Financial Guidance and Claims Bill [Lords]

Debate between Luciana Berger and Johnny Mercer

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report: 3rd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 24th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Johnny Mercer (Plymouth, Moor View) (Con)]

I rise to speak in support of amendment 5, which is in my name and those of the hon. Members for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger), and for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), as well as many others across the House.

We in this place often talk a very good game when it comes to mental health, and serious progress has been made in taking the agenda forward over the last few years thanks to colleagues from across the House. When it comes to parity of physical and mental health, however, small details in policy matter. The amendment concerns one such detail, and I am delighted by what the Minister has said today about bringing that into reality for some of our most vulnerable constituents. It was a manifesto commitment of the Government to introduce a breathing space scheme, whereby people who suffer from problem debt are given a fixed period without fees, charges, interest or collection. The consultation is out at the moment, and I support the proposal very much, but there is a gap in provision for those who suffer from mental health crises—those who are too unwell either to manage their finances alone or seek debt advice, and so would not be able to access this scheme.

As we have heard, last year that situation affected up to 23,000 of our most vulnerable constituents, who were hospitalised for poor mental health while struggling with debt. That does not account for those who were in a similar position while receiving mental health crisis support in the community. The link between debt and poor mental health is indisputable; it is a marriage made in hell. I pay tribute to the work of Martin Lewis in bringing together the Money and Mental Health Policy Institute, which has shone a torch on the relationship between debt and mental health. That relationship is often hidden away in some of the darker recesses of our communities, but it makes some of our most vulnerable constituents’ lives hell.

Tens of thousands of people in this country are trapped in a spiral of escalating debts and worsening mental health. Some receive court summons while they are in hospital. I know somebody who faced demands on their doorstep the day they were released following their recovery from an illness. Some people have missed bill payments while hospitalised for mental health conditions, and escalating fees and charges have led some to attempt suicide directly after contact from bailiffs.

The ask of this amendment is very clear: for the Minister to look at extending the current breathing space scheme to apply to anyone who accesses psychiatric in-patient care. We must commit ourselves ever harder to parity of esteem, as I have said. For those who have a short period of acute mental illness—who suffer panic attacks and cannot open the post, call the bank or even think coherently—going to a debt counsellor to call a halt to things is just impossible. The commitment that we seek today, and that we have got from the Minister, is important because it means that people can look to those in NHS crisis teams for advice and space in the breathing space scheme.

I thank the Minister for his willingness to listen to our concerns. The campaign has been a good one. It has involved all Members of this House and shown what can happen when those from all parts of the House work together. I come back to what I said at the beginning. We often talk a very good game—I was delighted that parity of mental health and physical health was made a manifesto commitment in 2015—but sometimes big words have to be matched by calibrated and careful actions. This is one such area, and I am delighted that the Minister has decided that he is going to work on it. I look forward to working with him and the policy institute to make that a reality for tens of thousands of people up and down the country.

[Luciana Berger]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 18

Disclosure of information

Amendments made: 12, page 14, line 17, after “where” insert “—

(i) the disclosure is for the purpose of enabling or facilitating the exercise of the consumer protection function, or

(ii) ”

This amendment is consequential upon Amendment 10, which makes changes to the consumer protection function, including requiring the SFGB to pass information to the FCA in certain circumstances. This amendment ensures that disclosure of information in these circumstances is protected by subsection (7) of Clause 18.

Amendment 43, page 14, line 26, leave out “Data Protection Act 1998” and insert “data protection legislation”—(John Glen.)

This amendment changes the reference to the Data Protection Act 1998 to a reference to the “data protection legislation” (as defined in Clause 25 as amended by Amendment 44) to reflect the changes to data protection legislation that are to be made by the Data Protection Bill.

Clause 19

Personal pension schemes: requirements to recommend guidance etc

Amendments made: 13, page 14, line 40, leave out from beginning to end of line 8 on page 15 and insert—

‘(1B) As part of the application process, the trustees or managers must ensure that—

(a) the member or survivor is referred to appropriate pensions guidance, and

(b) the member or survivor is provided with an explanation of the nature and purpose of such guidance.

(1C) Before proceeding with the application, the trustees or managers must ensure that the member or survivor has either received appropriate pensions guidance or has opted out of receiving such guidance.”

This amendment will enable FCA rules to require trustees of a personal pension scheme who receive an application from a member to access or transfer their pension to refer them to SFGB guidance and explain its nature and purpose (or ensure that another person, such as the SFGB, does so) and will prevent them from proceeding unless the member confirms that they have received guidance or do not want it.

Amendment 14, page 15, line 10, leave out from “guidance” to end of line 11.

This amendment (and Amendment 13) removes references to independent financial advice from Clause 19, so that it refers only to pensions guidance given by the SFGB in pursuance of Clause 5 of the Bill.

Amendment 15, page 15, line 14, at end insert—

“() make further provision about how, and to whom, a member or survivor may indicate that they have received or opted out of receiving appropriate pensions guidance for the purposes of subsection (1C);”

This amendment expressly envisages the rules making provision about how the opt-out (or confirmation of receipt of guidance) mentioned in the new subsection (1C) inserted by Amendment 13 must be expressed in order to be effective.

Amendment 16, page 15, leave out line 17 and insert—

“communication that is made for the purposes of complying with the duty in subsection (1C)”. —(John Glen.)

This amendment is consequential on the changes to the duties on trustees made by Amendment 13.

Clause 20

Occupational pension schemes: requirements to recommend guidance etc

Amendments made: 17, page 16, line 10, leave out from beginning to end of line 23 and insert—

‘(2) As part of the application process, the trustees or managers must ensure that—

(a) the beneficiary is referred to appropriate pensions guidance, and

(b) the beneficiary is provided with an explanation of the nature and purpose of such guidance.

(3) Before proceeding with the application, the trustees or managers must ensure that the beneficiary has either received appropriate pensions guidance or has opted out of receiving such guidance.”

This amendment makes equivalent changes to Clause 20(2), which relates to occupational pension schemes in Great Britain, to the changes made by Amendment 13 for personal pension schemes.

Amendment 18, page 16, line 25, leave out from “guidance” to end of line 26.

This amendment is the equivalent to Amendment 14 for occupational pension schemes in Great Britain.

Amendment 19, page 16, line 29, at end insert—

“() make further provision about how, and to whom, a beneficiary may indicate that they have received or opted out of receiving appropriate pensions guidance for the purposes of subsection (3);”

This amendment is the equivalent to Amendment 15 for occupational pension schemes in Great Britain.

Amendment 20, page 16, line 31, leave out from second “a” to end of line 32 and insert “communication that is made for the purposes of complying with the duty in subsection (3)”.

This amendment is the equivalent to Amendment 16 for occupational pension schemes in Great Britain.

Amendment 21, page 17, line 27, leave out from beginning to end of line 40 and insert—

‘(2) As part of the application process, the trustees or managers must ensure that—

(a) the beneficiary is referred to appropriate pensions guidance, and

(b) the beneficiary is provided with an explanation of the nature and purpose of such guidance.

(3) Before proceeding with the application, the trustees or managers must ensure that the beneficiary has either received appropriate pensions guidance or has opted out of receiving such guidance.”

This amendment makes equivalent changes to Amendments 13 and 17 for occupational pension schemes in Northern Ireland.

Amendment 22, page 17, line 42, leave out from “guidance” to end of line 43.

This amendment is the equivalent to Amendments 14 and 18 for occupational pension schemes in Northern Ireland.

Amendment 23, page 17, line 46, at end insert—

“() make further provision about how, and to whom, a beneficiary may indicate that they have received or opted out of receiving appropriate pensions guidance for the purposes of subsection (3);”

This amendment is the equivalent to Amendments 15 and 19 for occupational pension schemes in Northern Ireland.

Amendment 24, page 18, line 2, leave out from second “a” to end of line 3 and insert—

“communication that is made for the purposes of complying with the duty in subsection (3)”. —(John Glen.)

This amendment is the equivalent to Amendments 16 and 20 for occupational pension schemes in Northern Ireland.

Ordered,

That Clause 22 be transferred to the beginning of line 1 on page 21.—(John Glen.)

This is a drafting change to reorder some of the existing clauses in the Bill to provide a more logical order following the insertion of NC3 and NC4.





Clause 25

Interpretation of Part 1

Amendments made: 25, page 21, line 2, at end insert—

“the ‘consumer protection function’ has the meaning given in section 3(7);”

This amendment inserts a definition of “the consumer protection function” into the interpretation clause, which will be necessary following the amendment to Clause 18 made by Amendment 12, which refers to the consumer protection function.

Amendment 44, page 21, line 2, at end insert—

“the ‘data protection legislation’ has the same meaning as in the Data

Protection Act 2018 (see section 3 of that Act);”

This amendment inserts a definition of the “data protection legislation” which is a term now used in Clause 18 (see Amendment 43) and the new clause inserted by NC9, to reflect the changes to be made to the law in this area by the Data Protection Bill.

Amendment 26, page 21, line 7, at end insert—

“‘direct marketing’ means the communication (by whatever means) of advertising or marketing material which is directed to particular individuals;” .—(John Glen.)

This amendment inserts a definition of “direct marketing” into the interpretation clause (using the definition in data protection legislation), which is a term used in the consumer protection function (see Amendment 10) and in NC3 and NC4.

Clause 36

Commencement

Amendments made: 45, page 35, line 6, at end insert—

“() section (Unsolicited direct marketing: pensions);”

This amendment amends the commencement clause so that the new clause on unsolicited direct marketing relating to pensions (inserted by NC9) would come into force on Royal Assent.

Amendment 46, page 35, line 25, after “Sections” insert—

“(Unsolicited direct marketing: other consumer financial products etc) and”.—(John Glen.)

This amendment amends the commencement clause so that the new clause on unsolicited direct marketing relating to consumer financial products other than pensions would come into force automatically two months after Royal Assent.

Schedule 4

regulation of Claims Management Services: Transfer Schemes

Amendments made: 47, page 47, line 17, at end insert—

“‘the data protection legislation’ has the same meaning as in the Data

Protection Act 2018 (see section 3 of that Act);”

This amendment inserts a definition of “the data protection legislation”, which is a term now used in paragraph 19 of this Schedule (as amended by Amendment 48) to reflect the changes made by the Data Protection Bill.

Amendment 48, page 49, line 32, leave out “Data Protection Act 1998” and insert “data protection legislation”.—(John Glen.)

This amendment changes the reference to the Data Protection Act 1998 to a reference to the “data protection legislation” to reflect the changes to data protection legislation that are to be made by the Data Protection Bill.

Title

Amendments made: 28, line 2 leave out “cold-calling and”.

This amendment, together with Amendment 29, amends the long title in consequence of NC3 and NC4.

Amendment 29, line 3 at end insert—

“to provide a power to make regulations prohibiting unsolicited direct marketing in relation to pensions and other consumer financial products and services;”.—(John Glen.)

See explanatory statement for amendment 28.

Veterans Care Sector: Government Role

Debate between Luciana Berger and Johnny Mercer

Tuesday 25th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Johnny Mercer]

I entirely agree, and I will come to the four principles, of which that is one, that should underlie veterans care. It is not a case of veterans being entitled to that care; we owe it to them and we must deliver it.

That is why I seek leave again to challenge the Minister on the Floor of the House and to challenge this Government to fulfil their duty to those who do our bidding from this House. I know that it can be a little tedious watching or listening to me keeping on about this agenda. I am not naive about that, but I cannot stop. I do not do it because I have nothing else to do. I do not do it because there are particularly good career prospects in this line of work, or because there is some sort of intangible crowd that I am playing to out there. I do it for the one simple thing that drove so many of us in the past decade and a half to conduct unpopular wars on this nation’s behalf, miles from home and often from the public eye.

I refer to that one word which I remember compelling the marine at the front of my patrol to do his duty, refusing any relief from those duties—in his case seeking out improvised explosive devices day after day for seven long months. I refer to that thing which makes a young officer calmly accept his fate with the words, “Lads, I’m going down,” rather than lose his composure in the heat of battle as he died in front of his men. I do not seek to lecture my esteemed colleagues in government, but it is my duty to those men to keep up this fight, and the sacrifice I make in doing this is so entirely insignificant compared to theirs that I feel I must keep going until we match what we say as a Government from that Dispatch Box with what it feels like for our men and women who serve.

I applaud the Government’s efforts on this agenda, but they are not enough— nowhere near enough. I have no doubt that this Minster and his staff work night and day trying to deliver this agenda, but he can only work with the resource and priorities that he is given by the Secretary of State for Defence and the Prime Minister.

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this incredibly important debate. I know that he shares my concerns about the mental health of veterans. Does he also share my specific concern about the availability of specialist mental health services for our veterans, which we know are particularly patchy in some parts of the country, exacerbating many of the challenges that we know our veterans face?

[Johnny Mercer]

Absolutely—I completely agree. On mental health, we have moved so far away from getting involved, getting our hands dirty and sorting this out that we are now in danger of being in a place where the perception is that everybody who leaves the armed forces has some form of post-traumatic stress disorder, and that is wildly inaccurate. We need to provide these services for those who need them, professionalise the standard, and take far more of an interest than we have done.

Given his current operating envelope, the Minister has achieved some significant things. Let us take, for example, his work in the healthcare arena for service personnel and veterans with complex care needs. The scheme he announced in July, assuming that the pilot is successful, could fundamentally change the way in which care for our most seriously injured is commissioned, easing the pressure on local clinical commissioning groups and retaining the knowledge and expertise within Defence for those who have been injured. This is the future—a first step. I urge the Prime Minister to note the early successes of this scheme and look to roll it out nationwide.

I plead with the Minister and his Department not to take my observations personally. He conducts valuable work, but it is my job to speak truth to power from these Benches, and I would be failing in my job if I were not to do so. What is the truth? I think it is the evidence. The evidence on this is not the endless announcements about what we have put into the sector. These announcements are clearly to be welcomed, although I cannot help but feel that they play somewhat to a home crowd. The evidence is how what we do affects and matters to those whom we are trying to help. I have said for a long time that until we fundamentally change this conversation from talking about what we are endlessly pouring into this sector to how it actually feels to be a veteran in the United Kingdom in 2016, we will never truly understand the scale of the work to be done. 

I would say to the Secretary of State for Defence and to the Prime Minister that the evidence is there if we were only to look. For example, a study done by SSAFA just before the summer recess indicated that 85% of veterans feel that the UK Government do not support them well enough, while 84% believed that the much heralded armed forces covenant was not being implemented at all. Almost half the people in the armed forces surveyed in the study—the very people we are trying to help—had not even heard of the armed forces covenant. The gap between how we think this is being implemented as a policy and how it is really being implemented is so great that I hesitate to air it in public. It is a lottery of choice as to where local authorities or others choose to implement it, and that currently dictates whether the military covenant is a reality for our servicemen and women. It has become a catch-all phrase in this place and No. 10 that is becoming—I hesitate to say it— increasingly meaningless to the service community, and that will continue unless we stop this trend. I say this as someone who last week privately met the previous Prime Minster—a good man who genuinely “got” the military in this country—and could tell that he has genuine pride in his achievements with this policy. However, the gap between the top and the reality on the ground is vast. 

I reference one study for evidence. In truth, there are many, for in this country we have been blessed for some time by a public and a third sector that has done wonders for our armed forces veterans over the years. Of the thousands who work in the sector—who do so for little reward but in the same vein as that duty of which I spoke earlier—I want to mention one couple who have left the sector in recent months, leaving their indelible mark, and the conversations around veterans care in the United Kingdom forever changed. Bryn Parry and his wife Emma set up Help for Heroes in 2007 as a result of the catastrophic consequences of a criminal dereliction of veterans care by the United Kingdom Government in the aftermath of the early days of Iraq and Afghanistan. The third sector presents its challenges as much as any other sector. It is a congested market, competing for the same funding, with people trying their best to do what they think is right for our armed forces veterans. We will hear good and bad of every organisation, but the truth is that Help for Heroes has completely and fundamentally changed the way in which veterans care happens in this country today.

Like any success story, Help for Heroes has its detractors, and I am not naive about this, but I will never countenance them, I am afraid. I am from that generation who had nowhere else to go in 2005 for veterans care. Help for Heroes grew faster than any similar organisation in history, but did the thing that so many, I regret to say, neglect—retained its focus on those whom this is all about: the guys and the girls. Bryn and Emma, have now passed their torch to their successors, but their light will never go out. From a generation of soldiers who felt that no one really cared once the battle finished, I want to say thank you from the bottom of our hearts for everything you did. They committed their lives to this pursuit, delivered extraordinary change and services, and I shiver to think where we would be without them.