Points of Order

Crispin Blunt Excerpts

Tuesday 11th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

The Minister is nodding in agreement, so I think the hon. Gentleman has succeeded in raising his case effectively. We will leave it at that.

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I distinctly remember that during last week’s Second Reading of the Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill, when the Communities Secretary was asked in an intervention whether there had been any advice against the Bill from diplomatic posts, he replied that he was not aware—that he knew of no such advice. It has now become clear that a senior official in the Foreign Secretary’s own office sent a letter to No. 10 expressing such concerns about the consequences of the Bill. I wonder whether, Madam Deputy Speaker, you have had any notice that the Foreign Secretary intends to correct the record, or whether he will rely on the fact that the Foreign Secretary’s office is not a diplomatic post in any formal sense.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. He did not give me notice of it, so I have not been able to get any other information. There were two parts to his point of order: first, that the Foreign Secretary answered by saying that he was not aware, and then that there had been no such representations. The hon. Gentleman has raised the issue; if any correction is necessary, I am sure it will be made, and I am confident that those on the Government Front Bench will pass back his comments. However, it was a little difficult to work out whether the hon. Gentleman was saying that there was no awareness, or that there had been no representations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I am sorry—that is probably my fault. At first we had the Communities Secretary, then we had the Foreign Secretary. Whoever it is, I am sure they will be on this immediately, unless Mr Blunt wants to be more specific.

[Crispin Blunt]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Communities Secretary gave the assurance to the House that he was unaware of any such advice in the context of diplomatic posts. It appears that that advice did exist, and that it came from the Foreign Secretary’s own office.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I am sure that between those points of order, we can sort out the various channels that need to be fed back to. The hon. Gentleman has raised the issue, and I am sure it will be taken back.

Financial Services and Markets Bill

Crispin Blunt Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 7th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Harriett Baldwin]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for signing the new clause, and for his Committee’s excellent report. He is right to suggest that the workplace is one of the best places for people to be given these nudges, and for employers to explore that boundary between advice and guidance.

Our constituents are craving advice of this kind, especially during this cost of living crisis. They want more guidance from their financial institutions. They are turning to online sources of often unregulated information to help them navigate their finances. They are finding the process complex and confusing. They are choosing investments that are often very high risk and not suited to them at all, such as meme stocks, crypto or spread betting.

It should not need to be this way, because the technology exists for financial services and fintech firms to guide people towards making better financial choices and following good mainstream investment opportunities, but MiFID-originated legislation is getting in the way. My new clause would enable the Treasury to introduce, with great urgency, the necessary legislation to allow regulated financial services firms to offer UK households personalised guidance. It is a great opportunity to unlock investment in our country, it will help our constituents to earn more, and it will allow innovation. Financial technology will help our constituents to level up their own economic futures. I am therefore delighted that the Economic Secretary has agreed today to look into this as a matter of urgency.

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

I fully support the proposed measure. Let me say something that is specifically for the ears of my hon. Friend and those on the Treasury Bench. Just is a company in Reigate, formed from a company called Just Retirement and Partnership, which provided products that challenged the existing ones, involving, for instance, equity release and life insurance for smokers. As a provider of challenger products, it was anxious for people to have access to independent advice, rather than just being directed only to its own products.

[Harriett Baldwin]

Let me end by saying that personalised guidance would offer the Economic Secretary the chance to make his mark and help all our constituents to benefit from better financial information. I am very pleased that he has committed himself today to look into it with the utmost urgency.

LGBT Conversion Therapy

Crispin Blunt Excerpts

Monday 8th March 2021 Westminster Hall

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con) [V]]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) on leading the debate so well, and I congratulate his Committee on securing it. I have two key points for the Government. The first is that we must legislate. Deliver the promise to protect in law. Use the work done in the Government Equalities Office before 2019. Use the examples elsewhere, particularly in Spain and the Australian state of Victoria, which have already legislated. Our common law system enables the drafting challenge of defining conversion therapy to be met. There is no need to overcomplicate this issue. The police, prosecutors and jurors will know conversion therapy when they see it. Most critically, the victims will know it too, and they will have been equipped with a defence mechanism.

Such a law is an important step as a declaratory statement, as it is as a legal tool. If someone is LGBT, the law says that the state supports them. It supports how they want to live their life. When victims find themselves under pressure that is improperly applied to convert them to something they are not, they will know that it is against the law and that they can call it out. They can say to the person or people who are the source of this—[Interruption.]

[James Gray (in the Chair)]

We have lost the sound, Mr Blunt. You are mute.

[Crispin Blunt]

My apologies.

The law gives the victims the opportunity to go to the police and, therefore, to have a weapon in their hand against the source of a conversion therapy. The state is on the side of victims’ freedom—the freedom that that individual is trying to take away from them.

The second point I want to make is that such protection must include trans people. They are by far and away the most vulnerable group among the LGBT community. Identity around gender dysphoria is surely a much more challenging thing to meet than a minority sexuality, but all must be protected. The law must include trans people, and not only because they are the group who need it the most. In 2018, it appeared that trans people were on a trajectory to achieve their rights and protections to live their lives as they wished, supported by the Government’s comprehensive LGBT action plan, but all that now seems to have changed. Trans people are a community under siege. Organisations whose principle raison d’être is to attack and challenge the very legitimacy of trans people have come into being, and they appear to trans people to be firmly in the ascendant.

The lived experience of trans people reflects the awful paucity of services for them in the United Kingdom, as graphically illustrated by VICE News in January and November. They also see 250 articles a year attacking them in our newspaper of record, The Times. They see that groups such as the Conservative Women’s Pledge and LGB Alliance, whose purpose seems to be to protect cisgender women from trans women, have the ear of Ministers. They see reform of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 abandoned, and the principle of gender-neutral legislation was reversed only last week.

Gender is much more complicated than sexuality, and the drafting of the ban on conversion therapy will need to protect those giving informed, regulated and properly peer-reviewed advice to assist those on the path to reconciling their gender dysphoria. If the legislation does not include the protection of trans people, however, it will send to them the unmistakeable message that their Government do not want to protect them, do not value them and, at some level, do not really accept that trans is really a thing. That awful message would inadvertently make the Government themselves party to the practice of conversion therapy.

Ministerial and other Maternity Allowances Bill

Crispin Blunt Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 1st March 2021 Commons Chamber

Labour will continue to fight for these employment rights. After all, Labour has a proud history of fighting for equality, from the Equal Pay Act 1970 to the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, the Equality Act 2010 and the introduction of the national minimum wage. All those progressive pieces of equalities legislation were delivered by Labour. I look forward to the Government’s promised legislation to make further progress in this long and ongoing fight for equality and to fill in the gaps that exist in this legislation.

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con) [V]]

Let me briefly try to set the context in which these amendments are being considered. This is an issue that goes to trans and women’s rights. It is a year since I was elected as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on global LGBT+ rights, which is the only LGBT rights APPG. While the title of the group is not meant to exclude the domestic LGBT rights agenda, it is a statement about where the focus should be, given our astonishing legal and societal progress for LGB people in the UK over the last two or so decades—progress of which I am a personal and fortunate beneficiary.

When I put it in the language of my first profession, the war on these issues had been won, and we were really in the business of rounding up the prisoners—tidying up. Much of that tidying related to the complexities generated by enabling trans people also to be able to enjoy the freedom to live their lives as they wished. The trans agenda understandably became the dominating issue for the British LGBT rights lobby in our civil society. By 2018, with the publication of the LGBT action plan and the consultation on reform of the Gender Recognition Act 2004, the direction of travel looked set fair for trans people to be able to enjoy those rights and live their lives as they wished.

However, to say that there has been a change of climate for trans people since my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General, who is guiding this Bill through the House, lost her responsibilities for equalities is something of an understatement. There is going to be no change to the Gender Recognition Act; self-identification, which is the global gold standard for rights in this area, is going to have to wait; and gender identity services, now acknowledged to be grossly underfunded, with enormous demand on them, are now under well-funded legal assault as well.

We currently face a situation where trans people feel under a full-on attack, yet if one listened to their lordships who were making the case for this amendment, one would have thought it was the other way round. The proponent of these amendments said in the other place:

“We are currently faced with a full-on attack on women’s sex- based rights—a misogynistic and bullying campaign which seeks to diminish women’s rights in the name of the rights of trans people.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 February 2021; Vol. 810, c. 962.]

I want to gently suggest that my noble Friend Lord Lucas turn the board around and see what the perspective is from the other side. The context is wild and exaggerated threats about the position of women’s rights from trans people. For example, his colleague in the other place, the noble Baroness Fox of Buckley, said:

“What is a threat to women is a particular brand of trans identity ideology. That does threaten women, but that is not the same as trans people.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 February 2021; Vol. 810, c. 945.]

I look forward to hearing the explanation of that, because what trans people are seeing is The Times newspaper —the newspaper of record in the United Kingdom—carrying 250 stories of this kind, generally without satisfactory supporting evidence.

We have this amendment in a Bill that deals with the maternity leave arrangements of one woman who happens to be the Attorney General. A debate in this House and the other place suddenly came out of nowhere, generating the most extraordinary amount of interest and passion for an entirely technical correction of an anomaly in ministerial maternity leave arrangements. Sitting behind the passion engaged on this are agendas, which are in public for those who are taking an interest—principally the trans community—of the Heritage Foundation and the LGB Alliance, which, if one examines its followers on Twitter, does not seem to have a huge wider interest in the subject of LGBT rights. They are hearing an agenda being used, which we heard only yesterday from Donald Trump in his address to the Conservative Political Action Conference, exploiting the issue of a potential threat to women’s sports, which need to be rescued from this threat. We know that, under the Equality Act 2010 in the United Kingdom, it is for sports administrators to make reasonable decisions to protect the integrity of their sports. These threats, in reality, do not exist.

What I want to say to trans people and their supporters is that today is not the ground on which we should stand. An innocuous sounding amendment in a tiny, technical Bill aimed at resolving the Attorney General’s maternity leave is not the place to have the fight around the principle. But there is a principle engaged here about gender-neutral language, and we have work to do to make it clear that trans rights do not come at the expense of women’s rights. We can perfectly well have both. Women’s rights must be protected, and reasonable provision must be made to protect women from threats that are real and evident. In reality, trans women pose no threat to women, but we do have those issues to address.

I therefore support the Government in accommodating this amendment, which has, to a degree, been forced upon them. But this necessary compromise must not undermine the position of the Government and what I believe to be the decent, caring majority in both Houses of Parliament who want to see trans rights properly established.

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP) [V]]

I am mindful that the Bill is in front of us today because the Attorney General is about to have a baby, and I wish her and her family all the best. Maternity leave is a right—it should not be a discretionary benefit—and that should no different for Ministers or MPs. More broadly, though, we are not in the best place on maternity either in this House or, more importantly, outside it. Many of us have spoken at length about the issues that the Bill does not tackle but ought to. None of that has anything particularly to do with the Attorney General’s leave, so I would not suggest putting any barrier in the way of that, but it is my firm intention to secure from the Minister some clear commitments as to what she will do next.

It is absolutely right, and not before time, that Ministers are able to go on maternity leave. Despite the protestations from those on the Government Benches when we discussed this before, I still think it is unacceptable that the Prime Minister of the day is the ultimate arbiter of whether this can actually happen. I have said it before and I say it again: it should never be necessary for women to seek the potentially grudging consent of a boss to take maternity leave. If it is beyond our wit in 2021 to find a more satisfactory way of dealing with things like that, it is a poor show.

That is because what we do here and what we do with this makes a difference to how other people deal with their maternity leave, be they MPs, where the status quo is not much use, either to MPs or to their constituents; our staff, and perhaps the Minister can say something about what changes could be made to Short money to support proper maternity provisions for staff members; or all the people outside the political world, who are just trying to get by and will rightly wonder why we can manage to press ahead with such haste in this situation—again, I am pleased to get this sorted for the Attorney General; it is right that we do that—but have not been able to make such progress, and at such speed that would make all the difference, for ordinary families.

The statistics from Pregnant Then Screwed say it all. Its survey of 20,000 women in July last year found, among other things, that 61% of women believe that their maternity leave was a factor in a redundancy decision, and self-employed women who have taken maternity leave in the last three years saw their Government support cut by a third, or even by two thirds, if they have taken two maternity leaves, compared with dads, who are not impacted at all financially by maternity leave.

Let me touch on the amendments to language that have emerged from the Lords. The Minister gave a pretty concerted defence of gender-neutral language previously, so I am interested to see the change of tack here, given that it is perfectly normal to draft in gender-neutral terms. I am not convinced that this change is either progress or progressive. That is relevant, first, because the Bill is far too narrow in scope and deals with only this one issue and, secondly, because our representation here is just not reflective of who we are more broadly; we are far less diverse as a political group than the people we represent, and the lack of proper provisions for maternity leave illustrate that well. The Bill, as far as it goes, only makes provision for maternity leave for birth mothers. It does not make provision for all the different types of leave we have talked about—parental leave, paternity leave, adoption leave, shared leave and so on. So I ask the Minister to reflect further on the fact that everyone should have access to decent parental leave, not just some new parents.

On that note, I would be grateful if the Minister could say exactly when she intends to come back to the House with concrete proposals to deal with all these other pressing issues, so that we can see improvements to maternity, paternity and parental leave provisions far more broadly. That is particularly important as we move beyond the lockdown phase of the pandemic and caring and work responsibilities need to work together, rather than against one another. For example, the right to request flexible working from the start of employment would help so many people, with women bearing the disproportionate burden of caring responsibilities being particularly in need of that kind of progress. That is often an issue post maternity leave.

While we are dealing with this one narrow Bill, we need to appreciate that the status quo is far from good enough. The UK has the second lowest payment rates for maternity leave of OECD countries, with less than a third of gross average earnings replaced by maternity payments. Despite lengthy maternity leave entitlements, full-rate equivalent paid maternity leave lasts for only 12 weeks and a maternity allowance of just £151.20, which is worth about half the national minimum wage for a full-time worker, is obviously completely unacceptable. The fact that that is increasing by a grand total of 77p a week in April is shockingly inadequate. The Minister has to recognise that. She also has to recognise that we really need legislation to expand eligibility for statutory maternity leave and pay for workers who still do not qualify, including people on insecure contracts such as agency workers or zero-hours contract workers.

Much needs to be done. We need action on those insecure workers, maternity leave, parental leave and paternity pay, and we need policies that take account of the different shapes of families and different kinds of support that will be necessary. All these matters have to be addressed with some urgency. I realise that they are not the specific issues in front of us today, but it all fits together into a lack of care and direction from the UK Government.

Although the SNP supports the Bill, there is no getting away from the fact that the UK ranks very poorly in terms of maternity provision, and the very particular narrow nature of the Bill does nothing to remedy that. In fact, it just demonstrates how archaic Westminster can be. It is worth reflecting that an independent Scotland could do so much better on maternity and parental leave—not just for Ministers, but for everyone.

Covid-19: Disparate Impact

Crispin Blunt Excerpts

Thursday 22nd October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Kemi Badenoch]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. This is an issue that we have looked at; for instance, the Government have looked at sourcing personal protective equipment for people who need to lip read, so that they can continue to communicate. She is also right to point out that some people are affected in multiple ways, but looking at each issue separately does not mean that one aspect will be forgotten. They will be helped by all the separate work that is being done across the board to look at vulnerability.

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con) [V]]

I thank my hon. Friend for her comprehensive statement; I note that she seems to be on a bit of a roll in the Chamber this week. Will she recognise that there remains a paucity of data around health outcomes for LGBT people, perhaps not least in respect of the intersectionality with BAME people in respect of covid? The data deficit was identified in the LGBT action plan. Will she recommit the Government to securing the data, not least by ensuring that future public health surveys record data on all protected characteristics?

[Kemi Badenoch]

My hon. Friend is right that we are looking across the board, but I just remind him that we are looking at those who have been most disproportionately affected and are most vulnerable. Although we have not found that LGBT groups specifically have been disproportionately affected, we know that they are losing out where healthcare services have been unavailable because they have had to close or provide other services to deal with the pandemic. We are looking to improve that, but the review that I am carrying out looks specifically at vulnerability and disproportionate impact.

Finance Bill

Crispin Blunt Excerpts

Report stage & Report stage: House of Commons & Report: 1st sitting & Report: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 1st July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point, but he should make it to the Speaker rather than me, as he well knows. He has been a Member nearly as long as I have.

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Forgive me; I might have missed the reason why are we are not going to be able to divide on new clause 31, but I would be grateful if you could explain it to me. I have today become the longest serving Member for Reigate since the Great Reform Act, so I might have missed one or two things that are going on, but I would be obliged if you could tell me why we are not going to have the opportunity to divide on new clause 31.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the hon. Member for his point of order, but I think we have to wait until the end of the debate before these decisions are made.

Finance (No. 3) Bill

Crispin Blunt Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 8th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. We all know that several members of the Government take that view, even though they may not be able to say it on the record. They are quite clear as to what no deal would mean, and they would not contemplate going down that route. It would be far simpler and far better to get to a position where ruling out no deal was clearly the Government’s intent.

New clause 3 would oblige the Government to publish a review of the fiscal and economic effects of the exercise of the powers in clause 89, as well as the differences between exercising those powers in Great Britain and in Northern Ireland. As we edge closer to the reality of crashing out without a deal, clause 89 is not simply hypothetical. We are now just two and a half months away from the UK’s exit without an agreement. It is therefore of critical importance that we have a full and transparent view of the implications of a clause of this kind.

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is going to have to do a bit better than this. He talks about crashing out without a deal, but he needs to get into the detail of the implications. Perhaps he is going to start talking about planes, but amazingly, the planes are going to keep flying. Amazingly, we are still going to have drugs supplied into the United Kingdom. He needs to get down into the detail of exactly what the implications will be, because if we are faced with the reality of no overall agreement, there will be a barrow-load of minor agreements to ensure that the common interests of the United Kingdom and the European Union survive the transfer to WTO terms on 29 March with minimum impact on the citizens of the EU and the UK. It is time he got real and stopped this nonsense—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right that we have a responsibility not to make life harder for our manufacturers, which face huge pressure and huge international competition. We also have a responsibility not to make life harder for our consumers, who could see significant increases in prices. The British Food Importers & Distributors Association warns that WTO rules could mean that food prices go up by over 20%.

[Crispin Blunt]

The hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) has just cited Nestlé, which is a Swiss company. The right hon. Lady will be aware that Britain and Switzerland, which is able to make arrangements for the future, negotiated an agreement on 14 December 2018 to be able to continue trade, even if there is no agreement between the UK and the EU. Once this House has rejected the withdrawal agreement, that is exactly where the European Union and the United Kingdom will be. We will need to make the best of the situation in which we find ourselves. That is precisely why both sides will, under article 24 of the general agreement on tariffs and trade, move towards a free trade agreement to ensure that we do not put tariffs in place at all after 29 March. That is where we should be and those are the realities that are going to descend once we are through the “Project Fear” phase.

[Yvette Cooper]

The same cheery optimism that the hon. Gentleman and others have expressed that everybody will suddenly magically come to an agreement once we are through this phase and if we are on WTO terms is exactly the same cheery optimism they had that we were going to end up with a deal by now—and we have not, because it is actually a lot tougher than hon. Members suggest. The reality is that we are going to have a big hike in prices in April if we have no deal, and that has consequences for our manufacturers, businesses and consumers right across the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Davey]

The hon. Gentleman is right on all the points he makes. When my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) tabled the early-day motion that got cross-party support when this campaign was getting going, those were exactly the points he made. We all condemn tax avoidance and support the Treasury, but this retrospective approach to taxation is simply unacceptable.

[Crispin Blunt]

I congratulate hon. Members and hon. Friends on their speeches and wholly agree with them. It is grossly unfair that one of my constituents, a contractor between 2004 and 2006, is expected to repay tax from this period. It goes against the whole principle of fairness and surely would not survive any challenge in the European Court of Human Rights.

[Sir Edward Davey]

Indeed. HMRC knew about these tax schemes for years and took no action. They were widely used—as we have heard, right hon. and hon. Members from around the House have constituents affected—and widely advertised and yet were ignored by the tax authorities. People could only take some public sector positions if they agreed to be paid via these schemes, and it emerged ahead of the Westminster Hall debate that even some HMRC contractors were paid through such a scheme.

Landfill Tax (Disposals Of Material) Order 2018

Crispin Blunt Excerpts

Monday 30th April 2018 General Committees

[Robert Jenrick]

I am grateful for the constructive comments by the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde, and I appreciate his concerns. In fact, I met the Mayor of Greater Manchester recently, who mentioned a site near the hon. Gentleman’s constituency in Gartside Farm. I have a site in my constituency, and several members of the Committee have them in theirs, so that is something shared by hon. Members in all parts of the country. We take the issue seriously, and I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that and is supportive of the measures that we are taking today.

The hon. Gentleman made several points. I do not have the figures for the number of sites to hand, but I am happy to write to him with those. I am advised, however, that the number of illegal waste sites has not increased substantially in recent years. That is not to diminish the fact that there are a large number of them across the country, some of which are deemed by the Environment Agency to be in a state that poses significant risk to the public.

As for monitoring the sites, as I outlined in my opening remarks, we have given the Environment Agency new powers to lock the gates of illegal waste sites and so block entry to ensure that further waste is not piled up, because in most of the more egregious situations the waste takes a number of days, or even weeks, to enter the site. The agency now has more powers.

On funding, so that the Environment Agency can take the action required, as I said the Chancellor has provided the agency with an additional £30 million specifically to support its work in tackling waste crime. That amounts to doubling the total provided since 2014. I work very closely with the Minister responsible at DEFRA, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey). I intend to continue doing so, looking at specific sites, at how we might be able to help and at ensuring that the Environment Agency has the powers and resources it requires. That is a dialogue we intend to continue.

On money laundering, there is increasing evidence that the more severe instances of illegal waste sites are linked to organised crime and at times to serious organised crime. That includes money laundering, which is exactly why we are taking the action in the order—to make it less lucrative, and easier for HMRC to take action against criminals and rogue individuals.

More action can be taken in the area, and we at the Treasury are elevating its importance with our colleagues at the Home Office and with those involved in tackling serious organised crime, to ensure that all parties appreciate that illegal waste sites are an extremely concerning area of activity that has progressed from simply fly-tipping to something that poses significant risk to the public.

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

The Minister refers to links to the drugs trade. What did he have in mind when he made that remark?

[Robert Jenrick]

I have met a number of colleagues from across the House who have such sites in their constituencies, and the evidence we have is only anecdotal, but it is that the individuals behind some of the sites appear to be linked to a range of different criminal activities. That is something that the police and the Environment Agency are aware of and following up on, but I have no specific evidence to bring before the Committee. However, that is certainly the view that has been expressed to me by law-enforcement officers across the country when we have looked into such matters.

Financial Guidance and Claims Bill [Lords]

Crispin Blunt Excerpts

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

[Jack Dromey]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are legal consequences for those who make unlawful claims, but there are also business consequences, which in this case knock on to the legal profession and its work. Looking at it from every angle, this is a menace that we need to bring to an end; the question is how soon we can do so.

We hope that the Government will accept our proposals, not least because the Conservative party said at the 2017 general election that it would

“consider a ban on companies cold calling people”.

This is the Government’s chance to keep at least that manifesto promise while protecting the public at the same time.

It is deeply welcome that the Government have taken the powers to ban cold calling for pensions. They have also indicated their support—indeed, the Minister did so earlier—for a wider ban, which our amendment calls for. We are not calling for a blanket ban, which the Minister believes could impinge on non-contentious issues such as doctor-patient calls. The situation is different when such an established relationship exists. We are talking about commercial companies that are pursuing a commercial advantage. All claims management companies should be banned from cold calling, so we urge the Government to set out in the Bill that they will stop the scourge of cold calls by claims management companies.

New clause 6—this is the only other provision to which I will speak—would introduce a duty of care by requiring claims management services to act in the best interests of customers, not least those who find themselves in a vulnerable situation. Due to the scope of the Bill, the new clause relates only to claims management services. However, although this change would be important, we believe that a duty of care is required across all financial service providers. Many consumers are forced to deal with financial providers when they are at their most vulnerable. Such people can include those who have been diagnosed with serious illnesses, including cancer. At present, the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 requires that the FCA must have regard to

“the general principle that consumers should take responsibility for their decisions”.

Frankly, that is not good enough.

The Financial Services Consumer Panel told the Lords Financial Exclusion Committee that consumers could reasonably be expected to take responsibility for their decisions only if firms had exercised a duty of care towards them. It suggested that such a duty would oblige financial services providers to avoid conflicts of interest and act in the best interests of their customers. The panel proposed amending the law to require the FCA to make rules on a duty of care, arguing that the introduction of such a duty would lead to a much-needed cultural change in the banking sector and the financial sector more generally.

Let us look at just one example. The charity Macmillan Cancer Support has said that people affected by cancer tell it that they experience barriers to getting the support that they need from the banking sector. By 2020, one in two people will have cancer at some point in their lives. Four in five people with cancer are £570 a month worse off on average as a result of their diagnosis. For example, Christine was first diagnosed with cancer in 2009, but is still feeling the financial effects today. She said:

“The financial fall-out of cancer was huge—I went into my overdraft and had to take out a loan to pay it off. When I found out that my credit rating had suffered, it seemed unfair because I was trying my best to get back into work and to have money coming in…For people like me who want to go on living and working, it’s about having that short-term support and understanding. What would have been great was if I’d been able to have an honest conversation with my bank”.

A specific requirement therefore needs to be explicitly stated to ensure that all financial institutions do their best by the most vulnerable people in society. The strong evidence that has been presented by Macmillan clearly shows that a universal duty of care is required across financial services providers.

In the light of examples in which the principle of treating customers fairly is clearly failing customers, how has the FCA reassured Ministers that the current regulatory provisions are sufficient? Can the Minister provide further details on when the discussion paper to which he referred will be brought forward? I know that he is seized of the problem and wants progress to be made at the next stages. That is crucial and, once again, we want to get on with it, because we need to tackle the real problem that has been identified. What assurances can the Minister give that action will be taken to ensure the timely introduction of the duty of care following the outcome of the FCA’s consultation paper?

We strongly support amendments tabled by a number of hon. Members, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas), that would ensure that banks and financial institutions take proper account of local and regional need, and do not let down local people, as is all too often the case now.

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

I will speak to amendment 41, which is in my name. My amendment is intended to make a point to the Minister, and I am utterly certain that I will get the assurance that I need in order to do nothing more than discuss it now.

I welcome the introduction of a single financial guidance body, as it should result in a simpler, smarter and smoother experience for the user, helping them to make informed financial decisions. However, we ought to use the opportunity of this Bill not only to ensure that we get the guidance bodies all in one place; we also need to recognise the different types of finance or retirement income that need to be signposted. Financial decision making can be complex, often requiring advice and support, particularly during events such as buying a first home, on retirement or following a bereavement.

I tabled this amendment because people ought to consider their finances in the round. In other words, all liquid and illiquid assets—cash and property—should be considered together. My amendment follows the lead of the noble Lady Greengross in the other place, asking the Government to ensure that this new guidance body highlights the full range of options available, so that its users get the best possible advice to help them to make informed choices about their finances and their futures.

The report published last month by the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee describes equity release as one of the key tools available to those predominantly in later life. It ensures that older householders are able to pay for care costs or home improvements to give them the option to stay in the homes in which they have built lives and brought up their families. Equity release means that our constituents aged 55 and over who might be asset rich but cash poor can have the option of staying in their own homes by accessing the wealth that they have accrued in that home.

The Equity Release Council published a research paper last April called “Equity Release Rebooted”, in which it estimated that the average value of a defined contribution pension in 2012 to 2014 was £30,200, while over-55s in England possess approximately £1.8 trillion in housing wealth and more than 80% of over-65s own a home. For many, if not most people coming towards the position of making a decision about their retirement, their property is much their greatest asset. It must therefore be sensible for equity release to be signposted and to form at least part of any discussion about funding retirement and later life.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

I agree with what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Does he not think, therefore, that there is considerable merit in new clause 2, which promotes the idea of specific guidance for people in mid-life so that they get proper and clear advice on some of the decisions that they may have to make?

[Crispin Blunt]

I am sure that there is enormous merit in new clause 2, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman has the opportunity to make the case further. There is obviously a common theme of making sure that people have the information about all their assets to enable them to make the best possible decision. We must make sure, in setting up the body in this Bill, that we do not have to come back to this later on because, in practice, we are not delivering the best advice to people about all the assets with which they have to plan.

The pensions advice allowance allows people to withdraw £500, tax-free, from their pension pots to pay for financial advice on their retirement, including on housing wealth, but some people will be unwilling or unable to use this facility. It is incumbent on the single financial guidance body to provide free, impartial guidance and to ensure that this encompasses housing wealth. It is likely that any signposting requirement would push consumers towards the Equity Release Council, the industry body for the equity release sector. Members of the Equity Release Council are committed to product standards and consumer safeguards.

[Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a salient point. Given that the range of interest rates for a number of companies that offer equity release is really quite considerable, does he agree that one of the advantages of the advice going through an independent body is that those who are offering better and lower interest rates for consumers are more likely to receive custom?

[Crispin Blunt]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I agree. He will note the very distinguished role that his predecessor played in the whole business of promoting equity release. It ought to be a really major option given the construction of people’s resources and where they sit on the scale of property ownership in the UK. We need to be clear about how important an asset it is and how important it is to make sure that this industry has the opportunity to give the best possible service to people in their life plans.

Consumers must obtain qualified financial and independent legal advice before they confirm their decision to go ahead and purchase any equity release product. Guarantees include the right to remain in the property for life or until moving into long-term care. Another key safeguard provided by members of the Equity Release Council is the “no negative equity” guarantee, whereby the repayment of the loan is never greater than the value of the home.

A major reason why the single financial guidance body signpost should include housing wealth is the growth in the equity release sector. Homeowners released £3 billion worth of equity in 2017, with 37,000 new customers signing up for equity release products for the first time.

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman keeps saying that this is about releasing equity. What people are actually doing is borrowing against the perceived wealth of the property.

[Crispin Blunt]

They are not borrowing against the perceived wealth of the property—it is the actual wealth of the property. If someone is in a position of planning for their retirement and they do not have an adequate pension pot, and given the scale of the imbalance between people’s assets in property as opposed to the pension provision they have made, it is obvious that, in making the assessments for their retirement, they should consider accessing the wealth they have accrued that is in their home.

With 37,000 customers signing up for equity release products for the first time in 2017, the number of these products has also risen enormously over the last decade—by 225%—and 78 product options with the necessary range of flexibilities are now available. This can only improve and grow as the industry develops. Consumers utilise equity release for various reasons, such as paying off a mortgage, making adaptations to the home, boosting retirement income, or as a means of providing deposits to children and grandchildren to enable them to take their first step on the housing ladder. Equity release can help in meeting some of the challenges in social care and in housing.

We should be more ambitious, ensuring that the new body signposts solutions such as equity release to all those we represent who might really benefit from unlocking the main source of their wealth overall, which will be the equity in their home. I look forward to hearing from the Minister how we are going to make a reality of that in practice through the guidance.

[Neil Gray]

I rise to speak to amendments 39 and 40, which are in my name. I want to say at the outset that while Scottish National party Members have felt the need to bring back some elements from Committee, we do on the whole welcome and support the Bill. We just want to see some improvements, which we hope will help to protect consumers and those accessing financial products. It is a shame that on the third attempt to consider the Bill we may still not get time to consider the second group of amendments, and in particular those tabled by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field), which we are keen to consider. However, I will proceed as quickly as possible so that we might get to the second group in good time.

First, amendment 39 would require that specially trained advisers and guidance are made available to people in vulnerable circumstances and would provide an indicative list of what “vulnerable circumstances” should include. It is positive that the Government decided to amend the Bill in the House of Lords to include a reference to the needs of vulnerable people within the functions of the new single financial guidance body. However, we feel that the Government should go further.

The amended version of the clause remains a little weak with regard to the inclusion of vulnerable people. Our amendment would make things more explicit and strengthen that objective by providing more detail as to who may fall into this remit, using the term “people in vulnerable circumstances”, which we think is more appropriate. The circumstances illustrated in our amendment can have a significant impact on people’s finances and long-term savings plans.

People in difficult financial circumstances may be more likely to use new pension freedoms, at a cost to their long-term pensions saving. Attractive as the pension freedoms may sound, it is clear that the Government have not put in place adequate safeguards for older people who are opting to free up funds, to ensure they will not end up in a desperate financial situation later. Those with less money are more vulnerable to economic shocks in their personal circumstances, as well as being potentially more vulnerable to scammers who give misleading or false advice for a fee, as we heard from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey).

Being a carer or disabled can incur extra lifestyle costs. We want to ensure that the new body is as accessible as possible for all people, regardless of their circumstances. Specially trained advisers and resources must make up part of the new body, so that people can have confidence in its ability to support people in vulnerable circumstances.

The Minister said in Committee that our amendment was too prescriptive, but that does not really stand up. There is plenty in the Bill that is prescriptive and detailed. The new financial guidance body will be looking to the content of the Bill to understand what its objective and remit are. We are simply ensuring that the new body is absolutely clear that catering for those who find themselves in vulnerable circumstances should be a significant part of its remit. The wording of clause 2 makes that sound like an afterthought. That is an important discussion to be had alongside the duty of care, which I will come to later.

Amendment 40 would require the new body to ensure that consumers are made aware of the differences between information, guidance and advice, so that they can specify what type of services they require from it. In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black) tabled an amendment that would require the new financial guidance body to define the meaning of those services. The Minister said that that would potentially duplicate available definitions set out in regulations, but he also seemed to think that we asked for a definition because it would be useful for the body itself. That was not our purpose. Our purpose was to ensure that consumers themselves understand what services they have access to. We are tabling this amendment with tweaked wording to make it clear that we are asking that the new financial guidance body communicates clearly what services it provides people with and what they can access.

Guidance, information and advice are very different things. People expecting advice on what route to take may be disappointed to receive various information only. Likewise, there may be issues around exactly what the body is allowed to advise and to what extent it is able to advise on options available. Through this amendment, we are simply highlighting how important it is to ensure that users understand what they are getting.

Government new clauses 4 and 9 give the Secretary of State power to ban cold calling related to pensions and other consumer financial products. The Government have also tabled amendments to bring forward commencement of those clauses. The SNP and the Scottish Government have campaigned hard on cold calling, so we are pleased to see those provisions in the Bill. It is a positive step that the Government have tabled amendments 45 and 46, which will speed up the process for putting in place the necessary regulations for banning cold calling. It is clear that consumers want action now.

On the Government’s amendments, there is a concern that the Government are treating claims management companies’ cold calling and pensions or financial products cold calling differently. In Committee, the Government introduced clause 34, banning cold calling for CMCs unless the consumer has given their consent. With the two amendments on pensions and financial advice cold calling, the Secretary of State is giving herself a get-out clause, to shirk responsibility for taking action. Cold calling is cold calling. Consumers simply do not want to be bothered by nuisance calls, as we have already heard from the hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) and my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson). Creating a complex framework around which providers are allowed to make these calls, on what types of product, under what circumstances, is over-complicating a very simple issue. People just want it to stop.

Will the Secretary of State, or the Minister who responds to the debate, explain why they think the need to ban CMCs’ cold calling is greater than the need to ban pensions or financial products cold calling? Tough action needs to be taken on this; otherwise, we risk creating loopholes that will allow cold callers to continue to operate.

I want to mention the duty of care amendment: new clause 6, tabled by Members on the Labour Front Bench. My colleagues spoke about it in detail on Second Reading, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan), who sadly cannot be here today to speak on it again. Applying a duty of care to CMCs would be a positive step in ensuring that such companies remain accountable for their actions if they cause harm to consumers.

Ideally, all financial institutions should have the best interests of vulnerable consumers at the heart of their conduct, but we all know that that is not always the case, and the fact that the Financial Conduct Authority has agreed to bring forward a discussion paper on duty of care is really positive. Macmillan has campaigned tirelessly on this issue, and I thank its staff for the briefings that we received ahead of these debates. We hope that the Secretary of State and Ministers will give serious thought to this idea, as well as to our amendment on vulnerable persons, which ensures that the single financial guidance body expressly allocates resources for specialist support for people in vulnerable circumstances.

The SNP has long called for and campaigned for action on cold calling. Indeed, it was the subject of a ten-minute rule Bill proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran. We welcome the fact that there is to be progress in this regard, but this area of the Bill is becoming a bit of a guddle. That is why we would obviously prefer to see powers over this area devolved to the Scottish Parliament, so that we could take more robust action, such as was suggested by the Scottish Government’s action plan on nuisance calls. Indeed, the Scottish Government Cabinet Secretary for the Economy, Jobs and Fair Work, Keith Brown, has written to the UK Government many times, asking for them to take a tougher line on nuisance calls.

Nuisance callers blight our society and cause significant distress, particularly to the elderly and vulnerable people. Such harassment is unacceptable and must be stopped. Hopefully, in the time we have available, we will take the opportunity to make some necessary improvements to the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Crispin Blunt]

I echo the compliments that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), the shadow Minister paid to the Work and Pensions Committee and its Chair and to the two Ministers who have done most of the legwork on the Bill. The Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), and my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury have been exemplary in their handling of the Bill, as appears to be universally recognised. I would say to the shadow Minister that this is an immensely important Bill. It is very important for all the people we represent, building on the huge change that we made in giving people freedom around their pensions, and therefore there is a need to ensure that it is underpinned by proper advice and guidance.

I represent a number of financial firms in my constituency. I used to represent Legal & General, which was the biggest employer in my constituency, but it has had the impertinence to move out of Kingswood and go elsewhere. It is one of its rivals whose interests I defend. The pension freedoms that we announced in the Budget some time ago were a major challenge to two companies in my constituency—Just Retirement and Partnership. As one of my friends who worked at one of those companies said, “We have just a slight problem now, as the Government are not mandating that everybody must buy our product as an annuity. They now have options over their future.”

Those two companies were insurgents in the financial services market. Just Retirement specialises in the issue of equity release, which I addressed in the debate on the first group of amendments, trying to ensure that there is proper access to advice on people’s property as part of their asset structure in planning for retirement. Partnership specialised in identifying groups of annuitants with a shorter life expectancy, who therefore would be able to get a greater rate of return out of their pension investment. As people who had been saving with the big boys, such as Legal & General, moved into taking their pensions, they needed proper advice and guidance about the products that were available in the market.

I listened very carefully to the exchange between the Chair of the Select Committee and the Minister around the issue of the independence and impartiality of the advice that people will have access to. This will be the test that I apply to the Bill: people who are saving with a big player such as Legal & General must not be captured, in a sense, by simply not being exercised enough to seek independent advice in order properly to understand what options are available to them, and suborned as it were into continuing with the existing provider without understanding the options available to them. That is why the independence and impartiality, and the encouragement that people will get to seek that advice, is the test that needs to be set for whether this legislation will do the job, making them savvier about their pensions and the options available to them in retirement.

These matters are incredibly important to almost everyone in the course of their lives, when they come to make the big decisions about financial provision in retirement. I will be looking at this legislation, and at the undertakings that have been given, so that if it does not deliver what we hope it will, we can revisit it and ensure that people can access advice.

The Bill builds on the huge opportunities that we have given people to spend their own money in pursuit of their own priorities, while of course ensuring that they make sensible provision for their retirement, on the basis of advice and as informed consumers. That will take them away from being comfortable simply to be prisoners of their own big provider, without understanding the options available to them. We have given people their freedom and I hope that the Bill will ensure that they can use it in an informed way. That is a huge change, and one that I warmly support.

Article 50: Parliamentary Approval

Crispin Blunt Excerpts

Monday 11th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[John Penrose]

I am delighted to confirm that the Scottish Government will be involved. In fact, I believe that some early discussions are already under way. I hope and expect that those will continue, as they will with the other devolved Governments. I would, however, gently remind the hon. Gentleman that this is a commitment to consult, which is not quite the same thing as seeking an outright consent. As his own party has accepted very recently, this is not a devolved issue and is to be dealt with by this Parliament and the UK as a whole. It is a decision that we have taken as a country collectively.

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for that last clarification. We may be seeking consensus, but it will almost certainly not be forthcoming from those on the Scottish National Benches. Will the Minister confirm that there is no escape from doing this via article 50, to which we are bound by treaty, and whatever other parliamentary processes then come behind it? We have to meet our treaty obligations through invoking article 50, which is the instruction of the British people. Will he ensure that that is put in place as soon as we have our negotiating hand in place?

[John Penrose]

I agree with my hon. Friend on both those points: consensus is always desirable and to be sought wherever possible, and article 50 is the route for achieving Brexit. He is also right to point out that it is only the tip of a much larger iceberg; there are a whole series of other things that have to wrap around it. We have heard some of those mentioned already during this urgent question, and I suspect that we will hear more of them in due course.