Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Neil Coyle and John Glen

Tuesday 1st October 2019 Commons Chamber

[John Glen]

We have to ensure that there is a wide range of options in rural areas. A number of trials are under way to provide solutions, underpinned by the investment in gigabit infrastructure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced yesterday, which will ensure that we have even better connectivity in remote rural areas.

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

7. What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government on the adequacy of funding allocated to tackling rough sleeping.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Neil Coyle and John Glen

Tuesday 5th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

13. What assessment he has made of the effect of the freeze on benefits on the level of personal debt of benefit recipients.

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)]

The decision to freeze most working-age benefits for four years from 2016-17 was one of a number of difficult financial decisions that were taken, but to assist claimants who are affected by debt, the Government announced, as part of the 2018 Budget package, a reduction from 40% to 30% in the maximum rate at which deductions can be made from universal credit awards. That change will help 290,000 claimants.

[Neil Coyle]

I thank the Minister for his reply. This morning, the Select Committee on Work and Pensions visited Charles Dickens Primary School in my constituency to talk to parents, children and teachers about the impact that the benefits freeze and other welfare cuts have had on local families, many of whom have been pushed into debt, poverty and destitution as a direct result of Government policy. Will the Government listen to the Select Committee and lift the benefits freeze one year early?

[John Glen]

The Government have been very responsive to representations over the last two Budgets. There are 637,000 fewer children in workless households than in 2010. We made a number of interventions in the last Budget to increase the availability of interest-free advance loans to those who need them. We are listening, and continue to listen, to the concerns of the sector.

Financial Guidance and Claims Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)

Debate between Neil Coyle and John Glen

Tuesday 6th February 2018 Public Bill Committees

[John Glen]

I acknowledge that such concern has been widely expressed throughout the passage of the Bill. However, the FCA has issued total fines of more than £229 million. In its view, its regulatory toolkit is currently sufficient to enable it to fulfil its consumer protection objective. The FCA will consider the precise rules that apply to claims management companies and how they form an effective regulatory regime overall. In doing so, the FCA will need to take into account its statutory objective of securing an appropriate degree of protection for consumers. It will also consult openly and publicly on the proposed rules.

The final regime is not set without consultation or reference to the legitimate concerns raised during the passage of the Bill. I note the hon. Gentleman’s observations, but they can be accommodated by the way in which the FCA will handle the matter. Given that, the Government do not believe the new clause is necessary. According to the explanatory statement, the new clause would introduce a duty of care on claims management companies. I will provide some more detail on that duty of care because I have thought a lot about it and have new points that I want to raise following Second Reading. The Government recognise that there are different views on the merits of introducing a duty of care for financial services providers and what it would mean in practice.

Macmillan Cancer Support has run an excellent campaign drawing attention to that important issue. Last week I met Lynda Thomas and her team from Macmillan in the Treasury to discuss their work and their concerns around the proposed duty of care. They told me of their work with Nationwide and Lloyds. They have been working in partnership with the sector on the role of firms in supporting customers.

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

I am sure the Minister is aware that the Department for Work and Pensions is again in court facing a legal challenge for changes to welfare and support for disabled people, including people with terminal illnesses such as cancer. Does the Minister not accept that Macmillan’s recommendations might go some way to rebuilding disabled people’s trust and faith in the Government, including those with terminal illnesses?

[John Glen]

I acknowledge the case, but it is not for me as a Treasury Minister to comment on it. We need to be clear about the impact of the duty of care and examine it carefully. It is right that we challenge practices that are not up to standard. The question is how we most effectively achieve that without wider collateral damage.

On Macmillan’s partnership work in the financial services sector in supporting customers affected by cancer, I pay tribute to the work done and I am grateful for the insights that it brings, but there is huge uncertainty around the potential impact a duty of care could have on both firms and consumers. As with all significant policy changes, it is important to understand all potential pros and cons. I hope Members agree that there would need to be a thorough assessment of the potential impact of a duty of care before any decision is made on a change of policy. For example, a duty of care might enable consumers to bring financial services firms to court. There might be significant cost, complexity and time involved with that, leave alone codifying exactly what the duty of care would mean.

In turn, a duty of care might lead to a negative impact on product provision and approach to innovation, as firms might not want to risk legal challenge based on an untested new concept. Increasing operational costs for firms as a result of a duty of care will inevitably lead to higher prices for consumers, including those in the most vulnerable category. Given those considerations, I hope Members agree that it would not be appropriate for the Government to amend the Bill before a full assessment of the potential impact has been conducted.

The Government believe that the FCA, as the UK’s independent conduct regulator for financial services, is best placed to evaluate the merits of a duty of a care. Recognising the pitch and depth of the legitimate concerns raised, last week I met Andrew Bailey and discussed the duty of care with him, and the FCA will discuss it further. Concern has been expressed that, in the determination to issue a discussion paper post-Brexit, there was too much of a delay. I pressed Andrew Bailey on the need to bring that forward. He understands and acknowledges the desire of Parliament for progress on evaluation, so the FCA now proposes to issue a discussion paper later this year. It will invite contributions from all interested parties on the case for and against a duty of care, what form such a provision might take and consequential issues arising from adopting it. That will be an open process, designed to gather views. I am grateful to the FCA for its commitment to accelerate its proposed timetable.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Glen]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. I would not characterise the Government’s position as, “Let it happen mañana and take our hands off the tiller.” I met Andrew Bailey, and this was not his starting point. It is for Ministers to talk to the FCA, take the views of Parliament as clearly expressed by Members on both sides of the House, and use that pressure to force the FCA to address the issue in a comprehensive way that deals with the real experience of our constituents.

The Government have set out that process, and I have set out the rules and facilities that exist for the FCA. I am convinced there is a process in place that will enhance the necessary protection.

[Neil Coyle]

There are some interesting parallels. Where the Government have a clear objective and aim, as they did in welfare reform, consultations are rushed through by Departments. That delivers inadequate legislation, which is why the Government ended up in court, as has been mentioned. In this case, the Government are passing the buck to the FCA, even though Macmillan has identified a problem, whereas on terror insurance legislation, where the ball is back in the Government’s court and could have been covered by the Bill, they have left a gaping hole, which leaves businesses such as those affected in my constituency in June last year facing potential damages because of the inadequacy of legislation. Why have the Government not opened consultation on that?