Alternative Investment Fund Managers Regulations 2013

Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted Excerpts

Monday 13th November 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, I agree with my noble friend in recognising that investment trusts play a vital role in raising capital for infrastructure projects across the UK. The FCA is of course independent, but I understand that it is taking forward work to look at what can be done in this area while we take forward the wider programme of measures to repeal retained EU law and replace it with UK rules that will help to address the issue that she raises.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)]

Does the Minister recognise that the debate around aggregated cost disclosure and associated errors arising from misapplied legislation has highlighted difficulties of amending retained EU law rapidly and the absence of FCA powers to amend legislation or issue useful forbearance notices when needed, given concerns about FiSMA Section 138D on right of action? Can the Minister explain whether His Majesty’s Government are considering how emergency action or forbearance can safely be introduced to avoid being in a tighter static regulatory bind than when we were in the EU, where ESMA had more flexibility and power?

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

I reassure the noble Baroness that the FCA has the appropriate powers to implement regulatory forbearance where it considers it appropriate, but it must operate within the legal framework and it does not have the powers to amend legislation—that is for this House to do. It is right that forbearance can only be a temporary, short-term fix. That is why the Government are committed to repealing and replacing retained EU law, including legislation related to cost disclosure, under our smarter regulatory framework.

UK Economy: Growth, Inflation and Productivity

Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted Excerpts

Thursday 29th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)]

My Lords, we have had an interesting and important debate and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, for putting it on the agenda. We have had wide-ranging speeches about the macroeconomics of inflation, higher interest rates and the woes of productivity and growth. As a business owner in the 1980s, I remember all too well having a commercial mortgage rate around 17%, and inflation being rampant.

While people are hurting again now in a similar way, the remedy exercising my mind is at the more microeconomic level of getting investment into the real economy—for that is the way to growth, productivity and prosperity. My focus is founded on my experience as a patent attorney working with scientists, engineers and management in start-ups and big business alike, because innovation and how to fund development must march together for growth.

An irritation frequently voiced is that the UK’s capital markets have not served UK innovators all that well. Headlines about tech listings going to the US rather than the London Stock Exchange have featured recently, but my heart was breaking long before I became a non-executive director of the exchange —which, by way of a declaration of interests, is a position I still hold, along with other interests as set out in the register. But in this place, I speak for myself.

I am glad that there is now a focus on how to get more investment into productive parts of the UK economy, including from pension funds. That is the right direction of travel, despite the complexities that exist around trustee fiduciary duties and regulator priorities. Pension contributions and investments are so tax-advantaged that looking for public good in the economy from these investments is justified. However, we need to look at the way in which we manage to shoot ourselves in the foot at the microeconomic level, seemingly at the first opportunity.

On Tuesday, we completed the Financial Services and Markets Bill, which includes a secondary competitiveness objective—albeit this was controversial for some, given the misguided approach of the old FSA to its competitiveness objective. However, now that it is there, it is important that it is used to enhance the competitiveness and soundness of the UK’s economy as a whole, and is not just inwardly focused on financial services.

However, all this will be meaningless if the FCA continues to sit on the obvious and unnecessary regulatory damage to the real economy happening now through the decimation of the listed closed-end investment fund regime, also known as investment trusts. These were once a jewel in the London funding ecosystem and a major route for investment in strategic industries and infrastructure, including by pension funds—a jewel of vital importance in the green sector for renewable energy and battery storage, where over £30 billion has been raised and invested in recent years. That is, until July last year, when the FCA and the Investment Association switched off investment funding through new guidance on cost disclosures.

It boils down to ticks in wrong boxes, as I have previously elaborated in detail and recorded in Hansard for 6 June at column 1348. The new guidance came from the Investment Association, on the request and/or instruction of the FCA, even though the FCA website said in January 2022 that, following the extension of the UCITS exemption in the UK’s PRIIPs regulation to 2026, there would just be end-date changes relating to the supply of investor information documents. There was no mention of other changes, implying that the situation would remain as it was until 2026. But, despite a suggested status quo, other changes were initiated, seemingly by this instruction from the FCA to the IA on new guidance.

The guidance has its inspiration in the PRIIPs directive, which is just about to be revoked as unsuitable for purpose in the UK. I can personally attest that the investment trust structure was not properly understood in Brussels when PRIIPs was negotiated, but it has taken this latest UK initiative for guidelines to bring havoc that PRIIPs never did before, nor has in other countries. This is not just a trivial, irritating matter; it is huge, because of the important place that investment trusts have had in the market as a route to collective investment in less liquid instruments, with the holding being made liquid through the listing.

There are various consultations around, to which industry associations and industry participants have made submissions that the new guidance should be revoked. The IA itself has responded to a Treasury consultation, asking if it can revoke the guidance, and letters have been written to the FCA by industry participants. Yet, somewhere in the FCA this is being sat on, instead of rapid corrective action being taken, with the IA saying that it needs amended guidance from the FCA for it to be able to make any changes.

So, while the IA and the FCA each point to the other for updates, new money has been all but shut off since last July because ticks have been put in the wrong boxes. These are multibillion-pound levels of lost investment if you consider the more than £30 billion raised in well under a decade just for the renewable energy and battery storage sector. If we wait much longer, still more enterprises will be starved of funds or, as is already happening, investment will go to Dublin, which, of course, has all the same PRIIPs and MiFID legislation but just has not put ticks in the wrong boxes.

My challenge to the FCA is this: show that you are up to the job and fix this before the end of the summer holidays so that IPOs and fundraising can start again in September. It takes but a word—“stop”—to flick the switch to where it was, doing nobody any harm over a great number of years, and to where the public pronouncements of the FCA seem to indicate it should have remained. We had investment trusts that worked and were lauded for years. We need them back. Every day of delay equates to around £12 million of lost investment to the strategically important clean energy sector. Twelve months, already gone, means over £4 billion and counting since the switch was flicked.

This is not competitive and it is not consumer protection. It is destroying markets, not protecting them, and it is damaging existing funds, blocking both investor opportunity and economic growth. It is setting us behind in meeting environmental targets and it is wrecking the closest thing we have in this country to a sovereign wealth fund.

What is expected of the regulator is continuous monitoring of the impact and outcomes of any guidance or rule, a keen interest in feedback of the market participants, and swift intervention where necessary. The industry body should be equally swift in delivering the decision-useful inputs to the regulator. Heads must be knocked together now for a quick solution, or heads should roll for the billions in lost investment.

I cannot understand why the Government stand by helpless when this disaster is contributing to missed growth and productivity targets, and slipped aspirations to be a global leader in clean energy, as just reported by the Climate Change Committee. The FCA stands in the way of capital queueing to invest in net-zero commitments, and for which the new FiSMA gives an obligation to contribute. Let us do something real for the economy and just get this done. This is a big dent in green finance, for which the Minister has responsibility. I am happy to meet her, or anyone, to help progress this matter. I am again grateful for the opportunity to make this important issue of public and ongoing record.

Financial Services and Markets Bill

Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Tuesday 27th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)]

My Lords, it is a great privilege to follow the noble Baronesses, Lady Boycott and Lady Hayman. I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on her diligence in trying to come to some solution to our demands. As we have just heard, it is not quite what we wanted but it is getting there, pretty much. Personally, I am sure that the Minister shares our concerns, but sometimes the Treasury is a bit like one’s parents in saying, “You can’t have it all at once; you have to wait and be ready for it”.

I reiterate the questions asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, regarding regulating all forest risk commodities under the secondary regulations, and ask also for a firm date. I am delighted that we have got as far as we have but I would say, not just to my noble friend the Minister but to all other noble friends and Ministers, that we will not rest here. As we have heard, deforestation is one of the biggest crimes going on in the world and a threat to us all. We shall continue with this.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)]

My Lords, I first pass on the apologies of my colleague and noble friend Lady Kramer, who is unable to be in her place; hence, you have me instead. I identify with the comments made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman and Lady Boycott, and will not repeat them. Although the Government have given some territory, I do not feel that it is substantial enough.

Two points in particular worry me. The first is with regard to the climate change targets and the wording that

“each regulator considers the exercise of its functions to be relevant to the making of such a contribution”.

The Minister emphasised in her introduction that the regulators have to consider that it fits in squarely with their major objectives. That is quite a discouragement to them to pursue these matters. The regulators do not have to follow every objective and principle anyway; so they do not have an objective or principle and this has now been further diluted by that wording. So, while it is good that there is something on the face of the Bill, a lot of following up will be needed to make sure that something happens.

When it comes to the forestry issues, yes, there will be another consultation—another delay—but why do we have to be in lockstep with our partners? I thought we wanted to be leaders. That means you have to be prepared to go out there and, if you are a leading financial centre, show that it can be done. To always tie ourselves down, to be in lockstep, means that there is a fear to move, there is trepidation, and that does not mark us out or distinguish us as a financial centre. I therefore hope for better, and I hope that comes out of the Treasury’s review.

Overall, the Bill has seen issues raised on all sides of the House and a lot of common thinking. Yes, there has been some yielding by the Government as a consequence—though in general I would say not enough —but this shows that the mood and understanding of this House and of the industry are that the size and momentum of what we are doing in delegating everything to regulators need to have a little more beefing up when it comes to accountability and how matters can be pursued if the regulators do not do things, if they do not do them quickly enough, and so on. In quite a lot of our amendments we have tried to pursue those issues but we have got nowhere. I think that means we will be coming back.

Financial Services and Markets Bill

Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 13th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

My Lords, I introduced a number of amendments on the subject of authorised push payments fraud in Committee. At the time I said I was broadly happy with the Minister’s responses but would look to return to the reporting question again, which is what Amendment 94 does. I should say at the outset that I support what the Bill is trying to do in respect of APP fraud to make it easier, and in particular fairer, for victims of APP fraud to get their money back. Before I go any further, I remind the House of my interest as a shareholder of Fidelity National Information Services, Inc., which owns Worldpay.

My new Amendment 94 has two elements to it. First, it would introduce requirements on the PSR to report annually on the impact that the reimbursement requirement had had on consumer protection and on the behaviour of payment service providers. Secondly, it would effectively create a league table to enable consumers to see how each bank is actually performing both in preventing fraud and in reimbursing victims.

On the first point, the annual impact report is necessary because the mandatory reimbursement requirement could have unintended consequences that might damage consumer protection. I shall give a couple of possible examples of that. First, there is the possibility of moral hazard. If the mandatory requirement means that consumers start to take less care about protecting themselves because they will be repaid anyway, that could have the undesirable consequence of actually making it easier for the fraudsters to commit fraud and so actually increase levels of fraud. While, as we discussed in Committee, we must not put the blame on the victims, there is a balance to find in this area to avoid making it easier for the fraudsters while improving consumer protection and outcomes. We will know whether we have found the right balance only when we start to see the results.

A second example might be that the banks change their behaviour in an undesirable way. Rather than improving their fraud detection and prevention processes, they might simply decide that the easiest thing to do would be to stop providing services to people whom they see as being at the highest risks of fraud in order to reduce their potential reimbursement liability. I think many Members of this House have seen similar behaviour in respect of PEPs—politically exposed persons—where, rather than undertaking sensible risk-based steps, banks have on occasion just decided that it is too difficult or expensive to deal with PEPs and have refused to open accounts or have even closed accounts. We will come to that later today, but it is a good example of a well- intentioned risk measure having undesirable consequences. In the case of APP fraud, if the banks see it as too great a financial risk to provide banking services to those deemed to be at a higher risk of fraud, then we might see a whole swathe of more vulnerable people unable to obtain banking services.

These are just two examples, but I hope that they demonstrate the importance of the PSR keeping the impact of the requirement for mandatory reimbursement under regular review and amending it if it turns out to have unintended negative consequences. Reporting on this regularly and publicly will ensure that the impact assessment is robust.

Turning now to the second element of the amendment, the requirement to report annually on the performance of the banks, a major criticism of the current voluntary reimbursement code is that it is completely non-transparent. While numbers are published, they are anonymous. Consumers cannot see which banks are behaving best, and which are behaving worst, unless, as TSB does, they tell us voluntarily. The TSB example is encouraging—it is using its 100% reimbursement policy as a selling point. Introducing competitive good behaviour is highly desirable, and this amendment would help achieve that.

The amendment would effectively create an annual league table that would enable consumers to see which banks have the lowest levels of fraud—which will give an indication of how good they are at detecting and preventing fraud—which banks are better and quicker at reimbursing victims when fraud occurs, and, by including the appeal information, which banks make it more difficult for victims. That would allow consumers to take this information into consideration when deciding whether to stay with their existing bank or when considering opening a new account—something that would otherwise not be possible. That would, I hope, provide a real competitive incentive for banks to change their behaviour both in detecting and preventing fraud and in treating victims promptly and fairly.

This would not introduce a significant additional burden; the PSR will have all this information anyway, so reporting it is not a significant job. However, the benefits to consumers of making this information public are potentially significant.

When we discussed this in Committee on 13 March, the Minister stated in relation to the impact assessment that the PSR

“has committed … to a post-implementation review”

and that the Government would also

“monitor the impacts of the PSR’s action and consider the case for further action where necessary”.

That does not go far enough. Fraudsters keep changing their business models in reaction to actions by industry and the authorities, so it is essential that this is kept under continual review rather than only a one-off, post-implementation review. It is also important that the impact assessments are published. Can the noble Baroness provide any greater comfort in those respects?

On the league table, the noble Baroness said on 13 March that the PSR

“is currently consulting on a measure to require payment service providers to report and publish fraud and reimbursement data”.—[Official Report, 13/3/23; col. GC 166.]

It is now nearly three months later, so can the noble Baroness provide an update on whether this consultation has progressed and whether the data will in fact be published? It would be better if such data was published by a single source such as the PSR rather than piecemeal by payment service providers. I beg to move.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)]

My Lords, I support this amendment and I can be relatively brief. It is important not only to collect the statistics but also at times to dig underneath to see how they might be being gamed. From personal experience, I know of instances where banks are treating microbusinesses more strictly than they are treating consumers, saying that a business should know and therefore rejecting them out of hand at the first time of asking, if I can put it that way. I have heard, in a similar case, stories of someone making contact by telephone repeatedly, their inquiry getting lost and the person having to go through the whole story with a case handler multiple times, the strategy obviously being, “Let’s try and make them give up”. That was with a very large bank; I will not name it because I do not have absolutely all the detail. Therefore it is quite important that different criteria are not being used between sole traders and individuals when it has already been determined via the ombudsman that both have a route.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman (CB)]

My Lords, I support this amendment, which fits very well alongside the discussions we had on the fiduciary duty of pension fund trustees. I will not push those amendments to a vote, but the work being done, as the Minister described, on having a clear and close look at the fiduciary duty for pension fund trustees would complement this amendment. I do not think it is threatening in any way to pension fund trustees; it is very carefully framed and asks the Treasury to publish a review on incentivisation. It is perfectly possible, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, to fine-tune it after the review—that is the purpose of the consultation.

This amendment is worth while. The noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, referred to the UK Infrastructure Bank and its recognition of nature-based projects and types of infrastructure as assets that could be invested in. I was involved in that amendment, on which the Minister, in her usual helpful style, listened and took action. I hope that she will similarly recognise the virtues of this proposed new clause and I support the amendment.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)]

My Lords, I added my name to this amendment and suggested the inclusion of the Pension Protection Fund, partly because there is already quite a big conversation around how we will incentivise investment and be prepared to take a bit more risk, because the UK seems to have become very risk-averse. There has been regulatory encouragement, if you like, for pension funds to be somewhat risk-averse; I am not sure it is actually risk- averse to end up in a situation where you invest everything in sovereign bonds and have a systemic risk but, setting that conversation aside, gilts have always been regarded as a very steady investment. It has perhaps been forgotten how to invest for reward.

The fiduciary duty is important and we need to look at it, because there are implications if you suggest in any way to trustees what they ought to do. Of course, that does not mean that you have to take zero risk as a trustee—you must understand the risk and reward dynamic—but, if we move through legislative steps, we would have to add to the list of consultees a whole load of lawyers to help sort out how we deal with the common-law fiduciary duty. Overall, this is a good amendment, making the Government part of this conversation and drawing in more consultation so that more people can input with common purpose, instead of there being lots of consultations all over the place.

Of course, there is work being done by parliamentary committees and I hope notice will be taken of those, and maybe care taken, looking at proposed new subsection (4)(b) and

“adjusting the terms of reference for DB Local Government Pension Schemes (LGPS) funds to consider regional development as an investment factor”.

To some extent they can do that already, especially in the amounts that are retained where the local authorities are investing directly rather than through the pooled funds—and I have to declare an interest here in potentially listing a fund.

Financial Services and Markets Bill

Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted Excerpts

Report stage
Thursday 8th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, I will briefly speak to Amendment 39, to which I have added my name, and government Amendment 50. I declare that I am on the board of the ABI. More relevantly, as the amendments are about the Consumer Panel, I speak as a former vice-chair of one of the statutory panels, the Financial Services Consumer Panel. It was some time ago and our focus then was on the FSA rather than the present FCA, but our role was essentially the same.

I was on the panel before the events of 2007 and 2008. As a panel, we were warning about the risk to consumers of interest-only mortgages, high loan to value mortgages—which were really unacceptable to us—and high mortgages relevant to income. It was just before the crash, but I am not pretending that we foresaw what would happen, even though we were worried about those things. We did not anticipate what was happening in the financial sector, starting with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and Northern Rock. Our concern was about how consumers would fare should house prices tumble and their incomes not rise—or, indeed, if interest rates should increase. We saw them as a very vulnerable group of consumers.

What is interesting and relevant to Amendments 39 and 50 is that our role was only to advise the then FSA. Sadly, it did not pay enough attention to what we were saying. It might have given it a little bit more on its dashboard had it done so. Had our report been to Parliament and the Treasury perhaps someone might have noticed and taken an interest. That lives in the “What if?” category of history, but it explains my support of any report made by people who represent consumers being brought to public attention.

Amendment 39, to which I have added my name, was so brilliantly written and argued for in the Commons by my honourable friend Nick Smith. I should say that a long time ago we worked together when he was the Labour Party agent in Holborn and St Pancras and I was the CLP chair. Quite a bit seems to have happened since then to both of us. I knew at the time that he was able to take an issue with which he was dealing and see the broader context, which is how we come to the amendment he has essentially developed and which is in front of the House today.

My honourable friend’s interest was sparked when he was campaigning on behalf of members of the British Steel pension scheme—a scandal which led the NAO and the PAC to conclude that the FCA fell drastically short of its proper role in protecting consumers of financial services. His interest in that brings me to where we are today.

In my time, we have witnessed nearly £40 billion being paid in compensation to consumers who were mis-sold PPI, although the full costs were paid much later. Again, as consumer reps, we flagged up that this was not an appropriate product for most of those it was being sold to. Just occasionally, listening to consumers is good not just for them but for the industry and the whole economy. The voice of consumers is worth listening to.

The Government’s Amendment 50 is very welcome. It requires the statutory panels—I am particularly interested in the Consumer Panel—to report to the Treasury and for their reports to be laid before Parliament. This will bring consumer interest to the heart of our public discourse, which will be good for all concerned. I thank the Government for their amendment on this. I am happy that this trumps, or at least meets, Amendment 39.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)]

My Lords, in general I support all the amendments in this group. I am particularly pleased to see government Amendment 50 on the panel reports, assuming that they are implemented, and government Amendment 63 and its companions in the next group to require the regulators to state how they have taken account of parliamentary committee reports in rulemaking. I thank the Minister and the Bill team for covering some of the amendments that I tabled in Committee and similar ones from other noble Lords.

In this group, I have added my name to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, which concern the setting up of an office for financial regulatory accountability, as I did in Committee. The noble Lord is unable to be here today and has asked me to give his apologies and to introduce his amendments.

There is no need to go through the debate that we had in Committee, except to say that since FSMA 2022 there has been a growth in voices calling for an independent oversight body, including the main industry bodies. Those bodies were somewhat disappointed by the Minister’s suggestion in Committee that there was no industry support or suggestion along those lines, because they have made their views clear. I have received emails assuring me that they put points in the consultation responses as well as in published industry papers, although I acknowledge that those were early days and they may not have got as far as formulating ideas in the same way that I had in my consultation response.

There has also been a growth in support in this House. As has been said, if we had campaigned during the Brexit referendum that there would be this massive amount of power going to government, which would then be pressed onwards to unelected regulators, maybe some people would have had different thoughts, but that is water under the bridge. Going back to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, the suite of amendments that cover the office for financial regulatory accountability—Amendments 64 to 72—includes some useful amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, with which the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, agrees.

Financial Services and Markets Bill

Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 6th June 2023 Lords Chamber

I ask my noble friend whether she can at least bring back a definition for Third Reading if she does not consider that my amendment offers a reasonable solution, for “having regard to” is a lot less onerous than requiring “alignment with”. I beg to move.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)]

My Lords, I have two amendments in this group. Amendment 9 is similar to one I tabled in Committee and is intended to focus the secondary objective on the advancement of the UK economy through fair and efficient operation of financial markets.

It still concerns me that the Government’s wording can be interpreted as more about general profitability of financial services, rather than the positive nature of their operation on the economy. We got into a bit of a tangle about this in Committee when the Minister focused on how financial services made money out of clients. I hope the Minister can now appreciate the nuance and at least confirm that the primary intention of the secondary objective is benefit to the economy that is served by financial services, and not maximum income generation from financial services to the extent that it is of detriment to the economy.

A great deal of attention has gone into asking what regulatory issues have risked competitiveness. A key example is how the London market lost out in new insurance products when the regulator was too slow. Criticism has been levied about delays in SMCR approval of new staff. My Amendment 115 concerns an alarming example of harm to the economy and proposes a solution through a specific legislative amendment. It aims to fix a competitiveness and investment issue with listed closed-ended investment funds. As such, I declare my interests as both a director of the London Stock Exchange plc and a director of Valloop Holdings Ltd, which has potential interest in such listings.

For the last 14 months, a dire situation has been seriously affecting the UK economy and should have been resolved but has not. It has its origins in a face-value interpretation of an EU regulation that is part of the MiFID family, relating to how ongoing charges should be presented in collective investment schemes that invest in other funds and a desire to create a consistent cost disclosure framework in a somewhat inconsistent EU framework.

As part of reviewing what should be included in cost redisclosures, the FCA asked the Investment Association —the principal trade body for the asset management industry in the UK—to provide new guidance. That guidance now requires that when a fund holds shares in listed closed-ended investment funds—also known as investment trusts—it should aggregate with the investing fund’s own charges all the underlying running costs that are incurred within the investment trust, including the listing and corporate costs, in the same way as it would were it to hold units in an unlisted open-ended fund. The IA took this line because the investment trust is regarded as a collective investment undertaking, and the EU regulation refers to collective investment undertakings.

At first sight, the cost disclosure might look reasonable, but it ignores the nature of investment trusts, which have publicly traded shares with a price set by the market: an investment trust is essentially like any other publicly traded company from an investment perspective. If a fund invests in the ordinary shares of a listed commercial company, the internal costs of that commercial company do not have to be shown in aggregated charges. For both listed commercial companies and listed investment trust companies, everyday running costs are disclosed in accounts, reflected in profit and ultimately in the share price, which embodies investors’ assessment of the company, including its underlying costs. However, the IA guidance instead equates investment trusts with open-ended funds, requiring internal running costs incurred at the investee investment trust level to be aggregated as a cost, setting aside the fact that, unlike with units of open-ended funds, investors have already factored such changes into the price that they are prepared to pay for the shares of the investment. Thus, for example, directors’ fees of an investment trust aggregate as an ongoing charge of the investing fund; the directors’ fees of a commercial company that is similarly invested in do not have to be aggregated. Likewise, various other corporate costs receive dissimilar treatment.

Therefore, that is an unfairness, but why does it matter beyond being anti-competitive, as if that is not enough? It matters because those corporate costs being in effect almost duplicated and put under the headline of “ongoing charges” suddenly elevated the ongoing charges of the fund investing into the investment trust, sometimes to levels where they hit cost ceilings put in place by various pension funds and other collective investment funds, or simply made fund managers cringe when the headline of accumulated charges suddenly looked more expensive and people started to think that they were doing something wrong. Hence, there became a disincentive to invest in investment trusts to avoid these unexpected changes, questions about them or hitting cost ceilings. A great deal of investment choice follows the headline and not deeper analysis, which separates and explains the varying nature of costs.

To make the point again, an ordinary listed commercial company, such as SEGRO plc, which invests in property, might now be deemed investable while the exact same property investments with the exact same costs, held for example by the investment trust Tritax Big Box fund, might be deemed not investable because one does not have to have its corporate costs regarded as ongoing charges and the other does.

I do not think it is a coincidence that, since the new guidance, there has been no real asset IPO and just a couple of small equity IPOs of investment trusts. At a stroke, something that has at times been regarded as a jewel in the London funding ecosystem—an expanding sector of listed funds investing into long term illiquid alternative assets such as renewable energy and other infrastructure—has been abandoned.

I just gave an example of two companies investing in property, with no intention to impugn either, but there are some sectors of the economy where using an investment trust to raise funds is the only route to capital—notably for new and innovative business in the environmental and social sectors: businesses such as HydrogenOne, which is leading investment into UK’s alternative energy, directly linked with our net-zero commitments.

It is also the case that investment trust exposures are typically more diversified and real than exposures via commercial corporates, which investors appreciate but now cannot access as they have been dropped from portfolios. This is a real loss to the UK economy that has been going on for 14 months. We have all read the news about companies switching listing from London for valuation reasons—and that is another story—but here it is not switching, it is simply regulatory asphyxiation.

Both the FCA and the Investment Association know and understand the problem. The IA thinks it should be fixed and has publicly written about it to the FCA. On the face of it, given that inherited EU legislation is the mix, I think it is more up to government and the FCA to fix it than the IA, even though it came up with the guidance. In any event, you go up the power chain to fix a disaster. It is also worth noting that there is no actual legislative EU definition of collective investment undertaking, only ESMA guidance, from which the FCA could distance itself, if only for this specific purpose.

The Government have been informed of this issue and, while dreaming up ways to help more investment in the productive economy is important for the Chancellor, all he has to do here is stop this extinction event. It is not about undermining transparency; it is about understanding what is and is not like-for-like. There are those who have been getting around it in some EU countries by saying that for cost disclosure purposes, an investment trust is a company not a fund, but investment trusts are not mainstream in EU countries; they use other channels for investment, so the issue is not really pursued.

The UK situation now is that we have essentially just clarified our law using definitions originating in soon-to-be-discarded PRHPs and non-legislative EU guidance, front-running a wider-reaching FCA review and achieving nothing but harm. My amendment shows one way to fix it by amending the regulation so that all listed companies are treated the same for the assessment of accumulated ongoing charges. Investment trusts would then not be discriminated against by being improperly lumped together with open-ended funds whose value is not set through share price, nor by having a cost label attached, compared with competing commercial companies or funds in other countries, and the UK businesses reliant on the investment trust route could again raise the capital they need.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Secretary, HM Treasury (Baroness Penn) (Con)]

My Lords, the new secondary growth and competitiveness objectives in the Bill will ensure that the regulators can act to facilitate medium to long-term growth and competitiveness for the first time, but a focus on competitiveness and long-term growth is not new. When the UK was part of the European Union and financial services legislation was negotiated in Brussels, UK Ministers went to great efforts to ensure that EU regulations appropriately considered the impact that regulation could have on economic growth and on the competitiveness of our financial services sector.

Now that we have left the EU, and as the regulators take on responsibility for setting new rules as we repeal retained EU law, it is right that their objectives reflect the financial services sector’s critical role in supporting the wider economy. We must ensure that growth and competitiveness can continue to be properly considered within a robust regulatory framework. As the noble Lord opposite said, a secondary competitiveness objective strikes the right balance. It ensures that the regulators have due regard to growth and competitiveness while maintaining their primary focus on their existing objectives. That is why the Government strongly reject Amendment 10, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, which seeks to remove the secondary objectives from the Bill.

Turning to Amendment 9 from the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, the Government agree that the UK financial services sector is not just an industry in its own right but an engine of growth for the wider economy. The current drafting of the Bill seeks to reflect that but also recognises that the scope of the regulators’ responsibilities relates to the markets they regulate—the financial services sector—so it is growth of the wider economy and of the financial services sector, but not at the expense of the wider economy. I hope I can reassure her on that point.

On Amendment 115, also from the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, as noble Lords know, the Bill repeals retained EU law in financial services, including the MiFID framework. Detailed firm-facing requirements, such as those that this amendment seeks to amend, are likely to become the responsibility of the FCA. As such, it will be for the FCA to determine whether such rules are appropriate. When doing so, the FCA will have to consider whether rules are in line with its statutory objectives, including the new secondary growth and competitiveness objective.

Parliament will be able to scrutinise any rules that the regulators make, including pressing them on the effectiveness of their rules, and how they deliver against their objectives. Industry will also be able to make representations to the regulators where they feel that their rules are not having their intended effect or are placing disproportionate burdens on firms. I hope the noble Baroness is therefore reassured that the appropriate mechanisms are in place for considering the issues that she has raised via that amendment.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)]

I understand that there are and will be mechanisms in place, but the point that I was trying to make—and the reason that I expounded at length on how we got into this mess—is that it is urgent action that is necessary. This is not something that waits for this great wheel of change that we are bringing in through this Bill to come along. This is something that should be on people’s desks tomorrow; it should have been on people’s desks a year ago. There will not be ongoing investments trusts if it is not fixed now.

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

I understand the case that the noble Baroness makes, but it is not for an amendment to this Bill but for regulator rules to address the issue that she raises.

I turn to Amendments 8A and 9A from my noble friend Lord Trenchard, which seek to remove the requirement for the FCA and the PRA to align with relevant international standards when facilitating the new secondary objectives and instead have regard to these standards. As we have heard, international standards are set by standard setting bodies, such as the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. These standards are typically endorsed at political level through international fora such as the G7 and G20 but, given the need to enable implementation across multiple jurisdictions, they may not be specifically calibrated to the law or market of individual members. It is then for national Governments and regulators to decide how best to implement these standards in their jurisdictions. This includes considering which international standards are pertinent to the regulatory activity being undertaken and are therefore relevant.

Since we left the EU, the regulators have been generally responsible for making the judgment on how best to align with relevant standards when making detailed rules that apply to firms. This approach was taken in the Financial Services Act 2021, in relation to the UK’s approach to the implementation of Basel standards for bank regulation and the FCA’s implementation of the UK’s investment firms prudential regime. It was also reflected in the overarching approach set out in the two consultations as part of the future regulatory framework review.

Part of the regulators’ judgment involves considering how best to advance their statutory objectives. Following this Bill, this will include the new secondary competitiveness and growth objectives. The current drafting therefore provides sufficient flexibility for the regulators to tailor international standards appropriately to UK markets to facilitate growth and international competitiveness, while demonstrating the Government’s ongoing commitment for the UK to remain a global leader in promoting high international standards—which, as we have heard, the UK has often played a key part in developing. The Government consider that this drafting helps maintain the UK’s reputation as a global financial centre.

I turn finally to Amendment 112 from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. The Government consider the financial services sector to be of vital importance to the UK economy. The latest figures from industry reveal that financial and related professional services employ approximately 2.5 million people across the UK, with around two-thirds of those jobs being outside London. Together, these jobs account for an estimated 12% of the UK’s economy.

The financial services sector also makes a significant tax contribution, which amounted to more than £75 billion in 2019-20—more than a tenth of total UK tax receipts—and helps fund vital public services. It is not for the Government to determine the optimum size of the UK financial services sector, but in many of the areas that the noble Baroness calls for reporting on, the information would be largely duplicative of work already published by the Government, public sector bodies or other industry groups.

For example, the State of the Sector report, which was co-authored by the City of London Corporation and first published last year, covers talent, innovation, the wider financial services ecosystem, and international developments and comparisons. The Government will publish a second iteration of the report later this year. The Financial Stability Report—

Financial Services and Markets Bill

Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 21st March 2023 Grand Committee

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, in rising to follow the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, I have to comment on a couple of the points that he made. When he referred to Amendment 216 and suggested that we could rely on the discretion of the regulators, I regretted that the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, was not here, because I am sure that he could have given some extensive account on that basis. We have cause for concern about the actions of the regulators. The noble Viscount also suggested that the relaxation of the ring-fence in the case of SVB, allowing its purchase by HSBC, was not important or significant. Of course, relaxation of rules under emergency weekend conditions is reminiscent of stopping contagion—rather like the kind of emergency steps we took in the face of the Covid-19 pandemic, where lots of things were done that would not be seen as viable under normal conditions.

On Amendment 216, I confess that I can see the arguments for why this should be considered too technical. However, the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, about the fact that we do not have sufficient controls otherwise make the case for it.

On the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, we have a problem where the primary purpose of insurance companies and pension managers has been chasing after massive profits, not looking to long-term security. While we are in that situation, we need find rules to manage it.

Responding to the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, again suggesting that what has happened in recent weeks suggests that the ring-fence is not working, I think that a military analogy might be quite useful here. If you are in a city under attack and your walls are very nearly overtopped by the enemy, you do not at that point pull the walls down and start reconstructing them. You reinforce those walls. The events of the past couple of weeks have demonstrated that what we have now is not enough of a security system—that is patently obvious—but the answer is reinforcement rather than pulling everything down and starting again, because we saw fit to take actions after 2007-08 which we are hoping will make those defensive walls hold this time.

I would have attached my name to Amendments 241C and 241D had I been able to keep up with the flood of legislation we have before us. In reflecting on them, I want to quote an economist on the New York Times, Ezra Klein:

“Banking is a critical form of public infrastructure that we pretend is a private act of risk management.”


That is the context in which I hope the Minister can today reassure us that, as we come towards the end of Committee and in the new environment in which we find ourselves, the Government will seriously rethink this Bill, particularly key elements of it such as competition and ring-fencing, before we get to Report. I have to borrow from a letter in the Financial Times this weekend —I am relying on this as a source—the fact that apparently the correct name for a group of black swans gathered on the ground is a bank.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)]

My Lords, I did not prepare a speech on this, but recent events and the speeches have moved round to what a fundamental issue we are approaching here. One important issue, which underlines the Government’s changes on Solvency II, is how to get investment into our economy. That is a fundamental need that we have. It is possibly intertwined with how much national risk we are prepared to take. I do not intend to try to solve that now.

If we look at recent events and the responses to them, we see that we have different risk appetites in different countries, in how they will accept failure and what, in essence, they are prepared to bail out. As my noble friend Lady Kramer said, it appears to be the assumption that the Canadians would bail out the pension fund. Maybe they think that is a decent quid pro quo for getting a large amount of infrastructure investment and other investments. That is a balance that it is legitimate for a country to make, but I do not think it is one that we have made here in the UK. We have said “No more bailouts”. That may be something that can never be absolutely held to, as we know, but we do not operate on a principle that it is going to be the case.

Let us look at what happened with Silicon Valley Bank in the UK, where there was not really a great deal wrong other than it suffering the repercussions of what happened in the US and a bank run through co-ordination and a loss of confidence. What does that say about our challenger banks, if people are not prepared to rely on the amount of the deposit guarantees that we have? For industry, we have next to nothing. The Americans are talking about raising their amounts of guaranteed deposits because they realise that businesses will not trust smaller banks with large deposits if there are not higher guarantees. That worries people in the United States, because they do not want to lose their regional banks and to have everything go into large systemic banks. It should worry us that we have lost a challenger bank and that it has gone into a large systemic bank.

We may have to re-examine what our risk appetite is around things such as deposit guarantees. It is not pertinent to these amendments, but we have the same kind of risk issues when we expand and try to get insurance money into more risky investments. The same can be applied to what we want to do with pension funds. I suppose I had better declare my financial services interests as in the register again, just for the record. The recent history is that our institutions are not very good at investing in UK assets. Of the fallout from LDI, one of the things that is already under way is that pension funds will invest less in gilts. They will want to invest in something else—something that they can repo. They will therefore invest in corporate bonds but, to get the liquidity to be able to repo, they will be US corporate bonds. We will have yet another shift from investing in something in the UK. Even if that was the systemic risk concentrations of gilts, nevertheless it is a shift away from investment in UK assets, or not taking an opportunity for a switch in assets to be able to invest in those in the UK. Some of this is to do with our size. Maybe the Canadians have thought about that; I do not know. I am just sort of tossing these thoughts in. They are not hugely relevant to these amendments, but they are hugely relevant to the big issue that underlies the change on the matching adjustment —that is, how do we get investment into the UK economy? I should think absolutely every person in this Room wants that. It is hard to do it in a piecemeal way by changing the eligibility to the matching adjustment.

I do not fully trust the consultation process that we have in this country, because the pre-consultation process is dominated by an industrial lobby which knows what it wants. The consultation responses are weighed, and they are inevitably heavy with what the industry wants and why, and there is much less that comes in to counteract that. Therefore, we go down the track of accepting the proposals of the Government and getting what the industry says—but where is the backstop? This is where we come to the backstop that my noble friend has put in. The backstop is that it is for Parliament, through primary legislation. She does not say in her amendment, “Thou shalt never amend ring-fencing” or, “Thou shalt never amend the things that the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards did”. It says that it requires primary legislation. It says that this should go back to the body—albeit different people at a different time—and that there should be that analysis. This is the same sort of thing that the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, was saying. Maybe you could get legitimacy from Parliament through a better accountability mechanism but, absent that, the only one we have is that it has to come back to primary legislation. With a Whip system and a government majority, that does not necessarily guarantee anything, but it will get at least a thorough airing and, in normal circumstances, you would get some toing and froing and some reasonable amendments if necessary.

British Banking Sector

Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted Excerpts

Tuesday 21st March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, as with any major event, the Treasury will reflect on the lessons to be learned and how improvements can be made. I assure noble Lords that, each year, the Bank of England carries out a stress test of the major UK banks that incorporates a severe but plausible adverse economic scenario. The 2022 stress test scenario includes a rapid rise in interest rates, with the UK bank rate assumed to rise to 6% in early 2023. The results of that test are taken forward by the PRA in its supervision of the banks. The results will also be published this summer.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)]

My Lords, an FT piece yesterday, headlined “How ‘competitive’ would you like your bank regulation now?”, says:

“The UK regulatory pendulum has been halted in mid-swing.”


Is that true? Credit Suisse had G-SIFI levels of capital and liquidity but was undone through bad culture. Are not the twin bastions of culture in the UK banks ring-fencing and the senior managers regime? Is it not also of massive cultural significance that it came from the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards? If the Government mess with those, where is the break on culture-based runs? What do they say when these practices come under lobbying pressures?

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, I think the noble Baroness was asking about the Government’s proposed Edinburgh reforms package, which represents a move towards proportionate, simple regulation that works for the UK and will help to drive growth in the broader economy, supporting families and businesses across the country. In that approach, we recognise that the UK’s success as a financial services hub is built on agility, consistently high regulatory standards and openness. We will continue to take those principles forward in our reforms.

Financial Services and Markets Bill

Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 13th March 2023 Grand Committee

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

My Lords, I take issue with my noble friend, as I have spent most of my political life involved in housing. We have a situation in the country, which is relevant to this amendment, of huge pressure on local authorities to help families who are homeless. The numbers are going up every month at the moment, and this amendment would at least ensure provision for a small section of society—possibly younger people or single-parent families—who find themselves in a situation that is nothing to do with their own original arrangement with the mortgage lender. It is entirely appropriate for our society to say that there is a means of helping them in a transitory manner to get them settled.

The most worrying aspect is in proposed new paragraph (b), which the noble Lord highlighted. This is not a new problem but a growing one, with unregulated entities on the fringe of the mortgage market. Any of us who has done any work in this area knows that it is quite a difficult area to control, but the FCA has not got a handle on it yet and it needs to.

I am not going to say any more, but I very much hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will take this issue away, think about it and recognise that, if we do not take action, the local authorities where these people live will have even more pressure on them to find a home for the relevant family.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to say a word in support of my noble friend Lord Sharkey. There are some more generalised and wider issues around this problem. We have the situation quite often—in fact, it is perhaps the norm nowadays—that whoever extends credit, whether for a mortgage or another thing, is not necessarily the same organisation that ends up holding it later on. It may be securitised, sliced, diced and sold on, or it may be sold on to a vulture fund because they are in trouble. The same sort of thing has happened with student loans, which have essentially been sold to vulture companies.

This raises the issue of what the Government’s terms are when they are doing the selling. I fully understand that they say they have to get the best value for the taxpayer, or whatever it is, but you cannot have value for the taxpayer at the cost of usury on a minority, and that is the situation that has arisen. It could impact on some with student loans, if the pressure to pay is different from how it was when the loans were elsewhere.

I have two questions. First, what are the Government going to do along the lines outlined by my noble friend to assist mortgage prisoners? More generally, what are they going to do when looking at mortgage terms that allow it to be sold on to anybody without any safeguards and other types of selling on, whether in distress or otherwise, that likewise essentially dispense with any kind of consumer credit or similar kinds of protections?

I am sure the Minister will recall that when we were talking about bounce-back loans and we had to dispense with some consumer credit protections, I warned that we might get bad behaviour as a consequence. This is part of the same picture and why we have such protections there in the first place, yet nowadays they are being seriously circumvented.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I do not come to this debate with a predetermined position but to listen and take a view after we have looked at the circumstances and listened to the Minister’s response. I would value a copy of the report that the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, spoke about. I have a lot of sympathy for these individuals and note that their problems are undoubtedly exacerbated by—I do not know how to describe it—the Truss impact on loan rates in the UK, which must fall particularly heavily on those individuals. I await the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)]

My Lords, I was waiting to hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, said on this amendment. I am afraid I cannot support her this time, although we agree on a lot of things. I accept that this is a hard call. The way I look at it, this goes back to our discussion about whether you follow rigid rules or you want people to think about what they are doing. Ultimately, there has to be a desire for people operating in financial services to think about what they are doing in all circumstances. Therefore, I see that as a proper override.

What has been portrayed as the ultra-right wing libertarian approach of just doing things and then being for the high jump if you get it wrong—that is a caricature, I accept—relies on your having done what is right in principle. Some things will not be fair if you merely follow a rigid set of rules. Therefore, it is right that there is a “fair and reasonable in the circumstances” backstop. It is right that if such things happen, there should be discussions about what it means for the generality.

However, it is not right for the FCA to have an automatic override and say, “We’re right, and our rigid rules derived from principles”—because they abandon principles once we have rules—“can never be wrong”, and that people should not have been thinking actively about these things, particularly while they were dealing with customers and individuals. I understand where the noble Baroness is coming from, but I cannot support this. I plug again that we should expect that extra level of thought. This again goes to the heart of having a duty of care. It is the same argument. A duty of care does not mean, “I just do what I’ve always done and got away with” or “I just do what everybody else appears to have done, turn the handle and don’t think about it.” It is a fundamental principle of caring for the consumer that at least the ombudsman can continue with. I heartily think that we need a dash more of it in the Financial Conduct Authority.

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Noakes in her amendment. As she has explained well, Clause 38 requires the FCA, the FOS and the FSCS to co-operate and to consult with each other in exercising their statutory functions. However, it is important that FOS decisions with wider implications do not diverge from FCA rules, or there may be unintended consequences, and predictability and consistency may be negatively affected.

As my noble friend just said, this does not mean that the FCA or the FOS should act without thinking very carefully about what they are doing. Her amendment takes account of that and would be likely to encourage real thought about the consequences of making a particular decision in any case. Besides, Parliament never intended the FOS to be a quasi-regulator. UK Finance has recommended that the FCA should be given a power to overrule a decision by the FOS where it believes that the decision could have wider and perhaps unforeseen implications. My noble friend’s amendment would deal effectively with this potential problem.

Of course, the granting of additional powers to the FCA strengthens further the case that the FCA must be properly accountable to Parliament, and I regret that I have not yet heard my noble friend the Minister acknowledge that, as drafted, the Bill does not provide adequate arrangements for this. I firmly believe that a properly resourced joint committee is how to achieve that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)]

My Lords, I signed all the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux. We were both members of the committee looking at the Fraud Act 2006 and digital fraud. Although these amendments are not exactly what we recommended, they fairly represent the mood after what we had heard. We could not make them all exact recommendations. Some of them are difficult; there is difficulty between my noble friend Lady Kramer’s amendment and this set of amendments. I did not weigh them up beforehand, but it will be very difficult if you just allow a broad, “Well, you ought to have known” provision for the bank.

It is not a question of who you are and what you know. Some pretty intelligent people have been defrauded and you can be caught at a bad moment, but how do you prove that it was a bad moment, if you are being scammed? Say the scammer claims that a child is in trouble and says, “Send money now, mum.” Every now and then, the scammer is going to be lucky, and the message is going to arrive to a mum whose kid is off somewhere doing something, and it will look genuine. You might have been very worried about the circumstance in the first place. How do you prove that kind of thing, if the provision is going to assume that you are a sensible, intelligent person and you ought to have known? How do you discriminate against those who are not intelligent and sensible and who are vulnerable for whatever reason?

There is a lot to be said for my noble friend’s amendment, but at the same time there is the issue, which we discussed in the committee, whereby you do not want everybody to think that it is all right and that they are covered. Do you need some kind of hurdle? How do you encourage people? We need to see whether we can in some way nuance that, to make it clear that we are protecting the most vulnerable, including those with a circumstance that they might find themselves in, even though they would not have been vulnerable at other times—but then you do not want to make it even easier for scammers. People can think that it is a victimless crime, but it is not a victimless crime at all. Even if people get compensation, collectively we are all going to pay for it.

We also talked in the committee about why the proposal is just for Faster Payments. Yes, it is an easy target, because of the instantaneous nature of it. But what if, when you go into a bank to make a transfer by CHAPS—and a mortgage is the obvious kind of payment in that regard—somebody comes in with you and coerces you? What steps are taken at the counter? I have been in with someone who was doing a big CHAPS transfer for the purpose of a mortgage—it happened to be my son—and nobody questioned what I was doing there. There may have been a familial resemblance, and they may have thought that it was okay, but there was no one saying, “Would you mind just stepping aside?” No one asked him who I was, what the relationship was and why I was with him. It would be good to have some more checks to make sure what is happening, checking that the money is going to a genuine solicitor’s account and those kinds of thing. To have other payment methods included is not unreasonable, although I accept that these are big chunks of money. We also discussed in the committee the culpability of the receiving banks, if they have dodgy accounts that they have not checked out thoroughly, and have not joined up two systems to check the nature of the account and whether it is right.

As we go forward, it would be nice if we could agree that there was some kind of flavour of these amendments that the Government could bring forward so that we do not have to do anything on Report. Perhaps there could be assurances that that kind of balance, and the sorts of things that have been said in the report from the committee, are taken on board. A lot of work went into that issue. There are many ways in which we can do things—it does not always have to be through legislation—but all these points are very valid ones for what needs to be done. I think that is probably all that I need to say, but I recommend that the sense of these amendments is taken forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)]

My Lords, I may have had the unique experience among us here of having to chair the committees that did some of the anti-money laundering directives. It is right that the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, points at the origins and the fact that we have carried through some things that were not necessary.

We have to go back to where it all began. He was quite right that it was with the Financial Action Task Force, which related to foreign nationals. We had a problem in the EU with what that meant—foreign vis-à-vis the EU—and tried hard to construct ways in which we could exempt the whole of the EU. There were words that would do that, but they did not get past the civil liberties committee people. We kept running up against being told that we could not discriminate. It was very difficult, because two committees were involved—my committee, the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, and the civil liberties committee. Most of the time, because we were a bigger committee, we managed to outvote the civil liberties people, but there were one or two places where they had unique responsibility and, unfortunately, things such as discrimination were theirs, not ours.

I am telling this story because, if we want to solve this problem—if we say, “Okay, now we’ve had Brexit, we don’t need to stick to the rules that were made in the EU”—what can we do? Can we actually do what FATF said and discriminate within the UK against people who are in the UK but foreign? Where does that leave us with our discrimination laws? I cannot solve that, but I wonder whether the Minister knows the answer—because if the answer is that we are not hidebound and can do what FATF said, let us do that and put the focus where it should be.

It is very difficult to do a risk-based approach. I am all for it, and I think that the banks should do more of it. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, has explained, it is costly. In fact, these things are outsourced; you fill in all the forms, somebody somewhere else ticks the boxes and the bank jolly well does not know its client any better. Then two or three years later, they ask you for all the same forms again, and they do not notice if you have done it exactly the same.

When the anti-money laundering regulations first came out, we seemed to get up to speed in the UK very quickly, and we started getting all this rubbish very quickly. I got the Belgian versions, because I still had Belgian bank accounts. I got a nice little form with tick-boxes on, so I photocopied that and started sending it to some UK banks, asking them why they could not do the same thing, although it did not get me anywhere. Recently, all the EU banks have stepped up, and my son has had a lot of trouble with the Irish banks, because he was working in Ireland—and he had even more trouble once he was no longer working in Ireland and came back to the UK, even though he has Irish nationality. He has had to close his accounts, because he just could not operate them.

So there are some issues here that need to be handled. I thought, going through this and trying to remember the discussions we had, that the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, got the closest by saying that if they are already having some check, such as through the tax authority, then that is a proper and non-discriminatory way to take people out of it. It is hard to think of anything better than that, other than just taking everybody out.

It is true that these regulations were really meant for catching politicians in dodgy countries who had access to ways to bypass the normal systems and checks for moving large sums of money between countries—for pilfering it. It is very difficult to talk about who they might have been without having carefully prepared your notes—although I know we have parliamentary privilege. They were not meant to affect ordinary people. Under the FATFA provisions, it was never meant to be ordinary people or ordinary politicians in generally law-abiding countries, shall we say, where politicians are not given extraordinary access to start siphoning off money from the central bank and suchlike. I do not think there is anyone in our central bank who can do that—perhaps the chief cashier; I have not thought about that—but that is who they were meant for.

Like others, I do not have confidence that our regulators will necessarily break cover and do something dramatically new if we ask them to revise this. It will be a problem that they are entrenched in the rules they have and the thinking of the other regulators who they keep meeting when they go places. It needs something very clear in legislation—something like the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, if we can check out the point about discrimination. It is very difficult for us, as PEPs, to vote on things such as this, but it is causing a lot of distress to a lot of people. It is potentially devastating when you cannot complete on your house purchase and such things, and when things are happening randomly. It needs to be attended to. I really do not see why the Government cannot put their foot down and say to the banks and regulators that this must be done in a way that truly reflects who the targets are.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

I will speak very briefly in support of the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Moylan and those spoken to by my noble friend Lady Noakes. All noble Lords have spoken very well, and there is clearly consensus here. The specific issue here has trundled on for 10 years. I remember that when I served as treasurer of the 1922 Committee, this was an issue taken up by both the then chairman and, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, by Sir Charles Walker. I naively believed that we had resolved this issue by about 2017-18; obviously, that is not what happened.

This is about the limits of a permissive regulatory regime. It is clear that the Treasury and the regulatory bodies involved have not taken a blind bit of notice of the cross-party support in Parliament. This is not a niche issue that affects just us. In my case, I was affected because I was told by my mortgage provider that I was not going to be permitted to make mortgage payments, let alone make any withdrawals from a bank account. But this is also an issue of the civil liberties of our family members and extended family members. On that basis, we must take a very tough stance.

I come back to the particular point from the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, about what we have the ability to do now that we are outside the EU—although my noble friend Lord Kirkhope is right that we must not recapitulate the arguments about Brexit. The noble Baroness’s point was astute, in that there is no proper risk analysis and risk assessment of all of these individual cases. A generic policy is applied across all individuals.

Frankly, let us be honest: the UK is one of the most open and transparent political systems in the western world. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, is absolutely right that people are not attracted to public service if the fallback position is, “You’re a liar, a cheat, a crook and a thief if you go into public service”. It is important that, after 10 years, we make that appropriate point.

If we do not adopt my noble friend Lord Moylan’s rather benign amendment, a future Government may well take a much more draconian approach to this, both for the regulators and for the individual financial institutions. On that basis, they have a vested interest in sorting this situation out because, when the Financial Action Task Force proposals were published in 2012, they were not about asking people like the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, to produce a premium bond certificate from 1957—I scarcely believe that it was 1957; I thought it might be a lot later.

This is an opportunity, and I hope that my noble friend the Minister makes, or at least commits to, those changes. This is not the first time that I have been compared to a brothel keeper—although that is normally in the other House—but my noble friend Lord Moylan makes a good point. This is an opportunity to right this wrong. This is not about us and it is not a niche issue: it is about civil liberties, decency, honesty, openness and transparency. We need action from Ministers on this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

I know the answer to this. It is because the FCA said in 2017 that a council was not a parliament or similar body. Those words appear in the task force recommendation. By declaring that a council was not a parliament or a similar body, members of councils immediately fell out of the regulatory scope by virtue of the guidance as it was changed at that time.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)]

This may not be something that the Minister can answer straightaway, but she has just finished by saying that the law enforcement agencies still wanted to keep the provisions. It would be good if she could tell me which and why, and on the basis of what evidence. How many parliamentarians have been done for money laundering, for example, and how many have featured seriously in inquiries? If that information is not to hand, I should be very happy to have it explained in detail in writing. I am still a bit perplexed, because my understanding of FATF was the same as that of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan: that is to do with foreign politicians, not our domestic politicians, or has FATF been updated? Oh, the noble Lord has it on his iPad.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

It is the website with the 2021 version of the recommendations.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)]

So I cannot reconcile what the Minister has just told us with what is in FATF. If it needs detailed and arduous explanation, I am quite happy to have it in writing, but on the face of it, it is irreconcilable.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

Further to the questions of the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, can the Minister point to any illegal activity on the part of a parliamentary PEP that has been detected as result of the money laundering regulations?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

I absolutely take that point. It comes back to the appropriate and proportionate enforcement of these regulations. I know that that is something noble Lords have raised previously, but we need to continue to work to ensure that it takes place.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)]

This goes back to when the Minister mentioned the FATF provisions. I thought she mentioned the risks in business relationships. All the stuff we get as PEPs is our personal stuff; it is nothing to do with business relationships. I have not been interrogated about anything to do with the London Stock Exchange, of which I am a non-executive director; I am interrogated about my father’s will and that kind of stuff.

Again, I am happy—in fact I would almost prefer—for the Minister to write the replies because it is hard to put together quoted bits and pieces, even when we get them back in Hansard. It seems that the whole risk assessment business is being set aside at the behest of the security agencies, which just like the idea that they have another captive load of people and that they may be able to track something with money—which I doubt, because these forms go to an outsourced place, they are filed, and nobody ever looks at them. There is no “know your client” going on. They may look at one or two, but I do not see how it adds up at all, even taking that security aspect into account, because if anybody was really a security threat, there are other ways of vetting.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

I am confused. I always encourage people to find out what is happening in this House by telling them to look at the speeches and follow Hansard, but now I am dreading anyone watching this because we have a government Minister implying that the security services at looking at us, particularly our private financial affairs, because we are high risk. Why? I do not think that is true. I want to denounce the notion that because you are in the House of Lords you are more likely to be doing something such as that.

I do not think the Minister can answer my second point, but I think we would all feel that it is a generalised accusation rather than specifically going after individuals who might be doing things that are wrong based on evidence, which nobody here objects to. Never mind the families; I have got to the point now where it is not just the families. I am sitting here feeling embarrassed, thinking, “Oh god, somebody is basically saying that the security forces think that we are all up to no good”. If the public find that out, it is said by a Minister and it is the general atmosphere, that is not good, is it? I usually put my speeches up on social media; I am not putting this one on. I do not want anyone to know about this conversation, because it will discredit the reputation of this House far more than anything else.

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, I have already set out for the Committee, and I repeat now, the reasons why UK domestic PEPs may be at greater risk of money laundering. For example, in the general sense, the positions of influence that we have can put us at greater risk. I have also tried to set out—and will set out in writing for noble Lords—the approach that we are taking to look at risk in this area. I will share any further details that I am able to.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)]

Following on from what has just been said, I would quite like the Minister to rephrase what she said: that we are at greater risk of money laundering. I cannot let that stand on the record.

[Noble Lords]

Hear, hear.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)]

I can let stand that we might, in some instances, be at greater risk of being targeted for various things, and I hope that we also have a greater capacity for repelling such actions, given the experience of people in the House and having done the sorts of things that we have done throughout our lives. I am not prepared to accept that kind of statement with any acquiescence whatever on my behalf or, by the sound of it, on behalf of colleagues here.

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

I am very happy to clarify for the Committee and anyone who may be reading our proceedings, that we, due to our positions of influence, are at greater risk of being targeted by those who may seek to engage in money laundering.

Financial Services and Markets Bill

Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 1st March 2023 Grand Committee

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, much of what we have just heard would be very much supported by the group of people with whom I work. We do not want to reduce the protection of either group of which we are speaking, particularly small people asking for redress.

The ombudsman service needs reform; there is no doubt about that. We really have to discuss putting some stakes in the ground about not blaming people for things they would never have thought of at that point because we now think of them. I am afraid that my noble friend Lord Lilley’s amendments do not help us in that direction. In other words, all the issues I would want to raise about the ombudsman are not covered by these amendments. Similarly, it is true about the protection of people from the effect of investigation, even when that investigation turns out not to be justified.

I finish by reminding the Committee of the original discussion we had. We need a system that people see to be fair and is shown to work effectively for small as well as big people. I do not think these amendments will help this, but I hope we will be able to have changes. I do not think that you should accept any changes just because you want changes, and I submit that these are the wrong changes.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)]

My Lords, I am speaking later than I would have in the debate, due to the absence of my noble friend Lady Kramer. The Committee will be pleased to know that I shall not try to say everything that I would have said, as well as everything that she would have said.

It is well known from the previous FSMA that I support independent review. I had an earlier amendment to this Bill suggesting the use of the NAO, to which the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, referred. I am pleased to support his amendments, which I have put my name to and which lay out a much more thorough range of new provisions. At this stage, I should probably remind the Committee of my interests in the register, in that I am a director of the London Stock Exchange, as I am going to talk about my regulator.

The UK would not be alone in having independent review of financial regulations as part of its accountability. That was one outcome of the review of the financial crisis in Australia. I have been around this argument many times, and today it has already been eloquently explained by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, so I pose instead the question: what happens without an independent review? One thing that is certain is that there will be complaints about regulations and, by and large, the regulators will defend their work. Parliament’s committees will try to scrutinise, but that is a public process—or it has been called the political process. They are well adapted to do the kind of inquiry that they do and often get into the nub of the matter. But as we have found out in the Industry and Regulators Committee, it is difficult to get industry to state in public what its issues are with the regulators. As I have pointed out with amendments and speeches on previous days, the Government do not give any legislative status to the parliamentary reports, so there is scrutiny but no consequence, which is not accountability.

Additionally, within intensively supervised frameworks, such as that which exists, probably uniquely, in the financial services sector, there is genuine concern on the industry side about regulators’ retaliation or suspicion if they complain. I acknowledge that the heads of the regulators have said that this would not happen, and would be wrong, but that does not allay concerns or whispers about this most crucial of relationships between industry and its regulators, where every word is guarded. There are also genuine concerns that explanations require public disclosure about investigations or other difficulties that firms may have faced in compliance, which they would rather not put in the public domain—for example, out of commercial confidentiality about future plans and not for reasons of bad behaviour.

Industry will therefore instead bend the ear of government through many of the private channels that it has, whether through the Treasury or at Cabinet level—for example, as it has about international competitiveness. The Government may choose to act, as they have in that instance. Meanwhile, the public channels remain uninformed or unconvinced, because—and I refer again to the experience of the Industry and Regulators Committee—we were given evidence of only operational inefficiency and not of rules that caused any lack of competitiveness. How is public trust to be maintained under these circumstances? How is there to be the legitimacy that has been spoken about? How are reviews to get through the confidentiality concerns in a way that the public trusts?

The Minister has sat tight on review in all the previous debates on this Bill and the previous one, saying that the Government have given themselves powers to satisfy those requirements—powers to ask the regulator to review its rules. I do not object to that, but it hardly has any independence or new eyes. There are powers to seek independent reviews but as we know from experience, because those powers have been around for a while, such reviews have not been used quickly or frequently. They tend to follow a sequence of disasters, as the Gloster review did, and not to be done in any checking or anticipatory way. I understand why that is, because government must keep a certain distance and look for some systemic concern rather than one-off causes, but that distance leaves a gap.

Of course, there are powers to intervene by way of directions, which need to be used with care if the independence of regulators and international respect for them are to be maintained. None of those powers satisfactorily address how there should be checking in a way that permits private submissions but remains free of it looking as if government either is interfering too much and getting too cosy with industry, which is what it will look like if the Government use their powers to intervene as much as might be needed, or never acts until there has been substantial damage, when it really is too late.

I would also be interested if the Minister would inform the Committee of the level of resources and number of personnel that the Treasury is able to put behind its own monitoring, and whether it is free from reliance on industry and consultancy involvement. It is no good if it is just sent back to the same people, who will give the same information as comes in through the private channels anyway. How is that meant to be independent? I hope the Minister will take account of the fact that calls for independent review, as well as enhanced parliamentary scrutiny, come from all sides of the House and need to be addressed. There should be some serious conversations before we get to Report.

I will briefly say a few things about the amendments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Lilley but I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Tyrie. It would be a dreadful shame if one of the major achievements of this Parliament after the last financial crisis were watered down or, even worse, set aside. I fear that, as has been explained, that could well be the case. When the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, introduced his previous amendments, I said that I am not totally against a libertarian approach—one where you have to take care, and if you get it wrong then you are for the high jump—but that is not what is presented here. This proposal would make it extremely difficult for the regulators. It does not fit with the kind of regulatory system we have, with its underfunded regulators. It is a way to make it easy to set aside what the regulators have done. Given what I just explained about the relationship that firms have with their regulators—one of the reasons why, regrettably, they will shy away from legal action—it will not necessarily overturn that.

I do not agree with the predictability and consistency objective, for the reasons that others have explained: we want agility and change, and have to adapt to circumstance. If something comes to court, surely it could remain that a judge ultimately applies it, but that would be in the light of circumstances and an acknowledgement that circumstances change and regulation necessarily proceeds.

Likewise on a good-faith defence and reasonableness, my take on the senior managers regime is that the whole point is to make individuals be proactive, rather than just coasting along in what has been a comfortable way of life—how things have always been done. It has meant they have to engage their brain, think about it and update in the light of circumstances. Just saying, “There was a set of rules and I complied”, is not meant to be enough; you have to take account of what is going on.

Is there not a conflict here to some extent between people on the one hand talking about wanting principles-led regulations and, on the other, talking about that being vague? There are complaints that there are too many rules, yet it is industry compliance departments that are first off the blocks saying, “Where are the rules? Give us the rules! I want to know where to put my tick”, so I am not sure which section of the market this proposal is supposed to serve.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, I would never want to speculate as to future parliamentary timetables. My noble friend Lord Naseby talked about the importance of listening to those who are impacted by the provisions of the Bill. He spoke about the City, and we have heard various points of view in that respect. I would add consumers into that mix, too. I say to noble Lords that the Government have consulted extensively on the approach we are taking in the Bill, and we have received a number of responses on this specific issue in both future regulatory framework review consultations that took place. Although I absolutely recognise that a small number of respondents were supportive of further consideration of such a body, the vast majority were focused on how existing mechanisms for accountability to Parliament and government and engagement with stakeholders could be strengthened. The Government therefore decided, in response to those consultations, against creating a new body, and focused on ensuring that the mechanisms for Parliament and government to scrutinise the regulators are effective.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)]

Will the Minister clarify what the questions were in the consultation? My recollection was that it was relatively open. Obviously, at that stage, industry was focused on its very important relationship with government—one cannot overestimate the importance of that—and it answered questions saying that it was happy with parliamentary scrutiny, but I have no recollection of there being a suggestion as to whether there should be another body that enabled any kind of regular review. Since that time, industry bodies have said that it would be a good idea, so it seems a bit inconsistent to claim that the consultation cleared the way to say that none was required.

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, I was simply pointing out that this Bill is the result of two rounds of consultation. The Government are criticised for bringing forward proposals without sufficient consultation. I note the noble Baroness’s points but, even in the context of those questions, there were bodies that put forward the kinds of ideas that we are discussing today. However, in the balance of responses to that consultation, they were not the dominant voice or viewpoint from the range of different people who responded to us.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

That is not what I am saying. One of the things that I was referring to with regard to the powers in the Bill was an amendment tabled in the Commons stages to try to respond to further questions about how we can facilitate accountability. I think I have been clear to all noble Lords in this Committee that that is a question that the Government will continue to consider and to engage with noble Lords on, whether it is about strengthening parliamentary accountability or other measures that help to provide the information and resources that people need to do that work. The Government will continue to reflect on those points.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)]

I am sorry to interrupt, but I find it slightly strange that the Minister is saying the Government will continue to interact with us. All that that interaction has been so far is “No”.

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

In Committee, we are discussing the different proposals that have come from noble Lords to solve these problems. I am trying to set out where the Government have previously considered these questions and the thinking behind our approach in the Bill, demonstrating that where we have been able to, for example in the introduction of Clause 37, we have made amendments to the Bill further to take into account some of these issues. When it comes to the specific proposals we are talking about, it is right that I set out that this has been considered by the Government, including through public consultation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

It would be best to set out in writing for noble Lords the specific areas of the consultation that sought to address the issues we are discussing today. As I have said, in response to those consultations, certain respondents put forward proposals in this area, so it is not right to say that it was not a topic for consultation. However, as my noble friend wants clarity on the record, I think that would be best delivered in writing.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)]

Perhaps I could intervene on this important point. In the first consultation, there were some respondents—I confess, I was one of them—who put forward notions of there being independent scrutiny. There were possibly some other organisations, I do not know, of the kind that come forward with policy ideas. But I suggest that the majority of respondents tended to be from the industry, and it is not usual for industry to invent new ideas in their responses to consultations. I asked some of the industry bodies about this at the time, and that was the response I got. They said that they thought that, as I had led the way, they might want to pick it up in later consultation—but by the time you get to round two, it is much more concentrated on what will be in the Bill and “Do you agree with this?” It does not say “And, by the way, what have we left out that might have been a good idea?” Industry does not spend its time and risk putting in responses about that kind of thing.

I should be very interested to hear the analysis of the type and numbers of people who responded. Frankly, we have to rely on what we are told. Once upon a time, you used to know who had responded and could judge, and if the weight of the responses came from industry, I am not surprised that there was nothing in there. If the weight of the responses from the non-industry part had some good ideas, perhaps the Minister could tell us.

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

As I have said, I will set out further detail on the consultation process in writing. It is worth just noting that this question was also considered by Parliament through the Treasury Select Committee in its report The Future Framework for Regulation of Financial Services, which said that

“The creation of a new independent body to assess whether regulators were fulfilling their statutory objectives would not remove the responsibility of this Committee to hold the regulators to account, and it would also add a further body to the financial services regulatory regime which we would need to scrutinise.”

--- Later in debate ---

To conclude, the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, set out why the nature of the changes proposed by my noble friend Lord Lilley would need significant consultation and discussion rather than being appropriate as an amendment to the Bill. While I will of course engage with my noble friends and all noble Peers ahead of Report on the issue of regulators’ accountability to this House, we need to reflect on the need for measures to receive sufficient consideration and consultation in order to be added to the Bill. I close by emphasising my offer to noble Lords to continue to engage in and discuss the issues of accountability that we have heard in this Committee session and others.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)]

I think the Minister has just said that she will engage but that the answer is still “no”.

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

I have set out why the Government have concerns and that we should have further conversations to explore the issues that have been raised. I believe that is neither a “yes” nor a “no”.