Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill

Debate between Lord Brennan and Lord Newby

Monday 9th December 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, I turn finally to the amendments that deal with claims management companies and the Office for Legal Complaints. It is essential that a new route of redress is available to consumers who feel that they have received a poor service from those providing claims management services, commonly referred to as claims management companies, or CMCs. It is also right that the claims management industry bears the cost of providing this new route of redress. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, for raising this issue at Report stage and I am delighted that she has put her name to this amendment.

Section 161 of the Legal Services Act 2007 already makes provision for bringing complaints about regulated CMCs under the jurisdiction of the Office for Legal Complaints. Once commenced, this will give consumers greater scope for redress against regulated CMCs, including awards for financial compensation. Before Section 161 can be commenced, however, the correct mechanisms need to be put in place to ensure that the costs incurred by the OLC in relation to complaints about CMCs can be recouped. It is also necessary to ensure that these costs are borne by the claims management industry. It is right that costs associated with complaints about CMCs are paid for by the industry which creates them. It is also right to prevent the legal profession having to foot the bill for these costs or benefit from any income generated from recouping these costs.

Turning to the detail of the amendments, it is usual practice for the designated regulator to recoup the costs of redress from those it regulates. In this case, the Claims Management Regulator, or CMR, is the designated regulator. The Legal Services Board, or LSB, will then levy the regulator for the OLC’s costs and reimburse the OLC. To ensure that the Claims Management Regulator can recoup the OLC’s costs, these amendments change the Compensation Act 2006 to enable the Secretary of State to make regulations to allow the Claims Management Regulator to charge CMCs, as part of their fees, for the OLC’s costs associated with CMC complaint-handling. The Legal Services Act 2007 already provides for a levy on the Claims Management Regulator, if one is designated. This enables the LSB to levy the regulator for costs incurred by the OLC in relation to claims management costs.

That mechanism is applicable only when there is a designated person as the Claims Management Regulator. When no person is designated as the Claims Management Regulator, as is currently the case, this role falls to the Secretary of State. The mechanism does not operate in this situation as the Secretary of State cannot be levied. To address this, amendments to the 2007 Act are needed. They will change the Act to give the Lord Chancellor a new power to make regulations to allow him to recover the OLC’s costs associated with CMCs. These powers allow the Lord Chancellor to charge a periodic fee on regulated CMCs.

Finally, in this situation further amendments are needed to address cross-subsidisation. The amendments will change the levy mechanism in the Legal Services Act 2007 to ensure that the calculation of the OLC’s expenditure which is leviable on the legal profession excludes both its costs and its income in relation to CMCs.

These amendments are an important step in improving the redress system for consumers who have suffered from poor service from the claims management industry. It is right that consumers who have been treated unfairly are able to access this new route for redress through the OLC. I beg to move.

[Lord Brennan]

My Lords, these final amendments allow me to raise a point of general importance about the Bill. The amendments create yet a different and welcome addition to the commission’s original proposals.

The Bill came to this House at 30 pages long. With today’s amendments, it is going to be about 200 pages long, with about 150 clauses. I suggest to the House that it is incumbent on all of us—but on the Government, in particular—to assist public understanding of where the Bill is now at. It is going back to the Commons, where most of it will not have been debated, and the strain on people in this House over the past few weeks has been immense. Therefore, I suggest to the Government two measures that they might consider taking.

The first—although it sounds remarkable, it is of utility—is to prepare a set of Explanatory Notes on the Bill as it now is when it goes back to the Commons and when it is considered, as it will be, by the City of London in general and by the banking community and the lawyers in particular. The second point is that, from page 50 onwards, the Government’s response to the commission’s report of July 2013 very helpfully sets out 114 proposals with notes against them and proposed action. The Government have taken different positions on some of those, and there are additions to that list. It would be a great help if the list were revised, bringing it up to date to reflect what has actually happened.

I do not want to appear tedious but the fact is that this is a major Bill and we need to do everything we can to make it as well understood as it can be.

Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill

Debate between Lord Brennan and Lord Newby

Wednesday 27th November 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, I understand the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, and I assure him again that there is nothing unusual about the form of the power to make consequential amendments in Clause 124, and in particular, subsection (2)(b) does not extend the power unreasonably. My memory of exactly what I have written to whom, given that I have written to quite a number of people, is slightly hazy. I think I may have referred to this issue in what was a sort of portmanteau letter to the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell. It covered a whole raft of issues that had been raised not only by him but by other noble Lords. If I did not do so, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Brennan. However, in what I am about to say, I think that I can deal with the main point that he made.

Removing paragraph (b) would limit the power to make consequential amendments to Acts which are passed before the passing of this Act. That can produce unpredictable results depending on the progress of Bills and the dates on which they happen to reach Royal Assent. For this reason, powers to make consequential amendments to existing legislation often refer to Acts which are passed in the same Session as the Act in question. Noble Lords have asked for examples of this, and I can give them several. Such powers can be found in Section 51 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, Section 237 of the Planning Act 2008, Section 28 of the Welfare Reform Act 2007 and Section 118 of the Financial Services Act 2012—the provision on which Clause 124 was modelled.

The assumption is that Bills of the same Session are likely to have been prepared by reference to the existing law at the beginning of the Session, while the Bills of the next Session would have to take account of the change in the law produced by the Act in question. Where a Bill is amended significantly in its passage through the second House, it is particularly unlikely that Bills passed or made in the same Session will have taken account of all the provisions of the new Bill. That clearly applies in this case, as your Lordships know. The need to implement the recommendations of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards has required very extensive amendments to the Bill in this House, and therefore it will not have been possible for the Bills which are being considered by Parliament in this Session to have taken full account of all the changes in the law which will be made by this Bill. Nor has there been time for the Government to consider all the Bills currently before the House to see if any consequential amendments may be required, or to follow all the amendments being proposed to these Bills. We have not, for example, had the opportunity to review the Pensions Bill, which may have provisions relevant to the subject matter of this Bill, or the Immigration Bill, which has some provisions on banking. We cannot rule out the possibility that it may be necessary for the Government to make consequential amendments to them.

I assure the House that the amendment introducing this power was considered by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, and that committee has not expressed any concerns in relation to this power. I hope that, in the light of these assurances, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Brennan]

Will the Minister clarify, first, his reference to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee? Was its response made in writing, has it been published, and is it available in the Printed Paper Office? Secondly, and much more important, is that as his research appears to have been done, can he clarify whether on any previous occasion this power has actually led to the amendment of another Bill being passed in the same Session, but after the Act which gave rise to the power?

[Lord Newby]

I thank the noble Lord for that question. It is the normal practice of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee to include in one report its views on a number of Bills. I believe that that is what happened in this case and I will definitely write to the noble Lord if it has not.

[Lord Brennan]

Would it be possible for the Minister to confirm that because I asked specifically in the Printed Paper Office for all the relevant paperwork about this, and I was not given any report.

[Lord Newby]

I will absolutely confirm that, and I will write to the noble Lord on the second point, which I promise to do speedily.

Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill

Debate between Lord Brennan and Lord Newby

Tuesday 26th November 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, I will cover that issue in my letter. I am sorry that the noble Lord thinks that the FCA note is ambiguous, because the fact that it is giving greater priority to this issue and being more intrusive and energetic should give him some comfort. However, as I say, I will write to him.

[Lord Brennan]

My Lords, first, I had a meeting with officials from the Treasury, the content of which was, in short form, declaratory and, in long form, advisory. It was declaratory when I explained to them that I and my colleagues with whom I am working on this problem were convinced that these amendments were necessary and that the Treasury officials and the Home Office man who was there should revise their thinking accordingly. So they informed our side of the argument of nothing new, except that they felt that they were right. The advisory part of the meeting related to a simple proposition that took a little time to adumbrate. I invited them—both officials were, I am sure, competent young government lawyers—to take advice on this issue and on the terms of the offence, which we shall turn to shortly, from senior Treasury counsel who would be independent and objective as to whether the government views on the strength of the Bill on this point were correct. I do not know whether that has been done. The fact is that the meeting took place but was not productive.

There are times in legislative life when those who see cannot persuade the blind where they are going. In Amendment 30 no attempt is made to disadvantage junior staff and every attempt is made to ensure that senior staff are not allowed to use the fault of junior staff as an excuse for their own responsibility. That is what that amendment is plainly directed at. It makes the senior management’s job crystal clear. It is necessary to consider what the Minister has said in reply and, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill

Debate between Lord Brennan and Lord Newby

Tuesday 26th November 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newby]

I am not sure that I do, my Lords, but I wonder if I might write to the noble Lord to clarify our thinking and, it is hoped, persuade him that we have got it right.

[Lord Brennan]

My Lords, listening to the exposition of the Minister leads an experienced lawyer to think that those were the kinds of arguments that would make for an entertaining tutorial at university and deprive the participants of any career at the criminal Bar, because they simply would not know what they were talking about in terms of what a judge and jury would expect by way of argument. I am sorry to put it so bluntly, but it really is a clash with the Interpretation Act that would lead to ribald laughter in most criminal chambers. I am being serious about this. It is the kind of argument that you would expect to get from a bright lawyer with no criminal law experience. The Government must face up to this. I do not understand why they cannot take advice from a competent independent Treasury counsel on the scope of the offence in order to make sure that they can prosecute, or at least hope to prosecute. Creating such an offence in-house is, I think, highly suspect.

I will go through this point by point. First, why should not the statute say decision and/or decisions—one of the two? Secondly, why, as the noble Lord has suggested, do we have to get ourselves into the circumstance of having to identify the key decision? It may be extremely difficult to do that because it may be a refined banking judgment where a series of acts or decisions which led to failure may be cumulative and not the result of the key decision. Thirdly, how the word “cause” in the criminal law can be construed to be “significantly contributed to” is not, I think, something that figures in the criminal law books.

I turn next to corporate manslaughter. The argument has to be met. The fact that you get the same words in another statute is of no importance until you consider the context in which the words are being used. Far below that, in the industrial safety context, is the matter of common sense. In terms of banking behaviour, it is an extremely complex exercise to expect a jury to carry out, and an unnecessary one. The answer given in response to the amendments did not include any explanation of why this statute is taking itself down a different route from R v G. Wilful blindness is a specific criminal law phrase designed to embrace the people who deliberately close their eyes to something. It does not embrace innocent incompetence. The very word wilful imports the culpability of it.

My last point, in agreement with my noble friend Lord Eatwell, who is known as an academic, is that the legislature would be shooting itself in the foot if it created a criminal offence which the public came to treat as having no effect, bordering on the ridiculous. That would be a major political mistake. Those on the government Bench who take such matters into account should pay more attention to that than to the legal advice they are getting. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.