Bank of England and Financial Services Bill [HL]

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd May 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Flight (Con)]

My Lords, as I understand it, the proposed arrangements effectively give the Treasury Select Committee a sort of negative veto after the event. Why could this not be more straightforward, with senior appointments such as the head of the FCA requiring the approval of the Treasury Select Committee up front?

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, perhaps I may pick up on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Flight. The FCA is one regulator. We understand that there is great pressure to move on this issue now because the FCA had lost so much confidence and so many people have questioned whether it is genuinely an independent regulator. However, the PRA, turning into the PRC, is an equal, if not more critical, regulator of our banking system, and of course appointments to the Bank of England—particularly that of governor—are also crucial. Therefore, can the Government tell us why they have not broadened out this change in approach, which is surely just a modernisation and a recognition of the significant interest that Parliament and the country have in these appointments?

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

My Lords, after those contributions I can keep my own fairly short. However, like the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, I would have thought that this change would have applied in the whole approach of this Government and would have been taken into account when the Bill was drafted. Not only have the Government had strong representations from the Official Opposition and the Liberal party—we debated this matter very vigorously in this House—but it is clear that the Treasury Select Committee had very strong views on this. Ministers are all too well aware of the fact that the Treasury Select Committee contains members of all parties, several of whom enjoy very high reputations indeed—not just the chairman, although he too deserves his high reputation. How is it, then, that the Government should have thought that they could ignore the proper position of the Select Committee in relation to this appointment?

Of course we welcome the sinner who repenteth, and the Minister, I have no doubt, will indicate in a moment how carefully he has considered all issues. But it does somewhat surprise me that it needed such a weight of parliamentary opinion, to say nothing of opinion from outside too, before the Government recognised that they could not possibly put forward this appointment without there being a substantial degree of parliamentary scrutiny.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Flight]

My Lords, I welcome the amendment but the issue of PEPs is by no means solved and there is still a lot of nonsense happening. The last ruling by the noble Lord, Lord Deighton, was, interestingly, that PEPs were politicians in countries outside the UK and not within it; that came as a great shock to all of us. The EU rules make it clear that that is not the case and that PEPs are to be treated as domestic. In theory, that includes all Members of this House and the House of Commons and many others. That is completely ridiculous. The bottom line is whether people have the power to engage in corruption. I suggest that Members of this House, or in the Commons, do not have the power to engage in corruption unless they are a Minister.

Banks are criticised, but operating a bank account for a PEP is a complete loss leader, because banks are obliged to always check the source of funds and question any payment into the account. This is completely ridiculous unless you are dealing with people who are potentially corrupt. Where is all this coming from? It is the FCA that is giving out very strict guidelines to banks on how the PEP rules should be implemented. As I understand it, those guidelines are, at the moment, contrary to the Government’s own arrangements and I fear they may remain too demanding in future.

[Baroness Kramer]

My Lords, the kind of language the Government may use in dealing with this in legislation may be limited, but I am very glad that they are taking action. Will they take on board, when talking with allies in other countries, the importance of how the concept of the PEP is handled? I am in the appalling situation of finding that my husband’s relatives in the United States have been challenged on opening accounts because they are related to me. How that relationship was disclosed, I find extraordinary. There must have been an awful lot of trawling through genealogical tables, or else someone is reading my emails. There is a serious issue about how this spreads to the families of Members of this House, of Members of the other place and of others who may rightly be regarded as politically exposed. Their relatives at many distances removed surely cannot be caught in that trap.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, have some sympathy with the concern about PEPs. My bank managed to be very surprised that my son had repaid a debt. There is no question that banks have overreacted in this area. In general, banks seem to overreact to regulation. They do not seem properly to understand proportionality at individual level. It reminds one that one does not have a right to a bank account, and suddenly one realises that one would be a non-person without one. So it is right that we look for some protection for politically exposed persons—who could be in a very widespread group.

However, one must not lose sight of the fact that the Panama papers revealed just how widespread money laundering is and how much of it happens among politically exposed persons. As far as I know, no politically exposed person has been revealed in the UK, but in the wider world money laundering is a fact and it feeds terrorism and corruption.

We welcome this amendment as an effort to produce proper proportionality on this subject, but the balance must be maintained—and, just as we must be concerned about PEPs, we must be concerned about potential crime and the maintenance of public confidence in officials.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Drake (Lab)]

My Lords, I take this opportunity to thank the Minister for meeting my noble friend Lord McKenzie and me to discuss this amendment in detail. I am most grateful for that. As has been said, the amendment places a new duty on the FCA to make rules to prohibit or cap early exit charges that act as a deterrent to people accessing their savings under the new freedoms. This amendment is particularly interesting for two reasons. Unusually, it introduces legislation with retrospective effect on existing contracts and a new deterrent regime in addition to the existing fairness regime in financial conduct regulation—in effect, charges must not be at a level that deters people from accessing their savings.

The Government believe the legislation needs retrospective effect because of the need to protect existing and future consumers, and—more interestingly, when one reads the detail of their proposals—that fairness should not be determined solely by reference to whether or not it was fair to include a term in a pension contract a decade or decades ago, but that it has to be looked at against how unfair contracts legislation has evolved since those contracts were entered into, and through the new lens of the recent pension freedom reforms, all of which arguments I agree with. But given that the Government have taken the decision through this amendment to enable retrospective changes to existing pension contracts and recovery of amounts paid or payment of compensation for charges made in contravention of the new FCA rules coming into force in March 2017, and that the pension freedoms, which provide the new lens for looking at fairness, were introduced in April 2015, I cannot understand why the consumer protection in the new FCA duty does not apply with effect from April 2015. Why is it necessary to wait until March 2017 when the FCA rules are implemented—a full two years after the pension freedoms were introduced—before consumers are protected by the provisions on fair access to savings?

The Minister advised in his letter of 16 March that the Government are introducing this amendment,

“in light of detailed evidence gathering, and an imperative to act quickly in order to limit the extent of consumer detriment caused by early exit charges”.

The Government’s main defence for this two-year gap from April 2015 to March 2017 in protecting consumers is that savers who access savings between these two dates from a scheme whose early exit charges are considered excessive under FCA rules to be implemented in March 2017 cannot have been deterred by those charges and presumably are therefore not in need of retrospective protection. That argument simply does not sit comfortably with the Government’s view that some people are being denied fair access to their savings. It suggests that the new deterrent regime trumps fairness—in effect, if a person accessed their savings they have not been deterred, ergo the early access terms are fair.

There are many reasons why people may access their pension savings during that two-year gap, even though the charges may be excessive. There may be ill health or other compelling personal circumstances that override the deterrent effect. People may not be aware of, or understand, the excessive early exit charges, so do not make their decision on an informed basis. The FCA data reveal that 78% of affected consumers rated their pension provider’s explanation of the exit charge and its level as poor.

In his letter of 16 March, the Minister comments:

“In order to ensure that the provision benefits current consumers who are eligible to use the pension freedoms now … this clause provides that any prohibition or cap imposed by FCA rules applies equally in relation to existing pension contracts, as well as those entered into in future”.

In the light of that statement, it is most unfortunate that the amendment excludes from the protection consumers accessing their savings between April 2015 and March 2017, even though in other circumstances it allows for a retrospective effect.

[Baroness Kramer]

My Lords, I echo the objections just raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake. It is quite inexplicable that “retrospective” does not mean that the new regime will be recalculated from the date that people were able to access their pension pots. It seems equally unfair for people to have paid an inappropriate exit fee a year ago as it is for them to pay an inappropriate exit fee a year from now. Has the Minister considered how this will tend to inhibit decision-making by families until the new regulations are revealed? Instead of making the best decision for the family, there will be great pressure to delay that decision until the rules are clearer and, presumably, the exit fees are removed.

The amount of money involved in this process cannot be substantial but to the individual family that has been impacted, it is certainly significant. I really do not understand the Government’s thinking on this issue.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his early warning of this amendment, for facilitating the meeting with officials and for addressing at that meeting some of the incisive and expert questions posed by my noble friend Lady Drake. As we have heard, the new clause places a requirement on the FCA to make rules to prohibit or cap certain early exit charges in regulated schemes which act as a deterrent to people accessing their pensions under the new pension freedoms. So far as it goes, this should be supported.

As the Minister’s letter of 16 March sets out,

“after the reforms took effect last April, it has become increasingly clear that early exit charges were preventing some people from accessing their pension flexibly under the freedoms”.

This was substantiated by the government consultation and evidence-gathering by the FCA and the Pensions Regulator. This process identified a number of weaknesses in the application of the freedoms policy: not just the early exit charges but a lack of clarity in the process for transferring pension savings and uncertainty around the need for financial advice when making transfers involving safeguarded benefits.

Although early exit charges are not an issue for the majority of those eligible to access freedoms, the Government have concluded that significant numbers of eligible individuals face charges which in absolute or relative terms present a “real barrier” to early access. This begs the obvious question of why this matter was not addressed as a fundamental component of the design of pensions flexibility in the first place. Why has it seemingly come as such a surprise to the Government that these early exit charges exist and could act as a deterrent? This is symptomatic of the rushed nature of the introduction of this policy more generally, which lacked the consultation and consensus-building that have typically characterised good pensions policy development.

It might be argued that before the introduction of the FCA cap—to be in place before the end of March 2017, as we have heard—there has been no detriment because by definition exit fees could not have been a deterrent to the 400,000 times that pension pots have been accessed to date. But it seems that exit fees could be a deterrent, making it less likely, weighed against other factors, that someone would access their pension pot, without these fees being an absolute bar. That is why, as my noble friend has argued, we consider that any capping should be applied not only to existing as well as new contracts but to pensions accessed from the start of the pension freedoms regime in 2015, a point supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer.