prepared to have that conversation with him so that I understand why he thinks that that might constrain the FCA and PRA. With that reassurance from the Minister, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Andrew Griffith
FSMA 2000 requires the PRA and FCA to set up and maintain a number of stakeholder panels, also known as statutory panels. Those panels are intended to provide valuable insight, advice and challenge to the regulators’ rule making, drawing on the experience and expertise of their respective memberships. The regulators have regular meetings and discussions with their panels. In those, most major policy and regulatory proposals are presented for comment at an early stage.
The FCA’s statutory panels are the financial services consumer panel, the practitioner panel, the smaller business practitioner panel, and the markets practitioner panel. The Bill also puts the listing authority advisory panel on a statutory footing. The PRA’s statutory panel is the practitioner panel, and the Bill also puts its insurance sub-committee on a statutory footing as the insurance practitioner panel. The Payment Systems Regulator has one statutory panel, which covers the full range of the PSR’s responsibilities.
The additional responsibilities that the regulators take on following the repeal of retained EU law will result in the regulators making more rules across a broader range of topics. The UK’s departure from the EU will therefore increase the opportunities and the need for the regulators to consult their statutory panels from the outset of policy and regulatory development; that was not possible to the same extent while the UK was a member of the EU. It will strengthen the panels’ important ability to provide stakeholder input into the development of policy and regulation.
Clause 34 therefore requires the FCA and PRA to include information in their public consultations about any engagement that they have had with statutory panels. Clause 35 requires the regulators to provide information in their annual reports on their engagement with the statutory panels of the FCA, PRA and PSR over the reporting period. The FCA and PRA already voluntarily provide some information on panel engagement as part of their annual reports. This clause will formalise the existing practice, ensuring clear and consistent communication by the regulators.
The regulators, working with the panels as appropriate, will be responsible for determining how to meet these requirements. Importantly, the regulators will not be required to publish information that they deem to be against the public interest. That will ensure that the FCA and PRA can find the appropriate balance between transparency and the confidentiality crucial to ensuring an open exchange of views between panel and regulator. I therefore recommend that these clauses stand part of the Bill.
Tulip Siddiq
I will speak to clauses 34 and 35 together. Statutory panels make an invaluable contribution, based on panel members’ experience and expertise, to the FCA’s and PRA’s policy-making functions. However, we feel that transparency is vital in ensuring that the public feel that financial services regulation is working in their interests. That is why we support these clauses, which we recognise will increase transparency by guaranteeing consistent communication by regulators about their engagement with panels. Does the Minister agree that representation of the voices of consumers and the public on the FCA’s statutory panels also plays an important role in upholding the transparency of the regulatory process? Ultimately, it is the public, both as consumers and as taxpayers, who are most impacted when regulations go wrong and when regulators fail to adequately uphold consumer protections or financial stability.
I draw the Minister’s attention to the written evidence to the Public Bill Committee from the Finance Innovation Lab. It recommended that
“the government mandate public interest representation of at least 50% on all groups and committees providing advice and making decisions about financial services policy and regulation.”
I want to know whether the Minister has considered the Finance Innovation Lab’s argument about the transparency of statutory panels, and whether that could be strengthened by
“ensuring that the voices of consumers and citizens are given at least equal weight to the voice of industry.”
If he is not familiar with the written evidence, he is welcome to write to me later.
Dame Angela Eagle
I support the position of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn. Given the transfer of powers from Brussels to the UK and the fact that a lot of the current structure is up for discussion and potential change—although we hope it will not all change at once—there is bound to be much more interest in the regulators’ decisions for lobbying purposes than there would be normally in any given year. That level of interest will last until the system settles down into whatever its future tracks will be.
In those circumstances, the regulators must be able to demonstrate robustly that there has been no kind of industry or regulatory capture via some of these panels, and that consumer interest has been properly represented. When I talk to consumer stakeholders and groups, there is certainly a view that the balance is not right at the moment, which is why I am so supportive of what my hon. Friend has said from the Front Bench.
We have to be able to demonstrate, in a transparent way, that meetings that may be confidential for very good reasons are not something else. Will the Minister give us some ideas about how consumer representation in these technical panels can be properly shown to be robust and how transparency can be improved, given the fluid context for a lot of these decisions and future structures?
Andrew Griffith
I thank the hon. Members for Hampstead and Kilburn and for Wallasey for their points. We must be alive to the risk of producer capture, and these clauses are a real step forward in bringing the required transparency to the composition of these panels and their recommendations. The Government recognise the importance of the consumer voice; panels that have diverse backgrounds and different expertise avoid group-think, which is an important aspect.
Through this Bill, the Government will introduce a requirement for regulators to maintain statements of policy in relation to their process for recruiting members to panels. That in itself is a step forward. However, it would not be right to move forward with a specific numerical threshold. The panels are there to challenge the policymaking process, in order to give a voice to practitioners, as well as consumers,. They are not of themselves representative. The representative function is one that we discharge here in Parliament, and I think that is the appropriate balance.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 34 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 35 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
We have a lot to cover this afternoon, so I urge Members to take note of the groupings of amendments so we can move through this at the appropriate pace.
Clause 36
Engagement with Parliamentary Committees
Andrew Griffith
I beg to move amendment 3, in clause 36, page 49, line 31, leave out
“and the regulatory principles in section 3B,”
and insert—
“(ba) demonstrate that the FCA has had regard to the regulatory principles in section 3B when preparing the proposals,”.
This amendment ensures that the notification provisions align with the duty in section 1B(5)(a) of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, for the FCA to have regard to the regulatory principles set out in section 3B of that Act.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 4
Clause 36 stand part.
Andrew Griffith
I will speak first to clause 36 and then turn to Government amendments 3 and 4. Parliament, through primary legislation, sets the overall approach and institutional architecture for financial services regulation. This includes the regulators’ objectives and requirements to ensure appropriate accountability. Parliament therefore has a unique and special role in relation to the scrutiny and oversight of the FCA and the PRA. Given the regulators’ wide-ranging powers, which they exercise independently of Government, it is vital that Parliament can continue to effectively scrutinise and hold the regulators to account. This is particularly important given that the regulators will have additional rule-making responsibilities following the repeal of retained EU law.
Parliament has a number of existing mechanisms to scrutinise the regulators, including the targeted scrutiny provided by Select Committees. The Government’s view is that those are appropriate and flexible and should continue to be the principal ways in which Parliament holds the regulators to account. Clause 36 adds to these existing tools to support more effective accountability of the regulators to Parliament. The clause also addresses concerns raised in debates during the passage of the Financial Services Act 2021.
Members of both Houses highlighted the importance of the regulators having sufficient regard to the conclusions of parliamentary scrutiny, and the importance of parliamentarians receiving sufficient information from the regulators to facilitate their scrutiny and ensure that it is effective. The clause inserts new provisions in FSMA to require the FCA and the PRA to notify the Treasury Committee when they publish consultations on proposed rules, setting out how they exercise any of their general functions, or on proposals under a statutory duty.
The new provisions also require the regulators to draw the Treasury Committee’s attention to certain key aspects of a consultation, including how proposals advance their objectives and have had regard to the regulatory principles. The clause also requires the FCA and PRA to respond in writing to formal responses to any of their public consultations from any parliamentary Committee. While it is expected that the regulators would always respond, this will give Parliament reassurance by placing this on a statutory footing. The Government consider that placing those requirements on the regulators on a statutory basis is appropriate due to the unique circumstances of the financial services regulators’ wide remits, and their position as independent public bodies that are accountable to Parliament.
I now turn to amendments 3 and 4, which make a technical change to the new requirements for the FCA and PRA to notify the Treasury Committee when they publish a consultation. Clause 36 contains a minor drafting error, by requiring the regulators to set out how the proposed rules are “compatible” with the regulatory principles. The Government have tabled these amendments to correct that and remove any ambiguity, and to align the requirement in clause 36 with the broader requirements in FSMA.
Tulip Siddiq
The Minister has already said that he is open to discussion about this, but I specifically want to turn to the role of the Treasury Committee. The Opposition are pleased to see a strengthened role for the Treasury Committee in scrutinising financial services regulation. However, TheCityUK, in its written submission to the Committee, set out that, while the Treasury Committee has the power to send for persons, papers and records, it does not have the power to mandate the regulators to report on specific performance metrics over time.
TheCityUK argues that the efficiency and effectiveness of regulators, and the impact of their operational performance on UK competitiveness, would be improved by greater accuracy, transparency and accountability in operational performance metrics. It has proposed an amendment to give the Treasury powers to require regulators to report specified operational performance metrics, with the Treasury Select Committee consulted on the metrics to be reported. Those could include the regulator’s performance against its secondary objective or its “have regard” for net zero targets, for example. I wanted to hear what the Minister thinks about those proposals.
Dame Angela Eagle
As a member of the Treasury Select Committee and—for an all too brief time—acting Chair, I am also very interested to hear what the Minister has to say about this.
Andrew Griffith
I am struggling to add incrementally to what the Government have said earlier today regarding our receptivity to the idea of greater transparency, and an ability to design or influence the metrics that are being reported. I observe that the Treasury Select Committee appears fairly formidable in its ability to compel witnesses and information, and I would be interested to hear more about any deficiencies or impediments that that Committee, under its acting Chair or its permanent Chair, feels exist. This would certainly be an opportunity to rectify those, but I suggest that either I meet with the hon. Member for Wallasey, or she writes to me in a little more detail about what would help the working of that important Committee.
Amendment 3 agreed to.
Amendment made: 4, in clause 36, page 50, line 41, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
“(b) demonstrate that the PRA has had regard to the regulatory principles in section 3B when preparing the proposals,”—(Andrew Griffith.)
This amendment ensures that the notification provisions align with the duty in section 2H(2) of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 for the PRA to have regard to the regulatory principles set out in section 3B of that Act.
Clause 36, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 37
Duty to co-operate and consult in exercising functions
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Andrew Griffith
The clause will insert proposed new section 415C into FSMA. The new section introduces a statutory duty for the Financial Conduct Authority, the Financial Ombudsman Service and the Financial Services Compensation Scheme to co-operate on issues that have significant implications for each other, or the wider financial services market.
The FCA is the conduct regulator for the financial services sector; the FOS is an alternative dispute resolution service for financial services complainants, such as consumers and smaller businesses; and the FSCS provides financial protection for eligible customers of financial services firms authorised by the FCA. While each has a distinct role within the UK’s regulatory architecture, the work of each organisation will often be relevant to, or have implications for, the others. When issues with wider implications emerge, it is crucial for the functioning of the UK’s regulatory system and achieving the best outcomes for consumers that those organisations co-operate to determine the most appropriate approach to managing them. The organisations already co-operate voluntarily through the wider implications framework. That voluntary framework was launched in January 2022 to promote effective co-operation on wider implication issues.
Clause 37 will enhance that co-operation and ensure that these arrangements endure over time. It will also ensure that the FCA, the FOS and the FSCS put appropriate arrangements in place for stakeholders to provide representations on their compliance with the new duty to co-operate on matters with wider implications.
I will now set out some of the detail of how the clause will function in practice. Proposed new section 415C(3) requires that each regulator maintains a statement of policy explaining how it will comply with this duty. Proposed new subsection (1)(b) requires that those organisations consult other organisations as appropriate, including other regulatory bodies, on wider implication matters. Proposed new subsection (6)(a) requires that they publish an annual report on their compliance with the duty, and proposed new subsection (7) requires that they outline representations received from stakeholders on their compliance with the duty to co-operate on wider implication issues.
Ultimately, this clause will support better outcomes for financial services firms and consumers by maximising collaboration among the FCA, the FOS and the FSCS on issues with wider implications. I have summarised the effects of the clause, and I therefore recommend that it stand part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 37 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 38
Listing Authority Advisory Panel
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 39 stand part.
Amendment 51, in clause 40, page 54, line 26, after “persons” insert “, at least two of which must be external to the FCA, the Treasury, or the Bank of England,”.
Amendment 52, in clause 40, page 54, line 31, at end insert—
‘(9A) The FCA must consider representations that are made to it by non-governmental bodies and recognised industry or trade association bodies.”
Amendment 53, in clause 40, page 54, line 32, leave out “from time to time” and insert “annually”.
Amendment 54, in clause 40, page 55, line 22, leave out “from time to time” and insert “annually”.
Clauses 40 to 42 stand part.
There is quite a lot in this group. If you refer to the selection list, you will see what is to be taken together.
Andrew Griffith
I will first speak to clauses 38, 39, 40, 41 and 42, and I will then turn to amendments 51, 52, 53 and 54.
Clauses 38 and 39 concern the FCA’s and the PRA’s statutory powers. As we have already discussed, FSMA 2000 requires the PRA and FCA to set up and maintain stakeholder panels, also known as statutory panels. These panels provide valuable insight, advice and challenge to the regulators’ rule making, drawing on the experience and expertise of their respective memberships. The regulators have regular meetings and discussions with those panels, in which most major early policy and regulatory proposals are presented for comment. The confidentiality of the panel’s contributions allows the regulators to engage the panels when policy is in the early stages of development ahead of public consultation, and enables the panels to act as a critical friend. The panels represent a diverse range of stakeholders, including consumers, small businesses and market practitioners.
In addition, the FCA also voluntarily operates the listing authority advisory panel, which operates in a similar manner to its statutory panels, and represents the interests of issuers of securities and advises on the FCA listing function. In addition to its statutory practitioner panel, the PRA voluntarily operates an insurance sub-committee for that panel, which represents the interests of insurance practitioners.
Clauses 38 and 39 amend FSMA, to place the FCA’s listing authority advisory panel and the PRA practitioner panel’s insurance sub-committee on a statutory footing. These clauses also set requirements for the FCA and the PRA in relation to these panels, in line with the existing requirements for other statutory panels. That includes appointing a chair to be approved by the Treasury.
Clause 40 requires the FCA and the PRA each to establish and maintain a new statutory panel dedicated to supporting the development of their cost-benefit analysis. CBA is an important part of the regulators’ policymaking process. It helps the regulators to understand the likely impacts of a policy and to determine whether a proposed intervention is proportionate.
Under FSMA 2000, the FCA and the PRA are already required to undertake and publish a CBA when consulting on draft rules, unless certain exemptions are met. Respondents to the October 2020 future regulatory framework review consultation expressed significant concerns about the rigour and scope of the regulators’ CBAs and supported enhanced external challenge as a way to improve the quality of the regulators’ CBAs.
Stephen Hammond
Again, I direct the Committee to my entry on the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I warmly welcome the creation of cost-benefit panels. In my view, the greater the understanding of the cost and benefit of a regulation, the greater the understanding of the impact, and therefore the effectiveness, of the regulation, and the greater the transparency of that process.
I am pleased that the Bill includes this clause because it sets out the agenda, membership, metrics and outputs that each of these panels should make. I guess the real answer I am trying to get from the Minister—I have listened carefully and I think we have had most of the response, but I want to test him a little more—is that, if we are to get all the desirable outcomes from setting up these panels, we must know how much they are a creature of the regulator and how much they are independent of the regulator.
The Minister clearly said that there is an implicit assumption that the regulator would follow an independent line for these panels. If the purpose of the panels is purely to provide evidence and they are controlled by the regulator, those recommendations will be accepted, but it is key that there is an independent panel.
I agree that regulators are not in ivory towers, as Martin Taylor said in his evidence to us. I do not think there is substantial implicit control, nor do I think there is not an implicit desire to see independence, nor do I think that there is not implicit influence by His Majesty’s Treasury. However, if we want to build the world’s leading regulatory regime, it must be seen to be tough and proportionate, and that is why these panels are very helpful. I therefore support the aim of clause 40.
My amendments seek to address the concern that the panel has marked its own homework—the excuse that “the dog ate my homework”—and the point about independence. I understand that members of the panel could already be external, but I want to make it clear that “could” is not enough; there should and must be external members. I hope that the Minister will be able to give me that further reassurance that that is very much the intention of the Bill.
I take on board exactly what the Minister said about my amendment 52, in that the FCA already has to consider the representations and place them on record. However, I am quite concerned by the wording. I think the Minister got my point, which is about the wording “from time to time”. Those of us who have had the honour to stand at the Dispatch Box will have been asked questions such as, “When is that happening, Minister?”, to which the response is often, “Soon,” or, indeed, as we heard the Minister say this morning, “In due course.”
The regulator might say to us that it is going to publish the responses “from time to time”. I take the point that the Minister does not want to fetter the regulator, but I am concerned that, if there is not something either in implicit guidance to the regulator or potentially set out, “from time to time” could be whenever the regulator chooses and potentially not annually. Therefore, if it were to say “annually or more frequently” I would be a lot happier. I listened to the Minister’s comments and I think he probably has sympathy with what I am saying, but I will listen to his response to my remarks.
The Chair
Before I bring in the next speaker, I apologise to the hon. Member for Wimbledon, who I probably should have brought in first. I apologise for that; it is a bit awkward.
Dame Angela Eagle
It is odd hearing the Minister’s response before we have spoken to the amendments. I just want to make a few comments about cost-benefit analysis, which is not an easy science. I am an avid observer of the Government’s attempts to do a cost-benefit analysis. Let us put it this way: it often leaves plenty to be desired when we start looking at how the Government have decided to cost the effect of their legislative suggestions, and we go into the detail of it and see how back-of-an-envelope and dubious some of it is. I do not want to sound too sarcastic, but perhaps if the CBA panels get to be good, they could teach the Government a thing or two about how to do their own analyses.
It is often a difficult but desirable thing to try to estimate the cost of particular suggestions, especially when regulators impose them in other areas. It is important that regulators think about proportionality for the industry itself. Also, in an industry where all the costs are likely to be passed on to the consumer, it is extremely important that it can be done sensibly, properly and in a way that stands up to scrutiny, and I hope that the scrutiny would be there for others to look at.
One often comes up against quite blank walls when trying to interrogate Government cost-benefit analyses, and one ends up going down dead ends and not really understanding how the judgments about the costs have been made, so the better we can get at the science in whatever context, the better for everybody.
It is important that clause 42 exists to try to provide balance and transparency about who will be on the panels, because we would not want them to be captured by particular parts of the structure. We need to have some objectivity if their work is to have credibility and deserves to be taken into account in regulators’ decision making.
Andrew Griffith
I will be brief. The hon. Member for Wallasey has great experience of these matters. I suspect we are all familiar with the analogy of Government regulatory impact assessments, which, as the hon. Lady says, are probably vulnerable to the criticism of being opaque, with the science and data not fully laid out. Indeed, I am aware of past suggestions by bodies such as the Institute for Government that there be specialist committees and support given precisely for that purpose. That is analogous, although it concerns not the working of Government legislation, but regulators exercising their rule-making powers. All those observations are pertinent to this point.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon came back to me on the point about the reasonableness of the phrasing “annually or more frequently”. He makes a good point. As we know, there are many cases in statute where it is specified that something should be annual. Every Government Department is required to lay its own annual reports before Parliament, and we impose that annual burden on many private and third sector enterprises, whether via the Charity Commission or the Companies Act 2006.
Stephen Hammond
Indeed. We ask the FCA to produce an annual report as well, so this is not out of line with other expectations.
Andrew Griffith
My hon. Friend has finished my point for me. This is not uncommon in statute, so while the Government do not accept the amendment and will vote against it, I have committed—and I do so again—to meet my hon. Friend and consider these matters further before Report.
Stephen Hammond
Having listened to the Minister, I think amendment 51 might already be included in the Bill, amendment 52 appears to be fettering, and 53 and 54 —it looks like I am going to enjoy substantial tea and biscuits at the Treasury next week. As such, I do not intend to press my amendments to a Division.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 38 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 39 to 42 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 43
Exercise of FMI regulatory powers
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Andrew Griffith
The Committee has previously discussed the repeal of retained EU law so that it can be replaced with an approach to regulation designed for the UK. As part of that, the Bank of England will take on additional responsibility in relation to the regulation of central counterparties and central securities depositories. Clause 43 sets statutory objectives for the Bank of England to advance, and regulatory principles for it to consider, when fulfilling those responsibilities.
Currently, the Bank has an objective to protect and enhance UK financial stability. Clause 43 confirms that that will continue to be the Bank’s primary objective when regulating CCPs and CSDs, reflecting the vital role played by those financial market infrastructures. The clause also sets out further considerations to which the Bank must have regard when pursuing that objective. First, the Bank must have regard to the effect that its regulation may have on the financial stability of other countries where FMIs provide services. It must also have regard to the desirability of regulating CCPs and CSDs in a way that is not determined by the location of users of their services.
The UK is home to clearing and settlement markets used by market participants around the world. UK CCPs and CSDs are therefore pieces of important infrastructure used by firms in many jurisdictions. As such, it is right that the UK authorities, in regulating these firms, should consider their impact on the financial stability not just of the UK but of other countries.
The clause also introduces a new secondary objective for the Bank in relation to its regulation of CCPs and CSDs. This requires it to facilitate innovation in the provision of services as far as is reasonably possible, subject to pursuing its primary objective. The Bank will pursue this new objective with a view to improving the quality, efficiency and economy of these services. The Bank must also have regard to a set of general regulatory principles, which largely mirror those in place for other regulators.
However, there is also a new principle on the desirability of facilitating fair and reasonable access to services provided by CCPs and CSDs. This recognises that individual firms can often serve the majority of the market in their specialist areas and aims to ensure that their customers can continue to access these services on fair terms.
To further reflect the Bank’s increased responsibility in this space, the clause also sets up a new statutory financial market infrastructure committee in the Bank of England and makes provision about its make-up. The committee will be responsible for the Bank’s functions in relation to these matters but the Bank may also expand the committee’s remit to cover other functions, if it deems that to be appropriate.
Clause 45 updates FSMA to reflect the Bank of England’s increased responsibilities for the regulation of CCPs and CSDs, and ensures that the Bank has the appropriate powers to supplement its new general rule-making power. The clause also applies a range of accountability mechanisms to the Bank’s regulation of CCPs and CSDs, which the Bill also introduces for other regulators. These measures have previously been discussed by this Committee and include, for example, the power for the Treasury to set out matters that the Bank must consider when making rules in specific areas of regulation.
Together, clauses 43 and 45 are vital in ensuring that the Bank is accountable for its use of the new powers and follows the appropriate public policy objectives when exercising its powers. I therefore recommend that these clauses stand part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 43 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 44
Bank of England: rule-making powers
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Andrew Griffith
Clause 44 closely relates to clauses 27 and 28, which the Committee has already considered. As we have discussed, clause 27 covers requirements for regulators to review their rules so that they remain fit for purpose, while clause 28 enables the Government to place an obligation on the regulators to make rules in certain areas. Clause 44 applies these same mechanisms to the Bank of England, in respect of its regulation of central counterparties and central securities depositories.
The clause introduces a new section of FSMA, which places a requirement on the Bank to ensure that the rules are reviewed regularly after implementation, to confirm that they remain appropriate and continue to have the desired effect. New section 300J of FSMA, which the clause will introduce, requires the Bank to publish a statement of policy for how it conducts rule reviews.
As the Bank takes on increased responsibility, there may be occasions when the Treasury considers that it is in the public interest for the Bank to review its rules, in the same way that we discussed earlier in relation to the PRA and FCA. Therefore, the clause introduces new section 300K of FSMA, which provides a mechanism for the Treasury to direct the Bank to review its rules. New section 300L of FSMA requires the Bank to report the outcome of the review and requires the Treasury to lay this report in Parliament. As with the corresponding measures for the PRA and the FCA, the Government consider that this offers a new avenue for challenge of the Bank’s rule making where required, while maintaining its operational independence. The clause 44 also places conditions on the Treasury’s exercise of the power, so that it will direct the Bank to review its rules only where it considers it to be in the public interest.
As discussed when the Committee considered clause 28, it is right that, in the context of increased responsibilities, the Treasury should have the ability to require the making of rules in certain areas of financial services regulation. This is equally true of the Bank in regard to its regulation of CCPs and CSDs. The clause therefore introduces new section 300M of FSMA, which enables the Treasury to place an obligation on the Bank to make rules in a certain area. The use of this power will be subject to the affirmative procedure in Parliament. The power does not enable the Government to tell the Bank what its rules should be; it simply enables the Government to say that there should be rules, with the agreement of Parliament.
The clause ensures that the same enhancements to the FSMA model that we have discussed will apply to the Bank as it regulates CCPs and CSDs. These are important tools to ensure that the Bank’s rules are relevant and appropriate. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.
Tulip Siddiq
We support the clause, which will empower the Treasury to require the Bank of England to carry out a review of a specific rule, but let me ask the Minister again: does he not agree that such a mechanism is sufficient to highlight to the Bank of England where the Treasury believes a rule may not be working in the public interest and therefore requires a rethink? Surely the provisions under clause 44, and elsewhere in the Bill, provide the Treasury with sufficient powers to hold the Bank of England, the PRA and the FCA to account. Why is an intervention power necessary?
Numerous City stakeholders have written to us to warn of the dangers of such a measure. For example, Barclays stated in its written evidence that
“historically the UK has benefited from a global reputation for having a strong, stable and predictable regulatory framework, developed by effective institutions with clear roles and responsibilities. It is critical to ensure any new intervention powers do not risk or undermine this reputation.”
The Minister was there when Martin Taylor told us that the proposed intervention power had a “bad smell”. The Bank of England has warned that it could diminish the independence of our regulators in the eyes of the global markets. If the financial services sector is sceptical of an intervention power, and experts at the Bank of England have given powerful warnings of the risks of introducing such a power, why is the Minister even contemplating such a provision?
Andrew Griffith
I do not wish to detain the Committee further with a repetition of these points. The hon. Lady makes her points in a lucid fashion, but the Government simply disagree. It is appropriate for us to have laid out in statute the relevant responsibilities, both for the Treasury and for regulators. We are giving the regulators, including the Bank of England in this respect, vast areas of additional responsibility. There were previously intervention powers, which sat at the Brussels level. We are now repatriating those to create a rulebook that is appropriate for the United Kingdom.
The hon. Lady cites selectively, if I may say so, from the evidence that the Committee heard. If she engages widely with industry—as I know she does—she will hear other voices that talk about the need for us to have an agile and flexible system. As part of that, it is sometimes appropriate for us to direct.
Tulip Siddiq
I will not detain the Committee too long. The Minister keeps referring to the industry, which he seems to suggest is supportive of the intervention power, but no one has seen it. Has he consulted the industry? Everyone I have spoken to has said that they have not seen the details of the intervention power, so how does he know they support it?
Andrew Griffith
The hon. Lady makes a very good point, but how does she know that she opposes it? I suggest we come back to this debate another day, when I hope to fulfil my commitment to bring the intervention power in front of the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 44 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Joy Morrissey.)
Financial Services and Markets Bill (Seventh sitting)
Tuesday 1st November 2022
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesFinancial Services and Markets Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 1 November 2022 - (1 Nov 2022)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss that schedule 7 be the Seventh schedule to the Bill.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Andrew Griffith)
Good morning, Mr Sharma. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.
If it pleases the Committee, I would like to draw the Committee’s attention to a letter that I have written to you, Mr Sharma, and to the interim Chair of the Treasury Committee. I had previously undertaken that it was my intention to table for the consideration of the Committee some draft wording on a public interest intervention power. As a result of the new Prime Minister wishing to understand what is an important matter in more detail, such that consideration can be given to points that have been made and to whether the proposed wording is the right wording, I regret that it will not be possible for us to table a proposal at this stage. There will be further consideration of the matter on Report and at other stages, and my commitment to write to the Treasury Committee, as well as to members of this Committee, as soon as we have draft wording for Members’ consideration, stands. I give that commitment to the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn as well.
The clause introduces schedule 7, which sets out corresponding or similar provisions to those introduced for the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority in chapter 3 of the Bill, relating to the accountability of the payment systems regulator. As the Committee is aware, the Bill repeals retained EU law pertaining to financial services. That means that the regulators, including the Payment Systems Regulator, will generally be responsible for setting the direct regulatory requirements for supervised entities where those were previously contained in retained EU law.
As the Committee has already discussed in some detail, it is important that that increase in responsibility for the regulators is balanced with clear accountability, appropriate democratic input and transparent oversight. It is also important that the accountability measures are applied consistently across the regulators. Schedule 7 therefore makes provisions corresponding or similar to those in chapter 3 in a way that is relevant to and appropriate for the PSR.
The accountability provisions are applied to the PSR by amending the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013, which is the domestic legislation governing the PSR. The key distinction is that because the PSR makes rules via powers of direction, as opposed to having the rulebook like the FCA, the accountability requirements on rule making apply where the PSR imposes a generally applicable requirement. Those are the PSR’s equivalent for rule making. Overall, the provisions in the schedule apply the accountability measures in a relevant and appropriate way to the PSR’s legislative framework and regulatory remit. This will ensure consistency in the application of the accountability provisions across the financial services regulators.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. I have just one question for the Minister. How does he foresee the Payment Systems Regulator’s new sustainable growth principles taking account of the UK’s net zero emissions target? How will that balance work in practice? Will the regulator be required to report against its performance?
Andrew Griffith
In substance, the Payment Systems Regulator, in the same way as the FCA, the Bank and the PRA, will have the target as one of its principles. It will be for the PSR to decide how it reports against that. These are ultimately decisions for the regulators themselves to put into practice. To the extent that I have more information at this stage, I will write to the hon. Lady with any clarity I can provide.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 46 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 7 agreed to.
Clause 47
Cash access services
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
I beg to move amendment 40, in clause 47, page 68, line 9, after “of” insert “free of charge”.
This amendment makes reference to the provision of free of charge cash access services in Schedule 8.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
Amendment 41, in schedule 8, page 150, line 27, after “service”)” insert
“free of charge or on the payment of a fee”.
This amendment changes the definition of cash deposit services to include both those which are free of charge and which require the payment of a fee.
Amendment 42, in schedule 8, page 150, line 29, after “service”)” insert
“free of charge or on the payment of a fee”.
This amendment changes the definition of cash withdrawal services to include both those which are free of charge and which require the payment of a fee.
Amendment 16, in schedule 8, page 151, line 36, after “concerning” insert
“both free of charge and paid access”.
Amendment 17, in schedule 8, page 154, line 12, after “appropriate” insert
“and must include the provision of free of charge cash access services”.
Amendment 18, in schedule 8, page 154, line 18, leave out from “is” to the end of line 22 and insert “—
(a) an absence of free of charge cash access services in a locality in a part of the United Kingdom, or
(b) a circumstance which limits the ability of persons in any locality in a part of the United Kingdom to—
(i) withdraw cash from a relevant current account, or
(ii) place cash on a relevant current account.”
New clause 10—Access to cash: Guaranteed minimum provision—
“(1) The Treasury must, by regulations, make provision to guarantee a minimum level of access to free of charge cash access services for consumers across the United Kingdom.
(2) The minimum level of access referred to in subsection (1) must be included in the regulations.
(3) Regulations under this section shall be made by statutory instrument, and may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.”
New clause 11—Duty to collect data on cash acceptance—
“(1) The FCA must monitor, collect and publish data in relation to levels of cash acceptance amongst retailers and service providers within the United Kingdom.
(2) The FCA must publish a report, as soon as practicable after the end of—
(a) the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, and
(b) every subsequent 12-month period,
on levels of cash acceptance amongst retailers and service providers within the United Kingdom.
(3) The FCA can, by written notice, require a retailer or service provider to provide to the FCA information that it may reasonably require for the purposes of exercising its duties under subsections (1) and (2).”
New clause 12—Access to cash: Guaranteed minimum provision for small businesses—
“(1) The Treasury must, by regulations, make provision to guarantee a minimum level of access to free of charge cash access services for small businesses across the United Kingdom.
(2) The minimum level of access referred to in subsection (1) must be included in the regulations.
(3) Regulations under this section shall be made by statutory instrument, and may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.”
Martin Docherty-Hughes
It is good to see you in the Chair, Mr Sharma, and other hon. Members here today. It is a pity that my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes cannot be with us, as he has played a large part in constructing these amendments. I know that other hon. Members will want to participate in a debate on free-of-charge access to cash. I look forward to hearing what they have to say. At the moment, depending on what the Minister has to say, it is my intention to press the amendment to a vote, but I will listen to the Minister’s comments.
It is important to give some examples about the reduction in free access to cash. People sometimes wonder where the constituency of West Dunbartonshire is. We are bound by Glasgow to our east, where we become an urban element of the west of Scotland. We move further west through Clydebank, into Dumbarton and through the Vale of Leven, becoming suburban and then semi-rural, to the base of Loch Lomond itself. The community has a diverse demographic, with a range of deprivation that also impacts on people’s need to access physical cash.
In the last four years in West Dunbartonshire—I am sure this experience is mirrored not only in Scotland but the rest of these islands—we have seen a drop of 27% in access to ATMs, or automated teller machines. That is three ATMs, coupled with closures of local bank branches. We are a population of more than 90,000, but we seem to have only three or four bank branches left, which is extraordinary. My constituents face being forced to travel across a range of areas, including sometimes into the city of Glasgow, to access cash. My hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes and I think it is vital to protect our constituents and the constituents of all other Members, too, in making sure that they have access to free-of-charge cash, notably for the most disadvantaged groups and the elderly.
Let me declare a non-pecuniary interest as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Estonia. Estonia is usually used as an example of what a digital state should be. After the fall of the Soviet Union it picked itself up and ran with a full digital agenda. One of its biggest learnings was that no one should be left behind in the race to digitalisation, critically in relation to access to cash. For the Estonian Government, and the Estonian Parliament, making sure that any financial system is not only fit for purpose in the digital age but that it takes everyone with it, including access to services and free access to cash, was their big learning curve. They believed that they failed in that process to begin with.
I hope that, when reflecting on the amendment, the Government realise that there is a huge opportunity to maintain access to cash for a range of reasons. We can talk about our constituents, and predominantly those who are elderly or from disadvantaged groups who use cash on a more regular basis. We can also talk about small and medium-sized businesses, a lot of which have moved to digital transactions. When Members go to a small shop in their own constituencies, they will notice that a lot of transactions have moved to digital due to the pandemic, but shops still have a substantial amount of cash that comes through their doors. One of the big problems that shops also have—not just free access to cash for those consuming their products—is depositing their takings at the end of the day. They are finding that very difficult as well. Businesses rely on consumers who use cash, especially in disadvantaged communities.
I am mindful of what the NM Group said in its submission:
“Cash remains an important form of payment for millions across the UK, particularly during times of economic hardship.”
The narrative of the cost of living crisis is used across the House, so there is clearly an agreement that people are facing economic hardship and that access to cash during that time is critical. That is why we think amendment 40 is important, as are the other amendments in this group.
We should also note that the payment method with the lowest economic friction, providing businesses and members of the public with a crucially important alternative, is cash. It is an important way for people to manage their finances, especially those in a disadvantaged group or those who are elderly who do not use digital money. I also note that the figures published by LINK, UK Finance and the Post Office show that around £10 billion in cash is withdrawn each month. That is £120 billion per annum in physical cash from ATMs, or from bank counters and post offices. The volume of withdrawals from the LINK system alone equates to about two withdrawals per month for each adult member of the UK population.
To bring my thoughts to a conclusion, we need to also be mindful of some of the infrastructure. UK consumers can access cash from over 55,000 ATMs, 11,500 post offices and certain bank branches—if they are not closing down in our local communities. The number of post offices is actually shrinking; there are no longer two or three post offices in a community—there is maybe only one. Over 90% of cash withdrawals take place at actual ATMs. The critical issue around free cash deposit and withdrawal services within the amendment is extremely important.
The access to cash review in 2019 noted that we cannot sleepwalk into a cashless society. That reflects back to what I was saying about the Estonian learning about digital infrastructure: it can leave a substantial number of people behind. That was the reality for Estonia. Cash continues to be important. Contactless payments and online banking can make it easy for some people to live entirely cash-free. However, given the volumes of cash in society, its usage remains extremely high. That reminds us that we do not live in a cashless society. The LINK network still handles around 1.6 billion transactions a month—that was the average in 2021. On average, adults still withdrew over £1,500 a year. During a global pandemic, cash was still being physically used. It is important to listen to the Minister and the Government’s view on it, although it is my intention to press the amendment to a vote. I look forward to hearing what others say.
Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Sharma—
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
I apologise to the hon. Member; I am getting my procedure a bit mixed up, Mr Sharma, so I wonder whether you could clarify something for me. I have amendments 16, 17 and 18, on the issue of free access to cash. When will it be convenient for me to come in?
Shaun Bailey
Thank you, Mr Sharma. I do not want to add too much to what the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire has said. He has articulated well the reasons why the original clause and his amendments are vital to our communities. The stark reality is that cash is still an important part of our local economic infrastructure, and more so for my communities, where we have seen two bank closures in the last 18 months. Many have had free access to cash taken from them. That is compounded by other infrastructure challenges, such as the lack of public transport and the inability to access free cash services elsewhere.
The amendments tabled by the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire are interesting and strike a balance in seeking to ensure that our communities can access a vital service, mainly cash. I listened with interest to him explaining the rationale behind his amendments, because I think we agree. We have to remember who these measures are ultimately targeted at. I often think of people with vulnerabilities who utilise cash as part of their budgeting. They use it every day, and for them it is a vital part of being able to continue to sustain themselves. Although the technological revolution over the last few years in particular might be great for some, for others it is not. For the communities that I represent and the areas where people are really trying to get by, cash plays a vital role in ensuring that people can function and manage their finances and their affairs. It is therefore vital that we have a strategy in place.
The amendments proposed by the hon. Gentleman, particularly the element of keeping the service free of charge, is important, particularly for communities like mine. We all talk about acute pockets of deprivation, but I remind the Committee that I represent the fourth most deprived ward in the west midlands. For many people, paying for ATMs is simply unacceptable. It takes away from them a vital part of the means they need to subsist and survive. Ensuring that we have a strategy to keep access to cash free for those who rely on it every day is vital. If we do not, we create a cycle whereby, because people have to pay out to access the means by which they survive, they use less and less of their income.
At a time when we are dealing with an acute cost of living crisis and people’s incomes are stretched, it is vital that the main source that they can use to survive is not tagged with a condition that makes it harder for them to access it. I agree with the philosophy, so to speak, behind the hon. Gentleman’s amendments. This is about enabling people to just survive and do the basics that they need to do. It is as simple as that.
I think of a constituent who came to my constituency office the other week. She could not access an ATM and was absolutely distraught. Her bank branch had just been closed and she did not know where to go. She was distraught and we had to help her out. That is at the forefront of my mind when I think of these amendments and what the Government are trying to achieve through their policy and strategy documents.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister—I am afraid that he has had a bit of a shopping list from me, which I know his officials will have noted down—to ensure that cash is kept at the forefront of the Treasury’s thinking. I appreciate what the clauses are meant to achieve, but I hope that the Minister will take note of the intention behind the amendments, even if the Government decide not to support them, and ensure that the issue is brought to the forefront.
Siobhain McDonagh
It is a wonderful moment when there is unity on both sides of the Committee. SNP and Conservative Members, as well as—I hope—my Labour colleagues, are coming together to ask the Government not just for access to cash, but for free access to cash. I believe that much of the Bill arises as a direct result of Members of Parliament doing our constituency work and understanding our constituents’ concerns.
Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
My hon. Friend’s amendments are an extremely important part of the debate, and I hope that the Government accept them. I should point out that when I sat on the Treasury Committee several iterations ago, we held an inquiry about free access to cash. We got agreement that all machines that charge for withdrawals should say so up front rather than right at the end. Although that transformed some of the problems, we are now discussing access to cash itself. It is funny how these things evolve but the issues remain the same.
Siobhain McDonagh
I thank my hon. Friend, who I understand is currently serving as the interim Chair of the Treasury Committee.
Siobhain McDonagh
My amendments 16, 17 and 18, together with new clauses 10, 11 and 12, address access to free cash, which is indisputably important in our society. Ten per cent. of UK adults—5.4 million people—continue to rely on cash to a great or very great or extent in their daily lives. One in five people says that they would struggle to cope in a cashless society, and that struggle would disproportionately affect those on lower incomes, the elderly and people with physical or mental health difficulties.
Without Government intervention, we are losing free access to cash in our society. In my constituency, the number of free-to-use ATMs has declined by 36% in the last five years, while the number of pay-to-use ATMs has increased by an extraordinary 22%—there is money to be made somewhere. The problem is not confined to Mitcham and Morden: since 2015, the UK has lost more than half its branch network—5,003 branches—at a terrifying rate of 54 branches each and every month.
Through my amendments, I wish to draw the Committee’s attention to the notable decline in the provision of free-to-use ATMs. Since August 2018, the UK has lost 12,599 free-to-use ATMs—a decrease of nearly 24%. Meanwhile, almost a quarter of ATMs now charge people for access to their own cash. It is no wonder that more than half of consumers experienced one or more issues accessing cash at a bank branch in the past year.
Who are the losers in this cashless society? The access to cash review unsurprisingly revealed that those earning less than £10,000 per year were 14 times more likely to be dependent on cash than those earning more than £30,000 per year, and yet they are the residents of the areas where free access to cash is hard to come by.
Take Pollards Hill in my constituency, where a ridiculous clause in the lease prevents the new Co-op from opening a free-to-use ATM because of two paid-for cash machines further down the row of shops. Residents are taking out small sums of money in order to control their budgets, some of them at just £10 a time, but they are charged £2 to take that out—a 20% charge for every single payment. They literally have to pay for access to their cash. Surely the legislation must be tightened to avoid imposing additional costs such as that on the most hard-pressed.
I believe that the need for access to cash is growing. Age UK highlights that one in five older people still relies on cash for everyday spending. The cost of living crisis has seen households reliant on cash counting out the pennies to ensure that they can make ends meet—it is no wonder that in August, the Post Office handled its highest total of cash ever. The evidence is overwhelming and I believe that there should be a societal duty on the Government to ensure that the most vulnerable people in our society have free access to cash and are not left behind.
It is not just me who has such concerns. The hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Dr Davies), now the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, stated on Second Reading that he hoped the Government would commit to protecting free cash withdrawals and deposits, presumably in light of Prestatyn losing TSB, Barclays, HSBC, NatWest and Royal Bank of Scotland in recent years, initially leaving the town’s high street without a single bank or cash machine despite being a major regional shopping centre.
On 19 April, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield tweeted after the announcement of bank branch closures in her constituency that she would take up the issue in Westminster, describing crisis talks with the banks on access to cash on high streets everywhere as essential. I am sure she agrees that this is the moment to vote where her voice was.
The hon. Member for Havant has seen at first hand how damaging the removal of access-to-cash provision has been for his most vulnerable constituents, having launched campaigns against TSB, NatWest, Barclays and HSBC in recent years, and having raised his concerns with HSBC about the potential impact on the elderly, who might not be able to access online banking and are reliant on face-to-face services. The hon. Member for Orpington has seen Nationwide, Santander and Barclays close in Petts Wood. He pledged to hold the latter to account in support of those residents who do not use mobile or online banking. Well done to that Member!
The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford, in advance of the closure of the HSBC branch in Bourne, shared concerns with his constituents about the impact on his elderly constituents whom he said relied on the bank as a vital service in the town centre.
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)
The hon. Lady is making a fantastic speech—let me say that straight out of the gate—but may I clarify that her proposed access-to-cash solution is for the Treasury to make an intervention on the regulator?
Siobhain McDonagh
I do not believe that the regulator, the FCA, will force through free access to cash unless we legislate for that. As Members, we are responsible for that. I suppose I am trying to say that hon. Members are doing their job excellently by highlighting concerns in their constituencies. Even though we have been through a very rough time in politics and a lot of our constituents are unhappy about the turbulent times we have entered, many of them still have faith in democracy, party politics and our system because Members do that sort of work. I believe that we need to follow through when we are given the power to do so.
I have more. The point was even more strongly expressed by the hon. Member for West Bromwich West, who made a powerful speech. Following HSBC’s decision to close its branch in Wednesbury, he gave this message to his constituents:
“The argument of go to West Brom is not good enough! I am determined to fight this”—
good on him!
The hon. Member for North Warwickshire described the impact on local residents as “obvious” when the Lloyds Bank branch closed, leaving Coleshill High Street without a bank branch. As an MP for a rural constituency, the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye detailed her concerns to our witnesses last week about her constituency being able to access cash free, and about the distance her residents would have to travel otherwise.
I do not doubt that my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Wimbledon, shares my concern about the loss of cash machines and bank branches in Morden town centre, which we share. One of the only remaining free-to-use ATMs is hidden in a Cashino—an arcade. That is extraordinary.
Government Members need not worry: the new Chancellor shares their view. He was pictured in the Alton Herald just last November celebrating the arrival of a new free-to-use cash machine in his constituency. I say to the Minister: do not worry. If these amendments pass, the Chancellor is right behind you.
Given what appears to be an overwhelming consensus on the issue, I hope Members on both sides of the Committee acknowledge that the Bill needs to be amended to ensure not only that there is access to cash but that there is free access to cash. They will be lauded in articles in their local newspapers and posts on Twitter and their social media for passing these amendments.
Emma Hardy
It is an absolute pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden, who is just awesome. Is awesome a parliamentary word? It should be. On a personal level, let me say how much I enjoy being on the Treasury Committee with such incredible Labour women. It is brilliant—inspiring.
To follow on from a couple of points that my hon. Friend made, I hope the Minister’s response will touch on the baseline geographical distances between free cash points. It frustrates me immensely that in one of the poorest estates in my constituency, the ATM charges £1.50 every time people use it. We would like some details about the geographical distances between the places where people can access free cash.
We should also look at why businesses do not take cash. As my hon. Friend said during the evidence sessions, it is often because there is nowhere for them to deposit it. If we are to make access to cash free, which I completely support, we should also help businesses to take cash. There is no point having free cash if it cannot be used. Bank or other branches should accept cash, and we should look at the geographical distances.
I got a bit frustrated when banks were closing branches in my constituency, because they said, “Well, the other one is only one-point-however-many miles away, so it’s fine.” I said, “It is not easy for people to get to.” There is sometimes an assumption that everyone is able to drive and has the mobility to go around and find a free cash machine, but that is not always possible. Can we look at geographical distances, at businesses accepting cash and at ensuring branches accept cash so that businesses can pay it in? My hon. Friend made a powerful speech on cash access and the principle that people’s access to their own money should be free.
Tulip Siddiq
I will speak to clause 47 and the various amendments tabled to it by my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden and the hon. Member for Glenrothes, who cannot be here because of a personal commitment. I pay tribute to him and all the work he has done so far. While we sympathise with the principle behind amendments 41 and 42, we believe that the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden would better achieve free cash access. Before I continue, I pay tribute to her for all her work on financial inclusion. She is not stopping her fight for justice, and she talked about this being a societal duty. She also has a ten-minute rule Bill that seeks to persuade the Government to give free internet access to children on free school meals. I pay tribute to her work.
We are delighted that after years of delay, the Government have brought forward some legislation to protect access to cash. The industry, particularly the major banks, should be applauded for coming together to help protect cash services at the end of last year, which put this legislation on a statutory footing. However, the delay in bringing forward the Bill has cut off whole sections of society from our economy, including millions of the most vulnerable, the poorest and older people, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden pointed out. It has also damaged smaller businesses that rely on cash.
On top of this, almost 6,000 bank branches have closed since 2015 on this Government’s watch, and the Bill does nothing to protect essential face-to-face banking services, which the most vulnerable in our society depend on for financial advice and support. I know we are discussing new clauses 4 and 5 later, which will protect access to essential in-person banking services, so I will stay focused on cash for now, but I do not feel that we can have this debate without talking about face-to-face banking services, or the lack thereof.
It is inevitable that payment systems will continue to innovate, but a recent report from the RSA that I am sure the Minister is aware of found that 10 million people still depend on cash and that the pandemic, which saw an acceleration in the digitisation of payment systems, has made it increasingly difficult for many of us to pay for the goods and services we need—especially people from a lower socioeconomic background.
The Bill is a welcome step in guaranteeing access to cash, but clause 47 goes nowhere near far enough in ensuring that cash is available for those who depend on it. My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden pointed out how so many people in her constituency—where I was born, I am proud to say—still rely on cash, especially free cash. The Bill makes no commitment to protect free access to cash. That is what we are worried about. That is why we support amendments 16, 17 and 18, as well as new clause 10, which were all tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden. They would provide a guaranteed minimum provision of access to free cash.
Protecting free cash access has never been more important, as I am sure the Minister will agree. Data collected by the Post Office has shown that the use of cash in recent months has increased. As the cost of living crisis deepens, the poorest in society are increasingly turning to cash to manage their budgets on a week-by-week, often day-by-day basis. Data collected by the consumer group Which? found a notable decline in the provision of free-to-use ATMs in recent years.
In July 2022, there were around 12,000 fewer free-to-use ATMs in the UK than there were in August 2018. That is a decrease of nearly 24%. Does the Minister agree that forcing the poorest in society, who are increasingly reliant on cash, to pay for access to cash in the middle of the worst cost of living crisis on record risks further deepening financial exclusion in our country? Is this the kind of society we want to live in?
I am sure the Minister knows of Natalie Ceeney, chair of UK Finance’s Cash Action Group. During the Committee’s evidence session, she made it absolutely clear that the Government have a societal duty to ensure that the most vulnerable people in the UK have free access to cash.
Which? warned that if these clauses do not make it clear that they will protect free cash withdrawals and deposits, the entire objective of this part of the Bill will be undermined. Which? is right to stress the importance of free cash withdrawals and deposits. That is crucial to securing cash acceptance. There is little point in the most vulnerable having access to cash if they have nowhere to spend it. That is why Labour will support new clause 11, which would place a duty on the FCA to collect data on cash acceptance.
During her oral evidence, Natalie Ceeney also warned that we have to ensure that the Bill
“covers small businesses as well as consumers. Small businesses, typically…pay for their cash access.”––[Official Report, Financial Services and Markets Public Bill Committee, 19 October 2022; c. 51-52, Q101.]
Increasingly, small business owners also have to travel long distances to deposit. That is a dangerous disincentive for them to accept cash. Natalie Ceeney also pointed to Sweden, where shops have largely stopped taking cash. If the UK wants to avoid a similar outcome, we must ensure that small businesses can deposit cash easily. That is why we will push new clause 12 to a vote. It would guarantee minimum provision of free cash access services for small businesses.
The Minister is likely to respond that we must wait for the Government’s access to cash policy statement. If he does, will he confirm when that statement will be published? Does he not agree that, if the Government are truly committed to protecting free access to cash services, there is no reason not to make protections for free access explicit in the Bill?
Andrew Griffith
I will speak first to clause 47, before turning to the many amendments and new clauses proposed by hon. Members.
Although the transition towards digital payments brings many opportunities, the Government’s view is that cash remains an essential payment mechanism for many, particularly those in vulnerable groups. I am particularly familiar with the work of Age UK in this respect. Protecting access to cash for those who rely on it is a priority for the Government, and clause 47 delivers on that.
The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden highlighted not just her own concerns about the issue but, rather thoughtfully, those of all hon. Members, to which I should add mine as well.
Siobhain McDonagh
I thank my brilliant researcher, Dan Ashcroft, for finding the great comments of all the Conservative Members. It was harder to find anything from the Minister, so it is good to find out what he believes about free access to cash.
Andrew Griffith
As part of the research for this debate, I looked at the prevalence of free-to-use ATMs in the constituencies of members of the Committee. My quite rural constituency is somewhat bereft compared with the embarrassment of riches, surprisingly, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle, which has a staggering 120 free-to-use ATMs, reportedly. That puts many of us to shame.
Andrew Griffith
That was the figure supplied to me; I will happily correct the record if that is not the case.
Emma Hardy
I am astounded that there are 120. I would be grateful if the Minister could show us a map of where they are, because I certainly have not found them. What can I say? We like our cash in Hull.
Andrew Griffith
Very good.
Until this moment, there has been no substantive legislative framework for access to cash. No regulatory authority has the legislative responsibility or powers to ensure that cash withdrawal and deposit facilities are available for people and businesses to use. We should not underestimate the degree to which the Government are moving on this important issue.
Clause 47 addresses cash access in statute for the first time. It introduces schedule 8, which sets out a legislative framework granting the Financial Conduct Authority responsibility to seek to ensure that there is reasonable provision of cash deposit and withdrawal services across the UK. It also gives the regulator the powers it needs to fulfil that responsibility.
The hon. Member for Wallasey talked about the pioneering work by the Treasury Committee. We should all celebrate this clause; we should celebrate the achievement of this House in significantly moving forward the protection for access to cash. We just need to remember that what we are talking about here is a very small increment—from the statutory protection of access to cash, to the precise terms on which that is agreed. I understand that there may be different views on that, but we should not allow that to detract from the significant advance on access to cash that the Bill represents.
The Treasury will publish a policy statement in due course, and doing that “in due course” is the right thing to do. There will be the right moment to do it—
Andrew Griffith
The hon. Lady is very good at anticipating what I would not say. Perhaps she is going to finish my sentence for me.
Tulip Siddiq
Well, we have certainly spent enough time together. “In due course” is very vague, as I am sure the Minister will agree. Can he not give us any sort of timeline? I have not had a straight answer to this question for a few months now—to be fair, I recognise that it was not him in that chair, but his predecessor.
Andrew Griffith
I am a big fan of taking one step at a time, and the step in front of us today is to pass clause 47 and put it on the statute book—to make that very significant advance in the statutory protection of access to cash. I look forward to continuing my tenure and engaging with the hon. Lady, and it seems appropriate for us to bring forward the policy statement very rapidly once Royal Assent has been achieved, taking this important topic step by step.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle nodded vigorously at the obligations on the FCA to collect more data. I think that that is absolutely right. One challenge, as cash potentially diminishes over time, is to ensure that we nevertheless have the right and detailed datasets in order to continue to protect our constituents.
Emma Hardy
Without wishing to return to a previous debate, one way we could ensure that the FCA collects data is to ensure that it has regard to financial inclusion.
Andrew Griffith
The hon. Lady has made that point powerfully, and I assure her—notwithstanding the disappointment that I seem to continue to cause to the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn—that that has lodged very firmly with the Government and is something I would hope we can continue to discuss before Report.
The provisions introduced by clause 47 are vital to support those who continue to use cash. With that, I recommend that the clause stand part of the Bill.
Let me now turn to the amendments. Amendment 40 would change the description of schedule 8 in clause 47 to refer to free-of-charge cash deposit and withdrawal services. Amendments 16 to 18, in the name of the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden, concern free access to cash. There is a commendable focus on this issue from Members on both sides of the Committee, and we heard the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West about his constituents and their vulnerabilities.
The Government do not believe that it is appropriate for legislation itself to stipulate that access to cash must be free. Let me try to explain why, because I understand the consternation of some hon. Members. This very significant step forward having been taken to protect statutory access to cash, the Government are concerned that taking a blanket approach might have unintended consequences and leave us stuck with legislation that is too prescriptive. In turn, that might stifle innovation by industry to support cash access. For example, ensuring the free provision of cash for certain vulnerable consumers is quite different from ensuring provision for business customers, which could be delivered through different solutions.
The provisions in schedule 8 ensure that legislation provides appropriate flexibility now and in the future. Consistent with a lot of the debate that we have heard about the independence of regulators and the regulatory model being baked into financial services regulation since the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, the Government believe that the FCA is best placed to deliver a sustainable, agile and evidence-based approach to managing cash over time in order to respond to the needs of people and businesses. The FCA has the flexibility and powers to do that.
The Chair
Before I call Martin Docherty-Hughes, I inform the Committee that I will take one vote on amendment 40. There will be no other vote on this group.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
Thank you, Mr Sharma.
It was interesting to hear what the Minister and Members on the Government Back Benches had to say—I congratulate the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden on the litany of exasperation from the Back Benches, which I thought was well played. I was glad to hear the hon. Member for West Bromwich West agree with the vast majority of what I had to say, and I go back to what the Minister said about the statutory protection of cash. If that is the truth, 27% of free ATMs in West Dunbartonshire would not have closed in the past four years.
I am usually minded to push my amendments to a vote. I seek some reassurance from my colleagues on the official Opposition Benches that if I do not push my amendment to a Division, all the amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden will be moved. The Clerk may want to give some advice to the Chair on that issue, because I know that if I withdraw my amendment, I can bring it back on Report. I look for some clarification on that issue first.
The Chair
The advice is that if you withdraw your amendment, I will take one of the three amendments from the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden.
Siobhain McDonagh
Just to clarify, Chair, will you take 16, 17 or 18, or will you take the whole bunch?
The Chair
You choose one of those three, and I will take it if the hon. Gentleman decides not to push his amendment to a Division.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
I think I am getting my assurance that one of those amendments will be pressed to a vote by the official Opposition, so in order to make sure that we have a coherent and agreed process, I will not push my amendment to a Division. However, I make it clear to the Government that I have not heard anything today that means that free access to cash will be safeguarded for my constituents, and I will probably bring my amendment back on Report. I look forward to voting with my colleagues in the official Opposition. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 47 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 8
Cash access services
Amendment proposed: 16, in schedule 8, page 151, line 36, after “concerning” insert
“both free of charge and paid access”.—(Siobhain McDonagh.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Siobhain McDonagh
I beg to move amendment 19, in schedule 8, in page 154, line 12, at end insert—
“(2A) Before making a determination under subsection (2), the FCA must publish how it intends to define and assess the reasonable nature and extent of provision when making the determination.”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 21, in schedule 8, page 154, line 32, at end insert—
“(7) In carrying out its functions for the purposes of section (1) the FCA may put in place arrangements for the purposes of ensuring that members of the public, elected officials, community groups, local authorities, councils, and other local persons the FCA considers may have an interest, can request a review of their local community’s access to cash needs.”
Amendment 20, in schedule 8, page 154, line 32, at end insert—
“(8) Upon making a determination of local deficiency in the course of carrying out its functions under subsections (1) to (7), the FCA must—
(a) make provision for the publication of this assessment, and
(b) outline steps to be taken by relevant parties to address such deficiency.”
That schedule 8 be the Eighth schedule to the Bill.
Siobhain McDonagh
I rise to support my amendments 19, 20 and 21, which are grounded in transparency and evidence, requiring the Financial Conduct Authority to collect and publish relevant data related to access to cash. Examples include enabling public bodies to request a review of the local community’s access to cash needs or to publish how they intend to define and assess the reasonable nature and extent of provision when meeting a determination of access to cash; making provision for the publication of that assessment; and outlining steps to be taken by relevant parties to address such a deficiency.
Currently, under the voluntary agreements put in place by the Cash Action Group to preserve access to cash, individuals or community groups can request a review of their access to cash where they consider it to be inadequate. Where unmet needs are identified, LINK can recommend the installation of a new cash access point. I must say that it is doing precisely that in my constituency, in Pollards Hill, so I am grateful to LINK and the Cash Action Group for their progress.
The amendments call for a similar ability for individuals or communities to request a review of local cash provision, irrespective of whether baseline geographic distances set in the Treasury’s policy statement are met. I argue that that should be enshrined in the Bill to give consumers confidence that their concerns in their local areas will be considered by the regulator. Whether for transparency, fairness or consumer confidence, it is vital that the legislation compels the FCA to publish both the criteria that will apply when determining whether a cash access point is required in a community and the assessment of a local community’s access to cash.
I hope that chimes with commitments made by the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd on Second Reading, when he argued that assessments of the needs of communities should be transparently published and that there should be a formal process of appeal. Surely such an appeal is impossible unless the data is collected, understood and available. I hope that this uncontroversial call will have the support of hon. Members as we seek to strengthen access to cash for communities and individuals up and down the country.
Tulip Siddiq
I shall speak to schedule 8 and amendments 19, 20 and 21 together. We recognise that the Bill sets out an important, overarching framework to protect access to cash. However, many critical elements, such as the baseline geographic distances that will apply to withdrawal and deposit facilities and which are factors that the FCA will take into account when assessing a local area’s needs with regard to access to cash, will be set out in a policy statement to be published by the Treasury. That makes it impossible for members of this Committee, more widely, Members of Parliament to judge whether the Government’s proposals will deliver an adequate level of free access to cash services. That is why the organisation Which? and others have called on the Government to assess the significant gap by setting out, in Committee, the details of the draft policy statement, which will determine the proposed baseline distances between cash facilities.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden has said, we also want the Government to set out how local deficiency of free cash access will be assessed by the regulator and how local people can request an FCA review of their communities’ access to cash needs. That is why we will be supporting amendments 19, 20 and 21 today. If the Conservative party does not lend its support to the amendments, will the Minister set out how he will ensure that Parliament has adequate opportunity to scrutinise the Government’s draft policy statement before the Bill leaves the House of Commons?
Andrew Griffith
I shall speak first to amendments 19, 20 and 21, before turning to schedule 8. Amendments 19 and 20 seek to introduce requirements on the FCA in relation to how it will determine reasonable provision of cash access services and how it will assess and address local deficiencies in provision. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden for raising that important issue, and I recognise the strength of feeling expressed by many in the debate on Second Reading and here this morning. I reassure the hon. Member that the Treasury has considered the matter carefully, and will continue to consider it through its approach to a policy statement.
Siobhain McDonagh
I would suggest to the Minister, though, that the FCA was late to the party over bank branch closures and that the groundswell created by people and by Members of Parliament forced the FCA finally to act. Who believes that individual communities, particularly poorer communities, have the same strong voice as the chief executive of a major high street bank? That is not going to be the case, and we know it is not going to be the case. We also know that unless the guidelines are there, people will not be listened to.
I held a public meeting about the closure of my local Halifax branch, and I could not convince anybody from the Halifax to attend. The idea that we can get these things done by institutionally agreeing that those people will understand the same things we understand, and understand the concerns of those who come to our advice surgeries and the concerns in our constituencies, is also not the case.
Andrew Griffith
The hon. Lady makes a powerful point that I will take away, but I perhaps do not entirely share her view of the FCA. It will be interesting to explore that further. However, I should congratulate her, which I omitted to do earlier, on successfully procuring a new LINK ATM for Pollards Hill. If she would like me to do so, I should be delighted to come to witness her opening this important facility for her constituents.
Let me turn to amendment 21. Following the Government committing themselves to legislating, industry has, in parallel, established voluntary arrangements to co-ordinate its response to provision of cash access—that includes the process for LINK, of which the hon. Lady has availed herself; LINK operates the UK’s largest ATM network—to assess a community’s needs in the event of closure of a core cash service or a request made by a local community, or indeed by a diligent Member of Parliament representing their constituents.
The Bill will provide the FCA with powers over operators of cash access co-ordination agreements such as those operated by LINK, so it provides a legislative safety net. However, members of the Committee will recognise that no decisions can be made in respect of designating any firms until we get the Bill on the statute book—the important work in which we are engaged today.
More widely, the Bill will require the FCA to use its powers to seek to ensure reasonable provision of cash access services—we are giving the FCA the corpus of work to do that. The Bill will allow the FCA to make rules or issue a direction requiring designated entities to establish a process to allow cash users to request reviews, should the regulator consider that appropriate. I understand the point made by the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden about the conduct to date, but I would respectfully say that we are also giving the FCA very significant powers and putting duties upon it. The Treasury, the Select Committee and Parliament itself will continue to scrutinise those duties, and ensure that they are being fulfilled diligently. For that reason, I ask her not to press amendments 19, 20 and 21 to a vote, following a good debate on them.
Briefly, schedule 8 has attracted considerable interest from Members. Part 1 of the schedule inserts a new part 8B, titled “Cash access services”, into FSMA 2000. That introduces the legislative framework for access to cash and establishes the FCA as the responsible regulator. The schedule places a new statutory responsibility on the FCA to exercise the powers granted to it for the purpose of seeking to ensure that there is reasonable provision of cash access services in the UK. The FCA is then responsible for determining what it considers to be reasonable provision—I understand that some hon. Members would like to go further and be more prescriptive on that—while having regard to the policy statement, which will be issued in due course and at the appropriate moment by the Treasury, and any local deficiencies in the provision of cash access that the regulator has identified, the impacts of which it considers significant.
The FCA may also have regard to other matters that it considers appropriate. The FCA has already developed extensive monitoring of the coverage of cash access, and has undertaken research on the use of cash to inform its approach. In terms of the entities that will be subject to FCA oversight, the Government believe that it is right that the largest retail banks and building societies are held accountable for ensuring that their customers or members can continue to access cash services. The schedule therefore gives the Treasury powers to determine which banks and building societies—[Interruption.] I can see from the expression of the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden that Halifax may well be auditioning as a candidate. It would be wrong for me to prejudge that list, but I imagine that hon. Members have lots of potential candidates to put to the Treasury.
The schedule gives the Treasury powers to determine who they should bring within the scope of FCA oversight through the designation regime. Furthermore, the Treasury will be able to designate operators of cash access co-ordination arrangements for FCA oversight. In order for it to fulfil its new role effectively, the Bill grants the FCA the ability to make rules, issue directions and impose disciplinary measures, including financial penalties upon any of the organisations designated by the Treasury. The new legislative framework will be an effective, proportionate and strong way to ensure that there is reasonable provision of cash access across the UK in the future. I therefore recommend that the schedule stand part of the Bill.
Siobhain McDonagh
We will come back to the amendment, and those with which it is grouped, but for now I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 8 agreed to.
Clause 48
Wholesale cash distribution
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss that schedule 9 be the Ninth schedule to the Bill.
Andrew Griffith
In addition to ensuring reasonable provision of cash access services in the UK, it is vital that we have an effective, resilient and sustainable wholesale cash system to support continued access to cash.
The UK’s wholesale cash infrastructure is a system of cash centres that sort, store and distribute banknotes and coins. A decline in the transactional use of cash has put pressure on the business models of the existing wholesale cash networks. Over time, the industry is expected to transition to a smaller overall network.
Clause 48 and schedule 9 contain provisions to give new powers to the Bank of England to oversee the wholesale cash distribution industry by creating a two-level regime. First, it gives the Bank oversight over, and the ability to regulate, the market activities of the wholesale cash industry. That will ensure the effectiveness, sustainability, and resilience of the system. Secondly, it gives the Bank the ability to prudentially regulate a systemic entity in the market, should one form in the future, to manage risks to financial stability.
Schedule 9 enables the Treasury to make a wholesale cash oversight order, which specifies an entity as a recognised entity. That will set out whether an entity is recognised as having market significance only, or systemic significance. If a firm has market significance, it will be subject to the market oversight regime. If it is systemically significant, it will be subject to both the market oversight regime and the prudential regime.
The Treasury does not currently consider any entity to be systemic, but the provisions will ensure that the Treasury and the Bank can respond effectively to future changes in the market to manage risks to financial stability. It is expected that the industry will transition to a smaller overall network, potentially with fewer operators, in the coming years.
The powers given to the Bank under both parts include the ability to publish principles and codes of practice, gather information, give directions as required, make inspections and enforce the regime. Under the regime, the Bank can also collect fees, which must relate to a scale of fees approved by the Treasury. The Bank will seek to exercise its powers proportionately.
Schedule 9 also requires the Bank of England to prepare and publish a policy statement on its regulatory approach before exercising its powers under the legislation. The Bank will launch a consultation on that policy statement shortly. Once the regime is operational, the Bank is required to provide an annual report on the regime to the Treasury, which must be laid before Parliament.
In summary, clause 48 and schedule 9 are necessary to ensure that the wholesale cash industry remains effective, resilient and sustainable. The measures form part of the Government’s action to support the continued access to cash. I therefore recommend that clause 48 and schedule 9 stand part of the Bill.
Tulip Siddiq
We welcome clause 48, but I have two questions for the Minister. First, how will Parliament and industry be consulted on the scale of the fees placed on businesses by the Bank to cover the operation of the scheme, and on the penalties for non-compliance? Clause 48, as drafted, allows the Treasury to designate an entity as being subject to the Bank’s new prudential regimes for the wholesale cash industry, but how will the Government ensure that the Bank is adequately consulted on additions to the regime?
Andrew Griffith
The answer is that, in the normal way, the measures will be laid before Parliament. If there is any extra detail with which I can furnish the hon. Lady, I will write to her.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 48 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 9 agreed to.
Clause 49
Recognised bodies: senior managers and certification
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss that schedule 10 be the Tenth schedule to the Bill.
Andrew Griffith
The clause introduces schedule 10, which provides for the new senior managers and certification regime—SMCR—for financial market infrastructures. The existing SMCR was first introduced following the 2008 financial crisis to strengthen governance in financial services firms and to promote high standards of conduct among all staff. Today, the regime applies to most authorised firms across the financial services sector, including banks and insurers; however, it does not apply to firms that are regulated outside the main FSMA authorisation framework. The clause addresses that by allowing a new SMCR to be created for certain types of financial market infrastructure. It will help to bring governance requirements for such systemically important firms in line with the majority of the financial services sector.
Schedule 10 provides for the new regime by inserting proposed new chapter 2A into part 18 of FSMA 2000. That will allow for an SMCR to be applied to central counterparties and central securities depositories through the negative resolution procedure. The schedule also allows for the regime to be extended in future to recognised investment exchanges and credit rating agencies, should that be appropriate. The power can be exercised by the Treasury through the affirmative resolution procedure in respect of credit ratings agencies, and through the negative procedure in respect of recognised investment exchanges. The Government will undertake consultation with relevant parties before deciding on whether the regime should be extended to such entities.
The key features of the new regime mirror those of the existing regime: a senior managers regime, a certification regime and conduct rules for all employees. The certification regime applies to employees whose roles do not have senior management functions but could cause significant harm to the firm or its users. Those roles must be performed only by employees who have been certified by the firm as being fit and proper to perform the roles. The regime will also allow regulators to make conduct rules for all employees of the firms.
Schedule 10 also provides supervisory and disciplinary powers for the Bank and the FCA, including the power to impose financial penalties and to take action against misconduct. The Bank and the FCA will be able to make prohibition orders such that any individual they do not consider to be fit and proper can be banned from performing a function at one of those types of entity, or at any authorised or exempt financial services firm.
The new regime will be an effective and proportionate way to strengthen governance arrangements and to promote high standards of conduct among all staff. I therefore recommend that the clause and schedule 10 stand part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 49 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 10 agreed to.
Clause 50
Central counterparties in financial difficulties
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 9, 24 to 28, 10, 29, 11 and 12, 30, 13 to 15, and 31.
That schedule 11 be the Eleventh schedule to the Bill.
Andrew Griffith
The clause introduces schedule 11, which expands the existing resolution regime for central counterparties, or CCPs. CCPs provide clearing services for large volumes of financial trading activity and are systemically important pieces of market infrastructure.
Resolution is the framework for managing the failure of systemic financial institutions. It provides the Bank of England, the UK’s resolution authority, with the tools required to manage the failure of a financial firm safely. If a CCP got into difficulty and could not continue to provide its clearing services, there could be serious consequences for financial markets, affecting financial stability and potential risks to public funds
Although the UK has an existing resolution regime for CCPs, introduced in 2014, a fuller and stronger set of powers will enable the Bank to take faster and more extensive action than it can now. Schedule 11 will therefore expand the existing CCP resolution regime, providing the Bank with a comprehensive set of tools and powers to protect financial stability and limit contagion within the financial sector. That includes powers to remove impediments to resolvability in a CCP before it gets into any difficulties, and the ability for the Bank to put a CCP into resolution before the CCP’s own recovery measures have been exhausted, if continued recovery actions would be likely to compromise financial stability.
The schedule gives the Bank the powers needed to impose losses on the CCP and its clearing members in the first instance of the very unlikely event of failure, thereby protecting public funds. It also enables the Bank to take control of a failing CCP to stabilise the CCP and ensure the continuity of critical clearing functions while it is in resolution.
By expanding the existing regime we are also ensuring that our regime reflects international standards, as set out by the Financial Stability Board. That will cement the UK’s reputation as a global leader in providing clearing services and further enhance confidence in the UK’s financial system. The provisions therefore demonstrate the Government’s ongoing commitment to high standards and effective stewardship of the UK’s financial services sector, so I recommend that clause 50 and schedule 11 stand part of the Bill.
I also commend amendments 9 to 15 and 24 to 31. They are technical amendments that will ensure that schedule 11 functions as intended, reflecting the original policy intent by rectifying drafting errors and ensuring the legislation is applied consistently across the UK.
Tulip Siddiq
Because of the volume of trades cleared through CCPs, the failure of one could pose risks to the stability of the financial system. We therefore welcome clause 50 and the Government’s various technical amendments. Does the Minister agree that, because of the high risk to the financial system that a failed CCP could pose, the expanded regime must be brought in as a priority? How long after the Bill has passed will the provision become law and the regime be implemented?
Andrew Griffith
I agree with the hon. Lady that, given the systemic importance, it is important to bring the regime into place as quickly as possible. It will be for the Bank to consult on that. I expect the Bank to do that shortly after Royal Assent and then bring forward the necessary measures to put it in place. I hope that is enough for the hon. Lady at this time. We want to see the implementation proceed as quickly as possible.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 50 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 11
Central counterparties
Amendments made: 9, in schedule 11, page 205, line 21, leave out “9A” and insert “9B”.
This amendment corrects a cross-reference so that the provision refers to paragraph 9B of Schedule 17A to the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, which is inserted by clause 10 of the Bill.
Amendment 24, in schedule 11, page 228, line 22, leave out sub-paragraph (1) and insert—
“(1) This paragraph applies where the Bank uses one or more of the stabilisation options mentioned in paragraph 1(3) in respect of a CCP unless the CCP has ceased to be subject to the exercise of any stabilisation power mentioned in paragraph 1(4).”
This amendment widens the scope of paragraph 39 of Schedule 11, on shadow directors etc, by ensuring that it applies following the exercise of any of the Bank’s stabilisation options under Schedule 11, not just the powers in paragraph 38.
Amendment 25, in schedule 11, page 228, line 28, leave out
“, or as a temporary manager under paragraph 6,”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 27 and omits the reference to temporary managers as they will be included in the list of relevant persons in paragraph 39(3) under Amendment 27.
Amendment 26, in schedule 11, page 228, line 38, at end insert—
“(e) the Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (S.I. 1989/2405 (N.I. 19));
(b) the Company Directors Disqualification (Northern Ireland) Order 2002 (S.I. 2002/3150 (N.I. 4));”.
This amendment ensures that the list of relevant enactments in paragraph 39(3) of Schedule 11 includes the relevant Northern Ireland legislation so that the position regarding shadow directors is consistent across the UK.
Amendment 27, in schedule 11, page 228, line 41, at end insert “, and
(c) a temporary manager appointed under paragraph 6 of this Schedule.”
This amendment ensures that the list of relevant persons in paragraph 39(3) of Schedule 11 includes temporary managers, for consistency with the bank resolution regime.
Amendment 28, in schedule 11, page 255, line 43, after “EMIR” insert
“where they have a contractual relationship as principal with the CCP”.
This amendment operates on paragraph (d) of the definition of “relevant person”, to limit that group of persons entitled to compensation to those who are direct creditors of the CCP.
Amendment 10, in schedule 11, page 256, line 16, leave out “or 29(3)” and insert “, 29(3), 66(2) or 73(2)”.
This amendment provides that the definition of “residual CCP” applies to properties transferred under paragraphs 66(2) and 73(2) of Schedule 11 (transfers subsequent to resolution instrument and transfers subsequent to share transfer to bridge CCP).
Amendment 29, in schedule 11, page 257, line 43, at end insert—
“(5) An obligation imposed on the residual CCP or a group company under sub-paragraph (2)(d) or (e) continues to apply despite the residual CCP or group company entering insolvency, and may not be disclaimed by a liquidator under section 178(2) of the Insolvency Act 1986 or Article 152(1) of the Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989.”
This amendment provides an equivalent provision to section 64(6) of the Banking Act 2009 (continuity obligations relating to property transfers), to ensure that certain obligations continue to apply despite the residual CCP or group company entering insolvency.
Amendment 11, in schedule 11, page 259, line 25, leave out
“CCP whose business has been transferred”
and insert “transferred CCP”.
This amendment provides the correct terminology in relation to share transfers, to which this provision relates.
Amendment 12, in schedule 11, page 259, line 26, leave out “property” and insert “share”.
This amendment provides the correct terminology in relation to share transfers, to which this provision relates.
Amendment 30, in schedule 11, page 260, line 19, at end insert—
“(5) An obligation imposed on the transferred CCP or a former group company under sub-paragraph (2)(b) or (c) continues to apply despite the transferred CCP or former group company entering insolvency, and may not be disclaimed by a liquidator under section 178(2) of the Insolvency Act 1986 or Article 152(1) of the Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989.”
This amendment provides an equivalent provision to section 67(6) of the Banking Act 2009 (continuity obligations relating to share transfers), to ensure that certain obligations continue to apply despite the residual CCP or former group company entering insolvency.
Amendment 13, in schedule 11, page 267, line 2, leave out “or onward” and insert “, onward, bridge or subsequent”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 14.
Amendment 14, in schedule 11, page 267, line 3, after “50,” insert “52, 66,”.
This amendment adds to the list of instruments in paragraph 105(6) to include instruments made under paragraphs 52 (bridge CCP: share transfers) and 66 (property transfer subsequent to resolution instrument).
Amendment 15, in schedule 11, page 267, line 5, leave out “or onward” and insert “, onward, bridge or subsequent”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 14.
Amendment 31, in schedule 11, page 299, line 30, at end insert—
“(g) the Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (S.I. 1989/2405 (N.I. 19));
(b) the Company Directors Disqualification (Northern Ireland) Order 2002 (S.I. 2002/3150 (N.I. 4)).”—(Andrew Griffith.)
This amendment ensures that the list of relevant enactments in paragraph 165(2) of Schedule 11 includes the relevant Northern Ireland legislation so that the relevant law can be applied consistently across the UK in the event of a resolution of a CCP.
Schedule 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 51
Insurers in financial difficulties
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 32 and 33.
That schedule 12 be the Twelfth schedule to the Bill.
That schedule 13 be the Thirteenth schedule to the Bill.
Andrew Griffith
Clause 51 introduces schedules 12 and 13. The UK insurance industry is the largest in Europe and the fourth largest in the world, managing investments of more than £1.8 trillion. It is an incredibly important part of our financial services sector. The UK’s insurance sector is robustly regulated and supervised, well capitalised and resilient to shocks; as a result, insurer insolvency is uncommon. However, as the UK is a global financial centre, the Government are through the Bill enhancing the powers available to the authorities to manage an insurer in financial distress. That will strengthen protections for policyholders and mitigate potential value destruction when an insurer fails.
Schedule 12 makes provision for the powers of the court in relation to the liabilities of an insurer that is, or is likely to become, unable to pay its debts. I will describe its key provisions. The schedule defines an order made in the exercise of such powers as a write-down order, which involves reducing the value of an insurer’s contracts. It makes amendments to FSMA that are designed to make the new procedure more viable for an ailing insurer.
Part 2 of the schedule introduces the new role of a write-down manager—an officer of the court who will monitor a write-down. The manager will consider, on an ongoing basis, whether a write-down remains likely to lead to a better outcome for an insurer’s creditors and policyholders than if the write-down were not in effect.
Part 4 of the schedule provides for the PRA to amend its rules governing the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, requiring the scheme to provide top-up payments to certain policyholders affected by write-down orders. This safeguard aims to ensure that FSCS-protected policyholders are not worse off following a write-down than they would have been in insolvency.
Amendments 32 and 33 ensure that the drafting meets full policy intent. Amendment 32 ensures that the moratorium on legal proceedings does not interfere with certain collateral and security arrangements among participants in the financial markets. It also provides the Treasury with the power to amend the list of exclusions, which is given legal force by amendment 33. Both amendments mirror exclusions and a similar power to amend the exclusions contained in schedule 13.
Schedule 13 inserts proposed new schedule 19C into FSMA. It introduces provisions for the enforcement of contracts while an insurer is undergoing a write-down or certain insolvency proceedings. The changes are intended to provide certainty and stability to an ailing insurer’s financial position. The schedule defines “financial difficulties” and provides for restrictions on policyholder surrender rights when an insurer is judged to be in such difficulties.
Surrender rights allow policyholders to surrender life insurance contracts in exchange for cash value. Annual withdrawals of up to 5% of the policy value will continue to be permitted. The provisions will mitigate against the possibility of mass surrenders by policyholders, which could further destabilise an insurer in financial difficulties. However, part 2 of schedule 13 also enables specific parties, including the court, to consent to a surrender when satisfied that not doing so would cause hardship to a person.
Part 3 of schedule 13 provides that while an insurer is in financial difficulties, relevant contracts to which the insurer is party cannot terminate because the insurer is in financial difficulties. That seeks to mitigate the risk of value destruction, business disruption, policyholder harm and cost arising from the contracts being terminated.
Andrew Griffith
The clauses contain a mix of substantive and technical amendments to FSMA, which lists the functions and responsibilities of the FCA and the PRA and requires them to perform them in line with their statutory objectives and principles. Clause 52 adds to that list the responsibilities conferred on the PRA and FCA by the Bill and any functions conferred on them by future regulations made under the Bill.
On clause 53, currently, except in a few specific circumstances, the FCA and the PRA cannot use their disciplinary powers against firms that committed misconduct when they were authorised if they cease to be authorised. That means that if a firm has committed misconduct while authorised, and that comes to light only once the firm has ceased to be authorised, the regulators cannot take disciplinary action. It also means that when an authorised firm is under investigation for misconduct, the regulators must sometimes choose to maintain the firm’s authorisation to preserve the ability to sanction it following the conclusion of the investigation. To address that, the clause will enable the FCA and the PRA to take action against unauthorised firms in relation to misconduct that occurred while they were authorised.
Clause 54 enables the regulators to impose conditions on new controllers of financial services firms when to do so would advance their statutory objectives. That fills a gap in the regime identified by the PRA and the Treasury Committee in its Greensill inquiry. It will give the regulators more flexibility to manage changes of control in a way that they consider appropriate with reference to their statutory objectives.
Clause 55 makes two minor technical changes to the legal framework governing the Financial Services Compensation Scheme. The Office for National Statistics reclassified the FSCS as a public financial auxiliary in 2020. To reflect that change and bring the FSCS in line with other public financial auxiliaries, clause 55 removes both the requirement for the FSCS to have an accounting officer and the Treasury’s power to require certain information in connection with accounts.
Clauses 56 and 57 are necessary to reflect the regulators’ additional rule-making responsibilities when retained EU law is repealed. Under the comprehensive FSMA model of regulation that the Bill enables, the direct regulatory requirements that apply to firms will generally be in regulators’ rulebooks rather than set out in legislation.
Clause 56 inserts proposed new section 141B to FSMA, giving the Treasury the power to make consequential changes to legislation to reflect changes to regulator rules. At the moment, domestic and EU legislation sometimes makes reference to regulator rules; the power will ensure that the legislative framework remains up to date and consistent if those rules change. It is a consequential power only.
Clause 57 enables the Treasury and regulators to make ambulatory references to regulator rules and domestic legislation respectively. That means that when the Treasury references regulator rules in secondary legislation, it can do so in such a way that the references will automatically update to refer to the current version of the rules whenever the regulator updates them, thereby ensuring that the regulator rulebooks and the legislation will remain consistent over time, without the need for constant amendments in response to respective changes.
Clause 58 allows the Treasury to amend and repeal provisions in part 9C of FSMA that were introduced by the Financial Services Act 2021, which dealt with the immediate post-Brexit priorities for financial services, including by implementing the latest Basel standards, while the wider approach to regulation was considered as part of the Government’s future regulatory framework review.
Sections 143C and 143D of FSMA create duties for the FCA to establish the investment firm’s prudential regime, and section 143G requires the FCA to have regard to certain matters when making rules as part of that regime. Those provisions will be replaced by the general approach to obligations and “have regards” that the Bill introduces, which the Committee has already considered. Clause 58 enables those sections to be amended to avoid duplication.
Clause 59 introduces small technical amendments to two provisions of FSMA that cover transitional arrangements. The amendments ensure that an existing power to make transitional arrangements under sections 426 and 427 of FSMA is updated to correctly refer to the current regulators—the FCA and the PRA—and is available to the Bank of England when it is acting as a FSMA regulator. I recommend that the clauses stand part of the Bill.
Tulip Siddiq
We welcome this series of technical clauses, but I have two questions for the Minister. First, will he set out what disciplinary action regulators could take under clause 53 against firms that are no longer authorised? Secondly, on clause 55, the Transparency Task Force has recommended the creation of a financial regulators’ supervisory council, which would have a number of roles, including appointing and overseeing the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, to ensure greater independence. If the Minister is aware of that proposal, what assessment has he made of it? If he is not, I would be happy to hear his thoughts about it after the sitting.
Andrew Griffith
I thank the hon. Lady for those points. The powers that the regulators will have in relation to formerly authorised firms will mirror those that they have in relation to authorised firms: they will have the full range of powers to seek information and to impose sanctions, remedies and conduct. The substantive purpose of the measures is to ensure that those powers are not extinguished at the moment a firm becomes unauthorised.
I am not familiar with the detail of the proposal for a financial supervisory board that the hon. Lady mentioned, but we have a good framework for the supervision of financial regulators. I and the Government will always be interested in any practical suggestions to enhance that without duplication and unnecessary obfuscation about where true responsibilities lie.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 52 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 53 to 59 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Joy Morrissey.)
Financial Services and Markets Bill (Eighth sitting)
Tuesday 1st November 2022
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesFinancial Services and Markets Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 1 November 2022 - (1 Nov 2022)
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Andrew Griffith)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma.
Clauses 60 and 61 deliver on the Government’s commitment to replace the Bank of England’s cash ratio deposit scheme with a new Bank of England levy. Under the cash ratio deposit scheme, banks and building societies with over £600 million in eligible liabilities must place a portion of their deposits with the Bank on a non-interest-bearing basis. The Bank then invests the deposits, and the income generated is used to fund the costs of the Bank’s monetary policy and financial stability functions.
However, the Bank of England’s policy remit and policy responsibilities have grown in recent years, and the cash ratio deposit scheme has not generated the income required to fully fund those functions. As a result, the shortfall has been funded by the Bank’s capital and reserves. Clause 60 replaces the scheme with a new Bank of England levy, repeals the provisions governing the cash ratio deposit scheme in the Bank of England Act 1998, and inserts new section 6A and new schedule 2ZA into the Act.
As with the cash ratio deposit scheme, the new levy will fund the Bank’s financial stability and monetary policy activities. The same eligible financial institutions participating in the cash ratio deposit scheme will pay the levy, with contributions proportionate to their size. Each year, the Bank will be required to publish information setting out the policy functions that it intends to fund through the levy, and the amount that it intends to levy.
The Bank will remain subject to National Audit Office value-for-money reviews to ensure that it remains cost-effective. The levy will deliver a more reliable and stable funding stream to the Bank, and banks and building societies will benefit from greater certainty about the size of their annual contributions towards those functions. Secondary legislation will be introduced in due course to set out further details of the operationalisation of the levy, including how institutions’ contributions will be determined. The Treasury will consult on the draft legislation and has committed to review it every five years.
Clause 61 simply makes a number of consequential amendments to the Bank of England Act 1998 that are required to reflect the new levy. The levy will provide greater certainty to the Bank, as well as to financial institutions. I therefore recommend that clauses 60 and 61 stand part of the Bill.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
The operation of the cash ratio deposit scheme referred to in clauses 60 and 61 is subject to changes in two variables—the gilt rate and the size of deposits eligible for the scheme—so I have two quick questions for the Minister. How did the recent crisis in the gilt market affect the Bank of England’s income under the scheme, and how has the recent crisis in the gilt market, and the subsequent actions taken by the Bank, informed Government thinking on clauses 60 and 61?
Andrew Griffith
There is not a direct relationship between the recent turbulence in the gilt market and the Bank. The clauses will deliver a more reliable income stream to the Bank to fund its activities, because it will receive a levy rather than the income on the difference between interest-free deposits—the money that it gets from levy payers—and the returns that the Bank is able to harness from them.
The current scheme was set up in an environment of higher rates, when higher yields were obtainable. The recent experience over many years of much lower levels of return is the reason why the Bank has not been able to fully finance its activities simply from those interest-free deposits. I hope that answers the hon. Lady’s question.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 60 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 61 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 62
Liability of payment service providers for fraudulent transactions
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Andrew Griffith
Clause 62 enables and requires the Payment Systems Regulator to take action to improve the reimbursement of victims of authorised push payment scams, or APP scams as they are commonly known. APP scams occur when someone is tricked into sending their money to a fraudster. Almost 200,000 cases of these scams were recorded in 2021, with known losses to victims totalling £583 million. Sadly, fraudsters often target the most vulnerable people in our society.
Under the European regulatory system that we have inherited, there is no statutory or regulatory requirement for payment service providers to reimburse victims of these scams. We need to do better and we can do better for victims of fraud in the UK.
Although the creation of a voluntary industry reimbursement code has improved matters, reimbursement outcomes for victims have been inconsistent and only around half the money stolen is being reimbursed. As a result, many victims are left facing significant losses; in the worst cases, victims lose their life savings.
We recognise these issues and so clause 62 does two things. First, it removes legal barriers in retained EU law that currently prevent regulatory action by the PSR. That will finally enable the PSR to mandate reimbursement in any payment system under its supervision.
The PSR has the relevant expertise, powers and objectives to tackle this crucial issue. However, regulation 90 of the Payment Service Regulations 2017, which form part of retained EU law, prevents the PSR from using its powers to require reimbursement. Therefore, clause 62(11) amends regulation 90 of the 2017 regulations to remove the existing legislative barrier to regulatory action. That will enable the PSR to use its relevant powers in relation to APP scam reimbursement across any payment system designated for regulation by the PSR.
Secondly, clause 62 places a specific duty on the PSR to take action in relation to the faster payments service. This service is the main UK instant payment system and is currently the payment system within which the highest volume of APP fraud is committed. Therefore, action is needed in this regard as a priority.
Clause 62 places a duty on the PSR to consult on a draft of the regulatory requirement in relation to the faster payments service within two months of this legislation coming into force, and the PSR must impose the requirement within six months of the clause coming into force. In 2021, 97% of APP scams occurred across the faster payments service, because it is the UK’s main payment system for instant consumer-bank transfers. Therefore, by requiring the PSR to take action in relation to the faster payments service, the legislation will improve outcomes in the vast majority of APP scam cases.
As a result of the clause and subsequent regulatory action, consumers will be more consistently and comprehensively protected when they fall victim to an APP scam. This is a vital measure to ensure that customers are protected amid the growing threat posed by APP fraud.
I therefore recommend that the clause stand part of the Bill.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
Labour fully supports clause 62, which enhances protection for victims of authorised push payment schemes, but we are deeply disappointed that the Bill does nothing to strengthen fraud prevention.
When asked about fraud in February, the former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng), claimed that fraud and scams are not something that
“people experience in their daily lives”,
which is tone-deaf. Essentially, he dismissed crime as inconsequential. In the real world, countless lives have been destroyed by fraud and scams, and I am sure the Minister will have examples from constituents in his inbox. There is a new Chancellor now, but the lack of ambition in this Bill on fraud shows that the Government’s approach to fraud remains the same. We will debate my new clause 6 on broader strategies for tackling fraud later, but I want to focus on the inadequacies of the provisions in clause 62.
UK Finance has estimated that the amount of money stolen directly from the bank accounts of hard-working families and businesses through fraud and scams has hit a record high of £1.3 billion. That is bad at the best of times, but it is even worse in the midst of a deepening cost of living crisis. That is because the Government have failed to get to grips with new types of fraud, such as identity theft and online scams, which have seen people’s life savings stolen and their economic security put at risk. I ask the Minister to explain why his Government continue to fail to take fraud seriously and continue to push responsibility on to just the banks. For example, the Bill ignores the fact that digitally savvy criminals are increasingly exploiting a range of financial institutions, such as payment system operators, electric money institutions and crypto asset firms, to scam the public.
In its written evidence to the Committee, Santander UK stated:
“Bringing crypto-exchanges into the scope of the Payment Systems Regulator’s powers to mandate reimbursement for APP fraud would be consistent with the principle of ‘same risk, same regulation’ and would introduce important new protections for consumers in area where risk of fraud is significant.”
I ask the Minister to explain why clause 62 completely ignores the emerging fraud and scam risk that EMIs and crypto asset firms pose to the public. What is his response to Santander’s evidence? Barclays similarly asked for clause 62 to be amended to expand the reimbursement protections beyond faster payments scheme payments to cover payments made over other relevant payment schemes or systems. Will the Minister explain why the Bill provides only for the reimbursement of fraud victims who send money using the faster payments system and why other payment systems have not been included in the scope of the Bill?
Emma Hardy
In reading the written evidence, there was an interesting cautionary tale from Mobile UK about how the banks introduced two-factor authentication through SMS without speaking to it. It found that fraudsters had worked out that they could get a one-time code by having a duplicate SIM card and intercepting the code sent from the bank, which immediately made me slightly worried about using two-factor authentication text message schemes. Mobile UK was able to find a way around that, but it highlights the need to involve as many stakeholders as possible when looking at fraud.
Mobile UK’s evidence was damning. Its conclusion stated:
“The mobile sector is committed to fighting fraud; the banking sector is clearly also committed, but, from the fraudsters point of view, this is a very low risk crime, as the chances of being pursued are very slim. This has to change.”
I recognise that some of these points are outside the scope of the Bill, as they would involve policing, investment and national crime agencies, but there are lots more things that could be done in the Bill to deal with fraud.
In its written evidence, Barclays said it welcomed that all payments made over FPS are covered by the new protection, but that it
“would note there are other relevant commonly used payment schemes and systems that should benefit from the same protection—for example, the CHAPs payment scheme, and ‘on us’ payments… The Bill should therefore be amended to give the PSR power to require participants in other payment schemes to reimburse scam victims.”
That seems to be incredibly sensible advice from Barclays.
It was echoed in the evidence given by Which?:
“to avoid gaps in protections the PSR should also be required to work with other regulators to introduce reimbursement requirements, including for payments made between accounts held with the same bank or payment provider (which are regulated by the FCA) and for the CHAPs payment system used for high-value transactions”.
That is exactly the same as what Barclays said.
There seems to be a lot of consensus among consumer representative groups such as Which? and in the banking sector about broadening out the provisions, looking at other ways in which fraudsters are working, and dealing with the issues raised by Mobile UK. At the moment, the people who are committing these frauds seem to be getting away with it.
Andrew Griffith
I will be brief. We all join hands in taking any action that we can against fraudsters. It is a terrible crime, and one that is on the rise, and the Government will do everything in our power to take action.
I say to the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn that I will take no lessons from the Opposition on fraud. The impediment to cracking down on this issue lies solely within EU law. It is this Government that have withdrawn from the European Union—a policy that her party now belatedly supports, but did not for many years. It is only by bringing forward this legislation and withdrawing from the European Union that we are able to put in place clause 62.
Andrew Griffith
I will happily give way to my colleague, who I think, unlike the Opposition, still wants to be part of the European Union.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
Definitely. Is the Minister therefore saying that the European Union was promoting fraud within the financial framework of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? Is that what he just said?
Andrew Griffith
I wish the hon. Gentleman was attentive to what I was saying. That was not what I said; I did not use the word “promote” in any way. I said it was an impediment. Clause 62 addresses the fact that under retained EU law, it is not possible to take the action that we wish to take on push payment fraud. That is a fact, and that is why we came forward with the Bill. There are many other things the Government are doing outwith the Bill to tackle fraud, and I will happily sit down and talk with anybody—and meet with any party—who has practical suggestions to tackle fraud.
Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
The Minister is reasonably new to his post, but will he look at the Treasury Committee’s report on fraud, which contains a great deal of very practical things the Government could do to crack down on what is a growing problem? Everybody recognises that the anti-fraud authorities—the people who are trying to fight this—are very fragmented, there is no co-ordination across the piece and there is very little enforcement of the laws that are already there. That is why fraud is a growing problem—the rewards are so fantastic and the risks that fraudsters take are so miniscule that no fraudster is ever put off by the thought that they might get caught.
Tulip Siddiq
UK Finance found that fraud has hit a new high under this Government. Is the Minister going to blame the EU, once again, for that record high? Would he like me to send him the UK Finance report?
Andrew Griffith
I am sorely tempted, but I will resist the urge to rise to that.
If my officials can find the report to which the hon. Member for Wallasey refers, I will look at it, and outwith the Bill, I will ensure that our efforts are equal to the task. I accept that fraud is rising, and in particular that this level of fraud is rising. That is facilitated by both online technology—there are other measures outwith the Bill to tackle and police the unregulated online world—and, as we heard earlier, the shift from cash, which suffered from its own forms of fraud and theft, into a more digital world.
Emma Hardy
Will the Minister refer to the specific examples that Barclays and Which? raised around CHAPS payment and other payments? If he is unable to give a full response today, I hope that he will consider before Report whether we could extend some of the provisions in the clause to cover the specifics that Barclays and Which? raised.
Andrew Griffith
I can confirm to the Committee that, because the measure relates to all payment systems that fall within the remit of the Payment Systems Regulator, the measure is not confined solely to fast payment. Fast payment makes up about 97% of reported fraud—those are UK Finance figures—so of course it makes sense for it to be the first in our sights, but the clause will follow fraud and payment systems as they evolve. That is its whole purpose. It is not confined simply to the faster payment system. If that is the understanding that Barclays and Which? have, we should correct it, because any of the PSR-designated platforms are in scope.
Tulip Siddiq
The Bill provides for the reimbursement of fraud victims who send money using the faster payment system. Is the Minister saying that other payment systems are included in the scope of the Bill?
Andrew Griffith
Yes. If that is not correct, I will write to members of the Committee, but my understanding is that all the measures that we have been talking about cover the scope of the Payment Systems Regulator.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 62 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 63
Credit unions
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss that schedule 14 be the Fourteenth schedule to the Bill.
Andrew Griffith
The Government are a strong supporter of the mutuals sector, and recognise the unique role that credit unions play in their communities. Clause 63 introduces schedule 14, which makes amendments to the Credit Unions Act 1979—a particularly good year—to allow credit unions in Great Britain to offer a wider range of products and services, thereby supporting the growth, diversification and development of the sector.
The Credit Unions Act 1979 sets out the regulatory framework for credit unions and specifies the products and services that they can provide. Schedule 14 adds proposed new subsection (3ZZA) to section 1 of the Act, introducing a new optional object, or objective, for credit unions, which specifies additional products and services that they may now choose to offer. The services included are hire purchase agreements, conditional sale agreements, and insurance distribution services. When the Association of British Credit Unions Ltd consulted the sector in 2019, those were the additional products and services that credit unions wanted to be able to offer their members. In order to offer those additional products and services, credit unions must obtain permission from the Prudential Regulation Authority or the Financial Conduct Authority in the same way as other providers, and of course secure approval from their members.
Schedule 14 also grants the Treasury a power to add further products or services to the new object via a statutory instrument. That will ensure that the Government can continue to support credit unions in Great Britain to expand into other areas. The schedule also adds proposed new section 11E to the 1979 Act, which makes provision in relation to those new products and services. It caps the interest that a credit union can charge on hire purchase agreements and conditional sale agreements at 3% per month. That cap already applies to loans offered by credit unions.
The schedule gives the Government the power to amend the cap in the future via secondary legislation. The Government already have that power in relation to other credit union products and services. It allows the cap to keep pace with changes in the economic environment and allows credit unions to offer hire purchase agreements, or conditional sale agreements, to corporate members, subject to member agreement. The aggregate outstanding balance that can be owed to corporate members is capped at 10% of a credit union’s total aggregate balance under those agreements.
The Bill also makes provision for a credit union’s ability to lend to and borrow from other credit unions. Section 11 of the 1979 Act will be amended to clarify that credit unions may offer loans to other credit unions, regardless of whether they have a membership link. That will further support the growth, diversification and development of the sector.
The Bill introduces a requirement for credit unions to submit annual returns to the FCA, and to be subject to the “year of account” provisions in the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies Act 2014. Those amendments will ensure greater regulatory oversight and support good corporate governance practices. Together, clause 63 and schedule 14 will support the credit union sector to grow sustainably for years to come, and help them to expand their reach as providers of affordable credit. I therefore recommend that clause 63 and schedule 14 stand part of the Bill.
Tulip Siddiq
Clause 63 contains some welcome and long-overdue provisions, such as enabling credit unions to offer a wide range of products. However, I do not think the Bill does much to address the outdated regulatory regime facing credit unions as a whole. We will discuss Labour’s proposals to address that, and the barriers facing the wider co-operative and mutual financial services sector, when we debate new clauses 7 and 8.
However, for now, I will push the Minister on some of the areas where the Building Societies Association—and others—has called for bolder action in its written submission to the Committee. First, why do clause 63 and schedule 12 not relax the same-household requirements for family members? Secondly, why does the Bill fail to restrict access to the register of members, in line with best practice for the protection of members’ personal data?
Martin Docherty-Hughes
I agree with the official Opposition on clause 63. I must say, we have talked about 1979, but I would mention 1977, when the Dalmuir Credit Union was opened, and I was number 501 with a membership card, around the age of six, on the church hall stage.
I am very aware of the good works that credit unions such as Dalmuir, Dumbarton and Vale of Leven do in my constituency, and, I am sure, across other Members’ constituencies, but I share the concerns expressed by the official Opposition about the existing infrastructure. I hope that the Minister can say something to alleviate concerns about that existing framework—not only for credit unions but for other local banks, which have been diminished over the past couple of years—and about how the legislation helps to grow this sector of mutual financial support in local communities. We know our banks and post offices are closing, but the credit unions, especially, can be a good cause on which we can all agree.
Andrew Griffith
I thank the hon. Members for West Dunbartonshire and for Hampstead and Kilburn for raising those points. I look forward to hearing the debates about the new clauses that have been tabled.
The Government are on the side of credit unions. We would like to see the mutual and co-operative movement flourish. We need more diversity, affordable options and access to credit. The Government introduced this clause with the absolute intention of helping to expand the range and create more economic opportunities for those bodies. If we have, in some way, fallen short of what could be achieved, I look forward to hearing more about that. I cannot comment on the specific point made by the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn about sharing households and data, so perhaps she would allow me the courtesy of writing to her afterwards if I can find out anything about those points.
This Bill is part of a wider set of measures. On Friday, we discussed on the Floor of the House a Bill to help to prevent the demutualisation that has reduced the number of mutuals in recent years. I was pleased to give Government support to that Bill. There is an ongoing conversation with the Law Commission on the options to review the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies Act 2014 and the Friendly Societies Act 1992. There is a very good case for looking at modernising the legislation in this sector.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 63 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 14 agreed to.
Clause 64
Reinsurance for acts of terrorism
Andrew Griffith
This clause is targeted to support the effective management and oversight of money on the public accounts. It confers on the Treasury a power to issue a direction in order to oblige public sector bodies extended a guarantee under the Reinsurance (Acts of Terrorism) Act 1993 to comply with the necessary controls so that money on the public accounts is managed appropriately.
The power will be a safeguard to ensure that public sector bodies within scope comply with the requirements expected of a public sector body, in line with Government policy and the expectations of Parliament. The clause also confers a specific power to direct such bodies to appoint an accounting officer.
Ultimately, ensuring compliance with these requirements will provide value for money, probity, regularity and propriety in the public sector bodies within scope. The ability to issue a direction is a backstop power that will only be used if the relevant body does not comply with the requirements expected of a public sector body.
The new power is similar to powers the Treasury already has to issue directions to central Government Departments in relation to their estimates and accounts. For transparency and accountability, the clause also requires the Treasury to publish and lay any given direction before Parliament.
Emma Hardy
As well as my campaign for financial inclusion, I am sure Members will have heard me talk about flooding. I have not tabled an amendment to the clause, but I might be minded to in order to have a further conversation in future.
The clause addresses reinsurance for acts of terrorism. Has the Minister explored looking at reinsurance for acts of flooding? We have the Flood Re scheme, as I am sure he is aware, but that only applied up to 2007 and properties built after that are not included, nor does it apply to businesses. With this welcome move to consider reinsurance for acts of terrorism, has the Minister thought about other aspects, specifically flooding?
Tulip Siddiq
We welcome clause 64. I support the principle of the Treasury guaranteeing support for reinsurance in the event of a terrorist attack, but how will the provisions in the clause ensure that the taxpayer is adequately protected from such risks? How will the Treasury hold any public sector body to account regarding the requirements in the clause? Will the Minister provide some detail on the role of the accounting officer, in terms of ensuring that public sector bodies have sufficient oversight of the requirements of the clause?
Andrew Griffith
On the point about flooding, that is simply outwith the scope of the Bill. The Flood Re scheme is the responsibility of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and it is not something that falls under this Bill or the Acts I have mentioned.
The role of the accounting officer is the same as colloquially accepted in any public body—the person responsible for maintaining financial records and owning that liability. The governance remains with the board of directors of the relevant body and the duty to the taxpayer is exactly the same as it would be. The clause effectively gives step-in rights or the power to direct in particular circumstances. It does not alter where the core cost and liability start and should remain.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 64 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 65
Banking Act 2009: miscellaneous amendments
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 66 stand part.
Government amendments 5 to 7.
Clauses 67 to 69 stand part.
Government amendment 8.
Clauses 70 and 71 stand part.
Government amendment 23.
Clauses 72 and 73 stand part.
Government new clause 13—Chair of the Payment Systems Regulator as member of FCA Board.
Andrew Griffith
First, I shall speak to new clause 13 and Government amendment 23, which appear in my name, before speaking to clauses 65 to 73 and Government amendments 5 to 8, which also appear in my name.
New clause 13 adds the chair of the Payment Systems Regulator to the board of the FCA. Since the PSR was established in 2014, the roles of the PSR chair and the FCA chair were performed by the same person. As a result, the PSR chair has always been on the FCA board. However, the FCA chair and the PSR chair roles will now be performed by separate individuals, following the appointment of Ashley Alder as the FCA chair in July 2022. The composition of the FCA board is set out in the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, and the new clause adds the PSR chair to the FCA board. This will help continued effective co-operation between the FCA and the PSR. Government amendment 23 provides for those changes to come into effect two months after Royal Assent.
Clause 65 makes five minor but necessary technical amendments to the Banking Act 2009, to ensure that it continues to function as intended. Clause 66 sets out a small number of definitions to ensure that the provisions of the Bill are interpreted correctly.
Turning to clause 67, the Bill makes a number of changes to the matters that the regulators must consider when they consult on rules. In particular, the Bill introduces a new growth and international competitiveness objective and a new regulatory principle to consider the Government’s net zero target. The clause allows the regulators to fulfil their obligations to consider such matters in consultations that are published before the Bill receives Royal Assent. That means that the regulators can begin acting to meet all their new consultation obligations in this Bill as soon as they are ready to do so, avoiding any unnecessary delays to important regulatory reforms.
Government amendments 5, 6 and 7, which appear in my name, widen the effect of clause 67 to include any obligation to consult introduced by the Bill. That includes, for example, the obligation for the FCA and the PRA to consult their cost-benefit analysis panels.
Clause 68 provides for any expenditure incurred under the Bill to be paid out of money provided by Parliament in the usual way. Clause 69 empowers the Treasury to make consequential changes to other legislation, to ensure that the provisions in this Bill function effectively where they interact with existing legislation. The Treasury will be required to use the affirmative procedure to make consequential provisions that amend, repeal or revoke any provision of primary legislation. That will ensure that there is appropriate parliamentary scrutiny of the exercise of this power.
Clause 70 provides for powers delegated by the Bill to be exercised by statutory instrument. The clause also allows the Treasury to make regulations under this Bill that include ambulatory references to rules and other instruments. Government amendment 8 makes a technical change to clause 70 to ensure that the power to restate and modify saved legislation can rely on the power to make ambulatory references provided for by the clause.
Clauses 71 to 73 are technical in nature. Respectively, they set out the territorial extent of the Bill, when provisions in the Bill will come into force, and the short title of the Bill. I therefore recommend that clauses 65 to 73 stand part of the Bill, and commend Government amendments 5, 6, 7, 8 and 23 and new clause 13 to the Committee.
Tulip Siddiq
I will go through the clauses in this group and ask my questions in turn.
Clause 65 will give the Treasury powers to consider whether a payment system using digital settlement assets or a digital settlement asset service provider is likely to threaten financial stability and should therefore be considered for recognition. How will the Treasury consult the Bank of England when making such a decision? How will the Treasury ensure that the Bank has the expertise it needs to have effective oversight of the operators of a new digital settlement asset or recognised payment system?
I understand that clause 67 and associated Government amendments 5, 6 and 7 would mean that all consultation duties arising from the Bill can be met by consultations made before commencement. The Minister can correct me if my understanding is wrong, but will the Government ensure that this does not result in consultations becoming mere tick-box exercises, with no real impact on the design or implementation of the reforms?
We welcome new clause 13, which will enable better integration across the Payment Systems Regulator and the FCA. What does the Minister hope to achieve with this provision, and how will the FCA and the Payment Systems Regulator be held to account against it? I just want a bit more detail from the Minister on this clause. How will the Treasury guarantee that there are adequate safeguards in place to ensure that the chair of the Payment Systems Regulator does not influence FCA decisions where it may not be appropriate?
Finally, the Minister might not be aware of this, but there are rumours in the press that the Government were exploring merging the Payment Systems Regulator and the FCA. They might just be rumours, but that would be an absolute disaster for consumer protection, so will the Minister, if he has heard these rumours—or if he is the source of them—confirm that the Government have no plans to merge the regulators?
Andrew Griffith
I will write to the hon. Lady about digital settlement assets, in order to try and fully understand what she was pushing at with her question.
On clause 67 and the amendment, the propensity to consult in this space is extremely prevalent, because of the need and desire to get the practitioner and the consumer voice fully represented. Indeed, the hon. Lady and I could both spend a large proportion of our lives responding to the many consultations that are held. However, I have seen no evidence whatever that those consultations are merely tick-box exercises, and I can assure her that that is not the intention. I look forward to engaging with those consultations as we go through this, as they are a fundamental part of the regulatory structure.
On new clause 13 and the chair of the PSR being on the FCA board, I think the hon. Lady mostly welcomed that as an opportunity for the two regulators to work closely together. As I explained, that is de facto the status quo. To the extent that there were any conflicts, I would expect the responsibility to manage and police those conflicts to lie primarily with the chair of the board, as it would in any board. That said, I want a Payment Systems Regulator and a Financial Conduct Authority that work hand in hand, cheek by jowl. I do not anticipate many examples of where we would see conflicts. What we want is effective close working together, as more and more of the systemic risk in the financial system sits with payment service providers.
I have not seen rumours of a PSR and FCA merger. Of course, the PSR effectively emerged from the FCA. It is certainly not my intention to merge them, nor am I aware of any proposals to do so. If anything, by establishing the PSR chair as a separate body or separate person, those two organisations are actually become strong siblings rather than being forced together. That is my understanding.
Tulip Siddiq
The rumours were in the press and the sector was quite worried about it. I appreciate the Minister’s clarification of his position.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 65 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 66 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 67
Pre-commencement consultation
Amendments made: 5, in clause 67, page 81, line 2, leave out “relevant”.
This amendment, read with Amendments 6 and 7, broadens the effect of clause 67 so that it applies to all consultation duties arising under the Bill rather than only those duties specifically mentioned in subsection (3) of that clause.
Amendment 6, in clause 67, page 81, line 7, leave out “relevant”.
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 5.
Amendment 7, in clause 67, page 81, line 9, leave out subsection (3).—(Andrew Griffith.)
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 5.
Clause 67, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 68 and 69 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 70
Regulations
Amendment made: 8, in clause 70, page 82, line 17, at end insert
“, except so far as making provision by virtue of section 4(1)”.—(Andrew Griffith.)
This amendment ensures that clause 4(1) of the Bill (power to restate and modify saved legislation) is within the scope of clause 70 for the purpose of being able to rely on the powers in clause 70, when making regulations by virtue of clause 4(1).
Clause 70, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 71 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 72
Commencement
Amendment made: 23, in clause 72, page 82, line 35, at end insert—
“(aa) section (Chair of the Payment Systems Regulator as member of the FCA Board);”.—(Andrew Griffith.)
This amendment provides for NC13 to come into force two months after Royal Assent.
Clause 72, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 73 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Joy Morrissey.)
Financial Services and Markets Bill (Ninth sitting)
Thursday 3rd November 2022
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesFinancial Services and Markets Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 3 November 2022 - (3 Nov 2022)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I wish to say from the beginning that I will push the new clause to a vote. I move the new clause in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy). As we heard in evidence, buy now, pay later companies offer consumers the opportunity to spread payments, but they remain unregulated. They represent a large, growing and unregulated form of debt, the growth of which was fast-tracked during the pandemic. Because the loans are initially interest free, consumers lack the key consumer credit protections they receive with other products, which potentially puts them at risk.
We know that buy now, pay later products drive people to spend more money because the providers tell us so. That risks pushing people to spend money that they do not have, without adequate protection against mis-selling. In the cost of living crisis, millions more consumers have turned to this form of credit to make ends meet. As with all forms of high-cost credit, regulation is critical to ensuring that buy now, pay later can be a constructive way for consumers to manage their financial situations.
Labour put forward a proposal to that effect in 2020, which the Government voted down. In 2021, the Financial Conduct Authority called for regulation, and the Government did a U-turn. Now, over two years later, consumers are still waiting for those vital protections, but there is little sign that the Government recognise the urgency to act. In the meantime, the industry has rapidly expanded, so the risks to consumers have grown, which has further increased the need to intervene.
In 2021, Citizens Advice reported that 41% of buy now, pay later users had struggled to make a repayment. One in 10 have been chased by debt collectors, rising to one in eight among young people. Some 25% have fallen behind on another household bill in order to pay a buy now, pay later bill. Those effects of this form of credit were echoed in research by StepChange. Its data shows that 40% of buy now, pay later customers took negative coping actions to cover the debt that they had accrued through this service, including using credit to repay credit, falling behind on housing payments or utility bills, asking family or friends for help, and cutting back to the point of hardship. The figure is 40% for buy now, pay later and 21% for users of other forms of credit.
With Christmas approaching, it is likely that more consumers will be driven to use buy now, pay later and risk unaffordable debt. Equifax data from Christmas 2021 showed that 9% of Christmas shoppers in 2020 used buy now, pay later to spread the cost of presents, and that a quarter of all 18 to 34-year-olds plan to use buy now, pay later to buy presents this Christmas. Last year, one in five people using buy now, pay later said that they felt pressure to buy presents for family and friends, and roughly a quarter—27%—said that they would struggle to afford Christmas without its help. These trends are only likely to increase. The Equifax data shows that two in five users report missing at least one payment in the past, and half of them say that they have been hit with extra fees as a result.
New clause 1 therefore requires that urgent action be taken now to ensure that consumers are protected against being sold unaffordable debt by these companies. It would ensure that some key protections form part of the regulation. That includes ensuring that buy now, pay later users have access to the Financial Ombudsman Service, that there are credit checks before use, and that users are protected by section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Those changes would bring buy now, pay later products into line with other forms of credit and ensure that our consumer credit landscape could not be pulled apart by other forms of credit demanding bespoke arrangements.
Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
I add my voice to those supporting new clause 1. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle for her speech on this very important issue and my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, who has long campaigned to bring buy now, pay later credit companies into some form of regulation. Obviously, their emergence has been assisted by the shift to online shopping, which we all have experienced and which was turbocharged during the lockdowns.
The consumer credit legislation that protects customers from taking on unaffordable levels of debt and paying over the odds for credit, in a way that is often quite opaque, did not anticipate the existence of online shopping or the explosion in the kind of credit that is now easily available to those who roam the internet or look at TikTok and see lovely things that are just within reach. I speak as someone who has been around for quite a while and whose parents used to put money away in shops so that they could afford Christmas presents, before consumer credit exploded in the way that it did. The Consumer Credit Act tried to make that fair and to regulate it. This is another switch in velocity, capacity and the availability of things, and it is very difficult to discern what the price is when you take something out.
We are now in an instant gratification culture, rather than the place where we said, “Put money away months before and hope you can afford to get the Christmas presents you want for your kids.” It is now a case of instantaneous availability—literally a click on a website. Klarna and various other of the buy now, pay later organisations are everywhere that it is possible to spend money. It is very difficult to imagine how that might be adding up—what the price of it actually is—when a person is in the middle of a purchase, particularly a younger person who is used to that kind of instant availability. It is very difficult for anyone to argue sensibly that the people who are clicking and making those purchases have a good idea of the price of the credit and the burden of the repayments they are taking on.
New clause 1 seeks to bring the new fintech ways of getting access to consumer credit—if I can put it that way—within the existing consumer protections in the Consumer Credit Act 1974, which admittedly is now pretty long in the tooth. Clearly, it is important for those to whom we give the job of protecting consumers to think in detail about how that can best be done, but it is pretty difficult to argue that we should allow the current circumstances to persist. I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say about that.
It is important that people have time to think about what they are doing and that the pricing of credit is obvious at the time of the click, so that people can make genuine decisions and not feel that they have been conned, that the price is wrong or that they have got themselves into a vortex of increasing costs that were not in front of them at the time. The consequences of allowing an entire generation to have access to that kind of consumer credit without protections are too dire to contemplate.
I hope the fact that this Parliament has always put consumer protection at the heart of what it does and legislated for that purpose will prevail, and that the Minister will think about how we can sensibly and quickly bring this part of the growth industry of credit, including consumer credit, into the protected space.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Sharma, for allowing me to contribute to the debate on new clause 1. My colleagues on the Treasury Committee have raised a very interesting and topical subject for us to debate regarding the best way forward. I must declare an interest, as someone who has bought things on the internet and has used this convenient way of paying for them. Clearly, when we have the FCA in front of us, we need to ask how it is approaching regulation in what has been an area of innovation, where fintech has really come to the fore.
It will be very interesting to hear the Minister’s reply to the points that have been raised, and what he sees as the best way forward. That innovation is supporting our retail sector, but at the same time, consumers deserve to know what they are getting into and to have good information when they make decisions. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
I, too, support new clause 1, not because I wish to stop buy now, pay later as a form of credit or to restrict people’s choice, but because I want people to fully understand what they are getting into before they do it. I did not understand what Klarna was. I like the Space NK website as much as the next woman who likes to spend too much money on skin products, but I could not quite understand why all of a sudden, about two years ago, Klarna was mentioned as a means of buying now and paying later. I thought, “How terrifying. If you cannot pay that ridiculous price this month, how are you going to pay that ridiculous price next month?”.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow has done some brilliant work on this issue. Buy now, pay later is the form of credit for the under-30s. They use it more than store cards or credit cards. It is often used on clothing websites, primarily by young women who buy different sizes to see which dress they actually want.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
I rise to support the new clause moved by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle.
Some things do not change. The technology might, but the need for continuation of consumer protection does not. I heard Members talk about parents using buy now, pay later. I remember buying a sideboard with my sister in the ’80s using the old-fashioned financial system of paying money every week—that took a long time to pay back. That reality does not change, and this form of credit is now happening with single items, whether they be trousers or shoes, or make-up, which raises a whole range of diverse issues. We cannot lose sight of the fact that most people who might utilise the service in my constituency might not know that they do not have the appropriate consumer protections. The SNP will support the new clause if it is pushed to a vote.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Sharma. I start by paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, as others have done, for tabling the new clause and for her relentless work in the House to highlight the risks that unsecured credit poses to the most vulnerable in society, including many of my constituents in Kilburn. I also pay tribute to her successful campaign for better regulation of payday loans and companies. I am sure everyone has heard her speak on that campaign in the Chamber at some point.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull and Hessle said, we are disappointed that the Bill has failed to address buy now, pay later regulation. For years, the Government have promised to regulate the sector, but have not done so, which has left millions of consumers without protection. I recognise that many of my constituents, particularly the young, value buy now, pay later products, because they allow people to pay for expensive products over time. However, the products can also result in debt building up quickly and easily. That is why it is so important that the sector is properly regulated, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden outlined.
An investigation by the FCA, the Woolard review, which reported in February last year, found that many consumers simply do not know that buy now, pay later products are a form of credit, which means that some people do not consider the risks associated with taking out such products and may not look at the products as carefully as they might have done otherwise. That should be deeply concerning to all of us here, and it has left the most vulnerable, financially excluded people at risk of getting trapped in a cycle of debt. The review made it clear that there is an urgent need to regulate all buy now, pay later products.
We are almost two years on from the review and nothing has been done—no action has been taken. The Government’s consultation concluded in June, and this Bill was the perfect opportunity to bring forward provisions to regulate the sector. Will the Minister explain why the Government have chosen not to do so? It is not just consumers who are in desperate need of regulation. As shadow City Minister, I have engaged with the main players in the buy now, pay later sector in recent months. They too have called on the Government for proper regulation to provide certainty for businesses and to keep bad actors out of the market. I hope the Minister will explain why his Government have chosen to leave consumers unprotected and have ignored calls from the sector by failing to include this regulation in the Bill today.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Andrew Griffith)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn. I would like to add my recognition for what the hon. Member for Walthamstow has achieved, particularly when it comes to payday loans.
The debate on this clause is not about the ends. Rather, it is about the means and the best way of proceeding from here to an end that, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire, is common to both sides of the Committee. However, there is a difference. The Government will not be supporting this amendment. I want to make it clear that we are trying to find the best path on which to proceed, and we are trying to get this important area right.
The amendment would require the Treasury to make regulations to bring buy now, pay later products into regulation within 28 days of the Bill’s passage. I contend that that would be breakneck speed. I hear and understand the frustration of colleagues that the legislation has taken a certain amount of time to mature, but it is also an innovative product and something that provides real utility to millions of people. It is important that we get this right.
The challenge for us in bringing forward appropriate regulations in this domain is that we must ensure we give no succour to the greater evil of informal or illegal credit. As we look to regulate the credit market, we have to acknowledge that what we do not regulate creates a floor, beneath which nefarious providers operate—for example, those whom the hon. Member for Walthamstow has been vigilant in cracking down on.
I understand the desire to move at pace, but I do not accept that nothing has happened. The FCA has significantly moved the dial on this, although there is more to do. It is our contention that we should do it in a thoughtful way and by consulting with the sector, which is supportive of endeavours to bring forward the right amount of legislation.
We also acknowledge that to many people credit can be a valued lifeline. Like the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire, I remember being sent to do the weekly grocery shop, and that shop provided credit of a buy now, pay later form. As a growing family, and particularly at certain moments of the year, we had a more-than-average amount of groceries. It was a real lifeline. It was a way to spread the cost in a measured way. We should recognise that we must be very careful of the unintended consequences.
Dame Angela Eagle
I am glad to hear that the Minister was helpful to his mother when growing up by doing the grocery shop. He has just made a subtle point about unintended consequences of unregulated lenders—nefarious was the word he used. We would all associate ourselves with that. I wonder if the Minister would talk about speed, given that he does not agree with a month. When does he expect this process to bring forward the wherewithal to incorporate this kind of lending into regulation? Is it his view that the price and consequences of the interest rates that are attached to lending like this should be presented far more upfront when it comes to the button being clicked?
Andrew Griffith
I will address both of those points. In terms of timing, the Government published, as the hon. Member knows, a consultation on the proposed approach to regulation in October 2021; I acknowledge that was some time ago. The response to that consultation was published in June 2022. The Government are now developing the necessary legislation and intend to consult on that draft legislation soon. The Government aim to lay secondary legislation in mid-2023.
The hon. Member talks about price, and I will defer to her expertise if this is the case, but my understanding is that the category that is defined as “buy now, pay later” is required to be credit-provided for no more than 12 months, in no more than 12 instalments, and interest free. So although I am an addict for data, and I believe that transparency is—in most markets—the best oxygen, in this case it is clear and established that this product category is not allowed to charge interest. That does not mean that it does not have charges; there is hidden small print, and I understand and support the need for that.
Dame Angela Eagle
I accept what the Minister has said, but the price here is not an interest rate, it is actually what happens if one does not make the payments. It is the consequences of falling behind that are the issue rather than an interest rate.
Andrew Griffith
I think that the hon. Member and I are at common cause in terms of what we are talking about. To make a wider point, I think we would all understand and aspire to a culture that was “save first, and buy later”. What we are talking about are societal changes. We live in a society where too many people have early recourse to debt and where we perhaps do not have the level of financial education that we would like. That is something that I discussed yesterday with the Money and Pensions Service.
There is a great deal more work to do. I would like to champion that in my relatively new ministerial role. Although it is important that we regulate, and although we have to recognise that, however much we try to work upstream, there will be people who are exploited or simply vulnerable, or who are not operating on the sort of level of financial resilience that they should be. I know the Treasury Committee spends a great deal of time on that; it is a concern to me and the ministerial team in the Treasury. That is an area that we can collaborate and work on; it need not be something that we divide over. That is particularly pertinent to younger people.
As well as committing to move forward with regulation, we commit to do so in a measured way, in the right way and at the right time. That also brings into consideration wider initiatives about financial education in general.
Emma Hardy
I want to press the new clause to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this, it will be convenient to discuss new clause 5—Essential banking services access policy statement—
“(1) The Treasury must lay before the House of Commons an essential banking services access policy statement within six months of the passing of this Act.
(2) An ‘essential banking services access policy statement’ is a statement of the policies of His Majesty’s Government in relation to the provision of adequate levels of access to essential in-person banking services in the United Kingdom.
(3) ‘Essential in-person banking services’ include services which are delivered face-to-face, and may include those provided in banks, banking hubs, or other service models.
(4) The policies mentioned in sub-section (2) may include those which relate to—
(a) ensuring adequate availability of essential in-person banking services;
(b) ensuring adequate provision of support for online banking training and internet access, for the purposes of ensuring access to online banking; and
(c) expectations of maximum geographical distances service users should be expected to travel to access essential in-person banking services in rural areas.
(5) The FCA must have regard to the essential banking services access policy statement when fulfilling its functions.”
This new clause would require the Treasury to publish a policy statement setting out its policies in relation to the provision of essential in-person banking services, including policies relating to availability of essential in-person banking services, support for online banking, and maximum distances people can expect to travel to access services.
Tulip Siddiq
I would like to say from the outset that I will push new clauses 4 and 5 to the vote.
New clause 4 would require the Treasury and the FCA to conduct and publish a review of the community need for, and access to, essential in-person banking services, and enable the FCA to ensure that areas in need of such services receive them, and to make sure that banking services have a minimum level of access.
New clause 5 would require the Treasury to publish a policy statement setting out its policies in relation to the provision of essential in-person banking services, including policies relating to availability of such services, support for online banking and maximum distances that people can expect to travel to access banking services.
Of course Labour welcomes the fact that, after years and years, we finally have a Bill that introduces protection for access to cash. However, the Bill has some serious gaps that we are concerned about. We have already debated in a previous sitting the Government’s failure to guarantee free access to cash, but this Bill also does nothing to protect essential face-to-face banking services, which the most vulnerable people in our society depend on for financial advice and support.
Analysis published by the consumer group Which? found that almost half the UK’s bank branches have closed since 2015. That has cut off countless people from essential services. In its written evidence to us, Age UK called for the Bill to be amended to protect the in-person services that older people rely on, such as the facility to open a new account or apply for a loan, to ensure that banking services can meet their needs.
However, it is not just older people who struggle without support. Natalie Ceeney, chair of the Cash Action Group, who many Committee members will know, warned us at our evidence session of the significant overlap between those who rely on access to cash—around 10 million British adults—and those who need face-to-face support. She said that
“every time I meet a community, the debate goes very quickly from cash to banking. It all merges. The reason is we are talking about the same population.”––[Official Report, Financial Services and Markets Public Bill Committee, 19 October 2022; c. 49, Q98.]
She is completely right: it is the most vulnerable, the poorer people in society and the older members of society, who depend on that extra face-to-face help, for instance in making or receiving payments, or dealing with a standing order. These are the people who will be left behind if this question about banking is left completely unaddressed. Nor should we forget those without the digital skills needed to bank online, people in rural areas with poor internet connection, or the growing number who cannot afford to pay for data or wi-fi as the cost of living crisis deepens.
As the FCA warned in its written evidence to us, the powers granted to the regulator by this Bill do not extend to the provision of wider banking services beyond cash access. That is why I hope the Minister will today commit to supporting new clauses 4 and 5, which will give the FCA the powers it needs to protect essential in-person banking services.
Just to be clear, Labour is not calling for banks to be prevented from closing branches that are no longer needed—far from it. Access to face-to-face services could be delivered through a shared banking hub or other models of community provision. We also recognise that banking systems will inevitably continue to innovate, which is a good thing. Online banking is a far more convenient way for people to make payments and manage their finances. However, we must ensure—indeed, as constituency MPs we have a duty to ensure—that the digital revolution does not further deepen financial exclusion in this country.
That would require protecting face-to-face services and putting in place a proper strategy for digital exclusion and inclusion. Banking hubs or other models of community provision must be part of that solution. These spaces have the potential to tackle digital exclusion through their dedicated staff, who can teach people how to bank online and provide internet access for those without it. I was delighted to hear this week’s announcement from the Cash Action Group that the sector will be launching additional banking hubs on a voluntary basis, but if we want to ensure that no one is left behind—the most vulnerable in our society—these services must be protected by legislation. I ask the Minister to support these two new clauses.
Siobhain McDonagh
I rise to support new clauses 4 and 5, which we know are supported by our constituents. No matter what kind of constituency we represent, whether it is wealthy, rural or urban, people are desperate for face-to-face services. Recently, in Mitcham town centre, Barclays and Halifax have closed. I stood outside both branches for a week during their opening hours, asking customers why they wanted face-to-face services and if they used online banking. In both cases, about 50% of customers had no access to online services, either because they did not know how to access them or were too frightened to use them because they were concerned about being scammed. That is an enormous concern, but it is completely rational and understandable, when we consider how many people are scammed.
This is about those quintessentially un-financial market issues of community and human contact. The closure of our banks and building societies is symptomatic of so much more—of our town centres being destroyed, of people feeling excluded from progress and the new society, and even of their feelings of loneliness. I am not suggesting that it is the banks’ job to resolve issues of loneliness, but we can talk about these issues as much as we like; people crave human contact to give them the confidence to use financial services and their bank accounts.
The branch staff do an enormous amount for our communities by protecting some of our most vulnerable constituents from doing things they really should not do, such as giving their life savings to people who they have never met who have offered to marry them. So much goes on in our banks and building societies, but it is only through the closure of banks in my town centre that I have understood what is really happening. Banks are retreating from branches on the high street but also from phone services. The number of banks that will allow people to do things by phone is reducing. Anyone here who has tried to contact their bank by phone knows that unless they have a significant amount of credit on their phone, they will not get through any time soon.
Emma Hardy
I thank my hon. Friend for the incredible speech that she is making. Looking at the Royal National Institute of Blind People briefing, does she agree how important it is for visually impaired or blind people to be able to access telephone and face-to-face banking services?
Siobhain McDonagh
Absolutely. As always, I agree with my hon. Friend. I think we will see an even greater explosion of financial fraud if there is an ever-quickening closure of branches in our town centres, and even more reductions in the ability to access services by phone. Unless there is regulation, we can appeal to the best motives of banks and building societies, but I understand that they are challenged. They have new competitors that do not have the infrastructure of the branches or staff. They are doing everything online, but they are doing it for a particular segment of society that does not, and will not, include everybody. We really have to grapple with that.
The work by the CASH Coalition has been excellent, but unless there is pressure from regulation, that will not happen. The idea that we all have to wait for the last bank in our town centre to close before we can even start thinking about a banking hub is as good as useless. I am only saying things that every member of the Committee knows, and that we know the consequences of. We have an opportunity today to do something about it on behalf of our most vulnerable constituents.
Dame Angela Eagle
It is a pleasure to follow the powerful speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Hampstead and Kilburn and for Mitcham and Morden on this important issue. It is not an issue that affects most people, who have been able to make the switch to online banking and find it more convenient—although it has to be said that there is an increasing level of worry about online banking services because of the increasing prevalence of fraud and scams. We dealt with that in earlier parts of the Bill, but we touched only the very edge of it, as the tide of the problem rises. I am sure that we will come back to the issue many times in future Bills.
A significant number of our constituents cannot participate, for whatever reason, in the IT and tech changes that have made banking available on our phones and computer screens, and that allow us to chat to various bots that put us through to the places where we need to go. I do not know whether the Minister has had occasion to phone a bank recently or, to be honest, any other service after the pandemic, but it is one of the most frustrating things that anyone has to do. It seems there is only one phone line for all the telephone access points. One has to hang on listening to appalling music for hours on end.
Dame Angela Eagle
We will have to come in a Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Bill to outlawing the appalling music that one has to listen to when trying to access any kind of service, private or public, by phone. We have to remember that many people cannot hang on the phone forever. They cannot afford to, and they are the people who tend to need the most help. They may have pay-as-you-go phones that run out quite rapidly. They may be unable to afford to hang on at the whim of an artificial intelligence bot, or the fewer and fewer actual human beings at the other end. They cannot access even ordinary banking in the way that the majority of people do. As I have said, that can be for a number of reasons. All Members present may get to a stage in our lives when we cannot either, and when we cannot remember our PIN numbers.
Dame Angela Eagle
We already have trouble with our PIN numbers, but many people’s memories fail as they get older, or they may be in the early stages of Alzheimer’s or other dementias. They cannot remember things, they cannot deal with the security issues that are required to make banking in this way safe, and they cannot go and ask somebody to help them.
Emma Hardy
On that point, will my hon. Friend flag to the Minister that, if a bank machine does not have buttons and is just a touch screen, it is very difficult for blind and partially sighted people to know where the numbers are, so as to put their PIN in correctly? That is another reason why face-to-face banking is so important.
Dame Angela Eagle
My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point: tech developments sometimes leave people behind. That is not usually deliberate; sometimes it is thoughtless. However, we in Parliament must ensure that all citizens in this country are able to participate in what is, increasingly, effectively a utility, even though it is not in public hands—I make no comment one way or the other about that. Being unable to access banking services for whatever reason is a real disadvantage, whatever an individual’s age or time of life.
That is a primary reason why we must ensure that what the market cannot provide, regulation provides. I am interested in what the Minister has to say about that. This issue will get bigger as more and more services go online. Regulation cannot happen merely at the end of a process, when access has completely disappeared. Even in some places where bank offices still exist, not everybody can access them. As a Parliament, we are people who point our regulators in particular directions to deal with emerging issues, and this is an important one. I look forward to what the Minister has to say.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. I will make a short speech. It is more of a speech of curiosity. I listened very carefully to my next-door neighbour, the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden, who said what most members of the Committee would probably say. She will know as well as I do that everybody looks at my constituency and thinks “leafy Wimbledon suburbia”. But she will also know that parts of south Wimbledon, of Raynes Park and of Morden town centre, which we share, have exactly the problems that she spoke about.
I may have misheard the hon. Lady, but she said that she did not wish to compel banks to stay open, or did not think that we necessarily could do so, and she spoke therefore about the establishment of banking hubs. What I am curious about is how banking hubs would be established. Are we saying that, as part of getting or maintaining a banking licence, there should be a contribution to a social fund, so that banking hubs can be established around the country? Are we saying that that levy should be extended, particularly because some of the harm that we are talking about is the rise of online banking? Should online banks make a contribution to the cost of those banking hubs? Or are we saying—I think it was said that the hubs should be inside local authority areas—that local authorities should offer them, for instance in town centres?
That is a genuine point of curiosity. As in previous discussions with the hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle, for Wallasey, and for Mitcham and Morden—my next-door neighbour—there is huge sympathy for ensuring that our constituents, including vulnerable constituents, have access to banking services. But we need to more tightly define the practicality of how we ensure that they have that access.
Siobhain McDonagh
I am completely open-minded about how the hubs are paid for, but they have to be paid for from the banking sector itself. I would not wish to put the responsibility on already overstretched local authorities. Many high street banks have had decades of loyal support from these customers, and they cannot just walk away from that responsibility and ignore them. They have been good, loyal customers. There should be a banking hub, but not at the point that the last bank closes. We need to have a view towards what happens in the future. There can be collaboration about sites, but there needs to be access to those services.
Stephen Hammond
That is extremely helpful in setting out the thought processes behind the new clause. One of the issues that the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn might wish to clarify is that, if the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden is correct, the new clause has to contain the stipulation that to get a banking licence in the United Kingdom, one needs to pay a certain amount of social levy so that banking hubs can be established. For me, that is the issue with the clause. I therefore suggest that the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn might want to take it away and bring it back on Report, or have a discussion with the Minister about exactly how the levy that the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden is effectively talking about is to be established. This new clause does not make that clear, and therefore, frankly, the practicality of the new clause—notwithstanding that we all agree with its intent—is clearly flawed.
Andrew Griffith
I once again note the strength of feeling on both sides of the Committee. The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden has spoken in a number of debates on clauses of the Bill about the importance of bank branches to our constituencies and local communities. When I visit her constituency to see the opening of the new cash machine, perhaps I will be able to review the provision for myself.
Andrew Griffith
The Government do not support the new clause, but if I may make eyes at the Opposition, I would be very open to accepting an amendment about appalling hold music, as suggested by the hon. Member for Wallasey. That is something to look forward to—I am not sure I should say that in front of my Whip, but one has immense sympathy with the point made.
There are very real issues here, which no one disputes. I am familiar with the sobering challenges that the hon. Member for Wallasey talked about. I know from my meetings with charities that one in three of us will end up with dementia. The RNIB has done fantastic work for those with impaired sight or sight loss, and Age UK does lots of great work in our constituencies—very practical work, as well as raising these issues. I am very open to meeting representatives of all three organisations, so I am happy to give that commitment: they are on my long list of people to meet in this role.
Notwithstanding the wider debate about the role of statute in protecting bank branches from closure, I am keen that we harness the positive uses of technology to try to solve problems. We know that voice recognition can help people who are partially sighted, and the internet now has a great deal more regulation—every website now has accessibility options for people with sight issues—so there are things we can do to close that delta. The point about the importance of the consumer voice is also very well made and understood. It is very important that we make sure there is the right level of consumer representation and consumer voice across our entire financial regulatory system, rather than its representatives solely being producers or practitioners.
Emma Hardy
This might not be strictly within the scope of the new clause, but will the Minister take away the point about the problems with touchpads when people pay for things in shops? With flat surfaces, it is incredibly difficult for visually impaired and partially sighted people to know which buttons they are pressing when entering their PIN number. It is one of those cases where, as the Minister has said, technology advances and does not mean to discriminate against people, but it is causing difficulties.
Andrew Griffith
I do understand that point, and I will take it away. We are all challenged by the wonderful two-factor authentication that even the parliamentary authorities require of us as we log in, and I understand that as we move from analogue to digital, some really important protections are sometimes lost.
The availability of alternative channels by which customers can access their banking means that this issue is quite distinct from access to cash. We have talked about access to cash, and we understand the significant steps forward presented in the Bill and the new duty on the FCA. That is very positive. Where a branch is the only source of cash access services, the closure of that branch will be within the scope of the powers, which starts to address the issue of branch closure. We are giving the FCA powers to do its job. As we know, the purpose of the Bill is to give the FCA powers, not for Parliament to be overly prescriptive. In that circumstance, the FCA could delay the closure until some other reasonable provision for access to cash applied.
Tulip Siddiq
The Minister mentions the FCA, and I also want to take the chance to respond to the earlier comments by the hon. Member for Wimbledon. I am not endorsing a specific model—this is something to consider—but the proposed banking hub could work in exactly the same way as the current banking hub model, which is funded by the sector and regulated by the FCA, which also ensures that sites provide in-person services as well. If the Minister is willing to talk further on the provisions in the new clause—the hon. Member for Wimbledon was generous in suggesting that he would do so—I would be happy to explore banking hub models with him.
Andrew Griffith
There is a great deal of good evolution. I suspect that members on both sides of the Committee would say that it has come quite late in the process, but nevertheless there has been evolution in the banking hub solution—that dynamic, sector-led initiative—as well as the work of the Post Office, which offers in-person facilities for a wide range of, if not all, transactions. There may be a gradient of availability, but post offices that offer a certain range of services to deal with the most common and frequently made transactions are almost ubiquitous. The need to travel for more complex needs would not be an unsurprising feature in this market.
I welcome the initiatives developed by the Cash Action Group, Natalie Ceeney and UK Finance, and implemented by LINK, which are making the local assessments to determine where shared solutions are most appropriate. The industry has committed to shared bank hubs in 29 locations across the UK. Yesterday, it committed to a further four, in Luton, Surrey, Prestatyn, and Welling in south-east London. There is a good rate of change coming now, albeit from a low base.
The Government’s perspective is that while many people need and prefer to use in-person banking services, at this time it would not be proportionate to legislate to intervene in the market. Instead, we want to see the impact of closures understood, considered and mitigated wherever possible by the array of initiatives that have been put forward. I will continue to work with the sector, the FCA and other stakeholders from both sides—I mentioned some earlier—on this important issue.
Dame Angela Eagle
The Minister says that it is not enough of a problem at the moment to legislate. Why might that be the case? This is not going to become less of an issue. As more people get to the stage where they cannot access services, I suspect it will get worse rather than better. Could he give the Committee an idea of his thinking about how bad the situation would have to get before regulation would be appropriate? We must make certain that we do not leave millions of people behind and shut them out of access to necessary banking services.
Andrew Griffith
While taking nothing away from the hon. Member’s view, and indeed her experience in this space, I do not entirely share her pessimism that it is a one-way street and that the problem will only get worse. Solutions will be deployed. The rate at which banking hubs can be deployed, the sorts of services that people use, and technology will all evolve. I talked earlier, as she did, about some of the challenges of an ageing society in which loneliness is prevalent, both in urban and rural areas. There are initiatives, both community-led and technological, to help with some of that. We do not decry in any way the statement that there is a problem. I do not think that Members have heard that from me, or from any Government Members. The aim is to proceed in a proportionate manner.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
The Minister talks about how he wants the impact of closures to be understood in the decision-making process. Understood by whom? The banks are telling us why they want to close their branches: they are saving money. The FCA is saying, “The banks are closing their branches to save money.” Our constituents know what it means to lose a bank branch. There is nothing new here. We understand why banks are closing their branches: they want to save cash. They do not want to continue a local service for our constituents, so what does the Minister mean by “understood”? Understood by whom—the banks, the FCA or our constituents?
Andrew Griffith
Ultimately, the banks are downstream of the widespread issue that is the change in consumer behaviour. We have heard both in evidence and in comments made in Committee that 86% of transactions are now digital. The use case of going to a bank branch has evolved rapidly in my lifetime and the lifetime of all Committee members. That is the ultimate macro issue that we are dealing with. Is that issue understood? I think it is.
Solutions could be brought to the table, in terms of both a greater toolkit for the FCA and greater prominence and scrutiny of the FCA as it uses the existing toolkit and the new powers in the Bill. There are also industry-led solutions, which having perhaps started slowly are increasing at greater pace. Proportionality is about giving those developing trends time to mature to see what models can be developed, while accepting the underlying need for action.
I therefore ask the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn to withdraw the motion.
Tulip Siddiq
After listening to contributions from Members on both sides of the Committee, I would like to have a conversation with the Minister about the new clause. I will bring it back at a later stage, but for now I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 6
National strategy on financial fraud
“(1) The Treasury must lay before the House of Commons a national strategy for the purpose of detecting, preventing and investigating fraud and associated financial crime within six months of the passing of this Act.
(2) In preparing the strategy, the Treasury must consult—
(a) the Secretary of State for the Home Office,
(b) the National Economic Crime Centre,
(c) law enforcement bodies which the Treasury considers relevant to the strategy,
(d) relevant regulators,
(e) financial services stakeholders,
(f) digital platforms, telecommunications companies, financial technology companies, and social media companies.
(3) The strategy must include arrangements for a data-sharing agreement involving—
(a) relevant law enforcement agencies,
(b) relevant regulators,
(c) financial services stakeholders,
(d) telecommunications stakeholders, and
(e) technology-based communication platforms,
for the purposes of detecting, preventing and investigating fraud and associated financial crime and, in particular, tracking stolen money which may pass through mule bank accounts or platforms operated by other financial services stakeholders.
(4) In this section ‘fraud and associated financial crime’ includes, but is not limited to authorised push payment fraud, unauthorised facility takeover fraud, and online and offline identity fraud.
(5) In this section, ‘financial services stakeholders’ includes banks, building societies, credit unions, investment firms, Electric Money Institutions, virtual asset providers and exchanges, and payment system operators.”—(Tulip Siddiq.)
This new clause would require the Treasury to publish a national strategy for the detection, prevention and investigation of fraud and associated financial crime, after having consulted relevant stakeholders. The strategy must include arrangements for a data sharing agreement between law enforcement agencies, regulators and others to track stolen money.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Tulip Siddiq
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
We fully support the provisions in the Bill that enhance the protection for victims of authorised push payment scams, but we feel that an opportunity has been wasted to do something on fraud prevention. UK Finance, the financial services trade body, recently published data that revealed that the amount of money stolen directly from hard-working families and businesses’ bank accounts through fraud and scams hit a record high of £1.3 billion in 2021. That is bad enough at the best of times, but even worse during a cost of living crisis. We need to get to grips with new types of fraud such as identity theft and online scams, which have seen criminals get rich at the public’s expense, with people’s life savings stolen and their economic security put at risk.
The current approach to fraud will always leave law enforcement agencies one step behind the criminals, who are exploiting new financial technologies and bank accounts to steal and hide the public’s money. The Opposition want to see enforcement agencies given the powers that they need to crack down on digitally savvy criminals, and to track stolen money through payment system operators, electronic money institutions and cryptoasset firms. If the Government are serious about tackling fraud, they will support our new clause to allow regulators and enforcement agencies to pursue criminals and bring them to justice wherever they hide their stolen money, and to protect people’s financial security.
New clause 6 would put in place a single, dedicated national strategy to tackle fraud. It would deliver a co-ordinated, interagency response across the Treasury, the Home Office, the National Economic Crime Centre, law enforcement agencies, the major banks and wider partners in financial services, telecommunications and social media centres. It would put in place a data-sharing agreement to help investigators and the sector prevent fraud and track stolen money. That agreement would extend beyond the banks to include social media companies, fintechs, payment system operators and other platforms that are exploited by tech savvy criminals. That is important, because for too long, tackling fraud has been solely the banks’ responsibility. That approach is completely outdated.
Mike Haley, the chief executive of CIFAS, said in evidence to the Committee:
“Provisions that facilitate greater data and intelligence sharing, particularly on suspicions of fraud and financial crime, would have the biggest impact in helping to prevent this type of crime. It is a crime that is at scale and at speed in the online environment. To be able to share the mobile numbers that are being used, the devices and the IP addresses at speed across the whole of the environment—payment providers, fintechs and telcos—would be enormously powerful. This is a volume crime, and we need to have prevention at the core of any national strategy. That would have a massive positive impact.”––[Official Report, Financial Services and Markets Public Bill Committee, 19 October 2022; c. 68, Q129.]
The new clause would facilitate that sharing. Does the Minister agree with Mike Haley? If so, will he commit the Government to introducing a fraud strategy with data sharing at its heart?
I am sure, because I have heard the Minister speak so many times in this Committee, that he will tell us to be patient; he will say that change is coming. However, the millions of people who have fallen—or will fall—victim to fraud cannot afford to be patient any more. We cannot drag our feet over this. Scams will continue to rise, and countless more lives will be destroyed or lost. We need to make sure that the outdated way of tackling fraud is challenged once and for all. I ask the Minister to support the new clause.
Dame Angela Eagle
It is a pleasure to talk about this extremely important issue. The Treasury Committee produced a long and detailed report on this issue, with a series of recommendations. I hope that the Government will work cross-departmentally to put those into effect. Data sharing certainly featured in our views in that inquiry.
It is hard to contemplate the size of the explosion in fraud, how little of it is captured, and how few of the perpetrators are brought to justice. That is partly because of the massive number of chances for fraudulent activity to be perpetrated, which have come with changes in access to banking and digital capacity. They range from push frauds, fraudulent emptying of bank accounts and credit card cloning, all the way through to the text messages that we all get regularly on our phones.
The text messages tell us, for example, that we have recently been near someone who has covid—the message is purportedly from the NHS—and we need to give them our banking details so we can pay £1.75 for access to a PCR test. We have all seen them. I am getting a load now on energy support—probably everyone is getting them—which say that the Government’s support for energy bills has to be applied for and that we have to give these people our banking details. These are very plausible texts, which many people fall for. There are phone calls as well, purportedly from the bank, and emails too. This is a sophisticated level of fraud that is psychologically very well organised.
Emma Hardy
One message worth highlighting that I received was, “Hi mum, I’ve lost my phone. Please send some money to this number.” I rang both my daughters to ask, “Is this from one of you?”. They both said it was not. This “Hi mum” one that is going round at the moment has caught many people out. These messages play on emotions and can make people deeply concerned when they receive them.
Dame Angela Eagle
It makes people deeply concerned and it makes them do things that they obviously live to regret in the fullness of time.
Increasingly, there are also phone calls from fraudsters pretending that they are the fraud police and that the person’s bank account has been accessed for fraudulent purposes. It is very difficult to keep up with the level of activity on our phones—we are being bombarded every day—and that is without considering the scamming that the FCA is fighting, day in, day out, on products offered online, such as pensions, insurance and investment products, all of which regularly lie beyond the regulatory border, but can lead to massive amounts of financial loss if they are believed. It is also without considering the areas where younger people tend to get their financial advice, such as TikTok and other places, where we probably—it has to be said, Mr Sharma—do not spend that much of our time.
The windows for getting to people with these kinds of fraudulent intents and sophisticated frauds widen constantly. The capacity to deal with them does not widen as regularly and, by definition, legislation is much slower than the innovation of these people.
We have asked the authorities that are tasked with fighting fraud what they are doing about it. The Treasury Committee has taken evidence on the topic, and we were struck by how fragmented those fighting fraud are across Departments and by how process-related, rather than output-related, the evidence from the authorities was. They said things like, “We have 150 different things that we are meant to do by 2023, and we have done 91% of them,” but fraud is still massively increasing all the time.
We need a system—a national fraud strategy—that looks at the output of fraud, rather than the processes or tick boxes by which the different anti-fraud authorities, which are fragmented all the way through, justify what they are doing. In reality, even if there is lots of work going on, the outcome is not nearly what we would want to see. Levels of fraud are rising significantly, affecting more and more people, and there are fewer and fewer successes in dealing with it.
It ranges from very sophisticated money laundering kinds of fraud—we are not talking about money laundering here, but we could talk about it for a very long time, and about the way banking structures seem to facilitate it—to lower levels of fraud. There is fraud that is perpetrated from outside our country’s boundaries and there is sophisticated money laundering activity. We are talking about frauds that are ruining the lives of the many constituents who fall victim to them. Many people do not get compensation when they have been conned into sharing their bank details and have had their bank accounts emptied or their credit cards cloned, because they have had a hand in it in some way. I know that the authorities work closely with the banks to create circumstances in which compensation can be given when there is no fault, but there are big blurred lines.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
If the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn presses the new clause to a vote, I will certainly support it. I declare an interest as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on blockchain.
To build on what the hon. Member for Wallasey said, in subsections (2)(f) and (3)(d) and (e), we have a huge opportunity to help the Government by ensuring that there is a strategic overview of how fraud impacts on the technology sector. The problem is not necessarily the technology but the people utilising it. Distributed ledger-type technologies, for example, are used to access investments and assets, but those who are supposedly selling assets are taking advantage of technology that a lot of younger people use.
Critically, I hope that the Government hear the concern that there might be no strategic overview of how such technology can be manipulated. The tech is fine, but we must consider that manipulation—particularly of closed distributed ledger technologies and closed blockchains—and how it can block out the people who actually buy into those systems. I hope that the Government hear what has been said on the new clause.
Emma Hardy
I support the new clause. I refer the Minister to the evidence given by Mike Haley, the chief executive of CIFAS. In respect of fraud, he said:
“Absolutely, there should be a national strategy, and prevention should be at its core.”
He said that the Home Office was looking at
“publishing a national strategy; it has been much delayed and it is very much anticipated.”
One reason for including a national strategy in the Bill is the need for that strategy to be introduced as quickly as possible.
Mike Haley also said that he would like that strategy to be
“more ambitious, and to cover the public and private sectors, as well as law enforcement.”
He made the very good point that
“fraudsters do not decide one day, ‘We only go after bounce back loans because that is a public sector fraud.’ They will go after a loan from the NatWest bank, or a mortgage.”––[Official Report, Financial Services and Markets Public Bill Committee, 19 October 2022; c. 68, Q130.]
He highlighted the inability to share information and said that some people might say that GDPR was preventing them from sharing information. He went on to say:
“It is a crime that is at scale and at speed in the online environment. To be able to share the mobile numbers that are being used, the devices and the IP addresses at speed across the whole of the environment—payment providers, fintechs and telecos—would be enormously powerful. This is a volume crime, and we need to have prevention at the core of any national strategy. That would have a massive positive impact. ”––[Official Report, Financial Services and Markets Public Bill Committee, 19 October 2022; c. 38, Q129.]
Our witnesses called for a national strategy that looks at crime seriously and that is more ambitious than that suggested by the Home Office and broader in scope. Although many of the frauds relate to small amounts, they are numerous and they cause people significant harm. When the Minister responds, I would like him to recall that oral evidence and the reason why our new clause calls for a national strategy.
Andrew Griffith
I will be brief. The Government are committed to tackling fraud, and we recognise that it goes far wider than financial services. There absolutely should be a national strategy, and there will be.
The Government recognise that tackling fraud requires a unified and co-ordinated response from Government, law enforcement and the private sector better to protect the public and businesses from fraud, reduce the impact on victims, and increase the disruption and prosecution of fraudsters. That is why the Government, led by the Home Office, which is the right body to be the lead, but with full Treasury input, will publish a new broad-based strategy to address the threat of fraud. I hope the Opposition will welcome that. The Government intend to publish it later this year.
Andrew Griffith
Indeed.
The Government will work with industry to remove the vulnerabilities that fraudsters exploit, we will work with intelligence agencies to shut down fraudulent infrastructure, and we will work with law enforcement to identify the most harmful offenders and bring them to justice. We will also ensure, with all partners, that the public have the advice and support they need. That should reassure the Committee that a clear strategy to tackle fraud will be forthcoming and that the new clause is unnecessary.
I note the Opposition’s concerns about data sharing, which are specifically referenced in the new clause. I reassure them that the Payment Systems Regulator has work under way with industry participants to enhance data sharing to prevent fraud. The PSR’s managing director, Chris Hemsley, did not raise any legislative barriers to data sharing for that purpose when he gave evidence to the Committee recently.
I will rise to the challenge put down by the hon. Member for Wallasey to turn the tide on fraud, because we all must acknowledge that it is a critical policing issue in this day and age. In that spirit, I hope that she will join us to ensure that her colleagues reverse their opposition to the Public Order Bill, which is tying up hundreds of thousands of police hours that could usefully be spent prosecuting the challenge of fraud. I also hope that she supports our initiative to cut red tape in policing and to end woke policing, so that we no longer arrest people for Twitter posts, we do not send the police off to dance the Macarena at carnivals or Pride events, and they no longer take the knee. If the hon. Lady is as serious as we are about tackling fraud, she has to acknowledge that there is a need to think about how we allocate our resources.
Dame Angela Eagle
After what I thought was quite a consensual debate, it is slightly unworthy of the Minister to resort to those comments in the week when there has been an inspectorate report about the misogyny, behaviour and culture of a lot of the police force. That needs to be reformed so that all members of our communities, whatever their age, gender or ethnicity, can trust the police; we all want to see that.
Will the Minister admit that so-called woke policing is not an issue in fraud? The issue is fragmentation. Woke policing was not raised during the great number of Treasury Committee evidence sessions about the fraud, so it was unworthy of him to make those points at the end of his speech. We need a system that is not fragmentated and that is focused relentlessly on output, and where there is cross-departmental working and proper funding, as well as data sharing, so that we can crack down on something that all of us want to see driven out of our system.
Andrew Griffith
I would never want to be unworthy in the hon. Lady’s eyes, so I am distressed that my offer to build consensus about how the police could best deploy their resources has, at this first stage, been rebuffed.
I ask the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn to withdraw the motion.
Tulip Siddiq
The Minister was doing so well and I was hoping we could go through this sitting without hearing the Conservatives say the word “woke” once, but unluckily that has now been crossed off my bingo sheet.
I will press the new clause to a vote, because I want to hold the Minister to account and ensure he does not push this commitment too far down the road, and because every person in the sector I have spoken to has stressed the importance of legislative change when it comes to data sharing.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Financial Services and Markets Bill
Wednesday 7th December 2022
(3 years ago)
Commons ChamberFinancial Services and Markets Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 7 December 2022 - Clarification of Schedule 2 (Transitional amendments): Large print edition - (7 Dec 2022)
18:01 - The House divided: - Ayes: 205 / Noes: 282 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:16 - The House divided: - Ayes: 204 / Noes: 278 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:30 - The House divided: - Ayes: 206 / Noes: 271 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Andrew Griffith)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment (a) to new clause 17, after “mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (ia) of paragraph 11(1);” insert—
“(aa) the effect of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 on financial stability, and potential risks to financial stability, in the UK;
(ab) an assessment of the delivery of the FCA’s objectives in the previous year;
(ac) an assessment of measures which could improve the delivery of the FCA’s objectives in the next year;”
Amendment (b) to new clause 17, after “mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (f) of paragraph 19(1);” insert—
“(aa) the effect of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 on financial stability, and potential risks to financial stability, in the UK;
(ab) an assessment of the delivery of the PRA’s objectives in the previous year;
(ac) an assessment of measures which could improve the delivery of the PRA’s objectives in the next year;”
Government new clause 18—Composition of panels.
Government new clause 19—Consultation on rules.
Government new clause 20—Unauthorised co-ownership AIFs.
New clause 1—National strategy on financial fraud—
‘(1) The Treasury must lay before the House of Commons a national strategy for the purpose of detecting, preventing and investigating fraud and associated financial crime within six months of the passing of this Act.
(2) In preparing the strategy, the Treasury must consult—
(a) the Secretary of State for the Home Office,
(b) the National Economic Crime Centre,
(c) law enforcement bodies which the Treasury considers relevant to the strategy,
(d) relevant regulators,
(e) financial services stakeholders,
(f) digital platforms, telecommunications companies, financial technology companies, and social media companies.
(3) The strategy must include arrangements for a data-sharing agreement involving—
(a) relevant law enforcement agencies,
(b) relevant regulators,
(c) financial services stakeholders,
(d) telecommunications stakeholders, and
(e) technology-based communication platforms,
for the purposes of detecting, preventing and investigating fraud and associated financial crime and, in particular, tracking stolen money which may pass through mule bank accounts or platforms operated by other financial services stakeholders.
(4) In this section “fraud and associated financial crime” includes, but is not limited to authorised push payment fraud, unauthorised facility takeover fraud, and online and offline identity fraud.
(5) In this section, “financial services stakeholders” includes banks, building societies, credit unions, investment firms, Electric Money Institutions, virtual asset providers and exchanges, and payment system operators.’
This new clause would require the Treasury to publish a national strategy for the detection, prevention and investigation of fraud and associated financial crime, after having consulted relevant stakeholders. The strategy must include arrangements for a data sharing agreement between law enforcement agencies, regulators and others to track stolen money.
New clause 2—Local community access to essential in-person banking services—
‘(1) The Treasury and the FCA must jointly undertake a review of the state of access to essential in-person banking services for local communities in the United Kingdom, and jointly prepare a report on the outcome of the review.
(2) “Essential in-person banking services” include services which are delivered face-to-face and which local communities require regular access to. These may include services provided in banks, banking hubs, or other service models.
(3) The report mentioned in subsection (1) must be laid before the House of Commons as soon as practicable after the review has been undertaken.
(4) The report mentioned in subsection (1) must propose a minimum level of access to essential in-person banking services which must be provided by banks and building societies in applicable local authority areas in the United Kingdom, for the purpose of ensuring local communities have adequate access to essential in-person banking services.
(5) The applicable local authority areas mentioned in subsection (4) are local authority areas in which, in the opinion of the FCA, local communities have a particular need for the provision of essential in-person banking services.
(6) In any applicable local authority area which, according to the results of the review undertaken under subsection (1) falls below the minimum level of access mentioned in subsection (4), the FCA may give directions for the purpose of ensuring essential in-person banking services meet the minimum level of access required by subsection (4).
(7) A direction under subsection (6) may require a minimum level of provision of essential in-person banking services through mandating, for example—
(a) a specified number of essential in-person banking services within a geographical area, or
(b) essential in-person banking services to operate specific opening hours.’
This new clause would require the Treasury and FCA to conduct and publish a review of community need for, and access to, essential in-person banking services, and enable the FCA to ensure areas in need of essential in-person banking service have a minimum level of access to such services.
New clause 3—Essential banking services access policy statement—
‘(1) The Treasury must lay before the House of Commons an essential banking services access policy statement within six months of the passing of this Act.
(2) An “essential banking services access policy statement” is a statement of the policies of His Majesty’s Government in relation to the provision of adequate levels of access to essential in-person banking services in the United Kingdom.
(3) “Essential in-person banking services” include services which are delivered face-to-face, and may include those provided in banks, banking hubs, or other service models.
(4) The policies mentioned in sub-section (2) may include those which relate to—
(a) ensuring adequate availability of essential in-person banking services;
(b) ensuring adequate provision of support for online banking training and internet access, for the purposes of ensuring access to online banking; and
(c) expectations of maximum geographical distances service users should be expected to travel to access essential in-person banking services in rural areas.
(5) The FCA must have regard to the essential banking services access policy statement when fulfilling its functions.’
This new clause would require the Treasury to publish a policy statement setting out its policies in relation to the provision of essential in-person banking services, including policies relating to availability of essential in-person banking services, support for online banking, and maximum distances people can expect to travel to access services.
New clause 4—FCA duty to report on mutual and co-operative business models—
‘(1) The FCA must lay before Parliament a report as soon as practicable after the end of—
(a) the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, and
(b) every subsequent 12-month period,
on how it considers the specific needs of mutual and co-operative financial services providers and other relevant business models when discharging its regulatory functions.
(2) The “specific needs” referred to in subsection (1) must include the needs of mutual and co-operative financial services providers to have a level playing field with financial services providers which are not mutuals or co-operatives.
(3) The “mutual and co-operative financial services providers and other relevant business models” referred to in subsection (1) may include—
(a) credit unions,
(b) building societies,
(c) mutual banks,
(d) co-operative banks, and
(e) regional banks.’
This new clause would require the FCA to report annually on how they have considered the specific needs of mutual and co-operative financial services.
New clause 5—PRA duty to report on mutual and co-operative business models—
‘(1) The FCA must lay before Parliament a report as soon as practicable after the end of—
(a) the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, and
(b) every subsequent 12-month period,
on how it considers the specific needs of mutual and co-operative financial services providers and other relevant business models when discharging its regulatory functions.
(2) The “specific needs” referred to in subsection (1) must include the needs of mutual and co-operative financial services providers to have a level playing field with financial services providers which are not mutuals or co-operatives.
(3) The “mutual and co-operative financial services providers and other relevant business models” referred to in subsection (1) may include—
(a) credit unions,
(b) building societies,
(c) mutual banks,
(d) co-operative banks, and
(e) regional banks.’
This new clause would require the FCA to report annually on how they have considered the specific needs of mutual and co-operative financial services.
New clause 6—Updated Green Finance Strategy—
‘(1) The Treasury must lay before the House of Commons an updated Green Finance Strategy within three months of the passing of this Act.
(2) The strategy must include—
(a) a Green Taxonomy, and
(b) Sustainability Disclosure Requirements.
(3) In preparing the strategy, the Treasury must consult—
(a) financial services stakeholders,
(b) businesses in the wider economy,
(c) the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, and
(d) the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.
(4) In this section a “Green Taxonomy” means investment screening criteria which classify which activities can be defined as environmentally sustainable including, but not limited to—
(a) climate change mitigation and adaptation,
(b) sustainable use and protection of water and marine resources,
(c) transitions to a circular economy,
(d) pollution prevention and control, and
(e) protection and restoration of biodiversity and ecosystems.
(5) In this section “Sustainability Disclosure Requirements” are the requirements placed on companies, including listed issuers, asset managers and asset owners, to report on their sustainability risks, opportunities and impacts.’
This new clause would require the Treasury to publish an updated Green Finance Strategy. This must include a Green Taxonomy and Sustainability Disclosure Requirements.
New clause 7—Access to cash: Guaranteed minimum provision—
‘(1) The Treasury must, by regulations, make provision to guarantee a minimum level of access to free of charge cash access services for consumers across the United Kingdom.
(2) The minimum level of access referred to in subsection (1) must be included in the regulations.
(3) Regulations under this section shall be made by statutory instrument, and may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.’
New clause 8—Stewardship reporting requirements for occupational pension schemes—
‘(1) Section 36 of the Pensions Act 1995 (Choosing investments) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1) after “(4)” insert “and, for relevant schemes, (4A)”.
(3) After subsection (4), insert—
“(4A) The trustees of relevant schemes must publish information regarding their stewardship activities. In doing so they must have regard to, amongst other matters, the scheme’s—
(a) purpose, culture, values and strategy;
(b) governance structures and processes;
(c) conflicts of interest policy;
(d) engagement strategy, including escalation steps;
(e) aggregate statistics on total engagement activity;
(f) thematic engagement priorities; and
(g) engagement outcomes.”
(4) After subsection (6), insert—
“(6A) For the purposes of this section—
(a) a “relevant scheme” means a scheme with £5bn or more in relevant assets,
(b) “relevant assets” is to be calculated in accordance with methods and assumptions prescribed in regulations.”’
This new clause raises the baseline standard of stewardship for large institutional investors beyond the minimum standards set by the UK’s implementation of the Shareholder Rights Directive, drawing on the Financial Reporting Council’s Stewardship Code and ShareAction’s Best Practice Engagement Reporting Template.
New clause 9—Stewardship reporting requirements for certain investors—
‘(1) The FCA may make rules requiring some or all of those managing investments to publish information on their stewardship activities. In doing so they must have regard to, amongst other matters—
(a) purpose, culture, values, business model and strategy;
(b) governance structures and processes;
(c) conflicts of interest policy;
(d) engagement strategy, including escalation steps;
(e) aggregate statistics on total engagement activity;
(f) thematic engagement priorities; and
(g) engagement outcomes.
(2) The FCA may make rules to clarify the definition of “the most significant votes” in rule 3.4.6 of the systems and controls section of the FCA Handbook.’
This new clause would enable the FCA to make rules raising the baseline standard of stewardship for large institutional investors beyond the minimum standards set by the UK’s implementation of the Shareholder Rights Directive, drawing on the Financial Reporting Council’s Stewardship Code and ShareAction’s Best Practice Engagement Reporting Template. It would also allow the FCA to define and monitor “significant votes”.
New clause 10—Consumer Panel duty to report to Parliament—
‘(1) FSMA 2000, as amended by Section 6 of the Financial Services Act 2012 and Section 132 of the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013, is amended as follows.
(2) At the end of section 1Q, insert—
“(7) The Consumer Panel must lay an annual report before Parliament evaluating the FCA’s fulfilment of its statutory duty to protect consumers, including comments on—
(a) the adequacy and appropriateness of the FCA’s use of its regulatory powers;
(b) the measures the FCA has taken to protect vulnerable consumers, including pensioners, people with disabilities, and people receiving forms of income support; and
(c) the FCA’s receptiveness to the recommendations of the Consumer Panel.”’
This new clause would introduce a further level of Parliamentary scrutiny of the work of the FCA to protect consumers by requiring the Financial Services Consumer Panel to lay an annual report before Parliament outlining its views on the FCA’s fulfilment of its statutory duty to protect consumers.
New clause 11—Personalised financial guidance: power to make regulations—
‘(1) The Treasury may by regulations make provision for UK citizens to access personalised financial guidance from appropriately regulated financial services firms, for the purposes of supporting them to make decisions which improve their financial sustainability.
(2) The “UK citizens” referred to in sub-section (1) include, in particular, UK citizens who are unlikely to have access to financial advice (provided in accordance with Chapter 12 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) Order 2001).
(3) In this section, “personalised financial guidance” means a communication—
(a) that is made to a person in their capacity as an investor or potential investor, or in their capacity as agent for an investor or a potential investor;
(b) which constitutes a recommendation to them to do any of the following (whether as principal or agent)—
(i) buy, sell, subscribe for, exchange, redeem, hold or underwrite a particular investment which is a security, structured deposit or a relevant investment; or
(ii) exercise or not exercise any right conferred by such an investment to buy, sell, subscribe for, exchange or redeem such an investment; and
(c) that is—
(i) based on a consideration of the circumstances of that person; and
(ii) not explicitly presented as suitable for the person to whom it is made.
(4) The provision that may be made by regulations under this section includes provisions—
(a) relating to the provision of financial advice;
(b) relating to suitability requirements under MiFID;
(c) conferring powers, or imposing duties, on a relevant regulator (including a power to make rules or other instruments).
(5) The power to make regulations under this section includes power to modify legislation.
(6) The power under subsection (5) includes power to modify the definition of “personalised financial guidance” in subsection (2).
(7) Regulations made under this section, and which modify only the following kinds of legislation are subject to the negative procedure—
(a) EU tertiary legislation;
(b) subordinate legislation that was not subject to affirmative resolution on being made.
(8) Regulations under this section to which subsection (7) does not apply are subject to the affirmative procedure.
(9) Before making regulations under this section, the Treasury must consult the FCA.
(10) In this section—
“legislation” means primary legislation, subordinate legislation and retained direct EU legislation;
“MiFID” means Regulation (EU) 2017/565 supplementing Directive 2014/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards organisational requirements and operating conditions for investment firms and defined terms for the purposes of that Directive.’
New clause 12—Requirement to publish regulatory performance information on new authorisations—
‘(1) The FCA and PRA must each lay before Parliament a report on their regulatory performance as soon as practicable after the end of—
(a) the period of six months beginning with the day on which this Act receives Royal Assent, and
(b) each subsequent quarter.
(2) A report under this section must include analysis of data on—
(a) the number of new applications for authorisation made to each regulator during the reporting period, with a breakdown by authorisation type;
(b) the rates of approval for applications for authorisation by each regulator, with a breakdown by authorisation type;
(c) the average length of time taken from application to final authorisation decision by each regulator;
(d) the FCA or PRA‘s assessment of the time and cost incurred by applicants to comply with information requirements for authorisation; and
(a) such other matters as the Treasury considers appropriate.’
This new clause requires both regulators to publish regular reports to Parliament on their regulatory performance for new applicants for regulation.
New clause 13—Requirement to publish regulatory performance information on authorised firms—
‘(1) The FCA must lay before Parliament a report on its regulatory performance as soon as practicable after the end of—
(a) the period of six months beginning with the day on which this Act receives Royal Assent, and
(b) each subsequent quarter.
(2) A report under this section must include the average length of time taken from the initial submission of an application for authorisation by an applicant to the issuing of a final decision by the FCA for each of the following regulatory responsibilities—
(a) approved persons;
(b) change in control;
(c) variation of permission;
(d) waivers and modifications that alter compliance obligations.’
This new clause requires the FCA to publish regular reports to Parliament on its regulatory performance for existing authorised entities and persons.
New clause 14—Determination of applications—
‘(1) The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 61(2) insert—
“(2ZA) In determining the application, the regulator must—
(a) assign a new application to a case handler within five working days of the application being received;
(b) complete an initial application review within ten working days of allocation to a case handler; and
(c) make no requests for additional information after a period of fifteen working days from the receipt of the application.
(2ZZA) The regulators must publish, on an annual basis, monitoring data relating to—
(a) the proportion of cases which require escalation to sponsoring firms, including summary trend data on the reasons for escalation;
(b) the average time taken to assign a case handler; and
(c) the average number of days it takes to complete determination of an application.’
This new clause would add to the regulators’ authorisation KPIs outlined in the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and require them to publish monitoring data related to the determination of authorisations.
New clause 15—Regulators’ duty to report on competitiveness and growth objective—
‘(1) The FCA and PRA must each lay before Parliament a report as soon as practicable after the end of—
(a) the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act receives Royal Assent, and
(b) every subsequent 12-month period,
on how they consider that they have facilitated the international competitiveness of the economy of the United Kingdom and its growth in the medium to long term.
(2) Reports under this section must include analysis of data on the following—
(a) steps taken to simplify regulatory rulebooks and frameworks;
(b) the number of new market entrants to the UK;
(c) new regulations introduced in the previous twelve months;
(d) an assessment of the impact of the new regulations to UK competitiveness;
(e) comparative analysis of the number of new authorisations in the UK and other international jurisdictions in the previous twelve months;
(f) comparative analysis of product and service innovations introduced in the UK and other international jurisdictions in the previous twelve months; and
(g) such other matters as the Treasury may from time to time direct.’
This new clause would require both the FCA and PRA to each publish an annual report setting out how they have facilitated international competitiveness and growth against a range of data and analysis requirements.
New clause 16—Regulatory principles to be applied by both regulators: proportionality principle—
‘(1) The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 3B(1)(b), leave out from “benefits,” to end and insert “taking into consideration the nature of the service or product being delivered, the nature of risk to the consumer, whether the cost of implementation is proportionate to that level of risk and whether the burden or restriction enhances UK international competitiveness.”’
This new clause would amend the existing regulatory principle for both regulators and require them nature of and risk to the consumer, and the service or product being delivered, must be taken into account when imposing a new burden or restriction.
New clause 21—Prudential capital requirements for specified financial institutions—
‘(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Treasury must by regulations set prudential capital requirements for specified financial institutions.
(2) Regulations under this section must require financial institutions to hold in reserve £1 for every £1 used to finance assets connected with fossil fuel activities, which is liable for potential loss due to the climate risk exposure of the assets.
(3) In this section “fossil fuel activities” means the extraction, production, transportation, refining and marketing of crude oil, natural gas or thermal coal, as well as any fossil-fuel fired power plants, unless covered by an exemption.’
This new clause would give the Treasury the power to make regulations requiring financial institutions to hold capital in reserve to reflect the climate risk exposure of assets connected with fossil fuel activities.
New clause 22—FCA: Regard to financial inclusion in consumer protection objective—
‘(1) FSMA 2000 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 1C (The consumer protection objective), after subsection (2)(c) insert—
“(ca) financial inclusion;””.
New clause 23—FCA duty to report on financial inclusion—
“(1) The FCA must lay before Parliament a report, as soon as practicable after the end of—
(a) the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, and
(b) every subsequent 12-month period,on financial inclusion in the UK.
(2) A report under this section must include—
(a) an assessment of the state of financial inclusion in the UK;
(b) details of any measures the FCA has taken, or is planning to take, to improve financial inclusion in the UK;
(c) developments which the FCA considers could significantly impact on financial inclusion in the UK; and
(d) any recommendations to the Treasury which the FCA considers may promote financial inclusion in the UK.’
New clause 24—Rules relating to forest risk commodities—
‘(1) FSMA 2000 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 19 (The general prohibition) insert—
“19A Specific requirements regarding forest risk commodities
(1) A person must not carry on a regulated activity in the United Kingdom that may directly or indirectly support a commercial activity in relation to a forest risk commodity or a product derived from a forest risk commodity, unless relevant local laws were complied with in relation to that commodity.
(2) A person that intends to carry on a regulated activity that may directly or indirectly support a commercial activity in relation to a forest risk commodity or a product derived from a forest risk commodity, shall establish and implement a due diligence system in relation to that regulated activity.
(3) In this section, “due diligence system” means a system for—
(a) identifying and obtaining information about the commercial activities of any beneficiary of the regulated activity and of their group regarding the use of a forest risk commodity,
(b) assessing the risk that relevant local laws were not complied with in relation to that commodity, and
(c) mitigating that risk.
(4) A person that carries on a regulated activity in the United Kingdom that directly or indirectly supports a commercial activity in relation to a forest risk commodity or a product derived from a forest risk commodity shall be subject to—
(a) the reporting requirements under paragraph 4 of Schedule 17 of the Environment Act in relation to the due diligence system required under subsection (2) of this section, and
(b) Part 2 of Schedule 17 of the Environment Act as though they are a person to whom Part 1 of that Schedule applies.
(5) Terms used in this section that are defined in Schedule 17 of the Environment Act shall have the meaning given to them in that Schedule.”’
New clause 25—Long term economic resilience and prosperity objective—
‘(1) FSMA 2000 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 1B (FCA’s general duties)—
(a) in subsection (2) leave out “function well” and insert “deliver long term economic resilience and prosperity”;
(b) in subsection (3) for paragraph (c) substitute—
“(c) the climate safety objective (see section 1E);
(d) the nature protection objective (see section 1F).”
(3) For section 1E (The competition objective) substitute—
“1E The climate safety objective
The climate safety objective is: facilitating the net UK carbon emissions target in section 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008, and the 1.5 degrees temperature goal of the Paris Agreement.
1F The nature objective
The nature objective is: facilitating alignment with halting and reversing biodiversity loss by 2030.”’
This new clause would make the FCA’s strategic objective ensuring that the relevant markets deliver long term economic resilience and prosperity, remove the competition operational objective and introduce two new operational objectives; climate safety and nature protection.
New clause 26—Prohibited regulated activity: new fossil fuel developments—
‘(1) A UK bank, or person acting on behalf of a UK bank, may not carry on a regulated activity where the carrying out of the activity would have the effect of providing financial investment in, or facilitating the financing of, new fossil fuel developments.
(2) In this section—
(a) “new fossil fuel developments” includes—
(i) any activity, in the UK or elsewhere, which enables or contributes to the enabling of, the extraction, processing and distribution of fossil fuels, and
(ii) the construction, in the UK or elsewhere, of fossil fuel-powered electricity generation;
(b) “fossil fuels” has the same meaning as in section 32M (Interpretation of sections 32 to 32M) of the Electricity Act 1989;
(c) “UK bank” has the same meaning as in section 2 (Interpretation: “bank”) of the Banking Act 2009.
(3) The FCA may impose sanctions against the relevant bank, where the prohibition in subsection (1) is contravened.
(4) The sanctions mentioned in subsection (3) includes—
(a) the imposition of a penalty of such amount as the FCA considers appropriate;
(b) suspension of variable components of remuneration;
(c) suspension of dividend pay-outs;
(d) removal of access to central bank funding; and
(e) removal of permission to carry on regulated activities.
(5) This section shall come into force on 31 December 2023.’
This new clause would prohibit banks from conducting regulated activity which may enable new fossil fuel developments from December 2023 onwards, and give the FCA powers to impose certain sanctions for non-compliance.
New clause 27—Refusal to provide services for reasons connected with freedom of expression—
‘(1) No payment service provider providing a relevant service (the “provider”) may refuse to supply that service to any other person (the “customer”) in the United Kingdom if the reason for the refusal is significantly related to the customer exercising his or her right to freedom of expression.
(2) Where a customer has prominently and publicly exercised his or her right to freedom of expression, it is to be presumed that any refusal by a provider to supply a relevant service was significantly related to the customer exercising his or her right to freedom of expression unless the provider can provide a substantial basis for believing there was an alternative good and proper reason for the refusal.
(3) Where a customer has prominently and publicly exercised his or her right to freedom of expression and has been refused a relevant service by a provider on application by the customer, the FCA must within 5 working days issue an order to the provider immediately to recommence supply unless the FCA considers it clearly inappropriate to do so.
(4) An order issued pursuant to subsection (3) must last until the FCA is satisfied that there was or there has subsequently arisen an alternative good and proper reason for the refusal.
(5) Upon considering an application by the customer under subsection (3), where the FCA decides not to issue an order to the supplier, the FCA must give reasons in writing to the customer explaining its decision not to issue an order.
(6) Where the FCA is satisfied that there has been a breach by a provider of the obligation in subsection (1) or the failure to comply with an order issued pursuant to subsection (3), the FCA may impose a penalty on the provider of such an amount as it considers appropriate. The FCA may, instead of imposing a penalty on a provider, publish a statement censuring the provider.
(7) The FCA must within three months of the coming into force of this section prepare and arrange for publication of a statement of its policy with respect to—
(a) the circumstances the FCA will consider under subsection (3) in deciding whether it is clearly inappropriate to issue an order; and
(b) the imposition of penalties and statements of censure under subsection (6).
(8) A breach by a provider of the obligation in subsection (1) and the failure to comply with an order issued pursuant to subsection (3) are actionable at the suit of the customer, subject to the defences and other incidents applying to actions for breach of statutory duty.
(9) In this section—
(a) a “relevant service” means a service which is (in whole or in part) directed at users in the United Kingdom and constitutes—
(i) any service provided pursuant to any regulated activity; or
(ii) any service in relation to a payment system for the purposes of enabling the transfer of funds using the payment system as referred to in section 42(5) of the 2013 Act;
save for any service expressly excluded by regulations;
(b) a “payment service provider” has the same meaning as under section 42(5) of the 2013 Act;
(c) the right to freedom of expression has the same meaning as under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights—
(i) save that it includes the right to campaign for or seek to protect the right to freedom of expression of others; and
(ii) save as excluded by regulations;
(d) “the 2013 Act” means the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013.
(10) Regulations under this section may be made pursuant to the provisions of section 428 of FSMA 2000 save that—
(a) before preparing regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must consult the FCA and such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate; and
(b) they must be adopted using the affirmative procedure before Parliament.’
New clause 28—Regulation of buy-now-pay-later firms—
‘(1) Within 28 days of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for—
(a) buy-now-pay-later credit services, and
(b) other lending services that have non-interest-bearing elements
to be regulated by the FCA.
(2) These regulations must include measures which—
(a) ensure all individuals accessing services mentioned in sub-section (1) have access to the Financial Services Ombudsman,
(b) ensure that individuals applying for services mentioned in sub-section (1) are subject to credit checks prior to the service being approved, and
(c) ensure that individuals accessing services mentioned in paragraph (1) are protected by Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act.’
This new clause would bring the non-interest-bearing elements of bring buy-now-pay-later lending and similar services under the regulatory ambit of the FCA, as proposed by the Government consultation carried out in 2022.
New clause 29—Cost benefit analyses to include assessments of economic crime risks—
‘(1) FSMA 2000 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 138I(7), at end insert—
“(c) an assessment of economic crime risks posed by the proposed rules”’.
This new clause would require cost-benefit analyses to include assessments of the risk of economic crime arising from the proposed rules.
New clause 30—Establishment of Financial Regulator’s Supervision Council—
‘(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of this Bill receiving Royal Assent, make provision for the establishment of a body to be known as the Financial Regulator’s Supervision Council (“FRSC”).
(2) The role of the body established under subsection (1) is to provide independent scrutiny and oversight of the work of the FCA and its fulfilment of its duties and responsibilities, particularly its consumer protection objective.
(3) The responsibilities of the body shall include, but not be limited to—
(a) overseeing the performance of the FCA from a consumer perspective, including undertaking annual appraisals and commissioning or undertaking periodic reviews as appropriate; and
(b) appointing, reviewing annually the performance of and, where appropriate, dismissing—
(i) the Chair and Chief Executive of the FCA (jointly with HM Treasury);
(ii) the non-Executive Directors of the FCA appointed by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy;
(iii) Members and Chair of the Financial Services Consumer Panel;
(iv) the Financial Regulators’ Complaints Commissioner;
(v) the directors of the Financial Ombudsman Service and its Independent Assessor;
(vi) the directors of the Financial Services Compensation Scheme; and
(vii) such employees as the FRSC requires to perform its statutory role.
(4) The body is to be funded by a 1% levy on the FCA’s revenue.
(5) Membership of the body shall be selected through open competition and must include individuals representing the interests of financial services consumer groups.
(6) The Secretary of State may by regulations, following consultation with consumer groups, make further provision for the body’s responsibilities, powers, constitution and membership.
(7) Any reports published by the body must be laid before Parliament.’
New clause 31—Regulators’ duty of care—
‘(1) Individuals and organisations undertaking activities within the remit of the FCA and PRA shall owe a duty of care to consumers.
(2) The “duty of care” means an obligation to act towards consumers with a reasonable level of watchfulness, attention, caution and prudence.
(3) An individual or organisation in breach of this duty of care may be subject to legal claims for negligence.’
New clause 32—Regulators’ immunity from civil damages action—
‘(1) Relevant regulators may be the subject of civil damages actions in cases where—
(a) a consumer has suffered material financial loss,
(b) the loss has occurred since 1 December 2001,
(c) the activity in the course of which the consumer suffered material financial loss is within the remit of the relevant regulator, and
(d) the relevant regulator was aware, or could reasonably be expected to have been aware, that the consumer would have been at risk of suffering financial loss and negligently failed to take sufficient action to prevent the consumer from suffering such loss.
(2) Any recommendations made by the investigator appointed under section 84(1)(b) of the Financial Services Act 2012 following the upholding of a complaint made against a regulator by a consumer who has suffered financial loss, which may include the providing of material financial redress, shall be considered binding on the regulator.
(3) The Limitation Act 1980 shall not apply in relation to any civil actions brought under this section until six years after this section has come into force.’
New clause 33—Reporting requirement: Green agenda—
‘(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, and every twelve months thereafter, the PRA and FCA must jointly lay before the House of Commons a report setting out their assessment of—
(a) the ways in which the PRA and FCA have incentivised and promoted green finance for the period covered by the report,
(b) the impact of the UK financial system in incentivising green investment for the period covered by the report, and
(c) the ways in which the PRA and FCA have supported the Secretary of State’s ability to meet the duty set out is section 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008.
(2) For the purposes of this section, “green finance” means financial products or services which aim to reduce emissions, and enhance sinks of greenhouse gases, and aim to reduce vulnerability of, and maintain and increase the resilience of, human and ecological systems to negative climate change impacts.’
This new clause would place a requirement on the PRA and FCA to report on ways in which they have promoted and incentivised green finance and green investment.
New clause 34—Investment duties of occupational pension schemes—
‘(1) Section 36 of the Pensions Act 1995 (Choosing investments) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1) remove “(4)” and insert “(4A)”.
(3) After subsection (4), insert—
“(4A) The trustees must act in the way they consider, in good faith, would be most likely to be for the benefit of the beneficiaries as a whole and to be fair as between the beneficiaries, including as between present and future beneficiaries and in doing so have regard (amongst other matters) to—
(a) the likely consequences of any decision in the long term,
(b) the impact of their investments on society and the environment,
(c) environmental, social and governance risks and opportunities (including, but not limited to, climate change),
(d) the desirability of the trustees maintaining a reputation for high standards of business conduct,
(e) the need to act fairly as between beneficiaries and members of the scheme, and
(f) in relation to investments that provide money purchase benefits, the views of beneficiaries and members of the scheme.
(4B) The trustees shall publish a policy statement of its understanding of benefit as relevant to its beneficiaries and of how it has regard to the matters in subsection 4A(a) to (d). The Secretary of State may make regulations regarding such policy statements.
(4C) The trustees shall report to beneficiaries the performance of the portfolio in delivering the benefit as defined in the policy statement and shall do this at the same time as it reports on the financial performance of the portfolio.
(4D) A fiduciary investor shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that all of its delegates and advisers comply with this section.”’
This amendment broadens the investment duties of trust-based pension schemes and FCA-authorised personal pension providers to require specified investors to make investment decisions in the “best interests” of beneficiaries.
New clause 35—Investment duties of personal pension providers—
‘(1) The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 137FD insert—
“137FE FCA general rules: pension investment
(1) The FCA must make general rules requiring managers of some or all relevant pension schemes to invest the assets in the best interests of members of the scheme and in the case of a potential conflict of interest, in the sole interest of members and survivors. In doing so they must have regard (amongst other matters) to—
(a) the likely consequences of any decision in the long term,
(b) the impact of their investments on society and the environment,
(c) the desirability of the managers maintaining a reputation for high standards of business conduct, and
(d) the need to act fairly as between members of the scheme.
(2) The FCA may make general rules requiring managers of relevant pension schemes to report publicly on how they have met the requirement in sub-section (1)
(3) In this section “relevant pension scheme” means—
(a) a personal pension scheme within the meaning of an order under section 22, or
(b) a stakeholder pension scheme within the meaning of such an order.”’
This amendment broadens the investment duties of trust-based pension schemes and FCA-authorised personal pension providers to require specified investors to make investment decisions in the “best interests” of beneficiaries.
New clause 36—Duty to report fraud—
‘(1) Financial services providers must, upon the detection of fraudulent activity or suspected fraudulent activity, report such activity to a relevant investigating authority.
(2) Financial services providers must publish an annual report which includes information on levels of identified fraudulent activity and steps taken, or planned to be taken, to reduce and prevent such or further fraudulent activity.’
Government amendments 8 to 11.
Amendment 19, in clause 29, page 41, line 12, at end insert
‘, and also to financial inclusion.
‘(2A) For the purposes of this section, “financial inclusion” means the impact on those who might be prevented from accessing financial services as a result of the new rules made by either regulator, or from accessing them on the same terms as existed before the making of the new rules.’
Government amendments 12 and 13.
Amendment 1, in clause 40, page 54, line 29, at end insert—
‘(c) be provided with any information or data that the Panel requires in order to fulfil its duties;
(d) publish the agendas and minutes of meetings of the Panel; and
(e) make publicly available its recommendations in full including, but not limited to, the evidence base and analysis it used to make its recommendations, the assessed costs and benefits of the FCA’s activities and the range of representations made by Panel members regarding those recommendations.’
Amendment 2, page 54, line 36, at end insert
“at least two of whom must be representatives of FCA authorised firms.”
Amendment 21, page 54, line 38, at end insert
“, at least three of whom must have experience and expertise in the field of economic crime, with one each drawn from the public, private and third sectors respectively”.
This amendment would require the FCA’s Cost Benefit Analysis Panel to include individuals with expertise in economic crime.
Government amendment 14.
Amendment 3, page 54, line 41, leave out from “must” to end of line 42 and insert
“within 30 days of the receipt of representations made to it by the FCA Cost Benefit Analysis Panel, publish a response to such representations, including a statement of actions it will take as a result of the representations.”
Amendment 4, page 55, line 20, at end insert—
“(c) be provided with any information or data that the Panel requires in order to fulfil its duties;
(d) publish the agendas and minutes of meetings of the Panel; and
(e) make publicly available its recommendations in full including, but not limited to, the evidence base and analysis it used to make its recommendations, the assessed costs and benefits of the PRA‘s activities and any dissenting representations made by Panel members regarding those recommendations.”
Amendment 5, page 55, line 2, at end insert
“at least two of whom must be representatives of PRA authorised firms”.
Amendment 22, page 55, line 29, at end insert
“, at least three of whom must have experience and expertise in the field of economic crime, with one each drawn from the public, private and third sectors respectively”.
This amendment would require the PRA’s Cost Benefit Analysis Panel to include individuals with expertise in economic crime.
Government amendment 15.
Amendment 6, page 55, line 32, leave out from “must” to end of line 33 and insert
“within 30 days of the receipt of representations made to it by the PRA Cost Benefit Analysis Panel, publish a response to such representations , including a statement of actions it will take as a result of the representations.”
Government amendment 16.
Amendment 7, in clause 64, page 78, line 20, at end insert—
“(5A) The relevant requirement referred to in subsection (5) must specify that reimbursement in qualifying cases cannot be refused on the basis that a victim, or victims, ought to have known that the payment order was executed subsequent to fraud or dishonesty.”
This amendment would prevent reimbursement for victims of fraudulent or dishonest payments being refused on the basis that that they should have known the payment was fraudulent or dishonest.
Amendment 20, page 78, line 20, at end insert—
“(5A) The relevant requirement mentioned in subsection (5) must set out clearly that—
(a) those to which the requirement applies have a duty to ensure that reimbursement is made in all qualifying cases, and
(b) the penalty imposed by the Payment Systems Regulator, under section 73 of the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013, for failure to comply with that duty, will be not less than £100,000 in each instance of failure.”
Amendment 23, in schedule 2, page 119, line 19, leave out sub-paragraphs (2) and (3).
This amendment would maintain the regulator’s duty to establish appropriate position limits in commodity speculation, to ensure the effective functioning of commodity markets and prevent potentially risky speculation.
Amendment 24, page 119, line 2, leave out “that paragraph” and insert “paragraph (1)”.
This amendment would maintain the regulator’s duty to establish appropriate position limits in commodity speculation, to ensure the effective functioning of commodity markets and prevent potentially risky speculation.
Amendment 25, page 119, line 32, leave out sub-paragraph (5).
This amendment would maintain the regulator’s duty to establish appropriate position limits in commodity speculation, to ensure the effective functioning of commodity markets and prevent potentially risky speculation.
Amendment 27, page 120, line 4, leave out paragraph 48.
This amendment would remove the proposed amendment to the FCA’s power to intervene, to maintain transparency in commodity markets and reduce the scope of so-called “dark pools”.
Amendment 26, page 120, line 10, leave out sub-paragraph (4).
This amendment would maintain the regulator’s duty to establish appropriate position limits in commodity speculation, to ensure the effective functioning of commodity markets and prevent potentially risky speculation.
Government amendments 17 and 18.
Amendment 28, page 155, line 7, at end insert—
“(1A) When exercising its functions under this Part, the FCA may issue a direction to a designated person, for the purpose of establishing a banking hub.
(1B) A designated person must comply with a direction under subsection (1B).
(1C) A “banking hub” is a facility which—
(a) provides cash access services,
(b) is facilitated jointly by multiple providers of such services,
(c) contains private consultation spaces at for users of cash access services, and
(d) is established for the purpose of ensuring reasonable provision of cash access services where there would otherwise be a local deficiency of such provision.”
This amendment would require designated persons to comply with direction given by the FCA for the purposes of establishing banking hubs.
Andrew Griffith
The financial services sector is central to our Government’s ambition to bolster our global competitiveness and boost growth in all parts of the United Kingdom. This Bill delivers on our ambition by seizing the opportunities of our departure from the European Union, tailoring financial services regulation to UK markets and delivering better outcomes for the economy, consumers, victims of fraud and businesses. There are many amendments for consideration today, so I will be as succinct as possible, and I look forward to having time to respond to hon. Members’ contributions later.
In Committee, I heard from colleagues on both sides of the House about the importance of holding the operationally independent regulators to account regarding their performance—in particular, that there should be regular reporting on their performance to support scrutiny, beyond just the annual report. Regulation is about not just the contents of the rulebook, but how effectively and on how timely a basis those rules are enforced and implemented.
The Government and regulators are both committed to the highest standards of operational effectiveness. That is why last week we published an exchange of letters with the regulators, making clear the intention to publish more detailed performance data in relation to their authorisation processes on a more regular basis. However, I also noted the clear consensus in Committee on the need to enhance the existing statutory provisions. In particular, I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) and for North Warwickshire (Craig Tracey) for raising this important issue.
As a result, new clause 17 provides a new power for the Treasury to require the regulators to publish additional information on a more regular basis, where that is necessary to support this House’s scrutiny of their performance in discharging their general functions.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
I have seen the exchange of letters—that is very welcome—and I have read new clause 17. Both lack any specificity about what those metrics may be. I do not expect the Minister to respond now, but perhaps in his summing up, to reassure those of us on the Back Benches, he could provide some comfort about how specific he and the Treasury will get.
Andrew Griffith
I thank my hon. Friend who, as one of my predecessors, has made a significant contribution to getting the Bill to where it is today. I will try to indulge him, but he will also recognise that the Bill is about putting enabling powers in place, and there will be opportunities on future occasions to discuss how we deploy those.
New clause 18 introduces a requirement for the regulators to ensure that all members of their statutory panels are external and independent of the Treasury, the Bank of England and the regulators. That will codify the current approach taken by regulators, putting it in statute, building confidence in their independence and ensuring that it is maintained on a long-term basis.
New clause 19 introduces a new requirement for the regulators to publish a list of respondents to their public consultations, provided that the respondents consent. The requirement is limited to the financial services regulators and their specific statutory consultation in existing financial services legislation. New clauses 18 and 19 also address points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) and the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney).
I also note the interest of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) in enhancing regulator accountability through his new clauses on a new regulators’ supervision council and ending regulators’ statutory immunity from civil damages. I understand where he is coming from, and I note that he chairs the all-party parliamentary group on personal banking and fairer financial services, but the Government’s position is that a new supervisory council would duplicate existing accountability structures. Indeed, none of the representations that I receive from industry says that the biggest thing that will help growth and competitiveness is another layer of regulators. There is also a great deal of existing accountability structures, including the role undertaken by this House and its various Committees, which is why that position was supported by the Treasury Committee in its July 2021 report. Removing the regulators’ statutory immunity from liability and damages would risk regulators over-regulating to avoid the risk of liability. There are already mechanisms for holding regulators to account, including the complaints scheme. That scheme is overseen by the independent complaints commissioner, who has powers to recommend redress.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
I certainly appreciate the Minister’s concern that we might see precautionary regulation, but is the best way to avoid that not simply to restrict the removal of liability to cases in which the regulator has clearly and negligently failed to act to deal with a situation in which an already regulated activity was being carried out in an unacceptable way? That is what happened with Blackmore Bond. It was not an unregulated activity; it was an activity that fell within the scope of the Financial Conduct Authority, but it failed to act and £46 million was stolen from people as a result.
Andrew Griffith
The hon. Member draws our attention to the very tragic cases that occur when financial regulation goes wrong and does not do its job in the way every Member of this House would like to see. He also talks about a legal threshold for that. He will perhaps appreciate that I do not have the facts of that particular case before me and that we are not drafting things here and now. I have heard from Members on both sides of the House about some of the problems in what we are talking about, which is essentially the conduct of the regulator, and I understand colleagues’ desire to look at legal liability as one remedy, but there are many powers in the Bill, and as I say, the Bill will not constrain the ability of this House or Ministers going forward.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy), with whom I spent a lot of time in the Bill Committee—I suspect we will hear from her later this afternoon—has tabled a new clause on considering economic risks in regulators’ cost-benefit analysis panels. I would like to reassure her that the regulators already take steps—and, to assuage her concerns, they could perhaps do more—to think about economic crime when they do that. They have the power, of course, to consult experts where they consider it relevant.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire again for raising the issue of regulatory proportionality. I wish to reassure him that the Government are clear that the burden of any regulation should be proportionate to its benefits, and that is set out in existing legislation. I am very happy to reiterate again today that I expect the regulators to fully and proactively embrace that principle, which is embedded in statute. That is particularly important, as the Bill confers on them greater rule-making responsibilities. I suspect we will hear from my hon. Friend later on.
I will now turn to Government amendments 8 to 11 —I apologise, but there are quite a lot of amendments to crack on through. Clause 6 already enables the Treasury to exempt regulators from the statutory requirement to consult on rules when they are replacing retained EU law repealed by the Bill without making material changes. Amendments 8 to 11 go further. They create a blanket exemption from the statutory requirement to consult in situations in which the regulators remove EU-derived rules from their rulebooks without replacement. The amendments also allow the Treasury to exempt the regulators when they are amending EU-derived rules or replacing retained EU law in their rulebooks, and when the only material effect of the change is to reduce regulatory burdens. That ensures that the regulators can take that proportionate approach to consultation, accelerate the repeal of retained EU law, and not let the requirement to consult be an obstacle or delaying factor. It is a long time since the British people voted for Brexit, and it is time to start delivering those benefits. Nothing in the amendments changes the obligation on the regulators to act to advance their statutory objectives, so any reduction in regulatory burdens must be compatible with those objectives.
Let me briefly cover the two remaining Government amendments, and I will then move on. New clause 20 ensures that a new type of fund vehicle currently being explored—the unauthorised contractual scheme—would be commercially viable if it were introduced. The proposed fund has the potential to improve the competitiveness of the UK by filling a gap in the UK’s existing fund offering and supporting the domestic growth agenda by facilitating greater investment in UK real estate by UK funds. Amendment 17 is a minor and technical amendment to rectify an inadvertent omission in drafting.
I will now address the amendments tabled by other Members. I am conscious that I am speaking before Members have had a chance to introduce their amendments, so I look forward to responding in more detail, where necessary, at the end of the debate. Let me start with the important issue of access to cash. I represent a rural constituency with a higher-than-average proportion of elderly and vulnerable residents, so I am acutely aware of the very real concerns around this topic. As of today, there remains extensive access to cash across the UK as a whole—over 95% of people live within 2,000 metres of a free cashpoint. I want to be clear that it is not acceptable for people to have no option but to travel large distances or pay ATM fees to access their own money.
If hon. Members have a concern in their local area, as I know many have, I strongly recommend that they reach out to LINK, which is leading the industry-led initiative to see what can be done to help constituents. LINK is delivering, for example, a new free-to-use ATM in the Pollards Hill estate in the constituency of the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh)—I have already made a commitment to her to visit and open it.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
May I say to the Minister that I am delighted that LINK is providing that machine? That part of outer London is, as many Members here will know, inaccessible apart from by limited public transport. There are two paid-for machines in the terrace, but a free one has been refused for years and years and years. I believe that this machine may be coming because of this very amendment—new clause 7. Unless it is there in writing, how can anybody in this House feel confident that free cash machines will be kept? Their numbers are reducing at pace.
Andrew Griffith
The hon. Lady probably proves each of our points, including my point that we start from a position where there is an industry-led solution, and I am sure that many colleagues will be auditioning for these new industry-led free cash machines.
Dame Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Dame Andrea Leadsom
The Minister and I had a very good conversation about this very subject. He is aware that back in the days of a former Treasury Committee and an earlier Government, there was a huge move away from ATMs per se, let alone free access to people’s own cash. Can he therefore make it clear at the Dispatch Box what he said to me, which is that the Government are entirely behind free access to cash and will make that clear in the guidance?
Andrew Griffith
My right hon. Friend is just one of many colleagues—many in the Chamber today, but also my hon. Friends the Members for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) and for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher)—who have made precisely this point. It is the Government’s expectation that the industry-led initiative must deliver. As I will come on to clarify, the powers we are taking in the Bill—we are not mandating them, because we do not support the amendment from the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh)—give us the flexibility in future, by means of a direction statement to the industry, to mandate free cash machines.
Andrew Griffith
Let me finish this point, because I know many Members are vexed by this issue and we understand how important it is. Work has been done since my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire occupied my position. A further 47 communities represented in this House will benefit from similar cash facilities funded by the banks, as part of that LINK assessment process. I urge all colleagues to take advantage of that, and my office is happy to help to do that.
Several hon. Members rose—
Andrew Griffith
I am going to finish this point, and then we will hear from more Members. We must not underestimate the significance of what the Bill is doing: it is taking legislative action for the first time in the more than 1,000-year history of the Royal Mint, where the UK pioneered paper banknotes in the 17th century and since we introduced the world’s first ATM in 1967. This Government—right now, today—are putting on the statute book and protecting access to cash, to safeguard the needs of those who need it.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
Like my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom), I had a very useful conversation with the Minister. Will he confirm what I think he just said, which is that if it becomes clear that people do not have free access to cash across the United Kingdom, the Government will proactively intervene to make sure that they do?
Andrew Griffith
We talked about my right hon. Friend’s relative munificence of 53 free cash machines in his constituency—I think it was that at the last count. What he says is the case. The Bill gives the Government the ability at any point in time to give direction to the Financial Conduct Authority, the relevant regulator—this is the basis on which we regulate all our financial services in this country—through a policy statement that will set out the Government’s policy on such matters as cost and location. I am being clear that it is our expectation that the industry will deliver on this important issue for our constituents. If not, the Bill gives any future Government the ability to mandate that.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
Notwithstanding the support that the Minister is giving to the notion of free cash, he will recognise that the Government cannot sit there like King Canute, and that between 2010 and 2020 the number of payments made in cash went from 50% to 17%. That has fallen yet further during the pandemic. There are significant advantages to cashless transactions, not least in the elimination of crime. Actually, it is a bit of a myth that there are sections of society that struggle, and we see that most apparently in the advent of cashless parking. There are hardly any councils left in the country now that use cash for their parking. They are all using apps on smartphones. When we introduced it when I was at Westminster City Council, we did not have a single complaint from an elderly person—quite the reverse. They often found it much easier than fumbling around for coins and notes to be able to park, as well as having the ability to extend the time using the phone. There are great advantages to the elimination of cash in society too.
Andrew Griffith
My right hon. Friend is right and illustrates well the Government’s desire to achieve the right balance in this debate, rather than operate at either extremity. He will know from his former role the significant move in relation to Oyster and the ability to be cashless.
Siobhain McDonagh
Is the Minister aware that we have lost 12,599 free-to-use ATMs since 2018? That is a reduction of 24%. Who in this House, understanding that trajectory, would believe that the numbers are not going to fall further?
Andrew Griffith
I will repeat my previous point, and the hon. Lady will have her chance to speak later. It is the objective of the Government, in the course of the transition that my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) talked about, to protect the vulnerable and ensure that protection of access to cash. The hon. Lady’s statistic is right, but I reiterate that more than 95% of people today live within 2,000 metres of a free cashpoint, and I hope she recognises that.
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I want to follow up on some of the comments from my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse). Cash is being used far less than it was previously. That is good and convenient for many people. I fully support the Government’s moves and the ambition across this House to ensure that we have access to free cash, but there is no point in people having access to free cash if they cannot spend it on essential items. I just flag that many retail outlets no longer accept cash. It is not just parking; there are cashless bars and so on. That is fine, but there is a scenario where outlets that sell essential items such as food shops and chemists might at some point be required to accept cash, because if they do not accept cash, lots of people will be excluded.
Andrew Griffith
My hon. Friend makes another important point, and I fear we are in danger of previewing the debate that we shall have this afternoon. When we talk about access to cash, we are not just talking about withdrawals; we are also talking about the deposits that are so vital. If our small businesses in particular are to continue to take cash, they need to be able to deposit that securely, safely and conveniently.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Ind)
I just want to broaden the debate from ATMs to bank hubs. These were promised as a panacea for towns where the last bank has gone, such as Acton. It is not just about rural communities. Acton was one of 10 places that were promised a bank hub last December, but nothing has happened. There is a lack of will, and they are under-resourced and voluntary. Perhaps there is an argument for more regulation to make them happen, because The Daily Telegraph and the Daily Mail were saying in the autumn that none of these—zero—has happened, but I understand that since then two of them have. In the meantime, Acton is a cash desert. In 2018 we lost our post office, never to be replaced. What advice does the Minister have for me? How can he compel that bank hub to open?
Andrew Griffith
The bank hub initiative, just like the new voluntary initiative on LINK cash machines, has an important role to play. Frankly, these initiatives have started relatively recently, and as well as making sure today that we get the right balance in statute, we also need to see them delivered. I will take that case forward for the hon. Lady, and I will write to her. The bank hubs programme is now being deployed at pace. My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) boasts of his bank hub, which I suspect will not make the hon. Lady delighted, but it shows that they can deliver, and that is what we want.
I will clarify for the record what we are saying, if I may. Under the Bill, the FCA, when acting to ensure reasonable access to cash, has to have regard to the Treasury’s policy statement in this area. That is the statement that will set out from time to time the Government’s position on matters such as cost and location, and the FCA will have to have regard to that when setting the detailed prescriptive regulations.
That gives time—I am putting the industry on notice—for those industry-led schemes to prove that they can deliver, and to ensure that the Government have a robust regulatory framework: a belt-and-braces framework. I believe that is the right and flexible way of dealing with the matter, rather than right now locking it in statute for all time. I will ensure that we reflect the House’s views on that when we craft the policy statement.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
The Minister is being very generous in giving way. The point made by the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) makes clear the need for free access to cash to be provided for in the Bill. As the number of people making cash transactions falls, it becomes more expensive to distribute cash freely. There is, however, as I hope we all understand, a vulnerable group in our society who still need free access to cash. As cashless transactions increase, the need to maintain free access to cash for the most vulnerable people in our society increases. That is why we are asking for it to be provided for in the Bill.
Andrew Griffith
I agree with the hon. Lady’s point that it becomes a pressing issue. The justification, having successfully transacted in cash since the first Roman emperor decided to dispense pieces of metallurgic value with his head on them, is precisely that we see the transition and we want to get it right, in the interests of the vulnerable. The Bill also contains powers to regulate the wholesale distribution of cash—those people who trunk cash up and down cash centres across the United Kingdom.
Andrew Griffith
We have spent a long time on cash, so I will take one final intervention on this. Then I will make progress, simply to allow other Members the chance to make the points that they are here to make.
Kit Malthouse
I am grateful to the Minister. He may not be old enough, but some of us will remember the moment the cheque started to go out of usage. There were lots of claims of damage to certain sections of society, and that lots of people would be outraged when the cheque disappeared. Now people operate without chequebooks on a daily basis, and no retailers, as far as I am aware, accept cheques. On the idea that we should mandate that cash be accepted, we cannot stand in the way of the fact that consumers are voting not to use cash. The market is telling us that cash is running out of use, and let us scotch the myth that there is such a thing as a free ATM. The network at the moment costs about £5 billion to operate. That is paid for by every user of the bank, whether they use the ATM or not.
Andrew Griffith
My right hon. Friend makes his points very well. As he said earlier, there are significant benefits in relation to fraud, traceability and the environment from dematerialising, but it is not the position of the Government to advocate for it.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I reiterate what the Minister said: a lot of Members wish to speak in the debate, and he has been on his feet for about half an hour. If we are to have time for the amendments and other contributions, we need to cut back on interventions.
Andrew Griffith
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker; you are as wise as my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire is flattering. We will make some progress and allow others to contribute.
Let me move on to access to banking and payment services. Just as we have said about cash, they are the essential ingredients of modern life and for many businesses. The new clause tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) and for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer) raised the important issue, to all of us in this House, of free speech, and the crucial role of payment service providers in delivering services without censorship. Since Committee stage, I have met with my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye, the FCA and PayPal regarding its recent temporary suspension of some accounts. I draw hon. Members’ attention to my letter deposited in the House, in which I set out the Government’s position on that important matter. I also circulated the letter from PayPal that sets out that it re-evaluated and reversed its decision in a number of the specific cases raised. It says that it was never its intention to be an arbiter of free speech, and that none of its actions was based on its customers’ political views.
I want to be extremely clear that the Government are committed to ensuring that the regulations respect the balance of rights between users and service providers’ obligations, including in respect of freedom of expression, whether of the Free Speech Union, the trade union movement, law-abiding environmental movements or anyone else expressing lawful views. To ensure that the existing regulatory regime is operating as it should in that respect, I will seek further evidence through the Government’s review of payment services regulation in January. To continue this transparent dialogue with colleagues on an important subject, I will provide an update to Parliament in the form of a written ministerial statement before the formal closure of that review, and table amendments to the relevant regulations using the powers in today’s Bill, if necessary.
We recognise the value that the mutuals sector brings to the UK economy in providing a door to affordable credit. The Government are committed to the health and prosperity of the mutuals sector, which is why we supported the private Member’s Bill of the hon. Member for Preston (Sir Mark Hendrick), which would allow co-operatives, mutual insurers and friendly societies further flexibility in determining for themselves the best strategies for their business. As I said in Committee in response to amendments tabled to today’s Bill by the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq), the Government consider that the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 already ensures that regulators consider mutual entities as they exercise their regulatory functions.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
On the FCA and financial inclusion, it is very wise that we ensure that good financial advice is imparted by the powers-to-be. In referring Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, may I say that when it comes to things such as investment trusts, we are still trying to throw off the yoke of well-intentioned but misguided EU regulation when it comes to information that could lead to a misunderstanding about risk? The FCA seems somewhat reluctant to carry that forward. Will the Government ensure that the regulators, including the FCA, are doing their job?
Andrew Griffith
My hon. Friend makes a very fair point. To be clear, the purpose of good financial regulation cannot be to extinguish risk, but is to give people choice and indeed allow them to reap the rewards of taking risk in an appropriate and informed fashion, so I completely agree with him.
On the theme of reporting, I assure the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) and my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) that the consumer panel, like all other statutory panels, already produces an annual report with the panel’s opinion on matters that it has engaged with the FCA on; however, following new clause 10 being tabled, I recognise the need to ensure that reports are brought to the attention of the House. I have engaged with the FCA, which has agreed with me that in future it will notify the Treasury Committee, as the relevant Committee of this House, on publication of the consumer panel’s report, to ensure that Members of this House are aware of and can fully engage with it. I hope that that goes some way to giving the hon. Members the satisfaction that they seek.
Before I speak about the financial advice guidance boundary, raised in new clause 11 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin), the Chair of the Treasury Committee, let me congratulate her on her relatively recent election to that role—although I hope that we have worked well together even during her short time in it.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
I congratulate the Minister on his earlier remarks about seeking to improve the performance of the FCA. Many people on both sides of the House want that to happen. It is pleasing that the Treasury Committee will hear information on reporting from the consumer panel of the FCA; however, a number of financial scandals have affected the constituents of Members across the House in recent years. While I hear what the Minister says, I am really looking for a greater opportunity to challenge the FCA through its consumer panel than he has so far suggested, but I hope that we can work together to strengthen that point.
Andrew Griffith
I thank the hon. Member for his point. I had that conversation with the FCA precisely to try to achieve that purpose. If there are other ways to do that that will help him, I am happy to do so.
I was talking about the financial advice boundary, which is a real concern and speaks as much to financial inclusion as to the work of the advisory sector. My hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire, when she was in this role, undertook some important work on the comprehensive financial advice market review, which led to some important improvements in the market at that time. Unlike me, however, she was not blessed with the Brexit freedoms of being able to influence our own rulebook.
I completely agree with my hon. Friend that it cannot be right that only the wealthiest can access financial advice. The situation today is a good example of the unintended consequence of well-meaning regulation that we should be alive to. I thank the Investing and Saving Alliance and others for their efforts to promote reform in this area, and it is something that I will take forward and see what I can do to progress. We will revisit the issue and work closely with the FCA and the industry. I assure her that there is nothing in the Bill that would impede any of the things that she seeks to do.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
The Minister is making some encouraging sounds about new clause 11. In addition to the commitments that he has just made, will he instruct officials to look at the matter with the greatest urgency?
Andrew Griffith
I am happy to confirm that we will pursue it with great urgency, as the Government should be doing with everything in this important domain. Although the Government will not be supporting new clause 11 today, it goes some way to address the issue, so I will look at it as a basis for potentially moving forward. The Bill enables us to do that, so we do not have to do it today. I commend the other amendments tabled in relation to preventing consumer harm.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister has been talking about the importance of regulation. He will know that one area that is not regulated at all is buy now, pay later, and he will have seen new clause 28 in my name. A poll published today says that 40% of the British public will do their Christmas spending with a buy now, pay later loan. A quarter of those who use buy now, pay later are missing other payments, because they are getting into a cycle of unaffordable debt. We have been talking about regulating these companies for nearly three years now; the Government’s proposals talk about regulation possibly coming in another year’s time. Can he see a way to at least introduce the protection of the ombudsman, so that this Christmas does not leave families with a nasty wake-up call come 1 January?
Andrew Griffith
I will try to respond to the hon. Lady’s points further when I sum up, so I can make some progress. We had that debate several times in Committee. We have to be slightly cautious about the unintended consequences of taking into scope a much wider set of transactions that involve an element of deferred payment, but I am sympathetic to her points.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East for raising the topic of a statutory duty of care for consumers. Ensuring that consumers of financial services get the right protection they need remains a priority. The FCA comprehensively analysed the options for improving that, which led to the consumer duty that will come into force in July.
The hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) tabled new clauses 34 and 35 to require trustees of occupational pension schemes and fund managers to act in the best interest of beneficiaries, which is indeed the position as it stands today, although I will listen carefully to her points. Trustees and fund managers will be subject to the FCA’s consumer duty, which puts on them a focus of delivering good outcomes for customers.
I turn to amendments relating to frauds and scams. The Bill is a huge step forward in tackling the growing problem of authorised push payment scams. I will be clear that, as I set out in my response to the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn in Committee, the Government are committed to tackling fraud far more widely than in just financial services. She may like to know that the Home Office has now confirmed that a national fraud strategy will be published early in the new year.
Specifically for financial services, UK Finance publishes a half-year fraud update, which sets out how the industry is working together to respond to the fraud threat and to support customers. In relation to the amendments concerning the reimbursement of victims of authorised push payment scams, the payment systems regulator has already signalled its intention to deliver a higher degree of consumer protection.
On sustainable finance, no Government have done more on the climate. We have legislated to reach net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. We support strengthening the UK financial services regulatory regime’s baking in of the climate, as underlined by clause 25, which requires the regulators in discharging their functions to have regard to the need to contribute to achieving compliance with net zero. The regulators will be required to report annually on how they have considered that regulatory principle. That is a significant step in our goal of making the UK a net zero-aligned financial centre, and builds on our green finance and net zero strategies across the whole gamut of regulatory activity. The Government committed to updating our green financial strategy and will announce further information on timing imminently.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
I am delighted to hear that from my hon. Friend. Does he agree that that not just gives the UK a competitive edge but creates many new jobs and opportunities for the UK to lead the world in green finance, as well as other green industries in future?
Andrew Griffith
Absolutely; it is a strategy that pays back on many levels. It is biased towards left-behind communities and parts of the United Kingdom, it creates jobs and prosperity, it safeguards the prospects of the City of London and our financial and professional services and, of course, it ensures that we deploy capital in pursuit of the transition to a clean, low-carbon world.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)
How does the Minister square the language that he has just used about how great the UK is with two major banks that are based here providing £107.44 billion to the top 50 companies expanding upstream oil and gas? Is that not exactly why we need some of the sustainable finance amendments that have been tabled?
Andrew Griffith
I beg to differ with the hon. Lady, because it is important to finance the transition to achieve a just green financial future. While we are making all these efforts and coming forward with things such as the taskforce on nature-related financial disclosures, we will therefore make sure that we are not defaulting to divestments and boycotts, because that is not our view of the way that the Government will finance the clean energy revolution.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
The Bank of England’s climate stress test, published in May, showed that banks need to take climate action immediately or face a hit to annual profits of up to 15%. This is not just about airy-fairy words about the transition, but about banks that, as we have just heard, are bankrolling the fossil fuel industry, which will bring real risks to the finance sector as well as to the rest of the world. Can the Minister say whether he will support new clause 25?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Before the Minister does, I will just say that he has been speaking for three quarters of an hour now. A lot of people want to contribute to the debate.
Andrew Griffith
On this side of the House, we are about action not words. I listened with great care to what the hon. Lady said, but action starts at home. In her constituency, the Green party leader flew on a jet aeroplane to COP and the level of recycling is half that of neighbouring West Sussex. People should get their own house in order before coming to virtue-signal about others’.
New clauses 8 and 9 in the name of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake) raise the important issue of financial stewardship. The Department for Work and Pensions, which is responsible for that, has already made a public commitment to review stewardship disclosure requirements. That will be done during 2023.
Finally, the Government believe that effective commodities market regulation is key to ensuring that market speculation does not lead to economic harm. The current regime we have inherited from the EU is overly complicated and poorly designed. To ensure that this is calibrated correctly, the Bill delegates the setting of position limits from the FCA to trading venues themselves. The amendments in the name of the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) seek to reverse this. The Government’s position is that this would place unnecessary restrictions on investors, to the detriment of all market participants. It would place the UK at a disadvantage compared with other international financial centres, such as the EU, that apply restrictions only to contracts that genuinely pose a risk.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I do not wish to delay the debate, but in the Financial Times today there is an announcement that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make a significant statement on Friday about the future of our financial services. There was no reference by the Minister to that statement. It looks as though the statement will be made outside the House, not to the House, because it is being made in Scotland on Friday. Could I ask for your intercession to remind the Government that major statements of this sort, and it is billed as the most significant statement in the last 20-odd years, should be made on the Floor of the House?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I am getting no indication that the Minister wants to comment on that, but the fact is that the Speaker has said time and again that he deprecates statements that should be made to the House first being made elsewhere, and I am sure the Minister will take that on board.
I call the shadow Minister.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
The Opposition support the Bill, particularly the new secondary objectives for regulators on international competitiveness and long-term growth. It is a welcome first step in supporting the City to take advantage of opportunities outside the EU, such as creating a welcoming environment for new financial technologies and incentivising financial services to increase investments in domestic industries through reform of solvency II.
We were delighted when, after much pressure from the Labour party, the Minister decided to drop his dangerous policy of the intervention power. Despite repeated warnings from the Bank of England, business and the Labour party that he should not be putting the UK’s international competitiveness at risk by threatening our system of regulatory independence, the current Minister pushed on and told me it was a good thing. In my eyeline, I can see the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), who, when he was the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, said to me on Second Reading that it was right for Ministers to be able to intervene in such a way.
Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
On regulatory independence, notwithstanding the particular call-in power the hon. Lady is describing, would she agree that it is important for the elected Government and this House to be able to set the direction in which regulators are meant to go, and that if the regulators are not going in that direction, this House and the Government should be able to correct the direction they are going in?
Tulip Siddiq
I support much of what the hon. Member says, and I will come on to that a little later in my speech, but the call-in power is very different from what he is describing. Time and again, we warned Ministers that this would be detrimental to our regulatory independence, and they did not listen. However, if the hon. Member listens carefully, he will hear, when I come on to the next page of my speech, that I will address the valid points he is making.
In Committee, when I pushed the current Minister on why this dangerous intervention power was necessary, he told me that voices in the industry had told him we needed an “agile and flexible system”, which he claimed could only be brought about by this intervention power. After all of this from the three Economic Secretaries I have shadowed in 10 months, who kept pushing this dangerous intervention power, strangely enough the Government then dropped the policy: I just received an opaque letter, which did not really offer any proper explanation for why this Government have had a change of heart. If you do not mind my saying so, Mr Deputy Speaker, I thought about when I got a text from my crush in the sixth form telling me there would be no second date, without his actually telling me face to face why he did not want to see me again. I do wonder why, but I say to the Minister that I am grateful that he listened to the Labour party and has dropped the dangerous intervention power. I only wish he had done it sooner, so we could have saved some unnecessary damage to our global reputation.
While the intervention power was wholly inappropriate, we recognise that the Bill facilitates an unprecedented transfer of responsibilities from retained EU law to the regulators, and this does require democratic accountability. That is why I am glad the Government have listened to the concerns raised by me and others in Committee and have introduced new clause 17, which will allow regulators to be held to account against key metrics.
I hope the Minister will be able to commit to supporting new clause 10, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith), to further strengthen the democratic accountability of regulators.
I was absolutely delighted that the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) was following my speeches at the Labour party conference so closely, where again and again I made the case for a new form of regulated personalised guidance. She has tabled new clause 11, which would create the space to do that, and I hope the Government will support her new clause.
Mr Baron
I hope the hon. Lady’s ex-crush realises what he has missed, but may I briefly pick up the point about democratic accountability when it comes to supervision of the regulators? I suggest that those regulators need to heed the advice of the professional bodies working in the sector. I raise again the issue of investment trusts. We have the Association of Investment Companies and many others saying that key information documents—a well-intentioned but misguided legacy of misguided EU regulation—are actually assessing risk incorrectly, to the detriment of investors. They are saying that now, and the FCA has control, yet we do not seem to be doing much about it. We are not making much progress on this issue, and meanwhile investors are being misled. Would she agree that we need to listen to the trade bodies as well?
Tulip Siddiq
I always want to listen to experts such as the trade bodies. The hon. Member has a wealth of knowledge in this area, and I accept what he is saying. Overall, the Labour party agrees with a lot of the policies in this Bill, which is why we have given it our wholehearted support. There are some missed opportunities that we feel could have been taken, and I think we could have strengthened our attractiveness for investments, as he is saying—I will come on to that later in my speech. I take his point, which is well made, and I hope the Minister will listen and will respond to it in his summing up.
Turning to my own amendments, I am worried about the lack of ambition in the Bill on strengthening fraud prevention. My new clause 1 would introduce the first national fraud strategy and data sharing arrangement for a decade. The National Audit Office, in its recent report, said that the Government simply do not understand the full scale of the fraud epidemic, despite the NAO calling for rapid action over five years ago. That is a damning statement. UK Finance has found that the Government’s failure to act on the fraud strategy and data sharing has seen the amount of money stolen from hard-working families’ and businesses’ bank accounts through fraud and scams hit a record high of £1.3 billion.
Despite that, in Committee, the Minister urged me to withdraw my new clause on the matter. He told me to be patient, and he told me that there would be a fraud strategy before Christmas. Now he is saying there will be one early next year, but how can we trust him not to kick the can further down the road? So I will be holding the Minister to account. There are only 24 days left until the end of the year, and people whose lives have been ruined by fraudsters cannot afford to be patient any longer.
Following our debate in Committee, leaders from across the financial services sector told me that the Government’s approach of placing data sharing responsibilities on the banks alone was stuck in the last century and allows tech-savvy criminals to get rich at the public’s expense. My new clause would put in place a data sharing arrangement that extends beyond just the banks to include social media companies, crypto-asset firms, payment system operators and other platforms that are exploited by criminals. If the Minister does not listen to the Labour party, I hope he will listen to the National Audit Office, businesses and victims of fraud, and finally give enforcement agencies the powers they need to crack down on criminals by voting for our new clause today. I also hope the Government will support my new clauses 2 and 3 and new clause 7, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh); because we have spent a substantial amount of time speaking about free access to cash I will not elaborate too much on that, but she has our full support.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does she agree that new clause 3, on access to banking, is particularly important? For many disabled and elderly people and others with mobility issues, and indeed for small businesses, access to banking as a whole, as well as access to cash, is hugely important; that has been very evident in my constituency.
Tulip Siddiq
My hon. Friend is a doughty champion for his constituents. I will speak about that later, but I feel that we politicians have a duty on this: even if there has been a decline in the number of people using cash, there is still a small group of vulnerable people who do so, and they risk being excluded if we do not save free access to cash and face-to-face banking services. We have a duty to our vulnerable constituents, disabled constituents and those from black and minority ethnic backgrounds who still rely on cash.
David Mundell
I fully understand what the hon. Lady is saying, but it is not a small number of people: it was estimated in 2019 that 8 million people across the United Kingdom would struggle without access to cash.
Tulip Siddiq
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I welcome the fact that the Government have finally announced that they will bring forward access-to-cash legislation, but this Bill does nothing to protect face-to-face banking or free access to cash, which is our main concern and is what the most vulnerable in our society depend on.
Since 2015, on this Government’s watch nearly half of the UK’s bank branches have closed. It is inevitable that banking systems will continue to innovate—no one is denying that—but the failure to protect these services risks leaving millions of people behind. My amendment would empower the Financial Conduct Authority to review communities’ needs for and access to essential in-person banking services. To be clear, I am not saying banks should be prevented from closing underused branches—far from it. I explained this thoroughly in Committee but will say it briefly again now: vital face-to-face services could be delivered through a variety of models, such as shared banking hubs, which are already being set up across the country to provide cash services.
In Committee, the Minister was again very persuasive and convinced me to withdraw my new clause. He said he accepted the underlying need for action and that solutions would be brought to the table. I believed him, but despite warnings from Age UK, Which? and the Access to Cash Action Group—which does fantastic work in this area—that vulnerable people are at risk of being cut off from the services they desperately rely on, the Government have completely failed to engage on this important issue, and this time I will not be making the same mistake: I will not withdraw my new clauses. The Government need to demonstrate they will not simply abandon those who are struggling to bank online.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
I want to pledge my support for new clauses 2 and 3. In my constituency we have lost 13 to 15 banks since 2015, and we are more or less wholly reliant now on the Post Office to provide financial services in large parts of north Carmarthenshire. Worryingly, the new deal starting next year only lasts until 2025, and if that were to break down for whatever reason, there would be real issues in many communities.
Tulip Siddiq
The hon. Gentleman is right that this is not just about bank branch closures; it is also about pressures in the Post Office. It is possible to provide some of the services through the Post Office, but we have a duty to preserve some of the banking hubs to ensure that the Post Office does not get overwhelmed. I am sure the hon. Gentleman has travelled around his constituency, and anybody who walks around their constituency will see the need for bank branches, banking hubs and post offices for our most vulnerable constituents. I am also surprised that the Bill has so little to say on financial inclusion more broadly, despite my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) flying the flag for financial inclusion with her brilliant amendments.
The co-operative and mutual sector also plays an important role in delivering financial inclusion. The Bill’s measures fall short of the Labour and Co-operative parties’ shared ambition to double the size of that sector in the UK. That is why I have tabled new clauses 4 and 5 requiring the regulators to report on how they have considered mutual and co-operative business models. In Committee, the Minister said that given that appropriate arrangements are already in place for regulators to report, that the FCA and Prudential Regulation Authority already produce well combed-through annual reports and that there is no deficiency in the level of engagement with the sector, such a measure is simply unnecessary. The sector was shocked by the Minister’s ill-informed response. It pointed to the FCA’s most recent annual report, published in July, where there is not one mention of the needs of co-operatives, mutuals, building societies or credit unions, while in the latest PRA annual report, building societies are just lumped in with standard banks. Every single business leader that I have spoken to, from Nationwide to the firms represented by the Building Societies Association, have called for the FCA and the PRA to report separately on these specific business models. Either the Minister believes he understands the needs of British mutuals and co-operatives better than the sector itself or he should support my amendments.
What is perhaps most striking, however, is how little the Bill has to say about green finance. Over a year ago, the present Prime Minister promised to make the UK the world’s first green financial centre, but on Monday the CBI warned that the Government are “going backwards” on building a greener economy. CBI director-general Tony Danker said firms need more action from Government on green finance. I therefore hope the Minister will support my new clause 6 requiring the Treasury to publish an updated green finance strategy with a clearly defined green taxonomy, as well as new clause 24 tabled by the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) introducing greater protections against deforestation. The Minister has said he is going to produce such a strategy imminently, but we look forward to hearing a timeline, because we are now very suspicious of the word “imminently” and want to hear clear dates and times.
In Committee, the Minister and his Conservative colleagues seemed astounded when I said that the Government and Minister were complacent about green finance. They took such issue with that that I felt I had to provide some evidence in my speech as to why I said it. The Government’s own independent Green Technical Advisory Group told them last month that they had to send a rapid market signal or we would risk falling further behind Europe, which launched its taxonomy back in 2020. In 2020 the Government legislated through a statutory instrument for a legal deadline of 1 January 2023 for the UK to establish the first set of green taxonomy criteria. That is less than a month away, so can the Minister tell me whether he is going to meet his own legal deadline? He is welcome to intervene on me if he thinks he is going to meet it.
The highlight of the Committee stage was when I received an early birthday present from the Minister: he gave me a copy of the “Global Green Finance Index” to read, which I read from cover to cover. It is scintillating. I thank him for the interesting read, but has the Minister read his Government’s own policy document, “Greening Finance”? If not, I have a copy here for him. The report says that the country is committed to consulting on the UK’s green taxonomy in the first quarter of 2022. No one will disagree that we are well beyond the first quarter of 2022. The reason I used the word complacent is that we are dealing with a Government who have missed their own deadlines and their own targets on green finance. If that is not complacency in action on green finance, I do not know what is.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
I want to talk about new clause 17, especially in relation to the insurance sector.
The insurance sector is extremely important in my constituency. Insurers and insurance brokers based in Chelmsford are responsible for about 3,000 jobs in my constituency. In addition, Chelmsford is a major commuter city and many more of my constituents commute into London to work in the insurance sector. It is also a very important sector to the UK. The entire UK insurance industry accounts for 4% of our national GDP. The sector brings in an estimated total tax contribution in the region of £16.1 billion, or 2.2% of UK Government tax receipts for 2020. To put it another way, the insurance sector’s tax paid the salaries of every single nurse in the NHS in 2020-21. It is a really important sector and we do not discuss it often enough.
Insurance is also a very international business. Insurers and brokers based in Chelmsford have parent companies in the US, Switzerland, Japan and Australia. All have chosen to be in the UK as a centre for investment, and more international investment means more highly paid jobs supporting not only the City of London but local economies such as those in my constituency and beyond. That investment is under threat. It faces competition from other jurisdictions and the amendments we are debating today will help to show new and existing investors that the UK is open for business. It is a highly competitive global trading environment and London must keep pace with other parts of the world—they want our business. London remains a world-leading speciality insurance market. Three quarters of business booked in the UK comes from outside the UK and London. It is an export-led market. It is not replicated anywhere else in the world.
London retains a lead role thanks to its historical prominence. However, its market share has stagnated in the past decade. The UK needs a renewed focus on competitiveness and growth, and the amendments we are discussing today will help to ensure clear accountability and transparency in how we do that. It is not a theoretical risk that we will lose business to other countries. We have already lost out on new markets, investment and opportunities. Singapore copied the UK’s insurance-linked securities regime, a new form of insurance and risk transfer product. It recognised the quality of the UK’s legislation that this Government introduced in 2017, but when it implemented the regime, the Singapore regulator took a proportionate regulatory approach and that has encouraged many more new entrants. Singapore has approved 18 ILS vehicles in less time than it took the UK to do five. In 2021 alone, the UK lost out on over $700 million of foreign investment in ILS to Singapore, because its regulator is more agile and more proportionate, even though it has the same legislation.
There are also problems in just getting the day-to-day work done. The Bill Committee heard evidence from industry about how the FCA is sometimes taking nine months to authorise a chief executive coming from overseas to operate in the UK. That is just not good enough. I have also been told that not a single new insurance company has been set up in the UK in the last 15 years. Surely that is a clear sign that the UK is risking its position as the world’s leading insurance centre? Businesses face vital choices about where they place capital, income and people. Regulation is a key part of that decision-making process. That is why it is so welcome that the Government are introducing the new secondary objective on international competitiveness and economic growth. It is crucial. This is not a call for a race to the bottom in regulation. High regulatory standards are a strength of the UK system, but regulators across the world, from Australia, Hong Kong, Japan, Malaysia, Singapore and the EU, are all required to consider international competitiveness, so we should do so, too.
I congratulate the Minister and his officials on their work to date, especially on new clause 17. It is a very welcome recognition from the Government that there is a cultural problem with the regulators, that action is needed on the part of the regulators to address key issues regarding their performance, and that the Government have a key role in holding the regulators’ feet to the fire. The new clause introduces a power over the regulators’ reporting requirements by providing a mechanism through which to direct information to be published, but it is unclear how and in what circumstances His Majesty’s Treasury would use the powers within it. Can the Minister therefore confirm whether he intends to seek a report on the new international competitiveness and growth objective as soon as possible, given that it is a critical new objective for the regulators? Can the Minister also confirm that, in future reporting of the international competitiveness objective, he and other Ministers will impress upon the regulators the need to consider metrics specific to competitiveness, not just domestic competition, and that that must include comparative analysis of our regulators’ performance against competitor jurisdictions, as well as analysis of product and service innovations taking place in key markets?
The new clauses tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) go further on proposing a clear reporting criteria for the regulators to follow and on delivering international competitiveness and the growth objective. That would enable Parliament—I am looking at the Chair of the Treasury Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) here—to understand better how the regulators have been performing and the contribution they are making to facilitate our competitiveness and growth. In particular, new clauses 13 and 14 are designed to give the Government powers to require the publication of more performance metrics, including on new applications, authorised entities and persons. They already have some performance criteria, but the new clauses would extend that approach. It does not mean reinventing the wheel. Many are taken from the performance criteria of regulators in competitive jurisdictions. It would not compromise their independence, high standards, financial stability or consumer protection.
New clause 14 would add to the regulators’ authorisation key performance indicators outlined in the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. It would require them to publish monitoring data related to the determination of authorisations. This is a real issue for many of those acting in financial services. It would reduce the compliance burden for firms that regularly need to give clear applications for approved individuals and would, in turn, promote the openness of the UK for highly skilled talent. I am nearly finished, Mr Deputy Speaker, but there are a few more I want to mention.
New clause 15 would require both the FCA and the PRA to publish an annual report setting out how they facilitated international competitiveness and growth against a range of data and analysis requirements. Instead of allowing the regulators to mark their own homework, it would enable Parliament to understand how the regulators are helping the UK to be more competitive and ensure that they undertake comparative analysis with other jurisdictions.
New clause 16 is targeted at achieving a more proportionate approach to wholesale and retail financial services. Although the regulators have a proportionality principle, it is clearly not working in practice. I have heard time and again from insurers in my Chelmsford constituency and others that the regulators have adopted a one-size-fits-all approach to regulations by treating all financial services, no matter the product or customer, as the same. This means that the regulators in insurance are spending time and effort on over-regulating sophisticated corporate entities with teams of professional advisers, which is really affecting their competitiveness. It would be much better for them to spend that time and effort on protecting individual retail customers, such as our constituents, when they are buying products online or on the high street. The wording of the new clause should be familiar to the Minister’s officials, because it is borrowed from the recommendation for a proportionality principle for all regulators, which was published in June of last year by the Government’s taskforce for innovation, growth and regulating reform.
Amendments 1 to 6 would ensure that the cost-benefit analysis panels are better equipped to undertake the necessary scrutiny of regulators’ work, and would ensure that they are independent from the regulators, that they can publish their recommendations, and that the regulators must respond to those recommendations. Again, this would mean that Parliament, industry and public see the data and avoid a situation in which the regulators are marking their own homework behind closed doors.
I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire might not move the amendments, but they are all extremely serious. As I said, the industry makes such an important contribution to the tax income of this country and is key to funding our public services. It would be a tragedy to lose our international competitiveness and an industry that dates back to the Great Fire of London, so let us make sure that the Minister and the Treasury team can take the amendments into account.
Peter Grant
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Scottish National party in this afternoon’s debate, and I find myself in a strange position: after welcoming the new SNP leader last night, it is quite possible that, having stood up from the Front Bench, I might be sitting down on the Back Benches. It is a strange experience for me, but it has been quite common on the Conservative Benches for most of this year.
Colleagues who served on the Bill Committee will know that I had to miss most of its considerations for family reasons, and I want to place on the record my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes), who unhesitatingly took on my share of the work on the Committee as well as his own. By all accounts, from what I have heard from Members of all parties, he did so very well. None of them said that he did it better than I would have done, although quite possibly he did.
We have well over 60 new clauses and amendments in front of us today, and we are not going to do justice to 10% of them—that is the nature of the way this place operates. I am also well aware that since we started the Committee deliberations, only three parties have had the chance to contribute, and I think it is only fair—I hope it is possible—that that balance be addressed later today. Other parties have voices and constituents, and the voters and constituents who do not like the governing party have a right to have their voices heard in the debate, which will be the only chance that they get.
I intend to simply restate the SNP’s position on the main themes of the Bill, as an indication of where we stand on most of the amendments. I will mention some specific amendments, but I hope that my comments will give an indication of which ones we support.
We recognise that there is a need for a complete overhaul of the UK’s financial services regulatory framework, although possibly in a slightly different direction from where the Government want to take it. For example, I have long argued that the Financial Conduct Authority does not have enough powers or resources. It has to be said that sometimes it does not seem to have the desire to take swift and effective action to stop frauds before they happen, and sometimes it does not have the power to compensate victims afterwards.
The SNP continues to have severe reservations about forcing regulators to put international competitiveness on an equal and sometimes higher footing than their actual regulatory responsibilities. There is a potential and very clear conflict of interests between being responsible for regulating the conduct of organisations and being responsible for helping them to become profitable. There are ways that companies can become more competitive that are quite clearly helpful to the public interest, and there are ways they can do it that are neutral to the public interest. There are also ways that a company can become more competitive that are extremely damaging to the public interest—for example, look at the way P&O treated its workers a few months ago. That made the company more competitive, but it was clearly against the wider public interest.
The regulators should have clear responsibilities on matters such as financial stability, consumer protection, fraud prevention and climate change objectives. On climate change objectives, I will not shilly-shally and make excuses; I will support new clause 25 if the House divides on it.
The Government have missed the chance—although from the Minister’s comments, I think we can assume that they have deliberately ignored the chance—to put financial inclusion at the heart of the Bill, so we will support amendments that address that. My understanding is that the official Opposition will press new clauses 2 and 7 to a Division today and we will certainly support them. As has been mentioned, free access for people to get their cash out of the bank is important and has to be available as a legal right, not simply as a by-your-leave on behalf of the banks and other financial institutions. I share the suspicion that if the amendments had not been tabled and if the banks had not known that those were coming, they would not have been nearly so keen to adopt voluntary codes of practice, and so on. We will also support new clause 23, which will force the FCA to give much more recognition and priority to the requirement for greater financial inclusion.
As I mentioned, we welcome the Bill’s anti-fraud measures, but they do not go nearly far enough. The Bill is hardly even present-proof, never mind future-proof. It is almost as though we are finally catching up to legislate, at the end of this year, for last year’s scams, and we are failing to notice that the bad guys and gals have designed new scams for this year and are already working on next year’s. For example, I welcome the fact that the Bill will give the Payment Systems Regulator a duty to improve the reimbursement of authorised push payment scams, but the same provision will not be carried over to the victims of crypto-scams, pension scams, investment scams or various others.
We will support new clause 1, as well as new clause 36, if that is pushed to a vote. New clause 36 emerged from a conversation between Public Accounts Committee members after we took evidence recently on the Government’s record on tackling fraud. A lot of us were struck by the fact that we knew, but had never really thought about, the fact that nobody has any idea of what the real level of fraud is in the United Kingdom, because, too often, financial institutions have a self-interest in choosing to cover it up rather than to report it. We know that 40% of reported crime in the United Kingdom is fraud, and the proportion is probably higher than that because a lot of the frauds against individual institutions are covered up rather than reported.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake) for taking the time and trouble to introduce that new clause. If, as I strongly suspect will happen, the Government say that they are not against the principle but that they do not like the way in which it has been drafted, I hope that they commit to introducing a similar amendment in the other place in due course.
I remember—I think a lot of Opposition Members do—that not that long ago, the Tories were very enthusiastic about the idea of forcing people, including Members of Parliament, to report cases of suspected illegal immigration. It will be a real test and give a real indication of how seriously the Government take the damage that fraud causes to all our constituents if they refuse to even consider a similar requirement to report cases of suspected fraud.
The final serious concern that we have about the Bill, as with several other Bills that we have seen being rammed through this place, is the relentless drive to become as different as possible from the European Union, just for the sake of it. Although I do not know whether amendments 8 to 11 will be voted on tonight, had the Government submitted those as new clauses in Committee, or had they been part of the Bill as published, it is almost certain that we would have opposed them.
It will come as no surprise that, on behalf of the people of Scotland, the SNP will resist any attempt to drag us further from our European friends and neighbours than we already are. We make no secret of our intention to keep our country in a position where the restoration of our independence will be followed as swiftly as possible by our restoration to our rightful place as a sovereign nation in the EU. We want the transition back into EU membership to be as easy as possible, so we want that to be from the starting point of being as close to alignment with the EU as we can be.
This morning, an opinion poll showed support for Scottish independence at 56%—by jings! The new leader of the SNP group has fairly made his mark, has he not? Fifty-one per cent. would vote SNP in a Westminster election; that is even more than the landslide that we had in 2015. That increases to 53% if, as the SNP intends, the Westminster election becomes a de facto referendum.
The prospect of Scotland applying to rejoin the European Union as an independent nation within the next few years is not just a fanciful idea, nor is it just likely; it is now highly probable and is rapidly becoming a certainty. We have to act in the best interests of the people of Scotland by making sure that after independence we remain as close as possible to our friends and neighbours in the European Union so that our transition back to European Union membership can be as swift and smooth as possible.
When we rejoin the European Union, it is very likely that central Scotland will immediately become its second biggest financial services centre. It matters to our economy to be able to get back into the European Union with as little fuss and disruption as possible. For that reason, the future of our financial services sector lies not in isolationism from the Government, but in internationalism through membership of the European Union.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. My plan is this: because there is a lot of pressure on time, I intend to prioritise those hon. Members whose amendments have been selected. It is really important for everybody to stick to six minutes. I am sure that the Chair of the Treasury Committee will lead by example so that I do not have to impose a time limit.
Harriett Baldwin
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will try not to gabble.
I rise to speak to new clause 11, which stands in my name and in the name of many right hon. and hon. Members; I am pleased to hear from the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) that the Opposition support it too. I should clarify that I am speaking in this debate as an individual Back Bencher, rather than as Chair of the Treasury Committee.
As the Economic Secretary has highlighted, one of the many benefits of being able to bring financial regulation back into the UK is that we can create rules that will help to unleash growth and investment here. My new clause highlights the opportunity that reviewing MiFID presents for us to look again at the boundary between regulated advice and guidance.
I am proposing personalised guidance on financial matters. As we all know, the implementation of the retail distribution review about a decade ago has meant that financial advice is now a very high-quality service that is very expensive. The vast majority of our constituents do not pay and are not willing to pay for it. Something like 8% of people—I confess that I am one of them—are lucky enough to afford a financial adviser, but 92% of our constituents do not have that luxury.
When I was Economic Secretary in 2015, I launched the financial advice market review, which came up with 28 recommendations to help our constituents. Many wise steps were taken at the time, including enabling people to use £500 from their pension savings to pay for financial advice when using their pension freedoms. Despite those measures, however, there is still an enormous gap for our constituents. For example, about 10 million people in this country are fortunate enough to have more than £10,000 in savings, but 58% of that money is just sitting there in cash, and we all know how inflation is eroding the value of those investments.
My new clause 11 approaches the problem from the other direction. I was pleased to hear the Economic Secretary commit at the Dispatch Box today to using the new flexibilities and seeing whether he can do something like a personalised guidance review with great urgency. That will help our constituents in the following generic examples.
A customer may be saving for a deposit for their first home, but doing so with a cash individual savings account. They could get a nudge from their financial institution to consider putting the money into a lifetime ISA so that they get the Government rebate.
A customer may be sitting on a large cash balance for many months, well above their normal three-month outgoings. They could get an alert to warn them about the detriment to the value of cash as a result of inflation and to narrow down some suggestions for getting a better deal for their cash. With many of our constituents, particularly our elderly constituents, there is a lot of inertia because they are not receiving very much on their deposits. This approach would give them a nudge that there are better rates out there that they could be receiving.
A customer might have invested in a fund on a platform many years ago and have done nothing with it since. If the fund is poorly performing, they could get a nudge with some personalised guidance. A customer who opened a junior ISA, which by definition would have a very long time horizon, might get a nudge that cash was not the ideal investment, and that in his or her circumstances an investment with a longer time horizon might provide better protection from inflation.
Sir Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
I agree with the case that the hon. Lady is making—indeed, I have signed her new clause. I wonder whether she has seen the report produced by the Work and Pensions Committee in September, which expressed concern about stepping across the advice-guidance boundary and constraining the ability of pension schemes and employers to give people helpful, sensible support as they make their choices about what to do with their pension savings. Would her new clause help in that regard?
Harriett Baldwin
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for signing the new clause, and for his Committee’s excellent report. He is right to suggest that the workplace is one of the best places for people to be given these nudges, and for employers to explore that boundary between advice and guidance.
Our constituents are craving advice of this kind, especially during this cost of living crisis. They want more guidance from their financial institutions. They are turning to online sources of often unregulated information to help them navigate their finances. They are finding the process complex and confusing. They are choosing investments that are often very high risk and not suited to them at all, such as meme stocks, crypto or spread betting.
It should not need to be this way, because the technology exists for financial services and fintech firms to guide people towards making better financial choices and following good mainstream investment opportunities, but MiFID-originated legislation is getting in the way. My new clause would enable the Treasury to introduce, with great urgency, the necessary legislation to allow regulated financial services firms to offer UK households personalised guidance. It is a great opportunity to unlock investment in our country, it will help our constituents to earn more, and it will allow innovation. Financial technology will help our constituents to level up their own economic futures. I am therefore delighted that the Economic Secretary has agreed today to look into this as a matter of urgency.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
I fully support the proposed measure. Let me say something that is specifically for the ears of my hon. Friend and those on the Treasury Bench. Just is a company in Reigate, formed from a company called Just Retirement and Partnership, which provided products that challenged the existing ones, involving, for instance, equity release and life insurance for smokers. As a provider of challenger products, it was anxious for people to have access to independent advice, rather than just being directed only to its own products.
Harriett Baldwin
Let me end by saying that personalised guidance would offer the Economic Secretary the chance to make his mark and help all our constituents to benefit from better financial information. I am very pleased that he has committed himself today to look into it with the utmost urgency.
John McDonnell
I entirely agree with what the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) has said, and I apologise for not signing her new clause; I wish I had.
I will be very brief, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is an appeal more than anything else. I am concerned about the way in which the Bill will undermine the constraints on commodity market speculation that were introduced during the financial crash of 2007-08. I was in the House before and during that crash. People remember that it was a banking crash based on the sub-prime housing market, but what is less discussed is what then happened with regard to commodity speculation. The funding shifted from housing to commodity and, in particular, food speculation, and we saw massive food price increases as a result. The price of wheat rose by 168% during that period, and the price of rice doubled. This was largely not to do with supply, which at that time was relatively stable; it was to do with commodity speculation.
We supported, on a cross-party basis, reforms to regulate the market. We gave the FCA the task of setting position limits. We also opened up the whole commodity market to greater transparency. I accept that there has been a watering-down of those regulations since then, particularly by the Trump Administration but also by signals from Ministers in the UK Government. That weakened regulation and weakened culture have opened the door to what is happening now, which is billions shifting into food commodity speculation. This is fuelling the cost of living crisis. It is not just about energy; it is now also about food prices, some of which have gone up by as much as 16%.
Of course, we cannot ignore Ukraine, climate change or the breakdown of supply chains with regard to covid, but another severe factor that is influencing this is commodity market volatility. Speculation is creating price rises, and this is making fortunes for individual speculators, but I have to say that the banks themselves are also making a killing at the moment.
I say this not as some kind of Cassandra—I was the first to raise Northern Rock in this Chamber, although others have claimed that too—but economists on both sides of the Atlantic are saying that this could be a systemic crisis unless we get to grips with it and accept that we need to strengthen, not weaken, regulation. One of the reasons I am concerned is that the Lighthouse report suggests that a lot of commodity investment is taking place by pension funds themselves. That could have an effect not only on prices but on the stability of people’s pensions.
The Government will say, “Don’t worry, we’re not scrapping the limits. We’re handing over control to the trading floors.” That is madness in itself. The trading floors have an interest in attracting traders, and the lesson of history is that they cannot be relied upon to regulate themselves. They do not worry about the interests of the whole economy. That is the job of the Government and Parliament. Also, I see no rationale for scrapping the transparency element of MiFID II. I would love to know what possible justification there could be for undermining access to more transparent information, because the markets are already opaque and this would make them worse.
A final comment from me—you will note that I am well under time, Madam Deputy Speaker—is one that I have made before. The best writer on the banking crash of 1929-30 was J. K. Galbraith, who said that, yes, we would put institutions in place to protect against a repeat of that kind of crash but one of the most significant things would be memory; people would remember what had happened. Unfortunately, I fear that we are now replicating the circumstances of 2007-08 and undermining the very regulations that we as a House put in place to protect against the food speculation, the price increases and, I have to say, the starvation that occurred as a result of that crisis. I never want to see that again. I think this is a mistake by the Government, and I hope that they will think again. I also think we might be able to bring forward some amendments in the other House that will help the Government to move along a more constructive path than the one they are on at the moment.
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con)
I rise to focus on new clause 24, tabled in my name and with the support of a number of Members on both sides of the House. It focuses on one of the great challenges of the moment, which is how we reverse the loss of habitats and forests around the world. Deforestation in South America, Asia and, to an increasing degree, in the northern parts of the world is a real crisis for our planet. It is appropriate that we are having this debate today, the day on which the biodiversity summit begins in Montreal. It is my hope that that summit will lead to a new international agreement on tackling habitat and biodiversity loss around the world.
New clause 24 focuses on taking the battle against illegal deforestation to the next step. This Government and this House took the first important step last year in the passage of the Environment Act 2021, which introduces a requirement for those dealing in potential forest risk products in the United Kingdom to have a due diligence process in place to ensure that they are not sourcing their products from areas of illegally deforested land. That was a substantial and very positive step, and I am pleased to see that the European Union has taken a similar step this week and is perhaps going slightly further in tackling the issue of forest risk products.
But a substantial area that remains untouched both here and in many countries around the world is the question of financial services investing, whether through equities, loans or bonds, in companies that source forest-risk products. We know from the work of organisations such as Global Witness that, over the years, there have been far too many examples of banks knowingly, or sometimes unknowingly, financing the activities of companies that purchase directly from those who are illegally deforesting areas of the Amazon, for example, for beef production or soya production.
We need to extend the work we have already done on forest-risk products, and those who directly deal in them, to the financial services sector and the banks that fund companies that have the potential to participate directly or indirectly, knowingly or unknowingly, in illegal deforestation.
I hope the Government will take this on board, and I am grateful to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq), for her words of support. New clause 24 would replicate almost exactly what this House has already approved in the Environment Act 2021, translating it into a duty on the financial services sector to carry out similar due diligence to ensure that its work does not support illegal deforestation.
The reality is that these financial services businesses already do due diligence. No major institution simply lends or invests in a business without doing very careful due diligence on where it is putting its money, on the likely return on that investment and on the likely risks of that investment. New clause 24 would not ask them to do something wholly different from what they are already doing; it would simply require them to extend their due diligence into this area, which most institutions, at a senior level, would say is vital to all of us.
Anthony Browne
My right hon. Friend is making an incredibly important point about an issue I also massively care about, and I totally support the ambition to get some form of regulation in this space. When I was environment editor of The Observer and The Times, I often wrote about deforestation. There is a real problem with doing due diligence on supply chains, as the loggers in Brazil log illegally but tell their intermediaries that they log legally, so the intermediaries say they are logging legally, and so on. That is all quite difficult to trace. If there is not a robust due diligence system, and many people have struggled on that, my fear is that financial services companies will end up not backing any wood product companies at all, as even the legitimate ones would be seen as a risk.
Chris Grayling
My hon. Friend makes an important point. What makes it possible for big organisations to track their supply chains is the presence of Earth observation data, which many supermarkets now use to understand where they are sourcing from. Interestingly, it is a central part of this week’s proposal by the European Union. The data is available, but it is complicated. I recently had a meeting with a major institution that financially supports companies in Brazil, and it said it is incredibly difficult to track, all the way down the supply chain, where products are coming from. Well, it may be incredibly difficult, but it still has to be done.
New clause 24 would place a duty on financial institutions, as we did with retailers, to carry out proper due diligence on their investments, to understand and to be absolutely certain that the companies they deal with have due diligence processes in place themselves, so they know from where they are buying beef, soya or palm oil and so they work properly to ensure they deliver products from sustainable sources in a responsible way.
We hear warm words coming from the executive suites of our major financial institutions all the time about their commitment to sustainability, to net zero and to being responsible citizens. Sometimes they do it, sometimes they do not. There might be the will in head office, but sometimes a local branch does not deliver. New clause 24 would make it a clear duty on those institutions to do due diligence to make sure they know where products are coming from and so they know where investments are being made. This country has been a leader, and new clause 24 would be one further step in dealing with the blight of deforestation, which affects everyone’s future.
Siobhain McDonagh
I rise to support new clause 7, which stands in my name and those of dozens of right hon. and hon. Members from all corners of this House. The amendment is simple: it proposes that the Treasury must not only make provision to guarantee a minimum level of cash access, but ensure that this access is free. Why? Because surely it cannot be right in 2022 that almost a quarter of our cash machines charge people to access their own money.
Siobhain McDonagh
I am tempted to give way, because I want to debate this, but I am observant of the Chair’s ruling on limiting speeches, so I apologise to the hon. Gentleman.
Adding the word “free” into the Bill would not result in the loss of a single paid ATM. It would simply preserves free access for every community, so that no one is obligated to pay for their own money. We have all seen how devastating the impact of bank branch closures can be on our communities, particularly for the elderly, the disabled and the most vulnerable, who are least likely to be able to use online banking and most reliant on access to cash. For them, cash is king. It is why MP after MP has led local campaigns fighting to save bank branches in their town centres, but what is the point of the photo in the local newspaper or the packed public meeting unless the rhetoric is matched by a vote in favour today?
It is time for Members to put their money where their mouth is, to listen to their constituents, to challenge their Whip, and to make a simple, lasting change for the most vulnerable people in their community. It is uncontroversial, tangible, straightforward, no nonsense, common sense and cross party. Free access to cash is, quite simply, bang on the money, and I hope that it will have the support of the House.
Richard Fuller
After such a thoughtful presentation by the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), I am sure the Minister will consider carefully her entreaties and also the opinions of those on the Conservative Benches.
I congratulate the Minister and his Treasury team on this important and big Bill passing through its Committee stage and maintaining its cross-party support, which is so evident here today.
One of my greatest concerns about the Bill is that we underestimate the importance and the severity of the international competition that our financial services face. We are in a fierce global competition and the balance of risk has to be that the UK will not move fast enough, it will not be smart enough and its moves will not be significant enough to maintain and build the comparative advantage of our financial services sector, which is why I have tabled some of my new clauses. It is also why I am looking forward to hearing what the Minister will say to reassure me in his closing remarks.
We need a Bill, a Government and a country that are pro the financial services sector. That is where the wealth is created in this country. If we do not allow the financial services sector in this country to grow to be globally competitive we are harming the taxes that then pay for all the public services on which our constituents depend. In addition, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) has said, and as is the case in my constituency and the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Craig Tracey), I have many constituents whose incomes are directly related to the success of our financial services sector.
My new clauses put down some requirements on the regulator to get with that spirit behind its new objective of international competitiveness. New clause 12 would make it a requirement to publish regulatory performance information that is material to new authorisations, because new authorisations mean growth for the United Kingdom’s financial services sector. We need a very close focus on how effective the regulators are being on that, and the new clause asks for some general statistics.
New clause 13 talks about how the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority work effectively to support already authorised firms, and is specifically to do with approved persons, rules and timings on change in control, variation of permissions and waivers and modifications. Those are the tools of doing business, and if they are not greased and moving quickly enough, that is a source of competitive disadvantage.
New clause 14 is about determination of applications. It would create a new key performance indicator for the FCA. None of this is a criticism of the two individuals who run the FCA and the PRA. They are doing a fine job, but the FCA has a lot of KPIs, which have nothing to do with how effective it is in building the financial services sector in this country. It needs to rebalance—I know the Minister is supportive of this—and I will talk about that in a minute.
New clause 15 would create a duty for the regulators to report on their competitiveness and growth objectives. For me, this is a crucial new clause, and I would like to hear from the Front Bench today that the Minister will commit to this report. If he could look through some of the specific items in my new clause about what should be included, I would very much appreciate a specific response.
The Minister talked about the proportionality principle, and there is indeed a proportionality principle, but I reworded it, because it was not done in a way that was effective for the success of our financial services sector and made a difference between wholesale and retail financial services firms. I have tabled amendments about the cost-benefit panel, which gets to the root and branch of how Government should work out whether to enact a new regulation: what are the cost and what are the benefits?
I appreciate that the Minister has said that he is excluding people who are direct employees of the regulators from being part of those panels, and it seems a pretty basic principle that people should not mark their own homework. However, we need the voices of those who are being regulated in that cost-benefit analysis—their opinions, their views and their data.
Several hon. Members rose—
Richard Fuller
I am afraid I cannot give way because of your desire to get on, Madam Deputy Speaker, which I completely agree with.
Amendments 1 and 4 bring in the importance of transparency for those two regulators, the FCA and the PRA. We do not want to see regulators going away into a secret room, not telling anyone what the cost-benefit analysis is, and then coming out and saying, “We’ve decided it is X.” We need true transparency on their deliberations and on the opinions that they have received. I am very specific in those amendments.
The hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq), the shadow spokesperson, who is not in her place, spoke about her concerns about the intervention power, which I think she completely mislabelled as a dangerous thought—I think it is a fairly reasonable thought. In her absence, I will just say to those on the Opposition Front Bench that what looks good in an era of declining yield curves and quantitative easing in a democratic country may look differently in an era of rising yields and quantitative tightening.
My amendments are quite specific. The Minister has been supportive throughout the process and I look forward very much to hearing his conclusions in his summing-up.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
The Liberal Democrats recognise the importance of good regulation. Well-designed, effectively administered, properly enforced regulation creates a level playing between competitors and instils confidence in consumers and players in all markets. As the Liberal Democrats’ Treasury and business spokesperson, I have spoken to many businesses in many sectors, including in the City, and I have not found anywhere an appetite for the sweeping away of regulations often advocated by Members on the Conservative Benches. Everywhere I hear calls for effective regulation, properly administered.
Andrew Griffith
Would the hon. Lady be able to identify any Member of this House who has talked about the merits of sweeping away regulation? That is not the position of the Government.
Sarah Olney
With respect, I did not say it was the position of the Government, but the Minister cannot deny that it has been advocated for on many occasions during the referendum campaign and on many occasions since. I think he is being disingenuous.
Although the Liberal Democrats welcome some aspects of the Bill that will update the regulatory framework for financial services, we remain concerned by the lack of accountability of the regulators to Parliament and by the potential impact of this Bill on financial stability. The Government have described this Bill as a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reshape financial regulation, but as currently written the Bill lacks ambition and inspiration. In particular, it is a missed opportunity to create a regulatory framework that turbocharges the green agenda and strengthens protections for victims of fraud.
My fundamental concern with the drafting of the Bill is how it undermines the role of Parliament while extending significant new powers to both regulators and the Treasury. As ever, the devil is in the detail, which will be largely hidden within secondary legislation that will not receive parliamentary scrutiny or oversight. Accountability and transparency are the cornerstone of effective regulation. It is vital that those principles are upheld to maintain national and international confidence in the UK’s financial services sector and to improve the operational performance of regulators.
The Bill did not previously contain sufficient powers to require the regulators to report on their performance against their objectives. I am therefore pleased that the Government have made some steps towards improving accountability and transparency though the addition of new clause 17. However, the new clause still does not go far enough in establishing parliamentary oversight of the regulators. Regulators’ powers are granted by Parliament, and that is who they should be accountable to—not to a Minister who may only be in place for a matter of weeks.
I remain concerned that the new statutory objective on international competitiveness could increase risk-taking in the financial services sector. We do not need to be reminded of just how damaging that sort of behaviour can be. I am particularly concerned that the secondary objective of competitiveness will negatively impact the regulator’s delivery of its primary objective of ensuring financial stability.
Our amendments (a) and (b) to new clause 17 would place additional requirements on the regulators to report on the delivery of their objectives, including with an assessment of the impact of the Bill on financial stability. If the last few months have proved anything, it is that volatility in financial markets has a very real and direct impact on households, so I urge the Government to think about how the Bill can be strengthened to ensure that financial stability remains at the forefront of regulators’ activities.
I am pleased to see that a number of amendments on green finance have been tabled, but it is disappointing to see the Conservatives’ lack of ambition in that area. We have such an opportunity to be a leading global centre for green finance, but the Bill does nothing to facilitate that. There is an increasing appetite among investors to support the green transition, but British businesses often struggle to access the green capital they need. New clause 33, tabled in my name, would place a requirement on the regulators to report on ways in which they have promoted and incentivised green finance and green investment. Time is running out for us to lead the world on this, and I urge the Government to commit to a green finance strategy and to start thinking seriously about how a regulatory framework can mobilise green finance.
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
In 1215, the Magna Carta was written and signed into law by King John I of England. Although that important document did not guarantee freedom of speech, it was considered the cornerstone of liberty in England and began a tradition of civil rights in Britain that laid the foundations for our first Bill of Rights of 1689, which granted freedom of speech in Parliament.
That was the first time in history that any form of freedom of speech was codified in law. It was extremely influential throughout the western world, leading to the declaration of the rights of man in 1789—a fundamental document of the French revolution that provided for freedom of speech—and the US Bill of Rights in 1791. In 1948, the universal declaration of human rights was adopted virtually unanimously by the UN General Assembly, and urged member nations
“to promote a number of human, civil, economic, and social rights”,
including freedom of expression. Under article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998,
“Everyone has the right to freedom of expression…subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society”.
Criminalising the incitement of violence or threats, for example, is widely considered a justifiable limit on freedom of expression.
What we cannot have are global tech firms, online payment services, banks and others deciding who they can censor because they do not like or are offended by the views of others. It is essential to have freedom of expression—it is essential to society—and we have to be able to express and discuss differing ideas and ideals to ensure that we have a full and therefore better understanding of the challenges we all face in this modern world.
Freedom of expression in the UK is under threat and must be protected. New clause 27 protects free speech and the exercise of free expression. It seeks to prohibit service refusal by financial service providers on grounds relating to lawful exercise of free expression by requiring providers to explain the reason for a refusal of service, allowing the Financial Conduct Authority to intervene, and creating a civil law remedy for affected customers. We should not allow a system where payment service providers or even high street banks can terminate the accounts of individuals or organisations on the basis of lawful speech if adequate notice is given. Britain has led the world for centuries on democracy and freedom of speech, and it needs to do so again against the global tech companies that want to impose their view of the world and stifle free speech.
Members may remember in early September media agitation surrounding PayPal’s decision to cancel the online payment accounts of the Daily Sceptic, the Free Speech Union and an individual’s personal accounts. Many of us here may not agree with the politics of these organisations or that individual, but it is fundamentally wrong that online payment accounts can be exited because the payment service provider or its staff do not agree with the opinions of the service user. We are not talking about hate speech, terrorism or crime—we have legislation to deal with that; we are talking about lawful speech.
The relatively recent digitalisation of financial transactions has placed an unprecedented amount of power in the hands of online payment service providers such as PayPal, as well as banks, credit companies and online platforms. UK legislation must keep pace with these rapid technological changes and financial censorship must be prevented. As we switch to an increasingly cashless society, we must put in legislation to protect people from being punished by payment processors for expressing legal, but different views, no matter our politics.
New clause 27 is designed to ensure that the regulator has the ability to ensure that financial service providers cannot withdraw or withhold service from a customer on political grounds. The battle to preserve free speech in our society is something we must all fight for. Rising political polarisation is contributing to the threat to our freedom of expression, and the alternative—placing power in the hands of the easily offended—cannot be an option. This issue has to be of grave concern to us all, whatever our politics. I am grateful to the Minister for his assurances earlier, spelling out what he is going to do and his commitment to take this matter further. There are plenty of colleagues who will hold him to that.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
I rise in support of new clause 10, and I am pleased to have worked alongside the hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) on it, as fellow members of the Public Accounts Committee. Since 2017, I have worked with others supporting steelworker pensioners across Blaenau Gwent and the United Kingdom. Thousands of them fell victim to financial sharks. They were wrongly advised to move out of their defined benefit British Steel pension scheme. It took until last Monday, five years later, for the Financial Conduct Authority to announce a redress scheme. It was about time. The FCA righted those wrongs, but I think too late.
Early on in the campaign, I remember meeting the then chief executive of the FCA, now the Governor of the Bank of England, Andrew Bailey, where I was met with a lacklustre response. Along with my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) and other campaigners, I continued to press the FCA. In 2020, I wrote to its newly appointed chief executive, however Mr Rathi did not want to meet. He asked one of his directors to meet us instead.
Later, in 2021, frustrated with the FCA giving us the cold shoulder, I wrote to the Comptroller and Auditor General of the National Audit Office. I asked if it would please investigate the FCA’s oversight of this terrible scandal. Fair do’s, the NAO did that, and it published its full report in March this year. It observed that in the summer of 2017:
“The FCA had limited insight into…what was happening in the BSPS at the time of its restructure.”
There were terrible things going on.
Even more damning were the conclusions of the Public Accounts Committee. We found that:
“The FCA failed to take swift and effective action at all stages of the BSPS case.”
It failed
“to prevent consumers from being harmed”,
which makes clear the
“limitations with the FCA’s supervisory approach”.
The point is that the FCA took proper notice of this injustice only when Parliament, through the NAO and eventually the Public Accounts Committee, dug deep to investigate.
Of course, the BSPS case is not the only example of the FCA’s failure to protect consumers in recent years; I have heard many complaints from Members across the House. The scandals surrounding Blackmore Bond, Dolphin and Azure come to mind. Consumers are our financial sector. As long as the FCA fails to exercise its powers to protect ordinary workers, it will continue to fail our constituents. New clause 10 would require the FCA’s consumer panel to lay an official report before Parliament. We could then judge whether the regulator is fulfilling its duty to protect consumers.
During my 12 years in this House, I have learned many things, but one thing stands out: parliamentary scrutiny matters. I am pleased to have support from across the House for the new clause—from our Labour Treasury team, senior Conservative Members, the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, Treasury Committee members, other colleagues and fellow members of the Public Accounts Committee. By supporting our new clause, Britain’s consumers could be better heard, and our financial services sector would be all the better for it.
David Mundell
I apologise in advance to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to the Minister, and to the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), who tabled new clause 7, as I may not be able to be present at the conclusion of the debate, but I wanted to speak on the issue, having campaigned on it since I returned to the Back Benches, principally with my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard). I am very pleased with what is proposed overall in the Bill, because during the period of covid it became clear that the system of use of cash could have collapsed. It was incoherent in the way it was managed and regulated, and we saw the potential pressures of not using cash or its usage not being permitted.
I am disappointed that my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) has left the Chamber, because I could not disagree more with the points that he made in interventions. We cannot simply move in an unstructured way to a cashless society. We are not ready for that. As I pointed out in an intervention, about 8 million people, whether they are rural dwellers or those living in deprived areas, rely on cash and will continue to do so. I declare that I still have a chequebook, because there are circumstances, particularly when dealing with small voluntary organisations, where a cheque is accepted. Cheques may be on the way out, but there are still circumstances where they are required. Therefore, we have to move forward at the pace of the slowest in our society.
I believe that the prospect of regulation has been very positive, in terms of forcing the banks and others in the sector to become a lot more constructive in the debates and discussions. As the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden mentioned, the banks have been pretty disingenuous over the period. I have had many closures in my constituency, and they have often been made with undertakings that certain things would happen. For example, in the community of Lochmaben, the branch closed and the free auto-teller was to remain; now it is to be removed, two or three years on. Often the promises given are not worth very much, but I am sure that the threat of legislation, and hearing the Minister say that the Government’s position is a commitment to free access to cash, will ensure that the industry stays on board and delivers for people.
As has been set out, there has been a significant drop in the number not only of bank branches but of free-to-access ATMs, while the number of ATMs that require a fee has risen. As the Minister would expect from our lively discussion, I am in favour of consumer choice—if people want to pay for convenience, that is fine by me—but they should not have to pay several pounds to withdraw £10 from an ATM. At the core of this issue is the fact that many transactions are small transactions, not the ones that we might think of that are made of larger cash sums, which is why we have to stick to the free-to-access commitment.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
If there are any other right hon. or hon. Members who cannot stay for the wind-ups, they should let me know. I was not aware that the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) could not stay. It is important that people stay, so I would not necessarily have called him.
Emma Hardy
I rise to speak to new clauses 22, 23 and 29 and amendments 19, 21 and 22 in my name, which are all about financial inclusion. I thank Martin Coppack from Fair By Design, the Phoenix Group and Mastercard for meeting me earlier this week to talk about why they support financial inclusion.
When we think of financial inclusion, we tend to think of the consumer groups that support it, such as Citizens Advice, and it is not widely known that it is supported by FTSE 100 companies such as the Phoenix Group, Mastercard and Legal & General. When I asked why they support it, they said that since we left the EU, regulators are more powerful than ever before. Of course, I do not believe that the Government should have the call-in powers that were debated earlier. That huge transfer of powers to the regulator means that it becomes even more crucial for Parliament to set the correct objectives; we have to get the objectives right if we are to allow our regulators to function effectively in the post-Brexit world.
There was a rumour that the Government were keen to push back on any additional objectives for the regulators. Apparently, they compared it with the national curriculum, where everybody wants to get their bit in, and perhaps in the same way, everybody wants their bit to be a new objective for the regulators. But even if that is the case—clearly, there is a demand for the regulators to have many new objectives and for objectives to be strengthened—that does not mean that we are incorrect, because financial inclusion is important. Ensuring that the FCA has regard to financial inclusion turns it from a nice to have to something that we must have. It would embed financial inclusion in the design of financial services and products forever.
When I met people from Mastercard and they were talking to me about future innovations in financial services, fintech and the way financial services are developing new products, they said that at the moment financial inclusion is seen as an add-on, in that they develop a product, and financial inclusion is fitted into it by asking, “Well, how can we make this financially inclusive?” Those from Mastercard told me that they want financial inclusion to be there from the beginning, so that when new products are designed and created, it is given primacy, and is there throughout the whole design.
Without financial inclusion, constituents will continue to face what is called the poverty premium. I have spoken before about the poverty premium, which is basically the additional cost of being poor, and it explains why it is so expensive to have such a low income. In Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle, the poverty premium works out at £459 per household, which is nearly £6 million paid in extra costs by my constituents just because they happen to come from lower-income families. This is all calculated by Fair By Design.
For too long, the idea of financial inclusion has been a hot potato passed between the FCA, the Treasury and other regulators and Departments, with nobody prepared to take ultimate responsibility. For example, the Competition and Markets Authority started to carry out investigatory work on the poverty premium across essential services, but in the end determined it was too difficult, and it now signposts organisations to sector regulators such as the FCA. However, the sector regulators say that this is not their responsibility, as it involves elements of social policy and pricing of risk—and so we go on.
We are asking the FCA to collate the information needed to really look at and analyse the poverty premium. Of course, as we expected, the FCA says it does not want another objective. I think we probably understand why it does not want to be given any additional work to do, but it is our job as Parliament to set and establish the types of financial services we want, and to ask what our principles are as parliamentarians, what things we care about and what we want our future financial services to look like. Surely Members across the House would agree that having a financially inclusive sector or financially inclusive products that cater for people right across the population of the UK, not merely the most profitable ones, is a good thing.
When I was talking to people from Mastercard and Phoenix about this, they said that financial inclusion could open up new markets for them among those who would be interested in their products, if they were designed in an effective way. My new clauses and amendments ask the FCA to have regard to financial inclusion, and would place a duty on the FCA to report to Parliament annually on how well it is doing with financial inclusion and giving that information back to us. The proposals would end the current damaging situation by placing a clear remit on the regulator to ensure it routinely and properly explores financial inclusion issues across its work, allowing greater clarity on unintended consequences and the best interventions needed to ensure financial inclusion, as well as who is best placed to act.
The Government could save my constituents in Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle nearly £6 million, and it would not cost them a penny. Surely that, if nothing else, means that the Government should look more favourably at the amendments I have tabled.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
I am grateful to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) on tabling new clause 10, for which he should receive much of the credit. This amendment has an extremely simple intent in laying a duty on the FCA to report to Parliament on
“(a) the adequacy and appropriateness of the FCA’s use of its regulatory powers; (b) the measures the FCA has taken to protect vulnerable consumers, including pensioners, people with disabilities, and people receiving forms of income support; and”—
finally and most importantly—
“(c) the FCA’s receptiveness to the recommendations of the Consumer Panel.”
I will now say why paragraph (c), in particular, is so important. The hon. Member has explained clearly why the FCA should regularly report to Parliament, and in my role as deputy Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, I have constantly urged openness and transparency, wherever possible, so that our constituents can make full and proper judgments on the actions, or lack of them, of regulators such as the FCA.
Like the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent, I will give the House an example. The PAC inquiry that we held in April and June this year highlighted the plight of some 2,000 of the 7,700 British Steel pensioners who in 2019 suffered significant financial shortfalls because of the wrong advice given by a significant number of independent financial advisers who advised pensioners to opt out of their valuable defined-benefit pension schemes. To add further insult to injury, the actions by the regulator caused a number of independent financial adviser companies to go out of business or merge with others, and therefore the compensation that pensioners received rightly was capped. I know this is a complicated subject but both the hon. Member and I are using it as an egregious example of why the FCA needs to be more accountable to Parliament and our constituents. This amendment stems from recommendations 5a and 5b in the PAC report “Investigation into the British Steel Pension Scheme”, published on 21 July:
“The FCA should be more proactive and consumer-focused in its engagement with stakeholders. It should have a better mechanism for responding to consumer harms and collect more evidence on a regular basis to pick up on issues that are being raised, especially from emerging risks in financial markets…The FCA must also review how effective the Financial Services Consumer Panel is at consumer protection and how it influences policy debates within the FCA from a consumer angle.”
The hon. Member and I have had discussions with the Economic Secretary, who is on the Front Bench today, and I believe he is sympathetic to the principle that the FCA needs to be much more accountable. If that is the case, I very much hope that he will concede the principle of this amendment and incorporate it as a Government amendment in the other place. Neither the hon. Member nor I wish to be prescriptive about how or when this reporting should take place to Parliament; that is a matter for the Government.
No financial institution will ultimately exist without its consumers. The whole point of the FCA as a regulatory authority is to protect their interests. Rather than having to work through long and complicated reports, there needs to be clear, easily available information on what regulators are doing, or not doing, on their behalf. All of this requires a fundamental shift in the regulator’s—the FCA’s—attitude to the consumer and a commitment to engage more when things go wrong.
Finally, I want to comment on the fraud aspects of the Bill. The PAC recently conducted an inquiry on fraud and discovered that 41% of all reported crime in June was accounted for by fraud, up from 30% in 2017, yet just 1% of police resources is being devoted to fraud crimes. So we urgently need to see the Government’s new comprehensive fraud strategy.
Stella Creasy
I rise to add my wholehearted support to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy), to new clause 7, to my Front Bench, and indeed to the points made by the hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown): many of us have had concerns about the FCA and its ability to represent consumers for many years, and it is good to see that work being done.
I shall focus on new clause 28. The bridge of the Titanic received seven warnings about icebergs. It was told exactly where the iceberg was, but on hearing those warnings it varied the direction of travel by one or two degrees yet kept going full steam ahead. The visible iceberg was 50 to 100 feet high and 200 to 400 feet long, yet still they ploughed into it. It does not take a rocket scientist to recognise that we have a personal debt crisis in this country with a cost of living crisis, that our constituents are struggling because there is too much month at the end of their money, and that those who make their money from those who are struggling are licking their lips.
This Bill is about financial regulation yet one of the most pernicious legal loan sharks is the buy now, pay later industry. The pool in which they fish is wide. This country has £205 billion-worth of consumer credit lending to account for, up £482 million on the previous month. People are borrowing not just to pay Peter and Paul, but to pay for their mortgages, to put food on their table, petrol in their car and clothes on their children’s backs. Let me be clear: I do not stand here with a hair shirt on saying nobody should borrow, but in that environment, when our constituents are being exploited by these companies, it is absolutely right to regulate them and protect our constituents, yet that is not what is happening here.
For nearly three years we have been warning the Government on the need to act on legal loans harks and the buy now, pay later companies—those warnings that came to the bridge of the Titanic. The Klarnas, the Laybuys and the Clearpays are the companies whose names we see when we go to check out online. They account for 6% of all online spending in the UK, and that is expected to double in the next two years. High thousands of reputable retailers have them on their websites. They have them not to help people to spread their payments as the companies claim, but because people spend on average 30% to 40% more if they use buy now, pay later.
But what people are telling us very clearly is that they are spending money they do not have. A quarter of all buy now, pay later users have been unable to pay for at least one essential because they are having to make repayments on buy now, pay later products. Some 25% of users have also missed a payment or made a late payment on a buy now, pay later loan in the last 12 months.
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)
I rise to speak in support of new clause 27, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart). As she said, it would prohibit payment service providers from refusing to supply a customer based on the customer exercising their lawful right to freedom of expression.
On 15 September, PayPal notified the Free Speech Union that it had closed its account with immediate effect. The reason given was that the Free Speech Union had breached the company’s acceptable use policy, but no further information was forthcoming. The accounts of UsForThem, the Daily Sceptic and the journalist Toby Young were also terminated. It is still not entirely clear why PayPal closed the accounts, but the apparently common theme among those organisations and individuals is that they have each become prominent champions of free speech, expressing critical, non-conforming opinions and asking challenging questions.
The effect of PayPal’s decision was to temporarily disrupt the ability of those organisations to operate. In some cases, their accounts were frozen, thereby denying them access to their funds. In the light of that, 42 peers and MPs wrote to the then Business Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), and to the Minister currently on the Front Bench. PayPal then restored the accounts of UsForThem and the Free Speech Union. Although PayPal’s actions may seem unjustifiable, payment providers and high street banks may terminate the accounts of groups on the basis of lawful speech, so long as adequate notice is given. As the law stands, the only thing that PayPal did wrong was not to give sufficient notice of the closure.
Sadly, the actions of PayPal in September were not a one-off. It also closed the accounts of the UK Medical Freedom Alliance and Law or Fiction, both of which are opposed to lockdowns, and it has not reopened either of them. It is therefore hard to avoid interpreting PayPal’s actions as an orchestrated, politically motivated move to restrict certain views within the UK. This is unacceptable.
In an increasingly cashless society—we have heard a lot about the merits of cash today—access to a digital payment system is not a luxury, but a basic requirement for participation in society. No campaigning organisation can function without the ability to perform financial transactions. Imagine if the suffragettes had not been allowed to have or use cash, or if those campaigning for Brexit had been refused a bank account. Freedom of speech and freedom of expression are foundational to democracy, and there can be no meaningful freedom of expression without the ability to conduct financial transactions.
It is of course right that in the UK private companies can choose which customers they do and do not want to do business with, but this is based on the assumption that there is a functional marketplace with healthy competition and that companies are regulated by, and compliant with, UK law and regulations. PayPal is eight times larger than its nearest competitor. It is a Californian company with its European headquarters in Luxembourg. Are we happy to delegate important powers relating to freedom of speech and expression to unaccountable global tech firms?
Of course, unlike socialists, conservatives want markets to operate freely, without unnecessary bureaucracy and state control. But as conservatives, unlike liberals or libertarians, we understand that there must be limits to this freedom, because without limits, human beings and organisations will sometimes—perhaps often—put their own interests before the best interests of customers and societies. As UK national conservatives, we believe that the proper bodies to set the bounds of free speech and political opinions in the UK are the UK Parliament and UK courts. That is why we must act to legally prevent payment providers from closing accounts of the basis of political beliefs, because if we do not, big global companies will put their own interests—financial, reputational and political—before any moral duty to act fairly.
The principle of using law to protect free speech is well established. The Equality Act 2010 prohibits discrimination on the grounds of religious or philosophical beliefs, but this protects individuals, not organisations, which is why it cannot be used in this case. The Government are also acting to protect free speech in universities, and the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill is today making its passage through the other place.
The PayPal saga identified a gap in our free speech protection that must be filled with appropriate legislation, which is why I support new clause 27. I thank the Minister for his engagement on this issue, which I know he takes very seriously—I was delighted by his opening remarks and commitment to work further on it. I very much hope that, following the evidence that he will gather, he will legislate if it is appropriate to do so. I appreciate his assurances on that.
I want to finish with a recent example of what happens when free speech is threatened. I know we do not want to think back to covid, but we had lockdowns and school closures. In fact, UK schools were closed for longer than those in almost any other country in Europe, and our children missed more face-to-face learning than those in any country other than Italy. The effects on children have been absolutely horrendous and will last a generation. They include lost learning, an increase in eating disorders, self-harm, a loss of socialisation, exposure to domestic violence—I could go on and on. [Interruption.] But I will not, because you are clearly telling me not to, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The Government now say that doing that was a mistake and that there was not sufficient evidence, but one reason that schools were reopened and children were eventually protected was the effective campaigning of the group UsForThem, which—unlike so many—stood up for children and their welfare. Its views were unpopular and it was said to be spreading misinformation. Imagine if its bank account had been cancelled two years ago—where we would be now? We need this protection. I appreciate the Minister’s commitment and I look forward to working with him further.
Olivia Blake
The Bill is important because it presents an opportunity to set out a new, responsible and green vision for the City and financial services, but the Government are squandering that opportunity. That is why I rise to speak in support of amendments that would enshrine climate protections and harness the power of the City to act as a force for people and planet.
Let us look at the resources in that sector. Globally, privately invested financial assets are expected to reach $145.4 trillion by 2025—a 250% growth in less than 20 years. In the UK, pension assets amount to a staggering £2.7 trillion. The financial challenge for decarbonising the economy is significant. The UN has estimated that, globally, we require £90 trillion of infrastructure investment by 2030 alone. In the UK, private investment in carbon-cutting activities needs to grow by an extra £140 billion over the next five years to reach our net zero goals. We should mobilise the huge resources in the finance system to meet the existential challenge of the climate crisis. Instead, financial institutions are adding fuel to the fire, as I mentioned.
Britain is a financial giant and is the biggest net exporter of financial services in the world. I support new clause 6, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq), because we need a strategy for how we use that influence to reshape the system in accordance with climate priorities. However, those climate priorities are not the priorities in the Bill. Rather than making it a statutory aim of regulators to ensure compliance with our net zero aims and protect our natural environment, the Bill makes the main aim of regulation growth and competitiveness in the sector. In fact, although it is supposed to represent the Government’s vision for the future of financial services, it does not mention “nature” once. That is why I support new clause 25, which aims not for growth and competitiveness on its own, but for a regulatory regime designed for long-term economic resilience, climate safety and nature restoration.
The science is clear: complying with our net zero and Paris agreement obligations means keeping dirty fossil fuels in the ground, so we should encourage divestment in fossil fuels and put an end to fossil fuel extraction. New clauses 21 and 26 have my full support because they rightly restrict and provide disincentives for that kind of harmful investment. We need not only to incentivise fossil fuel divestment, but to ensure that investors make demands of companies on climate action.
I tabled new clauses 8 and 9 because we need to raise the bar on stewardship rules, putting ethical engagement with companies on the climate crisis and much more at the heart of investor activity. I support amendments 23 to 27 because they would reinstate the position limit rules on the kinds of awful things that we have seen relating to speculating on food and betting on hunger. We should stand firmly against that, especially given global heating.
I will finish by saying a few words about fraud. My constituents have been frustrated by the lack of accountability in the financial services sector. Some fraud victims are passed from pillar to post in trying to access justice, so I welcome new clause 1, which tasks the Government with creating a national strategy on preventing fraud. Although these will not be pressed to a separate vote, I draw the House’s attention to my new clause 26 and my amendment 20, which make clear the responsibility for reporting fraud and compensating victims. I also express my support for new clause 2, which would ensure that everyone has access to essential in-person banking services.
We need financial services that work for people and planet. As the clock ticks on climate action, now is the time to pull every lever and seize every opportunity to decarbonise our economy and society. However, the Bill has presented us with more of the same agenda—deregulation and lip service to climate goals. As the slogan goes, we need “system change not climate change.” I am afraid that without significant changes, the Bill will deliver the opposite.
Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)
I declare an interest as chair of the insurance and financial services all-party parliamentary group. I welcome the Bill as a great opportunity to cement the UK’s position as a leading market for financial services.
The London insurance market alone is bigger than all its competitors combined. That is great news, but it also means that it is a target and that it has the most to lose, so it is really important that we get this key legislation right. I thank the Minister for his engagement at earlier stages; I know he is keen to make the Bill a big success, as I am, and I really appreciate the conversations that we have had.
Caroline Lucas
This Bill should be a once-in-a-generation opportunity to ensure a rapid, stable, co-ordinated and just transition to a low-carbon economy, to advance financial inclusion and to protect consumers, investors, banks, asset managers and other financial institutions against the catastrophic financial risks associated with climate and nature breakdown. Sadly, I believe that it fails to deliver on all those counts, and many others too.
I have signed a number of new clauses with the aim of improving the Bill, on matters such as free access to cash and better regulation of buy now, pay later credit. I also strongly support the new clauses tabled by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake). However, I want to use my speaking time to focus on three new clauses in my name.
New clause 25 goes to the heart of what the Bill is about. It seeks to reposition the objectives of the regulator so that they are consistent with the future that we are facing. It would change the strategic objective so that it is no longer simply about ensuring that the relevant markets function well, but about ensuring that they deliver long-term economic resilience and prosperity. It would also create two new operational objectives. The first is a climate objective to facilitate the meeting of targets set out in the Climate Change Act 2008 and the 1.5°C temperature rise limit of the Paris agreement. The second is a nature objective, to facilitate alignment with the Government’s commitment to halting and reversing biodiversity loss by 2030.
Those changes matter on a great many levels. Most obviously, as the United Nations Secretary-General warned just last month:
“We are in the fight of our lives and we are losing…And our planet is fast approaching tipping points that will make climate chaos irreversible.
We are on a highway to climate hell with our foot on the accelerator.”
We therefore need to deploy every tool at our disposal to the task of creating an economy that reflects this new reality. There is no greater moral imperative, or indeed any greater financial imperative.
The Bank of England’s first climate stress test was published in May. It sought to understand how climate change would affect banks’ business models, and whether they held enough capital to cover climate-related risks. The results were clear: banks need to take climate action immediately, or face a hit to annual profits of up to 15%. If the net zero transition is delayed by a decade and global temperatures reach 1.8°, by 2050 banks will face losses of £225 billion. However, the banks are not alone in being exposed to huge climate risks. Investors, consumers, anyone with a pension, asset managers, savers, mortgage holders and other financial institutions are all threatened.
The Bill should provide an opportunity to meet those challenges and lay the foundations for a secure and stable future-facing economy, but I believe that without my new clauses, it simply does not do that. Leading financial institutions agree, including Aviva Investors, Phoenix, Hargreaves Lansdown and BUPA Insurance. They raised concerns with the Bill Committee, saying that
“the proposed regulatory principle will not provide a sufficiently strong legal basis for regulators to promote a thriving net zero financial sector. It certainly won’t encourage the regulators to ensure that the UK becomes the world’s leading green financial centre.”
Moreover, as it stands, nothing in the Bill acknowledges the crucial role of nature, although the Economic Secretary himself recognised in Committee that we could not achieve our climate goals without recognising and acknowledging that vital role.
New clause 25 would go further and remove the proposed competitiveness and growth operational objective for the FCA. The financial impacts of pursuing a climate-busting competitiveness and “growth at all costs” approach over climate action is clear. For example, it is estimated that the UK will lose 10% of GDP by 2050 if we do not tackle climate change, and that Europe will see a 30% rise in defaults on corporate loans to the most exposed companies. No wonder the Treasury Committee advised against a primary focus on competitiveness, warning that it could lead to weakening standards and a reduction in the UK’s financial resilience, and could undermine the reputation of the UK’s finance sector.
It is worth recalling that Parliament itself deliberately removed competitiveness from the mandate of the financial regulator just a decade ago, learning the lessons from the regulatory failure leading up to the global financial crisis of 2007-08, which saw millions lose their savings, homes, businesses and jobs. With so much at stake, I can think of no good reason why the Government is making such a reckless move, and no good reason why it could not instead support a focus on the creation of a wellbeing economy designed to foster long-term economic resilience and prosperity.
I have also tabled new clause 21, which mandates the introduction of a one-for-one capital requirement for the financing of new fossil fuels. In other words, for each pound that finances fossil fuels, financial institutions should have a pound of their own funds held liable for potential losses. It is a principle that is used elsewhere. In June 2021, for example, the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision—the global standard setter for the regulation of banks—recommended its application to some cryptocurrencies’ exposures. At present, however, the Government are not seizing these opportunities.
Even with no fossil fuel expansion, by 2025 global emissions from existing projects will be 22% too high to stay below 1.5° and 66% too high by 2030—all while the scientific reality makes it clear that fossil fuels assets are uneconomic and financially uncompetitive in a 1.5° or 2° world. Fossil fuel financing increasingly threatens economic stability. It increases the physical risks of climate change, thereby leaving the financial system exposed to significant losses from balance sheets and from environmental damage to the wider economy. That is why these amendments are so important and that is why we should get fossil fuels out of our financial sector now.
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
I am going to speak briefly to new clause 7 on access to cash, and to new clause 27 on access to banking services. I very much support the Bill and completely commend what the Government are trying to do. It is a source of great pride that they are bringing financial regulation home as one of the great benefits of Brexit. I applaud what they are doing and appreciate all the engagement that Ministers have had with colleagues on the new clauses that I am speaking to.
I understand that there is an intention not to push new clause 27 to a vote, and I intend to abstain on new clause 7 if there is a Division on it, because I look forward to the policy statement that the Government have promised. I support the principle behind both the new clauses. As Members have mentioned, we seem to be moving inevitably towards a cashless society, and we can all see the personal convenience of that. Like the royal family, I personally do not carry cash around. It is only embarrassing when I am in church and the platter comes around. That is pretty much the only occasion when I feel the need for it, but that is not the case for everyone.
For anyone using a digital payments system, the operator of the platform has potentially immense control over their life, in principle and in practice. That is why what PayPal did to the Free Speech Union and others a few months ago is so important. Yes, we can acknowledge that that event was an outlier. It was a rare and slightly inexplicable event and, yes, it was quickly corrected in some of the cases of the accounts that were closed, but the fact is that it happened. It was a straw in the wind, and the fact that individuals and organisations with heterodox political opinions found themselves unable to operate economically because of the decision of a private company acting entirely on its own initiative, possibly under pressure from external campaigns, is a troubling development. So it is vital that we send the strongest regulatory, and also cultural and political, signal to these private payment platforms that the opinions of their customers are none of their business.
Nor are private opinions any business of the state, and this is why the question of access to cash is about more than the important issue of protecting the vulnerable, although I agree with the points that have been made on that. It is also about liberty. Just now, behind the scenes, the Government and the Bank of England are developing plans for their own central bank digital currency. Again, we can see the practical appeal, but the threat is that the Government will have oversight of the economic activity of private citizens, which is something that no Government of this country have ever had in our history. It is therefore vital that the debate on a central bank digital currency has liberty front and centre. We can all say warm words about the importance of safeguards and freedoms, but the fact is that if the emergency is bad enough and the powers are available, those powers could well be used.
We saw this happening around the world, and to some degree in our own country, during the covid crisis. We have only to look at what the Canadian Government did to block access to the bank accounts of truckers protesting against the covid policy there to see what can be done in a modern liberal western country. It would be a shame if we took back control of financial regulation from the EU only to empower private payment platforms, or indeed our own central bank, in that way. Cash services and banking services are part of the infrastructure of our communities. They are also part of the infrastructure of liberty.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I rise to speak in support of new clauses 34 and 35. Both are tabled in my name and deal with the rules and duties of pension schemes and investments.
This Bill could be a unique opportunity to develop the green economy we need by providing the finance required to support our net zero transition. Unfortunately, this Government might again miss the boat. The Bank of England recently warned that UK banks and insurers will end up shouldering nearly £340 billion-worth of climate-related losses by 2050. Such losses will be unrecoverable, so it is cheaper to save the planet than to destroy it.
The World Bank suggests that up to 216 million people could be forced to move within their countries by 2050, but immediate climate action could reduce that by up to 80%. Limiting global warming to 1.5°C instead of 2°C could result in around 42 million fewer people being exposed to extreme heatwaves. We have pensions to provide adequate quality of life after retirement. How absurd it would be if the climate catastrophe meant that there was little quality of life left.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I now have to announce the results of today’s deferred Divisions.
On the draft Agricultural Holdings (Fee) Regulations 2022, the Ayes were 291 and the Noes were 159, so the Ayes have it.
On the draft Combined Authorities (Mayoral Elections) (Amendment) Order 2022, the Ayes were 289 and the Noes were 12, so the Ayes have it.
On the draft Local Authorities (Mayoral Elections) (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2022, the Ayes were 289 and the Noes were 12, so the Ayes have it.
On the draft Police and Crime Commissioner Elections and Welsh Forms (Amendment) Order 2022, the Ayes were 289 and the Noes were 13, so the Ayes have it.
Returning to the debate, if everybody speaks for five minutes instead of six minutes, it will give the Minister what I would consider to be a reasonable amount of time to respond.
Bim Afolami
With your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to start, before getting into the meat of this, by paying tribute to a Labour councillor in Hitchin who recently and suddenly passed away in my constituency. Judi Billing had served as a district councillor since 1980 and was an excellent servant, and I wanted to make that point on the Floor of the House.
I rise in particular to support new clause 17. As we all know, this is really an enabling Bill and a lot of its meat will come in regulations that will be passed in the coming weeks and months. In the short time available to me, I think it is important to stand up for the regulators, because someone has to in this debate. I want to stand up for them not because I have agreed with every decision of the Prudential Regulation Authority, the Financial Conduct Authority, the Payment Systems Regulator or anyone else, but because a lot of the right criticisms that I and many other colleagues have had of the regulators arise more as a function of the system in which they operate than as a result of the decisions made by those individual regulators or institutions.
There is a key point about accountability, which many colleagues on both sides of the House have already raised: there needs to be strengthened accountability to this House. I have made the point many times before, but I urge those on the Treasury Bench, His Majesty’s Treasury and Parliament to look at this more deeply. Unless we can strengthen the accountability to this House and the other place of the regulators directly, we will continue to run up against criticisms that they are not taking colleagues’ considerations into account.
There is also a need for more effective accountability to the Government. What I mean by that is that the Government have clearly set out, in a series of actions, policy statements, speeches and strategies over the past few months, and in numerous reviews, what their intentions are. Those have been supported when it has come to votes on the Floor of this House, but sometimes there is a gap between the intention of the Government and what ends up coming through, even when regulations are passed to that end. It is important that the regulators and the Government work together to find a system whereby the Government can ensure that their strategic aims are being supported on an ongoing basis by the regulators. This is not just about saying what the policy is, passing regulations and allowing the regulators to get on with it. However well they try to do that, a lot will get missed, so we need to think about that.
We need to rethink the entirety of our regulatory structure, particularly as to how it governs financial services. We have very powerful regulators that have taken on a huge amount of power from the European Union, and they are doing their best. There are some overlaps between them and there are times when certain aims of one conflict with the aims of the other, even in relation to the competitiveness objective that has come up many times in the passage of this Bill. We end up with the situation where the regulators have to balance off competitiveness and other secondary objectives, and indeed the primary objectives. We have to work out how we are going to put together a framework that enables better accountability to this House, and better accountability to the political aims that have been passed by this House and to the aims of the Government, so that we get a regulatory system that drives a better, more competitive, safer financial services system.
To that end I have set up the Regulatory Reform Group, of which some Members of this House and others outside are a part. I intend to work with the Government on this issue, because unless we get it right, all the best intentions that all colleagues have in different areas will find it hard to be effected because of the structural difficulties that are inherent. So I would like to stick up for the regulators but say that they need to be able to operate in a more effective system.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
I am delighted to be able to speak in support of the Government this evening, because this Bill is of great importance to my constituents, many of whom work in our financial sector, and also to the capital city, of which my constituency is a part.
Since I contributed to the earlier stages of the Bill, I have had the opportunity to hear from UK Finance, Zurich, Lloyds, the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Property Institute and Just Group and many others, and they have reflected back to me the broad and strong support of the financial sector, which is the jewel in our industrial crown, for the measures that the Bill envisages. The key thing from the perspective of my constituents is that the Bill seeks to right-size regulation in the United Kingdom to reflect the fact that the risks and the challenges that the sector faces change over time. Just as we need to manage the risk from competitors, through the measures on competitiveness, we also need to ensure that we have a financial sector that enables all of our citizens to access the broadest possible range of financial services.
I have listened carefully to the points made about financial inclusion, for example, which are very important in the context of our financial sector. We need to ensure—and I think this Bill does—an appropriate balance between products that are pricing in a degree of risk, but that enable people to build their creditworthiness and their participation in the benefits that the financial sector can bring in their lives, with a recognition that there are risks to constituents, in particular from the development of new products, which the Bill seeks to address through better regulation in areas such as crypto investments.
Briefly, on new clause 27, although I have sympathy with the points that have been made by a number of Members, this strikes me as an example of where there is a significant risk of unintended consequences. As Ministers have heard, there is a need for due process for those who feel that they have been wronged by the decisions of a provider to be able to seek a remedy for that, but we do not want to get into the kind of situation that we have seen in the past, where an obligation to provide a universal service sees significant numbers of providers—useful providers—exiting the market because they are not prepared to accept the risks that come with that. My view is that the Government are finding about the right balance.
Let me turn now to the issues around the Financial Conduct Authority and the regulators. There will be a new chair of the FCA from 21 February next year. I wish to bring to the attention of the House and of Ministers that the strong view of my constituents and many in the sector is that we need to see a greater degree of rigour in the enforcement action that the FCA in particular is able to take. It is a matter not of new powers, but of making sure that they are operating effectively.
In respect of access to cash, I would like to thank Ministers. Certainly, in my constituency, we have seen really significant efforts by financial institutions to ensure that every high street has at least one free-to-use cashpoint, and, thus far, the feedback from business owners is very good.
In conclusion, I strongly support the Government’s position. I am not afraid to say if I think things are going wrong, but, in this case, it is clear to me that the Bill is beneficial to my constituents as business owners, as employees in the sector, and as consumers of the sector’s product, and it is beneficial to the taxpayers of the United Kingdom.
Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)
I rise in support of new clause 17. The Bill is central to the Government’s commitment to long-term economic sustainability while also ensuring that our banking system is fair and provides reasonable protections for the vulnerable, including continued access to cash. Now that we are outside the EU, it is vital that we take this opportunity to build an even more agile and an even more muscular internationally facing financial centre. To do that, we need regulation that is designed to unlock growth, that will attract international investment into the UK, and that will also attract the best talent into our financial services sector, while not forgetting our equally important duty to level up financial services across the UK, including continued access to cash, to which I wish to turn straight away.
I welcome the wording of the Bill about providing “reasonable” access to cash. I appreciate that the Government have a balancing act to perform, given a fast-moving sector, changing consumer patterns and the need to provide protections. It is a balance that the Government have provided with this “reasonable” access to cash.
I wish to place on record that in picturesque Leigh-on-Sea, a part of wonderful Southend West, we have lost every single one of our high street banks over the past four years. In a constituency such as Southend West, where over one fifth of the population are over 65 and more than 6% are over 80—significantly more than the national average—local banking services are vital. Senior citizens in Southend West do not want to bank online, they do not want to bank on an app, and they should not have to. That is why I am working with fantastic organisations such as LINK and OneBanx to set up a local banking hub.
Anthony Browne
As I have made clear in previous iterations of this legislation, I am very broadly supportive of the aims of this Bill and on the Treasury Committee we have scrutinised it in detail, so I will limit my comments to just some of the huge number of amendments. I love this exercise in democracy where different MPs with different interests come forward with their amendments; I have actually worked with many of them in my life and have direct experience with them.
I absolutely support new clause 27 on freedom of expression, which my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates) mentioned. UsforThem, which was founded by someone in my constituency, has done some great work campaigning on schools, but was utterly traumatised by the sudden loss of access to PayPal, and we need due process around that.
On new clause 28 relating to buy now, pay later, which the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) mentioned, I was involved with the regulation of payday loans, something else that fell between the gaps and needed to be sorted—it was outrageous. I am convinced by her arguments that buy now, pay later is another gap that is not addressed. I am sure the FCA has powers to deal with that already, but I hear her frustration that the Government keep saying that they will deal with it but have not done so, so I urge the Minister to put that on his list of things to take up and deal with.
The same applies to new clause 11, which the Chair of the Treasury Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin), talked about convincingly. It is an absolute scandal that huge swathes of the population cannot get access to financial advice and are impoverished as a result because of a failure of regulation, or excessive regulation—we can blame the EU. I was on an FCA taskforce some time ago to try to sort out this problem—I was trying to remember where it went, but it clearly ran into the sand. We absolutely need to deal with this urgently. Again, I take reassurance from the Minister’s comments that he will deal with it as a matter of urgency. I will hold him to that, as, I am sure, will the Chair of the Treasury Committee.
Access to in-person banking is really important. In fact, I negotiated the deal with the Post Office on behalf of the banks to open up post offices to offering banking services. There are actually more post office branches than all the bank branches in the country combined. A lot of people complained to me about the lack of access to certain banking facilities, and I would always point out that they can do those things at their local post office, which they did not know—we need to raise the profile of that.
Opposition Members need to define clearly what they mean by “in-person banking”. There are lots of different things. Do they mean going to ask for a mortgage or just paying a bill, for example? We do lots of different things in different places. The deal with the Post Office is being renegotiated, and I think the main thing there will be to ensure that whatever services we want are put into the negotiations.
Finally, I want to talk about access to free cash. I said in an intervention earlier that I massively support access to cash. Cash use is dwindling—clearly, more people are using cards and other payment types—but we need to make sure that people who do not want to use other means have access to cash and, indeed, access to free cash. I should say—I do not think anyone has remarked on it—that paid ATMs have been dying a death over the last 15 years. There is about half the number now than there was 15 years ago. People pay for only 5% of ATM withdrawals—I never do because I find it offensive to pay to take out my own money. I fully support the sentiment.
However, on new clause 7, there is already a power in the Bill for the FCA to ensure access to cash, and that could include pricing so that the FCA can ensure access to free cash. I have two things to say about the drafting of the new clause. First, it does not stipulate whether it applies to personal or business customers. Traditionally and historically, a lot of business customers have paid for cash-handling services. Is the new clause saying that they should no longer pay for them? It is not quite clear. If they are no longer required to pay, are non-cash businesses cross-subsidising them? Secondly, the new clause does not stipulate whether it applies just to sterling cash and not to foreign exchange. If I was a bureau de change dealer, I would be rather worried about having to offer my services for free.
With those comments, I basically urge the Minister to stand by the various commitments he has made this afternoon. I support the Bill.
Mr Baron
I very much welcome the Bill and congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on listening to and engaging with the points raised by many of us on the Back Benches.
I support new clause 11 in particular—I was heartened to hear what the Minister had to say about it—but may I perhaps reinforce a very simple message about the urgency required on financial advice? We in this country have been blessed with the City of London and many other world-leading financial institutions around the UK. I think I can say with some confidence that London is the financial capital of Europe, if not the world. The world comes here to do business on a variety of fronts. Yet we have very little good access to advice. In fact, if anything, we have a widening advice gap.
On the one hand, we have wealth managers raising their minimums, banks withdrawing from the high street and withdrawing fully from providing investment advice; we also have the retail distribution review, which I supported because it was ending the backhand commission for unit trusts—that was bad for the consumer—but it has resulted in independent financial advisers having to charge more and few of them being used. On the other hand, with all that advice in retreat, we have the Government and all parties saying that we must take greater control of our finances, there are greater pension freedoms and there is a great demand for good advice.
A lot of people of modest means who have no access to good advice fall into that void. They may be tempted, for example, to leave cash in the bank earning a pitiful rate of interest while inflation erodes its value. This is where the law of unintended consequences comes in, because all that regulation that had to be met before one could offer full-blown advice is fine when we are talking about full-blown advice, but there is a middle ground that needs to be covered. I offer a basic statistic that might interest or help those willing to take a particularly long-term view to their financial planning: instead of leaving money in cash, if they invest in equities over the long term—25 years, for example—they stand a very small chance of losing money. There will be volatility, but because they are investing, hopefully, in growing businesses, they will do well, and 97 times out of 100, that will beat cash deposits. That is the sort of advice that banks, building societies and many others could give, without getting too complex about financial planning. It would offer consumers a choice, rather than just letting their cash sit in banks and get eroded. Will the Minister therefore give impetus to the assurance he has given on new clause 11 and really get the Treasury looking at this issue, because there is a halfway house, and we must not stop regulation being the enemy of the good? That is what we are asking for.
I will add one other thing quickly in the minute I have left. Please make sure that our regulators listen to the various trade bodies when it comes to regulation, because we are inheriting—I very much welcome this Bill—a lot of powers from the EU. We are in control of our own destiny, but I take issue with the FCA on a number of points. One of them is that when it comes to investment trusts, there are such things as key information documents. They are an invention of the EU and are misleading about risk and putting consumers at risk of losing money—it is as simple as that. The Association of Investment Companies has said that. By the way, it has also said, in relation to those key information documents, “burn before reading”. Despite that, there has been no meaningful action from the FCA on that issue, and that is wrong. I ask the Minister to make sure that our regulators do not rest on their laurels, realise the greater freedoms they have got and rise to the occasion.
Andrew Griffith
I thank Members from all parts of the House who have spoken today for their valued and often very informative and sometimes passionate contributions. I sense a tone of disappointment in the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq), my shadow on the Opposition Front Bench. I will try to endeavour not to disappoint her in return for her party’s support for this important and landmark Bill. I spoke at length in my opening remarks. I hope I was generous in taking interventions, and perhaps colleagues will indulge me if I try to get through this as quickly as possible.
We heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford), my predecessor, who contributed so much to this Bill. We also heard from my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) and from my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Craig Tracey), who served on the Bill Committee. They all spoke to a greater or lesser degree in support of new clause 17 and about how we can make that better and better hold the regulators to account.
We heard about the specific metrics suggested in new clauses 12, 13, 14 and 15—my hon. and right hon. Friends are very productive. I can say that I will consider things very carefully. In those amendments, they gave specific examples of how we could potentially deploy the powers in new clause 17, and I undertake to consider carefully whether those are the right way forward. We heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford about that sense of urgency, and we got that again in new clause 11. Again, it is potentially a good way forward that I would like to consider.
We all understand that it comes down to financial inclusion, for which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) rightly never fails to agitate. If, however, the consequences of our financial regulation exclude, as I think we heard, 92% of people from getting basic guidance on the sorts of products that are right for them, that is a problem for inclusion and for the industry. It is something that I was asked to take away with due urgency, and I commit that once we have the Bill on the statute book that is absolutely what I will do. Technology can be our friend there as well. We heard that from my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin), the Chair of the Treasury Committee.
David Simmonds
I recently heard from my local borough police commander that a major priority in the recruitment of new officers to the Metropolitan police is finding people not to go out on the beat but to do the detailed back-office work of tracking down fraudsters and scammers, and that the Met had enjoyed considerable success. Does the Minister agree that should be a high priority for the Home Office and police forces across the country?
Andrew Griffith
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that that is a critical priority. We heard the figures—no one disputes them—about the growing prevalence of fraud, much of which is displacement as people go online. We need to give people the tools to protect themselves and we need to ensure that it is a high priority for those who seek to protect us.
We will empower the public with information. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle talked about financial inclusion. As we know, there is a slight difference of opinion, in that the FCA considers that that is already within its remit. It is absolutely something that I would like to see greater transparency on, and perhaps that is somewhere we can make common cause.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
On fraud, about which I gave the figures to the House earlier, we had a hearing of the Public Accounts Committee the other day. I suggested two things: first, fraud should be made a strategic priority for every police force; and secondly, every police officer in the country should receive at least some basic training in the likelihood of fraud crimes.
Andrew Griffith
Fraud is of course a shared responsibility between the Treasury and my hon. Friends in the Home Office, and when it comes to the report that the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn is quite rightly challenging us to produce as quickly as possible, we want that report to be right rather than quick, but we do need to bring it forward as quickly as possible. We will use the time wisely to engage with expert stakeholders, which could well include the training of which my hon. Friend speaks, and we will come forward with that early in 2023.
In addition, this Bill is a seminal moment in protecting victims of authorised push payment fraud. It will ensure swift protections for the vast majority of APP scam victims, reversing the presumption and making sure they receive swift reimbursement so that they are no longer victims of this crime. The measure enables the Payment Systems Regulator to take action across all payments systems, not just faster payments, which is where the fraud occurs most, so that it does not merely get displaced. The Government expect protections for consumers across all payments systems to keep pace with that.
Richard Fuller
My hon. Friend has not yet had an opportunity to talk about the Government’s initiative on stablecoins and digital currencies. Given that he has just talked about scams and some of the concerns with cryptocurrencies, is he reassured that what is in this Bill relating to stablecoins remains absolutely front and centre of the Government’s attention?
Andrew Griffith
I again thank my hon. Friend, who did so much work on this Bill. It is absolutely right that the Government keep an open mind to new technologies, and my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger), who is always very thoughtful, talked about this, but we have to understand the risks. While the risks to consumers of scams in the crypto-space, among others, is extremely high and has been well telegraphed, when it comes to looking at different payment systems—with the power of distributed ledger technology to solve issues such as settlement to make our financial markets cleaner, faster and more efficient—it is absolutely right that the Government consider looking at that, and we will be looking to do more in that domain.
Tulip Siddiq
I thank the Minister for his response, and he is making encouraging noises about the forward strategy, which I look forward to seeing, but I have not yet heard him mention anything about data sharing. The fact is that frauds and scams have moved on from what they might have been in the past. Is he going to give some indication of whether there will be a data-sharing arrangement that goes beyond just banks and takes into account social media companies, crypto-asset firms and other platforms that criminals are exploiting, because our vulnerable constituents are falling prey to frauds and scams? It is no good just going back to the old ways on frauds and scams—I am sure he understands that—so could I hear a bit more about data sharing, please?
Andrew Griffith
He does indeed understand that. We are addressing legal challenges to data sharing in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill, which will introduce provisions to protect firms from civil liability. As was discussed earlier, it is important to regulate the online world, which my colleagues in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport are doing in the Online Safety Bill.
Andrew Griffith
I will not give way to my hon. Friend this time.
To conclude, financial and related professional services play a crucial role, as we have heard from many speakers. They contribute nearly £100 billion in taxes and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford reminded us, that pays for more than the cost of the salaries of every nurse in this country. The Government have an ambitious programme for an open, outward, sustainable, technologically advanced and internationally competitive sector that will unleash the most opportunities not just for those who work in it, but for communities across the United Kingdom.
Stella Creasy
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister in his final flow, but he did promise he would give me a direct answer. With 40% of people saying they are going to put their Christmas spending on buy now, pay later loans, and they have no regulatory protection, what is going to do to help them this Christmas?
Andrew Griffith
The hon. Lady knows from our conversations in the Bill Committee our ambition to look again afresh at the regulations in the consumer credit market. That is outwith this Bill, but it is a commitment that remains and that we will bring forward at the earliest opportunity.
Do not underestimate the power of this Bill. This is an unlock for our financial services. This is the start of delivering our Brexit freedoms. It is giving us back the opportunity to make ourselves competitive—a more prosperous economy, jobs for our children and grandchildren, tax revenues that will pay for our high-quality services, and higher GDP growth. All of that is contained in this Bill, at the same time as protecting the consumers that Members opposite talk about, and delivering on the ambition to put this on the statute book.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 17 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
6 pm
Proceedings interrupted (Programme Order, 7 September).
The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83E).
New Clause 18
Composition of Panels
‘(1) FSMA 2000 is amended in accordance with subsections (2) to (8).
(2) After section 1M (FCA’s general duty to consult) insert—
“1MA Composition of Panels
(1) A person who receives remuneration from the FCA, the PRA, the Payment Systems Regulator, the Bank of England or the Treasury is disqualified from being appointed as a member of a panel established under any of sections 1N to 1QA or 138IA.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply in respect of a panel mentioned in that subsection if regulations made by the Treasury provide for it not to apply to that panel.
(3) Regulations under subsection (2) may make provision in respect of a panel—
(a) generally, or
(b) only in relation to such descriptions of persons or cases as the regulations may specify (but the power to make such regulations may not be exercised so as to specify persons by name).”
(3) In section 1N (FCA Practitioner Panel), after subsection (5) insert—
“(6) Subsections (4) and (5) are subject to section 1MA.”
(4) In section 1O (Smaller Business Practitioner Panel), after subsection (6) insert—
“(6A) Subsections (5) and (6) are subject to section 1MA.”
(5) In section 1P (Markets Practitioner Panel), after subsection (6) insert—
“(7) Subsections (4) to (6) are subject to section 1MA.”
(6) In section 1Q (Consumer Panel), after subsection (4) insert—
“(4A) Subsection (4) is subject to section 1MA.”
(7) After section 2L (PRA’s general duty to consult) insert—
“2LA Composition of Panels
(1) A person who receives remuneration from the FCA, the PRA, the Payment Systems Regulator, the Bank of England or the Treasury is disqualified from being appointed as a member of a panel established under any of sections 2M, 2MA or 138JA.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply in respect of a panel mentioned in that subsection if regulations made by the Treasury provide for it not to apply to that panel.
(3) Regulations under subsection (2) may make provision in respect of a panel—
(a) generally, or
(b) only in relation to such descriptions of persons or cases as the regulations may specify (but the power to make such regulations may not be exercised so as to specify persons by name).”
(8) In section 2M (the PRA Practitioner Panel), after subsection (5) insert—
“(6) Subsections (4) and (5) are subject to section 2LA.”
(9) In section 103 of the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013 (regulator’s general duty to consult) after subsection (5) insert—
“(5A) A person who receives remuneration from the FCA, the PRA, the Payment Systems Regulator, the Bank of England or the Treasury is disqualified from being appointed as a member of a panel established under subsection (3).
(5B) Subsection (5A) does not apply in respect of a panel mentioned in that subsection if regulations made by the Treasury provide for it not to apply to that panel.
(5C) Regulations under subsection (5B) may make provision in respect of a panel—
(a) generally, or
(b) only in relation to such descriptions of persons or cases as the regulations may specify (but the power to make such regulations may not be exercised so as to specify persons by name).”’—(Andrew Griffith.)
This new clause disqualifies those who are paid by a regulator, the Bank of England or the Treasury from being appointed to a statutory advisory panel, subject to any exemptions the Treasury may set out in regulations.
Brought up, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 19
Consultation on Rules
‘(1) In section 138I of FSMA 2000 (consultation by the FCA), after subsection (4) insert—
“(4A) The FCA must include, in the account mentioned in subsection (4), a list of the respondents who made the representations, where those respondents have consented to the publication of their names.
(4B) The duty in subsection (4A) is not to be read as authorising or requiring such processing of personal data as would contravene the data protection legislation (but the duty is to be taken into account in determining whether particular processing of data would contravene that legislation).
(4C) For the purposes of this section, the exemption relating to functions conferred on the FCA mentioned in paragraph 11 of Schedule 2 to the Data Protection Act 2018 (exemption from application of listed GDPR provisions) does not apply.”
(2) In section 138J of FSMA 2000 (consultation by the PRA), after subsection (4) insert—
“(4A) The PRA must include, in the account mentioned in subsection (4), a list of the respondents who made the representations, where those respondents have consented to the publication of their names.
(4B) The duty in subsection (4A) is not to be read as authorising or requiring such processing of personal data as would contravene the data protection legislation (but the duty is to be taken into account in determining whether particular processing of data would contravene that legislation).
(4C) For the purposes of this section, the exemption relating to functions conferred on the PRA mentioned in paragraph 9 of Schedule 2 to the Data Protection Act 2018 (exemption from application of listed GDPR provisions) does not apply.”
(3) In section 104 of the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013 (consultation requirements), after subsection (5) insert—
“(5A) The Payment Systems Regulator must include, in the account mentioned in subsection (5), a list of the respondents who made the representations, where those respondents have consented to the publication of their names.
(5B) The duty in subsection (5A) is not to be read as authorising or requiring such processing of personal data as would contravene the data protection legislation (but the duty is to be taken into account in determining whether particular processing of data would contravene that legislation).
(5C) In this section “data protection legislation” has the same meaning as in the Data Protection Act 2018 (see section 3 of that Act).”’—(Andrew Griffith.)
This new clause would require the FCA, the PRA, the Payment Systems Regulator and the Bank of England to publish the names of respondents to their consultations on proposed new rules, where those respondents have consented to such publication.
Brought up, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 20
Unauthorised Co-ownership AIFs
‘(1) FSMA 2000 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 261E (authorised contractual schemes: holding of units)—
(a) before subsection (1) insert—
“(A1) This section sets out requirements for the purposes of section 261D(1)(a) (authorisation orders).”;
(b) in subsection (1) for “a contractual” substitute “the”.
(3) After section 261Z5 insert—
“Chapter 3B
Unauthorised co-ownership AIFs
261Z6 Power to make provision about unauthorised co-ownership AIFs
(1) The Treasury may by regulations make provision about unauthorised co-ownership AIFs that corresponds or is similar to, or applies with modifications, any of sections 261M to 261O and section 261P(1) and (2) (rights and liabilities of participants in authorised co-ownership schemes).
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) may make provision about unauthorised co-ownership AIFs generally, or about unauthorised co-ownership AIFs of a description specified in the regulations.
(3) In this section “unauthorised co-ownership AIF” means a co-ownership scheme that—
(a) is an AIF, and
(b) is not authorised for the purposes of this Act by an authorisation order in force under section 261D(1).”’—(Andrew Griffith.)
This new clause would enable the Treasury to make provision about the rights and liabilities of participants in unauthorised co-ownership AIFs which is similar to that made in relation to authorised co-ownership schemes in Chapter 3A of Part 17 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.
Brought up, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 1
National strategy on financial fraud
‘(1) The Treasury must lay before the House of Commons a national strategy for the purpose of detecting, preventing and investigating fraud and associated financial crime within six months of the passing of this Act.
(2) In preparing the strategy, the Treasury must consult—
(a) the Secretary of State for the Home Office,
(b) the National Economic Crime Centre,
(c) law enforcement bodies which the Treasury considers relevant to the strategy,
(d) relevant regulators,
(e) financial services stakeholders,
(f) digital platforms, telecommunications companies, financial technology companies, and social media companies.
(3) The strategy must include arrangements for a data-sharing agreement involving—
(a) relevant law enforcement agencies,
(b) relevant regulators,
(c) financial services stakeholders,
(d) telecommunications stakeholders, and
(e) technology-based communication platforms,
for the purposes of detecting, preventing and investigating fraud and associated financial crime and, in particular, tracking stolen money which may pass through mule bank accounts or platforms operated by other financial services stakeholders.
(4) In this section “fraud and associated financial crime” includes, but is not limited to authorised push payment fraud, unauthorised facility takeover fraud, and online and offline identity fraud.
(5) In this section, “financial services stakeholders” includes banks, building societies, credit unions, investment firms, Electric Money Institutions, virtual asset providers and exchanges, and payment system operators.’—(Tulip Siddiq.)
This new clause would require the Treasury to publish a national strategy for the detection, prevention and investigation of fraud and associated financial crime, after having consulted relevant stakeholders. The strategy must include arrangements for a data sharing agreement between law enforcement agencies, regulators and others to track stolen money.
Brought up.
Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill.
Andrew Griffith
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
It has been a privilege to lead on this Bill’s progression through the House, and I extend my thanks to hon. Members on both sides for their collaborative engagement, challenge and scrutiny. I extend particular thanks to the Chairs of the Public Bill Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller) and the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma). On the Opposition Benches, I extend my particular thanks to the hon. Members for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq), for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle), for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy), for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) and for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) for the constructive way in which they have approached the scrutiny of this Bill and for their support where they felt it was appropriate.
On the Government side, I am particularly grateful for the contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin), who was plucked from the Bill Committee to her position as Chair of the Treasury Committee, and my hon. Friends the Members for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), for North Warwickshire (Craig Tracey) and for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart). I also pay tribute to my predecessors, my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) and my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), for their efforts to prepare and introduce this Bill.
The Bill is a culmination of more than 30 consultations published by the Government over many years and follows extensive engagement. I thank all the stakeholders with whom we have consulted. Before the Bill moves to the other place, I wish to extend my thanks to the significant number of Treasury officials and lawyers for their work in preparing such a substantial Bill, my parliamentary counsel, the witnesses who gave evidence to the Public Bill Committee, the parliamentary Clerks, in particular Bradley Albrow, without whose efforts we would not have got to this point, and those who have helped Members of the Opposition support their work on this Bill.
Finally, as is customary, I wish to thank the Bill team from the Treasury: Matt Molloy, Ciara Lydon, George Guven, Nicola O’Keefe, Charlotte Bennett, Mathilde Durand-Delacre, Maithili Jayanthi, Rohan Lee, Catherine McCloskey and my assistant private secretary, Harry Coloe, who have supported me throughout this process.
We have already discussed at length the significance of this Bill. It is important to remember that our scrutiny does not end with the Bill moving on to the Lords. When the Bill receives Royal Assent, it will kickstart a wide-ranging and ambitious programme of secondary legislation and regulator rules to replace retained EU law, get back our freedoms and move to a comprehensive, domestic model of regulation. I look forward to seeing this important piece of legislation come into force. I commend the Bill to the House.
Tulip Siddiq
Despite some of the disappointments in the Bill, which I have outlined to the Minister in great detail, the Opposition support this important piece of legislation, as he will know. It will enable the UK to tailor financial services regulation from insurance to fintech to meet the needs of our economy. At the risk of sounding like an Oscar-winning speech, there are a few people whom I need to thank as well. People will know that, in Opposition, we do not have a whole team of civil servants working behind us. I must thank Mark Hudson in my team, who has worked really hard to make sure that I understand each and every aspect of the Bill. I wish to thank TheCityUK and UK Finance for their help and the Finance Innovation Lab for its advice on the Bill.
I thank, too, Lloyds, Santander, Barclays, HSBC, NatWest and Starling for setting out the dangers posed by the new forms of fraud, and the Building Societies Association and Nationwide for their help with my mutuals and co-operatives amendments. I also thank the Association of British Insurers, Phoenix, the Investment Association, Hargreaves Lansdown and TISA for their help on green finance and personalised financial guidance.
I also want to say thank you to all the Conservative MPs who served on our Committee, which, I think the Minister will agree, was a very good Committee, as we got through quite a lot of detail. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Blaydon (Liz Twist), for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle), for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) and for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) for their support on the Public Bill Committee and for their co-operation as well.
Finally, in my 10 months as shadow Economic Secretary to the Treasury, I have shadowed three Economic Secretaries, all of whom were very helpful when it came to this Bill. Let me just mention them. They are: the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen), who is not in his place right now, but who was very helpful when I first took on the role; the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), who is also not in his place; and, of course, the current Minister whom I thank. This is a complex and wide-ranging Bill. The Minister and I spent an enormous amount of time together, but I think he will know that Labour supports both this Bill, and the opportunities for the City to thrive after we leave EU regulations. I hope the Minister knows that, overall, I have enjoyed working with him.
Peter Grant
I endorse and share the thanks of both the previous speakers to all those who have helped the democratic process to happen. Obviously, we are not particularly happy about the results of some of the votes, but that is what happens in life. If we go back to the day before this Bill got its First Reading, we will see that the six Treasury ministerial posts have been held by 21 different people. Who knows, we might have the same Minister on the Front Bench by the time the Bill comes back from the Lords, but I would not bet on it.
Among the people I want to thank personally are my very good and hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes), who did such a power of work on his own in the Bill Committee, and someone who will not be a well-known name to most people here, although those of us who know her will understand she has been an absolute star, and that is Sarah Callaghan of the SNP research team. She joined a very good research team not long ago and she has been a fantastic support to me and my colleagues in preparation for this Bill, so I say thanks to Sarah.
I thank the Minister for the courtesy he has shown throughout political debates in which we have not always agreed, but in which I hope we have always been able to be courteous to each other. We will not oppose the Bill; we have reservations about it, but on balance it is just about good enough to get through.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I pause, lest there be further excitement—but no.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Financial Services and Markets Bill
Thursday 8th December 2022
(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberFinancial Services and Markets Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 7 December 2022 - Clarification of Schedule 2 (Transitional amendments): Large print edition - (7 Dec 2022)
Financial Services and Markets Bill
Tuesday 10th January 2023
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberFinancial Services and Markets Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 7 December 2022 - Clarification of Schedule 2 (Transitional amendments): Large print edition - (7 Dec 2022)
The Parliamentary Secretary, HM Treasury (Baroness Penn) (Con)
My Lords, this Bill is a landmark piece of legislation—the most ambitious reform of our financial services regulatory framework in over 20 years. Perhaps it is a signal of the significance of this legislation that we have the pleasure of three maiden speeches during this debate. I welcome my noble friends Lady Lawlor, Lord Remnant and Lord Ashcombe to the House. I very much look forward to hearing their contributions.
I also pay tribute to the former Chancellor and Financial Secretary to the Treasury, my noble friend Lord Lawson, who has recently retired, having served Parliament in both Chambers for nearly half a century. While serving as Chancellor he transformed the tax system, unleashed the City and revolutionised the approach to macroeconomic policy, setting the economy on the path of growth. His voice, reason and perspective will be sorely missed in this Chamber, and I thank him for all his service.
The Bill represents the platform upon which much of this Government’s vision for financial services will be delivered—a vision for an open, green and technologically advanced financial services sector that is globally competitive and acts in the interests of communities and citizens, creating jobs, supporting businesses and powering growth across all four nations of the United Kingdom.
Effective, efficient and easily accessible financial services are a foundation for people’s everyday lives and the bedrock upon which our economy is built. They also make their own direct contribution to our economic growth, with financial and related professional services employing more than 2.3 million people across the UK and, in 2020, contributing nearly £100 billion in taxes. In recent decades, the UK has become a leading global centre for financial services and, as the Chancellor highlighted in the Autumn Statement, the sector is one of the UK’s five key areas of growth for the future. Our exit from the EU creates the opportunity to ensure that continues by implementing a more agile and internationally competitive set of rules, better tailored to the UK market, while ensuring the sector remains well-regulated and effectively supervised.
The Bill has five overarching aims. First, it implements the outcomes of the future regulatory framework review. Secondly, it bolsters the competitiveness of UK markets and promotes the effective use of capital. Thirdly, it takes steps to make the UK an even more open and global financial hub. Fourthly, it harnesses the opportunities of innovative technologies, enabling their safe adoption in the UK. Lastly, but by no means least, it promotes financial inclusion and enhances consumer protection.
I turn to the first aim, to implement the future regulatory framework or FRS review. Clause 1 revokes retained EU law for financial services so that it can be replaced with a coherent, agile and internationally respected approach to regulation that has been designed specifically for the UK. This approach builds on the existing model established by the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 which empowers our independent regulators to set the detailed rules that apply to firms operating within the framework set by the Government and Parliament. The Government consulted extensively on how the UK’s approach to financial services regulation should be adapted following EU exit, and there was widespread support for the approach taken in this Bill. Schedule 1 contains more than 200 instruments that will be repealed directly by the Bill. These instruments will cease to have effect when the Treasury and the regulators have put into place the necessary secondary legislation or regulator rules to replace them as appropriate.
It is important for the House to recognise that putting this into effect will require a significant programme of secondary legislation to modify and restate retained EU law. As part of the Edinburgh reforms announced on 9 December the Treasury published Building a Smarter Financial Services Framework for the UK, which set out how the Treasury intends to use these powers. Alongside this we published several illustrative draft statutory instruments demonstrating how the powers in the Bill can be used to replace retained EU law.
As the regulators take on greater responsibility for setting rules following the repeal of retained EU law, the Bill makes changes to the regulators’ objectives to ensure that they consider the sector’s critical role in supporting the UK economy. For the first time the Prudential Regulation Authority and the Financial Conduct Authority will be given new secondary objectives to facilitate the international competitiveness of the UK economy and its growth in the medium and long term. The status as a secondary objective strikes the right balance and sets a clear hierarchy by ensuring that the FCA and the PRA must work to advance growth and competitiveness while maintaining their focus on their existing objectives.
The Bill also ensures that the regulatory principles of the financial services regulators require them to have regard to the UK’s statutory net-zero emissions target. This will embed consideration of the climate target across the breadth of financial services regulators’ rule-making and cements the Government’s long-term commitment to transform the UK economy in line with their net-zero strategy and vision.
It is also imperative that the regulators’ new responsibilities are balanced with clear accountability to the Government and Parliament. I assure noble Lords that the Government recognise the importance of parliamentary scrutiny of the work of the Treasury and the regulators. There are already a number of provisions in this regard, and the Bill makes further provision to support Parliament in carrying out this important role. It introduces new requirements for the regulators to notify the Treasury Select Committee of a consultation and for the regulators to respond in writing to responses to any statutory consultations from any parliamentary committee. In addition, the regulators will need to be transparent about all respondents to a consultation, subject to their consent. These measures were strongly informed by the views of this House, as expressed during the passage of the Financial Services Act 2021. The Bill also gives the Treasury the power to require the financial services regulators—or, where appropriate, an independent person—to review their rules where it is in the public interest.
I turn now to the Bill’s second aim of bolstering the competitiveness of UK markets and promoting the effective use of capital. The measures in Schedule 2 make important changes to the MiFID framework, which regulates secondary capital markets. They do away with burdensome rules such as the double volume cap and share trading obligation while maintaining high standards and protecting the smooth functioning of markets. High regulatory standards are an essential element of competitiveness in UK markets, and the Bill introduces a senior managers and certification regime for key financial market infrastructure firms, ensuring high standards of governance in these systemically important firms. The Bill also expands the resolution regime for central counterparties to align with international standards and enhances powers to manage insurers in financial distress.
The Bill’s third aim is to strengthen the UK’s leadership as an open and global financial centre. The UK is now able to negotiate its own international agreements, and the Government are currently negotiating an ambitious financial services mutual recognition agreement, or MRA, with Switzerland. While the MRA itself will be scrutinised under the procedures in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, Clause 23 enables the Treasury to amend existing legislation to give effect to this and any future financial services MRAs once finalised. Schedule 2 will enable the UK to recognise overseas jurisdictions that have the equivalent regulatory systems for securitisations classed as simple, transparent and standardised, or STS, providing more choice for UK investors.
As its fourth aim, the Bill takes steps to ensure that the regulatory framework facilitates the adoption of cutting-edge technologies in financial services. Clauses 21 and 22 and Schedule 6 extend existing payments legislation to include payment systems and service providers that use digital settlement assets, including forms of crypto assets used for payments, such as stablecoin backed by fiat currency. This brings such payment systems within the regulatory remits of the Bank of England and the Payment Systems Regulator. Clauses 65 and 8 clarify that the Treasury has the necessary powers to regulate crypto asset activities within the existing financial services framework, as extended by this Bill. To foster innovation, Clauses 13 to 17 and Schedule 4 enable the delivery of financial market infrastructure sandboxes, allowing firms to test the use of new and potentially transformative technologies and practices in the infra- structures that underpin financial markets.
The Bill’s final aim is promoting financial inclusion and consumer protection. The Government are committed to fostering a financial services sector that supports everyone, with appropriate consumer protections and measures to ensure that no one is left behind by the rapid advancement in financial technology. There is an extensive programme of work ongoing related to consumer protection, particularly in areas raised by noble Lords during the passage of the Financial Services Act 2021 such as buy now, pay later and the FCA’s new consumer duty. That Act also made legislative changes to support the widespread offering of cashback without purchase in shops and other businesses, following a proposal by my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond.
Clause 51 and Schedule 8 of this Bill go further and give the FCA responsibility for seeking to ensure reasonable access to cash across the UK. The Treasury will designate banks, building societies and operators of cash access co-ordination arrangements to be subject to FCA oversight on this matter. Clause 52 and Schedule 9 give the Bank of England new powers to oversee the wholesale cash infrastructure to ensure its ongoing effectiveness, resilience and sustainability.
Finally, the credit union sector plays a crucial role in providing access to affordable credit to its members. Clause 69 will allow credit unions in Great Britain to offer a wider range of products and services to their members. The Bill also strengthens the rules around financial promotions, requiring all authorised firms to undergo a new FCA assessment before they can approve financial promotions by unauthorised firms. This will reduce the risk of consumer harm. Additionally, Clause 68 enables the Payment Systems Regulator to mandate the reimbursement of victims of authorised push payment scams by payment providers for all payment systems it regulates. It also places a duty on the PSR to mandate reimbursement in relation to the Faster Payments system specifically.
This is a substantive Bill; in opening this Second Reading debate I have been able to touch only briefly on many of its main measures. I have no doubt that, when we enter Committee, noble Lords will subject the Bill to the level of scrutiny that it deserves.
As I conclude, I think it is worth reflecting on the journey that we have taken to the production of the Bill. It is the result of several years of consultation with industry, regulators and the public. The Government first consulted on the future regulatory review in October 2020, with a further consultation in November 2021 setting out detailed proposals for reform. It will enable a programme of essential reforms that will help drive our economy, including reforms to Solvency II and the prospectus regime and changes resulting from the wholesale markets review. So, as we conduct the important work of scrutinising this Bill, I hope that the Government’s broad approach will draw support from across the House and that many noble Lords share the Government’s ambition to ensure that the UK’s financial services continue to be an engine of growth for our economy. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to open the Back-Bench debate by thanking the Minister for her opening address and, like her, welcoming the maiden speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Remnant and Lord Ashcombe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor. I reassure the Minister that I support the Bill and the intent to modernise our financial services and ensure that the City retains its competitiveness in a global marketplace. However, this has to be done in parallel with measures to promote financial stability, inclusion and consumer protection as well as—I hope—recommitting the Government to making the City the first net-zero aligned financial centre.
Like the Minister, I can concentrate on only three or four aspects of this. First, I want to talk about financial inclusion. How is the Government to address the poverty premium—the extra costs that poorer people pay for essential services such as insurance, loans or credit cards? This is closely linked to the ease of access to cash and banking services, to which the Minister referred. The fact is that the Bill does nothing to protect essential face-to-face banking services, which the most vulnerable in our society depend on for financial advice and support.
Indeed, on this Government’s watch, almost 6,000 bank branches have closed since 2015, yet there is a significant overlap between those reliant on cash—estimated at about 10 million people—and those who need in-person bank support. Those without the digital skills to bank online, people with poor internet connections and people who are unable to afford wi-fi are at risk of being left behind.
The Government have committed to protecting access to cash, but will free access be protected? The key to this is ensuring that the ATM network is sufficiently funded by the interchange fee. Since 2018, this funding has seen successive real-term cuts, which is risking the closure or the conversion of an estimated 37,000 free-to-use ATMs. I believe that the regulator must be mandated to consider the funding of ATMs through legislation in this Bill.
I hope that we will do more to protect people from the buy now, pay later industry. We know that many millions of people are borrowing to pay their mortgages, and to put food on their table and clothes on their children’s backs. A quarter of all buy now, pay later users have been unable to pay for at least one essential item because they are having to make repayments on buy now, pay later products. Many did not realise what they were getting themselves into because buy now, pay later is currently so pervasive on websites. Users have nobody to complain to; they cannot go to the ombudsman if they feel they have been mis-sold this type of credit. I understand that the Government have accepted proposals to regulate, yet regulation has not come. Why is that, and why cannot this Bill be the vehicle?
I turn now to financial fraud. The Bill offers protection for victims of authorised push payment scams but little to address the growing problem of financial fraud. According to the latest figures from the NAO, 41% of all crime against individuals in the year ending June 2022—with an estimated 3.8 million incidents—was actual or attempted fraud. Yet, the number of fraud offences resulting in a charge or summons is pathetic. In the year ending March 2022, 4,816 fraud cases resulted in a charge or summons. Moreover, less than 1% of police personnel were involved in rendering fraud investigations in the year ending March 2020.
I am particularly concerned about the impact on older people. As Hourglass has pointed out, suffering economic abuse as an older person can have really life-changing effects leading to trauma, mental health problems and, in some cases, death. I do not understand why the Government continue to fail to take fraud seriously and why we cannot see a fully fledged fraud strategy. Again, this Bill provides an excellent vehicle for us to ensure that that happens.
Finally, one other area where the Bill could have done so much more is in relation to cryptocurrency. Recent events following the collapse of FTX have shown the risks in the Government’s aim to make the UK a global hub for cryptocurrency assets. It is true that the Bill contains measures to bring stablecoins into the scope of regulation, but surely they could be doing much more. I say to the Minister: overall, the Bill is welcome but it is certainly ripe for improvement.
Lord Sharkey (LD)
My Lords, we welcome the overall objectives of the Bill but have some significant reservations. In the absurd five minutes allowed, I will focus on the reservations rather than the merits of the Bill.
We have very serious reservations about the wholesale bypassing of parliamentary scrutiny that the Bill could bring about. We are sceptical about the merit of the proposed new growth and competitiveness objectives. We are concerned about the extension of the SMCR, and disappointed by the imbalance in the Bill between regulatory modifications in the interests of the financial services sector and measures to protect the interests of consumers.
Schedule 1 sets out what retained EU law is to be revoked, modified or replaced. I counted at least 250 items. Some will be subject to the negative SI procedure, some to the affirmative SI procedure and some to no parliamentary procedure at all. What all this means is that this wholesale transposition, modification, repeal and replacement exercise is not subject to any meaningful parliamentary scrutiny. We need to find a way of allowing the relevant Select Committees to initiate proper inquiries into the drafts of proposed changes that they see as important and have this done before any instruments are laid before Parliament or changes are made without reference to Parliament. Parliament should not be used as a kind of consultee. The structure of our financial services regime is far too important to be left to the Treasury and the regulators alone.
I turn to Clause 24 and to the proposed addition, as a secondary objective, of growth and competitiveness to the existing FCA and PRA objectives. There does not seem to be much in the way of compelling evidence for this. In fact, much of the evidence and testimony points in the other direction. This has all been tried before. Many commentators laid a part of the blame for the 2008 crash on these objectives; that is why we repealed them in 2012. Andrew Bailey said then that it did not work out well
“for anyone including the FSA.”
Writing in the Financial Times a month ago, Sir John Vickers, who was the fons et origo of some of this, concluded:
“For the UK economy, it would be best to reject this addition to regulators’ objectives.”
Over 50 economists and policy experts wrote to the Government in May with similar misgivings; so did Which? and, tellingly, so did the FCA’s own consumer panel. We will return to the issue in Committee.
The next area I want to touch on is the extension of the SMCR. The proposal is to extend, mutatis mutandis, the existing regime to FMIs—a good idea if the current SMCR had worked, but it has not. The current version of the SMCR has not produced the results intended or envisaged. In fact, I can recall only a single case of a truly senior manager being held to account: that was the egregious Jes Staley at Barclays. This is not because the financial services sector has forsworn misbehaviour. We will want to return to this issue in Committee.
I now turn to measures to protect consumers. The last time we discussed imposing a duty of care, it was agreed that the FCA would examine the case. The FCA has decided that preferable to a duty of care was a new set of rules for firms’ behaviour called the new consumer duty. This consumer duty is due to come into effect at the end of July, a year after the final rules were published in a 90-page paper, helped by a 114-page guidance note. Not only is this extremely complex and yet another very heavy burden on firms, but it is very unclear that the new duty is superior in any way to a simple duty of care. Critically, it omits private right of action provisions. We will bring forward amendments to replace this consumer duty with a duty of care and a private right of action. We will also bring forward amendments to extend the FCA’s perimeter to cover lending to SMEs, which have suffered at the hands of predatory and unscrupulous lenders.
We will bring forward an amendment to relieve the plight of the mortgage prisoners. These are people who, in the collapse of 2008, had their mortgages acquired by the Treasury and then sold on to various inactive lenders and American vulture funds. Since then, these people have been trapped on very high SVRs. This is entirely the Treasury’s fault. It has caused and still causes immense suffering to many thousands of families. We will try to put that right.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, I first draw attention to my interest in the register as a shareholder of Fidelity National Information Services, which owns Worldpay. Like others, I generally support what this Bill is trying to achieve. There is much that is good here, but there are areas for improvement. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, who chaired the EU Financial Affairs Sub-committee of this House, which I sat on. In its last publication before it was wound up following Brexit, that sub-committee stated that
“Delegating more powers to the financial regulators will require increased parliamentary oversight of their activities”.
It suggested that
“This might require a change in the way that parliamentary committees are structured and an increase in resources to enable effective scrutiny”.
While the Bill gives strong rights of oversight and direction to the Treasury, it does very little to provide increased parliamentary oversight. Frankly, informing the Treasury Select Committee of consultations does not really cut the mustard, nor are the performance reporting requirements strong enough. Treasury oversight and parliamentary scrutiny are not the same thing. Our financial services industry is so important and its regulation so complex that I continue to believe that this House—possibly jointly—should create a committee specifically for this purpose and to provide the systematic scrutiny of the decisions, actions, policy-framing and impact of the financial services regulators and of HM Treasury. Financial services regulation is too big a topic to be a part of a wider committee such as our existing Industry and Regulators Committee; it needs dedicated coverage.
Importantly, the systematic scrutiny should be forward-looking. Historically, the regulators have tended to be too reactive after the event and have not done enough to identify future risks. Most of the financial scandals of recent years were foreseeable—indeed they were foreseen by some. I do not see anything in this Bill that will improve that.
I welcome the secondary objective to support growth and international competitiveness. Our financial services industry is such an important part of our economy that it must not be held back by overzealous regulation. It is not possible or even desirable to eliminate all risk. I do not understand, though, why the net-zero objective should not be given equal importance. It is welcome that the regulators should “have regard” to net zero, but I would be keen to hear from the Minister what the practical difference is between a secondary objective and a “have regard” requirement, and why net zero should not have equal billing to growth, given that the Government agree about its fundamental importance to our future. I do not believe that the two are incompatible.
I welcome the introduction of the sandbox rules, which should enable innovation. I have one question: when rules are disapplied for this purpose, who will be liable for any losses suffered if things go wrong? Consumers should not bear that risk.
I am pleased that crypto assets are at last being brought into the regulatory environment, although in a small way—only stablecoin when used as a means of payment. The Bill allows for further regulation in the future, which is welcome. But crypto has become the wild west, increasingly used by fraudsters both as a scam in itself and as a means of extracting value from other scams.
The Government’s stated objective is that activities having the same risk should have the same regulatory outcomes. Crypto is clearly of the highest risk, but it is almost entirely unregulated. That feels like a missed opportunity. When will we see crypto assets being properly regulated?
The Bill requires the PSR to consult and to regulate for the mandatory reimbursement of victims of APP scams which used faster payments. That is very welcome, but it is only a very minor step in addressing the huge and growing fraud epidemic to which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, referred earlier. Why does it include only faster payments and not all forms of payment? Faster payments themselves are part of the problem, so where is the ability to slow down payments in certain circumstances? What about the sharing of the liability, preferably with all those who facilitate the crime, such as social media and telecoms companies, or at least the sharing of the liability between the victim’s bank and the bank which received and processed the money for the fraudster? Has the Minister read the recent report from the Fraud Act 2006 and Digital Fraud Committee, of which I am a member? When will we see real action from the Government to address fraud, not just consultation?
The inclusion of access to cash is welcome, but access to cash is meaningless if cash is not accepted. The main reason why businesses stop accepting cash is the closure of nearby bank branches where it can be deposited. I again agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that we need to find a solution to the closure of bank branches.
Overall, this is a necessary Bill, and I generally support it. However, there are areas where it could be usefully improved, and I hope the Government will be receptive to constructive suggestions during the next stages.
The Archbishop of Canterbury
My Lords, this year marks the 10th anniversary of the final report of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, Changing Banking for Good. I declare my interest having served on that commission, and I welcome the presence in this debate of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, who also served, as did the current Lord Speaker. I also welcome the maiden speeches of three noble Lords today: the noble Lords, Lord Ashcombe and Lord Remnant, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor.
We need to remember that the extraordinary crisis in 2008—which led to the various commissions, reports and changes in regulations, including the financial services Act 2013, in which the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards played a part—caused huge and ongoing crises. While welcoming the Bill very strongly, I join some of the hesitations mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Hunt, Lord Sharkey and Lord Vaux. It has been estimated that the financial services industry, and particularly the major banks, have an effective subsidy as a result of the implicit government guarantee that they receive, which is worth approximately £30 billion a year. If there is £30 billion a year going spare, many other industries and not a few churches would welcome that very warmly. However, that subsidy, which is at the risk of the taxpayer, as we saw in 2008 and 2009, is what gives the result of the banks having heavy social obligations; we must look carefully at that when the Bill reaches Committee, as has already been said. The issues of inclusion, stability and access at all levels, especially for micro-businesses, are very important, not least for levelling up.
I will raise three particular and short issues, the first of which is the human factor. The banking standards commission commented that, in the rapidly changing science of the financial markets, regulation is a vain hope, as the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, has already said. By the time regulation is brought in to address a problem, all but the doziest horses will have long since fled the stable. The commission highlighted that the question of culture is at the heart of good banking practice: attitudes of greed, the socialising of losses and the personalising of profits, the kind of legacy people wish to leave, and the issues of virtue. Is the mindset and approach of key leaders in the industry one of casino banking or banking for the common good? That is essentially a moral question.
Some of that is addressed very well in the Bill. I particularly welcome Clause 69, addressing credit unions, and the opportunity that that will give for levelling up and extending the range of financial access to small businesses. But we see in the recent crypto-market crash a perfect example of the failure of culture, as well of regulation, and of technology moving infinitely faster than any regulation. We need a system that is agile and keeps regulation light, so that the industry is competitive, but keeps principles tough and flexible, with heavy consequences for breaking them.
On the importance of capital adequacy and the ring- fence, this was clear at the time of 2008, when one of the major banks had 2% capital to support a more than £1 trillion balance sheet. We need to recognise that banks go under because of bad lending and bad dealing, and the remedy to that is adequate capital and adequate principles and culture—otherwise, we will get back to the point, as we did in 2008, where the taxpayer bears the burden.
Finally, we need competition and an effective industry but not a race to the bottom. There needs to be a race to the top, to the best-quality services, which serve people and the common good both now and in future generations through its green aspects. There has been a tendency over the years to say how much the City contributes, but let us be clear that, if we take into account the roughly £250 billion pumped into the banking system in 2008, it is not so obvious that the City is in credit to the taxpayer—it may well be that it is in significant debit. Nevertheless, this Bill is very positive. As long as it ends up reminding financial services that they are services for all and has principles at its heart, it will be welcomed and make a significant difference.
Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as an adviser to and shareholder in Banco Santander.
This Bill touches on many topics, but I want to focus on two big questions: what are the objectives of financial services regulation, and who holds the regulators to account, and how?
On the first question, we know that the main objectives of regulation are ensuring that markets function well and that there is market stability, market integrity and consumer protection. As has been said, this Bill adds a secondary objective of competitiveness and growth. I support that new objective entirely, not because I want a race to the bottom—quite the reverse. I believe that simple, proportionate and robust regulation, applied by regulators in a timely, consistent way, is the bedrock of a competitive financial centre. To achieve that, regulation must reflect developments in finance.
We all know how much finance has changed over the past decade or so, since the financial crisis: crypto, AI and blockchain—technology in all its guises—turbocharging areas such as payments; green finance and ESG; not to mention the rise in Asian markets. All this has dramatically reshaped the financial sector, not just here but across the world. For us, obviously we have had Brexit, raising challenges but also opportunities. We need our regulators to be mindful of this new world in all they do, so that our financial service sector continues to attract capital, investment and talent—and, yes, that means change. But regulations are judgments; they are made at a moment in time. We should not get into the mindset of treating them, dare I say it, as tablets of stone, brought down from the mountain and never to be changed.
To ensure that our regulatory framework is fit for purpose, we must remember the lessons learned in previous crises, but we must not regulate via the rear-view mirror but for the world as it is and for emerging risks. My concern is not that the new objective goes too far but the reverse: that it will not have any meaningful impact. One reason for that is that it is a secondary, not a primary, objective. Another reason is that I question how it is going to sit alongside the new regulatory principle contained in the Bill that regulators must be mindful of the Climate Change Act 2008. How many trade-offs, should they arise, would be made between the green objective and competitiveness?
This brings me to another concern and my second big question: who holds the regulators to account? There is of course the specific issue of how regulators will be held to account in implementing the new secondary objective, but there is a much broader issue, raised a moment ago by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux. The Bill will give ever more power to unelected regulators; how are they going to be held to account? Of course, they are independent, but independence and accountability must go together hand in hand, and by accountability I mean regular systematic processes whereby the main actions of the regulators are thoroughly scrutinised by Parliament. As has been said, we have no such effective system at the moment.
I know the Bill stipulates that the Treasury Select Committee will scrutinise consultations, but consider just one fact: last year, on my reckoning, the FCA, the PRA and the Payment Systems Regulator between them launched 75 consultations—and that is just consultations, not policy statements or anything else. On my reckoning, there is no way that one parliamentary committee, under the current system as currently resourced, can possibly scrutinise this torrent of regulation; it will simply be washed away by the flood. Of course, we need to avoid politicising the regulatory process, which would undermine the confidence we all want. We also need to avoid parliamentary scrutiny making regulators so nervous that they become excessively cautious in all they do, gold-plating regulation and creating the stability of the graveyard. That said, we need to have an answer to this simple question: who regulates the regulators? At the moment, as the Bill stands there is no clear and effective answer.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My Lords, I look forward to hearing the maiden speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Remnant and Lord Ashcombe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor. I join others in welcoming them to the House. I declare an interest as London’s Deputy Mayor for Fire and Resilience, as the points I shall raise relate to an issue identified as a risk to the resilience of individuals and vulnerable groups—a societal risk—in the London City Resilience Strategy in 2020. This strategy, published shortly before the first Covid lockdown, identified the trend in digital transactions and away from cash:
“A proliferation of digital payment technologies allow individuals to all but avoid the use of cash on a day to day basis. According to the AT Kearney Global Trends 2019-2024 Report ‘the growth of digital applications, e-commerce, and online payment technologies will keep growing over the next five years and beyond’ and we are ‘likely to see the emergence of the first truly cashless society in the next five years. A move away from cash may pose a risk to certain vulnerable groups, notably those facing barriers to digital transactions, or those more likely to be excluded from the mainstream banking system. This could affect the resilience of these groups, as well as … the personal resilience of isolated people, including older generations who are more likely to be reliant on cash.”
During the pandemic, there was a clear acceleration of cashless services, with the organisation LINK identifying that use of cash has reduced by 40% compared with pre-pandemic levels. More recently, however, there has been a subsequent increase in the use of cash by consumers during the cost of living crisis, with 10% of people saying they plan to use cash more than previously to help them budget. This alone demonstrates a clear continued need for cash by the public, despite what has been described as the turbocharging of a move away from cash since 2020. It is welcome, therefore, that the Bill includes a requirement on the Treasury to publish a cash access strategy and a requirement on the FCA to ensure reasonable provision of cash access services—and “reasonable” should, must, mean “adequate”.
The requirements must also ensure that older people, those with disabilities and those on a lower income who rely on cash are not adversely affected. We have a tradition in this country that the public are not charged for withdrawing their own money. This is a good tradition and should become an explicit right. This legislation should make it clear that there should be a default right to access cash free of charge and a right to use cash to buy basic goods and services for those for whom other forms of payment are not an option. This group, which is at risk of being marginalised, includes more than 5 million people who rely on using cash for their normal spending—a significant minority who should be protected.
Equally important is that there is no poverty premium on cash users and that the decline in free-to-use ATMs and the increase in pay-to-use ATMs—all too often found in some of our most deprived communities, as well as many rural communities—are halted. The closure of almost 6,000 bank and building society branches since the start of 2015, as has been noted, has left many consumers without easy access to a bank branch and is exacerbating the issue.
There have been some imaginative approaches to piloting ways to address these issues, but more needs to be done to assess the pilots to make sure they work and to roll out measures that can address this issue. The Bill provides the ideal opportunity to do this. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that it could go further in this regard. As the consumer organisation Which? has said, we need to avoid sleepwalking into
“a situation where cash users struggle to make purchases or are excluded from certain services.”
Without ambitious plans to ensure that all those who require cash can still use it and that they have easy and free access to it, there is a clear risk of further increasing the impact of financial exclusion, which is all too widespread in our society already.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, I declare my financial services interests in the register and my membership of the international Systemic Risk Council.
This Bill falls short on accountability. During the passage of the 2021 FSA, I suggested regular independent reviews akin to the Australian system—a more advanced vision than the sporadic reviews in this Bill, which are reliant on government initiation. Why not have rolling and thematic reviews and regulators reporting to Parliament under independent assessment criteria, such as from the NAO?
The framework consultation touted parliamentary scrutiny as a safeguard, but that is deceptive when the Government have blocked adequate parliamentary influence. Committees have modest power through public interrogation, and Ministers now regularly avoid attending Lords committees. Should parliamentary reports not get specific attention in review processes, not least to reflect public interest, which is left faint among the numerous industry hotlines to Downing Street? The Government cannot hide behind regulatory independence when they fix the regulatory perimeter and key policies, appoint regulators and control reviews. Failure is on the tab of government—maybe a different one further down the track, but the collective reputation of the UK in financial services is on the line.
We have just had an example of that with the market turmoil from DB pension schemes. At its root is the setting aside since 2005 of EU rules requiring pension scheme investment to be vanilla because pension schemes have only light-touch supervision and trustees are mainly ordinary folk and not financial experts. Trustees were thus left at the mercy of unregulated, liability-shirking advisers and the hapless Pensions Regulator.
I have been involved in investigations through the Industry and Regulators Committee, giving evidence to the Work and Pensions Committee and participating in conferences, where polling on the biggest loser in the debacle put the reputation of the UK top. Gilt turmoil is a named issue in papers for international organisations looking at systemic risk.
The timid excuse is that we are waiting for international agreement relating to non-bank systemic risk—that is outrageous, given that this is a UK-created and UK-specific issue of financial stability, with a regulators’ muddle, gaps and an issue that the Financial Policy Committee should have been all over. In evidence to the Economic Affairs Committee, Sir Paul Tucker questioned the point of the Financial Policy Committee if all it does is report. Now, there is some pulling up of socks, again after the event. Systemic risk exists in many funds, but the corralling and correlation of risky investment strategies in pension schemes with emphasis and concentration in gilts is uniquely ours, uniquely crafted and well-known where it should have mattered. It is not black swans and larger buffers; Bank of England yield tables show turmoil well under way at under 40 basis points’ change, and the transposition dirty secret has long been protected by the Treasury and its alumni.
The Bill also touches on issues of cryptocurrency and critical third parties, a reminder that financial services are not really penned in to entity and activity-based perimeters. As the IMF said, we are already into the era of reimagining regulation, otherwise it is not possible to cope with fintech or big tech which blur and exploit the boundaries of regulation. Online brokerage mimics the addictive features of social media, targeting the vulnerable. We regulate gambling but we do not even have robust age verification for online investing. Fraud is at epidemic levels and respects no regulatory boundaries. Far from having agile principles and simple regulation, we have a rigid perimeter and rule dinosaur, which is fostering fraud and revelling in the abuse of position and asymmetry of information. Regulators are operationally inefficient, underfunded, late and thwarted on enforcement.
Financial services are the food of the economy. Where there is harm, there should be justice—and not just where it is regulated. I will be offering amendments.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, how do I follow that? It is always a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, with her knowledge and her forensic contributions. I also look forward to the three maiden speeches we are going to hear this evening.
In the time available, I will speak about two things—including, perhaps perversely, one that is not yet in the Bill—and then say a few words about crypto. I saw in the Financial Times today that the new chair of the Treasury Select Committee rather humorously described crypto as:
“The freedom for people to do silly things with their money”.
The absent area is the urgent need to tackle the use of dirty money to prevent public interest investigations into market participants. It is widely recognised that the UK legal system is used, often with money very questionably obtained and possibly laundered in UK markets, to suppress the publication of matters in the public interest. We discussed these activities—which have become known as SLAPPs or lawfare—during the passage of the economic crime Act, so I do not propose to repeat what was said then. Nevertheless, the use of such intimidation to suppress, in the context of this Bill, matters of keen investor need-to-know interest is a distortion of the information and accountability that should underpin efficient financial markets in the UK.
The Bill seeks to address the senior managers regime standards and conduct rules. It should also address this area of coercion, which prevents markets and investors being properly informed about the activities of some leading business figures, illegal activities, market abuse and corruption. For example, there are newspapers which today will not publish stories about so-called oligarchs for fear of the lawfare that will then be waged against them. The consultation following the economic crime Act resulted in a statement from the Secretary of State on 20 July last year that primary legislation would be introduced at the earliest opportunity to enable an early dismissal of such cases. This was recently and vigorously reiterated in response to an Oral Question in this House.
There is both government and cross-party support for cleaning up this abuse of our financial markets and the associated legal system. I should inform the House also that the necessary clauses to give effect to this government commitment have already been drawn up by lawyers and could be included in the Bill. So far, so good. However, the noble Lord answering the Oral Question I referred to a moment ago described the selection of the right legislative vehicle to bring this into effect as “above my pay grade”. Therein lies the problem. It seems that everyone agrees that this legislation is needed, but where is the government impetus to get it done? The matter has become a legislative Cinderella, but the pantomime season is over and it is high time that the promised legislation was enacted. I therefore ask the Minister, when she winds up today’s discussions, whether she will agree to meet with me and others to review the clauses proposed, with a view to arriving at an appropriate amendment to the Bill.
I turn briefly to digital assets, and declare my membership of the APPG for crypto. Blockchain and digital assets are already here, and here to stay. I have long advocated UK regulators getting a better understanding of them, so it is encouraging to see the Bill making some steps in that direction. The Bill introduces a new term, “digital settlement assets”, and appears to put the regulator’s toe in the water with stablecoins, albeit only as a medium of exchange. However, it then makes provision for going far wider—and using secondary legislation—to enable engagement, seemingly with any other digital and crypto assets. Despite my interest in this area, I must sound a note of caution. The constant evolution of digital assets represents not just a financial revolution but a technological and conceptual one that will not fit simply into existing regulatory categories and approaches. Managing emerging innovation and opportunities while preventing abuse is going to pose serious capacity and structural challenges to the regulators. I say candidly that I have my doubts as to whether the FCA is really ready for this.
Today, in brief, I have just two questions for the Minister. First, stablecoins sound so inviting, do they not? However, in reality some have proved to be far from stable, and even those backed 100% by a fiat currency are subject to fluctuations in that underlying currency. I therefore ask the Minister to clarify whether the Treasury is concerned about this and, in particular, whether it has a clear definition of what tests an asset must pass to be truly worthy of branding itself to retail investors as a stablecoin. Finally, and more succinctly, the Treasury surprised us all some time ago by announcing that it was going to produce its own non-fungible token. Can the Minister confirm that this is still the case, and if so, why, or was it just a passing fancy of the Government to be down with the crypto bros?
Lord Hill of Oareford (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as both the lead NED at the Treasury and an adviser to financial and professional service firms in Europe and the UK. My real interest today is in talking about the accountability of the new regulatory framework proposed in the Bill.
The underlying purpose of the Bill is clear enough: to give our financial regulators more independence and more flexibility in setting the regulatory framework for our financial services. As someone who was responsible for financial regulation in the EU and who saw some of the downsides of that rather clunky, consensus-based system, I fully support that objective. The ideal regulatory framework is flexible and dynamic. Risk is not static, and regulation should not be static either.
But if we are to give our regulators more independence and more control day to day over an industry that is so important to the well-being of our country, that surely has to go hand in hand with more accountability. The question that follows is whether this Bill does enough to increase the accountability of our regulators alongside the increase in independence that it clearly gives them. The answer at the moment is that it does not.
To say we need more accountability is not, by the way, to attack our regulators or question the importance of independence. They have an incredibly difficult job and have gradually had more responsibilities dumped on them by politicians who have outsourced their own responsibility for managing risk. If we get it right, clear accountability should strengthen our regulators and protect their independence.
When we talk about accountability, we first need to be clear on our terms. I draw a distinction between the regulations themselves on the one hand and the application of those regulations on the other. Very often, the two are conflated and we just talk loosely about regulation, but the UK’s overall regulatory environment, and our competitive position, are shaped by both the detailed law and what we might call regulatory culture or behaviour. Both affect sentiment in the marketplace and shape the decisions that companies take as to where they want to base their business. When people grumble about regulation in the UK, it is often the process—the length of time it takes to get approvals, inefficiencies, a box-ticking mentality—rather than the rules themselves which infuriates them.
I draw this distinction because we need accountability mechanisms which cover both points—both the rule-making and the application of those rules. When we talk about holding the regulators to account, I am sure we will have a lot of discussion about the proper role of Parliament in the process. As has already been asked, does a session in front of the Treasury Select Committee amount to proper accountability? Is the TSC properly set up and resourced to provide proper scrutiny? Clearly, the answer to both questions is no.
We also need to look at non-parliamentary mechanisms for increasing accountability. Should the regulators publish how long it takes them to process approvals, for example? Should an independent body provide some comparative statistics on how UK regulators do compared with other jurisdictions? Can we beef up the annual “state of the City” report which the then Chancellor, Mr Sunak, committed to publish once a year? Should we think about establishing a body modelled on the OBR which could provide some independent validation of the work the regulators are doing? After all, their decisions have a massive impact on the functioning of our economy and thus our ability to fund public services. If it is good enough for the Treasury goose to have the OBR, why not for the regulatory gander?
This is a vital Bill which will set the framework for one of our most important industries for years to come. I am all for the independence for the regulators it contains, but we will need to do better on accountability.
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, as has been said by many, this is very important legislation. It is crucial to giving effective support to the City and our financial services sector more broadly, and there is a lot of good stuff in it. I want to begin by highlighting three of those good things.
First, I welcome the broad approach taken to the onboarded EU legislation on our statute book. It has taken the Government a long time to get here, but the powers to revoke and replace with genuine UK legislation and rules are very important. They show that it is entirely possible to take an ambitious and potentially sweeping approach in this area, which I hope the Government will follow more generally in the other reviews of aspects of our domestic legislation which are under way, if perhaps not taking quite so long about it.
Secondly, the secondary objective on competitiveness is a very good thing. I fear it will be undermined by the duty of compliance with net zero as a regulatory principle as well, but nevertheless it is a very good secondary objective. Obviously, it is correct that regulators should have to pay due regard to our economic prospects in their actions.
Thirdly, the proposals in the Bill to support access to cash are very important. I support much of what the noble Baroness, Lady Twycross, said on this subject. Access to cash is important not just for practical and social inclusion reasons but also to preserve a bit of personal freedom and the ability to conduct transactions without the Government or institutions looking over your shoulder. There is of course no point in financial institutions ensuring access to cash if there is in practice nowhere to spend it, so I hope the Government will look in due course at the other side of this problem—the withdrawal of cash in the retail sector more broadly. Getting this right is in the interests of a free and inclusive society.
As others have not mentioned it yet, I mention in passing the commitment made by the Minister in the other place to keep under close scrutiny the PayPal issue—the withdrawal of financial services for essentially political reasons. I welcome the Minister’s commitment to follow up on that and possibly to use the powers in the Bill if necessary.
As with others, my main concern with the Bill is on the accountability of regulators. I have two concerns. The first issue is the quality of regulation. It seems a little pas comme il faut nowadays to criticise the independence of the regulators, but independence is not the same as immunity. It is right to acknowledge the concerns that the FCA and PRA potentially have powers that are too wide-ranging already and sometimes appear to act with impunity, and that sometimes firms are reluctant to challenge because of their relationship with the regulator. There is no statutory requirement on the regulators to make clear rules or act predictably or consistently and, as others have said, sometimes they are slow, risk-averse and reluctant to commit themselves, and that in itself can harm competitiveness.
The second issue is the politics of regulation. The way the regulators fulfil the objectives they are given is in practice highly political. There are many ways of fulfilling those objectives and in choosing how to do so they reflect a political view. They have to make such judgments; for example, and most obviously, on whether the City’s prospects are best protected by divergence—my view—or relative alignment with the way things are done in the EU. That is a political judgment, influenced by the Government’s view, yet the Bill gives the Government no way to compel regulators to act in line with such a political view. The prickly reaction of the regulators to the call-in power, which is now dropped—in my view, mistakenly—shows clearly that they want to keep discretion in this area. I worry that the Bill will create a system in which all the incentives are to go along with what regulators want in order to avoid public arguments.
To conclude, giving new rule-making powers to the regulators against this backdrop, without corresponding duties and genuine accountability, is pretty risky. The system it would put in place of only post-facto accountability involving only the Treasury Select Committee is not good enough. There are likely to be amendments on this subject and I hope the Government will look carefully at them. With those caveats, I am happy to support the Second Reading of the Bill, but I hope the Government will look to improve it in Committee.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, I should mention that I am a fellow of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries and, in one way or another, have worked in the financial services industry throughout my professional career, albeit generally on behalf of consumers.
The Bill is in effect a Brexit Bill, as emphasised by the two previous speakers, but the Government are taking the opportunity to pursue wide-ranging changes in the way the industry is regulated. This has led to the concerns which have been expressed and will be expressed subsequently in the debate. For my part, my main concern is to ensure, given any changes, that the interests of consumers are fully protected. The industry owes a duty of care to consumers, and how this should be implemented needs to be set out clearly and directly in the Bill.
Against that background, I want to highlight one aspect of providing care for consumers where more needs to be done. Mental health and financial circumstances are clearly linked. Problems with your mental health can make it harder to earn money, to manage spending and, crucially in the context of financial services, to get a fair deal on products and services. Facing financial difficulties should not result in needing mental health treatment, but too often those things come hand in hand. Financial difficulty itself causes stress and anxiety, but this is often made worse by, for example, collections activity or having to go without essentials. It is important, therefore, to understand the scale of the problem. In any given year, one in four people will experience a mental health problem, and the pandemic and the cost of living crisis have made things worse.
Common symptoms of mental health problems, such as low motivation, unreliable memory, limited concentration and reduced planning and problem-solving abilities, can make managing money significantly harder. Those symptoms can also make it more difficult to interact with financial services. For example, four in 10 people say that they find it difficult or distressing to make phone calls. Experiencing a mental health problem can also make people more vulnerable to fraud and scams. People with mental health problems are three times more likely to report that they have been the victim of an online scam than other people.
The relevance of all this to the Bill is that the financial services industry needs to be placed under an explicit obligation to act responsibly towards its customers who have mental health problems. The industry needs to recognise and understand the nature and scale of these problems, it should be placed under a duty of care towards its customers, and it should be required to take active steps that will minimise the potential difficulties faced by those who have or are at risk of having mental health problems that are associated with their finances. Obviously, this will be of benefit to the individuals concerned, but it will also relieve much of the pressure on our mental health services, and, finally, it will be of benefit to the financial services industry itself in not accumulating bad business.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a director of Peers for the Planet. The public want action on climate change. When people are given a choice, they are voting with their feet—the uptake of electric cars, which is beating all expectations, is a case in point. It is clear that businesses and financiers also want a robust net-zero framework. The UK Sustainable Investment and Finance Association, an organisation of over 300 financial services firms with over £19 trillion in assets under management, published recommendations of a number of “critical actions” to move the UK’s financial sector towards net zero. The Aldersgate Group business alliance, which has a collective global turnover of over £550 billion, has noted how the
“lack of clarity on the direction of public policy confuses businesses and investors and leads to an ineffective allocation of money.”
People and businesses want action because the dire impacts of climate change are visibly here with us now, and the increasing ferocity of climate events has taken even pessimistic scientists by surprise. The Met Office has confirmed that 2022 was the hottest year on record in the UK, and 2023 is set to be even hotter. This legislation should reflect that concern.
I will leave it to others far more knowledgeable than myself to speak on the technicalities of the regulatory framework for financial services and to say whether the Bill is fit for purpose. I will confine the rest of my remarks to what I believe to be a serious shortcoming of the Bill, which is its almost dismissive approach to the role that money plays in safeguarding the health and natural capital of our planet.
To start with deforestation, the agriculture, forestry and land use sector produces almost a quarter of all global greenhouse gas emissions. The Global Resource Initiative task force, established by the Government and comprising finance and private sector leaders, has independently recommended the introduction of new legislation applying deforestation and human rights due diligence obligations to UK financial institutions. Its report is worth reading—the stakes are high. It states:
“No pathway to 1.5 degrees is possible without addressing forest loss”.
However:
“If properly protected and restored, forests and other ecosystems could provide more than one-third of the total CO2 reductions required to keep global warming below 2° C. This decade provides a narrowing window of time to act.”
Deforestation is a “top priority area” in the UK’s net zero strategy, yet the UK is a major financier of global deforestation. The Government could have used the Bill to follow through on the GRI’s recommendation and stop UK financial institutions bankrolling forest destruction abroad to the tune of hundreds of billions of pounds. Why did they not do so?
I have a list of other concerns, which include: the regulators’ requirement to “have regard to” climate goals is inadequate to support net zero and nature; the removal of sustainable disclosure requirements from the Bill is causing concern; there is a need for a better interpretation of “fiduciary duty” to help clarify that climate change is financial risk; and, last but not least, the implications of the abolition of Solvency II rules and the safeguarding of environmental targets by a replacement regime—information on that would be welcome.
In conclusion, the markets serve a societal function, but they are there to serve us, and it is up to the Government to set the parameters within which the market will deliver the social and environmental values without which we cannot thrive.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as set out in the register as chairman of a publicly quoted bank. I am also regulated by the PRA and the FCA under the senior managers regime, so I am putting a book down my trousers for the rest of my speech.
I welcome the Bill and its commitment to supporting our financial services sector by creating competition and removing needless bureaucracy and regulations which were made for Europe but were wrong for Britain. There is, however, a fundamental weakness that needs to be addressed in Committee. That is, while the Bill gives regulators more powers and independence, it is shockingly weak on ensuring their accountability to Parliament. These points have been made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, and my noble friends Lord Bridges, Lord Frost and Lord Hill, so I think there is a degree of consensus across the House on this matter.
That accountability is vitally important to ensure that we achieve the growth and wealth creation our country desperately needs after the ravages of Covid lockdown. We have already seen the undermining of Parliament’s role in voting means of supply, with the Bank of England’s expansion of its balance sheet through quantitative easing—money created out of thin air on an industrial scale. Quantitative easing amounts to just short of £1 trillion—in fact, almost 40% of our GDP—in which Parliament was a bystander and the Chancellor unable to be held to account because we are told the Bank of England is independent.
Your Lordships’ Economic Affairs Committee warned that QE was a dangerous addiction in 2021 and that the Bank’s view that inflation was a transient phenomenon while continuing with QE risked serious inflation. Its own chief economist resigned while expressing similar concerns. The committee was ignored, and it turned out to be right and the Bank wrong. The consequences have been inflation, higher interest rates and a bill in excess of £100 billion for taxpayers to allow the asset purchase facility of the Bank of England to pay interest to the banks under an indemnity agreement with the Treasury, which the Treasury has insisted on keeping secret.
I voted for Brexit, to coin a phrase now so popular with the leader of the Opposition, because I wanted to take back control. I wanted to restore to Parliament, particularly the elected House of Commons, the ability to make our laws and be held to account for them at every general election. Frankly, this Bill seems to pass control of regulation from one unelected European bureaucracy to other unelected bureaucracies in the form of the Treasury, the PRA and the FCA. Parliamentary scrutiny and accountability in a thicket of Henry VIII provisions and regulatory powers, whose purpose is unclear, is derisory.
The fact that we have only five minutes each to discuss this Bill is an absolute abuse of the House. Also, as I discovered this afternoon, thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, that we are expected to deal with this Bill in a Grand Committee, not on the Floor of the House. Whatever was the Official Opposition thinking in agreeing to such a matter?
Of course, Clause 36 purports to tackle this issue by providing that the FCA and the PRA would have to notify the Treasury Committee when they published a consultation and responded to any committee replies to their consultations. We do not need a clause in the Bill to do that; such a measure already exists. It is already part of custom and practice. Is that really accountability? Is that it? Surely, at the very least, we need a Joint Committee of both Houses made up of Members with the necessary experience and properly resourced, with informed and expert advice for overseeing what is a Herculean task.
There is no timescale associated with achieving the Bill’s objectives and it is not inconceivable that little, if anything, will change. I do also worry about how all this is going to be resourced. It can already take months for regulators to approve senior appointments and transactions in regulated businesses, damaging their ability to operate effectively. The FCA has itself acknowledged that it is underresourced to perform its existing responsibilities. This House and the other place have, on numerous occasions, raised the politically exposed persons regime as it affects Members of Parliament and their families to no clear purpose, but nothing has changed. Nothing has been done about it.
The ECB rules on capital, which limit lending by smaller banks to housebuilders as a result of abuses in Spain and Ireland, continue to apply in the UK at a time when the Government’s policy requires more housing. It is far more profitable for banks to lend money for mortgages than to build houses, so why are we surprised by the consequent increases in house prices? The countercyclical capital requirements now being introduced as the country experiences recession will require banks to hold more capital, restricting increased lending by smaller banks when so many good businesses need a lifeline. It seems unwise to me but neither the Treasury nor Parliament can do anything about it as the regulator’s independence is not to be questioned. I hope that, during the remaining stages of this Bill, my noble friend the Minister will address these issues.
Brexit presents us with many opportunities, including the chance for Parliament to unleash the talent and expertise of the City. However, I fear that this Bill needs to focus more clearly on execution and delivery. “Doing nothing often leads to the very best of something” might have been good enough for Winnie-the-Pooh but it will not be for us if we are to succeed as a nation.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as co-chair of Peers for the Planet. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth; I absolutely agree with his comments and those of other noble Lords as to the importance of taking action during the passage of this Bill in terms of the parliamentary accountability gap that currently exists.
At COP 26 in Glasgow, the then Chancellor—now the Prime Minister—pledged to make the UK
“the world’s first net-zero aligned financial centre.”
That pledge reflected both the necessity and opportunity for this country to embrace green growth. The potential benefits of the UK being a global centre for financial flows, which will power the economy of the future, are huge. Embracing innovation and private investment to scale up new technologies can bring sustainable jobs and growth, far from being a barrier to growth, as the noble Lord, Lord Frost, suggested.
According to analysis by McKinsey, the supply of goods and services to enable the global net-zero transition could be worth £l trillion to UK businesses by 2030. However, the UK financial services industry will not be able to fulfil the Prime Minister’s pledge unless it has both the right regulatory framework to support it so to do and the policy certainty and long-term trajectory that give business the confidence to invest. As the helpful briefing for this debate from Aviva makes clear,
“a booming UK green finance sector requires a transparent and trusted market that combats greenwashing, has clear standardised metrics, and levels the playing field to reward rather than penalise early action.”
I fear that, as currently drafted, this Bill is a missed opportunity. For example, consideration of nature appears to be entirely absent from the Bill, and with it the chance for our financial sector to scale up the nascent and fast-growing nature-based solutions market. While we delay, other countries are making leaps ahead in green finance. Both France and Germany have given their regulators statutory objectives linked to climate change and sustainability.
I know that the Minister spoke in her opening speech about the inclusion of a climate change regulatory principle but, as others have said, this is just one of seven regulatory principles that sit beneath the regulator’s main strategic and operational objectives and is much weaker than if the Bill had contained a clear climate objective. I am sure that the issues as to the hierarchy of priorities and the trade-offs between the objectives, the secondary objective and the principles contained in this Bill—the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, mentioned these—are matters to which the Committee will give great attention during the Bill’s passage.
I fear that the Bill also misses the opportunity to progress previously announced policy steps to align our financial services sector with net zero, notably the commitment to require all UK-regulated financial institutions and publicly listed companies to publish net-zero transition plans by 2023. This Bill is the obvious place to legislate for that policy yet it is silent. Progress has also stalled on taking forward the UK sustainability disclosure requirements and the UK taxonomy. An updated green finance strategy has been promised but not yet published. All this delay risks sending a signal to our financial sector and internationally that the Government are unsure about whether they are truly committed to being a leader in green finance.
Yet businesses are calling for clear, consistent policy and long-term financing frameworks. The CBI has said that
“the big policy lever that’s missing is around green growth”
and that businesses are “confused and disappointed” that the Government appear to be going backwards on their green growth agenda. We need strong leadership, a sense of direction and clarity from the Government. With so much to be gained from creating the right regulatory framework to allow our financial sector to capitalise on the green transition and the many investment and growth opportunities, I am really worried that we will not move at pace to become the world’s first net- zero financial centre. If we do not move at pace and decisively, others will beat us to it; all the competitiveness objectives in the world will not change that.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, theologians sometimes discuss the personal and social ethics in the teaching of Christ under the three headings of money, sex and power, those three areas which can be the most extraordinary gift and blessing when used rightly and for the common good but which, when they are an end in themselves, can become extraordinarily disruptive. Of these three areas, Christ had most to say about money, as its use reveals our values as individuals and as a society, often in a very stark way. A close reading of this Bill reveals a set of cultural assumptions and values about what is considered important and valuable. There are four areas that I want to highlight and which we need to consider if a growing and vibrant financial sector will work for the common good.
First, on crypto asset regulation, as others have said, we need to act fast both to protect our citizens and so that we do not fall behind the rest of the world. The problem at the moment is that the almost complete lack of regulation means that, for many people, crypto- currencies are just another form of gambling. The recent collapse of FTX has demonstrated the volatility of this market and its vulnerability to fraud. Some have made a fortune, while others have lost their life savings and will now be looking to the state to provide for them. Just as we need a sensible and balanced approach to the regulation of online gambling, so we need sensible, balanced regulation of crypto- currencies. The provision in this Bill to ensure that crypto is treated as a regulated activity and giving the FCA and the PSR the power and, as others have noted, the resources to do their work and to protect customers, is welcome.
Secondly, His Majesty’s Government’s laudable levelling-up agenda needs to ensure access to cash. Here I declare my interest as president of the Rural Coalition. Over 8 million people across the UK rely on cash, primarily the elderly or those who live in rural areas or not-spots, where you cannot get online. Poorer areas are being dominated by pay-to-use cash machines, which hit poorest people the hardest. Research indicates that the most deprived areas are dominated by private operators charging those most affected by the cost of living crisis to withdraw cash. This is the poverty premium, where the poorest are forced to pay more for essential services. When the Minister sums up, can she tell us whether the FCA is under the same obligation as government departments to rural-proof the regulations that it makes about access to cash? If not, will this requirement be introduced?
Thirdly, I welcome the proposal for credit unions and urge His Majesty’s Government to explore ways in which we can encourage their growth. The Church of England has been involved in a very large project using the insights of credit unions in our secondary schools to teach financial literacy, and to teach young people how to handle cash and their money and how to plan responsibly. We need to build on this work urgently.
Fourthly, on green and zero carbon, it is more urgent than ever that we introduce mandatory net-zero transition plans, so that large companies report on how they will manage the transition to net zero. We are told that the Bill will update
“the objectives of the financial services regulators to ensure a greater focus on long-term growth and international competitiveness.”
However, if we are to fulfil our COP 26 commitments, it will also need a secondary statutory objective to protect and restore nature and deliver a net-zero economy. There is much to be welcomed here, but there is a great deal more work to be done.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I draw attention to my financial services and legal interests as set out in the register, and that I am co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Insurance and Financial Services.
As many speakers have pointed out, this Bill represents a golden opportunity to adapt to the new reality of post-Brexit and, we hope, post-pandemic life. Financial services provide over a million jobs directly across the UK, amounting to 8% of GDP. It is a success story and vital to our welfare. However—we must stop deluding ourselves about this, if any of us still do—the UK is not pre-eminent in the world of financial services. Too much of the big reinsurance work in particular is going elsewhere. There is far too weak a partnership between government and the sector, if indeed there is any meaningful partnership at all. We still await a definitive sustainable financial services deal with the European Union. We also need the right infrastructure and the right tax system.
It is all about having a vision, but it is also about regulatory culture. I use “culture” advisedly. If this legislation fails to address not only the letter of regulatory law but the culture of the regulators, it will have failed. Effective, proportionate, efficient and good regulation is about having the confidence to strip away unnecessary redundant regulation as well as policing necessary regulation. That in turn is about having the right people and the right relationships. I refer not to cosy deals over the third cognac in the Reform Club but to brisk, efficient, timely, professional, mutually respectful regulation, with each side having a lively but robust appreciation of how the other operates.
I strongly welcome the new objectives on competitiveness and growth. Effective regulation should enable the sector to burnish its reputation for efficiency, innovation and integrity. It can also reduce costs, thereby improving access to goods and services. I hope that the necessary metrics can be crafted to provide reassurance that the regulators really do act on these new secondary objectives. I acknowledge and respect the concerns of those who feel that the commitment to growth feels a little bald and even old-fashioned in the light of climate change. I reassure the noble Baronesses, Lady Sheehan and Lady Hayman, that I am constantly struck by how seriously climate change is being taken by a sector that is literally, as well as figuratively, right in the eye of the storm. Financial services growth is increasingly, of necessity, green growth.
Finally, as senior independent director of LINK, I welcome the fact that for the first time ever the concept of access to cash and a right to access it will be enshrined in law. As the noble Baroness, Lady Twycross, pointed out, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans has just mentioned, for millions of people cash is a vital part of day-to-day life. Younger consumers may brush off credit card fraud and the panoply of pins and passwords as a necessary if tiresome aspect of modern life, but for many older citizens all that is an undiscovered country, and one that will remain undiscovered. Sadly, there is no such thing as a free cash withdrawal. The banking hubs have been slow to get moving, bank branches continue to close, and the economic situation squeezes the independent ATM providers more and more.
This Bill barely marks the end of the beginning for this task. I hope that it will be seen as an important milestone. I wish it safe passage and a successful arrival in port.
Baroness Bryan of Partick (Lab)
My Lords, the Second Reading of this Bill in the other place on 7 September was just one day after Liz Truss became Prime Minister, and just two weeks before her disastrous mini-Budget which has left millions of families facing frightening hikes in their mortgage payments. The reaction of the markets caused far more damage in one day than industrial action has over months. Markets are not democratic or accountable and, even before this Bill, are only lightly regulated.
The 50 leading economists who signed the letter to the now Prime Minister when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer in May 2022 warned that competitiveness is an inappropriate objective for regulators. They called it a recipe for excessive risk taking that could harm the real economy and reduce economic growth, and said that it was a poorly defined and confusing objective to give a regulator. The most worrying comment coming from across the spectrum of economists was that encouraging competitiveness as outlined in this Bill could result in the same conditions that led to the crisis of 2007.
The case for giving the FCA the task of ensuring competitiveness is at odds with its primary function of regulation. Few are convinced by the Government’s claim that this will not result in a race to the bottom. Evidence shows that lack of regulation results in bigger risk taking for short-term financial gain, at the expense of the rest of society. As Einstein warned us, insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.
I move on to access to cash. The Government have stated that the Bill will ensure that people across the UK continue to be able to access their own cash with ease. However, there is no end in sight to bank branch closures and the removal of free-to-use ATMs. The seven big banks have already earmarked 193 branches for closure during 2023. There is overwhelming evidence, as has been cited from around this House, that the less well-off suffer most from difficulties in accessing cash.
So it was with dismay that I heard the then Economic Secretary to the Treasury, Richard Fuller, say at Second Reading:
“When I say ‘access to cash’ I mean access to cash. My hon. Friend raises the question of whether that access should be free … I cannot give him that assurance at this stage.”—[Official Report, Commons, 7/9/22; col. 285.]
That, together with the dismissive response from Sheldon Mills from the FCA to the Bill Committee on 19 October, when he was asked about having regard to inclusion, demonstrated a lack of understanding of the impact on people in more deprived areas. That is not acceptable. We expect a much greater commitment to free access to cash to be included in the Bill.
I am sure that, after today’s debate, the Minister will understand that there are some aspects of the Bill that are unacceptable and need to be substantially amended. I look forward to seeing these concerns addressed in Committee. I also look forward with interest to the maiden speeches today, particularly at this point to that of the noble Lord, Lord Remnant.
Lord Remnant (Con) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, it is a great honour and privilege to make my maiden speech today on this important Bill, in which I declare my interest as a director of Prudential and chairman of Coutts. When I remarked to a friend that I was waiting to speak on a topic of which I had some knowledge, if not expertise, he rather acidly observed that it would then be a very long time before your Lordships heard from me.
I thank noble Lords from all sides of the House for their support and encouragement in the last few months. I am also extremely grateful to all the officers and staff, particularly the doorkeepers and police officers, who have been so helpful in their advice and guidance.
The first Lord Remnant was my great-grandfather. He represented Holborn in the Commons for 28 years, from 1900 to 1928. He is perhaps best known for introducing successfully—but against much opposition, I regret to say—a Bill guaranteeing members of the police force one day’s rest off duty in every seven.
My father was a more infrequent attender, but I well remember sitting on the steps of the Throne, as my son does now, listening to his maiden speech in a debate on invisible exports, which I hope meant more to their Lordships at the time than it did to me as a callow youth.
As for myself, I followed my father into the City, as a chartered accountant and then an investment banker. Since then, I have sat on the boards of major listed financial services companies and so have long been subject to the rules of our financial regulators. I have also been a regulator myself: last year, I stepped down from the Takeover Panel after 10 years as deputy chair.
At the time of the financial crisis, I was working within government as chairman of the Shareholder Executive. I then sat on the board of UKFI, which was responsible for the Government’s shareholdings in the banks, and I was also appointed to the board of Northern Rock as one of the two Government-appointed directors. I can then perhaps view this Bill through the lens of both a regulator and a regulatee, and from the perspective of government, setting a framework which strives to find the right balance between the two.
The overarching objective of this Bill must be to deliver positive change and protection for individuals and business. To achieve this, we must maintain the high regulatory standards that are a cornerstone of the current regime and boost the competitiveness of the UK globally. These two aims need not conflict with each other. Indeed, they should be complementary. Further, there is a quid pro quo for the independence of our regulatory regime which underpins its effectiveness, and that is appropriate scrutiny and accountability of the regulators and their powers.
My main focus is on the regulatory framework proposed and its implications. Of particular note is the introduction of a secondary objective for the PRA and the FCA to promote the sector’s international competitiveness to support long-term growth. This will give business the confidence to expand and invest in the future.
This is an objective which would be by no means unique to the UK. Indeed, it is established globally. My own current experience is in the Far East, where Hong Kong, Singapore and others all have the promotion of economic growth and/or competitiveness as a key objective. This leads to a congruence of interests between industry and regulators, promoting greater access to financial services and improved client offerings.
So, this is a very positive additional dimension to the conduct and capital and solvency rules which should be the prime role of a regulator. Importantly, the Bill proposes economic growth and international competitiveness as a secondary objective. I believe this to be an appropriate balance. All investments carry risk. If the system is such that it effectively mandates regulators to use their powers only to reduce, if not eliminate, risk, the result is likely to be reduced innovation, increased costs and less consumer choice.
The prime responsibility for taking appropriate risk within established risk appetite must lie with companies themselves, in accordance with rules made by regulators and those within a framework set by Parliament. This new secondary goal will mandate our regulators, in the exercise of their powers, to consider proportionality and global competitiveness.
This Bill transfers significant additional powers to our regulators, as EU regulation is transferred from the statute book to the regulators’ rulebooks. So, it is also right that there should be a commensurate increase in accountability and transparency. We need a regime which balances consumer benefits with regulatory burden and cost. Too often, rules expand in response to a perceived problem but there is little analysis of the often greater cost of regulatory intervention.
Therefore, I am very much in favour of the additional reporting requirements which have been introduced into the Bill at this stage, and the strengthening of cost-benefit analysis through the creation of new CBA panels. At a later stage there will be the opportunity to clarify and strengthen these specific proposals further, and to enhance the scope of parliamentary scrutiny. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be receptive to this.
I believe that these proposals overall are balanced and pragmatic. The Bill lays the foundation for a more competitive financial services sector, without compromising the UK’s high regulatory standards, which can now be tailored to our own specific needs.
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
My Lords, it is a special pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Remnant. His eloquent maiden speech clearly demonstrates his deep expertise in financial services. This should be of no surprise to your Lordships, because the City is truly part of his DNA. I had the pleasure of serving on the board of the Shareholder Executive under my noble friend’s chairmanship, and I have witnessed at close quarters his knowledge and integrity. His presence in your Lordships’ House will contribute massively to our wisdom and expertise. I welcome him.
This is an important Bill. The financial services industry is our most important industry. It is a huge driver of economic activity, it creates high-quality jobs throughout the UK and the taxes it pays underpin our ability to provide public services. It is therefore even more remarkable that Governments have paid so little attention to the City in recent years. For example, too little priority was given to the City in the Brexit negotiations, and in general Ministers have shown a marked reluctance to support the industry through either words or deeds. At times, I have even felt that Ministers were almost ashamed of the City’s existence. Partly as a consequence of this, it is no longer the global force it was. This decline will continue unless something is done about it. Action is urgently needed. Speaking as a former chair of TheCityUK and of two of our largest financial services firms, I have to say that this is a very sorry state of affairs.
This Bill provides the potential to remedy matters. Whether it succeeds in this will depend critically on whether the secondary legislation and rulebooks which will come in its wake, as well as ensuring financial stability and consumer protection, will allow the industry to flourish and remain globally competitive.
Enacting this Bill will, though, mean that the success of our most important industry will rest more than ever on the shoulders of its myriad regulators. The challenge is that our regulatory regimes are not best in class and, despite the many talented people who work for them, neither are our regulators. We have to do something about this. We have created a culture, not just in financial services but elsewhere in our economy, that too often has allowed and, indeed, encouraged regulators to operate in a bubble of their own making. This has no doubt often been rather convenient for Ministers because they have been able to hide behind this bubble.
Your Lordships know what a strong supporter I am of regulatory autonomy, but that autonomy must be exercised within an envelope set by Parliament, with proper accountability and transparency and subject to strong and continuous independent oversight by people who know what they are talking about. No regulator is an island.
Late last year, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury exchanged letters with the CEOs of the PRA and the FCA about the need for world-leading levels of regulatory operational effectiveness. I congratulate him on this initiative. It is interesting that, in his reply, the CEO of the FCA highlighted that it is the FCA board that has statutory responsibility for overseeing the effective use of the FCA’s resources. As an exemplar, this caused me to look at the membership of that board. Although I have no doubt that its independent members fulfil their roles diligently and exercise due care and attention, it is striking that, according to their bios on the FCA website, not one seems to have served on the board of any UK-listed company. I also note that the incoming chairman of the FCA, who again is no doubt very able, has spent the last 20 years of his professional life in Hong Kong—a city I know well, but which is, to say the least, a rather different environment from the City. It is all rather surprising.
I would be very interested if my noble friend the Minister, in responding to this debate, could let us know whether she is satisfied that the FCA board and the other boards that oversee our regulators have the firepower to carry out their appointed tasks.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I refer to my registered interests as president of the Money Advice Trust and as a member of the Financial Inclusion Commission. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Remnant, on his excellent maiden speech.
Although I welcome the Bill overall as an opportunity to strengthen and improve the regulation of the UK’s financial services, in too many places it feels like a missed opportunity. I will focus my remarks on financial inclusion, where I feel the Bill currently falls shorts in important respects. I make no apology for this emphasis, given the huge power imbalance that exists between banks and other financial services providers, who have plenty of people to speak on their behalf, and vulnerable customers, who have far less of a voice in these debates.
As highlighted so compellingly this afternoon, the lack of focus on improving the transparency and accountability of the regulators, and on giving Parliament greater powers of scrutiny, sadly runs through the Bill like a stick of rock. I hope we will be able to redress this balance as it progresses.
The 2017 Lords Select Committee on Financial Exclusion, which I had the privilege to chair, called on the Government to set out a clear strategy for improving financial inclusion in the UK. Without such a strategy, it is simply not possible to make the progress needed to ensure that everyone can access the financial services they need at a price they can afford. The committee also recommended that the Government expand the FCA’s remit to include a statutory duty to promote financial inclusion as one of its key objectives. These key recommendations were reiterated in the 2021 follow-up Liaison Committee report. I readily acknowledge that setting up a Financial Inclusion Policy Forum in response to the Select Committee report provides welcome discussion of some of these issues, but it is no substitute for a government-led strategy, alongside a regulator that has statutory responsibility for ensuring that financial inclusion plays a part in its everyday operations.
We now have the opportunity to plug the “black hole”, as I often call it, that exists between social policy and financial regulation. We have heard time and again how consumer groups are passed between government departments and the FCA, with no one institution willing to act; and how the Treasury refuses to act on well-known issues such as the poverty premium, which we have heard about this afternoon, until enough data is collected, when the only organisation able to obtain this data is the FCA, which in turn says it is not its remit to collect such data.
The Bill provides the opportunity to plug this gap and prevent the most vulnerable falling through the cracks. By giving the FCA a cross-cutting “must have regard” to financial inclusion duty, along with a requirement to publish findings, it will have the ability and incentive to ensure that the needs of those currently denied access due to affordability issues are considered. This will allow clarity on how far market regulation can address financial exclusion and where government-instigated social policy is needed. I will bring forward amendments on this in Committee.
Turning briefly to the duty of care, another Select Committee recommendation, I concur completely with the sentiments expressed by my noble friend Lord Sharkey. A consumer duty as brought forward by the FCA is not a duty of care. The former has many exemptions and does not provide wronged consumers with the right to secure monetary redress through litigation. For accountability and parliamentary sovereignty, it is a matter of real concern that, after Parliament passed the Financial Services Act, placing a duty on the FCA to consult and bring forward rules on a duty of care, it chose not to. This Bill provides an opportunity to remedy this unsatisfactory state of affairs.
Finally, I turn briefly to access to cash. I welcome the commitment to legislate to give consumers greater protection in accessing and depositing cash. It is long overdue. Difficulties in accessing cash by the 5 million people—I know other figures have been quoted, but that is the figure I have—who still rely on it have grown hugely in recent years. The UK has lost half its bank branch network since 2015 and there has been a 25% decline in free-to-use ATMs since 2018. It is a particular problem for many of the elderly, those with certain physical disabilities and mental health conditions, and those in deprived communities who are digitally excluded and financially vulnerable. I hope to see more action in this area, including extending the FCA’s remit to consider other services that should also be protected. I would like to see the Bill guaranteeing a minimum level of free cash access services and local authorities having the right to request a review of local cash provision.
Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)
My Lords, it is a particular pleasure to start by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Remnant, on his maiden speech. As it happens, I have often heard him speak before, but always in a frivolous context, so I was awaiting his speech today with particular interest—and he did not disappoint. As the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, said, his expertise will be a great asset to this House as we consider the Bill.
The regulatory issues have been well identified in the speeches that have been made. There seems to me to be three types of balance: the balance between freedom and regulation; the balance between regulatory independence and the role of the Executive; and the balance between the Executive and Parliament. It is particularly important that we get this balance right in debating this Bill about an industry which is of such huge importance to the British economy and where international competition is so very strong.
I welcome the Bill; it has much to be commended in it. In the first place, it is based on a proper examination of the regulations inherited from the EU. That included extensive consultation with practitioners in the future regulatory framework review between 2019 and 2022. In this respect, it is markedly different from the cavalier attitude taken by the Government in other areas of inherited EU law in the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill. Secondly, although I have not always agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, on Brexit, I think it is a particularly important and welcome benefit of Brexit that the United Kingdom has the freedom to establish our own regulatory regime without being bound by some of the more ponderous regulations of the European supervisory authorities. However, that freedom needs to be exercised with prudence.
There has been much reference to the provision in the Bill to give regulators a new statutory objective to promote the international competitiveness and growth of the UK economy with special reference to the financial services industry. That objective has been generally welcomed, but as the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, said, the Government owe us an explanation. Before the 2008 crisis, the Financial Services Authority, the predecessor of the FCA and the PRA, had a duty merely to “have regard to” the competitiveness of the UK financial services sector. In the post-mortem on the 2008 crisis, the Treasury recognised this obligation as a factor in regulatory failure leading up to that crisis and, as the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, said, it was consequently removed from the regulatory remit by the Treasury and Parliament. Just over a decade later, Ministers are seeking to give the regulators a stronger statutory requirement to make sure that their regulatory activities promote the international competitiveness of the financial services sector, not just to have regard to it. I ask the Minister to explain, in replying to the debate, why the Government have concluded that this reversal is safe.
In the proceedings on the Bill we will be debating the degree of delegation of powers to regulators, the balance between the Treasury’s power to make recommendations to the regulators and the regulators’ independence, and the mechanisms for Parliament to oversee these important operations. However, we have to recognise that parliamentary control, to which there has been much reference, is made worse by Parliament’s own procedures. Even when Parliament is given a role in approving statutory instruments, Parliament’s inability to amend such instruments, and its unwillingness to reject them, makes such power purely nominal. The remedy for that lies in our own hands.
Having said that, I believe that there is much to support in the Bill. Although there are plenty of issues for the House to consider and debate, I regard this as an important Bill, and I welcome it.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, I too congratulate my noble friend Lord Remnant on his maiden speech and, in particular, on the depth of that speech in relation to the Bill we have before us this evening. I hope he will contribute in Committee.
My primary congratulations go to His Majesty’s Government. I have had the privilege of serving in the other place and here for 48 and a half years, and I do not think there has been a Bill as helpful to the City of London as this Bill has the ability to be. I say to my noble friend on the Front Bench, and to the whole of her team, well done on actually producing a Bill that is going to help the City of London. There have been a whole lot of positive reactions from the financial services market and from the City itself. I shall pick out just two that I received. First, “The City welcomes the creation of a more nimble, agile and proportionate regulatory regime for the implementation of the FCA’s and PRA’s growth and competitive secondary objective, alongside improving the speed of FCA authorisation turnaround times”. That is a bit mechanical, but it is very important. Equally, and even more important, probably—the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman referred to this—on the issue of the green area, “The world’s financial system through engaging internationally has to facilitate international standards and global alignment, ensuring that the ESG taxonomies are interoperable”. That seems to me absolutely vital. So much for the congratulations.
The other dimension that I noted the other day is the 30 Edinburgh reforms that the Chancellor has brought forward, almost—but not—on the sly. There is no doubt that they are important. One will drive investment into UK growth companies, in particular the new guidance for asset pooling of local government pension schemes—I declare an interest as a trustee of the parliamentary pension scheme. I can assure my noble friend that it is much needed and to be welcomed. I noticed that the leaders involved in this have got together and set up an organisation called the UK Capital Markets Industry Taskforce. That in itself is enormously welcome.
I want primarily to comment on an area that nobody has mentioned to date, thankfully. For some 25 years, I have been involved in the mutual movement. I had the privilege of being the chairman of the Tunbridge Wells Equitable Friendly Society for just over 10 years. As my noble friend on the Front Bench knows, at the moment a Private Member’s Bill from Sir Mark Hendrick, the Co-operatives, Mutuals and Friendly Societies Bill, is going through the Commons. It is there to deal with the scandal, frankly, of the demutualisation of mainly our building societies, which was not to the benefit of investors in the building societies but for somebody else to turn a penny—or several pounds. In its present form, that Bill will match the best legislation that exists in many other countries. It also introduces a voluntary power to enable a mutual to choose a constitutional change so that its legacy assets would be non-distributable, details precisely the destination of any capital surplus on a solvent winding up, and outlines the procedures in the mutual’s moves. That is a major step forward, and I very much hope His Majesty’s Government get it on the statute book. It will certainly have my support.
Secondly, there is the position of raising capital for the mutual movement. I had a Bill, which is on the statute book as the Mutuals’ Deferred Shares Act 2015. It was welcomed by all parties but unfortunately has been bogged down somewhere in the system and very little capital, if any, has been raised by the mutual movement. I understand that the Government are thinking of asking the Law Commission to look at that. I say to my noble friend that that is kicking it into the long grass a bit. I hope we can look at it again.
Finally, we come to the regulatory dimension. It seems to me, as one who sat on the Public Accounts Committee in the other place for some 12 years, that the reason that succeeds is that it is basically backed up by a government body providing the evidence. Maybe that framework is something we should look at. Something certainly needs to be done. We have listened enough this evening to know that movement in that area is absolutely vital.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, I too welcome the noble Lord, Lord Remnant, to the House and thank him for his excellent maiden speech.
This is not a Bill that will clean up the City, enhance its accountability or streamline the regulatory architecture. There are at least 41 overlapping and buck-passing regulators. These include the Bank of England, the FCA, the PRA, 25 anti-money laundering regulators, OPBAS, the Pensions Regulator, the Pension Protection Fund and sundry others, all poorly co-ordinated. The enforcement architecture is also fragmented. It involves the SFO, the Crown Prosecution Service, the FCA, the National Crime Agency, the Bank of England, the Treasury, the Home Office and God knows who else. Can the Minister explain why this potholed regulatory architecture will not hinder the Bill’s objectives?
The FCA has been severely criticised for its failures in episodes such as Connaught, London Capital & Finance, Blackmore Bond, the Woodford fund and Link Fund Solutions. The Work and Pensions Committee’s July 2021 report relating to protecting pension savers said that the FCA’s evidence lacked integrity. John Swift KC’s December 2021 review into the supervisory intervention on interest rate hedging products criticised the FCA. The National Audit Office investigation into the British Steel Pension Scheme was also critical of the FCA. Can the Minister tell us why the Bill has not been preceded by an inquiry into the operational efficiency of the FCA?
The regulatory apparatus in this country is adept at sweeping things under its dust-laden carpets. Indeed, the Government themselves have done that. They have a history of shielding banks engaged in “criminal conduct”. A good example is that of HSBC, which the Bank of England, the Treasury and the then banking regulator colluded to cover up. This week the Times reported that Barclays, HSBC, NatWest, Standard Chartered and Lloyds are facing nearly 100 lawsuits, mostly in the US, for violating competition law, fixing prices, interest and exchange rate violations, sanction busting and terrorist financing, yet we have not heard a peep about it from anybody in the UK. As usual, they think things will go away. The Bill dilutes the current regulatory system and even eliminates the modicum of independence enjoyed by regulators by empowering Ministers to direct the FCA. Ministers’ objectives are entirely different from the regulators’.
Since 2015, 4,685 bank branches—almost half—have closed. Many districts and villages do not have a physical bank branch and millions cannot access online banking, so it is hard to see how the FCA is promoting effective competition when people just cannot access banking services. Can the Minister explain how the Government are dealing with disappearing bank branches?
The Bill adds an international competitiveness element to the FCA’s remit—something that was removed after the last crash, as others have said. This really opens the floodgates to reckless practices. The regulator would need to look at what Cayman, Bermuda, Belize and other jurisdictions are doing and use those as a benchmark to recalibrate UK regulation. This is ultimately a race to the bottom and will surely undermine the prime objective of securing financial stability.
The collapse of FTX and other companies has led to losses of nearly $1 trillion, which shows that crypto assets and currencies are highly dangerous. Yet instead of banning these dreamt-up currencies, the Bill legitimises the trade. That will send a message to ordinary people that it is perfectly safe to hold and trade in those assets. After all, it is regulated. The ultimate result will be that, before long, the regulators will be paying millions of pounds in compensation. I urge the Minister to reconsider this part of the Bill, because it could well be the beginning of the next crash. In due course, I will table a number of amendments.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, I need to begin by reminding the House that I have two interests. I am an approved person under the FCA rules, and I chair a regulated firm.
The Bill is big and important. I always felt that the task of trying to create a Europe-wide regulatory structure to deal with the many different types of financial markets—from quite small and unsophisticated to quite big, as we see in London—was going to be a big ask. Therefore, I was not surprised when we found a number of pinch points, many of which did not operate to London’s advantage. Given that the Bill’s strategic objective is to onshore our regulation, to get rid of one size fits all and to operate within a risk-based assessment framework appropriate to London, I support the Bill.
There are lots of things I would like to talk about, but I have only five minutes. I would like to talk about cash and the role of MiFID II, but I will focus on process. Here I follow the noble Lords, Lord Sharkey and Lord Butler. How do we get from here to there? What is the process to be followed? How is it envisaged that Parliament will play a role in the process envisaged under Chapter 1, Revocation of Retained EU Law? As the noble Lord, Lord Butler, pointed out, this Bill is a carve-out of a much larger Bill that will come before your Lordships’ House in a few weeks.
I chair the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and we have been taking evidence from Ministers on some of the practical aspects behind the Government’s thinking. I suspect that not many of us—not even my noble friend Lord Forsyth—who voted for Brexit thought that this risked handing powers from Brussels to Whitehall without any serious effective parliamentary scrutiny or involvement along the way.
I have made a rough count of the number of regulations listed in Parts 1 to 3 of Schedule 1; there are, I think, 246. Some of these will be technical and of no significance; others will not. It is this fact that makes the Bill a framework Bill. At the moment of passing the Bill, Parliament will not know what it is signing up to. That is really important. Will all of these 250 or so regulations be treated in the same way? There appears to be no triaging process to sort the important ones from the less important ones. I fear that the idea of saying “Affirmative resolutions go this way, and negative resolutions go that way” may not be sufficient in as complex an exercise as this.
There is a widespread view—again, pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, in his remarks—that the existing parliamentary powers for scrutinising secondary legislation are inadequate for the increasingly heavy weights being placed upon them. When my noble friend the Minister comes to wind up, will she tell the House what supporting documentation will be made available in respect of each regulation, to aid parliamentary scrutiny? Under current law, any regulation that carries an impact of more than £5 million is required to have a specific impact assessment, tabled at the time the regulation is laid. If this is now not to be the case, there is a real danger of Parliament being effectively muted.
Secondly, an important statutory requirement is the provision of post- implementation reviews. Post-implementation reviews decide where hope and expectation met reality and how they clashed. If we are not going to have post-implementation reviews—PIRs—then the opportunity for improving government performance will be greatly missed.
Finally, there is the question of tertiary legislation. Tertiary legislation is where the Government hand away the pen to another body, usually having very little if any democratic accountability. Despite that, the laws and regulations that these bodies produce bind us all just as tightly as any other law. Can my noble friend the Minister confirm my understanding that, under Clause 4, all tertiary legislation will be subject only to the negative procedure? If I am right about that, then I am afraid I shall regard this as a very disappointing response.
To conclude, I support the direction of travel of the Bill but, as we enter this brave new world, we should at the same time not allow the role of Parliament to examine, scrutinise and hold the Government to account to be further reduced.
Lord Ashcombe (Con) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, it is a great honour to speak to you today for the first time, concerning the Financial Services and Markets Bill being introduced by the Minister, my noble friend Lady Penn. Before continuing I must declare my interest as an employee of Marsh Limited, the insurance broker.
I would like to take a moment to thank the many who have shown me huge kindness on my arrival in the House feeling like the new schoolboy all over again. I thank the doorkeepers, clerks, special advisers, librarians and Black Rod for their generous advice on so many issues. In particular, I would like to thank my noble friends Lord Glenarthur, Lord Ashton, Lord Borwick and Lady Sanderson, who have encouraged me and given me great help and guidance. Finally, without the help of the Opposition Chief Whip, I think I would still be wandering the passages of this labyrinthine building even now, two months later, yet to be discovered, totally lost. I hope he does not regret it.
The Cubitt dynasty was founded by Thomas Cubitt, who was the first to establish the building contracting business as we know it today. In the process, he became one of the great developers of early 19th century London, including in the development of the Grosvenor estate from Belgravia to the Thames. Two of his best-known buildings are the east front of Buckingham Palace and Osborne on the Isle of Wight. It was not he who was awarded the Ashcombe peerage but his son, my great-great-grandfather, in 1892. George Cubitt served in the House of Commons for over 30 years followed by 25 years in this House. His son Henry followed in his footsteps but was very unfortunate in that he lost his first three sons in the Great War. They are remembered on the Royal Gallery memorial. In 1920, the family building company built the Lutyens-designed Cenotaph in Whitehall.
I inherited not from my father but from his first cousin. I was brought up in the Republic of Ireland and took a civil engineering degree here, then entered the world of insurance where I have spent 35 years working in the energy sector. It is the insurance aspect that brings me here today. Many of us have experience dealing with personal insurance but there is a great deal more to the subject than that. Insurance is one of the country’s greatest economic strengths and a source of vital capital to an increasingly fractious global risk landscape.
Indeed, without the abilities of the London insurance market, grain and other vital foodstuffs trapped in Ukraine would not have been exported last year to those countries desperately in need of food; as the sanctions start to bite there have been many restrictions put in place, but the market has responded by continuing to provide insurance on a humanitarian basis. Also, development and investment in new technologies would be significantly reduced. An example of the London market innovation is the provision of insurance for the surge in green and blue hydrogen prototypical initiatives to reduce carbon footprints and combat climate change.
Insurance has often been portrayed as the poor relation of the City of London. However, this financial sector today employs almost 50,000 people. We have the highest concentration of insurance-related intellectual capital, experience, insurers, brokers and affiliated professional services. This is what makes London a world-leading global insurance market. Using 2020 data, the London market share of the worldwide premium is in excess of $120 billion, although the market share of 7.6% has been static over the last five years. It is larger than its next three competitor markets—Bermuda, Singapore and Zurich—combined but is continually being challenged. The sector generated 24% of the City’s GDP and just under 1.8% of the United Kingdom’s GDP.
One of the secondary objectives of this Bill is for the regulators to promote the growth and competitiveness of the UK economy. An area where the London market has no participation is captive insurance companies. This would certainly be an opportunity for growth as it is a $54 billion industry. Even UK companies such as Network Rail and Transport for London have their captives in foreign jurisdictions. These captive insurance companies are designed to provide insurance to their parent company or its entity. It is no longer the tax legislation, an oft-cited reason for this being the case, but the regulatory hurdles, as the regulators treat them as commercial insurance companies.
Regulators will always remain an important part of the checks and balances of financial business, but they need to be proportionate in recognising that personal consumers need a greater level of protection than the more sophisticated companies, which have significant experience and take professional advice on how to manage their risk protection. It should not be one size fits all.
Secondly, the Bill currently allows the regulators to determine how they believe they have met the requirements of the competitiveness objective. This suggests that they can mark their own homework. Would it not be preferable to have a set of key performance indicators laid down in the Bill, by which they can be measured when reporting back to the Government and Parliament?
With these thoughts in mind, I thank noble Lords for this opportunity and look forward to supporting this Bill, promoting growth and competitiveness for our financial services industry and, ultimately, growing this vital sector of the economy.
Lord Altrincham (Con)
My Lords, it is an honour to follow my noble friend Lord Ashcombe, to welcome him to this House and to reflect that it really is a blessing for this Bill that there are three maiden speeches. My noble friend has spent his whole career in insurance. We nearly met around the age of 30, when he was working at Lloyd’s of London but he has always otherwise been at Marsh. He brings expertise to us in financial services that is often, as he said, a little overlooked.
In addition to insurance experience, it is worth adding that my noble friend brings us experience in energy. His whole career has been around energy, which we quite often talk about in this House. Energy and energy infrastructure are important, as is understanding how that infrastructure in this country is laid out. My noble friend brings us expertise in that area. Finally, I would mention that three noble Lords have already asked him for insurance advice. At this time of year, we all have to work out endorsements and exclusions in policies, with the small print and all the rest of it. We may have only one Peer—certainly one Peer in the Chamber today—who really understands this stuff. He would be welcoming of any inquiries as well. He is very welcome and I look forward to working with him for many years ahead, and indeed on the Bill.
Turning to the Bill, I declare my interests as a director of South Molton Street Capital, Financial Services Capital and, in Manchester, the Co-Operative Bank. In the Autumn Statement, the Chancellor reminded us of the importance of growth. He specifically referenced energy, broadband, road and rail. The shadow Chancellor has made some very similar comments, so it is particularly important that we reflect on how the Bill, among the other financial Bills that we have seen, can help to support that growth, in particular with reference to infrastructure. We see Bills come through the Chamber and imagine that they will be financed by somebody, but there is going to be a limit to how much the Government can really support infrastructure investment. The OBR has already said that the Government will need to reduce infrastructure spending in two years’ time.
This means that spending on infrastructure will rest on the private sector and unlocking that private sector capital really rests on the Bill, so it is very welcome that Chapter 3 makes reference to growth. As we know and have heard from many Peers, the regulators have been somewhat cautious and prudent, for the reasons well expressed. At this point, we need to find ways to unlock capital to support infrastructure and for the wider economy. We might look carefully at Chapter 3 and reflect on how to address the growth opportunity, but also some of the concerns expressed about adding risk, or the prudential issues, which have been well covered.
The regulatory environment needs to be a little refreshed. Nearly immediately after this Bill was started in the House of Commons, on 7 September, we ran into the extraordinary pension LDI debacle. This was around the time when the Bill was going into Committee. It is worth reflecting on how we got to this extraordinary situation, which in some ways arises from an abundance of caution; that is to say, it goes in several steps.
Step 1 was to require companies to reflect actuarial changes in the valuations of their pension funds in their annual accounts. These are modelled changes of future liabilities and, because rates were very low, those liabilities felt very high at the time. It was a prudent thing to do; at the same time, it was not commercial and did not reflect a broader commercial understanding.
Step 2 was, remarkably, to de-risk these funds—that is to say, de-risk them from the point of view of the company and not, incidentally, necessarily that of the beneficiaries—by moving them into gilts. There not being sufficient long-dated gilts, they were moved into derivatives of gilts. These funds were suddenly hugely invested in derivatives for the purpose of de-risking. Again, this de-risking looked somewhat prudent. It is not, as we know, but it looked somewhat prudent then. At the same time, these enormous funds, which are effectively closed—they are in run-off and are barely supervised, while their beneficiaries have little control of them—were invested in an enormous amount of financial derivatives.
Had this growth chapter been in place, some of this error might have been caught. We had an extraordinary situation whereby very large captive funds were not invested in long-dated investments in this country or in infrastructure; we also had the savings of Canadian public schoolteachers making long-dated investments in UK infrastructure, while the savings of our own teachers were put into financial derivatives. This extraordinary debacle is an illustration of how prudent, cautious, step-by-step regulation can lead you into enormous risks.
I commend and support the Bill, which is extremely well thought through and, as the Minister explained, has been broadly consulted on. But regarding Chapter 3 and growth, I hope we will discuss in Committee the opportunities to invest in infrastructure and perhaps to meet the green agenda, which has been mentioned—again, that is often infrastructure. In Chapter 3 lies an opportunity to direct financial regulation for the benefit of the economy and of this country, and to meet the needs of this Government and indeed the next Government.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, I too congratulate those who have just made their maiden speeches. Their expertise will be very welcome. The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury spoke of values; others have made it clear that values and self-interest can and should be aligned.
My focus here will be on climate change and the transformative role the financial services sector can and must play in combating this. My question is therefore whether this comprehensive Bill helps to deliver the UK as a green finance centre, as the Government have promised. I noted that the Minister emphasised in her speech that our financial services need to be open and green, as well as technologically advanced.
We are familiar with the pledges agreed by Governments in 2015 in Paris, seeking to keep global warming below 1.5 degrees. We know how far we are from meeting that. Developed countries’ money and pledges are vital but will not deliver on the scale required. A key change that occurred at the Glasgow COP in 2021 was business and finance becoming involved, with outstanding leadership from Mark Carney. That is potentially transformative.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, pointed out, at COP 26 the Government committed to creating the world’s first net-zero-aligned financial centre and announced that they would mandate large companies to publish their net-zero transition plans and climate reporting standards. Rishi Sunak described the UK as
“the best place in the world for green finance”.
As a trade envoy, I noted the high reputation of the City of London. It needs to maintain that leading role. The Government also committed to match the ambition of the EU on green finance, with particular reference to disclosures of sustainability impacts and the development of a green taxonomy. The UK became the first G20 country to mandate its largest companies to disclose climate-related data.
At COP 26, the International Sustainability Standards Board was announced, to seek global harmonisation in this area. The UK needs to continue to play a leading role in that. Consumers, the public and investors are increasingly scrutinising the green credentials of companies and looking at what banks and funds are investing in. This is where the world is heading. The noble Lord, Lord Ashcombe, has just made clear that the insurance industry is already addressing this. Just as we have seen that the decision to end the sale of new petrol and diesel cars by 2030 has given a major boost to the EV sector, because the automotive industry can see which way it needs to head, the same clarity of intention is required in the financial sector. We need to ensure that regulation shows the direction of travel.
As Chris Skidmore has said in relation to his net zero review for the Government, we may be committed to net zero by 2050, but are the guardrails in place to deliver that? Those guardrails must include regulation. Therefore, what do we see in this legislation? As others have pointed out, the Bill states that regulators should only “have regard” to climate goals. There are seven other principles to which the regulators must also have regard. These are subsidiary to the strategic and operational objectives, as the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, my noble friend Lady Sheehan, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans have all pointed out. That must be addressed as this Bill goes through.
Shortly before this Bill was announced, it was reported that the Government had removed from the Bill the expected sustainable disclosure requirements. These would have required large companies and financial institutions to disclose and justify their environmental impacts, their alignment with the UK’s green taxonomy and their net zero transition plans. With the publication of their Greening Finance road map in 2021, the Government reaffirmed their commitment to developing a green taxonomy and sustainable disclosure requirements, yet these are delayed.
In the meantime, the EU has legislated in this area. We have already fallen behind, despite the Government’s declared ambitions. HSBC has just announced that it will no longer finance new oil and gas fields. That is the future. Others need to do likewise, with the transformative effect that will have. Regulation can spur that on. This Bill, replacing EU regulation with specific UK regulation, needs to make sure that the UK and London are forward looking, leading the way, modern and drawing in green investment and jobs. I can assure the Minister that there will therefore be amendments to this Bill in this vital area, so I suggest that she starts writing round now.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Ashcombe, on his maiden speech and in particular on drawing our attention to the importance of the insurance industry to London’s financial centre—which is often overlooked. I too welcome the Bill warmly and express my interest as chairman of the London Financial Markets Law Committee. I draw attention to that interest because, in the few minutes I have, I would like to ask some questions about the central issue in the Bill: the extent of delegation. How do we do it? How to we make it accountable? One must bear in mind that regulators have two functions. The first is to make law that is binding on us; the second is to interpret and enforce that law when there is a dispute.
I wish to ask four questions. First, are the powers that Parliament is giving to the regulators and delegating to them ones that they can exercise more appropriately than Parliament? The answer to that is generally “yes”, but when we look at certain detailed provisions we must ask: are they being asked to make political decisions—which would be wrong—or are we consigning decisions where we just have to hope that they do what they are asked because there is no accountability? The first question is intricately linked to accountability and a judgment on what is right.
Secondly, have we given the regulators a sufficiently clear mandate for the regulations they are to make? As the noble Lords, Lord Butler and Lord Sharkey, pointed out, there are some contradictions in the Bill. Should we examine those and give clearer guidance? We should not complain hereafter if they tell us, “We’re independent, go away”. Another question which particularly interests lawyers is: are we to give more clear direction as to the type and format of regulation? Are they to follow what has become the traditional European and, to an extent, British Government way of writing long screeds of guidance rather than following good, Victorian principles of short, clearly drafted legislation? It is a question we ought to ask ourselves. Vast rulebooks are a complete disincentive to proper regulation. The more we delegate, the clearer the answer to that question has to be.
The third question we have to ask ourselves is: are we sure that enforcement and punishment for breaches are sufficiently independent of the regulators that make law? When we make law, we do not interpret it or punish people for breaching it; we give that to independent people. The more power we give regulators, the more we have to be satisfied that the interpretation is independent. You do not want a rulebook where people turn around and say, “I know it’s not clear, but we know what it means because we wrote it”. That is bad lawmaking. Of course, if we have not got that bit right and we do not have proper accountability, there is another problem.
That ties in with the fourth question. We must ask, in respect of all these provisions: is there sufficient accountability to Parliament, to outside bodies or through an independent enforcement agency separate from the lawmaking part? Having spent much of my professional life dealing with the fallout of regulatory failure, I have no doubt that most regulators are competent and hard-working and that they try their hardest to achieve a good result. However, their life is extremely difficult and, if I were a regulator, I would welcome with open arms proper scrutiny. They need all the help they can get. If you are truly independent—having spent much of my life as a judge, I have had to be independent—you always welcome people who cast a critical eye from the outside. The regulators, therefore, ought to welcome scrutiny and not oppose it.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I draw attention to my interests in the register, in particular that I hold shares in a number of listed financial services companies. This Bill could certainly have been bolder, and it needs to be improved, but it also has my broad support. I would like to touch on just four aspects of the Bill in the short amount of time we have been allowed.
First, the competitiveness and growth secondary objective is welcome, if overdue. We must never forget that, without a strong economy—and in the context of the UK that inevitably means a strong financial services sector—there will be nothing worth regulating. The financial crisis led to a series of risk-averse reforms and a decade of regulatory gold-plating. It is no coincidence that the last decade has been disappointing in economic terms. We need a period of rebalancing.
However, whatever we do in the Bill will come to nought unless the regulators themselves change. I fear that they will find ways to marginalise the new secondary objective. We need them to put the interests of the UK ahead of the comfort blanket of precautionary regulation and, if necessary, to stand against the consensus in international regulatory fora, however comfortable that seems. The PRA’s public statements to date on what it will do with the new secondary objective and the FCA’s radio silence on the subject do not give me any comfort that they get what is needed.
The Government were right to bring forward amendments in the other place to strengthen the regulators’ reporting arrangements to reinforce the new objective. We will need to explore that in Committee to see how it will work in practice, and I suspect that we will conclude that it will need more teeth.
My second point relates to the role of Parliament. I am glad that the Government have finally accepted that there is an important role for Parliament in holding the regulators to account alongside the transfer of huge new rule-making powers. Most of us argued strongly for that in the passage of the Financial Services Act 2021. My noble friend the Minister will not be surprised that I am disappointed that the role of your Lordships’ House is something of an afterthought in Clause 36. I promise her that I will return in Committee not only to the role of your Lordships’ House but to the narrow construct of the remit for Parliament in that clause.
My third point concerns getting rid of retained EU law. Chapter 1 of Part 1 of the Bill is very welcome. I fully accept that replacing retained EU law with something tailored to the circumstances of the UK is a large task, but the Bill needs the discipline of a deadline. The approach of the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill is what we should be seeking to replicate in this Bill.
My final point relates to access to cash, and I fear that I shall disappoint my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond, who will speak after me. I fully accept that cash remains important to many people, but the fact is that the use of cash is in permanent secular decline. UK Finance expects only 6% of transactions to be in cash form by 2031, down from around 15% now. The Bill imposes costs on all consumers to maintain access to cash for a decreasing proportion of the population. The Access to Cash Review estimated the cost of providing cash at around £5 billion per annum—to put that in context, that is roughly equivalent to 1p on the basic rate of tax. Trying to preserve cash in our society, as if it is part of our national heritage, is just crazy. The Bill goes too far.
I end with a plea for the Government to bring forward a consolidation of financial services legislation. Most of the Bill comprises yet more alterations to FSMA 2000, which is itself already heavily amended. If now is not the right time for consolidation, will my noble friend the Minister say when that time will come?
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in this Second Reading debate and to follow my noble friend Lady Noakes, about whose points I will say more in a moment. I congratulate the two maiden speakers from whom we have heard. I am very much looking forward to my noble friend Lady Lawlor’s maiden speech; I will not detain her much longer. I also congratulate my noble friend the Minister on the eloquence and erudition she showed in introducing the Bill. I declare my interests in the register, particularly those pertaining to fintech advisory work.
I will focus on two areas: financial inclusion and the regulator, mainly because nobody has mentioned the latter yet. Financial inclusion matters not just for those who find themselves on the wrong side of it. If we can drive financial inclusion, there are not just economic but social and national benefits for each and every one of us. That is why I am pleased to see the access to cash clauses in the Bill. It is important because cash still matters; it matters materially to millions. Looking at the reasonableness terms in the Bill, can my noble friend the Minister say what factors will be taken into account when we look at reasonable access to cash? It is a question of both distance—whether that distance is covered by public transport links— and cost. There are many factors to be considered, and I would welcome more detail on that in her wind-up speech.
As many other noble Lords have commented, access to cash is but one part of this. If there is no acceptance of cash, what currency does cash have if there is no place to spend it? In Committee, it is incredibly important that we look at the whole question of acceptance: which businesses are included; what size they are; what line of business they are in; and business clusters. There are so many issues to consider on how we nail the question of cash acceptance, because, without it, access does not go very far at all, as other noble Lords have commented.
The cashback amendment I tabled to the now Financial Services Act 2021, which my noble friend the Minister was kind enough to reference in her opening speech, demonstrates the enduring importance of cash. Evidence so far, since the introduction of cashback without the need for a purchase, clearly demonstrates that most of those transactions are for £20 or below, and therefore clearly serving individuals who were massively underserved or unserved before the passage of that legislative change.
Finally, on cash, does my noble friend the Minister believe it is time to consider cash as critical national infrastructure, and not just for financial inclusion? In the current uncertain world in which we exist, if there were to be a serious and sustained cyberattack on our financial systems, it seems that cash would provide a pretty robust first line of resilience.
Before noble Lords think that I am all about cash, I am interested in cash only while millions still rely on it and while we have not moved fully to the digital world. The future is inexorably digital, not least for payments. There is nothing necessarily problematic or negative about that, but that future has to be inclusive for all—and the transition to that future has to be similarly inclusive. Is it not high time to build on the work of the Access to Cash Review that the Government commissioned with, crucially, a review of access to digital payments?
On the regulator, as others have said, Parliament needs to consider seriously and urgently what we want our regulators in this space to do, without in any sense encroaching on their independence. What do we want them to do? How do we fit them out to do that? How do we put the structure and resource in place to set them up to succeed? How will we then hold them to account on all the principles which have been set out in that structure? It cannot be the case that it takes nine months for an overseas CEO to be able to come over to work in our financial services. It cannot be that it takes over a year for a start-up business to get a licence to operate in this country. It cannot be the case, as my noble friend Lord Ashcombe pointed out in his excellent maiden speech, that one size fits all. In insurance, how can it be that the same regulatory regime applies whether you are insuring a pet or a plane?
We know how to get this right with regulators. We saw that in the first part of the 2010s with our approach to fintech, and with the sandbox and with GFIN, which came as result of that. There was no better measure of success from the sandbox, and no better KPI, than the fact that it has been replicated in well over 50 jurisdictions around the world. That was all under Project Innovate; we need a second, third and fourth version of that project to drive forward all the opportunities which currently exist, combining common law, new technologies, and the potential geographic and historical benefits for London and the rest of the UK. As everybody in financial services knows, history is no guarantee of future success.
On the international competitiveness objective and the international perspective, what have the Government looked at in taking the best from around the world in this area—not least the MAS in Singapore, the Swiss regulator, and those in Bermuda and Australia, to name but a few?
In conclusion, this is the most important financial services Bill in a generation. It has extraordinary potential—but it is potential; it will not inevitably drive economic social good for citizens, cities, communities and our country. This is an extraordinary opportunity to make things better. In Committee and on Report, let us all work to make it even better.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, having been in your Lordships’ House for a little over three years, I am now on my second financial services Bill, and I have to welcome the level of engagement we are seeing today. I was quite new when the last one happened, and it was in the depths of Covid, but the breadth and quality of debate was not an advertisement for the House. There seemed to be a view that financial services regulation could largely be left to the bankers, hedge fund managers and insurance brokers, yet already today we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, how anyone concerned with house prices should be looking to regulate the financial sector to prevent it being an accelerator of prices rather than a funder of secure, affordable homes. The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury said that anyone who wants the banks actually to serve the real economy of small businesses, to which lending has effectively stopped, should be concerned with financial regulation; and of course, anyone who wants a liveable planet with a healthy natural world should be concerned with financial regulation, as the noble Baronesses, Lady Sheehan and Lady Hayman, among others, have highlighted.
We have a financialised economy, including everything from care homes to health provision, public transport to housing, tax dodging to serving oligarchs and plutocrats. Every Member of your Lordships’ House, whatever they regard as their speciality, whether it is alleviation of poverty or delivery of better health education, should be concerned with this Bill, and every member of the public should be concerned with this Bill. So I am going to agree for a second time with the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, that the official Opposition would be letting the Government and the financial sector off the hook if our Committee stage was consigned to the murky obscurity of the Moses Room. That is, of course, perhaps unsurprising behaviour, given the Times report that the leaders of our official Opposition are heading off to Davos to send a message to the super-rich that Labour is the party of business.
Noble Lords might expect me to focus on nature and climate, but others, most notably the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, have already covered at length the “dismissive view” that this Bill takes of the very foundation of our economy, that on which every penny of our banks and every pound in a worker’s pocket depends: functioning ecosystems. But I shall take a more systemic and structural view: what is the financial sector for and what is the economy for? The economy should be in the service of a healthy, prosperous and sustainable society. The financial sector should be a tool for that type of economy, and this Bill should redirect our financial sector towards that. Instead, we have a primary objective of competitiveness. More finance is the aim—snatching it from other nations and growing what we have when we already have too much finance.
The noble Baroness, Lady Penn, in her introduction, proudly boasted that 2.3 million people are employed in the financial sector. We really need to change our thinking here. Human resource is a scarce resource and should be used well. A holder of a maths PhD creating the next complex financial instrument to break the global economy is not an example of it being used well. That person could be improving our health, securing our food supply or increasing the sum of human knowledge. Letting the financiers rip, seeking to lead a global race to the bottom on regulation, when lack of regulation is a huge threat to the security of us all, is heading 180 degrees in the wrong direction.
I could illustrate that point in many ways, but I am going to pick one example—the proposals on position limits in Schedule 2, on page 124 of the Bill. For those in the know, I mention the London Metal Exchange nickel debacle. Some might have read the recent European Economic and Social Committee cry from the heart about much greater regulation of food and commodity trading. As it and many others are identifying, that is a major factor in inflation, hitting every household in the UK and around the world today. A few are profiting while the rest of us pay.
Many commentators—among them I highlight Ann Pettifor, in the Financial Times and elsewhere—are suggesting that commodity derivatives could be the next big systemic risk, because they are so under-regulated. Global commodity markets involve an annual volume of at least $700 billion in buying and selling, with trillions in derivatives piled on to that.
Finally, if we grow the financial sector, we also grow corruption. The City of London is the global centre of corruption. If you do not want to believe me on that, I quote from a debate secured by my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. The noble Lord, Lord Evans of Weardale, chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, said that
“we have clearly, as a matter of policy, turned a blind eye to the perpetrators of corruption overseas using London for business”.—[Official Report, 13/10/2022; col. 156GC.]
If we grow the financial sector, we grow global corruption —that is the reality.
Baroness Lawlor (Con) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, it is an honour to address this House for the first time. I thank all who have so kindly helped in my introduction—Black Rod and her team, the Clerk of the Parliaments, the Doorkeepers and your Lordships, as well as my two supporters, my noble friends Lord Balfe and Lord Black of Brentwood, and my mentor, my noble friend Lady Eaton.
I am grateful to the former Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, for nominating me, and pay tribute to his remarkable achievement in opening a new chapter in Britain’s constitutional and political history. One consequence, this Bill to revoke retained EU law and provide for a homegrown alternative, has won the broad support of the Opposition. It was anticipated in 2018 by the then Chancellor, Philip Hammond, now my noble friend Lord Hammond of Runnymede, who explained that the laws for such an important sector of our economy should be made in this country and under the jurisdiction of our courts.
The Bill reflects the continuity of recent political history and therefore links to my own working life, which began as a historian in Cambridge, where I had moved from my native Dublin. I later switched to contemporary policy, initially education, and then founded and established a think tank in London, Politeia, to bring academic and other specialist attention to broad matters of social, economic and constitutional policy, working with different parties and politicians. More recently, we have published material on the financial sector as part of our work on the future legal framework for trade in goods and services. I therefore declare a special interest in this subject and have written on it, although not at great length.
The Bill aims to revoke retained EU law for the sector and replace it with legislation that builds on the UK’s approach. Under it, UK regulators will have certain powers but also obligations to promote competition and medium to long-term growth. It envisages that the regulators will be accountable to Parliament via the House of Commons Treasury Select Committee and will report on their policy, consult, and engage with statutory bodies.
The Bill, therefore, is concerned in a practical way with a more abstract problem: the role played by officials operating the system under the laws made by Parliament. It aims for regulator accountability, something that will be music to the ears of many, often small businesses which are reluctant to act competitively because they fear they may fall foul of the regulator, although observing the law, and do not understand the mysterious application of the rules.
I hope we shall consider how the Bill’s approach to these two central regulator aims, accountability and competition, can be further strengthened, to avoid the erosion of one of the most dynamic sectors the world has ever known. Competition, the rule of good, clear law and a free economy encouraged businesses to start up and flourish in the City of London, a port and commercial centre to which merchants, shipowners, insurance underwriters and other entrepreneurs flocked, establishing banks and businesses. In this country, small entrepreneurs who staked their future on a start-up could enter the market knowing where they stood in law, and that the laws of this country would act as fairly for them as for established businesses. The Bill opens a new era in the story of this dynamic sector. Providing competition and regulator accountability can be achieved, it will help the sector to be a world leader. I welcome this measure and its aims, with one caveat: that Parliament, in giving the regulators greater powers, does not give them a blank cheque.
Lord Blackwell (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the excellent maiden speech of my noble friend Lady Lawlor, and to welcome her to the House. I have had the great good fortune to collaborate with her on policy issues over what now amounts to several decades in her role as founder and head of a major think tank with a well-deserved reputation for well-researched and detailed reports—perhaps the hallmark of somebody who started her career as an academic historian. I know that she has wise but spirited and forthright views on many topics, and I have no doubt she will bring that sharp intellect and independent mind to the business of the House. We look forward to her future contributions.
Before I speak on the Bill, I should note my role as a former chairman of Lloyds Bank, but I have no current interests other than as a continuing shareholder. I welcome the Bill, in particular the proposal to add competitiveness to the objectives of regulators, but my fear is that the Bill does not go far enough to redress the overly burdensome nature of the regulatory system that has built up over the last decade. I am not proposing that we turn the clock back to the inadequate regime prior to 2008—many of the reforms introduced then were necessary and are effective—but as my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral argued, the excessive regulatory burden on the financial services industry comes not so much from the regulation itself as from the overly bureaucratic way it has been implemented by the UK regulators.
This culture stems from the regulators’ overriding internal objective to avoid the risk of being blamed for failing to do something, with little incentive to balance that against the costs that their intervention may impose on the industry. I fear this tendency to gold-plate is fuelled by the current superficial nature of the parliamentary scrutiny by the Treasury Select Committee in the other place, which tends to focus on naming and shaming someone for anything that has gone wrong. Furthermore, the growth in staff numbers means that much of the regulation of major institutions is undertaken by relatively junior staff who are more likely to stick to a rigid interpretation of the regulatory rules because they simply do not have the confidence or experience to make balanced supervisory judgments.
The senior managers regime, for example, is, in principle, a sensible safeguard to ensure appropriately qualified people are in key industry roles and are held accountable. However, when a major institution has gone through a responsible and exhaustive recruitment process involving an external search firm, it is simply unnecessary and damaging to then have the appointment held up for further lengthy scrutiny by often far less experienced staff at the PRA and FCA. The overly forensic attempt by regulators to pin every mistake on some individual and require consequential penalties has had a corrosive impact, discouraging individuals from making difficult decisions or taking on difficult roles that carry a risk of failure. It has led to a huge increase in bureaucratic processes and documentation, as managers seek to syndicate responsibility and cover their backs.
Another example is the tendency of the regulators to apply a one-size-fits-all approach, unwilling to recognise this may be disproportionate for some sectors or firms. The FCA’s fair pricing review is a case in point: in seeking to address certain consumer pricing practices, the review spread across the whole industry and imposed burdensome data collection on sectors such as the wholesale insurance market, where the participants are skilled professionals. Ring-fencing is another example where the overly rigid application of something which is in principle a sound idea has had a disproportionate impact on banks with relatively small non-ring-fenced activities. The FCA’s worthy objective of protecting the customer has been developed under the customer duty approach to the point where firms fear that even negligent or unreasonable customers will claim redress for buying a financial product that, after the event, causes them a loss. As a result, many products and helpful financial guidance have been withdrawn or repriced out of many people’s reach. This overly protective approach to customers needs to be replaced by a more even-handed objective of simply ensuring fair trading. Caveat emptor has been replaced too much by caveat venditor.
The downside of this overly intrusive regulatory approach is not just the direct costs but, more significantly, the diversion of management time and IT resources away from transforming businesses to better serve their customers. The introduction of competitiveness as a regulatory objective may be helpful to provide a counterbalance. I also welcome the provisions in this Bill for the Treasury to require regulators to review their activities and to set up independent cost-benefit panels, but these measures will not solve the problem without a fundamental shift in attitude, skills and culture within the regulators. I welcome the Chancellor’s commitment in Edinburgh to bring forward further measures to address some of these issues, including reviews of ring-fencing, the senior managers regime and the boundary between advice and financial guidance, but even then, I am not sure we will transform the regulatory approach without a more fundamental reshaping of the organisations and their accountability.
I think it is worth considering whether smaller regulators with fewer and more experienced staff would do a better job of providing supervision, with more considered judgments, and whether the benefit of having two separate regulators outweighs the burden of having two overlapping supervisory teams for major institutions. Finally, while I support the Bill, as other noble Lords have argued, given the powers it transfers to regulators it is important that it is accompanied by a more informed and balanced structure of parliamentary scrutiny that can also hold regulators to account for their new objective of the competitiveness of the industry. I ask my noble friend whether the Leader of the House has any plans to bring such proposals before the House.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I draw attention to my entry in the register and I begin by welcoming my noble friend Lady Lawlor. I was one of her sponsors. I am delighted to see her here; she will add huge intellectual firepower to our Benches. I hope not too much of it will be turned on me, as I do not think we agree very much on the European Union. I also thank my noble friends Lord Remnant and Lord Ashcombe, who will also add considerably to these Benches.
This is an interesting Bill. It is a good basis for a debate, and it follows a good deal of consultation. I am afraid that I disagree with my noble friend Lord Holmes, who is not in his place, on the subject of cash. Things move ahead. In 2020, I went to our local Turkish shop just after Covid started. I offered the shopkeeper some money and he said, “We’ve stopped accepting money, sir. We might get Covid.” I thought, “This is interesting.” Believe it or not, I stopped using money. Of course, the difficulty for poorer people is that they do not have access to credit or debit cards that they can just hand over all the time, so we need to retain the ability to pay in cash. But shops will maintain that for us, because they will want to continue to sell their goods, which is a pretty good thing.
As I see it, the growth of cryptocurrency, which I regret, is the next big scandal on the horizon—I thank the most reverend Primate for giving me a drink of water; it is jolly good to be given one by the Archbishop of Canterbury.
I warn us against cryptocurrency. We need to look at regulating it, because it is totally out of control, and it is meaningless. I discovered the principles of Warren Buffett before they were popular; if you want an investment, you should be able to see it, understand it and answer the question, “Does it do anything useful?” If you cannot get positive answers to all those points, you are likely to be investing in a dud. All these bubbles over the last umpteen years have been about things that do not exist. They did not have any benefits and most of them did not pay any dividends. You need to be very careful. I predict that anyone investing in cryptocurrency will come to regret it pretty shortly.
I welcome Clause 69 of this Bill, in particular the ability to develop credit unions further. We often forget the role that they play, particularly in providing secure finance for poorer people and in the trade union and working people’s movement. Anything we can do to strengthen credit union regulation, while making them dependable, is something to be gained. Enabling them to extend cautiously into hire-purchase agreements and insurance, and to lend to and borrow from each other, is extremely good. I hope that, as we pass this Bill, we can look carefully at how to support credit unions.
Finally, we need to look at the dangerous “buy now, pay later” phenomenon. Problems are already beginning to arise with the idea that you can go into a shop and say, “I’ll pay in three months.” This sector needs bringing under some sort of financial regulation. I hope that we can get some sort of outline during the course of this Bill of how we can get a regulatory framework.
Lord Mountevans (CB)
My Lords, it has been a great pleasure to hear the three maiden speeches this evening. The noble Lord, Lord Remnant, was a fellow alderman in the City of London; I remember we all thought that he was first-rate material to be lord mayor, but unfortunately the City assumed him and took him away from us. We have seen tonight just how valuable his contribution will be. I equally congratulate his colleagues. Our House has been enriched this evening.
This is an important Bill, which I welcome and support. There is much that is valuable in it, such as enshrining that regulators exercise their new powers in the service of public policy objectives, set by Parliament, which maximise the industry’s contribution to society. I warmly welcome moves to build a robust regulatory regime for digital assets and to support digital innovation in distribution ledger technology, employing the sandbox technology that has been so successful in fintech. The introduction of references to economic growth and competitiveness has long been on the industry wish list.
Bringing the marketing of crypto assets under the existing financial promotion rules is highly desirable, as are the introduction of a new regulatory principle for the FCA and the PRA to have regard to the need to contribute towards achieving the UK’s net-zero obligations and steps to ensure that domestic legislation is amended to ensure that mutual recognition agreements can be fully implemented. This should reduce the cost of doing business and facilitate more competitive client service and offerings.
Some noble Lords have regretted that the Bill is not more proscriptive and wider ranging. However, the UK’s regulatory regime is a key factor in its perceived attraction as a global financial centre. With respect, profound changes are unappreciated and unhelpful. As we saw as recently as last autumn, it is important to be perceived as predictable, stable and strategic. Profound changes are to be avoided.
I am not an expert in regulation and have not worked in banking, insurance or, for example, the LSE. I was elected 11 years ago in the City and worked there for 45 years. From my contacts there, I think there is contentment with the Bill and its contents. These are steps in the right direction. It is a very important sector; as I and others have said, from research, it is critical that financial services flourish in this country.
I too would have liked to see more action on fraud and regulatory accountability, and opportunities for consumers have been missed. Hopefully, the Government can address this. The principal concern is the speed at which reform is proceeding. We have suffered the negative impacts of leaving the EU but are not succeeding in enhancing and improving our offer fast enough to compensate. Can the Minister say in summing up whether the regulatory organisations, with their immensely demanding and complex responsibilities, are fully equipped with the staff and resources required for the discharge of their duties and functions? This is more critical than ever at this time, as underlined most eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)
My Lords, a few hours ago, before this debate started, one of my noble friends saw that I was down to speak and said something in terms similar to, “What on earth do you know about this?” He hit the nail on the head. That feeling has been only heightened by the quality of the speeches we have heard from noble Lords who really know what they are talking about, not least the three maiden speeches. I am delighted to have such erudite noble friends joining us on these Benches—I will probably have to keep quiet now, unless it is a subject that I know a little more about.
I say that I do not know much about this but, listening to some of the speeches, I realised that—as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, who is not in her place at the moment, said—I represent the man or woman in the street who does not understand these things but needs to because they are really important. As a former retailer, I have something to say on the subject of cash. Also, I say to my noble friend Lady Noakes, who is not here, and others that, if there is any spare cash she does not want, I have various charities—I will put a bucket outside and we can take it. That would solve that problem.
I declare an interest as a director of Peers for the Planet. I was going to emphasise the point about net zero and so on, but that has been amply discussed and there is no point in overdoing things. The noble Baronesses, Lady Sheehan and Lady Hayman, and others have mentioned this, so I will just add my voice to that. I can almost hear one or two of my noble friends in particular thinking that this will somehow be a burden, but it will not: these very institutions and businesses are asking for it to make sure that there is a level playing field.
However, there is one amendment I hope to table in Committee—unless I can persuade my noble friend the Minister that the Government need to take this on, which would save me the job of having to make a further speech on the Bill—and it is on deforestation. This amendment would echo one tabled by my right honourable friend Chris Grayling on Report in the other place, which had a great deal of cross-party support. My amendment would introduce a mandatory due diligence obligation for UK financial services to prevent the financing of commodities, businesses and activities that destroy climate-critical and biodiversity-rich forests, and indeed the lives of the local communities and indigenous peoples who depend on them. I tabled a similar amendment to the Environment Bill as it went through this House. It was a rather good amendment but, to my astonishment, the Government did not seem to agree with me entirely on it. I did cry myself to sleep that night, but I woke up again and thought, “There will be another opportunity”—and that is what I hope we will have in Committee, where I am sure the Government will realise the error of their ways and accept this, because it is incredibly important. I do not believe that Schedule 17 of the Environment Act is enough to stop the UK’s role in global deforestation.
I fully support the Bill but, like so many others have said, I am sure that there is room for improvement. It may not be down to me to do it; I think I have found the experts we need. I salute the Government for bringing this forward, and I salute my noble friend the Minister—not just because I want her to accept my amendment but because her stamina in sitting through this debate has been fantastic. With that, I think I will sit down.
Lord Carrington of Fulham (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Randall, but I am not planning to follow him into the woods and forests and deforestation. I find myself in a situation which many noble Lords in this Chamber will have been in at various times of their career, where you have prepared a speech which is, frankly, brilliant, and you have all the points laid out with wonderful clarity, only to find that the second speaker makes your points, and the fourth speaker makes your points—I lost count after that. Everybody has talked about regulation, which is what I was planning to talk about. So, noble Lords will be extremely relieved to hear that my speech is going to be quite short, because nearly everything that can be said about regulation has been said—but, I have to say, not quite everything.
I do not have any interests to declare; I used to have interests to declare in financial services. I used to be a regulated authorised person by the PRA and the FCA, and I used to be the chairman of a very small bank, so I have had some experience of being regulated and recognise the importance of regulation. I recognise the very important role that the regulators play in keeping London as a premier financial centre. One of the principal reasons we are still a major financial centre in the world and manage to fight off the competition, which now comes from Europe as well as from New York and Singapore—China may well become competition again, but Hong Kong has largely disappeared —is our honesty and probity through regulation. That is very important, and we need to preserve it. For that reason, I also very much support the part of the Bill which gives the regulator further duties, particularly the duty in relation to international competition and growth, and to the green agenda. All this is very important, but it raises quite serious issues about what we want the regulator to do.
Perhaps I could digress for a moment and say a little bit about what I think regulators ought to be doing. This follows on a bit from what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, who sadly is not in his place at the moment, said earlier about large and detailed rulebooks being a disincentive to effective regulation. In fact, I would say—only he is a lawyer—that the great danger is getting the lawyers involved in regulation at all.
The point about regulation is that it is there to stop the villains and to stop people doing things that they should not do, but it is trying to do that in markets that are extremely fast-moving and highly inventive and innovative. A regulator that has rules that were set in stone 20 years ago and stretch from here to eternity will never catch those people. Indeed, there is a very strong argument, which I have seen written up by people who know much more about it than I do, that the great crash of 2007-08 was caused largely by regulators being hidebound by what they had seen in the past, rather than understanding what was happening and developing for the future—not just in this country, I have to say, but principally in the United States as well.
Regulators have to be very close to their markets and understand what is going on in them. They have to see the trades being done, know the participants and hear the gossip. In all markets, whether traded or over-the-counter, the participants know who is good, who is stupid and who is bad. They may not get it 100% right but they get it pretty nearly right, which means that we have to get the regulation of the regulators right. That is desperately important.
I do not believe the Treasury can do it, because it is too close to the regulators. The Bank of England clearly is a regulator and cannot do it. The Treasury Select Committee, of which I have some experience, having been a chairman many years ago, cannot do it. We have to find a way of doing it which is effective. It may involve parliamentary committees, but my guess is that it will involve another regulator, to regulate the regulator. We need little fleas on the backs of big fleas to bite them. I am afraid that that is what we will have to do. We need to find a solution, because the regulators are becoming too powerful and too important, and they need to change.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I was worried that my noble friend Lord Carrington of Fulham would take away the very last thing I might have said that has not already been said, but happily he has left a little scope for my contribution to the debate. I will start by saying something which has been widely said, by offering congratulations to all my noble friends who made their maiden speeches today and saying how welcome their contributions were, as their many contributions in future will be, adding to the quality of debate and the experience of your Lordships’ House.
There have been many points of consensus around the whole of the House as we have debated this, and I share those points. Among them is the astonishing lack of parliamentary scrutiny of what is in fact lawmaking. Whether this constitutes taking back control and whether it could be done better need to be explored in Committee. A second point of consensus is the need to ensure that a cash option remains available, not just for those who need it but for those who want to exercise it. There is broad consensus on that around the House. A third point on which there is consensus—I do not intend to put this too controversially—is that there appears to be a shared mild uncertainty around whether the current regulators are up to managing the new jobs that are about to be thrust upon them. That is something else that I am sure we will want to explore in Committee.
I would like to add one item, which I hope will command widespread support in your Lordships’ House. Over the last 20 or 30 years, retail access to regulated investments has practically dried up. It used to be the case that one could buy government bonds, gilt-edged securities, at the Post Office. It used to be the case that one could bid, non-competitively, for new issues of gilts through clipping a coupon in a newspaper—even the Daily Mail—and put one’s money into government bonds, as a safe, secure investment that one could hold over the long term. It used to be the case that new issues of equities were widely available to retail investors. All these had different risk profiles, but we need to trust that retail investors understand to a degree what they are doing—and they do.
Over the last few years, investors with money in their pockets which they would like to put into savings have been precluded by regulation from these markets and have instead put their money into dodgy schemes and things calling themselves bonds that have been marketed in a way that sometimes gives the impression that they are regulated by financial regulators. Sometimes there has been sufficient justification for that claim, such that we had to pass legislation only last year to authorise the Treasury to bail out the investors in one of the schemes—I believe it was called London Capital & Finance, but I may have that slightly wrong. We are saying that investors are going to be regulated out of nice, secure, sensible investments, but in effect encouraged to go into dodgy investments. It is all completely wrong.
A large part of it comes from the European Union’s prospectus directive. One thing it said was that, for investment in corporate bonds, the minimum denomination for a new bond issue has to be €100,000, and that denomination stays with the bond for the whole of its life. So unless you have a sum of roughly €100,000, you cannot buy. Most retail investors do not have that. The prospectus directive is included in Schedule 1 and is listed to go. It is vital that we put the retail investor at the heart of this.
Furthermore, treasurers are discouraged from giving a retail offer in new issues of equities because they have additional regulatory requirements to meet. We should be able to address those. All those things could be done if they were an explicit objective of the Bill and if the Government committed to doing them. The Investor Access to Regulated Bonds Working Group in the City has been talking to the FCA about this. The working group represents the industry; I have had some briefing from it, but have no interest to declare. There is a definite opportunity, but it needs to be taken up and pressed by the Government.
Finally, my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean mentioned the outrageous way in which politically exposed persons are dealt with in this country in the domestic regime. I put it to my noble friend on the Front Bench that this Bill, dealing as it does with financial regulation, would be the perfect mechanism for sorting out that problem once and for all, through any necessary amendments to primary or secondary legislation required, so that we cease to have the humiliating prospect of watching the Front Bench go off and beg the Financial Conduct Authority to treat us reasonably.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I welcome the three new Peers and their thought-provoking contributions so far to this crucial Bill. I want to focus on one fairly narrow but I think important consequence of an increasingly cashless society: that is, that a handful of mainly US tech giants now have unprecedented power over the public square.
Consider how any civil society organisation has to operate today. Consumer campaigns, pressure groups, NGOs, the third sector—all will be dependent on payment processes such as US fintech PayPal to operate in order to organise online payments for goods, services, events, and to receive membership fees and donations, et cetera. Can your Lordships imagine if these digital corporates took it upon themselves to freeze assets and suspend accounts with no notice or explanation, all because some big-tech apparatchik disapproved of the aims of such organisations? Surely such censorious demonetisation would be a threat to democracy. Yet this is not some dystopian future—it is happening now. So I urge the Government to use the Bill to protect civil society organisations’ ability to conduct basic commerce regardless of their political views.
Noble Lords will remember the media coverage of events in September last year when PayPal deplatformed a number of UK organisations. Suddenly the Free Speech Union—I declare an interest as a member of the advisory board—the Daily Sceptic, Law or Fiction, and UsforThem, an advocacy group set up by mums who opposed school closures during lockdown, had no way to process membership or access their own funds, had no ability to raise money and were made to feel like criminals. All their processing services were just switched off abruptly, risking their whole financial viability. Toby Young, who heads up two of the targeted organisations, explained at the time:
“PayPal’s software was embedded in all our payment systems, so the sudden closure of our accounts was an existential threat.”
Indeed, even PayPal’s co-founder Peter Thiel told the Free Press in December:
“If the online forms of your money are frozen, that’s like destroying people economically, limiting their ability to exercise their political voice.”
Such financial censorship reminded me of when the Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau froze the Freedom Convoy protesters’ bank accounts last February. That was shocking, but at least it was clearly a political act. The problem when payment process organisations defund based on content is that they are often evasive and opaque about who it is targeted and why. PayPal gave contradictory and vague explanations last September, initially citing its acceptable use policy associated with criminality and hate speech, and later telling the Times that the accounts were guilty of misinformation about vaccines. Few were convinced. Miriam Cates MP told the other place:
“It is … hard to avoid interpreting PayPal’s actions as an orchestrated, politically motivated move to restrict certain views within the UK”,—[Official Report, Commons, 7/12/22; col. 430.]
or, in the FSU’s case, even defending those expressing such legal but dissenting views.
After high-profile press coverage and Members from both Houses—across parties and of none—causing a fuss, PayPal eventually backed down, reinstated the accounts and denied that there was any political interference. However, there is no room for complacency. When Sally-Ann Hart MP proposed an amendment to this very Bill in the other place, seeking to legally prevent financial service providers refusing to provide services if related to the exercise of the right to free speech, the Minister Andrew Griffin gave a robustly positive response. He stated that the Government respected
“the balance of rights between users and service providers’ obligations … whether of the Free Speech Union, the trade union movement, law-abiding environmental movements or anyone else expressing lawful views.”—[Official Report, Commons, 7/12/22; col. 395.]
However, he seemed rather reluctant to agree with the need for primary legislative change and stated that the PayPal incidents did not represent a wider pattern. I beg to disagree.
We need to look at what has happened in the US over recent years—and think about whether it might happen here—where big tech companies regularly use defunding to regulate speech, so much so that in June 2021, a large coalition of US civil liberties groups wrote to PayPal and its subsidiary Venmo asking for transparency, due process and clarity behind this escalating practice of economic limitations on multiple varied accounts, from WikiLeaks to News Media Canada’s payment to submit an article about Syrian refugees for an award. The coalition, comprising eminent organisations such as Article 19, the ACLU and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, never even got a reply from PayPal. Also, less high-profile instances of deplatforming dissenting views are happening in the UK, for example with Patreon, CrowdJustice and GoFundMe affecting our citizens. What is more, the majority of major payment providers grant themselves the right to block accounts of those whose views clash with Silicon Valley’s increasingly ideological corporate values.
I intend to table an amendment to say that, while I understand that private companies have a right to choose who they do business with and should be vigilant about fraud and illegal transactions, they should never discriminate on the basis of an organisation’s political, philosophical or religious beliefs. This Bill might be a place where we can put that right.
Lord Northbrook (Con)
My Lords, first, I declare an interest as a consultant to an FCA-regulated investment management firm. Overall, I strongly welcome this Bill, as do important UK financial institutions, including the Investment Association, UK Finance, TheCityUK and Linklaters’ Financial Regulation Group, to name but four.
Politically, the Bill seems to be generally supported by all major parties. I particularly welcome the provision to establish a regime to regulate stablecoins. I also like the idea of bringing in measures to allow regulators to reduce regulations in order to enable technological innovation in a sandbox. I also approve of the measure allowing regulators to make rules for entities deemed to pose systemic risks to the UK’s financial markets. As the Prime Minister said in his Back-Bench speech at Second Reading:
“Why does all this matter? It matters for three specific reasons. The first is jobs. The industry provides more than 1 million jobs, and not just in London and the south-east; two-thirds of those jobs are in places such as Southampton, Chester, Bournemouth, Glasgow, Belfast, Edinburgh and Leeds. It is incredibly important. Secondly, it is one of the most important industries for our economy in terms of contribution to our GDP and tax revenues, and it is something that we as a country are genuinely world-class at.”—[Official Report, Commons, 7/9/22; col. 292.]
I recognise that the City is now in a very different place from where it was in 2016. The consensus view is that the ship has now sailed on regulatory equivalence with Europe. However, the fact is that, since 2018, the volume of financial exports to the EU has fallen by 19% in cash terms. Some £1.3 trillion of UK assets have reportedly moved to the EU and there has been little progress on securing trade deals for our financial services around the world—although Switzerland was mentioned earlier.
Still, in 2021, exports of financial services to the EU were worth £20.1 billion—33% of all UK financial services exports. So is it wise just to repeal all the 200-plus pieces of retained EU law en bloc rather than identifying which are helpful and necessary? Also, the sector is disappointed that the Government have so far failed to finalise a memorandum of understanding on regulatory co-operation or negotiate with the EU for the mutual recognition of professional qualifications for our service sectors. In her winding-up speech, will the Minister tell us what impact she believes this Bill will have in securing these important agreements with the EU and boosting financial services exports more generally?
I move on to what has not been included in the Bill. I agree with my noble friend Lord Balfe: I feel that the Bill lacks ambition in its lack of support for the mutual and co-operative sector. Although Clause 63 contains some welcome and long-overdue provisions, such as enabling credit unions to offer a wider range of products, the Bill does little to address the outdated regulatory regime faced by credit unions, building societies and co-operative banks. We have seen numerous building societies threatened with demutualisation in recent years, while the number of mutual credit unions has plummeted by more than 20% since 2016. Unlike the USA—and many other European countries, as I understand it—the UK is uniquely lacking in co-operatively or mutually owned regional banks. That lack of diversity in the financial services sector has had bad consequences for financial inclusion and resilience, with many desperate families forced into the arms of unethical lenders.
Next, like the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and other noble Lords, I find it disappointing that the Bill fails fully to address the growing problem of financial fraud. Clause 62 only partially addresses the issue. It enhances protections for victims of authorised push payment fraud, which, according to the Labour Treasury Minister in the other place, quoting UK Finance figures, reached an all-time high of £1.3 billion in 2020. The Government in the other place promised a review without giving a timescale, but more immediate action is needed. The Bill ignores the fact that digital-savvy criminals are increasingly exploiting a range of financial institutions such as payment system operators, electronic money institutions and crypto asset firms to scam the public. According to UK Finance, in 2020, 45% of the £1.3 billion was payment card fraud, while 38% was authorised push payment and 16% was remote banking.
Last November, our House of Lords Fraud Act 2006 and Digital Fraud Committee released a report stating that the Government should introduce a new corporate criminal offence to ensure that big tech platforms and telecom companies tackle financial crime. While online platforms will face a duty of care to protect their users from fraud under the Online Safety Bill currently going through its stages in the other place, it does not cover telecoms and other related sectors:
“‘It’s a very good step but I do think that more needs to be done,’ said Sian McIntyre, a managing director at Barclays UK, including requiring tech companies to publish data on the nature and volume of scams on their platforms.”
I support other noble Lords’ views on the limitation of Treasury Select Committee scrutiny, general clarity on crypto regulation, regulators’ requirements to focus on international competitors, problems of buy now, pay later, and the opportunity to still have a cash option. In summary, I welcome the Bill and look forward to scrutinising it further in Committee.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Northbrook. I thank my noble friend Lady Penn for her impressive introduction of this Bill and declare my interest as set out in the register as a director of two investment companies. I welcome the Bill. I wish to place on record my strong objection to the imposition of a five-minute so-called advisory speaking time at Second Reading. I add my congratulations to my noble friends Lord Remnant, Lord Ashcombe and Lady Lawlor on their excellent maiden speeches.
I was a member of the Joint Committee on Financial Services and Markets, which reported in 1999 on the need for the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. At the time, we did not appreciate how much of the responsibility for framing financial services regulation would be transferred to the European Commission, as Union competence steadily increased its reach. We were powerless to prevent the entry into force of AIFMD in 2013. We did not resist the adoption and eventual entry into force in 2018 of MiFID II, which requires fund managers and brokers to set separate charges for trade execution and research, and fund managers to pay for research themselves or agree a separate research contract under which they may recover their costs. These and other legacy EU regulations, such as PRIIPs and its requirement that companies produce consumer-friendly kids, have had the opposite effect on consumers from that which was expected.
A return to the FSMA 2000 model, balancing responsibilities between Parliament, government acting through the Treasury and the regulators, makes a great deal of sense. I was never sure that the decision following the financial crisis of 2008 to create the PRA as a second regulator, which was neither an independent regulator nor fully a department of the Bank of England, was the right one. The creation of the FCA, with its one strategic objective, that markets function well, and three operational objectives, which include a competition objective but one limited to promoting competition in the interest of consumers, has contributed to the emergence of a culture within the institution which is overcautious and generally perceived by the industry as anti-innovation. Participants in London’s insurance markets have explained to me that this is the principal reason why our share of the global insurance markets is stagnant at around 7%, whereas those of other jurisdictions such as Bermuda and Singapore are growing.
From the point of view of your Lordships’ House, Clause 36 of the Bill, governing engagement with parliamentary committees, is very unsatisfactory. It is very far from even-handed between your Lordships’ House and another place. I question whether the Treasury Committee, as it currently operates, can conduct the required level of oversight. Surely a Joint Committee of both Houses should be established for this purpose. We need a committee resourced well enough to replicate the activities of the ECON committee of the European Parliament.
I welcome the Government’s decision to act in accordance with a recommendation of the Listing Review, undertaken by my noble friend Lord Hill of Oareford, to create a competitiveness and growth objective. Clause 24(2) makes clear that this objective is secondary. However, as I mentioned, the FCA has one strategic objective and three operational objectives. Could my noble friend the Minister please inform the House whether the new competitiveness and growth objective is to be a secondary strategic objective or a secondary operational objective? Could she explain why the Government does not recognise that, if the FCA’s new objective is only secondary, it will not be effective in changing the FCA’s culture and behaviour to the extent necessary to achieve the Government’s ambition for the UK to be the world’s most innovative and competitive global financial centre?
The regulators are required to report on how well they are performing their new objectives, but Clause 26 suggests that the FCA sets its own homework and then marks it. Unlike the PRA, it is not required to undertake public consultation. Could my noble friend the Minister tell the House whether she thinks that the empowerment of the FCA to regulate Stock Exchange listings through the designated activities regime will make admissions more, or less, expensive and cumbersome than they have become over the past 14 years—during which, as my noble friend Lord Hill pointed out, the number of companies listed on the London Stock Exchange has declined by 40%?
I welcome the Bill and look forward to working with other noble Lords to make it a better one.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, I begin by paying tribute to my noble friend Lord Lawson. As his researcher in my spare time before I entered Parliament, then his PPS for four years, then his Economic Secretary to the Treasury for two more, I learned my politics at his feet. I also learned to admire his immense intellect, his sound judgment, and—what may be less well known to others—his incredible, uncanny insight into human psychology, enabling him to forecast in advance the reactions of individuals and the public to events long before they occurred. When I saw him in the summer, his intellect, judgment and insight were undimmed. They will be sorely missed in this House.
I want to make five simple points. First, the four major global financial centres, London, New York, Hong Kong and Singapore, are all based on common law, as are the three newest players, Dubai, Abu Dhabi and Astana. By contrast, the largest European financial centre, based on civil law code, is Frankfurt, which clocks in at number 18 as the most significant globally. That is not a coincidence; it is because common law is uniquely suited to financial markets. In recent decades, layers of civil law code have been added to Britain’s financial system, so the objective of this Bill, to return rule-making to a more common-law-based approach, is very welcome.
Secondly, it is not clear whether the Bill will achieve that objective. Historically, the common-law approach involves laws and regulations made by Parliament and explicated by the courts by the accumulation of precedents. The Bill at present will effectively hand over rule-making to independent regulators, with minimal accountability to Parliament or involvement of the courts.
Thirdly, the economic analysis of regulation is a comparatively new discipline, but its seminal conclusion is clear: we cannot rely on the beneficence of regulators. Left to their own devices—and I stress this—regulators regulate in the interests of regulators, without accountability. That is why, in practice, they mind their own backs by taking a bureaucratic, box-ticking approach to every decision, rather than focusing their resources on areas of genuine concern. As a result, bona fide businesses face pointless delays to obtain the least contentious decisions; regulators refuse to offer advice on how they will apply specific rules in specific cases, leaving businesses to face uncertainty and risk; and regulators refuse to publish reasons for their decisions, with the result that there is no coherent body of case law for firms to follow. Finally, regulators tend remorselessly to extend their remit, increasing their own importance.
I understand that amendments are likely to be proposed to make regulators more accountable to Parliament, or at least to a powerful Joint Committee of both Houses. Having chaired the Joint Committee scrutinising legislation following the great financial crisis, I can vouch for how much value the Members of this House give to such committees, as well as those of the other House, to which I then belonged. It is also important that there are amendments to require regulators to apply common law disciplines and to enable tribunals to ensure that a body of publicly available case law develops to give practitioners greater legal certainty. I am predisposed to support such amendments, as I hope will the Government.
Fourthly, I understand that the regulators have been arguing that their independence is sacrosanct. To quote Mandy Rice-Davies, “They would say that, wouldn’t they?” Of course politicians should not meddle in how regulators apply rules to specific practitioners, but the Bank of England was given independence to set interest rates for a very specific reason: because the timing of interest rate changes is electorally sensitive. There is no equivalent reason to allow the financial regulators to be immune to influence and oversight from Parliament or the courts.
Fifthly, finally and rather differently, there is no reason to extend the regulators’ competence to include climate change. The sensible path to net zero, which we have adopted in this country, is to reduce demand for fossil fuels, not to reduce their supply. If businesses overinvest in producing fossil fuels ahead of declining demand, they will lose money. That is their problem, not the regulators’. If the UK unilaterally bans investment in fossil fuels, which would be a bizarre thing to do given that we do not ban their import, other people will supply them, both here and abroad. If the world collectively restricts the supply of fossil fuels faster than we phase out demand, there will be shortages, prices will shoot up and fossil-fuel producers will make enormous profits; we will have done to ourselves what Putin has just done to the world. Giving regulators a climate objective would be either pointless or disastrous. In all other respects, I support the Bill.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I begin the first of the winding-up speeches by saying how much I welcome our three maiden speakers and by remarking on the excellence of their speeches. I look forward to their further contributions.
This a significant Bill. There are aspects of it that I strongly support. I do believe that we should tailor regulation to the UK market, although I am of the community that thinks this refers much more to the efficiency of the way that rules are applied than to the removal of gold-plating. I hope that I do not misspeak for the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, when I say that the absence of profound change would be rather welcomed by most of those I talk to in the financial services industry. I support protection for access to cash, protection against push payment scams, greater scope for credit unions and beginning attempts to regulate crypto assets. In some of these areas, we on these Benches will have amendments to strengthen those changes.
There are missed opportunities. My noble friend Lord Sharkey is leading for us to introduce an effective duty of care, unlike the box-ticking of the consumer duty, and to adjust the regulatory perimeter to properly include small businesses. My noble friend Lady Tyler will lead for us on an objective of financial inclusion, as well as dealing with issues around access to cash and to services. My noble friends Lady Northover and Lady Sheehan are leading on strengthening the net-zero and biodiversity elements of the regulators’ roles. And I think the House is now prepared to understand that my noble friend Lady Bowles is proposing changes to make the regime far more effective at enforcement, including against fraud; to drive regulatory efficiency; and to significantly improve monitoring of systemic risk and financial stability across the financial sector. I suspect that yet more amendments will be coming from her pen.
All of us on these Benches are concerned with accountability. I was going to list everyone who spoke on this issue, but I would have to read out virtually every name engaged in the debate. From my perspective, powers that had democratic oversight in the EU system will be transferred wholesale to regulators with pretty much no engagement with a meaningful democratic process once this Bill is passed. As many have said, the Treasury Select Committee has taken steps to improve its oversight, but it is far too little and I agree with those who say that it is retrospective, which is not what we need. I look to my noble friend Lady Bowles in particular to craft a series of amendments.
In this Second Reading, I want to take a step back and ask to what extent the changes introduced in this Bill, combined with what the Chancellor calls “the Edinburgh reforms”, which are, of course, largely coming through secondary legislation, reintroduce risks to the sector and to financial stability that existed prior to the 2007 crash and set us up for the next major crisis. The financial crash was driven by the deliberate disguise of risky assets and irresponsible management by major banks. Consumers endured abuse from extensive mis-selling and, astonishingly, Libor was corruptly manipulated for at least a decade.
Today, we have a shadow banking system—I have to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and the noble Lord, Lord Butler; I am afraid this glass of water will not turn into wine, as happened for the noble Lord, Lord Balfe—which now almost matches the formal banking system in size and has embedded new levels of risk. I think LDI, is an example and I say to the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, that it was the leveraging of those instruments using a loophole that caused the problem. Give them an inch and they take 10 miles, and it continues to be true of the sector.
I accept that some change to Solvency II makes sense, but many insurers see its replacement by solvency UK, which will be empowered by this Bill, as the gateway to extensive investment in high-risk illiquid assets, sub-investment grade—I have talked to the industry—without compensating capital requirements. I am very concerned at the weakening of the matching adjustment. I think the Government are mesmerised by the hope that these investments will fund upscaling of new companies, net-zero projects and high-risk infrastructure with somehow no real risk involved. I suspect a lot will go to remuneration and dividends, frankly. I am constantly referred to the Canadian Pension Plan Investment Board as evidence that a fund can safely invest in high-risk illiquid assets without being burned. I quote from the S&P Global Ratings Review of the CPP:
“The rating also reflects the agency’s opinion of a moderately high likelihood that the Canadian government would provide extraordinary support in the event of financial distress.”
I wonder how much the UK taxpayer wishes to stand behind our insurance industry—and in many senses it also involves the pension industry—with a moderately high likelihood of extraordinary support in the event of financial distress? Taxpayers cannot keep bailing out the financial sector.
The financial services sector, especially the City, is also aggressively behind the international competitiveness objective in this Bill. Many want it elevated to a primary objective. This was discussed by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, and the noble Lord, Lord Remnant, in his maiden speech. Actually, I may do injustice to the noble Lord, Lord Remnant, on that. He may have said that he is happy with it as a secondary objective. They believe that the regulators—again, I talk with the industry extensively—will find that this objective combined with the mutual recognition agreements in trade negotiations, which, of course, do not come to Parliament for approval, will force UK regulation to be lowered to match that of trade partners, and I suggest that that is very dangerous.
I quote from Paul Tucker, former deputy governor of the Bank of England, in evidence in November to the Economic Affairs Committee:
“please do not, as the UK Parliament, give the Prudential Regulation Authority a competitiveness objective. Someone would only do that if they really disliked the City of London and wanted to damage the City of London in the long run ... I can summon the ghosts of Eddie George and George Blunden in assuring you that the City does not always know its best interests over the medium to long run.”
We are of course bleeding financial services business to the EU and other global financial centres. Financial services exports to the EU are down more than 6%, and it will get seriously worse when euro clearing leaves in 2025, but regulatory arbitrage is not the answer. I am with those who are convinced that a strong rulebook is essential to the reputation and success of the financial services industry as well as the necessary bulwark against a repeat crisis which would create years of damage to the UK economy and bring many further years of austerity.
But the Chancellor has gone farther. The Edinburgh reforms set up processes to weaken the ring-fencing of core retail banking from investment and international banking. I urge the House to stop this in its tracks. Like the most reverend Primate, I sat on the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards for nearly two years. Few things fuelled irresponsible behaviour more than the banks’ ability to use what they saw as the free and insured money sitting in personal bank accounts to roll on high-risk casino banking. Add to that the lifting of the cap on bankers’ bonuses and we set up actual incentives for another risk and greed-fuelled crisis.
The Edinburgh reforms also set up a process to change the senior managers and certification regime. My dispute with the SMCR is that the FCA has made it into a box-ticking exercise that does not fulfil its primary purpose to act severely against individual senior managers who fail in their duties, either deliberately or through mismanagement and incompetence. My noble friend Lord Sharkey discussed this. Instead of returning that regime to its original purpose, the industry is very confident that the Edinburgh reforms will remove individual responsibility completely. I suggest that Members of the House visit the evidence given to the commission. Virtually every senior manager, including the CEOs, pleaded a mix of incompetence and collective responsibility to explain away the failures in their institution and why they could not be held to account.
This is a Bill we have to get right. Risk applies asymmetrically in the financial services industry. In the 2007-08 crash, almost no senior manager or executive was hurt and, indeed, almost every one of them walked away with years of bonuses based on what were really false profits. The taxpayer and ordinary people, coping with the austerity that followed—never mind the funds that had to go into the banking system—bore the real cost. On the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, we were very afraid that after a few years the lessons of the crash and the abuse would be forgotten and the new safeguards watered down. This is an industry that knows how to promote itself and speaks with a great sense of invincibility. As we work our way through the Bill, we should keep at the front of our minds the concern that those safeguards, which were so necessary, will be pushed to be watered down.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the Bill and for the positive engagement we have had with government. Today has been a constructive and considered debate, and I congratulate the three maiden speakers.
In the other place, Labour gave broad support to the Bill. Some regulatory divergence with the EU, and a more outcomes-based approach to regulation, will create some important opportunities for industry. For example, long-awaited reforms to Solvency II, if done well, will unlock capital for investment in productive assets, including those that will be needed for the green transition.
However, my party’s support had one glaring exception: the intervention power. The Government mooted this and then wisely abandoned it following widespread condemnation. This was not just the Opposition opposing it, as noble Lords might expect. The Treasury Committee, the Bank of England, the FCA and every serious City stakeholder and commentator expressed profound concern about the risk of any interference with the independence of our regulators. The foundation of the City of London’s success as a financial centre is precisely its robust regulation, shielded from the political caprices of Governments of all stripes.
Our world-class financial services sector needs its reputation as a safe and stable place to do business. The Prime Minister and his Treasury threatened that when they flew their amateurish intervention power kite, gambling with over 1 million UK jobs. Now that this threat has been removed, I am happily able to support what has made it into the Bill, with a number of important changes.
As has been outlined, the Bill implements the outcomes of the future regulatory framework review and attempts to set out a clear direction of travel for financial services regulation now that we have left the EU.
I welcome Chapters 1 and 2, which will allow us to both revoke remaining retained EU law and strengthen the regulators’ powers and oversight of important areas, such as central counterparties and financial promotions, now that we have left the EU. I look forward to scrutinising these measures in detail in Committee.
Clauses 21 and 22 allow for the regulation of stablecoins. Crypto is no longer a niche investment but is widely popular with retail investors. Many currencies are big enough that their collapse can cause systemic shocks in the “real economy”. Can the Minister give an update on the Government’s current strategic approach to crypto, in light of the FTX collapse? Clause 24 establishes new regulatory objectives of medium-term growth and competitiveness, which will help to tackle our chronically stagnant economy.
I believe that these measures have successfully struck a difficult balance between protecting financial stability and unlocking the potential of the sector to boost the UK’s growth and international competitiveness. I have to note serious concerns from stakeholders, however, that the new objectives risk encouraging bad behaviour or, indeed, that they do not go far enough. As we know from the excesses of the 2008 financial crisis, there are unscrupulous actors in the system.
If, in pursuit of growth and competitiveness, the PRA even slightly deprioritises
“promoting the safety and soundness of PRA authorised persons”,
or if the FCA deprioritises
“ensuring that the relevant markets function well”,
consumers and the markets will once again be under serious threat. It is a fact that the last crisis is now a relatively long time ago and many have forgotten the extent to which the taxpayer was required to save the London financial system and, indeed, to a large extent, the world’s financial system. I would therefore appreciate it if the Minister could assure us that the regulators’ primary objectives will and must remain their utmost concern and, crucially, of the mechanism by which she will guarantee this. If not, we will consider tabling or supporting a Committee stage amendment to this effect.
Clauses 27 to 46 provide for the accountability of the regulators to the Treasury, Parliament and the public. Clause 36, in particular, will formalise the role of the Treasury Committee.
I commend the hard work of all the parliamentarians who made efforts to secure these clauses. This is a positive step and good for the scrutiny of government policy. I was involved in the 2021 efforts to introduce scrutiny when we got relatively limited support. I am therefore pleased to see the extent of support for improved scrutiny in today’s debate. It is particularly important that there should be such consensus on this point. We may have to move well beyond equality with the Commons in our activity towards a firmer, more powerful approach, which will need to be of high quality and properly supported; the essence of much of today’s debate has been about balance.
I therefore also ask the Minister to give the House of Lords’ expert Economic Affairs Committee an equal statutory scrutiny role—or, indeed, as I have just said, going beyond that. Although it is welcome that regulators will have to reply formally to any responses the EAC gives to their consultation, I will look to amend the Bill to ensure that this House is given a similar, thorough oversight role.
As concerns the rest of this section, new powers allowing greater involvement from government in the FCA’s and PRA’s rule-making process must be carefully balanced with the need to protect their independence, which has already been threatened by the intervention power. I know that HMT works closely with the regulators informally, but I can see how a statutory right to request rule reviews and reports, on any matter and at will, could tempt overreach by an activist Chancellor. This will need careful scrutiny once again from your Lordships’ House. I would appreciate an assurance from the Minister that these new powers will be used only sparingly. An example of when she imagines they might be necessary would be useful.
Turning to what is not in the Bill, a lot of these provisions, though important, probably feel quite distant and specialist to members of the public. This is not so regarding access to cash. I strongly welcome Clauses 51 and 52 which will finally, after years of delay, protect cash access. Regrettably, the Bill does nothing to protect face-to-face banking services, nor free-of-charge access to cash. The most vulnerable in our society depend on these for financial advice and support. Again, this is not a niche issue, as 15% of transactions by volume are still made in cash. I recognise the forces referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, that will bring about the eventual end of cash, but we are not there yet. Cash will be very important for at least a couple of decades and it will need preserving in law.
However, because almost 6,000 bank branches have closed since 2015, small business owners in particular have to travel longer distances to deposit any cash they accept. This is a huge disincentive for them to accept cash; consequently, we see more and more businesses now being unwilling to do so. We must ensure that small businesses can deposit cash easily, which is why we will table an amendment guaranteeing a minimum level of free-of-charge access to cash services for the UK’s SMEs. I hope the Minister will agree that both face-to-face and free-of-charge cash access are absolutely crucial for financial inclusion. I therefore hope we can work with her and colleagues across the House to implement robust guarantees.
It is equally disappointing that the Bill misses the opportunity to address the gigantic problem of financial fraud, which costs the economy over £1 billion every year. The Bill hints at it with Clause 68, which enhances protection against authorised push payments. On this measure, reimbursement is eligible only for Faster Payments system payments and not others. The reason for this demarcation is not entirely clear. I would appreciate any light the Minister can shed.
Scammers are outpacing the Government. As the last National Fraud Strategy came out 12 years ago in 2011, since when vast billions have been lost by this Government to Covid fraudsters, I would have thought action in this area would be a quick win. I urge the Minister and her officials to think about how the Bill might be used to be proactive on this. Your Lordships’ House can expect an amendment from us to compel the Government to produce a national fraud strategy for this decade, and update it at least every five years.
Another area in which we feel the Bill lacks ambition is support for the mutual and co-operative sector. Clause 69 contains some long-overdue provisions, such as enabling credit unions to offer a wider range of products. But the Bill does not otherwise address the outdated regulatory regime faced by credit unions, building societies and co-operative banks. We have seen numerous building societies threatened with demutualisation in recent years, while the number of mutual credit unions has plummeted by more than 20% since 2016.
The UK stands apart from other advanced economies. We lack a strong system of mutually and/or co-operatively owned regional banks. A lack of consumer choice in this area has driven many people to high-interest or unethical borrowing options and is part of our financial inclusion problem. I venture that a helpful first step might be to require the FCA and PRA to report on how they have considered the needs of credit unions, building societies, mutuals and co-operative regional banks. Does the Minister agree that these models deserve parity of esteem and should be encouraged? Would she be sympathetic to an amendment to facilitate this?
Furthermore, the Bill has very little to say about green finance. Clause 25, which codifies the regulators’ responsibility under the Climate Change Act 2008, is welcome. However, the Government have promised much more radical action. It was suggested that the UK would become the world’s first net-zero financial sector. In contrast, there is still no updated green finance strategy after years of promise. The Government have had enough chances to produce it, to introduce sustainability disclosure requirements and, particularly importantly, to produce a plan for green taxonomy. I fear it now falls to this House to help the Government by amending this Bill.
Finally, turning to the Edinburgh reforms, if amendments are to be introduced through the Bill to facilitate these proposals, it is essential that the House has a full appreciation of the reforms. The Government should produce a comprehensive briefing document to avoid the requirement to move many probing amendments to clarify government intentions. We must fully understand the package and, in particular, the extent to which it may enable a weakening of the senior managers and certification regime, or a reversal of the essential ring-fencing measures designed to protect the UK from the catastrophe of a financial crash. We must keep reminding ourselves that the UK’s financial stability is essential to encouraging investment and growth. To abolish ring-fencing and the stability it brings to facilitate growth is a contradiction in terms.
In sum, I hope I have made clear my support for the Bill, which marks an important step in the journey of our financial services sector outside the European Union. In this debate there has been an amazing degree of consensus. Outstanding issues in each of these areas have, in general, been issues of balance. No serious, obvious political divisions have arisen—I even found myself agreeing with the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, so it could not have been too bad. I ask the Minister to recognise that there will be a need for significant change to adjust those balances and that force, I hope, will come from overwhelming consensus.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate for their valuable contributions, which reflect the breadth and significance of this Bill. I will try to get through as many points as possible but, looking at the stack of papers before me, I think I have been overambitious—so I will dive straight in.
Turning first to the future regulatory framework review, which is a once in a generation opportunity to update our rulebook and tailor it to UK markets, as I have said before, the Bill revokes retained EU law relating to financial services so it can be replaced by a coherent and agile approach designed for the UK, building on the FiSMA model. I reassure my noble friend Lord Hodgson that, when the repeal of retained EU law commences and the Government lay secondary legislation to replace it, the Treasury will fully assess the impacts of the exercise of these powers in secondary legislation. We will conduct impact assessments and post-implementation reviews in line with the Cabinet Office guidance and the Government’s Better Regulation Framework.
My noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, probed further on the process for replacing the different regulations and Clause 4 and the procedures associated with it. The affirmative procedure applies to statutory instruments made under Clause 4, except where the power is used to restate either EU tertiary legislation or legislation which was originally made under the negative procedure, or where there is no modification of retained EU law. In this case, it is appropriate to follow previous precedent and apply the negative procedure. EU tertiary legislation is technically complex and the same is true where the negative procedure was used for UK statutory instruments—these were technical SIs. Given the thousands of pages of retained EU law to deal with, as has been referenced in this debate, it is important that we ensure that Parliament can focus on potential policy implications from the changes we may make to retained EU law.
I turn now to the debate on the objectives for the regulators which are the starting point for the framework we will be taking forward. Those objectives are set out in FSMA and are amended in this Bill in two key ways: the introduction of the secondary objective on international competitiveness and medium and long-term growth, and a new regulatory principle to have regard to the Government’s net-zero commitment. The noble Lords, Lord Sharkey and Lord Tunnicliffe, the noble Baronesses, Lady Kramer and Lady Bryan of Partick, and others raised concerns about ensuring that the secondary objective does not dilute the regulators’ focus on the primary objective, whereas many other noble Lords spoke in favour of the new secondary objective. Noble Lords such as my noble friend Lord Bridges were perhaps concerned that it may not go far enough. The Government believe that having growth and competitiveness as a secondary objective strikes the right balance between providing a new focus on advancing medium to long-term growth and competitiveness while maintaining the regulators’ focus on their existing objectives. It provides a clear hierarchy of objectives to consider, and the regulators will need to balance those objectives and consider them in a way which respects that hierarchy.
The PRA’s existing secondary competition objective provides the model for how that hierarchy operates: the regulators must advance their secondary objectives in so far as that is compatible with their primary objective. However, with the introduction of the secondary objective, the Government expect that it will fulfil the expectations of many of those who have spoken in this House in support of delivering a step change in how the regulators approach growth and competitiveness, resulting in more proportionate rule-making while still ensuring high regulatory standards. As my noble friend Lord Remnant said in his excellent maiden speech, the UK is not unique in giving its regulators such an additional objective. He demonstrated the expertise that he will bring to this House, particularly in debates on this Bill.
The noble Lords, Lord Sharkey and Lord Butler, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, spoke of the context for some of their concern around the introduction of the secondary objective and the previous structure we had for regulating financial services prior to the financial crisis. The FSA’s objectives prior to the financial crisis were market confidence, public awareness, consumer protection and the reduction of financial crime. The FSA did not have a financial stability objective. Noble Lords are right that one of the regulatory principles that the FSA had to take into account was the international character of financial services and markets, and the desirability of maintaining the competitive position of the United Kingdom. However, the post-crisis reforms focused on the institutional design and allocation of responsibilities, with the FSA abolished and replaced by both the PRA, which focuses on the safety and soundness of the financial sector, and the FCA, which focuses on market integrity, consumer protection and competition. The Government’s view is that those post-crisis structural reforms, along with the regulators’ existing primary objectives, mean that the environment in which the regulators are considering competitiveness is very different from that which has gone before.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman, Lady Sheehan and Lady Northover, and the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, questioned the Government’s decision to make the net-zero commitment a regulatory principle rather than an objective. The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, asked about the difference between the two, while my noble friend Lord Bridges asked what would happen if objectives and principles are in tension with each other. On the question of objectives versus principles, the FCA and the PRA are required to advance their objectives when discharging their functions. The regulatory principles, on the other hand, are principles that the FCA and the PRA are required to take into account when discharging their functions. Having the net-zero target as a regulatory principle ensures that the Government’s commitment to achieve net zero will be embedded across the FCA’s and the PRA’s considerations when they discharge their general functions. The net-zero target is a cross-cutting government policy that we have seen in many different pieces of legislation that we have taken forward through this House. On the specific goal, many of the levers sit outside financial services regulation, so it is appropriately progressed by the FCA and the PRA as a regulatory principle, which means that they will consider it in advancing their own objectives.
Another significant focus of today’s debate has been, rightly, on how we hold the regulators to account for their progress in furthering their objectives and regulatory principles and their broader approach to regulation. Any Minister would be wise to listen carefully when an issue draws such a diverse set of voices from across the House as we have heard today.
It is worth setting out the parliamentary scrutiny and oversight procedures that are already a key part of the FiSMA process and how the Bill builds on those. There are already robust mechanisms to ensure appropriate parliamentary scrutiny of the regulators. Select Committees play an extremely important role in this process, as we have heard. As noble Lords know and have pointed out, they have the power to call for persons, papers and records that they consider relevant, and committees in both Houses regularly exercise this power to hold the regulators to account. Senior officials from the regulators attend general accountability hearings. For example, the FCA chair and chief executive appear before the Treasury Select Committee, or TSC, twice a year, and the chief executive of the PRA appears before the TSC after the publication of each annual report.
Parliament, through the TSC, conducts the pre-commencement hearings following the appointment of the chair and chief executive of the FCA, and the chief executive of the PRA. Most recently, the TSC held a pre-commencement hearing for the new FCA chair on 14 December before he takes up his role next month. FiSMA requires the Treasury to lay the regulators’ annual reports before Parliament.
The Bill builds on and strengthens these existing mechanisms of parliamentary scrutiny. First, the Bill requires the regulators to notify the Treasury Select Committee when they publish a consultation. Secondly, the Bill requires the regulators to respond formally to representations made by any parliamentary committee. I note the suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, that the Economic Affairs Committee of the House of Lords should also be notified, and I am happy to discuss that proposal with him as the Bill progresses. I note that the noble Lord, along with many other noble Lords, proposed alternative committee structures, including Joint Committee structures, to scrutinise the work of the regulators. But here it is Parliament’s responsibility to determine the best structure for its ongoing scrutiny of the regulators, and the Government do not intend to make any recommendations to Parliament on this matter. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, and others, I am sure that those responsible for determining those structures in Parliament will follow our debate on this question very carefully.
However, I would add that the additional accountability and reporting mechanisms provided by this Bill are designed to assist Parliament and government in holding the regulators to account. For example, when the regulators make rules using the powers that FiSMA gives them, they are required to do so in a way that advances their objectives. When notifying the TSC of a consultation, the regulators will be required to set out the ways in which their proposals advance the objectives and are compatible with their regulatory principles. This will support ex ante scrutiny of proposed rules at a point in the process where there is scope to influence the final outcome.
The changes that the Bill makes regarding cost-benefit analysis, including the additional challenge provided through the formation of a new cost-benefit analysis panel, will ensure that Parliament has access to high-quality information on the expected costs and benefits of new regulatory proposals to inform their scrutiny. The Treasury may also make recommendations to the regulators on aspects of the Government’s economic policy to which the regulators should have regard, known as remit letters. The new provisions in Clause 33, with equivalent provision made elsewhere in the Bill for the Bank of England and the Payment Systems Regulator, will require the regulators to respond in writing to these recommendations and the Treasury to lay the responses before Parliament. Clause 37 enables the Treasury to require the regulators to publish relevant information on a more frequent basis than in their annual reports, or in greater detail. This can also be used to support parliamentary scrutiny and oversight. For example, it could be used to publish further information on authorisation decisions, as highlighted by my noble friend Lord Hill.
These changes are designed to support Parliament in fulfilling its existing role in scrutinising the work of regulators. If there is a concern that any of the regulators’ rules are not operating effectively, the Bill gives the Treasury a power to require the regulator to review its rules when this is in the public interest. When appropriate, the Treasury may specify that the review should be carried out by an independent person rather than the regulator.
I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, that the Government expect that this power will be used only exceptionally, and that any such direction must be laid before Parliament, but I think noble Lords will agree that it is an important element of these reforms. I also expect that, in considering the exercise of this power, the Treasury will consider representations from relevant parties, including within Parliament.
The provisions we have put forward in the Bill seek to balance the operational independence of the regulators with clear accountability mechanisms and appropriate democratic input. We have heard a range of views on where that balance should lie, and the Government are confident that we have struck it in an appropriate way. We will continue to listen and will discuss further ideas in Committee in a thoughtful and constructive way, and will welcome suggestions from noble Lords in this area, including from my noble friend Lord Ashcombe, who I congratulate on his maiden speech, as I do my noble friend Lady Lawlor on her contribution to the debate today.
More broadly, on the regulators’ capacity to take on their further responsibilities, my noble friend Lord Grimstone asked about the FCA board. The Government believe that the board comprises members with extensive and broad experience in financial services, consumer advocacy and governance, among other things. The Government are further strengthening the FCA board this year, with Ashley Alder starting as the new FCA chair, as I already referenced. The Government are also running a campaign to appoint at least two new non-executive directors.
The noble Lords, Lord Sikka and Lord Mountevans, asked about FCA capacity more broadly. As noble Lords will be aware, the FCA is part-way through a transformation programme designed to make it a more innovative, assertive and adaptive regulator. Among other things, it aims to ensure that the FCA can make fast and effective decisions and prioritise the right outcomes for consumers, markets and firms. The Government continue to engage the regulator on its work here.
On innovation more broadly, many noble Lords asked about the Government’s strategic approach to crypto assets. We are committed to creating a regulatory environment in which firms can innovate while crucially maintaining financial stability and regulatory standards, so that people can use new technologies safely and reliably. We have already taken action in the area of crypto—for example, bringing it into the remit of the anti-money laundering regime and banning the sale of crypto asset derivatives to consumers. We are committed to consulting on a broader set of crypto assets, including those primarily used as a means of investment, such as bitcoin. My understanding is that it is still the intention for the Royal Mint to create a new NFT, and an update on this work will be provided in due course. It will be the regulations under the Bill that will allow for the regulation of stablecoins, backed by fiat currency. I can say in response to the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, that specific definitions will be provided for that in secondary legislation.
The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, asked about the operation of regulatory sandboxes. The Government have emphasised that the testing of technology and practices in an FMI sandbox should not compromise existing regulatory outcomes, including market integrity and financial stability. The Treasury and regulators will very carefully consider what sort of investors should be able to use platforms in a sandbox. If consumers are allowed to use a platform participating in a sandbox, it is essential that the platform operates in a way that is consistent with existing regulatory objectives relating to consumer protection.
I turn to consumer protection and financial inclusion, an issue raised by a number of noble Lords, many of whom have done very important work in this area, and I am grateful to them for that. The noble Baronesses, Lady Twycross, Lady Bryan and Lady Tyler, the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, my noble friend Lord Holmes and others highlighted the important role that cash continues to play for many. The Government are committed to ensuring through the Bill reasonable access to cash across the UK. The FCA is best placed to deliver an effective, agile and evidence-based approach to regulating access to cash that can endure over time, and the Bill will allow for that. In approaching the policy statement that will inform this, the Government will consider how effective industry schemes have been in ensuring reasonable, free access to cash for individuals, and the policy statement is the right place to consider this matter further. The Government will reflect on the views of parliamentarians when crafting that statement.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans asked how rurality will be considered in that process. The FCA will be obliged to consider local as well as national deficiencies in cash, which would be relevant in rural areas; even if it is not subject to the same rural-proofing guidance, it will be subject to the equality duties around protected characteristics in undertaking that work. Where closure of bank branches affects access to cash, intervening in a closure would be within the scope of the FCA’s new powers in the Bill, provided that this fulfilled the purpose of seeking to ensure reasonable provision of cash access services. More broadly, decisions on in-person banking services are made by the providers of those services. However, that is still governed by the FCA’s existing powers and recently strengthened guidance on actions that must be taken when people seek to close branches to ensure that customers are treated fairly.
Financial fraud was raised by the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Tunnicliffe, my noble friend Lord Northbrook and many others. In financial services specifically, this Bill takes a crucial step forward in protecting victims of APP fraud. I emphasise that the measure enables the Payment Systems Regulator to take action in relation to any payment system that it regulates, not just faster payments. However, the initial focus is on faster payments because that is where the vast majority of APP fraud currently takes place. The Government expect protections for consumers in other payment systems to keep pace with those established for faster payments.
More broadly, noble Lords are right that tackling fraud requires a unified and co-ordinated response from government, law enforcement and the private sector. I attended a meeting of the Joint Fraud Taskforce, which brings those different players together, just before the end of last year. The Government are committed to publishing their national fraud strategy later this year.
The consumer duty versus the duty of care was raised by many noble Lords. The FCA’s consumer duty consultation paper explains that there is a lack of consensus on exactly what constitutes a duty of care in this context. It cannot be exhaustively defined, but the FCA’s view is that a duty of care is a positive obligation on a person to ensure that their conduct towards others meets a set standard. It believes the consumer duty meets that definition.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, rightly and powerfully raised the challenges those with mental health issues can face when accessing or using financial services. The Government have taken quite a bit of action in this area, such as the introduction of the breathing space scheme for problem debt. The FCA has also been clear about the need for firms to respond flexibly to the needs of customers with characteristics of vulnerability, which includes mental health.
Buy now, pay later was raised by the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Balfe. We committed to bring this into regulation and will publish a consultation on draft legislation very soon. We intend to lay secondary legislation in mid-2023, so action on that is under way.
Finally, I am conscious of time, but I must turn more broadly to sustainability and green finance issues, as raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman, Lady Sheehan and Lady Northover, and many others. They are right that the financial services sector has a critical role to play in global efforts to meet net zero. That is why we have included the measure in the Bill to amend the regulators’ regulatory principles to advance the net-zero objective.
I will not dwell on that any further, except to respond to a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, on the French and German regulators having climate change objectives. The codes and objectives for French and German regulators focus on instances of financial risk and greenwashing; the FCA can already consider these issues through advancing its operational objectives to ensure appropriate consumer protection and protect market integrity, and the PRA can similarly consider climate-related financial risks under its existing objective to ensure the safety and soundness of its regulated firms.
More broadly, noble Lords asked about measures that go beyond those in this Bill. I reassure them that work continues on taking forward the policies in the Greening Finance road map, including introducing economy-wide sustainability disclosure requirements—the FCA has launched its consultation on this already—and introducing transition planning requirements. We have also launched the transition plan task force, which has published its consultation, which will close next month. We are committed to updating our Green Finance Strategy early this year, setting out our approach on the green taxonomy and having a net-zero aligned financial sector. I am sure we will have many more discussions on this topic in Committee, which I look forward to, including on deforestation, which was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, and my noble friend Lord Randall.
On deforestation, financial institutions rely on the information disclosed by companies trading in these forest-risk commodities in order to take action, so a global framework for this disclosure is needed to make any action by UK financial services and firms overseas workable. That is exactly why we are a leading backer on the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures. I was really happy to meet the task force in Montreal at COP 15 to discuss its work and how we are taking it forward.
I am out of time. I will pick up further questions from the debate in writing; I have not been able to cover them all here. To conclude, this is a landmark Bill, which I think many of the speakers in this debate have recognised, and the most ambitious reform of our regulatory framework in over 20 years. The Government are committed to building an open, green and technologically advanced financial services sector to deliver better outcomes for consumers and businesses. I am confident that the Financial Services and Markets Bill delivers on this commitment.
Baroness Penn
That the Bill be committed to a Grand Committee, and that it be an instruction to the Grand Committee that they consider the Bill in the following order: Clause 1, Schedule, Clause 2, Schedule 2, Clauses 3 to 8, Schedule 3, Clauses 9 to 13, Schedule 4, Clauses 14 to 20, Schedule 5, Clause 21, Schedule 6, Clauses 22 to 48, Schedule 7, Clauses 49 to 51, Schedule 8, Clause 52, Schedule 9, Clause 53, Schedule 10, Clause 54, Schedule 11, Clause 55, Schedules 12 and 13, Clauses 56 to 69, Schedule 14, Clauses 70 to 79, Title.
Financial Services and Markets Bill
Wednesday 25th January 2023
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeFinancial Services and Markets Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 80-I(a) Amendments for Grand Committee (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (24 Jan 2023)
Lord Sharkey