Draft Financial Services Contracts (Transitional and Saving Provision) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Debate between Peter Dowd and Christian Matheson

Wednesday 13th February 2019 General Committees

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

It is a delight to see you in the Chair, Mr Pritchard. Once again, the Minister and I are here to discuss a statutory instrument that would set up a regulatory framework after Brexit in the event of us leaving in a disorderly fashion without a deal. On each of these occasions, my Labour Front-Bench colleagues and I have explained our objections to the Government’s approach to secondary legislation.

The volume and the flow of EU exit secondary legislation give rise to deep concern, from the point of view of accountability and proper scrutiny. The Government say that no policy decisions are being taken, but establishing a regulatory framework, for example, inevitably involves policy, and raises the questions about resourcing and capacity referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester.

Secondary legislation should be used when the Government want to do things that are technical, non-partisan and uncontroversial. This Government continue to push through contentious legislation with high policy content using secondary legislation. As legislators, we have to get it right. These regulations could represent major changes to the statute book, so they need proper, in-depth scrutiny. In light of that, the Opposition would like to put on record our deepest concern about the fact that the process for these regulations is not as accessible and transparent as it should be, or as the Minister suggests it is.

Unfortunately, the regulations seem to have three statutory instruments within them: one amending the EEA Passport Rights (Amendment, etc., and Transitional Provisions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018; one amending the Central Counterparties (Amendment, etc., and Transitional Provision) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018; and one amending the Trade Repositories (Amendment and Transitional Provision) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018. The way they have been pasted together causes concern, to say the least, and the result is that they are extremely difficult to follow, let alone scrutinise. I would be grateful if the Minister responded to a number of concerns.

Part 2 sets up a temporary permissions regime that says that if someone is carrying out an activity that is authorised in their home state, and several conditions are met, for a temporary period that person can carry on with that activity in the UK. The activity had to have been allowed under the Financial Services and Markets Act prior to exit day, and the person had to have had an establishment in the UK. Several further criteria must be fulfilled; in particular, the regulations seem to say that if the activity was part of performing a pre-existing contract or, more tenuously, part of “reducing the financial risk” to a party to a contract or a third party affected, a temporary permission should apply.

In other words, it seems that these regulations are trying to avoid cutting across existing contracts. They might have in mind, among others, private equity funders on one side of a contract when referring to parties involved with reducing the risk of a contract. I would like the Minister to explain more about that. What is meant by “reducing the financial risk”, and how far does that go?

Chapter 3 of part 2 sets the period for the temporary permissions regime. It seems to say that the period is 15 years for a contract of insurance and five years for other purposes. Does that mean that EU law continues to apply for 15 years for the purposes of insurance contracts, and for five years for other contracts? Clarity on that would be helpful. There is not much detail, and a period 15 or even five years is stretching the limits of “temporary”. We are concerned that in trying to avoid chaos for contractors, the Government might be creating even more uncertainty. I would be grateful if the Minister commented on that and clarified it.

Proposed new part 6, chapter 4 of the EEA Passport Rights (Amendment, etc., and Transitional Provisions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018 appears to modify the Financial Services and Markets Act. This is the application of a Henry VIII clause—something that is much criticised by lawyers and judges, as we all know. Chapter 4 also gives the Financial Conduct Authority power to receive applications for permission to vary. That seems to be a significant amount of power going to the FCA, and there is seemingly little power here for Parliament to review or hold accountable.

Proposed new chapter 4 allows the FCA to cancel the temporary permissions based on:

“(a) the person’s conduct,

(b) the practicality of supervision by a regulator,

(c) the size of the person’s undertaking, and

(d) the nature or extent of the regulated activity”.

Can the Minister clarify what conduct would or might justify cancellation, and what

“the nature or extent of the regulated activity”

means? Are we correct in understanding that there does not appear to be a right of appeal on this determination? I would be grateful if the Minister clarified. Obviously, just process and natural justice should be upheld. We are concerned about the implications of making the FCA into a judge in individual cases, and a lawmaker.

Proposed new part 9 of the EEA passport rights regulations appears to give the Treasury the power to extend the temporary regime, as the FCA has to submit to the Treasury an assessment of the need to extend the regime. That, again, leaves doubt about how temporary this all is. I would be grateful for assurances on that.

Other parts of the regulations deal with transitional arrangements relating to central counterparties and trade repositories. On central counterparties, for certain activities a one-year transition period appears to apply, and for others,

“the Bank may direct that the central counterparty be subject to such transitional arrangements as it considers necessary or expedient”.

Again, I would like to know more about the thinking behind issuing such power and discretion to the Bank of England.

We are becoming increasingly alarmed at the Government’s unfolding approach to regulating financial services. There does not appear to be an overall plan; there is no indication of how different pieces of legislation fit together; and, above all, there is no clarity. I looked at legislation across the world that appears to be clearer than this, but is ridiculous. For example, in Fairbanks, Alaska, it is illegal to sell alcohol to a moose.

[Christian Matheson]

It is also illegal to sell antifreeze to the Indians of Quebec.

[Peter Dowd]

That seems a much clearer position than the Government’s. In Quitman, Georgia, it is illegal to change the clothes on a storefront mannequin unless the shades are down. That seems perfectly sensible. In South Bend, Indiana it is illegal for monkeys to smoke cigarettes. Apparently, cigars are okay, but only if the monkey goes outside. I am sure that monkeys could understand that legislation, but some of the regulations coming to us are quite ridiculous. We have to be clear.

As Members will know, earlier this week, Labour opposed the Financial Services (Implementation of Legislation) Bill on Second Reading, because it represented a worrying transfer of powers of significant scope to the Executive. We have all been deeply concerned about this, as we have said time after time. Today, colleagues will debate in the Chamber the Securitisation Regulations 2018, which Labour prayed against for similar—or at least related—reasons.

I believe that when we voted to leave the EU, the aim was to empower Parliament to debate and make those decisions, not to concentrate them in the hands of civil servants or Ministers, yet the Government continue to put our economy at risk through their chaotic and opaque approach to lawmaking and the handling of Brexit. It is clear that rather than the Government pushing through such a large volume of piecemeal legislation, we need consolidated pieces of primary legislation, scrutinised in the proper and correct way, as opposed to regulations being brought to Committees in which no one from the Government Benches tries to challenge them.

Ultimately, we legislators have to get this right. This is not just about the principle of democracy and accountability, but about robust lawmaking that is clear, comprehensive, coherent and enforceable. That is our duty as parliamentarians. As far as the public are concerned, we are paid to do that, and we should do it, but the Government are not allowing us to. It is precisely because the stakes are so high, and because the Opposition view their responsibilities to the British public with the utmost intensity and severity, that we will be voting against the regulations.

Football Association Governance

Debate between Peter Dowd and Christian Matheson

Thursday 9th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

I do not want to go down the route of legislation to reform football governance, but the FA is supping in the last chance saloon—it has been doing so for a long time. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) knows a lot about this subject, and I agree with what he says about Greg Clarke. Having met him, I can see that he is a man who has clarity of purpose and determination, and who wants to make a difference. He has asked for time in which to do that, and we should be willing to give him some, but only a little.

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

Notwithstanding my hon. Friend’s comments, does he acknowledge that the Vote Football fan campaign, the Football Supporters Federation, individual supporters, grassroots organisations, parliamentarians and constituents all want change and reform? Why does he think that the FA believes otherwise? Is it not now so out of touch that there is a need for the external imposition of change?

[Christian Matheson]

I do not think that Greg Clarke is out of touch or that he believes otherwise. He has clarity of purpose, but the structures are inflexible and unbudging.

On the one hand we have the juggernaut of the Premier League, as my fellow member of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, the hon. Member for High Peak (Andrew Bingham) has described it. The league is a success and it attracts the best players. Speaking of which, was it not magnificent to be at Goodison on Saturday to see Romelu Lukaku score four, Mr Speaker? But I digress. The Select Committee was told in a letter that Premier League representatives

“regularly use their position on the FA Board”

and “their financial might” to “maintain their position”.

On the other side are the elderly gentlemen, the 25 life presidents on the FA council, whom my Committee Chairman, the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins), eloquently described earlier. They are known as the blazers, not to be confused with the Glazers, as any Manchester United fans in the Chamber will know. That description reminds me of Will Carling’s famous description of the leadership of the Rugby Football Union in 1995 as “57 old farts”. That was a coarse term, Mr Speaker, but it seemed to move things on, and the RFU has since brought its governance up to date. There are arguments against the Premier League and the so-called blazers, but for me this is about the combination of both, so it is clear that legislation might be the only way of breaking the logjam of self-interest.

If I may digress slightly, there is one area on which I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford). When the structures at the top are not right, the management below does not fall into place. For example, we know that the FA is failing to regulate both the power of football agents—I am told that the agent exam can be passed by an 11-year-old—and transfer negotiations, leaving the potential for a bung culture. The structures are not right, so the management and the enforcement below is not right.

The problems involving the great club of Coventry City and Sisu were mentioned earlier. Greg Clarke told the Culture, Media and Sport Committee that although there are fit and proper person tests for directors and officers, there is no test of whether someone actually has the ability to run a club, which is another example of management structures not being good enough. During the Select Committee session, I talked about the tentacles of offshore ownership and untraceable money, which the FA is unable to manage. I also mentioned Vibrac Corporation, which used its base in the British Virgin Islands to loan millions of pounds to Everton, West Ham, Fulham, Reading and Southampton between 2011 and 2013 despite a lack of clarity about who actually owns it. A further problem is that the FA has little control over financial matters and appears to rely on little more than signed declarations from clubs or interested parties to say that they are fit and proper, which allows the FA to avoid responsibility. Good governance depends on the right structures at the top and on allowing the management to enforce rules that have been put in place correctly.

Greg Clarke is a good man who will fight hard to achieve his reforms. He has won friends in the amateur game by visiting every county FA in England, but he needs support and I am unsure whether he has that at the moment.

Garden Bridge

Debate between Peter Dowd and Christian Matheson

Wednesday 7th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Christian Matheson]

My spirits soar every time I hear my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound). My point is simply that there seems to be a reason why £30 million of public money is being given to this project despite the immense lack of clarity that my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall has exposed, despite no clear end to the project, and despite very little financial and accounting responsibility and oversight.

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

I completely take on board my hon. Friend’s point. Does he agree that, by all means let us have vanity projects, but let us have them when we have done the bread-and-butter stuff? In my constituency, we have got £10 million for a major link to the port and railway, but meanwhile tens of millions of pounds are being spent on these vanity projects.

[Christian Matheson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall’s excellent exposé has revealed, we are not even sure how much this vanity project will cost. I simply ask the Minister for some clarity: does he believe that this £30 million is—

Social Security (Equality)

Debate between Peter Dowd and Christian Matheson

Tuesday 26th April 2016 Westminster Hall

[Christian Matheson]

That certainly would have prevented a lot of heartache and difficulties for those who have been affected. My hon. Friend, who sits on the Select Committee on Work and Pensions, is an expert in this area, so I will take his word for it.

On his recent appointment, the new Secretary of State immediately used the justification of focusing benefits on those who need them the most. I admit that even previous Labour Governments have used that as an excuse. However, I believe that it is a bogus argument, and a sham to give cover to further cuts. Why should a disabled person placed in the group of greatest need when PIP was first introduced suddenly be deemed not to be in the greatest need, just a couple of years later? Are the Government seriously suggesting that someone with a lifelong disability or chronic illness can be cured of that disability? Why is my constituent who is on dialysis with double kidney failure suddenly considered not to require PIP, when there has been no change in her condition and she has not yet received a transplant?

The situation does not only economic harm by forcing the vulnerable into even greater poverty, but psychological harm by increasing their stress, and their worry that their lives will be further impoverished by reductions. My constituent Lynda Hesketh, who is wheelchair-bound and who runs the Chester People Have Abilities group, describes to me her terror—that is her word—whenever a brown envelope drops through her letterbox; she worries that it is announcing a further cut to her support.

Of course, many people with disabilities want to work and are capable of doing so, but they face cultural or physical barriers. The Government have made some progress in helping disabled people into work, but the disability employment gap has nevertheless widened slightly in recent years.

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that having listened to the debate about quiet cities, we should listen to the quiet man, the former Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, who was scathing about the current Government’s policies in this developing area?

[Christian Matheson]

We should listen to him. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) mentioned, it might have been more help if he had spoken up a little sooner, but none the less, better late than never. The advice that he gives is absolutely valid.

Of the 12 million people in the UK living with a disability, impairment or chronic illness, around 7 million are of working age. We know that 47% of working-age disabled people are in work, compared with almost 80% of working-age non-disabled people—a disability employment gap of more than 30%. That is important because it indicates not only the waste of the potential talent of disabled people who want to get into work but the fact that those forced off PIP and other benefits will have far less opportunity to make ends meet through their own efforts than through benefits. I welcome the Government’s determination to address those issues in the forthcoming White Paper, and I hope that the Minister might be able to give us a sneak preview today if at all possible.

I turn to employment and support allowance. The Government’s stated aim was to ensure that work became a way out of long-term illness and that benefits were focused on what a person can do as opposed to what they cannot do. That is all very laudable, of course, but again the reality was detached from the rhetoric. As the Work and Pensions Committee recognised, the focus on a return to work in such a short time was not appropriate for many claimants, and the work capability assessment failed to provide an accurate assessment of a claimant’s individual health-related employment barriers or distance from the labour market.

Through announcements by Lord Freud, the Government have now moved to make additional cash available to help disabled people return to work. That indicates that they accept that there was and remains a problem. Indeed, the Government’s intention to produce a White Paper, which I have just referred to and which is keenly if nervously awaited by disability charities and campaign groups, demonstrates that there is still a way to go.

Chester was one of the first areas to move to universal credit. We now hear that further cuts to the universal credit rate are likely to be coming down the line, to make up for the cost of the Government’s U-turn on tax credits. Such cuts will inevitably have a still further impact on those at the bottom of the pile. Indeed, from its inception, universal credit included the abolition of the severe disability premium of £61.85 a week, which was a massive and largely unpublicised cut in the benefit levels of the most severely disabled people, although, to be fair, it was mitigated by a degree of transitional protection for existing recipients. Consequently, many of the effects of the changes to universal credit are yet to be seen.

That brings me to my main point. With the combination of the changes to PIP, universal credit, ESA and other benefits, disabled people in particular are experiencing increasing insecurity and inequality. The effect on them and their friends and families is becoming tangible. We talk about the cutting of individual benefits, but when a combination of cuts falls on individuals or families, that has a greater effect. I therefore make one further request to the Minister, which is that the Government consider instituting a cumulative impact assessment to evaluate the overall combined consequences of the many different changes.

I will finish with two brief quotes. The first is somewhat truncated and is from July 2009:

“I do believe that you judge a society by the way it treats its most vulnerable… together we can create a society we are all…proud of.”

That was said by the then Leader of the Opposition, who is now our Prime Minister. Sadly, those pre-election words have come to nothing, as shown by my second quote, which is from Richard Atkinson, a disability rights adviser at DIAL House, which is Chester’s disability rights centre. He says:

“What we do know though, is that the barrage of cuts and their accompanying media offensive—orchestrated and encouraged by the government—have had a real effect on the security, self worth and confidence of millions of disabled people. Here at DIAL West Cheshire, we see people every day who have become frightened and apologetic about their disability. They say to us, ‘I’m not one of these scroungers but...’, and they are afraid of being judged, reassessed and found wanting. I myself have MS and can’t walk well—but can and do cycle albeit on a tricycle. As well as being apprehensive about being transferred from DLA to PIP, I have had to become inured to comments like, ‘Why’s he carrying a crutch if he can cycle—to get benefits!’”

It is time for Government rhetoric and philosophy to change, to create the caring society that the Prime Minister claimed he wanted to see. It is time to treat disabled people with a dignity not currently afforded to them either in the benefits system and the process for accessing benefits or in the wider cultural context in which they live and we operate. It is time to take away the sword of Damocles that is dangling above people who live every day with a disadvantage simply because they have been unlucky in life.