Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 21st October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

My Lords, as we have heard, this group relates to the measures in the Bill which would give the DWP the ability to require banks and other financial institutions to trawl all accounts that they hold to identify and provide information on accounts that have received certain benefits and which meet certain criteria as defined by DWP, all without any suspicion of wrongdoing. This is done by means of an eligibility verification notice, which can require periodic reporting—the noble Baroness did not mention this when she described it. For example, it could be daily, although there has been no clarity from the department or the Minister yet as to the periods that are intended. I should reiterate at this point: this is a much better Bill, and the safeguards are much greater than the last time we saw these clauses, but there is more to go.

I would like to make one other little correction to the noble Baroness on her example of universal credit. Her example was that the eligibility criterion that would be provided by DWP to the banks would be £16,000, because that is the limit. In fact, it could be a much lower number, because under the Bill:

“The eligibility indicators may be criteria to be met by a single account or by”


a number of “accounts combined”. For the universal credit example it might be £10,000 or £8,000, or something of that nature. In that situation, it is even more likely that eligibility indicators would be flagged for innocent people, but that is just a wrinkle within the Bill.

I think many of us are nervous about the introduction of what is effectively the suspicionless trawling of benefit recipients’ accounts, even with the safeguards that are there. However, I understand and have an awful lot of sympathy for the need to reduce fraud and error, and the need for the department to have the tools to do that. Amendment 45A, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and others, would—as I think we are about to hear—remove the provision altogether. My approach in this group and the next has been to seek to strengthen the safeguards that surround the use of the powers rather than to remove them altogether.

To that end, I have tabled one amendment in this group, Amendment 49, which the noble Baroness has already alluded to. I am grateful to both the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, for their support. It is very simple: it requires that the Secretary of State may issue an eligibility verification notice only if satisfied that it is necessary and proportionate to do so for the purposes set out in the Bill. It was quite surprising that this basic safeguard was not already in the Bill, because the same wording already appears in relation to all the other powers it creates. I had assumed that this was a drafting error or oversight, as I cannot imagine any reason why it should not be there in relation to these powers.

I am very pleased to say that, since I tabled Amendment 49, the Minister has tabled Amendment 48, which she has mentioned. That amendment does much the same thing, although it does not restrict the necessity and proportionality to the purposes of the Bill. That is regrettable, but I can live with the Minister’s version and I am grateful to her for doing this following the constructive discussions we have had on a range of issues throughout the process, for which we are very grateful.

The Minister’s other amendments also introduce small but useful tweaks to the safeguards, although I am not sure I would go as far as she does on their effect. With thanks to the Minister for her engagement, I will not move Amendment 49, but I should be clear that I do not believe that Amendment 48 and the others she has tabled remove the need for the changes we will discuss in the next group. We will have those discussions then, and I will obviously reflect on what she has said in the meantime.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I will be very brief. The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, has amendments in this and other groups, several of which I have signed, to try to ameliorate or provide safeguards for some of the most intrusive elements of the current draft of the Bill. I also have great sympathy with the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, around the issue of transparency, which is very evidently absent from most of the Bill. I will support those individuals if they press their amendments.

My Amendments 45A, 65 and 74A, in contrast to those of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, are not nuanced. They would simply remove Clauses 75 and 76 and Schedule 3, in effect eliminating the requirement for banks to look into claimants’ bank accounts. They would destroy the principle that the Bill establishes: that a group of people, defined by the common characteristic that they are in receipt of benefits, should have a more limited right to privacy and data protection than the rest of the community.

I am also very concerned when banks become investigative agents of the state. I regard these as lines we simply should not cross. I know that the Minister does not share that view and is very content that those in receipt of benefits should be under a level of surveillance that is considered inappropriate for the rest of the community. To her credit, she has limited some of the most abusive features of the Bill that we received from the Commons, but she still asserts the underlying principle.

I also realise that this is very much a paving Bill for the intrusions that will follow the introduction of the digital ID. That scheme provides the tools that enable the state to carve out for surveillance any variety of groups of people whom it deems unworthy of sharing the general rights accorded under the law. I have tabled what are killer amendments, in effect, because the public need to know what exactly is at stake and what line has been crossed. I will not press my amendments, but I am also determined that the issues will not be quietly tidied away.

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, I will say a few words about Amendment 60. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for her support.

My concern is about justice. People on the receiving end of DWP penalties and accusations of fraud will predominantly be old, sick, disabled and the poor. Most would not be able to afford legal advice or qualify for legal aid, which is scarce in any case. DWP actions and penalties could arise because people have made errors in completing very long and complex forms. For example, the pension credit form is 24 pages long and has 243 questions on it. Errors can be made in completing the forms and interpreting the questions on them, and in the DWP’s assessment of the answers given to those questions.

There is a high probability that some people may eventually be unjustly accused of committing fraud and face the removal of money from their bank accounts without their express approval. It will be the might of the state on one hand and a poor person who does not have any legal advice on the other. We know from the Post Office scandal that innocent individuals can be pressurised into admitting fraud that they did not commit and into handing over money that they did not steal or do not owe. There is enormous scope for injustice in the Bill.

The 2023 High Court case of R v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions related to a single mother of two disabled adults who was receiving universal credit and was overpaid by £8,623, entirely due to the fault of the DWP. The DWP sought to recover the money. The High Court’s judgment said that, under certain circumstances, benefit claimants may be able to argue that recovering the debt would be an unlawful breach of their legitimate expectation and the debt need not actually be paid. Would many claimants who are accused of committing fraud or receiving overpayments be aware of these things?

Steve Webb, the former Pensions Minister, said:

“It can be difficult for people to understand whether the demands they are being sent for overpayments are a mistake, as benefits such as tax credits and pension credit are so complex”.


Without legal advice, these people become even more vulnerable.

Last year, a lot of press coverage was given to the plight of a 75 year-old pensioner who was chased by the DWP for pension credit fraud, adding up to £22,000. The Sun newspaper took up the case, and eventually the investigation showed that there was no fraud—it was all due to errors by the DWP. This case, obviously, is not unique; there are many others that do not get the publicity. I cannot help wondering how many people over the years have been pressurised into admitting guilt when they are not guilty. How many more will admit guilt when they are simply pressed into it?

Last year, data secured by Big Brother Watch showed that more than 200,000 people wrongly faced investigation for housing benefit fraud and error after the performance of the Government’s algorithm fell far short of expectations. Earlier this year, 30 charities wrote to the Government, pointing out the dangers of this legislation and previous legislation, and they identified 686,756 new official error overpayments on universal credit.

Eventually, at some point, people who are accused need some advice. Amendment 60 suggests that the Government ought to provide legal advice to people who may well qualify for it. On 9 October this year, the Government announced that all victims of the Post Office Horizon IT scandal who are claiming compensation will be entitled to free legal advice. Why wait until people suffer? Why not offer this advice up front to save anguish to millions of people? That is what a civilised society would do.

I am sure the Minister will not support this and will possibly refer to the cost associated with it, but the cost of injustice is even higher. I hope that the Minister will be able to offer some help with this.

Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 21st October 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Sherlock) (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall speak to government Amendments 89, 91, 101 and 102; I start with Amendments 89 and 91. I tabled these amendments because it has been clear that, despite all my attempts to reassure noble Lords at earlier stages, concerns continue to be raised as though DWP’s new recovery powers could be applied to debtors who are in receipt of benefits. Indeed, I think that may be the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, as the explanatory statement on her Amendment 92 in this group relates to the use of these powers on benefit claimants. To be clear, this is not the case.

The DWP’s new debt recovery measures can be applied only to debtors who are no longer receiving DWP benefits and where we cannot recover from PAYE. However, to further reassure noble Lords and everybody else, we are making it even clearer in the legislation, through new Section 80AA, that the new powers cannot be applied to those receiving benefits from my department. This provides further clarification that a direct deduction order or immediate disqualification from driving order must always be suspended or revoked if the debtor subsequently receives a benefit payment from the DWP while that order is ongoing. I hope that provides further assurance to the House.

Amendment 101 is a procedural amendment regarding the technical mechanisms for DWP to make applications to the court for disqualification orders. The Bill already allows DWP to make an application to the magistrates’ court for a suspended or immediate DWP disqualification order. The purpose of this amendment is to introduce a regulation-making power enabling DWP to set out at a later stage any practical steps necessary for those applications to be made and considered. This engages commonplace procedure rules, dealing with practical matters to ensure cases are progressed fairly and efficiently for all parties involved, such as the type of form used or how notices and orders are served on parties.

Amendment 102 is a technical amendment which ensures that the term “processing” is correctly understood in new Section 80D, which establishes the DWP debt code of practice. It is a small change to provide clarity by linking the term “processing” to the definition already set out in Section 3(4) of the Data Protection Act 2018. This helps avoid any ambiguity in interpretation and ensures consistency with existing data protection legislation.

None of these government amendments changes the existing policy intent for how the powers will be used or the safeguards that are set out in the Bill. These will continue to be powers of last resort, to be used only after DWP has made all reasonable attempts to negotiate an affordable and sustainable repayment plan. These amendments support the policy intent and delivery of the Bill, and I urge noble Lords to accept them. I beg to move.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I will be very brief. I laid Amendment 92 in the same spirit as the amendments that I laid in an earlier group. The part of paragraph 3 of Schedule 5 that I find most difficult is a subset of the requirement for banks to provide information. The overarching requirement instructs banks to hand over to the Government, on request, three months of account statements for them to examine. The schedule says that the information must be used only to help determine whether or not to make a deduction under the Bill. I was trying to find out from the Minister what assurances there are that the use will be that narrow. It may be that I have misread it, but I cannot see any form of transparency or accountability that would provide that kind of assurance. It all seems to be completely internal to the DWP. My first question to the Minister is therefore this: how will the scheme verify that the information is not used for other purposes, because detailed account statements undoubtedly have information that could interest all kinds of people? Most importantly, will that information be destroyed after an investigation is closed?

The part of paragraph 3 that exercised me the most, in the original language of the Bill that came from the Commons, is that which prohibited banks from ever notifying the account holder that their information has been handed over to the state and for what purpose. To the Minister’s credit, that now seems to have been amended to say that the account holder can be told after three months. I am unclear whether that is an automatic notification, notification at the bank’s choice, or notification that requires a request from the account holder. To me, this matters, because I suspect that transparency is the only way to ensure that the information in the account is not used for purposes other than those stated in the Bill.

I am generally exceedingly uncomfortable with the idea that the original version basically required a sort of covert process, in which the information held on an individual by the state was not disclosed to that individual. The Minister has often suggested that the monitoring of accounts is to start a dialogue to see if a person has made a mistake in overclaiming rather than committing fraud. If somebody is not told that their information has been taken, read through, examined and dealt with in detail, I cannot see how they can possibly enter into a constructive discussion to explain what is happening.

I want to draw the attention of the Minister to an underlying principle. Jonathan Fisher KC has published part 1 of an independent review of disclosure and fraud offences, which was commissioned by the Government. I want to quote his words on transparency, because it seems that transparency was not built into the original Bill and is still limited in the revised version. He said that:

“A modern disclosure regime must require the prosecution”—


he is talking about the courts—

“to be honest concerning the reasonable lines of inquiry that have been pursued and how investigative material has been gathered, handled, and interrogated”.

I would very much like to see those principles embedded in this part of the Bill. I think we need assurances from the Minister that if we cannot find the language then they will in practice be embedded in this part of the Bill, because transparency is fundamental.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

My Lords, the amendments in this group tabled by the Government contain a mixture of substantive safeguards and some technical improvements designed to tidy up and clarify the Bill.

The main amendment, government Amendment 91, introduces further restrictions and procedural safeguards around the use of the new recovery methods created by Schedules 5 and 6. It requires that liable persons are properly notified and given an opportunity to settle their liability before enforcement action is taken, and that alternative routes of recovery, such as deductions from earnings or benefits, are considered before more intrusive powers are used. These are sensible and welcome provisions that strengthen procedural fairness and ensure that the new powers are exercised proportionately.

We do, however, note that these changes have come rather late in the passage of the Bill. They are substantive clarifications, going to the heart of how these powers will operate in practice. However, I listened to the explanations from the Minister on an earlier point I made about this and I now understand her position—while not necessarily agreeing with it, I understand it.

The group includes two largely technical amendments. The first, to Schedule 6, allows the Secretary of State to make regulations relating to applications to or appeals from magistrates’ courts in England and Wales, ensuring clarity and consistency in procedure. The second, to Clause 94, aligns the Bill with the Data Protection Act 2018 by confirming that “processing” has the same meaning as in the Act. This is a straight- forward but important clarification. It is my view that these amendments strengthen the fairness and clarity of the Bill, ensuring that it operates in a way that is proportionate, consistent and aligned with existing law. We therefore support them.

On Amendment 92, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, she may not be surprised that we do not support this amendment. It would remove a key part of the machinery that underpins the operation of this Bill—specifically, the ability of the Department for Work and Pensions to obtain limited, relevant bank information to determine whether a direct deduction order should be made. I realise that this chimes with the noble Baroness’s earlier Amendment 45A, so I will not repeat the comments I made then, save to say that this is a considerable change and would strike at the heart of the framework that enables the recovery of money lost to fraud and error.

The Government must have the legal capacity to verify whether an individual is eligible for the payments they are receiving and whether further action is required to prevent overpayment or recover funds that are owed to the state and, by extension, to the taxpayer. If a person receives money from the state, the state has both the right and the duty to ensure that this money is not being misused—and certainly is not ending up in the pockets of fraudsters or criminals. The Minister has already made clear that individuals in receipt of benefits will be informed that the Government may access certain account information for the purposes of investigating suspected fraud or error.

We are satisfied with the Government’s assurance that the information obtained under these provisions will be high level, proportionate and strictly limited to what is necessary for the purpose of recovering money lost to fraud and overpayment. Far from being excessive, the powers set out in this part of the schedule are a necessary and measured tool to protect public funds. For those reasons, we oppose Amendment 92.

Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 15th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, this is not my usual field, so I shall be listening with great interest to the various speeches, including the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman. Stamping out public sector fraud, including public authority and welfare fraud, is clearly a priority. These are despicable crimes that undermine our public services and, in the end, hurt the most vulnerable. However, this Bill, at least to my eyes, has some serious flaws.

Part 1 focuses on investigation of fraud outside the tax and benefits system. As I read it, I was surprised to find that it has nothing to say on whistleblowing. I am certain that, without a powerful whistleblowing framework that keeps whistleblowers safe from retaliation and leads to investigation, most bad actors will escape investigation. If the Minister doubts me on the importance of whistleblowing, I ask her to look at the speeches by Nick Ephgrave, director of the Serious Fraud Office, who is even willing to incentivise whistleblowers because they are so vital. In April, he told the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Anti-Corruption and Responsible Tax that his number one need from parliamentarians is to get him more whistleblowers.

Whistleblowers identify where in the haystack wrongdoing is hidden and provide vital evidence. The noble Lord, Lord Livermore, is more frequently the Minister engaged in debates in which I am involved. In response to a question from me in February, he said:

“I met Tom Hayhoe, the Covid Counter-Fraud Commissioner … he told me that he is considering a whistleblowing mechanism to enable the public to draw attention to abuses they are aware of”.—[Official Report, 5/2/25; col. 690.]


I ask the Minister to go back and look at this issue, because, if she talks more broadly to investigators, she will discover this is a critical area which needs to be seized upon immediately.

On the second part of the Bill, I take on board the concerns of UK Finance that the Bill risks not achieving its objectives. The role given to banks to verify eligibility for benefits and recover money seriously needs a rethink to provide proper customer safeguards. It makes no allowance for people of low financial capability, for example, nor even for those hiding funds to escape domestic abuse. I am really concerned that it creates two classes of citizen: those with full rights in our society, protected by the FCA’s consumer duty, for example, and a lower class, defined as benefit recipients, who are investigated without cause and treated as a suspect class.

Listening to the finance industry, it is absolutely clear that bad actors, especially the gangs, will have no difficulty at all working around all the new rules and programmes. The Minister must be aware that any serious crackdown on fraud has to tackle the organised crime gangs who conspire to commit welfare fraud on an industrial scale. Last year, one gang alone was convicted of defrauding £53 million of universal credit. That was a very rare success, unfortunately. Since I cannot find it anywhere, can the Minister say today what percentage of welfare fraud is the work of these organised gangs? I suspect that the number is very large.

The main tool in this Bill is to initiate fishing expeditions and, from wide experience across the fields of investigation and fraud, they are the laziest and most ineffective way of fighting wrongdoing. If anyone doubts the capacity of the DWP to get schemes such as this one wrong, look at the carer’s allowance scandal, which particularly exercises my colleagues. My noble friend Lord Palmer of Childs Hill will elaborate, but 136,730 people are at present caught in outstanding debt for carer’s allowance overpayments which were not their fault, but for which their lives are being devastated. I fear that, in the way this Bill is crafted, they and people like them will be among the primary targets, even though they never actually committed fraud; they just failed to understand impossibly complex rules or to identify the DWP’s mistakes.

The DWP must of course crack down on fraud, but it needs to be informed by best practice. On that basis, I believe this Bill needs a significant rethink.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Sherlock) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to today’s thoughtful and decidedly not-at-all dull debate. Committee will be some fun indeed. It was a particular pleasure to hear the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, whom I welcome to the spreadsheet fan club. Frankly, I could have done with one of her spreadsheets to keep track of all the questions that I have been asked today. In the absence of that I am bound to miss some, for which I apologise in advance, but I will do my best. It is good to have her among our number, and I look forward to hearing more from her in future.

Perhaps we should start briefly with the challenge that the Bill is designed to address. As my noble friend Lady Anderson made clear at the start, public fraud is simply not acceptable—as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, said, fraud is not acceptable generally, but public sector fraud is also not acceptable. Fraud does not become a victimless crime because it is directed at the state: it will cheat the public purse of money that could be spent on public services, which could help this Government deliver an NHS fit for the future or invest in our children to give them the best start in life.

Listening to some of the examples given by my noble friends Lord Rook and Lady Alexander, it is so shocking that, during Covid, when people and charities were out there breaking their backs trying to serve people who were in desperate need, others were out there lining their pockets. It is a disgrace. It was very moving to hear from my noble friend Lady Alexander about what is happening when people are doing all that they have had to do in the British Council to pay that back when others do not want to pay back the money that they should be paying back to the state. That cannot be right.

I also think that fraud in our social security system is damaging in a different way, whether it is undertaken by individuals or organised criminals. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, asked what the breakdown of that was. I can tell her that, in 2023-24, of the £7.3 billion lost in fraud in social security, 6% was taken by organised gangs and the rest was taken by individuals.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, is that the number of cases that were identified because there was enough evidence and people were arrested, or does she believe that that is an estimate of the total amount of organised fraud in the system?

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

It is a percentage of the amount of fraud that was recognised. Clearly, we do not have figures for the amount of fraud of any kind that has not been identified or recognised. That was the figure for the amount we have on our books as organised fraud.

The reality is that, whether it is done by organised criminals or by individuals, this is not okay. It is not fair to taxpayers who fund social security, nor to the vast majority of people who claim only the benefits to which they are entitled. In my job, when money is as tight as it is now, I want every penny available for social security to go to the people who need it most.

This Government are determined to tackle the issue head-on with a Bill that will provide the right tools to protect public money and fight modern fraud, coupled with the right safeguards. The Bill is tough on those who commit fraud against our public services or our welfare state. In doing so, it gives reassurance to taxpayers. One of the side effects is that it will be helpful to DWP claimants who make genuine mistakes, by helping to spot errors earlier so they can avoid getting into lots of debt.

I thought the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, about reciprocity was there. If people do not have confidence in our welfare state and the underpinning mutual shared obligations, that challenges our ability to maintain confidence and carry on supporting people in the future. We need to get this right, but we do not need to demonise people to do that. We just need to make it clear that people should get what they are entitled to, and, if they are not getting that, we should address it.

We believe this Bill strikes the right balance, giving the Government new powers proportionate to the problem we are tackling while ensuring that those powers are wrapped around with effective safeguards and protections to give confidence to Parliament and the country. Having said that, and having listened to the debate, I recognise that it is just possible that not everybody agrees with us—or, at least, not yet. We have some way to go. I have every confidence that, once I have fully explained this, there will be unanimity across the House—or near-unanimity at least, being a realist.

Having listened to the debate, it seems to me that there are a number of challenges. First, I offer a couple of truisms. There is no silver bullet to fraud. If there were one single thing to do, the previous Government would have tackled this, or some other Government would have done it. Tackling fraud is an accretion of a series of small decisions which, between them, add up to make a difference. Therefore, this Bill does what it does and does not do other things: it does not tackle bank robbers or tax evasion. It is a contribution, and I think it is an appropriate one.

Secondly, we have to be a bit careful that the best is not the enemy of the good. What is in front of us is action that this Government will take that has not been done before, and I commend it to the House. The challenges that we have seem to come in three broad categories: we are not going far enough, we are going too far, or there are some challenges in the way that we are doing this. I will briefly look at each in turn.

I start with the challenges that we are not going far enough, which have come from a number of noble Lords. The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, and I have great respect for one another, but I say very gently that some of the critiques she has made of the Bill strike me as a little ironic, given that the last Government were in for 14 years and had all that time to take action. What did we get? We got one predecessor of one of these measures, which was put in at the fag end of the last Government and dropped into the other place after Committee, with none of the information that the noble Baroness is demanding from me—nothing at all, not even a requirement to produce a code of practice, never mind actually producing one, and absolutely none of the safeguards or protections. Now she is in opposition, I fully respect that it is the job of the Opposition to demand things of the Government, and she does a fine job of doing that. She also will not mind if, in turn, I occasionally throw back at her what her own Government failed to do. In this area, I think we are doing rather better.

Having got that off my chest, let us move on. It is worth saying that this Government are actually doing something. We committed to the biggest-ever savings package on fraud, error and debt at the Autumn Budget. Along with the Spring Statement, DWP fraud and error measures are estimated to achieve £9.6 billion of savings by 2029-30, of which up to £1.5 billion will be generated by this Bill. So this Bill is not all that we are doing, but it is an important thing that we are doing.

The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, asked about cost. In the end, the costs of DWP working through these measures will be dependent on the munificence of the Treasury at the spending review, which I am not allowed to pre-empt. The impact assessment sets out our estimate and shows that around four times the benefit of every pound of our departmental spending will come back on scored measures to 2029-30.

On not doing enough, the noble Baroness asked about “sickfluencers”. She is right—it is the view of this department that we have the powers to deal with these crimes at the moment. We think the Bill will help the PSFA to do that at the same time. But, if she has ideas about other ways in which that could happen, I look forward to hearing them, along with her many other ideas for tackling fraud, which I have no doubt Committee will give us every opportunity to discuss.

While I am on the point, the noble Baronesses, Lady Kramer and Lady Stedman-Scott raised the question of whistleblowing. We absolutely agree; we want people to pass on information about fraudsters who are taking from our public services. We are open to keep looking at the best way to do that. We are working with partners such as Action Fraud to make it simple and easy for the public.

In the case of DWP, benefit fraud can be reported by the public online, by phone or by post—and, trust me, it is. But also, DWP staff have clear channels to report. On top of that, the PSFA will look into the possibility of being listed by the Department for Business and Trade as a body with which individuals can raise concerns around public sector fraud. That will help on that side.

While we are on the PSFA, concerns were raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, and others about whether it is doing enough and about the scale. The PSFA’s enforcement unit is relatively new in what it does. The noble Baroness, Lady Finn, was a little a little bit harsh on test and learn. When the enforcement unit is as new as it is and will only with the passage of the Bill get the powers it needs to do any of these things, surely testing and learning is the right thing to do. If it can demonstrate clearly that results come from that, the possibility for scaling will be significant. I promise I am not making any assumptions of the Treasury.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, asked whether the Government audit the work of the PSFA and whether the powers in the Bill will add anything. The PSFA publishes annual reports and has benefits audited by the Government Internal Audit Agency. Examples were given in my noble friend’s opening speech of where the PSFA currently cannot make the desired progress because it has not got the powers it needs. The Bill will give them to it.

That is, briefly, the case for not going far enough. Let us now do the going too far case. A number of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, to a degree, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, my noble friends Lord Davies and Lord Sikka, and the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, are concerned about possible infringements on the right to privacy or other aspects of the reach of the Bill. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, for acknowledging the improvements made by the Bill. I raised a number of reservations when the last Government introduced their third-party data measure, because I felt that the powers were simply not proportionate and that there were not enough safeguards around them.

While I am here, I say to my noble friend Lord Davies that the fact that that we provide safeguards does not mean the powers are wrong. That is what safeguards are for. There are safeguards in all aspects of life. I will come back to that. It means that we want to be transparent and show people that powers the state is taking are used appropriately. That is what they are for. The noble Lord explained the limitations.

We are now limiting the benefits in scope. For all the measures there will be clear limits about what information can be requested, for what purpose, and how the PSFA and DWP will use it. That is all new, and the Bill introduces considerable oversight and reporting requirements.

I believe the Bill strikes the right balance and, in answer to my noble friend Lord Sikka, I am confident that it is complying with the Government’s duties under the ECHR. The Government’s detailed analysis on compatibility is set out in the published ECHR memorandum.

I need to take on a couple of noble Lords who have suggested that this is a sort of broad trawling expedition. It has been described as DWP going out there and trying to have access to everybody’s bank accounts—suspicion-snooping. That is a simple misunderstanding of the nature of the powers. Let me try to explain why. DWP will not be given access to people’s bank accounts by this measure, which is about banks being asked to examine their own data, which they already have and can already look at. They have been asked to provide DWP with the minimum amount of information necessary to highlight whether there is a possibility that someone may not be meeting a specific eligibility rule for a specific benefit. At the point the information is shared with DWP, no one is suspected of having done anything wrong. The presumption of innocence is still there.

Workers (Economic Affairs Committee Report)

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

Thursday 8th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I was privileged to be part of the committee that delivered this report, serving under the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, who has so effectively presented the conclusions in our report and given an update based on the additional data that has become available. I am probably rather redundant in this debate, but that has never stopped me before and I am afraid it will not do so today.

Economic activity matters to economic growth—the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, rehearsed this issue well—so it was not great news when on Monday the ONS revised its figures for the three months to November 2023, showing economic inactivity at 21.9% rather than 20.8%. I accept, as the noble Lords, Lord Bridges and Lord Willetts, the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and others have pointed out, that the ONS is finding it extremely difficult to get sound survey statistics in this changing labour market. On its behalf, I point out that it is not alone; the FT ran an article last week entitled “Guess the US job numbers”. This is really difficult, and we must accept that we will never get pure statistics, but our goal must be to get enough to drive us in the right direction.

It is clear from all the numbers we have that Covid left a different impact in the UK from other developed countries, as the noble Lords, Lord Skidelsky, Lord Turnbull and Lord Bilimoria, pointed out. Other countries found that economic inactivity during the Covid period recovered post Covid, but we have found the reverse. If anything, it has intensified. It is important to say that, when we began our report, we honestly did not expect to find that early retirement among the 50 to 64 year-old cohort would be such a powerful factor in economic inactivity. If anything, we assumed when we began that a post-Covid rise in sickness and long NHS waiting lists would be the cause. They are important parts of the problem, but our report clearly demonstrates that increased ill health, as others have said, typically came after retirement rather than causing it.

The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, caught this rather well. The scale of the significant lifestyle change that we identified, which caught me unawares, is still in many ways a mystery. We have heard a number of potential answers to that question today. The noble Lord, Lord Hendy, talked about terms and conditions and the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, about people just not finding their work enjoyable. The noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, and others also addressed this and the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, gave us an example from veterinary services of why it is so hard to retain people in work, which must be part of their choosing early retirement. We almost have a vicious circle; as people fall out of the workforce, the stress that falls on those who remain is higher than ever. I very much hope the Minister will explore this and that the Government will do significantly more work in this area. I know that the OBR is treating this cohort of 50 to 64 year-olds retiring early as a temporary change; I am less sure, but that is another reason why we need to explore this.

However, I do not think that recognising early retirement negates the urgency of dealing with the NHS backlog. Virtually every speaker made the point that this is a critical area on which we must focus. If people in the 50 to 64 retired cohort become and remain ill, any chance that they will rejoin the workforce is pretty much lost, no matter what support and incentives are on offer. Yesterday’s ONS figures suggesting that some 2 million people in work are underperforming because of sickness underscore the issue. There was a further warning in more recent evidence given to the Economic Affairs Committee, on a different issue, by Richard Hughes, chair of the OBR:

“People used to be getting healthier as they aged, but the data has been more disappointing recently, in the sense that you are getting more years of unhealthy life rather than more years of healthy life”.


We have to find a way to change that, for many reasons, including the workforce. I see no way other than a significant investment in reform to increase services and deal with both prevention and treatment. The noble Lord, Lord Layard, underscored the importance of ensuring that mental health is not neglected in that focus on reforming health and investing in improved health.

In undertaking this report, we were beginning to focus on a much more fundamental problem which may not have been as fully discussed in this debate: the changing ratio between our working-age population in the UK and our dependant population. Richard Hughes said:

“The underlying demographics remain pretty stark, in the sense that, in the 1970s, we had about two people in work for every one person in retirement. At the moment, we have about one and a half people in work for every one person in retirement. By the time we get out to 2070, we have only one person in work for every one person in retirement”.


This is despite expected future increases in the state pension age. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, has a point: for some jobs it is easy to think of asking people to work longer, but for many it would not be appropriate.

There was a time, perhaps until 2018 or 2019—and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, made this point—that bringing women into the workforce and raising the state pension age and free movement sustained our working-age population. The first two have largely run their course, and, as we know, free movement has ended. This is not a debate on immigration or Brexit, but I am quite taken with the fact that, according to the OBR, historic data showed EU migrants as having higher employment rates and making fewer demands on public services than the general population, while migrants under the current system are now forecast to mirror the population. This highlights that we need a proper immigration debate in which workforce issues are properly included, and the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, underscored that point.

This is also not a debate on productivity, but obviously increases in productivity can substitute for workforce. The noble Lord, Lord Willetts, talked about technical and educational qualifications, and indeed childcare, as playing an important part in releasing people into the workforce. Better training, better use of the apprenticeship levy and return to work schemes are all important, but we should not fool ourselves that these will provide us with a sufficient number of people to make up the workforce shortfall in the demographics we are looking at.

Like a lot of people, I very much hope that Al will give us a productivity revolution and, essentially, resolve our demographic shortfall. One hears this spoken of widely. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol made the point that AI comes with many issues, complications and moral questions. I would add another word of caution around the simple assumption that AI will drive forward this kind of change in productivity. The House will remember that, many years ago, we discussed the notion that first came the agricultural revolution, which drove up productivity, and then the Industrial Revolution drove it up, and then in the 1990s we expected that the digital revolution would follow the same pattern. But in the UK at least—quite a number of noble Lords have talked about our weak productivity performance—the digital revolution changed the way we work but led to no rise in our productivity.

I am desperately concerned that, in looking at this issue—the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, gave us the statistics on how productivity has been scraping along, barely above zero—we recognise that, if we are going to use AI as the offset, we need a proper strategy in place to be able to do so. It has got to be comprehensive and challenging, and not the bitty and scattered arrangements or pieces of policy that we have today.

I close by picking up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and the noble Lord, Lord Davies. Frankly, the Government’s reply to the report is pretty complacent and largely misses the point. It does not recognise the scale of the issue that we are dealing with. Yes, we need better data, but we also need the Government to understand that there are real and fundamental issues around the size of the workforce and our demographic profile. These issues have to be thought through and encompassed in every plan that we have for the economy, or else we will not see the economic growth that we want to see to sustain our population and our quality of life.

Cost of Living Support

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

Thursday 22nd June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

I hope I can help the noble Lord. As I have already mentioned, inflation really is one of the Prime Minister’s key priorities. He has made it clear, as we have, that reducing inflation is absolutely key. He also speaks about growth, while making it clear that growth comes as a secondary item to inflation. However, it is also important that the economy grows. In previous answers, I have made it clear that we are doing as much as we possibly can to look at what more banks can do to be helpful. One thing which I have not said is that we are working closely with the Bank of England, while making it clear that the Bank is independent in also working as hard as it is in the fight to bring down inflation. It is not just us in the UK; as others have said, there are similar issues in other countries, particularly in Europe. However, I realise that in the UK we still have a lot of work to do.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister looks to a negotiation with the banks to provide better terms to mortgage holders who are under pressure. He must surely accept that the banks will offer those terms to those they deem their most attractive customers, not to low-income house owners, who cannot take the required flexibility of interest-only or a long extension to their mortgage’s life. That is the group, surely, which needs to be served by an emergency mortgage fund to rescue this situation. Surely he could find the money to support those who will see their mortgages rise by more than 10% of their disposable income and take the money back from the banks, which are seeing bumper profits off the back of rising interest rates.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

I certainly note what the noble Baroness has said. I have mentioned already that the Chancellor is meeting the banks. I do not want to pre-empt the outcome of those discussions. What is important are the initiatives we have taken already to help people. There is support for people who have mortgages. We have increased the generosity and availability of the support for mortgage interest scheme, meaning that those on universal credit can apply for a loan to help cover interest repayments after three months rather than nine and can now receive support while working.

A new Financial Conduct Authority customer duty, coming into effect next month, will ensure that firms put customers first, delivering fair value and ensuring good outcomes for those in financial difficulty. The noble Baroness raises a very important point and I hope that further measures can be produced. We await the outcome of discussions.

Pensions: Online Dashboard

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

Tuesday 24th July 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Buscombe]

My Lords, let me first say that the figure of 50 million referred to is an estimate made in 2012 of the number of dormant, not lost, pension pots by 2050. To suggest that 50 million pension pots will be lost unless a pensions dashboard is introduced is wholly inaccurate: I want to make that very clear. We are looking through the whole process and at experience overseas in order to understand more about pensions dashboards. The noble Lord knows that the whole process is very complex. We are working through the options around scheme participation in any potential pensions dashboard. The decision whether to compel participation depends on a number of issues, such as the functionality, delivery model and governance of the dashboard. We will set out the Government’s view in due course.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, can the Minister address this feet-dragging? George Osborne announced that this project would go ahead in 2016, it was meant to be up and running next year, and Guy Opperman, in his role, constantly says that he is actively supporting it. The industry is—to put it mildly—cross, having done all the work it needs to contribute towards creating a pensions dashboard. It is vital so that savers can make the best investments of their pension money, and it is key to fraud prevention. Both of those are crucial issues. Can the Minister confirm that the rumours that the scheme is in jeopardy are false, and can she please finally give us a timetable?

Financial Guidance and Claims Bill [HL]

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

3rd reading (Minutes of Proceedings): House of Lords
Tuesday 21st November 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords, I add my most sincere thanks to those of my noble friend Lady Coussins. This new clause is incredibly important. Yesterday, this was unanimously welcomed at the National Mental Capacity Forum leadership group, including by all those from the financial sector represented in the group, as being a very important way forward to make sure that our society is increasingly integrated and recognises the needs of those with permanent and transient impairments and incapacity, and those who may temporarily have been put in extremely vulnerable circumstances.

I also thank the Minister for the way she has listened and stayed in communication with us as the wording has been developed. It really was a very positive and constructive dialogue.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, as well as congratulating the Minister on bringing the language of “vulnerable circumstances” to the Bill, I want to congratulate the others who have made this issue so clear during our very positive and engaged debates; namely, the noble Baronesses, Lady Coussins, Lady Finlay and Lady Hollins. When the Minister first put down a slightly earlier draft of the amendment, which reordered some of the opening sections of Clause 2, because I am a naturally suspicious person, I tried to see whether there was some bear trap in there or something that I should be afraid of. I could find no such bear trap—and nor could my colleague, my noble friend Lord Sharkey, who I think now has a reputation for the most incisive examination of language in a Bill. I fully understand the desire of the Government to be clear and transparent—they seem very positive. I shall have more to say about the Bill in later stages—but, with this first grouping, we start off on a rather good note for the opening of Third Reading.

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on the hard work done by her and the Bill team to include the changes called for in our earlier debates on the Bill. I fully support the reworking of the sections to improve the clarity of the Bill; the adjustments are sensible and pragmatic. I also add my congratulations to the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay, Lady Hollins and Lady Coussins, on the important provision relating to vulnerable individuals. It is important that we have achieved that increased protection for them in the Bill. I again thank my noble friend and offer support for the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, was kind enough to thank all sections of your Lordships’ House for their contributions to the earlier debates and for their support for this amendment. I endorse everything she said. I am delighted to have played a small part in the process of creating this legal framework and delivering the powers needed. What we want now is for the scheme to be designed and delivered quickly and effectively. Having listened to the Minister today, I place my trust in the Government to see this through as soon as reasonably practicable.

[Baroness Kramer]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Sharkey is unable to be with us at the moment because he is at the Economic Affairs Committee. I suspect that, by the time that committee finishes and he can come down and join us, we will have moved to the conclusion of Third Reading, so I am privileged to speak on his behalf, as it were.

I will talk for a moment about the debt respite scheme and then just say a few words about Amendment 33, which stands in my noble friend’s name and now has the added support of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. The debt respite scheme is absolutely crucial and I congratulate all parties, including the Opposition Front Bench and the Government Front Bench, and the Bill team for working through all of this. This is my opportunity to say that the Bill team has been very open to discussion.

Like others, I recognise that this Bill is very different from the fairly narrow, technical Bill that was originally conceived. This House took on board the argument that many of the issues raised, particularly those around financial inclusion, cold calling and debt respite, were not party-political controversies. All signed up to those issues, and the only question was whether there would be other vehicles in the very near future to carry through those policies. We can all see that the works are getting more and more gummed up on a daily basis, and I suspect there is real relief on all sides now that important issues such as cold calling, debt respite and financial inclusion have found their way into this Bill so that action can be taken despite whatever may be happening at a national level on the broader policies, particularly with Brexit. That is a real win for everybody in the House, including the Government and also the Minister, who has turned a technical Bill into an opportunity to make a real impact on people’s lives.

On Amendment 33, which amends the Long Title, I will pick up the point that the Minister made when she introduced Amendment 1 and talked about the importance of clarity and transparency. To the general public, this Bill will not be noted because it brought together three very important bodies into a single body, although all of that matters and will itself breed quite a significant number of good outcomes; it will be remembered most because it gave the Government the power to deal with cold calling and the abuse from which much of the population suffer on a daily basis. As many noble Lords, including colleagues on the Cross Benches and the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, have said, the most vulnerable have been impacted most by cold-calling abuse.

The Bill will also be remembered because of the debt respite clauses. To have a Bill in which neither of those two issues appears anywhere in the Long Title would seem most peculiar to anybody trying to find the appropriate legislation tackling these issues. You would have to guess that they might be in a Bill with the more limited Title. The words “and for connected purposes” might mean a great deal to people in this House, but do not mean a great deal to people elsewhere. Making sure that the Long Title fully reflects the strengths of the Bill and that those strengths can be easily recognised is a real improvement. It will rebound very much to the Government’s advantage.

Most of our exchanges have been extremely gracious, so I hope that the Minister will feel able to overcome her irritation around this one last clause. We have worked well together as a House, which has been crucially important. As I say, our thanks go very much to the Bill team, which has been a crucial part of this. I pay particular tribute to my noble friend Lord Sharkey since he is not here and able to speak for himself. He, among a number of others in the House, has contributed to a very worthwhile piece of legislation.

[Viscount Brookeborough (CB)]

My Lords, I add my praise to the two Front Benches. I should not think they could sustain much more joint praise, but on this occasion they have moved mountains in the length of time that this has taken. I emphasise how important the respite is from the point of view that every single case is a personal case of one family. It is not a matter of statistics, of speaking only of “30% of the families”; every single case that is allowed to go through this debt is a tragedy.

I say on behalf of Northern Ireland, if not the devolved parts of the UK, that it is good to see that it may be extended there, especially, from my point of view, to Northern Ireland. There are many individuals who, although they may not be listening to this, will unknowingly benefit from this to a tremendous extent. I thank all parties involved.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Buscombe]

My Lords, I announced on Report in response to amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, the Government would bring forward amendments to introduce an interim fee cap in respect of PPI claims management services. Amendments 25, 26, 27, 29 and 30 honour that commitment—and I am sorry to see that the noble Baroness is not in her place.

As noble Lords are aware, this Bill already puts a duty on the FCA to cap fees charged in respect of financial services claims. This will ensure fair and proportionate prices for consumers using these services. However, as we have previously discussed, the implementation of the new regulatory regime and an effective, robust cap will necessarily take some time. This is a particular concern, given that the FCA’s PPI claims deadline may have passed by the time the FCA’s fee cap is in place. That is why the Government are introducing an amendment to set a fee cap at 20%, excluding VAT, of the claim value. The interim fee cap will apply to both CMCs and legal services providers that carry out claims management services in relation to PPI claims, to be enforced by the relevant regulators. It will be enforced by relevant regulators from two months after the Bill receives Royal Assent, until the FCA is in a position to implement its own cap. This cap will complement the range of measures in relation to PPI and other financial claims that the claims management regulation unit has announced. These include banning upfront fees and banning charges, where it is identified that the consumer does not have a relationship or relevant policy with the lender, as well as ensuring that all cancellation charges are reasonable and that consumers are provided with an itemised bill setting out details of what they relate to. This package of measures will support the Government’s aim to ensure that the claims management sector works in the interests of consumers by protecting them from excessive fees.

On Report, I also committed to tabling a government amendment to extend the FCA regulation of claims management to Scotland, should the UK and Scottish Governments agree that position. I am pleased to be able to confirm that the Scottish Government have now written to the UK Government to confirm agreement to extending regulation there. It highlighted that the situation in Scotland has changed since this issue was first discussed earlier this year. Legislation is currently progressing through the Scottish Parliament that will allow Scottish solicitors to offer increased funding options to clients on a no-win no-fee basis. As a result of these changes, Scottish solicitors will no longer need to set up CMCs to offer damages-based agreements to clients, and the CMC landscape is expected to change significantly.

To ensure that CMCs are not able to take advantage of this potential gap in regulation by targeting Scottish consumers, the UK and Scottish Governments have now agreed that FCA claims management regulation should extend to Scotland. This will ensure that there are appropriate regulatory standards in place to deal with CMC practices across Great Britain. These amendments follow up on my commitment on Report and do just that, extending FCA regulation of CMCs to Scotland, which will ensure that Scottish consumers are protected in the same way as those in England and Wales.

I note that the constitutional position of this issue has not been entirely straightforward as CMC regulation clearly concerns a mix of reserved and devolved matters. The regulation of the legal profession in Scotland is of course devolved, whereas matters of competition and aspects of consumer protection are reserved. It is the UK Government’s view that CMC regulation concerns reserved matters of competition and consumer protection. The Scottish Government have confirmed that they will seek the legislative consent of the Scottish Parliament for the CMC provisions as part of the wider legislative consent Motion for this Bill.

For the purposes of record, I should note that the UK Government’s view is that only Clause 20(4) relating to consumer advocacy is relevant to the legislative consent process, although I am aware that the Scottish Government might take a broader interpretation of how much of this is covered by the LCM. Nevertheless, the crucial issue here is that we have agreement that FCA regulation of CMCs should cover Scotland. I believe that this represents a sensible outcome which will benefit and protect consumers across Great Britain.

I am sure your Lordships will agree that the introduction of an interim restriction on charges in respect of CMCs is a positive step forward in ensuring that the claims management sector works in the interests of consumers. I am sure you will also agree that it is desirable to extend FCA regulation of CMCs to Scotland, given the change in circumstances there. I beg to move.

[Baroness Kramer]

My Lords, I apologise, as when I last spoke, I attributed to the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, a very eloquent speech that was made on cold calling and the way it targets vulnerable people, when it was the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, who made that speech. I apologise to both parties. If I have any excuse, it is that I confuse my own children, and one of them is male and the other is female, so it is even more embarrassing.

As regards this group of amendments, my only regret is that the cap on fees is set at 20%. It would have been better to have a lower cap. However, we congratulate the Government on the underlying principle of taking temporary action because it is very likely that by the time the FCA gets its grip on this issue we will be beyond the reach of future PPI claims. However, other than that, I once again thank the Minister for being responsive to the issues that have been raised all around the House, including this one and those of cold calling, debt respite and financial inclusion. This is a very important move by the Minister and her name will be attached to these issues well into the future.

[Baroness Altmann]

My Lords, I too once again thank the Minister and all parties who have worked so hard on this Bill. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, who initially raised the issue of Scotland. It is excellent that the whole of Great Britain is included in the Bill. I thank the department for all the hard work that it has done to achieve this.

I too am delighted to see a cap on the PPI claims management fee. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, I would very much have liked the Government to agree that the parties responsible for the mis-selling would pay the fee rather than taking it out of the compensation that is paid to the customer. I understand that there may be an issue over the profitability of the claims management company itself but perhaps a compromise would be to split the 20% so that the customer gets 90% of what is due and the financial firm that has done the mis-selling perhaps pays 10% as well to the claims management firm. Having said that, I certainly welcome a 20% cap. I once again thank the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson, Lord Sharkey and Lord McKenzie, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Kramer and Lady Drake, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and all other noble Lords who have made such great improvements to the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Kramer]

33: Line 1, after “body” insert “(including provision about cold-calling and a debt respite scheme)”

Financial Guidance and Claims Bill [HL]

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 31st October 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, being a member of the my noble friend Lord Hunt’s flock in your Lordships’ House, I am a bit concerned that if I overly push on Amendment 41, which comes hot on the heels of Amendment 39A, I, too, may be the victim of whiplash. We discussed many of the issues in Committee. I have brought back the amendment on Report so that I might push my noble friends who understand the timeline for bringing in a duty of care. My initial intention was to table an amendment placing a general duty of care on financial institutions; as a result of the scope of the Bill, a specific duty as set out in my amendment pertaining to CMCs is what we are discussing today.

I am grateful to all the organisations that helped with briefing for the amendment, not least Macmillan Cancer Support, which really demonstrates what a modern charity can do, not just focusing on the specific issue at the centre of its organisation but going wider to all the elements that directly affect people when they receive a cancer diagnosis. That is partly why I chose to focus on Macmillan and cancer in putting down this amendment. It goes to the heart of bringing to life why there is a need for a general duty of care to be exercised by financial services institutions, when one in two of us will receive a cancer diagnosis in our lifetime. This is not a marginal matter; it demonstrates that financial institutions not only have their current responsibilities and obligations but need that general duty of care.

The amendment deals specifically with CMCs. I push my noble friend the Minister to accept it and to give some further description building on comments that he made in Committee on the timeline for considering bringing forward and implementing a general duty of care, with the good offices of the FCA obviously involved—I am grateful to the FCA for meeting me to discuss this, not least Mr Christopher Woolard. I shall say no more; the arguments were put in Committee. I urge my noble friend to accept the amendment and beg to move.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, on sticking with this issue, because it is fundamental. I say to the Government that a duty of care is so important and should be so central to every piece of our financial services industry that we should not let the perfect—having a general duty of care—be the enemy of the good, which is the opportunity to put a specific duty of care in this Bill. I hope the Government will consider that.

I have the privilege to be on the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards. As we sought to strengthen the framework of regulation and to expose a lot of misdirection within the financial services industry, I think everybody, not only on the committee but far more broadly, agreed that the key problem lay in culture. We have turned to the banking and financial services industries and asked them through various bodies to improve their culture, but surely we also have a responsibility to drive that with every piece of legislation that comes our way. Duty of care reflects that whole-culture approach: the underlying, underpinning approach that we expect our financial services to take, where the interests of the customer are at the centre. It is not that the financial services should not be able to make profits—of course, that is the business they are in—but it should never be at the expense of that central interest of the client or customer.

I urge the Government to take seriously this opportunity in an area where there has been extraordinary abuse. I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, for example; others talked about whiplash and issues around holiday sickness. In issue after issue, we have seen a complete failure in the culture of the bodies that provide such services. We should tackle that issue head on and not be afraid to use language that is clearly around that duty of care—not considering it too soft or too difficult—so that it becomes a general habit. I hope we will not rely just on general duties of care, because those can sometimes be imperfect, but will make sure that in every piece of financial services legislation this issue is underscored. In that, this legislation could be a leader.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, we have added our name to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, which takes us back to regulatory principles and the duty of care.

The noble Lord is right to have removed the “where appropriate” qualification from his earlier amendment. The amendment deals with the regulation of claims management, although this is seen as an opportunity to debate the wider calls for a duty of care across the financial services piece.

On the narrower point, we acknowledge that in Committee the Minister gave assurances about the FCA consulting on the design of new rules for claims management companies and taking account of its statutory operational objectives, including an appropriate degree of protection for consumers. However, we note that there is no current alignment of the objectives of the CMRU and the FCA, and there seems to be no certainty about where this process will end up.

Financial Guidance and Claims Bill [HL]

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

Report: 1st sitting: House of Lords
Tuesday 24th October 2017 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, I understand the motives of the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, and other noble Lords in seeking to introduce a consumer protection function to the Bill. However, I believe that it places too broad and onerous a responsibility on the single financial guidance body. If noble Lords look at the functions already included in the Bill, the first three are specific. The fourth, the strategic function, seeks to improve the financial capability of members of the public by supporting the provision of financial education to children and young people—although I think that should perhaps be widened. I believe that the strategic function enables consumers to protect themselves better than they would be able to do without it.

Proposed new subsection (3E) would define cold calling as,

“unsolicited real-time direct approaches to members of the public carried out by whatever means, digital or otherwise”.

This is too all-encompassing. I would be delighted if cold calling by direct telephone and text were banned, but I am not sure that banning all unsolicited approaches is a good idea. If all unsolicited approaches were made illegal, including those by letter or email, how would a business market its services to new potential customers? Would such a draconian measure not result in severe restriction of choice for consumers? How would they know what products and services were available in the marketplace?

I suspect that the 2.6 million nuisance calls made every week—or 9 million a month; I am not sure what the figure referred to in the debate was—is a serious underestimation. What do the Government intend to do to protect the consumer from unsolicited telephone and text approaches?

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, perhaps I can be helpful on a couple of the points just raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard. These amendments ban solicitations in real time, as he will have noticed. That obviously excludes letters. It means that you can send information through the post; no one would wish to prohibit proper kinds of marketing. It is the nuisance and intrusion and the element of pressure that comes from that real-time activity that is the pernicious side of solicitation. That, essentially, is cold calling and is exactly what this is intended to deal with.

The noble Viscount suggested that financial education and capability are the way to go; indeed, many in the Government feel that that is the route to deal with cold calling, so that people know to hang up. However, the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, was very clear in illustrating that, while we all get cold calls, we are merely the tip of an iceberg. For those who pursue this, the real focus is on people who are absolutely the most vulnerable. Being realistic, financial education and capability, even on the most extraordinary scale, would be very unlikely to provide adequate protection to that group of people who are now constantly being abused.

On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, if this body is not associated with consumer protection, quite frankly I wonder what this body is for. That is the underlying premise that sits behind both the predecessor groups that are now being put into the single financial guidance and advice body. It is essential to bring this on to the face of the Bill in a very clear way, as it is the underlying motivation and characterisation of this body, and certainly it is a responsibility.

The noble Lord, Lord Faulks, also suggested that the Government do intend to move in this area. We have been hearing that for an incredibly long period of time and, with constant pressure, perhaps one day the Government will move. The problem is that we need protection now. We need protection in the near term because, as my noble friend Lord Sharkey, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and others have illustrated, this has grown in such scale and momentum that there are daily victims. Every day that we wait there are more victims. Since it is completely unnecessary to wait because the language in this Bill serves the purpose, then in a sense it would be extraordinary to say we will sit back and wait 18 months or two years or whatever else, allowing people to be abused. We can bring a stop to it now in a very simple and straightforward way.

If I understand the Government correctly, they are willing to look at certain targeted areas in which to stop cold calling but not to provide a stop to cold calling in each area where there is clear detriment, which is what the amendment allows through use of this new single body to identify and communicate that detriment. These organisations are so slick and quick they can move from one topic to another very rapidly—you close one door and another door gets opened. For example, we stopped cold calling on mortgages. That is an excellent example that tells you we can do it. It is straightforward. The dimensions are understood. The complexities are well-considered and we have plenty of track record to look back at to make sure that it is done well. We have all of that in place. However when cold calling on mortgages was banned, it shifted on to the next issue—currently, it is pensions, claims management and holiday sickness. Everybody can be absolutely sure there will be something new, provided loopholes are left, by simply attacking one issue here and one issue there. That is the beauty of this particular amendment: it gives us the power to deal with this whole industry, the same people and the same players.

I shall make one last remark and then sit down. I want particularly to congratulate the four noble Lords whose names are on this amendment, all of whom have been working so hard in this area. Three of them are here today, able to speak for themselves, but one of them cannot. The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, as we know, has been a real mover and shaker on these issues, not just over cold calling for pensions—pensions are her area of real expertise and we have heard her on that—but we have also heard her in this House speaking around the much broader issue as well, which is why she has put her name to the amendment. She had a speaking engagement at lunchtime in the Midlands which she felt she could not cancel. She has not eaten lunch but run to the train station. She is on the train which pulls in to the station at 4.30 and had been greatly hoping there would be a Statement today that would delay this long enough that she could be here to join in with this particular section of the debate. I am sure she will speak in later parts of this Report.

The noble Baroness should not be left out when we recognise that the movers and shakers on this are from every side of the House. This is not a partisan or party-political set of amendments. This is a set of amendments by Members of this House who recognise their responsibility to protect those who are most vulnerable now, before more damage is done, and I hope the Government will see it that way.

[Lord Faulks]

Before the noble Baroness sits down, will she clarify one thing? She was critical of my suggestion that the insertion of the consumer protection function is in some way an attempt to expand the scope of the SFGB. She said, quite correctly, that it is part of the SFGB’s function to protect consumers, but surely the purpose of this amendment is to expand the scope of its activity beyond that which is already in the Bill so that it can deal with matters that are beyond what is apparently in other parts of the Bill.

[Baroness Kramer]

I thought that we could only speak once on Report, but I hope that the House will excuse me if I get to my feet again. Fundamentally, I disagree with the noble Lord. Consumer objectives are merely bringing to the face the underlying discussion and the ethos which sits entirely behind this body and every one of its instructions. If the noble Lord reads all the roles and responsibilities and the debates about those roles and responsibilities, he will understand that this meshes perfectly with these activities. It strengthens its hand in an obvious way, rather than leaving it in a slightly awkward, ambiguous situation.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)]

My Lords, I am full of respect for and sympathy with the amendments and the spirit in which they have been moved. We are facing massive social abuse that is complicated and extremely extensive. I doubt very much whether in the complicated and convoluted society in which we live it is humanly possible to rid us of all of it. I am sure that is beyond us.

The remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, triggered two thoughts in my mind. The first relates to the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and how well that Act has served society. We are still dealing with it day in and day out in the courts, and with the help of judicial interpretation it is as fresh in many respects as it was the day it was passed. In so far as the offence of assault occasioning actually bodily harm—Section 47—is concerned, the noble Lord is absolutely right. There should be a parallel offence that is not confined to an assault and does not concentrate upon a physical consequence. There have been attempts in the past to widen that offence, but they have been rather vague and less than totally successful. It has to be revamped completely so that the concept of assault is not basic to it and it is not confined to bodily harm.

My other point relates to the higher end of the scale with regard to cold calling. At the very bottom of the scale there is the fishing exercise, the hopeful prospect that something might come of what is not of itself a criminal act. At the other end of the scale, there is a very serious criminal act where A says to B “Let us pretend that an accident occurred—we know nothing like that ever took place—and you are the claimant in regard to that matter and that you are prepared to put forward a statement of facts about a fact that you know to be totally false. I will support you, and we will split the profits between us. You should be prepared, of course, to commence an action in the courts”. The moment you do that, you have probably committed a very serious offence. You have attempted to pervert the course of justice. I believe that as a proposition of law, exceptional to the usual law of attempts, every attempt to bring about a perversion of the course of justice is of itself a perversion of the course of justice. It is at that end that we should start concentrating. Very few of these cases are brought to court, and very few of them are successful, but it would be marvellous to be able to make an example of some of the very worst cases, and by such example a very considerable social lesson would be taught.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Buscombe]

My Lords, I beg to differ. Despite the noble Lord’s extensive experience in another place, it is entirely possible for us to bring forward an amendment in the Commons to introduce such a ban.

As I was saying, we want to ban pensions cold calling because a private pension plan is often an individual’s most valuable asset. A ban will send a powerful message to consumers to put the phone down. My officials recently met a range of stakeholders to explore the details of the ban and are currently working on developing the details of the policy arrangements.

Pensions cold calling is also a complex area which we want to get right. Indeed, the recent discussion with stakeholders uncovered interesting questions around how to define existing relationships and express requests for information. The Government will continue to finalise these complex policy details and we intend to publish draft legislation for scrutiny in early 2018. Following this, we will legislate at the earliest opportunity. This gives us the opportunity to develop legislation which is more carefully targeted and allows us to make proper provision for enforcement which this current draft does not allow.

The Government have listened and want to work at pace to introduce a targeted response which will strengthen the arrangements already in place. However, the proposed approach in this amendment could delay implementation of any such ban. If this amendment were passed, the Government would first have to wait for the body to be set up. It is not expected to be set up and operational until October 2018. Then, recommendations would have to be made to the Secretary of State. No doubt, this would not be immediate because this body will have a huge amount of work to undertake when it is first set up. So it could be at least another year or two before any consideration could be made, prior to a recommendation being put to the Secretary of State to introduce such a ban. Then the Secretary of State would have to make and lay affirmative regulations.

The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, said that we need protection now. If Amendment 2 were passed, there would be much more delay than if the Government were to wait.

[Baroness Kramer]

I think the Minister distinctly said that she was considering a ban being introduced in the Commons on cold calling for claims management but not for pensions. So the timetable she has described becomes rather complicated compared with the alternative for which she has not given a timetable.

[Baroness Buscombe]

I have already made it clear, as we did in Committee, that we intend to bring forward a ban on pension scams. We cannot be entirely accurate on timing because, as the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, made clear, we have to find a legislative opportunity. As I have just said, we will introduce draft legislation early next year and that will go through a process of pre-legislative scrutiny. I hope noble Lords will accept that this is very sensible in order to get it right. Indeed, some years ago, this House introduced the possibility of draft legislative scrutiny in important situations such as this. We do not want to get it wrong.

I also say to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, that it is not without this planet to expect and hope that there will be opportunities—gaps in the timetable—for legislation to come forward. Given the timetable for setting up the body and for the many things it will have to undertake in its early months, I suspect that passing this amendment would mean a protracted delay in introducing a ban on CMCs. The noble Baroness knows perfectly well that we cannot introduce the ban on pensions cold calling in this Bill because it is out of scope. CMCs are actually in scope.

[Baroness Kramer]

This amendment is in scope. It allows the banning not only of cold calling, but of a broader range of issues. The point made from the Labour Benches was that the Government always said they would have done it in this Bill had there been any mechanism for it to be in scope. It is now in scope, which is why we are debating it on the Floor today. We are not debating an out-of-scope amendment.

[Baroness Buscombe]

That is why I am making it clear that banning pensions cold calling is out of scope of this Bill, but the CMCs are in scope. I am sorry; this is very confusing for noble Lords. I shall focus on what really matters—namely, whether this amendment would bring forward a ban on cold calling. I must stress that that is not the case; there would be a protracted delay.

To reiterate, the Government agree with the spirit of these amendments and will bring forward legislation in this Bill, in the other place, in relation to cold calling for claims management activities. Along with our pre-stated commitment to ban pensions cold calling, I hope that reassures the House.

My noble friend Lord Faulks asked whether the SFGB is the right body to handle cold calling. I stress that I do not believe this is the right duty to place upon this body. It should be the subject of primary legislation. However, the Government intend to bring forward the appropriate legislation that will work in practice. That is the important thing here. My noble friend Lord Trenchard questioned whether this amendment was right and said that we needed to take care to avoid unintended consequences with a complete outright ban that could possibly work to the detriment of the consumer.

I shall detain noble Lords no longer. I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Drake (Lab)]

My Lords, I support and very much welcome these government amendments. I thank the Minister for the consideration she has given to the arguments put forward in Committee. These amendments would make the guidance and advice free to the user and impartial. It is very important that it should be free to the user and not vulnerable to ministerial discretion to decide to charge a fee at some later point for three important reasons.

I do not want to prolong the debate, having got the amendments but, just in case there were ever to be reconsideration of the point, I say that if the new body is to be effective in meeting its objectives it needs to be trusted and universally recognised for supporting members of the public and those most in need. To charge for information and guidance would make the relationship transactional, which risks undermining trust and public perception of the purpose and ethos of the service. It also needs to be free to the user if it is to reach the people who need it most. Charging a fee could deter many people on low and moderate incomes. In many instances, getting customers even to seek guidance often needs a pull, and charging just makes that problem more difficult. If the service is not free to the user but subject to a fee, the new body’s priorities and impartiality could be compromised because of potential conflicts over where to put resource from the organisation—towards those most in need or to the services with the greatest potential to raise revenues.

The requirement in the Bill that guidance and advice given must be impartial is very important. The Minister referenced arguments used in Committee that there are so many providers of information and guidance that they nudge or encourage the consumer in directions that are not driven solely by their needs. It will be the fact that the new body is impartial in the advice and guidance it gives that will distinguish it and allow it to build trust and to deliver its statutory objectives. I thank the Minister for bringing these amendments forward.

[Baroness Kramer]

My Lords, I join in thanking the Minister for bringing these amendments forward. I think she recognises that the three existing bodies to be merged all have a reputation for impartiality. Their services are free and she is making it absolutely clear that those vital elements which she respects and appreciates so much in the existing bodies will carry through into the new body. It seems to me that stating it clearly, rather than leaving it to be read and potentially misconstrued, is exceptionally helpful.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for making the statement she did at the Dispatch Box at the start of this debate. We are very appreciative of the acceptance of Amendment 7, which goes with the spirit of the way we have conducted the discussions over the Dispatch Box and in meetings over the period of the Bill. It has been one of the happiest Bills I have been involved in and I have been involved in some very happy Bills. I extend the thanks to the Bill team for their good supportive work. It has been a very good experience all round. This amendment is another example of that, because Members will recall that in Committee the Government’s line was that—although they absolutely agreed that advice, guidance or information given by the new body or by its contracted other bodies must be free at the point of use—they did not think it necessary to amend the Bill. However, over the time we have been talking about it, it has grown on them that there might be an advantage in doing so, for all the reasons my noble friend Lady Drake gave. Having those words at the heart of its mission statement and affecting all the work it does will make it a much better body, so we are very grateful and we support the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

In Committee, the Minister confirmed that such a public service role, if agreed by the Government, falls within the objectives set for the single financial guidance body in the Bill. The public governing entity would work alongside the regulators, government and industry to ensure that all the necessary controls and protections were in place. I beg to move.

[Baroness Kramer]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, on such an extraordinarily comprehensive but succinct speech framing the future structure of the kind of pensions dashboard that I think everybody in this House feels consumers deserve. I also congratulate the Government on their willingness now to step forward and take ownership of this process. As the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, said, the two key underlying issues that will be crucial to the public are protection of data—the whole issue of access to data—and quality guidance to enable them to make use of the information that comes to them through that dashboard as they try and structure their future financial circumstances.

I assure the House that although very often we on this side will try to write an amendment that we think is comprehensive and will basically create the legal framework we want the Government to follow, there are times—this is one of them—when we recognise that the need for development and the underlying complexity of the issue mean that the far better route is government ownership of the policy and the project to take it forward. The Minister will know from having listened to the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, and others in the House that we will always be here with scrutiny and with recommendations to the Government, but it will be exciting to see the process that they now put in place to make sure that this goes from merely a possibility enabled by technology to a very real service for consumers in this country.

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

My Lords, I too congratulate the Government on their decision to host the pensions dashboard and to put in place the necessary measures for the dashboard to be held in one place. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, on her persistence and her excellent description of why it is so important that this measure is implemented in the manner she set out.

The public need a single dashboard. If individual private sector organisations each released their own dashboard, it would be too confusing for the public. One thing that will certainly assist in any dashboard is standardised statements, required perhaps by the FCA and the Pensions Regulator, whereby anyone who receives a statement about what pension they have—what terms it has and so on—has to be given a piece of paper. Sometimes called a pensions passport—although it does not matter what it is called—this will be a standardised, simple statement that tells people in one place what they have and clearly explains the kind of terms that the pension has, its value and any special features. Sadly, too often, the private sector has not been able to achieve that. Very often the statements that people get are almost unintelligible. They are sometimes far too long and use different language for the same type of pension, so that people struggle. I support this amendment and congratulate the Government and the noble Baroness.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I will also speak to Amendment 17. Together, these amendments revisit the issue that we raised in Committee concerning the SFGB’s role in financial inclusion and add as a specific objective of the body contributing,

“to the reduction and elimination of financial exclusion”,

particularly for vulnerable people. Our amendments spring in particular, as will be recognised, from the House of Lords Select Committee report on financial exclusion, which regrettably has still to receive the Government’s response. I would press the Minister on when this might be forthcoming, but can anticipate that the answer will be some variation of “soon”, “in the near future”, “imminently”, or perhaps even “before Christmas”.

The amendments raise two particular issues: where are we as a country on financial inclusion and financial exclusion; and what, if any, should be the role of the SFGB in addressing these challenges? Dealing with the latter first, we argue that it should be included in the strategic function of the new body and that it should have as one of its objectives contributing to the reduction—or elimination, although we accept that that is perhaps overly ambitious at the moment—of financial exclusion, especially for vulnerable persons. We should stress that this does not seek to have the SFGB usurp the role of the FCA or the Treasury in these matters—a point made by the Minister on our original amendments—but to support financial inclusion and help reduce financial exclusion.

As defined by the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Young, financial inclusion is about individuals and businesses having access to useful and affordable financial products and services that meet their needs. If the single financial guidance body does not have a role in addressing these matters through its money guidance function or improving the financial capability of members of the public, then what is its purpose? Will the Government be clear on this issue and say precisely what role they believe the single body should play in promoting financial inclusion and combatting financial exclusion? What is the Government’s view on that?

The need for a strategy to improve financial inclusion in the UK was a key recommendation of the Select Committee. We have already acknowledged the importance of appointing a Minister for financial inclusion and the need to engage across government to lead, co-ordinate and monitor a strategy. We accept that leadership on this might reside primarily outside the SFGB, but to suggest that it does not have a role seems perverse. If financial inclusion is about access to financial services, capacity to manage financial transactions and avoiding problem debt, then financial exclusion would clearly cover circumstances when this is not the case. That more should be done to advance financial inclusion can hardly be in doubt. Promoting financial inclusion was a key recommendation of the Financial Inclusion Taskforce, whose mission was to increase access to banking, improve access to affordable credit, savings and insurance, and improve access to appropriate money advice. It undertook monitoring of financial inclusion initiatives as well as regular research. Unfortunately, the taskforce fell by the wayside when abolished under the coalition Government and thus left a gap. We hope that that gap can be filled with the help of the single financial guidance body.

There are a raft of statistics that identify the levels of financial exclusion in the UK, those at risk of being financially excluded and those at risk of facing significant barriers to engagement in modern society. Some 13.5 million people live in low-income households or in poverty, and 1.7 million adults do not have a bank account. One-third of people over the age of 80 have never used a cash machine or prefer to avoid them; 3.8 million UK households do not have any internet; and 40% of the working-age population have less than £100 in savings. The vulnerable or potentially vulnerable are not a fixed or homogeneous group, but a common characteristic is often poverty—simply not having enough money—and having to transact on the most expensive terms.

The Select Committee outlined some of the particular circumstances that made various groups vulnerable: those with identity verification issues, such as ex-offenders; those with mental health challenges, where financial exclusion can have a variety of negative consequences; and the disabled, where often reasonable adjustments are inadequate. We have very serious issues to confront.

We could debate these important issues all day, but I am aware that we have a further amendment coming up in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, which might be a formulation on which the Government can offer a measure of support. It certainly has our support. In the meantime, I beg to move.

[Baroness Kramer]

My Lords, I was glad to add my name to Amendment 8, moved by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton. Amendment 17 is almost the other side of the coin.

I think that most Members of this House, including those in the Government, feel that financial inclusion is sufficiently important that it should be expressed through most of the financial bodies that we create. The noble Lord laid out very well the depth of the problem; others on the committee may speak to that in a moment.

It would be helpful to have clarification under the Bill, in part because we have genuine confusion. I am pretty sure that Ministers have all been under the impression that this matter is wrapped up and dealt with in the context of the powers, responsibilities and objectives of the FCA but, having talked to the FCA, they will now be aware that it has a very constrained role in this area and does not provide capacity to deal with the problem—for example, filling in gaps—that most people assume that it has.

Part of our problem, of course, is that we never consolidate financial legislation, so there is genuine confusion over who does what and assumptions that particular issues are taken care of when they are not. Financial inclusion is one of those that has fallen right through the holes, due to the mismatch of a whole variety of different pieces of legislation. This is an opportunity to provide for a body to consider these issues centrally to everything that it does. What it does is very relevant to that process. That is obviously not a complete answer to the problem of financial inclusion—that involves many others—but we have to make a start somewhere. It should now become a regular habit for financial inclusion to be addressed in each piece of financial legislation.

[Viscount Trenchard]

My Lords, nobody in this House would disagree with the idea that we must do as much as possible to reduce financial exclusion and promote financial inclusion, but, again, I am not sure that the amendments are practical. Normally, anything proposed by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, is of the very greatest sense; I know that from experience going back many years.

However, I worry that to amend the strategic function as proposed to strengthen further the obligation on the new body may be just a bit too much of a burden, too onerous, too open-ended and not properly defined. It is very hard to define exactly what is financial inclusion and what is financial exclusion. Obviously, the former is a good thing and the latter a bad thing, but if the strategic function is already there to support improvement in financial capability, the ability of the public to manage debt and the provision of financial education to children and young people—although I think that should probably be to everybody—the amendment duplicates that, makes it too vague, too hard to define and, potentially, too onerous.

Furthermore, I also worry about enshrining in statute the terms,

“vulnerable individuals, families and communities”,

because there is nobody in your Lordships’ House who does not recognise that vulnerable individuals need more help and support than those who are not so vulnerable. Nevertheless, it is very hard to define, and to create a different obligation for an ill-defined set of individuals and communities from the general obligation to all members of the public may be confusing and make the legislation less clear and less effective. For those reasons, although I understand the noble Lords’ objectives, I cannot support their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Kramer]

Obviously, we support these amendments. The Government’s argument has always been that this issue will act as a constraint. However, we think it draws attention to the problem and empowers people. One of our great dissatisfactions historically with the provision of financial education and financial capability is that it does not seem to create people who are more financially capable when they need to be. Amendment 10 raises once again the issue of timing and relevance. We are all human beings and we can go through various forms of training but if we then never use those skills or that information but require it 10, 15 or 20 years later, that is the point at which it needs to be recalled rather than having a tick-box exercise to show that at the age of 16 we took a class on those issues. We want this education to be relevant and to underscore the direction that I hope very much the single financial guidance body will want to take, but is by no means required to take, of looking for relevance and at situations where there is critical need, care leavers being one of the most obvious examples of that. We have known for years that care leavers get themselves into enormous trouble because of their lack of awareness of these issues but no body has felt it necessary to step into the breach. Here we have the perfect body to step into the breach. That would be entirely consistent with what it is doing. That is the mood and spirit of these amendments. I hope very much that the Government take the issues on board because were we not to see results that responded to the spirit and meaning behind these amendments, we would have a body that was very suboptimal. I think the House would agree with that.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for his very important comments in introducing these amendments. He has covered some issues that I was going to cover in relation to my amendment, which is next. I wonder whether he feels my amendment covers some of the things he is concerned about, because care leavers are just one group in vulnerable circumstances—we all know that—but there are other groups as well. I have a slight concern that once we start to put lots of different lists in the Bill, somebody will be left out. I will explain why our amendment is worded as it is and I am very grateful for the support from his Benches, but I raise that as a question.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hollins (CB)]

My Lords, I am pleased to add my support for this amendment. My own particular interest relates to people with learning disabilities, who can be presented with significant challenges when it comes to managing money on a daily basis, even where local financial services are readily available to them.

The move to digital banking and even past innovations such as chip and pin present a real risk for people with limited capacity—a risk of exploitation. When bank branches close, the financial services available at the Post Office are often held up as an answer. However, for people with limited mental capacity—not just people with learning disabilities—they are not the answer. For instance, the Post Office no longer provides a paying-in book, and the only way of obtaining cash is through chip and pin. There are hundreds of similar examples, relating not just to people with learning disabilities but to those who are in vulnerable circumstances at different times, as we have heard from my noble friends.

This welcome Bill is creating a single financial guidance body that could make a significant difference in improving financial capability, reducing debt problems and helping more people to engage with their pensions. Perhaps providing easier-to-read or pictorial guides to finances would be a useful starting point for the new organisation to consider—for example, covering banking and managing personal budgets—with the aim of helping people with learning difficulties take more control of their finances. It could consider appropriate training so that people with a learning disability and their families can be better supported, as online guides are unlikely to be adequate for these groups.

I must declare my interest here as the chair of Beyond Words, a community interest company which works to empower people with learning disabilities by developing pictorial narratives to help them when circumstances are too challenging.

I hope that the Minister will support the amendment to ensure that the new body keeps in mind the needs of people in more financially vulnerable situations.

[Baroness Kramer]

My Lords, we on these Benches would gladly have added our names to this amendment but the list was full, which is always good news, particularly when the inspiration and leadership come from the Cross Benches. I just want to make it clear that we are very supportive of the amendment.

I also want to add one comment. I know that sometimes the use of the term “vulnerable” is challenged but, as I know from dealing with legislation in the other place, although that was quite some time ago, there is a long and very established history of using the term “vulnerable”, certainly at least—although, I am sure, not limited to—among the utilities, which obviously have to recognise and identify all kinds of vulnerable customers for a whole range of purposes. It allows what I would call reasonable common sense to apply in identifying the full scope of people who are vulnerable. Some of the examples that we have had today have been around mental capacity issues and learning difficulties, but it seems to me that nothing in the many historical ways in which this term has been used in legislation previously would limit it or prevent it, for example, applying to care leavers or, in terms of financial education, to younger children and to the broader group that we are discussing.

Therefore, I hope that the Minister will accept that there is a well-tried, true and well-trodden path setting out how we identify vulnerable people. The term is frequently used to tackle a variety of needs and there is plenty of legislative precedent that makes this a very effective amendment.

[Baroness Altmann]

My Lords, I add my support for the amendment and congratulate the Cross Benches and the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, on tabling it. In a way, it is very sad that the financial services industry is not making more effort to look after vulnerable customers or indeed to present materials in the ways that the noble Baroness described. I think that doing so pictorially could help everybody. So far, financial services are all about dense words and jargon that people struggle to understand.

This body is due to be financed by the industry and the industry has perhaps not always taken enough care. One hears stories from cancer charities where somebody would call up their bank and say, “Look, I am going through some treatment. Is there any chance I could either have a loan or some respite from repayments?”. It simply is not on their agenda to help people in that way, even when people approach them and explain their vulnerability and their circumstances. So it is right that this body should introduce some measures that are designed particularly for vulnerable customers and, indeed, change the narrative and the language used to explain finance, educate people and inform them about finance, in ways that the industry seems not yet to have been able to do.

Financial Guidance and Claims Bill [HL]

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 11th September 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Drake (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 62 seeks to make it a criminal offence for a person to mimic, impersonate or behave in a way which indicates that they are giving advice and guidance on behalf of the single financial guidance body when they not in fact giving guidance on its behalf and are not authorised to do so. This is not a novel proposal. Under existing legislation, it is a criminal offence to impersonate Pension Wise. This provision would not stop every organisation seeking to use or mimic government initiative statements to give credibility to their approach to attract members of the public, but it would be a powerful deterrent. A deterrent is definitely needed because the human cost of receiving fraudulent, wrong, conflicted or partial guidance from organisations or persons who win people’s trust by misleading them into believing they are acting under an authorised government initiative can be just dreadful, leading to irreversible financial losses, life-changing losses, debt and more.

Those vulnerable to the activities of the misleading, mimicking guidance operators are not only the struggling, the stretched and those with more basic levels of numeracy and literacy, although their needs are very important; in the context of finances, those individuals who are vulnerable and at risk go up the income chain as consumers deal with products and services that can be diverse, complex and rapidly changing. Those with retirement savings, for example, are usually people who have typically had good and sustained periods of employment over their working life and have usually compulsorily or voluntarily set aside money aside for their later life. These impersonators can be ingenious in their hunt to claim fresh victims, as a recent press release from the Pensions Regulator demonstrated when it warned that,

“rogue pension websites that are carrying anti-scam messages to try to trick consumers into believing that they are legitimate businesses”.

Some even imply they are regulated by carrying warning messages designed to prevent people falling victim to scams. These imitators are using material owned by the regulators or other government initiatives to impersonate and mislead the public. Therefore, in this instance, a mechanism designed to protect consumers is now used to dupe them.

The deterrent of criminal proceedings is needed not only to protect the public and the integrity of the services of the new financial guidance body but to protect the legacy names of its predecessor bodies, such as Pension Wise and the Pensions Advisory Service, names which the public will continue to recollect for some time before they recognise and internalise the name of the new body. It must be a criminal act to mimic not only the new brand but any of the existing brands that will move into the new single financial guidance body.

The Government thought it necessary to make an explicit criminal offence to imitate Pension Wise but no provision is contained in the Bill for it to be an offence to mimic the new financial guidance body. At Second Reading the Minister commented that there was no need for such a criminal offence provision in the Bill, as:

“The brand and service offer of the new body will be protected by existing stringent criminal offences under fraud and copyright laws”.—[Official Report, 5/7/17; col. 946.]


However, that view was not considered sufficient to protect the public from operators imitating Pension Wise—such imitation was made a specific criminal offence. I remain concerned that the absence of a specific provision to make it a criminal offence to mimic the new financial guidance body is a weakness in the Bill. Why was it considered appropriate to create a specific criminal offence of imitating Pension Wise rather than relying on existing fraud and copyright laws? Which existing legislation would ensure that any form of imitation of the new financial guidance body was a criminal offence, and why is that not referenced in the Bill? How will the Government ensure that imitating any of the existing brands that will move into the new single financial guidance body, including Pension Wise, will continue to be a criminal offence? I beg to move.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I strongly support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake. This is an area where we need belt and braces—every mechanism that we can to make the new body and the services that it will deliver resistant to the scammers, who are ingenious beyond the capacity that most of us find credible, until we experience or hear about a scam ourselves.

In many cases, when people seek advice or guidance over an important matter in their lives, they turn to an organisation in which they have built trust over many years, where they have a whole series of experience and where they have neighbours and friends who share that experience. From that, they can be quite informed in choosing to whom they turn. However, that tends not to be true in the kind of issues that this body will deal with. People who are under debt pressure often panic when they finally reach the moment when they feel they must turn to somebody. It makes them particularly open to scammers, who will do things such as charging them, taking commission and exploiting their vulnerability at that moment. In the area of pensions people are exceedingly confused and, again, are hesitant to turn to names that they might know or which are well established for fear that they will meet a sales opportunity. Therefore, someone who sets themselves up as providing impartial advice suddenly becomes productive. Again, they have no testing mechanism due to previous experience of that body.

Therefore, in supporting the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, on this amendment, we very much seek belt-and-braces protection for consumers, recognising that people are increasingly vulnerable to scamming, particularly with modern instruments such as the internet. The Government need to be motivated to make sure that real and significant protection is in place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Drake]

My Lords, Clause 6 requires the single financial guidance body to set and publish the standards that it will meet in the provision of information, guidance and debt advice. It is specifically required to obtain the approval of the FCA to those standards. Clause 7 requires that every three years the FCA must review whether those standards are appropriate, review how they are being monitored and enforced, and make recommendations. Amendment 68 would place a requirement on the FCA that, when discharging its duty to approve these standards, it will act in the interests of consumers and promote financial inclusion. The intention of the amendment is to strengthen the remit of the FCA, in this instance, to act in the consumer’s interests.

The single financial guidance body is an organisation whose function is expressly to support individual members of the public. Its objectives are to improve individuals’ financial capability and their ability to make informed decisions and to manage debt. Problems of access undermine the general principle that consumers should take responsibility for their own decisions. People cannot reasonably exercise that responsibility if they struggle to understand the nature, processes, terms and conditions of products and services.

The financial guidance body standards have to be approved by the FCA, whose remit is different—its remit is to ensure well-functioning competitive markets. If there is a gap in the market, the FCA often does not have the power to fill it, and if there is a market failure it seeks to address it by improving competition, even though in many instances the weakness of the consumer buy-side market forces cannot exert the necessary force to achieve a well-functioning market in parts of the financial services industry. The FCA acknowledged in its Retirement Outcomes Review Interim Report that competition is not working well for consumers who do not seek advice; it has concerns about whether a competitive market can develop in future; and consumers can struggle with the complexity of decisions. This echoes the view of the OFT, in its 2013 report on workplace pensions, that the buy side there was one of the weakest that it had ever encountered.

Competition will not always be an effective way to overcome access problems; the very creation of the financial body is a recognition of that fact. As for the wider market, in its paper on Access to Financial Services in the UK, the FCA observed that,

“left to the market, some consumers will be unable to access the products or services they want or at a price they are willing or able to pay”.

The market can go only so far in addressing the various financial needs of people.

The FCA is an economic regulator with a statutory objective to secure an appropriate degree of protection for consumers of financial services, which is largely focused on the provision of information and disclosure, given the general principle that consumers should take responsibility for their decisions and providers should give consumers a level of care that is appropriate, having regard to the capabilities of the consumer. However, the FCA does not have a specific objective or duty relating to consumers’ access to financial services or financial inclusion. The extent of the FCA toolkit in assisting vulnerable customers can appear uncertain.

The single financial guidance body, by comparison, is created to focus expressly on the needs of the public and the consumer, to improve their financial capability to make informed decisions. It is given the power in Clause 2(3) to do anything that is conducive to the exercise of its function.

So there is clearly a potential for tension between the remit of the FCA, when it considers whether to authorise the guidance body standards, and the aspirations of the guidance body on how to support the public when setting those standards. The objectives of the FCA and the financial guidance body need to be aligned when the standards for the provision of service by the new body are set and approved. That is the purpose of my amendment, which would give the FCA the duty to act in the consumer’s interest when authorising those standards.

The standards are a matter for the new body when it is set up. I do not seek to debate what the standards should be, but as a way of illustrating my point I could speculate on matters where tensions could arise: the qualitative standards for the guidance and how far guiders can go in their role in enhancing individuals’ ability to manage their financial affairs and make informed decisions; the guidance output given to the customer; standards for determining when the provision of guidance and debt advice are considered lacking such that the new body has a locus; the consumer’s journey, including how they get the guidance; the ability of vulnerable customers to access financial guidance; and the extent of active promotion of the financial guidance service by relevant organisations.

The answers to the questions of what the standards should be on these and other matters may be different depending on whether they are looked at wholly through the lens of the individual—the consumer’s interest—or from the perspective of a competitive, well-functioning market. The FCA and the new financial guidance body should look at these standards through the same lens, that of the consumer’s interest. That is what my amendment seeks to do. I beg to move.

[Baroness Kramer]

My Lords, I will speak in support of this very important amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake. Much of the difficulty in the conversations we have had around this Bill has come over the role and obligations of the FCA. If the Minister or her officials care to look at the FCA website, they will understand that consumer protection is very much interpreted in the realm of preventing mis-selling and preventing scams; it is not a broader protection of the consumer in the way that some might interpret that language—for example, to make sure that the consumer has successful routes to navigate financial services.

I can give the Minister one simple example of which she will be aware. Many of us around this Committee—and, indeed, probably the Minister herself—believe that a breathing space scheme would be very advantageous in helping people to move through debt management to restore their finances. However, the FCA cannot mandate such a thing. It cannot act, as it were, to protect the consumer even though one might consider, if using just the English language, that such an action would be captured by the words “consumer protection”.

In the same way, on the issue of access the FCA can try and act so that a banking institution, for example, does not put up barriers that would discriminate or set itself up in such a way that people could not get on to the relevant website to access the service, but that is not access as in, “What financial services do members of the public require, and are those kinds of services being provided by the financial service sector and industry?”. So it cannot gap-fill. Actually, it is quite unusual to have an arrangement where such gap-filling is not possible. For example, in the United States, that may be done indirectly through things such as the Community Reinvestment Act, so there are paths by which that kind of back-filling can be pursued by the regulator.

I hope very much that the Government will understand that, in terms of providing advice and guidance, the FCA in looking at the standards that have been set cannot operate within the usual realm of an economic regulator of essentially promoting market efficiency or market fairness, which is its fundamental and underlying approach and responsibility. That is why the inclusion of language that talks about acting in the interests of consumers and about promoting financial inclusion is very appropriate when the FCA is now engaged in something that steps outside its traditional, typical overarching role.

[Baroness Altmann]

My Lords, I too support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake. It is an important amendment, and it would be most welcome if my noble friend would seriously consider extending the protection for consumers that this Bill is rightly aiming to achieve. I echo the comments of the noble Baronesses, Lady Drake and Lady Kramer, in terms of focusing on the FCA promoting the interests of consumer protection, perhaps in new ways from what has happened in the past.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Altmann]

My Lords, Amendment 69 seeks to remove Clause 33, which proposes to cancel legislation, passed by Parliament only last year, which ensures that the pensions guidance body can help members of the public who have bought annuities they neither want nor need, perhaps having been forced to in the environment which existed before the pension freedoms were introduced. Section 2 of the Bank of England and Financial Services Act 2016 amends Section 333A of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and extends the definition of pensions guidance, expanding the scope of Pension Wise so that pensioners who are able to sell their annuity income can access free, impartial guidance before they make this irreversible decision. Since May last year, when the Act was passed, the Government have unexpectedly announced that they have changed their mind and no longer intended to allow people—who had been assured that they would be able to sell unwanted annuities from April 2017—to do so. This decision will obviously have disappointed many of those people, but I accept that Ministers believed it was right.

However, there are two important reasons why it is unwise and unnecessary to revoke the legislation that was enacted just last year. If we retain authorisation for Pension Wise or the new single financial guidance body and the FCA to facilitate mandatory guidance for people who may, in future, be allowed to sell their unwanted annuities, we will not need to take up precious primary legislative time to introduce the measure once more—that has already been done. We do not need to explicitly remove this measure; it can either be considered redundant or, in so far as it relates to something that already exists but is little known, it could be of use to many members of the public.

No further regulations have yet been laid in this connection. However, it is important that the single financial guidance body and the FCA should still have a remit to inform or guide the public on selling an unwanted annuity. The particular reason is that it is already possible for people to sell their existing annuities if they are under £10,000. Although the Government changed their mind on anyone’s overall ability to sell an unwanted annuity, there is the ability—which is not widely known—for people to sell one valued at under £10,000. It is surely important for the single financial guidance body or Pension Wise still to be involved in this area and ensure that there is public information and guidance about the risks of such a sale. I beg to move.

[Baroness Kramer]

My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, on this. Given that we have loosened up pension provision very widely, and recognised people’s ability to make decisions about their future, I have never understood the Government’s decision on taking away the right to sell an unwanted annuity. There are many reasons why this might be the right and appropriate decision for people in some circumstances. People may be facing large mortgages on which, for historic reasons, they are paying very high interest rates and which could be wiped out, to their overall financial benefit, if they could access their annuity. I could understand it if the Government thought that necessary safeguards should be added. In that case, the answer is to add those safeguards. For example, people could be required to access guidance at the very least, or there could be a much stronger recommendation that they access advice under these circumstances. To choose this vehicle, when this issue has been paid very little attention and focus, seems like an under-the-radar change to something absolutely fundamental. I support the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Buscombe]

My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, for tabling this amendment.

The purpose of Clause 14 is to provide for the single financial guidance body to be dissolved and for its functions, property, rights or liabilities to be transferred to the Secretary of State or another body. It provides for wind-up to be effected through affirmative regulations that must be debated and approved by both Houses of Parliament.

We believe that this provision is a pragmatic measure. It seeks to ensure—should it ever be necessary—that there is a smooth transition of the delivery of government-sponsored debt advice, pensions and money guidance from the single financial guidance body to another body or the Secretary of State. I appreciate that as we are here today debating the establishment of the single financial guidance body, it may be difficult to envisage that at some point in the future we may need to revisit again how we deliver government-sponsored financial guidance. Yet, just as we are now looking to meet the needs of members of the public by bringing together three separate services into this body, we may find there is a case to join up financial guidance with other services in the future. This clause would facilitate a smoother transition should we need to transfer the functions, assets and employees of the body to another.

The ambition behind this clause—should it ever need to be used—is to facilitate a more flexible approach to transition that would deliver the best outcomes for members of the public who need financial guidance. There would be no need to find a primary vehicle to transfer functions and to wind up the body. It would provide the opportunity for Parliament to respond more quickly should it be more appropriate for public financial guidance to be delivered by another body. It will be important, should this clause need to take effect, that the service to consumers is not compromised.

Where a Bill does not provide a fixed lifetime for a public body, Cabinet Office guidance states that departments should consider whether legislation should contain powers to permit winding up at a later date and for finalising and auditing the closing accounts. However, I assure noble Lords that this power does not take away Parliament’s ability to scrutinise or reject any proposals. Regulations would be required to dissolve the body, following the affirmative procedure, giving both Houses the opportunity to debate the proposals and—if they see fit—to reject them.

Before taking the decision to repeal the legislation for the Money Advice Service and Pension Wise and establish the new body, the Government consulted three times over a period of two years. We have chosen not to go down the same route as the Public Bodies Act or the Enterprise Act, which were referred to by noble Lords, but I assure noble Lords that in taking this power to wind up the new body by affirmative regulations we were not suggesting that consultation would not happen or that it would not be necessary. We would, of course, want to involve stakeholders and the public in the decision to dissolve the body in the same way that we have involved them in the development of these provisions.

[Baroness Kramer]

So often in this House I have heard Ministers argue that it is totally inappropriate for Members of this House to support a fatal Motion to a statutory instrument, yet the Minister is here arguing the rights and appropriateness of this House to do just that. I find it somewhat confusing that there is one message on these issues when it appears to suit the Government’s purpose and a completely different message on an occasion such as this.

[Baroness Buscombe]

I reject what the noble Baroness says. For example, with regard to banning cold calling in pension scams we are finding it extraordinarily difficult to find a primary opportunity to introduce that legislation. Here, there is no question of hubris, recklessness or carelessness on the part of government. We are trying to enable a smoother transition if, following consultation some time in the future, it is felt necessary to have a fundamental change to the current body, for whatever reason. At the moment I cannot foresee it, but it could happen.

[Baroness Buscombe]

Far from it; we are not ignoring Parliament—indeed, we have listened to the committee that the noble Lord sits on—but we do not always have to accept what the committee proposes. It is important that we listen, but no—we do not always have to accept what the committee proposes. We propose instead that there should be affirmative regulations, with consultation, that would allow a smooth transition if in future we found ourselves in a situation where it was decided that there should be a fundamental change to the make-up of this body. For example, Pension Wise was set up only a few years ago. However, since then it has been decided that it would be far more effective, efficient and supportive of the consumer if we were to have one single body, following considerable consultation both with the public and with stakeholders to ensure that the Government are reflecting the wish of the consumer.

[Baroness Kramer]

I must question the Minister on this. Is she saying that she wishes that she was in a position to be able to introduce the Bill, in effect, as a regulation rather than as a Bill, and that the Government are frustrated that at present they have three bodies, consider that one body would be better, and that in future they wish such decisions to be made through not primary but secondary legislation?

[Baroness Buscombe]

The noble Lord’s amendment seeks to add safeguards to the winding-up provision by mandating the Secretary of State to undertake procedures set out in Section 11 of the Public Bodies Act before the wind-up can take effect. The power in the clause would mean that the draft regulations would be subject to the affirmative procedure where both Houses of Parliament would have to approve a Motion before the regulations could take effect.

Further, as I have indicated, I can see no reason why—should it ever be necessary—the Government would not consult prior to taking any action to dissolve the body. This would be contrary to the open and transparent culture that we are all committed to. However, as I noted earlier, I have some sympathy with the noble Lord’s intentions on consultation and, in the light of the committee’s comments on this clause, as well as the debate, I will consider further whether there is anything more that we can do to meet any concerns that have been raised. I therefore urge the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, to withdraw his amendment.