Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2013
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts(11 years, 7 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, I shall comment on three aspects of these orders, of which I am very supportive. First, I welcome the elements of the order that create a regulated environment for peer-to-peer lending platforms. While most industries have spent their energies saying, “Remove red tape”, this industry has been coming to the Government and the regulator saying, “Please can we have proper regulation”, because it knows that without proper regulation, rogue players can come in from the outside, undermine the credibility of the industry and probably provoke a regulator to come in with inappropriately heavy regulation as a consequence.
Can the Minister reassure me that the industry has been involved in negotiating and structuring these regulations? It looks to me as though they meet the test, but can he assure me that they reflect the kind of safeguards that that industry has already outlined in its code of conduct, established under its trade association? I think that that code was to be the basis of most of the discussions. It is a real way forward because, as we know, the banks have been very challenged over providing the credit we need in our economy, and peer-to-peer lending is increasingly coming in to fill that gap to provide both competition and additional resource, which is useful and positive.
Secondly, I pick up my noble friend’s comments on payday lenders. I share many of his concerns about this industry. Indeed, the whole House did so, as the Minister will remember, during the passage of the Financial Services Bill in 2012, when an amendment that we colloquially called the Sassoon-Mitchell amendment put very effective powers into the hands of the FCA. When it takes over supervision of this industry in April 2014, the FCA will have powers to regulate, manage and supervise it.
The powers were written with an eye to some of the regulation that has been put in place in Florida—I believe 13 states use this kind of regulation—which includes the ability to limit the amount of borrowing to $500 outstanding at any one time, to limit the number of outstanding loans, to cap interest rates and fees and to provide for a grace repayment period. It also has various other characteristics. I would like assurance that the order does not compromise the wide range of powers sought by the House in the legislation and in the amendment.
Like my noble friend, I am concerned with the impression the industry is giving of marketing energetically and raising its interest rates above and beyond what most of us already regard as high levels. I hope the FCA will be able to hit the ground running. That means going through the consultation process and deciding how it will manage that regulation.
It is also a systems issue. As the Minister knows, the various US states that have regulation have systems that allow them to see on a real-time basis what applications are taking place, what the amount is, what the interest rate is, unauthorised rollovers and so on, and they are able to manage the process. This not only allows the regulator to look at the data and intervene in retrospect, but enables it to set up systems so that if the rules are contravened an automatic decline shows up and an offending loan cannot be made. While it needs time to put such a system into place, I wonder how likely it is that the FCA will be in a position to deliver it as early as April and, if not, what the thinking is around it.
I am afraid my next question comes from my lack of understanding and my difficulty in reading my way through orders. It concerns social impact investment, the financial promotions order and its relationship to the FCA. The Minister will know that if, for example, a social enterprise attempts to create a new community hall, it can turn to members of the local community and ask them to donate. However, it cannot ask them to invest without offending Finprom unless it has become a qualified investment, which is financially impossible for any kind of small project.
We raised this issue during the passage of the Financial Services Bill and the Government expressed their desire to deal with this problem and enable a project to turn to individuals with small amounts of money and allow them to invest. Will the FCA have the necessary power to make those changes under Finprom without having to come back for new primary legislation? I assume that, in the end, we will see a kind of materiality clause that will state that if you want to make an investment of less than £500, or whatever, you will not have to go through all that incredible palaver and you will be able to do so. Will these orders affect that, or will it fall outside their scope?
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his clarity in introducing these orders. Very often we are not wholly behind what the Government are doing but, on this one, we are. We welcome the move to the FCA and these SIs. I have supported the policy behind them for a long time, but I do not know for how long my party has done so. We particularly welcome the powers they give to the FCA. As the Minister implied, they will be its enforcement tool kit for consumer credit and will strengthen its powers to punish misconduct. We also welcome the Government’s decision not to exempt small businesses, as that might have weakened, rather than strengthened, consumer protection.
Queen’s Speech
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts(11 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, I shall speak about consumer rights, on which a number of things are to be welcomed. First, I welcomed the opportunity of hearing the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox of Soho. We look forward to her continued activity on behalf of consumers, particularly in disadvantaged communities. Secondly, I welcome the proposed consumer rights Bill and everything in it. Anything which can be done to make markets work better for consumers is good for the economy, as well for consumers. I also pay tribute to the role played by the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, in accepting our amendment on requiring letting and managing agents to belong to an ombudsman scheme. That is going to make a real difference to tenants and landlords, and help clean up the sector, which can only be good for the provision of much-needed homes. She should be proud of the results of her arm-twisting. Thirdly, I welcome the opportunity that will be provided through pre-legislative scrutiny of a draft Bill. This will ensure that we end up with a Bill that will make a real difference to consumers. That is probably enough of the good side.
I now turn to what is not in the Bill and where the Government have failed to help consumers. We on this side have tried to amend various Bills to help consumers. We sought to have the Prudential Regulatory Authority and Competition and Markets Authority set up consumer panels. The Government resisted. We sought to amend the Financial Services Bill and the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill whereby service providers should have to exercise a fiduciary duty towards their retail savers or beneficiaries. The Government resisted. We asked for the Competition and Markets Authority to include members drawn from a consumer background. We failed. We sought to prevent the closure of Consumer Focus. Sadly, we failed.
Furthermore, funding of trading standards has been slashed, thereby making the identification and prosecution of scams and rip-offs even less likely. The Government also failed to introduce a register of lobbyists. Yet who has the money to pay for fancy public affairs companies? It is not consumers. Whether it is the tobacco industry, drinks manufacturers, the insurance industry, food producers or newspaper proprietors, their bought access is never in the interests of their customers but of those industries’ bottom line. We need to know who is paying for such access. Sadly, the Government omitted from the gracious Speech proposals in this area. When tested, the Government have shown themselves to be lacking in resolve to help consumers negotiate complicated or unfair markets. The Government have failed to put consumers’ interests centre stage. Other measures in the Queen’s Speech, such as requiring landlords to check the immigration status of tenants, are likely to lead to more unofficial letting or to fewer available lets, both of which disadvantage potential tenants.
I turn to the proposals, which, although welcome, do not go far enough and miss the opportunity to ensure that consumers always get a fair deal or, failing that, easy access to redress or restitution. We welcome the enabling of “opt-out” collective redress in competition cases, whereby firms found guilty of competition law breaches will be more likely to pay damages to all affected consumers. However, the proposals are limited to competition and do not cover breaches of consumer law. Why is there no provision for claims to be brought by representative bodies, which could cover product liability, mis-selling or unfair terms such as over bank charges? We welcome the proposal to clarify the law on unfair terms in consumer contracts, which will enable, for example, bank charges to be assessable for fairness by the OFT or its equivalent body. We welcome the introduction of redress for a breach of consumer protection regulations, which will clarify the law and extend consumers’ ability to claim for losses from misleading advertisements or aggressive sales practice. We welcome the remedy for consumers when they have not received what they expected from a service, although we would like this to be extended to where the service was substandard, even though the provider used skill and care.
We welcome the provisions to clarify consumer rights for purchases with digital content. However, it is not clear whether a consumer can get a refund for faulty digital content. We will return to this matter in due course. As with our letting agents amendment, we support consumers having access to redress but would like to go further, with better enforcement and the possibility of a single portal to assist such access. We will seek to ensure that the Bill provides for a strong, accessible, collective redress mechanism, similar to those in Portugal and Australia.
Finally, where are the measures to respond to constant consumer problems? These include cold calling; energy bills increasing by £300 a year since the Government came to office; ever-increasing rail fares, up 9% a year after the Government allowed train operators to increase some fares by 5% above the cap; and extortionate charges on some pension savings such that on retirement some pensioners find that nearly half their pension fund has been wiped out by charges. We need a tough energy watchdog to force suppliers to pass price cuts on to the consumer and to ensure that the over-75s automatically get the cheapest tariff. We need intervention on rail fares and rights for passengers to get the cheapest ticket available, without having to be a whizz-kid on the computer—be they my noble friend Lord Mitchell or our latest noble Baroness.
We need transparent charges on pensions and savings, and to tackle the worst offenders by capping charges at 1%. In addition, we should have had a communications Bill to help consumers, involving greater protection for children and action to tackle the industry’s concentration and monopolistic nature. We need to strengthen people’s rights in a digital consumer’s charter that should cover privacy and online theft, price transparency, greater ease in switching providers, help for parents to protect their children online, improved access to decent broadband, consumer protection for digital payments, and effective action to tackle nuisance calls, texts and spam e-mail.
In short, we need action to create a culture that respects consumers and helps them to obtain a fair deal across all markets. We need to tackle rip-offs and sharp practice, and we need a Government to be on the side of users and consumers, not a voice for the producer or service provider over the less powerful consumer. We will welcome the consumer Bill but work to improve it to make it the best that it can be.
Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts(12 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 1 in the name of my noble friend Lord McKenzie of Luton.
Baroness Meacher
My Lords, I support Amendment 1, which seeks to ensure that the Government have flexibility to increase benefits in 2014-15 and 2015-16 taking account of the level of inflation at the time. The amendment does not seek to impose a particular percentage increase in benefits in any year. It simply seeks to avoid the straitjacket imposed by the Bill as it stands.
Amendment 1 covers all the benefits and claimant groups referred to in Schedule 1. It would therefore leave open the possibility of a Government deciding to protect a particular group, perhaps disabled people or children. This amendment has become particularly pertinent in the light of the downgrading of the British economy by the ratings agency Moody’s at the end of last week, along with the anticipation of yet more quantitative easing and the expectation that in these circumstances we will have more inflation year by year. That inflation comes on top of a level of inflation which is already above 1%, which is vital to this set of amendments and, indeed, to the Bill.
This Bill has to be considered in context. As noble Lords know very well, last year’s Welfare Reform Act has already capped benefits and imposed the bedroom tax so that an increasing percentage of everyone’s rent will be paid out of their personal allowance, leaving them with the most pathetically small amount of money to cover food, heating, clothing and other necessities. Also, the Government have already changed the basis of annual welfare benefit increases from the RPI to the CPI. This is absolutely crucial because that measure alone, before this Bill, is expected to save £5.8 billion a year. Such savings can be achieved only through imposing the most incredible hardship on many of the most vulnerable people in this country. The proposed limiting of upratings to an increase of 1% will be an increase in the consumer prices index, not the retail prices index, so it is not even going to cover an inflation rate of 1%. That is how bad it is. It is the compounding of the previous Welfare Reform Act with this Bill that is so deeply shocking to many of us.
The cumulative impact of all these changes and the proposed 1% uprating limit is not yet fully understood even by the experts in the field, let alone by its victims. But it is not surprising that there is deep concern in those organisations which have to work with vulnerable people, including the CAB service. It is worried stiff about its clients and the capacity of the bureaux to cope with what is going to be an unimaginable flood of people in desperate circumstances. The Government are breaking the long-standing link between annual incremental increases in benefits and prices. Once lost, it will be very difficult to restore it. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine that happening for decades. That is how serious this is. It is not just one little part of a Bill; it is actually historic because it changes the whole way we look at increases in welfare benefits.
Has the Minister undertaken an impact assessment on this Bill, including an estimate of the likely cost of increased mental breakdowns and the resulting impact on mental health services? Has the Minister assessed the costs arising from the result of increased crime rates and the impact on the criminal justice system, and from the impact of increased homelessness on local authorities? Also, I refer to the overall impact on communities of what I fear we will see in terms of increased unrest. It is very difficult to believe that we will not experience unrest in communities that are profoundly hit by the combination of all these changes—not just arising from this Bill, but from a combination of everything that is being done. I would be grateful if the Minister would reply to this question: has the impact of this Bill, combined with the previous Bill, been fully assessed in terms of services and costs? If these implications have not yet been estimated, does the Minister agree that that must be done before implementation of this Bill?
I want to challenge the Government’s rationale for this uprating Bill—that welfare benefit increases must take account of the public sector pay freeze and the low level of pay increases across the economy in recent years. Citizens Advice is right to argue that a 1% increase means something very different to somebody on an average wage from what it means to somebody on welfare benefits. A 20% increase in out-of-work benefits in the period 2007-12 resulted in an average annual increase in income of only £2.37 per week. A lower percentage increase, of 15%, in public sector pay during the same period provided an average increase in income for public sector workers more than five times greater. It was a lower percentage but a much greater increase in actual terms.
Small Charitable Donations Bill
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts(12 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, as through a small misunderstanding the names on the speakers list got put in the wrong order. I am not he. I also thank the Minister for introducing this welcome Bill.
The recent fall-off in charitable income—20% according to one recent report—particularly affects small and medium-sized charities, and this Bill is perhaps therefore even more important than it was when it started its life. Indeed, we understand that some one in six charities is threatened with closure and up to 40% worry that they may have to close if the economic situation fails to improve. A recent ACEVO report commissioned by the Cabinet Office revealed that charities stand to lose £1 billion this year as a direct result of government actions, at a time when demands on many charities are increasing, not least as a result of the Government’s economic policies. Nearly half the charities covered in this month’s CAF survey have been forced to use reserves to cover income shortfalls, with a quarter cutting some of their services.
We welcome the intention of the Bill and, indeed, its timing. We are not alone. The RNLI called it,
“a great opportunity for charities”.—[Official Report, Commons, Small Charitable Donations Bill Committee, 16/10/12; col. 36.]
The Institute of Fundraising estimates that it will benefit “a range of charities”.
The idea is good but the Government have made things far more complicated than they need to be. “Overly bureaucratic”, says the National Association for Voluntary and Community Action. Peter Lewis of the Institute of Fundraising said:
“The way that it has been drafted makes it far more difficult than Gift Aid itself”.
The Charities Aid Foundation, with all its experience and knowledge in the field, believes that,
“many charities that should be eligible for the Small Donations Scheme will struggle to access it”.
In particular, it stated that,
“linking the Small Donations Scheme to Gift Aid ... means that there is a hidden codicil”—
to the scheme—
“which should read ‘as long as they are also claiming sufficient normal Gift Aid on other donations, and have been doing so for at least two years’. This makes it less likely that very small organisations will be able to benefit from the scheme”.
Although we heartily wish the Bill well, we ask the Minister to think seriously about the problems raised repeatedly in the other House, especially where no movement was made by the Government. Of course, we are delighted with the changes that were made, in particular the changed ratio from 2:1 to 10:1, which opens up the scheme to many more charities, and the reduction from three to two years to qualify. I pay tribute to my colleagues in the other place, Cathy Jamieson and Gareth Thomas, whose determination and hard work, and in particular their understanding of the sector, enabled them to change the Minister’s mind. I hope that I will have similar success this evening; if not in amending the Bill, at least in getting a commitment out of the Minister. I will come on to that.
In seeking to assist small charities, the Government have come up with the most complicated of procedures that will involve far too much paperwork. This risks undermining their whole purpose. Of course, given that there is so much paperwork, there will undoubtedly be charities—Eton comes to mind—that will be well placed to take advantage. I am sure Eton has a large staff and, no doubt, a whole office dedicated to fundraising and gift aid. However, small grass-roots charities, parent-teacher associations or groups looking after victims or those with drink problems will not be able to. Many have no full-time staff, and they are exactly the charities that are answering phones, seeing clients, teaching riding to disabled children or running food banks. There is too much bureaucracy for them to handle.
Indeed, it seems that HMRC is more concerned with fraud than helping charities—the same HMRC, we must remember, which fails to tax Amazon, Starbucks, or Google, whose own executive chair said that he was,
“very proud of the structure that we set up”,
which was based on government incentives.
Will the Minister assure the House that those small but essential charities will be able to operate the complexity of this scheme, without the mass advice of a Google-sized team of lawyers and accountants? What thought has been given to those small charities which, by virtue of their size or lack of big donors, are not able to take advantage of gift aid and will therefore be excluded? Even those who do use gift aid are concerned, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, said in your Lordships’ House on Wednesday, that despite the fact that,
“the number of donations being given online and by text is increasing … charities are losing out, because gift aid is not yet fully digitised”.—[Official Report, 12/12/12; col. 1059.]
The scheme will succeed only if small local charities are aware of it, but these are precisely the ones less likely to be involved with the Charity Finance Group, the NCVO, CAF or the other umbrella organisations. How are they going to hear of it? We were disappointed that the Charity Commission chose not to give evidence to the Public Bill Committee. It makes us wonder how big a role it sees for itself in promoting the scheme—but if the commission does not do it, who will? Will the Minister outline his plans for publicising the scheme? We have heard talk of road shows, but we know that small charities do not have the time to spend time at those. I hope there will be something a bit more imaginative.
Perhaps the biggest problem with this overcomplicated scheme is the set of regulations covering community buildings. Although this might have been designed to assist church collections—which we thoroughly understand and endorse—it has ended up disadvantaging some of our most important groups. The RNLI is one organisation that has concerns, given that lifeboats, needless to say, carry out their work not in buildings but at sea. Where does the defined charitable activity take place: at sea or in the lifeboat station? If donation points are outside the station, how can one determine whether a donation was made during charitable activities or events? The definitions are too specific and not grounded in reality. Given such concerns about the workability of the new scheme, will the Minister tell the House whether HMT—or HMRC—consulted with relevant experts on the charity sector and, if so, which ones?
I come to the point where I seek a commitment from the Minister. We want this Bill to work. We need this Bill to work. However, it is key, given that we cannot amend it, that the Government look long and hard after two years at whether it is achieving all that we hoped for it. I therefore ask the Minister, quite simply, to commit to undertaking a review that will ask that question and report its results to Parliament. We need to know: how many charities are benefiting from the scheme; which are full, exempt or excepted charities; what the total outgoings on the scheme have been and how much extra money reached the charities, as well as the cost of administering it; and, finally, the level of identified fraudulent claims.
I feel certain that the Minister himself will want to know the answer to these questions. Will he undertake to share them with this Parliament—not after five years but after two? If the scheme does not work, those charities will need help by some other route to enable them to continue to do their work.
Financial Services Bill
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts(12 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Trenchard
My Lords, I support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Flight. Since the disappearance of the traditional bank manager from the high street, customers have increased difficulty in communicating with their banks at all, let alone to request a transfer to another bank.
What particularly irks me is that when you seek to engage with the successor to a bank manager by telephone—or when you respond to a text message requiring you to telephone the bank—you first have to go through a long process of answering questions put to you by a machine to establish your identity. If you successfully pass such questions, you may eventually be able to speak to a human being, who will then proceed to put you through an identical process of security checking. I wonder why you cannot be put straight through to a human being, rather than wasting time on your telephone, usually on an 0845 number or something like that, answering questions put to you by a computer, because it does not make any difference. When you speak to the person, the person requires you to do the security again. It is then very often the wrong person and you are transferred to another department and you have to go through the process again, probably in duplicate, first with a computer and then with another human being. Therefore, you have to allow at least 30 minutes if you are going to attempt to engage with a bank to do something that ought to take five minutes.
I welcome my noble friend’s amendment. It should be made much easier to transfer your bank account to another bank. For a long time the mobile telephone companies resisted a similar facility to change supplier; I understand that it is now much easier to change from one company to another. I see no reason why it should not be so in the case of banks.
However, in order to permit the customer to do this, banks should be required to provide forms for this purpose on request—and the request should be able to be given in writing or orally—making clear what information is needed. Otherwise, people writing in may not give the correct address or branch of the bank, and the banks will have reason not to act on the request. So the forms should be standardised and make clear what information should be given.
At the same time, the individual should be required to grant permission to bank A that it may release on behalf of the customer what my noble friend calls the anti-money laundering information—the material that it holds in that connection—because otherwise bank A will surely be prevented from releasing such information to a third party under data protection legislation. It would be necessary to agree a prescribed time limit for the transfer of such information, because in the case of somebody who has banked with a certain bank for 40 or 50 years, material that bank may hold dating many years back may be irrelevant to bank B. Does my noble friend have any comment on that?
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, my noble friends Lord Mitchell, Lord Peston, Lord Barnett and Lord Davies of Oldham have all had the opportunity to thank the Minister today for hearing their arguments and meeting them. Perhaps it is now time for the Minister to do the same for one of his own side, and accept these arguments from his noble friend Lord Flight. The noble Lord, Lord Flight, is right on this: consumers will only be able to drive competition if they can swiftly, easily and cheaply change bank accounts. Without that, there really will be no way to drive up standards.
It was interesting to hear the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, talk about phone calls and automatic voice recognition. It reminds me of a wonderful publication produced by the National Consumer Council called The Stupid Company. This asked a whole lot of consumers, not just in financial services, “What are the things you most hate about companies?” In the top three was automatic voice recognition. It was really interesting that when that was played back to companies, they continued to use it although they knew that it was the thing their consumers most hated. Banks are like that. Until people can change banks easily, I fear that they will continue to do things that none of us likes. I hope very much, therefore, that the Minister can send Lord Flight home happy this evening by having accepted his amendment.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
The noble Baroness leapt to her feet very quickly. I know that the House is like a horse running for the stables, and I will not detain the House long. I support my noble friend’s amendment. As regards money-laundering and transferability, I would like to pick up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, in replying to the debate on 24 October, when he talked about the transferability of direct debits and how that works as regards the Payments Council initiative.
I am afraid that this again involves the charity sector. There is general agreement that there are far too many charities and that many ought to be closed down. There are many thousands of shell charities, which are the result of mergers. There has been a perfectly proper merger and there was no problem as the Charity Commission, the trustees and the lawyers were all happy with it. However, when you ask why this shell charity remains, it is because the banks will not accept the transfer of standing orders and direct debits to the new, enlarged charity. The charity then has to go through the process of asking every single direct debit and standing order signatory to re-sign. Administratively, that is an extremely complicated process and many of course decline to do so.
I am not asking my noble friend to reply tonight but I say this in the hope—it is probably a forlorn hope—that the Payments Council is listening to this debate and might therefore see whether it can find some way to enable this administrative inefficiency to be dealt with. That would enable some of these shell charities, which no longer need to exist and exist only to collect direct debits and standing orders, somehow to be subsumed into the new charity of which they are now a part.
Financial Services Bill
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts(12 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
My Lords, I wonder if my noble friend could deal with one aspect of his explanation of government Amendment 94A. It may be that I misunderstood what he said. Is this to be a general removal of power—that is, a backstop—or is it going to be available in individual cases? It is not clear from his explanation whether it will be gone for ever or if an individual case could say to the Treasury, “We are going to be unfairly treated. Please step in”. At the moment, the former is a very blunt instrument and a lot of eggs could be broken before you get back to a more satisfactory situation if you felt that the regulator was using the power unwisely, unfairly and disproportionately. Could he explain the point when he comes to wind up the debate?
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these amendments and I hope I am right in understanding that the backstop power is for the whole thing and not for individual cases. I see that the Minister is nodding in agreement that I have the interpretation right. I thank him for that now being an affirmative order if it was to be changed. I am confident that the public interest will not bring it back to this House, so I am quite relaxed about it.
The other amendments aside from the first one relating to the backstop power are about ensuring some independence on the issue of warning notices, or in the case of Amendment 97ZA in the name of my noble friend Lord Eatwell and myself, on the whole disciplinary process. This amendment would ensure that a properly constituted and independent determinations panel would be responsible for dealing with all cases presented by the FCA or indeed by the PRA. As I explained in Committee, that is in effect the procedure introduced for the Pensions Regulator in 2004. It is seen as robust and independent, and it has indeed turned down some of the cases that have been taken to it. I would have to say, of course, since I was a member of it, that it was effective. It has been a useful way of ensuring that there is confidence that when cases are brought by staff, they are well scrutinised.
As the Minister has said, the government amendments in this group other than the first one on the backstop go some way to answering our concerns. However, I do not think that they go quite far enough, although I guess that we should be grateful for some movement. They introduce a degree of independence to the consideration of a case brought by FCA or PRA staff, but they fail to ensure the continuance of the RDC to give its statutory backing. We hear what the Minister says about the statement of the current FSA on what the future FCA will voluntarily choose to do, but I hope that the Government do not at some point in the future rue the day that they failed to protect the RDC’s existence and independence. For the moment, however, perhaps the noble Lord could confirm the Government’s commitment, not just that of the FCA, to the continuance of the RDC.
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, I think that I can probably be briefer than I had intended in responding to these amendments. I will confirm again that the backstop power is, as my noble friend has characterised it even though it may not be what he would like to see, a “gone for ever” backstop. However, I hope it will give comfort that we will keep under review the way this important new power is operated.
On Amendment 97A, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Flight for saying in terms that he is reassured by the effect of Amendments 97ZA and 97ZB, to which I spoke at some length, so I will not go over that ground again. The issue about the difference between the FCA and the PRA here is a simple one. We see the FCA as being the regulator that would issue these types of warning notice and to which the new power applies, and we do not actually see the PRA doing it. That is why we have constructed things as they are and we can rely on the approach of the RDC continuing as we have discussed. But if the PRA were to get into the warning notices business, which we do not anticipate, there are provisions in the Bill that would cause it to look at how it would construct an independent process that might take it down an RDC-type route.
I am not sure whether the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, was expecting me to say more about Amendment 97ZZA because we have agreed that we went over this ground on 15 October. I am grateful to her for what she said about the government amendments, so unless she would like me to go on at some length, I think that we have probably done it justice. However, I am grateful for this short debate.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, with most of this Bill being about regulators and the whole structure of regulation, I am returning to a proposition which would in due course return some power and leverage to consumers directly. As we just heard from my noble friend Lord Kennedy of Southwark and others speaking on claims management companies, it is often the case that in widespread abuse by financial services operators a common issue between a number of consumers, often a very large number of them, is that the process of seeking any redress is lengthy and complicated if conducted on an individual basis. It is also open to the intervention of the rougher end of the CMC market, which manages simultaneously to exploit the consumers and the providers.
In Committee, I tried to do the Government’s work for them and offered them an easy way of taking on board a system of collective action and redress by consumers. I proposed a fairly detailed set of amendments, which were almost precisely the same as those that were included in the 2010 Bill, that were dropped without debate in the wash-up prior to the general election. At that time, I proposed that various amendments should immediately be adopted by the Government. They had cleared the Treasury hurdle. They had cleared the hurdle of parliamentary counsel and could have been adopted.
The Government resisted that, and I am suggesting that we push it back to the Government to come up with an alternative version. I am giving them more flexibility to draw up their proposals, so this amendment would require them to come up with secondary legislation which would effectively give collective redress and action provisions for consumers in the financial area three months after the passage of this Act. To give them more time would probably not be sensible, given that had these provisions existed before the great PPI scandal, a lot of it would have been resolved by now.
In the last debate in Committee, the Minister referred in rather Delphic terms to a more general approach to collective redress for consumers, which was being considered by his sister department, BIS, in its approach to consumer affairs. He did so in a way which implied that it was probably going to act on that in the near future. It is true that BIS has included collective action and redress in its consultation paper on the consumer landscape. Now, we have before this House a Bill from BIS dealing with enterprise and regulatory reform, which has not a word about consumer protection and certainly none about the ability of consumers to engage in collective redress. This is in marked contrast to the determination rapidly to reduce protection for employees in that Bill. Consumers hardly get a look in.
I come back to the need for particular provisions in this Bill for the financial sector. There is an additional point in this amendment, which was not in my previous amendment, but was in an amendment proposed at that stage by my noble friend Lady Hayter. It is that this provision for collective action should also apply to small businesses. Like individual consumers, they are often faced with mis-selling or other misbehaviour by financial services, which affect a large number of small businesses, but which would be expensive and time-consuming for any individual business to pursue. If there were a framework, whether on an opt-in or opt-out basis, for small firms to take action against the financial institution or institutions, again their detriment could be met much more rapidly. Hence, I am proposing that the Government cover them within this review, with the requirement to report back and present regulations in three months’ time.
I hope that the Government at the very least accept a need to move in this direction either individually in respect of the financial sector, which has some peculiarities, or more generally. If it is to be done solely on the financial services front at this stage, then perhaps they could accept my amendment as it stands and we will in due course receive the regulations. If they want to move more broadly, I would welcome that, but I have received no indication as yet that the Minister’s colleagues are proposing in any very near-time dimension to bring such broader provisions forward. I hope that either the amendment can be accepted or that we will have a firm commitment to broader action in the near future. I beg to move.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, I support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Whitty. To some extent, the third arm of this amendment has been partially agreed by the Government, in that their proposed criteria for designating super-complaints to the FCA include representatives of SMEs—although they wisely exclude authorised bodies from this category. I have two questions to pose.
First, what is the timescale for the designation of SMEs as super-complainants? In his response in Committee, as my noble friend Lord Whitty has just reminded us, the Minister, Lord Newby, said that the Government hoped,
“to publish their response”—
to the consultation—
“before the end of the year”.—[Official Report, 15/10/12; col. 1351.]
Unless the Minister is to forego his Christmas holiday altogether, this is going to stretch even his capabilities, as responses to the super-complaint issue are due only on Christmas Eve. Amendment 106 adds a timescale to the exercise. Perhaps he could either give a definite date or accept the timescale suggested by my noble friend Lord Whitty. There is some urgency to this. The FSA estimates that more than 40,000 interest-rate swaps were mis-sold to small businesses. It is silly for each of them to have to take individual action over this, so only collective cases will satisfy. We see no reason why each individual or firm must make a separate claim. I cannot see why the onus should not be on the banks, which are the major mis-sellers, to write to those to whom they have mis-sold and repay the monies due to them. We understand that some banks have now agreed to do this, but faster action is required. We hear that ominous noise of foot-dragging. Small businesses simply cannot carry this unwarranted expenditure; they need a more rapid remedy.
My second question relates partly also to Amendments 105E, 105F and 105G, which deal with super-complaints with profits. As the Government have moved some of that oversight to the jurisdiction of the FCA, our original request was superfluous and we shall not press those amendments. However, the question remains how either individuals or SMEs can pursue, through their representatives’ use of a super-complaint, market failures where these relate to the bit of the banks’ activity that is under the PRA’s remit.
As noble Lords will recall, the Government have resisted our attempts to have any channel of communication between the Financial Services Consumer Panel and the PRA. Nor will they have access to super-complaints to the PRA and the collective action suggested by my noble friend Lord Whitty. It rather smacks of the banks’ regulator being deaf to alleged failures in any of the banks serving the needs of their customers.
Hitherto, the Government have suggested that all such representations can be made through the FCA, even though it will have no responsibility for PRA areas and even though it will have a wider remit than just the interests of one group of clients. It will anyway be very much at arm’s length from actual consumers. The issue remains of how collective action can be taken, particularly with respect to banks. Can the Minister therefore offer some reassurance that the PRA, in its regulation of banks and with the new Governor in place, will keep the interests of consumers central to its thinking and policy, so that further consumer detriment does not arise?
Financial Services Bill
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts(12 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, I thank the Minister for what I think he thought was reassurance on this amendment. Nevertheless, he will not be surprised to know that I still find it regrettable that it makes permissive, rather than obligatory, the publication of names and details where a firm has been obliged to withdraw a misleading advertisement rather than withdrawing it voluntarily.
At the very least we seek an assurance from the Minister that the default is publication, with non-publication being the exception, rather than each finding of misleading ads having then to consider whether publication of the fact should proceed. Otherwise, it is a complete reversal of what I think the Government seek to do. Had the Government accepted my amendment earlier, which would have introduced a code of conduct for financial services, we may have had to rely much less on this, because there would have been fewer ads to withdraw.
I will take only two seconds here. I was very interested to read on Thursday that the Chancellor of the Exchequer accepted the need for professional standards to keep banks’ behaviour in check. It is a shame that he did not tell his noble friends beforehand, otherwise perhaps the Minister could have accepted our amendments. Perhaps, in compensation, the Minister will take a moment when replying to indicate what sort of organisation the Chancellor envisaged should be set up to ensure professional standards in the banking industry.
This is of course relevant to the Bill because it is about preventing bad behaviour, whereas the amendment that the noble Lord has just moved is about dealing with something after the event. For the moment, will the Minister assure the House that the default position will be to publish the findings on misleading promotions, with details being withheld only in exceptional circumstances?
Lord Peston
Partly because of the noise I did not quite get all the argument that the noble Lord was putting forward. Is his argument that the FCA thought there was a problem, got involved, then heard some cogent reasoning from the firm concerned and therefore felt that there was no need for this to become public knowledge? That, I think, is the noble Lord’s argument, but there is one bit that troubles me. Would firms—and consumers, for that matter—not benefit if they knew about the problem and discovered that there was a good case for not proceeding with it? In other words, one of the things that we lose from not making what happened public is that, outside of this, no one gets to learn anything from what happens. Can I persuade the Minister just to respond to that?
I agree with my noble friend on the Front Bench, of course, that if we had had a code of conduct in the first place, along the lines that she suggested, we would not have a problem anyway.
“140CA Co-ordination with FCA on exercise of functions to promote competition
(1) The FCA and the competition authority must coordinate the exercise of their functions to promote competition in financial services.
(2) The FCA and the competition authority must prepare and maintain a memorandum of understanding which describes the role of each regulator in relation to promoting competition in financial services markets.
(3) The memorandum of understanding should make clear the OFT will only conduct a market study into a financial services market within the regulatory remit of the FCA in exceptional circumstances.
(4) The regulator must publish in such manner as it thinks fit the memorandum of understanding.”
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, in moving this amendment standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Eatwell, I can hardly do better than quote directly from the Association of British Insurers. The association supports the new rule for the financial services regulator to promote competition in financial services because it believes that properly functioning, competitive markets can deliver good outcomes for consumers. However, the ABI urges further consideration of the practical implications of the FCA’s enhanced role in ensuring such competition. Given that the OFT, and later the CMA, will retain general competition law powers and the right to conduct market studies in financial services, there is, says the ABI, a risk of duplication and/or a lack of co-ordination between the two bodies. Uncertainty about the expected role of the two organisations is unlikely to lead to good regulation either for the industry or consumers. The ABI therefore thinks that the FCA and the OFT should be subject to a statutory duty to co-operate and to produce a memorandum of understanding. While the FSA and the OFT have voluntarily published an MoU, this will become a “must have” when the FCA receives its enhanced competition remit. The MoU should be a statutory requirement and should make clear that the FCA would normally take the lead on competition matters in financial services, with the OFT undertaking market studies only in exceptional circumstances. While the OFT and the Competition Commission and, later, the CMA would lead on enforcing the Competition Act—for example, over cartels—it would be the FCA, as the specialist regulator, that would be best placed to conduct analysis of financial services markets and pursue any necessary regulatory changes. It is for these reasons that the ABI has supported Amendment 86A.
Those in this House who are also following the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill, which will bring about the merger of the OFT and the Competition Commission into the CMA, will have been struck by the comments in government briefings on financial services. The BIS papers on the ERR Bill stress the FCA’s stronger role in promoting competition compared to the FSA at the moment. It notes that both the CMA—the Competition Markets Authority—and the FCA will regulate financial services, with the FCA being the lead regulator and the roles of the two bodies therefore complementary. BIS goes on to state that the FCA will have a mechanism to make sure that the CMA’s powers and expertise are brought to bear in financial services. The CMA will have a mechanism to review competition in financial services and to recommend that the FCA takes action. Indeed, the FCA will have a power of referral to the OFT which will not prevent the FCA taking the lead in addressing competition issues where it is better placed to do so. I hope that noble Lords are all following this.
The FCA will also be required to respond to any recommendation given by the competition authorities. Furthermore, under the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill, the CMA will be able to appoint a third party to monitor the implementation and compliance of remedies. Within financial services, we assume that the FCA could be one such third party where this is deemed appropriate by it and the CMA.
As must be clear from the briefings from BIS, which I assume noble Lords from HMT have also read, there are major competition issues within the financial sector, yet the ERR Bill regrettably makes no mention of the uncompetitive nature of the banking sector, which is highly damaging to our economy. We are all aware of the denial of access to finance being experienced by SMEs. We need a more diverse and competitive banking system, and the PRA, FCA and CMA simply must address this if the financial sector is to serve the wider economy. Neither the Bill before us today nor the ERR Bill indicates how this issue will be tackled, but tackled it must be. It must be crystal clear, as BIS says in its note, that the FCA and CMA will need a memorandum of understanding.
It is not enough for such a vital document to exist on a voluntary basis. It should be a requirement. Equally important, it should be visible to all with an interest and should therefore be published by both parties. In due course, I will seek to lay this responsibility on the CMA under the ERR Bill. Today, we seek to lay it on the FCA in this amendment. Similarly, I will in due course propose that the CMA has an obligation to co-ordinate its work with the FCA. Today, we ask the equivalent of the FCA. I beg to move.
Viscount Trenchard
My Lords, I support the amendment because I believe that there is too little in the Bill about the maintenance of competition. It is too confused. I personally regret that the PRA has no need to have regard to the maintenance of the competitiveness of the market place. The co-ordination between the FCA and the CMA, as the amendment would require, would help to concentrate minds on exactly how important competitiveness is and to increase awareness among consumers as well as firms and participants. That competition is extremely important and must be maintained and, where possible, enhanced. The amendment would help in that regard and I am inclined to support it.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Newby, for making my case. He said that who the lead regulator is will depend on the issue. The bodies will have to work closely together. The one thing that he did not explain was why on earth we should not write into the Bill that the two regulators should co-ordinate and have a memorandum of understanding. It seems a simple point.
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Trenchard and Lord Phillips, and my noble friends Lord Peston and Lord Barnett, for their support. I also thank my noble friend Lord Borrie, whose advice, given that he was director general of the OFT, I take seriously. The last of the three amendments does not touch on the difficult issue he raised, that is, laying down who does what. It basically says there should be a MoU between these two very important issues. The Minister says not to worry, that there is one and they are working on it, but in the interests of transparency, I would have preferred to see it statutory and therefore published. However he is clearly not going to give way on that, so I fear I must. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Financial Services Bill
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts(12 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
“( ) In seeking to ensure an appropriate degree of protection for consumers, the PRA and FCA shall—
(a) require banks to provide clear and prominent warnings to consumers where deposits are not covered by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme; and(b) make and maintain effective arrangements to consult consumers on the prominence and method of such warnings.”
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, this amendment stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Eatwell and myself. It relates to passporting and, in particular, where a UK-authorised bank works in another EEA member state. Our concern, as we raised in Committee, is about adequate protection for consumers in those EEA states. This amendment would require the relevant authority, be it the FCA or the PRA, to require banks to make clear, prominent warnings to consumers where their deposits are not covered by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme. It is fairly obvious that it is vital that consumers know precisely and clearly whether their deposits would be covered by this compensation scheme and the extent of such coverage.
In Committee, the Minister assured us that it was sufficient for such a requirement to be in the regulator’s rule book. We have considered this further and we would beg to differ. It is such an important area of consumer protection and really important for the confidence in our banks that we must ensure that every depositor knows the security of their deposit. Furthermore, given that we saw a range of views in Committee on where and how such warnings to customers should appear, it is important that consumers themselves are consulted on this so that the most effective method of communication is used. I beg to move.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, I am generally sympathetic to Amendment 77AA, but what would the consequences be of a breach of its provisions?
Lord Newby
I will check what I said, but it may have covered what the noble Lord is looking for. If it does not, I shall write to him with the relevant wording.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, I am sorry that the Minister did not listen to what I said, which was the reverse of passporting. It was about the passporting of our banks into EEA countries. I was interested in the protection of customers in those areas who are served by the UK banks that are being passported there but would be regulated here. Our regulator should therefore cover that. That is a different issue from the one that the Minister has answered. If he would check on that, I would be quite happy for us to revert to the matter at Third Reading. I am interested in consumers wherever they happen to dwell, such as the consumers in EEA areas being served by our banks. I am therefore worried about their lack of coverage by our compensation scheme, which should be brought to their attention. If I could leave the Minister to clarify that, at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“( ) In the event of a prohibition order being made, the FCA and PRA shall—
(a) publish an explanatory statement regarding the decision; and (b) include the individual on an updated list of those subject to prohibition orders to be presented on HM Treasury’s website.”
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, this amendment stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Eatwell as well as mine. It is about transparency and we have moved from passporting to prohibition orders, with a big jump to Clause 12. The amendment would ensure that, when a prohibition order is made, the regulator publishes its reasons and the individual's name appears on a list of people subject to prohibition orders on the Treasury website. The purpose of this is both to promote good practice, by making it clear what constitutes bad practice, and to enable investors and others easily to identify who has been subject to such an order.
As was clear in Committee, the issue did not really divide us. At that stage, I quoted Matthew Hancock as saying in another place,
“the principle that prohibition orders on people who are not fit and proper persons should be published is crucial … Prohibition must not only be a sanction for past irresponsible behaviour, but a deterrent for future irresponsible behaviour … the point of prohibition is not only … to stop the actions of those who have … committed acts that make them not fit and proper, but to demonstrate the bounds of behaviour that are deemed responsible and reasonable”.—[Official Report, Commons, Financial Services Bill Committee, 6/3/2012; col. 384.]
The then Minister, Mr Mark Hoban, agreed that prohibition is both a punishment and a deterrent.
When we discussed this in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Newby, replied in this House along similar lines, saying that,
“regulators ought to give explanations of their actions and I do not think anyone would dispute the need for the identity of persons subject to prohibition orders … to be made known”.—[Official Report, 8/10/12; cols. 860-61.]
However, he felt that the existing duty on the FSA to maintain such a list was sufficient. We disagree with regard to the list of those prohibited. Investors and borrowers here and abroad would be more likely to see the Government as a source of such information, and we would therefore like HMT, via its website, to have a role in this.
With regard to the first part of our amendment, it is crucial, if the findings of a case are to help influence the future behaviour of other firms and authorised persons, that they can read and understand exactly what was alleged and why it was found to have transgressed acceptable behaviour. Hence there is the need to publish reasons. I beg to move.
Lord Newby
My Lords, as the noble Baroness says, we discussed this at some length in Committee and, to a certain extent, I am afraid I can only repeat what I said then. I repeat that FiSMA already requires the FSA to maintain a publicly available record of individuals subject to prohibition orders. The relevant subsection simply says that the register must include a record of every,
“individual to whom a prohibition order relates”.
and provides that the register must include the name of the individual and,
“details of the effect of the”,
prohibition order.
The FCA will keep these records in future and the Bill, in paragraph 17 of Schedule 12, also requires the PRA to assist the FCA in keeping the record up to date, including by notifying the FCA of every prohibition order that the PRA makes. The principal effect of the amendment would be to move these records from the FSA website on to the Treasury website. The noble Baroness said, in effect, that the Treasury website would almost command more respect or be more likely to be looked at for this purpose. We disagree with that. The Treasury website sets out government policy, not records of regulatory decisions. The logical place to go for a record of a regulatory decision is to the regulator. We think that it would be confusing if investors expected to go to the Treasury website rather than to the regulator’s website to get the relevant names and other information. In our view, it would be contrary to the noble Baroness’s stated objective of ensuring clarity and transparency. I am afraid I cannot give her much comfort. We believe that what we are doing meets her requirements and that those are better met by doing it via the regulator’s website rather than via the Treasury website.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
I thank the Minister for that response. I have a query that is not so much on the website. I think he said that the list was kept along with details of the effects of the prohibition order, which I assume means that this person cannot do this, that, or the other. We were asking for the reasons. I hope that he will look at this, even if there is only a recommendation back to the regulator. It is really important that the allegation and the reason why it was found proven is there as guidance for others. I hope that he will look at that and reassure me that the reasons are there, not just the effects of the prohibition order. With those comments, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“( ) The Treasury must lay before Parliament a copy of any statement published under this section.”
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, we reach the last amendment of the evening, which stands in the names of my noble friend Lord Eatwell and myself. It is short, sharp and clear. The Bill allows for FCA statements of policy relating to its use of disciplinary powers to be provided to anyone, for a fee if necessary; to be given to the Treasury, presumably for free; and to be published as appropriate. Noble Lords will have noticed that the one body not automatically to receive the statement is Parliament. This amendment would correct that oversight. I beg to move.
Lord Newby
My Lords, no one disagrees with the proposition that certain important reports and other documents that are produced under the new regime should be laid before Parliament. A good example of this view is to be found in Clause 80 under which, if the Treasury in future receives a report relating to an inquiry or investigation carried out under the provisions of Part 5 of the Bill, it must publish the report and lay what it publishes before Parliament. Since these reports concern inquiries or investigations in connection with possible regulatory failure or on other matters relating to the public interest, this is clearly the right approach. It enables Parliament to consider the matter and, where appropriate, call upon Ministers or the regulators themselves to give an account of their actions. Indeed, the Government are so committed to ensuring parliamentary accountability in this area that they have tabled Amendment 107D to ensure that any direction that the Treasury gives regarding these investigations is also laid before Parliament.
However, the statement of policy issued by the FCA under new Section 88C is not a report of that kind. It is more like the guidance issued under FiSMA, although it is really guidance for the regulator itself rather than for regulated firms. This explains why the FCA must follow the procedure in Section 88D before it issues a statement, which is essentially the same as the procedure when the FCA issues guidance to firms set out in new Section 139A. The Treasury must be notified of any new FCA guidance or changes to existing guidance but it has never been thought necessary for the Treasury to lay that guidance before Parliament, although it will be available on the FCA website.
The approach that we are taking not only follows the general FiSMA model but it is the same approach that is taken in other regulatory legislation. For example, Section 38 of the Competition Act 1998 requires the OFT to prepare and publish guidance on the appropriate amount of any penalty imposed for abuse of a dominant position. It must get the Secretary of State’s approval for it but there is no obligation to lay it before Parliament. Equally, Section 392 of the Communications Act 2003 requires Ofcom to prepare and publish a statement containing guidelines on the penalties that it may impose under that Act or other legislation, except the Competition Act 1998. Again, though, Ofcom is not required to lay that before Parliament.
All we are doing is following normal procedure. We do not think that this kind of guidance should be laid before Parliament because it is guidance to the regulator and will be available on the regulator’s website. In those circumstances, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that answer and, via the Minister, I thank his Bill team because they have clearly done some interesting research for us in areas beyond HMT.
Ministers have probably not made the right call. There will be an increased requirement for transparency and Parliament is becoming more interested in questions of guidance, particularly in relation to disciplinary matters. My guess is that there will come a time when more of these will come to Parliament, because saying that it is normal practice and we can go on as before is not necessarily always the right view. We will get there, even if it is not in the Bill, but for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Financial Services Bill
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts(12 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, I am delighted, nay honoured, to see my name alongside that of the future Archbishop of Canterbury, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham. If his contribution today is anything to go by, we can look forward to a thoughtful, progressive and determined ministry, which will serve this House and this country well. Like all my colleagues, I warmly welcome his appointment and congratulate the right reverend Prelate. I wish him well in the challenges ahead, which may be a little more demanding than getting an amendment accepted by the Government.
As has been said, there is a real lack of transparency in the financial sector, which is a key problem, given our reliance on competition to make the market work. Without information, choices of customers or of policy-makers are hampered. We know a few things but not enough; we know that one-third of a million small and medium-sized businesses could not get access to finance from mainstream banks in 2011. Indeed, only half of the young, fast-growing, small businesses had their loans fully met last year compared with 90% in 2007, so it is no wonder that our economy has stalled. But regulators and others cannot take action until we have these better, more precise and locally based data. Banks have to made to be more open about what and where they are lending. They are too important to work in the shadow. I am delighted that the Government have accepted this amendment, although I note that the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill is potentially growing larger by the amendment. I think that this is the third reference today to something that may be in the Bill. Nevertheless, we welcome the Government’s move on this matter.
Lord Sharkey
I would like to thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this brief debate, particularly my noble friend Lord Newby for his commitment to the publication of disaggregated, postcode-level data in this important area and also, in a way, for helping us to look forward to a slightly more varied Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill than we might have expected in the new year.
Last week it was the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, who told us what the correct technical response was to this kind of government commitment: she said it was “bingo”. I would like to echo that. I finish by saying that, although I hope we will be able to get a satisfactory voluntary agreement on this, I am enormously encouraged by the Government’s firm commitment to legislate should this not be the case. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Flight
My Lords, I am delighted to see that my Amendment 37A has effectively been reproduced by the Government. I apologise as I note that my amendment states, “The FCA may appoint”, whereas it should refer to the PRA. I had taken the same wording for the PRA panel as for the FCA panel. It is healthy to have this structure, which will give people greater confidence to work with the PRA.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, as I said earlier today, it feels rather wrong to establish a PRA practitioner panel while excluding the views of those whose money and savings are at the heart of this industry and who depend on well regulated companies for their well-being. It also looks a bit too cosy a set-up between the regulator and the regulated community with no user-interest input. So, while we do not oppose these amendments, we do not think that they are a balanced response to the demand for the PRA to listen to those who work in financial services.
We know from the Treasury Select Committee report on RBS of the silos that existed even within the FSA between its prudential and conduct sections. With the move to two regulators, physically a mile apart, there is an even bigger risk of such silos. This will not be helped by having two separate practitioner panels, so that even within the industry there will be a split between those addressing one regulator and those focused on the other. This will be the case as regards numerous issues, including, for example, benchmarking. The proposal is for LIBOR to be overseen by the FCA, and therefore have input from the FCA practitioner panel, but how it is working out in practice, the inputs to it and the use made of it will be the preoccupation of that part of the regulated community represented by the PRA practitioner panel. This proposal might therefore not be the best that the Government could have come up with. It was not the first choice of the industry and it would not have been our first choice.
Lord Newby
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Flight, for his support for what we are seeking to achieve. I am not surprised by the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter. However, I hope that the House will feel able to support these amendments.
“( ) the exercise of their functions in relation to the stewardship of listed companies by institutional investors, with a view to controlling systemic risk and protecting consumer interests”
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, these amendments are about the heart of banking and insurance. They are about stewardship. Amendment 46A requires the FCA and the PRA to co-ordinate to ensure effective stewardship. Amendment 79B clarifies that the FCA’s powers enable it to make rules on stewardship. They give stewardship an explicit place n the Bill and confirm that the Government expect the FCA to act on this.
In the aftermath of the financial crisis it was acknowledged that institutional investors had acted as “absentee landlords”, not doing enough to challenge the risky behaviour of the banks they effectively owned. This had direct consequences for the savers whose money these shareholders were investing. The Financial Reporting Council established the stewardship code to encourage investors to behave as active owners in the companies in which they invest. This is vital to building responsible capitalism where shareholders exercise greater oversight of, for example, executive pay. As the noble Lord, Lord Turner, told the Joint Committee,
“shareholders … have major responsibilities. A lot of what went wrong with our banking system was encouraged by a set of shareholders who thought that high levels of leverage, rapid growth of EPS and aggressive acquisitions were rather sensible”.
Stewardship was identified by the Kay review as a principle of more effective capital markets. The first of his principles reads:
“All participants in the equity investment chain should act according to the principles of stewardship ... respect for those whose funds are invested or managed, and trust in those by whom the funds are … managed”.
Therefore, if this Bill is to help prevent another financial crisis, regulators must address the quality of shareholder oversight.
The FSA has a rule requiring asset managers acting on behalf of institutional clients to disclose whether they commit to the stewardship code. However, the organisation FairPensions found that the quality of such disclosures is often poor, particularly over managing conflicts of interest. Furthermore, this FSA rule does not mandate compliance and does not apply to firms acting on behalf of retail clients. It looks rather as if the FSA does not regard stewardship as a consumer issue, despite its implications for consumer outcomes.
The Bill makes no mention of stewardship despite the importance of the objectives of both the FCA and the PRA and despite the fact that shareholders have the primary responsibility for ensuring that banks are well run. Regulators simply must take an interest in how shareholders discharge this responsibility. I should add, as was mentioned earlier, that the millions of employees soon to be auto-enrolled will depend in part on their agents making sure that the companies in which they invest are well run.
Stewardship is key but there is a mismatch between the code and its enforcement. The FRC oversees the stewardship code, but does not regulate the entities to which the code applies. The PRA may take little interest because the firms are FCA-regulated. Yet the FCA may not accord this any priority, given that the system-wide problems caused by a lack of stewardship make it hard for the FCA to intervene in relation to a particular firm or group of consumers.
The current duty of co-ordination will not resolve this, since it focuses on reducing the burden of regulation on dual-regulated firms, rather than on preventing gaps in regulation between the two new authorities. Stewardship might just end up between the cracks. I feel sure that the Minister will agree on the importance of stewardship and I therefore ask him where responsibility for it will sit in the new architecture. I beg to move.
Lord Newby
My Lords, no one would doubt the importance of stewardship and of ensuring the proper conduct of those authorised persons who manage investments on behalf of others, including in relation to the exercise of voting rights. Stewardship is also a matter for a wider range of authorities than the financial regulators—in particular, the Financial Reporting Council which has issued a stewardship code.
Amendment 46A would require the regulators to include in their MoU provision about the exercise of their functions relating to stewardship. This amendment is based on the premise that the PRA has a role in stewardship. I do not think that this is a correct premise. First, only the FCA will have any powers in relation to listed companies themselves. The PRA has no responsibilities in relation to listing. Secondly, the regulated activities which cover managing investments are not PRA-regulated activities. The PRA will need to regulate an authorised person who manages investments only if the firm also has a permission to carry on a PRA-regulated activity, such as accepting deposits or effecting or carrying out contracts of insurance. In those cases, the PRA will be the prudential supervisor and the MoU will already cover the co-ordination of FCA and PRA interests in these firms.
Amendment 79B would make clear that the FCA’s powers to make general rules include the ability to make rules relating to stewardship. I can assure the noble Baroness that the amendment is not needed. First, there is no doubt that the FCA’s general rule-making powers extend to making rules about stewardship. New Section 137A to be inserted into FiSMA 2000 under Clause 23 of the Bill is quite clear. It states:
“The FCA may make such rules applying to authorised persons … with respect to the carrying on by them of … activities … as appear to the FCA to be necessary or expedient for the purpose of advancing … its operational objectives”.
Secondly, the FCA’s powers essentially follow the existing FSA powers. The FSA has already made a rule which requires UK-authorised asset managers to put statements of commitment to the FRC’s stewardship code on its websites or, if an asset manager does not commit to the code, to provide its alternative investment strategy there. I expect the FCA to continue with this rule. Far from any suggestion that the responsibility will fall through the cracks between the two regulators, it is absolutely clear that the FCA will take on the FSA’s existing powers in respect of stewardship and ensure that they are properly implemented. I hope, therefore, that the noble Baroness will agree to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Newby, for that. Of course, he did not answer the point that I made. When research is done, it is found that details of the “the comply or explain” commitment are not on the web—neither what is being complied with in the code nor what is there instead.
However, I thank him for the clarity of his answer that it is an FCA responsibility. That rather begs a question that I asked in Committee, and to which I may return, that the code is the responsibility of the Financial Reporting Council, which gets no mention in this Bill. In Committee, the Government refused my suggestion that there should be an MoU between the FCA and the FRC, which is regrettable. The importance that the noble Lord has said about the code and the ability of the FCA to make rules, including the commitment to follow it, strengthens the case for a better connection between them. I at least thank him for clarity on that, but we may need to come back to look at the FCA aspects. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“( ) an assessment as to how well markets are meeting the needs of businesses and households in lower income communities,”
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, we have spoken already about the need to have information from banks about their lending to different communities and sizes of business. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, said that the FCA will collect data about access to financial services. In the amendments we seek to obtain information to identify how well markets are working for lower-income communities. This is therefore broader than simply small businesses, and is about whether lower-income households can get credit, insurance, saving products and banking services. We know already, for example, that about 1.5 million people have no bank account, but we need to know more about what other groups are excluded from such services and products. We therefore ask for the FCA—which will be able to obtain the information—to research and assess whether such needs are being met and to include its findings together with any strategy for dealing with identified unmet need in its annual report. If the FCA is doing its job, it will do this anyway, but this is belt and braces so let us write down our expectations of it in this regard. I beg to move.
Lord Newby
My Lords, having agreed earlier today that we want to require the FCA to obtain and publish these data, obviously we have considerable sympathy with these amendments to the extent that they seek to flesh out how that remit should be undertaken. However, that is the end of the good news because we think that the amendments are in part unnecessary and in part inappropriate because they are too prescriptive.
We believe that there is no need for a specific provision relating to the annual report for the FCA because in paragraph 11(1)(b) of Schedule 3 we state that the annual report must cover,
“the extent to which, in its opinion, its operational objectives have been advanced”.
Given that in a series of amendments today we have strengthened the role of the FCA in looking at disadvantage and making that a new area where the FCA has a very specific responsibility, it will have to report in those areas in any respect.
Amendment 61B is very prescriptive. Our view is that with the FCA reporting on this, as with many other things that it will report on, the Bill itself should not have detailed prescription as to how the FCA should do its work. It has a legal requirement to report and it is up to the FCA to respond as it thinks fit. If there is any sense that it is falling down on its objectives, it will be reporting to Parliament and will be questioned by Parliament and Parliament will have the opportunity to raise with representatives of the FCA on a regular basis how it is meeting this and any other of its statutory objectives. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel that the outcomes that she seeks will be achieved in any event and that she can withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, I warmly thank the Minister because sympathy was much more than I got when I spoke on consumer input to the PRA. So I think that I will bank that one. I thank him, too, for endorsing the spirit of my amendments on the record so that when the report comes out people will be able to quote his very wise words that that was what we were looking to the FCA for. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Financial Services Bill
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts(12 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
“( ) the general principle that, where consumers properly repose trust in a firm’s discretion and are vulnerable to the exercise of that discretion, the firm has a duty to act in the consumer’s best interests”
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, financial services is perhaps less problematic than broadcasting at the moment. Amendment 25D stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Eatwell. This is perhaps the key amendment in all the ones that we will discuss today. We will simply not get this industry back on track and working in the interests of its savers and borrowers until firms put clients’ interests above their own bonus levels, remuneration or promotion prospects. Rather as doctors take care—above all else—of their patients, so must the banks, the insurance companies, those who lend us money and those who care for our savings put our interests centre stage.
These amendments seek to ensure that where consumers put trust in a firm’s discretion, and are vulnerable to the exercise of that discretion, the firm must act in their best interests. Trust is key to this industry. As John Kay wrote in his July review for the Government:
“Financial intermediation depends on trust and confidence: the trust and confidence that savers who invest funds have in those they choose to manage these funds”.
This goes to the heart of the behaviours, ethics and very thought patterns of this vital industry. Surely, as we have heard already today, we have enough evidence from LIBOR, precipice bonds, mortgage mis-selling and interest rate swaps that cultural change is needed in this industry. The costs of the PPI scandal, which has already been referred to, are now being picked up by those very offending banks. I believe that this amendment is in their interests. If they were stopped from doing these things beforehand, they would not then have to put things right afterwards.
The PPI scandal has sometimes been blamed on the lack of early intervention by the FSA, on the insufficiently rapid transmission of intelligence from the Financial Ombudsman, or on absolutely anything or anyone other than the mis-selling banks themselves. Had those banks had a duty of care towards clients, or been required to consider their best interests, there is no way that they could have continued to sell those products once they realised how few of their purchases would actually be covered by them.
Surely it is strange that where a saver puts their money into a trust-based pension scheme it is governed by trustees who have fiduciary duties to act in the best interests of beneficiaries, but that if that same saver puts their money in a contract-based pension scheme or similar scheme run by commercial providers, the FSA’s rules governing such contracts impose no duty on providers to put beneficiaries’ interests first. That cannot be right. It is not what savers expect of their provider.
The amendments would ensure, in an enforceable way, that authorised persons act in the best interests of their clients. As I argued in Committee, the Bill expects consumers to,
“take responsibility for their decisions”—[Official Report, 11/6/12; col. 1255]—
but without placing a corresponding requirement on firms to act in the best interests of their clients. This lacks balance. As the Kay review says:
“Stewardship is incompatible with conflict of interest”.
Kay calls for all those involved in the equity investment chain to observe fiduciary standards in their relationships with clients. Thus financial services should owe their customers the same duty of care as a lawyer or other professional by acting honestly, fairly and professionally in the best interests of their customers and in managing conflicts of interest. It is no good relying on rules to ensure this. Such requirements on firms have been in the FSA’s principles for business, yet consumers have still been shabbily treated.
We want there to be a duty of care in the Bill to ensure proper oversight and to emphasise its importance both to the regulators and the regulated. Such a duty of care will ensure that financial services can no longer profit unfairly at the expense of their customers. It is not enough—in case the Minister is going to say it—to leave this simply to the banking commission. It should be central to the Bill.
The Kay review calls for the application of fiduciary standards of care by all those who manage or advise on the investments of others. That is what we seek in these amendments and what I hope this House will now support. I beg to move.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford
My Lords, I support the amendment. The issue behind the amendments in this group is that the investment industry’s duties to savers appear to be poorly understood and observed. As the Law Commission has confirmed, where firms are managing other people’s money or giving them financial advice, they have strict fiduciary duties to act in those people’s interests. This includes both individual clients and institutions such as pension funds which represent large numbers of underlying savers.
Fiduciary duties are stricter than FSA rules, yet they are not universally accepted within the industry. There is anecdotal evidence that firms often seek to exclude or restrict their liability for breach of fiduciary duties through contractual terms which may not be read or understood by the lay trustees of pension funds. Even where they are accepted, it is very clear that they are not being applied. In the past week, the FSA has published a “Dear CEO” letter on conflicts of interests among asset managers which found that,
“many firms had failed to establish an adequate framework for identifying and managing conflicts of interests”,
and that,
“in most cases senior management failed to show us they understood and communicated this sense of duty to customers”.
In other words, firms are often not meeting even the FSA’s standards regarding conflicts of interest, which are lower than fiduciary standards.
As these are common law duties, they do not form part of the FSA’s regulatory approach. Indeed, there is confusion over whether it is appropriate for the FSA to enforce them, with some arguing that it is for beneficiaries to pursue court actions if duties are breached.
Where pension savings are concerned, this is unrealistic and unsatisfactory as a means of achieving high standards of care across the market. An explicit, best-interests principle in a Financial Services Bill would give the FCA a powerful tool to ensure that consumers’ interests were protected.
The concern is that the Bill’s new wording is significantly weaker than that proposed by the Joint Committee and may not provide a high enough level of protection for consumers. It lacks clarity in what might constitute an appropriate level of care, thereby leaving open the very question it was intended to resolve. Where those managing people’s long-term savings are concerned, the problem is precisely that there is confusion and misinformation about what is the appropriate level of care. Explicit confirmation that those managing other people’s money must act in their best interests would be a clear and effective way to help achieve the Joint Committee’s intention. Amendment 25D would provide that confirmation, since anyone managing somebody else’s money would meet the criteria of discretion and consumer vulnerability.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, drew attention to the fact that this issue has the potential to seriously undermine the aims of auto-enrolment. In trust-based pension schemes, it is clear that the trustees are there to act in beneficiaries’ best interests. Indeed, as the ABI pointed out in oral evidence to the Joint Committee, one positive feature of the National Employment Savings Trust—NEST—is that it has a trustee structure that looks to protect its members. However, many savers are likely to be auto-enrolled into contract-based pension products where, as things currently stand, no such protection exists. Since the House of Lords considered the Bill in Committee, we have had the Kay review of UK equity markets. It recommended that:
“Regulatory authorities … should apply fiduciary standards to all relationships in the investment chain which involve discretion over the investments of others, or advice on investment decisions. These obligations should be independent of the classification of the client, and should not be capable of being contractually overridden”.
This amendment seeks to address a number of objections to similar amendments raised in the Commons and in the Lords in Committee. First, it does not rely on the term “fiduciary duty” but rather seeks to enshrine the common sense principle that underpins these duties—that where consumers rely on a firm’s discretion, that discretion must be exercised in the consumers’ best interests. Secondly, it would not supersede or restrict the specific standards to be laid down in FCA rules but rather would provide an overarching principle that the FCA should bear in mind when setting those rules. Thirdly, it would not apply across the board but only where appropriate—that is, where consumers have a particular relationship with providers that justifies a best-interest standard.
When we looked at a similar amendment to Amendment 25D in Committee, my noble friend Lord Sassoon expressed sympathy with the intent but argued that it was a matter for the FCA to make detailed rules on, rather than to be included in the Bill. However, as I have already said, part of the problem is that the common law status of fiduciary duties makes it unclear whether it falls within the FCA’s remit to uphold them, hence the need for an explicit reference in the Bill. It has also been suggested that refusal to amend the Bill in this way indicates a lack of political support for robust action to challenge the interests of financial intermediaries. Indeed, this could make the FCA feel that it has limited room for manoeuvre. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend will be more prepared to consider accepting the amendment and, at the very least, that he will give some indication of the support that the Government will give to the full implementation of the Kay recommendations.
Lord Sassoon
Yes, I can confirm that. The information may come from a whole range of sources. Obviously, consumer complaints could be one source, but I know that the noble Lord postulated a circumstance in which there was no consumer complaint. It will clearly be going in regularly to review how a firm operates and conducts its business. That will be another source of information. I am sure that it will regularly compare products on offer, one against another, and if there are outlying products, that is another source of information. There is a whole range of sources of information. The key thing here is that we have in the FCA a regulator that does not have to be concerned, as the FSA does, with all the considerations of prudential regulation and supervision and can therefore take a much clearer approach. As we discussed, there are specific product intervention powers, which the FSA does not have.
The noble Lord helpfully raises the general background. We are putting the FCA in a much better position to tackle those issues proactively. Specifically, Amendment 25D would insert a factor that the FCA would have to consider when advancing its consumer protection objective. Namely, it would require the FCA to have regard to,
“the general principle that, where consumers properly repose trust in a firm’s discretion and are vulnerable to the exercise of that discretion, the firm has a duty to act in the consumer’s best interests”.
As I reflected in Committee, this is a cleverly worded amendment and the motivation behind it is noble, but I am still not convinced that it would result in firms acting in the way that the amendment is intended to ensure.
I am clear that the best way for the regulator to ensure that firms act in the best interests of their customers is through detailed, clear and unambiguous rules. Noble Lords have already highlighted the FSA’s “treating customers fairly” principle, under which it has carried out important work to protect consumers. With the renewed focus on consumer protection which I have just highlighted, the FCA will be empowered to go further. The precision attached to rules offers a much more effective shield for consumers than a broad duty, which will be near-impossible for the FCA—or, indeed, firms or consumers—to interpret, given the breadth of interests of different consumers at different times.
Moving to Amendment 26B, we return to the thorny question of fiduciary duty. Amendment 26B is drafted to reflect the recommendations of the Kay review in this area. The Government are in the process of responding formally to the recommendations of the review, and I hope that the House will concede that it would be inappropriate for me to pre-empt that response. I assure my noble friend Lord Stoneham of Droxford that we are taking the Kay review recommendations very seriously and that they will receive a substantive response.
I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, that the regulatory framework that we are establishing will enable the FCA to consider to what extent current regulatory rules in this area support these standards, if they advance its objectives. However, I am concerned that there are aspects of this amendment which would not have the effect that we desire. In particular, the proposal that the regulator gives guidance as to what is the effect of common law, notwithstanding what we have heard, seems very dangerous to me. It risks absolving firms of the duty to consider their role and duty under common law and places the burden on the regulator to outline how the common law applies. Seeking to codify common law in guidance in this way also means that the scope for the common law to develop and adapt to reflect changing circumstances—which is, of course, one of the great virtues of the common law—may be impeded. As a general point of principle, this amendment is unnecessary, because the FCA is empowered to issue such guidance as it sees fit.
The last amendment in this group, Amendment 45A, is another that we have seen before. It would require the FCA and PRA to have regard to,
“the principle that authorised persons should act honestly, fairly and professionally in the best interests of consumers who are their clients”.
Of course firms should act in this way. The right way to ensure that is to empower the FCA, when firms do not act in that way, to act under its consumer protection objective, with strong mechanisms in place to ensure that it co-ordinates effectively with the PRA when it does.
I agree that we want financial services firms to act in a way that puts customers first. It is precisely for this reason that we are creating the FCA as a focused conduct and business regulator. I maintain that the regulatory framework that we are putting in place will lead to better outcomes for consumers, with a focused regulator empowered to act and armed with substantial new powers to ensure that it does. On this understanding, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham of Droxford, and my noble friend Lord Peston for their support. When my noble friend Lord Peston spoke of vacuous statements, it slightly reminded me of the Simon Hoggart test of everything: if one says the opposite of a statement and it is absolutely meaningless, then maybe the statement was not worth saying anyway. If one says the opposite of “firms should act in their clients’ best interests”—that is, “firms should act in their clients’ worst interests”—it shows that this is an important statement and is worth considering.
The uncertain and rather confusing reply from the Minister is not the one he should have given. His reply is not good for the industry, it is certainly not good for consumers, and it is not good for UK plc, which needs this industry to be thriving and therefore trusted. He is not right in saying that detailed rules are the answer; they did not work before. Treating customers fairly—that phrase that some of us know very well—is not the answer either, because it did not work before. A broad duty is needed.
In these amendments we ask for what we believe to be the common law position, and what the Kay report recommended. Why the Government could not have responded to that report by today so that we could have known whether this could be in the Bill I do not know; they have had it since July—I had a holiday, I do not know if the Government did. In these amendments we ask for what every other profession has to offer its clients or patients. It is what consumers, whether savers or borrowers, expect from their providers—that authorised persons, managing other people’s business, have a duty to act in their clients’ best interests. This means avoiding conflicts of interest, acting in good faith, not profiting unreasonably at the expense of customers without their knowledge and consent, and a duty of confidentiality. It is not that painful. This needs to be in the Bill: first, to make sure it happens; and secondly, to empower the FCA. I feel sure that noble Lords will support this move, and I therefore wish to test the opinion of the House.
“( ) the need of the Consumer Panel to have its views heard by the PRA”
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, there are two major reasons for these amendments, which seek to ensure that the PRA hears the views of consumers or their spokespeople. First, it is imperative that those who understand, follow and monitor the experience and needs of users of financial services—whether individual clients, SMEs, or holders of collective investments—can input into the decision-making of the regulator of banks, the PRA. There will be many decisions falling to the PRA, not least on leverage rates and, if the press is to be believed, even over bank charges. In both the mortgage and the insurance markets, there is clear interaction between conduct and prudential regulation and the potential for overlap between the PRA and the FCA. The importance of co-ordination is illustrated by the role the consumer panel played in the FSA’s review of mortgage market regulation, where it ensured that unnecessary or onerous restrictions on lending were not introduced.
Lord Newby
My Lords, the Government obviously recognise that consumers have an interest in the outcome of the PRA’s actions and decisions. In particular, consumers will be beneficiaries of a safer and more stable financial system. However, the PRA will not focus on consumer protection as an end in itself. That will be the job of the FCA.
New Section 3D in the Bill requires the PRA and the FCA to co-ordinate their functions in areas of common regulatory interest where one may have relevant expertise or a material adverse impact on the objectives of the other. This means that while it is right that the PRA must focus on its safety and soundness objective, where its actions may impact adversely on consumer protection it will need to listen to the FCA, which obviously has the lead consumer protection objective. As the regulator with expertise and analytical capacity in relation to consumer protection, it is right that the FCA should consider stakeholder perspectives, including the views of the consumer panel, come to a balanced view and then communicate this view to the PRA. I do not think that it would be sensible to require the PRA, which will not have detailed expertise in general consumer issues, to consider separate consumer representations and potentially develop an alternative rival consumer view about the best way to deliver consumer protection.
For these reasons, I cannot support the amendment. I hope the noble Baroness will be satisfied that the system will enable all consumer concerns to be represented to the PRA, but that that will be done through the principal channel of the consumer panel that the FCA is to establish.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and my noble friend Lord McFall for their support. I am sorry the amendment does not find favour with the Minister. I think he misunderstands. If he thinks consumer protection is just about conduct, he does not understand the impact of things that the PRA will be doing. The FCA will put only a combined view to the PRA; it will not put the consumer viewpoint.
If we listen to the Minister, the PRA will still listen to consumers but through newspapers, through lobbying, through letters, and so on. I would like something different: a grown-up dialogue between the consumer panel and the PRA, rather than the sort of campaigning that the rest of us have done as lobbyists for many a year. I still hope for that. Therefore, I would like to test the opinion of the House.