Packaged Retail and Insurance-based Investment Products (Retail Disclosure) (Amendment) Regulations 2024

Debate between Baroness Blake of Leeds and Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted

Wednesday 13th November 2024 Grand Committee

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)]

I recognise that the Minister is saying that, ideally, the Government and the regulator have done what they could and industry should follow. Of the two, the Government have been clearer, but we now have a standoff where the regulator says that it is industry’s business and industry says that it is the regulator’s business. Therefore, the starvation of funds from worthy causes is set to continue for at least another year. These are tens of billions of pounds going into just the kinds of things that the Government want: green energy, social housing and infrastructure.

We are talking about tens of billions of pounds—potentially more than you get from an investment summit—so it is strange that the Government are not giving a little more oomph. I imagine the Minister cannot say this straight off, but can the Government strengthen their message and say that these things should be implemented now, or at least when the statutory instrument passes at the latest? There will be no certainty for the future of the investment trust sector if all this is delayed, not actively but passively, for another year.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I hear the passion in the noble Baroness’s voice—I think we all can—and I appreciate the frustrations expressed. But, as set out and agreed by this Parliament, it is for the regulator to set detailed rules in consultation with the industry. That is the position we are in.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness. I will write to her to lay out the answers to the questions that she raises. I refer her back to the comments I made about costs earlier in answering.

To expand slightly on where we were before, this is an important moment for everyone. It is appropriate as we move away from EU language to reflect the significant reform of the new regime, which will be tailored to UK firms and markets. We should make sure that we recognise where we are in that process. In practice, the definition of consumer composite investments is closely aligned with the EU PRIIPs. The regime will continue to apply to products where the amount repayable to the investor is subject to fluctuations because of exposure to reference values or the performance of assets not directly purchased by the investor.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)]

That is the whole problem. If you purchase investment trust shares, the price is set by the market. Obviously, the underlying investments in some way reflect up into it, but the big difference is that the market decides the value all in, just as it does for any other company.

Let us take two examples. You could buy shares in Tritax Big Box, which is an investment trust that owns property of the sort that Amazon and data centres use. It manages those properties and that comes off what the company earns. It does not go knocking on the doors of investors saying, “We have just repainted—hand over some money”, but, effectively, that is what any investor in Tritax Big Box is being told: when you buy those shares, the management costs are going to be deducted from the value of what you own. That is shown in illustrations on platforms. It is completely misleading, so it frightens investors away and we have the scenario we have. It competes against SEGRO, which is listed as an ordinary company. It owns the same kind of buildings and does the same kind of maintenance. When you go to buy SEGRO shares nobody says, “By the way, you are going to have to have deductions”, but the structures are the same. They are both listed companies. The only difference is that one lists under a different part of the listing rules than the other, but the way the costs work and what is internal to the company is exactly the same.

The definition of CCI as the amount repayable cannot be on the basis of the underlying assets. You can sell your shares only on the market. The amendment has been slightly tailored to say “shares or” to cover the point. I know it is difficult when one first comes across these things, but small semantic things make a huge difference to whether something for good is invested in or is not.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I refer to the answer that I gave earlier about costs, but I recognise the detail within the noble Baroness’s question. I commit to write to her on the detail that she raises.

On confidence, in line with the FSMA model of regulation, it is for the expert regulators to set out firm-facing rules. I absolutely agree with that. The new CCI regime will be tailored to the UK, with rules that are more proportionate to ensure that consumers have sufficient information to make informed investment decisions. The regulators remain fully accountable to Parliament and the Government for their actions. In terms of the model of regulation, the House agreed this under FSMA 2023.

Moving on, the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, spoke about the costs presented in the European MiFID Template. The EMT is an industry-led initiative to support the sharing of key disclosure metrics across the distribution chain. It is not required by legislation. Although I recognise that there may be some frustrations in the sector, the adaptation of the EMT feed to reflect changes to disclosure requirements is a matter for the industry.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)]

I am sorry to interrupt again. I can accept that the EMT is an industry standard; strangely, the open-ended funds sector organisation designed it. However, if the result of something that the industry does is systematically misinforming the market, surely that is a matter for the regulator to act on, rather than just saying, “Oh, it’s the industry”. The Minister just said that the regulator is accountable to the Government. If the regulator allows such misinformation to continue despite its consumer duty, is that not the point at which the Government must intervene, if the regulator is accountable to them?

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

At this stage in this debate, let me say that I will write to the noble Baroness to lay out the detail on her points.

Looking forward, the important thing is that all Members with an interest engage actively with the upcoming consultation—I feel as though I do not need to say this. Of course, the detail around these rules will be absolutely critical. This goes across the retail disclosure on the FCA consultation. We look forward to the detailed rules that will be published later this year. I think we all know that, last year, the previous Government consulted on the approach, receiving widespread support as a result of that consultation.

That leaves me to thank noble Lords for this informative debate. I know that further discussions on this matter in the Chamber are coming up on Friday. I look forward to seeing the content of the debate as we move forward but I hope that, at this stage, noble Lords will join me in supporting these regulations.

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill

Debate between Baroness Blake of Leeds and Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted

Report stage
Tuesday 27th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)]

My Lords, my name is on several amendments relating to failure to prevent fraud, and I support what has been said already and what was said extensively in Grand Committee on both failure to prevent fraud and the identification doctrine. If the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, moves his Amendments 110 and 125A, we on these Benches will support them.

I retabled my amendment on regulatory failure to prevent, which was well supported in Committee. I do not intend to move it but I have tabled it as a reminder that we have not yet covered the enablers, as the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, spoke about. This is probably the best route to do so, with regulators being perhaps best able to understand where actions could or could not have been taken. This recommendation was encompassed within the Fraud Act report.

We have, I suppose, gone a long way, and the Government have gone a long way within the remit covered by the Law Commission, which unfortunately included the harm aspect. As a lot of the crime that has come about through this enabling channel has been since that report was commissioned, this is unfinished business; we will necessarily have to come to this again. For now, we should strengthen the government proposals through Amendments 110 and 125A.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, I start by acknowledging the great progress that has been made on the failure to prevent process through the debates in the House of Commons. There was significant movement there, which we of course welcome.

I say at the outset that if the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, is minded to divide the House on Amendments 110 and 125A, he will have the support of these Benches. There are very good reasons for that, as have been outlined in the debate today. The statistics, particularly the 0.5% figure, are startling. Surely, we all need to take this incredibly seriously if, as the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, said, we are serious about tackling the wider fraud issues, which seem to be growing daily. The numbers of people we all know personally who are affected by this shows the sheer extent of the problem.

I will make the very strong point that the issue of costs and burdens on SMEs has been overemphasised. If these processes are tightened in the way proposed, those very businesses will themselves be protected by the action taken on other companies. In particular, I completely support the extension to the money laundering provision in Amendment 125A.

We have had a really good debate throughout our proceedings on these measures. It would be so disappointing if, at this final stage, we did not go the full distance we can at this point, recognising, as we know, that more will need to be done in the future. We have the opportunity now and we should seize it.