Mortgage Prisoners

Debate between John Glen and Gordon Marsden

Thursday 6th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Government about an issue which I know has caused widespread concern throughout the House. A range of matters have been raised in the 13 Back-Bench speeches that we have heard today. I will do my best to respond to the points that have been raised, but if I am unable to respond to all of them, I will write to the Members concerned.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) for securing this important debate. He has worked tirelessly to raise awareness, both as a founder member of the all-party parliamentary group on mortgage prisoners and through his recent ten-minute rule Bill, the Banking (Consumer and Small Business Protection) Bill.

It may be helpful if I begin by briefly reminding the House of the background to this matter, and, in particular, the reasons why the Government have sought to tighten mortgage lending regulations in recent years. In the aftermath of the banking crisis, there was a consensus that the prevailing regulatory framework at that time had left UK borrowers exposed to lax lending practices, with lenders providing mortgages without adequately checking borrowers’ ability to repay them. That enabled some to secure self-certified mortgages, or mortgages with loan-to-income ratios of 120% or more.

The Government and regulators therefore substantially strengthened mortgage lending regulations to ensure that borrowers would be better protected in the future. The new regulations, resulting from the 2014 mortgage market review, require lenders to conduct thorough affordability assessments to consider evidence of customers’ income and expenditure before agreeing to a new loan. I believe that was the right thing to do. It ensures that consumers can only borrow what they can be reasonably expected to pay back, and in doing so it protects borrowers and lenders alike against future economic shocks.

A number of colleagues across the House have raised individual cases that they have encountered and meetings they have had with constituents who are looking in on proceedings today. It is undoubtedly the case that these strengthened regulations made switching to a new provider more challenging. That left some borrowers unable to switch even when they were up to date with repayments and had an unbroken repayments record. That has been mentioned a number of times in this debate.

I recognise that this is a hugely stressful and difficult situation for the individuals concerned, and it is clear to me that they face an unfair regulatory barrier. Therefore, it has been my priority as Economic Secretary to find a solution. That is why I instructed —not reluctantly or grudgingly, but determinedly and assuredly—Treasury officials to work with the FCA, which is ultimately responsible for regulations, to consider ways of helping trapped borrowers switch more easily in future. I recognise the frustration about the rapidity of the changes and I want to set out now where they are at and what we can expect in the coming weeks.

The FCA’s proposed changes will see its affordability test move from being absolute to relative. Questions have been asked about what that will mean but I cannot set that out today because the work is ongoing. However, I will say a little more about what is going to happen. It will enable lenders to accept switching consumers, providing they are up to date with repayments and are not borrowing more. The consultation for these changes will run until the end of this month and I then expect the FCA to implement these changes rapidly—later this year.

Let me give the House a practical example of the difference this will make for consumers. A borrower might have taken out a mortgage under the previous lighter touch regulations but their fixed rate deal has run its course and they are currently repaying their mortgage on a standard variable rate, in keeping with the terms of their existing mortgage contract—although I accept that these are terms that they never thought would lead to them being locked into that higher rate. If they are looking to switch to a new deal, the current affordability assessments may prevent them from doing so—and clearly they do—perhaps because the difference between their income and expenditure leaves little room for margin. However, under the new rules there will be no such regulatory barrier; instead a good repayment history can be used as the reasonable basis for a lender to offer them a new deal.

While I recognise that lenders will want to consider their commercial risk appetite to take on these borrowers, and I recognise and hear the calls from various colleagues across the House about assurances over who will provide these mortgages, I would like to take this opportunity to encourage the lenders to think hard about how they might best support those looking to remortgage to a more affordable deal. I have had conversations about that with chief executives and industry representatives in recent months and I see plenty of innovation across the mortgage market.

[Gordon Marsden]

The Minister is giving some fairly strong details about what he hopes may come out of the consultation, but that does not alter two facts. First, this will simply be an option, not an obligation. Secondly, given the track record of Cerberus, can the Minister give the House today any assurance that such companies will sign up to this?

[John Glen]

On the hon. Gentleman’s first point, the regulator is not making up these rules in isolation in an ivory tower. It is working with industry representatives to ensure that the changes it delivers will create an environment with an effective outcome. There is no point having a solution that does not solve the problem. I cannot set out the range of options that will exist, but I am confident that the work being undertaken by the FCA will lead to an effective outcome. I will come to the hon. Gentleman’s second point later when I talk about the points that he and others made about Cerberus.

Equitable Life

Debate between John Glen and Gordon Marsden

Thursday 31st January 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)]

It is a privilege to respond to the debate. First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) on their tireless work on this issue, which has helped the Government to achieve so much. I attended a meeting of the all-party parliamentary group for justice for Equitable Life policyholders last September, and the respect of colleagues on both sides of the House for those Members’ work was clear.

This well-documented topic has been explored once again in detail today, with 10 eloquent and measured speeches by Members on both sides of the House. I need to declare an interest. My father worked in a glasshouse nursery all his life and paid in modest sums each month to Equitable Life. He received the compensation of 22.4% to a bond that he was paying into. Sadly, he died of mesothelioma aged 69, just two years ago. I know that it was a matter of grave concern for him, and he took the money and invested it somewhere else. I am very familiar with the long history of this case.

I want to take this opportunity to remind Members that, on this issue, this Government have taken more action than any previous one. Using the ombudsman’s findings, we determined the reduced returns that policyholders received to be £4.1 billion. That is significantly more than the £340 million arrived at by the previous Labour Government in the Chadwick review, which was then dismissed. That increase is because we generously assumed that every new investor consulted the incorrect regulatory returns and, on the sole basis of those returns, made an investment.

In 2010, we announced that up to £1.5 billion would be made available for payments. Those payments were tax-free, which increased their value even more. Out of that £1.5 billion, following representations from groups such as the Equitable Members Action Group, we decided to pay the group of with-profits annuitants in full. The total cost of those annual payments was estimated to be around £625 million. As several Members have mentioned, there is an additional £100 million contingency fund in place to provide for annuitants should they live longer than their actuarial forecast, and we expect the contingency to be drawn on from the middle of the next decade. The remaining funding was distributed pro rata to remaining eligible policyholders. The scheme operated successfully for around five years, and in 2016 the operation was wound down.

There has, reasonably, been a degree of repetition in the asks made today, and three key points were raised. I have listened closely to those representations, and I would like to deal with some of them in turn. First, I have received suggestions that all policyholder records should be retained indefinitely, in case further payments are made. There has been correspondence between the Treasury and the APPG on that matter, and I can assure Members that relevant records are currently retained and will continue to be as long as it is legal. I can reassure the House that there are no plans to destroy any records.

Secondly, I am aware that some are dissatisfied with the £1.5 billion and suggest that it is incompatible with the ombudsman’s report. However, Members will be aware that the ombudsman wrote to the APPG on that issue and said that the Government’s decisions could not be said to be incompatible with her report. That spending decision was taken in the wider context of other spending priorities. I recognise that there is a whole range of opinions about spending priorities. That is what we do—we make relative decisions. This decision needed to be fair to the taxpayer, who funded these payments, and £1.5 billion was, on balance, judged to be the most appropriate figure.

I want to be clear: when this settlement was made, it was not subject to future review by the Government. I note the inference by the APPG and Members from the statement at the time, but no specific commitment was made to return to that calculation. No obligation linked it to the future state of public finances. There have been representations that this issue should be reopened and that a further £2.6 billion should be paid to policyholders. The Government’s position on this is clear, and I have set it out in my letters to the APPG and my meeting with it last year. Being in government is about making difficult decisions. Our decision was to spend £1.5 billion, reversing and multiplying by four the previous Government’s dismissal of a commitment to £340 million. These difficult decisions are about how to be fair to both hard-working taxpayers and those in receipt of public spending and services, and where the need to spend public money is greatest.

I acknowledge the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) concerning the imperative to provide for the next generation and, as several Members said, to restore trust in pensions and pension savings. There is cross-party consensus on that, and both parties have worked hard to achieve a lot in terms of auto-enrolment. There is more work to be done in that space. None the less, the House will recognise that the opportunity cost to the Exchequer of paying a further £2.6 billion is funding the salaries of 67,000 teachers, or 112,000 new nurses.

[Gordon Marsden]

I am listening with some concern, as I am sure other Members are, to what appears to be an edging further and further away from the commitments that we have all asked for this afternoon. The Minister talks about priorities. We could spend three hours in this Chamber talking about the priorities that this Government have given to tax cuts and other things. He needs to choose his words carefully in responding to what has been said.

[John Glen]

I will choose my words carefully, but it is undeniable that after 13 years in government, the previous Labour Government—

[Gordon Marsden]

Stop playing party politics.

[John Glen]

It is not about party politics; it is about saying that when we came into government, in the absence of a resolution to this matter, we increased the figure from £340 million, which the last Labour Government were proposing, to more than £1.5 billion. In the light of those facts, it is a bit unreasonable to criticise what I am saying. While I appreciate and empathise with the fact that some policyholders who have invested their funds have not received the funds that they hoped for, like my late father, and that this impacted on their plans and futures, we have taken the best action that we could have to resolve the Government’s part in these reduced returns. We have done more than any previous Government.

I draw colleagues’ attention to Equitable Life’s own research from 2011, which suggested that their policyholders wanted the Government compensation to draw a line under this issue. I agree with them. The Government’s view is that this issue is now closed, and as a Minister I have never been in the business of offering false hope.