Financial Services Bill

Debate between Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted and Earl Howe

Committee stage
Monday 8th March 2021 Grand Committee

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, I hope that my response to this debate has indicated that, of course, we regard mutual determinations of equivalence as desirable. However, I have also made it clear that there is advantage to both the UK and the EU in our adopting an autonomous position to take decisions for ourselves in this area. Of course, I am hopeful that our discussions with the EU will progress in a helpful way, and I assure my noble friend that, as soon as I have news that I can vouchsafe to him and other noble Lords, I shall certainly do so.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for what has turned out to be a very interesting debate. For once, the crafting of my probing amendment produced exactly the responses that I was hoping to obtain. Here is the thing: in many respects, I can agree with everybody, even though noble Lords were obviously coming from different positions.

The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Noakes and Lady Neville-Rolfe, think that we just have to get on and plough our own furrow. The Minister has said that that is essentially what we are doing, but we are maintaining the hope or ambition that the EU will, one day, come round and finally realise that there is mutual advantage in equivalence decisions or whatever one wants to call them. In my opening speech, I said that I had sometimes failed to persuade it of that, and, ultimately, we already see the pattern: once it realises it needs it, we will get it, but not before. It will not concede a general mutual benefit, which is one of the big differences between the UK and the EU. I fully support the line that the UK is taking, which is to be open and to show that openness works. There lies the power of London—and common law has a hand in it as well.

The Minister has been clear. On the adoption of the squidgy balloon, as I termed it, I did not mean that in a disrespectful way; I was just trying to say that the EU looks for something concrete, and we have a squidgy balloon, although the outcome might end up being around the same. It has difficulty with that, but we are proceeding with the squidgy balloon, and, therefore, we will have to take in our stride whether we get equivalence or not. I think that that is what the Minister has said, quite fairly and clearly.

However, he has confirmed that standards will be maintained. I knew that I was broadly quoting from guidelines in the first part of my amendment; that was not a happy accident. However, there was confirmation that there will always be this looking at the outcomes and what is supporting that, which applies no matter the route we take to equivalence or whatever else it is called—as the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, explained, there are various routes to achieving the mutual recognition, however it comes about.

From my perspective, this has ended up being quite a satisfactory debate—probably nobody is happy, but we are where we are. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Financial Services Bill

Debate between Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted and Earl Howe

Committee stage
Monday 1st March 2021 Grand Committee

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, this amendment would require an independent review of both the FCA and the PRA every five years, and it sets out a number of things that the review would have to cover. The FCA was created to ensure that relevant markets work well. In practice, that means regulating the conduct of firms to make sure that the financial services sector is serving the interests of individuals, businesses and the economy as a whole. It has a broad remit and is responsible for regulating nearly 60,000 firms.

I accept the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles: the recent investigations by Dame Elizabeth Gloster and Raj Parker have shown that the FCA does not always get this completely right. However, the FCA is wholly committed to learning from past mistakes. It is addressing the recommendations in both these reports and we can see that commitment being translated into action.

The FCA has set out how it will accelerate its ongoing process of reform, including through its transformation programme led by the new CEO, Nikhil Rathi. It has committed to provide public updates on progress every six months, and it is right that the Government and Parliament hold it to account on delivering these important changes. The FCA absolutely knows what it needs to do, and that it needs to do it under a spotlight, both from the Treasury and from Parliament.

That is one part of my answer to my noble friend Lady Noakes, who asked me how the Government assure themselves that the regulators are fit for purpose. But the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, spoke about the need for assurance and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, similarly, on the need for accountability. I reassure all three noble Baronesses that there already exist a number of mechanisms to hold regulators to account, both to Parliament to the Treasury. I believe that these existing mechanisms are sufficient to achieve the outcomes that this amendment is aiming at. I touched on some of these points in my previous remarks to this Committee, but I will attempt to provide a short summary here.

First of all, the regulators are required to produce annual reports and accounts, which are laid before Parliament by the Treasury and certified by the National Audit Office. The regulators are subject to full audit by the National Audit Office, and the NAO has the associated ability to launch value-for-money studies on the FCA and PRA. The FCA is subject to scrutiny via departmental Select Committee hearings, including the Public Accounts Committee and the Treasury Select Committee, which holds regular six-monthly meetings with the FCA CEO and Chair. The Treasury Select Committee scrutinises the appointments of the FCA Chair and CEO posts, and the Treasury has direct control over appointments to the FCA board and powers under the Financial Services Act 2012 to commission reviews and investigations.

The Treasury is also able to launch investigations under Section 77 of the Financial Services Act 2012 where it suspects there may have been regulatory failure. There are a number of informal mechanisms as well: there is nothing to prevent a Select Committee of either House launching inquiries, taking evidence on them, and reporting with recommendations; that is a decision for them. In speaking to Parliament about this Bill, both the PRA and FCA have stressed that they are committed to appropriate parliamentary scrutiny and will always respond to requests for engagement. Combined, these measures ensure that there is sufficient independent scrutiny of our regulators.

I am the first to agree that this is particularly important in light of Dame Elizabeth Gloster’s findings, but I reassure the Committee that, in addition to these measures, the Economic Secretary meets frequently with the FCA CEO to monitor progress on these critical reforms and ensure that the FCA remains focused on effectively delivering against its objectives. Of course, however, as we have discussed, the future regulatory framework review is considering the appropriate accountability mechanisms for the regulators, so this will provide an opportunity to consider these issues further. I hope that these remarks are helpful and sufficiently reassuring to the noble Baroness to enable her to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I thank everybody who has spoken in what has turned out to be quite an interesting debate, the majority of whom have supported the general notion of my probing amendment, if not exactly all the specifics that I put into it, which perhaps tried to do too much. To clarify my intention, it was exactly as my noble friend Lady Kramer summarised: it was for a regular review that gave oversight to the regulator’s activities. As the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, said, the systemic factors also had oversight of that change.

I am sure that it is possible for this to come from other quarters. The Minister has suggested that it comes from the Treasury. Perhaps it could come from a parliamentary committee, although what I had in mind was not so much a body that solely took evidence but a few people who could get inside and examine procedures and find out how the operations worked.

Like others, I would like to clarify my concerns here. I know how difficult it is to be a regulator, especially to be the conduct and markets regulator, where things are less tangible than in some of the prudential regulation work, but it is about giving a helping hand. Although a lot of good thought and planning goes into how to address the problems that are exposed every time there is a review, if it is done from the inside, that is never the same as having eyes that come from outside. The thing about having an independent regulator is that, if you want independence, ultimately, the review should be independent. Having those reviews monitored through the Treasury is not necessarily the sort of independence that is satisfactory if you want to say that it is independent, and I question whether it is possible to do it through a parliamentary committee.

Financial Services Bill

Debate between Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted and Earl Howe

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

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, this is clearly a detailed and analytical question, which is probably not appropriate for Grand Committee. I would be happy to write to the noble Baroness, giving her chapter and verse as far as I am able to do.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I thank all who have spoken in this debate, and the Minister for the extensive replies. As he said, we have heard a lot of views, a lot of which I felt coincided with one another, at least in terms of what was said, more perhaps than appears in the amendments. Ultimately, a lot of the things that were complained against could be dealt with through proportionality. Yes, it is not competitive if the actions of the regulator are not proportionate—be that in rules or supervision. Therefore, I think there is less need to give a specific competitiveness mandate, because that confuses whether you are seeking something else on top. I refer to what the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, said in introducing his amendment, when he said that these things were probably taken into account but not formally, or they would be taken as given in any other industry.

Pension Schemes Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted and Earl Howe

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard) & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 30th June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, for her amendment, which touches on a number of important factors to be considered in the development of secondary legislation, including the factors that it lists. I say immediately that I agree that these are all important factors to take into account when developing secondary legislation for defined benefit scheme funding. However, we do not need an amendment to do that. The amendment includes factors that are all taken into consideration during the whole process of framing policy, legislation and guidance.

One of the greatest strengths of our scheme-funding regime is that it operates on a scheme-by-scheme basis because every scheme is different, and it would be unhelpful and inflexible to treat them all the same. The measures in the Bill build on that approach, as will the secondary legislation. The existing scheme-funding legislation has been drafted to ensure that it is flexible enough to apply to all types of defined benefit scheme—for example, whether open or closed. Equally, the scheme-funding measures in the Bill are flexible enough to apply to all types of defined benefit scheme.

In the protecting defined benefits White Paper we were clear that there are a number of examples for suitable long-term objectives and that running on with employer support would be a reasonable course of action for an open scheme. Whether or not the strategy for ensuring that benefits can be provided in the long term is suitable will depend on the specific context of a particular scheme. Additionally, we entirely accept that schemes with different liquidity profiles and maturity will be able to take different trajectories. This is, and will remain, fundamental to the scheme-specific approach. So I assure the noble Baroness and the House that any regulations will also be formulated with considerations such as those outlined in the amendment in mind, where appropriate.

The big danger with an amendment of this kind is that it creates inflexibility. It remains our aim that the scheme-funding measures in the Bill do not change existing flexibilities but, rather, seek to make best practice universal and ensure that all schemes are planning for the long term. It is good practice for all schemes, including open schemes, to set a funding and investment strategy.

My noble friend Lord Young asked whether I could commit to a meeting along with officials to discuss these issues. Yes, I am happy to do that, and if schemes have concerns with what TPR is proposing they can engage with the current consultation. The Pension Regulator’s current consultation on the defined benefits funding code includes a twin-track compliance process that takes account of scheme and employer circumstances. Indeed, the current consultation has a full chapter on open schemes, and I encourage anyone interested to contribute their views.

Regulation-making powers exist precisely to allow the system to be calibrated effectively to ensure that this balance is struck. While the noble Baroness’s amendment reflects a number of factors that are considered while developing policy, we do not need to specify those in primary legislation and indeed, as I hope I have indicated, it would be unhelpful to do so. We need to leave room for the flexibility that I have emphasised; we must leave enough flexibility in the system to allow it to react effectively to future changes. Indeed, in the light of the current social and economic climate, it is very clear that the economic shape of the future is unknowable.

I hope that the noble Baroness will recognise from what I have said that the Government’s approach is fair and proportionate and that she will accept my assurance that appropriate flexibilities are, and will continue to be put, in place. On that basis I respectfully urge her, and urge her with some emphasis, to withdraw the amendment.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted [V]]

My Lords, I thank all those who have spoken in this debate. I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Young, and the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, for signing the amendment, for making their contributions and for speaking to the Government. It is clear to see that there is support for the amendment from across the House, and I hope that it is also clearer to everyone why preservation of open DB schemes is in the public interest. We are, in fact, in a rather strange situation where the Minister is in agreement with the policy; it is in government policy, but yet there is a significant danger from what the Pensions Regulator has actually said. That is the sole reason why there needs to be something on the face of the Bill that confirms what is government policy.

The Government have a further opportunity to amend this Bill in a way that they consider is better than my amendment and give guidance in a different way. I would be happy to help, but we have run out of time and I have not heard a suggestion that something will actually be presented at Third Reading. This House does not have any more opportunities with this Bill, and I cannot see anything coming down the track to give us another opportunity that would be in time to make a difference with regard to the Pensions Regulator’s obvious position.

This is not a new argument: I have spent 10 years in Brussels arguing the toss on these things, on the difference between IORPs and Solvency II, and I know where the pressure comes from the former FSA—now the FCA. Part of this Bill, on CMP schemes, is fixing a problem for one newly privatised employer. Why dump others who have found good ways to make their DB schemes flourish and last? If the Government do not make it clear, that is what will happen: they may well end up being dumped.

In the first group of amendments, the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, said that she did not want CMP schemes to undermine DB schemes. Without this amendment or something like it, they may well have nowhere else to go. This is not a nice-to-have amendment; it is vital. The issue should not be swept into the corner for these pension schemes to die quietly, and I wish to test the view of the House.

Pension Schemes Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted and Earl Howe

Committee stage & Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 2nd March 2020 Grand Committee

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I fully appreciate that the noble Baroness is trying to ensure that consumers are properly protected and have confidence in the dashboard infrastructure. Indeed, an aspect of this is the need for robust supervision, and I share her belief that it is important to make clear who will be responsible for oversight of the different aspects of the infrastructure. I do not think that much divides the noble Baroness and me on the objective to be achieved.

I recognise the need for a strong supervisory and regulatory regime for dashboard providers. I also agree with the thoughts expressed by many noble Lords at Second Reading about a new regulated activity being key to maintaining public confidence in dashboards. As I explained earlier, we intend to do this by amending the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) Order 2001.This will bring the provision of a qualifying dashboard service within the regulatory remit of the Financial Conduct Authority. Unauthorised firms will neither be able to connect to the supporting infrastructure nor be able to provide a dashboard service.

Once the amendment to the order has been made, the regulatory framework for the activity will be proposed in the FCA’s public consultation on the corresponding handbook rules and guidance. This will allow the public and the industry a chance to comment. The FCA must have regard to any representations made to it during the consultation period. This framework can be used to set out any expectations regarding the behaviour of dashboard providers and, in this way, will supplement any conditions imposed on dashboard providers set out in regulations. I would argue that this is where we dot the “i”s and cross the “t”s, as the noble Baroness put it.

I note that the amendment also refers to revenue generated by both dashboard providers and third parties. It might not be necessary for me to do so but I want to reassure the Committee that all qualifying dashboard services, like the dashboard provided by the Money and Pension Service, will not be allowed to charge simply for consumers to see their own information. The provision of financial services and products by firms that are dashboard providers will remain subject to FCA regulation. Fundamentally, our aim in allowing multiple dashboards is only to give customers more options in accessing their information, not different information.

The mention of information should remind us that pension information is the lifeblood of a sustainable dashboard. Dashboards will work within the existing framework established by the general data protection regulation and the Data Protection Act 2018. Dashboard providers will be subject to penalties under these laws should they fail to meet required standards of consumer and data protection. One of the key principles in the design of the dashboard is that the individual will always be in control over who has access to their data. Qualifying dashboard service providers will not be able to see information about the individual’s pension rights.

The responsibility for the provision of accurate data falls on pension schemes. The Pensions Regulator will be responsible for ensuring occupational pension schemes’ compliance with requirements. The FCA will regulate personal and stakeholder pension schemes. Enforcement options, including fines, will be among the tools available to the regulators if requirements are not met.

The role of these regulators will be complemented by the Money and Pensions Service, which will establish and maintain the dashboard infrastructure. While it will not act as a regulator, it will work with the regulators to enable their compliance activity. It is also obliged, as part of its consumer protection function under the Financial Guidance and Claims Act, to report to the FCA where regulated persons are behaving in a manner detrimental to customers.

That leads me to the issue of redress. If an individual wishes to seek redress, any queries around possible incorrect information should be directed to the scheme in the first instance. Schemes are already required to have dispute resolution processes. To come back to a question asked earlier by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, if people are not satisfied with the outcome of the internal dispute resolution procedure, they can take their case to the relevant ombudsman.

The amendment covers the need for regulations around assumptions, projections and comparison of costs and charges. I reiterate that we expect that the initial information provided on dashboards will be simple in the first phase. Adding further information, such as projected pension income and costs and charges, requires consideration on the delivery and consumer protection aspects of these proposals, as we have discussed. I am not ruling out the possibility of including such information, but the industry delivery group should be allowed to consider the implications fully and make its recommendations. To commit to regulations around possible assumptions and comparisons before then would be premature.

Of course, as the noble Baroness will be aware, individuals can already access information on costs and charges. The DWP has consulted on simpler annual benefits statements; the noble Baroness may like to know that it will publish a response on that subject in the spring. The consultation looks at the presentation of costs and charges and how projections are calculated. It acknowledged the crucial need for simpler statements to be consistent with the work on dashboards. We will consider how insights from the consultation can be incorporated into dashboards.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Drake and Lady Sherlock, emphasised the need for adequate consumer representation. The Money and Pensions Service has brought together an industry delivery group whose job it is to ensure that the design of pensions dashboards is informed by industry experts and consumer groups. Membership of its steering group was announced in September last year. It includes a strong representation of consumer groups, including representation from Which? and an independent representative with significant experience in consumer protection. There will also be opportunities for other consumer representatives to take part in working groups, which will help to ensure that the final design is on what information and features consumers value.

The noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, asked specifically about the need to include advertising on a dashboard. I can do no other than refer back to my earlier points. Rules on advertising are as those around any other incremental addition to the dashboard, and rules on the parameters around the use of data will be looked at very carefully. They will be developed by the Government in conjunction with the FCA, which will work with industry and consumer representatives on the delivery group to make sure that if we go down that path, it is with our eyes open and with the risks minimised. We will of course consult on any rules surrounding that issue.

I hope that I have given sufficient reassurance around consumer protection to show that the dashboard infrastructure will build on existing regulatory frameworks. That, with the need to keep dashboards simple, means that while I understand the rationale of the amendment, I consider it unnecessary. I hope that, on reflection, the noble Baroness will feel that she is comfortable in withdrawing her amendment.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. As I said, this is a probing amendment but also an attempt to indicate a framework that could be constructive, perhaps in particular around some of those issues on which all noble Lords have spoken. It covers things such as advertising; it may be that the regulation that one would want around advertising is that there cannot be any of it, but that would still be a regulation to prohibit. I feel that there is a need for an explanation of this vision, somehow all in one place. Yes, a lot of it could be extracted from today’s debate and the reassurances that have been given. However, it would be much better at the very least if it was all put together, perhaps in an Explanatory Memorandum. I still tend to think that there should be something in the Bill, even if more dilute than what I have proposed.

I very much thank the noble Baroness, Lady Drake. This inequality of arms is extremely important. When it comes to FCA consultations, how many members of the public respond? I am not sure whether I am a member of the public, but I have done it from time to time, and I can tell your Lordships that, even for somebody like myself who is well used to this kind of thing, the way it is composed and constructive can be jolly difficult to get your head around. It can be difficult to get yourself organised to put it in, unless you happen to be an industry specialist who does these kinds of things all the time. I therefore very much doubt that you get members of the public responding; you may get some of the consumer organisations, but again, I doubt that they have the familiarity that is necessary always to be able to nail the point.

As was also suggested, there is a tendency with consultations to weigh the responses: X% says this, and Y% says that, and the ones who struggle and have difficulty, which is always on the consumer side, are outweighed. An awful lot of people with a financial interest from the industry side will respond. There needs to be a better mechanism for communicating with, if you like, the public and their representatives. One thing that could be done is for the FCA to obligingly inform Parliament when it is coming out with its consultations. I do not camp on the FCA’s website, looking for its consultations, and if I do not, I do not know how many members of the public will. This is a work in progress. I have to come back again on the costs.

Pension Schemes Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted and Earl Howe

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting & Committee: 1st sitting : House of Lords
Monday 24th February 2020 Grand Committee

[Earl Howe]

It will be made clear—in practice, if anything—but the Secretary of State will reserve the power for the rarest of occasions, I imagine, in the circumstances that I outlined. The normal course would be for the traditional prosecuting authorities to act. Only where the Secretary of State sees an egregious example of someone likely to get away without prosecution for reasons beyond the control of the prosecuting authorities will he or she step in. I cannot generalise about the circumstances. That power is there, as in the other Acts that I mentioned, very much as a long-stop provision.

Amendment 35, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, proposes a new clause requiring the Pensions Regulator to publish guidance on how it intends to use the new criminal offences. We think this amendment is unnecessary. The Pensions Regulator already has a general prosecution policy in place which sets out the matters it considers when using its prosecution powers. The Pensions Regulator intends to issue further specific guidance explaining its approach to prosecuting the new offences under Part 3 of the Bill.

I fear there is also a practical difficulty, because it is unclear how the amendment could be implemented. The amendment would require the Pensions Regulator to publish guidance pertaining to the new offences at the point of Royal Assent. The problem with that is that the provisions in Part 3, which include the new criminal offences, are subject to changes up to the point of Royal Assent and it would be unwise to pre-empt the will of Parliament by preparing guidance based on draft provisions. It is expected that, following Royal Assent, the regulator will consult on the contents of the guidance for the new offences and expects to publish this guidance prior to commencement. It is clearly important that the industry’s views are sought on what is contained in the guidance, and the timing requirement proposed in this amendment would mean the regulator would consult before the offences are finally settled.

A further reason the amendment is unnecessary—indeed, I would say inappropriate—is due to the inclusion of the phrase

“guidance … concerning the operation of law”.

This phrase has a very specific meaning, and implies that the intention behind the amendment is that it will be for the Pensions Regulator to determine how the legislation should be interpreted. This is of course a matter for the courts, which will make the decision as to whether an offence has been committed in a particular case. Therefore, while the regulator’s guidance will provide assistance as to how the regulator intends to use the new criminal offences, it will not be definitive; nor could it or should it be, since something deemed to be reasonable in one case, for example, may not be reasonable in another. I should mention, for completeness, that there are a number of technical issues with all these amendments which could cause confusion. I shall not go into them here, but I can explain the details to noble Lords if necessary, outside the Committee.

My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe asked what kind of estimate we make of the number of people who might go to prison under these criminal offences. Clearly, irresponsible treatment of pension schemes is rare; however, it is important that where we have wilful or reckless behaviour, appropriate sanctions are available. The Pensions Regulator has successfully brought 16 convictions over the past two and a half years—it is of course for the courts to decide who gets convicted and what the penalty should be. I hope it is widely accepted that the Pensions Regulator must meet a higher threshold before a criminal prosecution can be commenced. As the Pensions Regulator has already commented, it would use these new powers only in the right circumstances.

The noble Lord, Lord Hutton, asked a further question about the words “any person” and what other legislation uses that phrase. It is the norm for criminal offences across the statute book to be drafted as applying to “any person” and I can give him examples—I would be happy to write to him.

It is clear that the majority of employers want to do right by their scheme. However, we must ensure that there are sufficient safeguards to protect members’ pensions from the minority who are prepared to put them at risk. If the category of persons whose conduct is within the scope of the offences as set out in Clause 107 were to be narrowed in the way that some of the amendments propose, we believe that the deterrent provided by the offences would be weakened, as indeed would the safeguards built into them. In contrast, making the scope of the activities caught by the offences wider, as separately proposed by other amendments, not only risks removing a key consideration of the level of impact of the conduct but also reduces safeguards. The Government have therefore sought to strike a balance to ensure that members’ benefits are protected while taking into account impacts on business.

I apologise again for speaking at such length, but I hope that the comments I have made will allow noble Lords to feel comfortable in not pressing their amendments.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted]

I thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply. I had intended to probe especially around the words “wilful” and “reckless”; I had a little add-on for fun. When I first thought of putting those words in after “person”, I rapidly came to the conclusion myself—I think the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, was there—that in the end they did not make any difference. However, I am not actually sure that that is quite true with regard to the offence of the avoidance of employer debt. New subsection (2)(b) states

“the person intended the act or course of conduct to have such an effect”

but that has to be applied to the examples that might be targeted given by the Minister. In the case of sale of the employer and a parental guarantee not being replaced, that might be done through negligence rather than intent and then it would not be caught because the words “ought to have known” do not appear in the new Section 58A offence, although they do in the new Section 58B offence. So the Government have caught recklessness in new Section 58B but not in new Section 58A. Maybe the words “ought to have known” or something like them could be put there.

[Earl Howe]

It might be helpful to the noble Baroness if I clarify. New Section 58A is intended to capture the concept of wilfulness and new Section 58B the concept of recklessness.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted]

I see. I do not see why we could not have them caught in both. Anyway, we have debated this long enough. I thank the Minister for his replies, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.