Financial Services Bill

Debate between Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle and Baroness Henig

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 22nd February 2021 Grand Committee

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]]

My Lords, Amendments 2, 6, 7 and 87 seek variously to urge the FCA, the PRA and the Bank of England to take into account the competitiveness of the United Kingdom. This is a dangerous concept that can only harm Britain and our collective national security and well-being. Competition implies people winning and losing, trying to beat down others to push ahead of them, taking risks and cutting corners. We all know where that ended up in 2008.

Instead, we should aim for a more secure financial sector that provides more useful, effective and safe services to individuals and the real economy. That would have a global benefit. If we have a decent financial sector with good standards across the globe, everyone wins. If we treat this as a zero-sum game, we lose and the world loses.

The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, spoke—complained, it would be fair to say—about regulators being, by their nature, risk-averse. Well, I, like many other Britons seeking to avoid a replay of 2008, applaud that existing risk aversion and seek to strengthen, not weaken, it. Competitiveness has been, and continues to be in the calls of many, exactly comparable to downgrading. That includes relaxing capital requirements for financial institutions; reducing enforcement of criminal behaviour by financial actors, creating tax loopholes for billionaires or multinational corporations; and having weak competition policy that allows a small number of firms to dominate markets and exploit British consumers, workers and taxpayers. This all reflects the model of free ports that the Government seem so keen on.

The winners in this race are plutocrats and giant multinationals. This kind of competitiveness is fundamentally anti-democratic and profoundly destabilising in its contributions to inequality. Trickle-down economics have long been discredited; financial services that concentrate money in the hands of the few only harm the rest of us. I note that Amendment 3 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, tries to provide a form of insurance, as she outlined, but the best answer, as the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, said, is not to insert “competitive” into the Bill at all.

The last global financial crisis was substantially the fruit of competitive financial deregulation in Britain and elsewhere, as Britain and other countries increasingly relaxed rules to attract capital, thus allowing financial actors to take highly profitable risks at the great expense of the rest of us. Separately, Britain has abjectly failed to prosecute money laundering via the City of London. Non-enforcement is a deliberate competitive strategy used by many tax havens. This corrupts our institutions and gives potentially hostile secret actors leverage over our economy and politics.

In short, we need an upgraded financial system, with tighter controls and a demand that it meets the needs of individuals and the real economy, as our debate on the first group of amendments focused on. This would support the financial integrity of our systems and benefit the UK economy, particularly our security and ability to meet everyone’s basic needs. A system driven by competitiveness benefits a few at society’s expense—that is, at the expense of small and medium-sized enterprises, even larger enterprises, and the vast majority of individuals.

There is also an important regional aspect to this inequality. A competitive financial system will benefit wealthy parts of London while harming Britain’s struggling regions. A better, upgraded financial system, spread out around the country, with local banks meeting local needs securely and safely, would be a significant improvement indeed.

The idea of competitiveness ensures that costs are spread across the majority of the UK population, with lost tax revenues and financial crises, while the benefits are realised in corporate headquarters mostly in the wealthy parts of London, overseas and, very often, offshore. No strategy that seeks to level up the regions based on a “competitiveness of the financial sector” agenda can possibly succeed.

We will come later to my Amendment 123, which starts from an extensive analysis of the “finance curse” and calls for an impact report on the costs of the financial sector—something I do not believe the Government have any kind of handle on, despite the hard work of a small number of underfunded campaigners and academics. A large body of cross-country evidence from such radical organisations as the IMF and the Bank for International Settlements shows that there is an optimal size for a country’s financial sector, where it provides the services that an economy and population need. Expansion beyond this size causes damage, increases inequality, boosts criminal behaviour and creates many other ills. We need a safe, balanced financial sector that does not suck in skills, resources and capital, taking them away from the businesses that need our essential—and currently often badly served—needs, whether food security or construction, public transport or care.

We are not Tudor buccaneers, whatever some members of our governing party might think. We live in an unstable, insecure world buffeted by environmental, economic and social shocks. We are seeking a new place in the world—we have much talk of global Britain —so it is worth thinking for a second about what the world sees when it looks at the UK financial sector. I looked through a report from the Tax Justice Network in 2019, which noted:

“The UK with its ‘corporate tax haven network’ is by far the world’s greatest enabler of corporate tax avoidance”.


I note figures out just overnight from the Jubilee Debt Campaign, which show that of the debt owed by 73 countries eligible for debt relief under the G20 initiative, 30% is owed to private lenders in the UK. If we want a respected, admired place in the world—something that could be only to our benefit—then an outsized financial sector, one “competing hard”, will cost us dear.

I will speak briefly to Amendment 102 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, which importantly promotes transparency about how the Government seek to direct our international oversight and financial governance. I also express very strong support for Amendment 121 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, which refers to country-by-country reporting. We know that giant multinational companies shuffle money around like a fast-moving, shady casino dealer, making their profits in one place but seeking to shift them to places competing—we are back to that word again—on the basis of minimal regulation and taxation. Who then pays for the schools and hospitals their customers need? Who pays for the maintenance of roads, the police, the courts? They take their profits and run, and the rest of us pay.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)]

The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, has scratched from this group so I now call the next speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Debate between Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle and Baroness Henig

Consideration of Commons amendments
Monday 14th December 2020 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)]

The question is that Motion B1, as an amendment to Motion B, be agreed to. I have had no notice of anyone in the Chamber wishing to speak—in fact, I call the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I rise to speak physically in the Chamber for the first time since March, so I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I feel a little rusty. Although we refer to people taking part remotely and those in the Chamber being treated equally for many procedures in your Lordships’ House, that is unfortunately not the case with ping-pong. That is why I felt that I needed to be here.

In reflecting on that, I want to comment very briefly on the earlier discussion about procedures in your Lordships’ House, because I respectfully disagree with the many people who said that they wanted to go back to how things were before as soon as possible. I think that the remote participation that enables people to participate who, for all kinds of reasons—whether it be disability, caring responsibilities or all kinds of other reasons—may not be able to be in the Chamber is something that we should keep. Of course, remote voting allows a wider democracy, as much as we can, which would surely be a good thing.

I am in favour of Motion B1, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara. I will focus in particular on the environment side of it and cite Alok Sharma, the Government’s chair of the COP 26 talks, who spoke yesterday at the climate ambition summit. He pointed out that 45 leaders had announced new climate target plans for 2030, 24 had committed to net zero and 20 had talked about strengthening adaptation. But we are still not on track for 1.5 degrees. As we start to gear up for COP 26, we are starting to see the revival of “One-point-five to stay alive”. We have a long way to go.

If we look at the situation of the nations of the UK, there is no doubt, sadly, that leadership has often not come from Westminster. On everything from home energy efficiency to plastic bag taxes and bottle deposit schemes—all kinds of environmental issues—leadership has come from the nations of the UK other than England. So, if we do not allow that to happen, we are cutting off the opportunity of progressing faster, which I suggest is not in line with the Government’s intentions.

I was speaking at the weekend at an event focusing on the beauty and diversity of the Amazon. There is an innate strength in diversity, in difference, and in different places trying different things and approaches. If you shut that off, as we will by not having this amendment or something very like it, we will actually hamper the efforts on the environment which the Government, I am pleased to say, tell us they are so keen to succeed with.

Finally, I will pick up on the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, on our first group of amendments about the “Take back control” issue. When participating remotely, or in the Chamber, I often find myself shaking my head as speakers say, “We are all supporters of the union here”. I believe in subsidiarity and in local decision-making, but I will offer some free advice to those who want to keep the existing arrangements. Squeezing people tighter and taking away independence or rights that have been given is not a way for that to continue. In your Lordships’ House, we have been awaiting for quite some time the very important domestic abuse Bill, which will bring the idea of coercive control into our law. If we attempt to coerce people and take away their independence and the rights that they already have, I would suggest that it will make them seek more independence.

I regret the fact that Motion B1 has been diminished from earlier, similar versions of the amendment. I regret the loss of animal welfare and cultural expression, but it is crucial that we keep the environmental standards and protection. As the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, said, how in the middle of a pandemic could we not keep the opportunity for every Government in the United Kingdom to protect the public health of their people as best they can?

Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle and Baroness Henig

Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 9th September 2020 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)]

I am sorry to interrupt, but somebody else wants to ask a question. I shall let them ask the question and then come back to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, to let her finish. I am really sorry about this. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, has made a late request to ask a question and I think we should let her ask it.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]]

I thank noble Lords and apologise for my lateness; I am having a very bad day with technology. I tried to send the email about 30 minutes ago.

I join other noble Lords in being very disappointed given the powerful and wide-ranging contributions from all sides of the Committee, both spiritual and temporal. In asking my question, I think I need to declare my position as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I wonder whether the Minister can offer us one concession tonight or whether she will go away and think about making this concession. I refer to Amendment 68 and to subsection (2) of the proposed new clause which refers to children in the care of a local authority. I do not need to tell noble Lords that local authority funding is extremely stretched and extremely fragile and that there are huge demands on children’s services. As a responsible institutional parent, a local authority would surely want to secure citizenship for a child in its care, but that would be taking money away from other services, so will the Minister consider at least thinking about ensuring that if there is no waiving of fees, local authorities are recompensed for the cost of those fees?

Agriculture Bill

Debate between Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle and Baroness Henig

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansarad) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansarad): House of Lords
Tuesday 7th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

I shall have to move the amendment on the noble Earl’s behalf. I beg to move Amendment 1.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]]

My Lords, I have attached my name to Amendment 1 and shall speak also to a number of other amendments in the group. I thank the noble Earl for tabling Amendment 1: it was something I was thinking about. Indeed, I spoke to the Table Office, because much of the discussion around the Bill has focused on the fact that it provides powers but not duties. I suggested to the Table Office that we could go through the whole Bill and change every “may” to “must”, and those in the Table Office persuaded me that that might not be the best way forward. I thank them for their patience and all their expert assistance. I think the noble Earl has managed to focus on the key part of the Bill, where “may” should be changed to “must”. I know he tabled it as a probing amendment, but we should think about this as a serious way forward: a duty to look after the key principles of carbon storage, ecosystems, the state of our natural world and healthy food. These should be a duty of the Minister.

Amendments 8, 22, 25, 31 and 50, in the name of my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, are all about air pollution, which is a huge gaping hole in the Bill. It looks at water, at soil and at our ecosystems on the ground, but does not talk about the air; yet it is all part of an interrelated system and we know that air pollution and farming issues are closely interrelated.

I have also attached my name to Amendment 67 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, which says:

“Financial assistance may only be given for Environmental Land Management Schemes Tier 2 and Tier 3 if those individual schemes are in line with the local Nature Recovery Strategy”.


This addresses a crucial point: we need joined-up, systematic thinking about the nature of our countryside. At the moment, we have a number of silos. We have the Environment Bill, the Agriculture Bill and the now delayed food strategy, and we need to make sure that these are all joined up and working together, not at cross-purposes to each other. We need a whole-landscape approach, something the Wildlife Trust has been doing a lot of excellent work on, although we have to notice that what we see in the Environment Bill will lay new duties on councils, which, as we discussed in Oral Questions, already have enormous burdens on them.

Finally, Amendment 234 in my name, would add a clause headed “Agricultural extension”. It has notable similarities with an amendment in another group—Amendment 122, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. Both of us are getting at the point that farmers need reliable, independent, secure, certain expert advice. In preparing for today I looked at the debates in your Lordships’ House back in 1996 and 1997 when the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service was privatised. There were some very telling words from the late Lord Mackie of Benshie, who talked about how, since the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service had started charging for its services, less use was being made of them. Some people —perhaps those who needed them most—could not afford them.

The state of our countryside and our agricultural land is a matter of national interest. It is something that we cannot leave to market forces. We have seen, in terms of agricultural extension and advice, a huge reduction, huge privatisation and a move towards many farmers being forced to take advice from the suppliers of agricultural chemicals and agricultural seeds, and even from their buyers, the supermarkets. Farmers need independent, expert advice. We need people to be able to develop careers in providing that advice. If we have an expert on growing potatoes in the south-west who spends decades focusing just on that, that is very hard to do in the private sector. If potatoes have a few bad years, no one can afford to pay that person and they do not have the chance to develop their skills in the way that they would in an advisory service.

We have to look at the whole system here. Part of a proper agricultural system has to be a government-run advice service. That is something that has existed historically for a very long time. It can a be traced back three millennia: in ancient China we know that there was a government Minister advising farmers on how to improve agricultural systems. This is a matter of national interest; it needs national involvement and a proper advice service.