Financial Guidance and Claims Bill [Lords]

Alberto Costa Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report: 3rd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 24th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Ms Esther McVey)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

This Bill is an important piece of legislation. When it started its journey in the other place in June last year, my noble colleague Baroness Buscombe told peers that it would create a framework that would ensure that people have access to the information and guidance they need to make the important and effective financial decisions that we all have to make at some point in our lives. It will also enable the transfer of claims management regulation from the Ministry of Justice to the Financial Conduct Authority, to ensure that there is a tougher regulatory framework and that people have access to high-quality claims handling services.

[Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way so early in her speech. Does she agree that it is important that the Financial Conduct Authority and the Financial Ombudsman Service are properly equipped to take on the additional powers proposed?

[Ms McVey]

I do indeed. We need to have bodies that have teeth, that are able to do this and that we can have faith in. My hon. Friend makes a very good point.

The Bill has delivered on what we said it would, but it now does so much more. The inclusion of a ban on pensions cold-calling, the commitment to introduce a debt respite scheme and the ban on claims management companies cold-calling, as well as the amendment on pensions guidance, all strengthen the Bill. I welcome and appreciate the collaborative spirit that the Bill has engendered across both Houses and the hard work that officials have done. There has been a broad consensus. That is positive, and it has helped so many people in so many different ways.

In the other place, we listened carefully to the thoughtful views of those who engaged in the debates. We appreciate, in particular, the input of Lord Stevenson, Lord McKenzie, Lord Sharkey, Baroness Drake, Baroness Kramer and others who have helped us to craft the clauses on debt respite, cold-calling, pensions guidance and consumer protection. There were some very constructive and helpful debates on other issues that helped us to ensure that the FCA will have regard to the needs of consumers when setting the single financial guidance body’s standards, to strengthen offences on impersonating the new body, to extend the claims management provisions to Scotland and—thanks to the tireless work of Baroness Meacher—to introduce an interim fee cap in respect of PPI claims. To quote Lord McKenzie on Third Reading:

“These changes have come about because, broadly, we have had a shared analysis of what the Bill could achieve”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 November 2017; Vol. 787, c. 106.]

There have been many positive contributions in this House as well. We heard some excellent speeches on Second Reading from Members on both sides of the House. I remember, for example, the powerful speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan) about debt arguably being one of the biggest challenges to social mobility and, as Conservative Members particularly support social mobility, how important it is to be able to give this financial support. I still recall the very strong contributions from the hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) on the proposed debt respite scheme and from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham), who recounted the hardships faced by her constituents.

We have listened to what hon. Members said in respect of pensions cold-calling and default pensions guidance. I would like to put on record again our thanks to the Work and Pensions Committee for its report highlighting some of these issues. I thank the Select Committee, peers and hon. Members in this House for the way in which all sides have worked collaboratively and constructively on these issues. We have been able to accept a number of the Committee’s recommendations. I am sure that all hon. Members will agree that, with its help, we have made huge progress in these areas. I look forward to continuing co-operation when we bring forward regulations on these matters later this year.

We have also listened to what was said in respect of cold-calling from claims management companies. In Committee, we tabled amendments to ban cold-calling in relation to claims management services unless prior consent has been given. This honours a commitment that we made in the other place. We believe that these changes—along with our commitment to keep under review, and potentially ban, other areas of unsolicited direct marketing in relation to consumer financial products —demonstrate our commitment to tackling unsolicited marketing calls. The Information Commissioner’s Office, which enforces restrictions on unsolicited electronic direct mailing, has the power to fine offenders up to £500,000. In 2017, the ICO issued 29 civil monetary penalties totalling £2.83 million.

In Committee, we also tabled amendments to the claims management clauses. We are now placing a duty on the Law Society of England and Wales to cap fees in relation to financial services claims management activity, as well as introducing a power for the Law Society of Scotland to restrict fee charges for this activity, to ensure that consumers are protected no matter which type of claims management service provider they use, whether it is regulated by the legal service regulators or by the FCA.

This Bill deals with important and fundamental issues not just to this House but to the many hundreds of thousands of people who will benefit from the services of a new single financial guidance body—particularly those who are struggling with debt.

I am pleased to be able to confirm again today for the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger), the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) and my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer) that the Government recognise the importance of providing a suitable mechanism to access breathing space for people experiencing a mental health crisis. We understand that people in the midst of a mental health crisis are likely to be too unwell to access the breathing space scheme through a regulated debt advice provider. We commit to ensure that people receiving NHS treatment for a mental health crisis, in either a psychiatric in-patient setting or the community, are provided with a suitable alternative mechanism to access the breathing space scheme and benefit from the protections it will provide. That provision will be developed concurrently with the main breathing space scheme.

In respect of claims management companies, the Bill sends out a clear message that we are on the side of the public, providing a stronger framework to ensure that individuals are accountable for the actions of their businesses. While recognising that many claims management companies do good work to support people to claim compensation, we have sent a clear message that we will tackle malpractice where it exists, such as nuisance calls and the encouragement of fraudulent claims. I commend the Bill to the House.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Alberto Costa Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Monday 18th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mel Stride)]

The Finance Bill makes changes to the bank levy, in particular restricting its scope to UK activities. These changes support our vision to help keep UK banks globally competitive. They reflect improvements in international banking regulation that reduce the risk of overseas operations to the UK, and they complete a set of changes announced in 2015 and 2016 that significantly increase the tax we raise from our banks.

Let me be clear from the outset that this Government believe that banks should make a significant contribution to the public finances, beyond general business taxation, that reflects the risk they pose to the UK economy. That has been the record of Chancellors since 2010. As part of that, in 2011 the Government introduced the bank levy on the balance sheet equity and liabilities of banks and building societies, but this additional tax contribution made by banks has to support our broader objectives for the sector. It therefore needs to be responsive to international commercial and regulatory changes in banking. Any tax changes should ensure that we can continue to secure the additional contribution from the banks from a sustainable tax base, and they also need to ensure we retain a strong, stable and competitive banking sector that supports the wider economy by lending capital to both businesses and individuals.

[Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that in pursuing the policies he has just outlined in a strong and stable way we can have sustainable banking that gives the significant contributions to the Treasury that are much needed, and that the policies espoused by the parties opposite would do great damage to our economy and our public services?

[Mel Stride]

I thank my hon. Friend for that perceptive and helpful intervention. There is no question but that a healthy banking system is absolutely central to a healthy economy, which is why we have invested so much time and energy since 2010 in making sure that the regulation of the banks is tightened up, which was, of course, part of the original rationale for the bank levy. The fact that we are reducing the bank levy over time from 2015 and moving towards taxing profits is in itself an indication of the health of our banking system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

I rise to speak to the amendment and new clauses in the name of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and others. Banks have a crucial role to play in the proper and smooth functioning of our nation’s economic wellbeing. In addition, it is important to ensure that the banks are not all lumped together with a one-size-fits-all approach for the purpose of a bank-bashing session, as was suggested by Conservative Members. Further, it is neither reasonable, fair nor sensible to homogenise the people who work in the banking sector as either saints or demons. Neither beatification nor demonisation of the banks is appropriate; it does no credit to the complexity of the landscape facing us. It is important when dealing with fiscal issues relating to banks that we keep a sense of proportion during the process. That is why it is important to ensure that, in an objective sense, we examine the context in which the Government have decided to cut the take from the bank levy. So, what is that context?

[Alberto Costa]

Will the hon. Gentleman be fair enough to confirm at the Dispatch Box that since the Conservative party came into government in 2010, the tax take from the banking sector has increased, especially since 2015?

[Peter Dowd]

I will come to that in the course of my speech.

I was asking about the context for these measures. First, there is the political context; then there is the ideological context. Politically, we saw a new low for the Government last week. We witnessed an increasingly weak and ineffectual Prime Minister being pulled between the troika of the Democratic Unionist party, her hard-line Front-Bench Brexiteers and, latterly, rebels on her own Back Benches.

Draft Inquiries into Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths etc. (Scotland) Act 2016 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2016

Alberto Costa Excerpts

Tuesday 15th November 2016 General Committees

[Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)]

I declare that I am a non-practising Scottish solicitor. I welcome the order on behalf of those of us who have practised in both jurisdictions. Does the Minister agree that the order is an example of the UK Government being cognisant of the needs of Scotland and respecting Scottish devolution?

[Michael Ellis]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. The order is an example of Westminster working well with the Scottish Parliament. It is a most appropriate measure.

The proposed change has become of some relevance in recent days following the tragic death of Lance Corporal Joe Spencer of 3rd Battalion The Rifles. The death occurred at Royal Air Force Tain, near Inverness, on Tuesday 1 November. I take this opportunity to offer my sincere condolences to Lance Corporal Spencer’s family and friends. In legal terms, the mandatory requirement for a fatal accident inquiry proposed in the order is not retrospective, so even if the death is found to have been in the circumstances provided for, it will not apply to the death of Lance Corporal Spencer. Instead, the arrangements that have existed for some time under the Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths Inquiry (Scotland) Act 1976 will apply, and it will therefore be within the discretion of the Lord Advocate to rule on whether a fatal accident inquiry is held in that case.

That sad incident none the less highlights the relevance and importance of the order. It highlights why the UK and Scottish Governments, Ministers of the Crown and officials have worked closely together to ensure that the order makes reserved legislative provision in consequence of the 2016 Act of the Scottish Parliament, the aim of which is to ensure that the fatal accident inquiry legislation in Scotland is fit for purpose. That collaboration represents another example of the Westminster Government’s commitment to working with the Scottish Government to make the devolution settlement work. I commend the order to the Committee.

Claim of Right for Scotland

Alberto Costa Excerpts

Tuesday 6th September 2016 Westminster Hall

[Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I should advise you that I did write to the Speaker’s Office and spoke to someone there today about giving a short speech. I promise to be brief, because we have already heard an eloquent speech from my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) encapsulating all the points that I wished to make.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) for securing the debate here today at Westminster. The debate is not so much about a Claim of Right of the people of Scotland; it is more a claim by the SNP to have a right to determine the will of the Scottish people. There is nothing new in that position. I have heard it for almost 30 years. As has already been mentioned, we had a thorough, full debate during the Scottish referendum in the two years leading up to the September 2014 referendum.

All the issues were extensively discussed round the family kitchen tables, in schools, in businesses and at the highest political arena. Even during those debates the SNP repeatedly said through their senior politicians that the exercise of the sovereign will of the Scottish people would be a once in a lifetime, once in a generation matter. Implicit in that statement is that once in a lifetime, once in a generation must be about 40 or 50 years.

During that time, sovereign countries can enter and exit from international groupings, as, indeed, the United Kingdom is about to do by exiting from the international grouping of nations in the EU. At no point in the lead-up to the referendum did the SNP suggest that the exercise of the sovereign will of the Scottish people would be called into question, and that the SNP would have to assist the Scottish people once again—to help them think again and come to the answer that the SNP wants by having yet another referendum.

The SNP, rather shamelessly, has been doing nothing but grievance and gripe in the past two years, in this Chamber and in the House, and across the United Kingdom. All of us on the side of the United Kingdom are clear about why it is doing that; it is because it has one overriding objective, which is not to help the people of Scotland by furthering public services, reducing educational inequality and ensuring the quality of the Police Service of Scotland. Its objective is about none of those things: it is about ending the United Kingdom of Great Britain.

Thus the Scottish nationalists will never agree to any ambitious proposal for the United Kingdom, particularly with the challenges and opportunities that we now face with Brexit. They have no interest in agreeing on a path that will benefit the sovereign will of the Scottish people. The only path they want to adopt in the months and years to come is that of gripe and grievance. Today’s debate is an example of that.

[Patrick Grady]

I am hearing a lot of grievance, and I do not think it is coming from the SNP speakers. The hon. Gentleman has used that phrase several times. Do he and his colleague the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath accept in principle the sovereign right of the people of Scotland to determine their form of government? The Conservatives, uniquely in Scotland, have never endorsed that language, which is contained in the Claim of Right.

[Alberto Costa]

I am merely reiterating the claim made by the hon. Gentleman and saying that if he accepts the key principle of that claim, which is that sovereignty lies with the Scottish people, surely he agrees that two years ago that sovereignty was exercised when they said they wanted to remain part of the United Kingdom.

By the way, the Claim of Right does not define Scottish people. My right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath confirmed this afternoon that the SNP determined the rules for the 2014 referendum, which excluded thousands of Scots men and women—Scottish people like me—from determining the future of Scotland. I and many hundreds of people in my position had to accept those rules. The view proffered by the Scottish National party that it somehow represents the sovereign will of the Scottish people is entirely dishonest because of its refusal time and again to accept that sovereign will, which is to stay part of the United Kingdom.

We have heard about powers. The Scottish Parliament has had unique powers since its creation in the late 1990s. We have seen little exercise by the SNP majority Government—and now minority Government—of those real and tangible powers for the benefit of the Scottish people because they simply do not want to improve matters. My right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath used the word “paradox”; I would say that it is clear that the exercise of powers that would benefit the people of Scotland might lead to their telling the SNP, “Everything is working fine under the United Kingdom.” That would go against the SNP argument, so the paradox might go both ways.

The truth is that the SNP exists for one reason alone—to end Great Britain. There is nothing that hon. Members on both sides of the House who believe in the United Kingdom can do that will satisfy that constitutional thirst for the destruction of our great and sovereign United Kingdom.

Today’s debate is yet more smoke and mirrors—another excuse to get a headline in the Scottish media, saying that SNP politicians are somehow the only ones who have the people of Scotland in mind. That is wrong. All of us who love the United Kingdom have the intentions and wishes of the Scottish, Northern Irish, Welsh and English people at heart, to work together for the betterment of all our peoples throughout the United Kingdom. If there is any Claim of Right to be had, it is the Claim of Right to live a peaceful, tolerant, successful, stable life in a stable and successful country—the United Kingdom.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

Thank you, Mr Bone. I think that means we are quits for the time my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) became me on the list when the debate was originally tabled.

I have perhaps misunderstood something from the reading I have done to refresh my mind about the various Claims of Right for Scotland and from listening to someone who presumably knows about the matter, because he led the debate. I thought that the Claim of Right for Scotland was about the people, but all we have heard from the Better Together Benches has been about political parties, Governments and political leaders. There has been precious little about the people. I still do not know whether either of the Conservative Members who spoke agree with the sacrosanct fact that sovereignty in Scotland resides with the people and that the people have the right to decide.

[Alberto Costa]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Peter Grant]

If the hon. Gentleman is going to confirm that he agrees 100% with the right of the Scottish people to decide for themselves, I will happily give way.

[Alberto Costa]

I agree 100% that the sovereignty of the Scottish people was exercised when 55% of them said “No thanks” to the SNP and yes to the United Kingdom in a once-in-a-generation referendum. Let us leave it at that. Let us leave it for 50 years.

[Peter Grant]

Well, there we have it. Given an explicit opportunity, one of the few Conservatives who could be bothered to turn up to the debate has refused point blank to accept what has been established in our nation since 1320—that sovereignty resides with the people. I cannot help wondering how much less of a constitutional boorach England would be in right now if it had a fundamental acceptance of the sovereignty of the people.

We spent three hours in this room yesterday talking about a misguided, I think, but understandable demand from more than 4 million people to have some kind of rerun of the European Union referendum and set a threshold, because they were so bitterly disappointed with the result. A lot of the argument was constitutional nicety about whether Parliament has the right to ignore that result and hold referendums until it gets the right result, or just to say, “We’re staying in the European Union anyway.” Fundamentally, the answer is that no one really knows, because England does not have the benefit of a clear statement about where constitutional sovereignty ultimately lies. If sovereignty lies with Parliament, the European Union referendum was advisory only. Wisely, very few people have had the temerity to suggest that, either before the vote or since.

I want to go back to some of the documents that constitute the Claim of Right for Scotland. The Better Together parties, through their determination to carry on with the #snpbad hashtag, have turned the issue into an attack on the SNP despite the fact that the 1689 Act was a wee bit before the SNP had even been thought of. They have missed a chance to celebrate a collection of documents that show the way forward for democracies even to this day.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alberto Costa Excerpts

Tuesday 19th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Simon Kirby]

The hon. Gentleman is, as always, very entertaining. The Chief Secretary has said that we will make an announcement in due course.

[Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr Philip Hammond)]

My priority is to ensure the stability and prosperity of the UK economy. That means a combination of near-term measures to respond to the shock that the economy has received, and longer-term measures to manage the impact of transition out of the EU and to reposition the UK economy to maximise its potential in the new circumstances we will then face.

[Alberto Costa]

I add my congratulations to the new Front-Bench team. Leicestershire County Council is one of the lowest funded local authorities in the country. The council is reaching the point where it may not be able to meet all its statutory obligations. Given that, will my right hon. Friend help to arrange an urgent meeting between his counterparts in the Department for Communities and Local Government and council officials to discuss this matter?

[Mr Hammond]

As my hon. Friend notes, that is a CLG lead, but I am very happy to facilitate such a meeting for him.

HMRC and Google (Settlement)

Alberto Costa Excerpts

Monday 25th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

We will see if the National Audit Office wishes to look at this particular area, but again I point to the fact that previously when people have made allegations about particular arrangements, it has turned out on closer inspection that that has not turned out to be true.

[Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)]

As the former Labour Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne), left that well-known note stating, “I am afraid there is no money,” does my hon. Friend agree that this is evidence that not only did the former Labour Government spend too much of our money, but they did not collect appropriate taxes?

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend puts it very well. It is a pity that previous Governments have not taken this matter as seriously as we have.