Financial Services Bill
Lord Newby Excerpts(11 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Newby
Lord Newby
My Lords, this is a group of minor technical amendments which simply remedy some drafting glitches in a number of cross-references in the Bill and address minor drafting inconsistencies. I do not propose to go through each amendment, but will answer any questions that noble Lords might have on them.
Lord Newby
Lord Newby
My Lords, in response to an amendment at Report put forward by my noble friends Lady Noakes, Lady Wheatcroft and Lady Kramer, we committed to come back with amendments to rebalance the FPC’s membership. These amendments are intended to do just that. They will remove the executive director responsible for market analysis from the FPC. This will shift the FPC’s balance so that it includes five Bank executives and five non-Bank executives, including four independent members. Crucially, this will retain the Bank’s majority on the FPC, as the committee’s chair will have a casting vote. As we have said previously, we believe that it is vital that the Bank remains in the majority on the FPC if we are to hold the Bank accountable for its performance. Amendments 23 and 24 reduce the FPC’s quorum from seven to six, to compensate for the smaller membership. Noble Lords will note, however, that we have retained the requirement that at least one of the external members be present in order for the committee to be quorate. These amendments again demonstrate that the Government have listened to the House and responded accordingly. When this change was discussed at Report, it was widely welcomed and in that spirit, I hope the House will support these amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Newby
Lord Newby
My Lords, last week on Report my noble friend Lord Sassoon signalled that the Government were minded to bring forward amendments at Third Reading to address some of the concerns that have been raised by the industry regarding the proposal to confer on the Bank of England an additional power of direction over clearing houses. This group of amendments reflects those concerns.
First, the amendments will require the Bank to be satisfied that any direction made under the power is necessary, having regard to the specified public interest criteria, rather than simply desirable. Secondly, they will put it beyond doubt that this additional power of direction will not be available in instances where the desired direction could be given under the Bank’s existing power of direction under Section 296 of FiSMA. Thirdly, the Bank, in instances where it gives a direction under this power without giving the recipient prior notice, will be required to explain to the recipient after the direction has been given why the direction was given, and why no prior notice of it was given. I should also make it clear that any justification given pursuant to this requirement will be given to the clearing house directly, will not be published and will not divulge sensitive information that might harm the public interest. Fourthly, these amendments will give effect to the assurance that we have already given the House that the additional power of direction could not be used to compel a clearing house to accept the business of a competitor. The amendments will provide greater certainty to clearing houses regarding the circumstances in which the additional power of direction could be used.
To alleviate any remaining doubts from industry, I repeat the assurance that my noble friend has previously given the House: the power of direction relates only to the recognised clearing house itself. The Bank of England cannot use the power of direction to require shareholders, members or clients to recapitalise or otherwise fund a failing recognised clearing house, with one exception: where the UK clearing house already has recapitalisation arrangements and agreements in place with its shareholders. In this instance the Bank of England could use the power to direct the clearing house to enforce those arrangements, provided that the necessary conditions and safeguards were met. Furthermore, this power cannot be used retrospectively.
The Bank of England also expects to publish a supervisory approach document in the coming weeks. This will give further information on how powers of direction will fit within its wider supervisory powers over recognised clearing houses. I beg to move.
Baroness Cohen of Pimlico
I, too, am supporting a government amendment, though one that is not nearly as dramatic as that secured by my noble friend Lord Mitchell, whom I congratulate very much not only on doing it but on the thoroughness of his research. He actually took out a loan with one of these companies, an act of true heroism that I hope will not result in his being deluged with peculiar financial products for the rest of his life.
In welcoming this amendment, I remind the House once again that I am a non-executive director of the London Stock Exchange. I very much welcome the Government’s amendments to the powers of direction and the spirit of engagement that HM Treasury and the Bank have offered in dialogue on these matters, and which I know the industry will look to continue. The amendments provide useful further context for the use of the power. They put it mostly outside the scope of a day-to-day power, and reassure us that it will be used only when it is reasonably necessary to do so.
That said, it would be very helpful if the Minister were able to offer any further thinking on the circumstances in which it is envisaged that this power would be used, and took this opportunity to give us his vision for co-operation between HM Treasury, the FCA and the PRA in advising on the powers. All relevant authorities, particularly the Financial Conduct Authority as the market regulator, will need to consider the wider market impact of any proposed direction by the Bank.
Finally, the announcement that the Bank will be consulting on its supervisory approach before the end of the year is very good news. That will be an excellent opportunity for it to explain the intended circumstances under which the Section 296A power would be used, and more generally, I hope, to give an account of the Bank’s approach to capital requirements for clearing houses.
Lord Myners
Perhaps I may also ask a question following that of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer. The concept of interoperability is very important in the clearing of derivatives, so that corporates in particular can offset a position with one platform where they have a credit with another platform where they have a deficit. Will the Minister clarify that that involves a degree of mutualisation in the event of a failure of a platform because the failure of that platform will transfer to other platforms?
Lord Newby
My Lords, I am extremely grateful for the warm welcome that these amendments have received from across the House. I will deal with some of the specific questions that have been raised. The noble Baroness, Lady Cohen, asked about my vision for the way in which this provision would be used and how I saw the co-operation between the Bank, HM Treasury, the FCA and the PRA.
It may be marginally less than a vision but the situation would be that there is no requirement for the Bank to consult HMT or the other regulators before using the additional power of direction. This is because the additional power of direction is a supervisory tool and, as such, should not require the express permission of HMT before it is used. As I am sure noble Lords would agree, it is not necessary for regulators to consult with HMT before acting on day-to-day supervisory measures. It is also consistent with the similarly broad powers that the FSA currently has to vary permissions in the banking sector.
As for how the Bank intends to use its powers, as I said in my speech, it expects to publish a supervisory approach document in the coming week. Its purpose will be to give further information on how the powers of direction will fit within its wider supervisory powers over recognised clearing houses.
My noble friend Lady Kramer asked a number of questions about where the liabilities would lie and she set out her understanding of where they were. I can confirm that her view of where the powers lie is correct. As a final question, she asked about a backstop power and whether public funds were the backstop. That, of course, is the de facto position today. With this provision, we are seeking to put in place arrangements and resolution arrangements that would greatly reduce the likelihood of public funds being called upon by demonstrating in advance how these issues would be dealt with. I realise that that is a contentious statement because a number of noble Lords will no doubt think that it is extremely difficult to achieve that. Whether it is easy or difficult, that is what we are seeking to achieve by these powers and what the Bank will be trying to achieve.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, asked about going concerns or not-going concerns. The clause refers to a clearing house. It does not matter if the clearing house is no longer a regulated going concern, as I suspect he expected me to say.
The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, followed up on what the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, said. Perhaps the only additional comment I should make is that these powers now go beyond any resolution powers of which we are aware elsewhere in the EU, and they are part of our drive to ensure that London is the safest place—in the EU, at least, if not globally—to do financial services business.
The noble Lord, Lord Myners, asked me an extremely interesting question, which was also extremely technical. I hope he will not mind if I write to him about it. I beg to move.
Lord Newby
(a) a decision falling within any of paragraphs (a) to (c) of subsection (1) is taken—(i) by a person not directly involved in establishing the evidence on which the decision is based, or(ii) by 2 or more persons who include a person not directly involved in establishing that evidence,(b) a decision falling within paragraph (d) of subsection (1) is taken— (i) by a person other than the person by whom the decision was first proposed, or(ii) by 2 or more persons not including the person by whom the decision was first proposed, and(c) a decision falling within paragraph (d) of subsection (1) is taken in accordance with a procedure which is, as far as possible, the same as that applicable to a decision which gives rise to an obligation to give a warning notice and which falls within paragraph (b) or (c) of subsection (1).””
Lord Newby
Lord Newby
Lord Newby
Banks: Funding for Lending Scheme
Lord Newby Excerpts(11 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sharkey
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the performance to date of the Funding for Lending scheme.
Lord Newby
My Lords, we are still in the very early days of the scheme. However, initial indications have been positive. Bank funding costs have declined, mortgage availability has improved and quoted rates on fixed-rate mortgages have decreased since the scheme was announced. Participating banks have also introduced discounted loans for small and medium-sized companies.
Lord Sharkey
My Lords, there is a lot riding on the Funding for Lending scheme, but its current performance is far from clear. For example, in quarter 3, Barclays increased net lending by nearly £4 billion and the taxpayer banks—RBS and Lloyds—decreased lending by over £3 billion the same period. Overall, net lending to businesses continues to decline. Does the Minister agree that the Funding for Lending scheme can be judged a success only if it helps to produce an increase in lending to business, especially small businesses? Will he persuade the Bank to disaggregate the figures it publishes so that we can see exactly how much lending is going on to small businesses when we see the quarterly Funding for Lending scheme report?
Lord Newby
My Lords, one of the core principles and purposes behind the scheme is to increase lending to small and medium-sized businesses. We are confident that as the scheme gathers pace, it will be clearer that it has been effective. On figures on lending to small and medium-sized businesses, the Bank already publishes the quarterly Trends in Lending report, which covers SME lending. The most recent report was published in October. This report gives a very good time series about what is happening to lending to SMEs, and we are not convinced that having a second, broadly equivalent, series produced on a slightly different date would help to explain what is happening any more clearly than is already the case.
Lord Barnett
My Lords, the press to some extent has supported the Minister. The Financial Times said:
“The government’s flagship scheme to encourage banks to lend more to businesses and consumers is showing some signs of working—for banks, at least, if not yet for their customers”.
That is what most of the press have been saying: the banks have been taking the money and not lending it. If, in the process, the Bank of England loses money on the swaps it is doing on mortgages, will those losses be transferred to the Treasury in the same way as its profits were?
Lord Newby
My Lords, I think that the noble Lord is missing the fact that, over the period, the banks that are signed up to this scheme have made an additional £500,000 of loans to businesses and individuals. This is exactly what the scheme was intended to do. All the evidence is that the participating banks intend to use it to a greater extent in the future than they have up to now—it is very early days—and therefore I am sure that the question that the noble Lord has in his mind will not arise.
Lord Haskel
Did the Minister notice in today’s paper that some of the banks have not yet prepared their offer under this scheme? What are the Government doing to chivvy them up?
Lord Newby
The important thing is that the big banks have got a very clear offer. RBS, for example, has launched a £2.5 billion fund for SMEs specifically under this scheme, with the rate of interest charged being 1% less than would otherwise be the case. Lloyds TSB has also reduced its rate by 1% and noble Lords will no doubt have seen the double-page ads that it has taken out in the papers to persuade small businesses to take out a loan. Barclays has introduced a 2% “Cashback for Business”. So the big banks are already absolutely on the case; the smaller banks, which have signed up over a period, are, indeed, developing their offers.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, the Minister is surely guilty of great complacency. Is this scheme not going the same way as Merlin and various other efforts under this Government? Will he not acknowledge that £500,000 is a flea bite in terms of investment in our society and in business at the present time? Will he accept the fact, which he did not mention in his figures, that lending for business over the past quarter as a whole decreased by £3.3 billion? What on earth the Minister is doing producing complacent responses to these questions, I do not know. Do we not quite clearly need a British investment bank, backed by the Treasury, that can ensure that funds are made available to industry and business in order to guarantee recovery?
Lord Newby
My Lords, only a Labour Party Front-Bench spokesman could say that £500,000 is a flea bite. The figures show clearly that there is a realignment of activity in the lending market towards new entrants, which is exactly what the Government and, I think, the Opposition have been seeking to bring about. If we look at a bank such as Aldermore, it is just about the best performer in terms of increasing its size of offer. I am sure that noble Lords will be particularly pleased to see that the building society sector, with Nationwide very much in the lead, has significantly increased its lending specifically because we have the Funding for Lending scheme in place.
Financial Services Bill
Lord Newby Excerpts(11 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Newby
My Lords, this group of amendments was debated at length in Committee. I am sure that, like the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, many of us were indeed inspired by the way that my noble friend Lord Sassoon sought to reject them. Amendments 107AA and 107AB, and Amendments 107AD and 107AE, attempt to create an early warning system for public funds notifications. I understand that this reflects a concern on the Benches opposite that the drafting of the Bill—specifically, the legal effect of the term “material risk”—does not require the Bank to notify the Treasury in enough cases, even those in which there is a very low probability of public funds interventions being required.
After our debate in Committee, my noble friend Lord Sassoon asked Treasury officials and legal advisers to look again at the material risk wording to make absolutely clear that it delivers the low bar that we are looking for: a possibility test rather than a probability test. Our officials have concluded that the legal effect of the existing wording is indeed to require the Bank to notify the Treasury where there is a realistic possibility of circumstances arising in the future in which public funds could be put at risk. I do not think it would be appropriate to lower the bar even further from “material risk”. The result of doing so would be to require the Bank to notify relatively trivial and implausible risks, which could mean the Treasury receiving a large number of notifications of far-fetched risks that require no action or engagement from the Treasury whatever. I am satisfied that the material risk terminology will give us the right result.
Let me reassure the House that I agree entirely that the Treasury must be informed well in advance of a risk to public funds crystallising in order fully to consider and evaluate different options for managing or mitigating the risk and, ultimately, with a view to avoiding entirely any recourse to public funds. As my noble friend Lord Sassoon said in Committee, no one would be keener than us to have an early notification mechanism in place if we believed it necessary to achieve this aim. However, I am confident that the existing trigger in Clause 57 already sets the very low bar that we need.
The other aspect of these amendments is to extend the duty to notify to the PRA, FCA and FPC. I feel strongly that diluting accountability in this way would be a mistake. As we saw with the failed tripartite system, the clear disadvantage of spreading responsibility across several different organisations is that each can blame the others when things go wrong and risks can fall between the gaps. I believe that the system set out in the Bill, which makes the Bank the single point of responsibility for financial stability and crisis management, is the correct approach to eliminate confusion and overlap and ensure that the Treasury is always informed of risks to public funds.
In a similar vein, Amendments 107AC and 107AF seek to add references to risks to the objectives of the PRA and FCA into the notification duty. I can reassure the noble Lord that any risks that arise in the spheres of responsibility of the PRA and FCA that could potentially pose a threat to public funds must be notified to the Treasury by the Bank in the normal way. As was made clear in Committee, the duty to notify the Treasury of risks to public funds will require the Bank and its senior management to identify and evaluate risks emanating from all parts of the financial sector, working closely with the PRA and the FCA. The Bill itself places duties on the PRA and the FCA to co-ordinate with the Bank in this work. New Section 3P(1)(b) of FiSMA, as inserted by Clause 6 of the Bill, requires the regulators to take steps to co-operate with the Bank in connection with its duty to notify the Treasury of risks to public funds. We believe that that is an adequate provision.
Amendment 107AG would add “comprehensive” to the requirement that the crisis management MoU make provision regarding the obtaining and sharing of information. I do not quite see what “comprehensive” would add. Surely the most sensible approach here is for the Treasury and the Bank to agree between themselves what information the Treasury would find useful, including the format of the information and its frequency. That is exactly the approach taken in the MoU. Paragraph 18 makes it clear that the Treasury and the Bank will determine between themselves a suitable frequency for updates on each different risk, reflecting the severity and immediacy of the risk to public funds. Paragraph 21 states:
“The Bank will provide the Treasury with information needed on the options for managing the situation, including on options commissioned by the Treasury”.
I therefore do not think that Amendment 107AG is necessary.
Amendment 107AH attempts to turn the MoU into a piece of secondary legislation, subject to parliamentary approval via the affirmative process. I agree with the noble Lord that the MoU is a very important document, which sets out how the Bank and Treasury will interact in a crisis, to a level of detail and in a style that simply would not be possible in legislation, either primary or secondary. Having looked again at the MoU, I continue to believe that its content and style make it unsuitable for inclusion in secondary legislation. I would be loath to lose the level of nuance and detail that is currently included in the draft MoU but which is not legislative in nature. It would also make the MoU less flexible and make it more difficult for the Bank and Treasury to adapt or change the MoU to reflect changing circumstances. On the basis of these explanations, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Eatwell
Will the Minister explain why he always qualified the notion of “threat” as a threat to public funds and failed to accept the argument of serious threats to the financial system that do not necessarily pose a direct threat to public funds?
Lord Newby
The reference in the Bill to public funds goes to the heart of the Treasury’s responsibility vis-à-vis the regulators in managing the financial services sector, and we have been very clear that we want to do that. On the more general issues that the Bank may want to raise with the Treasury, which go beyond a risk to public funds, the Bank and the Treasury are in regular contact via non-statutory routes, as it were, which give ample opportunity for the two to discuss at great length and with great frequency any emerging issues that they feel the other should be aware of.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, I support the excellent amendment moved by my noble friend Lord McFall of Alcluith. He ended with a rhetorical flourish about the way in which debt imprisons many people. I want to support him in that, because he made the point very well. He also explained in some detail the recent OFT guidance note which, as he says, is all very well and then he made some important points about timing and language and about the fact that the basic relationship between those who have debts and those who take out a CPA in order to resolve them is, in fact, wrong.
I would like to add a couple of points. It is interesting that the last Financial Ombudsman Service annual review picked up on this issue. It says:
“During the year, we also began to see a rise in the number of complaints involving short-term finance—often called ‘payday loans’. We had previously received relatively few complaints about this type of lending—59 cases in 2010/211, rising to 296 in 2011/2012. In many of the cases we saw during the year, the complaints involved the way in which the lender had operated the payment authority given to them by the consumer”.
I checked back with the FOS earlier today and I gather there has been a considerable rise in the number of payday lending complaints brought to the ombudsman so far this year; they are now running at about 50 new cases a month. This amendment ensures that debtors are informed about their rights; that only the debtor may cancel or vary a CPA and, furthermore, that the debtor’s bank is obliged to comply with the debtor’s instructions. We support the amendment.
Lord Newby
My Lords, this amendment puts on the face of the Bill a number of requirements on firms and consumers in relation to the use of the continuous payment authority. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McFall, for raising the issue. It brings us back, of course, to the very important issue of payday loans, which we were discussing earlier this afternoon. Abuse of the CPA is one of the most concerning practices of payday lenders. It does not mean that the CPA is universally the wrong method to use; it can help consumers administer their financial affairs with the minimum of fuss. However, there is clearly a problem.
As the noble Lord, Lord McFall, said, CPA is a recurring payment mechanism involving a debit or credit card; it allows a firm to take regular payments from a customer’s bank account without having to seek express authorisation for each payment. The OFT, as he set out in some detail, has highlighted its concerns in this area, particularly concerns that payday lenders are not explaining CPAs to consumers adequately and are using them in ways which do not take account of the possibility that the borrower is in financial difficulty and unable to repay. It is also concerned that lenders are, in effect, using CPA to securitise the loan and so may not make adequate checks on affordability. There is also evidence that some lenders mislead consumers about their right to cancel a CPA or put obstacles in the way of cancelling.
As the noble Lord explained, last week the OFT published revised guidance with the aim of ensuring that firms with a consumer credit licence do not misuse CPAs. The guidance makes it clear that the OFT expects lenders’ use of CPAs to be reasonable and proportionate, and that lenders must have regard to a borrower’s financial position when exercising a CPA. If a firm breaches this guidance and the OFT believes that this compromises the firm’s fitness to hold a credit licence, it can take enforcement action. The Bill gives the OFT the power to suspend consumer credit licences with immediate effect. Therefore, to that extent, there is a new power here which can be used to address the problem. We believe it is right that the OFT is taking action on this now and the Government welcome the new guidance.
However, like the noble Lord, I think that regulatory powers to address the abuse of CPAs and to ensure that consumers are protected need to be strengthened. The FSA has already made binding rules covering the use of CPAs by firms that it regulates. Once the regulation of consumer credit moves to the FCA in 2014, it will be able to extend those rules to payday lenders, which will be a major step-change in regulation of the payday loans market. I am pleased to inform the noble Lord that the FSA has confirmed its intention to carry across OFT standards on the use of CPAs when the transfer takes place to ensure that these consumer protections remain.
However, I do not agree that these requirements should be set out in statute, as the noble Lord’s amendment proposes, rather than in FCA rules. Overreliance on statute is exactly the problem that we have faced in the current regulatory regime, which relies on powers set out in the Consumer Credit Act and has resulted in an inflexible regulatory regime which cannot respond quickly to all the developments in the market and risks leaving consumers exposed to detrimental practices. Addressing this through rules will allow the FCA to impose requirements to address issues relating to the misuse of CPAs that might emerge in the future.
I hope that the noble Lord is able to take some comfort from the commitments made by the Government earlier in this debate on introducing new explicit powers for the FCA and giving the FCA a strong mandate to step in to tackle detriment caused by firms in the payday loans sector. I hope he is also assured that the FCA will have a strong and flexible toolkit at its disposal to ensure that CPAs are not abused by payday lenders. In the light of those comments, I hope that the noble Lord feels able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
Before the noble Lord sits down, I should like to ask two questions. First, is there anything in the nature of a direct debit guarantee for the CPA system? Secondly, is it only people with credit licences who go in for being recipients of these payments?
Lord Newby
My Lords, I do not believe that there is a guarantee. I think that the vast bulk of people who use this system will fall into the category that the noble and learned Lord asked about. However, I will check and will write to him if there is any further information that I can give him to explain those points more fully.
Lord McFall of Alcluith
My Lords, CPAs are different from direct debits, as I made clear. Given the legislative complacency in the consumer credit field, I am very unhappy with the notion of guidance. I think that we sent out a message from the Lords today on an earlier amendment, and it was good to have cross-party consensus on that. There are glaring injustices and it is very important that we reinforce that message in the House today. I should therefore like to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, this is a technical amendment to cover a gap which I would have hoped the Government would have covered by now. It is an amendment to the Legal Services Act 2007 and it deals with complaints from consumers about the activities of claims management companies, about which we have heard a fair amount in this House, particularly at the initiative of my noble friend Lord Kennedy of Southwark.
The purpose of the amendment is to enable the Office for Legal Complaints, that is to say the Legal Ombudsman, to receive payments from the Lord Chancellor under Section 172 of that Act for its costs in relation to handling complaints against those claims management companies.
There has been a pretty widespread air of complaint in this House and in wider society about the activities of claims management companies. Citizens Advice has identified a whole range of problems in this area, from the time and resources wasted on invalid claims through to the aggressive, intrusive and often offensive methods of marketing. I suspect most noble Lords have received an odd text within the past few days, offering them untold riches under the PPI arrangements. It is not just consumer groups that want action on this front. The FLA—the Finance and Leasing Association—would look for an improvement to CMC regulation and, in particular, the tens of thousands of unfounded claims received from CMCs in respect of products which, as we all know, were never sold in the first place. This is a huge irritation which is misleading for consumers and diverts activity for providers, so we need a complaints system which is recognised as robust by consumers and providers alike. We want the Legal Ombudsman service to be able to accept complaints against claims management companies that breach the regulation.
Following discussion on several occasions in this House, the Minister has assured us that regulation is being tightened up to stamp out some of the more horrendous practices that we have heard about and, indeed, been subject to. One of these assurances was in relation to access to redress for consumers. The Government announced on 28 August that complaints handling companies would be handled by the Legal Ombudsman, using the powers under the Act to which this is an amendment. That was repeated by the Minister on 20 November in response to a debate introduced by my noble friend Lord Kennedy. However, I now understand that, due to the Government’s decision to leave claims management regulation within the department —as distinct from an outside regulator—the provisions that would have allowed the Legal Services Board to levy the claims management regulator for Legal Ombudsman expenditure are now deemed unworkable.
The amendment therefore seeks to remedy that position. It allows the Lord Chancellor—in other words the Ministry of Justice, which is, effectively, the claims management regulator—to make payments direct to the Legal Ombudsman without any subsidy by existing ombudsman levy-payers, who are lawyers and are not, of course, party to these complaints.
My understanding is that such money would need to come from a levy on claims management companies rather than the general taxpayer—quite right, too—and that the only effect of the amendment would be to allow the only body with authority to levy them, the Ministry of Justice, to pass such funds to the Legal Ombudsman. Despite this being a levy on these firms, the Treasury has stated that, under the Legal Services Act as currently drafted, the Secretary of State as the regulator of claims management services cannot be designated a leviable body for Legal Ombudsman purposes. The levy is technically considered a tax, and thus a public body, the Legal Services Board as the collector of the levy, cannot impose a tax on government.
It is for this reason that primary legislation to amend the Act is needed. I hope that the Minister, who is supportive of action on this front, can support the amendment. The legislative change that is needed to facilitate it must happen immediately, so that consumers are not left without a course of redress. This is necessary so that the ombudsman can handle complaints as well as provide better intelligence to the regulator and the industry to drive better practice.
Amendment 120, which complements the first amendment, would allow the technicalities to come into force immediately on Royal Assent without further, secondary legislation being required. It seeks to cover a gap in the present arrangements. The Minister may have a better way of so doing. If so, it is a pity that he has not come forward with it already. Nevertheless, I am prepared to hear what he says. If he is prepared to bring forward an alternative amendment which covers the same points at Third Reading or ensures that there is provision for the Legal Ombudsman to be financed in this way, I will probably be prepared to withdraw the amendment. However, it is a gap that needs covering. At this relatively late stage of the Bill, a commitment from the Government to do so is necessary. I beg to move.
Lord Newby
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said, the amendment seeks to amend the Legal Services Act 2007 to facilitate the expansion of the Office for Legal Complaints ombudsman scheme to encompass the handling of complaints about claims management companies, on which we have spent considerable time while discussing the Bill in your Lordships’ House. I understand that its specific aim is to prevent any costs incurred by the OLC in respect of claims management companies being passed on to the wider legal services profession.
The Government have announced that the OLC will assume responsibility for the handling of claims management companies next year. They stand by that commitment. I agree with the noble Lord that it is important for consumers of claims management companies to have greater access to redress when things go wrong. As a result of the Government’s policy, the OLC will be in a position to provide more meaningful forms of redress, including compensation up to £30,000 if appropriate. This compares with the current arrangements, under which the regulator can only direct businesses to apologise, redo work and, in limited circumstances, provide a full or partial refund of fees. In addition, the OLC will be able to use the feedback from complaints that it receives to assist the claims management regulator in driving up standards within the sector.
I understand the desire to implement this change as soon as possible given the proliferation of complaints about the conduct of this sector, but we are very concerned to get it right. That means ensuring that the necessary funding, regulatory and operational arrangements are in place before we commence the provisions in the Legal Services Act 2007. This amendment would not achieve that outcome. For example, it is right that the wider legal profession should not cross-subsidise claims management companies. Conversely, we need to ensure that legal firms do not gain any unintended benefit when the Legal Ombudsman assumes its new powers. Under this amendment, the wider legal profession would benefit because case-fee income generated by the ombudsman in respect of claims management companies would be deducted from the levy they have to pay.
The Government’s position, then, is absolutely clear: the wider legal profession should not bear the cost of dealing with complaints about that sector. On this we are in agreement with the noble Lord and the arrangements we put in place will be consistent with that principle. I reiterate our commitment to implementing the changes in 2013 and I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, I appreciate what the Minister said, but I am not quite clear how this then operates. We are at one in believing that the broader legal profession should not be levied for instances which relate to claims management companies—that is clearly a red line and it should be avoided—but in order to avoid it, the Legal Ombudsman, the OLC, will need to have some resources from a levy, or quasi-levy, from the CMC, unless this is to be a matter for general taxation, which would not seem to be appropriate and I do not think is the Government’s intention. Therefore, the Government need powers rapidly in order to have a levy system there, which presumably, as I said in my opening remarks, would have to be via the Ministry of Justice, even though the money would then be passed over to the OLC.
I am not sure what the Minister means when he says that we will sort this out in 2013. Does he mean that, while the other provisions of the Bill will apply, we will need further primary legislation; or does he mean that there will be almost instant secondary legislation under the Bill to ensure that that happens? Because one way or another, for that to be achieved by 2013, which is only about four weeks off—although I guess that he has the whole 12 months to fulfil his intention—a whole pile of complaints that are manifold at the moment will be held up for some months before they can go into the system and the Office for Legal Complaints will be able to deal with them.
I accept the Government’s good will and good intent in this respect, but I still think that the precise system on which it operates needs to be spelled out and that we need to be assured that it will be in place pretty much at the same time as the Bill is passed. I hope that the Minister can give that assurance; alternatively, he could come back with something else at Third Reading. I did not think that he went as far as that in his remarks.
Lord Newby
My Lords, I did not go as far as that, in terms of amendments at Third Reading, and I am not going to go as far as that now. As I said, the new system will not come into force immediately, but it will come into force during the course of 2013. I will write to the noble Lord if I am wrong about this, but my understanding is that the funding that is required from the claims management company sector, as it were, will come from the levy, which is being increased at the moment. If I am wrong in that, I will write to the noble Lord.
Lord Whitty
I appreciate that having it exactly at the point of Royal Assent is not necessarily the point; the point is that when these provisions come into play there will be resources to cover it. I would be grateful to receive a letter from the Minister and, with that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Financial Services Bill
Lord Newby Excerpts(11 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Eatwell
My Lords, the government Front Bench should calm down and allow us to conduct this discussion broadly under Report mechanisms but in a way which takes us forward on what, as my noble friend has said, is an enormously complicated Bill.
I am afraid that I think the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Flight, is unfortunate and I cannot support it. It is unreasonable to provide this sort of protection to financial advisers, who should take full and appropriate care in the advice that they give. If they have taken full and appropriate care, they will be able to defend themselves at a later stage against the problem that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, raised a few minutes ago, but I think it inappropriate that they should not be sensitive to potential comeback for advice which is inappropriate and misconceived.
Lord Newby
My Lords, when we debated this issue in Committee, my noble friend Lord Sassoon made it clear that this was an important issue for the regulator to review. The FSA has now committed to consider whether to investigate the case for a longstop as part of its business planning for 2014-15.
The amendment deals with the Limitation Act. It is important to be clear about both the nature of the issue and why I do not think that requiring the regulators to apply the Limitation Act when making rules provides the solution.
First, it is important to be clear that time limits apply for consumers bringing complaints to the FOS. These are: six years from the event that the consumer is complaining about, or, if later, three years after the consumer became aware, or ought to have become reasonably aware, that they had cause for complaint. The question which we are now debating is whether there should be a further absolute or overriding limit, possibly of 15 years. This is an extremely important question for the regulator to review and it is clear that it needs to take into account the particular features of financial services and financial service products in doing so.
When the FSA considered the issue previously, it noted that the long-term nature of some financial services products means that it can take many years for consumers to be made aware that they may have suffered detriment. An example from recent years includes inappropriate pension advice to switch from one investment or one type of pension to another. Consumers did not necessarily realise that this advice was inappropriate until many years later and as they approached retirement. This kind of advice was the subject of the FSA’s pensions review covering the period 1988 to 1994, and concerns about advice given in this period came to light only some years later. Advice from this period is still the subject of consumer complaints now.
It is important to realise that many of the matters that the FCA or PRA, or indeed the FOS, which is also relevant here, will be dealing with will not be subject to the Limitation Act at all. The Act applies to certain causes of action in private law, such as actions for breach of contract or negligence, but the FOS is required to determine cases by reference to what is,
“fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case”.
In some cases, there will be no private law course of action and so nothing for the Limitation Act to apply to.
It is also worth remembering that the Limitation Act is very context-specific legislation. Time limits vary considerably according to the nature of the claim; for example, the time limit for libel is one year whereas for negligence it is six years. The time limit also varies on the facts of the case. For example, it is extended in certain cases involving fraud or where the claimant has a disability. Even the 15-year, longstop period that applies in cases of negligence has exceptions—for example, for claims involving personal injury. Therefore, it would be particularly inappropriate as a guide for the FCA in its rule-making powers. It would be next to impossible for the FCA to know how the Limitation Act would apply to all the cases that could be subject to any proposed rule. Far from bringing the financial services into line with other sectors, we would, in our view, be failing to acknowledge that in financial services, as in other sectors, there are many claims to which the Limitation Act does not apply.
Having said that, the regulator will look again at the case for a longstop. In view of my arguments and this commitment by the regulator, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Flight
My Lords, the key point here is that, in setting the rules for the Financial Ombudsman Service, the FSA decided that no reasonable limit would be provided and that complaints should be brought for an unlimited period of time. This is effectively where the financial adviser industry does not, therefore, have the protection of the statute of limitations.
This area needs to be looked at urgently. I repeat that looking at it in Section 204 is not urgent enough because, assuming that the RDR reforms are not changed, a large number of financial advisers will be going out of business in 2013. For their clients, the best hope is that it will be possible to sell those businesses on to somebody else, but obviously none of them can be sold if there is an unknown exposure to complaints down the line. For better or worse, it is well known that the industry feels extremely upset about the fact that it is picked on in this particular way.
I can see that I will not be able to persuade the Government to do anything immediately and that what we have is at least better than nothing. However, I repeat my exhortation that the Government should consider working with the FSA for a greater urgency in this matter so as it might be addressed coincidently with the RDR. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Newby
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, I support, dot and comma, everything that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, said. The three amendments in this group are couched in prudent terms that give discretion to the FCA to recognise the fact that, to use the adage, one size does not fit all. If there is in this world one great gulf, it is between some of the more sophisticated, City-type deposit funds and, at the other side of the sea, those of charities. The discretion is confined expressly to charities, or funds, I should say, established under the Charities Act 1960, the Charities Act 1993 or the Charities Act 2011, which, in my view, provides the necessary reassurance that this cannot be a horse that runs wild. I hope, therefore, that the Government will feel free to accept this group of amendments.
Lord Newby
My Lords, I have just discovered that I need to declare an interest in relation to these amendments. I have been looking at the small number of existing CDFs, and I see that one of them is the Church of England Deposit Fund, which I suspect is a significant part of the Church of England’s investment. This almost certainly means that my wife’s pension depends on this fund doing well. So, speaking personally, I have every incentive to ensure that these funds are appropriately regulated. In any event, I was minded to declare an interest.
I shall take the amendments in turn. In his report on the review of the Charities Act 2006, my noble friend recommended that:
“Regulation of Common Investment and Common Deposit Funds should pass from the Charity Commission to the FSA, as the Commission does not have the expertise to regulate what are primarily financial products (albeit only available to charities)”.
He has set out today why he has concerns that the regulatory approach by the PRA or FCA may not be appropriate for these very specific structures. The amendments would require the regulators to set out, as part of their consultation, where they see rules or requirements having a particular impact on CIFs or CDFs, and gives the Treasury the power to disapply requirements that apply to collective investment schemes. I will briefly set out why I think that these amendments are not appropriate or necessary, while agreeing absolutely with the thrust of my noble friend’s sentiments about them.
First, we do not believe that they are appropriate because they pre-empt the decision on whether the regulation of CIFs and CDFs should be transferred to the FSA, and later the new regulators. The Government have not yet responded to my noble friend’s report, and I do not want to use this debate on one of his proposals to pre-empt the full and proper response to the report as a whole which the Government will publish soon. In addition, in his report my noble friend notes that the Treasury,
“is already considering how best to reform the regulation of CIFs and CDFs as part of their work to implement the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive (AIFMD), and as part of this are considering possible legislative opportunities”.
That is, of course, correct and the Government will therefore set out their position on this matter when they consult on their approach on implementing the AIFMD early in the new year and respond to my noble friend’s report at that point.
I do not think that these amendments are necessary or appropriate even if the regulation of these funds moves across to the FCA. They are not necessary because the regulator already has to take a proportionate approach, sensitive to the needs and goals of different types of financial institutions and the needs and objectives of different consumers. Earlier on Report we debated and approved two government amendments requiring the FCA to have regard to the differing expectations of different consumers and to the desirability of exercising its functions in a way that recognises the differences in the nature and objectives of different businesses. While we were talking at that point principally about various social investment vehicles, the thoughts and principles which underlay our tabling of those amendments apply equally to these amendments; namely, that this is a specific small sector that needs to be dealt with differently from the rest of regulation and that the FCA needs to know from the start that it is expected to show sensitivity and proportionality in dealing with these different and rather unusual categories. That is what our amendments seek to achieve and we are confident that they will have that effect.
The regulators will have other tools to consider the needs of individual institutions, such as the ones that we are talking about under these amendments. For example, they can issue a waiver from a rule, meaning that a particular firm does not have to comply with a requirement, or issue a modification to a rule that enables the applicant to comply with an amended rule that better fits its own circumstances. All applications for waivers or modifications are considered on their individual merits, and there is no reason why rules that apply appropriately to other, larger and different sorts of funds should necessarily apply to the funds that we are discussing now, because the waiver can be brought into effect. There is therefore no need to give the Treasury the kind of power envisaged by Amendment 116A, which would cut across the independence of the regulator. I hope that I have been able to persuade my noble friend that we are sympathetic to what he is seeking to achieve and that we believe that the amendments we have put into the Bill will achieve the objectives that he is seeking. I hope that, in the light of that, he will feel able to withdraw his amendments.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
My Lords, I am grateful for that extensive and full reply, and I appreciate its sympathetic tone. I also recognise that we have had two amendments from the Government in Committee and on Report, broadening, and better addressing, the issue of social investment. My concern remains that, in the heavy-hitting consultation on things like the alternative investment fund managers directive, small battalions will get lost. However, the Minister has said that the Treasury and the FCA will be sensitive and proportionate, and I suppose that is as far as we are going to get today. I am grateful for that small step, and we shall be watching to see how sensitive and proportionate they are. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Barnett
The FCA is the regulator but the OFT is referred to throughout this section of the Bill. Now, under new Section 140A, we have the FCA as well. This new section is headed, “Interpretation”, which should be interpreting for us—although I am blessed if I am interpreted in that sense. Consultation between the bodies must be sensible. I assumed that that would happen and I assume that the Minister will tell us that this amendment again is unnecessary and therefore should not be in the Bill. The officials should reply to this debate because only they understand what is being talked about because they drafted it. I assume that the Minister was not responsible for the drafting: he has enough to do without drafting a Bill of this size.
Who is the regulator here? If it is the FCA, what is the OFT doing? Perhaps the Minister will tell us. Who is the lead regulator? Is it the FCA, as is implied here, or the OFT? I am totally confused but, no doubt, he will be able to explain everything because it is written there in front of him.
Lord Newby
My Lords, perhaps I may deal first with the amendments and then come on to some of the specific points that noble Lords have made about them.
The amendment and Amendment 106ZB would require the FCA to put in place a statutory MoU with the competition authority. Amendment 86A would additionally restrict the competition authority to carrying out market studies in financial services markets only in exceptional circumstances.
Amendment 106ZA seeks to provide for market investigation reference powers for the FCA. There are differing views on whether the FCA should have market investigation powers. The Government accepted the recommendation of the Treasury Select Committee that the case for MIR powers had not yet been made and that the issue should be reviewed when the FCA had bedded into that new role. The Bill instead gives the FCA a power to make a reference to the OFT or, in future, the Competition and Markets Authority, which would be very similar to a market investigation reference power but would leave the decision over whether to launch a second phase of investigation with the OFT or the Competition and Markets Authority. The OFT may choose to make an MIR without carrying out a further market study of its own, thereby avoiding duplication and delay.
However, before the FCA has fully bedded into its new role, it is important that the OFT, which has established competition experience and a track record of making MIRs, does not step back from competition scrutiny of financial services markets. It will of course be important that the FCA and OFT co-ordinate closely. We obviously agree with Amendment 106ZB in that respect. The FSA and OFT already have an MoU in place and are working to put in place a new MoU for the FCA. There is therefore no need for statutory provision to make this happen. There will be an MoU that deals with the issue of co-ordination on all these matters. We think that that amendment is unnecessary, because it is happening already.
Amendment 86A goes further than merely requiring an MoU and seeks to restrict the competition authority to carrying out market studies only in exceptional circumstances. However that is too rigid an approach. The underlying focus should be on the promotion of effective competition in the interests of consumers, and tying the competition authority’s hands is not the way to achieve that.
In terms of who takes the lead and is best qualified to do so, the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, answer that question. There will be some areas where the competition authority is simply best placed to take the lead, when compared to the financial regulators, because the competition authority has had decades of experience of that. We do not want to throw away all that experience by being too prescriptive about who takes the lead.
As to the specific comments that noble Lords have made, I was extremely grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, for referring to the clear BIS advice, which not all noble Lords will have heard before. I am sure that she will agree with me, and they will agree with her, that it was very helpful.
In terms of competition and making sure that there are more new entrants into the financial services market, not least in banking, we have had this debate at every stage of the Bill. The Government have made it clear that they are extremely keen to see greater competition, not least in banking, but that is not done by putting detailed rules into the Bill, other than a general rule to promote competition; it is something for the regulators to reflect in changed rule-making powers of their own.
The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, reinforced the view that we need to promote competition. This is an example of how we are trying to make sure that the legislation goes far enough in this area. The noble Lord will be aware that under a government amendment debated last week, the PRA will be required to have regard to competition as one of its objectives. This has been a long-discussed point: will the PRA be so risk averse that it chokes off competition or will it not? We hope that by agreeing the amendment a few days ago, we made it clear that competition is absolutely central, and that everybody in the regulatory environment, including the PRA, will have to take it seriously.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, asked about the reference in new Section 140B(5) on page 107 to the,
“acquisition of any goods or services”.
It does not say “financial services”, but the subsection relates to new Section 140B(4) above it. These matters all relate to the actions of the regulators, who have powers only in relation to financial services. The whole context of the subsection relates to financial services.
Lord Peston
I am having great difficulty remembering what the rules are. If the Government meant that, why did they not say it? The subsection refers to “any goods or services”, not “any financial services” or “only financial services”. I assumed that it had a meaning, but the Minister is now telling me that it does not. Is he sure that he wants to give the answer that he is giving?
Lord Newby
My Lords, I am sure that the phrase has a meaning, and I like to think that it is the meaning that I just ascribed to it. I will look at it again, and if I find that I have misled the noble Lord and the House, I will write to him. As with so much of the Bill, this is an extremely technical section. However, I am assured and believe that it relates only to the financial services sector.
I referred to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, about the importance of allowing the competition bodies to take the lead in certain cases. That in part answered the question of the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, about who was the main regulator. The main regulator is the body that is best capable of dealing with each issue. In some cases that will be the FCA, and in others, it will be the OFT or its successor. For the time being, the OFT and its successor and the FCA will have powers in this area. The logical thing is to let them exercise those powers in the way that will use their experience most effectively.
Lord Peston
The Minister does not seem to have answered my other main question. The title of the new section is,
“Advice about effect of regulating provision or practice”.
It refers to advice that the competition authority gives to the regulator; that is what the section is about. Am I right in my interpretation that the section is about the activities of the regulator in damaging competition, rather than about the activities of financial services providers? I sought clarification from the Minister on whether the words in the new section mean what clearly they say about advice from the competition authorities to the regulator. That is what it says.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Newby, for making my case. He said that who the lead regulator is will depend on the issue. The bodies will have to work closely together. The one thing that he did not explain was why on earth we should not write into the Bill that the two regulators should co-ordinate and have a memorandum of understanding. It seems a simple point.
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Trenchard and Lord Phillips, and my noble friends Lord Peston and Lord Barnett, for their support. I also thank my noble friend Lord Borrie, whose advice, given that he was director general of the OFT, I take seriously. The last of the three amendments does not touch on the difficult issue he raised, that is, laying down who does what. It basically says there should be a MoU between these two very important issues. The Minister says not to worry, that there is one and they are working on it, but in the interests of transparency, I would have preferred to see it statutory and therefore published. However he is clearly not going to give way on that, so I fear I must. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Financial Services Bill
Lord Newby Excerpts(11 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
I rise briefly to support these amendments. They seem extremely sensible. I do not want to repeat what the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, has just said. I like the idea of “may”; I like the idea of self-regulation; and I like the chance for the industry to be able to put its house in order. That is clearly very sensible. The only point I would add is that we now have a situation where a substantial proportion of claims coming forward are fraudulent, semi-fraudulent or unjustified. In each case, the firm about whom the complaint is made must pay £850 to have the case investigated. That is a staggering sum of money and it ends up being paid by the consumers. We really need to find a way to short-circuit that, so that where the claims are fraudulent, something can be done to ensure that the claims management companies, rather than the firm, end up with some of the costs—and, indeed, to ensure that the costs are not passed on to the rest of us. There is a good idea here. I hope that the Government will give the amendments a sympathetic hearing.
Lord Newby
My Lords, clearly there are serious conduct problems among a minority of claims management companies. Nobody denies that. We are all too well aware that the reaction of the claims industry to the mass mis-selling of payment protection insurance has also brought with it a fall in compliance standards and an increase in poor practices, to some of which the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, referred. He said that something needs to be done. Something is being done. The claims management regulator is taking forward a programme of reforms which are due to be implemented next year. These include a ban on claims management companies offering financial rewards or similar benefits as an inducement to make a claim; tightening the conduct rules so that the requirements of authorisation are made clearer and protection for consumers is strengthened; and extending the role of the Legal Ombudsman to act as an ombudsman for consumers with complaints about claims management companies, which I think deals with some of the points that were made about the ombudsman.
However, we will continue to require a robust and co-ordinated approach from both the claims management regulator and the FCA in responding to risks of detriment. That starts with the financial services regulator. Lessons have been learnt from PPI. The FCA will have an objective requiring it to intervene earlier to prevent detriment arising and, where mass detriment is occurring, use its powers to establish or agree redress schemes so that affected customers are proactively contacted and compensated. We have seen the FSA already moving much more quickly to agree redress schemes with the major banks in relation to the interest rate hedge mis-selling.
However, where CMCs have a role to play, consumers already seeking redress need to be protected against further detriment. So we will see the claims management regulator stepping up its approach and resources devoted to tackling the underlying problems that exist in the conduct of some CMCs. We have already seen the establishment of a specialist PPI compliance team at the claims management regulator. To ensure that the regulator is sufficiently funded going forward, the MoJ is proposing to increase fees levied on CMCs, particularly those operating in the financial products and services sector.
However, I am not convinced that institutional reform is necessarily the answer. At the moment, it could represent a distraction from the task at hand, particularly given everything else that is happening in changing the financial sector regulatory architecture. It is important to remember that CMCs operate in a number of sectors, not just financial services. In fact, personal injury remains the largest sector. PPI is a very significant sector currently, but the next wave of activity and potential detriment may come from another sector. As I have said before, we do not think that it is appropriate for the FOS to act as a quasi-regulator, as the amendments propose. That would detract from its role as an independent ombudsman. It is simply not what an ombudsman does. That is why it does not matter whether the clause says “must” or “may”. Our objection is not about that; it is that an ombudsman is not the right person to act as a quasi-regulator. The regulators do that. The ombudsman looks at particular claims of mistreatment.
Amendment 101A would simply provide an enabling power. However, it is making a proposal in terms of institutional change which we think is inappropriate. That is not to say that the Government are complacent in any respect about the need to do more in terms of the regulation of CMCs. The range of activities that I have mentioned gives us cause to believe that we will see a very significant increase in the effectiveness of regulation in the period ahead. In the light of that, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate. I thank my noble friend Lord Eatwell and the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, for their support. The Minister’s response was very disappointing. He knows that I have pursued this matter for some time now. Yes, some action may be taking place, but the problem is that the rules in place are inadequate and are not properly enforced. Nothing that the noble Lord has said today in his response has convinced me otherwise. In that case, I should like to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Newby
My Lords, we of course accept that consumers, including small to medium-sized enterprises, should have appropriate access to redress in respect of financial services as much as to everything else.
On collective proceedings in the financial services sector, we are as we said in Committee awaiting the outcome of the BIS consultation on private actions in competition law, which considers introducing an opt-out collective actions regime for competition law. We shall see what the implications may be for the financial services sector. The Government are hoping to publish their response to that consultation around the end of the year.
If the Government conclude that it is appropriate to legislate more specifically for financial services, any proposals must be the result of evidence-based analysis, taking into account the conclusions of the consultation into private actions in competition law, and they must also be subject to proper consultation.
On super-complaints more generally, which were covered by the amendment, I remind the House that the Bill already provides for designated consumer bodies to make complaints to the FCA. This may include representatives of business consumers provided that they are not authorised persons. The Government are already consulting on the criteria that the Treasury should apply when designating consumer bodies for this purpose and have made clear their intention to designate bodies which represent primarily the interests of retail consumers or SMEs as super-complainants. There is no further provision to allow this.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, asked when SMEs would be designated, to which the answer is: by 1 April next year. She also asked about dealing with complaints relating to the banks in respect of PRA matters. The FCA is the lead body. One makes one’s representation to the FCA. As we have discussed many times, there is a raft of areas where the FCA and the PRA have joint responsibility, and MoUs will deal with that. It therefore seems much more logical to have just one body which is responsible for this kind of complaint and then deals with it as it would deal with other complaints, working closely with the PRA as necessary.
The Government agree with everything that has been said about the importance of the issue. We do not reject outright the idea of collective proceedings in the financial services sector; what we do reject is the proposal that we should legislate now on this matter without considering fully the evidence as to what the implications of changing the law would be. The Government have already committed to consider the implications of the BIS consultation for the financial services sector and we do not want to pre-empt that. In the light of that, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, I am tempted to reflect that in the difficult, dying days of the previous Administration, the Treasury—contrary to its previous history—was prepared to go ahead of the game in relation to consumers’ rights. Under Alistair Darling, it was prepared to propose in the 2010 Bill, which was attenuated in view of the general election, very substantial provision for collective redress. It is a pity that, under new management, the Treasury is being more diffident and unusually deferential to BIS in this respect. Under BIS and its predecessor departments, all of us who have been involved in the consumer movement know that this issue of collective redress has been kicking around for at least 20 years under various guises and that the department has still not yet come up with a very firm proposition.
Nevertheless, I am glad that the Minister is now saying that we will see the result of BIS’s considerations before Christmas. I hope that we will therefore see these if not in the enterprise Bill that is already here, which would be a very convenient vehicle, then in an early Bill from BIS. Also, because of the—if you like—scandals in the financial services area, it might have been better had the financial services and their regulators moved more rapidly.
I will not take this to a vote tonight. However, I suspect that, if they are not careful, Ministers might regret not having these provisions on the statute book at an earlier date. However, if this is the situation, I beg leave to withdraw and, with this one, wish the Government luck.
Lord Newby
“(2) For subsection (2) substitute—
“(2) If the administrator thinks that the company or partnership is carrying on, or has carried on—
(a) a regulated activity in contravention of the general prohibition, or(b) a credit-related regulated activity in contravention of section 20,the administrator must report the matter to the appropriate regulator without delay.””
Lord Newby
“( ) after that definition insert—““credit-related regulated activity” has the meaning given in section 23(1B);””
Lord Newby
Banking: Offshore Accounts
Lord Newby Excerpts(11 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Crosby
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what estimate HM Revenue and Customs has made of the value of offshore accounts held by British citizens in the Channel Islands; and what steps are being taken to investigate them.
Lord Newby
My Lords, HMRC estimates that UK citizens hold approximately £19 billion in bank deposits situated in Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man together. The UK has double-taxation agreements with Jersey and Guernsey, and uses these in support of its work in investigating tax evasion. HMRC will also be using the more recent tax information exchange agreements in a similar way. Through the establishment of a specialist offshore co-ordination unit, HMRC continues to enhance its capacity in combating all offshore tax evasion.
Baroness Williams of Crosby
My Lords, my noble friend will know that Jersey is one of the most secretive tax havens in the world. In a tax haven, neither corporate profits nor other profits of a corporate nature are taxed, nor are capital gains. Will he say whether there is any way in which those large, wealthy corporations which make their profits out of the UK consumer in this country can be persuaded or cajoled by HMRC into paying the taxes that they should? Secondly, can any steps be taken to prevent illegal profits—I am referring to those from, for example, fraud and theft, including Mr Paulo Maluf of Brazil—from being placed in secret accounts in a way that enables such people to escape international justice altogether?
Lord Newby
My Lords, I do not think that I will be able to help the noble Baroness in the case of Mr Maluf, who is a Brazilian citizen. We are not in a position to comment on his case. In respect of international corporations, the key thing is the extent to which we can extend international co-operation in that respect, which is why the recent announcement of the UK Chancellor and the German Finance Minister, following a G20 Finance Ministers’ meeting in Mexico, was very important. We are now looking at concerted international co-operation to strengthen international tax standards. However, at the moment, it may mean that international companies can pay less tax than they would otherwise owe. We are trying to catch up with new forms of commerce and to make sure that tax is paid in proportion to where people are undertaking their business.
Lord Barnett
My Lords, I declare a past interest as a senior partner in an accountancy practice. Does the Minister recall that the advice best given is the thickness of a prison wall between tax avoidance and tax evasion? We all welcome everything that the Government are doing to try to deal with the evasion side. However, does the Minister accept that there is a serious problem on the avoidance side in that there is a danger that an accountant could be held in abuse of his work and could be sued for negligence if he does not give advice on the best form of tax avoidance?
Lord Newby
My Lords, when it comes to tax avoidance, it is important that we begin to tilt the balance towards what is considered acceptable behaviour. That is one of the reasons why we will be introducing in next year’s Budget, or Finance Bill, a general anti-abuse rule. Those, including accountants, who undertake tax schemes, the principle purpose of which is to avoid tax, will find themselves subject to the rigour of that rule.
Lord Soley
The noble Lord mentioned talks with Germany. Is he able to tell us how many companies of European origin, or individuals of European origin, are also involved in the Channel Islands as, if you like, tax exiles? Bearing in mind the disgraceful evidence we saw in the House of Commons the other week from Google, Amazon and Starbucks, should this be addressed at a European level? If that is happening—one of the countries involved was Holland and I would guess that the Channel Islands are probably involved as well—we really should address this issue at a European level because what has been happening is absolutely unacceptable.
Lord Newby
I obviously agree with the noble Lord’s latter statement. Many recent examples clearly are unacceptable, which is why we have taken a great interest in, and are looking forward to hearing more about, the initiative that the EU Commission has taken this week in terms of reformulating what constitutes a tax haven. He is right that we can do a certain amount ourselves but we are going to deal with this international issue only through international co-operation.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My Lords, will my noble friend clarify the position, as I genuinely do not know the answer to the question? Are we able to deal with companies such as Google and Starbucks and others which are not paying the tax that they should pay in this country or are we constrained by European law from being prevented from doing so?
Lord Newby
I can reassure the noble Lord that we are being constrained not by European Law but by international accounting standards. There is no suggestion that Starbucks and the other companies are breaking the law but the accounting standards allow them to manipulate the point at which they take a tax charge on revenues that they raise.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
My Lords, would it be possible to stop Google paying the minimal amount of tax as it is an international global company in whatever part of the world where the tax is the lowest?
Lord Newby
This is why we need increased international co-operation and why the G20 initiative is so important. Obviously if people can just shift off all their revenues to a low tax jurisdiction, some companies are going to do so. We are working very hard with our international partners on this because we have a common interest in making sure that these companies pay a fair share of tax.
Lord Tunnicliffe
My Lords, the Minister mentioned £19 billion that is tied up in Jersey related to UK citizens—a very precise figure. Does this mean that there is sufficient transparency, and that we have a sufficient viewing, of what is happening in Jersey? Do we have sufficient HMRC resources addressing that? And if the answer to both of those is yes, does he have a feel for the amount of money that the UK Exchequer could expect out of these people if we were better able to get hold of that money through agreement?
Lord Newby
My Lords, in terms of resources, the Government have committed an extra £917 million over the current period to combat tax avoidance and evasion. That money is now being redirected with HMRC. It has led already to several convictions involving overseas tax evasion. The fact that £19 billion of funds is held by UK citizens in Jersey does not mean that £19 billion is improperly held in Jersey. A very large proportion of that money is there perfectly properly. We have to understand that simply because you have a bank account in Jersey does not of itself mean that you are a crook.
Financial Services Bill
Lord Newby Excerpts(11 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Eatwell
My Lords, Amendment 73B reflects a concern that we have expressed at numerous stages in the discussion of the Bill about the process by which entry is possible within the financial services industry and the processes by which permissions are varied and are cancelled.
Our prime objective is to stimulate greater competition within the financial services industry. Entry is notoriously difficult, particularly in the banking sector, and it has been made more difficult since the financial crisis as the stable door has been banged firmly shut. The shutting of the stable door, of course, has not implied any extra sanction on those banks or other institutions which already exist but has made it much more complicated for new banks to be established or new firms to enter other major parts of the financial services industry.
From an examination of the provisions of the Bill on the issue of permissions, it seems clear that there will be firms that are regulated by both the PRA and the FCA and, indeed, that there will be firms that are regulated by one of these organisations but the process of granting permissions, variations and so on will require reference to the other organisation. Given the way in which permissions are dealt with at the moment, it seems likely that this will introduce further bureaucratic steps inhibiting entry. Those bureaucratic steps will be entirely unnecessary if the regulators have a statutory requirement to co-ordinate their procedures. If, on the other hand, as we suspect, the PRA and the FCA develop different procedures relative to their differing objectives, the possibility that processes will become excessively complex, slow and expensive increases significantly.
The objective of the amendment is simply to require the PRA and the FCA to,
“co-ordinate their procedures for, and provide clear and detailed guidance on, the processes for applying for, varying and cancelling permission”,
in order to facilitate competition and ease of entry into, particularly, the banking sector and into financial services in general. I beg to move.
Lord Newby
My Lords, as I said in Committee when we debated this issue, we are extremely sympathetic to what the noble Lord is seeking to achieve. However, as I also pointed out, the PRA and the FCA are already required by proposed new Section 3D in Clause 6 to co-ordinate their regulatory processes, including the authorisation process, so this element of the amendment would have no effect.
On the publication of detailed guidance, I point out that in order for the regulators to carry out authorisation, they will need to give instructions to firms about how to engage with the process. That is what the FSA does now, and what the PRA and the FCA will have to do in the future. Firms need to be authorised before they can enter the market and the Government agree that it is extremely important to encourage new entrants. The noble Lord talked about the shutting of the stable door in respect of new banks. The truth is that the stable door has been shut for many decades and there have been no new banks. We have to try to change the culture, in terms both of the regulators and of the regulated, that has been in place for many decades, and we are very keen to do it. That is why we had brought forward an amendment requiring the PRA to have regard to the need to minimise the adverse effect on competition that arises from its actions. One of the effects will be to ensure that the PRA works to remove unnecessary obstacles to new entrants; for example, by ensuring that the authorisation process runs as smoothly as possible.
The Government agree that it is important that the regulators explain how they will co-ordinate their regulatory activities. That is why there is a statutory duty to co-ordinate and to set out in an MoU how that co-ordination will operate in practice. The process for applying for permission is one of the things that proposed new Section 3E specifically envisages being in the MoU.
The Government entirely agree with the thinking behind the amendment but we do not believe that anything further is needed to implement what it seeks to achieve.
Lord Eatwell
That is rather complacent. If the noble Lord thinks that the FSA provides clear guidance at the moment, he has not tried to establish a bank. I can assure him that it does not. There is a reason for that. Given that most business plans are rather different and the guidance has to be specific, the FSA has expressed a reluctance to get involved in specific cases.
General guidance is of general use but is seldom useful in the establishment of a given institution. That is why the amendment calls for the provision of,
“clear and detailed guidance”.
That is not available elsewhere in the Bill. The Government are being seriously remiss by discouraging the competitive process as regards this aspect. I know that they want to increase competition but it is a mistake to do it in this way. It is not an intentional discouragement and so it would be enormously helpful if the amendment were to be accepted or some version of it were to be considered at Third Reading. I admit that it may well be belt and braces, but the amendment derives from experience of dealing with the FSA on these matters. It is in this area that the Government do not live up to the picture of assistance and guidance that the noble Lord has painted. However, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Davies of Stamford
My Lords, I was struck by my noble friend’s amendment. In reading it, I wondered whether this was already a provision which applied, quite outside the passporting context in which she moved it, to deposits in this country. I cannot see any reference to a rule of this kind elsewhere in the Bill. It may be that it is already part of statute law or part of the rule book of the FSA—and the FCA to come—but, looking back on my own experience, I do not normally have deposits which are greater than the threshold, which I believe is £85,000. On any such occasions when I have, I do not recall a bank telling me that part of my deposit was not subject to the national retail insurance scheme or to consumer protection. That seems to be a great weakness in the system and I would be grateful if the Minister could tell me what the rules are relating to the taking of deposits. Is this or is this not an obligation of a bank taking a deposit now which is in excess of that ceiling? I may be wrong in saying it is about £85,000, as it may have increased since I last heard a figure. If not, such an amendment should be made and this Bill presents us with an opportunity to do so.
I think we all agree that a balance needs to be struck here. No one is suggesting that the state should guarantee all banking deposits. That would be a massive moral hazard and would mean that depositors no longer had to interest themselves in the quality of the banks with whom they are investing. Equally, I think we all agree that it is unreasonable for small depositors to make a credit assessment of the banks with which they are depositing small amounts of money. It is not just a question of looking at the solvency ratios or capital adequacy ratios. You need to look beyond that if you want to assess the credit-worthiness of the bank. You look at the quality of the assets of the bank and the quality of its deposits. These are areas where it is not only difficult for an individual to come to a judgment but where we know that there has been fantastic regulatory failure throughout the world, particularly in this country.
The FSA’s behaviour in this matter was negligent to an extraordinary degree. It never seemed to interest itself in the declining quality of the assets of many British banks, which were buying more and more CDOs, for example. It never seemed to interest itself in the deteriorating quality on the liabilities side of the Northern Rock balance sheet and the fact that Northern Rock was becoming excessively dependent on wholesale deposits. If the regulators fail so badly, it is all the more important that the protection available for small or medium depositors is great.
It is very important that people should know because, as I have explained, even though I try to take an intelligent general interest in these matters I do not know exactly where the threshold currently lies. In my experience, I have certainly not had a notification from a bank that I may be placing deposits with it that are not in any way subject to such a guarantee. That is an enormously important aspect of the risk involved in such a transaction and, clearly, it ought to be brought to the attention of retail depositors. Is this currently part of statute law? Is it currently part of the rule book and, if not, is this amendment an opportunity to make it so or should we take another opportunity in this Bill to bring forward an amendment of that general kind?
Lord Newby
My Lords, I think everyone is agreed that the regulators should require banks to make their customers aware when their deposits are not covered by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme.
Lord Davies of Stamford
Did I hear the noble Lord say that it is a requirement from regulators that banks should notify their depositors when they are covered? If so, that is quite wrong. They should be notified when they are not covered. That is the important thing. It is no use notifying them when they are covered and saying nothing at all when they are not covered, for that is when the risks arise.
Lord Newby
My Lords, as I was saying, the regulators make considerable existing requirements in this area and I will explain what they are. Firms from the EEA that passport into the UK are covered by their home-state compensation scheme rather than by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme. It is obviously right that consumers are made aware of it but, as we have said before, this already happens. The FSA already has rules requiring this in the COMP 16 section of its handbook. Explicitly, EEA firms passporting into the UK are required to inform their customers that they are covered by their home state scheme. This is already included on customers’ bank statements and notices are prominently displayed in their branches.
This is what the text says:
“Your eligible deposits with [insert name of firm] are protected up to a total of 100,000 euro by [insert name of compensation scheme]”—
depending on which country is involved—
“… and are not protected by the UK Financial Services Compensation Scheme”.
Any deposits you hold,
“above the 100,000 euro limit are not covered”.
This wording is already being displayed and circulated to potential customers of these branches. In tandem, the FSCS has launched a programme to raise awareness of the scheme in general and to inform consumers how they can check whether they are covered by the scheme, so it is clear to us that this amendment is simply unnecessary. The FSA and FSCS are taking action in this area already and we strongly believe that that will continue once the new regulatory system is in place. It is right that the regulators and the FSCS have the flexibility to address this issue in the way that they see as most appropriate. On this basis, I trust that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Davies of Stamford
The noble Lord has read out the text of the communication which banks in this country must make to depositors who are resident in other EEA countries when they deposit more than the threshold amount of €100,000. Can he read out the text of the communication that banks in this country are obliged to make to depositors resident in this country when they deposit with them amounts over the threshold of £85,000 or whatever it is?
Lord Newby
I will check what I said, but it may have covered what the noble Lord is looking for. If it does not, I shall write to him with the relevant wording.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, I am sorry that the Minister did not listen to what I said, which was the reverse of passporting. It was about the passporting of our banks into EEA countries. I was interested in the protection of customers in those areas who are served by the UK banks that are being passported there but would be regulated here. Our regulator should therefore cover that. That is a different issue from the one that the Minister has answered. If he would check on that, I would be quite happy for us to revert to the matter at Third Reading. I am interested in consumers wherever they happen to dwell, such as the consumers in EEA areas being served by our banks. I am therefore worried about their lack of coverage by our compensation scheme, which should be brought to their attention. If I could leave the Minister to clarify that, at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, this amendment stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Eatwell as well as mine. It is about transparency and we have moved from passporting to prohibition orders, with a big jump to Clause 12. The amendment would ensure that, when a prohibition order is made, the regulator publishes its reasons and the individual's name appears on a list of people subject to prohibition orders on the Treasury website. The purpose of this is both to promote good practice, by making it clear what constitutes bad practice, and to enable investors and others easily to identify who has been subject to such an order.
As was clear in Committee, the issue did not really divide us. At that stage, I quoted Matthew Hancock as saying in another place,
“the principle that prohibition orders on people who are not fit and proper persons should be published is crucial … Prohibition must not only be a sanction for past irresponsible behaviour, but a deterrent for future irresponsible behaviour … the point of prohibition is not only … to stop the actions of those who have … committed acts that make them not fit and proper, but to demonstrate the bounds of behaviour that are deemed responsible and reasonable”.—[Official Report, Commons, Financial Services Bill Committee, 6/3/2012; col. 384.]
The then Minister, Mr Mark Hoban, agreed that prohibition is both a punishment and a deterrent.
When we discussed this in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Newby, replied in this House along similar lines, saying that,
“regulators ought to give explanations of their actions and I do not think anyone would dispute the need for the identity of persons subject to prohibition orders … to be made known”.—[Official Report, 8/10/12; cols. 860-61.]
However, he felt that the existing duty on the FSA to maintain such a list was sufficient. We disagree with regard to the list of those prohibited. Investors and borrowers here and abroad would be more likely to see the Government as a source of such information, and we would therefore like HMT, via its website, to have a role in this.
With regard to the first part of our amendment, it is crucial, if the findings of a case are to help influence the future behaviour of other firms and authorised persons, that they can read and understand exactly what was alleged and why it was found to have transgressed acceptable behaviour. Hence there is the need to publish reasons. I beg to move.
Lord Newby
My Lords, as the noble Baroness says, we discussed this at some length in Committee and, to a certain extent, I am afraid I can only repeat what I said then. I repeat that FiSMA already requires the FSA to maintain a publicly available record of individuals subject to prohibition orders. The relevant subsection simply says that the register must include a record of every,
“individual to whom a prohibition order relates”.
and provides that the register must include the name of the individual and,
“details of the effect of the”,
prohibition order.
The FCA will keep these records in future and the Bill, in paragraph 17 of Schedule 12, also requires the PRA to assist the FCA in keeping the record up to date, including by notifying the FCA of every prohibition order that the PRA makes. The principal effect of the amendment would be to move these records from the FSA website on to the Treasury website. The noble Baroness said, in effect, that the Treasury website would almost command more respect or be more likely to be looked at for this purpose. We disagree with that. The Treasury website sets out government policy, not records of regulatory decisions. The logical place to go for a record of a regulatory decision is to the regulator. We think that it would be confusing if investors expected to go to the Treasury website rather than to the regulator’s website to get the relevant names and other information. In our view, it would be contrary to the noble Baroness’s stated objective of ensuring clarity and transparency. I am afraid I cannot give her much comfort. We believe that what we are doing meets her requirements and that those are better met by doing it via the regulator’s website rather than via the Treasury website.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
I thank the Minister for that response. I have a query that is not so much on the website. I think he said that the list was kept along with details of the effects of the prohibition order, which I assume means that this person cannot do this, that, or the other. We were asking for the reasons. I hope that he will look at this, even if there is only a recommendation back to the regulator. It is really important that the allegation and the reason why it was found proven is there as guidance for others. I hope that he will look at that and reassure me that the reasons are there, not just the effects of the prohibition order. With those comments, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, we reach the last amendment of the evening, which stands in the names of my noble friend Lord Eatwell and myself. It is short, sharp and clear. The Bill allows for FCA statements of policy relating to its use of disciplinary powers to be provided to anyone, for a fee if necessary; to be given to the Treasury, presumably for free; and to be published as appropriate. Noble Lords will have noticed that the one body not automatically to receive the statement is Parliament. This amendment would correct that oversight. I beg to move.
Lord Newby
My Lords, no one disagrees with the proposition that certain important reports and other documents that are produced under the new regime should be laid before Parliament. A good example of this view is to be found in Clause 80 under which, if the Treasury in future receives a report relating to an inquiry or investigation carried out under the provisions of Part 5 of the Bill, it must publish the report and lay what it publishes before Parliament. Since these reports concern inquiries or investigations in connection with possible regulatory failure or on other matters relating to the public interest, this is clearly the right approach. It enables Parliament to consider the matter and, where appropriate, call upon Ministers or the regulators themselves to give an account of their actions. Indeed, the Government are so committed to ensuring parliamentary accountability in this area that they have tabled Amendment 107D to ensure that any direction that the Treasury gives regarding these investigations is also laid before Parliament.
However, the statement of policy issued by the FCA under new Section 88C is not a report of that kind. It is more like the guidance issued under FiSMA, although it is really guidance for the regulator itself rather than for regulated firms. This explains why the FCA must follow the procedure in Section 88D before it issues a statement, which is essentially the same as the procedure when the FCA issues guidance to firms set out in new Section 139A. The Treasury must be notified of any new FCA guidance or changes to existing guidance but it has never been thought necessary for the Treasury to lay that guidance before Parliament, although it will be available on the FCA website.
The approach that we are taking not only follows the general FiSMA model but it is the same approach that is taken in other regulatory legislation. For example, Section 38 of the Competition Act 1998 requires the OFT to prepare and publish guidance on the appropriate amount of any penalty imposed for abuse of a dominant position. It must get the Secretary of State’s approval for it but there is no obligation to lay it before Parliament. Equally, Section 392 of the Communications Act 2003 requires Ofcom to prepare and publish a statement containing guidelines on the penalties that it may impose under that Act or other legislation, except the Competition Act 1998. Again, though, Ofcom is not required to lay that before Parliament.
All we are doing is following normal procedure. We do not think that this kind of guidance should be laid before Parliament because it is guidance to the regulator and will be available on the regulator’s website. In those circumstances, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that answer and, via the Minister, I thank his Bill team because they have clearly done some interesting research for us in areas beyond HMT.
Ministers have probably not made the right call. There will be an increased requirement for transparency and Parliament is becoming more interested in questions of guidance, particularly in relation to disciplinary matters. My guess is that there will come a time when more of these will come to Parliament, because saying that it is normal practice and we can go on as before is not necessarily always the right view. We will get there, even if it is not in the Bill, but for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Property: Commonhold
Lord Newby Excerpts(11 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will support the development of commonhold properties by means of the guarantees to be given under the Infrastructure (Financial Assistance) Bill.
Lord Newby
My Lords, under the Infrastructure (Financial Assistance) Act, the Government intend to issue up to £10 billion of debt guarantees to support the building of both private-rented and affordable-rented homes across the UK. As commonholds typically consist of privately owned properties and given that, in any event, commonholds are relatively rare, it is unlikely that any commonhold scheme will come forward under the guarantees programme.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
I am disappointed to hear that commonhold is unlikely to benefit. Does the Minister agree that many young people, particularly first-time buyers, would like to be empowered owners of their own homes and that commonhold is the fairest way of doing that in blocks of flats? Does he also appreciate that this is the first time that I have had any sort of reasonable answer on housing from a different department? No matter how I table my Questions, I always get an Answer from what is now called communities—but the name changes so it is hard to keep up—no matter what the Question is. When I write to the Minister for Housing, he refers the letter to the Treasury, and the Treasury sends back a hopeless reply saying, “It’s nothing to do with us”. Does the Minister not think that this is a moment in history to have more joined-up government and better liaison and understanding between departments?
Lord Newby
I absolutely agree with the need for joined-up government. As noble Lords would expect me to say, on a whole raft of housing initiatives, not least in relation to the Infrastructure (Financial Assistance) Act, the Treasury and the Department for Communities and Local Government are working extremely closely together.
I understand why the noble Baroness is such a keen proponent of commonholds, but between 2002 and the present day, there have been only 15 commonhold developments in England and Wales comprising a mere 161 units.
Lord Adonis
Has the Minister seen today’s Financial Times, which reports:
“While the government had hoped that pension funds would invest … £2 billion”,
in infrastructure,
“by early next year, a year of talks has so far raised just £700 million”?
When does the Minister expect to raise the missing £1.3 billion?
Lord Newby
My Lords, the initial £700 million consists of a commitment by a significant number of pension funds to put in £100 million each as a starter. We are working very hard with them to scale up the programme, but it is a new programme. Pension funds have never done this kind of thing before and, not surprisingly, they want to dip their toe in the water before they immerse themselves more fully. I am very confident that they will see this initial £700 million as an effective investment, and then they will rapidly scale it up in the way that the noble Lord wishes.
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, I declare an interest in that I am a tenant in a flat in a mansion arrangement such as that described. Surely, moving into mansion flats is very attractive for couples or individuals when they are downsizing, which therefore frees up the whole of the housing chain. Will the Minister encourage the relevant department to look at strategies for encouraging commonhold so that this move is not discouraged by the endless confusion over freehold and leasehold? Perhaps there could be talks with Core Cities to encourage developers to follow these kinds of policies as a way to make more housing available all through the spectrum.
Lord Newby
The Government and I will be very happy to make that commitment. The problem with commonhold is that virtually no one knows what the word means. Since being asked this Question, over the past week I have asked a number of housebuilders and senior chartered surveyors whether they thought that it was a good idea. More than half of them said that they did not know what it was. There is a big education job to be done.
Very often the management of mansion blocks is by a management company in which each leaseholder has a share. At their best, they can work very effectively and are almost identical to commonhold, but clearly there are ways in which we can improve how those blocks are managed.
Lord Barnett
My Lords, does not the noble Lord appreciate that there is a major need for large infrastructure plans to be implemented now? Industry has made it quite clear that guarantees are not sufficient. They want some Treasury cash. Why is the Treasury not willing to introduce just a little cash to implement these plans?
Lord Newby
Our experience is that everyone wants some Treasury cash but, sadly, they cannot all have it. It may be of some comfort to the noble Lord to know that in the past quarter, housing starts were up 18% over the previous quarter. In terms of social housing, housing association starts were up almost one-quarter.
Lord Myners
My Lords, will the Minister explain the circumstances in which it would be cheaper for the taxpayer for infrastructure to be financed with the use of a Treasury guarantee than for that same expenditure to be funded directly by the Treasury?
Lord Newby
My Lords, the noble Lord is making a classic error to assume that there is an endless pot of Treasury money for use in infrastructure expenditure. As he knows only too well, guarantees do not feature as public expenditure unless they are called in. Our expectation is that the 70 expressions of interest we have had so far under the Infrastructure (Financial Assistance) Act are all extremely viable schemes and that the guarantees will not be needed.
Arrangement of Business
Lord Newby Excerpts(11 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Newby
My Lords, there are 38 speakers signed up for the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill Second Reading today. If Back-Bench contributions on the Bill are kept to around nine minutes, the House should be able to rise this evening at around the target rising time of 6 pm.
Financial Services Bill
Lord Newby Excerpts(11 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
I hesitate to trouble the House with a further intervention—
Lord Newby
My Lords, perhaps I may remind noble Lords that the rules of the House are that on Report, Members speak once on an amendment.
Lord Peston
We can speak for clarification and to ask questions. We cannot make substantive points.