Compensation (London Capital & Finance plc and Fraud Compensation Fund) Bill

Debate between Gareth Thomas and Pat McFadden

Report stage & 3rd reading
Wednesday 22nd September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Thomas]

The hon. Member may be right. I simply put out the idea at this stage, and I hope Ministers will be sympathetic to it, that we should not just accept the sense that, following Dame Elizabeth Gloster’s report, the payment of compensation and the introduction by the FCA of this new consumer duty, everything is suddenly all right in the world of consumer financial regulation. Perhaps Ministers on the Treasury Bench are inadvertently suggesting that. I think another step needs to be taken to hold the feet of regulators to the fire.

I will briefly raise two other concerns about financial regulation and some of the lessons that need to be taken from the LCF debacle, which the amendment from the hon. Member for Glenrothes helpfully gives me the opportunity to raise. The first is the idea that all the information available to the boards and the management of companies that has to be shared with the FCA and the PRA from time to time should be regarded as commercially sensitive. Clearly, there is genuinely commercially sensitive information that it is right for companies and businesses to keep for themselves. However, I fear—certainly in the case of Liverpool Victoria, which I have been looking at—that the excuse that information is financially sensitive is being used to deny consumers’ legitimate rights to know what the future holds for the business in which they have invested their savings or money. I gently suggest that that topic is worthy of a review in itself, potentially with changes to regulatory practice and, if need be, to legislation.

Lastly, the existence in legislation at the moment of provisions for so-called independent experts to look at the decisions that boards are taking in the context of demutualisations are a recipe for regulatory failure. In the case of Liverpool Victoria, independent experts are being appointed by the board, paid by the board and briefed by the board. Obviously, it is fairly easy to predict what the outcome of the independent experts’ work is going to be: to recommend largely what the board wants to happen. That is another issue that needs to be looked at.

I put those points on the record to suggest that Ministers should not be complacent about the quality of the FCA’s performance. There needs to be a bit more of a robust challenge and a look again at how financial regulation works.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

I want to use the opportunity provided by the amendment to raise a few points, particularly about clause 1, and to put them to the Minister. I thank Dame Elizabeth Gloster and both the Treasury Committee and the Work and Pensions Committee for the work they have done on this issue.

The issues covered by the Bill have been widely set out in debates on Second Reading and in Committee. They include: the wholly deficient practices at the FCA that meant that hundreds of reports of harm were not acted on, which was described by Dame Elizabeth Gloster as an “egregious” failure of the FCA to fulfil its statutory duties; the fact that this failure allowed LCF to continue in operation for years longer than it might otherwise have, thereby multiplying the harm to investors; the reassurance at one point from the FCA that what was happening was not a scam; the impact of the halo effect in having a regulated firm selling unregulated products, leading unsuspecting investors to believe that these products were far safer than they actually were; the loss of a whistleblower’s letter three years before the firm’s collapse, and the damning conclusion from Dame Elizabeth Gloster that the loss of that letter probably did not make any difference, because the FCA was so dysfunctional that, even if it had not been lost, it would not have been acted on; the repeated failure to join the dots and the treating of each LCF transgression—for example, on its use of financial promotions—as an isolated incident, when instead it was a pattern of behaviour designed to use its regulated status to bolster confidence in unregulated products; and the public disagreement between Dame Elizabeth and the Governor of the Bank of England about the issues of responsibility and personal culpability.

I served on the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, which said that

“a buck that does not stop with an individual stops nowhere.”

That quote has been much used in the debate about this issue, which has raised sharply the limitations of collective accountability and the question of whether in this case the buck really stopped with anyone. Of course, most importantly of all, there is the issue of the distress and the financial loss to investors and the question of how they should be compensated. All of this has led to the Government stepping in with this Bill to authorise compensation up to a certain level for investors.

Based on the amendment, I want to put a number of questions to the Minister arising from the Bill. First, why has compensation been set at 80% of the Financial Services Compensation Scheme maximum of £86,000, not the full level? That is probably the main outstanding concern of LCF investors, who are grateful that compensation will come but who cannot understand the 80% cap given the manifest failures set out in Dame Elizabeth’s report. Are the Government completely fixed on this 80% figure, or is there any prospect of that being reconsidered?

Compensation (London Capital & Finance plc and Fraud Compensation Fund) Bill (Second sitting)

Debate between Gareth Thomas and Pat McFadden

Tuesday 15th June 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Mr McFadden]

Thank you for your guidance, Ms Ghani. Later, I will move amendment 2 and, with your help, my hon. Friend the Member for Reading East will move amendments 3, 5 and 6, which stand in the Opposition’s name.

Amendment 1 relates to the first clause of the Bill, which deals with the compensation scheme relating to the collapse of London Capital & Finance and which is based on the report published by Dame Elizabeth Gloster, on which we took oral evidence this morning.

Clause 1 enables a very significant Government decision to step in and compensate people for the collapse of an investment firm. The estimated cost given by the Treasury for that decision is about £120 million. As the Minister pointed out on Second Reading, it is rare that the Government do that. He told us that there have been only two other cases in recent decades—Barlow Clowes and Equitable Life—and even those decisions did not always bring matters to a close. With Equitable Life, some investors around the country remain dissatisfied with the levels of compensation that have been paid out. There is an all-party parliamentary group in this House, and we have my indefatigable hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West, who has led at least one debate, if not more, on these issues, on the Committee. Such decisions do not always bring the matter to a close.

The focus of the amendment is to try to bring some clarity to Parliament and the public about when the taxpayer should be on the hook for an investment collapse, and when not. This issue was raised in oral evidence this morning by the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire. He used the well-known phrase “caveat emptor”, or “buyer beware”, which applies those who may buy investment products. The trouble at the heart of this case is that the investors did not think they were making a particularly risky decision. LCF sold mini-bonds on the basis of a guaranteed investment return. When those who suspected something might be wrong phoned the FCA, time after time they were reassured that nothing was wrong. To quote one of the FCA’s call handlers, “This is not a scam”. While the hon. Gentleman was right to raise the principle of caveat emptor, how can we blame the investors if the very regulator looking after the thing was reassuring them that there was nothing to be concerned about?

The Government have judged the level of regulatory failure to be so exceptional and egregious that they have decided that the taxpayer has a responsibility to compensate, or as it is sometimes put, to socialise the losses. The level of compensation set by the Government is 80% of the maximum level allowed by the Financial Services Compensation Fund. That maximum is £85,000, so 80% leaves investors with a maximum pay-out of about £68,000.

There is debate about that 80%. Members of the Committee will have been sent written evidence from various LCF investors who think that level is too low. They do not understand why they have been asked to forfeit 20% of their investment because of what the Government acknowledge to be a particularly egregious regulatory failure. The Government will have to debate that. Their justification for any compensation at all is that LCF is a unique case. Both Ministers spelled that out on Second Reading last week. In his opening speech, the Pensions Minister said:

“While other mini-bond firms have failed, LCF is the only mini-bond firm that was authorised by the FCA and sold bonds in order to on-lend to other companies.”

He went on to say:

“It is…important to emphasise that the circumstances surrounding LCF are unique and exceptional, and the Government cannot and should not be expected to stand behind every failed investment firm.”—[Official Report, 8 June 2021; Vol. 696, c. 905.]

We agree, and that is precisely what the amendment is about: to try to get some clarity on the Government’s thinking when the degree of regulatory failure is so exceptional that it warrants the taxpayer picking up the bill. When that is not the case, whatever losses there may be should be regarded as normal investment market failings.

[Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

My right hon. Friend rightly sets out the scale of regulatory failure. Does he think that one of the other potentially unique circumstances of this case is the apparent legislative lacuna about who had the responsibility for regulating mini-bonds? Dame Elizabeth Gloster set out that, on the one hand, the FCA said it should be Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs; HMRC was equally clear that it thought it should be the FCA. We do not know whether that legislative lacuna has yet been sorted. Does my right hon. Friend think that was also a factor in the Government’s decision to compensate to the scale they have?

[Mr McFadden]

My hon. Friend is right; the lacuna referred to in the report relates particularly to the allocation of ISA status. We asked Dame Elizabeth about that during the oral evidence session this morning. This is important because if there are two things that gave the mini-bonds the stamp of respectability, it would be that prominent in LCF’s advertising was the statement that it was regulated by the FCA, which at firm level was true but was not true of the mini-bonds being sold, and that they could be placed inside an ISA wrapper. Although it is, of course, true that people who invest in ISAs can lose money, for understandable reasons, the ISA wrapper has a certain cachet and a note of respectability.

Dame Elizabeth confirmed during oral evidence this morning that once the ISA wrapper status was allocated in 2017, the degree of investment in those mini-bonds rose markedly, because people would have thought they were investing in something safe. The adverts spoke, in fact, of a 100% record in paying out, when what we were really dealing with was a pyramid scheme where any pay-outs that did come came from other investors and not normal market returns. People thought they were investing in a safe bond. They did not think they were playing investment roulette.

The Economic Secretary also emphasised the uniqueness of the LCF case in his closing speech on Second Reading. He said:

“LCF is unique in that regard; indeed, it is the only mini-bond issuer that was authorised by the FCA and that sold bonds to on-lend to other companies.”—[Official Report, 8 June 2021; Vol. 696, c. 918.]

That is an exact replica, with both Ministers saying the same thing, and I suspect that that phrase has been very carefully honed inside the Treasury. A case had to be made for the uniqueness of this that could not be applied to other investment failures, so I think that form of words is very carefully chosen. However, the Minister may be able to tell us more when he responds.

The amendment is designed to tease out the following point, which I want to clarify with the Minister. Is it the case that even though a number of mini-bond issuers have collapsed in recent years, LCF is the only one that was authorised and regulated by the FCA? The Minister can intervene now or I am happy to wait. As I said to the Ministers on Second Reading, there must have been a discussion in the Treasury about developing a compensation scheme such as the one set out in clause 1. The question would have been asked: if we did this for LCF, what about investors in the Connaught fund or Blackmore Bond or any of the other investment schemes that were raised either on Second Reading or during the oral evidence session this morning? What was the nature of those discussions at the Treasury and what is it about LCF that makes the Government convinced that compensation is due in this case but not in the others? That is why our amendment calls for a report. Having taken the decision to compensate, we believe it would be in the public interest for the Treasury to set out the circumstances under which the taxpayer might be expected to pay when investors lose money. Is it about a firm being authorised by the FCA? Is it about commissioning a report by an eminent and independent figure such as Dame Elizabeth Gloster?

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Thomas]

My right hon. Friend is understandably concerned to protect the taxpayer’s interest. Is there not also another dimension as to why the report he seeks is worthwhile? If there is regulatory failure by the FCA in other ways, and not just in the handling of investors’ resources, and if there is no chance of the Government stepping in and offering compensation for that failure, then, for example, if a big financial services company that was not properly regulated by the FCA were to be demutualised, would there not be a reason to offer compensation? Or, if not, would that let the FCA off the hook?

[Mr McFadden]

My hon. Friend raises a very important point. There are many reasons why clarity about the limitations of Government responsibility and taxpayer responsibility, to put it another way, would be extremely helpful. The very fact of producing the Bill will mean that the Government have asked those questions anyway. As I said earlier, the cost in this case is expected to be about £120 million. The costs of clause 2, which we will come to later, are expected to be over £300 million. Over both clauses the cost will therefore be more than £400 million. That is a large sum of public money that will, in the case of clause 2, be recouped over a period of years from pension scheme members.

Of course, it is possible to have investment failings on an even greater scale. Is there any upper limit that the Treasury would see to such taxpayer exposure, or is it always to be on a case-by-case basis? In theory, investment failings could cost billions rather than hundreds of millions. Our amendment seeks to clarify the Government’s thinking on that, which would be beneficial to Parliament and the public.

Those are the reasons why we have tabled this amendment. We think that the compensation scheme and the whole story of the collapse of LCF demands such clarity and that reports such as the one we have called for would be beneficial.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Ghani.

I shall speak to amendment 7, in my name, and in support of the official Opposition’s amendment 1.

Both amendments call for the Secretary of State to report back to Parliament on issues that collectively raise many still unanswered questions about the Bill, about the compensation scheme, and about why the scandal of London Capital & Finance was allowed to happen.

By far the biggest criticism of the Bill, which we again heard from witnesses today, is that it has been deliberately framed so narrowly that those questions are in danger of being ignored. I know that the Government will argue that framing it narrowly increases its chances of getting on to the statute book—I accept that argument—but there is a downside to doing that.

The biggest question that is still unanswered is: why do we expect compensation for the victims of one investment mis-selling scandal when so many people have lost so much—possibly a total of more than £1 billion —in other company collapses that share most, and sometimes all, of the key features of London Capital & Finance?

I should make it clear that I am not asking for the setting up of other schemes. We are not asking for approval at this stage, or for other failures to be included in the LCF scheme. All we are asking for is some clear indication that the Government are taking action to look at the wider issues.

The Government’s answer is that London Capital & Finance was regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and that companies such as Blackmore Bond were not. That smacks of looking for an explanation to justify a decision that has been taken for a completely different reason.

Companies such as Blackmore Bond set out to make prospective investors believe that the FCA had a role in protecting their money. Investors in LCF were misled into believing that its own registration with the FCA would cover their investments. The only difference with other company failures is that investors in those companies were misled into believing that someone else’s registration would cover them—a fine point lost on investors themselves.

The Government’s explanation appear to assume that the only problem, or even the biggest problem, with London Capital & Finance was that it was a regulated company selling unregulated investments. That was certainly part of the problem, but, as the written submissions from a number of investors and as evidence this morning made clear, there were other failings and possibly deliberate malpractice within the company and some of its advisers. Other failings of regulation went well beyond those laid at the feet of the Financial Conduct Authority in relation purely to LCF. If the Government constantly remind us that the sale of mini-bonds was not regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority, surely the elephant in the room is: why on earth not?

The Government will, I know, refer to the principle of caveat emptor. It is correct that anyone making an investment has a responsibility to ensure that the investment meets their needs, but there are hundreds—possibly thousands—of examples in UK regulation where we regulate the market but it is not realistic or fair to expect the emptor to caveat.

We do not expect people to do their own personal survey of a house to make sure it is safe before they buy it. We do not expect people to check the brakes on the bus before buying a ticket. We have regulation to protect public safety, on food standards, on product safety and on a number of financial transactions. It is perfectly possible for the Government to start to look at regulating these investments in future and compensating ordinary men, women and sometimes children who have lost sums that, individually, are not significant to the FCA but are massively significant to their plans for retirement, for paying to support their children at university or for ever.

We must make it clear that we are not asking the Government to approve compensation for every company failure. We are not asking them even to consider the implications of doing that. We are asking them to look specifically at cases where there is clear evidence of the mis-selling of investments, usually to people who the seller knew perfectly well were not suited to that investment. That has been a characteristic of all the cases we have looked at today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr McFadden]

I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 1, page 1, line 15, at end insert—

“(3A) Within six months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament a report setting out progress on the implementation of the recommendations in pages 47 to 49 of the Gloster Report.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a report setting out progress on the implementations of the thirteen recommendations in the Gloster Report.

Amendment 2 concerns the recommendations made in Dame Elizabeth’s report. It is a long report, but I am specifically referring to the series of conclusions and recommendations made on pages 47 to 49. As the Minister said a few moments ago, some of those recommendations are for the FCA and others are for the Government. We heard Dame Elizabeth say this morning that if she reached one overall conclusion that she wanted us to understand, it would be about the degree of culture change necessary for the FCA to fulfil its statutory duties. The fact that she judged that the culture that existed was so inappropriate that it stopped the FCA from doing its statutory job effectively is a serious charge. It is, after all, the body that we depend on to uphold the consumer interest and charged with ensuring proper conduct in the sale and provision of financial services. I do not need to tell anybody on the Committee how important those are, either to everyday life or to the UK economy.

One of the most telling parts of Dame Elizabeth’s report is when she discusses the loss of a letter sent to the FCA by a financial adviser called Neil Liversidge in November 2015, fully three years before the collapse of LCF. The letter warned in fairly graphic language, some of which I read out on Second Reading, what was going on at LCF and the financial adviser’s concern. Dame Elizabeth’s damning conclusion is that even if the letter had not been lost in the FCA, which appears to be what happened, so dysfunctional was the FCA that it would not have done anything about it anyway. She says on page 78 of the report:

“it is unlikely that it would have resulted in any”

action by the FCA. She found that degree of dysfunctionality to be deep and in need of urgent attention, as set out in the recommendations.

Every time there is a public failing, we hear some familiar things being said. In fact, we could almost play word bingo with them. People talk about lessons learned and new systems being put in place, and sometimes there is change of leadership or a change of the management team—all those things. In the report, there was a very well publicised disagreement about the nature of accountability and responsibility involving Dame Elizabeth and the now Governor of the Bank of England, who led the FCA at the time. That was all played out in front of the Treasury Committee over several hearings early this year. I want to focus on the 13 specific recommendations on pages 47 to 49. I am not going to go through them in huge detail, but I will mention a few.

The first recommendation is the desire to treat the regulation of companies holistically; that is, to deal with the halo effect of regulated companies selling unregulated products. That was at the very heart of the regulatory failures over LCF. It was a big part of why the many phone calls to the FCA alerting staff to investor fears about what was going on went unheeded. Indeed, Dame Elizabeth’s report records many instances where calls were not acted on because the mini-bonds concerned were not regulated. There is a whole annex containing the transcripts and I will not delay the Committee with them at the moment, but they are all set out in the report.

The failure to act exposed a major weakness in the FCA’s approach. Even if staff could tick a box that said that a phone call was about something that it did not regulate, the FCA was still on the hook at the end of the day if the firm failed, as the Bill now shows. The recommendation therefore requires a major change in how the FCA thinks about unregulated products.

The next two recommendations are about how the FCA deals with information passed on to it and how it is shared. Again, they highlight a failing in how the LCF information was handled. As we have said, the financial promotions team intervened several times to warn the company about the misleading nature of its promotions as it kept saying that it was regulated by the FCA. However, the financial promotions team did not escalate this information to other parts of the organisation that could have taken action.

The fifth recommendation deals with the financial promotion rules and what to do about breaches when red flags should be raised. Page 49 highlights recommendations more for the Treasury than the FCA. As we discussed a moment ago, the first of those deals with what Dame Elizabeth calls a lacuna in the allocation of the ISA-related responsibilities between the FCA and HMRC. The Minister referred to a working group—I think that is the phrase that he used—and I hope it reaches a conclusion quickly. Such a response is common in the catastrophe word bingo that we often hear. A working group is okay, but it has to deal with the lacuna that has been identified.

Just saying that something is regulated by the FCA gives it an aura of safety and respectability and so does saying that about investments in an ISA wrapper. As the report says, once ISA status was granted to these mini-bonds, investment in them grew markedly. Putting money into an ISA is thought to be a responsible thing to do. People believe that those operating ISAs are respectable companies and not those engaged in what are, in effect, pyramid selling schemes like the one that LCF was operating. That is why this issue is particularly important.

Recommendation 12 is about the optimal remit of the FCA. That matters because the failure of LCF sits so squarely on the boundary of regulated companies selling unregulated products. The FCA’s remit is known in the parlance as the perimeter. The Minister gave evidence to the Treasury Committee a few months ago and he said it was not an issue about the perimeter, but about the failure to use the enforcement and supervision powers that the FCA already had. I understand what he means by that. He is saying that if the FCA had acted on the reports that it had received, a great deal less damage would have been done and the taxpayer would not be faced with the compensation bill set out in the Bill. Even though I understand the point he made, the perimeter is still relevant because it informed attitudes inside the FCA on how alarmed it should be about calls reporting concerns about LCF and whether it should act. That behaviour was influenced by the fact that the calls were about products that were not regulated.

How should the Government and the FCA respond to the issue of regulated companies and unregulated products? In theory, one response could be to say that regulated companies can only sell regulated products, but that would involve a major extension of regulation. That is not to say that that is necessarily wrong, but it would be a big step. For example, foreign exchange trading is not regulated but it is carried out by every high street bank in the country and they are, of course, regulated entities.

If the answer is not a major extension of regulatory responsibilities, what is it? Is it the Government’s position that there is no need to look at this because this was such a one-off event that cannot be repeated? How can we be sure of that? We asked the FCA this morning whether this could happen again and, understandably, the witness from the FCA said that he could not tell us for sure that it could not.

[Gareth Thomas]

My right hon. Friend is rightly dwelling on the issue of the perimeter. May I give him another scenario that suggests that there might still be reasons to be concerned about whether the FCA has got the perimeter point in Dame Elizabeth Gloster’s report? Let us imagine that the FCA had investigated a financial services business that was recommending one thing to its customers but only 12 months later was doing the complete reverse. The FCA, having looked at it initially, says, “We’ve looked at it already. We’re putting a perimeter around that. We’re not going to consider what happened 12 months before in the context of this decision.” Were that to be a live situation, would it not suggest that the FCA had not grasped the perimeter point that Dame Elizabeth Gloster was making?

[Mr McFadden]

My hon. Friend makes a very strong point. The question of the perimeter is inescapable. One of Dame Elizabeth’s recommendations is that the Government consider the FCA’s remit, and the Government have said that they accept all her recommendations. The Minister said in his evidence to the Select Committee that this cannot be pinned on the perimeter, as it were, but as a conclusion of what has happened the perimeter must be considered. The Government have accepted that.

One way to deal with this is to say that regulated firms and regulated products must be brought together—I shall be grateful for the Minister’s response on that—but if that is not deemed to be the right response how will the question of the remit and the perimeter be responded to? At the heart of this failure is the halo effect of a regulated firm selling unregulated products.

Recommendation 13 is about ensuring that the legislative framework keeps pace with the sale of products through technology platforms. This field of activity is growing daily. It is driven by technological innovation—the movement of more and more activity online—and perhaps by the increased time people have had during the lockdowns to invest online. I do not want to try your patience, Ms Ghani, by delving too deeply into that today, but I think that this issue will occupy the House and this Minister in particular over the next couple of years. We will have to return to it again and again in the House, but recommendation 13 is precisely about legislation on selling things through technological platforms, and the Government and the FCA will have to adapt to it or they will fall behind the reality of the market and of financial crime.

Most of these issues have been put in the hands of the new chief executive, Nikhil Rathi, and the trans-formation programme to which the Minister referred on Second Reading. How are we to know that the 13 recommendations have been implemented? It is easy when a report is published to say, “We accept the findings.” The key is: are they followed through and properly implemented?

Dame Elizabeth’s report should be more than a series of individual recommendations. As she said this morning, it should result in a culture change. Much more communication needs to take place between different parts of the FCA while, crucially, not dropping the ball on regulated firms and unregulated products.

It is unfair of any of us, in government or in opposition, to load more responsibilities on to the FCA if it does not have the resources to fulfil them. We are clear in our amendment that the resources of the FCA have to be covered. Does the FCA have the resources to meet the ever-expanding list of responsibilities, including those on-shored as a result of our departure from the EU? It is funded through a levy on the sectors for which it is responsible. Is the levy giving it enough resources?

The failure of LCF exposed such a degree of dysfunctionality that it prompted the question: can the FCA really do its job? If not, the Government have to act because the public need the protection of a powerful regulator. The imbalance of information between the sellers of financial services products and the buyers absolutely demands that. This amendment is aimed at our receiving a report on the 13 recommendations and on their implementation by both the FCA and the Treasury. Its acceptance would provide Parliament and the public with a mechanism to ensure that statements saying that the recommendations had been accepted had actually been followed through and action taken.

Compensation (London Capital & Finance plc and Fraud Compensation Fund) Bill (Second sitting)

Debate between Gareth Thomas and Pat McFadden

Committee stage
Tuesday 15th June 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Mr McFadden]

[Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

[Mr McFadden]

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Thomas]

[Mr McFadden]

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr McFadden]

[Gareth Thomas]

[Mr McFadden]

[Peter Grant]

Petitions

Debate between Gareth Thomas and Pat McFadden

Tuesday 5th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I rise to present a petition in the same terms as my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), from the parents, carers, staff and governors of the wonderful Hillview Nursery School in Britain’s best constituency, Harrow West. Almost 100 people have signed the petition.

The petition of parents, carers, staff and governors of Hillview Nursery maintained nursery school in Harrow.

[P002312]

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

I would like to present petitions from parents, carers and staff at Windsor Nursery School and Phoenix Nursery School—both in Wolverhampton South East—in the same terms as those presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell).

The petition of parents, carers, staff and governors of Windsor maintained nursery school in Wolverhampton.

[P002314]

The petition of the parents, carers, staff and governors of Phoenix maintained nursery schools in Wolverhampton.

[P002321]

Police Employer Pension Contributions

Debate between Gareth Thomas and Pat McFadden

Wednesday 14th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr McFadden]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The point I am making is that the effect of this is not uniform in all parts of the country. My contention is that ensuring adequate police numbers is a progressive cause. It confers freedom on those who cannot afford to move house to get away from the problem. It provides help where it is needed most. Conversely, when it is not there, it is those who need help most who lose out. 

For a time the Government claimed that there was nothing to worry about, because cuts in police numbers were not resulting in higher crime. Well, no longer. In the west midlands over the past year, violence against the person was up 21%, sexual offences up 23%, robbery up 22%, possession of weapon offences up 17% and knife crime up 18%. Nationally, homicides were up 14%, robbery up 22% and knife crime up 12%. The toll of knife crime, in particular, has horrified the country. Night after night, we hear of young lives brutally and senselessly cut short. Just last week, in the midst of a horrendous series of stabbings in our capital city of London, the Evening Standard pictured two of the victims on its front page. They were aged just 15 and 17. These were the faces of boys, not men; children killed in the most awful way. This has happened far too often on our streets. I am sure that all of us—on whichever side of the House—would agree that combating the upsurge in knife crime is a national cause of the utmost urgency. 

The Minister may say that policing is not the sole answer, and I accept that. Clearly, there needs to be a further expansion of schemes, such as the early youth intervention scheme, that seek to tackle the root causes. Money for that scheme was distributed earlier this week, including some to my force in the west midlands, and I welcome that. However, if policing is not the sole answer, it is certainly an essential part of it, and we are going to need adequate numbers of police officers to get on top of this national emergency.

[Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

My right hon. Friend is making an extremely effective speech. He referenced, in particular, the upsurge in knife crime in London. Is he aware that Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, has written to the Prime Minister setting out that the extra pension costs, which my right hon. Friend has rightly sought to draw to the House’s attention, represent £130 million extra a year, which is equivalent potentially to the loss of 2,000 police officers?

[Mr McFadden]

Those are shocking numbers, both financially and in the potential impact on police numbers. As I said, it is simply intolerable to expect the public to cope with the consequences if they unfold in that way.

It is in those twin contexts—falling police numbers and rising violent crime, including a particular emergency relating to knife crime—that we must consider police resources. The origin of the changes to the pension scheme, which could affect these numbers further, are two changes in what is called the discount rate for calculating pension liabilities. The effect of the changes in the discount rate has been to increase the liabilities for employers—in other words, to increase their costs. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas) just quoted the potential impact on London. According to the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners, the changes to pension costs across the country could mean that they have to find another £165 million next year, rising to £417 million the year after. By way of comparison, that is the same amount as the total budget for West Yorkshire police, which is the fourth biggest police force in England.

Higher Education Fees

Debate between Gareth Thomas and Pat McFadden

Thursday 9th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr McFadden]

We are probably all agreed that the top universities can and should do more to attract ethnic minority students.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) said, there are some good points in the Browne report. Browne was right to maintain the position whereby fees are not paid up front by students, but by graduates and only after they start earning. This has been portrayed as a new change in the system, but it is not; it has been there since the 2004 changes, although it is still widely misunderstood. Browne is also right to increase the repayment threshold and to include part-time students in the system. Let us be clear, given that the point about part-time students has been portrayed as some great gift from the Government, that the Labour Government explicitly built that into the terms of reference for the Browne review.

It is also right to place a greater emphasis on providing more and better information for students about the quality of courses and teaching. If students are being asked to pay more, they deserve more power within the system, even if that is sometimes uncomfortable for academics or institutions.

[Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Has my right hon. Friend seen the Government’s impact assessment, which suggests that even they recognise that as the teaching grant is withdrawn, fees for part-time students will go up and participation could go down as a result?

[Mr McFadden]

I was coming to that, because Browne also called for an increase in participation of 10%, yet one of the first acts of this Government was to cut the number of student places by 10,000 when compared with the plans that Labour had put in place. Since the election, both Tory and Lib Dem Ministers have repeatedly attacked Labour’s aim to have a participation rate of 50% for our young people. Their attack on higher participation is an attack on opportunity, which we should resist. I stress that participation is about not just the fee level, but getting people to the point where they can make the choice in the first place. Therefore, abolishing the education maintenance allowance and Aimhigher is a direct attack on participation and opportunity for young people.