Financial Services Bill

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Bishop of St Albans

Report stage
Wednesday 14th April 2021 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans [V]]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 16 and then address my own Amendment 27. The introduction of a regulatory body to oversee the rules governing the behaviour of bailiffs would greatly strengthen complaints handling for the victims of practices that fall outside the national guidelines. The FCA reported in its Financial Lives 2020 Survey that 3.8 million people in the UK are currently experiencing “financial difficulty”. It is a terrible situation that takes a significant toll on people’s health and relationships. This amendment seeks to address an important concern: the fair treatment of people by enforcement agents who collect debts, often from vulnerable people who are in grave financial distress.

The absence of an independent regulator means that, when breaches of national standards occur, any complaints will be dealt with through the company or a trade association, before possibly being passed on to an ombudsman. This is an arduous process that prevents complaints from being adequately actioned. Furthermore, these national standards are not legally binding, which obscures the extent to which an individual can seek redress. No industry is exempt from poor practice. While most enforcement agents will probably abide by national standards, nevertheless we need to make sure that they are properly regulated.

Breaches do occur, and I will quote one example provided by the charity Christians Against Poverty of a single mother of two children. This woman was living under police protection and was a regular at a food bank, and her abusive former partner had taken out £20,000-worth of debt in her name. All of this was compounded by the fact that she was caring for her critically ill mother. When visited by a bailiff on account of a parking fine that had escalated, she attempted to contact CAP so that it could explain the situation to the bailiff. At this point the bailiff became intimidating, aggressive and threatening. That is a breach of rule 21 of the national guidelines, which states:

“Enforcement agents must not act in a threatening manner when visiting the debtor”.


We need to get a balance of powers that allows enforcement officers to undertake their tasks while also protecting debtors and ensuring they have significant mechanisms to air complaints impartially and without fear.

Debt charities are already reporting rising numbers of people in financial crisis and behind on household bills such as rent and council tax because of the Covid pandemic. Given the possible upturn in the number of individuals being referred to bailiffs in the near future, now is a suitable time to explore how we can introduce a regulatory body. I hope the Government will look closely at the content of this amendment and work to correct the current imbalance.

I now turn to Amendment 27 in my name. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, who have also signed it. I tabled this amendment because I believe in the positive difference that gambling blockers can make in reducing gambling harms and empowering individuals to control their own addictions. The amendment would mandate the providers of debit and credit accounts to offer opt-in gambling blockers to block gambling transactions.

As things stand, gambling blockers have widened coverage over the past three years, currently reaching around 90% of current accounts and 40% of credit card accounts. This is an achievement in its own right and should be welcomed as a positive technological aid to reduce problem gambling. While there is a still a need to close that 10% in debit card coverage, the majority of which will come from smaller banks and building societies, it is of secondary concern to the far larger gap that exists in the credit account market, where 60% of accounts are not covered by blocking options.

In April 2020, the Gambling Commission banned the use of credit cards for gambling purposes, but this is only enforceable on licensed operators. The lack of gambling blockers on credit accounts is particularly problematic as it can provide a back door for individuals suffering from gambling-related harms to use credit cards on unlicensed sites. This undermines the Gambling Commission’s own rules and unfairly benefits unlicensed operators. Even more worryingly, this blind spot provides a direct avenue for the expansion of harmful and addictive behaviour, and the accumulation of gambling debt that would not ordinarily be allowed.

With the Government’s gambling review ongoing, the emphasis should be on preventing harm, and provisions for gambling blockers would be a welcome aid in achieving this goal. Admittedly, they are not perfect; they rely on accurate merchant categorisation codes to identify gambling transactions. But this should not discount the positive part they can play. Furthermore, through greater co-operation between account providers and payment processors, a robust and data-driven system of reporting could be developed to identify unlicensed operators hiding behind incorrect merchant categorisation codes to block future transactions. With no legal requirement to provide blockers and no obligation on payment processors to diligently review the merchant categorisation codes of unlicensed operators, gambling blockers will suffer from pitfalls that could be effectively remedied through either a legislative or regulatory approach.

There are also issues this amendment does not directly deal with but deserve highlighting. Due to the entirely optional provision of blockers, there are currently no minimum standards for functionality. This is an issue when it comes to the so-called “cooling-off” or “friction” period—the time between deactivating the blocker and once again being allowed to transact for gambling purposes. As a tool that assists those suffering from gambling addiction, the ability to activate and deactivate at will renders a blocker redundant.

Of the gambling blockers currently on offer, friction periods range from instant reactivation to 48 hours. The results offered by Monzo highlight the success of stricter cooling-off periods. Its blocker, with a 48-hour cooling-off period, block around 585,000 gambling transactions per month and is active on nearly 300,000 accounts. According to its data, once it is activated, fewer than 10% of customers deactivate it. Monzo, driven by its own success, has called upon the Government to mandate that banks provide blockers and would no doubt support this amendment. However, as I have shown, it is not merely their provision that renders them successful but their architecture. A minimum cooling-off period of 24 hours would make them far more effective tools to deal with addictions.

Finally, I will add that, in a data-driven world fuelled by digital payment systems rather than the cash we used in the past, individuals should have more autonomy over how they spend their money. Aside from their benefits in combating addiction and containing the unlicensed market, gambling blockers are an example of giving customers control over their own transactions. Actions and decisions are increasingly dictated by data that is controlled, analysed and dissected by global corporations and increasingly removed from the individual. Optional transaction blockers such as those related to gambling re-empower individuals and give them a stake in this new data-driven environment.

I thank the Government for their helpful work in encouraging the major banks to introduce gambling blockers—an endeavour that has been very successful in relation to debit cards. I know from discussions I have had with the Government that they see the benefits of blockers and continue to support a voluntary rollout. This is very encouraging and I hope that as they move forward with these efforts they will take on board some of the comments made here and find ways to promote greater data sharing between payment service providers and processors to tackle the unlicensed market. However, I remain of the opinion that for products as potentially harmful as gambling there should be not only a statutory obligation to provide opt-in blockers, as stated in this amendment, but minimum design requirements so that the positive results provided by Monzo can be emulated by other account providers.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley made a powerful case for his amendment, as did the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans for the two amendments to which he spoke.

I will speak to amendment 37C, in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. It seeks to release child trust funds worth less than £5,000 held by children with learning disabilities, without the need to go through the daunting, lengthy and at times cumbersome Court of Protection process, while at the same time offering strict safeguards to prevent abuse.

Child trust funds were launched in January 2005, and 6.3 million children in the UK born between September 2002 and January 2011 were eligible to receive vouchers from the Government to invest in the scheme. Families with children who had a disability were offered additional payments to make it more attractive for them to join the scheme and to compensate them for the additional costs that they would face.

Registration of Marriage Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Bishop of St Albans

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Friday 26th January 2018 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans]

My Lords, the purpose of this Bill is to correct a clear and historic injustice. When a couple are married and that marriage is registered, there is currently provision only for a father’s name to be recorded. This is an archaic practice and unchanged since Victorian times, when children were seen as a father’s property and little consideration was given to a mother’s role in raising them.

As we approach the centenary of the Representation of the People Act, it is only right that we consider how existing legislation excludes, or does not recognise, the contribution made by women. This Bill allows for this important and symbolic change to be made. As I am a bishop in the Church of England, it is important to note that the Bill will allow mothers’ names to be included when registering all marriages, not just those taking place in Church of England churches. I also draw your Lordships’ attention to an identical Bill introduced in the other place by the second church estates commissioner, Dame Caroline Spelman. We are hoping that between us appropriate time will be given so that this change can be made.

A marriage officially recognises the start of a new family. Including parents’ names on marriage registers gives children an opportunity to recognise the contribution of their parents in bringing them to that day. It is only right that mothers are recognised in their role just as much as fathers. Unsurprisingly, and as many Members of this House are aware, calls for reform of this system of marriage registration are not new. Indeed, in August 2014, the then Prime Minister David Cameron announced his support for a move to facilitate the inclusion of mothers’ names on marriage registers, and Members in the other place from all major parties have supported Early Day Motions in favour of the change. Much to the amusement of the staff in my office, a number of magazines written for what one might call the stylish woman have been interested in, and supportive of, my Bill. However, that should not be surprising. I imagine that many Members of this House who have been married themselves or whose children have married will have been shocked that only the father’s details are recorded. As someone who has performed hundreds of marriages, it seems to me wholly unreasonable that mothers are systematically overlooked on this special occasion.

The Church welcomes this change and has been working for many years with the Home Office and General Register Office on the finer points of its implementation. We have also solicited feedback from the Dean of the Arches, archdeacons and diocesan registrars.

Interestingly, I have also received a great deal of correspondence from genealogists, who are anxious for this change to be made. They find the current system of registration very frustrating as it registers only one half of the family tree. I believe that the Bill I have put forward is the best way to enact this necessary change. But, unfortunately, to enact the change is not as simple as creating another box for mothers’ names on marriage certificates, as has previously been proposed. To do so would require 84,000 hard-copy marriage registers, located around the country, to be replaced at a cost of roughly £3 million. It would also not solve the problems that arise when 84,000 hard-copy registers serve as the formal legal record. Books can be easily lost or damaged, and an opportunity for fraud exists when blank registers and certificate stock are stolen. Thus, the Bill also provides for marriages to be registered electronically, as is already the case in Scotland and Northern Ireland. The General Register Office already has a system for this sort of electronic registration, and, apart from set-up costs, no wheels need to be reinvented.

Before I outline one or two further details of the Bill, I will mention what it does not intend to do. It does not alter who can get married, where they can get married or who can perform that marriage. The Bill does not propose any changes to marriage ceremonies or the Church of England’s doctrine of marriage. These are all far greater questions, but they all fall outside the scope of this quite narrowly focused Bill. I understand that some Members of this House may have strong feelings on some of the other issues, but respectfully submit that I hope that these concerns will not get in the way of this simple and important change being made, which many people have wanted for such a long time.

I will also comment on the way in which this change will be enacted. It has been drawn to my attention that there may be some anxiety either in this House or in the other place about the power the Bill grants the Secretary of State to,

“make provision in relation to the registration of marriages in England and Wales”,

by regulation. Concern has been expressed that this constitutes a Henry VIII clause. Before your Lordships take a view on the constitutional appropriateness of the power provided for in the Bill, I humbly submit that the Bill is very bounded, both at Clause 1(1) and in the accompanying Explanatory Notes. The powers enacted by the Bill are simply those required to make this change in the simplest and most logical manner possible.

I am also extremely grateful to all Members who have come to speak in today’s debate, and I hope that I will gain their support so that this necessary change can be made. I beg to move.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I gently remind those taking part in this debate of the advisory Back-Bench speaking time and urge them to follow the excellent example of the right reverend Prelate.

Short-term Holiday Lets

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Bishop of St Albans

Thursday 8th December 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham]

Of course, that particular abuse—if I can use that term—will be stopped next spring, when Airbnb apply the restriction to which I referred. It is also worth reminding my noble friend, and indeed my noble friend Lady Gardner, that it is possible for a local authority to remove the 90-day rule and apply for an exemption, either for particular properties or for residential properties situated in a specific area, if there is a “loss of amenity”. If that is the case, the ability to short-let for up to 90 days does not apply.

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans]

My Lords, back in July the Minister kindly wrote to me to reassure me that the promised £60 million fund to enable rural and coastal communities to provide accommodation for local people was still on course, despite it having been delayed following the events in June. It is nearly 2017 and I do not think we have heard any more about that fund. Can the Minister assure your Lordships’ House that the scheme is still on course? When will the money be made available for those communities suffering most from second-home ownership?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I understand the concern that the right reverend Prelate has raised; may I write to him when I have further details about that? I hope to be able to give him the assurance that he has just sought.

Pension Protection Fund

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Bishop of St Albans

Tuesday 13th September 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham]

The noble Baroness raises a very important issue, which goes way beyond what I thought was the fairly extensive briefing I have in my pack. I hope she will excuse me if I say that I would like to make some inquiries and then write to her.

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans]

Perhaps I may push the Minister a little more. I totally accept that the value of pension funds goes up and down according to a number of factors, but recent statistics show that 56 of the FTSE 100 companies had a combined pension deficit of £42.3 billion, which was up from £25 billion in the previous year—so growing fairly steadily. Just last year those FTSE companies were able to pay out dividends of £53 billion—a sign of their success. Does the Minister think that those companies have the balance right between shareholders and employees? If not, will the Government consider doing something about it to ensure that their responsibilities are taken more seriously?

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Bishop of St Albans

Wednesday 13th April 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, perhaps I may intervene briefly on these two amendments. I have some sympathy with Amendment 52. As a former Member for a rural constituency, I know how important housing association properties for rent are in small villages. They contribute to the balanced communities that we want to retain, so I understand the concerns here. However, the amendment is entirely unnecessary because under the voluntary agreement there is absolutely no obligation on rural housing associations to sell their properties. Indeed, they are closer to the problem than almost anyone else, so it is most unlikely that, given the nature of the voluntary agreement, they would want to sell these properties.

The voluntary agreement specifically refers to properties in rural areas as examples of circumstances where housing associations may exercise discretion over sales, so in a sense the amendment is redundant. Also, if a housing association actually wanted to sell a property in these areas, the amendment would not prevent it doing so. All the amendment would do is stop the Secretary of State giving the housing association a grant to replace the property. I shall go back to the first point I made: certainly, the housing associations that were active in my former constituency would not, given the nature of the voluntary agreement, dispose of a property for rent in a rural area because they are more aware than almost anyone else of how valuable these properties are.

Amendment 51 is much more serious. It invites the Government to break the voluntary agreement they have entered into with the housing associations. It states:

“The Secretary of State must set as a condition under subsection (2) that money equivalent”,

must be spent in a particular way. Chapter 2 of the voluntary agreement makes it absolutely clear that the Government want housing associations to have flexibility:

“Housing associations would have flexibility to use receipts so they can respond to market pressures and local housing need. In order to facilitate this, the definition of a replacement home would be broad and include the development of Starter Homes, shared ownership homes and other part buy and part rent models”,

excluded by the amendment. The agreement goes on to say that,

“in some limited circumstances, it may not be appropriate or desirable for a housing association to build a new home to replace the one sold”,

since it may be easier to buy another one or bring an empty home back into use to replace the home that has been sold. I very much hope that my noble friend the Minister is not going to break the voluntary agreement, endorsed by the Prime Minister, that the Government have entered into by lending any support to Amendment 51.

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 52, which is in my name and has the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Royall. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Young, for his comments. I also want to note my support for Amendment 51, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Beecham, which would serve to better protect areas of high value, such as St Albans city and district in my own diocese, from a potential loss of social housing to other parts of the country.

The purpose of my amendment is to ensure that any home sold by housing associations under right to buy in rural areas is replaced in the same or an adjoining parish. This would shift the terms of the current right-to-buy deal from one in which housing associations have discretion over the sale of assets under right to buy in rural areas to one in which they are unable to take advantage of right-to-buy funding in rural areas unless they guarantee replacement housing in the same or an adjoining rural area. Such an amendment is widely supported by coalitions of rural landowners such as the CLA, the Campaign to Protect Rural England and rural housing associations such as Hastoe Housing Association.

I recognise that many Peers have a legitimate concern about preserving the status of housing associations as independent providers of social housing, and that this would lead them to support increased individual choice for housing associations wherever possible. However, I have to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Goss Moor, who pointed out in Committee that,

“the circumstances of rural communities and villages are exceptional”.—[Official Report, 8/3/16; col. 1209.]

As has been repeatedly stated in this House, just one in 10 homes in rural areas is classed as affordable housing, compared with one in five in urban areas, despite the fact that in 90% of rural authorities, the average home costs eight times the average salary. That leaves a large proportion of rural communities struggling to make ends meet in the private rental market, desperately waiting for affordable rents to become available, or forced to leave their communities altogether. The Government’s facilitating the sale of what little affordable housing exists in rural communities seems to me to be a failure of policy, particularly given the immense difficulties associated with securing new or replacement rural affordable housing. In many rural communities it is virtually impossible to build more social housing.

Along with other noble Lords, I have raised this issue several times in the House already, and every time it has been pointed out that under the terms of the voluntary agreement, housing associations are exempt from the requirement to sell in rural areas. I am well aware of that. My concern is what happens when housing associations do choose to sell rural properties, given that there is currently no requirement for them to build replacements in the same area.

In Committee, several Peers indicated that we need simply to take it on trust that housing associations, because they are close to the actual situation on the ground, will not sell rural homes in areas where they cannot or will not be able to replace them. That seems highly questionable to me. Most housing associations, unless they have a specific rural focus in the very nature of what they have set out to do, have a duty to the vulnerable that transcends rural and urban boundaries. It would not be for me to criticise a housing association which, in selling off one rural affordable home—it will probably be an extremely valuable property, or certainly a more costly property—was able to provide affordable housing for two families in an urban area.

That sounds an eminently sensible thing to do for the overall good of everybody. However, for the individual housing association, it could make perfect financial and charitable sense to consolidate the housing stock in, say, quite a limited urban area—a town or a city—where the costs of development tend to be cheaper and where it can support more families. But for the rural communities in question, that would be devastating: not just for the individual families who are unable to live in the local village and perhaps where many generations of their family have lived in the past, but for the sustainability and the future of the wider community. Without people of all incomes living and working in the local area, no rural community can sustain flourishing schools, shops, pubs and churches. Rural communities need hope for a sustainable and secure future. This is particularly true when it comes to the development of rural exception sites, which are a crucial route to securing affordable housing for rural communities.

Speaking personally on my own area of interest, many dioceses in the Church of England, including my own, are committed to using glebe land to provide for rural exception sites where possible, but the extension of right to buy will make the provision of such sites much more difficult for us as a charitable body, given that charitable assets might be transferred to individual ownership, where they could be used for profit. I know that the CLA has spoken to many landowning members who have similar reservations about providing land for rural exceptions sites without strong guarantees that the resultant affordable housing will remain available to the local community in perpetuity. I welcome the concession the Government have already made on rural exception sites regarding starter homes, and can only hope that today might find the Minister in a similarly understanding mood—I smile at her hopefully.

The sale of vital and scarce affordable housing should not receive government subsidies in rural areas unless local replacement is guaranteed. This cannot be left to the discretion of housing associations, which will face immense pressure on their resources in the coming years. Securing the sustainability of rural communities is the duty of government, and I hope the Government will make the necessary amendments to the Bill.