Financial Services and Markets Bill

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 7th September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

It gives me pleasure to speak on this Bill on behalf of the Scottish National party. I am going to agree with the former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak), for the first and probably the last time in either of our careers, in placing on record my thanks to his colleague the former Economic Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen), for the constructive and courteous way in which he conducted a large number of debates with me during his time in office.

When the SNP decided to table a reasoned amendment asking the House not to give this Bill a Second Reading, we did so with a significant degree of reluctance, because there is a lot in the Bill that we see as not only desirable, but essential and, in some cases, long overdue. It is disappointing that the Government have chosen to package them with other provisions that give us very serious concern, and to package them in such a way that it will probably prove to be impossible to amend the Bill to take out the damaging parts.

For example, we welcome the provisions relating to the regulation of digital settlement assets or cryptocurrencies and on access to cash—we would have welcomed them several years ago, if the Government could have been bothered to bring them in. Our only real concern is that they do not yet go far enough. However, the dangers posed by other more substantial parts of the Bill are so great that they may be too high a price to pay to get those necessary pieces of legislation on the statute book.

In the Queen’s Speech we were promised a Bill that would,

“strengthen the United Kingdom’s financial services industry, ensuring that it continues to act in the interest of all people and communities”.

This Bill does not do that. In fact, the former Chancellor has confirmed what the Minister strongly hinted at: the Government’s main objective here is to force through a damaging, totally unnecessary divergence from our European Union neighbours, for no other reason than that they can.

The very first sentence in clause 1, which the former Chancellor thinks is a great idea, invites us to wipe out well over 200 pieces of legislation with no idea what will replace them. The Bill gives the Treasury the power to decide when and if each of those 200-plus laws is revoked and the Treasury gets the power to decide when, if ever, it will bring forward replacement legislation for them. Despite the Minister’s apparently not understanding our concerns earlier on, if that is done through secondary legislation in delegated legislation Committees, there will be no opportunity for the House to amend it, to make it better or to insist on legislation’s coming forward if the Government do not want to bring it.

The Bill gives the Treasury the power to amend or revoke Acts passed by this whole Parliament, and to revoke laws passed under devolved authority by the elected national Parliaments and Assemblies of three quarters of the supposedly equal partners in this Union. A Treasury whose Ministers were appointed by a Prime Minister who got the first-choice votes of 14% of her own Members of Parliament will be allowed to overrule Parliaments elected on a franchise of more than 8 million citizens. How can that be anything other than an unacceptable power grab? That is because of the Government’s obsession with purging our four nations, even those that wanted to stay in, of anything that they regard as tainted by contact with the European Union.

There has not been any attempt to sift the 200-plus pieces of retained EU law to identify which are helpful and necessary and which are potentially damaging. If it has an EU tag, it has to go. There is even a sweep-up provision in part 5 of schedule 1 that says that if they discover any other EU legislation hiding somewhere that was missed from the schedule, that will automatically go as well. We have literally been asked to agree to revoke legislation that none of us knows is there. Even the people who drafted the Bill do not know what that legislation might say. That would be a gross abdication of our responsibility as Members of Parliament.

I find it comical that barely 24 hours ago the sacked Prime Minister was still spouting nonsense about getting Brexit done. Now we are told that not only are there hundreds of bits of Brexit that have not been done yet—and that is only in financial services and markets—but that no one knows where they all are, how many there are or what they say. Brexit has not been done by a long chalk.

Turning to the specific powers in other parts of the Bill, we generally welcome the new regulatory powers and related matters in part 2, but the Minister will appreciate that we will want to look closely at the detail in the Bill Committee. I am concerned that the Committee will be pushed for time, despite the number of days that it has been allocated. Members will be well aware of concerns I have often raised about the inadequacies of the Financial Conduct Authority’s powers and resourcing, as well as its reluctance to use the powers that it has.

The Labour spokesperson mentioned the lack of effective anti-fraud measures in the Bill, which is a major concern. Financial fraud and scams are becoming a bigger menace every day, and they hit hardest the people who can least afford to be hit. Something I have noticed about a lot of the financial scams I have looked into on behalf of my constituents is that they have features that are not immediately obvious. They often involve company directors effectively soliciting loans from the general public in order to finance their own investments. Rather than put their own money at risk, they put someone else’s money at risk. If the investment goes well, the directors win; if it goes badly the victims lose and the directors walk away Scot free. That was an obvious feature in the Blackmore Bond scandal, but exactly the same thing happened with Safe Hands funeral plans. Safe Hands appeared to be a funeral plan scam, but that was not the case. The company blatantly lied to its customers about how their money would be safeguarded, and it used it to invest in potentially profitable but high-risk offshore investments. Although it appeared at first glance to be a funeral plan, Safe Hands was in fact a good old-fashioned financial services scam.

When Safe Hands was on the way down, regulations were coming into force that meant that funeral plan providers had to be registered with the Financial Conduct Authority, which I warmly welcome. However, we should provide the same degree of regulation and the same protection to customers for other “pay now, collect later” schemes. If a customer gives their money to a company that blows it and they lose their money, it does not matter whether they thought their money would fund at some future date the cost of a funeral, a wedding, their children going to university, or anything else. The risks are the same and the opportunities for fraud are the same, so the protection offered to customers should be the same in all those schemes.

We should not have to go through measures industry by industry picking up where scams take place. The key point is that it is not about the product or service that the company claims to be selling—it is about making sure the customer’s money is kept safely until the time comes for that product or service to be provided. We should legislate to prevent company directors from gambling recklessly with money that belongs to their customers. It is possible to address this with a fairly simple amendment to proposed new section 71K of the existing Act, and I hope to have an opportunity to table that in Committee.

There is more that we could do with a bit of imagination. I like the idea of designated activities as well as regulated activity—that is a positive step. There are ways that we could significantly improve the accountability of companies carrying out designated activities and, importantly, improve enforcement against those that go rogue. We could reduce the exemptions that they have, which many of them abuse to avoid having to produce meaningful financial statements. We could look at extending the circumstances in which directors of high-risk companies can be held personally liable for their faults.

I realise that the disjointed way that the UK regulates businesses means that those things fall under the remit of the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy rather than the Treasury, so it may not even be competent to introduce them for consideration in Committee, but I ask the Minister and his BEIS colleagues to find a place in the Government’s legislative programme as soon as possible for these things to be considered. Too many directors of dodgy companies carry on with their scams because they think they can get away with it, and far too often they can.

As the Minister knows, because he responded to the debate, I spoke this morning in Westminster Hall about the regulation of cryptocurrencies. Incidentally, that is a good example of the fallacy in one of the arguments that the Minister advanced earlier. When we are talking about businesses, growth and stability are not the same thing. Some cryptocurrencies had almost supersonic growth and then evaporated. They had high growth but no stability whatsoever. Growth and stability may both be desirable—although, as the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) keeps reminding us, there have to be conditions attached to that growth and it has to be sustainable—but to conflate the two is a serious mistake.

The debate on cryptocurrencies is a useful reminder that the way that financial markets operate is changing at an almost bewildering rate. In fact, it is becoming difficult to define exactly what we mean by financial services and financial markets. The Bill makes provision for the Treasury to allow limited testing of new technologies or practices. It is effectively trying to legislate for things that have not been invented yet. I think the approach taken in clauses 13 to 17 is a sensible way forward, but we will be looking very closely at how the use of those powers is scrutinised. For example, Members should be aware, if they are not already, that clause 15 as currently worded will allow the Treasury to amend certain Acts of Parliament on the basis of a pilot test in one of the sandboxes without even waiting for the test to be completed to see what the results are.

Let me move on—briefly, because I am aware of the shortage of time—to some of the other matters covered by the Bill. I am extremely alarmed at the confirmation that the Government want to allow Ministers to call in and potentially overrule decisions by the regulators. Either our regulators are independent or they are not. The regulators must be accountable, but their accountability should be to Parliament. Accountability to a Minister is not the same as accountability to Parliament; it is a very poor substitute.

I share the concerns that have been raised about the lack of emphasis on sustainability, green finance and compliance with our climate change obligations. I also share the concerns that the provisions on access to cash do not go far enough and probably will not lead to action quickly enough. As I mentioned, the anti-fraud measures in the Bill are wholly inadequate.

The Government appear to think that the biggest problem facing financial services regulation is that parts of it were designed and implemented in partnership with our nearest neighbours and trading partners. I think the biggest problem is that, again and again, the regulators fail to act, or act so slowly that it is far too late, and effective enforcement becomes almost impossible. I remind the House that about half of the £46 million lost in the Blackmore Bond scandal was paid by customers to the company after the Financial Conduct Authority had been not only given full details of what the company was up to, but told exactly where and when it could go to witness its illegal activities at first hand. It did nothing for three years.

The Financial Conduct Authority tells us that it does not have sufficient powers to act in the way we would like it to act. It is certainly obvious to all of us that it does not have the resources to properly carry out the responsibilities we ask it to carry out just now, let alone the new ones we intend to give it. At the moment the Bill does not address that.

We will not oppose Second Reading this evening, but that should not be taken as a guarantee that we will allow the Bill to be read the Third time unopposed. If the Minister wants our support in the Bill’s final stages, he has a long way to go to persuade us that it will make things better, rather than worse, for the victims of financial crime.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I call the Chair of the Treasury Committee, Mel Stride.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. It will be obvious to everyone in the Chamber that a great many Members wish to speak and that we have limited time. However, we do have quite a lot of time, so I will have to put on an official time limit of seven minutes, but not quite yet. After the next speaker, who has had no notice of this, there will be a time limit of seven minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

We now have a formal time limit of seven minutes, but that is likely to be reduced later in the day.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Most unusually, after I imposed a time limit of seven minutes, several colleagues have decided that they do not want to speak in the debate after all. I am therefore able, most unusually, to extend the time limit to eight minutes, starting with Paul Maynard.