Financial Guidance and Claims Bill [HL]

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

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

Moved by

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

8: Clause 2, page 2, line 19, leave out “provide” and insert “ensure provision of”

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, this is a brief amendment and stands on its own, I think primarily to ensure that the next group gets enough focus. We are back to the definition of words, which is obviously going to bedevil us as we go through the Bill. This one is slightly more generic than the others, in the sense that the description we have been given of the task of this new body is that of creating a mixture of direct provision and commissioning. However, sometimes the wording does not seem to match up to that, so the amendment suggests a better form of wording that would leave out “provide” and insert “ensure provision of”. When we look up the dictionary definition of “provide”, we see that it is basically an active verb whose primary meaning is to make available for use or to supply.

As I read it, it is there as an active verb, which means that the body to which it is applied will be doing things—implementing in an active way. Substituting “ensuring provision of” would mean a much greater accent on working with others to make sure that these things happened. The amendment applies to the pensions arrangements referred to in line 19 of page 2. In many cases, the pensions guidance function would be carried out mainly in house, or others would be commissioned to do the work, so it may not be the most appropriate place for the amendment, but we pick up the same idea as we move through the Bill and look at the other aspects of the work of the organisation.

It is a probing amendment at this stage to invite the Minister better to articulate what “provide” means here. We want to know in particular whether commissioning work is envisaged in this limb, whether it involves any direct provision and, if so, what that would be. Can the Minister give some broad breakdown of the balance between those two aspects? I beg to move.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, that the amendment is possibly sitting in the wrong spot, because the various pension bodies being absorbed into this single body have provided guidance directly. It is advice provided through a commissioning, contractual arrangement, which I am sure everyone intends should remain in place. However, the underlying spirit of the point the noble Lord makes and the request for clarification are important.

I rise to speak merely because the Minister may answer that such issues are covered somewhat in Clause 4. I simply wanted to point out that that clause regularly uses “may”, whereas I think the Government’s intention —and that, I suspect, of many others in this Committee —is that this be a “must”. So, the argument that Clause 4 is the answer to the question raised may not exactly work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Buscombe]

I thank the noble Baroness for her intervention but I read it myself and I do not think it does—as she suggests—create that opportunity for the single financial guidance body to deliver the debt advice function. It says that it,

“may arrange for another person … to carry out any of the following functions on its behalf”.

The SFGB is the delivery partner. On the reference to “may” rather than “must”, from a legal standpoint it is already in the Bill that the guidance body can arrange for another person to carry out any of those functions. Indeed, it is implicit that it will.

I apologise but I have just been corrected in relation to the debt advice function. It is an option but not the plan—if that makes sense. I hope this explains what the wording of the pensions guidance function means in practice. I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I thank the Minister for her comments. “An option but not the plan” might go down in history as a rather interesting way out of a dilemma. We might return to this issue in the group after next, so I will not spend time on it now. I am afraid my worry is that “provide”, rather than some other wording, could be applied in future in a detrimental way to bodies that feel they have a role to play in this space, perhaps not so much in pensions but in other areas. For the moment, I would like to read carefully and reflect on what the Minister said before we consider how to go forward. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 8 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

11: Clause 2, page 2, line 22, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
“(5) The debt advice function is to commission the provision of sufficient debt advice services, which are to be free at the point of use, to meet the needs of people in financial crisis in England.”

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, we return to the question of provision, helped by the intervention of the Minister to say that the wording of Clause 2(5) is to be read as if it actually said, “the debt advice function is to provide”—with the assumption that it is an option but not a plan to do this by delegation to other bodies. That reflects comments made on an earlier amendment.

I should like to use this group of amendments to probe for responses on the scale, scope and funding, particularly of the debt space, because there are concerns in this area. Amendment 11 is a way to express the ambition across the debt space, and I recommend the wording. It is not open-ended; it sets down a few markers that could be used. It confirms that the debt advice services which are to be provided either directly or through commissioning bodies are to be free at the point of use and are to meet the needs of people in financial crisis in England.

Informed estimates suggest that there are probably about 2 million people in that category in England at the moment, of whom just over 1.25 million get a reasonable level of service from the existing bodies, primarily those which are offering pure advice, which are the Citizens Advice service, the Money Advice Trust and other smaller groups, but also those providing debt management plans, such as StepChange and some of the other smaller groups. There are also those offering solutions, which we talked about on earlier amendments.

The amendment would replace the current subsection. It clears up the question of what “provision” or “provide” mean and allows us to take the question forward on a secure basis, which will be comforting to those who are likely to be affected by the change from MAS to the new body.

Amendment 13 takes forward the point already made: this cannot be a top-down exercise. The single financial guidance body must work together with the existing debt advice services, which have been operating for 20 or 30 years—in the case of Citizens Advice, for much longer—know their stuff, are doing it well and are well respected by the industry, supported by it with cash and are able to operate largely on their own without support from central Government or any other body.

I said at Second Reading and I say again that the proportion of money brought in by the Money Advice Service is very small relative to the total expenditure on debt advice. It has largely come from historic funding made by grant to Citizens Advice when it was a body directly responsible for consumer support more generally under BIS, and now it has been transmuted into support through the levy and paid through MAS. But that is not the totality of what is available in the debt space. The wording suggested in Amendment 13 is on the basis of the consultation and makes a general statement about what it is to be used for—which, again, I think would be helpful in clarifying those who are involved in it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Buscombe]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson and Lord McKenzie, for tabling these amendments. The noble Lords have tabled a number of amendments that would make changes to the single financial guidance body’s debt advice function. The approach of this legislation is to enable the body to respond to changing needs and cultural and technological development by giving it broad functions. It is our intention that the body commissions out the delivery of its service, as appropriate. Debt advice is currently commissioned, and I cannot see this changing any time soon. If we had not intended that the body should commission for its delivery services, including debt, there would have been no need for Clause 4 to specifically provide for this. That is just in relation to the whole issue of debt advice. I wanted to start off with that.

Clause 2 sets out the functions and objectives of the new body, including the debt advice function. The provision of debt advice is a core function of the new body. Problem debt can blight individuals’ lives, and it is crucial that support is available to those who need it. Amendments 11, 13, 35 and 43, proposed by the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson and Lord McKenzie, offer a substantial revision of the new body’s debt advice function. They are made up of five key parts, which specify that: first, the body must commission advice; secondly, advice must be free at the point of use; thirdly, advice must meet the needs of people in financial crisis in England; fourthly, advice must be commissioned on the basis of consultation with relevant bodies involved in the provision of information, guidance and advice on personal debt; and, finally, sufficient funds must be dedicated to the body’s debt advice function. I shall address each of these components in turn.

In the first instance, it will be important that the new body commissions other parties in its efforts to ensure that debt advice is available to members of the public when they need help. As drafted, Clause 2 and Clause 4 together enable the delivery of regulated debt advice through delivery partners. Noble Lords will know that MAS currently acts as a commissioning body for debt advice; the Government intend the new body to fulfil the same, or a similar, function.

In the second instance, the Government absolutely agree that any help funded by the new body should be free at the point of use. The Government’s intention is to ensure that help is available to those who need it, and we would not wish to prevent members of the public from accessing help on the grounds of cost. Pension Wise, the Pensions Advisory Service and the Money Advice Service currently offer free-to-client help and, as the Government have noted in their consultations, the new body will do the same. Indeed, by bringing together pensions guidance, money guidance and debt advice into one organisation, this measure allows for greater provision of free-to-client help. The Government expect that savings will be made as MAS, TPAS and Pension Wise are brought together and, as a result, we expect a greater proportion of levy funding to be made available for the delivery of front-line services to members of the public.

On the third point, on the needs of people in financial crisis, it is of course critical that those in crisis receive support. However, I am concerned that the proposed amendment restricts the activities of the new body, placing too great an emphasis on those who are already in crisis while failing to mention help that the body might give to members of the public who are approaching moments of crisis. I think of the example of Emma, who the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, referred to on an earlier amendment. As the noble Earl quite rightly said, if only it could have been possible for her to approach something earlier—that has to be an aim of this body. It must be able to help not only those who are in real crisis but those sensing that they are getting into what we might colloquially call “hot water” and need help.

On the fourth point, I agree with the intention behind this amendment, which I believe is to ensure that the new body will work closely with those it is commissioning and that there is a comprehensive strategy for the sector. The spirit of this amendment is already captured by the body’s strategic function and its stated objectives. The strategic function explicitly states that the body will be required to work with others in the financial services industry, the devolved authorities and the public and voluntary sectors, which together capture the organisations specified by the noble Lord in his amendment. The body’s five objectives, including delivering its functions to those most in need, in areas where it is lacking and in the most cost-effective way, would not be deliverable if the body did not consult others.

Finally, I turn to the final point on ensuring sufficient debt advice funding. The Government agree that it is important that the body is able to meet increasing demand for debt advice in England if it is required to do so. As drafted, the current clauses allow funding for debt advice to increase so that debt advice is available when there is increased demand from members of the public. The body will submit a business plan for approval by the Secretary of State, which will form the basis on which the Secretary of State will instruct the Financial Conduct Authority to raise funds from its levy. The Government are confident that these arrangements are robust and will give the new body the ability to ensure that its debt advice function is properly funded. Decisions about how the body should allocate its resources, including to debt advice, are best taken by the management of the body in the light of its agreed business plan. It is, after all, accountable to Ministers for its decisions, who are in turn accountable to Parliament.

I would also like to observe that the Money Advice Service is working closely with partners on the plans for an independent review of the funding arrangements for the sector. Under its strategic function, the new body will be able to continue this valuable work as part of its aim to improve the ability of members of the public to manage debt.

Having heard these explanations, I hope the noble Lords will agree that the amendments are not necessary. I therefore urge the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I thank the Minister for her very comprehensive response. I would like to read it in more detail in Hansard but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 11 withdrawn.