Business of the House

Debate between Andrea Leadsom and Bill Wiggin
Monday 16th April 2018

(6 years, 7 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrea Leadsom Portrait Andrea Leadsom
- Hansard - -

We are now awaiting an SO24 emergency debate on the subject of Syria.

Bill Wiggin Portrait Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Mr Speaker, you probably were not aware of my interest in the Second Reading of the Laser Misuse (Vehicles) Bill until now. We are now due to have it on Wednesday, but on Wednesday we should have been considering the Committee and remaining stages of that Bill. Can my right hon. Friend shed some light on when that might now take place?

Andrea Leadsom Portrait Andrea Leadsom
- Hansard - -

My hon. Friend is right: it is a very important Bill that will help ensure the safety of vehicles from laser misuse, and we will schedule it as soon as we can.

Business of the House

Debate between Andrea Leadsom and Bill Wiggin
Thursday 14th December 2017

(6 years, 11 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrea Leadsom Portrait Andrea Leadsom
- Hansard - -

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, as I have just announced, day eight of consideration of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill will happen next week, so he might want to raise that point then.

Bill Wiggin Portrait Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

The whole House will agree that constituencies ought to be equalised, but our departure from the European Union has ensured that we will be cutting the cost of governance. Will the Leader of the House therefore ensure that any private Member’s Bill coming along that might correct the 650 to 600 debate gets the money resolution it needs?

Andrea Leadsom Portrait Andrea Leadsom
- Hansard - -

I will look closely at my hon. Friend’s suggestion.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Andrea Leadsom and Bill Wiggin
Thursday 19th January 2017

(7 years, 10 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrea Leadsom Portrait Andrea Leadsom
- Hansard - -

If that is the hon. Gentleman’s definition of not being nasty to anyone, that does not really work very well. I am not sure that Labour has much support in the countryside because it has done nothing for country folk. It is the Government who have ensured that we continue with support until 2020 and with all agri-environment schemes that are signed up before we leave the EU for their lifetime, to ensure that continuity for business confidence. It is the Government who are committed to a world-leading food and farming industry, while at the same time to an environment that is better than we inherited. Those are great ambitions and we will achieve them.

--- Later in debate ---
Bill Wiggin Portrait Bill Wiggin
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Having heard what my right hon. Friend has said, and knowing what sort of Minister she is, I cannot really believe that her team were fully briefed properly when they saw the nitrate vulnerable zones regulation rolled out to new parts of England.

Andrea Leadsom Portrait Andrea Leadsom
- Hansard - -

I would be happy to meet and discuss that issue separately with my hon. Friend, but I can absolutely assure him that we looked very carefully at this issue. As ever, there is a balance between successful sustainable farming, food productivity and what is right for our environment.

Financial Conduct Authority Redress Scheme

Debate between Andrea Leadsom and Bill Wiggin
Thursday 4th December 2014

(9 years, 11 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrea Leadsom Portrait Andrea Leadsom
- Hansard - -

The FCA has considered whether reviewers are independent, and the instance cited by the hon. Gentleman probably demonstrates that it is actively taking part in that process. As I have said, however, if Members want to raise particular cases with me, I will look into them.

My hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy referred to the allegation by a former independent reviewer from KPMG that the banks had applied undue pressure for a change in a redress determination. That is a very serious claim, and I know that the FCA has taken it very seriously. The regulator has given a reassurance that it has maintained close oversight of the relationship between banks and their independent reviewers throughout the review, and that it does not believe that that allegation is supported by the facts.

A number of Members raised the issue of embedded swaps. It is important to define that term. I understand it to refer to fixed-rate loans with an economic, or mark-to-market, break cost. As is standard practice with fixed-rate loans, a break cost is incurred by a borrower who pays off a loan early. The tradition in the United Kingdom has been that the terms and conditions of contracts between businesses, such as loans, are not generally prescribed by the Government, and we normally expect businesses to take positive action. First, they can complain to their banks if they are unhappy with their fixed-rate loans, and many customers have already taken that route. The FCA monitors banks’ complaint-handling processes, and takes action if it sees a problem. Secondly, smaller businesses can have recourse to the Financial Ombudsman Service.

What is vital—and the Treasury has ensured that this will happen in future—is that when a business enters into a fixed-term loan, the terms of the contract and, in particular, the way in which break costs are calculated are absolutely clear. We have secured a voluntary agreement, through the British Bankers Association, that banks will provide the same level of disclosure of features within fixed-rate loans— such as break costs—as applies to interest rate hedging products. Most important, the banks will ensure that break costs are fully explained, and that worked examples are provided.

A number of Members also voiced concerns about the number of businesses that have been assessed as sophisticated and therefore fall outside the scheme. The Government have made it clear that when a business lacks the necessary skills and knowledge fully to understand the risks posed by these products, it should receive appropriate redress. So far, about a third of businesses have been deemed to be sophisticated and to fall outside the scheme. There has been criticism of that: many have suggested that all businesses should be covered. The Government believe that there needs to be a defined cut off-point at which more sophisticated businesses take responsibility for understanding the products they are purchasing. Failure to introduce that cut-off point would weaken the incentives for businesses to act sensibly when purchasing financial instruments, and could open the floodgates to any businesses that had lost out as a result of a financial transaction.

However, the FCA has amended the way in which the sophistication test criterion can be applied, and information about that is available. Time does not permit me to give every detail of where we started and where we are now, but the aim has been to ensure that all businesses that are unsophisticated can fall within the scheme. There may well have been some incorrect reassessments, but there have been very few subsequent complaints.

Bill Wiggin Portrait Bill Wiggin
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Paul Farrelly Portrait Paul Farrelly
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Will the Minister give way?

Andrea Leadsom Portrait Andrea Leadsom
- Hansard - -

I will give way once more, but not, I am afraid to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly), because time is short.

Bill Wiggin Portrait Bill Wiggin
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

It is very generous of my hon. Friend to give way, and I am delighted by what she has said. Can she also reassure the House that the number of employees will not be a criterion for sophistication?

Andrea Leadsom Portrait Andrea Leadsom
- Hansard - -

I can certainly tell my hon. Friend that the number of employees is a factor, but it is not necessarily the only factor, so the fact that a business has more than 50 employees may not necessarily make them a sophisticated investor.