Financial Guidance and Claims Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Sharkey and Lord McKenzie of Luton

Ping Pong (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 1st May 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, if it is time to say our thank yous, I will add mine to those of all noble Lords who have participated in these debates. There have been robust exchanges on what was initially quite a narrow Bill, but its coverage has been expanded, quite appropriately. I certainly thank the Bill team. I know that, on our side, we have probably put them through some misery with our questions from time to time, but when we have had the opportunity to touch base in that way, it has been really helpful to the passage of the Bill in this place. I wish the Bill well on its passage into legislation.

[Lord Sharkey]

I associate myself with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, and the other noble Lords who have spoken. Not only has the Bill been significantly improved but, oddly, I think we have managed to enjoy the process as we have gone through it—perhaps it is not odd at all. I thank the Minister and her officials.

Financial Guidance and Claims Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Sharkey and Lord McKenzie of Luton

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

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

Clause 14 enables the Secretary of State by affirmative resolution to dissolve the SFGB. The background to this, including the Henry VIII power that it includes, is set out in the Government’s memorandum to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. That memorandum points out:

“This power will allow the Secretary of State to dissolve the single financial guidance body. The Bill does not provide for a fixed lifetime for the new single financial guidance body. This clause is therefore in line with the Cabinet Office guidance relating to setting up new arm’s-length bodies, which states that:


‘The legislation setting up a new Public Body should contain powers to permit winding up at a later date and for finalising and auditing the closing accounts, if a fixed lifetime is not established at the outset. Departmental legal advisers would need to be involved in this process. Difficulties have occurred in past cases where sponsor Departments have not been able to wind up statutory bodies when their work has been completed due to problems in securing a Parliamentary slot to amend the primary founding legislation. The bodies therefore continue to exist as legal entities even though there is no longer a requirement for them’.


If there is ever a need to dissolve this body, it will be essential to have a range of options and sufficient flexibility to be able to transfer functions, property rights and assets without recourse to primary legislation. This is the point made by the Cabinet Office’s guidance”.


That is all well and good but, as the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee points out:

“Although the new single financial guidance body will be created by Parliament, clause 14 allows Ministers by affirmative-procedure regulations to abolish the body and transfer its functions to any other person. The normal principle is that what Parliament has created, Parliament alone should dissolve. In this case, the Minister: does not have to be satisfied as to anything before deciding to abolish the body, does not have to consult, does not have to conduct a formal review, and does not have to wait a certain time before seeing whether the new body works well.


Where Parliament has previously legislated to abolish public bodies it has provided procedural safeguards. Under the Public Bodies Act 2011, a Minister proposing to abolish a public body must consult the body concerned and others affected by the proposal; he then has to allow 12 weeks for responses. The Minister has to lay before Parliament a detailed explanatory document. A committee of either House of Parliament may require an enhanced affirmative procedure and the power to abolish is time-limited. None of these procedural safeguards is included in the current Bill.


The power to abolish the body and transfer its functions to any other person is a very broad power. For example, it is important that the guidance is independent of any commercial interests. However the power to transfer functions to another body is, on its face, unlimited.


The Committee raised similar concerns in its report on the Enterprise Bill, 9th Report of Session 2015-16, where the power was to abolish the Small Business Commissioner by statutory instrument. In response, the Government acknowledged the Committee’s concerns and tabled amendments that made the abolition of the Commissioner dependent on a 12-week consultation, the laying before Parliament of an explanatory document in addition to draft regulations”.


We support the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which is what this amendment does. We take the view that it is inappropriate for the Bill to confer on Ministers a power to abolish the single financial guidance body. It is all the more unsatisfactory because the power is unaccompanied by the sorts of procedural safeguards found in the Public Bodies Act 2011 and the Enterprise Act 2016. This is exactly what this amendment is about and it seems to me pretty straightforward. Should the Government set their face against this, the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, has an alternative proposition that the clause do not stand part of the Bill. We would be minded to support that as an alternative. I beg to move.

[Lord Sharkey]

My Lords, Clause 14 is pretty surprising. It runs entirely counter to normal practice and to the provisions of other Acts of Parliament and is careless of the need for proper scrutiny by Parliament. I entirely support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie. Your Lordships’ Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee commented on Clause 14 in some detail in its first report of the current Session.

As Clause 14 stands and as the DPRR Committee and the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, have explained, the Minister does not have to be satisfied as to anything at all before abolishing it, consult anyone at all, have to conduct a formal review or have to wait a certain time to see if the new body is working well or at all. This is all at odds with the provisions of the Public Bodies Act 2011, as well as smacking of hubris and a cavalier disregard for parliamentary authority.

Financial Guidance and Claims Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Sharkey and Lord McKenzie of Luton

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Wednesday 6th September 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharkey]

My Lords, I was pleased to add my name to the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. Both amendments address the problem of cold calling and pensions. I would, like the noble Baroness, have preferred an outright ban on cold calling, just as I would like an outright ban on cold calling for the benefit of debt management companies and for claims management companies. We can deal with banning cold calling for claims management companies later in the Bill, as the noble Baroness just pointed out, and she and I have both tabled amendments to do exactly that. Regrettably, banning for pensions and debt management companies is outside the scope of the Bill.

The amendments before us, therefore, cannot and do not go that far, but they do offer a pretty good work-around. They would do two things, as the noble Baroness has explained. They would require the SFGB to provide information and guidance on cold calling. They would also require people to have received this information and guidance before taking any action following a cold call.

Noble Lords have discussed cold calling on many occasions in this Chamber. On every occasion there has been universal dissatisfaction with the process and universal recognition that it is a menace, yet it still goes on. There has been a 180% increase in the past 10 months alone. There are now 2.6 million calls every month. This is an omnipresent menace. But there is no cold calling for mortgages. We banned that. Successive Governments have never got around to banning cold calling for pensions, for debt management or claims management and I know that the Government have promised, yet again, to ban cold calling for pensions. But, yet again, it is a promise without a delivery date. It is a promise that has no obvious legislative vehicle except this one.

I still do not understand why the Government are dragging their heels over this or over debt management and claims management cold calling either. I acknowledge that there will be complexities in devising the details of any ban, but it is surely not beyond the ability of the Government to deal with it speedily if they assign the right priority and the right resources to it. In any case, I remind the Minister that we have already held out in these debates the possibility of an enabling clause in the Bill with the details to follow later in secondary legislation. We have had no response to that—all rather disappointing and mystifying. In the absence of any willingness on the part of the Government to actually do anything in the Bill, these amendments show how progress can be made. I very much hope that the Minister will respond positively.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, we support the thrust of the amendment, but there is just a query on its precise ramifications which perhaps I may raise now. The amendment states:

“As part of its pensions guidance function, the single financial guidance body must provide information and guidance regarding unsolicited communications and make provision to ensure that members of the public receive this information and guidance before taking any action following an unsolicited communication”.


I am not quite sure how that could be caused to happen; that is, where the knowledge of an unsolicited communication is and how that feeds through to encourage people not to take any action until they have considered these matters. When the Minister winds up, she might expand a little on that.

I certainly support what the amendment is trying to achieve. The idea of taking a power in the Bill to seek to move forward more quickly once it has left this House is certainly worth considering. But I guess that my key message is to the Government. Their response to the consultation document was robust and covered not only cold calling, but we have this equivocation as to when it is going to happen. I find it difficult to understand, given everything that is going on with Brexit, which is changing the world, why we cannot move swiftly to introduce provisions in a vital area where there is clear consumer detriment that is destroying many people’s lives. It would be helpful to have that clarification in the wind-up, and subject to that we support the amendment.

Financial Guidance and Claims Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Sharkey and Lord McKenzie of Luton

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Wednesday 19th July 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharkey (LD)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 18 in this group which is tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Kramer. I agree with everything that has been said so far except perhaps for one thing. If the Government accept the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, we will have a universal obligation as regards financial education. I can see the appeal of that in theory, but in practice I wonder how it would work out. Children and adults constitute the whole of the population, but I think that the intention of the Government in Clause 2(7)(c) is to identify groups where particular emphasis on the provision of financial education is needed. That is probably why they specifically mention “children and young people”. I agree with the approach of putting an emphasis on the groups that most need or will most benefit from financial education.

However, there are other critical target groups in need of special attention, and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, has identified such a group. That is what our amendment is aimed at. It seeks to extend the group of special targets beyond a couple of age demographics to major financial events in the course of people’s lives. It would extend the group of special targets to those who are about to make major financial commitments. It specifies the obvious ones such as mortgages and pensions, and nowadays vehicle finance plans, but leaves it open to the SFGB to decide what other major financial commitments it may want to include in its overall strategy.

The Bill is drawn a little too narrowly on this issue and would benefit from our proposed changes and those proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. I hope that the Minister will feel able on this last amendment of the first day to break the habit of the day and accept a modest and uncontroversial amendment.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, we would support a proposition which broadens as widely as possible the provision of financial education, but the issue that arises is how it will be delivered. I say to the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, who was the leading voice on the committee in favour of financial education and led the charge on it, that if he is around September he will see that we have tabled a couple of amendments which deal specifically with two of the recommendations in the report about making it part of the curriculum in the primary sector, because we are behind the devolved Administrations in that regard. Latching on to the Ofsted framework is a means of getting some leverage, but, even with that, we know that it will be a challenging task. However, it is hugely important.

The data show that by getting to young people at school you can embed those ideas early, and they stick. Of course, a framework is there within which it can be delivered. Notwithstanding that it has been a requirement of the secondary sector for a number of years, as the noble Viscount said, we know of its patchy delivery—and there are clearly funding issues. I have pre-empted a little the amendment which we will come back to in September. We will perhaps pick up this important issue again then. Certainly, making sure that such education is available to the most vulnerable is important, and we support it.