Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Bill [Lords]

Mark Garnier Excerpts

Report stage
Thursday 24th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 1, in clause 1, page 1, line 20, at end insert—

“(2A) The Bank of England must not require the scheme manager to make a recapitalisation payment if it has directed the financial institution to maintain an end-state Minimum Requirement for Own Funds and Eligible Liabilities (MREL) exceeding minimum capital requirements.”

This amendment seeks to prohibit the use of FSCS funds to recapitalise large financial institutions, defined as those which have reached end-state MREL.

Amendment 3, page 1, line 22, at end insert—

“(3A) No application to the scheme manager for recapitalisation payments may be considered by the Bank of England for a financial institution which has been directed to maintain an end-state Minimum Requirement for Own Funds and Eligible Liabilities (MREL) exceeding minimum capital requirements, unless permission has been given, through regulations, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

(3B) Regulations made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, subject to subsection (4), shall be made through Statutory Instrument under the negative procedure.”

This amendment would ensure financial institutions that maintain an end-state Minimum Requirement for Own Funds and Eligible Liabilities exceeding minimum capital requirements are excluded from the provisions of the Bill, unless permission has been given through regulations.

Amendment 4, page 2, line 3, at end insert—

“(5A) As a further objective to the special resolution objectives in section 4 of the Banking Act 2009, when discharging its functions in respect of the exercise of recapitalisation payments under this section, the Bank of England must observe the competitiveness and growth objective.

(5B) The competitiveness and growth objective is facilitating, subject to aligning with relevant international standards—

(a) the international competitiveness of the economy of the United Kingdom, and

(b) its growth in the medium to long term.”

This amendment would place a further objective on the Bank of England to consider the competitiveness and growth of the market before directing the recapitalisation of failing small banks through a levy on the banking sector.

Amendment 2, in clause 5, page 4, line 14, at end insert—

“(2B) The code must include guidance to the Bank of England on the exercise of its functions in relation to building societies to ensure that, in circumstances where the use of a recapitalisation power may result in demutualisation, due consideration is given to the impact of such demutualisation on members and on the mutuals sector.

(2C) In preparing the guidance required under subsection (2B), the Treasury shall consider the feasibility of selecting a purchaser from the mutuals sector as a means of avoiding demutualisation, provided such a purchaser meets the resolution objectives.”

This amendment seeks to ensure that, where possible, the selection of a purchaser from the mutuals sector is considered to avoid demutualisation, provided this aligns with the Bank's resolution objectives.

[Mark Garnier]

Before speaking to new clause 3 specifically, let me reiterate that the Opposition welcome the Government’s decision to carry over the legislation from the previous Parliament, and that the principles underpinning the Bill continue to enjoy strong cross-party support. We all want and need confidence in our banking sector, yet the failure of Silicon Valley Bank UK exposed a gap in our resolution framework for smaller banks. Unlike larger institutions, they do not hold the bail and bond mechanism known as MREL—the minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities—reserves to facilitate recapitalisation in the event of a crisis. By providing the Bank of England with new tools to manage small bank failures, the Bill remains both prudent and necessary to protect financial stability and public funds.

Moving on to the amendments we have tabled on Report, I want to make it clear that our approach is constructive and focused on strengthening the Bill, not obstructing its progress. As the Bill has made progress through both Houses, our intention has been to address a series of smaller but none the less significant issues that we believe require further attention. I appreciate that this might be a conversation we can continue in today’s debate, or beyond it, and I would certainly welcome conversations with the Minister, who has been incredibly open to direct conversations in her usual pragmatic style, to further discuss these matters.

We have three measures selected for discussion today. I will speak first to new clause 3, which addresses a critical gap in the Bill’s scope: the protection of credit unions. These community-focused institutions have seen significant growth in recent years, driven in part by the eradication of predatory payday lenders, and they continue to provide a vital role in delivering affordable finance to those underserved by traditional banks.

Membership of credit unions rose from 1.89 million in 2019 to 2.14 million in 2024—an increase of more than 260,000. However, while their importance has grown, their inclusion in our resolution framework has not kept pace. The Financial Services Compensation Scheme has paid £10.1 million in compensation to credit union depositors over the past three financial years, primarily due to small-scale failures, underscoring their potential vulnerability and the need for a tailored approach as the sector expands.

The growth of credit unions is a success story, but it demands proportional safeguards. The Bill, however, excludes credit unions from its recapitalisation mechanism. While their smaller size and unique nature may differentiate them from banks, questions remain. How does the current resolution regime account for credit union failures as the sector scales up? Is there scope to develop a mechanism that protects members without imposing undue burdens on these community institutions? New clause 3 seeks clarity on this matter, requiring the Minister to produce a report outlining how the resolution framework can be adapted to protect credit unions, ensuring that their growth does not outstrip their regulatory safeguards. The vast amount of legislation for credit unions was written back in the 1970s. The previous Government made significant reforms for credit unions through amendments to the Financial Services and Markets Act, and I welcome the common bond reform consultation, which closed last month.

I know that the Government are giving the sector serious consideration, and I am sure the Minister will agree that this is not about applying bank-style rules to mutuals, but about recognising their unique role and risks. Credit unions are more than financial institutions; they are engines of financial inclusion. They often serve small, working-class communities, whom I know the Government want to support specifically. As the sector evolves, so too must our approach. We must ensure that our regulatory framework grows. I hope the Government will support this amendment, which simply seeks to look more clearly at the options available when a crisis happens.

Amendment 2 seeks to address a concern that has been raised with me by the mutual and building society sector. These institutions are not relics of the past, but vital components of our financial ecosystem. Although the first known building society was set up in 1775 by ordinary working people helping themselves to build their financial resilience and get a home of their own, they remain current today. Building societies today hold more than £360 billion in assets and provide mortgages for more than 3 million people in the UK. They represent a significant proportion of the housing market and are a trusted source of savings for millions more. They provide a clear and important diversification in our financial markets, offering a clear alternative to shareholder banks.

The Labour party stood on a clear manifesto commitment to double the size of the co-operative and mutual sector, which the Opposition agree is a very good policy. Today presents a good opportunity for Labour Members to demonstrate that commitment to the sector by enshrining in the Bill a requirement that the Bank of England consider the risk of demutualisation when using the mechanisms enshrined therein. There is a genuine fear in the building society sector that, without proper safeguards, the recapitalisation mechanism offered by the Bill could inadvertently become a back door for demutualisation. When a mutual institution faces resolution, the selection of a purchaser from the plc sector risks permanently dismantling its mutual status, undermining the very ethos that makes these institutions unique.

Our amendment would provide a proportionate solution, requiring the Bank of England to consider the impact of demutualisation on members and the sector as a whole, while also exploring the feasibility of selecting a mutual sector purchaser, if one exists and meets the resolution objectives. This is not about privileging mutuals at the expense of financial stability; it is about ensuring that the Bank’s resolution tools do not inadvertently homogenise our financial landscape. Silicon Valley Bank demonstrated the need for agile resolution frameworks, but it also highlighted the importance of preserving institutional diversity.

Mutuals and building societies often serve communities and demographics that larger banks frequently overlook. Their potential loss would leave gaps in financial inclusion and weaken the resilience of the sector. Importantly, without the millions of mortgages provided by the building society sector, particularly for first-time homeowners, Labour’s house building plans would be simply impossible.

I hope the Minister appreciates that our amendment strikes a careful balance between safeguarding financial stability and honouring our commitment to a pluralistic banking system—one where mutuals continue to thrive as a cornerstone of community-focused finance. I remind Labour Members that it will be much harder to double the size of the mutual sector if, in the event of a failure, recapitalisation defaults towards the banking sector. I hope the Government will therefore demonstrate their manifesto commitment to the mutual and co-operative sector by voting today for new clause 3 and amendment 2.

There remains genuine concern—shared across this House and reflected in the debates in the other place—over the risk of the recapitalisation mechanism being applied too broadly and potentially capturing larger banks that already hold substantial loss-absorbing resources, such as MREL. We continue to believe that the mechanism should be limited in scope and targeted at smaller banks that do not have the same capacity to manage their own failure. Amendment 1 would limit the use of the mechanism to what it was always intended to be: a mechanism for smaller banks outside the MREL regime.

I appreciate that new clauses 1 and 2 have already been ruled out of scope, but it may be worth noting a couple of points on these measures. I wish to place on the record today that the Opposition believe the time has come for a review of how we set the threshold for MREL, as well as the protection ceilings for depositors under the Financial Services Compensation Scheme. The current static nature of MREL thresholds disproportionately affects smaller and mid-sized banks, particularly challenger banks. By indexing MREL thresholds to inflation, we can ensure that the regulatory framework remains robust over time without stifling competition. These institutions often operate on tighter margins and face significant barriers in meeting rigid capital requirements, hindering their ability to scale and compete effectively with larger incumbents. While we appreciate that the Bank of England’s consultation on MREL closed earlier this year, we hope that the Government will consider these points. Threshold limits should not stay static with time.

Likewise, we welcome the Government’s recognition of the need to review the Financial Services Compensation Scheme deposit limit. The recent announcement of the increase of the deposit protection scheme from £85,000 to £110,000, although very welcome, is certainly overdue. It is worth noting that if the limit had kept pace with inflation, it would be nearly two thirds higher, at around £140,000, according to the Federation of Small Businesses. It is worth noting that only 4.6% of Silicon Valley Bank’s UK deposits were insured by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. May I just remind the hon. Gentleman that we are discussing what is in scope, rather than what is not in scope and has not been selected?

[Mark Garnier]

My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker. These are points that we feel are worth noting, but I take your comments.

I will turn to amendment 3, tabled by the Liberal Democrats. Although we share the intent behind the amendment, which mirrors the Conservatives’ amendment on MREL limits for banks, there is a critical difference in its approach that gives us pause. Like us, the Liberal Democrats recognise that end-state MREL banks should not be the primary target of this legislation. However, their amendment introduces a requirement for a statutory instrument under the negative procedure that we believe would create more problems than it solves.

Our concern lies in the potential impracticality of this approach. Banking crises can unfold rapidly, as we saw with Silicon Valley Bank UK, where decisions were made in a matter of hours, not days. A statutory instrument subject to the negative procedure becomes law the moment the Minister signs it, which is a good thing, and it remains in law unless either House rejects it within 40 sitting days. That creates a window of uncertainty. If Members were to pray against the statutory instrument, particularly in a hung Parliament, it could trigger market instability, which is precisely what this Bill seeks to avoid, so although we agree with the principle of limiting the Bill’s scope, we worry that the mechanism could tie the hands of a future Chancellor, hindering their ability to respond swiftly and decisively in a crisis. For those reasons, we cannot support the Liberal Democrat amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Reynolds]

We have not come to that yet; my hon. Friend can intervene on Third Reading. [Laughter.]

Taking what I was saying into account, although the Government appreciate the point raised by the sector and by the shadow Minister, we do not believe it is necessary to hardwire in legislation a requirement to update the code of practice on this matter. I understand, however, that the mutual sector feels strongly about this issue, and my officials and I will continue to engage with the sector on it. I commend to the House our position on the new clauses and amendments, which is to resist them.

[Mark Garnier]

With the leave of the House, I wish to address one or two of the points made in the debate. The hon. Member for Hendon (David Pinto-Duschinsky) is an incredibly valuable contributor to the debate because of his experience back in the days of the 2008 financial crisis. If I remember correctly, that was largely a result of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, which almost compounded the problem by having a tripartite regime that looked after the banking sector at the time. If I remember rightly, the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time found it so scary that his eyebrows nearly turned white. One of the surprising things about that crisis was that just 10 years earlier we had seen the Asian banking crisis, which basically laid the groundwork for what subsequently happened in the west. Perhaps we in the west were too arrogant to believe that it could happen to us, yet it sure did.

In my role as a member of the Treasury Committee from 2010 to 2016, and on the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, I looked at all these issues very extensively. It is incredibly important that we resolve the issue. As it has turned out, the Financial Services Act 2012 and the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013 have worked well in respect of some of this resolution.

On the point about LDIs and the financial crisis as a result of the Budget, we dealt with the problem pretty swiftly and pretty brutally. When one of our leaders gets it wrong, we get rid of them fairly quickly. I suggest to the Labour party that if Government Front Benchers get things wrong, it is worth cauterising the problem and moving on.

On credit unions and mutuals, we absolutely recognise the point about the mutual sector. We are not asking for demutualisation to be ruled out; we are asking for the prospect of avoiding demutualisation to be part of that very swift process. That is why we will press amendment 2 to a Division. I met the credit unions yesterday, and they are keen that the principle of new clause 3 is voted on, so we will press that as well.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mark Garnier]

May I first say a hearty congratulations to the Minister on bringing through her first Bill in the new Government? She was parachuted into the job rather recently, but she has done a magnificent job, and it has been a pleasure to engage with her. We share the aim of working in the interests of the wider economy, and we have worked together on the Bill. We may differ on a few tiny details, but we agree on its overall objective.

As I mentioned on Report, I spent some time on the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards looking at how we can stop another banking crisis, and on the Treasury Committee doing pre-legislative work on the Financial Services Act 2012. This is an iterative and organic process. We will never be able to stop financial crises happening, but working together, we can ensure that there are no more instances of contagion flooding through the system. This Bill is extraordinarily good in following that iterative process, in order to make the banking system unsinkable, I hope—and I do not use that term lightly, as someone might have done in the film “Titanic”; this is genuinely very important.

I pay credit to the former Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt), and the former Economic Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), and their officials, who worked tirelessly to ensure that Silicon Valley Bank UK was transferred to HSBC over that weekend, which undoubtedly avoided wider disruption to the financial system. We are delighted that the Bill was introduced in the previous Parliament, and we welcome the Government’s decision to carry it over into this Parliament. I was about to say that our swords will cross in the coming months and years, but I do not think they will; I think we will almost certainly agree on things. We will engage with the Minister and her officials to ensure that we have a world-class financial system that is the envy of the world.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Retail Investment

Mark Garnier Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your leadership, Mrs Hobhouse, and I congratulate you on your first Westminster Hall debate as a member of the Panel of Chairs—you have handled it masterfully. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Buckingham and Bletchley (Callum Anderson) on securing this debate. He previously worked for the London stock exchange; he may be interested to know that I started my 27-year investment career as a dealer on the floor of the exchange in what we like to refer to as “the olden days”. There will be an almost unanimous outbreak of agreement across the Chamber. The hon. Member made some very important points. There is one point on which I slightly disagree, but he could basically have written my speech.

One of the things that the hon. Member mentioned is the idea of acclimatising people to the idea of investment. When I was first elected as an MP, a number of us spearheaded a campaign to get investing and financial education into the national curriculum. At the time, it was clear that too many young people were leaving school without any understanding of the basics of personal finance, let alone the potential of sensible long-term investment. Whether it is saving for a rainy day or putting away money to buy a home, making the right investment choices is absolutely vital. Retail investment should absolutely form a cornerstone of any investment strategy, but not enough people are aware of the long-term benefits of stocks and shares investment versus cash deposits.

Polling conducted by Opinium last year highlighted that fewer than half of respondents felt confident about opening a stocks and shares ISA. I have always felt that the lack of knowledge starts with the lack of the right education. Better financial education was recommended by the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards when I was on it over a decade ago—a long time before many Members here were elected. In 2014, I thought we had finally settled the debate about financial education in the curriculum. The national curriculum was updated to see financial education become a statutory part of it for the first time. Although it is still on the national curriculum, it has become clear that there is not enough focus on getting schools to teach it consistently. Academy schools that do not follow the curriculum have no requirement to teach financial education if they choose not to.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) for recently taking up the baton. His private Member’s Bill would make financial education mandatory for all students aged five to 18, which could resolve some of the issues we are debating here.

Of course, things have moved on since my original campaign. It is clear that there is a real appetite for young people to become investors. Although the UK continues to lag behind countries like the United States when it comes to active retail investment, since the pandemic interest in investing has substantially risen among younger age groups, particularly Gen Z. That has partly been driven by cryptoasset investment, which, if I am being entirely honest, is something I find a bit odd.

Younger investors aged between 18 and 24 are more likely than older investors to invest in cryptoassets. A survey carried out by the Financial Conduct Authority showed that 46% of young investors report holding cryptocurrencies compared with just 7% of investors aged 55 to 65. They are influenced by trends they see on social media such as TikTok, with cryptocurrency influencers bragging about fabulous returns—of course, there are fabulous losses as well. The bedrock of financial education is the old adage, “If it is too good to be true, then it probably is.” I am not against investment in cryptoassets, but as any good investor knows they should be seen as part of a balanced portfolio. Any young people with an appetite for taking investment risks should know that they could be better served with investments into the stock market rather than in the volatility of cryptotrading.

I hope the Minister will outline how the Government intend to get our schools teaching financial education. Will she confirm whether the Government support the principles set out in the Financial Education Bill, which has had cross-party support?

Online trading platforms have now made it easier than ever to become an investor. Despite the easy accessibility, the FCA’s 2022 Financial Lives survey showed that while more than 15 million adults in the UK have investable assets exceeding £10,000, more than half hold at least 75% of those assets in cash. There are very good reasons to hold cash, particularly as people get towards retirement age or want to divest to buy a property or a car. It is for that reason that we believe it is important to retain the individual choice of how to use a tax-free ISA and keep its current allowance unchanged. There is another important point about cash ISAs. They provide substantial capital for building societies, which use the capital to lend on in the form of mortgages. If we reduce the amount of money that can go into cash ISA, we potentially reduce the amount of money available to the mortgage market. We need to think in a balanced way.

There are other ways to focus the minds of people, helping them to make better investment decisions, while retaining the flexibility to spend their ISA in their and their families’ best interests. The Investment Association has called for cash products to come with risk warnings, in the same way as all financial products. That could be as simple as comparing the quoted savings rates against inflation—a point the hon. Member for Buckingham and Bletchley made. In that way, an investor would know that their investment could in fact be losing money in real terms versus inflation. Just as we rightly warn investors that markets can go down as well as up, we should also be honest that holding cash, while it may feel safe, risks steadily losing value through inflation.

The Investment Association has also suggested that renaming the stocks and shares ISA the investment ISA could be a way of changing the mindset of investors. I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts on how we can highlight to investors the pitfalls of holding long-term cash. A successful hearts and minds campaign could, according to estimates from Aberdeen, unlock £3.5 trillion of capital for markets, if UK adults held as much wealth in investments as their US peers. That clearly raises another question: how do we encourage retail investment into UK stocks and shares?

If we are serious about encouraging long-term investment and wider public participation in the UK’s capital markets, we must take a hard look at stamp duty on shares—again, the hon. Member for Buckingham and Bletchley made that point. At 50 basis points, the UK has one of the highest rates of this kind of transaction tax in the developed world. We should not be taxing investment in British businesses; we should be incentivising it.

Stamp duty creates a direct disincentive to buy UK shares and disproportionately impacts those investing smaller amounts, for whom every pound counts. It also reduces the attractiveness of London as a global listing destination and adds friction to the secondary market, which ultimately feeds back into the cost of capital for UK firms. In short, stamp duty is a tax on growth, on participation and on financial inclusion. We need to ask ourselves whether that levy, introduced in a very different era, still serves a useful purpose, or whether reform could help us to unlock a stronger culture of long-term share ownership in this country. I ask the Minister to consider whether the tax could be looked at again, particularly for retail investors.

As an idea, perhaps we could also look again at how the ISA tax-free allowance could be incentivised to stay in the UK. I recently spoke to a successful investor, someone who makes full use of his £20,000 annual stocks and shares ISA allowance. As one would expect, he is shrewd with his money, putting it where he believes it will deliver the best returns. In recent years, that has meant investing primarily in the American markets, where growth has outpaced much of what has been available here in the UK. What struck me was a comment he made a little later about his gardener, who is on minimum wage. The gardener can only afford to put a tiny amount of money, if anything, each month into a cash ISA; yet through his taxes he is effectively subsidising a tax break that allows his employer to invest tax-free in overseas companies. That does not feel right, and it is another point also made by the hon. Member for Buckingham and Bletchley.

ISAs are a cornerstone of our savings culture, but if they are primarily being used to funnel capital abroad, it is time we asked ourselves whether the current system is doing what we intended it to do. Perhaps it is time to explore how we can better direct ISA investment towards British companies. I am sure the Minister will be addressing that subject in her speech.

I think we are all in wholehearted agreement on the need for more retail investment in the UK. The opportunity for investment into UK companies is substantial if we can get it right. I am sure the Minister will have a plethora of ideas—she is writing them down ferociously as I speak—and we look forward to hearing what she has to say.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Reynolds]

Credit unions, mutuals and co-operatives play a hugely important role in our economy and our society. That is why the Government—as my hon. Friend will know, given that she stood on the same Labour manifesto as me—promised in our manifesto to double the size of the mutuals sector, why the Chancellor asked the FCA and the Prudential Regulation Authority to look at the mutuals landscape in the Mansion House speech in November and why we have supported the establishment of the co-operatives and mutuals council—I actually went to the first meeting. As my hon. Friend said, credit unions play an important role in encouraging savings, particularly for those on low incomes. We have also launched a consultation on whether the common bond needs to be more flexible so that more people can benefit from credit unions, and that is also in train.

Coming back to the issue of ISA reform, the hon. Member for St Albans rightly said that there has been some market volatility recently. I will not comment on the day-to-day movement in markets, but I will say—I think she was also making this point—that if people are in a position where they can invest in stocks and shares in our stock market or other forms of investment, they need to take a long-term view of that. Often, that investment gives better returns than just putting something away into a cash account.

Analysis by AJ Bell from February this year suggests that someone who put away £1,000 in an average-performing cash ISA every April since their introduction in 1999 would now hold about £34,000. If their savings had instead kept up with inflation, they would now have £38,000, so that person would have lost out on £4,000. That goes to show how inflation can reduce the value of cash savings over time. In contrast, if that same individual had decided to invest in a stocks and shares ISA, they could now have around £83,000—over twice as much as their cash savings would have been. That demonstrates that if someone has the confidence and the ability—we are not talking about everybody here—to invest for the longer term, they will most likely get a better return. We need to ensure that people have the confidence and ability to engage with investing, and thus to benefit from the financial security and greater returns that investing can often provide.

My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan talked about people on lower incomes. On that, I will take the opportunity to say something about the help to save scheme, which is targeted at working households on low incomes. It offers a 50% Government bonus on savings of up to £50 a month over four years. The Government announced at the autumn Budget last year that the help to save scheme has been extended until April 2027. From 6 April this year, we have extended eligibility for help to save to all universal credit claimants in work as well.

The second issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham and Bletchley was about financial education. In fact, most hon. Members who spoke talked about its importance. One of the major barriers to investing for consumers is a lack of support to make financial decisions. We know that only 8% of adults received regulated financial advice in the 12 months to May 2022, but guidance does not often go far enough to help consumers feel confident to make a decision. We have a big advice/guidance boundary gap. Many of our constituents are therefore not getting the help they need to make their money go further. Some keep a lot of their money in savings, losing out on potential returns, and others do not regularly review their investments, or invest in products that do not meet their risk appetite.

Together with the FCA, the Government are developing a new regime called targeted support, which would allow regulated firms to provide suggestions appropriate to consumers with similar characteristics. For instance, the regime would enable firms to suggest that an individual with substantial savings could consider opening a stocks and shares ISA. It would also enable firms to suggest options for how to generate an income from an individual’s pension pot, appropriate to consumers with similar needs. The FCA will consult on the rules that will underpin targeted support in the first half of this year. Getting those reforms right will help consumers make better-informed decisions, engage in capital markets, and ultimately to be in a position to get better returns on their savings in the longer term.

My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham and Bletchley reflected on how financial education can help level the playing field for those from less wealthy backgrounds. I really liked how he expressed in his speech the asymmetry between those who already come from a wealthy background, where this might even be discussed at the dinner table, and those in a less privileged position, who are not aware of some of the opportunities. If they are not aware, even if they were given the opportunity they would not have the confidence to take it.

In England, the independent curriculum and assessment review is considering how to ensure that he curriculum is fit for purpose. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest, talked about the importance of financial education. I cannot give him any guarantees right now, because as he will know, although we have had the interim report of the curriculum review, we are still working through some of the details. I met the Minister for School Standards to discuss this work and to make sure that my work on financial inclusion and the work of the curriculum review go hand in hand. I cannot give him any guarantees on private Member’s Bills right now, but I can take the question back to the Government Whips, who will tell me where we are. As I understand it, the private Member’s Bill on financial education that he talked about is not due to be introduced until 11 July.

We are working with the Department for Education, and the Department for Education is working across Government on how we can ensure that the curriculum review improves financial education for our young people, which I would like to see. Indeed, it was striking that in the interim review parents and pupils said that finance and budgeting was the top area they would like to see more focus on in schools; that was encouraging.

Thirdly, my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham and Bletchley asked for action to make it easier for our citizens to engage with our capital markets. The importance of UK capital markets was mentioned by many speakers, but particularly by the hon. Member for St Albans, my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan and the shadow Minister. We want to make UK capital markets as attractive as possible to retail investors. Our capital markets are already among the strongest and deepest globally. I know some concerns have been raised, but more than £25 billion of equity capital was raised in London last year, more than in the next three European exchanges combined. I am keen that we do not talk ourselves down. Of course, we must recognise challenges where they arise, but we must also recognise our strengths. We are the world’s largest international bond market, with more than 16,000 active bonds traded on our markets, representing over £4.1 trillion across 55 currencies.

We want to go further to reinvigorate capital markets to ensure that they support both UK and global growth. We are currently developing a financial services growth and competitiveness strategy, and have identified capital markets, and retail participation within those markets, as a priority growth opportunity in that strategy. That strategy will come later this year, and I am sure the hon. Member for Wyre Forest will quiz me about it in the weeks and months to come.

The Government are focused on making our markets more competitive, including by supporting the FCA’s work to reform the UK’s prospectus regime to give investors access to better quality information to support their decision making, and supporting the FCA’s proposals to cut red tape for corporate bond issuance, which will encourage companies listed on stock exchanges to offer bonds in smaller sizes to improve investment opportunities for retail investors. The Government have also legislated to enable the FCA to reform the UK’s retail disclosure regime to ensure that consumers have access to the most useful information to support their investment decisions. The FCA’s consultation has just closed and the Government look forward to seeing its final rules later this year.

My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham and Bletchley also raised the work of the industry-led digitisation taskforce, which is looking at how we can improve the system of share ownership in this country and, as part of that work, at how we can remove all paper shares. The taskforce is currently finalising its final report—my hon. Friend will have seen the interim report—and the Government look forward to receiving it, and will respond in due course.

Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham and Bletchley called for a fundamental shift in how we think about investing in our country. He is right to say that investing should not be for just the wealthy, or those with expertise; we need to build an investment culture that enables newcomers to invest confidently and grow their financial resilience. I want to deliver that change but I know that the Government, and indeed parliamentarians, cannot deliver that shift on our own. We need to work closely with regulators and industry and, as my hon. Friend suggests, make the case to consumers for investing. I thank my hon. Friend for outlining his proposal for how we could do that.

We are thinking carefully about these matters and look forward to working with my hon. Friend and others across the House to help build the strong investment culture that we want. As part of that work, we are of course looking at international examples; the shadow Minister mentioned the importance of that. Many hon. Members will be familiar with how Americans talk a lot about their 401(k)—or so I am told—and how Australians talk a lot about their supers. A few months ago, I was talking to a financial services senior leader who told me that when she lived in Australia, her cleaner often looked at her super on her phone, and tracked the return on her investment. I would love to see that sort of inclusive, democratic access to investment opportunities in the UK. I am not being patronising—I have a fantastic cleaner too, and I would like to see her in that position. We want to ensure that people across society get these opportunities. We also want people to engage with their pensions more closely, as I have already mentioned in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan.

If I do not get to all the questions raised by the hon. Member for Wyre Forest then I am sure that I can write to him, or we can have a discussion after the debate.

My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan talked about what the Government could do to promote employee share ownership. The previous Government launched a call for evidence on the save as you earn and share incentive plan schemes. The Government will use that call for evidence to consider opportunities to improve those schemes, and I thank my hon. Friend for his interest in that.

The hon. Member for St Albans talked about advertising on social media. She will know that under the Online Safety Act 2023 large internet platforms will be required to put in place systems and controls to avoid fraudulent advertising appearing on those platforms. We also welcome Ofcom’s work to bring forward codes of practice on what actions firms should be considering. However, she is right to raise the issue as a matter of concern; the Government are concerned about it.

I have answered the question from the hon. Member for Wyre Forest about the private Member’s Bill on financial education, but I am sure that he asked me other questions that I have not quite got round to; I beg his forgiveness. I also answered his question on what we can do together to ensure that people know there are risks involved with holding cash above certain levels, and about the erosion of people’s cash savings by inflation, but if he wants to repeat any of the other questions, I am happy to respond.

[Mark Garnier]

I think the Minister has covered most of my questions, but I will review and we can perhaps have a conversation later.

[Emma Reynolds]

Such great cross-party working—do not tell anyone else about it! It is really good to work with the hon. Gentleman. I remember fondly—well, not that fondly—being a shadow Minister and having very good, if different, working relationships with the Ministers who I shadowed. I very much welcome the constructive way in which he has contributed to the debate and I look forward to Thursday, when we will debate the Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Bill.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham and Bletchley for securing this debate and I also thank all the hon. Members who spoke. It has been a very constructive and interesting debate, certainly from my perspective, and I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. The Government are determined to make the UK’s retail investing environment more attractive and to boost the UK’s investment culture, and I will reflect carefully on the points raised.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Garnier Excerpts

Tuesday 8th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

There is a great deal of speculation about the future of the cash individual savings account. As we know, it is an important savings mechanism for many savers across the country, all of whom will be dismayed at the loss of a significant cash savings opportunity. Just as importantly, cutting cash ISAs will deprive building societies of important funds for their balance sheets, reducing the amount of capital available for the residential mortgage market. This point has been raised with me by the mutual societies. Given that the loss of the cash ISA would have a profound effect on mutuals’ ability to raise debt capital, what research have the Government undertaken to establish the extent of the damage that such a measure might inflict on the residential mortgage market, which is not just important for all our constituents, but crucial for the 1.5 million new homes that the Government propose building?

[Emma Reynolds]

I work closely with the mutuals and other financial services firms, and I think the hon. Member is slightly jumping the gun, if he does not mind my saying so. We are considering options to reform ISAs, but we need to get the balance right between cash and equities. We know that many people have investments in cash ISAs who could think about investing in our capital markets, which would be a win for them through higher returns, and also for the economy. However, we absolutely understand the role that cash savings play in people having money for a rainy day.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Garnier Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

The City of London has been a leader of innovation in the world of finance and savings for a few hundred years now, and it has been successful because it has always seized opportunities and innovation when presented. In that spirit, we are pleased that the Chancellor in her Mansion House speech embraced the concept of securities tokenisation, but we now find that the catalyst for this innovation in the UK—a pilot for the digital gilt instrument known as DIGIT—has found itself in a two-year black hole. Innovation is not something that can hang around for two years, so will the Minister give assurances that she will do everything she can to deliver DIGIT as soon as possible?

[Emma Reynolds]

That sounds like a criticism of the previous Government. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that we are committed to innovation and to DIGIT.

Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Bill [Lords]

Mark Garnier Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

I welcome the new Minister to her place. I think this is her first Bill that she has taken through as Economic Secretary and, interestingly, she is absolutely right. This is one of the frequent occasions on which we will agree on pretty much everything. This Bill was obviously written by the previous Government who, I think we all agree, delivered 14 years of strong and stable government.

Broadly speaking, we will not disagree on this Bill. As the Minister set out in her opening speech, this legislation was born out of the learnings of the failure of Silicon Valley Bank. The failure came out of the US parent company, with a contagion that quickly spread to its UK subsidiary. Although the Bank of England had initially planned to use insolvency procedures, HSBC emerged as a buyer thanks to the tireless work over the course of a weekend in March 2023, and much credit must be given to the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Jeremy Hunt), and the former Economic Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith). They secured an outcome that has not cost the taxpayer any money at all, and which protected millions of pounds’ worth of customer deposits, primarily in the tech sector. The bank’s customers would face an uncertain financial future were it not for that intervention, so I am sure that the House will join me in commending the action that was taken by the previous Government.

The failure and subsequent transfer of Silicon Valley Bank UK shows how robust our post-2009 banking reforms have become. The Bank of England has used its resolution powers only three times since 2009, and this was the first time since the Southsea Mortgage and Investment Company failed in 2011. It is fair to say that the process worked absolutely as it should have done: the transfer of Silicon Valley Bank UK to HSBC was done in an orderly manner, there was no wider contagion in the banking sector, and withdrawals and panic did not spread to other banks. In short, it demonstrated why the UK is such a financial centre of excellence, and we must continue to champion that point.

However, we can continue to uphold our world-leading reputation only if we review and learn from when the system is stressed in real life. In some ways, we were very fortunate. HSBC was the only credible bidder for Silicon Valley Bank that did not require financial support or guarantees from the Government or the Bank of England. In addition, HSBC’s level of capital and liquidity resources greatly reduced the risk to public funds, delivered stability and boosted market confidence. However, had HSBC not come forward, the only option for the Bank of England was the bank insolvency procedure. This Bill comes out of the subsequent root-and-branch review, and it went for industry consultation under the previous Government. I thank the current Government for supporting it.

The Opposition recognise that some banks may fail due to issues outside their control and should have pathways to continue as a going concern if transferred to another entity, and it is right that the Bank of England has more tools in its arsenal to support the financial system. We are therefore delighted to support the Bill—it is one that we started. As it made progress in the other House, it benefited from considerable scrutiny from noble peers. The successful amendments and new clauses enhanced the Bill and will significantly improve transparency.

This was a point addressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) during the Delegated Legislation Committee on Monday, which finalised the transfer of Silicon Valley Bank UK to HSBC with no compensation to shareholders. He rightly raised some of the unanswered questions on what changed the Bank of England’s decision between announcing that the Silicon Valley Bank UK was going into insolvency procedures on the Friday and being transferred under resolution by the Monday. These additional transparency arrangements will ensure that colleagues in this House remain confident in the independence of the Bank of England. Will the Minister confirm that the Government intend to support those amendments in this House? I would be amazed if he said no, actually.

I will move on to what could be the crux of any potential disagreement. When this Bill was introduced in the other place, there was no limit to the scope of this regime. We can safely categorise our banks into three different groups. First, there are the large-scale institutional banks that have reached the end-state minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities, or MREL, as it is known. Secondly, there are the challenger banks such as Monzo and Starling that are working towards end-state MREL. Finally, there are the smaller banks that do not meet the threshold for MREL, such as Silicon Valley Bank.

The Banking Act 2009 provides a robust framework for dealing with banks that have achieved end-state MREL status, and while there is a sensible argument for saying the new mechanism could provide top-up funding for banks working towards end-state MREL, it is not fair or reasonable to expect the mechanism to be used for the largest banks. The consequences of such a decision could be extremely costly for banks and their customers, and if an institutional bank failed and this mechanism were used to facilitate a transfer, our fear is that there could be a recapitalisation requirement that was many times the annual cap of the financial services compensation scheme. The only decision left to the FSCS would therefore be to borrow from the national loans fund via the Treasury. The ex-post levy set out in this legislation would therefore be charged not only in the year in which the levy was first implemented but potentially for many years thereafter. MREL requirements should ensure the safety of our largest institutions. Bank directors should be ensuring sound compliance of MREL, not taking comfort in the fact that they can fall back on to an ex-post levy of the banking sector in times of trouble.

The Opposition took reassurance from a policy statement that the mechanism would be used for the largest banks only in exceptional circumstances. However, this still left the key question as to why the legislation allowed large-scale banks to trigger the mechanism. In her opening speech, the Minister referred exactly to this. Baroness Vere’s amendment makes it clear that this mechanism cannot be used on the largest banks—those that have achieved end-state MREL. That amendment was opposed by the Government in the other place. I was hoping that the Minister would update the House today on the Government position and she has done that, but we may want to talk about this at greater length. Concerns were also rightly raised by peers that this mechanism, and using resolution to transfer failing banks, should not become the default position of the Bank of England, which is important.

Ultimately, banks are businesses. They have shareholders that bear the responsibility and the burden of risk, and we should not create a system where banks can always expect to fall back on industry-funded life support. The code of practice, alongside this Bill, rightly states that using the insolvency procedure should be the default position. I would welcome the Minister’s comments on whether there could be further need for that to be strengthened in the legislation.

The introduction of this mechanism is another example of a banking industry in strong health. In 2007, it was the taxpayer bailing out the banks. Now we have a system whereby the industry is expected to cover the cost of a failing bank. This raises questions as to whether the Government need to review how we can make the UK banking sector more internationally competitive—we have had an informal chat about this.

Let us take the bank levy as an example. It was introduced for three main reasons. First, it was introduced to help repay the cost of the banking bail-out, and it has raised something in the region of £25 billion since it was first introduced. Second, the bank levy acted as a kind of insurance premium in case the post-financial crisis stability of the banking sector were to falter and fall and there needed to be another bail-out. Finally, it was almost a quasi-punishment to the banking system for the failures that led to the financial crisis. It was there to reassure unhappy shareholders that there were consequences for a sector in which there was bad practice. If we add up the total cost to the UK taxpayer of the financial crisis, it was £137 billion, according to the House of Commons Library, as of 2023. That has been reduced to £33 billion now, so there still is some outstanding cost.

On top of the bank levy, other post-2009 reforms include much more stringent ringfencing and capital requirements. That might not be a subject for this debate, and I am not calling for the bank levy to be abolished, but I would certainly welcome the Minister’s comments on whether there could be scope to review the international competitiveness of the banking sector alongside the Chancellor’s growth agenda. The international competitiveness of the City of London should be an absolute priority for this Government—I believe that it is—yet according to UK Finance’s 2024 banking sector tax report, produced by PwC, UK banks face the highest tax contribution since the study started a decade ago.

In terms of international competitiveness, according to PwC, the total tax burden of a model bank operating in the UK is currently 45.8%. That is significantly higher than our competitors in Frankfurt at 38.6%, in New York at 27.9%, or in Dublin at 28.8%. The City, as I am sure Ministers and the whole House will agree, is an extraordinary asset for this country. For a Government who are seeking a growth agenda, the City is the oil in the engine of that economic growth.

Banks do a very important job, and it is a job of significant social and economic importance. Banks take money from where it has accumulated and distribute it to where it is needed for investment. This is crucial to fairness across our economy and delivering growth. They transfer overnight deposits into 25-year mortgages that provide hope and opportunity for people to bring up their families in safety. So we should not demonise banks, and we must remember that shareholder returns on bank investments are as important as shareholder liability in the event of a failure. We must ensure that there is a good return, given the fact that bank shareholders bear the ultimate risk of losing everything.

This Bill is a shining example of the fact that the banks and regulators are now in a position to keep their industry in order. As I said at the start of this speech, I believe that there is cross-party support for the Bill, and I look forward to working with the Government as these reforms progress through the House. They are magnificent, because of course they came from the previous Government, but I thank the Ministers for continuing with them in the spirit with which they were intended.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Garnier]

It gives me great pleasure to wind up this debate, with the leave of the House, on behalf of the Opposition.

First, I thank the handful of Members present, who have made very helpful contributions. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) rightly asked questions on behalf of his constituents. He asked whether they will be under the cosh if a bank goes bust again—they should not be, under this legislation—and what banks will do to generate economic growth in his area. The Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), rightly raised a point about the legislation being extended to and used for the larger banks, which is not its intention. As ever, my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) has brought an intelligent scepticism to the question of what could happen with this legislation, and has demonstrated why Parliament is such a brilliant place, with intelligent people like him scrutinising what goes on.

I also welcome the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury. He has had a glittering career, and has done extraordinarily well in his meteoric rise to Minister in not one but two Government Departments in his first Parliament. He is double-hatting already; he is a clever chap. We have come across each other in the past.

I will not take too much of the House’s time, as I was on my feet just a few minutes ago, but I would like to come back to three points that I hope the Minister will address. The first is the amendment to the Bill; the Economic Secretary to the Treasury made the point that the Government do not want to support that amendment. This may come up later, and we may have more conversations about it. Secondly, does the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury feel that the Bank of England’s code of practice provides enough reassurance that the bank insolvency procedure remains the default option for failing smaller banks? Finally, how does he weigh up continued use of the bank levy and regulation of our banking system against the Chancellor’s growth agenda? I appreciate, however, that that is beyond the scope of the Bill.

As I said in my opening remarks, the Bill retains surprisingly strong cross-party support. It is a good thing for the Bank of England to have more tools at its disposal during periods of heightened stress, and the version of the Bill before us today—the version amended in the other place—is more robust than it started out. We look forward to getting clarity from the newly appointed shadow Minister. [Hon. Members: “The Minister.”] My apologies—it will be a few years before that. I congratulate the newly appointed Minister on his appointment.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Garnier Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

The Chancellor makes reference to the PWC report, but half of the survey in that report was done before the Budget. The Chancellor and I spent a very happy three years sitting next to each other at the Treasury Committee, and she was incredibly good at demanding straight answers from the witnesses that came in front of the Committee. She has already been asked questions about the fact that the fiscal headroom is only £10 billion and the increase in the cost of borrowing is now going to go through the roof so, at some point, she will have to raise taxes, cut investment or increase debt. Which will it be?

[Rachel Reeves]

The headroom in our Budget was larger than the headroom that we inherited from the previous Government, so we have put aside more money for changes in economic prospects. The OBR has not yet done its forecast, which will take a whole variety of factors into account, and we will make decisions based on that. I have been really clear that our fiscal rules are non-negotiable because, unlike the Conservatives, we are determined to meet the fiscal rules, not break them time and again.

Draft Silicon Valley Bank UK Limited Compensation Scheme Order 2024

Mark Garnier Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2025 General Committees

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to be standing opposite—albeit in opposition—the newly promoted Minister. I look forward to spending an entire week locking horns with her.

Let me start by saying that it is fantastic that we have seen some very swift action. It just goes to show that the Banking Act 2009 has worked extraordinarily well, and how efficiently the previous Government did when it came to resolving this financial problem. A huge amount of work was done by a number of people in the previous Government, including the Treasury Committee, which looked at the Financial Services Act 2012, and the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, which looked at the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013. A huge amount has gone on and it is reassuring to see that when something does go wrong, the system cuts in incredibly quickly and resolves the situation very well. The Minister and I will be talking directly about bank resolution on Wednesday; it is incredibly important that we work together on this, and I think we are probably in broad agreement.

This order raises an incredibly important point about shareholders—the people who take the ultimate risk in any sort of business. Shareholders are at the bottom of the list of people who are compensated in the event of the winding-up of any privately owned institution. That is the right thing—at the end of the day, private shareholders need to take that risk—but we need to remember that they are taking the ultimate risk in any business. We in this place sometimes beat them up, because we do not necessarily like to see them make too much money, but part of the risk-reward ratio of the current system is that shareholders take a lot of risk; we should not attack them for taking good returns, given the fact that they can lose every penny of their money. The other point about shareholders is that they provide an incredibly useful service in the governance of any institution: making sure that something like this situation should not happen. There was a single shareholder in this case, but multiple shareholders do provide good scrutiny, and we need to address the tone with which we talk about them.

The instrument is absolutely right, and the Opposition recognise that the system is working extraordinarily well. We will certainly not oppose the order; it is very good that we are finally delivering the last part of the resolution. I have no more to add.

Draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 (Addition of Relevant Enactments) Regulations 2024

Mark Garnier Excerpts

Monday 9th December 2024 General Committees

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

I think this is the fourth or fifth time that the Minister and I have met across a Committee room, and yet again I do not think we are going to have any problems at all. At the last of our meetings in one of these rooms, I asked her a number of questions, and I am incredibly grateful to her and her office for getting back to me so quickly. I think that illustrates the very good working relationship between the Opposition and the Government in this respect.

The Opposition are delighted with all these measures. I was struggling to work out some complicated questions in order to make the Minister work for her office, but the only one I could come up with is on the timeline. She made reference to some further statutory instruments that will be introduced, and it would be very helpful if we had an idea of the timeline for when the process will be completed.

Aside from that, we are very happy to support the draft regulations and I thank the Minister very much for all those acronyms—I am learning more and more each time we meet.

Draft Building Societies Act 1986 (Modifications) Order 2024

Mark Garnier Excerpts

Monday 9th December 2024 General Committees

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

This Committee may go on record as one of the swiftest yet!

It makes perfect sense to modify the Building Societies Act 1986 to bring it in line with the Companies Act 2006. We have no objection to the order. It is possible that it may only affect one building society, but none the less it would be fairly old-fashioned to have two separate sets of rules depending on which type of business we are discussing. We are behind the order, which makes a huge amount of sense. I will not take any more of the Committee’s time.

Question put and agreed to.

Draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Ombudsman Scheme) (Fees) Regulations 2024

Mark Garnier Excerpts

Monday 25th November 2024 General Committees

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

I think the Minister and I are going to have an outbreak of unanimity in just about everything we do; we have yet to find something we disagree on. Members will be aware that this legislation was originally due to be implemented in May, but we got caught up in a bit of a general election, which unfortunately did not go quite so well for us. The Opposition therefore fully support the instrument, as Members would imagine.

The Minister made a good point about why the regulations are incredibly important: there are far too many people gaming the system. To support what she was saying, banks incur a great deal of costs as a result, and those costs are inevitably reflected on to consumers; so although it sounds in the first instance like the claims management companies are doing everybody a favour, they are actually increasing the cost of financial services for absolutely everybody. We are therefore wholly supportive of this instrument.

I have a couple of questions. To make sure the instrument does not affect some people badly, can the Minister set out how the Treasury proposes to monitor the changes to ensure that they go according to plan and that, where there is a two-tier system, vulnerable people do not unwittingly find themselves not represented if they use a claims management company?

My other question is on a technicality, and the Minister may not know the answer. The first 10 claims are free of charge for professional representatives. After that, claims cost £250, reduced to £75 if they are successful. Can claims management companies put in class actions—for example, a claim for 1,000 people 10 times—hoping to get a lot of people covered, and thereby potentially increasing the return they could get for each claim, since it is a class action rather than an individual claim, or is the intention that each claim will be an individual case, rather than a group of cases? If the Minister does not know the answer to that now, she should feel free to write to me.

We have absolutely no intention of opposing the instrument. It is a fantastic piece of legislation, brought in by the previous Government, and it is good to see that it has survived the general election, unlike the Minister who signed it off in the first place.