Equitable Life Policyholders: Compensation

Joanna Cherry Excerpts

Thursday 23rd March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

I pay tribute to those who secured the debate, particularly the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), who has worked tirelessly on behalf of the victims of the Equitable Life failure.

Equitable Life policyholders have been failed by three bodies. They were failed, first, by the life insurance scheme in which they invested; secondly, by the regulator; and thirdly, by the Government, who have not done enough, although I acknowledge that this Government and the previous Government moved to do something. The point of the debate is that they have a duty to do more for moral reasons, as other hon. Members have said. They should also do more, again as others, particularly the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), have said, in order to underwrite confidence in the financial sector throughout the United Kingdom.

In Edinburgh South West, the financial sector is extremely important. Many of my constituents work in it, and Edinburgh has the second largest financial sector in the UK outwith London. However, quite a number of my constituents are victims of the collapse of Equitable Life and I want to say a little about the personal experiences of two or three.

Others have already dealt more eloquently than I can with the nub of the issue. Basically, it is the shortfall: the difference between the amount in the scheme that the previous Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne), created—£1.5 billion—and the total loss, which he admitted was £4.1 billion. There was therefore a difference of £2.6 billion. In the great scheme of things, that is not a huge amount of money, especially when we consider it against the principles that should govern such a situation.

The Government initially attempted to exclude all those who took out schemes before 1992. That would have excluded some of the oldest, most vulnerable, and most incapable of making their voice heard. The Government’s sticking plaster on compensation for the pre-1992 scheme holders—an extra £50 million—does not cover the full amounts lost and continues the unfairness to those least likely to be able to continue the fight against the injustice. The Government’s choice—it is a choice; every Government have to choose their priorities—not to compensate fully those who are unlikely to live long enough to provide the sustained pressure necessary to reverse the decision is most unfortunate.

This is not the first time that the Government have failed on compensation or regulation. Like other hon. Members, I have been present in the Chamber for the debate on the losses of investors in the Connaught Income Fund. I have constituents who suffered as a result of that. Of course, there is also the ongoing issue of the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign. Those women invested in their future according to the rules that they understood to apply at the time. During the debate, I have received messages from WASPI women, reminding me to mention them and emphasising that they have suffered a similar injustice to those affected by the collapse of Equitable Life.

I want to say something about the effect on three of my constituents. I will not name them for reasons of personal privacy. I will call them Mr A, Mr B and Mr C. Mr A started to run his own business in his 40s and at that time, he took out three personal pensions with Equitable Life, two for him and one for his wife, who was a partner in the business. When Equitable Life was unable to deliver what it had promised, Mr A and his wife lost their guaranteed annuity rates as the company tried to avoid liquidation. That meant that they were getting only 50% of the rate that the company had guaranteed them. When the coalition Government announced their planned compensation scheme, Mr A expected to be reimbursed to a degree that would at least allow him to lead the sort of life in his old age that he had hoped for when he took the schemes out in the 1980s. However, when he was compensated, he realised he had received only about 4% of the money owed to him. His appeal was successful and was upheld by the independent panel, but the recalculation has never been carried out, despite the strenuous efforts of my predecessor, the previous Member of Parliament for Edinburgh South West.

Mr A still does not have the 50% compensation that he expected to receive, which means that he and his wife have very much had to lower their expectations of old age, and have had to use the equity release scheme to release funds on their home to help them to manage. They would never have expected to have to do that, and indeed had planned against doing so.

[Sir Desmond Swayne]

The second argument I have used to resist full compensation is that we would be requiring taxpayers, many of whom would never have been able to afford such investments, to compensate the annuitants—I accept that the annuitants were also taxpayers. However, the evidence about the modesty of so many annuitants has affected the argument. Equally, I wonder whether it is sustainable to subject justice to a means test.

[Joanna Cherry]

The right hon. Gentleman has obviously thought this through carefully. The conclusions he has come to with his first concern, and the conclusions he is moving towards with his second concern, are very wise. As another hon. Member pointed out, the purpose of having a regulator is to spot when what is promised is not realistic. In a democracy such as ours, with checks and balances and regulators, ordinary investors are entitled to assume that the regulator would say, “This is nonsense and dangerous”, even when a well respected and reputable company had made those promises—these were not fly-by-night investments as far as my constituents were concerned, but investments in a very old and well respected company.

Mr B is quite elderly—he is in his 80s now—and his memory is fading a bit. He was a shopkeeper, which is just the kind of small businessman and entrepreneur that the Conservative Government purport to support. The Scottish National party, too, very much encourages entrepreneurialism and small business—it is in the interests of all of us to encourage entrepreneurialism.

Mr B took out his Equitable Life policy about 40 years ago and has suffered hugely. He told me that, whenever he thinks about what has happened to him and the losses he has sustained, he finds it very hard to describe the pain it makes him feel. He ran a shop in an area of Edinburgh where a lot of his customers were professional people who had also invested in the scheme and told him it was a good thing. He proceeded with all due caution.

Mr B has told people in my office that he is not looking for very much. He wants his rights and his reasonable expectations to be respected. He wanted me to make it very clear today that the current under-compensation underlines his belief that the ideas of trust and bond, which he says used to be so important to investment, seem to have no place in the modern world of financial transactions. It is unfortunate that an elderly gentleman such as Mr B, who has worked so hard all his life in his own business, should have reached that conclusion. He is anxious that, at this stage, late on in his life, if he is unable to pay the debts that the Equitable scheme should have covered for him, he will lose his house—the home where he lives.

The losses of Mr C, another constituent, are substantial —he told me that he believes his losses to be upwards of £200,000. Mr C was a shopkeeper too. He believes that, as he is getting very old, any year could be his last, and that time is quickly running out to find the justice he deserves.

I am making a heartfelt plea to the Minister on behalf of constituents such as Mr A, Mr B and Mr C to look at this again. I wrote to the Chancellor in advance of the last Budget. The Minister was generous in his reply and dealt with matters in detail. I realise that, to a certain extent, his hands are tied, but I make a plea to him to go to the Chancellor to revisit this issue, so that the compensation payments—I use the word “compensation” loosely, as we have discussed—can be considerably increased for all our constituents, but particularly for gentlemen and women in the position of Mr A, Mr B and Mr C. To echo what others have said, it is the right thing to do and the moral thing to do, but it is also in all our interests, because it would increase and underline confidence in the financial sector, which is so important to the United Kingdom.

Leaving the EU: Financial Services

Joanna Cherry Excerpts

Thursday 3rd November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Liz Kendall]

My right hon. Friend is right. Many companies have been planning for months, even before the referendum, to try to mitigate the risks of Brexit. There is a mandate to leave the European Union, but there is no mandate about the terms. The Court’s decision today should allow this House to have its say, to raise the important issues and to hold the Government to account, and I hope that the Government listen.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

In answer to the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne), does the hon. Lady agree that this is not just about passporting rights, but about the vital regulatory framework that the EU provides for the financial and banking sector?

[Liz Kendall]

I agree with the hon. and learned Lady, and I will come on to that point later in my speech.

As well as playing a crucial role in our domestic economy, the UK’s financial and professional services have an unrivalled reach and influence across the globe. The UK is the world’s leading exporter of financial services. We have the world’s fourth largest banking sector, third largest insurance industry, second largest fund management sector, and second largest legal services industry.

Many people believe that the British economy is too dependent on financial services and that, despite the significant number of jobs outside the City, that predominantly benefits London and the south-east. I agree. I have long argued that we need to rebalance our economy, develop a modern industrial strategy, and devolve power to our cities, towns and counties to boost jobs and growth in every region, in every part of the UK.

However, strong and effectively regulated financial services are crucial. They directly create jobs and growth, and support employment in related sectors such as legal and accountancy services. They are the bloodstream of the wider economy, pumping money through the country by lending to local businesses. They attract huge levels of inward investment, including about £100 billion over the past decade—more than any other sector—and they are crucial for our pensions and mortgages, and for funding the public services on which we all rely. That is why I am so grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for granting today’s debate, because the decision to leave the European Union has serious implications for the future of this vital sector.

Membership of the single market has brought huge benefits. In particular, it has entitled financial services to use the passport—the mechanism that gives companies the legal right to provide services across the EU, without having to obtain separate authorisation from other member states. Those passports are the foundation of the single market for financial services, and they are essential for investment banks and international insurance companies. Many are now deeply concerned about losing their passporting rights, but I am afraid that some leading hard-line Brexiteers have poured scorn on the idea that we need passporting at all and say that third-country equivalence will do.

Equivalence is when the European Commission recognises that a country’s rules and oversight of a specific area of business are as tough as its own. It is true that some countries outside the EU have been granted equivalence in some areas of financial services, but the Commission is under no obligation to grant it. It can also take years to negotiate, be time-limited, and withdrawn at short notice, and it does not cover areas that are crucial for UK financial services, such as insurance, bank lending and bank deposits.

The new Under-Secretary of State for International Trade and envoy for financial services—I am disappointed that he is not here today—admitted the problems with equivalence in his recent interview with Bloomberg. He said that the UK will probably lose its current legal rights to provide services in the EU after Brexit, and that equivalence will not be “good enough”. He told Bloomberg that the Government want a better version of equivalence, but that in return we may have to accept future EU regulations handed down from Brussels. The problem with that is that we will not have a seat at the table when the EU decides how to regulate our financial services. We will therefore lose our ability to influence regulatory decisions for the better.

The risks of losing our membership of the single market and our passporting rights for financial services are clear. While passporting is permanent, equivalence is precarious. The UK will move from being a rule maker to being a rule taker, and that is not what our financial and professional services want. Although they may hope for the best, they must plan for the worst, and they cannot wait until the last minute to find out what deal they might eventually get. That would not be right for their business, their employees or their customers, who expect them to take action to mitigate any potential risks now. It takes three to five years to move operations to a different country. That is why most international banks, many asset fund managers and other financial services are now working out which operations they might need to move to ensure that they can continue to service their customers, how best to do it, and by when they should do it. The chief executive of Morgan Stanley has said:

“It really isn’t terribly complicated. If we are outside the EU and we don’t have what would be a stable and long-term commitment to access the single market then a lot of the things we do today in London, we’d have to do inside the EU 27”.

Other countries have not been slow to try to exploit the uncertainty. France and Spain have already launched campaigns to lure companies to Paris and Madrid after Brexit. The more likely risk is that some jobs will move to Dublin, Luxembourg or Frankfurt, and even more will move to New York or Asia, unless the Government get their strategy right.

The impact of losing passporting rights and the risks of relying on so-called equivalence are not the only major worries for our financial services. They are also deeply concerned about the Government’s plans for freedom of movement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

I rise to speak about the impact of leaving the European Union on the financial sector and the legal profession, with particular reference to my constituency.

An estimated 7,000 of my constituents are employed in the financial services sector. Across the whole city of Edinburgh, there are 34,800 people employed in financial services. Edinburgh is the UK’s second-largest financial centre. It is a major European centre for asset management and asset servicing, and home to the global headquarters of the Royal Bank of Scotland and the UK headquarters of the Green Investment Bank. Edinburgh is the UK’s largest financial capital centre after London by both gross value added and employment. The financial sector in Edinburgh also supports many other jobs in the service sector. Some of the best coffee shops, sandwich shops and restaurants are in my constituency, supplying constituents who work in the financial and legal sectors.

Very worryingly, earlier this week an independent report for the Scottish Parliament’s Economy Committee revealed that Edinburgh’s reliance on financial services is greater than that in any other city in Europe. Therefore, Edinburgh is at most risk of being affected if we lose the protection hon. Members have been speaking about. I pause to pay tribute to those hon. Members who secured this debate.

There are serious concerns about the potential for lost jobs and business if there is a loss of full access to the single market. Leading economists gave evidence to members of the Scottish Parliament on Tuesday on the impact that Brexit and leaving the single market would have on Scotland’s economy. Across Scotland, the financial sector directly and indirectly employs almost 200,000 people, 20,000 of whom are European Union workers. It contributes £8 billion to the economy of Scotland. In fact, Edinburgh’s economy is more reliant on financial services than London’s economy, or indeed any other city’s economy in the UK. As I said earlier, if we look at Edinburgh’s share of financial services, we see that it is markedly ahead of most large European cities.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

Is my hon. and learned Friend concerned that the Scottish asset management sector is bigger than that in Frankfurt and in Paris put together? We stand to lose out significantly.

[Joanna Cherry]

Yes, I am concerned about that. Edinburgh’s reliance on financial services is 23.8%, compared with 18.9% in London, 17.3% in Brussels and 17% in Amsterdam. By comparison, Glasgow’s financial services sector is worth about 12.4% to its economy.

This is not fearmongering. Paris and Frankfurt are already angling for some of the jobs that may leave London and Edinburgh if we leave the single market. I attended a briefing last week at which the Irish ambassador spoke. He pointed out that while Britain leaving the European Union poses some problems for the Republic of Ireland, it will also provide some fantastic opportunities for Dublin to attract jobs that we really need in our financial sectors across the UK. In Edinburgh, we really want to hang on to those jobs.

I am happy to say that a lot of people in my constituency are employed in legal and accounting services, which is what I used to do before I came to this place. More than 3,000 of my constituents are employed in the legal services sector. Across Edinburgh, that figure for the legal and accounting sector is closer to 10,000. The Law Society of Scotland has its headquarters in my constituency, and the Faculty of Advocates, of which I am non-practising member, has its headquarters in the neighbouring constituency of Edinburgh East. A lot of lawyers and other people who work in law firms live in my constituency and are worried about the impact of Brexit on legal services. There are many aspects of EU law that have particular relevance to the legal system and professions, including the directive on the mutual recognition of diplomas, the lawyers establishment directive and the lawyers cross-border provision of services directive.

[Sir William Cash]

Does the hon. and learned Lady recognise—I imagine she might—that there is a certain circularity in her argument? It is not surprising that the legal profession inside the European Union, which is concerned about European law, would want to protect that particular part of their activities. She could perhaps be a little more generous in understanding that those who want to leave might actually end up with laws that are made in this place.

[Joanna Cherry]

That is not what I am actually talking about. I am talking about the way in which European Union law has enabled Scots lawyers, English lawyers and lawyers across these islands to practise across Europe not for their benefit but for the benefit of their clients. That is the point. It is also to the benefit, as earlier speakers pointed out, of the financial services sector and to the British economy in general. This is not naked self-interest on the part of the lawyers. Lawyers depend on their clients to make a living. If lawyers are not able to practise across Europe easily, they will not be able to provide such a good service to their clients. That does not just apply in the financial sector. It covers all sorts of areas, including, very importantly, child and family law.

In Scotland, the Law Society of Scotland will be urging the UK Government and the Scottish Government to argue in negotiations that the current arrangements for lawyers to be able to practise in the European Union should be retained. It would be very disappointing if the only route for lawyers to be able to practise in Europe in future would be to requalify in other EU jurisdictions and go through the cumbersome processes that we have done away with as one of the many benefits of being in the EU.

Clearly, the best way to protect the legal and financial services in my constituency and in the city of Edinburgh is to remain part of the single market. That would be the easiest way to give comfort to those sectors. Of course, we are not able to give any comfort to those sectors, because the Government “do not want to give a running commentary”. However, it appears, as the result of a legal decision today, that the Government may in due course be forced to come to this democratically elected Chamber and tell us a little bit more about what their plans are. It is worthy of comment that that is not as a result of European judges sitting in Brussels, Luxembourg or Strasbourg. It is the result of English judges sitting in London. As a Scots lawyer, I wish to pay tribute to those English judges for the decision they have reached.

[Tom Tugendhat]

Of course, a few judges sitting in Belfast came out with a slightly different decision, as the hon. and learned Lady may be aware.

[Joanna Cherry]

Ultimately, it will be for the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom to decide, and it includes, of course, two very senior Scottish judges. I believe that the Supreme Court has already allocated a few days in December. I read that the full Bench will sit, so the Scottish judges will be there as well. The Scottish Government have said that it is very likely that Scotland will intervene in that case, and I have every confidence that the Supreme Court will reach the right decision.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[George Kerevan (East Lothian) (SNP)]

Let me begin, as others have, by commending the hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) for securing the debate. Let me also commend her for summing up everything that I think Opposition Members, as well as many Conservative Back Benchers, believe about the nature of the problems that will face the financial sector post-Brexit. If there were any political justice, the moment that the hon. Lady had finished speaking the Minister would have stood up and agreed with everything that she had said. That would have been the end of it, and we could have gone on to actually solve some of these problems. Sadly, though, the Minister did not do that. We are faced with a situation in which the UK’s major industry, in terms of employment, taxes raised and the nature of our links with the rest of the world—it is a key strategic industry—is left blowing in the wind, waiting to find out what happens.

I always listen with great interest to what the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) says because he is forensic and thinks things through. He came up with a whole series of fixes—sticking plasters—that could be applied so that the financial sector could legally maintain its markets in Europe. However, I put it to him and those who agree with his line of argument that there is a problem: since 2008, the UK financial sector has been in a special place compared with many other industries. It has had to undergo massive regulatory change, which has produced massive uncertainty in the industry. That process has not yet fully played out. We still have to get to 2019 before we will have implemented all the Vickers proposals on ring-fencing, so the banks are in a major process of reorganisation. Many Members have been to bank headquarters in the City and know that the situation on the ground is very complex. To add to that process of uncertainty, we have another period of uncertainty when the institutions will not even know whether they have the right to trade any longer in the rest of Europe, and that is a step too far.

We all know what the Minister will say when he makes his speech as he has come along to a number of such debates. He will done a fine job of not telling us anything. He will say we cannot have constant reporting on negotiations, but we are not asking for that. Instead, we are saying that given the unique uncertainties in a major industry that is undergoing massive regulatory change, the Government must put forward a transitional period. It must tell the financial institutions, “Yes, we have a transitional period. We will put down a time period, and it will go beyond 2019, when the Vickers proposals bed in.” That would allow everyone to calm down. If the Minister will not do that and instead maintains the silence, the Government will be adding to the regulatory uncertainties that are piling up on the industry.

[Joanna Cherry]

My hon. Friend talks about the uncertainty that is caused by the Government saying that they will not give a running commentary. Does he agree with the First Minister of Scotland that the Government are refusing to give a running commentary and to allow a vote in this House not for reasons of high constitutional principle, but because they do not have a coherent position, and they know that if they come to this House, that fact will be exposed?

[George Kerevan]

It would be my guess that the Government’s silence may just cover up a lack of strategic vision.

I also want to address a point raised in an intervention by the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne). He said that only about a fifth of revenues from the UK financial sector come from Europe and that we have a huge domestic sector, particularly in retail banking, so we should not exaggerate the crisis in the financial sector that might emerge due to Brexit. I have an answer to that: the problem is that the strategic sectors of banking, particularly high-value investment banking, which is where the profits are, do relate to Europe, and the threat is not from Paris or Frankfurt, but from Wall Street.

I have no wish to force US banks out of the City of London, but the banking community that has gained most since 2008, and that has consolidated and expanded its market share, is the major US banks, particularly the five big investment banks. They have increased their market share in London and Europe while European investment banks are in major decline—Deutsche Bank is in financial trouble, as are the Swiss investment banks, and all we are left with is the European champions, Barclays. If we break up the European financial family in another period of uncertainty, all we will do is strengthen the arm of the US investment banks, and behind them is a whole series of other US financial institutions that are coming into Europe.

US private equity has driven a coach and horses through traditional German bank lending at a regional level. For example, Cerberus is coming in and using a network of Cerberus companies across Europe to buy its way into European property by buying distressed debt. It is using the fact that it can play off one of its divisions against another through transfer pricing to take a gain in taxation. The real threat to our banking system is that, unless we get a grip, Wall Street and the American banks will dominate it. The right hon. Member for New Forest West suggested that the British domestic market was strong enough to survive whatever happens in the next few years, but that is not true. As we weaken the entire European banking family, we open up the possibility that the British retail banking system, which has retreated into its own domestic market, will be very much weakened when it comes to further American competition.

We need a solution to the passporting issue. The Minister will probably not respond to my proposal today, but I will put it on record anyway. The Scottish Government are seeking to maintain Scotland’s position within the single market, and I want to make it very plain that we would do that while being part of the United Kingdom. The UK Government have already done a side deal with Nissan and said that they will keep an open border between Northern Ireland and Ireland, so side deals—by industry and by region—are already out there. If Scotland were allowed to stay in the single market as part of the United Kingdom, that would give us a solution to the passporting problem. British banks could use their offices in Edinburgh and Glasgow to continue to trade with Europe because they would have the passport, and the Treasury would still be able to tax their profits because they would still be in the UK. The alternative is that the major European and American banks will move their nameplates to Dublin and Frankfurt, and the bulk of the business will be run from New York. We need a solution, and one solution would be to accept the Scottish Government’s proposal—or at least give an assurance that it will be thought through, rather than instantly dismissed—that Scotland should remain within the single market.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Kendall]

Once again, I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate. We heard many excellent contributions. I am only sorry that we did not have more time and that some Members could not speak for as long as they wanted to.

I do not think we learned any more from the Minister’s comments than we knew before the debate—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) says that the Minister may regard that as a triumph. I am glad the Minister said that passporting is important, but he did not say that the Government would set out the broad framework and their objectives for the Brexit negotiations. He did not say that it was a priority to get the same access as we currently have to the single market for financial services, and he did not commit to a transitional agreement, let alone such an agreement any time soon. That is a huge mistake. If we want to protect this vital industry as well as jobs and growth, the Government need to act now, because businesses cannot wait. They have to plan for the future. Their customers, their regulators and their boards demand it. I ask the Minister to think again.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the effect of the UK leaving the EU on financial and other professional services.

[Joanna Cherry]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is 49 years today since my colleague Mrs Winifred Ewing won the Hamilton by-election and came to this House as a solitary Scottish National party MP, and of course that means 49 years of SNP representation in this House, although we are rather more than one now. How would it be appropriate for me to mark this illustrious occasion in the history of my party and have it entered in the record?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

The hon. and learned Lady has just proved herself to be a very adept and clever lawyer. Coming from me, that is a compliment. She will appreciate, as the House appreciates, that the point she made is not a point of order and does not, fortunately, require any comment from the Chair. However, she has made her point and it will be on the record that an historic event occurred 49 years ago today. I am sure the House will note that and, in its own way, celebrate it.

Financial Conduct Authority

Joanna Cherry Excerpts

Monday 1st February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (James Berry) raised the case of an independent financial adviser. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that independent financial advisers, many of whom were also investors in the fund, risk continuing to be blamed for losses relating to it because of the FCA’s continuing failure to investigate within a reasonable timescale?

[Kirsten Oswald]

I agree with my hon. and learned Friend. The system regulated by the FCA, which the Chancellor wants people to rely on, continues to fail to provide all these investors with compensation, or even an explanation, for their loss.

Mr Devon and many others have been, and are being, misled. Even if an ordinary investor approaches the UK’s financial services sector through an independent financial adviser and asks for a secure, low-risk investment, their money can disappear, and their financial plans and their life can be turned upside down, while agencies that cost millions of pounds to run fail to deliver.

Mr Devon’s investment was in an unregulated collective investment scheme. That might sound highly technical, but it may not be so complicated. In workplaces all across the country, one or two people voluntarily run savings groups, or ménages, where colleagues regularly save money and take turns to receive a lump sum. Depending on the size of the workplace, the sums involved can be significant. That is such a simple operation that the phrase “couldn’t run a ménage” is a common description for someone who is a serial failure at even basic tasks.

Surely, in relation to the Connaught fund, a group such as Capita must be able to do a better job of running a collective financial operation than workmates who have run workplace ménages for years. On the contrary, Connaught became a warning that when players in the UK financial services sector go rogue, the systems for regulation, enforcement and restitution fail to protect our investors. When problems with Connaught emerged, Capita turned tail and ran. It has been allowed to continue evading its responsibility to investors through years of regulatory inertia and confusion.

The financial services sector in the UK has run foul of the law and lost millions—indeed, billions—of pounds too many times. The phrase “couldn't run a ménage” seems an apt description of too many of the organisations and individuals who provide the sector with its leadership. Just like the regulators that oversaw the crash of 2008, the FCA, Financial Ombudsman Service and the Financial Services Compensation Scheme seem to be part of the problem, rather than part of the solution. Even fighting a case all the way through the system may well leave an investor significantly out of pocket. This is definitely a system that does not do what it says on the tin.

I was not shocked to find that the Treasury grabs the regulatory fines, but should they really be grabbed from an industry where the cost of regulation, enforcement and compensation are borne by those in the industry and its customers? We need to look seriously at how we provide more effective regulation, enforcement and compensation, and we should also review the levies and fines. One of the gaps could be filled by giving the FOS a role in enforcing payment of compensation, removing the need for an additional set of fees and ensuring more consistency in investors’ ability to secure the compensation awarded. I have particular concerns about the operation of professional indemnity insurance in the IFA sector. When insurers exempt schemes known to be causing concerns, that undermines the reality of IFA protection and causes significant problems for them. The FCA needs to look at making significant changes to the insurance rules. It could perhaps examine the operation of the Scottish solicitors’ “master policy” and the highly successful Association of British Travel Agents and ATOL—air travel organisers’ licence—industry-wide indemnity schemes.

I want to conclude by commenting on the relationship between the Government and the FCA. It is interesting that in the week before this debate the FCA announced the appointment of a new chief executive, Andrew Bailey. It is widely reported that Mr Bailey was hand-picked for the post from the Bank of England by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I find this surprising in the light of an exchange I had with the Economic Secretary during a recent debate on the Connaught fund. When I queried the fact that neither the Chancellor nor any other Treasury Minister held a single bilateral meeting with the FCA over a two-year period, she did not contradict me, and I have heard nothing to suggest that it is incorrect. I understand that the absence of such meetings may be intended to give an appearance that the FCA acts as an independent agency, but if the chief executive is hand-picked by the Chancellor, having not even applied for the post, what does that say about the FCA’s independence? Of course there is regular correspondence and interaction between the Government and the FCA, so during a time of such pressure on the financial services sector, why was there not a single bilateral ministerial engagement with the FCA over such a long period? The absence of such meetings perhaps has more to do with protecting Ministers than protecting the independence of a body whose principal officers are headhunted at the Chancellor’s bidding.

As someone steeped in the issues of banking governance and the recovery of the banking sector from the low points of recent years, Mr Bailey could demonstrate his independence very easily by signalling his desire to have the FCA reinstate the inquiry into banking culture. Failure to do so may be interpreted as the inquiry having been ditched to clear the way for him taking up his post. If that is the case, his tenure will not get off to a positive start, and questions over the independence and integrity of the FCA will continue to grow.