Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill

Lord Deben Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 21st October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

My Lords, during the debate on the previous group, I mentioned that the two amendments in this group are designed to strengthen the safeguards around the use of the eligibility verification powers that are created by the Bill. I am once again grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, for their support.

Amendment 52 deals with how the bank account data that is provided by the banks may be used. The Bill requires banks to carry out a trawl of all accounts they hold to identify any that are in receipt of specified benefits and then to test those against criteria that will be provided by the DWP. If they meet those criteria, this raises a flag called an “eligibility indicator”, details of which must be provided to the DWP, along with certain other limited information, in a format to be decided by the DWP. The trawl can be required on a periodic basis. It could be, for example, daily—we do not yet know. No suspicion is required; this is simply a trawling operation of all bank accounts.

This raises two important issues. First, the existence of an eligibility indicator will presumably trigger action by the DWP. At the moment, there is nothing in the Bill that decides what that action could be. Clause 73 creates a range of very intrusive investigatory powers to investigate if an authorised officer of the DWP has reasonable grounds to suspect wrongdoing. Reasonable grounds for suspicion are not defined. Could the mere existence of an eligibility indicator constitute such grounds? There is nothing in the Bill to say that it cannot. I do not think that the amendments that were referred to in the last group by the Minister and which say the eligibility indicator can be used only to assist in identifying fraud or error solve this issue.

Secondly, and similarly, there is nothing in the Bill to prevent action being taken to suspend or alter a benefit payment in the event that an eligibility indicator is flagged. As we have heard, there are many innocent reasons why an eligibility indicator may exist. Indeed, as I have said, the eligibility indicator can be set at a level which would not indicate fraud at all—for example, £8,000 for a universal credit situation. The existence of an eligibility indicator does not indicate any guilt.

The Minister has told us the department will not treat an eligibility indicator as reasonable grounds for suspicion, but there is nothing in the Bill to define that. The draft code of practice that we have been provided with says that a benefit cannot be altered just because of the existence of an eligibility indicator, but that is only a code, which can be changed at will by this or any future Government without scrutiny. Furthermore, it is not known how much data will be sent to the DWP by the banks under the EVM process but, presumably, it is going to be substantial. It is clear that it will be processed electronically, and there is nothing in the Bill to prevent this process from becoming fully automated, including the decision-making. The DWP has made it publicly very clear that it is rolling out AI processes generally, which may be more efficient, but, in my view, any decisions need to be subject to human review.

In Committee, we heard about the Netherlands child benefits scandal, which was caused by automated decision-making—and interestingly, it eventually led to a Government falling. The Minister has been clear, and the draft code is also fairly clear, that the information will be reviewed by a person before any action, such as an amendment to or suspension of benefits, can be taken. But it is only in the code, and this could be changed without scrutiny.

I think that all of us in this Chamber trust the Minister completely, but she will not always be the Minister, however much we might wish that were the case. Indeed, it is even possible that this Government will not always be the Government. But this law will remain the law. A future Government may be less scrupulous about how benefit recipients are treated. The Bill, left unamended, would open the possibility that eligibility indicators, regardless of innocence, could lead to deeply intrusive actions or unfair financial impacts, potentially on a fully automated basis.

All Amendment 52 does is to make it clear that the existence of an eligibility indicator alone does not constitute reasonable grounds for suspicion, and it would make it a requirement that a suitably experienced person must have reviewed the information before any action to use intrusive powers against a benefit recipient or to amend or suspend payments is taken. I believe that is what the Government intend, so I really do not understand why there is a problem with accepting the amendment. It does not add any onerous obligations; it simply clarifies the situation that we are being told is the case.

Amendment 67 considers the impact and potential unintended consequences of these powers. The Government have included an independent review process in the use of the eligibility verification powers, which is a very welcome and important safeguard and a genuinely excellent addition since we last saw the Bill. But as it stands, the scope of that review is very limited. It covers only that the exercise of the powers has been in accordance with the Bill and the code of practice, that the persons who have been issued with eligibility notices have complied, and that it has been effective in identifying or assisting in identifying incorrect payments. The independent reviewer cannot look at any other impacts the policy might have.

In Committee, we spent a lot of time debating the costs that the Bill will impose on the banks, but no meaningful attempt has been made to quantify those yet. To quote from the impact assessment:

“At this stage we are unable to provide a robust assessment of business costs for validation because the operational solution for the measure is still being developed”.


We really need to make sure that the costs are proportional. All that Amendment 67 adds is a review of the costs of the policy to the scope of the independent review to ensure they are reasonable and proportional to the benefits.

We heard a lot about the fears of the impacts these new powers might have on disabled people and other vulnerable people, as well as the concern that imposing these onerous duties on the banks might reduce the willingness of the banks to provide banking services to those in receipt of benefits. As politically exposed persons, this is a subject that most of us here have personal experience of. We have seen how the banks behave when additional burdens are put on them in respect of a particular group of people. There is no reason to believe that that could not be the same in this situation. But the Bill includes nothing at all in relation to potential unintended consequences. Amendment 67 adds consideration of those potential unintended consequences to the scope of the independent review.

Finally, the amendment gives the independent reviewer the opportunity to confirm that they have received all the information that they require. This is now a bit of a formality, following the welcome government amendment that we debated last week, which changed “may provide information” to become “must”, but it was subject to a reasonably required caveat. There is still a possibility of disagreement between the reviewer and the department as to what information they might reasonably require. This just allows the reviewer to flag that they have not got what they think they need, which I think is a useful but not onerous safeguard.

These proposed eligibility verification powers are extremely intrusive, so they really must be subject to robust safeguards, which these two relatively simple amendments seek to strengthen. Unless I hear something unexpected from the Minister—and I shall listen to her very carefully—I am minded to seek the opinion of the House when the time comes. I beg to move.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, there are moments when you hear a speech on a subject of which you are in general support that brings home very clearly the key issues; I think that the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, produced that speech just now.

It is extremely dangerous for us to put ourselves in the hands of AI. It is particularly dangerous to put those who are vulnerable into the hands of AI. Indeed, I find it offensive when people who are able to appreciate things particularly well think it all right for others to be subject to automatic operations. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux—the Government recognise this matter, which is why it is in the advice, though why is it not in the Bill?—is a very important issue for this House.

I do not think it acceptable to have circumstances increased where vulnerable people are subject to “the system”, which is why I want to say just a word about it. It seems to me that one reason why democracy is so much under threat is because so many people feel themselves to be under threat by the system. The system is an alien thing. Well, if you do not want it to be alien, you have to make sure that it is at least human and not merely a machine.

There is another reason; it is one that the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, gave delicately and politely but effectively. There are some pretty nasty people in this country who are, at the moment, blaming most things on groups of people whom they dislike, whether it is because of their race, because of their position or, in a sense, because they think that they just do not matter. It is always possible that such people get into power. I do not want those people to have a chance to use legislation that we—we are decent people, I hope—have passed. That is why I have come to speak on this particular amendment: in these months and years, we have to stand up on every occasion and recognise the damage that is done in a system where people like that get power. You have only to look across the Atlantic to see what happens when those who build up antagonism against groups get power and use legislation that was meant to be different in order to ensure the ends that they have in mind.

I beg the Minister to recognise that all we want is the guidance in the law. If we have that, she need not worry. I say that as somebody who has a history, as a Minister of some 16 years, of always being very tough on fraud and always believing that people should not get what they do not deserve, do not need and should not have, because that is very damaging to those who do need it. That is why I do not like it: it puts them in so difficult a position. I beg her simply to make sure that, when we do not have Ministers of the standing and quality that she has shown, they cannot use the law for improper purposes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions. My response to these amendments builds on the arguments I made at greater length in the last group.

Amendment 52, from the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, states that the existence of an eligibility indicator alone does not constitute reasonable grounds for the suspicion of fraud under Section 109BZB of the Social Security Administration Act. I have sought to assure noble Lords already today that a conclusion will never be drawn from EVM information. At the point the information is shared, no one is suspected of having done anything wrong and therefore, by definition, no action could be taken to correct the thing that could have been done wrong because no one is suspected of having done anything wrong. I could not be clearer on that.

I think it is worth reminding the House that there are two different things happening here. This measure allows DWP to ask banks to flag up accounts that may on the face of it have received a benefit to which someone is not entitled. That is a piece of information that comes into the department. Along with other pieces of information, it will be sifted and examined, and decisions will be made through the usual processes. DWP does this all the time, with all kinds of information. Those decisions are made. Pursuing fraud is something that is done day to day. Whenever DWP receives data in response to an EVM, the data will be matched with information that DWP holds, so it can identify the claimant and any inconsistencies between the information received from the financial institution and the information provided by the claimant over the life of their claim. It will also look at any possible disregards and any other relevant information, as I explained on the last group.

It is only then, as with our current practice, when a possible inconsistency is identified, that steps will be taken to determine how or even whether a claim needs to be reviewed. In some cases, it will be clear that no further action is required and the data from the EVM will be used no further. In cases of potential error, DWP may contact the customer to discuss the claim or ask for further information. In cases where potential fraud is then suspected, the case may be passed to an authorised officer, who will consider all relevant information to determine whether there are reasonable grounds to suspect that a DWP offence has been committed.

The noble Lord, Lord Deben, made a passionate speech, and he is someone for whom I have a great deal of respect. If what he suspected was happening, his passion would be justified, but I want to persuade him that it is misplaced. The decision to judge that someone has been guilty of fraud and to take action is not an automatic process. It is also not a determination that can be made by just anyone. It can be made only by an authorised officer in the DWP. If there are no reasonable grounds to suspect that a DWP offence has been committed, the case is passed back to the relevant benefit team or compliance team. At all times during that process, as is the case now, DWP will ensure that any next steps are reasonable and proportionate. There are no immediate suspensions of benefits during the process and, where appropriate, DWP will always endeavour to work with the customer to establish the facts around a benefit claim and identify any possible vulnerabilities. I hope that my position on that is clear and is made even clearer by the government amendments—

[Lord Deben (Con)]

If that is so, what is wrong with making it statutory? The issue is that what the Minister says is what now happens. We are concerned about what could happen if it is not in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, for tabling these amendments. I think they are genuinely key, and very important to resolve before we pass this Bill. I do not think they are minor or unimportant at all. Throughout the debates in Committee, and continuing here, concerns have been raised by some of us about the enormous state power created by the Bill. Largely, we have focused on things such as privacy rights and so on, and these are very important, but this actually gives draconian powers of force to a new body in a way that should make us gulp, in my opinion.

In earlier groups today, people have been very keen to say that the problem is not that this Government will misuse the powers but that we have to worry about future Governments. It is a kind of lurking spectre. Everybody knows who they are referring to. There is a notion that there will be future nasty Governments out there who might misuse the powers but that this Government are absolutely well intentioned. I think that is a little bit of a cop-out because it is this Government who are creating an enormous new set of state powers, and this Government have to answer to why they want these particular powers of force.

I think that is important, not because I have any suspicion about the intentions of the noble Baronesses who are our Ministers here—obviously not—but, none the less, what are the Government doing accruing this force?

I was squeamish about the PFSA having police powers to search, enter and seize, but it did not have the reasonable force clause. The thing I find most difficult to understand is the idea that the sort of major fraudsters that the first half of the Bill deals with are somehow subject to only half the force, but, suddenly, we get on to the people on benefits and physical force is justified. What does that say about our set of priorities? I am not being paranoid to go, “What? You actually think those people are the enemy, so you need to use physical force?” That is one thing.

The second thing on that, by the way, is the idea of physical force against the body versus physical force against property. Of course, there is a distinction, but I do not know if noble Lords have ever been there when somebody has come in and started booting your furniture round or kicking down the doors—I have; it was not the DWP or, indeed, the police. Anyone who has been on the receiving end of somebody destroying property around them will know that it is intimidating, frightening and scary, so I am worried not just about the bodily force but about having the right to do that to your property.

To return to our discussion on an earlier amendment, these are DWP officers. What? I do not want DWP civil servants, who might have been on a minor training course, to have that power. I think it is wrong. For them to have that power of physical force aimed at people on benefits seems wholly wrong and morally dubious.

I note that a number of times the Minister has emphasised the importance of this Bill being hard on fraud. I just want to reiterate a point that the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, made earlier, which is that worrying about some of the aspects of this Bill does not make you soft on fraud. As far as I am concerned, when public money is fraudulently obtained by criminals or malign forces, or just by people on benefits acquiring money they do not deserve, I consider that to be an attack on the public, and I think we should be hard on it. But the way that you demonstrate you are hard is not by playing the hard man. It is not about throwing your weight around; it is about having the appropriate form of state legislation to deal with it. I am afraid this part of the Bill really gives me pause about what is driving this, and I do not even think it will get us anywhere in resolving the problem of people malignly stealing public money.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

I would just like to ask the Minister three direct questions. First, why are people in England and Wales so much nastier that they need this force, whereas the Scots do not? That is not, it seems to me, a very sensible distinction. It should be either all of us or none of us.

Secondly—because I think it should be none of us —can the Minister explain why it is suitable for DWP officers to do something against individuals who are thought to be fraudulent, while officers of a similar kind do not have the power to do it if it is organised crime? Can she explain why that is?

My third question is extremely simple. Everybody who has ever had a ministerial job that involves this kind of thing knows, as the noble Lord, Lord Harper, said so clearly, that you absolutely need to be trained to do this. Can the Minister say who is trained, how much training they have and whether there is a budget for that training? If her answer is not satisfactory on any of those, I suggest she accepts the amendment which gets rid of this entirely.

Let us get to a sensible world in which the police have powers—for which, in most places, people trust them—and civil people do not have powers. We should remember the comment from the noble and right reverend Lord that was very simple: you know when a policeman is there, but how do you really know that this is a DWP individual? You have to look at some piece of paper, perhaps, but you do not know that. I think this is a very dangerous proposal.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, I support this amendment because any exercise of physical powers must surely rest with the police. Are we going to train a new breed of DWP officers who have to be tough and able to act as police? It is quite nonsensical.

The one thing that worries me about this amendment is that it is quite easy on violent filing cabinets. You can attack a filing cabinet, apparently, because that is all right. I think this division between property and individuals is a very strange line to draw. Do you hide in a filing cabinet because you think that would be safer? No, you must not hide in a filing cabinet because, under this legislation, even under the amendment, you can attack a filing cabinet because it might hit back. I think the whole thing, when you read it carefully, is quite nonsensical. We have to get back to the crux of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, which is that if there is going to be physical restraint, it has to be from the police and from no one else.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Deben Excerpts

Thursday 18th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Macpherson of Earl’s Court (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of Amendment 483, which I have put my name to. The noble Lord, Lord Layard, has set out the arguments very eloquently. I would merely like to add the perspective of a former Treasury official.

Economic growth, or the lack of it, lies at the heart of the country’s problems. Without it, we simply will not be able to afford the costs of an ageing population. The Government will be forced to raise taxes even more than they already have and public services will deteriorate further, alienating an already alienated electorate. There is little the Government can do to promote growth in the short term. As an open economy, Britain is likely to grow only as fast as global demand permits, and we all know the effect of increased protectionism, but the Government can do something about the medium and long term.

We all know what drives growth: good infrastructure, competition, innovation, and a sensible tax system—but, above all, skills. Successive Governments have done a good job on education. Attainment in schools has improved and there has been a dramatic expansion in university education over the last 50 years, which, for the most part, has been reflected in the living standards of graduates. However, that still leaves 50% of school leavers who do not go to university who are poorly served by a vocational educational system that compares badly with our competitors’.

Technical and further education has never been prioritised sufficiently, and I can understand why. The media, the Government and the Civil Service are all dominated by graduates. Technical education is not sexy. The lags in the impact of any reform are long and variable. The plain fact is that there are not many votes in it, but sometimes Governments can do the right thing for future generations. I welcome recent announcements by the Government of a youth guarantee and the extra support for skills in the spending review, but they need to go further. An apprenticeship guarantee provides a golden opportunity to make a step change in provision and long-term economic performance.

I recognise that money is hard to come by, but the Treasury is an economics ministry as well as a finance ministry, and it needs some positive announcements to offset the inevitable gloom in the forthcoming Budget. I encourage the Minister and her department to engage actively with the Treasury. It should be possible to, for example, tweak the apprenticeship levy to give it a greater youth focus. If the money cannot be found now, the Government should at least set out a timetable, and if they cannot set out a timetable, they can at least sign up to the objective.

As the noble Lord, Lord Layard, said, a previous Government passed the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009. It can be done, and I call on the Minister to act.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, this is a rather crucial amendment. The reason is that we are a nation that is inclined to talk about education as if it is always academic education. If I have criticisms of previous Governments—and I have of those from both sides—they are that we have emphasised education as if it is the only way, rather than part of a grouping of educational opportunities.

We are also rather inclined to not support technical education, and the comparison with our competitors is notable and historically of very long standing. I recently read a report about such education by a committee of the House that remarked that Prussia was much better at it than we were. The Committee will immediately see how long ago that report was produced. Curiously, we have always found this a difficulty in the way that we think about things and in many of the changes that we have made, such as the insistence that polytechnics should become universities, as if that somehow improved the circumstances and that there was something less good about having something that was aimed specifically at talking about the issues that we are discussing. We have to change the atmosphere.

I much approved of the comments just made by the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson, about what the Government could do if they did not have the money. However, there is quite a lot of money in that fund, which seems to have gone back to the Treasury rather than being used in quite the way one would have hoped. However, if they do not have the money, it is very important to make the statement that this is important, and that it is part of the way in which we help those who need it but who, once having had it, will be making a real contribution.

This is why I come back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Layard, that the Treasury will get the money back. There is a real truth in this. We need it; we have not had it. I am not blaming any particular Government for this, because, after all, this was a pretty late decision of that Labour Government, even though it was changed afterwards by the coalition Government for reasons that I cannot now remember. However, it is important that we recognise that this is an essential part of a modern educational system. We have not got it, we ought to get it, and the Government need to come to terms with a change in the way we think.

[Baroness Wolf of Dulwich (CB)]

My Lords, I would like to add one very specific but pertinent comment to the debate at this point. Obviously, we are not going redesign the whole of apprenticeships here on the Floor of the House, but I strongly support the emphasis that the noble Lord, Lord Layard, has placed on 16 to 18 year-olds, and bring to your Lordships’ attention a very strange anomaly in the way we approach this.

When a young person fails to get an apprenticeship and remains in full-time education of some sort, this is paid for automatically as part of the open-ended commitment to pay for classroom-based education, even if it is also vocational or technical education, until somebody is 18 or 19. But apprenticeships for 16 to 18 year-olds have to come out of the levy—of which there is going to be very little money left next year, by the way, but that is a whole other discussion.

At the very least, in the short term, the Government could commit to moving the funding for apprenticeships for 16 to 18 year-olds into a different budget, into the perfectly correct national commitment to fund young people’s education and training until the age of 18.

Social Security Advisory Committee: Winter Fuel Payment

Lord Deben Excerpts

Thursday 14th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I think I have answered the point about housing benefit and explained why the Government took the decision we did. However, we are determined to do everything we can, so we are directly contacting approximately 120,000 pensioner households that may be eligible for pension credit, to encourage them to make a claim. We are also writing to all pensioners to make sure they are aware of the changes coming forward and to link them to where they can claim pension credit if they are entitled to it.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

Will the Minister accept that the decision not to give money to people who do not need it was the right decision, and that to argue against it is not sensible? However, it is also true that the public has really not understood what this now means. The Government have to communicate much better than they are doing at the moment. It is wrong to attack the Government for the decision, but it is perfectly right to attack the Government for not putting that decision over in a way that people can understand.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, especially for the first half of that encouragement. The Government had to make some difficult choices. Deciding not to pay the winter fuel payment to people who do not need it was one of those choices. Inevitably, that causes some challenge and concern, particularly for those who are around the margins, as with any system of means testing. That has been challenging, but I take the advice of the noble Lord and we will look again to make sure that we are properly explaining to people what is happening and that those who need this most will still get help. I hope that they will not just get the help of the winter fuel payment, but potentially thousands of pounds in pension credit as well.

Pensioners: Winter Support

Lord Deben Excerpts

Tuesday 29th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, the first thing would I mention once again is the household support fund. That is £421 million provided specifically for local authorities to support those in need, especially with the cost of living, such as food and fuel, so that is somewhere for people to go. We realise there is still a significant number of people who could claim pension credit, and if they get pension credit, they will get the winter fuel payment. It also opens up a gateway to other potential support with rent or council tax and passporting to a range of other benefits. We are running a campaign, and we will shortly be writing to 12 million pensioners. We will soon be writing also to 120,000 pensioners who get housing benefit who we think might be entitled to pension credit as well, so we are doing huge amount to make sure all that those in that space can claim it. The final point is that there are two bits to pension credit. The main bit tops up income to a certain level. There is also the savings guarantee, so people who have more savings and may think that they are not entitled to the slightly higher income could still be entitled to some pension credit. If they get any at all, they get the winter fuel payment, so please spread the word.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

It is not sensible to pay taxpayers’ money to people who do not need it—the Government are right on that. My worry is simply that those who apply for pension credit appear in many cases to find the bureaucracy difficult and not quick enough to deliver. Will the Minister assure the House that she will make sure that everybody who applies will get this in time and without bureaucratic delay?

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

On bureaucracy, 80% of people now apply for pension credit online. You can apply online, on the phone or on paper, or you can get help from the DWP or a third-party organisation, but 80% apply online. That is by far the simplest and quickest way to do it, not least because you end up answering, at most, 48 questions and sometimes only 35, because lots of things you do not have to go through are taken out. That might seem like a lot, but it really is not—the experience people have is fairly straightforward. If you do not like doing it online, you can phone up and that is the equivalent, because the person on the other end just does it for you—you are on the phone and they are entering all the details. Some weeks, only 5% of people apply on paper.

On how long it takes to process it, as we are expecting an influx of applications, we have redeployed another 500 staff to work on processing. We know that there will be slightly longer times and are warning people who apply that it could take up to nine weeks, but I assure the House that if anyone applies in time, they will get the money. If that means that for a small number of people there will be a cashflow issue, I encourage them go to their local authority to apply to the household support fund to tide them over that gap.

Pension Funds: Investments and Tax Relief

Lord Deben Excerpts

Thursday 29th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

I would hope that parliamentarians have a role in this; I shall certainly get back to the noble Baroness on that point. As she will know, guidance states that trustees can consider climate change, but we acknowledge that there is some ambiguity, which I think is the gist of the noble Baroness’s question. That is why we are engaging with the Financial Markets Law Committee working group, which is discussing further fiduciary duty. The next meeting will take place at the end of the month.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

May I encourage the Government to do what they have sought to do, but to recognise too that the speed at which climate change is happening is right at the top end of what the scientists thought? Therefore, the fiduciary duty of pension funds to take that into account becomes the more urgent. I hope that in the review later on in the year, the Minister makes sure that they understand the devastating effects on those investments.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

I know that my noble friend is extremely active in this area, and I reassure him that we continue to encourage pension schemes to commit to net zero in a way that works for them. As mentioned earlier, from October 2022 we introduced this requirement in the TCFD regulations, which is specifically to calculate and report the extent to which their investments are aligned with the Paris agreement goal.

Occupational and Personal Pension Schemes (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018

Lord Deben Excerpts

Tuesday 15th January 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Buscombe]

I can inform the noble Lord. He is absolutely right that a formal consultation was not considered necessary for these changes as there is no policy change and they make only minor and technical amendments designed to ensure that UK legislation operates effectively on the day the UK leaves the EU.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Buscombe]

I will give way to my noble friend. However, I would like to answer the question on making the changes and re-laying the regulations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Deben]

I interrupted only because my noble friend might be able to answer my question at the same time. The question is this: if it were not thought necessary to have the consultation in the first place, but then it was found that by not having the consultation the orders had to be taken and re-laid, would it not have been better to have had the consultation in the first place—and would it not now be better to have consultation, because that is the fundamental issue in all these matters? It is not that they somehow get outside the withdrawal Act, but that they do not have the proper consultation we need.

[Baroness Buscombe]

My Lords, it was as a result of ongoing communication with our industry stakeholders that we discovered that it was important to re-lay the regulations. In a sense, there was not a formal consultation, but we do have ongoing and constant communication with industry stakeholders who will be affected by these minor and technical amendments when we leave the European Union. I stress that we were very concerned to correct a fault in terminology, which is why we withdrew the original draft.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Deben]

My Lords, if I had not gone through earlier debates, I would have agreed with the noble Lord. I want to make it clear that whatever certain government sources may say, there may well be some sort of arrangement as far as the Opposition are concerned but it is not one in which I have been involved at all. I went to listen to some later SIs last week. In listening to the debate, it became clear to me that a number of assertions were being made by the Government which, frankly, did not stand up.

Of course, the whole problem with these SIs is that the Government constantly remind us that they hope they will never be implemented and this is all about the possibility of there being an exit with no deal. But that does not mean, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, will agree, that we can ignore these SIs because they probably will not happen. Of course, as the days go on, that becomes less and less probable, in my view. Now that the Prime Minister has said that it is more likely that we will have no Brexit than a no-deal Brexit, perhaps one may be happier about it. But I am not here because I happen to believe that Brexit is a nonsense. I am here because I believe that there are some really fundamental things in these SIs.

The first is the assertion that we do not need to work too hard on them because they are not going to happen. That seems unacceptable.

[Baroness Buscombe]

When have I made the assertion that we do not need to take time on them? We have spent an enormous amount of time in the department ensuring that what we carry out in relation to these SIs is detailed and careful, to the best of our ability.

[Lord Deben]

I was not making the assertion about my noble friend; I was referring to the meeting of the Grand Committee last week, when that was very much the underlying assertion. That is all I was doing. I do not wish to make any such implication or accusation about my noble friend, whose presentation was perfectly right and reasonable, except that it is based on falsities. I will go on to the other falsities on which it is based.

The second falsehood is that this SI is not making much difference and therefore we do not have to go through the usual procedure. The difficulty with that is that there is a definition here which I find very peculiar. The definition of “impact” refers only to the direct impact of what is in this—the impact on people in the United Kingdom who do not have anything outside the United Kingdom, and who are concerned only with the United Kingdom. There is no reference to the cost of or the damage done by these regulations to those who are in the United Kingdom but have arrangements outside the United Kingdom within the European Union, who will be seriously disadvantaged because the UK will not be within the same arrangements. I realise that that is a result of Brexit but the idea that you can assess the impact without mentioning that seems very peculiar. If you mention that, you have to have an impact assessment. I am very suspicious of this because I think the Government do not want an impact assessment that explains to people precisely why exit from the European Union is so damaging. I do not understand how we are supposed to deal with an SI when it says simply that there is no, or no significant,

“impact on business, charities or voluntary bodies”.

That is the second reason that it seems to me that this is a kind of fudge.

The third reason, and this is the most important thing that I want to say, is about consultation.

[Lord Adonis]

The noble Lord and I have spent some time with other noble Lords in Grand Committee scrutinising a whole swathe of these regulations. Does he agree that a pattern is becoming very clear in that there has been no formal consultation on any of these regulations, whether or not they are making minor changes? In parenthesis, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, that the deficiencies in the first set of regulations were not minor but major in their impact and were not picked up by the engagement of the department with the industry. However, even those that involve substantial changes have not been consulted on formally. He will recall that in Grand Committee yesterday we were told that there had been selective engagement with “trusted” individuals. It became clear to us during those debates that there was a huge reluctance on the Government’s part to engage formally in consultation because—until the moment that we have just reached, when it has become public knowledge—they did not want the degree of preparation made for no deal to be known. The very scale of the problem to be encountered in respect of no deal and the alarm it would create was a reason why the Government have not been consulting, as they should have been, on these and other regulations. That ought to give the House very great concern about the state of the regulations and the degree to which the Government have engaged with those who are going to be very significantly affected in the way that he suggested.

[Lord Deben]

The only problem is that the noble Lord’s intervention was so long that my name has been changed to his on the annunciator.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Deben]

I have to say, there are many fates which are worse than death—though I am not quite sure that that is one.

I wonder whether I could go on to the question of consultation. It is very difficult to uphold the argument that there was no need for consultation when you have had to withdraw the SI because, as a result of publishing it, it turns out that there was a need for consultation because a very serious mistake was found in it. If this were the only case—I say this to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood—I would be less concerned, but last week and yesterday we found a series of really serious changes which needed to be made which had been brought to our attention by the very industry with which the particular ministry concerned had claimed to have had ongoing and general discussions.

There is, for example, a very major problem for the pharmaceutical industry because there was no such consultation. I do not want to go into detail on that because obviously that is not the subject here, but it is important to say that this is a case where, had there been consultation, there would not have had to have been a second draft of this SI. My noble friend said, “Well, we have changed it”, but she has not. She has not, I think, convinced the House that there might not be something else that needs to be changed. Because you have changed one thing does not mean to say that there will not be any other.

[Lord Warner (CB)]

Will the noble Lord agree with me, having sat through six sets of regulations which have been negatived, that there is a pattern emerging? Does he agree that the pattern is real doubt about whether there are accurate impact assessments and real doubt about whether any worthwhile consultation has taken place with interested parties? I am asking the question because this is of great importance to the House as a whole. There is a continuing assertion that these were minor and technical issues which did not involve a change of policy; but on further investigation, all showed that there were serious concerns about impact assessments, there were changes of policy, and there were great deficiencies in the consultation. As this House in Grand Committee has negatived six sets of regulations, one after the other, one can be excused for being a little sceptical about assertions from the Dispatch Box.

[Baroness Buscombe]

My Lords, if I may be helpful to the House, I think I made it clear to all noble Lords that, because of consultation with the industry concerning this fairly niche area within the pensions industry of cross-border activity with the EU, we learned that one word was wrong within the draft regulations. Therefore, notwithstanding what may have happened with other SIs that noble Lords have been debating in recent weeks, with regard to this SI, one word was out of place and, quite rightly, the pensions industry alerted the department, which withdrew the draft regulations. As the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, so helpfully stated, the reality is that this happens. It does not happen on a regular basis. I cannot believe that, when my noble friend was Secretary of State, every piece of legislation he brought forward was perfect the first time round.

[Lord Deben]

I perfectly agree with my noble friend that I did not always produce legislation that was perfect the first time round. However, I did consult. I would not have dreamed of having a situation like this, where after I had published the legislation and told people that there was no need for consultation, I then found that there was a need for consultation. In this case, my noble friend is coming to the House and saying, “Although we got it wrong the first time, we know we are not getting it wrong the second time”. I know that she does not wish me to refer to what has gone on in other SIs, but the trouble is that there is beginning to be a pattern here. There is an assertion that proper consultation is not needed but it is then found, after they publish the document, that a series of people from the industry come up with really very serious matters. In two cases, those matters could affect the lives of people in this country because of the way in which the legislation has been framed. My noble friend really does have to understand that we are not having this argument for some esoteric reason or because we happen not to like the withdrawal Act. We are having it because, by accident, we have come to understand that when you work this out, discuss it and think about it, it does not turn out to be quite the legislation that we were told it was. That is the next reason why I find it difficult to accept this SI.

Then there is the question of cost. Evidently, it was not thought necessary to have a consultation because it would not be cost effective to have one. I do not know how much it costs to withdraw an SI and then to replace it, but that does not seem to be a cheap alternative to having a proper discussion in the first place. I do not understand why there could not be a consultation. After all, if the consultation had taken place at the time the original SI was laid, it would have happened, it would have been over, and we would have known that there had been such a consultation.

Lastly, I will talk for just one moment about the whole question of cross-border activity. This SI says, “If we leave the European Union, and if we leave it without an agreement, we are putting in place something that will enable us to be an island which does not have any outside connections at all but our own internal arrangements”. This means that we are going to reduplicate what are, at the moment, some of the arrangements which are done across the whole EU. I do not see here the cost of having entirely our own system and the cost to pension operators in this country of having to make new cross-border arrangements themselves. That does not come into the impact assessment. There is no question about that cost, but it is not here. All we have here are the costs of that very narrow area which the Government have decided is what is defined as “cost”. Yet the Government are going to have to accept that pension people in this country will have the cost of making arrangements so that they can do the things they are doing at the moment inside the European Union. This is a cost, but it is not here.

I know my noble friend is bored with it and thinks that we should let this all pass, but this House is about revision. We have made a mistake with this particular SI. We should recognise that all these SIs need to have at least a formal consultation. There should be a time when people can be asked to put in their concerns; the ability for a Minister to get up and say, “We have had a consultation”. I think it is unfair on my noble friend. She can only get up and say, “Well, there has been an informal series of talks”.

[Viscount Eccles (Con)]

Over how many weeks would the noble Lord suggest that the consultation should take place?

[Lord Deben]

My noble friend is right to say that the problem with all this legislation is that it takes time. If you are going to make fundamental changes, you have to face it: it is better to have short consultation periods in which everyone is told that there is a consultation, rather than this egregious kind of concept where you say, “We have had a bit of a consultation and we have ongoing talks”. We cannot get up in this House and say that we have had a consultation that shows that we have covered everything. I agree with my noble friend that you have to have a short consultation but it must be public and clear. It is frankly not our fault that we have lost a lot of time. It is because the Government did not start two years ago to prepare for what might be a no-deal exit.

[Lord Adonis]

The noble Lord raises an extremely important point about the need to consult before regulations are published, rather than after. The Minister said that these were technical and that there was ongoing engagement. Responses from practitioners in the sector show that they were concerned about the mistakes made the first time round. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, who thought that everything would be perfect the second time round, the response of Faye Jarvis, a partner at Hogan Lovells whom I quoted earlier, was that they were getting very significant impacts from the original version of these regulations. She warned schemes to pay attention to any further changes to the regulations in case they brought such unintended consequences again, saying:

“People will need to be scrutinising and seeing what else is coming out in terms of draft regulations to make sure there aren’t any other inadvertent errors but also to check there aren’t any unexpected impacts”.


Does the noble Lord agree that the whole reason one consults before presenting regulations for approval to Parliament is so that these kinds of inadvertent changes do not take place? The fact that partners in pensions law firms are saying that they have not been consulted and are not content that these regulations will not produce more inadvertent errors with a major impact entirely supports the noble Lord’s argument. We need proper consultation and not the rushed, informal dialogue which is taking place because of the very rushed nature of these no-deal preparations.

[Lord Deben]

I will answer the noble Lord, but I do not want to prolong my remarks. I am already a bit fed up with being told that I must not talk about these things because it takes too long. I find it extremely difficult but it has to be talked about. The noble Lord is entirely right. This will be true and, if so, I have to declare my interest as chairman of PIMFA. I have some allied interests, but not as far as pensions are concerned.

I come back to my noble friend. There is national concern about the responsibility of government and Parliament. That leads me to say very seriously to her that if it looks as though you are hiding the consequences of decisions that you make, that does a great deal of harm. Not having the proper costs here—

[Baroness Buscombe]

My Lords, I must intervene at this point. I take great exception to any suggestion that I am seeking to hide anything at this Dispatch Box. I hope that the noble Lord—my noble friend—will apologise.

[Lord Deben]

Frankly, I did not say that my noble friend was hiding it. I said, “If it looks as if you”—and I am not referring to my noble friend but to the Government who have laid this SI—“are hiding”. She really cannot take exception to that—well, she has taken it, and if exception was taken, I apologise for any reasonable exception—but really, I say to my noble friend that we are trying to debate this issue. I was saying that if it looks as if you are hiding something because you do not include the costs of withdrawal, the public will find that difficult to accept. I do not think that I have accused her of anything, and trying to get upset about it is not acceptable.

All I am saying to her is that I hope that she will talk to the people who have laid these instruments and have not told us directly the costs. I believe that they intended not to tell us the costs, because if people add up the costs of Brexit in each of these SIs, they will begin to see why some of us have been so concerned.

I end by saying simply this. We need to have proper consultation and proper costings—not just generalised ones—and, when we have a changed SI such as this, which has been changed because we did not have a consultation, it would have been much more reasonable to have had a consultation before this SI was produced. I do not believe that it is possible for a Minister to get up and say that there is no need for consultation because we know that it is perfectly right. So, for all those reasons, I think it is perfectly correct that we should be having the kind of debate that we are on this SI.

[Lord Tyler (LD)]

I intended to intervene on the noble Lord, but I realised that it would be incredibly embarrassing if my name were to be attached to his speech, so I spared him the embarrassment. However, I shall quote him in a moment.

I was struck by a point made by my noble friend Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope about the sheer quantity of secondary legislation coming through, and the great work that he and other members of those committees are doing. I am involved in a small way because I am on the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which is involved at an early stage. My noble friend rightly made the point that the sheer quantity of SIs coming before your Lordships’ House is causing us real problems. I very much concur with what was said by the noble Lords, Lord Deben and Lord Warner, because we were together in the Grand Committee both last week and yesterday. A pattern seems to be developing. If I may illustrate it in this way, each time we come to one of these SIs—it is happening again today—the Minister says that this is contingency planning. It is fairly set out in the Explanatory Memorandum and very well explained that it will become applicable, relevant and of interest to Members of your Lordships’ House only if there is a no-deal outcome.

So all this is speculative; it is hypothetical. When I used to ask questions of the noble Lord, Lord Deben, in the other place, he would say to the House, “The question from Mr Tyler is hypothetical and I refuse to answer it”. That was perfectly reasonable. Now the Government are making a hypothetical statement: if there is no deal, this will be necessary. Most of the SIs coming before the committees of your Lordships’ House, let alone here in the Chamber, are hypothetical in that sense. This is a real problem—and, as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said a few moments ago, it is becoming more of a problem every day.

In our vote yesterday, there was a huge majority against a no-deal outcome. The Prime Minister is increasingly saying that she is against a no-deal outcome—she even thinks it is more likely that there will be no Brexit. In those circumstances, the pressure on us all—and on the Government—to get consultation right, to get the impact statement right, to get the costs allocations right are becoming, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Deben, more and more difficult and taking up more and more of the time of Ministers, their civil servants and your Lordships’ House. That means that we may be neglecting the “normal” SIs, if I may call them that, which are not related to a no-deal situation.

As we all know from the European Court of Justice judgment before Christmas, the only circumstances now in which a no-deal outcome, on which this SI is based, could happen would be as a result of a deliberate decision by the Government. It is not going to happen by accident. We were told in previous debates that there was a risk of an accidental no deal, but that is now impossible as a result of that judgment.

I will quote very speedily from the noble Lord, Lord Deben, who I hope will not be even more embarrassed than he was by being given my name. He said in Grand Committee last Wednesday that,

“I do not think this House is doing itself any good by conniving in what is manifestly a total nonsense … There is no no-deal scenario which does not mean chaos, so there is no point in having legislation which pretends that it will stop a no-deal scenario being chaos. That is inevitable, ineluctable and inextricable from the whole process”.—[Official Report, 9/1/19; col. GC203.]

We are back at that point. Here we are, inevitably finding that in a number of ways that have been well illustrated by other Members of your Lordships’ House, this SI may have serious problems. The Government are entitled to say, “We have no intention of going there. We do not want a no deal. We want the Government’s deal”. In that respect we are, unfortunately, jamming up and putting so much new work into your Lordships’ House at every level, which may be a complete waste of time. That will distract us from doing a good job on other SIs, and that is a very regrettable situation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Adonis]

My Lords, my noble friend made an extremely powerful argument, which corresponds to a pattern that has emerged to those of us who have spent time in the Grand Committee discussing these regulations. They have all been prepared in a rush to meet an imminent deadline. Because of the rush, the need to meet the deadline and the secrecy inside the departments with which these regulations have been drafted and all no-deal planning has taken place, the pattern that has emerged in the debates in the House and the Grand Committee is that much wider issues have become apparent that could only become apparent through consultation.

The conclusion I can see we are already reaching—my noble friend makes an extremely powerful argument—is that it is not just the technical changes of the regulation and the precise changes in UK law, though clearly those have been very badly handled and have potentially had a dramatic impact on UK pension funds, but the whole wider context in which these funds and the professionals engaged in them will have to operate under no deal that will bring about fundamental changes. That is precisely why one would wish to have a full consultation, which has not taken place.

The noble Viscount opposite asked how long we would wish a consultation to be. There are established Cabinet Office rules on this which, when I was a Minister, we observed as a matter of course for any changes in the law; he will know this better than anyone, having dealt in this area so frequently. The rules say 12-week consultations. That is the norm. In my day, when we had a quality of Government rather higher than the one now engaging in all this helter-skelter planning for no deal, you needed a special exemption based on special emergency requirements not to go down the 12-week route, and that could happen only if the changes concerned were exceptionally minor. In this case, the Government themselves have imposed the deadline and the changes under consideration have a very wide potential impact. It is abundantly clear that the right thing to do in this and other cases is to have a 12-week consultation, with the wider policy environment under consideration being subject to consultation too.

I would like to ask the Minister some other questions about the detail of these regulations. For those of us who are not experts, it is not clear precisely how deep the impact will be. Paragraph 2.5 of the Explanatory Memorandum says that,

“UK occupational pension schemes will no longer need to obtain authorisation from the Pensions Regulator for cross-border activities”.

I take that not to be a minor change in the regulatory regime but a fairly significant one, on which the Pensions Regulator should have been asked to give advice—including to the House—when we were considering these changes. Can the Minister tell us what the impact of that change will be and why the Pensions Regulator was not invited to give us advice?

On the wider issue of no-deal planning, which of course underlies all these regulations, the Government have said that they do not wish to see no deal take place. Last week, when the House of Commons debated no deal and voted that it should not take place, Robert Jenrick, the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, said that,

“the Government do not want or expect a no-deal scenario”.—[Official Report, Commons, 8/1/19; col. 269.]

It is entirely within the purview of the Government not to have a no-deal scenario; if they do not want it, they can ensure that it does not take place, not least because of the ruling of the European Court of Justice before Christmas. They could revoke the notice under Article 50 to ensure absolutely that there will not be no deal.

A point was raised perfectly properly by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York that one should prepare for contingencies, but these are contingencies entirely of the Government’s making. They are not talking about preparing contingencies for, if I may say so, acts of God or other things that happen for which one cannot be accountable. When I was Secretary of State for Transport, a volcano went off and we had to get planes flying when there were big ash clouds. One should be expected to make contingencies for those kinds of things over which one has no control. In the case of the contingency for which we are discarding all our normal consultation mechanisms, playing fast and loose with a regulatory regime and, as my noble friend said, not taking account of the wider policy context and what may happen as a result of no deal, it is all self-inflicted by the Government because they are sticking to a self-imposed deadline.

The response of noble Lords who have sat in Grand Committee is that this does not sufficiently justify not going through established consultation routes. A whole stream of statutory instruments will be coming from Grand Committee where big concerns have been raised, not least by the noble Lord, Lord Warner, in respect of a set of pharmaceutical-related SIs that we debated yesterday. Key affected partners were not consulted at all; the reason for that, it appears, is that the department did not want to hold a consultation that would have made people aware that no-deal planning was taking place. Indeed, in the debate we held yesterday on one of the key regulations, the only person who we could establish firmly had been consulted was the noble Lord, Lord Warner, himself; he had phoned the relevant public authority that was engaged in the no-deal planning.

[Lord Deben]

My Lords, I invite the noble Lord to give way, because it gives me the opportunity to say that I think my noble friend the Minister will now understand that when I said that if one looks as if one is hiding something, I did not refer to her at all. I referred to a very long experience of exactly what the noble Lord refers to: a refusal to consult the very people who could have made sure that the SI was correct. In the case we talked about yesterday, it seems to me that the Government are very likely to have to withdraw that SI and then replace it, as they did with this SI. I did not think it was unreasonable to point that out.

Financial Guidance and Claims Bill [HL]

Lord Deben Excerpts

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

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

My Lords, my name has also been added to this amendment, and I agree with every word the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, said. I declare my interests as set out in the register of the House, in particular those which relate to the insurance industry.

It has long been the case that for homes and mortgages considerable protections exist for consumers to prevent them from doing something in a hot-headed fashion. Indeed, this House has helped to shape those protections over many years—I remember studying the Law of Property Act 1922 at Bar school. Those protections have continued to build and generally are considered to work.

The pension asset has in recent times become just as significant. I say that off the back of an Office for National Statistics report, which it produced in December 2015, one chapter of which is called “Private Pension Wealth, Wealth in Great Britain, 2012 to 2014”. It reports that 59% of our fellow citizens now have a private pension and that the median value of the pension pots at June 2014 was £57,000. Obviously, those pots are growing through time. The median value for people between the age of 55 and 64—to the unscrupulous, the target people—was £145,000. To put that in perspective, the last house price index in this country—in June—listed the average value of a house at £220,000 or so, and Savills has helpfully estimated that the average loan-to-value ratio is about 48%. I do not want to prove anything in particular with that spray of statistics, but I want to demonstrate that the pension asset is now as valuable to our fellow citizens as the house asset across the board. Accordingly, in my mind and in logic, it too should enjoy similar protections to try to stop bad things happening.

The problem has been coming up on us and has been exacerbated by two things in recent times: first, the Osborne pension reforms; and, secondly, the very rapid rate of growth of pensions in general. To give my last statistic, the same ONS report said that in the two years to June 2014 private pension pots had grown by a median of 22%. My concern is not the big pot holder—I think that there will be sophisticated people who can look after themselves—but the large number of small pot holders who, to the unscrupulous, must look like very tempting targets.

The amendment serves to protect particularly the vulnerable and it goes some way towards making the pension asset safer, just as the legislation I referred to earlier has done for homes and mortgages. Pension asset security would be improved, without great effort on the part of government or, indeed, cost for someone who is trying legitimately to access or restructure their pension arrangements. Accordingly, I feel that this is a very sensible amendment and I very much hope to hear shortly from the Minister that the Government can do something in this area.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, I refer the House to my declaration of interests, particularly as chairman of the Personal Investment Management & Financial Advice Association.

It is very important to take this amendment seriously because of the reforms brought in by George Osborne. There are two halves to giving people freedom: one is giving the freedom and the other is making sure that they have access to the best information in order to make the best choices. I fear that sometimes people find the first easier than the second.

I sat for some time as the representative of financial advisers on a committee of the then regulator looking into the financial understanding of people throughout the country. It was a very salutary experience, not least because many of the leaders of the providers were totally unable to explain what they were providing in language that I—being somewhat of a professional—could understand, let alone anyone else. My concern is that this is an industry that, even with the very best of intentions, is not very good at explaining the details. There are two reasons for that: one is that a special language is spoken by the experts and the second is that these things are very complicated. That is why, in many companies, people who are perfectly capable of being chairman or chief executive soon find somebody else to look after the pensions. It is a very complicated matter.

My concern is that the Bill needs constantly to look at the moments when people are most able and willing to receive advice. If that is also the point at which they most need the advice, it becomes particularly valuable. My noble friend might take note of one of the biggest changes to have happened in a quite different area. We were busy trying to get people to understand how important energy efficiency was. Many of the steps that we took seemed to have very little effect until we started to tell people, when they bought a new appliance under the European Union scheme, how energy efficient the appliance was. From one year to the next, we got rid of most of the GH levels and arrived at a situation where we were talking about A, A+ and A++. This was because we chose the moment when it was best to advise people. That is precisely what the amendment means. Not having it is not having the other half of the reforms.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Flight (Con)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to support the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Hunt. We all know what they address and we may have experienced these abuses. The existing law and regulations fail to address them, and it is time that they did so. As has just been pointed out by the noble Earl, this is an appropriate piece of legislation in which to include them. I hope very much that the Government will accept the amendments.

[Lord Deben]

My Lords, in the 19th century there were great battles over trying to insist that people properly labelled their products so that the public could make informed choices. I am afraid that our predecessors would put forward arguments that this was interference in one way or another, the time was not ripe and there was no suitable Bill. A series of reasons of that kind were given. When today we talk about physical things like tins of milk or packets of biscuits, we think it perfectly right that there is a framework of regulation which ensures that people are neither misled nor charged for things that are not what they claim to be. The difficulty is that, the moment we move into anything to do with financial matters, we find it hard to apply the same lessons we learnt to apply in the 19th century.

The reason why I beg my noble friend to take these points seriously is that the people now involved form a much larger group than had once been the case. In the past, this was the kind of issue which might have affected only people of substance, but the amendments brought forward by my noble friend would have a real effect on all those for whom this is a serious matter. I do not mean just those who are misled, but all the others who have to pay insurance premiums that have gone up because of those who were misled.

My noble friend knows how disappointed I was that she did not accept what I think was a reasonable amendment to insist that the cold calling which goes on in many of these areas should be made illegal. I know that she is hoping to find a way in which we might come back to the issue, and I hope she will, because the real truth is that these are popular measures. That is why I find it so difficult to understand why there is any pushback at all. It may be that the amendments are not quite right. Perhaps my noble friend Lord Hunt, brilliant though he is and being a lawyer of outstanding ability, has not quite got them right. However, the tenor or burden of the amendments is clearly right. It is important to put in place the Meccano which, although it may be a little out of date—my grandchildren are great putters-together of things, but they have moved on from Meccano—is an image that those of us of a certain age can recognise very clearly.

We should have in this Bill the ability to deal with these infringements of people’s decent rights, and above all, to deal with things that make people lie. The most unhappy aspect of the failure of this Bill to make these protections much more widespread is that they would guard against activities which, in the end, lead people to lie. We have accepted that on whiplash, but we know that the activities will move on. My noble friend has rightly said that we need to put in place something that can be used to stop yet another move by these unscrupulous people. This House has a duty to stop them because of the people who suffer. They are not only those who are led astray; they are the entire public who see prices increasing. There are going to be a lot of price increases because of the Government’s action on Brexit, so let us at least do something about the things that we can actually affect.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, the co-pilot is back in charge. Amendments 39A and 39B, moved by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral, seek to include the arrangement of credit hire agreements and the commissioning of medical reports within the scope of claims management regulation. I am grateful to him for the powerful advocacy he put into moving his amendments and for the support he has received from the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, who underwrote—that may be the right expression to use—the amendment with a nostalgic reference to Meccano. I am also grateful to my noble friends Lord Flight and Lord Deben for their support. We will be coming to an amendment on cold calling in due course.

As I explained in Committee, I understand and sympathise with my noble friend’s concerns, and I can see how these issues link with claims management activity. However, I would maintain that credit hire organisations and medical reporting organisations are not claims management companies as such, and therefore it does not automatically follow that they should be regulated in the same way as claims management companies or, indeed, by the same regulator. When the independent review of claims management regulation reported and recommended the transfer of claims management regulation to the FCA, it did not consider an extension of scope to the credit hire and medical reporting organisations which we are debating at the moment.

However, I want to be clear with noble Lords that the Government understand how important these issues are. That is why we are considering what more can be done on credit hire. We have identified this as an area of concern and we have specifically sought the views of stakeholders in the call for evidence in the section of the whiplash reform consultation that closed in January this year. I can assure my noble friend that the Government are actively continuing to work on these issues, and as a result of this debate I will certainly speak to my noble and learned friend Lord Keen of Elie and ask that his department prioritise and publish the second part of its consultation response, which will set out the Government’s position on the issue raised in our debate today.

Similarly, and as I set out in Committee, good-quality medical evidence is central to the Government’s whiplash reform programme. MedCo is working well and is providing both the Government and the relevant regulators with invaluable data on a number of important areas. However, medical reporting is much wider than just the provision of whiplash reports. Reports can be sought from and provided directly by individual specialists as well as by medical reporting organisations, and any regulation of this sector would need to be applied fairly to all those involved in it, not just to one component.

Financial Guidance and Claims Bill [HL]

Lord Deben Excerpts

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

[The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)]

My Lords, I should inform the Committee that if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment 50 by reason of pre-emption.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, I point the House to my declaration of interests. I want to underline something that the noble Lord has just said about the danger of having conflicting areas of advice.

I am sure that my noble friend will be able to explain this, but it is already true in the financial services industry, and elsewhere, that often there are serious conflicts between the decisions being handed down, for example by the Financial Services Authority, the way that such decisions are interpreted by the ombudsman and the way that things come together. That is now a major incubus on the best companies in the field; therefore it is crucial for us to know in advance that what is being done here will not be yet another different series of things that people have to bring together. That is not to defend anybody who is doing wrong or to excuse people who have not bothered, but merely to say that the better the firm, the more important it is for it to be clear what governance it should be concerned with, what guidance means, and ensure that the opportunities for contradictions are eliminated before we start.

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to speak to Amendment 56, which is in my name. I note that the clause on setting standards, which is only 11 lines long, has eight amendments. That underlines its importance.

The origins of Amendment 56 are my concerns with the behaviour of the Financial Conduct Authority; I have been regulated by it and its predecessors for the whole of my commercial career. I realise that the single financial guidance body will only be a client organisation of it, but I am concerned about FCA ethos leaking down to the SFGB.

Perhaps I should explain further. When a regulated client rings up the FCA with a specific question, asking for help in the interpretation of its rules, the FCA, in my direct experience, simply says, “We can’t give you any help in interpreting those rules”. That is quite unlike regulators in other jurisdictions in other places—I originally wrote down “competitor regulators”. That is very unhelpful, but while it is unhelpful in the financial services world, firms are usually big enough to afford advice from big firms of solicitors. Here we are often dealing with very small charities that do not have access to £1,000 per hour for Allen & Overy, so it is important that the SFGB offers that advice.

It has been said to me that there is a big problem concerning resourcing. I think that that is quite a difficult position to maintain. First, other similar regulators in other jurisdictions do not perceive those resourcing problems. In fact, most of the questions that come up, such as on a drafting issue, do so repeatedly and the same question will be asked by many of those being regulated. Secondly, just thinking about one particular bit of FCA regulation because I know about it—the regulation of insurance brokers—the FCA and those that are being regulated bear the cost of that regulation, which is more than twice as expensive as Ireland, Bermuda and Hong Kong. That multiple is far bigger than for France and Germany. I do not therefore think that good regulation has to be expensive.

The amendment is aimed at trying to ensure that that sort of behaviour is not replicated and that the SFGB remains friendly and helpful in interpreting the regulations that it will impose on those that it regulates.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Buscombe]

I thank noble Lords for their scrutiny of Clause 6, which requires the body to set standards from time to time for the delivery of its information, guidance and advice services. It also requires the body to obtain the FCA’s approval prior to finalising the standards and to publish the standards. I understand that there has been concern among the debt advice sector that the body’s standards will apply to all debt advice providers. I reassure the Committee, and others, that the single financial guidance body is not a regulator. These standards will apply only to the body itself and its delivery partners.

I turn first to Amendments 49 and 54, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, which set out an alternative to setting standards for service delivery. Amendment 49 would require the body to publish a commissioning framework against which it would test the competence of service providers when delegating any of its functions. Amendment 54 would require the body to consult on this framework and to obtain the approval of the FCA.

The setting and publication of standards, and their monitoring and enforcement, provided for in Clause 7, are designed to give assurance to members of the public that the information, guidance and advice services provided by the body meet robust criteria. These standards will apply only to the body itself when it is delivering these services directly, and to any delivery partner organisations it engages to deliver these services on its behalf.

The noble Lord proposes to replace the requirement for the body to set standards with a commissioning framework, but there is a difference between these two. The proposed commissioning framework would only set out requirements that the body’s delivery partners must meet to enable bidders for contracts or grants to understand what the expectations were. The standards will set out the requirements that both the delivery partners and the body itself must meet. The standards will play an important role in enabling members of the public to have confidence in the services provided by or on behalf of the body, and both could not and should not be replaced by the proposed commissioning framework.

When contracts are above a certain value, the body will be required to comply with the Public Contracts Regulations 2015, the regulations that govern public procurement, including the requirement to advertise its requirements and undertake a competitive tendering exercise. Where the size of the contract is below the thresholds cited in the regulations or where the body will be making grant arrangements, we would expect it to follow similar principles.

If the body decides to delegate any of its guidance or advice functions and procure services from other providers, we would expect it to publish its requirements, including any technical requirements, with adequate time for delivery partners to prepare their propositions. It is unnecessary to be specific about this in legislation, as we would expect the new body to build on the good practice of existing organisations. For example, the MAS already has a commissioning framework for debt advice.

Amendments 50 and 55, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord McKenzie and Lord Stevenson, would require the single financial guidance body to consult on the standards. The body will be able to set different standards for different types of information, guidance and debt advice. One size will not fit all. For example, standards for an online service such as the body’s website would of necessity differ from standards for a face-to-face guidance appointment. In addition, the body may need to develop standards if new services come online or if the nature of the service provision changes. We would expect the body continuously to review its service standards. This will be important to the body’s board in ensuring that its services remain customer focused.

In developing and updating the standards, we would expect the body to work closely with a range of stakeholders, including delivery partners—large and small; I stress that to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull—devolved authorities and consumer representatives, to ensure that the standards it sets are robust, cover a range of qualitative and quantitative measures and can be properly monitored. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, asked how the body would set its standards and what they might be, and about the consultation with the FCA. We would expect the standards broadly to cover delivering the guidance, advice and information, professional standards, communications systems and controls, complaints management and content of the guidance session.

Prior to anything being published, the body is required to gain the approval of the FCA. The FCA will add value by providing independent scrutiny, and the standards will benefit from the FCA’s expertise in relation to financial services and the debt advice sector, and its experience in setting the standards for Pension Wise. Having the input of the FCA will also ensure that the body’s standards complement the FCA’s debt advice authorisation process. As my noble friend Lord Deben has stressed, it is important that there be clarity.

Should the body consider it valuable to conduct a consultation exercise before setting or revising its standards, it could do so. However, I do not consider it necessary or proportionate to require in legislation that the body undertake a formal consultation process, particularly as this would apply even to very minor revisions of the standards.

Amendments 51 and 52, tabled by my noble friend Lady Altmann, return to the debate on earlier amendments to Clauses 2 and 4. There, I made the case that “debt advice” is the appropriate term to use in the functions of the body. I have also written to my noble friend with further explanation of the terminology used in the Bill. The Government believe that it remains the right term here. I apologise for going over old ground with these arguments, but I want to do justice to my noble friend’s amendments.

First, “debt advice” reflects a broader set of activities than “debt counselling”, and this broader set is what the new body will have a duty to deliver. Secondly, similar to independent financial advice, debt advice is an activity regulated by the FCA. Using the term “counselling” may mislead customers who are actually receiving regulated advice. I hope that this is a further response to my noble friend Lord Deben. It is particularly important that we do not confuse customers by introducing other terminology. We should be very clear here on the vital service this body will provide. It will fund and co-ordinate—

[Lord Deben]

I thank my noble friend for referring to me. I do not want her to believe that I do not agree with my noble friend Lady Altmann. The fact is that we have had far too much trouble in the past with the word “advice” being used wrongly. “Advice” should be used only when it consists of somebody who is on your side and giving you advice personally and individually. That is not what we are talking about here; “counselling” or some other word should be used. I hope the Minister will not include me in her supporters on this particular point. This is really serious and we ought to think again.

[Baroness Buscombe]

I hear what my noble friend is saying. I hope he read in Hansard what I set out in detail on day 2 of Committee and what I wrote to all noble Lords. I commit here to spend more time between Committee and Report trying to persuade noble Lords of the reasons why we feel it right to stick with the current terminology regarding the difference between debt advice and guidance, not least because this is already set out in regulations, at the FCA and so on. We are very keen to avoid confusion or duplication. We also very much take on board the experience and expertise we have heard from those who have given this guidance and debt advice for more than 30 years. They said they had never had a problem with this. However, I hear what my noble friend said and can see that I must do more to persuade some, though not all, noble Lords—there is great support for what the Government are trying to do. I can only stress the number of consultations we had prior to introducing the Bill to ensure that we are doing the right thing to the best of our ability, particularly in our focus on the consumer.

Most people who access debt advice have lived with debt problems for more than a year before doing so. They may be facing up to something they have avoided for a long time. They seek help because they do not know what to do. They turn to services such as the Money Advice Trust, Citizens Advice and StepChange, which are all MAS delivery partners, for urgent help with getting out of their immediate crisis. Although there is a clear difference between debt advice and the advice given by independent financial advisers to those lucky enough to have some extra money to pay for it, the advice given by debt advice is still regulated by the FCA.

Debt advisers help people identify the steps they need to take, recommend a course of action, represent people at court facing repossession and, crucially, build their clients’ confidence to deal with their creditors themselves. Under FCA rules, these excellent advisers are required to make it clear that they are giving a customer regulated advice. These individuals need help to work through their problems. They want advice on how to get out of the situation. The labels we use to describe the service on offer must reflect the way these customers use and understand the service. For these reasons, I maintain that debt advice is the most appropriate term to use.

Amendment 53, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, would require that the standards include measures of outcomes for members of the public as well as measures of outputs for the body and its delivery partners. The noble Lord raises an important issue but I do not agree that attaching this requirement to the standards is the right approach. I reassure the noble Lord that assessing the body’s success in improving the ability of members of the public to make informed financial decisions will be very important for both Her Majesty’s Treasury and the Department for Work and Pensions.

The Committee discussed during debate on Clause 1 the business planning process for the single financial guidance body. Part of that process will be for the body to agree a range of key performance indicators with Her Majesty’s Treasury and the DWP. These will be set out in the body’s corporate strategy and business plans. The corporate strategy and business plans will be published, and will include how the indicators will be measured. It is too soon to set out exactly what the performance indicators will be for the body but, as an example, Pension Wise is testing its customers’ knowledge of the pensions freedoms and comparing it with that of a group of non-users of its service. This research seeks to ascertain what difference Pension Wise is making to people’s understanding of their options under the pension freedoms. This evaluation is also recording customers’ intentions shortly after their Pension Wise appointment and any actions they have taken about three months after their appointment.

Housing: Underoccupancy Charge

Lord Deben Excerpts

Tuesday 24th June 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I must learn how to enunciate better. I will repeat my Answer: we expect to publish the interim report by the Summer Recess.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, if he is going to visit and meet people who have been concerned with this, he will also meet people who have lived in overcrowded conditions for long periods of time because of the underoccupation of homes that ought to have been available for them?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, that is clearly one of the points of getting a better match for our very scarce housing. There are long waiting lists for social housing and substantial overcrowding. Depending on the data at which you look, there are more than 250,000 overcrowded homes in the social rented sector. On the census basis, that figure rises to 361,000.

Mesothelioma Bill [HL]

Lord Deben Excerpts

Wednesday 17th July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford]

My Lords, I start by giving apologies from my noble friend Lord German who should be standing in my place today but is at a family funeral. I join in the praise for the two Front-Bench spokesmen for the dedication and commitment they have given to this legislation.

The amendment is worthy and I have admiration for the persistence of the noble Lord, Lord Alton. However, this is quite an easy target to win support for medical research and we have to question whether it is an effective amendment. All the evidence we have heard today suggests that it is not necessarily the lack of funding that is the problem but the lack of effective research proposals. That is what we should be addressing. If the insurance companies thought there was effective research to be supported, they would be the first to support it because it would reduce their liability. That is what we need to address. The Minister in his response should help us.

The other important thing is that this levy has been arrived at by negotiation and agreement. It is not a statutory levy that we are putting in place because we think that it is appropriate. It has been arrived at through agreement and negotiation. Are we saying that we have to start these negotiations again as we will be putting a supplementary payment on the people who have agreed to this levy? We need to know whether this will mean a serious delay to the legislation and its implementation. The Minister should give us answers to the complications that these amendments could cause. We are interested in getting the benefits into the hands of the families who have suffered from this disease.

We also have to ask what we are arguing over. What are the sums of money that we are arguing over? They do not seem to me to be very large. The Minister should therefore tell us—I am sure that he will in his closing remarks—what efforts the Government are going to make to meet some of the requirements for funding if we can find effective research.

This issue seems worthy and worth support and it is very easy to argue for it. But what is the reality and effect of the amendment and what sort of delay will it cause to this legislation? Those are the key issues that the House should be looking at this afternoon.

[Lord Deben]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, made an important contribution to this discussion. As a former Minister, I understand precisely the difficulties in which Ministers find themselves, particularly in the medical area, because there are many diseases that are extremely distressing and which, when specifically singled out, can cause all of us to feel that we ought to do something about it. There are few as distressing as this, but there are others in parallel.

It may be that what the Minister has said so far is the right answer, distressing and difficult though it is, particularly in terms of the danger that arises if we start deciding politically which diseases are properly sought after and which are not; this is a dangerous area to be in. My problem is slightly different. I hope that, in his response, my noble friend the Minister will not rely on the Treasury argument of hypothecation. One of the disastrous themes in this country’s legislation is the refusal of the Treasury to accept that hypothecation is an essential part of sensible financial arrangements. Many things would be much better done if there was a clear connection between what people pay through tax and what happens.

I speak with an interest in mind, as a passionate believer in the environment. We will not get people to understand why they should pay congestion charges, for example, if the money is not clearly spent on reducing congestion. In other words, there needs to be hypothecation. I remember when I fought hard for and got the first hypothecated tax, the landfill tax, which few would now deny was very important. My noble friend the Health Minister remembers that as well as I do. It was a battle against a theology. I hope that, when the Minister comes to speak, he will do so in the terms of the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, and not in the terms of those who deny this kind of response—not on the basis of ensuring objective decisions by independent judgment, but on the basis that there is something inherently unacceptable about hypothecation.

If this country moved to greater hypothecation, it would be signally more democratic—although it might mean that the Treasury would have less opportunity to get its fingers on the money on its way to that for which it was needed. That is a wholly admirable aim: the effort to ensure that there is a link in the public’s mind between what they pay and what they get is an essential part of our democracy. I hope that, of all the arguments my noble friend uses, he will eschew that one. I would not like to be pushed over the edge to not support him because of the importance of upholding the fine principle of hypothecation.