Community Bank Closures
John Glen Excerpts(6 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
I commend the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg) for securing this debate, and thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing it. We have had a lively debate with 16 Back-Bench contributions, and it has rightly aroused a lot of passion. It is the third such debate in the four weeks that I have been in post—two of them in Westminster Hall—and the banks will need to respond to what they have heard. From Strangford to Selkirk, from Newton Aycliffe to Sandwich, from Bradford on Avon to Bungay, we have heard the case made for banks to remain open, and in my constituency I will be meeting representatives from Lloyds bank tomorrow to discuss the closure of Wilton bank, which is scheduled for 19 March this year.
This is a very important issue, and I listened carefully to the observations from Members across the House on what the Government should do. They ranged from my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay), who, characteristically, was very reticent to see Government get involved, to the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) who, in a measured speech, held out the prospect of significant intervention from Government. I believe there is a role for Government in dealing with this issue, and I will talk about the Government’s actions to support those who require over-the-counter banking services and the Government’s commitment to widespread free access to cash.
I want to address the banking standard, too; I noted the observations of the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) about her perception of the inadequacy of the banking standard and I want to address that, as well as the concerns raised about the way that the banking services available at the post office work. I will also address the UK ATM operator LINK’s financial inclusion programme.
As Economic Secretary, I want financial services that deliver for all customers up and down this country, from Salisbury high street to the farthest reaches of the Hebrides. None the less, all hon. Members will appreciate that banking, like so many other industries, needs to respond to changing customer behaviour, which we have heard depicted by many Members in our debate. Change, which in this case is driven by the unrivalled speed of innovation in the financial services sector, is not easy to remedy. How many of us in this House regularly use our local branch, and how many of us, like me and others, manage our finances online or via our mobile phones? Ultimately, what I have repeatedly made clear in this place in the four weeks that I have been in post is that the management decisions of banks are made without intervention from Government.
I hear the call from the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) to intervene but, given that the Scottish Government own Prestwick completely, it is somewhat odd to be told by the Scottish Government spokesperson that Ministers have no role in the operation of contractual agreements made by the airport. It is really important that we acknowledge that inconsistency and that the Government act through the regulator, and that is not a static dialogue. I have already spoken extensively to the head of the Financial Conduct Authority, and more can be done.
The Government firmly believe that these firms have a responsibility to minimise the impact of closures on communities wherever possible, which is why I am pleased to address the motion today. The Government already support a range of measures to protect access to banking services in local communities across the UK, but we must acknowledge the change that has happened. Branch footfall is falling year on year—it is down by a third since 2011, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan) noted—and the number of banking app transactions has risen massively, to 932 million in 2016, which is an increase of 57% on the previous year. The Government cannot resist that; the question is what we can do with the tools available.
The access to banking standard commits all major high street banks to a series of outcomes when they decide to close a branch. There are three principal obligations. First, banks will give customers at least three months’ notice of closure. I note the call from my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham to extend that period. They have a responsibility as soon as operationally ready, and I note that RBS gave six months’ notice. Secondly, banks will work with customers after the announcement has been made to ensure that they know how and where they can continue to bank. Thirdly—this is vital—banks are required to identify vulnerable customers and ensure that they receive all the help they need. That could mean helping customers get online for the first time, or it could mean showing them the facilities at the local post office, or ensuring that they have access to a mobile branch, a telephone banking service or a local, free-to-use ATM. Obviously, every bank will take a different approach, but the principle of the standard is that the outcome for customers will be the same.
As of July 2017, the Lending Standards Board has had responsibility for monitoring and enforcing the standard. I say to the right hon. Member for Don Valley that the board does have the power to cancel or suspend a registered firm’s registration and give directions on future conduct, but I will look carefully at her remarks and consider whether anything could be done to strengthen the measures further. This independent oversight is a welcome and important addition to the way the standard works.
Turning to the ATM network and post offices, I acknowledge that the Government have made great strides in bolstering the over-the-counter banking services available at post offices, and an extra £370 million to support that work was announced in December. UK banks and building societies reached a new commercial agreement with the Post Office that has set the standard for the banking services available in post offices, ensuring a uniform level across the 11,600 branches. Those services can include the ability to check a balance, to withdraw and deposit cash using a debit card, to use chip and pin or pre-printed paying-in slips, and to deposit cheques. There is an ad hoc cash deposit limit of £2,000, but the Post Office estimates that that covers 95% of all transactions.
We should not forget that 99.7% of people in this country now live within three miles of their local post office, and 93% live within a mile. At the autumn Budget 2017 my predecessor wrote to the Post Office and UK Finance and asked them to consider how they could fulfil the aims they have set out.
Caroline Flint
Where did the Minister get the figure of 93%—perhaps he can furnish us with the information after the debate—because I do not think that bears any relationship to the reality for many of our constituents?
John Glen
I am happy to do that.
I have written to the Post Office and UK Finance to impress upon them the importance of developing detailed joint proposals to achieve the objectives that everyone rightly requires of them. I am clear that those proposals must include the following: a shared vision for public awareness of the banking services available at the Post Office; measurable outcomes that the parties agree they can use to determine their progress in delivering that vision; specific actions that the Post Office, UK Finance and parties to the banking framework agree to take to achieve the outcomes, collectively and/or individually, and a timeline for doing so; and arrangements for measuring the impact of the specific actions on public awareness throughout the UK to ensure the outcomes are achieved. I know that colleagues from across the House feel strongly about this issue—I have heard that today—and I am determined to see progress, so I have asked for a response by the end of March. I will be happy to update the House in due course.
Several hon. Members mentioned access to cash, and the Government continue to work with industry to ensure the provision of widespread free access to cash. LINK, which runs the ATM network in the UK, has assured the Government that industry is committed to maintaining an extensive network of free-to-use cash machines and to ensuring that the present geographical spread of ATMs is maintained. On 31 January, LINK announced plans to bolster its financial inclusion programme, which ensures the provision of ATMs in certain areas where demand would not otherwise make one viable, and LINK has confirmed that that will include addressing instances where the closure of a bank branch is leading to a financial inclusion problem. LINK has also specifically committed to protecting all free-to-use ATMs that are a kilometre or more from the next nearest free-to-use ATM.
In summary, I again thank the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North and my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove and all right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken this afternoon. I hope I have been able to give some reassurance that the Government recognise the frustration and disappointment caused by bank branch closures. Ultimately, the Government cannot reverse market movements or customer behaviour, and it is right that the Government do not intervene in commercial decisions that respond to such changes. However, I will continue to work to ensure that everyone, wherever they live, can access the banking services they need. This Government have taken measures to maintain access to vital banking services and to ensure that banks support communities across the UK when their local branches close. Banks will need to continue to respect and respond to Members’ engagement in that process, so I encourage every Member to keep the dialogue open with their constituents about how they can take advantage of the many options already in place.
Credit Cards: Cost Regulation
John Glen Excerpts(6 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. I thank the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) for raising this significant issue with characteristic passion. I will seek to answer the specific questions she has raised about the role of the FCA and how fluid the situation is.
Consumer credit, including credit cards, plays an important role in our economy, helping consumers to smooth their income, spread costs over time and cope with unexpected financial shocks. However, risk is inherent in any credit product, so it is vital that consumers are treated fairly and protected from unscrupulous or predatory practice. The Government recognise that and are working with the regulator to ensure that such activity is curtailed.
I think it will be helpful if I set out first what the Government have already done on consumer credit. Our vision is of a well functioning and sustainable consumer credit market that responsibly meets the needs of all consumers. That is why we fundamentally reformed regulation of the consumer credit market, transferring regulatory responsibility from the Office of Fair Trading to the Financial Conduct Authority on 1 April 2014. The Government have given the FCA a robust set of powers, designed to protect consumers, in three key areas. The FCA assesses every firm’s fitness to lend and it has put in place a binding standard on firms. The FCA requires all firms to assess each customer’s ability to repay. The hon. Lady gave the example of Vanquis being able to lend £1,000 without any checks. I repeat: all lenders must make that assessment of their customers’ ability to repay. Firms must also treat customers who fall into arrears fairly. Thirdly, the FCA monitors the market. The characterisation of the FCA as passively waiting for a crisis does not do justice to the actions it has taken. I will go on to set those out and describe how they are still under review.
Focusing on the areas that are most likely to cause consumer harm, the FCA has a broad enforcement toolkit to punish breaches of its rules. The FCA’s enforcement arm supports its objectives by making it clear that there are real and meaningful consequences for firms and individuals who do not follow the rules. There is no limit to the fines it can levy. Crucially, it can force firms to provide redress to consumers. For example, in October 2017 the FCA announced that BrightHouse, a rent-to-own firm, will pay over £14.8 million in redress to customers in respect of agreements that may not have been affordable and payments that should have been refunded. That is just one example of the effectiveness of the FCA enforcement action. In total, the FCA issued fines of nearly £230 million last year, and as of December 2017 it had secured £734 million in redress for more than 1.47 million customers in the consumer credit market.
I turn now specifically to credit cards. When the Government gave the FCA responsibility for consumer credit regulation in 2014, it sought to build a sound understanding of the credit card market and to assess whether it was working well in the interests of consumers. To that end, as the hon. Lady mentioned, the FCA conducted an extensive study of the credit card market between 2014 and 2016. It found that competition within the industry was working well for the majority of consumers, but identified concerns about the scale and extent of problematic credit card debt. Last year the FCA consulted on remedies to tackle persistent credit card debt and proposed a robust package of remedies to tackle the issues—
Steve McCabe (in the Chair)
Order. There is a Division in the main Chamber, so we will have to suspend the sitting and you will all have to come back to conclude. We will suspend for 15 minutes.
Stella Creasy
The Minister mentions that the FCA consulted on persistent debt. The FCA defines persistent debt as paying 100% in interest and charges on top of the principal repaid over an 18-month period. Given the evidence that that is exactly what people are doing on these credit cards, and the fact that we intervened and capped the cost of credit through payday loans when we saw that, will the Minister explain why it is acceptable not to do that for credit cards when it is okay to do it for payday loans?
John Glen
I will come on to that. As ever, the hon. Lady is eager to intervene. Let me finish what I want to say, and I will give her the answer that she wishes to hear.
The remedies include requiring firms to take steps to encourage customers to repay debt quicker and to avoid getting into persistent debt in the first place. Where customers are not able to repay their debt in a reasonable period, firms will be required to offer forbearance. Firms will also be required to use the data available to them to identify customers at risk of financial difficulty earlier and to take appropriate steps.
The FCA’s rules apply to all credit card companies, including those that lend at the higher interest rates, some of which the hon. Lady mentioned, to customers with poor credit ratings. All lenders have a duty to treat customers fairly and to lend only to those who can afford to repay. We expect the FCA to publish a final policy statement soon, and I will look carefully at what it says to see how we can take this forward. It seems a bit unreasonable not to wait for the final policy statement before we conclude where the FCA has got to with it.
As an additional weapon in its armoury, the FCA has worked with the industry’s leading body, UK Finance, to secure a voluntary agreement with its members to restrict unsolicited credit limit increases, giving customers more control over their accounts. All customers will be made aware that they can choose not to receive offers, and customers in persistent debt will not receive any unsolicited credit limit increases at all. New customers will be given the choice of how credit limits will be applied to their account, and firms will make it easier for existing customers to decline offers of a credit limit increase by reminding them of their options.
The combination of existing FCA powers and the proposed package of remedies is a very robust arsenal.
John Glen
No, I will continue.
The measures are a demonstrable commitment by this Government, the regulators and the industry to tackle structural issues within the credit card market. [Interruption.] If the hon. Lady did me the courtesy of listening, as I did to her, it would be quite helpful.
Thinking about the limits that should be put on the cost of credit card borrowing, which I think the hon. Lady referred to, it is important to note that the Government have already given the FCA the power to cap all forms of credit, and the FCA can do that if it thinks it is necessary to protect consumers. However, it is neither this Government’s mandate nor our role to intervene in a functioning and competitive market. In addition, a credit card cap would be inherently more complex than the price cap introduced on payday loans in 2015. Payday loans are fixed-term, discrete loans, whereas credit cards provide a revolving credit facility—they are quite different.
What the Government can do, and already have done, is ensure that there are regulatory checks and balances in place to ensure fairness. The FCA has said that it will keep the issue of a mandatory cap on the cost of credit, including credit cards, under review. The FCA will monitor the effectiveness of its credit card remedies, and can take further action if necessary.
Stella Creasy
The Minister has not answered my question. With the greatest respect to the Minister, I asked him a very specific question about the disparity between it being unacceptable for people with payday loans to pay double in interest what they had taken out, and those 5 million people who are stuck in 10 years-worth or more of credit card debt continuing to pay those rates. I would like his specific answer on that unacceptability.
John Glen
I did directly explain that there is a distinct difference between the nature of a payday loan and a credit card facility. I explained that very clearly and I am sorry the hon. Lady did not hear it.
It will be helpful to set out some of the things that the Government have done with respect to dealing with people in financial difficulty. The Government are delivering on their manifesto commitment to implement a breathing space and debt management plan. The call for evidence on the breathing space scheme recently closed, and the Government have committed to consult on a policy design proposal in the summer.
We set up the Money Advice Service, which spent close to £49 million on providing 440,000 debt advice sessions last year. We are now going further to ensure that consumers can gain easier access to financial guidance and debt advice by creating a new single financial guidance body, which will bring together the Pensions Advisory Service, Pension Wise and the Money Advice Service. The new body will make it easier for consumers to get help with all aspects of their financial lives, as well as having a statutory duty to improve financial capability and to commission free-to-use debt advice. The Bill to create the new body is currently before the House of Commons.
I thank the hon. Lady for raising this issue—I acknowledge that it is very important—and for speaking with such fervour. I share some of the concerns that she has expressed. Millions of people in this country use credit cards regularly, and the Government are committed to ensuring that they are treated fairly and not encouraged to fall into persistent debt. I hope the hon. Lady understands that a cap on the cost of credit card borrowing is not an effective solution. It is a blunt, interventionist approach to a complex issue. The Government have given the FCA strong powers to take action, and the FCA is putting in place measures to tackle persistent debt in the credit card market. This is not a static issue, however, or one that I and the Government are not interested in examining on an ongoing basis. The Government and the FCA are committed to ensuring that it remains under constant review.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered regulation of the cost of credit cards.
Financial Guidance and Claims Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)
John Glen Excerpts(6 years, 9 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
I beg to move Government amendment 3, in clause 24, page 17, line 21, at end insert—
“( ) In section 1H (interpretation provisions for FCA’s objectives)—
(a) in subsection (2), at the end of paragraph (c) insert ‘or to engage in claims management activity’;
(b) in subsection (8), at the appropriate place insert—
‘“engage in claims management activity” has the meaning given in section 21;’.”
The result of this amendment of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 would be that references in the FCA’s statutory objectives to “regulated financial services” include services provided by authorised persons in communicating, or approving the communication by others of, invitations to engage in claims management activity.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 4.
Clause stand part.
That schedule 4 be the Fourth schedule to the Bill.
New clause 7—Regulatory principles to be applied in respect of claims management services—
“(1) In relation to the regulation of claims management services, the FCA must act according to the principles that—
(a) authorised persons should act honestly, fairly and professionally in accordance with the best interests of consumers who are their clients; and
(b) authorised persons should manage conflicts of interest fairly, both between themselves and their clients, and between clients.
(2) In this section, ‘authorised person’ has the same meaning as in the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, and ‘authorised persons’ shall be construed accordingly.”
This new clause would introduce a duty of care which would require claims management services to act with the best interests of the customers in mind.
John Glen
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mr Rosindell.
Government amendments 3 and 4 are small consequential amendments to bring relevant provisions into line with the changes made by clause 24 to section 21 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. Clause 24 amends FSMA to enable the Financial Conduct Authority to regulate specified activities in relation to claims management services in Great Britain. That includes extending section 21 of FSMA so that the financial promotions regime, which deals with advertising and marketing by regulated firms, applies to claims management activity. Government amendments 3 and 4 will ensure that the financial promotions regime can function effectively. I am sure that Members will agree that it is necessary to make those amendments to ensure that claims management activity is captured.
New clause 7, which was tabled by the hon. Members for Birmingham, Erdington, for Weaver Vale and for Lewisham, Deptford, seeks to ensure that the FCA adheres to a set of regulatory principles in relation to acting in the best interests of consumers and managing conflicts of interest fairly. Aside from the provisions in general consumer law, the FCA already applies rules to firms that conduct regulated activities in relation to their dealings with consumers.
First, regulated firms must adhere to the “principles for businesses”, which are fundamental obligations set out in the FCA handbook. Principle 2 requires firms to conduct their business
“with due skill, care and diligence.”
Principle 6 requires a firm to
“pay due regard to the interests of its customers and treat them fairly.”
Principle 8 sets out that a firm
“must manage conflicts of interest fairly, both between itself and its customers and between a customer and another client.”
Secondly, the FCA’s “client’s best interest” rule states that a firm
“must act honestly, fairly and professionally in accordance with the best interests of its client”.
That rule applies to a number of regulated activities. Thirdly, many FCA rules also contain an obligation on firms to take reasonable care for certain regulated activities. Finally, the rules in the FCA handbook are supplemented by more sector-specific rules in various FCA sourcebooks.
Under its existing objectives, when the FCA takes responsibility for the regulation of claims management companies, it will be able to apply its existing principles for businesses and to make any other sector-specific rules that may be necessary. To secure appropriate consumer protection, the FCA supervises against those rules and other provisions, and can take enforcement action against firms where necessary.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the Minister accept that there is a risk that the FCA has been captured by some of the bigger financial interests, and that additional legal protection is therefore required to rebalance how it operates to properly protect the consumer interest?
John Glen
I acknowledge that such concern has been widely expressed throughout the passage of the Bill. However, the FCA has issued total fines of more than £229 million. In its view, its regulatory toolkit is currently sufficient to enable it to fulfil its consumer protection objective. The FCA will consider the precise rules that apply to claims management companies and how they form an effective regulatory regime overall. In doing so, the FCA will need to take into account its statutory objective of securing an appropriate degree of protection for consumers. It will also consult openly and publicly on the proposed rules.
The final regime is not set without consultation or reference to the legitimate concerns raised during the passage of the Bill. I note the hon. Gentleman’s observations, but they can be accommodated by the way in which the FCA will handle the matter. Given that, the Government do not believe the new clause is necessary. According to the explanatory statement, the new clause would introduce a duty of care on claims management companies. I will provide some more detail on that duty of care because I have thought a lot about it and have new points that I want to raise following Second Reading. The Government recognise that there are different views on the merits of introducing a duty of care for financial services providers and what it would mean in practice.
Macmillan Cancer Support has run an excellent campaign drawing attention to that important issue. Last week I met Lynda Thomas and her team from Macmillan in the Treasury to discuss their work and their concerns around the proposed duty of care. They told me of their work with Nationwide and Lloyds. They have been working in partnership with the sector on the role of firms in supporting customers.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
I am sure the Minister is aware that the Department for Work and Pensions is again in court facing a legal challenge for changes to welfare and support for disabled people, including people with terminal illnesses such as cancer. Does the Minister not accept that Macmillan’s recommendations might go some way to rebuilding disabled people’s trust and faith in the Government, including those with terminal illnesses?
John Glen
I acknowledge the case, but it is not for me as a Treasury Minister to comment on it. We need to be clear about the impact of the duty of care and examine it carefully. It is right that we challenge practices that are not up to standard. The question is how we most effectively achieve that without wider collateral damage.
On Macmillan’s partnership work in the financial services sector in supporting customers affected by cancer, I pay tribute to the work done and I am grateful for the insights that it brings, but there is huge uncertainty around the potential impact a duty of care could have on both firms and consumers. As with all significant policy changes, it is important to understand all potential pros and cons. I hope Members agree that there would need to be a thorough assessment of the potential impact of a duty of care before any decision is made on a change of policy. For example, a duty of care might enable consumers to bring financial services firms to court. There might be significant cost, complexity and time involved with that, leave alone codifying exactly what the duty of care would mean.
In turn, a duty of care might lead to a negative impact on product provision and approach to innovation, as firms might not want to risk legal challenge based on an untested new concept. Increasing operational costs for firms as a result of a duty of care will inevitably lead to higher prices for consumers, including those in the most vulnerable category. Given those considerations, I hope Members agree that it would not be appropriate for the Government to amend the Bill before a full assessment of the potential impact has been conducted.
The Government believe that the FCA, as the UK’s independent conduct regulator for financial services, is best placed to evaluate the merits of a duty of a care. Recognising the pitch and depth of the legitimate concerns raised, last week I met Andrew Bailey and discussed the duty of care with him, and the FCA will discuss it further. Concern has been expressed that, in the determination to issue a discussion paper post-Brexit, there was too much of a delay. I pressed Andrew Bailey on the need to bring that forward. He understands and acknowledges the desire of Parliament for progress on evaluation, so the FCA now proposes to issue a discussion paper later this year. It will invite contributions from all interested parties on the case for and against a duty of care, what form such a provision might take and consequential issues arising from adopting it. That will be an open process, designed to gather views. I am grateful to the FCA for its commitment to accelerate its proposed timetable.
Gareth Thomas
I commend the Minister for pressing Andrew Bailey, because the FCA under his leadership has a reputation of having become a bit pedestrian. However, I do not see why there is a clash between adding the new clause, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington proposes, and cracking on with the consultation exercise that the Minister just described. Surely they gel nicely.
John Glen
My view, and the Government’s view, is that the pace of that consultation process needs to be stepped up and the FCA needs to respond, with all consequences in mind for vulnerable people with respect to the costs of services and the protections legitimately achieved through the FCA’s activity.
I stress that the FCA has a close focus on vulnerability in its broader work. I note the concerns of the hon. Member for Harrow West, but it works in the interests of all consumers of financial services. In October, the FCA published its “Financial Lives” survey, the first annual large-scale survey of 13,000 interviews, designed to add a substantial new source of data to the regulator’s understanding of consumers in retail financial markets. Subsequently, it published the “Approach to Consumers” paper, which details how it will measure the effects of its actions on consumers, particularly with respect to access and vulnerability. I and the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham, take this matter seriously. We will challenge the FCA on the further steps that need to be undertaken.
Gareth Thomas
May I push the Minister a little harder? I could understand it if he was arguing that there should be a change to the proposal made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington, saying that regulations should be brought forward to give Government the chance to bring in a duty of care once the consultation had taken place. Instead, he seems to be saying, “Let’s not bother putting anything in the Bill that gives us the power to bring that in later. Let’s just wait and see—mañana!—when the FCA can be bothered to get round to the consultation exercise. Then we might look at bringing forward primary legislation.” My worry is that an opportunity for primary legislation will not come around again. I therefore press him to see whether he could be a little more sympathetic to the case my hon. Friend will advance.
John Glen
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. I would not characterise the Government’s position as, “Let it happen mañana and take our hands off the tiller.” I met Andrew Bailey, and this was not his starting point. It is for Ministers to talk to the FCA, take the views of Parliament as clearly expressed by Members on both sides of the House, and use that pressure to force the FCA to address the issue in a comprehensive way that deals with the real experience of our constituents.
The Government have set out that process, and I have set out the rules and facilities that exist for the FCA. I am convinced there is a process in place that will enhance the necessary protection.
Neil Coyle
There are some interesting parallels. Where the Government have a clear objective and aim, as they did in welfare reform, consultations are rushed through by Departments. That delivers inadequate legislation, which is why the Government ended up in court, as has been mentioned. In this case, the Government are passing the buck to the FCA, even though Macmillan has identified a problem, whereas on terror insurance legislation, where the ball is back in the Government’s court and could have been covered by the Bill, they have left a gaping hole, which leaves businesses such as those affected in my constituency in June last year facing potential damages because of the inadequacy of legislation. Why have the Government not opened consultation on that?
John Glen
I cannot talk about areas outside my responsibility, but I can address the new clause. I assure the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark that I am engaging closely with the FCA and have already achieved an acceleration of its timetable for engagement. It is important that his constituents’ concerns, which he raised previously, are addressed, and I expect the FCA to take steps in that direction urgently.
I was delighted to hear from Macmillan that it has a tremendous working relationship with the FCA. The two organisations are engaged in dialogue, and last year they worked closely on the call for input on the challenges firms face in providing travel insurance for consumers who have had cancer. The FCA will be publishing a feedback statement and its next steps in due course. Dialogue is taking place, and there is responsiveness. For those reasons, it is not appropriate to include these regulatory principles in the Bill, so I request that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington withdraw the amendment.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Rosindell. I seek your guidance. I will be speaking to Opposition new clause 7, but I note that Government amendments 3 and 4 are unobjectionable, so I may go straight on to making my remarks about new clause 7.
Jack Dromey
With the greatest respect, the Government are prescriptive the whole time, and I think this is an area ripe for prescription. I stress again that we need to send an unmistakable message that regulated providers have certain obligations that fall upon them. There are already obligations imposed under law, for example on financial probity. We should add to those a duty of care to customers, particularly when they are suffering from or dying from cancer. I should have thought that was entirely unobjectionable. Macmillan is absolutely right and the Minister has been right to respond to its representations. I will come in a moment to what I hope will happen at the next stages.
To return to my point, staff did not have knowledge about the products and the help available to people affected by cancer. If we are to tackle such problems, the provision of appropriate support, flexibility in policies and procedures, and ensuring that staff are appropriately trained to support vulnerable customers need to be at the heart of banking culture.
One of the things that struck me most in the findings was that only one in 10 people with cancer had told their bank about their diagnosis in the first place. Many people with cancer still do not think their bank will be able to help them, while others worry that telling the bank will have negative consequences, so they are reluctant to disclose their diagnosis. Regardless of whether that negative perception is justified on all occasions, it represents a serious barrier to people seeking help early and tells us that the existing rules are not adequate. Despite some provisions in the area, the banking sector is still a long way off the point where meeting the needs of vulnerable customers is at the heart of corporate culture, hence the clear evidence from Macmillan.
The financial services consumer panel has noted that the regulatory principle of treating customers fairly does not adequately ensure that firms exercise appropriate levels of care towards their customers. It is interesting that the FCA’s own panel concluded that. If banks and building societies had a legal duty of care towards their customers, it would give people with cancer confidence to disclose their diagnosis, knowing that they could trust their bank to act in their best interests.
Consumers are also demanding action in this area. More than 20,000 people have signed an open letter from Macmillan Nurse Miranda, calling for a duty of care to be introduced. I urge the Government to look at the recommendation made by the House of Lords Financial Exclusion Committee on a duty of care, which has been strongly evidenced by Macmillan Cancer Support. The Committee concluded that, as first recommended by the financial services consumer panel, the Government should amend the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000
“to introduce a requirement for the FCA to make rules setting out a reasonable duty of care for financial services providers to exercise towards their customers.”
I appreciate that any change as significant as this must be subject to proper consideration and consultation, as the Minister said. It is therefore welcome that the FCA has recognised that and is committed to publishing a discussion paper on the issue. It is welcome that the Minister has pressed the FCA to bring that forward, and I will come on to timescale in a moment. However, the Government and the FCA have said that this must wait until after the withdrawal from the EU becomes clear. I think that now, as the Minister said earlier, that may no longer be the case, not least because who knows when we will withdraw from the European Union—
Jack Dromey
There is a certain lack of clarity on the part of the Government about that end. Given that the introduction of a duty of care would still require legislation, when can we expect it to be introduced if we do not use the opportunity presented by the Bill? Will the Minister clearly set out his view as to the likely timescale for the introduction of a duty of care, from the initial consultation process through to the point at which consumers begin to benefit from any change? Given the evidence that has been presented about the need for further support for vulnerable customers, is a prolonged delay acceptable? I urge the Minister to take note of the breadth of support for this issue and the strong evidence presented on the need for action. I suggest that the Government reflect on that further and bring forward suitable proposals on Report.
My final point is that I sense a joint determination to act, and that is welcome. We should act, but what does that mean in terms of both substance and timescale? We will not press the new clause to a vote but I invite the Minister to undertake that he will come back on Report to set out with some clarity the likely timescale and substance of what the Government might eventually do.
John Glen
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. There is broad agreement on how serious the issue is, but I would characterise the Government’s approach as wanting not to send a message but to secure an outcome. They want to secure an outcome when they understand exactly what the impact of the changes might be.
As I said in some of my earlier remarks, there is huge uncertainty about how a potential duty of care would impact on firms and consumers. That is why I am very pleased with the accelerated timetable. I acknowledge that there is no absolute clarity about what will flow from that, but that is because we do not know what the outcome of the discussion will be. However, I take on board the hon. Gentleman’s concerns and I acknowledge his sensitivity to what Macmillan has said—it is unacceptable that 11% of people who have cancer tell their financial service provider—but it is also true, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle said, that not all banks are doing a poor job. I heard from Macmillan about the wonderful work that Nationwide has done, and I think it is for other banks to reflect on what they need to do to change their behaviours.
Gareth Thomas
Nationwide is not a bank; it is a building society, with a very different tradition to the corporate interests of the big banks. I make that as an aside. Although I am not normally a fan of secondary legislation as opposed to primary legislation, I wanted to press the Minister: will he consider the broader point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington—that there might be a case, surely, for the Minister to consider bringing forward on Report the scope for secondary legislation to bring in such a duty of care once the FCA, when it can be bothered, finally produces its consultation document?
John Glen
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s comments, but I do not share his characterisation of the FCA’s willingness to engage on this. As I set out, the FCA is engaged in dialogue with Macmillan and has now accelerated the timetable for dealing with the subject. I will reflect on the comments made and see what can be said to give more assurance further on, but I am convinced that the dialogue with the FCA will lead to a proportionate outcome that takes full account of the impact. I therefore reiterate my hope that the new clause will be withdrawn.
Jack Dromey
On the basis of what the Minister has said—that he will come back on Report—we will not be pressing new clause 7.
Amendment 3 agreed to.
Amendment made: 4, in clause 24, page 18, line 7, at end insert—
“( ) In section 137R (financial promotion rules)—
(a) in subsection (1), omit the “or” at the end of paragraph (a) and after that paragraph insert—
‘(aa) to engage in claims management activity, or’;
(b) in subsection (6), for ‘has’ substitute ‘and “engage in claims management activity” have’.”—(John Glen.)
The result of this amendment of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 would be that the FCA may make rules about the communication, or the approval of another person’s communications, by authorised persons of invitations or inducements to engage in claims management activity.
Clause 24, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Schedule 5
Regulation of claims management services: transitional provision
John Glen
I beg to move amendment 20, page 41, line 13, leave out from “to” to end of line 15 and insert “a person falling within paragraph 1A,”
This amendment and amendment 22 would enable the FCA to obtain information and documents from claims management companies operating or previously operating in Scotland if the FCA considers that it needs the information or documentation in preparation for its role as the regulator of claims management companies.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 21 and 22.
That schedule 5 be the Fifth schedule to the Bill.
John Glen
Amendments 20 to 22 are technical amendments that extend the FCA’s data-gathering powers to Scotland. They amend schedule 5, which contains transitional provisions to extend the FCA’s information-gathering powers; to enable it to take preparatory steps, such as to consult on rules; and to enable it to adopt rules made by the current regulator. That ensures that the FCA can obtain information and documents from claims management companies operating or previously operating in Scotland, if the FCA considers that it needs the information or documentation in preparation for its role as the regulator of claims management companies.
The amendments will help ensure that Scottish consumers are adequately protected when the regulation for financial services claims management companies is transferred to the FCA. I am sure that hon. Members would agree that it is right to ensure that the regulator is suitably prepared to regulate Scottish claims management companies, and will agree with the amendments.
Jack Dromey
It is a sensible move to give the FCA those extended powers. Therefore, we note the proposed amendments. Our colleague from the Scottish National party, the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South, might wish to comment, but this seems to us a logical and sensible proposal.
Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
I agree.
Amendment 20 agreed to.
Amendments made: 21, in schedule 5, page 41, line 23, leave out from “a” to end of line 24 and insert “person falling within paragraph 1B.”
This amendment and amendment 22 would enable the FCA to obtain reports from claims management companies operating in Scotland if the FCA considers that it needs the report in preparation for its role as the regulator of claims management companies.
Amendment 22, in schedule 5, page 41, line 24, at end insert—
“1A A person falls within this paragraph if the person—
(a) is or at any time was authorised under section 5(1)(a) of the Compensation Act 2006 (provision of regulated claims management services), or
(b) is, or at any time was, providing services in Scotland which the person would be, or would have been, prohibited from providing in England and Wales by section 4(1) of the Compensation Act 2006 unless authorised under section 5(1)(a) of that Act.
1B A person falls within this paragraph if the person—
(a) is authorised under section 5(1)(a) of the Compensation Act 2006 (provision of regulated claims management services), or
(b) is providing services in Scotland which the person would be prohibited from providing in England and Wales by section 4(1) of the Compensation Act 2006 unless authorised under section 5(1)(a) of that Act.”—(John Glen.)
See the explanation for amendments 20 and 21.
Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 25
Power of FCA to make rules restricting charges for claims management services
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
John Glen
Clause 25 inserts a new section into the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 to give the FCA the power to cap the amount that firms can charge customers for the claims management services it regulates. The clause also places a duty on the FCA to make rules restricting charges for claims for financial services or products. The Government believe that placing a duty on the FCA to cap the amount that firms can charge consumers for services related to financial services claims is the only satisfactory way of ensuring that consumers receive good value for money. This is especially true given that consumers can, for example, take complaints about the mis-selling of payment protection insurance to the financial ombudsman for free. In addition, the general fee-capping power provided by the clause gives the FCA the necessary flexibility to respond to future changes in the claims management sector.
Jack Dromey
I would like to make two points. First, the proposed changes are unobjectionable and we note them. Secondly, I will, however, be speaking to amendments 47 and 48 in respect of allowing consumers to keep 100% of their PPI compensation, but we will come to those in due course.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 25 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 26
PPI claims and charges for claims management services: general
John Glen
I beg to move amendment 5, in clause 26, page 21, line 17, leave out “and 28” and insert
“to (PPI claims: interim restriction on charges imposed by legal practitioners after transfer of regulation to FCA)”.
This amendment would apply the explanation of terms given in clause 26 to the new clause inserted by NC3.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 6.
Clause stand part.
Government new clause 3—PPI claims: interim restriction on charges imposed by legal practitioners after transfer of regulation to FCA.
John Glen
These amendments ensure that legal services regulators can continue to impose fee restrictions for PPI claims from the point at which the transfer of regulation of CMCs to the FCA takes place. This will be effective in the case of the Law Society of England and Wales until it implements its own rules on fee capping and, in the case of the General Council of the Bar and the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives, until 29 April 2020.
The interim fee cap will be set at 20% of the claim value, excluding VAT. It will apply to CMCs and legal services providers, and will be enforced by the relevant regulators from two months after the Bill receives Royal Assent. The interim fee cap will ensure fair and proportionate prices for consumers using claims management services for mis-sold PPI claims.
Government amendments 5 and 6 and new clause 3 ensure that the interim fee cap provisions introduced as a concessionary amendment in the House of Lords work together with the other Government amendments we are discussing today, and provide the legal services regulators with the power to restrict fees in relation to claim management services. The amendments will ensure that consumers are equally protected from excessive fees when using a legal services provider to make a claim for mis-sold PPI, and that there is continuity of coverage for the fee cap throughout the transfer of regulation. This is similar to the existing provisions in the Bill in relation to the FCA. I hope that all Members will agree that these are sensible and desirable amendments for the purposes of consumer protection.
Jack Dromey
Briefly, I have two related points. First, we agree that the legal services regulators should be given those powers. Secondly, and crucially, the objective is to protect consumers. I once again refer to amendments 47 and 48, which I will speak to shortly.
Amendment 5 agreed to.
Amendment made: 6, in clause 26, page 22, line 11, at end insert—
“, and
(c) so far as relevant for the purposes of section (PPI claims: interim restriction on charges imposed by legal practitioners after transfer of regulation to FCA), to be read as referring to any service which is a relevant claims management activity (within the meaning given by subsection (5) of that section).”—(John Glen.)
This amendment would define what references to “regulated services” in clause 26 mean when relevant for the purposes of the new clause inserted by NC3.
Clause 26, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 27
PPI claims: interim restriction on charges before transfer of regulation to FCA
Jack Dromey
The amendment would allow consumers to keep 100% of the PPI compensation. The Government introduced an interim cap on the fees that claims management companies could charge consumers in relation to payment protection insurance claims. That was a welcome move in the right direction, but it does not go far enough to protect consumers from paying disproportionately high fees for what is often very little work. The Ministry of Justice estimates that the average amount of commission charged to consumers by CMCs is 28% plus VAT. The FCA estimates that the average payout for PPI mis-selling is around £1,700 which means that a CMC would, on average, charge a successful claimant £476 plus VAT.
Although the proposed fee cap will reduce the amount that consumers have to pay to CMCs, it would still mean an average charge of £340, with VAT on top. If the Government want to take meaningful action to protect consumers from high fees, they should propose a solution that allows consumers to keep 100% of their PPI compensation. They should require firms to pay CMC costs for PPI claims—capped at 20% and VAT—when they are at fault and the consumer has used a CMC rather than claiming directly.
This measure would apply only for the interim period until new FCA regulations come into force, or until August 2019, which is the deadline for making PPI claims, whichever is sooner. This would incentivise firms still paying compensation—and it is shameful that they still are; getting justice for the people concerned is like pulling teeth—to proactively reach out and encourage consumers to make claims directly to them, and I am bound to say that it is something that should and must happen. It would also fully protect consumers from paying high charges to CMCs.
In summary, the Government’s proposal is a welcome step in the right direction, but I would welcome an explanation from the Minister as to why he cannot take this further step that would see those that were wronged receive 100% of the compensation so that this wrong is put right.
John Glen
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for setting out amendments 47 and 48, which seek to make firms at fault pay the fees for claims management services used to pursue successful PPI claims. I understand that this approach is intended to incentivise firms to be more proactive in offering compensation when dealing with consumer complaints. However, it could encourage more speculative and unmeritorious claims, adding waste to the redress system, to the detriment of consumers and the industry. The amendment also has the potential to allow CMCs to charge consumers directly when they are unsuccessful in pursuing a PPI claim. This would serve only to add to the incentives for taking forward speculative claims, and I am not sure that that is the Opposition’s intention.
I also do not believe that the measure is necessary. The FCA is already taking direct action to ensure that firms do not make it difficult for consumers to claim compensation, and there have been significant improvements in the handling of PPI complaints by firms. By September 2017, firms were upholding around 80% of claims. Since January 2011, firms have handled over 20.8 million PPI complainants and paid over £29 billion in redress to consumers found to have been mis-sold a PPI policy, and rightly so.
In addition, as of March 2017 firms had sent over 5.5 million letters to customers they identified as being at high risk of having suffered a past mis-sale and who had not complained, inviting them to do so. The FCA also launched a two-year consumer awareness campaign in August 2017, paid for by the relevant firms, to raise awareness of the deadline and encourage consumers to decide whether to complain, as well as highlighting free routes for pursuing a claim.
Finally, it is important to note that consumers do not need to use the CMCs to make a claim. They can go directly to the relevant firm and subsequently to the Financial Ombudsman Service for free. Making a complaint is a simple process that many people will be able to do for themselves. A number of sources of information are available to help individuals to understand how to make a complaint, including websites and phone lines for the FCA and Financial Ombudsman Service. In the light of these arguments, I encourage the Opposition spokesman to withdraw the amendment.
John Glen
Clause 27 deals with the application and enforcement of the interim fee cap before the transfer of claims management regulation to the FCA. It states that the cap will be implemented by the claims management regulation unit and legal services regulators in England and Wales. It also defines the first interim period as the period beginning with the day the cap comes into force, two months after Royal Assent, until the day before regulation transfers to the FCA. It is clear that the clause plays an integral part in establishing the interim fee cap.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 27 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 28 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 29
Extent
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)
I beg to move amendment 7, in clause 29, page 25, line 32, leave out from beginning to “extends” and insert “Part 1, other than the provisions mentioned in subsections (2) to (3B),”
This amendment makes a minor drafting change, restructuring the extent clause, in consequence of the changes to that clause made by Amendment 8 and the amendments relating to Part 2.
Guy Opperman
The amendment is a minor change that removes the privilege amendment inserted in the House of Lords. Privilege amendments are inserted to acknowledge that it is the privilege of the House of Commons to control charges on the people or on public funds. Its removal is a formality.
Amendment 17 agreed to.
Clause 31, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
New Clause 1
Personal pension schemes: requirements to recommend guidance etc
“(1) Section 137FB of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FCA general rules: disclosure of information about the availability of pensions guidance) is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (1), insert—
“(1A) The FCA must also make general rules requiring the trustees or managers of a relevant pension scheme to take the steps mentioned in subsections (1B) and (1C) in relation to an application from a member or survivor—
(a) to transfer any rights accrued under the scheme, or
(b) to start receiving benefits provided by the scheme.
(1B) As part of the application process, the trustees or managers must ask the member or survivor whether they have received appropriate pensions guidance or appropriate independent financial advice.
(1C) In a case where the member or survivor indicates that they have not received appropriate pensions guidance or appropriate independent financial advice, the trustees or managers must also—
(a) recommend that the member or survivor seeks such guidance or advice, and
(b) ask the member or survivor whether—
(i) they wish to wait until they have received such guidance or advice before deciding whether to proceed with the application, or
(ii) they wish to proceed with the application without having received it.
(1D) The rules may—
(a) specify what constitutes appropriate pensions guidance and appropriate independent financial advice;
(b) make further provision about how the trustees or managers must comply with the duties in subsections (1B) and (1C) (such as provision about methods of communication and time limits);
(c) specify what the duties of the trustees or managers are in the situation where a member or survivor does not respond to a question mentioned in subsection (1B) or (1C)(b);
(d) provide for exceptions to the duties in subsections (1B) and (1C) in specified cases.”
(3) In subsection (2), for “this section” substitute “subsection (1)”.
(4) After subsection (2) insert—
“(2A) Before the FCA publishes a draft of any rules to be made by virtue of subsection (1A), it must consult—
(a) the Secretary of State, and
(b) the single financial guidance body.”
(5) In subsection (3), for “the rules” substitute “rules to be made by virtue of subsection (1)”.
(6) After subsection (3) insert—
“(3A) In determining what provision to include in rules to be made by virtue of subsection (1A), the FCA must have regard to any regulations that are for the time being in force under section 113B of the Pension Schemes Act 1993 (occupational pension schemes: requirements to recommend guidance etc).”
(7) In subsection (4), for the definition of “pensions guidance” substitute—
““pensions guidance” means information or guidance provided by any person in pursuance of the requirements mentioned in section5 of the Financial Guidance and Claims Act 2018 (information etc about flexible benefits under pension schemes);”.” —(Guy Opperman.)
This new clause requires the FCA to make rules requiring trustees or managers of personal and stakeholder pension schemes to check whether members have either received guidance or advice or have opted out of receiving it before accessing or transferring their pension assets. It also makes consequential amendments to FSMA 2000. It would be inserted after clause 18.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 2
Occupational pension schemes: requirements to recommend guidance etc
“(1) The Pension Schemes Act 1993 is amended as set out in subsections (2) to (5).
(2) After section 113A insert—
“113B Occupational pension schemes: requirements to recommend guidance etc
(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations requiring the trustees or managers of an occupational pension scheme to take the steps mentioned in subsections (2) and (3) in relation to an application from a relevant beneficiary—
(a) to transfer any rights accrued under the scheme, or
(b) to start receiving benefits provided by the scheme.
(2) As part of the application process, the trustees or managers must ask the beneficiary whether they have received appropriate pensions guidance or appropriate independent financial advice.
(3) In a case where the beneficiary indicates that they have not received appropriate pensions guidance or appropriate independent financial advice, the trustees or managers must also—
(a) recommend that the beneficiary seeks such guidance or advice, and
(b) ask the beneficiary whether—
(i) they wish to wait until they have received such guidance or advice before deciding whether to proceed with the application, or
(ii) they wish to proceed with the application without having received it.
(4) The regulations may—
(a) specify what constitutes appropriate pensions guidance and appropriate independent financial advice;
(b) make further provision about how the trustees or managers must comply with the duties in subsections (2) and (3) (such as provision about methods of communication and time limits);
(c) specify what the duties of the trustees or managers are in the situation where a beneficiary does not respond to a question mentioned in subsection (2) or (3)(b);
(d) provide for exceptions to the duties in subsections (2) and (3) in specified cases;
(e) provide for the Secretary of State or another prescribed person to issue guidance for the purposes of this section, to which trustees or managers must have regard in complying with their duties under the regulations.
(5) In determining what provision to include in the regulations, the Secretary of State must have regard to any rules that are for the time being in force under section 137FB(1A) of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.
(6) In this section—
“relevant beneficiary”, in relation to a pension scheme, means—
(a) a member of the scheme, or
(b) another person of a prescribed description,
who has a right or entitlement to flexible benefits under the scheme;
“flexible benefits” has the meaning given by section 74 of the Pension Schemes Act 2015;
“pensions guidance” means information or guidance provided by any person in pursuance of the requirements mentioned in section5 of the Financial Guidance and Claims Act 2018 (information etc about flexible benefits under pension schemes).”
(3) In section 115 (powers as respects failure to comply with information requirements), in subsection (1), after “113” insert “, 113B”.
(4) In section 182(5) (power of Treasury to direct that regulation-making powers are exercisable only in conjunction with them), after “except” insert “regulations under section 113B or”.
(5) In section 185(2) (consultations about other regulations: exceptions), after paragraph (c) insert—
“(ca) regulations under section 113B; or”.
(6) The Pension Schemes (Northern Ireland) Act 1993 is amended as set out in subsections (7) to (9).
(7) After section 109A insert—
“109B Occupational pension schemes: requirements to recommend guidance etc
(1) The Department must make regulations requiring the trustees or managers of an occupational pension scheme to take the steps mentioned in subsections (2) and (3) in relation to an application from a relevant beneficiary—
(a) to transfer any rights accrued under the scheme, or
(b) to start receiving benefits provided by the scheme.
(2) As part of the application process, the trustees or managers must ask the beneficiary whether they have received appropriate pensions guidance or appropriate independent financial advice.
(3) In a case where the beneficiary indicates that they have not received appropriate pensions guidance or appropriate independent financial advice, the trustees or managers must also—
(a) recommend that the beneficiary seeks such guidance or advice, and
(b) ask the beneficiary whether—
(i) they wish to wait until they have received such guidance or advice before deciding whether to proceed with the application, or
(ii) they wish to proceed with the application without having received it.
(4) The regulations may—
(a) specify what constitutes appropriate pensions guidance and appropriate independent financial advice;
(b) make further provision about how the trustees or managers must comply with the duties in subsections (2) and (3) (such as provision about methods of communication and time limits);
(c) specify what the duties of the trustees or managers are in the situation where a beneficiary does not respond to a question mentioned in subsection (2) or (3)(b);
(d) provide for exceptions to the duties in subsections (2) and (3) in specified cases;
(e) provide for the Department or another prescribed person to issue guidance for the purposes of this section, to which trustees or managers must have regard in complying with their duties under the regulations.
(5) In determining what provision to include in the regulations, the Department must have regard to any rules that are for the time being in force under section 137FB(1A) of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.
(6) In this section—
“relevant beneficiary”, in relation to a pension scheme, means—
(a) a member of the scheme, or
(b) another person of a prescribed description,
who has a right or entitlement to flexible benefits under the scheme;
“flexible benefits” has the meaning given by section 74 of the Pension Schemes Act 2015;
“pensions guidance” means information or guidance provided by any person in pursuance of the requirements mentioned in section5 of the Financial Guidance and Claims Act 2018 (information etc about flexible benefits under pension schemes).”
(8) In section 111 (powers as respects failure to comply with information requirements), in subsection (1), after “109” insert “or 109B”.
(9) In section 177(6) (power of Department of Finance to direct that regulation-making powers are exercisable only in conjunction with them), after “except” insert “regulations under section 109B or”.” —(Guy Opperman.)
This new clause makes equivalent provision to that in NC1 for occupational pension schemes and requires the Secretary of State and the Department for Communities to make regulations corresponding to the FCA rules mentioned in NC1. It also makes consequential amendments to the Pension Schemes Act 1993 and the Pension Schemes (Northern Ireland) Act 1993.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 3
PPI claims: interim restriction on charges imposed by legal practitioners after transfer of regulation to FCA
“(1) A legal practitioner—
(a) must not charge a claimant, for a service which is a relevant claims management activity provided in connection with the claimant’s PPI claim, an amount which exceeds the fee cap for the claim, and
(b) must not enter into an agreement that provides for the payment by a claimant, for a service which is a relevant claims management activity provided in connection with the claimant’s PPI claim, of charges which would breach, or are capable of breaching, the prohibition in paragraph (a).
(2) Subsections (2) to (5) and (7) of section 27 apply for the purposes of the prohibitions in subsection (1) as they apply for the purposes of the prohibitions in section 27(1) but as if—
(a) references in those subsections to “regulated claims management services” were references to “relevant claims management activity” and references to “regulated persons” were references to “legal practitioners”, and
(b) the first entry in columns 1 and 2 of the table in subsection (5) were omitted.
(3) Subsection (1) applies as follows—
(a) the prohibition in subsection (1)(a) applies only to charges imposed by a legal practitioner under an agreement entered into during the period—
(i) beginning with the first day of the second interim period (within the meaning given by section28(6)), and
(ii) ending with the end date for that practitioner, and
(b) the prohibition in subsection (1)(b) applies only to agreements entered into by a legal practitioner during that period.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (3), the end date is—
(a) for a legal practitioner for whom the relevant regulator is the Law Society of England and Wales, the day before the coming into force of the first rule made by the Law Society of England and Wales under section (Legal services regulators’ rules: charges for claims management services) that applies to, or to any description of, PPI claims, and
(b) for any other legal practitioner, 29 April 2020.
(5) In this section “relevant claims management activity”—
(a) does not include any reserved legal activities of the kind mentioned in section 12(1)(a) or (b) of the Legal Services Act 2007 (exercise of a right of audience or the conduct of litigation), but
(b) otherwise, means activity of a kind specified in an order under section 22(1B) of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (regulated activities: claims management services), disregarding any exemption in that order for activities carried on by, through, or at the direction of, a legal practitioner.” —(Guy Opperman.)
This new clause requires the Law Society of England and Wales, the Bar Council and the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives, after the transfer of regulation from the Claims Management Regulator to the FCA, to enforce a fee cap in respect of charges by lawyers for certain claims management services provided in connection with a PPI claim until, in the case of the Law Society, the Society has made its own rules about charges for PPI claims, and in any other case, 29 April 2020.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 4
Legal services regulators’ rules: charges for claims management services
“(1) The Law Society of England and Wales, the General Council of the Bar and the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives may make rules prohibiting regulated persons from—
(a) entering into a specified relevant claims management agreement that provides for the payment by a person of specified charges, and
(b) imposing specified charges on a person in connection with the provision of a service which is, or which is provided in connection with, a specified relevant claims management activity.
(2) The Law Society of England and Wales must exercise that power to make rules in relation to all relevant claims management agreements, and all relevant claims management activities, which concern claims in relation to financial products or services.
(3) The Law Society of Scotland may make rules prohibiting regulated persons from—
(a) entering into a relevant claims management agreement concerning a claim in relation to a financial product or service that provides for the payment by a person of specified charges, and
(b) imposing specified charges on a person in connection with the provision of a service which is, or which is provided in connection with, a relevant claims management activity concerning a claim in relation to a financial product or service.
(4) Rules under this section may make provision securing that for the purposes of the prohibition referred to in subsection (1)(a) or (3)(a) charges payable under a relevant claims management agreement are to be treated as including charges payable under an agreement treated by the rules as being connected with the relevant claims management agreement.
(5) In this section ‘regulated persons’ means—
(a) in relation to the Law Society of England and Wales—
(i) persons who, or licensable bodies which, are authorised by the Law Society to carry on a reserved legal activity,
(ii) European lawyers registered with the Law Society under the European Communities (Lawyer’s Practice) Regulations 2000 (S.I. 2000/1119), and
(iii) foreign lawyers registered with the Law Society under section 89 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990;
(b) in relation to the Law Society of Scotland, Scottish legal practitioners;
(c) in relation to the General Council of the Bar—
(i) persons who, or licensable bodies which, are authorised by the General Council to carry on a reserved legal activity, and
(ii) European lawyers registered with the General Council under the European Communities (Lawyer’s Practice) Regulations 2000;
(d) in relation to the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives, persons authorised by the Institute to carry on a reserved legal activity.
(6) The rules must be made with a view to securing an appropriate degree of protection against excessive charges for the provision of a service which is, or which is provided in connection with, a relevant claims management activity.
(7) The rules may specify charges by reference to charges of a specified class or description, or by reference to charges which exceed, or are capable of exceeding, a specified amount.
(8) The rules may not specify—
(a) charges for a reserved legal activity within the meaning of the Legal Services Act 2007 (see section 12 of that Act);
(b) charges imposed in respect of—
(i) the exercise of a right of audience by a Scottish legal practitioner;
(ii) the conduct of litigation by a Scottish legal practitioner.
(9) In subsection (8)(b)—
‘conduct of litigation’ means—
(a) the bringing of proceedings before any court in Scotland;
(b) the commencement, prosecution and defence of such proceedings;
(c) the performance of any ancillary functions in relation to such proceedings;
‘right of audience’ means the right to appear before and address a court in Scotland, including the right to call and examine witnesses.
(10) In relation to an agreement entered into, or charge imposed, in contravention of the rules, the rules may (amongst other things)—
(a) provide for the agreement, or obligation to pay the charge, to be unenforceable or unenforceable to a specified extent;
(b) provide for the recovery of amounts paid under the agreement or obligation;
(c) provide for the payment of compensation for any losses incurred as a result of paying amounts under the agreement or obligation.
(11) For the purposes of this section—
‘relevant claims management activity’ means activity of a kind specified in an order under section 22(1B) of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (regulated activities: claims management services), disregarding any exemption in that order for activities carried on by, through, or at the direction of, a legal practitioner;
‘relevant claims management agreement’ means an agreement, the entering into or performance of which by either party is a relevant claims management activity;
‘Scottish legal practitioner’ means—
(a) a person qualified to practise as a solicitor in accordance with section 4 of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980;
(b) European lawyers registered with the Law Society of Scotland under the European Communities (Lawyer’s Practice) (Scotland) Regulations 2000 (S.S.I. 2000/121);
(c) foreign lawyers registered with the Law Society of Scotland under section 60A of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980;
(d) an incorporated practice within the meaning given by section 34(1A)(c) of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980;
(e) a licensed legal services provider within the meaning of Part 2 of the Legal Services (Scotland) Act 2010 (see section 47 of that Act) that provides, or offers to provide, legal services under a licence issued by the Law Society of Scotland;
‘specified’ means specified in the rules, but ‘specified amount’ means an amount specified in or determined in accordance with the rules.
(12) This section does not limit any power of the Law Society of England and Wales, the Law Society of Scotland, the General Council of the Bar or the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives existing apart from this section to make rules.”—(John Glen.)
This new clause makes provision about rules prohibiting charges for claims management services which may be made by the Law Society of England and Wales, the General Council of the Bar, the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives and (where the claim concerns financial products or services) the Law Society of Scotland, and imposes a duty on the Law Society of England and Wales to make such rules in relation to claims concerning financial products or services.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government new clause 5—Extension of power of the Law Society of Scotland to make rules.
John Glen
New clauses 4 and 5 place a duty on the Law Society of England and Wales to cap fees in relation to financial service claims management activity, and give the Law Society of Scotland a power to restrict fees charges for that activity. The clauses also give some legal services regulators in England and Wales a power to restrict fees charged for broader claims management services, and give the Treasury a power to extend the Law Society of Scotland’s fee-capping power to broader activity in the future. As I am sure hon. Members are aware, claims management services are carried out not only by claims management companies, but sometimes by legal service providers as well. That is why the Government are introducing the new clauses. They will ensure that consumers are protected no matter which type of claims management service provider they use—whether regulated by the legal service regulators or by the Financial Conduct Authority.
As Members will know, fees charged for claims management services have attracted severe criticism. The Public Accounts Committee 2016 report on financial services mis-selling commented:
“It is a failure of the system of regulation and redress that claims management companies have been able to make up to £5 billion out of compensation to victims of mis-selling.”
The Bill already contains provisions to ensure that the FCA will cap fees in relation to financial product and services claims, and new clause 4 replicates that duty in relation to the Law Society of England and Wales. It also mirrors the FCA’s broader power to restrict fees for claims management activities by providing a similar power to the General Council of the Bar, the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives, and the Law Society of England and Wales. That power will enable them to make rules that cap the fees that legal service providers charge for claims management services. That will enable the legal services regulators to adapt to any future changes in the market, alongside the FCA.
New clause 4 also gives the Law Society of Scotland a power to restrict fees in relation to financial services claims management, and new clause 5 gives the Treasury a power to extend that provision to include wider claims management activity, should that be required in the future. That gives the flexibility required to respond to any future changes in the claims management sector. Although the Government are of the view that the regulation of claims management activity is reserved, we have worked in a spirit of co-operation with the Scottish Government to ensure that the provisions are fit for purpose in Scotland, and that Scottish consumers have the same high standards of protection when using claims management services as consumers in England and Wales. I hope Members agree that the new clauses collectively provide for the best protection of consumers across Great Britain.
Jack Dromey
The Minister was right to refer to the Public Accounts Committee report. It is nothing short of scandalous that there has been an immense industry, often on the back of misery. Consumers deserve to be properly protected in future. The clauses are sensible because they go beyond claims management companies, with the duty on the Law Society. Of course, it is about not only CMCs, but legal service providers.
Finally, with regard to new clause 5, it makes sense for there to be flexibility to extend the provision to restrict fees in the future, given potential changes in the nature of the industry.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 4 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 5
Extension of power of the Law Society of Scotland to make rules
“(1) The Treasury may by regulations amend section (Legal services regulators’ rules: charges for claims management services) for the purpose of extending the power in subsection (3) of that section so as to apply to—
(a) all relevant claims management agreements;
(b) all relevant claims management activity;
(c) any description of relevant claims management agreement;
(d) any description of relevant claims management activity.
(2) The Treasury must obtain the consent of the Scottish Ministers before making regulations under subsection (1).
(3) Regulations under this section—
(a) are to be made by statutory instrument;
(b) may make incidental, supplemental or consequential provision.
(4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”—(John Glen.)
This new clause would permit the Treasury, with the consent of the Scottish Ministers, to make regulations which extend the power given to the Law Society of Scotland to make rules by NC4.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 6
Cold calling about claims management services
“(1) The Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003 (S.I. 2003/2426) are amended as follows.
(2) In regulation 21 (calls for direct marketing purposes), after paragraph (5) insert—
‘(6) Paragraph (1) does not apply to a case falling within regulation 21A.’
(3) After regulation 21 insert—
‘21A Calls for direct marketing of claims management services
(1) A person must not use, or instigate the use of, a public electronic communications service to make unsolicited calls for the purposes of direct marketing in relation to claims management services except in the circumstances referred to in paragraph (2).
(2) Those circumstances are where the called line is that of a subscriber who has previously notified the caller that for the time being the subscriber consents to such calls being made by, or at the instigation of, the caller on that line.
(3) A subscriber must not permit the subscriber’s line to be used in contravention of paragraph (1).
(4) In this regulation, “claims management services” means the following services in relation to the making of a claim—
(a) advice;
(b) financial services or assistance;
(c) acting on behalf of, or representing, a person;
(d) the referral or introduction of one person to another;
(e) the making of inquiries.
(5) In paragraph (4), “claim” means a claim for compensation, restitution, repayment or any other remedy or relief in respect of loss or damage or in respect of an obligation, whether the claim is made or could be made—
(a) by way of legal proceedings,
(b) in accordance with a scheme of regulation (whether voluntary or compulsory), or
(c) in pursuance of a voluntary undertaking.’
(4) In regulation 24 (information to be provided for the purposes of regulations 19 to 21)—
(a) in the heading, for ‘, 20 and 21’ substitute ‘to 21A’;
(b) in paragraph (1)(b), after ‘21’ insert ‘or 21A’.”—(John Glen.)
This amendment inserts a provision into the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations which prohibits live unsolicited telephone calls for the purposes of direct marketing in relation to claims management services except where the person called has given prior consent to receiving such calls.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 9—Ban on unsolicited real-time direct approaches by, on behalf of, or for the benefit of companies carrying out claims management services and a ban on the use by claims management companies of data obtained by such methods—
“(1) The FCA must, within the period of six months beginning with the day on which this Act comes into force, introduce bans on—
(a) unsolicited real-time direct approaches to members of the public carried out by whatever means, digital or otherwise, by, on behalf of, or for the benefit of companies carrying out claims management services or their agents or representatives,
(b) the use for any purpose of any data by companies carrying out claims management services, their agents or representatives where they cannot demonstrate to the satisfaction of the FCA that this data does not arise from any unsolicited real-time direct approach to members of the public carried out by whatever means, digital or otherwise.
(2) The FCA must fix the appropriate penalties for breaches of subsection (1)(a) and (b) above.”
This new clause would require the FCA to ban cold calling for claims management companies. Critically, it would also ban the use by these companies of any data obtained by cold calling. Together, these provisions would make cold calling for CMCs illegal and cut off the revenue stream to cold callers, by preventing CMCs using their data. The new clause would also allow the FCA to set the appropriate penalties for any breach of either of these bans. The bans would come into effect with the passing of this Bill.
John Glen
Government new clause 6 is about cold calling made for the purposes of providing claims management services. As Members will be aware, that topic has been discussed at length during the passage of the Bill. The Government have listened to the debates closely and committed in the other place to table an amendment that would restrict cold calls made by claims management companies. The new clause makes good on that commitment.
Calls from claims management companies and other entities are not merely a source of irritation, but can result in extreme distress to those answering the calls, especially the most vulnerable in our society. As the Government have stated in previous debates, we have forced companies to display their calling line identification when they call. We have made it easier to prosecute those involved in making the calls by removing the threshold for financial penalties to be administered and we have strengthened the Information Commissioner’s powers for imposing fines on wrongdoers.
In addition, the claims management regulator and the Solicitors Regulation Authority have taken action against claims companies and solicitors that have breached tough direct marketing rules, including in relation to accepting illegally generated leads. However, we appreciate that we need to do more to truly eradicate the problem. New clause 6 seeks to ban cold calls made for the purposes of direct marketing in relation to claims management services, except where the person called has given prior consent to receiving such calls. The new clause will insert a provision into the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003, which govern unsolicited direct marketing.
The new clause will ensure that any call, whether it is from a claims management company, an individual or a lead generator, made for the purposes of direct marketing in relation to claims management services, is an unlawful call unless the receiver has explicitly consented to that call being made to them. The new clause takes the onus away from the individual to opt out of such calls being made to them—by signing up to the telephone preference service, for example—and puts the responsibility back on the organisation and its due diligence before making such calls.
There are complexities in legislating, including those related to navigating EU frameworks. However, the Government are convinced that the new clause will have the effect of making unwanted calls from claims management services unlawful.
Gareth Thomas
Is there not a concern that, having given consent to be phoned once, an individual might then be subject to a series of unwanted phone calls? One could imagine a situation in which an initial call is wanted by one of our constituents, but a company takes advantage of the permission to make a series of unwarranted further calls by arguing that it has the legal power to do so. What would happen in that situation?
Gareth Thomas
I apologise for intervening again, but I am thinking of an elderly constituent. One hears of scams and constituents being taken advantage of. How do we protect the individual who genuinely wants information and perhaps gives permission once, but then, perhaps because of their age or infirmity or whatever, they start to get taken advantage of? How do we prevent that?
John Glen
I am sorry that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a full service response, but I will look into that issue carefully and keep in mind the specific circumstances he has described, which I will seek to address in my reply.
The new clause is another robust proposal to add to our package of measures to tackle unsolicited marketing calls. I hope they will be gratefully received by consumers across the UK.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell, on my first Bill Committee.
New clause 9 would introduce a much-needed ban on cold calling by claims management companies, including in relation to personal injury. Although the Government have previously stated that they are committed to introducing a ban, new clause 6 simply does not go far enough.
It is estimated that claims management companies make around 51 million personal injury-related calls and texts each year and that most people have received one. Not only are such calls a nuisance, they also exploit vulnerable people. Not surprisingly, 67% of people are in favour of a ban on personal injury cold calling. It is worth noting that solicitors are already banned from cold calling in personal injury claims, but the fact that claims management companies are not risks bringing the sector into disrepute.
Cold calling can generate the false perception that obtaining compensation is easy, even where there is no injury. It can put pressure on people to pursue unmeritorious or, at the very worst, fraudulent claims, which they otherwise may not do. It may never have been the intention of someone to make a claim, but if they receive a text promising them thousands of pounds, it might seem very tempting. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington has already spoken about, there is evidence to suggest that cold calling has led to a rise in holiday sickness claims.
There is a context. The Government are proposing to reform compensation rules for whiplash claims and to increase the small claims limit in road traffic accidents from £1,000 to £5,000, and in public liability and employers’ liability claims from £1,000 to £2,000. The Government say that that is to cut down on fraudulent claims and bring down insurance premiums. However, many, including myself, are concerned that it will have a significant impact on access to justice, with people not being able to access proper legal advice in such claims, which can often be complex. Surely a better solution would be to have an outright ban on cold calling in personal injury claims by claims management companies, which is what new clause 9 seeks to do. The new clause is clear—it would result in a ban on all cold calling by claims management companies and would also ban other methods of approach, such as texting.
In contrast, new clause 6 creates confusion. It would ban cold calling unless someone has given consent. What amounts to consent in this context may not always be clear and people, especially the most vulnerable, may struggle to understand that they have consented to being cold called or may not appreciate what they have consented to. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West has raised concerns about the elderly and infirm. The Minister has not today been able to give any comprehensive answer on how those fears will be dealt with. Put simply, new clause 6 does not go far enough to ban the scourge of cold calling.
Earlier this month, Lord Keen stated in evidence to the Justice Committee that
“effectively stopping cold calling is an immensely complex process, because cold calling nowadays is carried out by unregulated entities from outwith the United Kingdom. We have instances of it being carried on in south America to target the UK. They then spoof their telephone numbers...so that it is impossible to trace the origins of the call.”
Will the Minister therefore assure me that more will be done to tackle such complex instances of cold calling, notwithstanding the measures in the Bill, so that the problem does not simply carry on under a different guise and vulnerable people do not continue to be exploited in this way?
John Glen
Opposition new clause 9 is identical to the Lords amendment and seeks to compel the FCA to ban unsolicited direct approaches by, on behalf of or for the benefit of companies providing claims management services. It also seeks to ban those companies from using data obtained through those methods. Unfortunately, it would give the FCA a duty it cannot enforce under its current regime.
I assure the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington and the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge that the Government are committed to tackling the issue properly and have consulted with the FCA, the claims management regulation unit and the Information Commissioner’s Office to ensure that Government new clause 6 does so in the most effective way—it will amend the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003 to prohibit direct marketing calls by claims management services unless an individual has given their consent. I was challenged on that matter, and I will clarify by letter.
The provision will be implemented by the ICO as the regulator responsible for the enforcement of the regulations. It has considerable powers and can issue fines of up £500,000. Under the incoming general data protection regulation, the unlawful use of personal data can attract fines of up to £17 million or 4% of annual turnover. The ICO is committed to enforcing the sanctions in the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003 and has issued nearly £3 million in monetary penalties for breaches of direct marketing since January last year. We have worked with the ICO in developing the new clause, and it is confident that it will be able to enforce it in conjunction with the FCA.
The FCA will of course have a role to play and will use all the tools available to take action where it discovers behaviour causing consumer harm. I acknowledge the cases that both Members raised, which are unacceptable. I am also confident that the FCA will work closely with the ICO where breaches are identified. I am sure members of the Committee will agree that it is better to include a new clause that will work—Government new clause 6—than to include new clause 9. As such, I encourage both Members not to press their new clause to a vote.
Jack Dromey
We are not convinced. It comes down fundamentally to the issue of principle. If it is right that all the evidence is that cold calling has been deeply damaging for the elderly, for the vulnerable, for those at a time of crisis in their lives, such as the Port Talbot workers and now, dare I say it, Carillion workers, and for business, then in those circumstances the practice has to end, full stop. The difference between the two new clauses is that we are saying precisely that with new clause 9. While the Government take some steps in that direction with new clause 6, the reality is that this unacceptable practice will continue and is likely to continue to grow.
The Minister talked about penalties handed out thus far of £3 million, but it is a billion-pound industry of abuse. We therefore believe it to be right to send that unmistakeable message so that never again will those people, particularly those at a time of crisis in their lives, fear that supposedly friendly phone call that time and again leads them to make disastrous decisions with disastrous consequences. Our intention is to press new clause 9 to a vote.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 6 accordingly read a Second time.
Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill.
Draft Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 (Consequential Amendments, Savings and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2017
John Glen Excerpts(6 years, 9 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 (Consequential Amendments, Savings and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2017.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. The draft regulations follow the reforms introduced by the Government in 2015 to modernise and streamline the insolvency process. The 2015 reforms were commenced in stages, and the draft regulations cover the application of the reforms that came into force in April 2017. Specifically, the draft regulations make consequential amendments to the financial sector insolvency regimes to take account of the April 2017 reforms.
For the Committee’s benefit, I will briefly set out where the draft regulations fit in the context of general insolvency law. Insolvency law is based on the Insolvency Act 1986, which has been amended several times, including by the tranches of Government reforms instigated in 2015. That broader legal framework has been modified into specific insolvency regimes for different sectors, including for financial services. The insolvency regimes for the financial sector exist because general insolvency procedures are not always suitable for failed financial institutions. That is because general insolvency law does not necessarily reflect the complex nature of financial institutions and the impact that their failure may have.
The insolvency regimes for the financial sector sit alongside and are separate from the Bank of England’s resolution powers under the special resolution regime established by the Banking Act 2009. The draft regulations do not affect or amend the Bank of England’s powers under the special resolution regime. Instead, they are necessary to update and maintain the legislation governing the modified insolvency regimes for the financial sector following the wider insolvency law reforms that the Government brought forward in 2015.
Let me provide more detail on the 2015 reforms to explain the genesis of the draft regulations. The 2015 reforms resulted in wide-ranging changes to the UK’s general insolvency regime that broadly affected all sectors. Those reforms were implemented in several stages: in May 2015, October 2015, April 2016 and, finally, in April 2017. The draft regulations cover the application of the 2015 reforms that came into force in April 2017, which removed the default requirement to hold a physical meeting of creditors as a decision-making mechanism in an insolvency proceeding, thereby removing unnecessary burdens and enabling the greater use of technology to administer insolvency proceedings. The April 2017 reforms also gave creditors the ability to opt out of certain notices for both company and individual insolvency, reducing the expense of sending notices for the office holder and the expense of dealing with unnecessary and unwanted notices for the creditor.
I will now set out in further detail the effect and rationale of the draft regulations. The draft regulations align the specific insolvency regimes for companies, partnerships and individuals carrying on insurance or other financial activities with the April 2017 reforms, ensuring that the benefits of the broader 2015 reforms to UK insolvency law extend to the financial sector. The draft regulations do not apply the April 2017 reforms to the insolvency regimes for financial institutions that are not companies, partnerships or individuals. Nor do they apply the reforms to specialised regimes, such as those for banks and building societies. For those insolvency regimes, the draft regulations work to keep the legislation as it was prior to the coming into force of the April 2017 reforms. Because of the considerable volume of legislation that is affected, that approach is necessary while the impact of the reforms on those institutions is further assessed and decisions are made about implementation.
In conclusion, the consequential amendments are required to update and maintain consistency in the legislation governing the insolvency regimes for financial sector firms. The Government are committed to improving public and business confidence in the insolvency process, and having clear legislation that governs the process is fundamental to achieving that.
John Glen
I am extremely grateful for the comments of both the hon. Gentlemen. I confirm that the Treasury will work as soon as it reasonably can to ensure that there is the appropriate application of the 2015 Act. In respect of the point that the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse made, I acknowledge the range of examples that were brought to the House’s attention, and I assure him that there is ongoing work to be done to investigate the impact of the Global Restructuring Group process. There was an encounter last week between the head of RBS and the Treasury Committee. There is more work to be done, and I will be making further comments in due course in the House.
Question put and agreed to.
RBS Closures (Argyll and Bute)
John Glen Excerpts(6 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Henry.
I warmly commend the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara) on securing this debate and speaking with such passion and determination. Let my first words be that the Government recognise how often banks are seen as an intrinsic part of the community fabric. That point has been made by several Members this afternoon, and the hon. Gentleman has reaffirmed it eloquently.
We have heard a lot about the closure of physical branches. I believe that this is the fourth time that the hon. Gentleman has raised the issue in the House since RBS’s announcement last December. I want to make clear my sincere sympathy for the concerns that he raised on behalf of his constituents and that hon. Members raised during the debate.
I reassure the Chamber that one of my key priorities as Economic Secretary is to promote and support financial services that deliver for their customers, making those services as accessible as possible. However, the hon. Gentleman must appreciate that the way we bank is going through a period of unprecedented change. Online and mobile technologies mean that customers—perhaps some of us in this Chamber—are reducing our use of high street branches quite drastically.
Kirstene Hair
I thank the Minister for giving way. On accessibility, my constituents in Montrose have been told that they will have to travel to Arbroath, but RBS will give no confirmation that Arbroath will remain open for the foreseeable future. I agree that accessibility is of the utmost importance, but it is understandable that constituents are concerned—they do not know what the future holds for the next nearest branch.
John Glen
I will come on to a number of practical steps that I think can challenge the banks’ logic and help hon. Members across the House.
We have to acknowledge the change in the way that we use banks, and the fact that banks will adapt to reflect the shift in consumer patterns. That means making tough decisions, such as modernising their services to maintain profitability. I go back to what I said two weeks ago on this spot: the decision is not for the Government, and it is important that I explain why. I acknowledge the point that has been made about Stephen Hester, but there is a material difference between the Government, as the largest shareholder, being consulted on who the chief executive is, and the day-to-day operational decisions made branch by branch. There is a reasonable difference in the level of involvement. Each bank’s branch strategy, including whether to open or close individual branches, is for the management of that bank to determine. The Government rightly do not intervene in those commercial decisions in this bank or in any other bank.
John Glen
I will not take an intervention, because I need to make some progress. Likewise, the Government do not manage the RBS Group; that is headed by its own board, which is responsible for strategic direction and management decisions. By its own volition, RBS has announced a number of branch closures in line with its commercial strategy. Obviously, banks will keep a number of factors in balance when they make these decisions: customer interests, market competition and other commercial considerations. The decisions are theirs to take, but they are also theirs to defend.
I say to the hon. Gentleman who secured the debate that by bringing the matter to the attention of the House again, he is doing a very good job of challenging the bank to justify the decisions it makes. It is for the bank to do that. Indeed, two RBS executives gave evidence to the Scottish Affairs Committee on this very matter last week, and they were pressed on their rationale. I have read the transcript, and they made it clear that customer behaviour is changing and bank branch networks logically are changing to reflect that.
John Glen
I am going to carry on, I am afraid, but I will address a number of points that flow from that.
The banking industry estimates that branch visits have fallen by roughly one third since 2011, and that more than one third of our adult population regularly uses mobile banking apps. The Office for National Statistics estimates that 63% of adults used the internet to bank in 2017. It is not the Government’s role to speak for RBS, but its own figures paint a similar picture of substantial change. Strikingly, I understand that RBS estimates that only 1% of RBS customers in Scotland use any of its branches on a weekly basis. I am aware that there are disputes over that, and I will address that point in a moment. The banking industry is changing to accommodate this shifting customer behaviour. However, the Government recognise that closures have an impact on customers who still need or want to bank in person. We have addressed that and ensured that measures are in place so that everyone can continue to access banking services.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
The Minister said that only 1% of customers are accessing those branches. On an island of more than 1,000 people, that does not square with RBS telling us that only 13 people went into the branch. I do not need MI5 on the Isle of Barra to tell me who goes in the branch. We see exactly who goes in there. Twenty went in on the morning that RBS made that announcement. It got rid of a load of employees and hired people from an agency. Surely, as the largest shareholder, Government have to have some oversight over the cowboy behaviour that has been going on at the Royal Bank of Scotland—it is not Scotland any more.
John Glen
I am grateful for that intervention, but I will not take any more. I will address how the bank can be challenged on this point in a moment.
I want to make four points in the remaining time I have. First, I want to discuss the Post Office. The Government has improved face-to-face banking services at the Post Office. With more than 11,600 Post Office branches in the UK, it offers a robust network to ensure that customers have a physical opportunity to bank locally if they choose. We should not forget that 99.7% of people live within three miles of their local post office, and 93% within one mile. We are going to experience a cultural change in the appetite and behaviours around using post offices.
Earlier last year, the UK’s banks and building societies and the Post Office reached a new commercial agreement that set the standard for the banking services available at the Post Office—balance inquiries, cash withdrawals, cash deposits and depositing cheques—to ensure that there would be a uniform level of service across the country. That agreement means that 99% of personal customers and 95% of business customers can do their day-to-day banking there.
I am aware that for the service to maximise its potential, the banks’ customers must know about it and know how to use it. That is why my predecessor wrote to the Post Office and to UK Finance last month; I am expecting a response today and I expect to see substantive commitments from all involved. We can all do our day-to-day banking at the Post Office and we should spread that message far and wide, especially to those of our constituents who may be worried about this issue.
Secondly, I will address a number of the concerns raised by hon. Members about the access to banking standard. As well as bolstering the Post Office, the Government support the industry’s access to banking standard that all major high street banks have agreed to. The standard commits banks to a number of outcomes when a branch closes: first, that they will give at least three months’ notice of a closure and explain their decision clearly; secondly, that they will consider what services can still be provided locally and communicate clearly with customers about alternative ways to bank; and, thirdly, that they will ensure that support is available for customers who need extra help. That support includes help for the digitally excluded who want to learn how to bank online, and guidance for those who regularly use branches and who need to be shown where and how to use the local post office that can help them.
I understand that RBS has undertaken substantive discussions with MPs and other local stakeholders on the future of banking in the communities affected by closures.
John Glen
I am not going to give way again. Where it has not done so, it is incumbent on RBS to engage with Members of Parliament to do just that. In excess of the notice required by the standard, RBS has given six months’ notice of these closures. The access to banking standard is the practical way to shape a bank’s approach to local areas, and I encourage every Member to ensure that their community is aware and able to engage with their bank directly. The Lending Standards Board monitors and enforces the access to banking standard. It will monitor how RBS and other banks fulfil their obligations to their customers. The board can be contacted by Members of Parliament if they have legitimate concerns about the way in which the process is being fulfilled. That new and additional scrutiny is a necessary and welcome addition to the way the standard works.
Thirdly, I will address the current account switch service. Should other banks offer more extensive local facilities, the Government have made it easier than ever before to switch to an alternative, using the current account switch service. The switch service is free to use. It comes with a guarantee to protect customers from financial loss if something goes wrong, and it redirects any payments mistakenly sent to the old account, providing further assurance for customers. That means that, more than ever, banks are incentivised to work hard to retain their existing customers and attract new ones.
Finally, a number of points have been made about access to cash. I understand that RBS is considering whether an additional mobile bank branch would be required in the constituency of the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute. More widely, the Government continue to work with industry to secure the provision of free access to cash. In December, LINK—the organisation that runs the ATM network in the UK—committed to protecting all free-to-use ATMs that are a kilometre or more from the next nearest free-to-use ATM. This is a welcome strengthening of its financial inclusion programme.
I acknowledge that this is a very difficult matter, and I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing it to the House again. I commend all hon. Members who have contributed. I believe that I have set out clearly where there are some options to challenge the banks, if they feel justified in doing so.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Help-to-Save Accounts Regulations 2018
John Glen Excerpts(6 years, 9 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Help-to-Save Accounts Regulations 2018.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Austin. The commitment of the Government in supporting people and promoting aspiration has been consistent, targeted and innovative, and the Savings (Government Contributions) Act 2017 and these regulations mark another milestone in that commitment. Through the measures in the Act, including the Help-to-Save scheme, we have targeted our support to help working people on lower incomes to build savings.
Hon. Members will be aware of the research carried out in 2016 by the Money Advice Service, which shows that four in 10 working people across the UK lack a savings buffer, with less than £100 in savings available to them at any time; one quarter of households have total financial assets of less than £1,100; and, shockingly, almost 26% of working adults have no savings at all. That evidence speaks to a demonstrable lack of a financial safety net for many in our society, leaving households in a state of financial uncertainty, with which comes vulnerability to unexpected bills or income shocks, not to mention vulnerability to less than scrupulous lenders.
We therefore want to provide a strong incentive—and fair reward—for working people on lower incomes to build up a necessary savings buffer, which is exactly what the Help-to-Save scheme will do. It is part of the Government’s wider strategy to tackle poverty and promote life chances for all in the UK.
I shall set out how the scheme will operate and incentivise working families to save for the future. Access to savings will build their financial resilience, and it is not just working families who will reap the benefits; strong household finances have positive knock-on effects. The aim of the Help-to-Save scheme is ambitious: no less than to change the UK’s saving habits, which is something that I am proud to stand behind.
The regulations provide that the Help-to-Save account will be a four-year money savings account aimed at working people with lower incomes. We have already announced that we will be implementing the scheme with a single provider—National Savings & Investments. Using NS&I to build the account will ensure national coverage for the scheme. That is really important to ensure that all low-income working Britons have the chance to access Help-to-Save. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs will undertake the eligibility checks, and NS&I will carry out the day-to-day management of Help-to-Save accounts.
The regulations set out the major account rules and features, which include detail on the eligibility criteria, the conditions for opening an account, and the bonus calculation. I shall now discuss those matters in further detail.
The eligibility criteria have been designed to ensure that the scheme targets its support at low-income working families. Accounts will be available to individuals or households in the UK that are in receipt of working tax credit at a rate other than nil or, in certain circumstances, a child tax credit award. Accounts are also available to those who are in receipt of universal credit and have reached a minimum income threshold. Basing eligibility on existing universal credit and working tax credit criteria provides simplicity, while making the consumer journey as smooth and efficient as possible.
Provided that an individual was eligible when their account was opened, they will not lose their right to continue to use the account if their circumstances change, unless their application is discovered to have been based on false information initially. That is of course fair, and provides certainty for all account holders. The eligibility criteria for Help-to-Save, as set out in the regulations, will ensure that the scheme is correctly targeted, so that we can continue to deliver on our commitment. The Government are committed to building financial stability for the people of this country, and especially for those who need it most.
The regulations set out how the Government bonus is calculated. The bonus has been designed in such a way as to encourage a regular savings habit, while allowing for flexibility and circumstances. Eligible individuals will be able to deposit up to £50 each month, and at the end of two years savers will get a 50% Government bonus based on the highest balance achieved in the period. They can then carry on saving for another two years and get another 50% Government bonus on their additional savings.
The four-year length of the scheme supports account holders to build up a savings habit over a period of time, and paying a bonus at the halfway point, after two years, allows savers to see the benefit of their efforts to date, while also providing an incentive to carry on saving for another two years. Individuals can make withdrawals at any time as we recognise that people need to get access to their savings to cope with unexpected bills, although that will affect the balance that they may then carry forward.
Individuals will be able to deposit money into their Help-to-Save account only while they are resident in the UK. That is fair and consistent; the rules on absence periods mirror existing tax credit and universal credit rules. The regulations give HMRC necessary and proportionate powers to ensure compliance through inspecting claims where necessary and recovering any wrongly paid bonuses. Additionally, it will also not be possible for a person to hold a Help-to-Save account for another person’s benefit, except where an individual lacks the capacity to hold the account themselves.
The regulations also provide for a trial of the Help-to-Save scheme. The trial will test the new IT system and ensure that the service provides a smooth experience for everyone. We are confident that the trial and monitoring period will ensure that the scheme is easily accessible and simple to use; that is key in supporting eligible people to save and maximising the benefits of the scheme. The trial will be rolled out to increasing numbers, and the scheme will be available to all those who are eligible from October 2018 at the latest.
We are now close to the start of the Help-to-Save scheme, which I am convinced will be a highly effective incentive for people who want to save responsibly for the future. The regulations implement the policy by setting out the operation of the scheme, which is fair and simple, and an important way of promoting life chances. We want the UK’s working families to know that the Government stand behind them and will support their efforts to secure financial stability.
I was pleased that there was support from both sides of the House for the 2017 Act during its passage through the House, and I hope that we shall continue in the same vein today, as we consider the regulations.
John Glen
Today’s debate has been an interesting one, and I am grateful to hon. Members who have contributed. Before I deal with the detailed points that have been raised, I want to thank the many groups of individuals who have given their views on the proposals, including hon. Members, many of whom are here, who participated in debates during the passage of the Savings (Government Contributions) Act 2017.
On eligibility, the hon. Member for Oxford East suggested broadly that the passporting of eligibility rules excludes many people who could benefit from the scheme. I think the hon. Member for Glasgow Central mentioned people under 25, carers, and those who support themselves without claiming benefits. In essence, she was asking why we did not have bespoke rules. The eligibility rules balance simplicity and certainty for individuals and the aim of supporting low-income working families to become regular savers. Passporting the scheme in this way will ensure that it targets effectively those on low incomes, and is a well-established means of targeting Government support across a range of policies. There is a five-year window to enter the Help-to-Save scheme and applicants need to meet the eligibility criteria only at the time they register.
The hon. Lady mentioned eligibility rules in regulation 3(3), which refers to each date, and regulation 3(3)(b), which mentions the first date. The point is that the condition remains satisfied on each eligibility reference date. Respondents to the consultation were overwhelmingly in favour of keeping the eligibility criteria as simple as possible. Keeping in line with eligibility for other benefits and credits will keep the administrative burden on the customer to a minimum, therefore encouraging take-up and maximising the benefit of the scheme. Adding different thresholds for different groups would greatly complicate the scheme. The scheme has been designed in this way to create equality between applicants claiming working tax credits and universal credit.
In response to the point about different providers and the incentivisation of credit unions, using NS&I to build the accounts ensures national coverage of the scheme, as I said in my opening remarks. That is necessary for there to be confidence in the scheme when it starts. NS&I has a proven record in delivering a range of savings products. The hon. Member for Oxford East referenced our exchange last week on the performance of the voucher scheme.
John Glen
Tax-free childcare; I am sorry. I met with NS&I this morning to discuss the need to get things right and the improvements that have been made, but the hon. Lady raised a legitimate point. During the trial period, we will try to draw out any errors before the scheme is fully rolled out in October. We will use our expertise and what we have learned from the introduction of tax-free childcare to ensure that we provide a service that meets customers’ needs. We are always looking for opportunities to partner with others and we are open to ideas surrounding how we best ensure that as many people as possible benefit from the scheme.
The hon. Member for Glasgow Central referred to the number of people who might sign up. I thought it would be helpful for her to know that based on the take-up of previous schemes, our estimate is that 400,000 people will sign up to the accounts. I welcome the question on how customers will access the Help-to-Save accounts and our plans for the digitally excluded. Help-to-Save is an online savings account. All transactions, including checking the balance and paying in savings, can be managed online through gov.uk. Digitally excluded customers and people with particular needs will be able to manage their accounts through telephone banking. I offer reassurance that that will be through a 03000 number at the standard rate. That will also apply to calls that are transferred to NS&I. Paper statements will be issued to digitally excluded customers.
In terms of the future of the single provider, the regulations would need to be changed to provide for more than one provider. At this point, it would be sensible to monitor things as the scheme goes on. If there is evidence to suggest that additional providers would be helpful and would assist in the take-up, that is certainly something that the Government and I would be willing to look at.
Anneliese Dodds
I am sorry to intervene, but I wanted to double-check something with the Minister. I was encouraged to intervene because I think this is the only chance I will have. On the exact issue of eligibility, it was not totally clear whether applicants currently claiming universal credit will need to have fulfilled the income criterion and earned the equivalent of at least 16 hours a week at the national minimum wage only when they apply, which is what it looks like from paragraph 3(b), or also when their application is accepted. I share the Minister’s concern about having simplicity. I cannot get my head around this, and I have been able to look at all the different debates. Can he confirm that it is paragraph 3(b) that is right and not the introduction to that regulation, which suggests that the criteria will apply at the point of application and at the point of acceptance?
John Glen
I am very sorry for the lack of clarity in my remarks. The criteria will be fulfilled at the point of application. If that is satisfied, that is it for the duration. Many apologies for my ambiguity on that.
I want to deal with Help-to-Save’s impact on entitlement to benefits and credits. Help-to-Save is intended to help people build up a rainy day fund. The Government bonus will not count as income for means-testing purposes when assessing eligibility for housing benefit. The bonus and any savings accumulated in a Help-to-Save account will not affect tax credit awards and would start to impact on universal credit awards only if the customer had savings of £6,000 or over, including the money in their Help-to-Save account.
The hon. Member for Glasgow Central asked about access in the case of broken or abusive relationships. I would be happy to take representations on that issue and to look at it.
I hope that I have dealt with most of the points that have been raised. I acknowledge the broader point that the scheme does not solve every problem. It would be wrong for me to say that it will target everyone, but it is a step in the right direction. It will have a positive effect and it will deliver a change in behaviour with respect to savings that the work by the Money Advice Service two years ago showed is very much needed.
The Government’s vision is to empower working families with the confidence, skills and opportunity to manage their personal finances. The regulations will bolster people’s ability to save by giving a boost to what they manage to put aside each month. Help-to-Save will encourage such families to become regular savers and give them a financial buffer to protect them from income shocks. The ensuing financial resilience will benefit us all. Our economy is the sum of its parts, and the Government are committed to ensuring that every part of it and every person has the support they need. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Help-to-Save Accounts Regulations 2018.
RBS Global Restructuring Group and SMEs
John Glen Excerpts(6 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
I also commend the hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) for bringing this important debate here today. He started by talking about people’s incredulity that any bank could act in this way, and we have heard from right hon. and hon. Members from all parts of this House about how these things have impacted on people. As the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) said, families have suffered. That is the background to this; it is not just businesses that have suffered. People have lost businesses, lost incomes and lost homes. We have seen the break-up of marriages and mental health impacts. Grimly, as we heard from the Treasury Committee memo, the view was that customers could just hang themselves, and there is testimony of people attempting suicide. It is shocking stuff.
Some of those affected feel responsible for losing their family businesses and feel deep shame at that happening. These things have devastated people, many of whom, as we have heard today, had good businesses that were ready to contribute to the economy and to aid productivity. Earlier, the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) described GRG as death row, and it was for some.
When people tried to fight these injustices, they would face enormous financial costs. I understand that it cost £10,000 just to raise an action, which was beyond the capability of many people in those circumstances. Businesses with as few as 10 employees have been affected. This issue has had an enormously wide reach. If people could look to take forward legal action, they would find that the banks had sewn up all the solicitors in the area, making it impossible to get the correct level of representation.
As we have heard from Members on both sides of the Chamber—and the SNP feels just as strongly about this—we need to see justice for people. Those on the Government Front Bench should have heard loud and clear today the strength of feeling from all parts of this Chamber and beyond. People will be shocked and disappointed that these things have been allowed to happen. It is unacceptable that banks have devastated firms, spreading misery by making people bankrupt and homeless.
The FCA’s final summary of the Promontory report exposes a set of serious failures by RBS to protect companies it should have been serving. As the evidence mounts, so too does the responsibility to act.
Drew Hendry
I am glad to see the Minister nodding and that he seems to be willing to take this forward. I hope that substantial action is taken.
We in the SNP believe that the current system of dealings with the regulator and the litigation process on mis-selling is inadequate. It must be a priority for the Government to ensure that every victim of mis-selling is given fair and equal access, so that they can see justice done. As the hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) mentioned, an independent body is required. We call on the Minister to commit to and create a permanent commercial financial dispute resolution platform to serve the victims of mis-selling. He must pick up where the FCA has failed and produce a comprehensive review of banking culture to avoid a repeat of these things.
In the aftermath of the financial crisis, when all banks were required to rebuild their capital, it was alleged that the main focus of the Global Restructuring Group was to liquidate, rather than support, businesses through further lending. The main charge against GRG is that it prioritised the realisation of assets over other, more business customer-supportive actions. Recently, we have also heard accusations of the mis-selling of rate swaps, and GRG is not alone in drawing criticism. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) mentioned, SMEs have complained about tailored business loans sold by the Clydesdale Bank.
The Tomlinson report was damning of GRG. Much of the evidence pointed to businesses that were otherwise perfectly viable in the medium to long term, as we have heard in much of the testimony today, being moved into the RBS turnaround division—the GRG—and being trapped there, with no escape. Businesses were sunk by the bank, with the bank taking out all it could, beyond what was reasonable, and to such an extent that it directly contributed to the businesses’ financial deterioration and, in some cases, collapse. Technical breaches were used as excuses. There was evidence in some instances of covenants being used to put businesses in default and to transfer them out of local management.
Time does not allow me to go further into some of the details of the inequities that have been visited on people who have suffered at the hands of GRG and as a result of the unfair business banking practices we have heard about today. The Government must ensure that there is a firm mechanism that is fair for people, so that they can get justice in this case. I look forward to hearing what the Minister will tell us at the end of this debate.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
It is a privilege to stand at the Dispatch Box in my new role as Economic Secretary to the Treasury. I think we all feel the privilege of being Members of this House, but listening to today’s debate I also feel a great responsibility—to respond fully to the many serious examples that have been given of how the banking sector, and this group in particular, has failed so many of our constituents. I want to make it clear that in doing this job and in addressing the issues that have been raised today, I will stop at nothing in making improvements.
I begin by thanking the hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) and the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) for initiating the debate, and the Backbench Business Committee for granting it. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) for his work in the all-party parliamentary group on fair business banking.
What we all care about—it has been made very clear in today’s debate—is that businesses form the lifeblood of our economy and they need a reliable mechanism to deal with disputes with banks. I am vividly aware of that, because I grew up not in a bank but in a small business. I know the risks, the anxieties, the sleepless nights, the pressures on family life and the lack of assurance over salary, so I understand that the experiences of small businesses and their relationships with banks really matter. The Government have always maintained a commitment to support and engage with businesses both small and large, and that commitment will continue unfettered.
The Government recognise that access to finance, which is the crux of the debate, is necessary for businesses to grow organically. We have a strong record of supporting businesses large and small, for instance, through measures in the Budget. The competitive tax regime—corporation tax was cut from 28% to 19%, the lowest rate in the G20—is a significant part of that, but what is really important is that businesses have access to money at a reasonable cost, with reasonable assurances on the terms of securing those funds.
A fantastic range of evidence has been presented to us today. We heard about Mr Smith’s engineering business in Bridgend and Mr Topping’s business in Hazel Grove. We heard vivid personal testimony from my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Jack). My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton gave the striking example of a monthly interest rate payment that rose, almost inexplicably, from £6,000 to £17,000 a month, leading to catastrophic losses. The hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Ged Killen) gave examples that went back eight years. There were further examples from the hon. Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr), the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady), who spoke about Mr Mitchell, the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), and the hon. Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore), who mentioned Mr Richards. In those cases, tortuous processes were necessary to secure redress or a meaningful dialogue leading to an outcome. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mims Davies) has told me about the Sayers family, who have also suffered. We heard further powerful testimony from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who used uncharacteristically strong language—legitimately so.
I too have been contacted by constituents and I have been saddened to hear the stories of many former RBS customers. The Financial Conduct Authority is reviewing the situation; it has said that it is considering the matters arising from the report it commissioned and considering whether there is any basis for further action within its powers. It would not be appropriate for me to comment further at this precise time, but I will say that although, on day seven of my job, I have not yet met the head of the FCA, this will be the first topic that I will be raising with him.
Bob Stewart
First, I congratulate the Prime Minister on having the extremely good sense to appoint such a wonderful new Minister—a great friend, and someone who is really going to sort this problem out. May I ask on behalf of everyone present for the Government to be onside to ensure that the people who have lost so much are recompensed properly? We are not talking just about the future; we are taking about dealing with the past.
John Glen
I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words. Of course we need to reach a stage where we have some answers. We need to know what went wrong, and we need to secure an outcome that is acceptable to our constituents.
It is important to recognise the fundamental need for financial providers to act in accordance with the rules of the FCA and the spirit of its principles. When they do not act in accordance with those principles, we need to have confidence in the mechanisms that exist to resolve disputes.
Norman Lamb
The Minister has not yet mentioned the role of whistleblowers. Does he agree that they are vital to maintaining the integrity of the financial system, that they need proper protection—an office of the whistleblower—and that they should be rewarded for being brave enough to reveal wrongdoing?
John Glen
I listened very carefully to the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks and he is absolutely right. We need a change to the culture to enable wrongdoing to be exposed and dealt with, and I will look very carefully at this matter and the principles in his suggestions.
I am very aware of the allegations and the powerful testimony made against RB. I have taken on board the discussions we have had today, and later I will refer to some of the other substantive points raised across the House, but I want to be clear with Members: I saw the front page of City A.M. today, whose headline is “Go Hang”, and I do not condone the language in the GRG letter that RBS itself chose to release yesterday. I assure the House that the Government take these issues and any allegations of malpractice very seriously.
Nicky Morgan
Just for the record, will the Minister be very clear that RBS did not choose to release the letter; it was asked to do so, and like most other information, it has had to be dragged out of it by successive letters and attempts by Members of this House?
John Glen
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for her intervention and acknowledge the work she is doing on the Select Committee, and it would be much more helpful to this process if RBS were more co-operative with the Committee and the legitimate process of scrutiny that she and her Committee members are seeking to undertake.
Not only do the Government take these matters seriously, but the FCA is well aware of them and continues to address this issue. As I said, it will be the first thing I raise when I meet Andrew Bailey very shortly. In October, the FCA released a detailed summary of its skilled persons report, which examined RBS’s treatment of SMEs in financial difficulty. The FCA is now investigating the matters arising from the report.
I am aware of the frustration over the time the process is taking. The outcome of this investigation and the action the FCA proposes to take is critical to small businesses across this country, but I remind Members that the FCA is an independent body. That is vital to its role, credibility, authority and value to consumers, and they would be undermined if it were possible for the Government to intervene in day-to-day decision making. We can set the law, but we then must be bound by it and respect the judgment and independence of the FCA.
It would not be productive for me to address from the Dispatch Box every specific case and allegation, and I want now to turn to the wider issue of SMEs and how disputes are resolved between them and their banks.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
The Minister is making a thoughtful speech. Can he assure the House that the FCA will not be a toothless bulldog and that it will actually have some bite?
John Glen
I think the FCA understands, in the light of today’s debate, where the pressure is leading to and what action we will need to take if its response is not effective.
The key issue for the debate today, which I discussed with all-party group members yesterday afternoon, is that we must remember that there are already multiple avenues for resolution. I understand the frustrations Members have expressed about their effectiveness, but our smallest businesses have redress via the Financial Ombudsman Service for quick and informal resolution of disputes, the FCA has the power to take action to address issues that require resolution, and there is also the usual legal recourse available for businesses.
John Glen
No, I am going to make some more progress, but I might give way later.
The motion calls for an independent inquiry into the treatment of SMEs by financial institutions, reflecting the frustration addressed by Members across the House today in respect of the experience of their constituents. A number of contributions have also focused on the proposed new tribunal system to deal with financial disputes between banks and SMEs.
As the industry, the FCA and the Treasury progress discussions on this issue, all avenues will be considered. The FCA is undertaking a review, and it launched a discussion paper on SMEs in November 2015. I feel that that is a very long time ago, so I am reassured to be able to report to the House that it will be making a statement on Monday 22 January on its 2015 SME paper and on its consultation on widening SME eligibility for the Financial Ombudsman Service. I shall look carefully at what it comes up with. The FCA has promised to consult on widening the remit of the FOS for small businesses—the detail of that will be known—and to take a view on SMEs’ access to redress more broadly. I hope and believe that we will see significant steps forward.
I have thanked the hon. Member for Norwich South and the right hon. Member for North Norfolk for raising this issue. I also want to mention the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson), who mentioned Lloyds’ support for SMEs in the Carillion supply chain. I am pleased to report that it has been announced since we have been in the Chamber that Lloyds is taking the required steps to help those facing short-term problems as a result of the Carillion group going into liquidation by providing £50 million to support the SMEs affected. It is essential that the small businesses exposed to the Carillion insolvency should be given the support they need by their lenders. I was with the Business Secretary yesterday when we met representatives of the banks to explain that to them. It is in the UK’s interest that our businesses continue to prosper and thrive. That will mean allowing them ready access to finance at a serviceable cost. This is about getting the balance right, and that is what the Government are helping them to do.
I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate, and I will try succinctly to summarise the Government’s position. We certainly note the many intensely painful experiences and issues raised in the motion and by hon. Members in the debate. On GRG, it is right that we should wait for the conclusion of the FCA’s investigation of the matters arising from its skilled persons report before determining what further action needs to be taken. On the broader issue of dispute resolution, I remind the House of the existing avenues that are open to businesses, but the FCA is undertaking work to look at the relationship between SMEs and financial services providers. It is also right that we await the next steps in that area. However, I assure the House that this Government will continue to support businesses large and small when addressing these challenges.
Let my final words be these: small businesses and their continued success are critical to the continued growth and improvements in productivity of our economy, and SMEs’ improved confidence in the mechanisms to achieve redress from banks is crucial. In my role in this Government, I will be doing everything I can to ensure that the injustices that have been discussed today are addressed.
Clive Lewis
I thank the Minister for his response, and I thank all the hon. Friends and hon. Members across the House who have taken part in this passionate debate today, whether they are self-confessed capitalists, such as the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg), seeking to challenge crony capitalism or those such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr Campbell) who are perhaps seeking more traditional socialist transitional demands. There has been almost unanimous support across the House for the motion. We want justice for our constituents and a banking system fit for the 21st century. In effect, we seek nothing less than the renewal of the broken social contract between banks and the public. Unfortunately, the language used in today’s debate has painted a picture of a social contract that lies in tatters. We have heard references to a web of deceit, a dash for cash, systemic abuse, parasitic relationships and asset stripping. Three words that we have heard repeatedly today are “enough is enough”.
I want to make a couple of comments about the Minister’s input. He said in his opening remarks that he and his Government would stop at nothing and spoke of the need for a fundamental culture change, but he then offered little except more warm words. I understand that he has been in his job for just seven days, but this situation has been going on for some time now and the issues are out there, a point which has been made clearly by Members across the House. The Government still seem to favour a solution involving the Financial Ombudsman Service, but even with some extension of its role, it is suitable only for low-level disputes. It has no powers of disclosure. It cannot enforce decisions. It has no teeth. It cannot adjudicate. It cannot deal with complex cases.
John Glen
I fully recognise the frustration that the hon. Gentleman is expressing, but I also said that the Government rule nothing out. We will see what the proposals are and respond accordingly. I think that that is a reasonable position given the relationship between the Government and the FCA.
Clive Lewis
I acknowledge the Minister’s remarks, but time is not on the side of many people, so many of whom have been affected for so many years. I understand the Government’s reluctance to say anything today, but they must come to a conclusion quickly. From listening to Members from across the House, we understand that if we rebuild justice and confidence in our banking system, that would be good for business and good for banks and would maximise our country’s economic potential. I will conclude with the words of the late, great Errol Brown of Hot Chocolate fame—one of my favourites—because if we get this right,
“Everyone’s a winner, baby”.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House is deeply concerned by the treatment of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) by the Global Restructuring Group of the Royal Bank of Scotland; notes that there are wider allegations of malpractice in financial services and related industries; believes that this indicates a systemic failure to effectively protect businesses, which has resulted in financial scandals costing tens of billions of pounds; further believes that a solution requires the collective and collaborative effort of regulators, Parliament and Government; and calls for an independent inquiry into the treatment of SMEs by financial institutions and the protections afforded to them, and the rapid establishment of a tribunal system to deal effectively with financial disputes involving SMEs.
Oral Answers to Questions
John Glen Excerpts(6 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
The household debt-to-income ratio has fallen from 152% at the start of 2010 to 138% in the third quarter of 2017. It has remained significantly below its pre-crisis peak of 160% in the first quarter of 2008. I also note today’s report from the Institute for Fiscal Studies on the same subject.
Kate Green
I, too, have read the IFS report, which points out that debt is a real problem for a significant minority of low-income householders who are struggling to pay the bills and make debt repayments. Does the Minister accept that imposing a freeze on benefits when inflation is standing at 3% will make things even tougher for those families?
John Glen
The report also points out that the percentage of households with financial liabilities in the four lowest wealth quintiles fell between June 2010 and June 2014. The Government are fully committed to helping the poorest households, and just last year the Money Advice Service spent £49 million on giving 440,000 free-to-client sessions to assist those in difficulty.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
The UK has the second highest level of household debt in the G8. On our high streets, loan sharks are masquerading as household goods stores. Does the Minister agree that we have a rather unhealthy addiction to consumer debt in this country?
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
John Glen
I am familiar with the hon. Gentleman’s situation and his correspondence with the Financial Conduct Authority. I believe that he has met FCA representatives. The FCA has strong powers to ban products. It has unlimited fines at its disposal and it can order repayments. As the hon. Gentleman knows, 51% of applicants for loans will receive the advertised rate, and those are the terms that the FCA works to.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
When will incentives to save exceed those to borrow?
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Personal debt is the biggest worry for many people I meet. The figures released by the Institute for Fiscal Studies today show that a third of those on the lowest incomes are in net debt. This debt is persistent; it is a spiral that people get stuck in for years. What are the UK Government doing to improve the financial position of households with the lowest incomes?
Kirsty Blackman
Over a third of people aged under 45 live in households with financial wealth of less than zero. For too many people there is not enough money at the end of each month or each week. From next year individuals earning less than £26,000 in England will pay more income tax than they would if they lived in Scotland; how can the Minister justify that?
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
Will the Minister confirm that the lowest paid have had a real-terms pay increase of 7% since 2015, showing that this Government’s policies are targeted to help the lowest paid?
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the Minister acknowledge that the reasons why a quarter of people on low incomes are currently experiencing significant problems with arrears or debt repayment include, first, his Government not taking on board Labour’s programme to rein in credit card debt and, secondly, the fact that their changes to the tax threshold have been outweighed for the poorest people by alterations to social security?
John Glen
The hon. Lady needs to acknowledge the transformation that the national living wage has brought to so many people and this Government’s willingness to increase it above inflation. It is also worth noting that interest payments as a proportion of income are currently at the lowest on record.
Chris Davies (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
The Government have undertaken a significant amount of work to assess the economic impacts of leaving the EU, and that is part of our continuing programme of rigorous and extensive analytical work on a range of scenarios. The Government are committed to keeping Parliament informed, provided that doing so would not risk damaging our negotiating position.
Stephen Kinnock
The Chancellor has said that he wants a jobs-first Brexit. Given that 80% of the British economy is in the services sector, and given that the EEA-based model of Brexit is the only one that gives maximum access for our services industries, does the Minister agree that an EEA-based Brexit is the only viable option for our country?
Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)
First, I welcome the Minister to his place in the Treasury. I am sure he will do an excellent job.
Is it not impossible to assess the impact of leaving, whether we are talking about the European economic area or the European Union, without knowing where we are headed? It is time for the Government to be clear about the end state of negotiations on financial services. I would like to see them publishing a position paper on financial services, particularly one informed by the meeting between the Prime Minister and the Chancellor last week.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
Academic assessments by the Treasury are crucial, but my constituents are reeling from hundreds of job losses at Vauxhall. Last night’s comments by the chief executive officer of Airbus that whatever Brexit we have will be net negative means we are talking again about hundreds of my constituents’ jobs on the line. I plead with the Minister to take this seriously, keep us in the single market and customs union, and keep my constituents in their jobs.
John Glen
I assure the hon. Lady that I take this very seriously, and the Government’s intention certainly is to negotiate a deep and special partnership on economic and security matters. There is room for positivity; if we look at what GSK, Google and Apple have said, we see that that attitude of positivity and optimism as we look forward is necessary.
Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that since deciding to leave the EU this Government have overseen record jobs, with quarter 4 figures for 2017 showing improved productivity? Does he agree that Britain’s best years lie ahead?
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
Childcare Vouchers
John Glen Excerpts(6 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey. I congratulate the hon. Member for Belfast South (Emma Little Pengelly) on her wide-ranging and thorough speech, and my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) on her opening speech, which clearly demonstrated that she understands the issues and has tremendous knowledge in this area. I wish the new Minister, who I think is the third Children’s Minister we have had—I suspect he is the Children’s Minister.
Alex Cunningham
He is not the Children’s Minister. I understand that we do have a new Children’s Minister, but I am sure that the Treasury Minister wants to understand childcare as much as anyone else does. Believe me, he has some way to go, being a member of the Tory Government.
Childcare delivered fairly for all children plays a major role in ensuring that no individual fails to get the chance of having a better start in life, even before they get into the school classroom. It also helps parents to realise their potential and make the most of their lives. I served as the cabinet member for children and young people at Stockton Council, and I well remember speaking with head teachers after Labour’s groundbreaking Sure Start centres were developed and nursery provision was expanded beyond all recognition. They told me how children were far better equipped and ready for school than the groups that came before them. Their social skills were better, they were used to structure, they were already participating in activities and they had a level of confidence that made them ready to learn. That was all great stuff. The hon. Member for Belfast South spoke about how much more possible educational attainment is for children who have had proper childcare and proper nursery provision. We must not lose sight of that, as it drives results. We see those results in our primary schools and secondary schools today. The children coming out of secondary schools now were among the first to benefit from the Sure Start programme.
I always acknowledge that the coalition Government and the last Conservative Government helped build on Labour’s legacy—children continue to benefit even more—but it is crucial that that success is not undermined by the gap between the haves and the have-nots being widened. We have always had a two-tier system. Even when Governments of the past got sensible and first offered free childcare, those who could afford more and better provision gave some children an advantage. I doubt that will ever change, but surely there is no need for the current Government to make changes that will disadvantage those least likely to be able to afford top-up fees, effectively creating a two-tier system.
When discussing areas of policy relating to childcare and the education of children, it is vital that we focus not only on cost, but on outcome. We know that the early years are one of the most formative times of a person’s life and have significant influence over their development. That is why I urge the Government not to treat childcare as something that can be cut back. By cutting back or reducing access, we put a stop sign in front of the poorest children in our country. From what I see, the changes proposed around the voucher scheme will effectively do just that: reduce provision.
I have looked at the childcare voucher scheme, as other Members have—they have already talked about it—and I compared it with the tax-free childcare system that parents will have no choice but to use if they sign up after April. From my observations, tax-free childcare is considerably the less favourable of the two options. Existing users of childcare vouchers will be able to choose the system that benefits them most, whereas applicants after April will have no such choice. That creates a two-tier system, where some children will be disadvantaged, depending on the amount their parents can afford to pay.
The Prime Minister’s words on the steps of Downing Street 18 months ago are much quoted. She said:
“We will do everything we can to help anybody, whatever your background, to go as far as your talents will take you.”
It is a well-worn quote. I have to believe that those words applied to young children as much as to anyone else, and I just wonder if the Prime Minister knows how these particular proposals fly in the face of her pledge and affect the families she may have once described as “just about managing”. I doubt the new Education Secretary, with whom I served on the Education Select Committee and with whom I share a passion for early years’ provision, would really want to see his first few months in office marred by the creation of a system that was far from equal. Has he even had the chance to reconsider the policy ahead of today’s debate? Since we are debating childcare vouchers, I am sure many of us would tell the Prime Minister and her new Secretary of State that the new tax-free childcare service is not fit for purpose. It does not fairly replace childcare vouchers and they should think again.
There is a real opportunity for the new Secretary of State and the new Children’s Minister—it is a shame he is not here to debate with us today—to demonstrate their listening credentials and order a review of the whole policy area. Potential inequality is not just about the ability to pay; it is also very much about the status of an individual or couple. In the gig economy we are now living in, are we putting the provision for some children at risk because their parents are likely to face rapidly changing working environments? I raised that with the Minister of the day, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), when the policy was being developed in 2014. I said:
“For many, particularly those with fluctuating incomes such as the self-employed, or those likely to have a change in circumstances later in the year, the complexity will be so great that it is likely to be impossible to provide a better off calculator that can cover many of the situations in which claimants find themselves.”—[Official Report, 17 November 2014; Vol. 588, c. 90.]
My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North, who has spoken widely today, also spoke in that debate. She said:
“It is worth remembering that some 520,000 families currently benefit from ESC vouchers. The Government’s impact assessment sets out a number of case studies where families might be better off or, indeed, worse off under the new top-up payments.”—[Official Report, 17 November 2014; Vol. 588, c. 68.]
That was three years ago, so the Government have had enough time to find answers to those problems and inequalities.
The Childcare Vouchers Providers Association highlighted that some families will actually lose money under tax-free childcare compared with vouchers. That point has been repeated several times today, but it is worth repeating: people will lose out. Does the Minister know who will lose out and who will benefit? What is he doing about those who will lose out? Are there any plans to ensure equality of opportunity and access to provision? What happens when a parent in the gig economy earns less than £120 week for a while? At what point do they lose that tax-free childcare? I do not know the answer to that; I hope the Minister does. It seems to me that the system is a wee bit messy and confused. Until there is proper understanding of the change to a complete tax-free childcare system, the Government should at least extend the deadline for childcare vouchers. Has the Minister or the new Secretary of State considered that?
I also note the difference regarding the age of a child receiving tax-free childcare. Vouchers can be used for children up until the September following their 15th birthday, but that figure drops to the September following their 11th birthday under the tax-free system. Can the Minister share with me the logic behind that decision? Are the Government suggesting that 11-year-olds can be left home alone while their parents are at work? Are they assuming that everybody has grandparents and other family members to stay with, or do they have to find the cash themselves to help pay for childcare? We cannot escape the fact that this all boils down to cash: the cash that the Government are prepared to invest in childcare and the cash that some parents will have to find if their children are to be looked after so that they can have peace of mind while they are at work.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
I am pleased to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I thank everyone who signed the petition and made their views heard. I understand that the petition has attracted more than 115,000 signatures, which goes to show the importance of the Government’s support for childcare costs. This is a key issue, and we have had a thorough debate. Seven Members made very full and thoughtful contributions, and I will respond to as many of their points as I can.
For many parents, being able to afford good-quality childcare is essential to working and supporting their families, so it is right that we have this debate. I am responding to the debate rather than the Minister with responsibility for childcare because tax-free childcare and childcare vouchers operate through the tax system. The Government have introduced tax-free childcare, which will benefit more than 1 million working households and mean that parents are eligible for up to £2,000 per child per year to help towards childcare costs.
John Glen
Let me make my introductory remarks, and then I will give way.
Let me draw Members’ attention to the three key reasons why we support the replacement of childcare vouchers with tax-free childcare. First, the Government believe that childcare vouchers are unfair. Tax-free childcare is fairer and better targeted than the voucher scheme. For example, only about 5% of employers offer vouchers, which limits their reach to about half of working parents, not to mention that self-employed parents are completely excluded from the scheme, which pays no regard to the number of children in each family and disadvantages lone-parent families.
Secondly, tax-free childcare has a broader reach. It is open to all working families with children aged under 12 that meet the earnings criteria. That ensures that families who were excluded from childcare vouchers can be brought into tax-free childcare, and benefits families with the highest childcare costs—namely, most of those with young children.
Thirdly, tax-free childcare is simpler to use—I will come to the IT issues that Members raised. Employers usually pay third-party providers to administer childcare voucher schemes. The Government do not believe that paying third-party providers is a good use of taxpayers’ money. Some £220 million has gone on such administration since the scheme began. A voucher scheme is therefore an ineffective way of delivering support to families. Under tax-free childcare, parents manage their own accounts online. The case for change is clear, as it was to the Labour party when it announced at its 2009 conference, when it was in government, that the existing system would be shut down.
I will now happily give way to the hon. Lady.
Ruth George
I thank the Minister for giving way. I was simply going to ask about his earlier comment that 1 million families will benefit from tax-free childcare. Is that the number who will benefit in comparison with having no support with childcare at all, or does it take into account the approximately 550,000 families who would actually be better off under vouchers than under tax-free childcare?
Alex Cunningham
I have a simple question: is the Minister content that we should have inequality in the system and that some parents should receive a greater benefit than others?
Catherine McKinnell
I thank the Minister for giving way. He is making an argument for broadening access to support with childcare, with which no one would disagree, but he is not making a compelling case for closing down the support that hundreds of thousands of working families already access. He needs to explain that before he can convince anyone, in the Chamber or outside, that it is a good idea to shut the voucher scheme.
John Glen
I thank the hon. Lady for her remarks and for the way in which she introduced the debate. She must reflect on the fact that the Government are closing the scheme, but not to existing recipients. There is no question of existing recipients not being able to continue making their current arrangements. It is unrealistic to say that that is the case—we are not shutting it down to existing claimants.
Let me make some progress. As the hon. Lady said in her remarks, tax-free childcare will be rolled out by 14 February 2018, and HMRC has done extensive work to ensure that the childcare system is ready for full roll-out. The advent of tax-free childcare will bring greater benefits to British families: it is better targeted and simpler than childcare vouchers. It is therefore right that we continue with the reform as planned, to the benefit of millions of households. The Government recognise that working parents have to make difficult financial decisions, and we are committed to supporting families to ensure that the cost of childcare does not deter them from working, or working more, if they wish to.
The hon. Member for Belfast South (Emma Little Pengelly) made a thoughtful point about female employment and the gender pay gap. The female employment rate is at a joint-record high of 70.8%. Since 2010, the number of women in work has increased by 1.4 million. I acknowledge that there is more work to be done, but the gender pay gap for full-time employment is at a record low. While I am not complacent—three days into my job at the Treasury, I am already focused on pay equality—we must acknowledge that some progress has been made.
Beyond introducing tax-free childcare, we have demonstrated our commitment to supporting families through multiple measures, to ease the burden that bit more. That is why the Government will be spending more money on childcare support than ever before. By 2020, we will be spending about £6 billion to help parents with the cost of childcare. That includes doubling the free childcare hours for working parents of three and four-year-olds from 15 to 30 hours a week, saving families around £5,000 per year per child. That is making a real difference to the lives of families across the country.
We are supporting working families on the lowest incomes who receive universal credit. We have increased the amount that working parents can get towards their childcare costs through universal credit from 70% to 85%. As wages increase, parents can use the online calculator to decide which offer best meets their needs: staying on universal credit or moving to tax-free childcare.
The Government have been gradually introducing tax-free childcare to replace childcare vouchers since April 2017 and, as I have said, tax-free childcare has a greater reach than childcare vouchers. Today, we announced that the offer is now open to families whose youngest child is under nine, and on 14 February it will open to all families with children aged under 12 who meet the earnings criteria. Each parent in the household must earn the equivalent of 16 hours at minimum wage a week—about £120 a week—and each parent must earn less than £100,000 per annum. Those criteria will ensure that the majority of working households will benefit, and it means that those working parents who are excluded from childcare vouchers because they earn at or just above the minimum wage will be able to access tax-free childcare.
Because tax-free childcare does not require any input from an employer, many self-employed parents will be able to get help with childcare costs for the very first time. Tax-free childcare is also a simpler system for parents to navigate. Parents open an online account and manage their deposits and childcare payments through it themselves. The system will also be easier and simpler for childcare providers to manage as they will no longer have to deal with multiple voucher providers. Tax-free childcare also offers more generous support for parents of disabled children, who can get up to £4,000 a year and remain eligible for tax-free childcare until the age of 17.
I will have to look into the assessments and write to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe). At this point, I do not know whether that data exists. However, once tax-free childcare is open to all eligible parents and fully established, we expect it to be worth around £1,100 a year per household. That additional support is essential for many parents to return to work. It is clear that the replacement of childcare vouchers with tax-free childcare will bring huge benefits to parents.
I want to address points made by a number of hon. Members on delivery. The childcare service is a groundbreaking new digital service and, as of today, more than 300,000 parents have opened an online account. The hon. Members for East Lothian (Martin Whitfield) and for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) referred to internet access, and the hon. Gentleman referred to banking issues, which we discussed on Thursday. The childcare service helpline can be called when online access cannot be secured.
We have seen a reduction in errors on screen down to 2%—it was 5% to 6% last summer. Enormous progress has therefore been made. The hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) asked about an iron-clad guarantee, which is a little unrealistic given what has happened to Government IT projects for all parties over all generations since we have had IT. However, HMRC is working closely in partnership with National Savings and Investments, and with Atos as a delivery partner. Significant progress is being made to reduce those error screens significantly, to give a greater level of confidence on the roll-out of the new scheme.
While the vast majority of parents have used the service without difficulties, I acknowledge that some have experienced them. I can only apologise to those individuals. HMRC has apologised to those parents and has already made significant improvements to the childcare service, as I just set out. Overall, parents are receiving eligibility results more quickly, with the vast majority receiving a response within five working days, if not immediately, and fewer parents are experiencing technical difficulties.
HMRC will continue to implement technical updates to improve further the experience for all customers. It has arrangements in place to ensure that no parents miss out as a result of technical issues, and it is providing payments directly to parents in lieu of the Government top-up. Where individuals have missed out, compensation is available for those sums missed out on due to those technical issues. As I mentioned, a dedicated helpline is provided.
I want to address the reach of tax-free childcare. The scheme is designed to be responsive to parents’ needs. All parents who would have been eligible for childcare vouchers will be eligible for tax-free childcare provided that they have a child aged under 12 and that they and their partner, if they have one, earn around £120 a week. The generous upper earnings limit of £100,000 per parent means that the vast majority of working parents will be able to claim help with childcare costs.
However, the Government recognise that a small number of parents who were eligible for vouchers will not be eligible for tax-free childcare. Most of those parents will no longer be eligible as they are couples with only one partner in work, or where one is earning over £100,000 a year. Government spending has to be prioritised where it will have the biggest impact. We have struck a balance between universal childcare offers and those targeted to support families who need help the most with the costs of childcare. Tax-free childcare is better targeted than vouchers, where support is dependent on who a parent works for rather than the needs of their household.
Alex Cunningham
I sense that the Minister is getting towards the end of his speech. People in the gig economy see tremendous fluctuations in their income and might not meet the £120-a-week threshold at any one time. What will the Government do about such people? Will they just drop out?
Emma Little Pengelly
Although I welcome the fact that female participation in the workforce is at record high levels of about 70%, male participation in the same age cohort is about 79% to 80%—a significant gap. The Minister has outlined the targeting of measures at those most in need, but has the Treasury given consideration to the productivity gap between males and females? Research has indicated that a significant percentage of women, when asked about participation, give caring for children in the home as the primary reason, but there is a significant economic impact. That policy agenda should also be targeted by a childcare policy.
John Glen
As a former policy person, I acknowledge the detail of the hon. Lady’s analysis, and that there is more work to be done. I shall take that back to the Treasury as we try to address all dimensions of the productivity challenge.
The Government think it is right that we replace childcare vouchers with tax-free childcare from April 2018. However, I would like to reassure any parent who is currently receiving vouchers but is not eligible for tax-free childcare that there will be no automatic withdrawal of the voucher scheme. If they currently receive vouchers and their employer continues to provide them, they can continue to receive vouchers as long as they stay with that employer.
Steve McCabe
I acknowledge what the Minister says, but what will he do about parents who may change their employer? Presumably those parents will be discriminated against.
John Glen
I think they will be eligible for the tax-free childcare scheme.
Again, I thank all those who signed the petition, and all hon. Members who spoke this afternoon. As I have set out, tax-free childcare will help more households, and is better targeted and simpler, than childcare vouchers. HMRC has done extensive work to ensure that the childcare system is ready for full roll-out. It is therefore right that we continue with the reform as planned, to the benefit of millions of households around the country.
Banks and Communities
John Glen Excerpts(6 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gapes. I thank the hon. Member for East Lothian (Martin Whitfield) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) for securing this debate. I recognise the 10 passionate speeches we have had from the Back Benches and acknowledge the Backbench Business Committee for allowing the debate. I am glad that we can discuss such an important topic as I represent the Government for the first time as Economic Secretary to the Treasury.
It is clear—we all agree—that banks play an important role in our communities and that their services make a valuable everyday difference to millions of individuals, consumers and businesses. I will try to respond to some of the points made and set out some of the areas where I think there are some positives, before I conclude.
Banks exist to help us achieve our goals in life: a rung on the housing ladder, starting a new business, paying in that first pay cheque or saving for that first family holiday. We have heard a lot about the closure of physical branches and I feel that frustration, which has been expressed in my own constituency mailbag this week with the closure of Lloyds bank in Wilton, just outside Salisbury.
I acknowledge the frustration that so many hon. Members have expressed and that their constituents have passed on to them. It is frustrating and disappointing. The closures represent inconvenience and interruption in the pattern of local daily life. It also feels like a greater challenge in a community’s identity—a point made by a number of colleagues this afternoon—particularly in areas where local amenities are limited. That can sometimes be part of a wider changing profile for the high streets and there are a number of challenges that need to be overcome.
I understand hon. Members’ concerns about the announcement that RBS and other banks have made in recent months, and it is right and natural for those who represent the community to ask why those closures must take place. However, I need to be clear at the outset, before I can look at some of the mitigating measures, that these are, despite what we might hope, commercial decisions for each bank to take without Government intervention.
Brendan O'Hara
Will the Minister confirm that the Government can intervene if they wish to but have chosen not to do so?
John Glen
I will come in a moment to express where the intervention can take place and where that responsibility lies, but first I want to refer to some of the cases made in the debate.
The hon. Member for East Lothian referred to a bank branch closure where the nearest branch is 12 miles away, but there is a Lloyds bank within walking distance. I also want to refer to the point—[Interruption.] It is important that I try to respond to some of the points made, so let me progress. He and another hon. Member made the point about cash deposits at post offices. All post offices can take cash deposits up to £2,000, which covers 95% of transactions, but arrangements can be made by a bank with a post office should customers wish regularly to deposit more.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Luke Graham) intervened and talked about the branch in Alloa. There is a Yorkshire Building Society bank within walking distance. In Kinross, there is a TSB within walking distance. I would encourage constituents to vote with their feet. I may be destroying shareholder value in RBS and therefore the Government, but we should make clear where there are alternatives, because they do exist. The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara) referred to closures in his constituency—I think it was Campbeltown. There is a Halifax branch within walking distance. In Rothesay, there is a TSB within walking distance—[Interruption.] I can concede—I am not going to give way, I have very limited time.
Mike Gapes (in the Chair)
Order. I would be grateful if Members did not shout. We have limited time and the Minister should be allowed to respond without being shouted at.
John Glen
Thank you, Mr Gapes. If I am going to get through and give some detail, I need to press on. The point I am making is that, in a number of cases, alternatives are available. I want to make that clear—it needs to be made clear by us to our constituents.
The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) and another hon. Member made a constructive suggestion about shared premises. That is obviously a decision for individual banks to consider, but through the office that I hold I would encourage the industry to think creatively about how banks can continue to serve their customers and minimise the impact of bank closures. Those are certainly conversations that I will take forward in my engagement with the industry.
Let me get back to the script, as it were, and try to make some progress so that I can address some of the issues that have been raised.
John Glen
I will not, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind. I realise that his constituency is perhaps unique in the United Kingdom, and I acknowledge that those alternatives are not going to be available in every circumstance, but that was not my purpose in making that point. What I am trying to say is that there are alternatives and we should be talking about them.
The responsibility of banks is to consider the impact of closures on a community and to mitigate that wherever possible, but as we have heard today, and as the title of the debate suggests, banks are much more than just bricks and mortar. Their contribution to our economies and communities does and should go much wider: providing basic bank accounts to those who need them; providing the mortgages that help young people to get their first step on the housing ladder; and offering financial education.
I will now set out some of the ways in which banks are developing and evolving. Like all businesses, they must adapt to changing customer behaviour. The industry estimates that branch visits have fallen by roughly a third since 2011, just seven years ago. Three times out of five, when customers need to make a payment or otherwise interact with their current account, they use a mobile to do it. It is easier and quicker than it has ever been before to manage our money in that way. We are much less likely to use a physical branch on a regular basis, and that has driven some of these decisions. The banks’ branch networks are changing to reflect that, and I suspect that trend will continue.
Earlier this year, we saw the implementation of open banking, a new initiative that will transform how we are able to manage our finances, unlocking new opportunities for businesses and consumers. Good-quality broadband is important to ensure that these innovations do not leave anyone behind. That is why the Government are taking action to support access to these new digital services. The new universal service obligation on high-speed broadband will give everyone in the UK access to speeds of at least 10 megabits per second by 2020, which should play a big role in enabling some more of these services.
We are supporting customers who still need or want to bank in person. The Government support the industry’s access to banking standard, which commits to providing a minimum of three months’ notice. Some banks are giving longer periods—I believe that RBS was giving six months’ notice of closures in December. I note the observations of some Members on the inadequacy of that process, to which the banks will need to respond, but there is a practical way that we can shape the banks’ approach in a local area. The access to banking standard is overseen by the independent Lending Standards Board. It will monitor how banks, including RBS, fulfil their obligations to their customers under the standard, and it is responsible for enforcement.
The Government have supported improved face-to-face banking services at the post office, which is a critical element. The post office network is in good health, and the number of branches grew significantly in 2017 for the second year running. As a courtesy, I need to make way for the hon. Member for East Lothian to respond to the debate.