International Women’s Day

Lord Roborough Excerpts

Friday 8th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Baronesses for their work in this House and in their communities. I warm-heartedly welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, to this Chamber and look forward to hearing from her. I also want to acknowledge my mother’s strength and tenacity. Today, my sister, my daughter, my granddaughter and I stand tall because of her journey, courage and sacrifice.

In my contribution today, I wish to highlight the importance of protesting and marches. I have just returned from Bangladesh. I wish to pay homage to the women and men who rose to the call of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman on 7 March 1971 for a free, independent nation. My mother led, walking in the streets of Bangladesh to demand freedom and justice from the then occupying Pakistani army. Bangladesh today is a thriving nation and fast-emerging economy. The UK Government are much loved and respected for their earliest recognition of its independence and their ongoing support.

The number of women who were raped and tortured at that time is estimated at over 300,000. The USA kept silent on that genocide and stood with the occupiers and barbaric genocidal army. To this day, that army has not been brought to justice or made accountable. It pains me to say that the US has continued its blinkered support to some nations. I find it heartbreaking that it has continued to show callous disregard for human rights and justice in nations where it provides weapons of war.

As a daughter born of that nation, and as a Londoner for more than 50 years, I have marched many times since, demanding an end to the war in Iraq, better NHS services and so on.

As noble Lords have noted, some progress has been made for women throughout the centuries. I draw the attention of the House to the first UK women’s liberation March, commencing on 6 March 1971, when over 4,000 women participated on the streets, demanding equal and universal rights for women. Today, this has evolved to become a 1 million-strong women’s rights movement, demanding the right to live in freedom from the fear of violence, rape, torture, sexual and physical abuse, and, of course, the universal right to participate in public life.

This coming Saturday, this global movement of 1 million women will rise and coalesce alongside hundreds of thousands of men and women of every background, creed, colour and faith, or none. They will stand in solidarity with all the oppressed, occupied and violated women of our world, and in opposition to the killing of women and children in their thousands. They will call for an immediate halt to the killing fields of Palestine, where 30,000 women, children and their families have been murdered, tens of thousands buried under tons of rubble, with bombs more horrific than Hiroshima, while 70,000 more have been injured, maimed or burned with phosphorus, or are starving—women and children—without water, basic food or medicine.

We must hold the perpetrators to account. Until that time, together with many hundreds of thousands, I shall march in peace and solidarity, giving voice to those who cannot. In honour of the Palestinian mothers, daughters and granddaughters who have been slaughtered, I will walk in the tradition of my country—this country—and shout out to demand that our Government must stop their support for the Israeli occupying force and its brutal warfare on the Palestinian people. The PM should rest assured that such marches will not stop until that slaughter stops.

We debate economic equality and justice while women in Palestine, Sudan, Congo, Nigeria, Eritrea, Syria, Yemen, Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan cannot truly comprehend freedom, justice or economic liberation. We have been the architects of so many global conflicts. We at home, in Europe and in the USA, cannot contemplate peace, pay gaps and boardroom equity while women continue to be murdered and raped, regarded as collateral and the dispensable property of wars.

Given what we are witnessing on our screens, millions of citizens no longer accept or believe that our arrogant Governments’ war objectives are to free and liberate nations and their women from the shackles of inhumanity, injustice and dictatorship. We have fallen so short of our own moral compass, becoming oblivious to one dictator who is currently slaughtering a whole people while citing freedom and peace.

We appear to have learned nothing from the illegal invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, and, sadly, have become even more emboldened towards war. Once again, we are whispering peace despite the mass civilian killing fields of Rafah, the West Bank and Khan Younis. The IDF is roaming free, at will bombing to smithereens hospitals and schools, and thousands of women and children, doctors, nurses and journalists. Women have lost everything that they know as home. Women are holding babies torn to shreds.

What can citizens do but march? I pray that these marches will yield peace and justice. The cause of Palestine has been awakened in the hearts of all citizens throughout the nations, among thousands of ordinary men and women who understand the differences between self-defence and genocidal murder, collective punishment, ethnic cleansing and war crimes. We demand justice and peace.

I hope that these marchers will continue to oppose the actions of our Government, who are so complicit with Israel’s breaking of international laws and breaching the international norms of war. The PM standing and declaring war on protestors may provide temporary cover over his conscience. Allying them with extremist behaviour will do nothing to dissuade me, my neighbours, my children or my grandchildren from marching in the tradition of the Suffragettes, and for all those who march today for freedom and justice, as they have done for hundreds of years. Yes, to call for freedom and justice across all the rivers and the seas, and all the continents, until all women in all nations are free and triumph over occupation, oppression, wars and genocide.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I remind the House that while this is a wonderful debate, we have a six-minute advisory speaking time for a reason: so that we can hear the Minister properly later and finish at an appropriate time.

Financial Services and Markets Bill

Lord Roborough Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 1st March 2023 Grand Committee

Finally, Amendments 171 and 174 deal with the regulations made and firms’ right to challenge them. Amendment 171 would entitle an authorised person or a firm to apply to the Upper Tribunal, in which a judge would sit with experienced specialists, as in the Employment Appeal Tribunal. The Upper Tribunal would be responsible for dealing with appeals against decisions made by certain lower tribunals and organisations. It would make authoritative decisions, applying the law to the facts. It would be invaluable to lay down a principled approach to achieve consistency, predictability and fairness. Lower tribunals would be obliged to follow its rulings. Amendment 174 would provide protection against charges of misconduct, and I stress that they must have acted “reasonably”, not just in good faith.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as a shareholder in an FCA-regulated asset management company, and as having been regulated as an employee for 30 years in financial services, including five years as a senior manager.

I have put my name to my noble friend Lord Lilley’s amendments. While they follow on from the amendments adding the requirement for predictability and consistency that were discussed on day two of Committee, to some extent they also stand alone. I also support my noble friend Lord Bridges’ amendments and indeed any proposal for effective oversight and scrutiny of regulatory performance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

The Bill introduces secondary objectives unrelated to the core objectives. Should that unlimited liability also be extended to these? Will the regulator be determining acceptable travel policies for business? Which financial markets are priorities for growth and competitiveness? What will be the enforcement process if individuals or companies disregard these? How can the regulated have confidence in the application of these objectives without some kind of body of precedent and rapid appeals process? The regulators themselves will benefit from a clear body of case precedents when making decisions. I urge the Minister to give serious consideration to the importance of rapid and practical accountability of the regulator for its actions to those it regulates, if London is to remain a financial hub where the global community wants to base its investments, businesses and careers.

[Lord Eatwell (Lab)]

My Lords, I regret that I was not able to take part at Second Reading as I was working in the United States. I hope I have the indulgence of the Committee to make some comments on this set of amendments. As someone who has chaired a major regulator, I found the representation of the principles and approach to regulation as “vague” a rather chilling remark.

What we have seen with the amendments of the noble Lord, Lilley, and those who have supported them, is an attempt significantly to change the entire philosophy on which the regulatory system has so successfully developed in this country. That philosophy has been based on principles-based regulations. Those principles are not vague, as has been asserted; they are determined by Parliament. The rules have then been developed on the basis of serving an industry which is dynamic and continuously changing, unlike the building industry, many of whose practices have not changed since Tudor England.

The fact that the regulatory system can adapt to a rapidly changing industry has been a source of considerable strength within our regulatory system. If we are to introduce an entirely different legal approach, that has to be argued out. There should be a Green Paper, a White Paper and a proper Bill saying that the regulatory approach in this country is going to be fundamentally changed. That is what I fear: the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, would effectively introduce a wedge of change that would fit very uncomfortably with the current structure.

On the other hand, I support the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, and particularly commend the remarks of the noble Lords, Lord Hill and Lord Forsyth. They argued that although this new accountability device—this new entity—would deal with, let us say, the technical side of regulatory issues, we still need a parliamentary committee to deal with the political side because regulation is both highly technical and has an essential political core. That is why we need both components. Therefore, I strongly support the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, and the views put forward by the noble Lords, Lord Hill and Lord Forsyth, on the need for the dual structure to ensure a proper level of both technical and political accountability.

Financial Services and Markets Bill

Lord Roborough Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 1st February 2023 Grand Committee

Altogether, it seems that unintended consequences may well apply to these objectives, and I am very nervous about it. One thing I am reasonably certain about is that they do not look like motherhood and apple pie to me.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interests on the register as a shareholder in an FCA-regulated asset management company. I should add that I have worked for 30 years within investment banking and investment management, including five years as a designated senior manager, and in that role I had direct experience of the FCA. I also apologise that I did not contribute at Second Reading.

I speak in support of my noble friend Lord Lilley’s Amendments 54, 85, 46, 57, 64 and 82, which require the regulator to act with predictability and consistency. I believe these also tie in neatly with a number of amendments, yet to be discussed by my noble friend and others. Those address oversight, accountability and right of appeal, and following precedent will be important to those functions—fundamental to our legal system but not necessarily to our regulation at present.

I think all would agree that predictability and consistency of rule interpretation and enforcement are desirable, but they are not always in evidence, and I do not believe that the Bill addresses that. Indeed, by placing on the FCA secondary objectives around economic growth, international competitiveness and UK net-zero emissions, I agree with my noble friend that the Bill is likely to reduce predictability, defeating those secondary objectives by making the UK a more difficult place to do business.

From my own experience, I believe that the FCA is an effective and informed regulator, but there can be a fear of the unknown when interacting with it. Dealing with the FCA often requires legal intermediaries to try to understand what that body is currently thinking about interpretation of the rules. Enforcement actions frequently happen in the shadows and are surrounded by rumour. The legal intermediaries have the only access to these precedents that are established by those actions. There is also pressure on senior managers to enforce these unspoken interpretations under threat of personal liability if they fail to implement them in line with the FCA’s thoughts. Who would want to be a senior manager?

To address the noble Lord’s points on legal uncertainty, I believe this can be avoided by dynamic communication from the FCA on emerging issues and how those rules will therefore be enforced in future. That appears to remain perfectly possible under the amendments proposed.

These amendments would force the FCA to be clearer about how it interprets and enforces rules, leading to greater disclosure around the precedent being established in its recent actions—where information is confidential, perhaps anonymised. That in turn will also allow for more effective oversight of the FCA, as greater disclosure will allow more informed investigation of whether these rules and interpretations are consistent with the mandate of the regulator. Greater regulatory certainty would reduce barriers to innovation and entrepreneurialism. It would reduce the cost and complexity of doing business in the UK by removing unnecessary precautionary compliance expenditure. We need the regulator to demonstrate that it is acting with predictability and consistency to free our finance industry to focus on creating wealth for this country within a transparent regulatory framework.

These are excellent amendments, and I would have put my name to them had I known how.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 74 in my name, but before I do so, I give my wholehearted support to the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Lilley and those in the name of my noble friend Lady Noakes, particularly Amendment 72, which is excellent.

My Amendment 74 can be summed up in one word: proportionality—simply that—no more, no less. Disproportionality does not reduce risk or increase consumer protection, and it certainly has nothing to say about optimising the resources of any organisation. Amendment 74 seeks to simply insert the proportionality concept, as does Amendment 72 in a broader sense—rightly. I hope my noble friend the Minister will respond positively when she comes to sum up.