Financial Assistance Scheme (Increased Cap for Long Service) Regulations 2018
Lord McKenzie of Luton Excerpts(6 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, for her clear introduction to these regulations. As we have heard, they will amend the legislation to allow the Financial Assistance Scheme to pay a higher amount of assistance to capped FAS members who have long service in a single pension scheme. They allow an increase in the cap by 3% for each year of pensionable service over 20 years up to a maximum of double the standard cap. This is in addition to the inflationary increase in the amount of the cap. As we have heard, a parallel change has been made to the PPF, although not by the use of regulations, with effect from April 2017 in line with the policy to align the two systems and following a government Statement on 15 September 2016.
FAS and its follow-up, the PPF, have been important mechanisms—I think this is a view that we share—to improve confidence in defined benefit schemes. They protect some 11 million in the UK who belong to such schemes. For FAS to be involved, a scheme must have commenced wind-up between 1 January 1997 and 6 April 2005; after these dates, individuals would look to the PPF. We introduced these schemes when in government and continue to support them.
FAS would generally meet 100% of entitlement for those having reached retirement age when wind-up commences; for those who have not done so, members would generally receive 90% of the expected pension accrued at the point that the scheme began to wind up, subject, of course, to the cap. From recollection, the expected and actual pension amounts for these purposes would not always coincide with scheme definitions. Could the Minister comment on how they might diverge at the current point?
Notwithstanding the 6 April 2005 date, we know that there can be a considerable lead time between commencement of wind-up assessment and entry into FAS. According to the most recent accounts—the Minister might be able to confirm this—in the year to 31 March 2016 there were still some 23 schemes that completed wind-up, with a total of £141 million of assets transferred to the Government. Incidentally, could the Minister remind us how the receipt of scheme assets, employer contributions and FAS payments are dealt with in the government accounts?
As we have heard, the PPF took over responsibility for the management of FAS in 2009. By the end of 2015-16, it had completed the transition of 1,027 schemes, with 155,000 individuals entitled to FAS assistance. This is an impressive level of support, without which thousands of individuals would have received or be entitled to little or nothing at retirement. At a time when we are debating in general the merits or otherwise of outsourcing, FAS is a worthy example of the state stepping in to support failures of private pension provision.
It was announced that, in 2016, FAS would be closed to new applications. While this would keep the scheme open some 10 years longer than originally planned, have the Government made any assessment of the number of individuals who would lose out as a result of such a decision and what the Government’s saving would be? Failure to access FAS might be laid at the door of trustees or scheme administrators, but any loss would be suffered by members. Is that fair? Would failure to seek access to FAS cause any restriction on access to social security benefits?
We have seen a copy of the Government’s response to the consultation on the increased cap proposals. One issue arising is whether there should be a definition in the regulations of pensionable service, as it would help avoid confusion where service was under another scheme and would be disallowed. The Government say that they are content to rely on information from trustees about pensionable service based on the definition of pensionable service contained in individual scheme rules, but one bugbear of the scheme, at least initially, was the poor quality of some of the data held by various schemes. What is the current situation in this regard, and what confidence is there across the board that scheme data are now more robust? In how many cases has the FAS scheme manager had to issue guidance to individual schemes, and on what points?
It seems that, despite the original intent, periods of service accrued in a member’s own right are to be aggregated with those arising under pension credit arrangements in determining long service. We do not oppose this, but, for the record, perhaps the Minister would expand on the potential stumbling block referred to in the documentation should the alternative position have been adopted. Further, we support the potential inclusion in the long service cap of those in receipt of a survivor’s pension but who do not have any pensionable service of their own.
The Explanatory Memorandum draws attention to the reference to the European Court of Justice in the case of Grenville Hampshire. This is a matter engaging EEC directive 80/987 and whether in the event of an insolvency every employee should, inter alia, receive no less than 50% of their expected pension benefits. From recollection, this matter has been around for a little while. Perhaps the Minister would update the House on the current state of affairs. The risk would be where the current cap is in play and would, I presume, be ameliorated by these regulations. Should the Secretary of State or the board of PPF not prevail, what are the consequences?
The caps on both FAS and the PPF were a mechanism to limit costs and to guard against excessive risk-taking, the latter potentially arising where decisions could risk insolvency of a company where there was no chance of a diminution in executive pensions because they would be wholly underwritten by FAS or the PPF—that is, the moral hazard position. In amending this approach, we are asked by the Minister to recognise the unfairness for those whose long service has been in a single pension scheme and where, without raising the cap by length of service, they would be in no better position than someone with equivalent pension entitlement levels but who could secure additional benefits in a new scheme. We recognise that position.
It is noted that no impact assessment is offered for these regulations, although reference is made to the impact assessment for the Pensions Act 2014. Will the Minister say why no such assessment has been prepared, particularly given that, for FAS, after asset transfers and recovery the net cost is met by the public purse? Under PPF, it is met by the levy on other DB schemes. A phone call to officials suggested an annual cost of £1.2 million a year—indeed, the noble Baroness confirmed that figure—and that some 290 members would benefit. Given the stop on further FAS transfers, this is a finite population. Other things being equal, we might question whether this is a priority at the present time, but alignment with PPF, prior deliberations and fairness lead us not to oppose but to support these provisions.
Having recognised the principle, the question arises as to the quantum of the relaxation—in other words, the 3% for each full year of pensionable service over 20 years, subject to the limit of double the standard cap. Will the Minister remind us of the basis on which this 3% is computed? It should be noted that, for the PPF, the increased cap for long service could increase levy payments by some £139 million in the period to 2030. Will the Minister tell us how many recipients are likely to be involved over that period?
These regs are about FAS, but we should not let the moment pass without making a general point about the pensions environment and the PPF. Not only has it to deal with BHS but, as the result of last week’s events, also Carillion. It is to be welcomed that the PPF is in robust health, with, I think, £4.1 billion in reserve, but there is obviously a limit to the strain it can take. Subject to all this, I support the regulations.
Lord Jones (Lab)
My Lords, like my noble friend at the Dispatch Box, the Minister is a master of detail and I thank her for her helpful introduction. However, since they refer to Wales as well as the rest of Britain, have these draft regulations any relevance to the steel-workers of Port Talbot at the previous Tata company? Indeed, do they in any way impinge upon the pensions entitlement of the remnant of the steel industry across Britain? It is not that one expects steel pensions to be sky-high, which the cap might anticipate. If the Minister can in any way make reference to the beleaguered steel industry, and in particular those steel-workers in the great Port Talbot works who are very anxious about their pensions, that would be helpful.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
What struck me when I looked at the data was that for the last year, up to March 2016, there were still some 23 schemes transferred into FAS, notwithstanding that it was 10 years or more since the obligation to commence winding up. If I understand correctly and there were 23 schemes for that period, how many were left out of the subsequent period and have been chopped off? This is particularly an issue if the failure—if it is a failure—to pick up that detail was with the trustees or the scheme administrator, because the consequence would fall on the individual member of the scheme.
Baroness Buscombe
I understand the question posed by the noble Lord; indeed, when I was discussing this with officials, I was amazed that it took 10 years. To begin with, I could not understand why the scheme closed to new entrants as late as 2016. I cannot say whether the figure of 23 schemes is correct for the final year but I will check and respond to the noble Lord; I shall seek to find out how many were left out and how many individuals might thereby have lost out. I also have a little more information regarding Tata: because this provision applies to schemes wound up before 2005, it is relevant not to Tata but to the PPF scheme.
The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, asked why the Government have taken so long to introduce the long service cap. There have been significant reforms to pension legislation over the last few years, and the introduction of the FAS long service cap is the latest change in a programme of work to treat members of the FAS and PPF schemes more consistently. I hope the noble Lord will accept that pension legislation is complex. It was important that we consulted on draft FAS long service cap regulations to ensure that the legislation operated as intended and did not have any unintended consequences. As a result, December 2017 was the earliest that we could lay the regulations. I appreciate that members of the FAS will be frustrated by the perceived delay but we had a legal obligation to consult on the regulations. The public consultation helpfully identified some small changes that were required to ensure that the regulations operate as intended for eligible FAS members.
We also had to ensure—I think this brings us on to the next question posed by the noble Lord—that the costs were proportionate and to structure the long service cap to ensure that no further costs would be incurred. The noble Lord was very concerned about the administrative cost. I share that concern; it seems like an enormous amount of money for the relatively few people affected. At least I can confirm that the costs are less than had first been forecast. It would be fair to say from the department’s perspective that we are continually looking at where costs can be kept to a minimum, not least because those costs fall on the taxpayer.
While in the past there has been much criticism and scepticism around the introduction of digital systems to support more effective, efficient and cost-effective systems for the administration of such schemes, it is fair to say that systems are proving more robust as technology advances and becomes more understood by users. However, it is incumbent on all of us to keep an eye on that in terms of ensuring that we do all that we can to reduce costs. The trouble is that we are talking about checking records of individuals. That takes time and sometimes it is easier to do manually for such a small number of people. I accept the noble Lord’s point: in some ways, one might question whether it is simpler and more cost effective to do it manually. I take very much on board what he has said.
With regard to transaction costs, going on from what I have just said—sorry to string this out—the PPF, which administers the FAS, is currently in-sourcing member data from Capita. The FAS data is currently out of date, incomplete and often paper-based, requiring manual processing and checking, and that is not a one-off cost. We should continue to look at that and encourage those who administer the scheme to do the same, although I am sure they are cognisant of these considerable costs.
The regulations will ensure that individuals who have worked hard for a single employer for many years are not penalised by the cap. This group of savers have built up a large pension pot, not because they are high earners but because they have worked for one employer for the majority of their working lives and, as a result, will not have had the opportunity to secure additional income in retirement.
The decision to increase the total amount of assistance that this group can receive has not been taken lightly, as the Financial Assistance Scheme is funded by the taxpayer. As my noble friend Lady Altmann said, a considerable amount of consultation, lobbying, and so on, was undertaken to encourage the Government to introduce the regulations. But to leave the situation unchanged would create an inequitable situation where those with long service in the Pension Protection Fund were treated more favourably than those in the Financial Assistance Scheme and break our commitment made in another place on 15 September 2016.
I reassure all noble Lords that no new funding commitments have been or will be made in respect of the scheme. Since 2005, employer insolvencies have fallen under the jurisdiction of the Pension Protection Fund. Unlike the Financial Assistance Scheme, the Pension Protection Fund is mainly funded by an industry levy and is therefore not reliant on the public purse.
I believe that the correct balance has been struck between securing meaningful income in retirement for members compensated by the Financial Assistance Scheme and the cost to the taxpayer. I have outlined in detail the issues that the regulations will address and why the Government have decided to act. Now is the right time to correct this problem, and I ask that the Motion be approved.
Poverty and Disadvantage
Lord McKenzie of Luton Excerpts(6 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome this short debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Bird, and applaud his persistence in keeping the issues of poverty and disadvantage before this House. As others have said, poverty is a multifaceted issue, disadvantage perhaps more so. We have a wealth of data to help us understand this—perhaps too much for the noble Lord—but, like the noble Lord, Lord Best, we are grateful to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation for its detailed, comprehensive analysis of poverty trends and a glimpse of some of the underlying causes. It makes depressing reading.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, that, notwithstanding other issues, we hold to the basic importance of income-based tests in judging these things. The Joseph Rowntree report charts the improvements over 20 years—very significant among some working-age families—but records that poverty rates have started to rise among both pensioners and families with children. The JRF attributes the falls in working-age poverty to two things: sustained government support through the benefit and tax credit system—much maligned by those on the Government Benches—and big rises in employment and reductions in worklessness, supported by rising skill levels, increased wages and the minimum wage.
That these have gone into reverse is because of reductions in support offered through the benefit and tax credit system which were not outweighed for many low-income families by tax cuts and minimum wage rises. Many of the benefits reductions are just coming through the system—the freezing of working-age benefits and the two-child policy being just two examples—so there is worse to come.
The latest news from the ONS is that the number of people in work has fallen in the three months that ended in October. We have always seen that work should be the route out of poverty, but JRF identified 3.8 million workers living in poverty in the UK: 1 million more than a decade ago. It considered 55% of people in poverty to be in working households.
A study by Cardiff University academics found that 60% of people in poverty live in households where someone is in work. They considered that the biggest determinant was the number of workers in the household—that is not surprising. The research pointed to where one adult partner worked in a household but the other looked after the children at home. It was associated with low pay as well, although this did not necessarily drive poverty if there were other workers in the household. The study found that in-work poverty was disproportionately concentrated in households in the private rented sector, hit by rising rents and caps on housing benefit. Of course, low-income households are disproportionately hit by the rise in inflation.
What do we conclude from this? In-work poverty does not have to be accepted. It needs reversal of cuts to tax credits and universal credit, greater provision of affordable childcare and action to tackle high rents in the private rented sector. It needs political will and a national effort—a major change, in the terms of the noble Lord, Lord Bird.
Pensions
Lord McKenzie of Luton Excerpts(6 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, for providing a further opportunity to focus on this important matter. We have had some powerful women’s speeches this evening, as well as one from the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood. If I disagreed with anything in them, it was that I do not think we should allow Steve Webb to lay claim to auto-enrolment—although that is perhaps for another day.
Changes to the state pension age in recent times have involved both its equalisation for women and men, to age 65, and its increase for both men and women, currently to 66. The former was achieved by the Pensions Act 1995; the latter by the Pensions Act 2007 and the Pensions Act 2014, but primarily by the coalition’s Pensions Act 2011. The 2014 Act put the uprating of the state pension age on a statutory footing, linking the SPA to increasing life expectancy. John Cridland’s independent review recommended an increase to 68 in 2037 to 2039, which it is understood the Government have accepted. That is some 20 years away, which should enable ample time for effective communications and information activities.
The 2014 Act also adjusted the increase in the SPA to 67 to between 2026 and 2028, so the clock is ticking for awareness-raising for individuals due to be affected by this change. Leaving aside the process involved, we continue to support the principle of equalisation, which largely followed what was happening to occupational pensions and EU developments. Similarly, we support the principle of periodic increases to the SPA to reflect changes in longevity and the intergenerational fairness which this ensures, as well as to support sustainability.
The problem being confronted in this debate is the basis and manner in which the earlier changes to the SPA were introduced—the 1995 equalisation process and the 2011 acceleration of the state pension age to 66, with subsequent amelioration of the latter. The current position is that women’s SPA will reach 65 in November 2018, but increase more slowly to 66 by October 2020. The situation is therefore that women born between 6 April 1950 and 5 April 1953 have an SPA under the 1995 Act of between 60 and 63, and women born between 6 April 1953 and 5 December 1953 have an SPA under the 2011 Act of between 63 years and 3 months and 65 years. All of those originally had an expectation of a state pension age of 60. So in total, on top of the 1995 Act changes, the 2011 Act led to 4.5 million people in Great Britain having their state pension age increased by less than a year, 500,000 women by more than a year, and 300,000 women by 18 months. Some 2.6 million women overall are waiting longer to reach state pension age.
The WASPI campaign, as we have heard, is not disputing equalisation but complains about how all the changes were implemented and communicated, and the hardship that ensued for many women. We agree with the House of Commons Work and Pension Select Committee about adequate notice being necessary to enable individuals to plan for retirement. We have doubtless all received examples of how individuals’ hoped-for retirement has been blighted by not being able to access a pension: people having to hang on to an arduous job which they struggle to undertake; individuals having given up a secure job, in the expectation of a pension, not being able to return when the pension disappears into the future; individuals taking up caring responsibilities, saving the social care system in the process; and people just being without resources, with some going abroad.
Of course, we should see this in the historic context of women who, for a variety of reasons, have done less well under the state pension, albeit that over time this will change when state pension outcomes for women should equalise with those of men more than a decade earlier, but not until—would you believe?—2040. Women are still more likely to work part time, have periods out of the labour market, take up caring responsibilities and have lower-paid jobs. With the passage of time, many will by now have reached state pension age—all doing so under the 2011 timetable—and will be in receipt of the new single-tier state pension.
A key matter in determining a fair way forward, as others have said, is to seek to understand whether communication of all these changes has been robust enough and has created a genuine awareness of the implications for those affected by the 1995 and 2011 changes. The WASPI campaign asserts that government communications have been inadequate. This issue has been the subject of review and comment by the Work and Pensions Select Committee. The committee’s conclusion is that the DWP’s direct communications with those affected by the increases in state pension age until 2009 were very limited—and just before the commencement of the changes in 2010. There were more robust personalised letters, as we heard, between 2009 and 2014, but they were seemingly sent on average just over a year before individuals reached the age of 60. The Select Committee concludes:
“We will never know how many women … could not reasonably be expected to know that their state pension age was increasing … while the last and current Governments have done more to communicate state pension age changes … this has been too little too late for many women”.
This argues in favour of some form of redress, and a variety of transitional arrangements have been proposed. These include: bridging pensions, limiting the maximum increase for waiting to one year and reducing the speed of the 2011 Act increases. Some of these carry not insignificant costs, which of course cannot be ignored.
The Labour Party proposes two transitional measures: first, return eligibility for pension credit to the SPA timetable of the 1995 pension arrangements, but with qualifying age continuing to increase to 66. It is understood that this would have a cost over 10 years of something like £800 million; secondly, an early draw-down so that individuals could draw their state pension at age 64 but with an early retirement reduction of 6% per year. So anyone otherwise entitled to a full state pension who retires at 64 would receive something like £137 per week. This option would be available to 2.6 million women with dates of birth between 6 August 1953 and 5 April 1960. It should be cost neutral over the longer term.
We are a long way past the stage where an ideal outcome to the necessary process of equalising and increasing the state pension age could be achieved. But we consider that these proposals could go some way towards improving the lives of millions of women, and we commend them to the Government. Others have expressed incredulity that there has not yet been a meeting arranged with the WASPI campaigning team, and I urge the Government to do that. In any event, I know that my colleagues, together with those in the Commons, would be happy to do so.
Improving Lives: The Future of Work, Health and Disability
Lord McKenzie of Luton Excerpts(6 years, 12 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Buscombe
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Sterling for his contribution. I commend him and pay tribute to the work that he has done with Motability. The Government recognise the valuable service that Motability provides to those with disabilities and health conditions, and we look forward to continuing to work closely with it.
My noble friend recognises that not enough disabled people are in employment. We feel that we have come a long way, but we have a lot further to go. That is why we have set out this ambitious wish to have 1 million more people with disabilities employed over the next 10 years. That is why it is important that we work with groups such as Motability and others to make this happen.
My noble friend is absolutely right that this is not about party politics. Indeed, in welcoming this report, the Mayor for London said this morning that it is time to put party politics aside on this issue. It is, frankly, too important.
My noble friend referred to making employers less nervous. I agree. That is why we are working hard in that area to encourage more employers to come on board. We have launched the Disability Confident business leaders group and started roll-out of the Small Employer Offer and Community Partners. We know some employers want more help to be able confidently to support disabled people in work, and that is why we will do more to improve advice and support: researching and identifying solutions with employers to bring together advice that is easy to find and use; improving access to work by increasing the capacity of the mental health support service; trialling personal budgets; creating an expectation that equipment will move with individuals when they move jobs—which is very important and we have to be practical about it; warm words are not enough—and increasing the reach and effectiveness of Disability Confident.
I take on board my noble friend’s reference to not making it law but encouraging everyone to understand and work with those with disability from an early age. That would make all the difference in the world.
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
My Lords, in introducing the Statement, the Minister promulgated the importance of work being good for people’s health and well-being. We agree with that—it is Waddell and Burton going back over a decade. The Minister referred to “good work” when she focused on this issue. Can she say how “good work” is characterised for these purposes, as opposed to the opposite, particularly in the context of limited and variable-hours contracts?
Baroness Buscombe
My Lords, good work is about supporting people to stay in work as well as supporting them to move into employment; making them feel comfortable in healthier workplaces, while offering the right support for staff to help keep them productive and engaged in work; utilising the broad spectrum of the health system to promote good health; and helping individuals to better manage their conditions. We genuinely believe that people who are in work need proper support; otherwise, their roles will not be sustainable. Too many people are not staying in work once they are in there. Our true definition of good work is where people feel able to cope, continue to feel able to cope and can progress within the workplace. Good work for individuals is not being seen as having been given a job—that is good enough. That is not good enough for us, and that is what we must focus on.
On the issue of employment contracts and so on, we want to ensure that people are able to work in a way that is sustainable. Many people working on zero-hours contracts, for example, find that they are better able to cope with their work/life balance and so on in that environment.
Pension Schemes Act 2015 (Transitional Provisions and Appropriate Independent Advice) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 2017
Lord McKenzie of Luton Excerpts(6 years, 12 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Drake (Lab)
My Lords, I refer to my interests as set out in the register, in particular that I am a trustee of two occupational pension schemes. The regulations have the effect of removing some individuals—currently estimated at 2,360 per annum—from the need to get regulated advice before accessing those pension pots with a safeguarded flexible benefit, such as a guaranteed annuity rate. This is a consequence of changing the valuation process to determine whether such benefits meet the greater than £30,000 trigger for requiring the individual to take regulated advice.
The term “safeguarded flexible benefits”—the subject matter of these regulations—can feel imprecise, however many times one reads the background paperwork. I appreciate that there are problems with getting data from both contract- and trust-based schemes, but it is not always clear which benefits are included and which are not. I acknowledge that schemes may well need to seek legal opinion to get that clarity so they are sure about how they are applying these regulations to their own schemes.
I thank the DWP officials who quite late into yesterday evening were still answering my various questions. I take this opportunity to ask the Minister two questions about which safeguarded flexible benefits are included. In occupational schemes where members have a right under the scheme rules to convert their AVC saving into scheme defined-benefit benefits, does that provision come under these regulations? Is it possible to give greater clarity on which guaranteed annuity rates in occupational schemes would not be considered money purchase benefits?
Moving on to the risk warning process, I recognise that these regulations sit alongside a new requirement for schemes to send members with safeguarded flexible benefits a tailored risk warning about the guarantees their benefits offer before they proceed to transfer, convert or flexibly access them. Such risk warnings are welcome, but I have a series of linked questions for the Minister on the process around those risk warnings. First, why can the risk warning not be issued immediately following receipt of a member request to transfer, convert or directly access their flexible benefits and before commencing to process the member request? If the warning is received as late as 14 days before any live request completes, evidence suggests that by then individuals are well set on a course of action, inertia takes over and risk warnings are less effective. Some schemes run a system where there are warnings in place: the first thing is the warning, before the full process is triggered.
Secondly, will the risk warning be sent to any other potential beneficiary of the benefits, such as parties involved in a pensions sharing order or, as my noble friend said, possibly survivors? This is a duplicate question, in that sense. Why is the warning restricted to signposting the member to free and impartial guidance? Is this not exactly the type of case where a person should be given almost a default access to the guidance service in line with the recent amendment agreed to the Financial Guidance and Claims Bill? Just a written reference to signposting can often get lost in the detail of the information sent to members, and we are talking about safeguarded benefits.
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the introduction and explanation of the regulations. As ever, I am delighted to have the expertise of my noble friend Lady Drake alongside me on these occasions.
The regulations derive, as we have heard, from Section 48 of Pension Schemes Act 2015 and are an integral part of the pension freedoms introduced with effect from April 2015. They focus on the requirements on trustees or managers of a pension scheme in Great Britain to ensure that appropriate independent advice has been received before safeguarded benefits can be converted, one way or another, to flexible benefits.
These regulations, as we have heard, sit alongside other regulations, of the negative variety, which concern requirements for schemes to provide risk warnings where members have the benefit of a GAR—guaranteed annuity rate—which they might otherwise be in danger of relinquishing. Together with the transitional provisions for the advice requirements, these are described in the Explanatory Memorandum as a package and we comment on them on that basis.
The requirement to get regulated advice currently operates when an individual’s safeguarded benefits are valued at more than £30,000. It is suggested that the detail of this requires amendment because the basis of calculation is unduly complicated in some circumstances and can lead to situations where the calculation of the advice threshold exceeds £30,000 but the pension pot size is different. Having two different valuations is said to be confusing, and we understand that point.
The impact assessment explains that these complications exist because the valuation regulations currently applied were previously used only by occupational DB schemes and that the circumstances in which they now have to be applied do not generally have standardised processes in place to value GAR benefits in terms of the current value of the future income they offer. As we have heard, the solution offered by these regulations is to adopt the transfer value of the pot in the calculations determining whether the £30,000 threshold for getting regulated advice is reached.
On an ongoing basis, this will save individuals with safeguarded flexible benefits some £11 million per year in advice fees. As we have heard, it will remove some 12,000 people per year from the need to get advice before they access pension pots, although they will be brought within the risk warning arrangements. This seems to be taking matters in the wrong direction. Changing the basis of calculation might be administratively or arithmetically convenient, but what assessment have the Government undertaken of the appropriateness of removing so many people from the benefit of advice?
It is accepted that individuals will no longer have to meet the cost of advice, but they will not be getting the benefit of that advice either. Of course, fewer requirements for regulated advice means fewer fees paid by individuals, but will the Minister remind us about the circumstances in which individuals can access their pension pot to pay for advice, the limits and the tax treatment? Do the Government have any information about the extent to which this is used?
The Explanatory Memorandum makes reference to the potential for inconsistent treatment of members regarding when advice is required when schemes can exercise more generous transfers. Will the Minister tell us how this issue is to be dealt with? We support the concept of risk warnings and the principle of informing members of their safeguarded flexible benefits. This should be the responsibility of ceding schemes and should happen before proceeding to transfer, convert or flexibly access scheme benefits. It should apply to survivors with safeguarded benefits.
We agree that those already required to take advice should be included in the risk warnings. We support there being no de minimis exemption on the basis of pot size. On timing, which my noble friend raised, it is proposed that the risk warning should be sent at least 14 days before any live request completes. Why can the warning not be sent, as my noble friend asked, as soon as a member request to transfer or access the flexible benefits is received?
The Government’s response to the consultation on these matters has confirmed the approach to the content of the risk warning and the inclusion of two comparable pension illustrations tailored to the member’s age, pot size and contribution rate and with details of guarantees available.
Paragraph 44 states that the Government are not convinced of the need to explain the difference between personalised tax warnings and the statutory money purchase illustrations. Will the Minister expand on the rationale for this position?
Can the Minister also confirm that she is confident that there should be no confusion arising from obligations in respect of retirement wake-up packs and personalised risk warnings? The written element of the risk warning is, according to the impact assessment, to include the signposting to free and impartial guidance—Pension Wise currently or SFGB, or whatever it is going to be called, in due course. As my noble friend has said, this is about the weakest indication of support, bearing in mind that many would previously have had to take advice. As my noble friend proposes, is this not the type of situation now potentially covered by amendments to the Financial Guidance and Claims Bill where individuals can be defaulted to the guidance service with an obligation to demonstrate that they have received guidance before proceeding?
We will not oppose these regulations, although in some respects we consider them a missed opportunity. However, they illustrate the complexity of aspects of our pensions system and the importance of ensuring that individuals are fully supported to understand the value of their pension entitlements.
Baroness Buscombe
I thank all noble Lords and the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, for taking part in the debate. I will do my level best to respond to the questions as fully as I am able. The noble Lord, Lord Jones, first asked about the legal term “survivor”. “Survivor” in the regulations means a person who has survived the member and has a right to future benefits or is entitled to benefits under the scheme in respect of that member. The noble Baroness, Lady Drake, and the noble Lord, Lord Jones, referred to survivors. I want to make clear that these regulations apply to both members and survivors. Where an individual inherits a member’s subsisting rights in respect of safeguarded benefits and those benefits exceed the advice threshold of £30,000 the survivor is also required to take financial advice. Survivors who inherit a member’s safeguarded flexible benefits will also receive a personalised risk warning should they decide to transfer, convert or flexibly access their inherited pension rights. The risk warning is sent to whoever is making a decision about their pension saving at the point they are most engaged in that decision.
In response to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, about what is included in the definition of safeguarded flexible benefits, the simplest description of a safeguarded flexible benefit is a cash pot with some form of promise or guarantee that the member can convert their pot into a pension income at a predetermined rate. We have framed the definition in fairly general terms, rather than specifically to the types of pension arrangements it covers, such as guaranteed annuity rates, in order to limit the scope for omissions or avoidance. Those uncertain whether the regulations apply should seek appropriate legal expertise and advice.
I turn to the question of what GARs in occupational schemes are not money purchase. GARs that are included in the rules of the pension scheme irrespective of whether this was reflected in the terms of a contract between the trustee and a third party, such as an insurer, are not money purchase. In this situation, the scheme would be liable to fund benefits over and above what the scheme assets—including the contract—can provide. So the benefits are technically non-money purchase and are, therefore, safeguarded benefits.
The noble Baroness also asked about members who are told about their guarantees too late. The question was, why not require schemes to tell members about their guarantees earlier on? The regulations laid alongside these regulations will require trustees and scheme managers to send members information about their valuable guarantees at precisely the point that the member is most engaged in considering what to do with their pension savings. This, we believe, makes them more effective at increasing awareness of guarantees among members than forcing schemes to send regular information long before members’ retirement, when they may not be actively considering a decision.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Just on that point, is it the Government’s position that they would support those amendments as currently carried and included in the Bill?
Baroness Buscombe
I thank the noble Lord for the question. Yes, the Government will accept the amendment in the other place but of course we cannot speak for other Members in the other place, who may think differently. Certainly, the expectation is that the amendment will see Royal Assent.
There was a suggestion that our legislation is reducing protection for members of defined benefit schemes, but these regulations have no impact on the vast majority of such schemes or their members. They will still be subject to the same requirement for regulated financial advice where their benefits exceed the same threshold, and the same valuations will continue to apply. In the small proportion of schemes that choose to offer more generous transfer values than are required by law, members whose defined benefit pensions are worth in the region of £20,000 to £30,000 are being treated more fairly. They will not be forced to take advice when members with the same rights in other defined benefit schemes are not. These members can of course opt to take advice and will be able to seek guidance, which can signal the option of advice before transferring.
There was a question about whether we were reducing member protection and making it easier for savers to surrender their guarantees. We remain committed to the principle of the advice safeguard. That is why the threshold to whom it is applied remains the same—those with safeguarded benefits with a value of over £30,000—and with the introduction of these regulations, for the majority of members with safeguarded benefits there will be no change in how their pension is valued and calculated for the purpose of the advice requirement.
However, where a pot is cash-based but has a safeguarded element, such as the option of a guaranteed annuity rate, these regulations deliver simplification and clarity. Trustees and scheme managers now have to produce only one valuation of the member’s pot. A single figure is easily explained and avoids confusing members because it makes it clearer what the members may receive if they proceed to transfer, convert or otherwise flexibly access their savings. At the same time, parallel regulations introduce new protections that are timely—sent at the point members are making a decision—and increase the total number of members informed that their pots contain guarantees.
The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked about the work that has been done on assessing the impact of the regulations. The Department for Work and Pensions estimates that there will be approximately 12,400 individuals per year who no longer need to try to find advice. The noble Lord said that he felt that these regulations were a missed opportunity. I reconfirm, as I said at the outset of this brief debate, that it is very important to take on board the fact that the Department for Work and Pensions is continually reviewing and assessing the impact of regulations, following the protection freedoms. If it is found that more needs to be done, changed or amended, we will certainly do that through secondary legislation.
The regulations debated here today simplify how trustees and scheme managers value members’ pensions when determining whether the requirement to take advice applies. Pension schemes with members who hold safeguarded flexible benefits—mainly but not exclusively personal pension contracts that include the option of an annuity at a guaranteed rate—can use the transfer value of the member’s pot, instead of undertaking a complex actuarial calculation.
Representatives of consumers and industry have both sought and supported the simplification of the current valuation method that these regulations deliver, and both groups will benefit from its implementation. Consumers with safeguarded flexible benefits will be less confused when they inquire about transferring or accessing their pot because they will receive only one valuation, and the difficulties for industry when valuing these guarantees will be removed.
Finally, these regulations form part of a package of measures. If approved, they will come into force alongside a new requirement to send all members tailored communications, ensuring that all members are told about their valuable benefits in a more timely and accessible manner. There will also no longer be a cohort of individuals who are required to seek financial advice, but are often unable to locate an adviser willing to advise on their pension savings. I hope I have set out for the Committee the need for these regulations and have responded to the matters raised. I commend these draft regulations to the Committee.
Financial Guidance and Claims Bill [HL]
Lord McKenzie of Luton ExcerptsTuesday 21st November 2017
(7 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Financial Guidance and Claims Act 2018 View all Financial Guidance and Claims Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 70-I Marshalled list for Third Reading (PDF, 106KB) - (20 Nov 2017)
Baroness Buscombe
Perhaps I may respond quickly to my noble friend Lord Hunt. Both we and the Financial Conduct Authority are aware that our plans for whiplash reform could have an impact on this market. I reassure him that the FCA will certainly keep this sector under review and will monitor developments closely during the implementation phase.
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
My Lords, given the strong consensus that has emerged from the noble Lords who have spoken on these amendments—the noble Baronesses, Lady Kramer and Lady Altmann, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt—I can be brief. We support these amendments and we also support the provisions in the Bill, particularly in relation to a senior manager regime. That is very important.
Amendments 14 to 24 respond to the Scottish Government’s request for the regulation of CMCs to be extended to Scotland, and they will also help to negate the concerns that have been expressed about cross-border planning.
With regard to Amendment 25, although she is not here today, we should place on record our thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, for leading the charge on this issue. As others have noted, the cap has been set at 20% exclusive of VAT, which is at the upper end of the range on which the Government consulted. However, we should see that in context. Currently it is suggested that the average fee rate for CMCs is some 37% of gross revenue, which is almost double the level at which the cap has been set.
It may be appropriate to remind ourselves of the scale of PPI, which I know will be coming to an end in August. I think that banks’ finance companies have paid out more than £26 billion in compensation over recent years. That is an extraordinary amount of money, and I wonder what that injection of funding to the consumer has done to the economy. It is important that the cap bites as soon as possible. Can the Minister confirm that the cap will apply to charges arising after the entering into force of Clause 21—just two months after this legislation comes into force—notwithstanding that the claims to which they relate may have preceded that? Can she confirm that it is not the date of the claim that is relevant for these purposes but the date when the compensation is paid?
Amendment 29 would appear to limit the application of the cap so that it does not apply to Scotland in respect of charges relating to claims prior to the transfer of regulation to the FCA. Perhaps the Minister could confirm that my understanding is correct. It would also seem to deny the application of Schedule 4 to Scotland. This schedule is concerned in part with transfer schemes in relation to the FCA. Perhaps the Minister could say what, if any, restructuring in Scotland might be affected by this change and how it would be affected if Schedule 4 were not applied to it.
Overall, we support these important amendments and look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Baroness Buscombe
I thank the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie. I am so afraid of making a mistake at this late stage that I would prefer to write to him in reply.
Baroness Buscombe
My Lords, I would like to take a moment to reflect on the Bill and its passage through your Lordships’ House. This is important legislation that will benefit members of the public and provide a sustainable legislative framework for public financial guidance and the regulation of claims management companies in the future. It has improving financial capability at its heart and I am proud to be associated with it.
At Second Reading I said that I hoped we would have constructive engagement as the Bill progressed through this House. Your Lordships have not disappointed. The Bill has rightly been accorded due and diligent attention from noble Lords across the House, and I would like to thank all those who have engaged on the Floor of the House and also in the many meetings we have had outside.
I would like also to thank my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham for all his help and assistance as the Bill has progressed. He has been a tower of strength and a more than able co-pilot throughout.
Finally, but importantly, I would like to thank the Bill team and officials across the Department for Work and Pensions, Her Majesty’s Treasury, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, and the Ministry of Justice. Many of them have put in incredibly long hours to support my noble friend and me during debates, facilitate briefing meetings and provide the updates, letters and briefings that many noble Lords have received. I may add that other noble Lords, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, referenced the cross-departmental support we have had. It has been amazing and has made an enormous difference to the outcome of the Bill.
Throughout the passage of the Bill we have listened to the arguments and suggestions made by noble Lords, and, in many cases, have agreed and brought forward amendments that strengthen it. I think we can all agree that this Bill leaves here in good shape, and I believe that this is in no small part due to the helpful and constructive manner in which all sides of the House have engaged with it.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I will say just a few words. I start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, for her kind words. We are grateful again for the open-minded manner in which she and her co-pilot, the noble Lord, Lord Young, have approached the Bill. I never had the opportunity to ask him whether Luton Airport was on the flight path, but I will try to on a future occasion.
Invariably it is said at the end of a Bill process that the House of Lords has improved the Bill from its starting point. While tenuous in some instances, it is definitely true with this Bill. Support across the Chamber has enabled the framework for a debt respite scheme; consumer protection on cold calling; strengthening access to information and guidance on accessing pensions; a duty of care on setting standards; requiring that pensions guidance functions are provided freely and impartially; strengthening offences of mimicking; as well as securing the dashboard. These changes have come about because, broadly, we have had a shared analysis of what the Bill could achieve; a shared analysis with the Lib Dems and Cross-Benchers as well as with the Government, including the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann.
We are very grateful for the proactive approach of the Bill team, which went above and beyond in trying to fit our amendments into the confines of the scope of the Bill. I do not know how many variations of the debt respite provisions the team had to cope with, but there were many. I offer my thanks to the Lib Dems for their joint working on some key areas, among them the noble Lords, Lord Sharkey and Lord Kirkwood, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer.
Finally, I thank my colleagues, my noble friend Lady Drake, our pensions supremo who unfortunately is not in her place today, and of course my noble friend Lord Stevenson for his experience and passion on matters of the debt space. It has made my role a good deal easier.
Financial Guidance and Claims Bill [HL]
Lord McKenzie of Luton ExcerptsTuesday 31st October 2017
(7 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Financial Guidance and Claims Act 2018 View all Financial Guidance and Claims Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 1-R-II Second marshalled list for Report (PDF, 110KB) - (27 Oct 2017)
The Viscount Thurso (LD)
My Lords, I have followed the passage of this Bill with great interest but I have not felt the need to intervene. However, today I support my noble friend in this amendment based on two experiences.
The first is as a trustee of the Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund, which, as I am sure many Members know, is a well-run fund and gives a great deal of excellent advice. However, it is always surprising to discover how many well-educated, highly numerate and literate people fail to grasp much of what there is to do with pensions. If those of us who regard ourselves as reasonably well educated, quite numerate and quite literate are having difficulty with pensions, it stands to reason that many people who have not had those advantages will have even greater problems. To my mind, therefore, the need for advice is a case that is clearly made.
The second experience arises from my time on the banking commission of the Treasury Select Committee in another place. We worked extremely hard to ensure that the Financial Conduct Authority had a proper consumer remit. I am delighted that the Government accepted what we had to say because the FCA has proved to have undertaken the remit well and with a degree of teeth. If we want to ensure that a regulation works, we must make sure that the person promulgating it has teeth. It is absolutely right that the FCA should be the body to make the regulations and to follow up on them.
In summary, it would not surprise me if there is considerable resistance from the Treasury, but that is simply a manifestation of its well-known terminal “not invented here” syndrome. Experience shows that where the Treasury is obliged to take on regulation, it comes round to accepting its wisdom in due course. The test of this amendment, therefore, is not “Why should we?” but “Why shouldn’t we”.
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment. We support not only the manner in which it was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, and spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, but all other noble Lords who have spoken in support of it. The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, said that it was about making the system work better, while the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, reminded us that it is not about making this mandatory. The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, talked about the need to look at pensions. We have looked at mortgages in the past, but now is the time to make sure that pensions are fully protected. The noble Lord, Lord Deben, said that having freedoms is one thing, but being able to use those freedoms effectively with financial knowledge is important. The noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, reminded us again of the importance of financial education and the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, outlined the importance of the FCA.
Amendment 24 is clear in its purpose. The FCA must require all trustees and managers of pension schemes to ask people, at the point at which they seek to access or transfer their pensions, whether they have received the information and guidance available to them from the new financial guidance body under Clause 3. If they have not received that guidance, the FCA may require the trustee or the pension scheme manager to provide the individual with access to it before the manager proceeds with the access or transfer request. In effect, the FCA can require that people at risk are defaulted into guidance through their scheme.
Public pension policy is now predicated on, effectively, dividing pensions into two elements: a saving phase and an access phase. In the saving phase, the barriers to individuals’ acting in the face of complexity, which inhibits optimal decision-making, are recognised and regulated defaults have been introduced—auto-enrolment and default investment funds. In the access phase, policy assumes behaviours to be dramatically different, with individuals bearing direct responsibility for making good choices, even though the evidence is clear that they need more support. People are nudged by public policy to save, but they are left to their own devices when accessing or transferring their savings. As the chief economist at the Bank of England, Andy Haldane, commented on 18 May at the annual dinner of the think tank New City Agenda,
“I consider myself moderately financially literate. Yet I confess to not being able to make the remotest sense of pensions. Conversations with countless experts and independent financial advisers have confirmed for me only one thing—that they have no clue either. That is a desperately poor basis for sound financial planning”.
The radical reforms to accessing savings, introduced in the 2014 pension freedom and choice flexibilities, introduced new risks attached to individual decision-making, which will only increase over time as more pensioners become dependent on defined contribution savings. Many people are not well-equipped to make informed decisions. Many of the pension draw-down products do not have the governance and value for money requirements that workplace pensions possess in the savings phase. The prevalence of scams has increased as a direct result of the new freedoms as, increasingly, fraudsters try to get hold of people’s hard-earned savings.
As the FCA observed in the interim report on its retirement market study following the introduction of the new pension freedoms, consumers are poorly placed to drive effective competition. The retirement income market is not working well and the introduction of greater choice and more complex products will reduce consumer confidence and weaken the pressures on providers to offer good value.
The governance of the UK private pension system remains a challenge and the creation of the single financial guidance body is intended, in part, to address market failures and support people to make informed decisions that are in their interest. That will happen only if people access the guidance available—if those at risk of poor decisions use it and are referred to it before they make their decisions or their decisions are implemented. That is precisely what the amendment seeks to achieve, by requiring trustees and scheme managers to ask people whether they have taken the guidance available before they access or transfer their pensions and, if necessary, by requiring the trustees and managers to provide access to that guidance, in line with rules drawn up by the FCA, before proceeding to implement the individual’s decision. Requiring providers to ask people before they make their decision whether they have received guidance from the new body will improve public knowledge of the service and, in some circumstances, address the known barriers put in place by some providers that are reluctant to see their customers access impartial guidance, for fear that they will not buy a product or service from them as a result. Requiring trustees and managers to provide access to that guidance before proceeding to act will directly help to protect savers from making poor decisions.
The case for the amendment is also provided by the FCA’s recent Retirement Outcomes Review: Interim Report. The FCA observed that,
“pension freedoms have made consumer decisions much more complex … consumers struggle to understand their options and to think through the implications of their decisions … leading consumers to choose what … may not be the best decision for them”.
Some consumers cannot, or will not, engage with those decisions. Not all will take advice because of its cost and availability. That is a market gap. Indeed, the FCA expressed concern about whether a competitive market in retirement products can ever develop in the future. It identified four areas of remedy, one of which was to get savers to use the free and impartial guidance. That guidance is currently available from Pension Wise, the Pensions Advisory Service and Citizens Advice, but will transfer to the new body. The FCA explicitly recognises that favouring more guidance will,
“require cooperation across the Government, regulators”,
and industry. The amendment is an important requirement in securing that co-operation and protecting the increasing number of vulnerable savers. For the vast majority of people, a poor financial decision at the point of retirement or on transfer is a mistake for life. It cannot be remedied.
In conclusion, if noble Lords needed further reason to support the amendment, I refer them to the briefing from the Association of British Insurers on the amendment, delivered yesterday evening, which states:
“Enhancing access to advice and guidance is essential, and the SFGB has the potential to play a crucial role in helping more people understand their pension options. This should include exploring with industry and the DWP how we can make the use of guidance a recognised, positive norm when people choose to access their pension savings. The ABI would like to explore how this could work in practice, for example through options such as defaulting or auto-enrolling customers to guidance, earlier retirement communications to prompt people to use guidance, and introducing a Midlife MOT”.
I urge support for the amendment.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton (Lab)
My Lords, I am not an expert on these things, as most people obviously are. A scam was carried out on me in France in the summer, and that was very educational. The point is: would a person in a remote village who is confused and has already been scammed trust the mail or any other form of communication? Surely there needs to be somewhere—perhaps the post office or the bank—where worried people can go. At the moment they have to write to some governmental body far away. We are in a desperate situation and I would be interested to know the Minister’s opinion on this.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I can be brief. We welcome the Government’s amendments, which would place in the Bill a duty on the FCA to make rules requiring information to be given to consumers and members of the public by relevant organisations and persons about the availability of impartial financial guidance. This requirement will cover all information, guidance and advice provided by the single financial guidance body.
The substance of our debate on this group has been Amendment 29A, which strengthens the government amendment with the intent of increasing the use of the new financial guidance service by placing a duty on the FCA to make general rules requiring specified persons to refer specified members of the public to the new body for guidance. The FCA must also specify the manner and circumstances in which the duty to refer applies. Therefore, the amendment puts the FCA in the driving seat, which is the thrust of the amendment. The noble Baroness said that this was basically what the FCA was about in any event, in which case I would ask: if we are at one in what we are trying to achieve here on the authority that the FCA should have, why not enshrine it in the Bill?
Baroness Buscombe
I have already spoken in detail on Amendment 29A, so I am possibly at risk of repeating everything that I have said. However, I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Chesterton, to refer to Hansard, where he will see that since 19 July we have been discussing the very issue about which he is concerned.
The truth is that we are setting up a single financial guidance body which we hope will be even better than the bodies that already exist when it comes to improving people’s financial capability and giving them regulated advice and guidance. That is the purpose of the Bill. I hope that I have persuaded noble Lords that Amendment 29A is not necessary and that the noble Lord will be happy to withdraw it.
Baroness Buscombe
Amendments 34, 35, 36, 37, 38 and 39 would revise Clause 14 and insert a new clause into the Bill. Clause 14 makes provision for the winding up of the single financial guidance body and for its functions, property, rights or liabilities to be transferred to the Secretary of State or another body. These amendments would add safeguards to the procedures for dissolving the body should that be necessary in the future.
In drafting these amendments, we have listened carefully to the concerns raised in previous debates by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, and the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. As a result, we have studied the approaches taken in both the Public Bodies Act 2011 and the Enterprise Act 2016 to provisions to dissolve arm’s-length bodies.
As I explained in Committee, we would expect stakeholders, the public and other interested parties to have the opportunity to give their views before any decision to dissolve the new body was made. We are now putting that beyond doubt by setting out clearly that a public consultation will be required before the Government can lay any draft regulations to dissolve the body.
The amendments also provide assurance that any draft regulations cannot be laid until at least 12 weeks after the consultation has begun. This allows a suitable period of time for consultation and consideration of the responses to take place. In addition, the amendments require that the Secretary of State must, alongside any draft regulations, lay before Parliament a document to explain the rationale behind dissolving the body.
The amendments also give Members of both Houses the opportunity to request that the period for scrutinising the draft regulations be increased from the usual 40-day period to 60 days. During this time, the Secretary of State must have regard to any representations, resolutions and recommendations made by either House, their Members or committees.
I trust that noble Lords will agree that we have listened carefully and responded fully to the strength of feeling on the need for consultation and parliamentary scrutiny. I trust too that they will agree that these amendments provide those important safeguards. I beg to move.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, when we debated in Committee an amendment to Clause 14 requiring a more extensive parliamentary process for the dissolution of the SFGB than that set out in the Bill, the Minister promised to reflect on the matter. This she has done and we are grateful for that.
As the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee set out in its first report of Session 2017-19, under the Bill as drafted the Minister does not have to be satisfied as to anything before deciding to abolish the body, does not have to consult, does not have to conduct a formal review and does not have to wait a certain time to see whether the new body is working well before deciding to abolish it. Each of those deficiencies appears to have been taken into account in the government amendments. Amendment 39 enables the super-affirmative process to be applied if either House or a relevant committee of either House so determines, and the process is reflected in the detail of the amendment. This requires that the Secretary of State must have regard to the representations received and any recommendations of either House or of a relevant committee. Effectively this means that Parliament can directly influence the terms of the regulations.
We should note that the provisions of Clause 14 have effect not only to dissolve SFGB but to determine where and to whom its functions are to be transferred.
We can support the amendments and I thank the Minister again for addressing the concerns which have been raised.
Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope
My Lords, I welcome the amendments and congratulate the Minister on bringing them forward. It makes a huge difference if Ministers listen carefully to what is said on the Floor of the House and changes are brought forward as a direct result.
I acknowledge also the important work that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee does in its service to this House. In its first report it made clear the comparisons that the Minister has alluded to with the Public Bodies Act and the Enterprise Act and the earlier precedents they contained. We should study carefully the work the Committee does because it provides an important service to the House. The Minister has listened carefully and she deserves credit for that.
As a member of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which assists the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, I welcome these amendments. Both committees enhance the work of the House.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, we should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, for moving the amendment on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher. If I understand the points he made it looks as though this will be another issue for us to consider on Third Reading, so I do not propose to dwell on it extensively. If that is not the case it will be good if the Minister tells us.
The thrust of the amendment is to try to get interim rules in place to put a cap on the charges levied, particularly relating to PPI as the ability to claim is coming to the end of its natural life. The noble Lord raised an interesting point on what the remedy would be when people exceed the cap. Will the Minister confirm that the route would be that the excess is recoverable by the claimant, rather than some other more direct remedy? I look forward to his reply.
Baroness Altmann
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, for moving the amendment on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher. I ask the Minister whether we have considered the issue, supported by a number of consumer groups, that I raised in Committee requiring a company that has been found to need to pay out on a claim to pay the claims management fee, rather than taking it out of the compensation. That should perhaps be more acceptable with a cap, but also more effective for those who receive compensation, as well as encouraging companies that have mis-sold something or perpetrated harm to the consumer to voluntarily contact consumers who have been harmed, rather than waiting for a claims management firm to do so on their behalf, thus saving them the extra cost of the claims management fee.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, on sticking with this issue, because it is fundamental. I say to the Government that a duty of care is so important and should be so central to every piece of our financial services industry that we should not let the perfect—having a general duty of care—be the enemy of the good, which is the opportunity to put a specific duty of care in this Bill. I hope the Government will consider that.
I have the privilege to be on the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards. As we sought to strengthen the framework of regulation and to expose a lot of misdirection within the financial services industry, I think everybody, not only on the committee but far more broadly, agreed that the key problem lay in culture. We have turned to the banking and financial services industries and asked them through various bodies to improve their culture, but surely we also have a responsibility to drive that with every piece of legislation that comes our way. Duty of care reflects that whole-culture approach: the underlying, underpinning approach that we expect our financial services to take, where the interests of the customer are at the centre. It is not that the financial services should not be able to make profits—of course, that is the business they are in—but it should never be at the expense of that central interest of the client or customer.
I urge the Government to take seriously this opportunity in an area where there has been extraordinary abuse. I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, for example; others talked about whiplash and issues around holiday sickness. In issue after issue, we have seen a complete failure in the culture of the bodies that provide such services. We should tackle that issue head on and not be afraid to use language that is clearly around that duty of care—not considering it too soft or too difficult—so that it becomes a general habit. I hope we will not rely just on general duties of care, because those can sometimes be imperfect, but will make sure that in every piece of financial services legislation this issue is underscored. In that, this legislation could be a leader.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, we have added our name to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, which takes us back to regulatory principles and the duty of care.
The noble Lord is right to have removed the “where appropriate” qualification from his earlier amendment. The amendment deals with the regulation of claims management, although this is seen as an opportunity to debate the wider calls for a duty of care across the financial services piece.
On the narrower point, we acknowledge that in Committee the Minister gave assurances about the FCA consulting on the design of new rules for claims management companies and taking account of its statutory operational objectives, including an appropriate degree of protection for consumers. However, we note that there is no current alignment of the objectives of the CMRU and the FCA, and there seems to be no certainty about where this process will end up.
Financial Guidance and Claims Bill [HL]
Lord McKenzie of Luton ExcerptsTuesday 24th October 2017
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Financial Guidance and Claims Act 2018 View all Financial Guidance and Claims Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 1-R-I Marshalled list for Report - (20 Oct 2017)
Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope (LD)
My Lords, I will be quick, as the House obviously wants to make progress on this. As a former business manager, I can see where all this is going and can anticipate what the Minister is going to say. The position was warmed up rather nicely by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks. He is an honest man, whose opinions always have to be weighed in the balance, but anybody who seriously suggests that there is going to be legislative time in the future for some other vehicle lives on a different political planet.
The noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, made an important speech, and I agreed with my noble friend Lady Kramer when she said a lot of colleagues have done a lot of serious work on this. I was first alerted to the extent of the evidence while serving as a colleague of the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, on the Financial Exclusion Committee. There is a sense of rage and anger about this, which has been going on for far too long. The evidence is there, and as an institution we have a chance of changing it. I for one think it is inconceivable that any Minister in the position that the noble Baroness finds herself can convince this House—certainly me—that this is something we can do another day. We will be deep into European withdrawal for the next two years, and the DWP will be lucky if it gets any Bills during that time—I assert that based on my experience over many years. We have to deal with this now, and I support these amendments. I hope they will be pressed to a Division and passed.
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, for his comprehensive introduction of this important package of amendments, which we support in its entirety. As we have heard, fundamentally it would enable a ban on cold calling across the piece, together with related reporting functions to the FCA on consumer detriment. We should congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, on his drafting, which would enable us to proceed now with a ban. We know the detriment that cold calling can bring, not only by CMCs but in the pensions arena, and the harm that can produce.
A number of noble Lords touched on this. The noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, talked about vulnerability in the digital age and how damaging that can be. The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, spoke about the opportunity to do something today to help deal with a process that causes real mental harm. We agree with that. The noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, talked about the scams around holiday sickness and the impact of the advance of technology if we do not get stuck into this sooner rather than later—the need to deal with the “omnipresent social menace”, as he put it. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, on his challenge to the noble Lord, Lord Faulks. If it is not in this piece of legislation, when will it happen?
The FCA recently published its Financial Lives Survey 2017, which identified that in the last 12 months, 23% of adults, or 11.6 million, received an unsolicited approach, although of course that does not mean that they would all have necessarily suffered detriment from that. Banning cold calling is not only an opportunity to deal with a nuisance, it is an effective way of disrupting the business models of the scammers and fraudsters. Perhaps this would be an opportunity to get to those higher-end activities to which the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, referred.
I know the Minister is supportive of a ban on “every type” of call, because she told us so in Committee, but the strenuous efforts of Ministers have apparently failed to deliver on that aspiration. Notwithstanding the asserted complexity that the legislation might entail, we were told that if it was in scope, it would be in the Bill. It seems that it is in scope. That hurdle has been overcome, so what is the problem? We accept that there may be some complexity in drafting, but surely nothing beyond the wit of parliamentary counsel.
We urge the Government to make progress. Every day that goes by without the ban holds the risk that someone somewhere will be defrauded of their savings, their life turned upside down. We may hear from the Government, as we have before, that there are already restrictions on cold calling and unsolicited direct marketing, but this has not prevented consumer detriment continuing. On several occasions during our debates the Minister has told us she has disconnected her landline. If there is such confidence in the current framework, why on earth would that be necessary?
This is a hugely important issue, which is why we have common cause around the Chamber from pretty much all Benches. This is an opportunity to do something now. If we do not do it now, when will it be? I urge the whole House to support the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Buscombe) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this important debate with which we begin our Report stage on this important Bill. Amendments 1, 2 and 7, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord McKenzie and Lord Sharkey, my noble friend Lady Altmann and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, would introduce a consumer protection function for the body and a statutory duty in respect of cold calling. I want to say straightaway that we do not believe that Amendments 1, 2 and 7 would depend on each other to work.
Amendments 1 and 7 would set a statutory function for the Financial Conduct Authority to pass on casework from consumers to the FCA on inappropriate, misleading or harassing approaches by financial services providers to consumers, as well as poor behaviour by providers in the areas of activity related to the body. The Government agree with the logic behind this but the Bill already gives the body the power to share information with the FCA under its information-sharing provisions. Specifically, Clause 12 contains a two-way information-sharing gateway between the single financial guidance body and the FCA that allows the disclosure of information, provided it is pursuant to the functions of either organisation. This would include information relating to cold calling on debt advice, debt management and pension access services.
The single financial guidance body will not exist in a vacuum. It will need to work closely with key stakeholders, and Clause 12 is designed to facilitate close working between the body and its sponsor department, the devolved authorities, the Financial Conduct Authority and the body’s delivery partners. The clause allows these key stakeholders to share information with the body and vice versa. The intention is to allow unpublished data, such as performance-related statistics and confidential insights gained into the financial guidance landscape, to be shared. This information may include personal data as long as any disclosure is in accordance with the Data Protection Act. The clause also allows information to be shared regarding suspected dishonest, unfair or unprofessional conduct by those supplying financial services so that the FCA can take appropriate action against the offending firm.
The powers would enable casework to be passed between the body and the FCA. We would expect that, subject to provisions in Clause 12 and the Data Protection Act, the body would share this with the FCA if that were the right thing to do for the individual. The Bill does not require the body to supply information of this kind to the FCA because there will often be circumstances in which it would be more beneficial for the customer to be signposted elsewhere—for example, to the Pensions Ombudsman Service or the Financial Ombudsman Service. As such, it is best for the body and the FCA to work out how this handover could take place using the powers in Clause 12.
To illustrate, let me give an example of what a consumer’s journey looks like today when impacted by fraud or scams, and what we see as the new body’s role to support the consumer. Where the body believes there has been wrongdoing, we would expect it to contact the FCA or other appropriate authorities. If an individual feels that they have been subject to inappropriate approaches or misconduct by an authorised firm, we would expect the new body to recommend to the individual that they contact the Financial Ombudsman Service or the Pensions Ombudsman Service, depending on the particular nature of their complaint. If an individual suspects that they have been contacted by an unauthorised firm or individual carrying out an FCA-regulated activity, it is already possible for the new body to transfer the casework to the FCA.
Furthermore, organisations involved with Project Bloom, a multi-agency group dedicated to tackling pension fraud scams—of which the FCA is part—have an agreed customer journey to which we would expect the new body to sign up. Part of this journey is that, if the individual or the body believes that a customer may have been a victim of a scam, the body should encourage them to contact Action Fraud, which is the UK’s national fraud reporting centre. The body would also recommend that customers contact Action Fraud when a customer or the guider suspects that the customer has been a victim of types of fraud other than pension scams. Action Fraud will collect information from the customer about the alleged fraud, and then act as a co-ordinator to cascade the information to the City of London Police or other relevant local police forces to investigate the issue further.
When you report a fraud to Action Fraud, you are given the option for your contact details to be passed on to Victim Support, a national charity that helps those affected by crime. If you take up this option, you will then be contacted by someone from the charity and offered free and confidential emotional support and practical help. Indeed, the Pensions Advisory Service currently encourages those who have been a victim of a pension scam to come back and contact TPAS for support in rebuilding their retirement savings, and offers a bespoke appointment where they discuss rebuilding pension funds and potential next steps. We would expect that the body would perform a similar service.
I hope this illustrates that a blanket obligation to share casework with the FCA would be unnecessary. A requirement for the body to share the casework could lead to adverse consequences; at worst, this could result in the customer being hindered in getting the right help that they need. I hope this reassures noble Lords that there is provision in the Bill for individuals to be channelled to the appropriate services if they have been victims of fraud or scams. It is of paramount importance that the body helps customers in this situation.
Amendment 2 introduces a statutory duty in respect of cold calling, which has been the subject of most noble Lords’ interventions this afternoon. The amendment seeks to do a number of things: to require the new body to publish an annual assessment of consumer detriment as a result of cold calling; to require the body to advise the Secretary of State to institute bans on cold calling if it thinks that would be conducive to its functions; and to give the Secretary of State the power to introduce a ban on cold calling, if recommended by the guidance body. I assure the House that the Government already do work to consider the impact that unsolicited calling has on consumers. Indeed, we have been clear that there is no place for nuisance calls or texts and there are already a number of measures in place to protect consumers from the impacts of such nuisance calls.
As I noted in Committee, the Information Commissioner’s Office enforces restrictions on unsolicited direct marketing. We have already increased the amount that regulators can fine those breaching direct marketing rules. On top of that, we have forced companies to display their number when calling people, and made it easier to prosecute wrongdoers.
As noble Lords will be aware, cold calling is already illegal in certain circumstances, such as where a person has registered with the Telephone Preference Service or has already withdrawn consent. Furthermore, the Bill already provides the possibility for the body to alert other organisations to any issues relating to cold calling. Clause 12 contains a two-way information-sharing gateway between the single financial guidance body and the FCA that allows the disclosure of information to each other, provided it is pursuant to the functions of either. This would include, for example, information relating to cold calling on debt advice, debt management, and pension access services. This information may include personal data, as long as any disclosure was in accordance with the Data Protection Act. The clause also allows information to be shared regarding suspected dishonest, unfair or unprofessional conduct by those supplying financial services, so that the FCA could take appropriate action against the offending firm.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I too congratulate the Government on their decision to host the pensions dashboard and to put in place the necessary measures for the dashboard to be held in one place. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, on her persistence and her excellent description of why it is so important that this measure is implemented in the manner she set out.
The public need a single dashboard. If individual private sector organisations each released their own dashboard, it would be too confusing for the public. One thing that will certainly assist in any dashboard is standardised statements, required perhaps by the FCA and the Pensions Regulator, whereby anyone who receives a statement about what pension they have—what terms it has and so on—has to be given a piece of paper. Sometimes called a pensions passport—although it does not matter what it is called—this will be a standardised, simple statement that tells people in one place what they have and clearly explains the kind of terms that the pension has, its value and any special features. Sadly, too often, the private sector has not been able to achieve that. Very often the statements that people get are almost unintelligible. They are sometimes far too long and use different language for the same type of pension, so that people struggle. I support this amendment and congratulate the Government and the noble Baroness.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I too thank the Government for the announcement that the dashboard is to be taken forward and acknowledge the role that has been played by several Members of your Lordships’ House, particularly my noble friend Lady Drake, who with her impeccable logic and powers of persuasion has really led the charge on this. I also acknowledge the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, who has long campaigned on this issue.
We know that the delivery of the dashboard will be a huge challenge, but it is an opportunity for individuals to see all their savings and pensions in one place, including the state pension. As my noble friend Lady Drake said, the key fact is that it is a single, public service dashboard, so that individuals who use it can have confidence that there will not be a conflict of interest between those seeking to use information and data to sell products and those who are genuinely attempting to help people to understand the pension pots that they have. The data shows that over their lifetime people could change their jobs 11 times. I am not sure how current that is, but 11 changes of jobs could mean as many as 11 pension pots. We know the challenges of small pension pots and how difficult it is for people to access those—they forget where they are. It is particularly an issue for women.
Hearing that the dashboard is to be taken forward makes this a good day. There is lots of hard work to do, and there are many governance issues for your Lordships’ House and others to keep an eye on as it gets developed.
Baroness Buscombe
My Lords, this amendment, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, is identical to the one tabled on 17 July 2017, which I have to say sounds an awful long time ago and feels it too. It would require the body to provide a pensions dashboard as part of its pensions guidance function. The purpose of pensions dashboards is to provide a clear picture of all an individual’s pension savings in one place, accessible online. Pensions dashboards are potentially an important tool to help people to take control of their retirement planning. With automatic enrolment, more people than ever before are saving into workplace pensions, and we know that the nature of work is changing, with more people taking a number of jobs in their lifetime—the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, has just talked about 11 times possibly becoming an average. The ability of people to view their pension savings in one place could make a real difference in assisting them to plan and save for their retirement, including making better-informed choices on the financial impact on their pension provision of working longer if they choose to do so.
I promised to come back on Report with a full statement on the Government’s position on the dashboard project. The Government are firmly committed to the delivery of pensions dashboards and have restated our commitment, as announced last week at the Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association conference in Manchester by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Pensions and Financial Inclusion in another place. It was announced that, to take forward this work, the Department for Work and Pensions will take lead responsibility for the policy within the Government and manage the next phase of the project. Working with industry, consumer organisations and regulators, the department will conduct a feasibility study to examine the complex issues that still need to be addressed, such as those highlighted by noble Lords today, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Drake. We will share an update on this work by spring next year.
The very helpful report published on 12 October by the ABI-led pensions dashboard project sets out many of the key questions to be explored, and we will look at its research findings and recommendations in detail as part of the feasibility work. We are grateful to all those organisations involved in the project so far. The aims of the feasibility study will include the following: exploring in more detail what will be of the most use to individuals to help them plan effectively for their retirement, as consumers’ needs must be at the heart of our approach; the viability and implications of different delivery models; determining a suitable framework of governance for pensions dashboards; ensuring that consumer interests are safeguarded and their personal information is protected—as the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, has said several times today, we are talking about providing a safe space for public good so it is incredibly important to get this right—and thinking through issues of regulation, standards, data security and identity verification; establishing how to ensure the widest possible contribution of data from pension providers, bearing in mind that effectiveness will be linked to how much information individuals can see in one place, while also taking account of the potential impact on industry; determining the indicative costs of potential models and how they might be funded sustainably; and setting out a pathway for delivery with provisional milestones and recommendations around communications and publicity.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I will also speak to Amendment 17. Together, these amendments revisit the issue that we raised in Committee concerning the SFGB’s role in financial inclusion and add as a specific objective of the body contributing,
“to the reduction and elimination of financial exclusion”,
particularly for vulnerable people. Our amendments spring in particular, as will be recognised, from the House of Lords Select Committee report on financial exclusion, which regrettably has still to receive the Government’s response. I would press the Minister on when this might be forthcoming, but can anticipate that the answer will be some variation of “soon”, “in the near future”, “imminently”, or perhaps even “before Christmas”.
The amendments raise two particular issues: where are we as a country on financial inclusion and financial exclusion; and what, if any, should be the role of the SFGB in addressing these challenges? Dealing with the latter first, we argue that it should be included in the strategic function of the new body and that it should have as one of its objectives contributing to the reduction—or elimination, although we accept that that is perhaps overly ambitious at the moment—of financial exclusion, especially for vulnerable persons. We should stress that this does not seek to have the SFGB usurp the role of the FCA or the Treasury in these matters—a point made by the Minister on our original amendments—but to support financial inclusion and help reduce financial exclusion.
As defined by the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Young, financial inclusion is about individuals and businesses having access to useful and affordable financial products and services that meet their needs. If the single financial guidance body does not have a role in addressing these matters through its money guidance function or improving the financial capability of members of the public, then what is its purpose? Will the Government be clear on this issue and say precisely what role they believe the single body should play in promoting financial inclusion and combatting financial exclusion? What is the Government’s view on that?
The need for a strategy to improve financial inclusion in the UK was a key recommendation of the Select Committee. We have already acknowledged the importance of appointing a Minister for financial inclusion and the need to engage across government to lead, co-ordinate and monitor a strategy. We accept that leadership on this might reside primarily outside the SFGB, but to suggest that it does not have a role seems perverse. If financial inclusion is about access to financial services, capacity to manage financial transactions and avoiding problem debt, then financial exclusion would clearly cover circumstances when this is not the case. That more should be done to advance financial inclusion can hardly be in doubt. Promoting financial inclusion was a key recommendation of the Financial Inclusion Taskforce, whose mission was to increase access to banking, improve access to affordable credit, savings and insurance, and improve access to appropriate money advice. It undertook monitoring of financial inclusion initiatives as well as regular research. Unfortunately, the taskforce fell by the wayside when abolished under the coalition Government and thus left a gap. We hope that that gap can be filled with the help of the single financial guidance body.
There are a raft of statistics that identify the levels of financial exclusion in the UK, those at risk of being financially excluded and those at risk of facing significant barriers to engagement in modern society. Some 13.5 million people live in low-income households or in poverty, and 1.7 million adults do not have a bank account. One-third of people over the age of 80 have never used a cash machine or prefer to avoid them; 3.8 million UK households do not have any internet; and 40% of the working-age population have less than £100 in savings. The vulnerable or potentially vulnerable are not a fixed or homogeneous group, but a common characteristic is often poverty—simply not having enough money—and having to transact on the most expensive terms.
The Select Committee outlined some of the particular circumstances that made various groups vulnerable: those with identity verification issues, such as ex-offenders; those with mental health challenges, where financial exclusion can have a variety of negative consequences; and the disabled, where often reasonable adjustments are inadequate. We have very serious issues to confront.
We could debate these important issues all day, but I am aware that we have a further amendment coming up in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, which might be a formulation on which the Government can offer a measure of support. It certainly has our support. In the meantime, I beg to move.
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, I was glad to add my name to Amendment 8, moved by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton. Amendment 17 is almost the other side of the coin.
I think that most Members of this House, including those in the Government, feel that financial inclusion is sufficiently important that it should be expressed through most of the financial bodies that we create. The noble Lord laid out very well the depth of the problem; others on the committee may speak to that in a moment.
It would be helpful to have clarification under the Bill, in part because we have genuine confusion. I am pretty sure that Ministers have all been under the impression that this matter is wrapped up and dealt with in the context of the powers, responsibilities and objectives of the FCA but, having talked to the FCA, they will now be aware that it has a very constrained role in this area and does not provide capacity to deal with the problem—for example, filling in gaps—that most people assume that it has.
Part of our problem, of course, is that we never consolidate financial legislation, so there is genuine confusion over who does what and assumptions that particular issues are taken care of when they are not. Financial inclusion is one of those that has fallen right through the holes, due to the mismatch of a whole variety of different pieces of legislation. This is an opportunity to provide for a body to consider these issues centrally to everything that it does. What it does is very relevant to that process. That is obviously not a complete answer to the problem of financial inclusion—that involves many others—but we have to make a start somewhere. It should now become a regular habit for financial inclusion to be addressed in each piece of financial legislation.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, the co-pilot is in charge for this leg of the journey. I take this opportunity to address the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, on the common theme of financial inclusion, and welcome the contributions from the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, and my noble friend Lord Trenchard, who anticipated in part some of my response.
Having listened to the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, I would not disagree with what he said about the challenges that confront the Government in this area: the problems of financial numeracy and the serious issues, to use his words, that he identified as needing to be addressed. I will come to that in a moment.
As I said in Committee, we take the issue of financial exclusion very seriously and are grateful for the important work of the Financial Exclusion Select Committee in highlighting this important issue. We have considered the committee’s wide-reaching report, including its recommendations concerning government leadership and the welfare system.
In answer to the two questions about timing, the Government aim to respond to the committee’s report—here I use an option not mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie—before Third Reading. I understand noble Lords’ impatience that we did not have our response to the report available for Report, but I hope that there will be adequate time to consider it before Third Reading. I reassure noble Lords that the Government’s response will address the committee’s recommendations and will bring forward new proposals on how better to co-ordinate across government, the regulators and the wider sector on the key issue of tackling the significant issue of financial exclusion.
As was mentioned in our debate, this area has been given new prominence within the DWP ministerial team by the appointment of my honourable friend Guy Opperman. At the same time, it is important that this change is seen in the context of HM Treasury’s ongoing, government-wide policy responsibility for financial inclusion and exclusion. A key part of the Government’s approach to tackling these issues will be to require the relevant departments to work collaboratively, and the response may say something about that.
I stressed in Committee the Government’s understanding of the terms “financial inclusion” and “capability”, and I thought that we had established an element of agreement on this point. At the risk of reopening a theological discussion, financial inclusion refers to ensuring that members of the public have access to financial services. Financial capability is ensuring that the public are best able to make use of the financial services to which they have access. These terms are widely accepted by, for example, the World Bank. It is important that we build on this shared understanding of the terms so that there is clarity about the intentions for the body, which is to build financial capability among members of the public. To put this another way, the new body should not have a role to regulate the supply of financial services and products by the industry. It should, however, play a key role in helping people engage with or consume these products and services.
This does not mean that the supply of these products is not important. The point is that it is the role of the Financial Conduct Authority—not the SFGB—to ensure that appropriate action is taken when the market fails to supply useful and affordable services and products. So the omission of financial inclusion in the Bill is not an oversight; it is deliberately omitted from the body’s functions and objectives which refer to the supply of useful services such as savings, credit and insurance products. The proposed amendments would greatly expand the body’s statutory remit and are also likely to create confusion over the roles of the Treasury and the FCA, both of which have the relevant responsibilities and powers and are better placed to influence the supply of financial services and products.
In terms of financial exclusion, as the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, rightly observed in Committee, even more important than these definitions is the question: what will the Government do to act in a more co-ordinated way to tackle financial exclusion? I want to assure noble Lords that, following the Select Committee’s work in this area, the Government will propose, in their response, more appropriate and effective ways to address this issue than through the functions and objectives of the SFGB.
With regards to the particular issue of improving access to financial services for vulnerable people—which comes under Amendment 17—we consider that the FCA, and not the SFGB, is more appropriate to deliver that role. The FCA has already carried out a great deal of work in this area. Many Peers had a helpful meeting with the FCA last week. I hope it reassured noble Lords that the FCA takes its responsibility on consumer protection very seriously. The FCA published two pieces of in-depth research, carried out in 2015 and 2016, which supported the development of current initiatives to address access issues for vulnerable people. I came away from that meeting with a slightly different impression from that of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer.
As discussed in the meeting, issues regarding access and vulnerability are at the core of the FCA’s mission and business plan, published in April this year. To quote from the mission:
“Understanding vulnerability is central to how we make decisions. Consumers in vulnerable circumstances are more susceptible to harm and generally less able to advance their own interests”.
The FCA is due to undertake a number of further projects to understand better the concerns of vulnerable groups, not least through its forthcoming work to develop a consumer strategy by means of its consumer approach paper to be published in the next few weeks. This will provide a means for the FCA to measure outcomes for vulnerable consumers. It will work to develop vulnerability mapping so as to ensure that it has captured the needs of vulnerable consumers when finalising its business priorities.
In Committee, I mentioned the FCA’s TechSprints, so I do not need to do so again. It is also exploring issues for those living with cancer and the problems they face in gaining affordable access to travel insurance. In due course, the FCA will publish a feedback statement with its findings and the next steps in the light of responses to its call for input.
More recently, in September, the FCA published an occasional paper outlining the findings of its ageing population project. This paper reviews the policy implications of an ageing population and the resulting impact on financial services. The FCA highlights risks to older consumers who are more likely than other groups to be vulnerable—an issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie. To try and minimise harm, it has suggested areas where financial services firms could give greater consideration to how they treat older consumers.
Finally, even more recently, the FCA published its inaugural, annual financial lives survey—its largest tracking survey of consumers and their use of financial services. This is a huge undertaking, drawing on responses from just under 13,000 UK consumers aged 18 and over. The report tells the financial story of six different age groups to show key themes at each life stage, from those aged 18 to 24 to those aged 60 and over. The survey shows that 50% of UK adults—25 million—display one or more characteristics that signal their potential vulnerability. The FCA will use the results of the survey to prioritise its work. I hope the description of some of what the FCA is doing reassures noble Lords that it takes seriously its responsibility towards those who are vulnerable.
As a result of the FCA's work and its engagement with firms, there have been tangible developments from the industry in this area. This includes work led by the Financial Services Vulnerability Taskforce. In addition, the FCA has also seen increasing evidence that firms identify and then improve outcomes for vulnerable consumers.
To reiterate, as my noble friend Lord Trenchard said, the current amendments would greatly expand the remit of the body and could cause confusion over the role of different public institutions. I hope that, having heard this explanation, the noble Lord might be willing to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply which does not surprise me in great detail. May I start by saying to the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, what a great pleasure it is to see you with us this afternoon? I hope we will have another occasion—perhaps before Third Reading—to acknowledge the role that she played in producing this important tome on financial exclusion.
The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, said it would be too much of a burden. Throughout our discussions, we have been told that this is a framework Bill. What use is made of this framework will depend on who ends up as the chief executive and the role that they have. From this point of view, these amendments are deliberately non-prescriptive. Are we seriously saying that this body would have no role in relation to a strategy to improve financial inclusion or combat financial exclusion; that this would be off limits and nothing to do with it? I accept entirely what was said about the role of the FCA and the importance of its remit in these circumstances. We may not agree with it in its entirety but are we to say that this new body, which has a range of functions relating to information guidance and the obligation to develop a strategy—particularly on this important issue of financial exclusion—must be silent on these matters; that it has no role at all? This does not seem right.
I have taken on board the debate we had in Committee about it being the role of the FCA to lead on this; or the FCA now and the new Minister across government. I accept that. Perhaps before we had formulated a lead role for the single body; I think we have moved back from that and accepted the points that were made. However, I have difficulty in accepting that it would have no role in the future. The Minister looks as though he is about to spring to his feet.
Lord Young of Cookham
Perhaps I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie. Of course, the SFGB is going to work closely with the FCA and the Treasury on issues regarding financial inclusion. As I said, we envisage a partnership, with the FCA promoting access and the SFGB promoting capability; this is where the two meet. We do not see the SFGB leading on inclusion in the way in which it will be leading on financial capability. This is why we have difficulty with the particular amendment that the noble Lord has put forward.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I thank the noble Lord for that clarification. The amendment does not suggest that the single body would be leading on it. This is the change between the debate we had in Committee and the debate tonight. We recognise that it has a role to play in supporting but not in running the show. Perhaps we had better move on because I am not sure that we are going to reach agreement on this. The Minister’s notes may reflect our original position, but he seems to have acknowledged that there is a role for the SFGB in supporting the activities around financial inclusion and exclusion. At this late stage, I am not sure if there is anything that can be done to reflect this. If we are to get a report, feedback or the Government’s response to the report of the House of Lords Select Committee before Third Reading, I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that this issue will not necessarily be off bounds when we come to Third Reading, as that potential new information runs through a lot of the debate that we have had. I hope that before we conclude on this the Minister will give an assurance that we can raise these issues at Third Reading. If he wants to give that assurance now, that would be good.
Lord Young of Cookham
The noble Lord may be tempting me to say something beyond my pay grade about what is in order at Third Reading and what is not. However, I will reflect on what he said and about the impact of publishing the response. I would be rash to give a commitment at the Dispatch Box that this issue will definitely be addressed at Third Reading but I will do my best.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Clearly, the Minister is a safe pair of hands in the cockpit. I thank him for that. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, for her support. Her remarks mirrored our position. We are not saying that the FCA should not lead on some of this, but it cannot and will not do everything and there is a role for the body we are discussing. Having said that, I look forward to the amendment that will come up soon. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 8.
Baroness Drake
I will carry on the spirit of the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood. In Committee, several Peers ran several amendments trying to capture this issue of vulnerability—whether it was vulnerability because of a health shock or because of some standing reason. As the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, explained in moving her amendment, the attraction of Amendment 11 is that it does not seek to list or define. It just tries to capture the principle that there is a category of people who become or who are vulnerable for a series of reasons, and they need to be addressed.
The purpose of the single financial guidance body is to achieve a series of improved public and individual outcomes by improving a person’s financial capability, but a person’s capability cannot be improved—it just cannot happen—if they are excluded from the market for financial services or denied the access or the means to make good decisions. As my noble friend Lord McKenzie and I frequently say, the fundamental, immutable requirement of financial capability is that you are included and have access. You cannot begin to become capable without it. One feels the sense around the Chamber, which I hope the Minister is able to find a way of recognising, of a wide concern and a very constructive amendment. It is not overprescriptive but allows the financial guidance body to recognise that it needs to address this problem.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, this has been a good debate. I emphasise that we support the amendment, which is no surprise given that I put my name to it. I am sorry that we pre-empted someone: I am happy to step back.
This is a very elegant formulation, which stops a whole list being produced. It instinctively recognises that people might be vulnerable for reasons to do with their circumstances but that this is not necessarily something endemic to them. There are fluctuating circumstances which particularly fit that description: in our short debate we have had discussion of learning disabilities, mental capacity and addictions. A broader issue, but still within the key definition of vulnerability, is isolation. The noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, made a very telling point on that. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood—I keep calling him my noble friend; we have debated too often over the years—spoke about the impact of vulnerability because of destitution. We should recognise that people may be perfectly fit and able-bodied and have all their mental capacity but if they are broke and have no money then they are potentially vulnerable or in vulnerable circumstances.
The formulation is powerful and succinct and we support it. I hope the Minister will find some way of incorporating it into the Bill—even if not in the precise wording, although it seems excellent to me—so that we can support it.
Baroness Buscombe
I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this extremely helpful debate. A number of issues have been raised about the scope of the term “vulnerability”. This is incredibly helpful to us and to our overall approach to the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, made reference to his hope that the report of our debate in Hansard will be seen and our words read by those who are charged with taking forward the delivery of this body. I assure the noble Lord that, thus far, everyone I have spoken to who is involved in this world, in the three current bodies, is very aware of our debates and I trust that they will be taking on board what is said.
Amendment 11, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay, Lady Coussins and Lady Hollins, and the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, would add an element to the body’s strategic function, so it could include issues of access to financial services for vulnerable people in the national strategy. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me for being a bit repetitive, following my noble friend’s remarks in previous debates, but it is important to have this on the record. As I mentioned in Committee, the Government take the issue of financial exclusion very seriously. As my noble friend Lord Young mentioned earlier, the Government are grateful for the important work of the Financial Exclusion Select Committee in highlighting this important issue and will aim to publish their response to the committee’s wide-reaching report ahead of Third Reading.
The Government’s response will address all the committee’s recommendations and bring forward new proposals on how to better co-ordinate across government, regulators and the wider sector to tackle the significant issue of financial exclusion. I see that my honourable friend from another place, Guy Opperman, the Minister for Financial Inclusion at the Department for Work and Pensions, is here. We have been working extremely closely on this Bill and on developing our response to the report.
My noble friend Lord Young earlier highlighted the difference between financial inclusion and capability and the Government’s intention that this body will be designed to build financial capability among the public. The Government have therefore deliberately omitted from the Bill references to financial inclusion and individuals’ access to financial services. An appropriate supply to people of useful and affordable financial services and products is very important, and the Government therefore work closely with the industry regulator, the Financial Conduct Authority, to ensure that appropriate action is taken when the market fails to supply services and products. The amendment would greatly expand the body’s statutory remit and we fear it is likely to create confusion over the roles of Her Majesty’s Treasury and the Financial Conduct Authority, both of which have the relevant responsibilities and powers to influence the supply of financial services products.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
I am most grateful to the Minister, particularly for those final phrases in her speech, and to all noble Lords who have spoken and contributed to an extremely rich debate. It has become evident that this is not just about vulnerable people, but about everybody who can find themselves in a vulnerable circumstance. There should be no stigmatisation of any sort; this could happen to anybody.
The Bill seems to be a good one, aiming to look after the whole population. Of course, it needs to look after people in bad times as well as good. That is the purpose of the amendment: to have better public outcomes, not just when capability can be increased, but when it cannot be, with services then adapting to meet the needs of the people they are there for. That is what a community is all about.
We can go away and look at the wording again, to think about whether it can go somewhere else or be adjusted slightly in the Bill, then come back at Third Reading.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I just want to press the point made by the noble Baroness about Third Reading. If we could come back to it at Third Reading, that would be good.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
Through being able to come back at Third Reading, we have the assurance that we can tailor the Bill to try to get it absolutely right and to meet all the needs that have been outlined during this rich debate. Because of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“( ) the awareness of scams and frauds relating to financial products,”
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, the amendment revisits the now familiar theme of creating awareness of scams and fraud relating to financial products as part of the strategic function of the single financial guidance body.
Unfortunately, financial scams are many and varied. We have already heard about that matter, so I will be brief. People who perpetrate such scams are inventive and merciless. According to the Economic Crime Directorate of the City of London Police, financial crime has cost the UK a staggering £50 billion-plus. Techniques encompass scams such as phishing, bogus investment opportunities—particularly for pensioners—intercepting home deposits, freebie scams, fake websites and many more. They can devastate people’s lives, and, as we have heard, destroy a person’s retirement.
Given the so-called pensions freedom, people around the age of 55 are being bombarded with investment opportunities. Citizens Advice calculates that nearly 11 million consumers have received calls about their provision since 2015. The FCA Financial Lives Survey 2017, already referred to by some, gives a fascinating insight into behaviours and the potential harm associated with some of them: 5.3 million UK adults have given a debit or credit card to someone else to use, shared account PIN numbers with another person or provided current account details by email or over the phone following an unsolicited approach; 23% of all UK adults have received unsolicited calls which could potentially be a scam; 8% of them received one or more requests to access a pension scheme before the age of 55 or the chance to unlock a pension early; and 6% were offered a chance to make a high-return investment or buy shares in a company. The survey shows that a smaller proportion of people responded to such offers, but we should be mindful that a small percentage of a big number means many individuals affected.
Citizens Advice report that last year, it helped consumers with a scam or fraud every 17 minutes, with pension scams moving up the table. It recites that pension scams are most frequently initiated by unsolicited telephone calls. The detriment is not only to individuals but to the level of trust that exists in the wider pension scheme. The Government have previously pointed out that the SFGB would have the power, as currently proposed, to focus on awareness of scams and fraud under its money guidance function and the financial capability element of the strategic function. However, we would urge the Government to be more specific. We know from our earlier debate that the SFGB will not be operational for a while. Perhaps the Minister can say what is proposed for and will happen in the interim.
We have heard that the Government have committed to ban cold calling over a wide scope of pension issues, but have been reluctant, notwithstanding the earlier vote, to clarify the legislative programme. In the meantime, the scams and fraud will go on. What is to be done? I beg to move.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I am grateful for the very full explanation that the Minister has given to the point that I raised. It is a very serious issue that is accelerating in its importance. Notwithstanding the work that is going on and is planned, which I acknowledge, I think that the matter is of such significance that it should be specifically mentioned in the Bill. It may seem a little churlish, but I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Financial Guidance and Claims Bill [HL]
Lord McKenzie of Luton ExcerptsMonday 11th September 2017
(7 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Financial Guidance and Claims Act 2018 View all Financial Guidance and Claims Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 1-IV Fourth marshalled list for Committee (PDF, 77KB) - (11 Sep 2017)
“( ) Guidance issued by the Secretary of State under subsection (1) is to be made by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
My Lords, I will also speak to Amendment 48. Clause 5 says:
“The Secretary of State may issue guidance and give directions to the single financial guidance body about the exercise of its functions … The Secretary of State must publish any directions that are given to the single financial guidance body … The single financial guidance body must have regard to guidance, and comply with directions, given to it by the Secretary of State”.
Amendment 48, which is where we started, requires the Secretary of State to publish any guidance issued as well as directions. This guidance is, as we have heard, not discretionary, and the SFGB must have regard to it. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, however, in its first report of the 2017-19 Session, takes the view that a parliamentary scrutiny process should apply to these provisions. It considers the negative procedure an appropriate level of scrutiny, hence Amendment 47A; that is what the amendment requires. Obviously, such a procedure would appear to encompass the guidance being published in any event. I beg to move.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Buscombe) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, for tabling these amendments to Clause 5, which provides for the Secretary of State to issue guidance and directions to the single financial guidance body about the exercise of its functions. It requires the body to comply with any directions and have regard to any guidance, and requires the Secretary of State to publish any directions.
Amendment 47A would require any guidance to be made by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament. Amendment 48 would place an obligation on the Secretary of State to publish any guidance.
Clause 5 facilitates a sensible working relationship between the body and the sponsoring Minister. It allows the body flexibility and independence in managing its business but balances this with a recognition of Ministers’ responsibilities to Parliament. Conferring functions on an arm’s-length body involves recognition that operational independence from Ministers in carrying out those functions is appropriate. Nevertheless, the sponsoring Minister remains answerable to Parliament for the activities of the body, including any failures.
I believe we are in agreement that creating the body is the right thing to do. I also agree with the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, at Second Reading that it is important that we learn from the experiences with the Money Advice Service about what worked and what did not work successfully. One issue highlighted by the independent Farnish review of the MAS in 2015 was that the MAS’s formal accountability regime needed to be strengthened. The review concluded that it was not possible for any party, including the FCA and HM Treasury, to hold the MAS fully to account, either for the way it discharged its role or for the money it spent.
In setting up the single financial guidance body, it is therefore important that a balance is struck between enabling the sponsoring Minister to fulfil his responsibilities and giving the body the desired degree of independence. An arm’s-length body needs to have a degree of autonomy in order to deliver effectively but it also needs to have a good and constructive relationship with its sponsoring department. Arm’s-length bodies represent an extension of the department’s delivery, so it is important that we think about a department and its arm’s-length bodies as a total delivery system. Building trust between the department and the new body—this is critical to the point—will be essential in enabling the right balance to be struck between the body’s autonomy and the Government’s accountability.
In drafting Clause 5, and the Bill more widely, we have sought to provide a legislative framework that allows the body flexibility and independence to make the most of expertise and innovation in managing its business, and to balance that within the context of it being a public body. The single financial guidance body will be a non-departmental public body, responsible for supporting the delivery of government policy.
Clause 5 provides for the Secretary of State to give guidance to the body and requires it to have regard to that guidance in exercising its functions. Amendment 47A would require regulations to be made by statutory instrument, subject to annulment, in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament. I consider that this would represent a degree of scrutiny unwarranted by the non-binding nature of the guidance in question.
Guidance provided by the Secretary of State to the arm’s-length body could cover myriad topics. Guidance could also be sought by the body; it is not necessarily just given. The relationship between an arm’s-length body and its sponsoring Minister and department is critical to the successful delivery of its functions. As in all professional relationships, whether between a sponsoring Minister and an arm’s-length body or a board and its executive team, being able to seek and give guidance in a straightforward and candid way will be important.
Having regard to guidance does not mean that the body must act on that guidance. For example, in commissioning or contracting services, the single financial guidance body may seek guidance concerning government procurement rules or the interpretation of those rules. Guidance may also be given or sought by the body to inform business planning. For example, where government develops a new policy that could affect the services it provides, the body will need guidance to enable it to prepare for potential change. Noble Lords will recall that the Pension Wise guidance service went live at the same time as the pension freedoms were introduced. This required considerable advance planning and service design.
In all those circumstances, it would be disproportionate to expect a statutory instrument to be drafted and for Parliament to scrutinise it. Also, the Secretary of State publishing guidance would not be consistent with the informal nature of much of the guidance that may be given. It would inhibit the critical relationship between the sponsoring Minister and the body supporting the delivery of government policy, and it could deter the body from seeking guidance, or the Minister giving guidance when it would be more sensible to do so. Further, a requirement to publish a guidance could lead to a position where the body feels obliged to respond publicly should it not act on the guidance, or feels under undue pressure to follow the guidance provided regardless whether it makes sense or is appropriate in the circumstances.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I am a little surprised at the position the Government have taken on this. We all agree about the need for balance and flexibility in the arrangements—that is important—but the Government have written into the Bill provisions that give the Secretary of State the opportunity to issue directions and for there to be guidance. The Minister said the guidance is not binding. I accept that it is not technically binding but the provision is clear that a single financial guidance body must have regard to it. There is a strong imperative for the body to do that unless, presumably, there are exceptional circumstances.
Even if the Minister is not happy with the recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee that the negative procedure should be attached to this, the Government are setting their face against the guidance being published as well. That is an unduly restrictive approach. The report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee is very clear. It states:
“There is a clear distinction between guidance that the recipient is free to disregard and guidance to which the recipient must have regard and must follow. People required by statute to have regard to guidance will normally be expected to follow the guidance unless they have cogent reasons for not doing so”.
The Government have not taken that into account in their very restrictive response.
There is no point in ranging over this point more extensively at the moment. However, I am surprised and we will return to this on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Altmann
My Lords, I too support the thrust of this amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, and the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer. I hope my noble friends on the Front Bench will take seriously the efforts being made around the House to improve protection for consumers. I whole- heartedly support the aims of the Bill and I congratulate my noble friends on bringing it before the Committee, but adding to it measures such as this would very much strengthen protection for the public.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I support my noble friend, who has drawn a strong parallel with the experience of Pension Wise, with which she was heavily involved. She made the point that it is not only those who might be termed traditionally vulnerable people who are at risk from the ingenuity of impersonators but those who might be more sophisticated.
I should like to make a brief reference to paragraph 17 of the memorandum that the DWP sent to the Delegated Powers Committee. It says:
“Deferring the announcement of the name will also help protect the new body’s brand and reduce the likelihood of the setting up of ‘imposter’ websites as a means of deceiving and defrauding the public. Imposter websites could put members of the public at risk”,
and,
“were an issue when the Pension Wise brand was launched”.
If they were at risk before the naming of the body, what will give strong protection once the body is named? That seems to be the thrust of my noble friend’s amendment, which I support.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, the co-pilot is back. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, for tabling this amendment, which would make it a criminal offence to falsely claim to be giving pensions guidance, money guidance or debt advice on behalf of the single financial guidance body. She set out very clearly the devastating impact that misleading or criminal advice can have on people’s lives. Both she and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, identified the ingenuity and adaptability employed by scammers and fraudsters to con people.
I was very interested in this amendment and made inquiries to see who would be caught by it. Clearly, people who claimed to give advice on behalf of the SFGB, or whatever it is called, would be caught but, as it stands, I understand that it would not cover someone pretending to give advice on behalf of a delivery partner. The noble Baroness may like to think about that.
Protecting people from financial fraud and scams is important, and I say to my noble friend Lady Altmann that the Government take it very seriously. Anyone who has served in another place will have seen at first hand the devastating impact that this can have on people’s lives. We will come on to cold calling when we reach Clauses 16 and 17.
Ensuring that people have confidence in the financial guidance and debt advice provided by, or on behalf of, the SFGB will be central to its success and to the success of other government policies to improve people’s financial well-being. This is a matter that we have explored in depth with the existing service providers—the MAS, TPAS and Pension Wise. As the noble Baroness said when she moved her amendment, of those three, only guidance provided under the Pension Wise banner is covered by a specific measure making it an offence to falsely claim to give such guidance. The MAS and TPAS rely on existing criminal offences.
In response to the speeches made, we have considered very carefully whether to go down the Pension Wise route and create a new, bespoke offence to cover all the single guidance body’s guidance and advice services. We have weighed up whether there is evidence to suggest that a bespoke offence would have any greater effect than existing criminal offences, taking into account that the Pension Wise offence has never been used in a prosecution.
There are already criminal offences that would cover imitation of the new body; again, the noble Baroness referred to these. For example, if an individual was misled by someone dishonestly claiming to give guidance or advice on behalf of the body with the intention of causing financial loss, this would amount to an offence. In England, Wales and Northern Ireland a person could be prosecuted under Sections 1 and 2 of the Fraud Act, and in Scotland such conduct would likely amount to the common-law offence of fraud.
In addition, under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, Regulation 9 makes it an offence to advertise or market a service in a manner that deceives or is likely to deceive the average member of the public. If that advertising or marketing causes or is likely to cause an average person to take a decision they would not have taken otherwise, again, this is an offence. This would make it a criminal act, for example, for scammers to use the logo of the new body.
Offences under the Fraud Act are subject to a maximum term of imprisonment of 10 years and offences under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations carry a maximum term of imprisonment of two years. As a deterrent, both maximum terms are significantly greater than the maximum 12 months envisaged by the amendment.
For these reasons, and having listened to the arguments, our assessment is that there are already existing offences which will provide for the single financial guidance body to take action against people claiming fraudulently to be delivering its services or using the body’s brand and reputation to mislead members of the public. Where people seek to scam and defraud by falsely claiming to be acting on behalf of the body, they will be liable to prosecution under existing offences, leading to the possibility of a custodial sentence. We believe that the protections in existing offences are sufficient and I therefore urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Altmann
My Lords, I too support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake. It is an important amendment, and it would be most welcome if my noble friend would seriously consider extending the protection for consumers that this Bill is rightly aiming to achieve. I echo the comments of the noble Baronesses, Lady Drake and Lady Kramer, in terms of focusing on the FCA promoting the interests of consumer protection, perhaps in new ways from what has happened in the past.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, like other noble Lords who have spoken, I speak in support of my noble friend’s amendment. As ever, my noble friend has been very concise and focused on this key issue about how we can get the FCA in these arrangements to be seen to act in the interest of consumers and financial inclusion. There is a tension between the FCA as a regulator of the market and what we seek through this Bill—an improvement in financial capability and for guidance to be given to people so that they can make better-informed financial judgments.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
We are less than happy with the amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, will know that my noble friend Lady Drake and I looked at the issue of the secondary annuity market some while ago, and we paid her a visit in Caxton House when she had another role. At the time, our conclusion was that there is a lot of hassle, expense and complexity in the prospect of selling annuities into a secondary market and there simply have to be other priorities at the current time. If we were to proceed with it, there would need to be full legislation, properly debated. We understand that, in other respects, there is room for legislation in due course that could be applied to the secondary annuity market.
To illustrate some of the complexity, the players in the secondary market would need to include: individual annuity holders; beneficiaries and dependants; purchasers of rights of an annuity under a specific regulated activity; further regulated activities or providers buying back annuities; regulated intermediaries; EFAs providing mandatory, regulated advice; and authorised entities to check that annuity holders have received financial advice, to name but a few. This is a very complex area and we should let it rest where the Government have recently decided it should be. There are complexities and costs. The big risk is an asymmetry of understanding of how the market would work. Other complex issues are pension sharing on divorce and the impact of these arrangements on people in receipt of benefits and social care. It is a minefield: the Government have looked at it, we have looked at it, we are not happy and it should not be resurrected at this time. There have to be greater priorities in the pensions field.
Baroness Buscombe
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Altmann has moved Amendment 69, which intends to retain the section of the Bank of England and Financial Services Act 2016 which amended FiSMA to allow Pension Wise to offer guidance to consumers wishing to make changes to the payment of their annuity. Pension Wise was set up with the very specific remit of delivering guidance to help people make decisions on their options following the introduction of the pension freedoms. The Pension Wise remit was subsequently extended to include guidance to people who needed help in considering selling their annuity. This would have supported the Government’s proposals at the time to extend the pension freedoms to those who have already purchased an annuity. The Government decided in October 2016 not to proceed with this proposal because of concerns around consumer detriment.
The new body the Government propose to create in this Bill will inherit the guidance guarantee that Pension Wise provided but will also be able to help with guidance on any pension matters. Therefore, this amendment is not needed. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie; we entirely agree with the Opposition’s view of these proposals, which would allow those who have already purchased an annuity to sell the income they receive for a lump sum. Following extensive engagement with industry, consumer groups and financial regulators, the Government decided they would not continue with these proposals. Indeed, through discussions with stakeholders it had become clear that, while many annuity providers were willing to allow customers to sell their annuities, it is likely that there would be insufficient buyers to create a competitive market.
In September 2016, Money Observer reported a survey of 10 annuity providers, in which only one firm said it would purchase annuities issued by others and six ruled themselves out. This corresponded with government findings of a lack of interest from potential purchasers of annuities. This could have led to consumers receiving poor value for their annuity income streams and suffering higher costs in the sales process. The Government estimated that only 5% of annuity holders would have opted to sell their annuity and, although some people have been disappointed, consumer protection is a top priority for the Government. As the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, said, priorities have to be thought through and this was not considered a key priority. Although some people have been disappointed, it would not be acceptable to allow a market to develop that could produce poor outcomes for consumers. I therefore encourage my noble friend Lady Altmann to withdraw her amendment.
“( ) When exercising the powers granted by subsection (1), the Secretary of State must adhere to the procedures set out in section 11 (procedure) of the Public Bodies Act 2011.”
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Clause 14 enables the Secretary of State by affirmative resolution to dissolve the SFGB. The background to this, including the Henry VIII power that it includes, is set out in the Government’s memorandum to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. That memorandum points out:
“This power will allow the Secretary of State to dissolve the single financial guidance body. The Bill does not provide for a fixed lifetime for the new single financial guidance body. This clause is therefore in line with the Cabinet Office guidance relating to setting up new arm’s-length bodies, which states that:
‘The legislation setting up a new Public Body should contain powers to permit winding up at a later date and for finalising and auditing the closing accounts, if a fixed lifetime is not established at the outset. Departmental legal advisers would need to be involved in this process. Difficulties have occurred in past cases where sponsor Departments have not been able to wind up statutory bodies when their work has been completed due to problems in securing a Parliamentary slot to amend the primary founding legislation. The bodies therefore continue to exist as legal entities even though there is no longer a requirement for them’.
If there is ever a need to dissolve this body, it will be essential to have a range of options and sufficient flexibility to be able to transfer functions, property rights and assets without recourse to primary legislation. This is the point made by the Cabinet Office’s guidance”.
That is all well and good but, as the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee points out:
“Although the new single financial guidance body will be created by Parliament, clause 14 allows Ministers by affirmative-procedure regulations to abolish the body and transfer its functions to any other person. The normal principle is that what Parliament has created, Parliament alone should dissolve. In this case, the Minister: does not have to be satisfied as to anything before deciding to abolish the body, does not have to consult, does not have to conduct a formal review, and does not have to wait a certain time before seeing whether the new body works well.
Where Parliament has previously legislated to abolish public bodies it has provided procedural safeguards. Under the Public Bodies Act 2011, a Minister proposing to abolish a public body must consult the body concerned and others affected by the proposal; he then has to allow 12 weeks for responses. The Minister has to lay before Parliament a detailed explanatory document. A committee of either House of Parliament may require an enhanced affirmative procedure and the power to abolish is time-limited. None of these procedural safeguards is included in the current Bill.
The power to abolish the body and transfer its functions to any other person is a very broad power. For example, it is important that the guidance is independent of any commercial interests. However the power to transfer functions to another body is, on its face, unlimited.
The Committee raised similar concerns in its report on the Enterprise Bill, 9th Report of Session 2015-16, where the power was to abolish the Small Business Commissioner by statutory instrument. In response, the Government acknowledged the Committee’s concerns and tabled amendments that made the abolition of the Commissioner dependent on a 12-week consultation, the laying before Parliament of an explanatory document in addition to draft regulations”.
We support the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which is what this amendment does. We take the view that it is inappropriate for the Bill to confer on Ministers a power to abolish the single financial guidance body. It is all the more unsatisfactory because the power is unaccompanied by the sorts of procedural safeguards found in the Public Bodies Act 2011 and the Enterprise Act 2016. This is exactly what this amendment is about and it seems to me pretty straightforward. Should the Government set their face against this, the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, has an alternative proposition that the clause do not stand part of the Bill. We would be minded to support that as an alternative. I beg to move.
Lord Sharkey
My Lords, Clause 14 is pretty surprising. It runs entirely counter to normal practice and to the provisions of other Acts of Parliament and is careless of the need for proper scrutiny by Parliament. I entirely support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie. Your Lordships’ Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee commented on Clause 14 in some detail in its first report of the current Session.
As Clause 14 stands and as the DPRR Committee and the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, have explained, the Minister does not have to be satisfied as to anything at all before abolishing it, consult anyone at all, have to conduct a formal review or have to wait a certain time to see if the new body is working well or at all. This is all at odds with the provisions of the Public Bodies Act 2011, as well as smacking of hubris and a cavalier disregard for parliamentary authority.
Baroness Buscombe
The noble Lord’s amendment seeks to add safeguards to the winding-up provision by mandating the Secretary of State to undertake procedures set out in Section 11 of the Public Bodies Act before the wind-up can take effect. The power in the clause would mean that the draft regulations would be subject to the affirmative procedure where both Houses of Parliament would have to approve a Motion before the regulations could take effect.
Further, as I have indicated, I can see no reason why—should it ever be necessary—the Government would not consult prior to taking any action to dissolve the body. This would be contrary to the open and transparent culture that we are all committed to. However, as I noted earlier, I have some sympathy with the noble Lord’s intentions on consultation and, in the light of the committee’s comments on this clause, as well as the debate, I will consider further whether there is anything more that we can do to meet any concerns that have been raised. I therefore urge the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that. It was a long time coming but we must be grateful for small mercies.
This is an important point and very valid matters were pressed on the Minister, which I hope will help the Government to take this issue back and think again. It seems to me that a proper process is necessary here. As we have argued and as has been argued today, the affirmative process is not sufficient. We know that we cannot vote against it or vote to amend it. The noble Baroness said that it would be accompanied by a consultation. That is fine and we can put that on the record but, as I understand it, it is not mandatory under the processes. There are very important issues here, which the Delegated Powers Committee focused on, concerning a complete lack of knowledge about to whom transfers might be made. Also, important issues of conflict of interest lie at the heart of what the Bill is trying to achieve.
However, I shall quit while I am ahead. I am grateful to the Minister for taking this matter back and I hope that we will revisit it in a positive frame in due course.
Financial Guidance and Claims Bill [HL]
Lord McKenzie of Luton ExcerptsWednesday 6th September 2017
(7 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Financial Guidance and Claims Act 2018 View all Financial Guidance and Claims Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 1-II Second marshalled list for Committee (PDF, 108KB) - (4 Sep 2017)
“( ) financial inclusion,”
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
My Lords, I shall also speak to our other amendments in this group, namely Amendments 22, 25 and 39. Amendment 19 adds “financial inclusion” as one of the matters which the national strategy should specifically seek to improve. Amendment 22 sets out a range of factors which the SFGB must address as part of this national strategy. Amendment 39 offers definitions of financial inclusion and financial exclusion for this purpose. Amendment 25 takes us back to issues of financial education, which we discussed at the end of our previous Committee day.
As will be readily identified, these amendments draw heavily on the recommendations of the House of Lords Select Committee on Financial Exclusion. We acknowledge that the Government have already dealt with one of its recommendations—that there should be a clearly designated Minister for Financial Inclusion, and we support this. However, this opens the way for other recommendations of the Select Committee report to be taken forward, two in particular. These are that the Government should lead and set a clear strategy to improve financial inclusion in the UK as one aspect of a wider strategy to tackle exclusion, and that there should be an annual progress report submitted to Parliament. A Minister should have lead responsibility, but work is needed across government. The role of the SFGB in these circumstances would be to support the production of the annual report in conjunction with the devolved Administrations. This is exactly what Amendment 22 provides. However, if the Government were not minded to proceed with leading on a strategy and routine reporting, how will they take these matters forward? Can the Minister say more about when the Government will respond to the totality of the Select Committee’s report, and set out in particular what they see as their role in tackling financial exclusion and promoting financial inclusion?
As the report sets out, the precise use of the terms “financial exclusion” and “financial inclusion” has varied over the years, but we warmed to the approach adopted by the Select Committee, which we have set down in Amendment 39. This might be broadly characterised as financial exclusion representing the problem and financial inclusion the solution—that is, what we should seek to achieve.
One of the objectives of the SFGB is that it must have regard to improving the ability of members of the public to make informed financial decisions. Those who struggle to do so face the risks of financial exclusion, such as the inability to access what might be considered everyday financial products and services. As we know, such individuals can face significant barriers to engagement in modern society. Hence Amendment 22 requires the SFGB, as part of its role in developing a national strategy, to work widely with financial institutions and technology companies to support hard-to-reach groups in accessing financial support and products online.
At the same time as internet banking is growing, causing more financial services to move online, we are experiencing a programme of significant bank closures: 53% of UK bank branches closed between 1989 and 2016. It is suggested that this is a particular problem for older age groups who, we are told, place a high value on face-to-face contact, tend to be more reliant on cash and experience challenges in travelling, and one-third of people over 80 either have never used a cash machine or prefer to avoid them. Some of the high-street banks are responding to this by helping to develop the digital skills of their customers, and there is an obvious role for the SFGB in encouraging and promoting this.
Exclusion is not only a consequence of the digital challenge. The House of Lords committee heard about the difficulties for some, such as those without a passport or driving licence, in meeting rigorous requirements for bank accounts. These matters particularly affect the homeless, ex-offenders and migrants, to name but a few. Amendment 22 also highlights some of the financial exclusion issues which affect those suffering with mental health conditions. The report describes how certain behaviours, such as,
“disengaging … from contact with creditors and financial services providers”,
lead to the build-up of debt and problems with credit ratings, and that,
“excessive spending during manic episodes”,
can also lead to the build-up of debt. It is important, therefore, that arrangements include “control options” for customers.
However, as recent events demonstrate, the existence of control options does not guarantee provider compliance. One especially disturbing issue reported on by the Select Committee is the communication strategy pursued by some online retailers. This involves potentially “predatory behaviour” in the early hours of the morning, when lonely and isolated individuals are at their most vulnerable. This is a matter for the Government, the SFGB and others to be concerned about. Is the Minister satisfied with the current state of regulation and its implementation in this regard?
Finally, Amendment 22 calls for a review of the impact of the Welfare Reform Act 2012 on financial inclusion. While it calls for an annual review, we accept that it might better call for, as did the committee,
“a detailed, comprehensive cumulative impact study of how changes in social security policy resulting from the Welfare Reform Act 2012 might have adversely affected financial wellbeing and inclusion”.
Other organisations have tried, such as the IFS and the CPAG. A recent analysis by the latter showed that under universal credit and child benefit changes since 2013, families and children have lost more than any other group, with cuts far outweighing the increased support for childcare costs. Compared with the original design of universal credit, the average family with three children will be more than £2,500 a year worse off. The point is that the changes to universal credit will be heavily poverty-producing and lack of money is a feature of financial exclusion. While an annual review to monitor changes is helpful, the cumulative effect of all components of the changes to social security shows how mean-spirited and counterproductive they have been.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken on these amendments. With the exception of the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, who had some equivocation about them, and the Minister himself, all were in support and I am grateful for that. The Minister has given a very long, very full reply and I will certainly need to take Hansard away and have a read of that, but I would like to pick up one or two points. He referred to the evaluation already in place for universal credit and the welfare reform. What evaluation specifically has focused on the impact of these welfare changes—or social security changes—on the build-up of debt and on the relationship with preponderance of debt? I ask this particularly because there are a number of instances identified in the report where there is clearly a correlation between the social security provisions and debt. The issues around the seven-day waiting period is a simple example. There are issues around the payment of rent—a monthly payment for some. There are also issues around council tax support. That support has changed and is delegated to local authorities at a time when their budgets are being slashed. We will discuss the nature of debt shortly. One of the issues flowing from that is the changing nature of debt. For example, utility bills and council tax bills are featuring more prominently in debt. I believe that at least part of that is a direct consequence of the system that the Government have put in place.
The Minister was concerned about the definition of financial inclusion or capability and said that the amendments could introduce confusion into the standard international definition. Leaving aside the precise semantics, what does he see as the Government’s role in all this? What are they going to do to improve financial capability—if that is the terminology he prefers—or financial inclusion to help people make better use of financial services and banking so that they can play a wider role in everyday life? That is what this is about at the end of the day. What will the Government do? What is on the Minister’s agenda? How will that be shared across Governments given that the report talks about needing to join up these services? I believe that a financial inclusion task force used to do some of this work but the coalition Government abolished it a few years back. This issue features as one of the strong recommendations in the report. Leaving aside terminology, these issues are not joined up at the moment and they need to be.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, rightly pressed the Minister on the extent of the FCA’s role when there is a gap—namely, precisely what it should be doing in these circumstances. I need to read the record but there seemed to be a dispute over the extent to which the Minister’s assertions were correct in that regard.
A number of other points were made, including that of post offices filling the gap when banks close. However, I think there is some way to go before that happens. It is right to say that post offices are becoming more alert to these situations but I do not think that they are anything like clear substitutes for banks.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, for agreeing about the importance of financial inclusion—or whatever term we use—being an integral part of the strategy we adopt. That must be right. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, mentioned the importance of this area to young people. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, rightly expanded the range of circumstances about which we should be concerned. I think the Minister said that nothing in the Bill prevents action being taken in relation to fluctuating mental health and disability issues and issues around coercion. Incidentally, the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, talked about people’s reluctance to seek advice. I would have thought a clear case of that would be where it is available but they might feel intimidated—actually intimidated or intimidated by the environment.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, touched on the important issue of gambling. There is quite a chilling paragraph or two in that report about online providers deliberately targeting vulnerable people at two or three o’clock in the morning, when they are most susceptible to spending and making their commitments.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, supported the amendment and referred to the challenges of chip and pin. A statistic in the report says that one-third of people aged 80 or over have never used a cash machine or would not want to. That is quite a frightening level of disconnect.
We have been at this for quite a long time but it is an important subject. I propose to take the Minister’s response away, and we may return to it on some basis at a later stage. In the meantime, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Young of Cookham
My Lords, I will try to reflect the German work/life balance referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, by sitting down well before six o’clock. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for introducing her amendment, and as I do so often, I found myself in agreement with nearly all of her analysis of some of the challenges out there: the fall in the savings ratio and the need for a holistic approach to these challenges. I also agree with what the noble Earl said about the problems faced by young families. Where I parted company with the noble Baroness was when she sought to place this extensive new duty on the single financial guidance body. Basically, what her amendment does is to require the new body to produce a report within its first year advising the Secretary of State on how government departments might best assess the impacts of any changes in public expenditure, administration or policy on financial inclusion, financial capability and household debt.
I have a lot of sympathy with the intent behind the amendment. I agree with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, has just said about the need to stand back and take a holistic approach to the issue, and of course the Government do not want to do anything that would have an adverse impact on financial inclusion, financial capability or household debt through any of the policies that they pursue. However, I have real difficulty with the point that the noble Baroness is trying to make here, and I do not think that the amendment is either necessary or appropriate.
As I implied a moment ago, the scope of the report proposed in the amendment is very far reaching indeed. The definition of,
“public expenditure, administration or policy”,
is very broad. I have to ask the noble Baroness whether she will compel the body to produce a report for the Secretary of State which considers how to assess the impact if, for example, the Chancellor chooses to adjust expenditure on infrastructure, defence or healthcare. I am really worried that the amendment could overstretch this body’s resources in its first year and expand its remit far beyond that which was originally envisaged. In its first year the body is going to have to prioritise resources into bringing together three disparate bodies, identifying gaps in the market, as we heard earlier, and building on its primary task. If we start going down this road, I see a real risk of diverting resources away from the front line of providing services, bringing together and co-ordinating the functions of the three pre-existing bodies, and from front-line delivery.
The second point is one that has already been touched on. Ministers already review a range of issues when they assess new policies. The financial impacts on individuals and families are considered as a normal part of policy-making, and as noble Lords know, impact assessments are also produced to accompany legislation. I am not convinced that this broad requirement is in keeping with the body’s strategic function of working with others to support the co-ordination and development of strategies to improve people’s financial capability, their ability to manage debt, and the provision of financial education for children and young people. This function is about identifying the most important issues and possible interventions in financial capability, personal debt management and financial education for children and young people working through others.
In response to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, in winding up the last debate and in part response to the issues raised in this debate, a lot will become clearer as to where the Government are coming from on this when we publish our response to the ad hoc Select Committee. The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked me where the Government are coming from, and given the number of recommendations made by the ad hoc Select Committee, I think that that is the right place to reply.
On government leadership, we take the issues of capability and inclusion very seriously, and perhaps I may reiterate my comments about government leadership. In addition, the Secretary of State can request guidance or advice from the new body under Clause 2(2), which will help co-ordination between the Government and the body. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving me the opportunity to put the Government’s view on this important issue on the record and to underline our concerns about the potential diversion of resources if we go down this particular route.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
May I receive a bit of clarification on the Government’s response to the House of Lords Select Committee? I think the Minister said that it would be soon, but can he give us an assurance that we will receive it before we get to Report? We are going to have a little gap after next week. I hope that that will be enough time for the Government to respond.
“( ) As part of undertaking its strategic function to improve the financial capability of members of the public, the single financial guidance body must carry out research on a periodic basis, in collaboration with other bodies with an interest in debt issues, to determine—(a) the level of unmanageable debt across England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland,(b) the causes of unmanageable debt, and(c) ways to prevent unmanageable debt.”
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, in moving Amendment 26 I will speak also to Amendment 40. These amendments concern unmanageable debt, which we seek to define in Amendment 40—with some trepidation given my last attempt to define something. Amendment 26 would require the SFGB to carry out research from time to time relating to unmanageable debt and to do so in collaboration with other bodies with an interest in debt issues. The focus of the research should be to determine levels of such debt across the whole of the UK, the causes and the ways to prevent it.
Unmanageable debt is defined to recognise those situations where individuals are not routinely able to, or heading for circumstances where they will not routinely be able to, meet their financial commitments when they fall due. Research into such matters would not be new, but it is of particular relevance given the levels of unsecured personal debt in the UK. Citizens Advice reports that unsecured debt, after falling from its peak in 2008, is now growing faster than incomes and faster than secured debt. It cites an OBR forecast that levels of unsecured debt will return to pre-crisis levels by the end of the decade. These have implications for the individuals and families concerned, as well as the aggregate impact on the national economy. Citizens Advice research shows that unmanageable debt is unevenly distributed, taken as a measure of unsecured debt equivalent to six months or more of a person’s income but taking into account savings. Not surprisingly, those in the lowest income group are three and a half times more likely than the highest fifth to have unmanageable debt, those who are 20 to 29 years old are twice as likely as those who are 30 to 39 years old, and private renters are twice as likely as those with a mortgage.
Amendment 26 would require not only that the level of unmanageable debt be recognised but that the causes of the debt and ways to prevent it be determined. That is a more challenging requirement but would reflect changing circumstances over time. Evidence given by the Money Advice Trust to the House of Lords Select Committee was to the effect that, 10 years ago, the problems reported by 69% of callers to its National Debtline were to do with loans, overdrafts or credit cards, but that this percentage has fallen significantly to 42%. However, the service has seen a dramatic 140% rise in calls concerning household debts such as rent arrears, energy and water bills, telephone bills and, as we have discussed, council tax. This analysis was echoed by others, including StepChange.
We discussed in a previous amendment consequences of the abolition of council tax benefit and the detrimental effect that this has had on council tax debts. Another feature highlighted was the impact of the tax collection practices of different local authorities and how this could impact debts generally. We are, of course, coming on to discuss the importance of a breathing space. It has been suggested that the loss of debt advice and benefit advice services, particularly those funded by local authorities, has exacerbated the problem.
In seeking to bring research to bear on ways of preventing unmanageable debt we also need to focus on the wider consequences of individuals and families living with unmanageable debt, including family breakdown and poor physical and mental health, as well as on the fundamental issue underlying much of this—low and erratic pay. Research is not only about looking back. The Money Advice Service, together with CACI, published research on the design of a model to estimate the probability of an individual being overindebted. It concluded that the overindebted population is younger and more likely to rent and have children; feels the impact of macroeconomic changes more significantly; and is more exposed to changes in the welfare system. Unsurprisingly, they claim that, together with partners, this research will enable services for overindebted people to be provided earlier to help resolve crises and support them to stay out of debt in the longer term. We know that debt advice can be effective. Research can assist in channelling that advice in the most effective and efficient way. I beg to move.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Buscombe) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, for tabling these amendments. Amendment 26 relates to the strategic function of the body and would add a requirement for the new body to conduct research on levels of unmanageable debt across England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, the causes of unmanageable debt and ways to prevent it. Amendment 40 then seeks to provide a definition of unmanageable debt. It is right that this House takes great interest in seeking to understand the causes of debt and how the Government can best help those who are struggling. I thank noble Lords again for their important contributions on this matter at Second Reading, in the meetings we have conducted since and in their amendments. I have given them a great deal of thought. I assure noble Lords that the Government take problem debt very seriously.
We understand, as the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, has said, that the cost of living can sometimes become too great and that problem debt can be hard to escape and can compound family breakdown, worklessness, stress and mental health issues. The Government are committed to supporting those who are struggling with their finances and, as we have previously outlined, work is ongoing on this area. Indeed, during the Recess I paid a visit to the Money Advice Service to see for myself some of the work that it is doing in this regard, particularly the different areas of research it is carrying out. I also take this opportunity to acknowledge the work that Citizens Advice is doing in this area, and particularly the report they published last week, Stuck in Debt, which highlights the problems faced by many. The report highlights the risk of people taking on debt that they cannot repay and clearly shows the impact of unaffordable debt.
The strategic function of the single financial guidance body will be critical. It will give the new body the ability to work with others in the financial services industry, the devolved authorities and the public and voluntary sectors to identify the most pressing issues and possible interventions in financial capability, personal debt management and financial education for children and young people. I understand the very worthwhile aims of this amendment; however we do not believe that it is necessary to specifically reference one area of research in legislation. Clause 2(3) enables the body to conduct research on,
“anything that is conducive or incidental to the exercise of its functions”,
so it could conduct research into anything that noble Lords have raised this afternoon, for example. Furthermore, the body will, under its strategic function, be expected to work with stakeholders across the financial services industry, the devolved Administrations and the public and voluntary sectors to share and pool research evidence and knowledge among each other to inform the national strategy on financial capability.
Let us not forget that the whole purpose of this new body is to improve the financial capability of the public, through both its delivery and strategic functions. In order to deliver its objectives and functions effectively, this body, like any other delivery organisation, will need to conduct research to understand the issues it is addressing, test and learn new approaches to determine what works and continuously improve the services it is providing. I would find it hard to believe that this body would not conduct research on the very issues that the noble Lord has raised. The question here is not whether the body should conduct research on this and other matters—the Government are clear that, of course, it should. The question is, is it necessary to have it defined in primary legislation?
There are several topics that the body may wish to look into, but I am concerned that specifying just one could risk limiting its ability to look widely and strategically at issues across the whole sector. It must also have regard to emerging issues in the future. Amendment 40 seeks to provide a definition of the unmanageable debt levels that the body would be tasked with researching under Amendment 26. The noble Lord’s amendment undoubtedly highlights some of the key characteristics displayed by those who are struggling with their finances, such as being able to make only minimum repayments on outstanding credit commitments, difficulty in paying for essentials and a reliance on credit. The question here is not whether the Government agree with this definition; it is about whether this should be defined in legislation. As I have already explained, the Government believe that the new body should have the ability to choose the specific topics it researches in relation to its functions, and that these should not be specified in legislation.
Should the new body choose to research the causes and effect of unmanageable debt, it should also have the ability to define what it is researching. Although I understand the intention behind the definition suggested in the noble Lord’s amendment, defining unmanageable debt in legislation could unintentionally limit the scope of the body’s research. It is envisaged that the body will continue to support the aim of reducing problem debt, and this is clear in Clause 2(7)(b), which states that part of the strategic function is to improve,
“the ability of members of the public to manage debt”.
As I have said, the Money Advice Service and others already conduct significant amounts of research into the causes of overindebtedness. They are doing a great deal of work at the moment on how to support the aim of reducing problem debt in the first place. Indeed, I had an extensive discussion about how to do this in a much more strategic way; I think it was the chair of MAS who said that if someone falls off their horse, it is not just a case of looking at how they get back on it; it is how they learn to ride. It is about people’s whole approach, from an early age, to managing their finances. We envisage that the fantastic work the organisation is carrying out in research will be transferred and will extend and continue through to the new body, so I cannot quite accept the premise of the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, that if the money is not spent on research, how is the budget assessed. If that were the case, it would go to the core issue of whether the body is functioning: a crucial part of its function is to ensure that the body is looking at and thinking about how to improve people’s ability to manage their finances through life.
I know that a particular focus of research at the moment is to do with people’s attitudes; not just how they manage their debt in the short term, but their whole attitude to money and how they manage it going forward. I have various pamphlets here and I found it incredibly encouraging to learn about what we are doing for young children, going through to the elderly. Of course, as always there is lots more to do but the whole tenor of my response is that we should not restrain or constrain this body by tying it down, by listing or being too prescriptive in primary legislation. I hope that, after considering the points I have raised, the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that sympathetic reply and for the detail contained in it. The thing I am struggling to understand is why, simply because the Government have particularised an approach in the Bill, that precludes any other approach to research or indeed any other type of debt to be the subject of that research. But this is probably not the time to pursue that in great detail. I simply do not see why the amendment cannot be accepted without impairing the argument the Minister has made for how she sees research and the importance of it. Unless she wants to say anything more, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.