Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Dan Rogerson and Mark Garnier

Thursday 30th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Dan Rogerson]

I have not met the Mayor of London recently, but of course our officials discuss things locally. I recently held a workshop with local authorities across the country, including those in cities in the north, which are working hard to tackle local aspects of air pollution. As I say, I welcome what the Mayor is doing—his consultation on further measures he might take—and when the Government see the details of those proposals we will be happy to discuss how we might support them.

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

10. What recent progress she has made on improving the cleanliness of rivers and beaches.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

T8. Although west bank residents of the River Severn in Bewdley have benefited from brilliant flood defences, those on the east bank live with the uncertainty of the Environment Agency’s final solution to local flooding. May I urge my right hon. Friend to seriously consider demountable flood barriers to protect the east bank residents of Beales Corner in Bewdley?

[Dan Rogerson]

I am aware that there is a long-standing flooding issue at Beales Corner and that, as my hon. Friend says, the Environment Agency is trialling temporary flood defence barriers there. I understand that the trial is set to continue until 2017 while longer-term solutions are being considered and the agency, quite properly, consults the community, but if my hon. Friend has further concerns and would like to write to me, I would be happy to discuss those with him.

Independent Financial Advisers (Regulation)

Debate between Dan Rogerson and Mark Garnier

Monday 29th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mark Garnier]

The issue of commissions is complex and is surrounded by several other issues, one of the simplest of which is that the Office of Fair Trading has deemed it right that the providers of the products should be able to charge or incentivise IFAs and salespeople in a variety of ways. The difficulty with allowing different levels of remuneration to IFAs is that it creates some of the problems we have talked about, but the OFT will not allow a flat rate of commission, which is one solution that could have dealt with this issue.

The risk in being an IFA is a major issue. All professions carry an element of professional risk, which is covered by professional indemnity insurance. In pricing that risk, underwriters take into account the fact that there is a so-called long-stop of liability, which is usually about 15 years, but that is not the case for IFAs. It has been deemed fair for IFAs to have an unlimited period of liability, such that an 80-year-old retired sole trading IFA might be liable for a product sold half a century earlier. It might be that the claimant has a legitimate claim, but in our compensation culture it might be that he does not feel satisfied with what he has got and is just having a go.

In practical terms, for a limited liability company, as the business gets older it becomes less saleable as it accrues a large pool of risk on the products it has sold since it opened its door to trading. Is it fair that an IFA could be chased to the grave in a manner that no other profession allows? Will that indefinite level of risk be an incentive to newcomers coming into the profession? I think that the answer to both those questions is no.

The cost of implementing the RDR is high. Currently, a firm of IFAs with up to 25 advisers is required to put aside only £10,000 by way of regulatory capital. That minimum will double under the RDR, but there is a new element to come in. Under the new rules, firms may be required to put aside 90 days’ worth of operating costs. For the better-run firms with sophisticated systems and offices that could be a significant increase. It is not inconceivable that a firm employing 10 qualified IFAs supported by high-quality support staff could see its regulatory capital rise from £10,000 to £200,000, £300,000, £400,000 or even £500,000. That rule alone is an incentive for firms to go from providing a high-level service to a cut-price one.

But what does all this mean for the cost of the RDR to the consumer? The original estimates for the cost-benefit analysis of the RDR gave a net present value of £600 million for the first five years including one-off costs. That has now risen to a truly staggering £1.7 billion in order to address an unsubstantiated cost of mis-selling £250 million. Moreover, it is by no means the responsibility of the IFA community alone. In 2009, according to the financial ombudsman, just 2% of complaints in this area related to the activity of IFAs, while 61% related to banks, but 65% of the market share is held by IFAs.

[Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) on securing this debate. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in putting together the RDR, the FSA has throughout consistently ignored all the comment from the industry, this place and elsewhere and that the time has come for it to listen and to review the whole set-up?

[Mark Garnier]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The overriding message coming back from the IFA community is of being ignored by the regulator. It has been suggested that Adair Turner, as someone who comes from McKinsey, looks at the issue from a box-ticking perspective as opposed to considering the fundamental needs of the consumer, which is the important issue.

IFAs are going to bear the brunt of the changes, and especially those with small operations in rural communities.