Financial Services Bill

Lord Davies of Brixton Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 28th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hammond, on his maiden speech. I particularly welcome his entry to the House because I am also an unapologetic fan of spreadsheets. The Bill is necessary, of course, consequent on leaving the European Union. To a large extent, it is intended simply to replace what we had before but it provides the opportunity to go further, as we have been promised. I shall mention a couple of points that I hope we can pursue in more detail in Committee.

First, there is the Financial Conduct Authority. I do not have enough time at this stage to go into any detail but I want to put down a marker, that the FCA has failed too often in the past and simply has to do better in future. In the Bill, Clause 39 deals with the appointment of the chief executive. What is required here is clearer and greater accountability, and I would argue that Parliament has a crucial role there.

Secondly, Clause 34 relates to the debt respite scheme. I support debt respite, particularly given the situation in which we find ourselves, and I support the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins. However, the proposals in the Bill totally lack ambition, given the scale of the problems we face. We need to understand that while debt has a personal impact, ruining lives and leading to much misery, it also affects us all by acting as a drag on the economy and the recovery that is so desperately needed.

There should be a modern debt jubilee—that is, a comprehensive package of debt cancellations targeted at the household sector. We need, in effect, a debt write-off for households, broadly along the lines established for the financial sector 12 years ago. We were told then that some banks were too big to fail because of the harm that it would cause to the economy. I argue that the failure of individuals because of debt means as much, or even greater, harm for us all.

That is not such a radical proposal. The ancient kings, under the Mosaic law, would announce debt forgiveness for their people so that they could start anew. Traditionally, that would be every 50 years, hence the jubilee. It is crucial to understand that those rulers were not being idealistic or kind in forgiving debts; in fact, they were being very practical. If the economic imbalance was not reset, there was a danger that their kingdom would fall. The main argument for such a scheme, therefore, is that in addition to relieving much individual misery it would provide a direct and targeted macroeconomic boost to the economy, exactly where it is needed. Relieving household debt would generate economic growth in the same way as a tax cut would, but it would be better targeted, allowing people to keep more of their income as pounds in their pockets. The money would flow into consumption, savings or investment, rather than into debt repayment.

There will, of course, be concern that cancelling any debts, even those debts long-abandoned by the lender, will punish the prudent and reward the profligate. That is to misunderstand how the credit system functions and how retail financial markets operate. It is hard to believe that a debt write-off will cause greater harm to those who are unaffected by indebtedness than it will benefit those who are already struggling. The beneficial effects will come to us all. Abolishing household debt, starting with the most pernicious and harmful, will generate gains that are generalised and distributed across the people of the UK as a whole.

As noble Lords will be aware, plans are already being made to celebrate one jubilee next year. Let us also plan a jubilee that will assist not just those among us who are the hardest pressed in our society but all of us. How far we can go towards such an objective in the context of the Bill, I hope we can explore in Committee.

Financial Services Bill

Lord Davies of Brixton Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 22nd February 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Blackwell (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I understand the motives of these amendments and sympathise with a lot of what has been said. However, I will be a dissenting voice on whether the form of the amendments is proportionate and practical in meeting the objectives set out.

As we all recognise, financial services have a social purpose. They play a critical role in society and in people’s lives and they have to recognise that in their responsibilities. There are clearly still failures in the way the industry operates, some unintended and some still involving bad behaviour, and, as many noble Lords have pointed out, there is a problem in the unregulated sector. However, most of the major institutions now exercise their responsibilities carefully, trying to do so in the best interests of their customers. I do not recognise in some of the comments made the tens of thousands—in fact, over 100,000—ordinary bank workers who go into their branches or call centres every day and try desperately to do their best for customers, motivated by the most genuine service obligations. In the way that the banks have operated in providing basic bank accounts and the responsibilities that they have shown in their lending practices, the industry is by and large showing how it can evolve and act responsibly.

There are, of course, failures, as there will always be in any industry, but these can be dealt with under the existing FCA principles, reinforced as they are now by the SMCR regime. There has to be a boundary on what is reasonable to expect of the duty of care. We cannot expect financial services to take on the duties of the state as a social service for those who need extended financial support. Yes, it has obligations, but there is a limit to what the financial services sector can do for those in financial need.

My issue with the general duty of care is that it has no clear boundaries setting out when a financial service company has reached the limits of what it is reasonable to do under that duty of care. We have to recognise the reality that any intervention to increase customer support or protection has a cost. The direct costs of subsidising support to customers in financial need are now covered, as in utilities, through cross-subsidies—higher charges on other customers to pay for the extended credit or basic bank accounts for those customers in need. It is accepted within the industry and within society that a measure of cross-subsidy within the financial services sector is part of being a universal provider.

However, the indirect costs of compliance are more damaging; they may disadvantage those that they are meant to help. The more questions you need to ask your customers, the more detailed information you have to ensure they have understood and the more you have to penetrate into their lives, the more banks and insurance companies are forced to rely on formulaic compliance bureaucracy that erects barriers to simply understanding and addressing customers’ issues. People spend more time ticking the boxes than they do just listening and trying to provide a genuine real-world answer to the issues in front of the customer.

The danger is that, despite the best intentions of helping to ensure that people get good advice, there is an increase in costs and risks to compliance to the point where, as happened with the retail distribution review that took place some years ago, financial services companies simply withdraw from offering any services to those customers because they cannot take the risks and costs and the compliance burden pushes customers out of access to financial services.

Not having boundaries around what that duty of care comprises opens up the risks to financial services companies of court judgments and CMC claims that continually push the obligations and costs of compliance far beyond what is reasonable for a financial services company to do—one doing its best to offer financial products and serve its customers—and what is reasonable for the customer to take on, in terms of their responsibilities in setting out their needs.

I believe that, despite the motives behind this, it is much better to be prescriptive about what obligations there are for reasonable behaviour, as set out in the current FCA principles, which include the obligation to treat customers fairly and fairly communicate the information they require. These considerations require a high level of care and compliance, not always correctly done—but there are penalties when they are not done correctly. The SMCR regime is reinforcing that. As such, despite my sympathy for the motives behind these amendments, I believe that the intent behind them, however good, would not result in a proportionate or practical improvement in regulation and carries many dangers and risks both to financial services companies and, more importantly, to the customers whom we seek to protect.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I agree with much of what has been said and it is not necessary to repeat it. I support the objective of the amendments—in particular, I support my noble friend’s Amendment 4—and I look forward to the Minister’s reply. It is difficult to see how the principle of these amendments can be refused.

However, it is necessary to make an overarching point, which I base on my experience over 50 years as a close observer of the financial services industry. The truth is that the industry has a systemic tendency to malfeasance. This is not an attack on the great many good people who work within the industry, as the last contribution mentioned, in banks and insurance companies, who only wish to do a good day’s work. However, the unremitting succession of scandals involving finance is not just a series of unfortunate one-offs; it is built into its very nature. This is a big issue, but I emphasise two simple reasons. First, there is an inevitable asymmetry of information. As Amendment 4 highlights, there are

“a consumer’s vulnerability, behavioural biases or constrained choices”.

This situation is bound to create the sort of problem that we have seen. The second, even simpler, reason, using the classic but apocryphal words of Willie Sutton, is because it is “where the money is”. People seek to gain money from where there is lots of it and there is lots of it in the finance industry.

There is much to be done to solve this problem. It is systemic but it still needs to be addressed because people need help. However, what is in these amendments seems to me simply a minimum of what might be done to address the problems that the industry so clearly incorporates.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I simply do not understand the resistance we find from the Government and the FCA to the duty of care amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Sharkey, and supported by my noble friend Lady Bowles and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and to the almost identical Amendment 4 proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, and again by my noble friend Lady Bowles. I am not going to repeat the saga of abuse that many noble Lords have described. That has been done incredibly well and is exceedingly powerful. I will say though that this issue keeps happening. I notice the headline in today’s Times:

“City regulator ‘slow to act’ against car leasing firm”.


Every time we think that we are perhaps past a period of abuse, another one comes along. To me, it is utterly unacceptable, as I hope it is to everyone in this House.

What makes me particularly angry is that the regulator has largely known, very early on thanks to whistleblowers, when the financial institutions that it regulates are treating customers badly. However, again and again, the regulator takes years to react, reacts minimally at first, initiates a lengthy review—often several—asks the organisation to review itself and then does too little, too late. I want to pick up one issue in illustration: the treatment of payday lenders.

Many people in this House will remember the experience of trying to pass legislation to get a cap on the interest rates that payday lenders could levy. I bring up this issue because it deals with the difference between treating customers fairly and a duty of care. The FCA took a very strong position that customers were being treated fairly so long as they knew the terms of the contract. There were, perhaps, some constraints such as a limited number of rollovers. The FCA did not look at the far deeper issue of the way that people were being abused by payday lenders and the extraordinary level of interest rates. That is why the duty of care is very much more powerful. As my noble friend Lord Sharkey said, treating customers fairly is undermined in the FiSMA legislation by the caveat emptor parts of the FCA’s rules.

I am not a bit surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, objects to these duty of care amendments. When I sat for nearly two years on the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, the industry objected to almost every measure that would have constrained the abuse which created the crisis in 2008, such as the Libor crisis and PPI. The saga was endless. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, that in a later group of amendments I will be referring to the HBOS Reading case, another example of fraud perpetrated between 2003 and 2007. A number of bankers went to prison but today, in 2021, victims of that fraud still have not received fair compensation.

Dame Elizabeth Gloster’s damning report of last November on the FCA’s regulation of London Capital & Finance Plc said:

“The root causes of the FCA’s failure to regulate LCF appropriately were significant gaps and weaknesses in the policies and practices”.


That is simply true across the board. It is piecemeal, as my noble friend Lord Sharkey described.

Misbehaviour keeps happening and delayed redress is the normal pattern. To quote Einstein:

“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”


It is time to make a step change to protect consumers, and I hope very much that the Government do so in this Bill.

Financial Services Bill

Lord Davies of Brixton Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 24th February 2021 Grand Committee

My name is also on the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, which I support, but in the interests of time, I will leave it at that.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, before getting to the substance of the debate, I must express some puzzlement; obviously, I have much to learn about this House’s mysterious ways. The specific issue that concerns me is the grouping of amendments. We are sternly told that groupings are not to be changed, but here we have a significant change: what was two groups on Monday is now a single group. The issues are not that disparate, but it makes a big difference to the time we have available.

The main point I wish to make relates particularly to Amendments 10 and 71. The latter was tabled by my noble friend Lord Sikka. If I had been a bit more alert, I would have added my name.

The issue here is to whom the FCA should be accountable, given the well-established phenomenon of regulatory capture, as the previous speaker mentioned. It is worth emphasising the point that regulatory capture is where an industry regulator such as the FCA comes to be dominated by the industry it is charged with regulating. The result is that the agency that is meant to be acting in the public interest instead works in ways that benefit the industry. The important point to understand is that this does not happen because inadequate or ineffective people are running the regulator. It is certainly not about corruption. It is an institutional, not individual, problem.

It is important to understand why it happens. The reasons are manifold but I will emphasise three. First, the regulated industry has a keen and immediate interest in influencing the regulator, whereas the customers are less motivated; they have their lives to live and are engaged only for relatively brief periods anyway. Secondly, we know that industries are prepared to devote substantial resources to influencing the regulator. Thirdly, there is the inevitable commonality of work and social life for the individuals on both sides of the process.

Given that the phenomenon of regulatory capture is acknowledged and widely understood, what do we do about it? The first step is acknowledging the issue and recognising and addressing the challenge. The next step is making the regulator as accountable as possible. There are many ways of doing this, but we can leave those for another day. What we have here are Amendments 10 and 71. Under Amendment 10, the involvement of both Houses in considering draft and final rules would be valuable in itself, given the expertise available. However, it is also valuable because of the additional exposure that it brings to the workings of the regulator, which will have to make its case. In the same way, Amendment 71 would bring greater exposure to the work of the FCA, forcing it to expound on its performance and its objectives in public and in an expert forum.

There is much more to do on making the FCA fully accountable, but these amendments are a start and have my support.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton. He addressed in useful detail the risks of industry capture of regulators, to which the financial sector is particularly prone and which is addressed by Amendment 71 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sikka. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, I have attached my name to that amendment. I associate myself particularly with the remarks of the noble Baroness, who stressed that these amendments are about the rights of Parliament and access to data and detailed information—necessary for the kind of expert work at which your Lordships’ House excels.

As the noble Lord, Lord Davies, covered the need for Amendment 71 in some depth and its author—the noble Lord, Lord Sikka—is yet to speak, I will confine myself to general remarks about how all the amendments in this large group reflect the great degree of concern on all sides of the House about, given how the Bill is currently constituted, the lack of parliamentary oversight of the actions of both the regulators and the Treasury. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, explained this point in her highly informative introduction to the group.

This morning, thanks to their kind indulgence, I was able to join Cross-Benchers in a briefing on the Bill, where we heard how the formalisation of the relationship between regulators, Parliament and the Treasury is “on the way”. The future regulatory framework consultation closed on Friday. We heard that the Bill is not the final word on that, and that the responses to the consultation will not be ready in time for the Bill. So, yet again, we hear that democratic controls and the details of government plans will be included in future legislation and regulation. Your Lordships’ House has heard this so often on so many subjects; perhaps we could enlist the Lords spiritual in assisting us in putting it in some kind of musical form. It simply is not good enough.

We know that, despite the long run-in time, the Government were not ready for Brexit at the end of the transition period and that civil servants, through no fault of their own, are trapped in a huge scramble to catch up with the massive backlog of government inaction and indecision—the tsunami to which the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, referred. But what we have here are sensible proposals from experienced, expert Members of your Lordships’ House. I hope that the Government will acknowledge the urgency and importance of ensuring democratic oversight and that they will take at least some of these amendments on board at the next stage of the Bill, particularly, given the arguments already made, Amendment 71. There is no need to wait. Democratic oversight should be a given, not an extra, later addition.

Financial Services Bill

Lord Davies of Brixton Excerpts

Committee stage & Lords Hansard
Wednesday 3rd March 2021 Grand Committee

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I am delighted to follow the right reverend Prelate. We both sit on the rural action group of the Church of England. I should also declare that as a Bar apprentice in Edinburgh, one of my first duties was as a debt collector. I cannot claim that I had any particular training in that regard, and I was probably the least sympathetic at the time, given my youth and inexperience. I therefore congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, on the research that she has carried out in preparing for the amendment and bringing it forward. I also thank the Reset The Debt campaign for what they have achieved, as well as the Church Action on Poverty campaign in bringing these issues to the fore.

It may be that my noble friend the Minister is not minded to look sympathetically on the amendment but, at the very least, I ask him whether he accepts that there is a problem that needs to be addressed in this regard, for the simple reason that there will be an uplift in council tax of some 5% in some areas. It would also seem that, as yet, we have failed to address the issue of zero-hour contracts, which remains vexatious.

In moving the amendment, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, referred to food banks. My experience is not that recent but occurred between 2010 and 2015, when I had cause to visit them in my area. What impressed me most is that it was often not people on benefits who used them but those in work but who did not work sufficient hours to make ends meet. This is a category of people to whom we owe something, and is an issue that should be addressed.

In particular, I ask my noble friend what instruction is given to IVAs and others that administer debt relief orders on the power they have to be more sympathetic to and imaginative about the circumstances in which debtors find themselves. Given the rather modest remit set out in Amendment 55, I hope that my noble friend might look at it fairly sympathetically. If he feels unable to support it, perhaps he will bring forward something along these lines at the next stage.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab) [V]]

I want to say a few words at this late hour strongly in favour of Amendment 55 and mention the possibility of a wider-ranging debt jubilee. There is clearly a case for this amendment, and the same case can be made for a wider-ranging approach to relieving the burden that debt places on us all, not just on the individuals. Clearly it ruins lives and leads to much misery, but it also affects the rest of us: it acts as a drag on the economy and the recovery that we now so desperately need. Anything that we as a society can do to relieve the absolute burden of debt, the better.

The proposal in the amendment for a fair debt write-down is a welcome development to the debt relief scheme. The moral case for passing on some of the discount that currently goes to debt collection agencies is clear, and there is an advantage to the Treasury. The same case fundamentally applies to us as a whole. We need a more comprehensive package of debt cancellations, targeted at the household sector. We want a way of writing off debts, just as so many debts were written off in the financial sector 12 or 13 years ago. We were told then that some banks were too big to fail, because of the harm it would cause the economy. I argue that the challenges facing individuals, because of their debt, mean as much or even greater harm for us all.

The main argument today is that such a scheme, as well as relieving much individual misery, would provide a direct, targeted macroeconomic boost to the economy, exactly where it is needed, helping some of the most hard-up in our society. It will boost economic growth, and help those who have fallen into the misery of debt—and all of us.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I will offer a slightly different perspective on this. I understand the problems of overindebtedness among poor people, but I do not believe that Amendment 55 makes sense. If I understand the proposed scheme correctly and if a debt under a debt respite scheme is sold for less than its face value, the original borrower has to pay back only that lower amount plus 20%. Let us say that I buy a debt with a face value of £100, for which I pay £80. I can recoup £96, which is £80 plus 20% of £80. That might seem reasonable on a loan-by-loan basis but, in practice, loans are sold in groups or books.

To the extent that there is a market for debt respite scheme debts, the amount that a purchaser pays will take account of two main things—first, the likelihood that the debt will be repaid; and, secondly, the difference between the income receivable on the debt, if any, and the purchaser’s cost of funds.

Financial Services Bill

Lord Davies of Brixton Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 24th March 2021 Lords Chamber

Although financial regulation, supervisory processes and oversight have been worked through on previous occasions, they do not yet work or are not yet being worked so as to keep things up to scratch. Having regular, independent reviews can fill that gap and have a place within the future regulatory framework. I beg to move.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, the issue I want to highlight, as I did at earlier stages, is how to make regulators more accountable, given the well-established phenomenon of regulatory capture. Regulatory capture is where an industry regulator like the FCA and the other bodies mentioned in the amendment comes to be dominated by the industry that it is charged with regulating. The result is that the agency, which is meant to act in the public interest, works instead in ways that benefit the industry.

I do not think that there is any doubt that this happens, and the question is: what do we do about it? The important point to understand is that this does not happen because of inadequate, ineffective or corrupt individuals—rather, it happens because it is systemic. It is an institutional rather than an individual problem. There are various reasons for why it happens. First, a regulated industry has a keen and immediate interest in influencing the regulator, whereas customers are less motivated. They have normal lives to lead and they engage with the industry only for brief periods. However, participants in the industry are there all the time. Secondly, industries tend to devote large budgets to influencing the regulator, which inevitably has an impact. Lastly, there is the aspect of the whole industry community. People tend to move from the regulator to the industry and back to the regulator. That is bound to have some impact on the personal relationships that are established.

There is therefore no question that the phenomenon exists. How bad it gets and what we do about it is what we need to address. The first step is to acknowledge the problem and to recognise and address the challenge. The next step is to make the regulators as accountable as possible, which poses the question: who regulates the regulators? There are many ways to do that but we have before us in Amendment 2 a proposal for a periodic, independent review of the regulators.

What I have in mind is something akin to a school inspection, which does not happen because a school has demonstrated problems but is just part and parcel of a regular process that focuses the minds of all those involved. At the moment, regulating the regulators is effectively left to the Government whenever they care to turn their minds to the issue. The problem is that Governments have many other things to think about and the result is that addressing the problem tends to happen only after it has arisen. The public become aware that there is some deficiency in the regulator and therefore action has to be taken. How much better it would be to pose questions as to how the system can be improved before we encounter the problems. That happens only under a regular, independent review, as proposed under the terms of the amendment.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, this is the first time that I have spoken on the Bill on Report and I draw the attention of the House to my interests as set out in the register—in particular, shares that I hold in listed financial services companies.

I have considerable sympathy for the amendment because the financial regulators are not very accountable. At the moment, there are set-piece appearances before the Treasury Select Committee in the other place and occasional appearances before committees of your Lordships’ House but these do not amount to a systematic and comprehensive examination. The Government often rely on the fact that annual reports are laid before Parliament but the annual reports of regulators get no more attention paid to them than the annual reports of companies. With rare exceptions, they provide few insights of value. By their very nature, annual reports accentuate the positive and shy away from the negative.

The problem of the accountability of regulators is not confined to financial services regulators. I could say much the same about Ofcom, Ofgem and other regulators, but we cannot solve the problems of the world in this Bill. The accountability of the PRA and the FCA is covered in the future regulatory framework, the consultation that has recently been completed. We discussed this a little on our first day in Committee and I hope that my noble friend the Minister will provide some information on the next steps when he responds to the amendment. The consultation closed over a month ago and the Treasury must have some idea on what it will be doing next and when.

If the outcome of that review, so far as accountability is concerned, is a well-developed form of parliamentary scrutiny, either jointly between both Houses of Parliament or within each House, the need for an independent review clause such as that contained in Amendment 2 would recede. Parliamentary committees can look at issues in depth but only if they are properly focused and well resourced. On that basis, the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, might want to await the legislation implementing the outcome of that review rather than tackle the issue in this legislation, because action could be set in a broader, more holistic context regarding how the regulators will operate overall in due course.

If the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, wishes to pursue her amendment—I thought I heard her say that it was more of a probing amendment for today—it would be wise to look again at its drafting because it calls for one review covering four regulators, but they are all different in what they do and how they do it. I am not convinced that there would be sufficient focus if one review tried to cover all the regulators—the two major ones and the two smaller units with regulatory responsibilities, one in the Bank of England and the other being the Payment Systems Regulator in the FCA.

In addition, I, like the ABI, wonder whether a review every two or three years is too frequent for the kind of in-depth review that the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, has in mind. A rolling series of reviews, perhaps carried out over five years but concentrating on individual regulators, would provide more information of value to those seeking to hold them to account. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, has the right ideas in the amendment, although it may not be right for this Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, and I offer my thanks for his support for the concept of Amendment 12, to which I shall speak. It appears in my name and is kindly supported by the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans.

Amendment 12 seeks to secure a discounting of debt for people entering proposed statutory debt repayment plans—something that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, noted has already occurred in Scotland. I set out in Committee that that is a large group of people with incomes above those eligible for debt relief orders, but with assets and income generally below those covered by voluntary agreements on bankruptcy. All those other agreements operate in ways that can result in debt being cleared in a relatively short period, much shorter than those to be covered by statutory debt repayment plans. I will not repeat all that detail again.

However, this amendment represents a development of an amendment presented in Committee to secure a fair debt write-down in respect of debts sold on the secondary market. For that initial amendment and this amended one, I pay tribute to the large amount of work done by the Centre for Responsible Credit, from which noble Lords will have received a briefing. While a strong argument exists to support this proposal, entirely legitimate concerns were raised in the debate that the impact of such a move on the operation of the secondary market would need to be properly considered. The noble Lord, Lord True, also raised a concern about the need for equitable treatment of debtors in the scheme. Taking those concerns on board, this new amendment, rather than being prescriptive, is permissive in nature and seeks to ensure that discounts on debt are secured, where appropriate, with the full agreement of creditors.

Amendment 12 recognises that many creditors listed on debt repayment plans, regardless of whether the debt originated with them or they bought it on the secondary market, will often prefer to receive a lump sum as full and final payment as opposed to low levels of instalments spread out over many years. As a result, many creditors already offer a significant discount on the total level of debt if a lump-sum settlement can be made. While the StepChange debt charity has a dedicated team to provide advice to debtors concerning possible full and final settlements, not all debt management plan providers do so. There arises a potential conflict of interest, as SDRP providers are likely to be reimbursed on a percentage basis of the total debt collected. Securing discounts for big debtors would reduce their revenues.

This amendment would therefore ensure that the Government are provided with a power to instruct SDRP providers, where appropriate, to enter into debt settlement negotiations on behalf of debtors entering the scheme. Hopefully this is not needed, but it is important that such a power exists.

In addition, it ought to be possible for SDRP providers to go further. With appropriate funding and regulation, business models could be encouraged that would allow SDRP providers to themselves buy out, and therefore discount, debts registered on their plans. For example, in recent months we have seen instances of debt of £10,000 being discounted by as much as 40% in return for full and final settlement. Enabling such debts to be bought out and subsequently collected by SDRP providers would mean the debtor would have to repay only £6,900, even after taking into account a 15% fee for the provider. It should be possible to achieve a result that is beneficial to creditor and debtor alike. I stress that building this negotiated settlement approach into the SDRP is likely to be welcomed by creditors, who in many cases are already prepared to discount heavily for lump sums in full and final settlement.

It is not my intention to push this amendment to a vote at this stage, but I seek a commitment from the Minister to continue to explore and work on this issue. I hope he can commit to a meeting between the department and interested noble Lords to see how we can take this forward, possibly in regulation.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I speak in support of Amendments 11 and 12. I do not intend to delay us particularly long at this time of night, but I want to take the opportunity to pursue an issue.

My involvement in the Financial Services Bill has been a learning experience for me, as a new Member, in the way in which we are able to progress issues through the course of a Bill and the opportunities arising at different stages to make points and develop what it is possible to achieve, as opposed to what we would like in a perfect world. I have made plain my support for a more fundamental debt jubilee, but that is clearly a discussion—a fight—for another day. The amendments before us today clearly provide a useful step forward—a small step, but one that is still worth while.

I want to say a word on behalf of the debtors, those people who have taken on debts for all sorts of reasons—some good, some bad. You cannot just look at the debtors in this situation and say, “That is where the problem arose.” Quite clearly, bad debts are part of the business plan of people who lend money. We have learnt to an extent during these debates that there are issues in how you develop a plan so that, when debts are discounted, it is not just commercial organisations that benefit and there is also the opportunity for those who have unwisely or mistakenly taken on debts to gain some advantage from the discounting of debts. That is really what we are trying to work towards here.

I support these amendments and hope the Government will be able to take on board the issues raised. The underlying issue—this is the point I have pursued before—is that there is a public interest in dealing with debt and relieving people of the debts they have taken on; it does not help just the individuals concerned. Lowering the level of debt and removing onerous debts help us all generally, and particularly at the moment when we are looking for an economic revival. I hope the Government take on board the ideas behind these amendments and work towards a scheme that helps not just the debtors but all of us.

Financial Services Bill

Lord Davies of Brixton Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 14th April 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendments 45 and 48 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell. I also support the intent behind the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, and I know that she too supports his amendments. As has been said, these amendments concern one of the key issues that emerged during scrutiny of the Bill: the parliamentary accountability of regulators and the scrutiny of their actions. As already noted, there was widespread agreement around the House at Second Reading and in Committee that Parliament should have a role in scrutinising the rules that the FCA and PRA may make under the new rule-making powers created by the Bill.

Of much greater importance will be what happens when the Government expand the rule-making powers of the FCA and the PRA, as they have outlined in their consultation document on the review of the financial regulation framework. What we do in the context of the Bill is clearly important in signalling what we expect in the context of a larger shift in rule-making powers, if that is what the Government decide to do following consultation. This is particularly important because the Government’s analysis of parliamentary scrutiny in their consultation document was not encouraging; it was largely a defence of the existing committee activities in each House, with no regard to the new circumstances created by the extensive new rule-making powers. The Government—somewhat surprisingly, given their excellent Brexit credentials—seem not to have taken on board that the scrutiny context has changed significantly with the repatriation of financial services regulatory powers from the EU. That context should drive how we see the way forward.

Since our debate in Committee, my noble friend Lord Howe has made available to us the texts of letters from the PRA and the FCA which broadly say that they will do whatever Parliament decides, which is only right and proper. I do not think the letters add much to the analysis of the issues we debated in Committee, but they nevertheless demonstrate a constructive willingness to co-operate with parliamentary scrutiny. When my noble friend responded to our debate in Committee, I was not filled with confidence that the Government really understand the dimensions of the issues around scrutiny and accountability in the context of these additional rule-making powers. I have seen the rather late-in-the-day letter from the Economic Secretary which landed in our email boxes this afternoon. I shall be kind and say that the direction of travel is positive, but we have not yet reached a satisfactory landing point for this debate. I expect we will continue to pursue this issue well beyond the passage of the Bill.

As my noble friend Lord Blackwell knows, I do not support his Amendment 37A because it is a rear-view mirror amendment. I strongly believe that Parliament should have the opportunity to get involved with the rules made by the FCA and the PRA in time to influence their final shape. It is not satisfactory to think that ex-post scrutiny is an effective mechanism for parliamentary involvement. I do not believe the independence of the PRA and the FCA is threatened by this intervention in how rules are made, given the context of the very significant new regulatory rule-making powers expected to be devolved to them. That is why I support the amendments in this group in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, which provide a much better basis for Parliament’s future involvement in additional rule-making powers.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, these amendments are all on the same broad theme. As the previous speaker mentioned, there is a broad consensus that something needs to be done to provide a formal role for parliamentary scrutiny in the work of financial regulators. I do not want to detain the House, but I will take the opportunity to emphasise points that I have made at earlier stages. The basic question, to me, is: who regulates the regulators? The question is why we should trust the regulators; the answer is openness and engagement. Clearly, we have a particular interest here but can, I believe, contribute massively to the work of the regulator.

For us to raise these issues is not to question the expertise or good will of the people who serve on the regulators’ boards or work in their offices. It is simply wrong to assume that, once appointed, they can be left to get on with the job. As is apparent in the debate, there is clear consensus about the need for scrutiny. That is not contested. Obviously, there are clear reasons why they would benefit—the expertise of this House is a factor—but my particular concern is to establish systems that minimise the risk of regulatory capture. This is the experience, widely found, whereby regulators tend to become dominated by the interests they regulate and not by public interest.

I emphasise that this is not about corruption; it is more, in my mind, a social and cultural problem. I do not think the concept, in theory, is contested. The answer is to strengthen and develop the widest possible involvement of all sorts of bodies in the work of the regulators. Clearly, Parliament has a particular role and these amendments explore possible approaches to it. I hope the Minister can say a bit more than what was in the letter. Does the Minister consider regulatory capture to be something that occurs, and where the systems that are established address it and minimise the risk?

[Lord Sharkey (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 18, 19 and 20 in this group. I support them all but prefer the more prescriptive Amendment 20. In these matters, it seems to me that ambiguity is not our friend. Wide latitude in interpretation can easily frustrate intent. As my noble friend Lady Bowles has so forcefully explained, that intent here is to ensure that Parliament has some effective scrutiny role in the activities and rule-making of the PRA and the FCA, by requiring that the information Parliament may need to do this is properly supplied. At present, this is absent or insufficient or likely to be post hoc and ineffective.

This is a specific example of a much larger problem in the relations between the Executive and the legislature. There is an increasing tendency for the Executive to bypass, or try to bypass, Parliament or to reduce scrutiny to formulaic rituals with no real influence on outcomes, such as our SI procedures. The seriousness of this tendency has been commented on fairly widely and frequently in the past few years.