Local Housing Allowance Rates

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd February 2023 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

The noble Baroness might like to be reminded that the LHA was originally set at 50th percentile of local market rents and then the policy was reformed, as she will know, in 2011, when it was reduced to 30th percentile. The reforms were made for a reason, because the scheme was unsustainable, with excessively high LHA rates in some areas. Having said all that, we are very aware of the pressures at the moment, as I said earlier, and that is why we have other initiatives to help those who are really struggling— I acknowledge that they are—in some cases with their housing costs.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My noble friend has mentioned several times discretionary housing grants, which are available to top up the difference between the local housing allowance and rents. Should not more be done to make those better publicised and if, as the noble Baroness said, there is pressure on the local authorities that have these grants available, would it not be more economical to top up the discretionary housing grants for local authorities if the Government are unable to review local housing allowances?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

Yes. My noble friend makes a good point, and it may well be that better communication is required. I will certainly look into that. However, local authorities, as I said earlier, have broad discretion to spend in line with their local priorities, supported by the non-statutory guidance provided by my department. That provides a list, crucially, of priority groups to assist with their decision-making. Obviously, that needs to be informed perhaps by better communication in terms of where the needs are. There is no evidence that it is not working, but I will look at that.

Extreme Poverty

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Tuesday 15th December 2020 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)]

I call the noble Lord, Lord Desai. No? In that case, I call the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, the Government introduced a welcome measure to help up to 4 million people on low incomes in September, offering a grant of £500 to those who had to self-isolate but could not work from home and therefore faced a drop in income. However, some of the local authorities through which this grant is routed are running out of funds, thereby prejudicing the success of the scheme. What steps can my noble friend take to ensure that those who are entitled to these grants get them?

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

The £15 million allocated for discretionary payments is a fixed envelope to cover cases of exceptional hardship that fall outside the scope of the main test and trace support payment scheme. In addition, the Government have made a range of other support available to those on low incomes who have to self-isolate. That includes changing the rules to allow claims for statutory sick pay, increasing the standard allowance of UC and the Self-employment Income Support Scheme.

Arcadia Pension Fund

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Tuesday 8th December 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

I will need to take the issue relating to the Companies Act back to colleagues at BEIS, but we have the Pension Schemes Bill going through the House at the moment. There will be powers to ensure that we hold pension trustees to account, and I am sure that that will make a huge difference.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, further to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, about the deficits facing more and more pension funds, should we ask why they are being forced by regulation to invest more and more into government gilt-edged securities, which now have negative returns and are therefore guaranteed to lose pensioners money? Should we not instead be encouraging pension funds to invest in infrastructure, social housing and green projects to generate jobs, prosperity and growth?

[Noble Lords]

Hear, hear.

Pension Schemes Bill [HL]

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard) & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 30th June 2020 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Young of Cookham]

53: Clause 118, page 106, leave out line 32
Member’s explanatory statement
This is a probing amendment, following the debate in Committee, to establish the Government’s proposals to use GOV.UK Verify for the purpose of authorising access to the Dashboard.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con) [V]]

My Lords, Amendment 53 in my name presses the Government to clarify progress on identity verification. This is crucial because without a system for identity verification—proving you are who you say you are—no one can use a dashboard. The original proposal for verification was summarised on the ABI website:

“The process to confirm the identity of users is based on the gov.uk/verify system”.


Verify was a government-sponsored IT project that began in 2014 and has cost about £200 million. It should have provided the basis for accessing pensions dashboards. To put it mildly, however, it has not lived up to expectations, leaving a void in the dashboard programme.

Last year the NAO published a critical report on what in its words was

“intended to be a flagship digital programme”.

It said:

“Even in the context of GDS’s”—


the Government Digital Service’s—

“redefined objectives for the programme, it is difficult to conclude that successive decisions to continue with Verify have been sufficiently justified.”

A year earlier, the Infrastructure and Projects Authority recommended that Verify be closed as quickly as practicable. The Institute for Government’s Whitehall Monitor commented that the scheme continued to be “mired in issues”, had fallen “short of targets”, and had

“failed to build its intended user base and … is not delivering the efficiencies that the government sought.”

In March this year the Government stopped funding the scheme. Verify’s falling out of favour was heralded by my noble friend in his reply to my amendment in Committee. This is what he said:

“I understood what my noble friend said about Verify, and I assure him that the industry delivery group has this issue squarely on its radar.”


Putting on his black cap, he went on to say:

“The solution may not be Verify. … We hope to make announcements on that in due course.”—[Official Report, 2/3/20; col. GC 205.]


Responsibility for taking identification verification forward now rests with MaPS, the Money and Pensions Service. In its progress report in April on identity verification, there is no mention of Verify, which seems to have been airbrushed out.

Yesterday, I got an email from Mr McKenna of MaPS, for which I am grateful. I had asked him whether the current market engagement exercise on the dashboard included verification, and this is the reply:

“The current market engagement exercise does not include identity verification. This is a separate work strand within the programme that requires more work before we will be in a position to engage with the supplier market.”


So a prerequisite for the dashboard programme has been put to the back of the queue. Who is going to provide the identity verification service? Given the commitments that we have heard this evening that the service will be free, how on earth will it be funded? Will it be by MaPS, for example? Is my noble friend able to make the announcement that he trailed in his earlier reply to me, on the timing and funding of this crucial element in the programme?

Amendment 65, in my name, places an obligation on MaPS to provide a dashboard by replacing “may” with “must”. It is the identical twin of an amendment that I tabled in Committee, and I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Altmann and the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, for their support. To the amateur, our one-word change seems a more economical way of achieving the desired objective than the five government amendments with thousands of words, but we bow before the expertise of professional drafters. I say straight away how grateful I am, as I am sure other noble Lords are, that the Government have listened to the strong case made on all sides in Committee, and recognised that we need the certainty of compulsion, rather than the uncertainty of discretion, when it comes to MaPS and the dashboard. That we have this concession is typical of the patient listening of Ministers and their officials in the last three months, on this and other issues, and I warmly welcome it.

But—and it is an important “but”—there is no date by which they have to do this. Without some idea of timescale, we could be left holding the menu without ever getting the dish—hence my Amendment 68, which obliges MaPS to complete this task by December 2022. I referred in Committee to the length of time it has already taken to get this project up and running. It was first promised by Government in 2002 as an online retirement planner, and we were told 12 years later by the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury that:

“A ‘RetirementSaverService’ (dashboard) will be essential to support pension freedoms.”


Five years after pension freedoms, there is still no dashboard, while eight national dashboards have been launched in Europe and we have been reassured by the ABI that there has been extensive testing of prototypes.

In response to my amendment in Committee, my noble friend Lord Howe said,

“but I can tell my noble friend that MaPS and the industry delivery group intend to set out their approach for the year ahead by Easter. By then, we should have at least the outline of a plan, with milestones I hope, so that we can be a little clearer on the answer to the question that he raised.”—[Official Report, 28/2/20; col. GC 184.]

Easter has come and gone, but no milestones. The latest from MaPS is:

“We plan to lay out a more detailed timeline by the end of the year.”


I looked at the ABI website over the weekend to see if it had updated it on the subject of the dashboard since Committee, and I found this under “FAQ”:

“If the prototype has worked, why do I have to wait until 2019 to use this myself?”


Perhaps that could be updated before Third Reading.

Since Committee, MaPS and the ABI have had to cope with the pandemic, and their top priority has to be the continued payment of pensions, the collection and investment of contributions, and the provision of advice. But the introduction of “must” instead of “may” risks being meaningless without some indication of a date by when the obligation must be discharged. I hope that my noble friend can provide some sort of road map and destination time by which we will do this.

Finally, Amendment 63, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, would require the MaPS dashboard to be up and running for a year before other dashboards. My initial view was that we did not need to have more than one dashboard as the data displayed on each would be identical, so why duplicate? However, as a Conservative, I was persuaded to support competition and choice, but I have a lot of sympathy with this amendment; I believe it would be best if MaPS became the brand leader of dashboards and was well established as such in the minds of the public. It has a better chance of doing this if it is first out of the traps, rather like the BBC and commercial broadcasters. In practice, this should be the case as MaPS is in charge of the plumbing for all the dashboards.

Looking at the progress update report from MaPS in April, I see that Chris Curry of MaPS is in charge of the pension dashboards programme. His remit will be to develop the secure digital architecture to support and enable the development of pension dashboards. Therefore, MaPS is doing the specification, procurement and testing of the common systems that everyone will be using; with this inside track, it ought to be first in the field.

The Minister said in reply to the debate on this in Committee:

“It could be that the publicly funded dashboard will be launched first and be first in class, and that others will follow.”—[Official Report, 26/2/20; col. 185GC]


It would be helpful if the Minister could go a little further this evening and encourage MaPS to say publicly that it is indeed its intention to be up and running before anyone else. On this, as indeed with other amendments, I will listen very carefully to what my noble friend says in reply. I beg to move.

[Baroness Drake [V]]

My Lords, the introduction of a pension dashboard service raises major considerations of the public good and consumer interest, which is why I, my noble friend Lady Sherlock and many other noble Lords across the House have argued strongly for citizens to have the right to access their data through a public dashboard and not be restricted to commercial services.

I thank the Minister for his courteous consideration of our arguments and the decision of the Government to require the Money and Pensions Service—MaPS, a public body—to provide a pension dashboard service. Amendment 63 would ensure that the MaPS public dashboard must have been in operation for a year, and the Secretary of State must lay a report before Parliament on the operation of that service, before commercial dashboards are authorised by the FCA to enter the market. A MaPS dashboard would be part of their function to deliver guidance to the public that is free at the point of use—a safe space, unfettered by any commercial interests.

As the Government can mandate all pension providers and schemes to release personal financial data on the order of 22 or more million people, Parliament needs to be confident that the public good and consumer interest are well served. The points of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, are extremely valuable and important, and I thank him for making them. Financial technology should be harnessed for the public good and to improve financial markets, and the dashboard has that potential.

However, building a dashboard service has complexities and challenges. The architecture, the liability model, consumer redress on detriment, data standards and sharing risks, identity verification and security—that quite rightly preoccupied the noble Lord, Lord Young—delegated access and consumer behavioural responses, to name just a few, are all work in progress. As I observed in the previous debate:

“The long-term savings market is particularly vulnerable to consumer detriment”.—[Official Report, 26/2/20; col. 176GC]


There is a major governance challenge to be addressed: the consumer protection of millions in both the provision of the dashboard and the infrastructure that supports it.

The ABI, speaking for some commercial providers, has acknowledged the need for strong governance to make clear what obligations, liabilities and controls will be in place and are necessary. In requiring near-universal coverage, the dashboard service raises the bar on protecting customers from poor behaviour by regulated and unregulated providers, scammers and consumers’ own vulnerability, when all their savings can be viewed in one place.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Speaker]

I have received no requests for noble Lords to speak, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Young.

[Lord Young of Cookham [V]]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, not least my noble friend Lord Howe for his response to the issues raised. I repeat the welcome given by all those who spoke to the government amendments, which in effect oblige MaPS to provide a dashboard. I make it clear that I do not propose to press any of the amendments in my name to a Division.

On identity, I note the new joint unit between DCMS and the Cabinet Office to come up with a digital verification process. It sounds a little like the exercise that was started in 2014 to initiate the Verify programme, which had the same objective. I only hope that this initiative is more successful.

On funding, there was a sentence in my noble friend’s response that I did not have time to write down in full, but it sounded as if it came from the Treasury: that funding options would be considered as part of a range of solutions. I would like to look a little further at that, but I welcome the reassurance that there will be no charge to the consumer. I am grateful that he recognised the importance of getting the identity verification process right as a precondition for a successful dashboard.

On the date, I say with respect that we heard a lot from my noble friend about “day one” but nothing about “day when”. We are no further forward in having any idea as to when the pensions dashboard will be up and running. I look forward to the six-monthly progress reports and I welcome what he said about recognising the urgency of getting the system up and running.

I think that we had a new commitment from my noble friend this evening which I welcome, which was that no one would be able to provide a pensions dashboard before MaPS. I am not sure that we have had that before. I wonder whether there will be some legislative underpinning of that commitment, which I would very much welcome.

The bulk of the debate was on Amendment 63. The majority of those who spoke, led by the noble Baronesses, Lady Drake, Lady Janke and Lady Sherlock, my noble friend Lady Altmann, and the noble Lords, Lord Vaux and Lord Sharkey, all wanted, in the interest of consumer protection, MaPS to have a head start so that it could be trialled and tested. My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe put the contrary view that there should be a more market-based approach to the dashboards without an inside track for the public sector. I do not propose to support the amendment in a vote, but my view is that it would be best if MaPS made it absolutely clear that it plans to be up there, using all its advantages, ahead of the field to set the pace. However, I understand the arguments and I suspect that when it comes to a Division the Government may be obliged to rethink whether this is something they really want to go to the stake on, or whether it is something that they can live with. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 53.

Amendment 53 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Young of Cookham [V]]

My Lords, I will add a brief footnote to the powerful case made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles. She referred to the Railways Pension Scheme. As Secretary of State for Transport from 1995 to 1997, I am familiar with the scheme, which has grown in the intervening years to be one of the UK’s largest funds and which I believe to be well run.

I shared with my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott the concerns of the RPS; namely, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, has said, that the draft DB funding code that will emerge as a result of this legislation would oblige the various schemes under the RPS to de-risk with lower returns. As the noble Baroness has explained, these would have to be made good by the industry, if it could afford it, or its employees, or the schemes would be closed to new members.

I was encouraged by my noble friend’s helpful reply, dated 17 June, which said:

“Those employers and schemes who are already following good practice and planning for the long term should not need to change and we would not expect such schemes to require significant additional funding.”


However, I shared the letter with the RPS and, despite this, it believes that the powers in the Bill are too loosely expressed and that more specificity would ensure that the subsequent regulations got off on the right track. If the Minister cannot accept the amendment, can he make a commitment that there will be a distinction between open and closed schemes, to be followed up in the subsequent regulations? Will he ask his officials to discuss these concerns further with interested parties in an endeavour to find an acceptable way through as the Bill completes its passage through both Houses?

[Baroness Altmann [V]]

My Lords, I support Amendment 71, to which I have added my name. I have little to add to the excellent words of the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, and my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham.

I stress to my noble friend the Minister that this is a really important amendment. The Government’s recent White Paper called for pension scheme funding which enables the best deal for members, supports the economy and does not place extra burdens on business. If those are the objectives—and I think they are the right ones—they will be at odds with the draft DB funding code that may emerge from this legislation, which seems to want to drive DB schemes on a path to so-called de-risking, aiming for a particular date of maturity. This concept is simply inappropriate for an open scheme.

The regulatory approach for schemes such as USS or the Railways Pension Scheme would see their ability to invest for the long term, which must be in the members’ best interest, become much more difficult. There does not seem to be sufficient recognition of the difference in liquidity profile and investment horizon of an open, relatively immature scheme compared to a closed scheme. Indeed, this would pose an existential threat to the survival of all remaining 1,000 or so open schemes. In the face of quantitative easing, increasing exposure to gilts and fixed income assets makes little sense while central bank policy is designed to force bond yields lower. Forcing schemes to compete with central banks to buy ever more expensive bonds is the most expensive way to fund these pension commitments.

The Bank of England’s pension scheme is an ideal example. It follows a lowest-risk approach, investing solely in gilts and other such supposedly safe assets. It does not match its liabilities, but it is open and entails a contribution rate of between 40% and 50% of pensionable salary. Should such pension contributions be required without any upside potential for a diversified investment strategy that can take advantage of the wide range of investment options available from infrastructure assets, building housing for rental and other areas where pension schemes with a long-term horizon are ideally placed to take advantage—for example, our own infrastructure, in which other countries’ pension schemes have significantly invested—schemes such as RPMI would require such significant contribution increases that members could not afford it and would opt out, and employers could probably not afford it either.

Therefore, I urge my noble friend to look carefully at this really important issue and to recognise explicitly that there are different needs for open DB schemes relative to those that are otherwise closed.

Covid-19: People Living in Poverty

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Thursday 30th April 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, it is difficult to find any silver lining in this corona-cloud, but the response to Louise Casey’s request for help for some of the poorest in our society, namely the rough sleepers, is one such example. The target to end rough sleeping has been reduced from five years to five days. Some 5,400 rough sleepers have been rehoused, thanks to heroic efforts by voluntary organisations and local authorities, including St Mungo’s, Thames Reach, Look Ahead and the Passage, with Crisis providing logistical support, provisions and volunteers.

The challenge now is, first, to find move-on accommodation for those rough sleepers, with appropriate support where necessary so that they do not return to the streets and, secondly, to support initiatives such as No Second Night Out to prevent a new generation taking to the streets. If we can achieve those two objectives, something good will have come from this pandemic.

Pension Schemes Bill [HL]

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 4th March 2020 Grand Committee

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, it will not take us long to deal with this amendment. When it was conceived as an amendment, there was a fairly grand design behind it but, as time has moved on, it has perhaps condensed just to a statement of beliefs in the key issues. The amendment calls for the establishing of a pension schemes commission—I hesitate to raise that issue in the proximity of my noble friend Lady Drake; we live in awe of what that commissioner achieved. The idea of the commission would be to conduct a public policy review of pension schemes. There is plenty to reflect on without stepping on the policy responsibilities of the Minister, or indeed of any Select Committee.

In recent times we have experienced the implementation of a Pensions Commission and auto-enrolment; the new state pension; changes to state pension age; the so-called pensions freedoms; master trusts, CDCs, and the future of DB schemes; an increased focus on governance, transparency, levels of charges and the pension tax system. Some of this has reached a degree of maturity and some not; some has been seen in the strategic context, and some not. In respect of this, there remain the ongoing matters of gender equality, savings levels and, still, pensioner poverty. In addition, there is our consultation on investment principles and the important issue of climate change. Therefore there is scope in all of this to reflect in future pensions issues, and today I do no more than set down a list for consideration. I beg to move.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I see that on the website of an organisation called This is Money, published on 20 January, Mr Opperman, who is of course the Minister with responsibility, is quoted as saying that he

“believes a new commission should review the future of the automatic enrolment system”.

Noble Lords may also remember that on 17 January, two think tanks, the Fabian Society and Bright Blue, launched a report calling for a cross-party commission on pensions. Responding to that, an organisation called B&CE published the following comments:

“Commenting, Guy Opperman MP, Minister for Pensions, said: ‘Over the last decade, Conservative and coalition governments have made huge strides to improve pensions for the next generation, with the introduction of auto-enrolment, an enhanced state pension and the development of the Pensions Dashboard. For the next stage of pension reform, we need to continue the consensus that emerged following the Pensions Commission of 2003 to 2005. A new Commission has cross-party support, and will help us map out the future of auto-enrolment, so we can boost contribution rates in the coming decades, and explore how we can support savers with pensions freedom reforms. Let’s not give up on the progress we’ve made in pensions through cross-party working. It’s time to explore ideas for the next generation’.”


It therefore seems that the thinking behind the proposed new clause in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, has some support at the moment within the DWP.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Young, has done the job for me, but broadly speaking, I support this amendment. As well as what has already been elaborated, it plays into the feelings that have come up several times as we discussed the Bill as well; namely that, although the noble Earl has said that there is policy, a lot of implementation is also yet to come, and perhaps some of us feel that some policy is also yet to come. I therefore hope that a commission could come along subsequently and that it would be able to have an overview of some of the newer things as well as reviewing older things and looking forward. Therefore, I also support the notion of having this pension schemes commission.

Pension Schemes Bill [HL]

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 26th February 2020 Grand Committee

These amendments are not an argument against commercial dashboards. They are saying, “Get it right; get a level of confidence before you put 25 million people’s data out into a network of commercial services.” It is not only the private interest of the individual customer. If you are putting the whole of the second-tier pension system in the UK into the dashboard ecosystem there are huge issues of public interest and public good. I am not arguing against the dashboard or against harnessing the benefits of financial technology. I am saying that the challenges and the risks are so great, so what is wrong with trialling it through a public dashboard for a year and presenting it to Parliament? If the Secretary of State is confident, the Government go ahead; if not, and they need more time, we will not have done anything wrong in this amendment. I beg to move.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, Amendments 70 and 71 in my name have much in common with Amendments 47 and 60, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, which I support. But my amendments are more specific, in that Amendment 70 designates the Money and Pensions Service as the public body, to which the noble Baroness has just referred, which would have to provide a publicly owned pensions dashboard. Amendment 71 stipulates a date by which it should be up and running. Without a date, there is no guarantee in the Bill that we will ever see the service. I will mention in a moment some of the slippages.

I assume that MaPS would qualify under the description of a public body from the noble Baroness, Lady Drake. It is an arm’s-length body sponsored by the DWP, and the Government appoint the chairman and chief executive. It is funded by levies on both the financial services industry and pension schemes, but that does not preclude it from being a public body. We have been told that it is going to provide a dashboard. Page 70 of the very helpful policy brief says:

“The Government is committed to the provision of a dashboard hosted by MaPS.”


If that is a commitment, I see no difficulty in making it a statutory requirement, which Amendment 70 does. Without such a requirement, we would be entirely dependent on the private sector to take the project forward. As we saw from the Library briefing at Second Reading, it has doubts about costs, and the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, has just reminded the Committee of some of the warnings about being over-reliant on the private sector.

I turn to Amendment 72 about the date. At Second Reading, I quoted from the Pensions Dashboard Prototype Project, which said:

“The industry and government hope to have Pensions Dashboard Services ready by 2019.”—[Official Report, 28/1/20; Col. 1372.]


My remarks were drawn to the attention of the project and the comment was hastily withdrawn. However, yesterday, I logged on to the ABI website entitled, “The Pensions Dashboard—your online pension finder”. That website has a 2020 date at the foot of the last page, indicating that it has been updated relatively recently, but on page 1 it said:

“The Government’s objective is for the service to be available to consumers by 2019.”


I expect that also to be revised in the near future—indeed, an email may already be winging its way to the ABI.

Against that background, my target date of December 2023, for something for which we are told the Government’s objective was for it to be up and running two months ago, is excessively generous. Reading the ABI website further, I found the following question:

“If the prototype has worked, why do I have to wait until 2019 to use this myself?”


The answer makes it clear that, in the ABI’s view, any delay is down to the Government. It says:

“The prototype has proved that the technological challenges of agreeing data standards, verifying people’s identities and reporting back in a secure and meaningful way can be done, but it is only part of the solution.”


It goes on to say:

“Setting up a service like this cannot be done by the pensions industry alone, but needs support from the Government and regulators to agree rules for how it will operate.”


That, of course, is what we are doing this evening. It seems that the ABI is ready to go and is just waiting for the Government.

I will put this in a historic context. In 2002, the then Secretary of State at the DWP, Andrew Smith, said that the Government would create a web-based retirement planning tool—the online retirement planner—showing people their total projected pension income. Fast-forward to 2014—if fast-forward is the right expression—when Mark Hoban, then Financial Secretary to the Treasury, said:

“A ‘RetirementSaverService’ (dashboard) will be essential to support pension freedoms.”


Five years after pension freedoms were introduced, there is still no dashboard. In the meantime, eight national pensions dashboards have been launched in Europe.

Pension Schemes Bill [HL]

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting & Committee: 1st sitting : House of Lords
Monday 24th February 2020 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Young of Cookham]

9: Clause 25, page 17, line 26, at end insert—
“( ) If the trustees receive an application under section 95 relating to money purchase benefits that are collective money purchase benefits, the trustees must check that the member or survivor has received appropriate independent advice before—(a) converting any of the benefits into different benefits that are flexible benefits under the scheme;(b) making a transfer payment in respect of any of the benefits with a view to acquiring a right or entitlement to flexible benefits for the member or survivor under another pension scheme;(c) paying a lump sum that would be an uncrystallised funds pension lump sum in respect of any of the benefits.( ) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about—(a) what the trustees or managers must do to check that a member or survivor has received appropriate independent advice for the purposes of this section, and(b) when the check must be carried out.”

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 9, which is tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Altmann, seeks to give protection to beneficiaries of CDCs who want to transfer out. Basically, it extends the protection that already exists in statute for DB beneficiaries to beneficiaries of CDCs, which we are discussing this afternoon.

As the law stands, that protection does not apply to the beneficiaries of the schemes we are talking about, so I have done a cut-and-paste job, lifting a chunk of legislation and applying it to CDCs. I welcome the steps the Government are already taking to stop people being misled into giving up rights under pension schemes—they have banned cold calling for example—but there are still too many abuses out there and there is a risk of people being approached and encouraged to forgo the benefits they have accrued under a CDC scheme for something that may not be worth quite so much.

I found the meetings that the Minister held with officials and Members of your Lordships’ House enormously helpful. This issue was raised. If I remember correctly, two arguments were given for not doing what I propose now. One was that it will take time to build up a transfer value of £30,000, which is the trigger level at which you have to get independent financial advice. In other words, people who are subscribing to these schemes would not be able to build up £30,000-worth of assets very quickly so there would be time to introduce a scheme. The other argument was that we are talking about a new type of scheme and therefore independent financial advisers may need time to develop the relevant portfolio of skills to give relevant advice to those who are thinking of transferring.

I do not find either of those arguments convincing, particularly as it would be possible for people to transfer into, for example, the Royal Mail scheme. Like other noble Lords, I got a letter from Royal Mail:

“Dear Lord Young … If you have any questions or would like to discuss the issues raised during the debate at Second Reading, please do not hesitate to contact me.”


I contacted Royal Mail and asked whether it is envisaged that those who join Royal Mail after the scheme has started and have a pension pot from their earlier employment will be able to buy into the CDC scheme. The answer—it is now “Dear George” rather than “Dear Lord Young” as the relationship warms—was:

“In answer to your question, yes, the rules of our CDC scheme will allow members to transfer in (“buy in”) and provide themselves with additional benefits under the two parts of the scheme, (a CDC pension and a defined benefit lump sum on retirement).”


So it could be the case that quite soon after the Bill becomes an Act and Royal Mail goes ahead somebody who joins Royal Mail and after a few months or a year decides to transfer out may have a pot worth more than £30,000, but at the moment they will not have to seek any independent financial advice before taking that decision, putting them in a different category from other beneficiaries.

The other argument was that this is a different product and therefore different skills will be needed to give advice to a beneficiary about whether it is worthwhile transferring out. It is a different product, but I wonder whether it is so different that IFAs will not be able to give independent advice to an individual looking on the one hand at the advantages of remaining within a particular CDC scheme and on the other hand at the possible advantages of transferring out. Given that CDC schemes exist in other countries and that there has been a debate about CDCs for some time in this country, I would have thought it perfectly possible to require people to take that advice.

I was reading the briefing from the RSA, which drew my attention to the fact that:

“There is a provision in the Bill to allow the Regulator to temporarily ‘pause’ the transfer option, which mitigates the risk of large-scale transfers out of the system due to misinformation.”


There is indeed a provision in the Bill. It is tucked away in Clause 44 under a pause order. It seems very cumbersome. This clause enables the Pensions Regulator to pause certain activities once a collective money purchase scheme has experienced a triggering event, and one of the things that a pause order can then do is stop a scheme making transfers out of the scheme. I am not sure that is what we want. It involves the Pensions Regulator and is essentially reactive, whereas we need something proactive, which happens automatically and in advance. I did not find that provision in Clause 44 an adequate response to a problem that may affect just one or two individuals in a CDC scheme, and will therefore not engage the attention of the Pensions Regulator, because there is nothing systemically wrong with the way the CDC scheme is being run.

There is an issue here. It may arise slightly more quickly than was originally envisaged. The solution I have may not be perfect, but it is a little better than the pause order, the triggering events and the provision in Clause 44. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My Lords, we are inching towards the solution that I was after. I think I heard my noble friend say that she did not rule out legislation in due course, once the necessary skills had been acquired.

I would like to pick up one or two points. At one point, I think my noble friend said it might not be cost effective to have advice for smaller amounts. The amount that I envisaged was exactly the same amount that is already required to get independent financial advice for a defined-benefit scheme, so if it is cost effective for a defined-benefit scheme beneficiary to get advice for an amount over £30,000 then I would argue that it is the same for someone with collective contributions.

I heard what my noble friend said about safeguarding the interests of other scheme members but that is not actually the point I was making. I understand that the trustees will want to look at the impact on other scheme members if a large number withdraw, but that is not quite the same as making sure that those who withdraw have had access to the right advice. I think she also drew a distinction between benefits that are safeguarded because they are defined benefits and benefits under this scheme, which are not safeguarded. Legally she is of course perfectly correct, but in effect one hopes that there will not be that much difference between the level of benefits that you get from the scheme that we are discussing and the level that you get from a DB scheme.

I look forward to the regulations that my noble friend referred to. I was reassured by what my noble friends Lord Eccles and Lady Altmann said about the role of trustees. At the moment, under Clause 25(2), all they can do is hold things up for three weeks. However, if trustees take the advice of my noble friend Lord Eccles and take steps to ensure that people have taken the necessary advice before they transfer out, that is the way to go. As I said, I am grateful to my noble friend for her response. We are moving in the right direction and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 9 withdrawn.

Pension Schemes Bill [HL]

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords & 2nd reading (Hansard)
Tuesday 28th January 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I wish to make a brief contribution to this Second Reading debate and, like others, I welcome the provisions in the Bill. I wish my noble friend well in piloting it through your Lordships’ House and commend her and her department for the briefing with which they have provided us.

It may be my noble friend’s first pensions Bill but I hope she will not mind if I tell her that I first spoke on a pensions Bill on 18 March 1975. The Bill was Barbara Castle’s Social Security Pensions Bill and the Opposition spokesmen were the now noble Lord, Lord Fowler, and Mr Kenneth Clarke. I must have been the Whip on the Bill, and reading my Second Reading speech, I was clearly a pretty obnoxious young man, haranguing Barbara Castle as follows:

“As a generation we have the collective effrontery to insist that our children make sacrifices on our behalf, on a scale that we are not prepared to make on behalf of the elderly today.”—[Official Report, Commons, 18/3/1975; col. 1538.]


I went on:

“If the benefits which she has promised are forthcoming, it is not she whom we ought to thank but the future generations, as yet unborn, who have been committed by her to a level of contributions that we are not prepared to pay ourselves.”


My parting shot at Barbara Castle was:

“I leave the Minister with this thought. How sad it would be if, in order to meet the contributions that future generations will have to make, the retirement age had to be raised to generate the necessary income.”—[Official Report, Commons, 18/3/1975; col. 1540.]


That was an accurate prediction of what has in fact happened.

Forty-four years later, and a beneficiary of that Bill, I want to focus my remarks on Part 4, dealing with the pensions dashboard. Like other noble Lords, I welcome putting this on a statutory footing and placing a requirement for pension schemes to provide information for the dashboard. Most people make inadequate provision for their old age, despite the success of auto-enrolment, and this is particularly true of young people. The excellent briefing by Which? for this debate showed that half of those over 50 and still in employment are not sure of the value of their pension savings, one-third find it difficult to keep track of their pension pots and one-fifth have never checked. The dashboard will bring home to people at the flick of a mouse what their entitlement will be and perhaps cause them to think seriously about whether that will suffice. Perhaps the dashboard might have some options indicating what that individual’s contributions would need to be if they wanted to retire on today’s salary.

I have a few queries, which my noble friend might like to address in a letter if that is more convenient. Over the weekend, I logged on to the Pensions Dashboard Prototype Project, which I found informative, but right at the end it said:

“The industry and government hope to have Pensions Dashboard services ready by 2019.”


That sounds as if folk will already be able to access the service, but they cannot.

Reading the response to the consultation document, we are told:

“Once the supporting infrastructure and consumer protections are in place, and data standards and security are assured, most pension schemes should be ready to provide consumer’s information to them within three to four years.”


Even that rather long timescale is qualified by the words “most” and “should”. This project has been on the stocks for some time, and I wonder whether we really have to wait that long for this. If we do, perhaps somebody might amend the wording on the website as it is seriously misleading.

My second query is about the identity service referred to in Clause 119(3). The government response says:

“Before the pension search can take place, the identity service will authenticate the user to an accepted standard.”


The Explanatory Notes state:

“For example, the regulations may provide that ID verification must be completed before any information is provided”.


As I understand it, that means one has to register with a service such as Verify in order to get the digital key that unlocks access to this new service.

Last year, the NAO issued a very critical report on Verify:

“GDS reported a verification success rate of 48% at the beginning of February 2019, against a 2015 projection of 90%.”


GDS is the Government Digital Service. I tried to access Verify and was rejected by two before I succeeded with the third of the six private sector authenticators. Government support for Verify ends this March, with the hope that the private sector will take over. Is my noble friend satisfied that those who want to access the dashboard will not be deterred by the at times cumbersome and unreliable identity services?

My third query is about the many pension schemes where the widow, widower or partner has benefits when the principal beneficiary dies. Will those “secondary” beneficiaries be able to access their entitlement under the principal’s scheme both before and after the principal has died? If the objective is to give people a good idea of what their pension will be and whether they need to make additional provision, that information is essential if they are to get a complete picture. There may be data protection issues, but I think that this issue needs addressing and I hope that my noble friend will be able to say something about it.

It is not clear—this point was raised by my noble friend Lady Altmann—whether the information will include charges and income projection figures. To be meaningful, both should be included. Presumably, schemes will not be able to make their own heroic assumptions about projections. Can the Minister confirm that there will be a standardised methodology for projections?

Next, equity release is becoming an increasingly important component of retirement planning. A person’s equity might be worth far more than their pension pot and be capable of providing an income stream in retirement. I do not want to suggest anything that might slow down the rollout of the dashboard, but is it being configured in such a way that it will be possible downstream to incorporate the savings locked up in equity as well as the savings locked up in the pension pot, together with potential income streams?

My final query relates to the use of “pensions dashboards” in the plural—a point raised by other noble Lords. If I were mischievous, I would table an amendment to delete “dashboards” and insert “dashboard” in the singular in Clause 118. I assume, incidentally, that there will be no charge for access to any dashboard, and perhaps that might be made explicit in the Bill.

As a Conservative, I am in favour of competition and choice, but I asked myself why we need more than one dashboard, particularly as under Clause 122 the Money and Pensions Service will be obliged to provide one itself. Of course, the same information will be available to all dashboards, and designing and setting one up will involve providers in considerable expense, with no revenue. The excellent Library briefing refers to the industry’s concern about the costs of establishing a dashboard.

I see a parallel with the directory enquiry service. That was abolished in 2003 and replaced with a bewildering array of no less than 20 118 schemes. I am not convinced that competition and plurality has always been a worthwhile innovation. Any mischief on my part might be avoided if any dashboard had to be regulated by the FCA—as suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake—to make sure that it was compliant.

As a postscript, can my noble friend shed some light on the recent support of the Pensions Minister for a new pensions commission, as suggested by the Fabian Society and Bright Blue?

Having said all that, I welcome the Bill and hope that it might reach the statute book before too long.

Financial Guidance and Claims Bill [HL]

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

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

[Lord Deben]

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

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

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

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

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Altmann]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, for moving the amendment on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher. I ask the Minister whether we have considered the issue, supported by a number of consumer groups, that I raised in Committee requiring a company that has been found to need to pay out on a claim to pay the claims management fee, rather than taking it out of the compensation. That should perhaps be more acceptable with a cap, but also more effective for those who receive compensation, as well as encouraging companies that have mis-sold something or perpetrated harm to the consumer to voluntarily contact consumers who have been harmed, rather than waiting for a claims management firm to do so on their behalf, thus saving them the extra cost of the claims management fee.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, for moving the amendment in the absence of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher. We are sorry that she had to leave for family reasons. I again pay tribute to the work she has put into this amendment. She has pursued it with diligence.

The amendment seeks to put in place a fee cap from two months after Royal Assent until the FCA implements its own cap. We debated this in Committee. I am grateful to noble Lords who contributed to this debate for highlighting it again.

Clause 17 already makes great strides to secure fair and proportionate prices for consumers by giving the FCA a duty to cap fees charged for financial services claims. However, as a number of noble Lords pointed out in Committee, the implementation of a new regulatory regime and an effective, robust cap will necessarily take some time, during which consumers could continue to be charged disproportionate fees. In that debate, noble Lords expressed concerns that the FCA’s PPI claims deadline may have passed by the time its fee cap is in place. That point was made by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie. We already know that 90% of financial services claims relate to PPI and therefore we want to ensure that consumers are protected against excessive fees for PPI claims as soon as possible. That is why, as the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, anticipated with commendable foresight, the Government intend to table an amendment at Third Reading to introduce an interim fee cap in respect of PPI claims management services.

The amendment will set a fee cap at 20%, excluding VAT, of the claim value and will be enforced by relevant regulators on commencement two months after the Bill receives Royal Assent. The Claims Management Regulation Unit consulted on a 15% cap. The data that it collected on the costs to CMCs of processing claims and market analysis of profit margins resulted in proposals to introduce a 20% excluding VAT cap on claims management services. The amendment supports the Government’s aim of ensuring that the claims management sector works in the interests of consumers by protecting them from excessive fees.

The amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, and moved by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, would go some way towards ensuring that consumers are protected during this interim period. However, the government amendment will go further in two key areas. First, it will have a wider application than the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness. The interim fee cap will apply to both CMCs and legal services providers that carry out claims management services in relation to PPI claims, to be enforced by the relevant regulators.

Secondly, it will include in primary legislation a prohibition against charging more than 20% of the claim value for PPI claims, which will enable the regulators to implement the cap quickly. As I said a moment ago, this level was reached using the helpful and comprehensive responses to the Ministry of Justice’s consultation on proposals to introduce a fee-capping regime for CMCs handling financial services claims.

On the procedure for claiming any excesses imposed over the cap, anyone in breach of the interim fee cap will be subject to regulatory enforcement, which could include fines. Furthermore, a contract to receive or pay a sum in excess of the fee cap would be unenforceable, thereby ensuring that firms cannot profit from their malpractice and that consumers are entitled to recover excessive fees.

My noble friend Lady Altmann raised a question about compensation. As we will revert to this issue at Third Reading, perhaps we could deal with it then.

I make it clear that the interim cap is intended to be a temporary measure and, as such, will apply only until the FCA has implemented its new rules under Clause 17. It will also apply only to PPI claims, whereas the FCA’s cap will apply to all claims relating to financial products and services. We remain of the view that the FCA, as the incoming regulator, will be well placed to develop its own cap, or caps, based on an assessment of the market. Given the Government’s undertaking to table an amendment on this matter at Third Reading, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope]

My Lords, I am very happy with that undertaking. I hope that the dialogue can continue and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Altmann]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Holmes on persisting with the amendment. I support the need to make sure that regulated firms have this duty of care, especially in circumstances such as the diagnosis of cancer and other illnesses, from which people can recover but for which they need particular care during that period. While the Bill is going through the House, it would be excellent for the market if we were able to introduce measures of this nature, but I also look forward to hearing from my noble friend and seeing the Government’s response before Third Reading.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Holmes for moving the amendment. He mentioned that he was a member of my flock. He displays exactly the right independence of thought tempered by loyalty to the party that any Whip could wish for. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, and my noble friend Lady Altmann for speaking to the amendment, which seeks to ensure that the FCA adheres to a set of regulatory principles in relation to acting in the best interest of consumers and managing conflicts of interest fairly. Noble Lords also raised the broader issue of duty of care, which is not mentioned specifically in the amendment but is obviously relevant. As noble Lords may remember, my noble friend tabled a similar amendment in Committee.

Aside from the provisions in general consumer law, the FCA already applies rules on firms conducting regulated activities in relation to their dealings with consumers. First, the FCA’s rules set out in Principles for Businesses require firms to conduct their business,

“with due skill, care and diligence”,

and to,

“pay due regard to the interests of … customers and treat them fairly”.

Principle 8 sets out:

“A firm must manage conflicts of interest fairly, both between itself and its customers and between a customer and another client”.


That accurately mirrors proposed new subsection 1(b) in the amendment, so there is a congruity of objective there.

Secondly, the rules on clients’ best interests require a firm to act in its client’s best interests across most regulated activities. The client’s best interests rule states:

“A firm must act honestly, fairly and professionally in accordance with the best interests of its client”.


Again, those are exactly the words used in my noble friend’s amendment, so there is no disagreement over objective.

Thirdly and finally, a number of FCA rules contain an obligation on firms to take “reasonable care” for certain activities. For example, one of the Insurance: Conduct of Business rules states:

“A firm must take reasonable care to ensure the suitability of its advice for any customer who is entitled to rely upon its judgment”.


Those rules in the FCA Handbook are supplemented by more specific rules in various FCA sourcebooks. The FCA will be able to apply its existing Principles for Businesses, which I have just quoted, to claims management companies and to make any other sector-specific rules that may be necessary, under its existing objectives. The FCA supervises against these rules and other provisions and, where necessary, can take enforcement action against firms to secure appropriate consumer protection.

The FCA is of the view that its current regulatory toolkit is sufficient to enable it to fulfil its consumer protection objective. The FCA will consider the precise rules that apply to claims management services and how they fit together as an overall regime. In doing this, the FCA will take into account its statutory operational objectives, including its objective of securing an appropriate degree of protection for consumers. It will also consult publicly on its proposed rules.

Turning to the broader issue of duty of care, the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked whether there were any pearls. I think the oyster is still at work so the pearls are not available for display this evening. The words “duty of care” mean different things to different people and the precise scope and content of any proposed duty of care are uncertain. The impact of a duty of care obligation needs to be fully considered, as do the cost, complexity and time that might be involved in customers seeking to bring firms to court as a result of a duty of care obligation.

I was asked to say something about the timescale of the work on this. A duty of care could have an effect on many of the FCA’s provisions in its handbook, including the need to replace or remove some. The FCA intends to undertake a comprehensive review of the handbook post Brexit. The FCA believes that it would be best to include duty of care in that review, particularly as the FCA’s ability to change its rules in some areas will depend on the relationship between the EU and UK post withdrawal. Many of the FCA’s current rules are based on EU legislation. Once the relationship between the EU and the UK following withdrawal is clear, there will be more clarity around the degree of discretion that the FCA has to amend its rules.

In addition, the FCA is currently identifying the necessary changes to its rules to ensure that they continue to operate as a coherent set of rules following EU withdrawal. This work is being done in parallel with the work across government to review directly applicable EU legislation. It is a significant, complex and time-critical exercise that must be progressed immediately. If noble Lords have any concerns about the timing of the discussion paper, that is primarily a matter for the FCA.

Returning to the amendment, it is not necessary to include regulatory principles in the Bill because of the provisions the FCA already has. For that reason, I would request—or suggest—to my noble friend Lord Holmes that he withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond]

I thank all noble Lords who have participated in this short debate, and my noble friend the Minister, from whom I am happy to take requests and suggestions in equal measure.

I imagine my noble friend has become far more familiar with the rulebook than he could have imagined or perhaps even desired. I agree with the rules he recited but there seems to be a slight contradiction in that the rules are clearly stated but simultaneously it is accepted by all concerned, not least the FCA, that there is at least a question worth asking and looking into around duty of care. I think we are in a positive place: there is an acceptance that there is at least a question that is worth looking into.

In financial services there is a lot of talk around the acronyms, as in any business or organisation. There is a lot of focus on KYC—“Know your customer”. May I suggest that, rather than promoting just KYC, all noble Lords involved in this debate and everybody outside the Chamber should also promote alongside it CFYC? That would take financial services into a very positive place for the future, as that “Care for your customer” is where banking originated centuries ago. It would be a thoroughly good thing for all financial services organisations to have a sense of CFYC.

On the amendment itself, I have heard my noble friend’s arguments and I understand the position. It would be helpful to have further discussions between now and Third Reading, to see what specifics it may be possible to set out in regard to this amendment. We may have had the answer on the general duty for this stage but it would be worth while having more discussions, not least because we are promised the response to the report of the Financial Exclusion Select Committee, of which I was fortunate enough to be a member. I would welcome further discussions and we could then decide what the route may be to Third Reading. But in thanking all noble Lords who have participated this evening, including my noble friend the Minister, at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Kinnoull]

My Lords, we are on the home leg. In moving Amendment 43, I shall speak also to Amendment 46. I am reporting back the same two amendments that we discussed in Committee, and your Lordships will be delighted to hear that my remarks will be very short. Before I make them, I should say that the Minister is now a great hero of mine. I remarked that he was sending me emails at 7.21 am during Committee stage, but he takes a bit of a lie-in these days: his first email to me this morning was at 8.20 am. He has worked with terrific courtesy, particularly on this issue, which is a very difficult one given the poor state of relations between our Parliament and Holyrood. It will be very helpful, because working on this is greatly to the benefit of people both sides of the border.

Your Lordships will recall that I had two beefs with the law as it is. The first is my beef about arbitrage: companies can set up in unregulated Scotland and aim their activities at England. I felt that any form of arbitrage within the United Kingdom was against the general principle of having a single market in the United Kingdom and was wrong. The second beef I had was that as one looked at the statistics—we have drowned in really depressing statistics in this area—one saw that Scotland had it worse than England in terms of the activities of these very unpleasant companies. So I thought it was time for Scotland to do something about it. The Justice Committee at Holyrood has been studying the problem and feels the same—we had various quotes from various Scottish Ministers feeling that.

I should also say that this is another piece of Meccano, because the trigger in my mechanism would actually be held by Scottish Ministers. Tantalisingly, the good news is that last night a letter surfaced that was being sent by Annabelle Ewing, the relevant Scottish Minister, to the Justice Committee at Holyrood, saying that the Scottish Government were now keen to regulate CMCs in Scotland and that officials were in active discussions with equivalent officials down south to do that. Accordingly, I am hoping that in a minute we will hear some very good news from the Minister. I do not know what happened next, but he does. I beg to move Amendment 43.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My Lords, the end is in sight. I am very grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for his amendment and for the kind words he said about me. It has been a very constructive dialogue to seek to get this bit of the Bill right.

The amendments in his name seek to extend Part 2 of the Bill to Scotland. As noble Lords will be aware, the Government worked closely with the Scottish Government during the development of this policy to ensure that the FCA’s regulatory regime not only achieves the aim of strengthening claims management regulation but is proportionate to the needs of the sector and its consumers. Having sufficient evidence of malpractice by CMCs in Scotland is essential to justify extending regulation across the border. Our initial discussions with the Scottish Government revealed that they did not want regulation of CMCs to be extended to Scotland. Their view was that there was limited evidence of malpractice. We had powerful contributions in our debate in Committee which put forward a contrary view.

Because CMCs in Scotland have tended to be solicitor led, they are often regulated by the Law Society of Scotland. The decision was therefore made to replicate the current scope of claims management regulation to England and Wales only. However, following the very useful debate which we had on this issue in Committee, we have continued discussions with the Scottish Government, and their views are evolving.

The Scottish Government have not yet requested that claims management regulation is extended to Scotland, but I say to the noble Earl that, should we receive ministerial confirmation that the Scottish Government wish to extend claims management regulation to Scotland, we would be ready and willing to table a government amendment to that effect. So we will continue to engage with the Scottish Government and we will keep our position on claims management regulation in Scotland under review.