Covid-19: Economy Update

Neil Gray Excerpts

Thursday 22nd October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We will go up to Scotland for the next question, from Neil Gray.

[Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) [V]]

It has taken weeks for the Chancellor to tinker with his job support scheme to get it to a better place, as if he was surprised by the impact that the necessary public health restrictions would have; it really prompts the question why he did not just keep furlough. But the big question today is why he did not do anything about making the universal credit £20 per week lifeline permanent and extending it to legacy benefits, which would have disproportionately benefited disabled people at this difficult time.

[Rishi Sunak]

Maybe the hon. Gentleman knew something that the TUC and every other business group did not when they warmly welcomed the introduction of the job support scheme, but I am grateful to have his thoughts. He might also want to have a word with his colleague the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock), who said that it was wrong to give support to large businesses that were benefiting from this crisis. That is exactly why it would be wrong to extend the furlough scheme. The job support scheme is more targeted in its approach, makes sure that those types of businesses are not able to access support and, as I have mentioned, is more generous to employers than the October furlough scheme.

The Economy

Neil Gray Excerpts

Thursday 24th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Rishi Sunak]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the nature of our support at this phase in our recovery. In a couple of different ways, this support has evolved in the way she said. It is targeted at those larger businesses that really need it, whose revenue has declined, and it is targeted specifically at protecting and supporting viable jobs—those jobs where there is work to do but the company is facing a period of repressed demand. This is a scheme that will make an enormous difference to those people, but in a targeted and effective way.

[Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) [V]]

From talking in July about “nobody left behind”, to accepting today that so-called “unviable jobs” will be lost, the Chancellor has failed to live up to his own rhetoric. The viability of these jobs is in large part dependent on entirely necessary Government restrictions, and it is disappointing that he continues to abandon the 3 million excluded from support. Given that he now accepts further widespread job losses, why has he not made permanent the temporary £20 per week universal credit uplift and expanded it to legacy benefits?

[Rishi Sunak]

The temporary increase in universal credit already lasts all the way through to the end of March next year. For those who are most vulnerable, as I have said previously, we have provided significant enhanced support through the welfare system, including almost £1 billion of extra investment in local housing allowance, to help with private rent payments, and a hardship fund, to help people who are struggling to pay their council tax bills. As our analysis showed in the summer, the interventions that this Conservative Government have made over the past several months have made the most difference to those on the lowest incomes.

Social Security

Neil Gray Excerpts

Tuesday 5th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) [V]]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Like the shadow Minister, I do not intend to take anywhere near the quota of time on offer.

I thank the Minister for the motion. I dealt with him positively on the Roadchef Employee Benefits Trust issue and I hope we can continue to assist in progressing that matter. However, I must challenge him on his comments regarding the minimum wage. The minimum wage premium is not the real living wage. I encourage the UK Government to follow the Scottish Government’s lead by engaging with business to encourage more employers to pay the real living wage, if they cannot make it the minimum wage, and to remove the age discrimination that means under-25s cannot earn the same as their older colleagues for doing the same job.

As this is my first virtual speech, let me thank all those in the House staff who have gone out of their way to make the virtual House of Commons work and allow colleagues to hold the British Government to account. That includes Mr Speaker, you Madam Deputy Speaker and your fellow Deputy Speakers. Having spent considerable time on a committee with the Leader of the House, the irony of its being this particular Leader of the House who is proving that remote participation and eventually electronic voting can work, is certainly not lost on me.

Regarding the regulations, it is a pleasure to be able to respond on behalf of the SNP. Colleagues will be relieved that I do not intend to speak for very long. The business before us is uncontentious. We of course welcome an increase in employment allowance, but would have liked to have seen it go further. That is not an opportunistic position that we take for the afternoon to nit-pick or find division where there is none; our manifesto committed us to an increase in the employment allowance from £3,000 to £6,000 per employer, per year. Of course, that was the manifesto that helped the SNP win 80% of the seats we contested in December’s general election.

I welcome the shadow Minister to his place on the Opposition Front Bench. Like him, I encourage the UK Government to do more to assist small employers across the UK during the covid-19 crisis. The job retention scheme and business support schemes have massive gaps that so many of our constituents are falling through, and that is before we get on to the unsatisfactory self-employment scheme. I share the calls from the shadow Minister on bringing about flexibility to the furlough scheme. Something I would like to see on top of what he called for would be an appeals process, where an employer refusing to furlough a member of staff, leaving them without an income, can be challenged. The CBIL scheme is also not helping all those who need support. For many, incurring debt is just not an option. There needs to be much more in the way of grants available. Similarly, not all charities are covered in the third sector scheme, such as research-based charities, so I hope they will look at those areas again.

Short of the full powers of independence, we want the UK Government to devolve control of national insurance to Holyrood, so that the Scottish Government can use economic levers such as these measures to make decisions that support employers to create jobs. At the moment, our control over economic policy is very limited and largely rests with the UK Government, who take decisions that may favour other parts of the UK and may not be in Scotland’s best interests.

We will also continue to oppose the UK Government’s decision to restrict eligibility for employment allowance. In our view, it should cover all firms and all employers. The UK Government estimate that about 7% of all employers will no longer be eligible for the employment allowance. By removing this relief, they will be levying an additional £3,000 in tax on those employers.

In conclusion, we will not be forcing the regulations to a Division—I am sure that that will please those still testing remote electronic voting—but we would have liked the UK Government to have been more ambitious to support job creation by halting the eligibility restrictions and by expanding the relief that is available.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I am now introducing a time limit of five minutes. I advise hon. Members who are speaking virtually to have a timing device visible. I call Kim Johnson.

Transport

Neil Gray Excerpts

Monday 17th June 2019 Ministerial Corrections

The following is an extract from Transport questions on 13 June 2019.

[Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)]

T3. Step-free access at railway stations is still the responsibility of Network Rail, which, sadly, is not responsible to the Scottish Government. Currently, only 40 of over 350 railway stations in Scotland have step-free access. Is that not another reason why it is so important to see the devolution of Network Rail, so that this unacceptable situation can finally be resolved?

[Ms Ghani]

There is a £300 million step-free access programme. I do not recognise the hon. Gentleman’s complaint, because 73 further stations were identified in Scotland to get step-free access between 2019 and 2024.

[Official Report, 13 June 2019, Vol. 661, c. 818.]

Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani):

An error has been identified in the response I gave to the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray).

The correct response should have been:

Funeral Plans: Regulation

Neil Gray Excerpts

Wednesday 5th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)]

I am grateful to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and to Mr Speaker for granting me this opportunity to raise the important issue of funeral plan regulation again in the House. Much has changed since the last time I brought a debate on funeral plan regulation to the Chamber. I will go into more detail regarding what has happened in the industry shortly, but first I want to explain why this is such an important issue and why action is so important.

Pre-paid funeral plans allow consumers to save for a funeral. If they are sold and handled appropriately, they are a good thing. They allow people to purchase a funeral and secure it at today’s prices. They can avoid the double-whammy shock of losing a loved one and dealing with the financial consequences of a funeral at the same time. Alongside appropriate regulation of the funeral industry itself and the wider anti-poverty work that is required, funeral plans are the best route to avoiding funeral poverty.

I proposed a ten-minute rule Bill in December 2016, as I want to see better regulation of this market. The debate in 2016 followed a report from Citizens Advice Scotland that same year, commissioned by the Scottish Government, on funeral poverty. It made a series of recommendations regarding the action required to stop funeral poverty. Many of them were devolved responsibilities that are now being pursued by the Scottish Government, but some were issues reserved to Westminster, including this one of the regulation of funeral plans. That report, with its case studies of people being mis-sold funeral plans, and representations made to me by constituents prompted me to ask this Government whether they should be doing more. According to UK Government figures, about 200,000 funeral plans are sold each year, and I expect that figure to continue to rise.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Neil Gray]

By all means. [Interruption.]

[Jim Shannon]

Mr Deputy Speaker, I did seek the hon. Gentleman’s permission beforehand, so I have done this the right way.

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman, who so often brings to an Adjournment debate many important political issues that we are all involved in and which I am aware of as well. I know of many people who immediately began a funeral payment policy when they retired, yet this has proved to be a negative move for many families. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, while it is admirable that 95% of funeral plan providers are signed up to regulation by the Funeral Planning Authority, the fact that this is completely self-regulated takes some of the sting out of the tail? I believe there is also a role for the Government to play, perhaps in stronger legislation to protect the elderly and the vulnerable from being taken advantage of as they come towards the end of their life.

[Neil Gray]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and it would not be an Adjournment debate without his intervening.

The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue, which is the current status of the Funeral Planning Authority, which I will come on to discuss in greater detail in my speech. He is right that it is a voluntary body at the moment, and there has been much debate about whether the best route of regulating this market is through putting the FPA on a statutory footing or through Financial Conduct Authority regulation. The Government appear to be looking at FCA regulation, which I am happy enough with, although I do have some concerns about the direction of travel, which I will ask the Minister to look at. The hon. Gentleman is right. At the moment, the FPA perhaps does not have the teeth to regulate the market properly. It would acknowledge that although it has done a great deal of work in this area since my ten-minute rule Bill was introduced, if it were to have a full suite of powers to regulate the market properly, that would require it to become a statutory body.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is right. My hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) brings a great number of important issues to the Chamber, and this is one on which he has spoken many times. He will be pleased to know that this week I heard from a local family-run funeral service in my constituency, who expressed support for the Treasury proposals and for enhanced consumer protection. He made the point that most funeral firms, as we know from the Treasury proposals, are small and micro businesses. He is concerned, given that the majority of funerals are delivered by those businesses, that such businesses could be at competitive disadvantage compared with larger providers and threatened by the cost of FCA regulations. What are my hon. Friend’s thoughts on that?

[Neil Gray]

I am well aware of that family-run business, and I share its concerns. My hon. Friend speaks well for them, and it is a point that I wish to make. How do the Government protect competition in the market to make sure that smaller funeral providers and funeral plan providers are not squeezed out of the market by the burden of FCA regulation? Of all the criticisms of the route that the Government have chosen, that is the one that is expressed most keenly by people in the market.

Given the number of funeral plans that have been sold in recent years and the growth in the sector, it is critical that we get the regulation right and ensure that consumers are protected. The Citizens Advice report published a few years ago gave examples of mis-selling—people were promised particular aspects of a funeral, but when the plan was redeemed they were told that that was not part of the deal. Particular cars, coffins or flowers that were chosen for sentimental reasons, for example, were not delivered, although people thought they had paid for them. There have been widespread reports of bad sales practices such as cold calling, aggressive selling and the targeting of vulnerable customers.

Since I introduced my ten-minute rule Bill, which proposed the areas of regulation that the Government now appear to have adopted, a significant amount of change has taken place in the market. The FPA, as I have said, has taken great steps to reform its practices as a voluntary market regulator, and it suggests that 95% of the market has signed up to its regulatory model. There have been great moves across the market to reform practices, including by plan providers themselves. Some of them are moving away from the third-party selling model that appeared to be problematic and was part of the 5% issue that concerns us all. I am pleased that my Bill proposal, which was intended to spark debate and action for change, has led to that progress. I am grateful to the Minister for taking action.

[Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for introducing the debate on a subject that is close to my heart. I met him, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and other Members attending this debate to form a working party, and we intend to consider how we support the Government in looking at environmental funerals, funeral plans and the social fund. While I welcome the Government’s announcement, does the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) agree that we need to look at the small percentage of funeral plans that are not covered by the FPA? In that two-year window, there is an opportunity for people who can least afford to pay exorbitant fees to be exploited.

[Neil Gray]

I thank the hon. Lady, who is a doughty campaigner in this area, for her intervention. It should go without saying that she has done a great deal, particularly on children’s funerals, and I commend her for her work. She is absolutely right. There is a potential gap, with the two or three-year transition period the Government propose, before moving to FCA regulation. I will turn to my concerns about that in due course, but she is absolutely right to raise the issue and I look forward to continuing to work with her in this area to try to drive the changes we want.

I am pleased that my Bill proposal, which was intended to spark debate and action for change, has started that progress. I commend the Minister in particular. I am grateful that the Government are taking this issue seriously enough to consult on funeral plan regulation and are now proposing moving to a model of FCA regulation. A consultation is now under way until August on what the Government now propose to do in this area. I am grateful to the Minister and to some of his colleagues who also wish to see change and have supported my work, such as the hon. Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess), but I do have some concerns about the direction of travel that I am sure the Minister will be able to answer.

There should be some clear benefits to moving to FCA regulation, such as access to the Financial Ombudsman Service for those who have complaints about the products they have received, but it is not yet clear whether consumers who have a dispute over a funeral plan product will be able to access the financial services compensation scheme.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate and, more importantly, on his Bill. Has he noticed how funeral costs and some of the practices that go on in the industry are now being highlighted in the press? Does he not agree that there should be a good look at costs in more depth? Very often, bereaved families feel ashamed to raise the question of cost, because there is the matter of pride.

[Neil Gray]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman, who raises an important issue. He might be aware that the Scottish Government are doing some work in this regard to set up a funerals regulator, part of which will be looking at the practices of funeral directors. I believe—I will turn to this in my speech—that that is probably what the Competition and Markets Authority investigation will be looking at, too. It is also right to acknowledge that many family-run funeral directors are linchpins of their communities. Some take on great burdens, acknowledging the hardships their customers are going through. It is right that we acknowledge that, while also accepting that there are some in the market who are not perhaps operating to the qualities that we would hope and expect to see.

On the financial services compensation scheme issue, I hope the Minister will be able to clarify in his response whether he envisages this particular model of regulation covering the financial services compensation scheme.

I am also concerned that although the Government appear very keen to move forward to a different regulatory model, as they have accepted there is a problem, they have not, in their own work, quantified the consumer detriment in the market. There was clearly a problem identified by Citizens Advice Scotland researchers in 2016, but to what extent has that problem been improved or exacerbated? The Government need to do a bit more work to update the findings of the Citizens Advice Scotland report and also the “Fairer Finance” report that followed my 10-minute rule Bill. It is clear that there are still issues in the market that need to be addressed, but I think the Minister must agree that it is for the Government now to quantify what they are so that the FCA is clear as to its remit and focus.

There also needs to be greater clarity on the likely three-year wait for changes to take effect. First of all, what happens with regulation in the interim, as there will be no incentive for those currently signed up to the voluntary scheme to carry on engaging? There certainly will not be an incentive for those outside FPA regulation—those we really wish to target in whatever model of regulation we bring forward—to come on board. What assurances can the Minister give about what the market will look like and how it will behave during the three-year wait until the FCA fully takes up responsibility for the market? Will the Minister say how many firms will be regulated under the scheme? The Treasury’s consultation document accepts that there will be consolidation in the market, as my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) suggested. In other words, there will be fewer companies offering these services because of the burden of FCA regulation. Has the Minister assessed whether he feels this model would continue to provide appropriate competition in the market for the consumer? Of course, the Competition and Markets Authority has been critical of some bigger funeral companies for inflated funeral costs, yet this move may give an even bigger market share to those same companies.

I do not have a crystal ball or any insider knowledge, but I fully expect the CMA to follow the Scottish Government’s lead by recommending a funeral regulator, which will look after the funeral director industry and probably some of the at-need market. That means we will be left either with a bit of a crossover in regulation or blurred lines as to who will have overall regulatory responsibility. Perhaps the Minister can clarify how he sees the regulatory environment working when both these areas are established.

In conclusion, for the last three years I have been working across this House, with the funeral plan market and with campaigning organisations to ensure that consumers are protected from being ripped off when they are perhaps at their most vulnerable. I want to see a system of regulation that stops the outrageous practices that we have had reports of in recent years, and I want to see consumer confidence so that there is a greater uptake of funeral plans to avoid the growing problem of funeral poverty.

I am greatly heartened by the Government’s acknowledging that they share my concerns and have effectively taken on my ten-minute rule Bill. I thank the Minister and his officials for what they have done to date, but I hope he will also accept that there is a great deal of work still to do and many questions to answer. Above all else, we have to ensure that the regulatory system in place for this critical industry gets it right for consumers. That means ensuring that we have consumer protection from cold calling, greater transparency in pricing, greater transparency in the products on offer and a better link between some plan providers and the funeral directors. There needs to be greater recourse to pursue complaints and to be compensated when things go wrong.

I am not particularly bothered about who from which body has responsibility for the regulation at the end of the day. I just want to make sure that it is right and that it stops people being ripped off and funeral poverty being exacerbated. We must therefore look at where problems remain with similar issues in the over-50s plan market, which is under FCA regulation, and learn lessons for funeral plan regulation.

Thank you again, Mr Speaker, for granting this debate. I want to know from the Minister that the FCA will always see this area as a priority and that he is alive to the concerns I have expressed this evening, while accepting my thanks for pursuing this matter in the way he has.

Spring Statement

Neil Gray Excerpts

Wednesday 13th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

May I very gently exhort caring and sharing comrades to care for and share with each other, and not to speak in such a way as to stop others speaking? I am sure they would not want to do that—it would be uncomradely.

[Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)]

I and my colleagues, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and, I presume, the Work and Pensions Secretary have encouraged the Chancellor to scrap the final year of the benefit freeze. Given that he knows that, alongside the two-child policy, it is one of the worst policies for driving up child poverty, why has he maintained it? Why has he not scrapped it in the spring statement?

[Mr Hammond]

I repeat once again that the spring statement is not a fiscal event, so I am not making fiscal announcements. I have already explained why the benefit freeze was necessary—difficult but necessary—and that we have no intention of extending it. When it comes to an end, benefits will resume their increase in line with CPI inflation.

HMRC Estate Transformation

Neil Gray Excerpts

Tuesday 29th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

The hon. Lady raised a number of questions, one of which was about the issue of staff.

[Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)]

Answer the question.

[Mel Stride]

If the hon. Gentleman gives me a moment, I will do precisely that, as I always do.

The answers to the hon. Lady’s questions relating to staff and the way in which we will be handling the staff are as I have set out. All staff will have at least one year’s notice of any impending move. The mapping process that HMRC undertook, as it went into the detail of where to locate the regional hubs, was very thorough. It took into account a number of principles, which I will come on to in a moment to answer another of the hon. Lady’s questions. Among those principles is the issue of the travel-to-work time, and every single employee’s home location was mapped against the possible new alternatives under consideration at the time those decisions were being made. I have also raised the issue of the transition offices, which are of course there, among other reasons, to provide employment opportunities for the staff.

The location principles—this comes to the questions the hon. Lady asked about why we have chosen one particular location rather than another, or indeed the existing location of the legacy offices—come down to eight key principles. They include transport connections, which are of course excellent in both Edinburgh and Glasgow, and the talent pool there, such as in universities—for example, Edinburgh and Glasgow have world-class universities—as well as the housing that is available, the quality of the schools and all the matters that will sustain the recruitment of the teams we will be bringing together in these 21st-century and much more sophisticated hubs for dealing with our tax purposes.

The hon. Lady raised the issue, which I know she has raised on previous occasions, of the location of these hubs in relation to our ports and points of entry into the United Kingdom. I think I can reassure her that, quite outside this whole process of the transitional arrangements, we will of course ensure that Border Force, HMRC and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs have the personnel available at those locations to make sure that they are able to run imports and exports efficiently. There is a general premise, however, in the suggestion that the offices somehow need to be close to people all the time. In fact, since 2014, it has been the case—[Interruption.]

Oral Answers to Questions

Neil Gray Excerpts

Tuesday 29th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

We are truly the party for working people, as my hon. Friend states, unlike the Labour party. We are the party that raised the personal allowance to £12,500 one year ahead of our manifesto commitment to do so, taking well over 4 million of the lowest paid out of tax altogether. We are also the party of the national living wage, which will go up by 4.9% this April and be of great benefit to the very lowest paid in our country.

[Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)]

We knew that shifting the BBC licence fee concession to the BBC has always been folly, but we now know from the BBC’s consultation that the £745 million cost is likely to mean either a reduction in output, pensioners losing the concession, or both. Will the UK Government finally reverse this ridiculous decision and bring the concession back to the Government?

[Mr Philip Hammond]

A consultation is under way that I believe ends on 13 February. Once it is complete, the Government will consider it.

Finance (No. 3) Bill

Neil Gray Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Monday 19th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Robert Jenrick)]

In these parts of the Bill, we make sensible preparations for our exit from the European Union. While right hon. and hon. Members across the House may well disagree on Brexit, I would hope that all would wish to see us prepare as carefully as possible so that we can maintain the stability of the tax system; provide as much certainty for the taxpayer as possible; in respect of carbon pricing, meet our commitments to the environment; and do all those things in all eventualities, including in the event of no deal, which is clearly not the Government’s preference but remains a possibility.

At Budget, the Government announced essential provisions to ensure that the tax system can continue to function in any outcome.

[Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)]

The Minister talks about preparations for no deal. In the OBR’s “Blue Book”, it quoted assessments made by economists who suggested that the economy had already shrunk by between 2% and 2.5% since the referendum, and the Library has suggested that that has cost the UK economy anywhere between £40 billion and £50 billion. Does he agree with that assessment, and what work has been going on in the Treasury to account for it?

[Robert Jenrick]

What I can tell the hon. Gentleman is that the economy has been growing for eight years—for five years, in every successive quarter. Unemployment is at its lowest rate in my lifetime and employment is at its highest. The British economy is sound and robust, and that is exactly why in the Budget the Chancellor was able to make the tax cuts for 32 million of our citizens and the increased spending on the NHS.

[Neil Gray]

rose—

[Robert Jenrick]

I will not give way again at this stage, but I could come back to the hon. Gentleman later.

The changes that we have outlined in these clauses will, I hope, signal that the UK is committed to maintaining stability and certainty for taxpayers and for businesses across the economy, especially in respect of the environmental tax provisions that I will talk about in a moment. Clauses 69 to 78 will allow the Government to introduce a carbon emissions tax to replace the EU emissions trading scheme—the ETS—in the event of no deal. Clause 90 will allow for essential preparatory expenditure to begin work on a domestic emissions trading scheme in the event that one is required. Clause 89 will introduce a power to make minor technical amendments to UK tax legislation—essential for maintaining the continued effect of the tax system.

Let me turn first to clauses 68 to 78 with respect to the carbon emissions tax. These clauses will take effect only if the UK leaves the European Union in 2019 without a deal. The clauses will give the Government the power to introduce a no-deal carbon emissions tax. The rate for 2019 would be set at £16 per tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent, and the tax would cover the same electricity generators and industrial businesses that currently participate in the EU ETS. The tax would provide the same protections against carbon leakage as the EU ETS. Operators would pay the tax only on emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases emitted above an allowance set for each installation in advance of the tax year. This is in line with the EU ETS system of free emissions allowances.

In effect, the carbon emissions tax would seek initially to replicate the effects of the EU ETS as closely as possible, in the event of no agreement. This is important, as I hope hon. Members in all parts of the House will agree, for two reasons: first, because we want to provide certainty for businesses and for the energy industry to enable them to make investment and business decisions with confidence, as the industry has asked us to do; and secondly, because maintaining a carbon price is a key component of meeting our legally binding climate change commitments.

Draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Claims Management Activity) Order 2018

Neil Gray Excerpts

Monday 19th November 2018 General Committees

[Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey. I was involved in the passage of the Financial Guidance and Claims Act 2018, so I recognise much of what we are discussing. Mostly, the measure is necessary and welcome, not least because the Government’s brief highlights that 76% of the public have said that they do not trust claims management companies. Taken with the scandals around the RBS global restructuring group and the mis-selling of payment protection insurance, that highlights the desperate need to beef up the UK Government’s failing regulatory framework to ensure that consumers are treated fairly. Hopefully the FCA will do a better job of that than the Ministry of Justice has to date.

I support much of what the hon. Member for Oxford East has said, including her call for appropriate resources to be directed to the FCA, given its ever-growing burden of responsibility. She also spoke about cold calling, on which I would welcome the Minister’s response. That is something that my constituents and I are plagued by on a daily basis. I know that the Scottish Government passed a legislative consent motion for the 2018 Act, but I would appreciate an update on what discussions about this SI have taken place with the Scottish Government, as well as with actors such as the Law Society of Scotland and others that will be directly impacted.

In conclusion, although much of this is to be welcomed and supported, the five-year wait for a monitoring review is too long. We need earlier monitoring to ensure that what has been done has been done correctly. I hope that the Minister will look at coming back to the House on a voluntary basis to report on the progress of the measures in the Act and this SI, to make sure that this is being done appropriately.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Glen]

I will move on to that in a moment. I also want to touch on the point about the ICO as an enforcer, and why not the FCA. There are two debates here. The hon. Member for Garston and Halewood asked about the FCA’s suitability. One issue that has come up—my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk mentioned it as well—is the ICO’s experience and powers to enforce the restrictions on CMC cold calling. The ICO can levy fines of up to £500,000 for breaches of the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003. It has the international reach to enable enforcement action when companies are operating abroad, and perhaps calling my hon. Friend.

The ICO and the FCA work together to establish whether the claims management company has FCA authorisation to carry out marketing activity. The FCA will be able to consider whether the CMC is in breach of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Financial Promotion) Order 2005 and will sanction appropriately. It is really about the concentration of the FCA’s skills and experience in this domain.

[Neil Gray]

I thank the Minister for explaining where the Government are trying to move to in terms of CMC cold calling, which was a hot topic of debate during the passage of the Financial Guidance and Claims Act 2018. What he has described does not go as far as banning CMC cold calling, although he has banned it for pensions. Why is he not banning it? That is what we are getting plagued with. The hon. Member for South Norfolk and many others will be in the same position as me.

[John Glen]

The Government believe that claims management companies fuel speculative claims for redress, that consumers struggle to understand the services that they offer, that there is a lack of transparency around how they operate, and that they offer poor value for money.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Glen]

I entirely agree. That is the purpose of the draft order, which will enable claims management regulation to be transferred to the FCA and the Financial Ombudsman Service. Given the breadth of their existing regulatory oversight, that will satisfy the concerns of those who want a more robust regulatory regime in place. Consumers will benefit from a well-regulated and professional claims management industry. The industry can provide important services to some consumers, but there needs to be confidence in how difficulties are handled.

[Neil Gray]

I do not believe that the Minister has adequately addressed the point raised about the five-year wait for monitoring. He says that he is accountable to the House. Of course he is, but it would be far more useful if he could lay progress reports before the House and have more frequent voluntary reviews to allow proper scrutiny of progress.

[John Glen]

My view is that there are clear categories that the Government have been challenged on with respect to inclusion. There was a judgment to be made about what was to be included in the order at this point in time, but I would seek to make regular reports to review progress—far more frequently than every five years, which is the formal requirement. It would certainly be within the FCA’s remit to introduce changes far more regularly; if the hon. Gentleman reflects on the FCA’s work on high-cost credit, he will agree that its interventions have led to more rapid changes. My expectation is that the regulator will respond to market changes and consider the appropriateness of extending to additional categories.

I hope that the Committee has found this evening’s sitting informative and will support the order.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Claims Management Activity) Order 2018.