Financial Services Bill

Lord Sharkey Excerpts

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

[Lord Sharkey (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I shall focus my remarks chiefly on Clauses 3 and 5, and on Schedule 3. Before I do so, I should congratulate the Government on the speed with which they are addressing the matter of Gibraltar’s financial services industry. The Bill has 183 pages, and over 50 of them are devoted to Gibraltar.

With two important and welcome exceptions—debt respite and Help to Save—the rest of the Bill deals with technical and complex matters. In doing so, it raises profound questions about parliamentary scrutiny and the desirability of embodying an international competitive element in our financial services regimes.

Clauses 3 and 5 contain provisions to allow the PRA and the FCA effectively to make law by making rules without any parliamentary scrutiny. Clause 3 lists the provisions of the CRR that the Treasury may revoke by regulation. The list runs to 42 items, all of them significant. Clause 3(4) makes these revocations conditional on their being or having been adequately replaced by general rules made or to be made by the PRA, or to be replaced by nothing at all if the Treasury thinks that is okay. As things stand, it looks as though the Treasury is the sole judge of what may or may not be an adequate replacement. In any event, Parliament is bypassed. There is no provision for parliamentary scrutiny of these new rules, which have the force of law, but these rules can and will reshape critically important parts of our financial services regimes. Clause 5 takes the same lawmaking-by-rule approach to the regulation of credit institutions. Again, there will be no parliamentary scrutiny of these rules.

The Government have acknowledged the need for a discussion about the role of parliamentary scrutiny in the post-Brexit repatriation of powers previously exercised by the EU directly to our regulators without stopping en route at our Parliament. In March of last year, the EU Sub-Committee on financial services, of which I was chair, wrote to the Government about the issue, as the Minister has mentioned. In his response, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury noted that we had highlighted that

“delegating more powers to the financial regulators will require enhanced parliamentary oversight of their activities.”

There is now an open Treasury consultation on the future of financial services. The call for evidence in this consultation contains 17 key questions. Three of these relate to the issue of parliamentary scrutiny. They are: through what legislative mechanism should new financial regulations be made?; what role does Parliament have to play in influencing new financial services regulations?; how should new UK financial regulations be scrutinised? The consultation closes on 18 February. In practice, it means that the Bill will have left this House by the time the consultation results are available to us. In any case, HMT has indicated that the results will inform yet another consultation, later in 2021, in which the Government will set out a package of proposals. By that time, of course, the provisions in this Bill will have become law and there will no longer be an opportunity for real parliamentary scrutiny of the legally binding rules they will generate.

The Minister emphasised in his closing remarks on Report in the Commons that this Bill is

“just one part of the wider long-term strategy for financial services.”—[Official Report, Commons, 13/1/2021; col. 398.]

Given the narrow and technical scope of the current contents of this Bill, I was glad to hear that, and take it to mean that a second and more comprehensive financial services Bill is in prospect. But the fact is that, by the time we get round to that, the “making laws by rulemaking” procedure will have passed into law. Parliamentary scrutiny of the new rules as laws will have been avoided. We will want to return at later stages to the question of what we can do about this bypassing of Parliament in such critical areas.

I turn briefly to Schedule 3 and the insertion of new Part 9D into the already overloaded and much-amended FSMA 2000, and in particular to new subsection 1(b) of Clause 144C. This seemingly innocuous subsection could bring about radical change in our regulatory regimes. It introduces as a “have regard” in the PRA’s making of CRR rules the notion of international competitiveness for our regimes. This is a highly contested area and the idea has been opposed by many leading figures, including from the party opposite, as being likely to promote conflicts of interest. We will want to examine this in detail at later stages.

During the passage of the Bill through the Commons, there was some discussion of more directly consumer-facing measures. These included imposing a duty of care on the financial services industry and providing significantly more relief for those mortgage prisoners trapped by the Treasury’s dereliction and carelessness in selling on mortgage books to unregulated entities. We will want to return to these issues later in our consideration of the Bill.

We will also want to discuss extending the FCA’s perimeter to take in more of the SME lending market. This is particularly urgent given the terrible position that many SMEs find themselves in as a result of Brexit and Covid-19. We will also want to debate the issue of preserving access to cash in the Covid and post-Covid world. I look forward to the Minister’s reply and to our future debates.

Financial Services Bill

Lord Sharkey Excerpts

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

Moved by

[Lord Sharkey]

1: Before Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“Duty of the FCA to make rules introducing a duty of care
(1) The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 is amended as follows.(2) After section 137C, insert the following new section—137CA FCA general rules: duty of care (1) The power of the FCA to make general rules includes the power to introduce a duty of care owed by authorised persons to consumers in carrying out regulated activities under this Act. (2) “Duty of care” means an obligation to exercise reasonable care and skill when providing a product or service.(3) “Consumer” has the meaning given in section 2(3) of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.”(3) The FCA must make rules in accordance with section 137CA (FCA general rules: duty of care) of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 which come into force no later than six months after the day on which this Act is passed.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would impose on financial services providers a general duty of care to their clients.

[Lord Sharkey (LD) [V]]

Amendment 1 would require the FCA to

“make rules introducing a duty of care … owed by authorised persons to consumers in carrying out regulated activities”

under FSMA 2000. The Government understand the value of a duty of care; they are about to introduce exactly that in the forthcoming online harms Bill. They understand the immense harm that can be done to consumers without this duty, especially in complex and asymmetric environments.

We have already seen too many examples of the immense harm inflicted by our financial services industry on ordinary consumers—I am thinking here of PPI, which was a product sold to consumers at an 87% commission rate. The scandal ended up costing £53.8 billion in redress and administration costs. I am also thinking of mis-sold interest-rate hedging products and the general and widespread unfair treatment of small businesses in financial difficulty. There was also the long-running saga of overcharging for overdrafts and of leaving loyal customers languishing in poor-value products.

The existing rules did not prevent any of these things, which is not a surprise. There is no explicit requirement in FSMA or in the FCA’s principles for business for firms to prevent harms to customers. The FCA’s “treating customers fairly” business principle is substantially weakened by the legal principle in FSMA that consumers should

“take responsibility for their decisions”.

This fails to take into account the imbalance in power and information between firms and their customers.

Things are not getting any better. Recent examples of misbehaviour include the banks’ response to the authorised push payment fraud, inadequate assessment of affordability by payday lenders, the scandal in Woodford Investment Management, sales of risky investment products on the boundary of the FCA’s perimeter and the outrageous behaviour of some insurers during the pandemic trying to welsh on their business interruption policies.

The Minister will be aware of the Banking Standards Board’s annual survey of 29 member banks’ behaviour and competence. There was some welcome improvement in these areas between 2016 and 2017 but none since. In 2019, 13% of employees of these banks said that they had seen instances of unethical behaviour being rewarded and 14% felt that it was difficult to make career progression without flexing their ethical standards.

The FCA knows all this, of course, and has occasionally acted. However, within the existing legal framework it often takes many years for the FCA to respond to firms’ harmful practices. An example of this is the treatment of loyal general insurance customers, which the FCA is only just beginning to tackle.

Then there is the question of the high-cost short-term credit sector. Wonga may have gone, thanks largely to pressure from this House, and after intense pressure from Parliament there is now a price cap on rent to own. But problems persist with, for example, doorstep lending, guarantor loans and new, automated overdraft products.

The FCA tackles unacceptable practices slowly and piecemeal, allowing harm to persist for many years. It was particularly late in spotting the rapid growth of buy now pay later and its potential for harm. I believe that the Government have said that they intend to address this problem and I hope that they will use this Bill as an opportunity to do that. I would be pleased if that were to be the case, but the slow and cumbersome engine of primary legislation would not have been necessary had a duty of care extended over the sector.

The FCA has published eight papers in the last five years dealing wholly or in part with the question of duty of care, but it still has not developed a clear view or a recommendation. In its consultation feedback paper of April 2019, the FCA noted:

“Most respondents consider that levels of harm to consumers are high and there needs to be change to better protect them.”


It then sat on the fence about what this change should be, reporting that none of the financial service providers favoured a duty of care. Mandy Rice-Davies would have known what to say to that.

In any case, as the FCA’s consumer panel noted,

“Much of the debate on a duty of care has centred on legalistic arguments about whether there is a ‘gap’ in protection. What matters is whether consumers get the treatment they want and expect from their financial services providers.”


The consumer panel commissioned Populus to ask individual and small business customers about their experiences. The research showed that the customer is not at the heart of business decisions and that 92% of respondents were in favour of a duty of care in financial services.

While sitting on the fence, the FCA has also managed to hit the ball into the long grass. It promised to initiate yet another consultation on the issue, initially due last year but now postponed. In the meantime, levels of financial vulnerability grow. The FCA’s latest Financial Lives survey, published 11 days ago, makes grim reading. It notes that Covid-19 has reversed the previous positive trend in vulnerability. Between March and October last year, the number of adults with characteristics of vulnerability increased by 3.7 million to 27.7 million. That means that over half of all adults are financially vulnerable—a truly alarming figure.

The same survey also notes that unsolicited approaches have increased during the pandemic, increasing the risk of fraud and scams. Over a third of adults say that they have received at least one such approach and 1.4 million say that they have paid out money as a result of a possible Covid scam. Unsurprisingly but regrettably, people with characteristics of vulnerability have been the more susceptible: 12% paid out money, compared with 1% of the non-vulnerable. None of this will get any better when the furlough and business support arrangements come to an end. Financial pressures and desperation will inevitably increase; vulnerable people will be disadvantaged, treated unfairly and scammed.

Dealing with all this would be made significantly easier if the FCA were to impose a duty of care on service providers. The idea has widespread support. In May 2019, the Treasury Select Committee published its report on the inquiry into consumers’ access to financial services. Paragraph 210 of the report says:

“All retail financial services, no matter which sector of the industry they operate in, should be acting in their customers’ best interests at all times. If the FCA is unable to enforce such behaviour in firms under its current rule book and principles, the Committee would support a legal duty of care, analogous to that in the legal industry, creating a legal obligation for firms to act in their customers’ best interests.”


The FCA’s own financial services consumer panel, responding to the FCA’s discussion paper, said:

“A new duty is required to improve the position of all consumers … including those who need more support.”


The Money and Pensions Service said:

“MaPS remains convinced that a formal ‘duty of care’ on financial firms could provide a better balance between firm and consumer responsibilities and help deliver extra protection and better treatment to vulnerable consumers.”


StepChange is in favour, as is Fair by Design, and so are many organisations with direct and in-depth experience of the financial catastrophes that can be visited on the poor and the vulnerable. I am grateful for the explicit support and encouragement in pressing for a duty of care from Age UK and the Alzheimer’s Society and I am especially grateful to Macmillan Cancer Support for its unfailing help and advice. I am also indebted to the former chair of the FCA’s consumer panel, Sue Lewis, for her support.

Despite all this support, the Government will no doubt resist the idea of introducing a formal duty of care. When this issue was raised at Report in the Commons, John Glen addressed it by saying simply:

“As the FCA is already taking steps to ensure that financial services firms exercise due care and regard when offering products, services and advice, a statutory duty of care, as proposed by new clause 21, is not necessary.”—[Official Report, Commons, 13/1/21; col. 366.]


He did not say what these steps were or make any assessment of their actual or likely effectiveness. Today the Government may add to John Glen’s reasons for rejecting a duty of care and may advance the argument that they need to wait to give the SMCR time to work. Surely five years is long enough—five years in which there has been just one successful conviction. The FCA’s consumer panel points out that this is essentially a category error and notes:

“The SMCR is primarily a supervision tool—it will be a valuable mechanism to ensure that firms are complying with a new duty.”


The Minister may also pray in aid the reinforced, better-resourced and more active FOS. It is true that FOS dealt with around 250,000 cases in 2019-20. In these cases overall, one-third of judgments were in the consumers’ favour. This is evidence enough of large-scale misbehaviour, but the figures are much worse for products aimed at the financially vulnerable: 89% for guarantor loans, 84% for doorstep loans and 78% for logbook loans.

This is not—absolutely not—evidence of successful regulation. Every one of these judgments is evidence of a failure to sell the right product to the right individual or small business, to explain it clearly or to handle a complaint properly. The FCA’s current rules and principles are failing to stop this tidal wave of mis-selling, malfeasance and malpractice. We need a new approach that focuses on prevention of harm and delivers extra protection and better treatment for vulnerable customers. We need a duty of care and I beg to move.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I declare my interests as in the register. I support all the amendments in this group and what has already been expertly said by my noble friend Lord Sharkey. I will comment on the duty of care later, but first I will introduce my Amendment 72, which calls for warnings relating to non-regulated activity.

The issue here is one where firms that are authorised in respect of regulated activity also conduct unregulated activity, and customers are misled by the fact that the firm is authorised for some activity into thinking that the authorisation is some kind of guarantee of quality. It is what Dame Elizabeth Gloster called in her report “the halo effect”, and about which she said again to the Treasury Select Committee a couple of weeks ago that something should be done.

One thing that is done by the Bill is enabling unused authorisations to be more easily cancelled, but that does not solve the problem when there are still used authorisations. This is a problem that has long been known about and does not affect only unscrupulous businesses. Therefore, the amendment aims to make it quite clear to consumers what the situation is in three ways.

First, authorisation must not be referenced in any communication, including on letterheads or websites, as a reputational guarantee regarding non-regulated activity. In practice that should mean the ending of straplines. Secondly, when non-regulated activity is being conducted, that must be made clear, together with an explanation that it means that access to the Financial Ombudsman Service and/or Financial Services Compensation Scheme is not available. Thirdly, it would be an offence to imply that a non-regulated activity is covered by an authorisation.

The first two provisions relate to authorised firms aiming to stop the halo effect in as far as that is possible. I do not expect firms to write to clients saying, “This is the rogue side of our business”, but I hope that clients will be more aware that that might be so. The third point is a general point and would apply beyond regulated firms, but my aim is to catch passive implications, so that active steps to inform have to be taken.

The amendment has been drafted to make the point clear, rather than as a perfect draft to weave in among other regulatory provisions, and I hope that the Minister will take up the idea and recognise that reducing a problem by eliminating surplus authorisations does not reduce the problem to its smallest possibilities.

Turning now to the duty of care, I want to add that a duty of care should apply to the regulators as well. Of course, they say that they act in the public interest, but they are every bit as aggressive about protecting themselves—of all things from the public and from liability—as the firms that they supervise. My view of this is simple: “If you don’t live by it, you don’t really understand it”.

If one examines the responses to the FCA’s discussion paper in July 2019, the majority were in favour, two of the main reasons being that it was critical to triggering a fundamental culture change away from asking “Is this within the regulations?” and into “Is this right?” Secondly, it would give a duty to avoid harm that would incentivise firms to evaluate consumer risk at every stage.

What is not to like in that? It seems that just a handful of respondents did not want any more than was already in those principles about treating customers fairly. But they were very much in the minority and, sadly, it seems that some of those in favour of a duty of care are not in favour of it being actionable. I am in favour of a duty of care, I am in favour of it being actionable and I am in favour of it applying to regulators as well, because something is going wrong all round and, frankly, I find the FCA’s hesitancy a matter of serious concern.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, I believe that contribution has put another side of the argument. It is the balance between these two perspectives that the Government seek to strike. We also think the FCA is in the right position to strike it, with its obligations to protect consumers and its detailed understanding of the markets that it regulates.

[Lord Sharkey (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken on this group and I note a largely positive view of a duty of care. I thank the Minister for her response. Her counterpart in the Commons took 58 words to respond to a similar proposition; the noble Baroness took more than that, but notwithstanding the length of her response I was not convinced by any of her arguments. Many of them seemed much like medium to long grass.

The case for a duty of care still seems clear and urgent. Essentially there are, as we said, five key reasons for adopting the duty. The first is that FSMA does not protect consumers adequately; the second is that the FCA is always playing catch-up. The third reason is that poor behaviour by firms continues, as I set out in my opening remarks. The fourth is that getting redress after the event is time-consuming and very stressful, and the fifth is the incentive for real and lasting cultural change in our financial services industry. All these seem to be conclusive arguments in favour of a duty of care.

The Minister’s arguments against seem to have a strange Alice in Wonderland quality to them. They amount to saying that it is not in the consumer’s best interests that financial services firms should be obliged to act in the consumer’s best interests. That simply cannot be right. We will return to this issue on Report but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 6 and 7 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Trenchard, who has a lifetime of experience in the financial services sector and understands the whole issue of competitiveness and UK influence from banking for many years in Japan. I am so sorry that because of procedural changes he is now unable to speak to these amendments.

I refer to my interests in the register, particularly as a non-executive director of Secure Trust Bank plc in Solihull and of Capita plc and as a member of this House’s EU Financial Affairs Sub-Committee. I was especially sorry to miss Second Reading of this very important Bill.

These amendments—like the one moved by my noble friend Lord Blackwell and those in the name of my noble friend Lord Bridges—introduce a competitiveness objective for the FCA and PRA. My Amendment 7 also applies to the Bank of England itself. My amendments differ because they spell out aspects of competitiveness that I know are important from a lifetime in business and from nearly three years as UK Minister attending the Competitiveness Council in Brussels.

Of course, consumer protection, stability and standards are important, but they are very well looked after in the structure of financial services regulation, even if the regulators do not always deliver or enforce properly, as we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles. I come from a different perspective. Those of us with an understanding of economics know that needless red tape, inefficiency and lack of care for UK interests end up hurting UK consumers with prices that are higher than they need to be, delays that frustrate, and a failure to get things right first time. These also hamper innovation and productivity growth, two of the best ways to both benefit consumers—and I come from a consumer background—and stay ahead internationally.

This matters today even more than in the past. Financial services are the leading sector in the British economy, not only in London but in many other areas of the UK: Edinburgh, Cardiff, Newcastle and Birmingham, to name but a few. In the wake of coronavirus, Brexit and international competition, we need to treasure and enhance our leading position. France, the Netherlands, Germany, Ireland and Luxembourg are trying to steal our lead—but ineffectively, as this hurts their business and consumers and encourages investors and services to move to New York or Singapore. As Mr Barney Reynolds has argued, we must look again at the legacy of EU law, and I know my noble friend Lord Trenchard will have more to say on his ideas on another day.

We must not forget one point: small and entrepreneurial businesses are the backbone of this country. Everyone should remember that the big, powerful multinationals find it relatively easy to adapt to new regulations, rules and requirements, and to lobby for arrangements that suit their interests.

We must also create a benign climate for innovation, which is a vital part of improving efficiency. There is one great example: the Financial Conduct Authority’s so-called “sandbox”—clear, simple and easy regulation for fintech. Thanks for this are due to the current Governor of the Bank of England, but Mr Bailey and I were promoting this as good practice in India four years ago. It is dispiriting that there are not more such initiatives.

As my amendment states, we need “efficiency” and “competitiveness” in the interests of UK plc to feature in the purview of our regulators. A competition objective is not enough; indeed, it can sometimes harm smaller players, driving them bankrupt and causing problems for their customers, as bigger institutions mop up and take over their client base. Competitiveness is sometimes wrongly associated with bad aspects of globalisation. That is wrong: UK competitiveness is what this country now needs to strive for to support the UK base, rather than encouraging the sale of wonderful companies such as Arm to overseas interests. Alex Brummer has argued this forcefully in a series of books, and I agree with him.

While we come at the issue from different angles, I really do want my noble friend the Deputy Leader to listen to those of us who are seeking a change to the Bill to bring in considerations of “competitiveness”. So I will finish with the word’s dictionary definition:

“1. Possession of a strong desire to be more successful than others … 2. The quality of being as good as or better than others of a comparable nature.”


What could be better than that?

[Lord Sharkey (LD) [V]]

My Lords, Amendment 2, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Bridges and Lord Blackwell, and the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, provides an opportunity to reopen an issue that was settled in 2012 by Parliament deciding against adopting a version of what their Lordships now propose.

Their amendment does not come as a surprise, not just because this Bill provides an obvious vehicle for its proposals but because it fits into the usual timescale of loss of institutional memory. Prior to 2012, we had a “have regard” on competitiveness built into FiSMA 2000; it required the FSA to have regard to

“the international character of financial services and markets and the desirability of maintaining the competitive position of the United Kingdom”.

This “have regard” was widely seen as contributing to the financial crash of 2007-08, which is why FiSMA was amended in 2012 to remove it.

During the discussion around and preceding its removal, there were some very forceful observations; three deserve particular attention. The first was from the Treasury, which, in its 2010 report, A New Approach to Financial Regulation: Judgement, Focus and Stability, said that there was strong evidence that

“one of the reasons for regulatory failure leading up to the crisis was excessive concern for competitiveness leading to a generalised acceptance of a ‘light-touch’ orthodoxy, and that lack of sufficient consideration or understanding of … complex new financial transactions and products was facilitated by the view that financial innovation should be supported at all costs.”

Financial Services Bill

Lord Sharkey Excerpts

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

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con) [V]]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in day two in Committee on the Financial Services Bill. In doing so, I declare my interests as set out in the register.

I speak on this group to support my noble friend Lady Noakes’s Amendments 10 and 26. I shall not detain the Grand Committee too long. I have written an extensive article on this subject—if anyone is interested, it is at lordchrisholmes.com. All the amendments in this group seek to answer a straightforward question: who watches the financial watchdogs? If I had had a more expensive education, I could do the Latin for that, but fortunately I simply had an expansive education.

It seems to me that the start point is not whether we need more or less scrutiny and accountability but what the right level of accountability is. What are we seeking to achieve? In the EU/UK process, the debate has been characterised as being between principles and prescription. That seems a somewhat false characterisation. For me, the start point of purpose would make a lot more sense. What are we trying to achieve via our regulatory approach—to the FCA and the PRA—to enable it to be to that extent and no more? We also hear of proportionality. I support the two amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Noakes because they are elegant and leave space for detailed thinking to be done rather than for it needing to be rushed through in the Bill.

Some of that thinking needs to rest around the three Cs of capacity, consistency and co-ordination. Does any potential scrutiny have the right people, the right skills, the right experience and the right amount of time to undertake the task? On consistency, are the scrutinisers and the regulators there all the time, day in, day out, not merely when there is a significant regulatory failure or something that seems of particular political significance? Co-ordination speaks for itself, each regulator being a constituent part of a greater sector in terms of financial services and beyond that across the whole family of regulators, inspectors and ombudsmen.

In any solution that may come out of this, the greatest amount of energy seems to be around the Treasury Select Committee and a potential sub-committee. This has a great deal to recommend it, but even if we consider the first C of capacity, there would seem to be at least a challenge on this.

A similar argument, but with the addition of the right level of expertise, in my view, has been put forward in an excellent report from the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Financial Markets and Services, which was published on 18 February. It argues that a sub-committee of the Treasury Select Committee, supported by an expert panel, could be effective in this space. As has been said, it is not for the Government to prescribe what approach Parliament takes but, in this Financial Services Bill, the opportunity should be taken to provide that space and those options for such a scrutinising body to be constructed.

We have the opportunity to move a million miles away from part of the parliamentary scrutiny that we currently have—the annual report to Parliament via the Minister. We can move towards doing effective scrutiny in the 21st century in real time, rather than via the rear-view mirror: Parliament partnering with academia, the private sector and all the relevant expertise, deploying all the necessary elements of technology to enable effective and efficient scrutiny of our financial regulators for the benefit of us all.

[Lord Sharkey (LD) [V]]

My Lords, many of the amendments in this group share the aim of increasing or providing for the first time proper parliamentary scrutiny of some financial services regulatory regimes and of those who enforce them. Some amendments deal with the problem of absent or insufficient scrutiny on a grand scale and I strongly support their intent. This Government often seem to think that parliamentary scrutiny is best avoided or diluted. Our DPRRC, SLSC and Constitution Committee have regularly warned the Government against using skeleton Bills, against behaving as though consultation is a substitute for real parliamentary scrutiny and against using rule-making as camouflage legislation.

This Bill contains a particularly alarming example of the evasion of scrutiny in allowing the Treasury to revoke rules by SI by giving the regulator the power to make legally binding rules without any parliamentary involvement. That is completely unacceptable, as the Government must know. I strongly support Amendments 10 and 26, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, as a means of restoring some proper scrutiny. As the noble Baroness clearly explained, these amendments are not prescriptive as to the form of parliamentary scrutiny needed; they simply set out the principles that must guide construction of the scrutiny mechanisms. This is the equivalent of making an invitation to the Government that they should not refuse. It is an invitation to serious and substantive discussion about the way forward and it rightly, given the serious and far-reaching consequences, gives an appropriate incentive to resolve the issue quickly and collectively. I urge the Government to begin immediate cross-party talks on the issue.

By contrast with some of the amendments in this group, our Amendment 22 has modest and narrowly defined ambitions. As the Bill stands, Clause 3 lists the provisions of the CRR that the Treasury may revoke by regulation. There are 42 of these categories of provisions, all of them significant. Clause 3(4) makes these revocations conditional on their being or having been adequately replaced by general rules made, or to be made, by the PRA, or to be replaced by nothing at all if the Treasury thinks that that is okay. The Treasury appears to be the sole judge of what may or may not be an adequate replacement. In any event, Parliament is completely bypassed in this system. But all this means is that the Treasury can revoke provisions by SI before it has published the replacement rules or even decided what they will be. This sounds like a perfect recipe for disorderliness and uncertainty and it means that Parliament will have no opportunity to consider these new rules in a legislative setting. We get to see what has been dropped, but not necessarily what the replacement rules may be. This is another example of making law by making rules that Parliament has not been able to scrutinise.

Our amendment proposes a simple way round this. It would require any revoking SI to carry not only full details of what was being revoked but the full text of the replacing rules, except, of course, where no replacement was envisaged. These new rules can and will reshape important parts of our financial services regulatory regimes, and it is quite wrong that Parliament should be unable to scrutinise them.

I hope the Minister will be able to accept our amendment or to give us an assurance that revoking SIs will contain the full text of any replacement rules.

[Lord Blackwell (Con) [V]]

My Lords, in addressing this group of amendments, I want to speak also to Amendment 85 in my name. As I set out at Second Reading, I should draw attention to the fact that I was chairman of a regulated bank until the beginning of the year, although my interests now are solely as a shareholder.

I agree with other speakers that parliamentary accountability for the regulators is important now that the UK has its own regulatory agenda outside the European Union, and it is missing from this Bill. However, the regulators have been established by Parliament to enable independent expert bodies to exercise delegated powers, and we need to be careful that in providing for the necessary parliamentary oversight we do not create structures that impinge on the political independence of the regulators and their ability to take a considered, apolitical view, undermine their expertise or turn Parliament effectively into the day-to-day regulatory body if it is required to approve every rule in advance. That would make the regulators simply a working body for Parliament rather than independent regulators in their own right.

A number of speakers have talked about regulatory capture. From my experience over many years, it has not felt like the regulators have been captured by the industry, but neither have they always been right, so scrutiny is important. My amendment seeks to strike the right balance of delegation and oversight by suggesting parliamentary scrutiny of rules after the event—ex post—rather than it trying to second-guess the regulator ex ante by approving rules in advance. I therefore take a different view from my noble friend Lady Noakes on Amendment 10 and some of the other amendments. If Parliament sought to approve every rule in advance, the regulators would lose their independence, and we would lose the benefits of speed and expertise. We need to recognise that, often, rules need to be made to fix a problem, and if that problem needs fixing, the regulators need to act rapidly. They obviously need to consult as far as is possible, but to set in process a whole session of approvals by Parliament would handicap them in taking action when they needed to, and it would jeopardise their political independence.

Under my amendment, if a parliamentary committee felt that the rules were inappropriate or not working properly, it could make its views known to the regulator, and I suspect that in many cases the regulator would sensibly take note of that. Ultimately, it would be up to the Secretary of State to propose changes to regulations if the regulator was not acting in accordance with the framework that Parliament set out and intended. The point was made that that might need primary legislation; my understanding is that, under this Bill, Her Majesty’s Treasury can enact a lot of changes in regulations through secondary legislation, which can be done much more rapidly.

As my noble friend Lady Noakes said, what the amendment cannot signify is exactly what the form of parliamentary scrutiny will be and therefore that cannot be written into the Bill, but, since we are having this debate, I would advocate that the scrutiny function when Parliament comes to that is best carried out by a Joint Committee of both Houses, with appropriate technical support.

Experience suggests that a Joint Committee is the best way to avoid politicising the debate. It can draw on the experience in this House while enabling the elected Members in the other place to have their legitimate role in parliamentary oversight. As and when it is appropriate to decide on the form of parliamentary scrutiny, I hope that this can be taken into account.

I know that these matters are still under consultation. I look forward to my noble friend the Minister’s response, but I support the weight of the speakers so far that this is a matter that needs to be dealt with, if at all possible, during the course of this Bill.

Financial Services Bill

Lord Sharkey Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 8th March 2021 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Sharkey]

80: After Clause 40, insert the following new Clause—
“Sharia-compliant financial services
Within one year of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish an assessment of the availability of Sharia-compliant financial services in the United Kingdom, including financial services to support students.”

[Lord Sharkey (LD) [V]]

My Lords, Amendments 80 and 88 are probing amendments. Their purpose is to allow the Committee to debate access to Sharia-compliant student finance. I raise this issue because there is no such access.

Noble Lords will know that Islam forbids interest-bearing loans. This prohibition can be and is a barrier to Muslim students going on to attend our universities. I first became aware of this when I visited the Preston Muslim Girls High School as part of the Lord Speaker’s Peers in Schools programme. I talked about the work of the House and tried to answer the girls’ questions. There was one question I could not answer: why was there no Sharia-compliant system of student finance?

Many of the girls came from deeply religious backgrounds and would not be able to accept interest-bearing loans. This meant that they could not go on to university, which they were certainly qualified to do. Ofsted rated their school as outstanding on every measure. The headteacher explained to me that, when tuition fees were low, many Muslim students were able to attend university financed by family and friends, but, since 2012, this had become much more difficult because of the very large increase in fees and the real rate of interest now payable on student loans. The situation became even worse when maintenance grants were replaced by interest-bearing loans.

The Government have known about all this since 2012. In early 2014, the then Department for Business, Innovation and Skills consulted on the issue. The consultation generated an astonishing 20,000 responses. The Government’s report on the consultation noted:

“It is clear from the large number of responses … that the lack of an Alternative Finance product as an alternative to conventional student loans is a matter of major concern to many Muslims.”


This same report also identified the solution: a Takaful, a well-known and frequently used non-interest-bearing Muslim financial product. The Government explicitly supported

“the introduction of a Sharia-compliant Takaful Alternative Finance product available to everyone”.

That was six years ago, and nearly four years ago we passed enabling legislation in the Higher Education and Research Act 2017, but there is still no Sharia-compliant student product available. Over the past five years, I have repeatedly pressed the Government to act. I have spoken in debates in the Chamber; I have asked Questions, oral and written, and I have written directly to the Minister. I last spoke about the issue at length in the Queen’s Speech debate in October 2019. Soon after that, the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, wrote to me saying:

“The position remains the same as when the Government responded to your PQ in July. We will set out plans for implementation as we conclude the Post 18 Review. This will ensure that students in receipt of an Alternative Student Finance package are not disadvantaged compared to other students in receipt of mainstream student support.”


As I had heard nothing further, I emailed the Minister on 4 January this year. I pointed out that, since her letter to me, one more student cohort had entered higher education, and another was now preparing to do so, but there was still no available Sharia-compliant student finance. I asked her for an update on implementation. I asked whether we were still waiting for a formal response to the Augur review and suggested that we should not. I pointed out that the Government had recognised the problem more than six years previously and had had the power to deal with it for four years. I sent this email on 4 January and I have had no reply.

We are having this debate as students are considering their university choices for next September. Once more, there will be devout Muslim students who, though qualified, will not be going to university because of the lack of a sharia-compliant student finance product. It is very hard to understand or excuse the Government’s behaviour over this issue. They know the problem, acknowledge the need to act and have taken the powers to introduce the remedy, yet nothing has happened. It is shameful that the Government have allowed so much time to elapse and that they display such a casual neglect of and disregard for our Muslim community.

At the World Islamic Economic Forum in 2013, David Cameron promised to introduce a sharia-compliant student finance scheme, saying:

“Never again should a Muslim in Britain feel unable to go to university because they cannot get a student loan—simply because of their religion.”


When will the Government finally make good on this eight year-old promise? I beg to move.

[Lord Naseby (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I am absolutely delighted to support my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, who has clearly positioned the problem. I have had the privilege of working in Pakistan—which is almost totally Muslim—and India, which has a very significant Muslim population, as well as Sri Lanka, where a big majority of the minorities are Muslim. Locally, they do not seem to have a problem in dealing with this issue; can we not learn from them, particularly Pakistan? We have high commissioners here, so why do we not at least find out from them what the problem is in relation to the UK—and get their help?

This issue is increasing. The sharia families who are really strong in their faith increasingly want to send their children to university—that is part of the philosophy of that faith—and here we are, years down the track, making it very difficult for them. We must do something about it. In towns and cities such as Luton, Leicester and some of the other major ones in the north of England—let alone London—there are students and families who do not know what to do about it. We have to take some action.

It goes further than that, does it not? We want students from overseas; we are seeking them. There are sharia-compliant students from the Muslim fraternity overseas who want to come. I really do not see why this is so difficult to do, so I say to my noble friend on the Front Bench: Her Majesty’s Government need to solve this problem; sit down with the sharia-compliant banks and, if necessary, with the high commissioners to seek their support and help; and solve this problem.

Frankly, it is an embarrassment for any of us who have good friends in that community—as I do and I guess most of your Lordships may well do—to find that potential students are not able to pay their tuition fees and receive student maintenance grants without being penalised or having to find some method to go around the scheme, where the senior mothers and fathers are doing that at all.

As such, I make a plea to my noble friend on the Front Bench: this is not a party-political issue or anything like that—this is just good and straightforward. The problem is known about and has taken years to be solved; can we please take a significant step forward?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, as has been eloquently expressed, these amendments relate to sharia-compliant finance and specifically to the availability of sharia-compliant student finance products. This is an area where the Treasury and the Department for Education are in close contact. The Government are committed to ensuring that all students in England with the potential to benefit from further and higher education are able to access it. I know from this debate and from others that many noble Lords of all parties are keen to see action on this.

On the specific amendments, which the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, stated are probing, Amendment 80 seeks to require the Treasury to publish an assessment of the availability of sharia-compliant financial services, I can assure noble Lords that the Government are committed to ensuring that no UK customer is denied access to competitive financial products because of their faith. As referred to in the debate, the United Kingdom is indeed the leading western hub for Islamic finance, a position we have maintained for several years now. Treasury Ministers and officials conduct regular engagement with key stakeholders in the Islamic finance sector to inform our policies.

Amendment 88 seeks to add access to sharia-compliant student finance to the FCA’s objectives within Section 1B of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. It would be ineffective to add this objective because student loans are exempt from FCA regulation, meaning that the FCA would not have the powers to fulfil this duty. Additionally, student finance provision is a devolved matter while the FCA is our UK-wide regulator. Finally, as I have explained, work is under way in government to ensure that all eligible students are able to access student finance.

A number of noble Lords commented on the pace of this work. As the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, said, the Government published a consultation in September 2014 into a potential model that could form the basis of a new student finance product. The Government signalled in the consultation response that they would need to take new primary powers to enable the Secretary of State for Education to make alternative payments in addition to grants and loans. These were secured in the Higher Education and Research Act 2017. The Government have also carried out work with the Islamic Finance Council UK on an alternative student finance product for tuition fee and living cost support compatible with Islamic finance principles.

As has been stated, the implementation of alternative student finance is currently being considered alongside the review of post-18 education and funding. The interim report of that review was published on 21 January and the review is due to conclude alongside the next multi-year spending review. The Government will therefore provide an update on alternative student finance in due course. We should not underestimate the scale of complexity here. The Department for Education is trying to replicate a system of student finance that delivers the same results as now where students do not receive any advantage nor suffer any disadvantage through applying for alternative student finance.

I am sure that our colleagues in the departments concerned have heard the concerns expressed by noble Lords. I hope that, for these reasons, the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Sharkey (LD) [V]]

I thank everybody who has spoken in the debate on this group. I confess that I should have said clearly at the beginning that my amendments and their text were not the issue; the amendments were simply the fossilised remains of my scope negotiations with the Public Bill Office and a means of introducing the subject of sharia-complaint student finance.

I must say that I am, as usual, extremely disappointed by the Minister’s evasive and unconvincing response. It is a great pity. I still do not understand why there has been such a long delay in addressing this serious problem. The Minister has not offered a reason for the delay except to point at various complications. Perhaps I should remind him that the takaful version of the Help to Buy mortgage system was introduced from a standing start in six months. This has taken nearly seven years, and we have not got there yet. I simply do not understand why this is going to be prolonged and why the Minister cannot give us any assurance about a firm date for the introduction of a sharia-compliant student product.

I also do not understand—I never did—why the Augar review is at all relevant; perhaps the Minister can explain why at some other point. However, I understand that the Muslim community continues to suffer a direct disadvantage without any good reason or plausible excuse. The Government are acting in a completely mean-spirited and heartless way. They are failing in their moral duty, failing to fulfil their explicit promises and failing to provide any real comfort that they might eventually do what they should have done long ago. They are behaving neglectfully and really rather disgracefully. We will return to this issue later.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)]

Does the Minister wish to speak further? No? Does the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, wish to withdraw his amendment?

[Lord Sharkey (LD) [V]]

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 80 withdrawn.

Financial Services Bill

Lord Sharkey Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 10th March 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, financial regulation has to ensure that consumers are well protected. It is with this principle in mind that I move the amendment in my name. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Sharkey and Lord Holmes of Richmond, for their support. We have also had an aperitif, in the sense that Amendment 127 in the name of the noble Lord has already been debated in an earlier group, although its main focus is aligned with the amendments in this group and I look forward to his comments.

The recent report of the UK Mortgage Prisoners group referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, when he spoke on the earlier group of amendments, is graphic and shocking. It makes the case that the Government need to come forward promptly with a fair deal for the 250,000 or so mortgage prisoners who have been stuck for some 10 years paying higher interest rates than they needed to. The All-Party Parliamentary Group on Mortgage Prisoners has kept this issue alive, having been contacted by hundreds of mortgage prisoners who describe the worry and stress that comes from being trapped as they are. This is a shameful episode.

I am grateful to the Economic Secretary to the Treasury for meeting my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe, myself and others last month. The Economic Secretary told us that he has a keen interest in settling this matter. He explained that there are difficulties including moral hazard, which means that it is not easy to sort. However, while the issue continues, considerable injustice is occurring. The Government may well be right to say that the SVRs currently paid by mortgage prisoners are only a little higher on average than the SVRs of other lenders but, particularly during the pandemic, small differences matter. In any case, the assertion that the Government make that the differences are rather minor does not ring true in the light of the report from the all-party group. Its case studies, which include nurses, teachers, members of the Armed Forces and small business people, suggest that, for all those who are trapped and struggling with the consequences of the Government’s decisions when money is tight and margins matter, these things need to be sorted.

Surely the true comparison is that if mortgage prisoners were with an active lender and of course up to date with their payments, they would have access to a range of products to transfer to, which would give them a lower fixed rate for their mortgages. In the other place when this issue was discussed, the savings available were said to be in the order of £5,000 a year. That is not an inconsiderable sum. Why are these people being singled out for this penalty?

The problem also seems to be the inability to access the best market-matching deals, compounded by the fact that the prison effect is reinforced by the inability to prevent mortgages being sold off to so-called vulture funds, which are often unregulated. This matter has been left unresolved for far too long. The inability to seek out new deals and to limit costs is causing stress, and in some cases has caused families to lose their homes. As the Government have been involved throughout this process, is it too much to ask them to explain what the plan is, and what the timetable for resolving the incarceration of these prisoners will be?

In its recent report, UK Mortgage Prisoners says that it has put the record straight on what it calls a “Government made scandal”. It is for the Government to defend themselves on that charge. UK Mortgage Prisoners complains that the Government have “effectively ignored the issue” and that, where the FCA has intervened, it has done so in a limited and ineffective manner. Its asks seem very simple: an immediate cap on SVRs for closed mortgages; introducing a tailored mortgage product for those affected; giving credit to prisoners who have for a decade or more made overpayments; stopping penalty charges for any excess arrears; and adjusting credit ratings going forward. Those are five simple steps for 250,000 people whose lives have quite simply been blighted.

[Lord Sharkey (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I declare an interest as co-chair of the APPG on Mortgage Prisoners. Mortgage prisoners exist almost entirely because the Treasury made a terrible mistake when it sold the first tranche of former Northern Rock and B&B mortgages to an unregulated American vulture fund called Cerberus. Cerberus is the name of the multi-headed dog that in Greek mythology sits at the entrance to the gates of hell. That is not an inappropriate name, in view of what happened next.

Three things are needed to rescue mortgage prisoners. The first is to reduce immediately to comparable market rates the SVRs that they pay. The second is to make sure that transfers to much less expensive fixed-rate deals are properly available to them. The third is to make sure that new classes of mortgage prisoners cannot be created in the future.

Amendment 99, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, to which I have added my name, deals with the first of those things. My Amendments 116 and 117 deal with the second and third. Amendment 99, as he has so clearly and forcefully explained, would protect the thousands of mortgage prisoners stuck paying high standard variable rates. It would introduce a cap on the standard variable rates paid by customers of inactive lenders and unregulated entities. That would provide immediate relief for thousands of mortgage prisoners, and could give space for longer-term solutions to be found. It would help mortgage prisoners who took out loans with a fully FCA-regulated high-street bank which were then sold on to vulture funds.

Money-saving expert and consumer champion Martin Lewis supports this proposal, and on Monday he released a statement saying:

“While the government chose to bail out the banks in the financial crisis, it has never bailed out the banks’ customers who were victims of that collapse. Mortgage prisoners have been left paying obscene interest rates for over a decade through no fault of their own. They have been completely trapped in their mortgages and unable to escape the financial misery it causes … Coupled with the devastating impact of the pandemic on people’s finances, urgent action is needed to prevent the situation from becoming catastrophic. The independent LSE report I funded has a cogent argument as to why an SVR cap isn’t a balanced long-term solution. Yet in lieu of anything else, I believe for those on closed-book mortgages it is a good stopgap while other detailed solutions are worked up, and I’m very happy the All-Party Parliamentary Group on mortgage prisoners is pushing it. This would provide immediate emergency relief for those most at risk of financial ruin. No one should underestimate the threat to wellbeing and even lives if this doesn’t happen, and happen soon.”


The Government will no doubt say that some mortgage prisoners are already paying rates lower than 3.5%, so rates do not need to be capped. But those sold on by the Government to vulture funds like Cerberus are paying high rates. In the package sold by the Government containing more than 66,000 mortgage loans, 52% were paying rates between 4.5% and 5%, and 37% were paying rates of over 5%, when the mortgages were securitised.

The Government could have set strict conditions when selling the mortgages on the interest rates which could be charged. But when they sold £16 billion of mortgages to Tulip and Cerberus, they imposed only a 12-month restriction on increases to the standard variable rate. These have long since expired and the chief executive of Tulip Mortgages told the Treasury Select Committee that the firm now had

“complete discretion to set the interest rate policy.”

On the sale to Heliodor, the Government claimed that the organisation which bought the loans would be required to set their standard variable rates by reference to the SVR charged by a

“basket of 15 active lenders”.

But when you read the details of the securitisation agreements for the mortgage loans sold, you will find that, actually, the Government have required the SVR to be set only at the level of the third highest of the 15 active lenders. This is absolutely critical, as the third highest SVR is actually 4.49%. The lowest SVR among those 15 active lenders is 3.35%, and the average SVR weighted by market share is 3.72%.

The latest and final sale of the Treasury-held mortgages was announced in February. The book was sold to Davidson Kempner Partners and Citibank, with funding by PIMCO. The Government said that the SVR was going to be charged by reference, again, to a basket of 15 active lenders, but there are no details about how this will work in practice. If it reflects the practice in earlier sales, it will not actually provide any protection to customers. The Government will also say that the FCA has changed the affordability test to enable mortgage prisoners to switch to a different lender. But the progress has been very slow, with only a very small number of lenders willing to use these new flexibilities.

The cap on the SVR proposed by this amendment would provide immediate relief to mortgage prisoners who have been overpaying for the past 13 years. It would protect all mortgage prisoners, including those who are unable to switch. It would give time for other solutions to help mortgage prisoners to be developed. The SVR cap would apply only to mortgages owned by inactive lenders and unregulated entities. It would have no impact on active lenders competing to attract customers.

The cap is supported by the campaign group UK Mortgage Prisoners, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, said. Members of the group have stated that this amendment is the difference between feeding their children and themselves or continuing to rely on food banks. The Government created the problem of mortgage prisoners and it is their moral responsibility to rescue them from the significant detriment that many still face. I urge the Government to accept the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson.

I now turn to Amendment 116, which would extend access to fixed interest rates to all mortgage prisoners, enabling them to gain control and certainty over their monthly mortgage payments. When the time came for the nationalised Northern Rock and B&B mortgages to be sold by the Government back to the private sector, they could have pursued an approach which ensured that these customers were in fact protected. They could have sold them to active lenders or secured a commitment from purchasers to offer these new customers new deals.

The risk to these customers was identified. In January 2016, the noble Lord, Lord McFall, wrote to the Treasury, UK Asset Resolution and the FCA to say that the customers affected by these sales should be protected, offered a fair deal and given access to fixed rates. UKAR responded that, by returning these mortgages to the private sector,

“the option to be offered new deals, extra lending and fixed rates should become available”.

But this requirement was not written into the contract when mortgages were sold to funds such as Cerberus, with the BBC reporting that UKAR is now claiming to have been “misled” by Cerberus.

A UKAR spokesman told BBC “Panorama” that Cerberus had the ability to lend to the former Northern Rock customers and that UKAR believed that it intended to do so. They said:

“The reply to Lord McFall sent on behalf of the UKAR board of directors was based on information presented to UKAR and the board had no reason to disbelieve this at that time.”


At the very best, this is evidence of catastrophic incompetence. At worst, it is evidence that UKAR heartlessly pursued profit over care for mortgage customers.

Consumer champion Martin Lewis lays responsibility for the treatment of mortgage prisoners squarely with the Government. He said that the Government

“have sold these loans to professional debt buyers who do not offer mortgages and left these people in these types of mortgages, which have been too expensive, crippled their finances and destroyed their wellbeing.”

Financial Services Bill

Lord Sharkey Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 24th March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, Amendment 1 is in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Eatwell. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for adding their cross-party support on this important issue and look forward to their contributions to the debate. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, the Deputy Leader of the House, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, the noble Lord, Lord True, and their officials for making time to discuss this issue after Committee, which has helped us considerably and shed some light on the complex set of consultations that the FCA and the Treasury itself are conducting over the next few months, all of which are happening, of course, during the pandemic and at a time of significant change in duties and responsibilities in all quarters.

In his excellent speech in Committee, my noble friend Lord Eatwell set out the case for the introduction of a duty of consumer care to be placed on financial services providers, which he argued would strengthen the FCA’s consumer protection objective and introduce requirements to ensure that firms operating in the financial sector should not profit from exploiting a consumer’s vulnerability, behavioural biases or constrained choices. I can do little better than rehearse his main points again. Markets in financial products sold to individuals, households and small businesses are seriously inefficient, mainly because of asymmetric information, as the seller of the product typically knows much more about the risks involved in making a particular investment or other financial transaction than does the consumer.

Secondly, given that the FCA’s strategic objective is about promoting competition in the market, thereby improving consumer outcomes, it can either regulate each individual financial product to ensure that the consumer is probably informed, or it could adopt the principle enshrined in Amendment 1 and make general rules, including the power to introduce a duty of care owed by authorised persons to their consumers. The case for a duty of care for consumers was argued very strongly at the time the current regulatory structure was set up; indeed, I was present in many of those debates. But, absent primary legislation or changes to it, the FCA has, perforce, adopted the first option and attempted to deal with each consumer detriment issue as it arises. However, by its own admission, this has not gone very well. From its consultation entitled, Our Future Approach to Consumers in 2017, through to the feedback statement published in April 2019, the FCA has wrestled with the issue of duty of care and is still wrestling today, with a review scheduled to start, we understand, in May 2021.

My noble friend’s case was that the status quo is failing and a new approach is urgently required for two main reasons. First, new products are always coming on to the market, which means that the FCA is always playing catch-up to introduce new rules and has to take time for appropriate consultation and so on to deal with the new threats to consumers. The rush to get a handle on “buy now, pay later” products in this legislation speaks volumes about that approach. Secondly, financial products are now available with one click via the internet, with all that that implies about the failure of the conventional approaches of “know your customer” and the need for careful concern about going through the paperwork and understanding the terms and conditions of what you may be signing up to. In short, fintech, with all the benefits it can bring—well argued by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes— signals the end of the current FCA regulation as we know it. The case for a duty of care approach is unanswerable.

Amendment 1 provides the FCA with the means to end its failure to meet its consumer protection duty through dogged adherence to a failing competition objective. The enactment of the power to introduce a duty of care for consumers would rightly place responsibility for ensuring that markets function well firmly on the shoulders of those who have the information required to attain that goal. If the FCA has the power to introduce a duty of care for consumers, it could finally begin to live up to its strategic objective.

Far too many consumers are being treated inappropriately, whether by the mis-selling of products, by the denial of rights or by obstruction of responses to complaints and so on. If the Government wish to improve on the consumer protections previously enshrined in EU legislation, the introduction of a duty of care on consumers is a safe and sure way forward. It is a way to ensure that markets function well for the benefit of the consumer, as it should be.

I am sure that, in responding to this debate, the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, will try to persuade us that there is no need for this amendment, as future consultations to be carried out by the FCA and the Treasury will cover all these points in detail and so all will be well. Indeed, either or both of these exercises may require primary legislation—that is quite likely—and we will be back again in a few months’ time debating the same issues all over again, when the Treasury has decided on its responses to the consultations and brings forward legislation to implement another generation of regulatory frameworks. I put it to the Government that, while the wording of the amendment may not be perfect, the intent—particularly the wording of subsection (2),

“that firms should not be profiting from exploiting a consumer’s vulnerability, behavioural biases or constrained choices”—

is worth holding on to and action should be taken now. I give notice that, in the absence of a positive response today, I am minded to test the opinion of the House on the amendment. However, if the Minister is prepared to commit to bring this back at Third Reading, with an agreed wording, we could work with her to settle this issue. I beg to move.

[Lord Sharkey (LD) [V]]

It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, and to support this amendment. The noble Lord has made a strong and compelling case for both parts of the amendment. The case for and against a duty of care was discussed extensively in Grand Committee and I do not propose to revisit the arguments in detail.

In his speech in Grand Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, made a simple but important point:

“The truth is that the industry has a systemic tendency to malfeasance.”—[Official Report, 22/2/21; col. GC 112.]


I listed in Committee some of the many serious instances of malfeasance over the last couple of decades—I am sure that they are familiar to us all—which amply demonstrate the truth of the observation made by the noble Lord, Lord Davies. There can be no doubt that the temptation to malfeasance and the opportunities for malfeasance grow, and are deeply rooted, in the huge inequality of arms. The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, emphasised that in Committee, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, has just noted. There can be no doubt either that the culture within parts of the financial services industry is, to say the least, not oriented to serving the best interests of consumers. John Lanchester has graphically described the industry as treating its customers as “an extractive resource”. All this is true in an industry that is highly regulated. This inevitably leads to the conclusion that the regulatory regime is obviously and severely deficient.

The FCA has consulted on the duty of care at least eight times in the last five years and is about to do so again, starting in May, apparently. It is not clear, given the Treasury’s current consultation on the FSFRF, why we need two consultations covering the same ground. I know that some respondents to the HMT consultation have already proposed a new duty of best interest or duty of care. There is no reason to suppose that this new, and much delayed, FCA consultation will come up with anything more than equivocation, fence-sitting or long grass, if its previous efforts are anything to go by. Last time round, the FCA found that most respondents considered levels of consumer harm to be high and that change was needed to protect consumers. None of the financial services respondents wanted a duty of care, but 92% of consumers did, in a popular survey commissioned by the FCA’s own consumer panel.

The industry resists a duty of care for obvious reasons of self-interest, sometimes presented as a concern that such a duty would increase costs ultimately to the consumer. This does not say much for our financial services’ belief in competition, nor does it acknowledge the fact that, for example, PPI was sold at a commission rate of 87% or that the industry has had to find the funds to pay over £50 billion in redress for PPI alone.

Financial Services Bill

Lord Sharkey Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 14th April 2021 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Sharkey]

15: After Clause 40, insert the following new Clause—
“Access to Sharia-compliant financial services including student finance
(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Treasury must make provision by regulations to facilitate the availability of Sharia-compliant financial services in the United Kingdom, including availability to students who are eligible for the Government’s student finance provision of Sharia-compliant finance products for paying tuition fees and for student maintenance on equitable terms with students accessing the Government’s student finance provision.(2) Regulations under this section are subject to the negative procedure.”

[Lord Sharkey (LD) [V]]

My Lords, Amendment 15 is in my name and those of my noble friends Lady Sheehan and Lady Kramer, and I am grateful for their support.

The amendment addresses the issue of the provision of sharia-compliant student finance, of which there is none. Because Islam forbids interest-bearing loans, that prohibition is a barrier to our Muslim students going on to attend our universities. We debated this extensively in Grand Committee so I will not rehearse the arguments in detail, but I will remind the House of the timescale involved.

The problem became clear in 2012 when tuition fees were significantly increased, and it became worse when maintenance grants were replaced by maintenance loans. In 2014, the Government published their report on the consultation that they had undertaken. That consultation had attracted 20,000 respondents, a record at the time. The Government acknowledged that the lack of an alternative financial product to conventional student loans was a matter of major concern to many Muslims. The report also identified a solution: a takaful, a well-known and frequently used non-interest-bearing Muslim financial product. The Government explicitly supported the introduction of such a product.

That was seven years ago. There is still no sharia-compliant student finance available, nor have the Government ever offered a detailed reason for this long delay or indicated when it might come to an end. As I mentioned in Grand Committee, I have repeatedly asked the Government the reasons for this lack of action. I have never had a substantive response. There was no substantive response from the Minister in Grand Committee a month ago and no explanation for the delay nor any indication of a date by which the takaful would be available. There was absolutely no sense of urgency. It was as though the plight of these Muslim students was not really important or worth taking seriously.

I made the point that I had written to the Minister on 4 January this year asking for a report on progress and making some suggestions. There had been no response by then, and there was no response until 5.15 pm yesterday evening, 14 weeks after my email. The Minister of State for Universities apologised for the three-month delay without offering an excuse or an explanation and her reply was completely formulaic, containing no substantive answers. It contained no indication of when sharia-compliant student finance would be available. I was struck by the casual contempt for our Muslim community that this response so clearly signalled—an absurdly unfriendly and unfeeling response with no attempt to reassure or comfort the Muslim community. In fact, if you look at the Government’s record on all this, it is very hard to see it as anything other than discrimination against our Muslim community—not just discrimination but a failure to engage and to explain.

Our amendment would oblige the Government at last to fulfil the promise they made to the Muslim community in 2013. It would oblige the Secretary of State to facilitate the availability of Sharia-compliant financial services for students who are eligible for conventional student finance on equitable terms with students accessing these conventional products, and to do so within six months of the passing of this Act so that the next Muslim student cohort did not have to face a conflict between faith and education.

I very much hope that when the Minister responds he will be able to do better than Minister Donelan. I hope he will be able to tell the House when the Government will introduce the sharia-compliant student financial product. I hope he will set a date that will allow the next cohort of devout young Muslims to go on to university. If the Minister cannot do that—if he cannot say when he will fulfil his Government’s 8 year-old promise to our Muslim community—I will seek to test the opinion of the House. I beg to move.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, has withdrawn so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all those who have spoken in this short debate. As has been said, Amendment 15 seeks to require the Government to make regulations to facilitate the availability of sharia-compliant financial services in the UK, including a sharia-compliant student finance product, within six months of the passing of the Bill.

Institutions across the United Kingdom have been providing sharia-compliant financial services for nearly 40 years, and the United Kingdom is the leading western centre for Islamic finance. I do not believe that anyone would dispute that the United Kingdom is a world leader in this area. This Government continue to promote the growth of this sector, supporting domestic financial inclusion and our connections with key markets abroad. With respect, I think that, in this context, the charges from the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, of “casual contempt” for the Muslim community and of discrimination were a little misplaced.

Student finance is not regulated by the FCA. I did, however, listen very carefully and respectfully to the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, who spoke from a position of personal commitment. I can assure the noble Baroness and the noble Lords that the Government wish to extend the reach of the student finance system so that everyone with the ability to benefit from higher education can do so. That is why we have legislated to make a system of alternative payments that is compatible with Islamic finance principles possible.

As I said in my remarks in Committee, a range of complex policy, legal and systemic issues need to be resolved before a Sharia-compatible product can be launched. Despite these challenges, the Department for Education has been working with specialist advisers to establish an appropriate product specification that meets the requirements of Islamic finance.

I also heard the concerns raised in Committee, and by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, again today, that it is not clear enough when the Government will take the next step. Since Committee, when I was concerned to hear those criticisms, I have discussed the matter with the relevant Minister in the Department for Education. Based on this, I can report that this matter is being considered as part of the wider review of post-18 education and funding.

I hope, therefore, that noble Lords will appreciate that it is not the right time to act until the wider strategy on post-18 education has been settled. I appreciate that some noble Lords, including those who have spoken, would like to see faster progress here—the question of when was put. I am able to reassure the House that there will be an update on this work as part of the review of post-18 education and funding when it is published, which will be at the next multi-year spending review. The Government will conduct the next spending review later this year. Further details on the nature of that spending review will be set out in due course.

On that basis, and with the commitment to progress as part of the review, I hope that the noble Lord will accept the assurance that the Government are committed to making progress on this very important issue and feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Sharkey (LD) [V]]

I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this brief debate and I thank the Minister for his response. I point out, however, that we legislated to take powers to do this four years ago. Nothing has happened since. I remind the Minister, too, that the Help to Buy system was up and running within five or six months—and that was Islamic finance.

I also note that references to the post-18 education review seem to me—and have always seemed to me, as I said in my letter to the Minister, to which I did not get a response—completely irrelevant. We want students, Muslim or not, to be treated equally. If there is a change, after the post-18 Augar review, to the way that student finance happens, it should apply to Muslim and non-Muslim students equally: there should be no need to wait to establish the principle that Muslim and non-Muslim students should have equal access to finance. There is no need to wait.

I note, finally, that the promise of an update is not a promise to do anything at all, and does not even come close to setting a date by which these cohorts of Muslim students can gain access to finance and go on to university. In the Minister’s response there was no promise and no clarity, just talk of commitment. But after 13 years of this promise, talk of commitment is not enough, and I wish to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

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

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

[Lord Sharkey (LD) [V]]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Sharkey]

21: After Clause 40, insert the following new Clause—
“Interest rates for mortgage prisoners
(1) The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 is amended as follows.(2) After section 137FD insert—“137FE FCA general rules: interest rate for mortgage prisoners(1) The FCA must make general rules requiring authorised persons involved in regulated mortgage lending and regulated mortgage administration to introduce a cap on the Standard Variable Rates charged to mortgage prisoners and to ensure that mortgage prisoners can access new fixed interest rate deals at an interest rate equal to or lower than an interest rate specified by the FCA.(2) In subsection (1)— “mortgage prisoner” means a consumer who cannot switch to a different lender because of their characteristics and has a regulated mortgage contract with one of the following types of firms—(a) inactive lenders, or firms authorised for mortgage lending that are no longer lending; and(b) unregulated entities, or firms not authorised for mortgage lending and which contract with a regulated firm to undertake the regulated activity of mortgage administration;“new fixed interest rate deals” means the ability for the consumer to fix the rate of interest payable on a regulated mortgage contract for periods of 2 years and 5 years;“Standard Variable Rate” means the reversion rate which is a variable rate of interest charged under the regulated mortgage contract after the end of any initial introductory deal.(3) The general rules made under subsection (1) must set the level of the cap on the Standard Variable Rate at a level no more than 2 percentage points above the Bank of England base rate.(4) The general rules made under subsection (1) should make new fixed interest rate deals available to mortgage prisoners who meet the following criteria—(a) are up to date with payments or have aggregate arrears of no more than one monthly payment in the past 12 months,(b) have a remaining term of 2 years or more,(c) have an outstanding loan amount of at least £10,000, and(d) have not received consent to let the property.(5) When specifying the interest rates for new fixed interest rate deals required by subsection (1) the FCA should specify rates for a range of Loan-To-Valuation (LTV) ratios taking into account the average 2-year and 5-year fixed rates available to existing customers of active lenders through product transfers.(6) The FCA must ensure any rules that it is required to make as a result of subsection (1) are made not later than 31 July 2021.””Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would require the FCA to introduce a cap on the Standard Variable Rates charged to mortgage prisoners and, under specified circumstances, ensure their access to fixed rate interest deals.

[Lord Sharkey (LD) [V]]

My Lords, Amendments 21 and 37B are in my name and those of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, and my noble friend Lady Kramer, and I am very grateful for their support. I declare an interest as co-chair of the APPG on Mortgage Prisoners. The plight of these mortgage prisoners was discussed extensively—

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, due to the technical issues that the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, is having, I suggest that we adjourn for five minutes until a convenient moment after 8.28 pm.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharkey (LD) [V]]

I was saying that we have made no progress in Committee on the mortgage prisoners problem, and the situation seems frozen. On the one hand, there are 250,000 mortgage prisoners, subject to real, undeserved and unwarranted financial pressure, which is likely to increase when Covid concessions lapse or are withdrawn. On the other hand, the Government and the FCA seem intent on minimizing the problem and are engaged in what seem to me to be futile and unproductive arguments with the mortgage prisoners over exact figures.

The alleged 0.4% premium paid by mortgage prisoners above the average SVR illustrates the point. We do not only believe the figure to be wrong for the reasons that I set out in Committee, which were not refuted by government; we also believe that such discussions are very largely a distraction and lead nowhere. SVRs are not the norm in mortgage lending but are the literally inescapable norm for most mortgage prisoners. Only around 10% of customers with active lenders pay these high SVRs, and more than 75% of those who do switch to new and much lower fixed rate deals within six months of moving to an SVR. Mortgage prisoners have been stuck with usurious SVRs for over 10 years.

Solving the mortgage prisoner problem certainly requires reducing this usurious SVR, but it also requires giving the mortgage prisoners access to normal fixed-rate mortgage deals. I regret to say that there has been no real progress in either of these areas. In all the discussions about the problem, I have never heard the Government admit responsibility for causing it in the first place. I have heard repeated assertions that the Government are trying to find a solution. I have heard John Glen, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, say that he remains open to considering practical solutions, and I know that the Chancellor told Martin Lewis that he would keep working on the issue and was committed to finding a workable solution.

However, I have heard no admission from the Government that they caused the problem in the first place—and no admission of moral responsibility for devising a proper, just and timely solution. Certainly, nothing so far proposed or actioned has delivered effective relief to the 250,000 prisoners. I again make the point that these people are not the authors of their own misfortunes: the Government are.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, once more we will need a brief adjournment due to technical issues. I beg to move that we adjourn until 8.30 pm. Or do we have the noble Lord?

[Lord Sharkey (LD) [V]]

Yes.

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

Ignore me. Please go on, Lord Sharkey.

[Lord Sharkey (LD) [V]]

Thank you. I think I was talking about Amendment 21 being prescriptive; it sets out exactly what must be done and by whom.

It has two sections. The first reduces the currently usurious SVR paid by mortgage prisoners by capping it at two percentage points above the bank rate. This is what, in the end, Martin Lewis thought was necessary. He said:

“Yet in lieu of anything else, I believe for those on closed-book mortgages it is a good stopgap while other detailed solutions are worked up, and I’m very happy the All-Party Parliamentary Group on mortgage prisoners is pushing it.”


He also said:

“This would provide immediate emergency relief to those most at risk of financial ruin … No one should underestimate the threat to wellbeing and even lives if this doesn’t happen, and happen soon.”


This is all necessary, but not sufficient. SVRs are not the normal basis for mortgages, as I have already mentioned. What is needed is access to fixed-rate mortgages, as provided by normal active lenders to 90% of mortgagees. The second part of Amendment 21 sets out how that is to be done.

This is, of course, all very prescriptive, and we understand the Government’s reluctance to write such details into the Bill. That is why we have also tabled Amendment 37B. This amendment takes a simpler and non-prescriptive approach. It places the obligation to fix the problem squarely on those who caused it—the Treasury. It is explicitly fuelled by the overwhelming and undeniable moral responsibility that the Treasury has for the terrible situation in which mortgage prisoners have long found themselves. The amendment sets out what must be achieved to relieve mortgage prisoners, by whom and by when, but it does not say how. It leaves that entirely for the Government to work out.

Amendments 21 and 37B give the Government a clear choice. Amendment 21 prescribes a detailed method of solution; Amendment 37B says what the Government must achieve but leaves the mechanism to them. The Government caused the mortgage prisoner problem, which has caused and continues to cause much suffering to many families. I hope that the Government will recognise their moral responsibility and adopt Amendment 21 or Amendment 37B.

This has all gone on much too long, and it has caused, and continues to cause, far too much misery and desperation. If the Minister is not able to adopt either amendment, or give equivalent assurances, I will test the opinion of the House. I beg to move Amendment 21.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I speak in support of the amendments just proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, which I have signed. One’s heart goes out to him—it must be very difficult to make a speech of this complexity and passion with all these breaks. Despite the technical difficulties, however, he has made the case for action very well, and as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on these issues he is very well briefed on the situation faced by these fellow citizens of ours, and the extra costs that they face. It is indeed a very difficult situation, and one hears a lot of despair when one talks to these people.

I am sure that when he responds the Minister will, as the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, hinted, dwell at length on the numbers of this group in various categories. There is of course a debate on how the prisoners can be split up—I think that the only thing that we agree on is that the total is probably about 250,000. As with the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, however, my argument is not about the numbers. Simply put, it is clear that a significant number of people, through no fault of their own, cannot exercise the choices about their mortgage that the rest of us can. While some would argue that this is the direct fault of the Government, I think that someone needs to take responsibility for providing a fair outcome for those who are in a position to take advantage of it.

As the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, says, this group of amendments offers two options: one that focuses on what the FCA might do within the parameters set by the Bill and another—37B, a late amendment that we drafted for Report—that suggests that the Treasury might wish to take powers to act in the way that is most suitable for it. Both have merits, in their ways. As the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, said, they have detailed implications that need to be followed through carefully. My preference would be for Amendment 37B, for the very good reasons set out by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey. If, as he said he might, the noble Lord decides to test the opinion of the House, we will support him.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharkey (LD) [V]]

I thank everybody who has taken part in this extensive debate. I particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bryan, for her powerful contribution and her clear understanding of the problems that mortgage prisoners suffer, and have suffered for so very long.

I was sorry to hear the Minister again talk about the 0.4 percentage points and assert that it was a meaningful figure. At this point in the debate and at this time of the night, all I can do is say that we disagree fundamentally with his analysis. We think it is completely wrong and we think we have the evidence to show it is.

In some ways, more important than all that is that the tenor of the debate, or the tenor of the contributions made by the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, was notable for the fact that they do not assume any kind of responsibility on the part of the Government for the situation these people find themselves in. There is no hint of moral responsibility and no sense that, really, it is up to government to find the solution. As it happens, the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, finished her speech, I think, by recommending that we leave all this to the FCA and the Treasury to find a solution. The fact is that we have left it to the Treasury and the FCA to find a solution, and they have not found a solution at all.

Nothing in the Minister’s speech suggests that a solution is on the horizon. He talked about the loosening of the affordability checks, but I repeat what I said in my speech: so far, the loosening of those affordability checks has helped 40 households. He had the opportunity to try to correct that figure; he did not take it. It is 40 households so far. This is not the solution, and nothing else is proposed by the FCA or the Treasury to solve the problem that still exists.

I conclude by saying that it is the Government who have caused this problem; it is the Treasury. There is a moral responsibility. People’s lives are ruined, have been ruined and will be ruined if this situation continues. It may be that the proposals we have put forward are not perfect—although I certainly dispute that they amount to significant market distortion, if any—but, nevertheless, they would bring relief to these people. There are a lot of them, they are in bad shape and their lives are difficult, and it is no fault of their own. I would like to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Sharkey]

25: After Clause 40, after “business,” insert “consumer protection,”

[Lord Sharkey (LD) [V]]

I will be brief. Amendment 24 continues the themes underlying Amendments 18, 19 and 20, proposed by my noble friend Lady Bowles. The amendment concerns the provision of vital information, as did those amendments. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, has explained the purpose of her amendment with her usual force and clarity, and I agree with every word she said.

The assessment of impact is essential to proper scrutiny, but it seems to me that there is an omission in the noble Baroness’s amendment. Amendment 24 requires the Treasury to

“publish an annual report on the impact of measures taken by the FCA, PRA and the Government … particularly on small business, innovation and competitiveness.”

The amendment does not include consumer protection in this list. My Amendment 25 simply inserts this alongside the other particularised areas.

Consumer protection is already an objective of the FCA. The Financial Services Act 2012 inserted new Section 1C, which sets out that the “consumer protection objective is”, rather unsurprisingly,

“securing an appropriate degree of protection for consumers.”

The same Act also imposes an obligation on the FCA to promote competitiveness, one of the specified categories in Amendment 24 of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. This obligation is qualified and, in some ways, secondary to the consumer protection objective. The Act says that the promoting competitiveness requirement has to be “compatible with the advancement” of consumer protection. Both are important and seem to me to merit the same standing in Amendment 24.

I recognise that the PRA has no such direct obligation to consumer protection. However, its general objective is set out in Section 2B inserted by the 2012 Act, and it clearly implies an element of consumer protection. The Government themselves have a clear interest and involvement in consumer protection directly, if they consider it necessary.

Consumers need protection, perhaps now more than ever: scams multiply, malfeasance grows and people lose their pensions and life savings. The resourcefulness and inventiveness of the dishonest seems to know no bounds. Just as it is important to know the impact of measures taken to regulate financial services in general, and on small businesses, innovation and competitiveness in particular, so it is important to know the impact of measures taken to protect consumers. There are already many of these measures and there will be more as new ways of fleecing consumers are devised. We need to know what we are doing in combating them all—what works and what does not. Amendment 25 would enable this in the way proposed by Amendment 24. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

All the topics raised in these amendments are ones that the Treasury and the regulators consider every single day when making financial services policy. I can also assure the House that the Government are committed to ensuring that the sector has a positive impact, not only for consumers but for the economy as a whole. Given all this, I ask that these amendments be withdrawn.

[Lord Sharkey (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I find myself agreeing with both the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and so I have nothing more to say except to beg leave to withdraw Amendment 25.

Amendment 25 (to Amendment 24) withdrawn.

Financial Services Bill

Lord Sharkey Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Wednesday 28th April 2021 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 8 concerns mortgage prisoners, an issue that the Government take extremely seriously. We are committed to finding practical and proportionate solutions to help this group but, as Motion B in my name makes clear, the amendment is not one that the Government can accept. As explained in Reason 8A, the amendment is neither a proportionate nor a practical response to this complex issue, and this is why the Government cannot support Motion B1, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey.

In our previous debates, my noble friend Lord True set out the FCA’s analysis of this complex issue. To recap briefly, according to FCA data, there are 250,000 borrowers with inactive lenders. Of these, analysis suggests that 125,000 borrowers could switch mortgage providers if they chose to, even prior to the introduction of the FCA’s new rules. Of the 125,000 who cannot switch, the FCA estimates that 70,000 are in arrears and so would struggle to access a new deal even in the active market. The FCA therefore estimates that there are 55,000 borrowers who may struggle to switch but are up to date with their payments. Its data show that, on average, the 55,000 borrowers with inactive firms who have characteristics that would make it difficult for them to switch but are up to date with payments are paying around 0.4 percentage points more than similar borrowers with active firms who are now on a reversion rate.

As the Economic Secretary set out on Monday, the reason these borrowers are unable to switch is not that their mortgage is with an inactive firm; it is that they do not meet the risk appetite of lenders. For example, they may have a combination of high loan-to-value, be on interest-only mortgages with no plan for repayment, or have higher levels of unsecured debts, non-standard sources of income or a poor credit history. Similar borrowers in the active market are also very unlikely to be offered deals with new lenders.

My noble friend Lord True has previously set out the significant work undertaken by the Government and the FCA in this area, which has created additional options to make it easier for some of these borrowers to switch into the active market. If we look at Amendment 8, we see that what it proposes would be a very significant intervention in the private mortgage markets and in private contracts. It would bring with it a risk to financial stability as it would restrict the ability of lenders to vary rates in line with market conditions. The ability to vary standard variable rates allows lenders to reprice products to reflect changes to the cost of doing business and could therefore create risks with significant implications for financial stability. On top of that, the amendment is not fair to borrowers with active lenders in similar circumstances as it targets only borrowers with inactive lenders. Indeed, this cap would be deeply unfair to borrowers in the active market who are in arrears or unable to secure a new fixed-rate deal because it would not include them.

So, at the most basic level, I just do not think it is right to introduce such a significant intervention for those with inactive lenders which could cut their mortgage payments far below the level of someone in a similar financial situation who happens to be with an active lender. Nevertheless, while the Government are opposing this amendment today, I want to reiterate our commitment to finding any further practical and proportionate options for affected borrowers, supported by facts and evidence.

On Monday, the Economic Secretary set out what further steps the Government and the FCA are taking and I want to repeat those commitments today: namely, that

“the Treasury will work with the FCA … on a review to its existing data on mortgage prisoners”.

This will ensure that we have the right data

“on the characteristics of those borrowers who have mortgages with inactive firms and are unable to switch despite being up to date with their mortgage payments. The FCA will also review the effect of its recent interventions to remove regulatory barriers to switching for mortgage prisoners and will report on this by the end of November, and … a copy of that review”

will be laid before Parliament.

“The Treasury will use the results of the review … to establish whether further solutions can be found for such borrowers that are practical and proportionate.”—[Official Report, Commons, 26/4/21; col. 87.]


Within the significant constraints that I have noted, I want to reassure the House that the Economic Secretary, as the Minister responsible for this area, will continue to search for any further solutions that may provide support for borrowers with inactive lenders who are unable to switch. But, again, they must be practical and proportionate. The Economic Secretary has also confirmed that he will write to active lenders and encourage them and the wider industry to go even further and look at what more they can do to ensure that as many borrowers as possible benefit from these options.

I hope I have convinced the House that the Government are taking the appropriate next steps and have demonstrated our commitment to continuing to work tirelessly on this. Therefore, I ask the House not to insist on this amendment and I beg to move.

Motion B1 (as an amendment to Motion B)

[Lord Sharkey]

Moved by

Leave out “not”.

[Lord Sharkey (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I was very disappointed that the Government felt unable to accept our amendment, which would provide relief for mortgage prisoners. I was disappointed, but the mortgage prisoners themselves were devastated by what they heard on Monday in the Commons. Many have called me, some in tears and all in obvious distress. None of them could understand why no solution had been offered by the Government and none could credit the arguments used by the Government in rejecting our—or, as they saw it, their—amendment. I entirely understood their point of view, their distress and their fears for the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharkey (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this brief debate. I listened carefully to the Minister’s thorough reply. I was struck again that there was no acknowledgement of any moral responsibility for the condition of the mortgage business. I was totally confused by his explanation of dealing with Cerberus. I point again to the fact that UKAR wrote to the Treasury Select Committee explaining that it had been misled by Cerberus about its treatment of people who became mortgage prisoners.

I would like to place on the record that, contrary to what the noble Earl said, I have never said the FCA has done or was doing nothing to help relieve the plight of the mortgage prisoners. I know that is not the case, and I have always been careful not to say that.

I do not think there was any convincing explanation offered for why this problem has been allowed to run for over a decade. There was no comfort for mortgage prisoners in what the Minister had to say—or, at least, none in prospect. Regrettably, it is clear the Government are unwilling to meet us, and they have not proposed their own amendment in lieu of ours. Obviously, we have reached the end of this episode in this long and distressing tale. The Government remain, in my view, directly responsible for the major injustice done to our mortgage prisoners and the suffering they are experiencing.

We will, of course, return to this issue at every opportunity and willingly join and co-operate with any initiatives the Government and the regulator may want to consider. In particular, we would like the Treasury to release the data the LSE says its needs to complete its analysis of possible solutions. I would be grateful for that at some point. Perhaps the Minister could write to me and tell me the Treasury is prepared to do that and is doing that. But for now, I beg leave to withdraw.

Motion B1 withdrawn.