Financial Services and Markets Bill

Peter Grant Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 7th September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Richard Fuller]

The hon. Lady has made a useful point. She has identified the fact that there is an extensive amount of change in this Bill. As we repeal EU legislation, there will clearly be some measures on which there is a common view that they can easily be repealed and are unnecessary. It is right that the Treasury, and the Government, should be able to take those actions directly. Equally, there will be measures that will require full consultation by the House through secondary legislation, and I can give a commitment that that will be done apace, but with the ability for parliamentary colleagues to debate those measures fully. It is important that we achieve the primary objective of the Bill, which is to make the United Kingdom a solid global financial service centre.

In fact, the Bill has five objectives. They are to implement the outcomes of the future regulatory framework review, which involves reshaping our regulatory and legislative regime as an independent state outside the EU; to bolster the competitiveness of UK markets and promote the effective use of capital; to promote the UK’s leadership in the trading of global financial services; to harness the opportunities of innovative technologies in financial services; and to promote financial inclusion and consumer protection. I will take each of those in turn.

Let me deal first with the implementation of the outcomes of the FRF review. Clause 1 and schedule 1 repeal retained EU law for financial services so that it can be replaced with a coherent, agile and internationally respected approach to regulation that has been designed specifically for the UK. This will build on the existing model established by the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, which empowers our independent regulators to set the detailed rules that apply to firms. They do this while operating within the framework and guard rails set by the Government and by Parliament.

Schedule 1 contains more than 200 instruments that will be repealed directly by the Bill. While in some cases these rules can simply be deleted, in many areas it is necessary to replace them with the appropriate rules for the UK, in our own domestic regulation. These instruments will therefore cease to have effect when the necessary secondary legislation and regulator rules to replace them have been put in place.

As we have already heard from Members today, giving these measures effect will require a significant programme of secondary legislation to modify and restate retained EU law. I can confirm that in most cases, this will be subject to the affirmative procedure in the House.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I welcome the Minister to his new post. Is it not a fact—I mention this partly for the benefit of those watching our proceedings who may be unfamiliar with it—that the House has the choice of taking or leaving each piece of secondary legislation that is presented to it, and Parliament will have no opportunity to amend secondary legislation if it does not think it is good enough?

[Richard Fuller]

As the hon. Gentleman will know, there will be plenty of opportunities for him to review each of the 200 measures in Committee, should he so wish, and to make recommendations. He will also be aware that the Government have already undertaken significant consultations with industry and others, and that there are ongoing reviews of a number of measures that are in place, some of which are contained in schedule 2. I do not feel that what he fears will actually be the case. There will be a process of consultation on a number of these measures, and there will be ample time for questions to be asked in the House as those consultation proceed.

As I have said, we have already undertaken fundamental reviews in some areas to ensure that we are seizing the opportunities of leaving the European Union, and this Bill delivers their outcomes. Let me touch on these briefly.

The Bill gives the Treasury the powers to implement reforms to Solvency II, the legislation governing prudential regulation for insurance. The Government are carefully considering all responses to their recent consultation and will set out their next steps shortly. The Bill also allows the Government to deliver on the outcomes of the UK’s prospectus regime review, taking forward key recommendations from Lord Hill’s UK listings review. These reforms will ensure that investors receive the best possible information, help to widen participation in the ownership of public companies and simplify the capital raising process for companies on UK markets. This can help to boost the UK as a destination for initial public offerings and optimise its capital raising processes.

The Bill also delivers, through schedule 2, the most urgent reforms to the markets in financial instruments directive—MIFID—framework, as identified through the wholesale markets review. It will do away with poorly designed and burdensome rules, such as the double volume cap and the share trading obligation, which will allow firms to access the most liquid markets and reduce costs for end investors. We intend to bring this into effect shortly after Royal Assent.

In reforming our regulatory framework, it is right to think about the regulators’ objectives so that they reflect the sector’s critical role in supporting the UK economy. For the first time, the Prudential Regulatory Authority and the Financial Conduct Authority will be given new secondary objectives, as set out in clause 24, to facilitate growth and international competitiveness. The FCA and the PRA will do this within an unambiguous hierarchy that does not detract from their existing objectives.

It is critical that these new responsibilities for regulators are balanced with clear accountability both to the Government and to Parliament. This is addressed in clauses 27 to 42, alongside clause 46 and schedule 7. The Bill includes new requirements for the regulators to notify the relevant parliamentary Committee of a consultation and to respond in writing to formal responses to statutory consultations from parliamentary Committees. The regulators are ultimately accountable to Parliament for how they further their statutory objectives, so these measures recognise the importance of the Committee structure for holding the regulators to account. While I welcome the new Treasury Select Committee Sub-Committee, it is ultimately for Parliament to determine the best structure for its ongoing scrutiny of the financial services regulators.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rishi Sunak (Richmond (Yorks)) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to contribute to this debate—albeit from a few rows further back than I had originally anticipated—and to follow the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq). I start by paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) for the fantastic work he did as the longest-serving City Minister to get this Bill into the fantastic shape it is in, where it is now admirably shepherded through Parliament by his very worthy successor, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller). I also pay tribute to the fantastic team of officials, led by Gwyneth Nurse, who have spent the best part of the past year preparing what is, I believe, the most radical and significant piece of financial services legislation that this House has seen in years, if not decades.

There is so much in the Bill to comment on that in the interests of time, I will briefly focus on three things. First, the Bill appropriately seizes the opportunities of Brexit to scrap retained EU law and move to an agile system of regulation that is tailor-made for the UK. Secondly, it reforms regulations to make sure that we support economic competitiveness. Lastly, it keeps the UK at the forefront of harnessing innovative technologies and makes sure that we keep pace in a fast-moving sector.

[Peter Grant]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Rishi Sunak]

Not for now.

First, on Brexit, with the future regulatory framework, the Bill represents a significant move away from relying on retained EU law as a means of regulating the UK’s financial services sector. Clause 1 provides for a full sweeping away—a full revocation—of essentially all the retained EU law concerning financial services in the UK. This is radical and this is right. Indeed, it is what Brexit was all about and this Bill delivers it.

We will move appropriately to the Financial Services and Markets Act 2020 model where the Government set the overall policy approach and delegate the operational implementation of those regulations to the independent regulators. As my hon. Friend the Minister said this is the internationally respected gold standard for how to do this. I was pleased to hear the Minister comment on the call-in power, and I urge him and the Government to quickly bring forward the means for that power, because both my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury and I believe it is the right thing to do. We talked about accountability earlier in this debate. It must be right for a democratically elected Government, with the consent of this House, on an exceptional basis, to intervene on financial regulation in the public interest, and I hope that the Government will follow through with those plans.

On what this Bill does to support competitiveness, for the first time, our financial regulators will have a new statutory objective to support international competitiveness and growth, moving us in line with jurisdictions such as Australia, Singapore, Japan and Hong Kong. There will be new statutory panels to give better external scrutiny and challenge on the regulators’ cost benefit analyses. We heard much about the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive over the past several weeks and I am pleased that the Bill brings forward those reforms to MiFID: to remove restrictions such as the double volume cap when trading in wholesale capital markets to improve pricing for investors; to modify the transparency regime in fixed income and derivatives to remove unnecessary burdens; and to modify the commodities position limits so that market activity is not unreasonably restricted.

There are three areas on which I urge the Government to consider going further than I think we heard in the Minister’s opening remarks. First, to improve the efficiency of capital markets raising, there is an opportunity to reform European regulations in the prospectus directive. I hope the Government will bring forward draft statutory instruments for us to consider during the Bill’s passage. Secondly, the European packaged retail and insurance-based investment products directive is ripe for reform. I suggest repealing PRIIPS and replacing it with a tailor-made regime specifically for UK markets. This will eliminate a counterproductive regulation, broaden the range of products available for UK investors and, indeed, increase UK retail participation in our financial markets.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

It gives me pleasure to speak on this Bill on behalf of the Scottish National party. I am going to agree with the former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak), for the first and probably the last time in either of our careers, in placing on record my thanks to his colleague the former Economic Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen), for the constructive and courteous way in which he conducted a large number of debates with me during his time in office.

When the SNP decided to table a reasoned amendment asking the House not to give this Bill a Second Reading, we did so with a significant degree of reluctance, because there is a lot in the Bill that we see as not only desirable, but essential and, in some cases, long overdue. It is disappointing that the Government have chosen to package them with other provisions that give us very serious concern, and to package them in such a way that it will probably prove to be impossible to amend the Bill to take out the damaging parts.

For example, we welcome the provisions relating to the regulation of digital settlement assets or cryptocurrencies and on access to cash—we would have welcomed them several years ago, if the Government could have been bothered to bring them in. Our only real concern is that they do not yet go far enough. However, the dangers posed by other more substantial parts of the Bill are so great that they may be too high a price to pay to get those necessary pieces of legislation on the statute book.

In the Queen’s Speech we were promised a Bill that would,

“strengthen the United Kingdom’s financial services industry, ensuring that it continues to act in the interest of all people and communities”.

This Bill does not do that. In fact, the former Chancellor has confirmed what the Minister strongly hinted at: the Government’s main objective here is to force through a damaging, totally unnecessary divergence from our European Union neighbours, for no other reason than that they can.

The very first sentence in clause 1, which the former Chancellor thinks is a great idea, invites us to wipe out well over 200 pieces of legislation with no idea what will replace them. The Bill gives the Treasury the power to decide when and if each of those 200-plus laws is revoked and the Treasury gets the power to decide when, if ever, it will bring forward replacement legislation for them. Despite the Minister’s apparently not understanding our concerns earlier on, if that is done through secondary legislation in delegated legislation Committees, there will be no opportunity for the House to amend it, to make it better or to insist on legislation’s coming forward if the Government do not want to bring it.

The Bill gives the Treasury the power to amend or revoke Acts passed by this whole Parliament, and to revoke laws passed under devolved authority by the elected national Parliaments and Assemblies of three quarters of the supposedly equal partners in this Union. A Treasury whose Ministers were appointed by a Prime Minister who got the first-choice votes of 14% of her own Members of Parliament will be allowed to overrule Parliaments elected on a franchise of more than 8 million citizens. How can that be anything other than an unacceptable power grab? That is because of the Government’s obsession with purging our four nations, even those that wanted to stay in, of anything that they regard as tainted by contact with the European Union.

There has not been any attempt to sift the 200-plus pieces of retained EU law to identify which are helpful and necessary and which are potentially damaging. If it has an EU tag, it has to go. There is even a sweep-up provision in part 5 of schedule 1 that says that if they discover any other EU legislation hiding somewhere that was missed from the schedule, that will automatically go as well. We have literally been asked to agree to revoke legislation that none of us knows is there. Even the people who drafted the Bill do not know what that legislation might say. That would be a gross abdication of our responsibility as Members of Parliament.

I find it comical that barely 24 hours ago the sacked Prime Minister was still spouting nonsense about getting Brexit done. Now we are told that not only are there hundreds of bits of Brexit that have not been done yet—and that is only in financial services and markets—but that no one knows where they all are, how many there are or what they say. Brexit has not been done by a long chalk.

Turning to the specific powers in other parts of the Bill, we generally welcome the new regulatory powers and related matters in part 2, but the Minister will appreciate that we will want to look closely at the detail in the Bill Committee. I am concerned that the Committee will be pushed for time, despite the number of days that it has been allocated. Members will be well aware of concerns I have often raised about the inadequacies of the Financial Conduct Authority’s powers and resourcing, as well as its reluctance to use the powers that it has.

The Labour spokesperson mentioned the lack of effective anti-fraud measures in the Bill, which is a major concern. Financial fraud and scams are becoming a bigger menace every day, and they hit hardest the people who can least afford to be hit. Something I have noticed about a lot of the financial scams I have looked into on behalf of my constituents is that they have features that are not immediately obvious. They often involve company directors effectively soliciting loans from the general public in order to finance their own investments. Rather than put their own money at risk, they put someone else’s money at risk. If the investment goes well, the directors win; if it goes badly the victims lose and the directors walk away Scot free. That was an obvious feature in the Blackmore Bond scandal, but exactly the same thing happened with Safe Hands funeral plans. Safe Hands appeared to be a funeral plan scam, but that was not the case. The company blatantly lied to its customers about how their money would be safeguarded, and it used it to invest in potentially profitable but high-risk offshore investments. Although it appeared at first glance to be a funeral plan, Safe Hands was in fact a good old-fashioned financial services scam.

When Safe Hands was on the way down, regulations were coming into force that meant that funeral plan providers had to be registered with the Financial Conduct Authority, which I warmly welcome. However, we should provide the same degree of regulation and the same protection to customers for other “pay now, collect later” schemes. If a customer gives their money to a company that blows it and they lose their money, it does not matter whether they thought their money would fund at some future date the cost of a funeral, a wedding, their children going to university, or anything else. The risks are the same and the opportunities for fraud are the same, so the protection offered to customers should be the same in all those schemes.

We should not have to go through measures industry by industry picking up where scams take place. The key point is that it is not about the product or service that the company claims to be selling—it is about making sure the customer’s money is kept safely until the time comes for that product or service to be provided. We should legislate to prevent company directors from gambling recklessly with money that belongs to their customers. It is possible to address this with a fairly simple amendment to proposed new section 71K of the existing Act, and I hope to have an opportunity to table that in Committee.

There is more that we could do with a bit of imagination. I like the idea of designated activities as well as regulated activity—that is a positive step. There are ways that we could significantly improve the accountability of companies carrying out designated activities and, importantly, improve enforcement against those that go rogue. We could reduce the exemptions that they have, which many of them abuse to avoid having to produce meaningful financial statements. We could look at extending the circumstances in which directors of high-risk companies can be held personally liable for their faults.

I realise that the disjointed way that the UK regulates businesses means that those things fall under the remit of the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy rather than the Treasury, so it may not even be competent to introduce them for consideration in Committee, but I ask the Minister and his BEIS colleagues to find a place in the Government’s legislative programme as soon as possible for these things to be considered. Too many directors of dodgy companies carry on with their scams because they think they can get away with it, and far too often they can.

As the Minister knows, because he responded to the debate, I spoke this morning in Westminster Hall about the regulation of cryptocurrencies. Incidentally, that is a good example of the fallacy in one of the arguments that the Minister advanced earlier. When we are talking about businesses, growth and stability are not the same thing. Some cryptocurrencies had almost supersonic growth and then evaporated. They had high growth but no stability whatsoever. Growth and stability may both be desirable—although, as the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) keeps reminding us, there have to be conditions attached to that growth and it has to be sustainable—but to conflate the two is a serious mistake.

The debate on cryptocurrencies is a useful reminder that the way that financial markets operate is changing at an almost bewildering rate. In fact, it is becoming difficult to define exactly what we mean by financial services and financial markets. The Bill makes provision for the Treasury to allow limited testing of new technologies or practices. It is effectively trying to legislate for things that have not been invented yet. I think the approach taken in clauses 13 to 17 is a sensible way forward, but we will be looking very closely at how the use of those powers is scrutinised. For example, Members should be aware, if they are not already, that clause 15 as currently worded will allow the Treasury to amend certain Acts of Parliament on the basis of a pilot test in one of the sandboxes without even waiting for the test to be completed to see what the results are.

Let me move on—briefly, because I am aware of the shortage of time—to some of the other matters covered by the Bill. I am extremely alarmed at the confirmation that the Government want to allow Ministers to call in and potentially overrule decisions by the regulators. Either our regulators are independent or they are not. The regulators must be accountable, but their accountability should be to Parliament. Accountability to a Minister is not the same as accountability to Parliament; it is a very poor substitute.

I share the concerns that have been raised about the lack of emphasis on sustainability, green finance and compliance with our climate change obligations. I also share the concerns that the provisions on access to cash do not go far enough and probably will not lead to action quickly enough. As I mentioned, the anti-fraud measures in the Bill are wholly inadequate.

The Government appear to think that the biggest problem facing financial services regulation is that parts of it were designed and implemented in partnership with our nearest neighbours and trading partners. I think the biggest problem is that, again and again, the regulators fail to act, or act so slowly that it is far too late, and effective enforcement becomes almost impossible. I remind the House that about half of the £46 million lost in the Blackmore Bond scandal was paid by customers to the company after the Financial Conduct Authority had been not only given full details of what the company was up to, but told exactly where and when it could go to witness its illegal activities at first hand. It did nothing for three years.

The Financial Conduct Authority tells us that it does not have sufficient powers to act in the way we would like it to act. It is certainly obvious to all of us that it does not have the resources to properly carry out the responsibilities we ask it to carry out just now, let alone the new ones we intend to give it. At the moment the Bill does not address that.

We will not oppose Second Reading this evening, but that should not be taken as a guarantee that we will allow the Bill to be read the Third time unopposed. If the Minister wants our support in the Bill’s final stages, he has a long way to go to persuade us that it will make things better, rather than worse, for the victims of financial crime.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I call the Chair of the Treasury Committee, Mel Stride.

Financial Services and Markets Bill (First sitting)

Peter Grant Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 19th October 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)]

I chair the insurance and financial services all-party parliamentary group and am a former insurance broker.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I have money saved and invested with Nationwide building society, which has submitted evidence on its own account. I am also with a credit union that I believe is affiliated to the association of one of the witnesses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

Q I thank the panel for coming today. The Government announced on Second Reading that they intend to introduce an intervention power enabling the Treasury to direct a regulator to make, amend or revoke rules in matters of significant public interest. Do you think such a move would represent a significant departure from the UK’s model of regulatory independence, and would such a power affect your regulatory decision making process? Sheldon Mills, you touched briefly on that, so may I ask you first?

Sheldon Mills: Of course. It is a matter for Government as to what amendments they put to Parliament, and it is then a matter for Parliament as to what you do with them. You always have to be careful as a regulator not to tell Parliament what to do, but I will put some thoughts forward.

Independence needs to be at the heart of the regulatory system, so I think it will be important, if and when that amendment is put forward, to think about how the independence of the regulators is sustained. I understand from Government pronouncements that there is a commitment to the independence of the regulators, and that the proposed amendment, which I have not seen, is meant to ensure that where a public interest mechanism is needed—where the Government wish to think about the public interest—there is one to bring forward.

I have worked in regimes with public interest tests. I ran the mergers division at the Office of Fair Trading and the Competition and Markets Authority, and my learning from that is that, if put in place, such a test should be used exceptionally and with care, and that there should be specificity about the matters of public interest—in this case, financial services—on which it would be used.

We are working constructively with HMT in relation to this, and we would do so if such a power were introduced. The only point I would make—Vicky may come to this—is that the standing of the UK financial system is also built on its independence and its consistency of regulation, and it is important that we think through that as we design this regime.

Victoria Saporta: I very much agree with what Sheldon said. We have not yet seen the amendment, so we have to reserve judgment on it, but it will depend on the formulation.

A formulation whereby the Government can force or direct us to make or amend rules that we have already made, and that fall squarely within the statutory objectives that Parliament has given us, may be perceived as undermining operational independence and all the benefits that I talked about earlier. That could have adverse implications for our international standing and, ultimately, our competitiveness.

A formulation that is squarely outside our objectives—for matters of national security, for example—and does not have to do with safety and soundness, or the other objectives and “have regards”, could be a different matter if it is tightly done.

Finally, sometimes I have read in the press and in previous ministerial comments that it makes sense in a parliamentary democracy to ask the regulators to take another look. I just want to say that in clause 27 there is a review power that gives the Treasury powers to force us—to direct us—to take another look and, indeed, to appoint a third party to do so.

[Peter Grant]

Q Good morning to the witnesses. Mr Mills, you mentioned to Ms Siddiq that you had not seen the proposed amendment. Has the FCA been consulted at all about the text or the principle behind that amendment?

Sheldon Mills: Of course we have had discussions with HMT in relation to the proposed amendment. I personally have not seen it.

[Peter Grant]

Q Thank you. When you appeared before the Public Accounts Committee earlier this year about the British Steel pensions scandal, you and your colleague indicated that many of the things that MPs might have expected you to do to protect British Steel pension holders, you did not have the power to do at that time. Does the Bill, as it currently stands, give you sufficient powers to intervene in the way that we would have liked in the event of another pension scheme getting into difficulty?

Sheldon Mills: That was some months ago, but I recall that in the context of the British Steel pension scheme we have a power that allows us to do some particular things that provide redress en masse for British Steel pension holders. That is what we are using. We have most of the powers that we need to support British Steel pension scheme holders. The Bill does not interfere with any of our existing powers. I do not think it gives us any additional powers that are relevant to the British Steel pension scheme holders issue.

[Peter Grant]

Q I was thinking particularly about the powers to stop the damage from being done, rather than simply the power to pay financial redress, which usually takes a long time, is very stressful for victims and sometimes comes too late for victims who do not live long enough to see the compensation. The gross misbehaviour of a large number of financial advisers led to that scandal and many others. Are you telling us that, as it stands, the Bill does not give you significantly greater powers to intervene and get these people out the market as soon as you realise there is a problem?

Sheldon Mills: I think that what we would have said—I would need to look at the record to see the context—is that, effectively, we have to go through due process and understand the evidence and the data that would be there to see how those independent financial advisers are behaving. Therefore, the speed and processing of that may be what we were referring to.

If I remember at the time in relation to the British Steel pension scheme, the law was changed to allow people to exit their pensions under pensions freedoms. There was a range of issues in relation to understanding how independent financial advisers were going to respond to that. The speed and pace with which they did respond led to issues such as some of the challenges that British Steel pension holders have now. To confirm: there is nothing the Bill that specifically gives us additional powers in relation to those individuals.

Sarah Pritchard: I want to come in on a slightly broader point, which is that in the transfer of retained EU files, which encompasses part of the Bill, there are some EU files where, at the moment, the FCA will have limited lawmaking powers. The Bill will provide a framework that, file by file, the FCA will need for rule-making and enforcement powers to be considered at that time. That does not answer your question specifically in relation to British Steel, but it provides a mechanism, so you go through that analysis and assessment file by file.

[Stephen Hammond]

Q I thank the panel for coming this morning. I have two questions. Can we be clear that in the UK regulatory landscape and the international financial regulatory landscape there are public interest tests that are operated but do not affect the operational independence of regulators?

Victoria Saporta: In the financial regulatory space, the only example I know of where there is a test whereby the Government—I am not talking about Parliament—can intervene and revoke regulatory rules is in Australia. APRA—the prudential regulatory authority in Australia—has never been exercised. Whenever the IMF has done financial sector assessments, it has been critical. There are provisions, again in Canada, but the US system does not have any. It is Congress who can revoke material pieces of regulatory standards within 60 days. This is my understanding of it in financial regulation, which is separate to how it might exist in other types of regulation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Davies]

Q Thank you. Do you have a view on that, Emma?

Emma Reynolds: I defer to David.

[Peter Grant]

Q Clause 1 proposes to repeal around 250 pieces of European legislation, pretty much at the stoke of a pen. The rest of the Bill then expects the Treasury to replace all those bits of legislation by a process that will allow for very minimal parliamentary oversight. Do you have concerns either that there may be a period where parts of the market are inadequately regulated or, alternatively, that there is uncertainty as to what the regulations are, because of the process of repealing something before you know what is going to replace it?

Emma Reynolds: From what is in the Bill, I do not think that is the Government’s intention. As I understand it, the Bill gives the power to the Treasury to transfer—restate—EU legislation, and we have encouraged the Treasury to think of this as a sequence, because we do not want big regulatory change in one go, as the compliance costs are quite high. We absolutely see that there is an opportunity to tailor EU legislation to our markets, so I do not think it is the case that this legislation would not apply; I think this is going to be done in a phased way.

[Peter Grant]

Q You are using terms such as “transpose” and “translate”, and the representatives from the FCA that we heard from earlier used similar terms. Are we talking about almost literally translating all these documents into the English of the United Kingdom or are we talking about significantly changing the legislation as part of that process?

Emma Reynolds: That is a matter for the Government. The Bill gives the Government broad legislative powers to amend the legislation that they have transferred, as I understand it.

[Peter Grant]

Q I have another question for both you. There have been suggestions that the Bill should place responsibility on the regulator to promote competitiveness. There have been suggestions that matters such as consumer protection and compatibility with the UK’s climate change obligations should be given the same importance in the regulator’s responsibilities as international competitiveness. If the Bill was amended to put that in place, would it cause significant difficulties for the financial services sector?

David Postings: It is not in the Bill at the moment. We would need to see the wording of what was proposed and the timescale. If you think about your first point, which I did not respond to, the difference is that the regulation will now be through rules rather than in legislation. We have had a fruitful working relationship with the Treasury and the regulators over the past year and a half since Brexit to produce what is in the Bill. Those changes have been well thought through with industry involvement and therefore get the balance right between protection, regulatory stability and the ability to be commercial. I would hope that, as the rules get translated over time, that process would continue.

On the green agenda, it is difficult for me to comment on something that is not in the Bill at the moment. What I would say is that we need to be thoughtful about the transition to net zero, as opposed to just the taxonomy and the drive to get to net zero. There is a danger that, in prescribing that financial institutions have a balance sheet in a particular form by a particular day, you risk not having a transition to net zero, so that whole thing needs to be well thought through. We risk financial exclusion on the back of that for consumers as well. I would urge caution rather than lumping something into the Bill at this late stage.

[Peter Grant]

Q Are those comments made within the context that achieving a permanent change in net zero targets is not optional? It is absolutely necessary.

David Postings: The banking industry is 100% behind that transition, but the transition is the important point, not just greening the balance sheets of the firms.

Emma Reynolds: May I add to that? There is a huge commitment from financial services, and we also represent related professional services, in playing a part in enabling the transition to net zero. Financial services and financial regulators are an important part of a much broader picture, which is why green finance is actually led by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, not His Majesty’s Treasury. It is about not just the supply of green finance, but the demand for such products. If we have a transition to net zero, it has to be about every sector pursuing a transition. Financial services has a critical role to play, but that has to be done in tandem with the transition in other sectors too.

[Sally-Ann Hart]

Q Good morning. Looking at the culture in the regulatory system and the culture of the regulators, do you think our regulators need a culture change? For example, do they need more commercial experience? We are looking at rules. There is a need for speed. Speed is of the essence when trying to make decisions or make things happen. Is that something we need to focus on?

Emma Reynolds: I certainly think there is room for a more commercial mindset in the regulators. This is not just about regulation by the way; it is about operational efficiency. One of the things we have been working on is delays in authorisations for senior managers, which can slow things down. There are other authorisations as well. We are encouraging the regulators to have a more commercial mindset and to be aware of the businesses’ priorities. It is not just about regulation; it is about how efficient they are. If, for example, you want to bring in a senior manager to a bank or other institution in the UK and it takes you 18 months to 2 years, you could be doing that elsewhere, and that puts us at a competitive disadvantage. So, absolutely, we think that there is room for improvement in having a commercial mindset in the regulator.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Hammond]

Q The Bill intends to do that; it is not intending to rip up regulation. It intends to make us more competitive, while ensuring the primary objective.

Karen Northey: Absolutely, and I think the process that comes has to be done in a way that is sequenced in the right way to allow proper consultation and proper input.

[Peter Grant]

Q Ms Clark, can I come back to your comment earlier about insurance companies having been set up in Gibraltar and elsewhere offshore but not in the UK? Do you have reasonable grounds to believe that the UK regulatory environment has been a significant factor in those decisions? Can you point to particular regulatory requirements that are preventing people from setting up insurance companies here?

Charlotte Clark: Why would you set up in Gibraltar and sell into the UK market? There is not a big market in Gibraltar.

[Peter Grant]

There could be a number of reasons why UK business owners choose to set up companies offshore, including in Gibraltar, and they are not always reasons that have the best interests of consumers at heart.

Charlotte Clark: I think that is fair. I am certainly not casting aspersions on the Gibraltar regime, because they should have the same regime as the UK—equivalence with Gibraltar was in the last financial services Bill. The question would be: why would they do that if we haven’t got the right regulatory environment for companies to set up here and to have the oversight of our regulators?

Bermuda is probably a good example. If you speak to the regulators there about how they think about it, how they work with businesses and what they need to do, they have a slightly different culture. I do not think that is to the disadvantage of consumers. The Bermuda market is very similar to the London market in insurance. I do not think it is to the detriment of consumers; it is to the advantage of business, and I do not think that those two things are necessarily against one another.

[The Chair]

Order. I am afraid that brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions and the end of this morning’s sitting. I thank our witnesses on behalf of the Committee. The Committee will meet again at 2 pm this afternoon here in the Boothroyd Room to continue to take oral evidence.

Financial Services and Markets Bill (Second sitting)

Peter Grant Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 19th October 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Tulip Siddiq]

Q The Bill does have provisions for access to cash, but not many provisions for free access to cash. Do you think that is a cause for concern?

Paddy Greene: Yes, it is a cause for concern. When we are talking about consumers, for the objective in the Bill on access to cash to be met, consumers must have free access to cash. Without that, I think the objective may be undermined. It is the case that we have paid-for provision—it is in theory available now—but it does not serve the market. We must ensure there is free access to cash. A huge raft of people rely on cash. It is massive numbers, but it is also the case that they tend to be vulnerable and on lower incomes. If it is the case that it is not free, when somebody goes to take out £10, they are paying £2 to get it. That is just an example, but that doesn’t seem right. The fact is, we need to have a minimum, base level of free access to cash. We are delighted that the provisions have been brought forward and that we will have this in legislation, but for it to work effectively, it has to be free access.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

Q I do not know whether your responsibilities at Which? include consumer protection, particularly in relation to the financial services market, but from your perspective do the millions of small-scale retail consumers of financial services have confidence in the current regulatory framework of the United Kingdom?

Paddy Greene: I cannot speak for small and medium-sized enterprises—I am here to represent consumers—but fundamentally I do think that the regulatory framework in this country provides confidence. I think it has been robust, relatively speaking, over the years. If we compare it to some other international sectors, I think it is a framework that can provide people with confidence. We would be remiss to weaken that in any way.

[Peter Grant]

Q Does the Bill as it stands strengthen or weaken that regulatory framework? Or does it leave it as is?

Paddy Greene: We have some concerns about the current wording around competitiveness. I think we need to be mindful of that. I want to get across that whatever changes are brought in, the primary objectives of the FCA must not be inadvertently undermined. The FCA has a challenging time to balance those objectives at the moment. We would seek amendments that ensure that, from the consumer perspective, if we are going to see changes brought in, in no way shape or form do they undermine the consumer protections that are in place.

On the argument for competitiveness for consumer protection, I would add, similar to my earlier remarks, that a confident, well-protected consumer will lead to a competitive environment. It will lead to innovation and confident consumers interacting in that market.

[Peter Grant]

Q I was interested that the Minister in his question used the metaphor of a good seatbelt. Some of us think that the regulatory environment for road traffic should ensure that nobody needs to rely on a seatbelt, but that is perhaps a discussion for later.

I have had a number of representations, as I think other members of the Committee have, from individuals or groups of people who have been victims of financial services scams on a colossal scale. One of their common comments is that they do not think it is justifiable for the regulators to have such a strong degree of immunity from civil liability, even in cases where it is clear that the regulator has failed and that that failure has contributed to members of the public losing what for them are significant amounts of money. Do you have a view as to whether it is time to revisit that very broad immunity that so many of the regulators have?

Paddy Greene: I am struggling to hear your questions.

[Peter Grant]

I am sorry. I will try to speak into the microphone, so forgive me for not looking at you. Do you have a view on the numerous representations we have had from victims of financial scams who think it is time to revisit the very broad immunity from civil liability that the regulators have?

Paddy Greene: I will talk specifically to parts of the Bill. This is essential, but I am thankful for the provisions that have been brought forward to introduce a mandatory requirement for people who have been the victims of push payment scams to get their money back. In terms of a first step, that is crucial. On changing the regulatory framework, that is a first step and we welcome it.

[Peter Grant]

Q Is there a need to specify in the Bill, or to enable in later regulation, a widening of the mandatory compensation scheme to types of scams that we do not yet know about?

Paddy Greene: Yes, I believe there is. It is right that the Bill starts with faster payments—I think 87% of APP scams are run through faster payments. We do not want to delay action. It has taken too long: it has been six years since our super complaint to get to this point, so we must not slow that down. The revisions—the two-month and the six-month provision in the Bill—are ones that we absolutely endorse. As I said, we do not want to slow that down.

We need to make sure, though, that there is an obligation for further action—for example, to look at CHAPS payments. UK Finance figures show that 79 million on CHAPS and on-us payments are already there. We know that scammers and fraudsters are very good at adapting to change, so they will move. I know there have been some debates about what the Bill does or could allow, but we need to make sure there is an obligation so that we know what will happen next. Just because there is provision for the regulator possibly to act in the future, that does not mean the regulator will—there is a lot of pressure on regulatory time and resources—so we would really like to see some clarity on what happens after the changes to faster payments are made. As I said, this is the opportunity to look at the future. We know that change is happening, so we should set out a timeframe for what happens next.

[Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)]

Q Good afternoon. We were just talking about access to cash and the proposals in the Bill to safeguard access to cash and free ATMs. As an MP who represents a rural constituency, I am concerned about my residents being able to access cash. How far do you think people should be expected to travel to access free cash, or cash? Is it geographically dependent? Would you treat regions separately, on density of population?

Paddy Greene: I think we need community-based solutions. The fact is that it will not be one-size-fits-all. We need to recognise that communities have different challenges. When we look at the voluntary solution that the industry has put in place, it accepts that, first, we need not only a geographical spread but a community access point. We need the ability for communities to request a review of access in their areas.

Secondly, we need a raft of delivery channels. That again gets to the point of what is fit for purpose. An ATM might well be suitable in one town, but it might not be suitable for another town for a variety of reasons, be that geographical or the demographics of that part of that society. I do not think it is one-size-fits-all. It is very important that we get the policy statement from the Treasury soon, so that we and you can scrutinise properly what the close details will be, but it should be a basic geographical spread, with the option to interrogate further those who are not captured by the geographical spread and to ensure that we do not inadvertently leave people behind.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tulip Siddiq]

Q On the catching up or lagging behind that you have mentioned, would you recommend any legislation? Is there a role that the Bill we are discussing could play to strengthen us and pull us forward?

William Wright: There is certainly a role for legislation; I am not sure that the right place for that role is this Bill in particular. It is important to step back and look at the huge amount of work that has already been done and is being done in and around green finance from a legislative perspective. The latest addition to that is the net zero review, and the green finance strategy is expected from BEIS early next year, maybe. There are sustainability disclosure requirements, the UK green taxonomy and the transition plan taskforce. That work, which is coming down the pipeline towards us, could contain a lot of the legislative impetus for the UK to close the gap.

More importantly, I think the industry is already beginning to fill the gap. Where the UK has a real opportunity in green finance in future is not so much in the level of capital raising by UK companies, but in the fact that it is in pole position to benefit from its existing expertise in markets such as risk management, derivatives and trading, as we see the emergence of a more sophisticated carbon market of green derivatives and green risk management, and in playing to its existing strengths, many of which have not been harmed or damaged in any significant way by Brexit.

[Peter Grant]

Q I know that your website describes one of your key aims as developing a larger capital market across Europe. There is a trick to be pulled off in encouraging all the right kinds of people to come and invest in your financial markets while keeping the wrong kinds of people out. How effective has the UK’s previous regulatory regime been at keeping Russian money out of our financial markets?

William Wright: On the substance of that question, I will have to put my hands up and say it is not an area that we have done a huge amount of work on, although we have recently hosted some events on that theme—for example with Edward Lucas, talking about Russia, Ukraine and links back to the City.

One point I will make is that back in 2007, in a previous life as a financial journalist, I was at the official launch of NYSE Euronext—this was the merger of the New York stock exchange and Euronext, the European-based stock exchange. The founding chief executive, John Thain, who was then chief executive officer of NYSE, said he thought that London would come to regret its campaign in the previous five or six years to attract Russian companies to list on the London stock exchange. If we look back on those comments with the benefit of 15 years of hindsight, he was probably correct.

[Peter Grant]

Q A number of transparency and anti-corruption campaigners regularly say that London has become or is in the process of becoming one of the go-to locations of choice for money laundering and similar activities. Is that a concern that you think is grounded in fact? Or is it just an urban myth with nothing behind it?

William Wright: I will have to fall back on saying that it is not something I have specific expertise on. I have opinions and views. I have recently read some of the works by Oliver Bullough on different aspects of this—“Butler to the World” and “Moneyland”—and it made me quite angry to read them, but it is not an area where I can claim any professional expertise to answer a question in this setting.

[Sally-Ann Hart]

Q Good afternoon. I will pick up on a few things in respect of the competitiveness of the UK financial markets. Our competitiveness is really important for our economic growth; do you think the Bill goes far enough with regard to the deregulation of existing EU rules? When it comes to new regulation, does the Bill enhance the ability of Britain’s financial services to be agile and dynamic and to look at the best possible outcomes? We are very good in Britain at gold plating our rules and regulations, so we need to make sure we are not putting ourselves on the back foot and can be the most competitive, agile, dynamic market.

William Wright: That is sort of the trillion-dollar question, isn’t it? On EU rules, the Bill and the huge amount of work that the Treasury and others have done over the past three years address the obvious low-hanging fruit—the obvious areas of EU regulation and the framework that were not appropriate for the UK market, which has a unique dynamic within the EU. Most of those areas have been well addressed in the Bill.

On looking ahead at competitiveness, the Bill does create a more agile and nimble framework. By definition, one would hope that the UK can act more swiftly than the EU, and we are already seeing some signs of that. Again, it gets the right balance by making competitiveness a secondary objective and not a primary objective. It gets the right balance to ensure that it is something considered by supervisors and regulators but not something that overrides the fundamental purpose of supervisors to ensure a stable financial system that is competitive within itself, and where customers get appropriate protections.

We need to be very careful, in the debate on competitiveness, about assuming that competitiveness is a mechanical outcome of regulation and tax. One of the lessons we can take from the last few weeks is that a very important element of competitiveness is credibility, predictability and the robustness of independent institutions. It is important to bear that in mind when we talk about competitiveness.

In the short term, the biggest competitiveness threat to the UK—this comes back to the Minister’s opening question—is probably from additional pushback and pressure from the EU as it requires more EU business to be conducted inside the EU. We have this interesting dynamic: the UK is increasingly focusing on making people want to do business in the UK because it is an attractive environment, whereas the EU in many areas is trying to attract business by requiring people to do it there. We also need to be very careful in this debate—

--- Later in debate ---

[Tulip Siddiq]

Q Compared with the US or the rest of Europe, in the UK we lack mutually and co-operatively-owned regional banks. You have touched on this already, Robin, but I want to hear a bit more about why you think that is. What is the role of regulators when it comes to that lack of access?

Robin Fieth: The first thing is to look at the tradition—the tradition of the UK has been that our regional mutual financial institutions have either been insurers or building societies, traditionally, or, in the last 30 or 40 years, credit unions—compared with the United States or large parts of Europe, where there is a very long tradition of mutually-owned community banks, co-operative banks, lifelines and so forth. Our tradition is very different. Apart from the Co-operative bank, we have never had a large, mutual, fully general-purpose bank. Nationwide is a full retail bank, but it does not do business lending, for example. We have never had that tradition.

As some of you will know, there are a number of small community banks in the mobilisation phase or coming to mobilisation phase. On the second part of your question, the Bank of England’s new banks team has been very good at helping challenger banks to get through the process and start up, and we have seen so many start up. I am not sure that they have the same experience and expertise in respect of what the mutual model looks like and why it is different. If you talk to any challenger bank, they will say it was much more difficult to get through mobilisation than it should be. If you talk to the community banks, they say it is very difficult to get through mobilisation. There are at least three that we are working with on the side, if you like, that are going through that process.

The real challenge, where perhaps there is a role for Government, is in creating the forms of capital that mutual start-ups can follow, because they cannot be venture-capital backed, so you need some form of mutual capital. We have suggested to both the main parties, for example, that whichever version of the British Business Bank you want, it could have a mandate for part of its capital being mutual capital.

Robert Kelly: Robin has covered the vast majority of the salient points, and we would agree with his comments. In terms of taking it maybe a step further or down in respect of the community banking model, as Robin mentioned there is a development agenda in a few areas of the country. There is certainly space for innovation and competition in SME lending and around transactional activity and transactional accounts and making sure there is something different from a competition perspective —maybe where the bigger banks are not necessarily in those spaces or where there is perhaps an opportunity for some more partnership and co-operation. We have talked to some of the community banking models about what space they and the credit union sector could co-exist in. We acknowledge that credit unions are already able to do corporate lending and SME lending, and some have done so. I think around 20 or 21 credit unions across the country have taken advantage of that. The ongoing PRA consultation on the future supervision and regulation of the credit union sector has some reference to that, in terms of additional checks and balances.

We recognise that there is opportunity for the credit union sector to do more. A big part of the legislative reform package that will ultimately impact credit unions can be described as an enabling factor that allows product and service innovation and development. Alongside the community banking and mutual banking model, the development that we have seen, and all the background that Robin has already mentioned, it should be made clear that we in the credit union sector believe that we can also fill some of that space. If the overall objective is around competitiveness and enabling competition, we should be ready to act, and to respond to the needs of communities and small businesses across the country.

[Peter Grant]

Q Mr Fieth, let me first come to you and the comment that you made previously about the UK not really having a tradition of mutually owned lending banks. Was not the first trustee savings bank set up in Dumfriesshire in 1810? There has been a very long and proud tradition of locally and community-owned banks, which survived for a long time. They were basically wiped out in a series of corporate takeovers in the 1970s and ’80s. Is that not the case?

Robin Fieth: Whether the term is “corporate takeover” or “demutualisation”, which was very much encouraged by the Government of the day, is a moot point, but you are absolutely right: there is or was a very proud trustee savings bank tradition, and of course it started in the lowlands—well, the borders—of Scotland. Sadly, the last trustee savings bank went into run-off within the last five or six years. That was the Airdrie Savings Bank. It is a tradition that we no longer have. Again, those institutions were not a full service of the kind that the shadow Economic Secretary was talking about. They were not a full service model. They were very much a savings and loans model, largely for retail purposes. That is the tradition we had, yes, but it is now sadly part of our economic history.

[Peter Grant]

Q Thank you. Mr Kelly, a lot of the evidence that we heard earlier today—I do not know how much of it you were able to watch—came from the big institutions, which clearly have a large part of UK exports—a significant part of the UK economy. Could you briefly explain the importance of credit unions, particularly with regard to the promotion of financial inclusion?

Robert Kelly: Yes, of course; thank you for the question. Credit unions play a unique role in the economic infrastructure of this country. I mentioned that we serve 2 million people, but we have huge aspirations to make sure that that goes much further. After this session, I am joining a call on the cost of living crisis and the impact that the credit union sector is having in different parts of the country. A really good example is Bradford District Credit Union, which is working in tandem with the local authority on a range of products and initiatives that have built financial resilience and financial inclusion in that part of the country. There are many more examples across the UK.

The financial inclusion agenda chimes perfectly with our objectives, our ethics and the co-operation and mutual model that credit unions are built on. The important point to state is that we believe that that work can be accelerated and amplified in a significant way. We can do much more. The phrase that we would use is that we manage to put in place a balanced demographic of membership. The credit union should be seen as a safe and innovative place for any member of society, any consumer, to go to. It goes back to the comment that Robin made on full service. We believe the legislative reform package that is on the table for the credit union sector will allow us to do that. It will allow us to be more competitive, to look at risk-based pricing and to make sure that we are seen as more mainstream—and to serve a wider part of the population. Doing that creates an environment where additional financial inclusion initiatives and objectives are made possible, because we are building sustainability and the strength of balance sheets for credit unions across the country; those things go in tandem.

We have worked closely with a range of Governments over many years to deliver great value, and also financial inclusion objectives, but we need to make sure that there is a balance of products and services, and a balanced demographic that allows us to do much more of that. We have said that in the past, credit unions have unfortunately been seen as the poor person’s bank. We have worked incredibly hard to move away from that area—with, I think, great success. The legislative reform package that is on the table for the credit union sector will allow us to do much more, and it should be seen as very positive.

[Peter Grant]

Q Thank you. You referred to the need to be competitive. When earlier witnesses used that phrase, they often clarified it with reference to overseas businesses or overseas financial services sectors. When you talk about being competitive, who are you competing with? Is there anything in the Bill that helps you to become competitive, or is there anything that could be added that would help?

Robert Kelly: I will give two examples. Credit unions will have, for the first time, the ability to offer car finance under personal contract purchase or hire purchase—conditional sale activity. We can also be immersed back into the general insurance mediation process. That means that we can diversify our product range. It should mean that we can diversify our income lines, which should result in greater sustainability for the sector. Those are two examples where we were very firmly part of the legislative programme that has been developed for the credit union sector.

On competition, we recognise that we are a small player overall in the financial services landscape, but we can do more, and have huge aspirations. We have that wider product and service range. Investment in technology will allow us to be seen as being more mainstream. A bigger part of the financial wallet for many households across the country could be maintained by the credit union sector. The Bill certainly has its elements there.

We talked about credit union service organisations. It is important that we continue to have that conversation with all relevant stakeholders, look at where in the sector there is innovation in the overall infrastructure, and consider how we can learn from the successes of the model used in North American and other parts of the world. The Bill goes a long way to allowing us to diversify, and to become more competitive and more mainstream. That is to be welcomed. There are certainly follow-on elements that we will undoubtedly talk to officials and regulators about in the weeks and months ahead.

[Peter Grant]

Q According to the Financial Conduct Authority website, in just over the last year, eight credit unions have gone into administration; only one did in the preceding three years. Is there something about the current financial services sector, or about the credit union model, that means there is a systemic problem? Or is it simply that, if we move from having a small number of big players to a large number of small players, inevitably we will lose some of the small players?

Robert Kelly: We recognise the difficulties in terms of reputational risk, and the challenges that failure brings. We are working tirelessly with our member base. We are a very broad church. Our members have asset sizes from a couple of hundred thousand to well over £220 million, and everything in between. We recognise that failure is difficult and painful. We are working extremely hard behind the scenes collaboratively with the BSA and other interested parties. Credit unions that fail often have a couple of items in common. There tends to be a lack of good governance, and sometimes there is key person risk. Covid has exacerbated some of that, just in terms of volunteer burnout and sustainability challenges, demand for lending and bad debts. We have been impacted by insolvency and mis-selling in many cases as well. We have identified that it can be difficult to maintain a smaller asset range using a volunteer base—not always, but sometimes. We are working tirelessly behind the scenes to make sure that credit unions look at their business plans and numbers on a regular basis, and take the tough decisions.

Let me bring that to life, very quickly. The original development of the fiscal principles was in 2002. In that year, we had 698 credit unions in GB; we are now down to fewer than 250. Most of that reduction in numbers came through consolidation and mergers or acquisitions. Some of it has been failure. We certainly believe that the number will continue to come down. It would be appropriate to find solutions that allow credit unions to come together as part of mergers or acquisitions and maintain services in their local communities.

[Siobhain McDonagh]

Q Would both our witnesses support giving the FCA and the PRA an explicit remit to report on how they have considered specific business models—including credit unions, building societies and mutual and co-operative regional banks—to ensure that they are given parity of esteem with other providers? If so, how would that support your sector?

Robin Fieth: That is a great question; thank you very much. We are already part of the way there with the PRA. It has had a secondary competition objective since the 2014 Act, and it was subsequently enhanced at the BSA’s behest. Every time it consults, it has an obligation and a requirement to determine whether there are specific aspects that disproportionately affect the mutual sector, and that has been welcome. We have seen a real change in the PRA’s approach to the financial mutuals since the financial crisis, and it has been largely positive.

There is a very important question as far as the FCA is concerned. We saw it last year with the proposed demutualisation of LV. It was apparent that the FCA was entirely agnostic on the business model, in terms of their competition objective and the good competition that achieves better customer outcomes on the conduct side. There is certainly a case for the FCA to consider that far more closely. I am always very careful when we talk about conduct outcomes with the FCA because, as a consumer, you should not have a different outcome, but you might experience a different journey. There are some nuances in there. As to how it best achieves that without adding ever more reports and burdens, that is in its annual reports, which are obviously open to examination and scrutiny. In the regulator’s annual reports, it should report back on that; that would be the most straightforward way to achieve that.

Robert Kelly: Thank you again for the question. I echo Robin’s comments, but I will try not to duplicate them. Credit unions have an ongoing consultation with the PRA on future supervision and the regulatory environment. We have a long track record of working in tandem with the PRA, and there is a move towards making sure that the supervision model is in tandem with the legislative reform agenda, which seems eminently sensible. It also allows us to take cognisance of the fact that there are many more larger, asset-based credit unions than there were five or 10 years ago—we have to factor in whether that comes through consolidation, or just through business growth—which is hugely beneficial for all parties.

In terms of the FCA, obviously the credit union sector is dual-regulated. We have a relationship from the conduct side. It will be interesting to see how that approach develops. Again, I would echo Robin’s view: the FCA has such a broad remit, in terms of the firms that it looks after, and we are always championing the cause of proportionality. Consumer duties are an example of where we have to work in collaboration with all relevant stakeholders and interested parties to make sure that the good consumer outcomes that credit unions provide can be evidenced, and that we can go on that journey. There are live examples of those on both sides of the regulatory environment taking steps to be innovative and to future-proof the business development that we expect to see through this legislative programme. That is to be welcomed, but we are on a journey, and we are not yet at the end.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Hardy]

Q And do you think there is a risk that if the invention powers are left, they could be perceived by markets as a threat to the independence of the Bank of England or the PRA? We have seen such recent turmoil in the markets over concerns. Do you think it could have a similar impact?

Martin Taylor: One of the problems that led to the recent turmoil—a very English description of what has just happened—was that the Prime Minister and the former Chancellor chose not to subject the mini-Budget to the scrutiny of the Office for Budget Responsibility. Had they done so, the OBR might of course have objected to various parts of it, which is perhaps why they did not do so.

However, international investors looking at London will have noted this and it has a bad smell, if I can put it that way. I am not worried about the bond traders who price the market day by day. The volatility was extreme and very dangerous. It has been settled by the Bank for the moment, I hope. I am much more worried about the people running really big blocks of money—big foreign sovereign wealth funds or big institutional investors—who look at London and say, “Is it worth having an allocation to gilt-edged stock? Do we want to be exposed to sterling if this is the sort of thing that goes on?”.

These are the strangers on whose kindness Mark Carney told us we relied and we antagonise them at our peril. That is what worries me more than anything else: that we suppose that foreigners will always want to buy gilts. Why should they? You could run a huge international portfolio and have zero allocation to sterling at the moment. If you were in Singapore or New York, you might be more tempted to do that than you would have been a month ago. We should not do anything else to make this worse. Everything is being done by the new Chancellor to steady the ship—thank goodness—but moves like this proposed measure just go in entirely the wrong direction as far as I am concerned. I think it is very dangerous.

[Peter Grant]

Q How effective has the UK been at keeping dirty money out of the financial services sector?

Martin Taylor: I do not know. I probably have the same suspicions that you have. London has a huge financial sector and dirty money is easier to hide in places where there is lots of money than in places where there is not very much. I have never worked in, or with, the Financial Conduct Authority, but sometimes it gets blamed when things go wrong, which is a bit like blaming the police for crime, if you know what I mean. There is a lot of dirty money in the world and a lot of it will try to come here. I think the regulators do their best.

[Peter Grant]

Q If there is a long-term downtick in the world’s willingness to invest clean money in the United Kingdom, does that increase the risk that dirty money will replace it?

Martin Taylor: I would rather not accept the premise. We have to ensure that the world is happy to invest clean money in the United Kingdom. It is extremely important that we do that. No, I do not see us becoming a sort of sewer market—I mean, God forbid—but we have to be careful and we have to keep standards up. In taking out some European regulation—which we ought to do, because not all European regulation is good and valuable, and I am glad that the Bill allows us to do that—we need to be very careful. There are babies in the bathwater.

[Peter Grant]

Q Is there a replacement risk with the EU legislation? Certainly a number of our witnesses from the big institutions said that there are parts of it that they would like to see removed or changed. Is it not the case that what it gets replaced with is vital? If it gets replaced by weaker regulation, does that threaten the stability of the markets in the longer term?

Martin Taylor: The FPC, for every quarter that I was a member of it—and I think it is still doing it—was saying that the intention was that the regulatory framework, when Britain left the European Union, would be a least as rigorous as the EU’s. In one or two places, it probably needs to be more rigorous than the EU’s, because there is some lowest common denominator there. In others, the EU has unnecessarily gold-plated things, but it needs to be done very precisely and carefully.

[The Chair]

Order. I am afraid that brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions. I thank the witness on behalf of the Committee. The Committee will meet again at 9.25 am on Tuesday 25 October to begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Joy Morrissey.)

Financial Services and Markets Bill (Third sitting)

Peter Grant Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th October 2022 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

I have a few preliminary comments to make. Will Members who speak send their notes by email to Hansard in the usual way—it really helps? Will you ensure that you have turned off all your electronic devices, so that you do not disturb anyone? As ever, tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings—just a reminder. Everyone in Committee is experienced, but there have been a lot of changes over the past couple of years, so I will remind you about proceedings and how we run Bill Committees.

Today, we begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection and groupings list for the sitting is on the table—it is worth getting a copy—and it shows how the clauses are selected and the amendments grouped together for debate. Amendments grouped together are generally on the same or similar issues. I know you are aware of this, but decisions on amendments do not take place in the order in which they are debated; they are taken in the order in which they appear on the amendment paper. The selection and groupings list shows the order of debates. Decisions on each amendment and on whether each clause should stand part of the Bill are taken when we come to the relevant clause.

The Member who has put their name to the lead amendment in a group is called to speak first—so, I will call Peter first, because his amendment is the first listed today—and other Members are then free to catch my eye in the usual way. I urge you to make that obvious, as sometimes it is a little difficult to tell. A Member may speak more than once in a single debate. At the end of a debate on a group of amendments, I shall call the Member who moved the lead amendment again. Before they sit down, will they please indicate whether they wish to withdraw the amendment or take it to a vote? Will any Member who wishes to press any other amendment in a group to a vote please let me know in advance, because it helps the organisation of our proceedings?

Clause 1

Revocation of retained EU law relating to financial services and markets

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I beg to move amendment 44, in clause 1, page 1, leave out line 6 and insert—

“(1) The Treasury may, by regulations, revoke the legislation referred to in Schedule 1.

(1A) The Treasury may not make the regulations referred to in subsection (1) if the Chancellor of the Exchequer considers that the revocation of legislation provided for in the regulations would have the effect of prejudicing the interests of consumers, unless alternative and adequate legislative provision has been enacted which mitigates these prejudicial effects.”

This amendment would mean that the Treasury cannot revoke retained EU law relating to financial services if such revocation would be prejudicial to the interests of consumers, unless other provision has been made to mitigate these prejudicial effects.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause stand part.

That schedule 1 be the First schedule to the Bill.

[Peter Grant]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this morning, Dame Maria.

As Members know, the SNP group came close to voting against the Bill on Second Reading. In fact, we tabled a reasoned amendment, primarily because of our concern about how the clause intends to take matters forward, but it was not selected by Mr Speaker. A sad fact for many of us is that the United Kingdom is no longer part of the European Union and that, therefore, all European Union legislation needs to be reconsidered. My problem is that it has already been decided in the Bill that, on financial services, all European Union legislation needs to be thrown out.

We hope that someone in the Treasury will at the same time, or very quickly afterwards, replace that legislation with something at least as good, if not better. I mean no disrespect to anyone here, to any Member of Parliament, the Minister or anyone working in the Treasury, however, when I say that I can have no confidence that that process, on that scale and at that speed, will work—we need only look at the number of amendments that the Government have had to table to the Bill because of mistakes in it, as published. In Delegated Legislation Committees on which I have sat, there have been instances where we have had to correct the correction to the correction of an initial piece of secondary legislation arising from Brexit.

It is simply not realistic to believe that all the revocations and repeals proposed under the clause can be replaced with equally good regulation without mistakes being made. When mistakes are made in the regulation of financial services, people get scammed, companies that should survive go under and the United Kingdom’s reputation as a dodgy place to do financial services becomes even worse. For all that I am not a big fan of the United Kingdom, I do not want to see that happen. I am not a big fan of the United Kingdom Parliament either, but I do not want to see its right to scrutinise in detail any suggested changes to legislation undermined, simply because it suits the Government of the day.

While it may be that the right thing to do with all 200-plus pieces of legislation listed in schedule 1 is to revoke and repeal every single word, Parliament should be given a choice, at reasonable speed, to decide whether that is correct. Ideally, at the same time as Parliament is asked to revoke the legislation, we should be given the chance to consider what will be put in its place.

My view on clause 1 altered slightly when we heard from the witnesses last week, especially those from the financial institutions. Some of them said that they genuinely felt that some of the existing EU legislation needs to go or to be changed significantly. I did not hear anybody asking for a wholesale revision of all 200-plus pieces of legislation. The motivation appears to be to take the European Union sticker off the number plate and put a Union Jack on it instead. If that is the only difference that is being made, what the Government suggest here is far too risky and undermines the right of Members of Parliament, including those who are not on the Committee, and their responsibility to scrutinise legislation that is crucial not only to the wellbeing of the economy on a big scale, but to the wellbeing of the economies of hundreds of thousands of our constituents. For many of them, this legislation has come too late, because they have been ruined by financial services scams that could perhaps have been prevented if this legislation had been introduced sooner.

It is my intention to press the amendment to a Division, Madam Deputy Speaker—I mean, Dame Maria. I do not know whether I should apologise for promoting you. Accepting the amendment would not significantly delay any legislative changes that the Government intend to introduce, but it would ensure that they are scrutinised properly to increase the chance that when mistakes are made in the replacement legislation, as they will be, they are picked up and dealt with before it is too late.

[Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

Good morning, Dame Maria. It is a great honour to be on a Bill that you are chairing—I think it is our first time together in this iteration.

The Opposition do not have a problem with the principle of repealing some of the EU legislation, but I rise to invite the Minister to give us more detail on precisely how he envisages the wide-ranging power in clause 1 will be exercised in practice. I speak as a former member of the European Statutory Instruments Committee, which did a great deal of work in sifting all of the EU legislation to onshore it ahead of Brexit, including all the legislation covered by the Bill. We sat regularly and looked at thousands upon thousands of pieces of EU legislation, which we brought onshore ahead of Brexit. A great deal of work was done to achieve that, but a great many mistakes were made during the process in the drafting, the interpretation and the way in which powers were onshored in areas where we have not legislated directly for 47 years. This is a great accumulation of technical, but also extremely important, legislation that impacts on our constituents’ experience of everyday life as consumers and on how they use financial services and insurance, banking and savings products. If we get it wrong, there can be a great deal of detriment to our constituents.

Will the Minister give the Committee an idea of how the wide-ranging power to amend a large amount of legislation that has been on the statute book for many years will be done in a way that reassures all our constituents that we have the right balance between consumer protection and consumer rights on the one hand and our financial services industry and the way that it operates on the other? How will Parliament get to look at this? It is possible to argue that clause 1 would allow Parliament to be run over roughshod, without providing proper scrutiny, so will the Minister indicate how it will work in practice? How does he propose the powers will be exercised? What can Parliament do if we perceive that an issue that has been overlooked in all the technocracy impacts on our constituents? We need to ensure we have proper accountability.

I would be less worried if, as the hon. Member for Glenrothes said, we are just taking off an EU flag and sticking on a Union Jack, but I assume the Minister is taking these powers because he wants to use them. Will he set out in his comments on clause 1 precisely how he expects that to happen?

[Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dame Maria. We often cross paths in these Committees and it is great to see you once again in the Chair.

I will speak briefly about amendment 44, following the comments of the hon. Members for Wallasey and for Glenrothes. The Government need to be nimble in how they lay regulations, particularly in this transitional period. Clause 1 provides the ability to be agile, particularly as we redevelop our financial services framework following our departure from the European Union. The Government clearly need the ability to do that. We are dealing with a vast array of regulation, primary legislation and laws that will require a significant amount of time to be developed, but at speed. Clause 1 enables the Minister to do that, and I trust my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs to develop the legislative framework in the right way.

[Peter Grant]

If there is such an urgent need for speed, why has it taken so long for the Bill to be brought before the House?

[Shaun Bailey]

Perhaps I should have finished my comments, which would have led to the point that the hon. Gentleman has made. There is a need for speed and also a need to make things right. I think that is the point that he and the hon. Member for Wallasey were making, particularly as it is so vital that we get it right. I agree with the hon. Lady that there is a place for scrutiny. Drafting errors are a concern, and we have to make sure that as we build the framework, it is done in the right way. I pay tribute to the work that she did on the EU sifting Committee, because it is a thankless task to go through.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Griffith]

The Committee will indulge me if this sounds repetitive, but the thrust of the questions is the same: there is no change in the fundamental approach to UK financial services regulation, which is that the pen is held by the operationally independent regulators—primarily under the scrutiny of the Treasury Committee, to which they regularly give evidence—and they use the established statutory consultation procedure. That is the position, and will be the position going forward.

If the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle would like to table an amendment that would dispense with operationally independent regulators in the UK, so that Parliament holds the pen on rule making, the Government will consider it. That is not the Government’s view of what should happen, however, and I do not believe that it is the view of the official Opposition. I understand the important role of parliamentary scrutiny, but an embedded feature, and one that I hear hon. Members pushing back on or challenging, is that regulators—in consultation with industry, following the statutory consultation process—are that ones that make the rules.

I will make some progress. To address a point made by a number of hon. Members, the Treasury will, as it does now, work closely with the Financial Conduct Authority and other regulators to ensure that the transition from retained EU law to UK regulations is orderly and meets the need of UK consumers, and that there is no gap in protections or relevant rules. As I have said, that work will be subject to the statutory consultation process in the normal way.

Amendment 44, tabled by the hon. Member for Glenrothes, is about consumer protection. I can assure the Committee that clause 3(2)(f)—we are getting ahead of ourselves—specifically enables the Treasury to modify retained EU law to protect consumers and insurance policyholders. Clause 4 enables the Government to restate retained EU law in domestic legislation for the same purpose. Consumers of financial services are already assured of appropriate protections under the UK framework for financial services regulation. Parliament has given the FCA a consumer protection objective—one of its core objectives—to ensure an appropriate degree of protection for consumers, which the FCA is required to advance when discharging its general functions. As evidence of that, the FCA has, among other things, recently introduced a new consumer duty. I hope that assures the Committee that there are already adequate consumer protections, both in the Bill and in the wider body of regulation. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Glenrothes to withdraw his amendment.

I will now explain the approach that clause 1 and schedule 1 take to repealing retained EU law. Retained EU law is revoked by clause 1. Schedule 1 lists the retained EU law revoked by clause 1. Part 1 of the schedule captures retained direct principal EU legislation, which means EU regulations such as the prospectus regulation. Part 2 captures secondary legislation that was made to implement EU directives or other obligations. That includes statutory instruments made under the European Communities Act 1972, which implemented significant pieces of EU law, such as Solvency II and the markets in financial instruments directive, known as MiFID.

Part 3 captures EU tertiary legislation, including delegated regulations, implementing Acts and EU decisions. Part 4 repeals part of primary legislation that relates to retained EU law, in particular part 9D of FSMA 2000, which relates to rules defined in relation to the EU capital requirements regulation, and chapter 2A of part 9A of FSMA, which governs technical standards. Those parts of FSMA will not be necessary following the repeal of the retained EU law to which they relate. Part 5 acts as a sweeper provision: it revokes all EU derived legislation relating to financial services that is not directly listed in the schedule. That does not capture any domestic primary legislation; it simply captures the kinds of EU law covered by parts 1 to 3 but not specifically listed. I therefore recommend that clause 1 and schedule 1 stand part of the Bill.

[Peter Grant]

I thank all the hon. Members who contributed to the debate. I notice that the Minister did not explain why amendment 44 is a bad idea. He has not given any reason why it would make things worse. He has argued that it would not make things better, would make them only slightly better or would make them better in a way that is not needed.

I take the Minister’s point that later parts of the Bill give the Treasury the power to act in the interest of consumer protection. I want to go further than allowing the Treasury to protect my constituents; I want Parliament to force the Treasury to protect my constituents. We do that by not allowing the Treasury to revoke consumer protection legislation until we, the House of Commons, are on behalf of our constituents satisfied that there is a suitable replacement for it.

I draw the Committee’s attention to part 5 of schedule 1, on page 96 of the Bill. It essentially states, “We have listed 200 bits of legislation that we are going to revoke. There are probably lots of other ones that we have not found yet, so we are going to put in a catch-all clause, so that they will all be revoked as well.” That does not strike me as a good way for the House of Commons to revoke legislation. The Minister has repeatedly said that the Government do not expect all the legislation to be revoked overnight. In fact, the explanatory notes to the Bill point out that the Government think that changing all that EU law will take several years. What happened to, “We got Brexit done”? We have hardly even started on the financial services part of Brexit.

As I said in my opening remarks, although I was against the suggestion that that law needs to be changed, I accept that the United Kingdom has to start to change parts of EU law. The wholesale nature of the change intended in clause 1 is not necessary and is extremely dangerous to the interests of our constituents. Amendment 44 would not necessarily remove all of that danger, and I am still concerned about what we would be left with. I have nothing but respect for the Minister as an individual, but let us face it: if recent history is anything to go by, he will not be there when decisions on revoking legislation are actually taken. Who knows? Maybe he has his phone on just now, and is waiting for that call.

Let us be honest: over the summer, this has not been a Government who have honoured their promises. They have not honoured the assurances made to their own party members so that one Member could become Prime Minister—the Prime Minister who recently resigned. Promises made at the Dispatch Box have been unmade almost before the Minister making them sat down. This Government have severely damaged the tradition that assurances given by a Minister, either here in Committee or in the Chamber, will always be honoured. That does not happen any more. I am afraid the House is entitled to ask for a bit more than might have been accepted a few years ago, when the traditions of this House were actually respected by each and every member of the Government.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

Clearly, Pepper v. Hart applies when a reassurance is given by a Minister. That is partly why we ask questions in these proceedings. We wish to have on record reassurances about the meaning of the statute in front of us, how the Government interpret it, and what the Government’s intent was. If there is any subsequent doubt about that, the record can be looked at under the provisions of Pepper v. Hart.

[Peter Grant]

I am grateful for that intervention. I do not disagree with a word of it. My point is simply that whatever the conventions, traditions and proceedings of this House might tell us, in practice the doctrine of ministerial responsibility does not apply in the way that I just about remember learning about 50 years ago as a schoolchild, in what was then called modern studies. There are numerous examples of Ministers behaving in a way that would require them to go, if they believed in the conventions of the House. I am not suggesting for a second—

[The Chair]

Order. I remind the hon. Member that we really need to stick to the text of the Bill, rather than giving a lesson on constitutional law. That would be really helpful.

[Peter Grant]

Thank you, Dame Maria. I hear the Minister’s assurances, but this issue is too important for us to rely on the conventions of the House, which have been broken far too often. The protection of our consumers and the financial services industry is important enough that any changes to regulations that had to be at least initially consented to by this Parliament should be made only with the consent of this Parliament, to which power was supposed to be returned by Brexit.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Grant]

It is interesting that we have three clauses here, each of which give the Treasury the power to amend legislation in very, very closely defined and restricted ways, and every one of them needs regulations to be approved by Parliament. Most of them require approval by the affirmative procedure. However, two minutes ago we were told we could wipe out 200 different items of legislation in their entirety without Parliament needing to have any oversight of the process. It does seem a strange contradiction.

The way the clauses are worded and the restrictions that are placed on them mean that this is one of the very few occasions where I would be comfortable in allowing regulations to be used to amend primary legislation. However, I have to say that for some of the restrictions, one wonders why they are there. Subsection (6) to clause 3 requires the Treasury to consult the regulator, and subsection (7) basically says, “But the Treasury only needs to consult the regulators if the Treasury thinks it is a good idea”. Why on earth does that need to be put into an Act of Parliament?

If clause 1 had been worded in a similar way to these clauses, there would have been no need for my amendment. There would have been no question at all from my point of view about that clause being accepted. I hope the Minister can explain why it is that these very limited and restricted powers to amend legislation are subject in most cases to the affirmative procedure, whereby Parliament has to approve them, when all the legislation that was put up for repeal and revocation in clause 1 needs no further detailed scrutiny from Parliament.

As far as the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle, I think those comments perhaps related to an amendment that the Government have flagged that they intend to introduce that may well give the Government far too much power to direct the supposedly independent regulators. If and when that amendment comes forward, we will certainly have concerns about it. I do not think those comments were related to the clauses in the Bill as it stands. On that basis, I will not oppose the clauses today.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

I want to register some concern and get the Minister’s reassurances on the record about what are very broad-ranging powers for the Treasury, which are then subject to constraints. Was it necessary to have such broad-ranging powers? It is not a good way of approaching things unless there are no other options. Is the Minister worried that, over time, those constraints might loosen and the broad powers will remain? The dynamic of this kind of structure is what worries me, rather than the balance that he has explained the Government have currently set.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Griffith]

I welcome the contributions from the hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle and for Wallasey, and my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West. Both sides of the House are wrestling with exactly the same issue, which is taking what is acknowledged to be an unprecedented corpus of European law, which the Westminster Parliament had no opportunity to have oversight of or change—

[Peter Grant]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Andrew Griffith]

I will not give way at the moment. The issue is therefore about docking that corpus into an established framework of operationally independent regulators, with Parliament establishing the perimeter and ultimately having the right degree of scrutiny. That may be through the public interest intervention power that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle talked about, but which is not tabled in the Bill at the moment and is subject to continuing debate. That was the main thrust of the witness in the final session of last week’s sitting.

As currently written, clause three does not interfere with regulatory independence. Repealing retained EU law means the regulators will generally, as the default position, take over setting the detailed requirements, replacing the function of the European Commission and the European Parliament. However, that will take time and so we will not repeal those rules immediately. The regulators, under direction and intervention, as currently, from the Treasury Committee, will decide on the areas of most focus.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Angela Eagle]

Obviously, this is an extremely complex area of technical regulation. It requires the regulators, alongside the Basel Committee and the international authorities regulating the flow of this kind of stuff, to operate effectively. If securitisation goes wrong or if markets begin to be opaque, with transparency going down, there can serious consequences for the countries in which such firms are based. That might also engage systemic threats to the banking structures of those countries. We have been through that before, and we know what happened when securitisation went wrong in the global financial crisis and what damage that caused to the global infrastructure.

Clearly, those tasked with ensuring that that does not happen again—those in the Bank of England, the prudential regulators and the FCA who have a handle on this, as well as the international regulators trying to set standards—have to be very aware of how such regulation might change and effect firms in the markets. However, there will always be a push in these markets to move the boundaries towards something less opaque and more profitable for those doing business, hoping that the risks can be left somewhere else. When risks crystallise, however, they are left on the balance sheets of nations that have to cope with cleaning up the mess. So, while I approve of modernising such regimes, little alarm bells go off in my mind when I think about attracting more such business. That kind of business is attractive if it is safe; it is not attractive if it is unsafe.

The Minister ploughed through his speech about all the technicalities of the shift away from EU-regulated systems and about how onshoring back to the UK will be done. Given how large our banking, financial services and insurance sector is, we are clearly at systemic risk if we get this wrong. We have to get the balance right between ensuring that any new regimes are transparent and safe enough to be hosted in our country. The Minister took us through some of the technical changes, but will he reassure us about the transparency and safety issues in the new regime that I have hinted at?

[Peter Grant]

If the sun moves much further, I will have to sit on the other side of the room to keep it out of my eyes, so my apologies for having to move seat during the debate, Dame Maria.

I thank the Minister for doing what I hoped he would have done in the debate on the revocations in clause 1: outlining in terms understandable to a lay person why some specific items of EU legislation are no longer appropriate for the United Kingdom—in fact, it is questionable whether they are appropriate elsewhere. I would have wanted to see that before the changes proposed in other parts of the Bill. On the basis of the Minister’s comments, and the fact that none of the regulators we heard from raised concerns, I am willing to accept that the changes suggested in the clause and the details in schedule 2 are appropriate.

I want to draw attention to a comment the Minister made earlier and to give him the chance to correct it. He suggested that this is EU legislation that Parliament never had the chance to scrutinise, but that is not the case. I spent several years, as other hon. Members did, on the European Scrutiny Committee. Every single piece of legislation the European Union intended to implement came before that Committee, which had the authority to call in Ministers and to put a stop on them approving things at EU Council meetings if the Committee was unsatisfied as to the impact. The House of Commons—the whole of Parliament—had the right to take action to prevent any of those directives from coming into force. The fact that Parliament seldom did that is a failing of this and previous Parliaments. The fact that Ministers had so much free rein to do what they liked, and could ignore Parliament if they wanted to, is not the fault of the European Union; it is because of the relationship between Parliament and Government. This Parliament is unfit for purpose, and Ministers from other members of the European Union would not have been allowed to agree to those directives without a vote in their respective Parliaments. I hope the Minister will be willing to correct the record. We can agree or disagree about legislation that the European Union put in place, but to suggest that this Parliament was somehow unable to have any impact on that legislation is simply not accurate.

[Tulip Siddiq]

Has the Minister picked up any feedback from the sector about the Government’s proposed reform to the position limits—a regulation under MiFID II—and the fact that they have not been adequately assessed for commodity market speculation risks? How does he plan to keep that issue under review? If he has heard of concerns, is he planning to address them?

[Andrew Griffith]

I am happy to stand corrected by the hon. Member for Glenrothes, but I am not happy to relitigate matters that the British people settled, given the chance in a referendum. I hope the hon. Member will reciprocate by looking forwards, not backwards, so that we can go forward with the best financial services regulation for the UK.

The matters raised by the hon. Members for Wallasey and for Hampstead and Kilburn are precisely within the scope of the regulators, and they have been consulted on. The hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn raised important points about the commodity market. The regulators are aware of those, and they will remain under constant review. Parliament itself has the ability, as always, to set the perimeter within which the regulators operate. Having addressed those points, I have no further comments.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Clause 8

Designated activities

[Peter Grant]

I beg to move amendment 34, in clause 8, page 7, line 4, after “activity” insert—

“(c) the extent to which the activity has the effect of raising finance for any business purpose by means of soliciting financial contributions other than by—

(i) an authorised issue of shares, or

(ii) borrowing from an authorised financial institution.”

This amendment would allow the Treasury to designate and regulate businesses which seek to raise finance by soliciting contributions from the general public other than by an authorised share issue.

First, I welcome the intention behind the clause, because it seeks to close a number of loopholes that have become evident in the way financial regulators are allowed to regulate and in the way that activities come within or fall beyond their scope. Far too often we see dodgy operators deliberately choosing to operate in empty spaces between the remits of different regulators. Too often the regulators seem more concerned about arguing that something is someone else’s responsibility than about taking responsibility themselves.

It is not clear whether the amendment falls within the scope of this Bill or that of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill, which is about to start its Committee proceedings, so I am pleased that it has been ruled competent. Essentially, the problem that the amendment is designed to address is what Blackmore Bond and Safe Hands Funeral Plans became. Quite possibly, it was always the intention of the directors that they would move away from being businesses carrying out particular business activities, and towards being businesses of which the main purpose in life was to get the general public to fund those activities. Although Safe Hands was a funeral plan business on the face of it—that was how it was set up—it became a way for the director, who took over a few years before the company collapsed completely, to take money from people who thought their money would be kept safe to pay for their funeral when the time came. The director then used that money to speculate on wildly high-risk and potentially high-profit investments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)]

I understand exactly what the hon. Gentleman is trying to do with the amendment, and I have a lot of sympathy, but I am not clear about its scope and extent. Is he trying to ensure that the Treasury starts to regulate crowdfunders? That is potentially what the amendment would allow. It is a very widely drawn amendment, and I seek clarification on this point.

[Peter Grant]

If it became clear to the Treasury or the relevant regulator that crowdfunders were using funds for illicit purposes, rather than for genuinely good causes, I would expect the Treasury and the relevant regulator to step in. My amendment is designed to put primary legislation in place to allow the regulators to step in, and to allow the Treasury to take action, if it becomes clear that there is a problem, regardless of whether that is through crowdfunding or any other method of raising finance. The important part of the amendment is about finances being raised as a way of raising capital. The amendment does not in any way imply that it would cover, for example, crowdfunding for a good cause or to raise funds for someone who has had a serious accident. That would not be covered by the wording of the amendment.

I can understand the concerns, and I am quite happy if someone can come up with better wording—possibly in an amendment to a different piece of legislation—that achieves the aim of the amendment, but I am utterly convinced that there is a serious weakness in our current regulation. As currently worded, neither this Bill nor the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill will close down that loophole sufficiently.

At Blackmore Bond, the abuse that was taking place was stopped after it was too late. At Safe Hands Funeral Plans, the abuse that was taking place was stopped after it was too late and people had lost their money. The selling of mini-bonds to the general public, which is what Blackmore Bond was up to, is now outlawed, so action has been taken on that specific kind of abuse. Funeral plans are now regulated, so action has been taken on that specific kind of abuse. I do not want the regulator or the Treasury having always to see where the next specific company disguise is going to be, however; I want them to have the power to regulate based on how businesses take money from the general public.

With those comments, I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response. If he is not minded to accept the amendment, I hope that we can get an assurance that the intention behind it will be addressed at a later stage.

[Emma Hardy]

I have a general question on the clause and the designated activities regime. In the consultation response document produced by the Treasury—“Financial Services Future Regulatory Framework Review: Proposals for Reform. Response to Consultation” to be precise—some consultation respondents were concerned about what activities would physically be regulated, what constraints were to be placed on the powers of the Treasury and what the consequences for failing to comply with the regulator’s rules would be. I have not yet seen their concerns answered by the Minister. Will he address that?

[Andrew Griffith]

The amendment seeks to make it clear that offers of non-equity securities to retail investors—for example, as cited, retail bonds—can be brought into regulation through the designated activities regime. That is the important subject we are talking about. That regime—the DAR—has been designed to allow for the proportionate regulation of activities involving interactions with financial markets in the UK and conducted by many that are not traditional financial services firms. In essence, it is the core scope of regulation. The DAR includes a range of activities, such as an activity connected to the financial markets or exchanges of the UK, or an activity connected to financial instruments, financial products or financial investments issued or sold in the UK. Any of those can be designated under the DAR. Our contention is that it is therefore already sufficiently broad in scope. We will discuss that further when we consider clause stand part later.

Offers of non-equity securities to retail investors as proposed by the amendment would fall within the definition of the DAR should the Government wish to designate that activity in future. Indeed, proposed new schedule 6B of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, which is to be inserted by the Bill and which provides illustrative examples of the types of activities that His Majesty’s Treasury may designate, includes

“Offering securities to the public.”

I can therefore give my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon the comfort that he seeks, in that the provision does extend to crowdfunding, which was his specific point.

[Peter Grant]

I am grateful for that assurance, but does the Minister take my point that in the examples of abuses that I mentioned, people did not say that they were offering any kind of securities? They said that they were selling funeral plans. Next time, they will be selling school or university fees plans or Christmas hamper plans; it will not be presented as the selling of equities as he and I would understand it.

[Andrew Griffith]

We will refer to that in more detail when we return to the DAR this afternoon. The DAR is the important establishment of the perimeter. I hear the hon. Gentleman on how we set the scope and those definitions, but the position of the Government is that the Bill already enables the Government to take action to ensure that offers of retail bonds are appropriately captured by regulation.

In April 2021, the Government consulted on the future regulation of non-transferable debt securities such as mini-bonds. In response to the consultation, the Government decided to bring certain non-transferable securities, including but importantly not limited to mini-bonds, within the scope of the reformed prospectus regime. The Government confirmed that we would bring forward our reforms to the UK prospectus regime using the powers in the Bill to replace retained EU law—following commencement. I am therefore confident that the Bill as drafted can achieve what is needed to regulate such activities. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

[Peter Grant]

I am still not sure that the Minister gets this. I will not push the amendment to a vote, but I sincerely hope that he will see the need for such a measure in financial services legislation or, more appropriately, in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill on its way through the House. If the clause as worded had been in place 20 years ago, Blackmore Bond would still have happened, Safe Hands would still have happened, and my constituents and all others would still have been scammed out of hundreds of millions of pounds.

A couple of years ago, when I spoke about Blackmore Bond, I said that I had a horrible feeling—an almost certain feeling—that it was already happening again somewhere else; six months later, Safe Hands collapsed and tens of thousands of people lost all their funeral plan money. I do not know the nature of the business that is being used as a cover for the latest scam, but deep in my guts I know that it is happening now, and that it will happen again next year and the year after. Nothing in this legislation as framed adequately clamps down on that.

I will not push the amendment to a vote, not because I do not think it is important but because I would rather not put it to a vote to see it voted down, which would be a serious mistake by the Committee. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Joy Morrissey.)

Financial Services and Markets Bill (Fourth sitting)

Peter Grant Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th October 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Andrew Griffith]

On the question posed by the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn, I do believe that the definition is broad enough. If there are specific concerns or use cases that the hon. Member feels are not encompassed, I am happy to take that back offline or to write to her with advice. The intention is clearly to allow sufficient flexibility to broaden the perimeter.

I am not fully familiar with the works that the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire talks about, but I am happy to become more familiar with them over time. It is clearly not part of the Government’s intention to legitimise what would not otherwise be legitimate or to create the opportunity for issuers to evade responsibility to society. That is not the Government’s aim and objective.

Amendment 22 agreed to.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I beg to move amendment 35, in clause 8, page 9, line 25, at end insert—

“(ba) in cases where the regulations make provision for liability, make provision for nominated representatives of organisations against whom liability has been found to be held personally liable for actions undertaken in relation to carrying out a designated activity,”.

This amendment would allow for nominated representatives to be held personally liable for the carrying out of a designated activity when an organisation has been found liable.

This is another amendment that attempts to improve the protection of consumers, small investors and others who in the past have been far too easy prey for unscrupulous company directors and other people in charge of companies. In a number of the recent financial services scams, we have seen that even once the investigatory regulatory process has been completed, which in itself can take five, even 10 years, any attempt to recover money from where it should be recovered from—the pockets of criminals—is frustrated by the fact that the companies at the centre of the scam have at best no money left in their books. Most of the time, they have been placed into liquidation long ago.

Part of that liquidation process is always moving the money into other companies, very often hidden in offshore anonymous companies owned by the exact same person. Effectively, the person who works the scam takes steps to get their money well out of the reach of the UK regulators and enforcers long before the liability of the company is established. Amendment 35 seeks not to require but to allow the designated activity regulations in specific circumstances to make regulations that say, “There will be occasions when individuals who have carried out the misconduct will be held personally liable to people who have suffered.” That means that those who have been scammed in a way that is not covered by the financial services compensation scheme at least have a chance of getting their money back. Possibly more importantly, the amendment would be a further deterrent to those who would carry out such scams, because it will at least partially close down the option of their hiding their ill-gotten gains in a different company, where they are no longer within reach of the regulator.

I appreciate that anything that starts to blur the distinction between a shareholder, a director and the legal personality that is a limited company should be used with caution. I fully understand why, in UK law, a company is its own person with its own legal identity, but there are times when we cannot allow the director of a company to hide behind that—times when natural justice says that if we know who is responsible for people losing their money, and know that they have buckets full of money sitting in a company somewhere, it is perfectly reasonable to say to them, “We will have that money to compensate the people you scammed.”

The victims of Blackmore Bond will never see their money again. I understand that one of its directors is now bankrupt, but the other definitely is not. Most of the victims of Safe Hands Plans will probably not see their money again. Remember, its director bought the company at a time when he knew that it would have to wind up in a year or two; we have to ask why he was so keen to buy it. He is not a poor person; he is extremely wealthy. He just managed to move his money out of that company and into others.

Clearly, the amendment could not be retrospective, but if it was agreed to, it would mean that if any person tried the same dodge in future, their victims could, in court, try to get their money back from the person who stole from them, rather than from the company, which will often no longer exist.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

I do not want to row in behind the hon. Member and support absolutely everything that he says on his amendment, but I know what he is trying to do: to put something in statute that would solve the problem of fraud, which is more and more prevalent in our financial system, especially in and around the perimeter that we have been talking about. There can be questions about whether a person is inside or outside the perimeter, or whether a bit of their company is inside and a bit outside. That kind of fraudulent hiding behind being regulated when the things being sold are outwith the perimeter does fool a lot of people, and a lot of money is scammed out of our constituents’ bank accounts in that way. Does the Minister have any observations on how we could—

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Griffith]

Thank you, Dame Maria. You are right: many of these matters fall within the domain of clause 8, which we shall discuss shortly.

[Peter Grant]

I thank Members on both sides of the Committee who have supported the intention behind the amendment. As I said in my opening remarks, I accept that it does not sit particularly comfortably in a financial services Bill under the Treasury, because the Treasury is not usually responsible for the general regulation of businesses. Nor does it sit comfortably in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill, which I understand is shared between the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Home Office. BEIS, through Companies House, is not responsible for the regulation of financial services and will not be responsible for the regulation of designated activities. Nobody is entirely responsible, and that is the problem.

To those who say, “Yes, we agree with you, but this is not the time,” I say, “If not us, then who, and if not now, then when?”. Tomorrow, some of our constituents will be scammed, and more will be scammed the next day. Every day that we delay, waiting for the Government to introduce the perfect clause that has no unintended consequences, causes unintended consequences for our constituents. I accept that the amendment might have unintended consequences, but the Government’s inexcusable delay in closing the loopholes once and for all has already led to unintended consequences. I intend to press the amendment to a vote for that reason.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Division 2

Ayes: 2

---

Scottish National Party: 2

Noes: 10

---

Conservative: 10

[Peter Grant]

I beg to move amendment 36, in clause 8, page 10, leave out lines 22 to 27.

This amendment would remove the Treasury’s proposed power to make regulations which modify legislation of the Welsh Senedd, Scottish Parliament or Northern Ireland Assembly for purposes connected with the regulation of designated activities.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 37, in clause 8, page 11, line 38, leave out from the first “Parliament” to the end of line 40.

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 36.

[Peter Grant]

The amendment can be summed up in four words: “Hands aff oor Parliament”, whether that Parliament is the national Parliament of Scotland, Senedd Cymru or the Northern Ireland Assembly. Those who claim to respect the devolution settlement cannot do so with any credibility if they continue to give power to Ministers of the reserved Parliament to override decisions of the democratically elected national Parliaments of three of the four equal-partner nations in the Union. This is a power grab of the kind we have already seen in other EU withdrawal legislation. Some of those power grabs will now happen, because the House has voted for them, but that does not make them right or any less of an outrage against democracy. Amendment 36 must be agreed to for the Committee to be able to hold its head up in public and say, “We support democracy and we respect the devolution settlement.”

Amendment 37, although not technically a consequential amendment, is as close to one as makes no difference, because the wording that it would delete on page 11 would no longer be relevant if we agreed to amendment 36. It is my intention to press amendment 36 to a vote.

[Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)]

I hope that when the Minister responds to the debate on the clause, he will cover proposed new section 71R of FSMA 2000 before reaching the point mentioned by the hon. Member for Glenrothes. Subsection (1) of the new section is a Henry VIII power that allows the Treasury to amend legislation, including primary legislation. Will the Minister outline when, why and how the Government intend to use those Henry VIII powers, and what safeguards we have in the Bill against their abuse?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Griffith]

indicated dissent.

[Peter Grant]

I hope that the record of the sitting will clearly indicate that the Minister was given the chance to reply to the hon. Lady’s question—twice, in fact—but chose not to.

It is a fundamental principle of the devolved settlement that the Conservative party insists that it wants to protect that if a decision is made by a devolved Parliament under its devolved powers, nobody should have the right to overturn or amend that decision other than that Parliament. The Minister has said that he is not aware of any circumstances when he would want to use the power, so why not wait until the circumstance arises? Why not speak to the devolved Parliaments then—or, indeed, why have the Government not spoken to them already—to say that devolved legislation is causing problems, and to ask whether they can agree, cross-party and cross-nation, to change it, rather than pushing aside the devolved nations and the devolution settlement, and imposing rules on our people against the devolution settlement? Let us not forget that 75% of our people voted for the establishment of the Scottish Parliament.

I do not agree with everything Senedd Cymru does. It is not my party that is in government in Wales; it will never be my party that is in government in Northern Ireland. I will not agree with everything they do, but I utterly respect the rights of those Parliaments to legislate in the best interests of their people. If the Minister is saying that he does not think that he will be able to trust the devolved Parliaments to make a sensible decision if and when that becomes necessary, we have a big problem.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

My hon. Friend talks about not trusting the Scottish, Welsh or Northern Ireland Government. Any legislation brought forward in those places receives the attention of senior legal advice, whether that be from the Lord Advocate or from others in the devolved Administrations. The amendment defends the legitimacy and independence of the legal advice given by senior legal officers to devolved Administrations.

[Peter Grant]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. It is sometimes forgotten that the devolved Parliaments have a number of checks in place to prevent them from attempting to legislate on things that are clearly beyond their powers, and there is a clear example of that happening at the moment, but there is no statutory or constitutional check on this place’s ability to push aside the devolution settlement to legislate on matters that are clearly devolved. That is simply not acceptable. Remember, we were talking about what the Government still call the most powerful devolved Parliament in the world. How can it be anywhere near being that if the Parliament that devolved powers to it can grab those powers back at the drop of a hat or the stroke of a pen? I will not withdraw the amendment. Every time I see such a power grab in legislation, I will speak against it, stand against it, and vote against it.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Given that amendment 36 has fallen, may I encourage the hon. Member for Glenrothes not to press amendment 37, which is similar?

[Peter Grant]

It does not make a lot of sense to press amendment 37 now that amendment 36 has gone. In fact, arguably, on its own, amendment 37 would weaken the position of the devolved Governments, so I will not press it.

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Griffith]

Retained EU law contains frameworks to regulate a number of entities that facilitate the proper functioning of financial markets. These entities are collectively referred to as financial market infrastructure, or FMI.

FMI helps to maintain stability in the financial services sector and performs critical functions that help make markets safer and more efficient. To establish a comprehensive FSMA model, the regulators will need the power, when retained EU law is revoked, to make rules to appropriately supervise and oversee FMI. That is provided for in the clauses that we are considering.

Clause 9 gives the Bank of England, which I will refer to as the Bank, a general rule-making power over central counterparties and central securities depositories, or CCPs and CSDs. CCPs sit between two parties to a trade and ensure that if either firm defaults on its obligations, the CCP can fulfil the firm’s trade. This reduces the possibility of contagion to the wider financial system. CSDs settle securities trades—that is, they complete the trade by transferring ownership of the assets, such as shares or bonds, between two parties.

The clause delegates the setting of regulatory standards to the Bank as the expert, operationally independent regulator. That is in line with the overall approach taken to the financial services regulators in the Bill. With the new rule-making powers provided for in the clause, the Bank will be able to adapt the regulatory regime in an agile and responsive way—for example, to take account of changing market conditions, address emerging risks or facilitate innovation. This will be accompanied by appropriate accountability arrangements that will apply to the Bank when it is exercising these new powers; we will discuss those when we get to new clauses 43 to 45.

The clause also enables the Bank to apply some or all of the domestic rulebook to overseas CCPs that are systemically important to the UK.

[Peter Grant]

Can the Minister give us an indication of whether there are existing institutions that he believes would be regarded as CCPs that are systemically important to this country? Apart from the obvious factor of the amount of business that a body does with the UK, what other factors will be taken into account when deciding whether to designate an institution in that way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Hardy]

I want to add to the points made by my hon. Friend on our concerns around clause 12 and the independence of the Bank of England, given that the Treasury has such significant powers over it. I refer the Minister back to the evidence given by Sheldon Mills from the FCA. He said:

“I have worked in regimes with public interest tests. I ran the mergers division at the Office of Fair Trading and the Competition and Markets Authority, and my learning from that is that, if put in place, such a test should be used exceptionally and with care, and that there should be specificity about the matters of public interest—in this case, financial services—on which it would be used.”––[Official Report, Financial Services and Markets Public Bill Committee, 19 October 2022; c. 7, Q3.]

That is the FCA asking for specificity—it is easy for them to say—on exactly when the power would be used and when it would not be used.

Victoria Saporta from the PRA stated:

“A formulation whereby the Government can force or direct us to make or amend rules that we have already made, and that fall squarely within the statutory objectives that Parliament has given us, may be perceived as undermining operational independence and all the benefits that I talked about earlier.”––[Official Report, Financial Services and Markets Public Bill Committee, 19 October 2022; c. 7, Q3.]

Those were really stark warnings from two of our key witnesses from the FCA and PRA, talking about the difficulties they had with this specific clause and how this could be seen as undermining their independence.

Martin Taylor went further in his evidence, when I questioned him on these intervention powers. He said:

“One of the problems that led to the recent turmoil—a very English description of what has just happened—was that the Prime Minister and the former Chancellor chose not to subject the mini-Budget to the scrutiny of the Office for Budget Responsibility.”

He continued:

“However, international investors looking at London will have noted this and it has a bad smell, if I can put it that way.”

Later, he said:

“If you were in Singapore or New York, you might be more tempted to do that than you would have been a month ago. We should not do anything else to make this worse. Everything is being done by the new Chancellor to steady the ship…but moves like this proposed measure just go in entirely the wrong direction as far as I am concerned. I think it is very dangerous.”–– [Official Report, Financial Services and Markets Public Bill Committee, 19 October 2022; c. 76, Q149.]

Every single witness seemed to talk about the concerns they have over the level of intervention the Treasury could have over the Bank of England. I would like to hear reassurances from the Minister that he has been talking to the FCA, the other regulators and the markets about this. What reassurance can he give us that this is not HMT trying to again overrule our independent regulators?

[Peter Grant]

Again, I fully understand the intention behind these clauses and I am not minded to move against them, but I am a bit concerned by some of the interplay between the clauses. I asked the Minister what factors he thought might be taken into account in determining that a CCP is actually a systemic third country CCP, rather than an unsystemic one.

The Bill, on lines 39 to 42 on page 13, suggests that a systemic third country CCP is

“any third country central counterparty that the Bank has determined is systemically important, or is likely to become systemically important, to the financial stability of the United Kingdom.”

The word “systemically” is doing quite a lot of work in that definition. As far as I know, there is no definition of “systemically” in this Bill, or indeed anywhere else, so I am concerned about whether the wording of the clause is tight enough that everybody, including the Bank of England, knows exactly when it can use these powers and when it cannot.

That is important because of the difference that being designated a systemic third country CCP makes. Under proposed new section 300G to the Financial Services and Markets Act, the Bank of England can exercise most of the powers

“only by the application of corresponding rules”,

according to proposed subsection (1)(a). However, proposed subsection (1)(b) says

“except in the case of systemic third country CCPs…only so far as authorised by regulations made by the Treasury.”

That seems to mean that if the Bank of England forms the view that it is dealing with a systemically important CCP, it is free to act in a way that is not explicitly permitted by Treasury regulations, whereas if the Bank decides that it is not systemically important, the ability to act becomes more restricted.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Griffith]

I will try to respond to all the points in turn. First, in answer to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle, clause 12 is not an intervention power. It clarifies that the power to direct is effectively removed in respect of the new regulations around CCPs. In many ways, it will give the Bank of England the independence and autonomy that the witnesses she cited sought, although in a more general context. There is a separate point, which is probably not in order for today, about the intervention power, as and when that is tabled. However, that is not the purpose of clause 12, which is a clarifying point in respect of the Bank of England.

The hon. Member for Wallasey raised the issue of resources. The Bill gives the regulators, including the Bank, powers to fund themselves using a levy. That is a stronger financial position than they are in today. The hon. Member knows that I am relatively new—that could change during the sittings of this Committee—but in all my interactions with the regulators, they have expressed themselves satisfied with the resources available to them, but we must be collectively careful about the burdens that we place on them and ensure that those are appropriate.

On the question of what is systemic and whether it is right to regulate overseas CCPs and CSDs, the thrust of what the Bill tries to achieve, and the broad thrust of the debate, is that those are precisely matters that should be decided by the operationally independent regulators in this domain. Although I and others may have views, it will be for the Bank to use its new powers—as now, and as in other domains that are in scope—in consultation with the Treasury, Parliament and others.

[Peter Grant]

To clarify, if the Bill is enacted as it stands, does the Bank have the option to create a different regulatory regime for overseas parties than it has for those that are based in the UK, or is the intention that the same set of rules will apply regardless of where the organisation is based?

[Andrew Griffith]

If an organisation is overseas, the approach will be that the Bank, in using those powers, will defer to the overseas regulator where that is appropriate, as it does now. I would not want us to fetter the Bank. It is for the Bank to lay out how it proposes to use the powers that the Bill enables, so as to be able to make the appropriate regulation that it feels comfortable with. I think we can all agree that this is a prudent enhancement of its powers. It broadens their scope, and allows the Bank to follow the risks to this country in a CCP, wherever those may lead it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 9 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 10 to 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Angela Eagle]

That is true. Blockchain has certainly been around for quite a while. Its use has implications for transparency and for the levels of employment that there might be in the old, more bureaucratic banks.

What would be the use of artificial intelligence in trying to decide how automated these things could become? Would there be worries about over-automation? How would that be looked at in terms of regulation? How open are we going to be about the way in which AI is applied and how it might evolve in ways that might embed discrimination such that we get a system where certain people may be discriminated against and excluded? There are a range of issues that need to be tested in these kinds of environments. It is hard to do that under a negative resolution procedure. I take the Minister’s point, however, about affirmative resolutions. If one of these things worked during the trial period, was issued and became permanent, it is important, as the Minister has said, that any changes are subject to affirmative regulation.

There are a whole load of black boxes in the Bill that we might need to debate further. Could the Minister give us more colour on whether there will be parallel sandboxes, on transparency on what will be used and how it will be compiled, and on how large the sandboxes will be in terms of money on the exchanges or turnover, or however he wants to put it. Then we could consider whether risk is being mitigated and how we can develop a system using trundling and analogue legislation, if I may put it that way, in an environment where innovation is digital and rapid.

I understand what the Minister is trying to do, but this Parliament must still be aware that we need to be on top of the detail of this Bill, rather than just passing shells of enabling legislation that do not give us enough of a handle on what is intended.

[Peter Grant]

Thank you, Dame Maria, for clarifying earlier that we are talking about sandboxes, not sandwich boxes. Some Members seem to have been a bit confused about that. I am intrigued by the use of the term “sandbox”. To me, a sandbox can be a road safety feature: it is literally a gravel or sand pit on a bad bend in the road to allow someone who loses control to get off the road safely. Alternatively, a sandbox is something that any cat owner will be familiar with. I am genuinely intrigued as to which of those metaphors somebody thought was appropriate for what we are discussing.

The principle behind these measures is absolutely sound. By this time next year, new practices in financial services will have evolved that none of us can begin to imagine just now. That is how things are moving. I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire that the technology itself has not significantly changed—it is certainly not new—but the way in which people will use the technology is. The kinds of products that people will start to devise may well mean that existing regulatory practices need to be changed very quickly. The idea of being allowed to pilot something that is genuinely new in a safe space before letting it loose on the wider world is absolutely correct in my view. However, the devil, of course, is in the detail.

I am a bit concerned that the first in this group of clauses says that the purpose of the sandbox will be to test

“for a limited period, the efficiency or effectiveness of the carrying on of FMI activities”.

It does not say that one of the purposes is to test the effectiveness of any regulation that may go with it, which concerns me. Obviously, if someone knows that the activity they are carrying out in a sandbox will be looked at very carefully, they are going to behave themselves. How can we be sure that as well as being effective, it will work for the purposes of the providers? How do we know that the regulation that goes with it will also be effective? Again, that has to be effective as soon as the thing goes live. We cannot wait and regulate it effectively a few weeks later, because it will be far too late by then.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Grant]

Again, I do not oppose the clauses, but I do have a couple of questions. First, the Minister pointed out that the ultimate sanction that the regulator can take is to prevent somebody from carrying out the actions of a critical third party. However, given that it becomes a critical third party because the system would collapse without it, is that not the nuclear button that can never be used? Simply trying to enforce the protective regulation could cause more damage than allowing the issue to continue. I understand that it is a difficult issue to square, but is there any proposal to, for example, introduce new criminal offences? Rather than being placed in a position where we would have to damage a system in order to protect it, are there proposals at least to give the option of taking criminal action against the individuals concerned?

I understand why the Bill does not go into detail about the kind of directions and requirements that might be appropriate, but will the Minister reassure us that there is no intention to use the powers to restrict the rights of people working for critical third parties to take industrial action, should they consider it to be important? That would take us into a completely different area of legislation, but the Bill does not say that the Government cannot do that. I would appreciate an assurance from the Minister that that will not happen as a result of the Bill.

Finally, proposed new section 312N refers to immunity. Certainly we must ensure that, if an organisation acts in accordance with the requirements of the regulator, they cannot be sued simply for doing what they were required to do. Is there a potential issue that they could be sued by an overseas party in an overseas court? Has the Minister considered how we might prevent that from becoming an issue? Clearly, this Parliament cannot legislate to give anybody immunity from being sued elsewhere, and there are people who will tout around the jurisdictions all over the world to find somewhere they can lodge a legal action. Is the Minister concerned that the inability to give international immunity might mean that some of the provisions become less effective than we might have hoped?

[Andrew Griffith]

Let me try to answer hon. Members’ questions. Nothing in the clause restricts people’s ability to take industrial action. That is not in scope. The powers are not anticipated as analogous to existing ones elsewhere, and the provision is not intended to be all or nothing. The powers are in essence an extension of scope into this domain and would relate to activities such as reviewing the senior manager regime, the ability to compel the requirement of information and looking at things such as resilience. They are not designed to be binary in that respect.

The hon. Member for Glenrothes made a point about the fact that the functions have been designated as critical, but that does not necessarily mean that they are monopolistic. With respect, while that is an important consideration, which we would expect the Bank, in this case, to take into consideration, it is also perfectly possible that, in the case of cloud providers, for example, a number of providers offer identical services. If one was not able to demonstrate a degree of resilience but another was, it would be possible to direct that one ceases to be used without causing the sort of systemic risk that the Bill seeks to prevent. I will write to the hon. Member in respect of what is a complex question about international immunity in law. I hope that he will respect the fact that I should not answer that on my feet this afternoon.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 18 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 20

Financial promotion

[Peter Grant]

I beg to move amendment 39, in clause 20, page 31, line 37, at end insert—

“(1A) Where the content of a communication for the purposes of section 21 has not in the first instance been approved by an authorised person, approval by another authorised person may only be sought the FCA’s approval for the other authorised person to do so being provided in writing.”.

This amendment would prevent operators from “shopping around” for approval from an authorised person where one authorised person has not given approval, unless the Financial Conduct Authority permits this.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause stand part.

That schedule 5 be the Fifth schedule to the Bill.

[Peter Grant]

The amendment is quite simple. I understand the reason behind the concept of the authorised person. The Financial Conduct Authority will never have the resources or capacity to authorise every single financial promotion that somebody wants to publish, so that role needs to be outsourced. My concern is that, in some of the scams that my constituents have fallen victim to, the authorised person has sometimes been a key part of the web of deceit and concealment that has been laid for my constituents and others to fall into. Very often, when it all goes wrong, we find that the authorised person who approved the financial promotion has gone out of business themselves, so there is nobody left to take responsibility.

I am concerned that something that I have seen happen in a small number of cases might become more common. If someone takes a financial promotion that is clearly not compliant with legislation to an authorised person, the authorised person might well say, “No, I am not going to authorise it.” There is nothing to stop the person from then shopping around and finding someone who will agree to approve the promotion on their behalf. Because these promotions are so common, and because there are so many of them being authorised and then issued, it is very difficult for the regulator or anyone else to pick up on the ones that should not have got through. We are relying on the integrity of the authorised person.

The intention behind the amendment is to ensure that, regardless of which authorised person someone goes to, they get a consistent answer—either yes or no. If one authorised person refused to give approval for a promotion, it could then be approved only with the consent of the Financial Conduct Authority. I am not sure that I am minded to press the amendment to a vote, but I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic to the intention behind it. If he feels that the amendment is not necessary, or that its purpose could be achieved by a better route, I would be quite happy to hear his reasons.

[Tulip Siddiq]

We welcome clause 20, which we recognise would introduce tighter controls on those who approve financial promotions for others, to ensure that consumers are better protected. How does the Minister foresee the clause facilitating improved approver expertise, due diligence and challenges in exercising appropriate regulatory oversight?

[Andrew Griffith]

I thank the hon. Member for Glenrothes for raising the issue, which I understand is of concern to Members on both sides of the Committee. I also thank him for indicating that he will not press the amendment to a vote. I think the reason for that is that clause 20 is a genuine enhancement of the regulatory infrastructure. It creates a new, two-tier regulatory structure that speaks directly to the issue of those who have been authorising harmful financial promotions. It does so by introducing a new assessment by the FCA that requires that they be assessed as fit to do so. I will come on to what that could look like in a moment.

We understand what financial promotions are. They are inducements or invitations to engage in investment activity in its broadest form.

[Peter Grant]

The Minister says that we all understand what financial promotions are, but do we really? Is the existing definition agile enough? One of the dodgy directors I mentioned earlier has now set himself up on TikTok as a lifestyle guru. Everybody knows he is doing this to groom people. He will say to someone, “I’ve got this brilliant investment plan that nobody else knows about. Why don’t you do it?” Does that sort of thing count as a financial promotion or not? Quite clearly it is an inducement and an attempt to get someone to sign up to an investment that may or may not be legitimate.

[Andrew Griffith]

I am not familiar with the precise incident that the hon. Gentleman talks about. We have to reflect that there will be a continuum from someone being a lifestyle guru to someone promoting a financial product. Our job as legislators is to understand where those cliff edges lie and to bring forward procedures that mean that the scope is laid in the right place, so that cliff edges are legislated for appropriately.

--- Later in debate ---

Schedule 5 amends FSMA simply to ensure the effective implementation and operation of the regulatory gateway. It expands the FSMA definition of “regulated financial services” to include inducements to engage in investment activity, bringing the full range of financial promotion activity within the scope of the FCA’s general duties. In effect, the schedule makes provision to apply existing offences within FSMA to the approval of financial promotions, and applies other relevant parts of FSMA to ensure that the FCA can effectively oversee the gateway. In short, it expands the scope of existing legislation to include more activities, and creates a two-tier authorisation structure.

[Peter Grant]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 5 agreed to.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Joy Morrissey.)

Financial Services and Markets Bill

Peter Grant Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 7th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Griffith]

I thank my hon. Friend who, as one of my predecessors, has made a significant contribution to getting the Bill to where it is today. I will try to indulge him, but he will also recognise that the Bill is about putting enabling powers in place, and there will be opportunities on future occasions to discuss how we deploy those.

New clause 18 introduces a requirement for the regulators to ensure that all members of their statutory panels are external and independent of the Treasury, the Bank of England and the regulators. That will codify the current approach taken by regulators, putting it in statute, building confidence in their independence and ensuring that it is maintained on a long-term basis.

New clause 19 introduces a new requirement for the regulators to publish a list of respondents to their public consultations, provided that the respondents consent. The requirement is limited to the financial services regulators and their specific statutory consultation in existing financial services legislation. New clauses 18 and 19 also address points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) and the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney).

I also note the interest of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) in enhancing regulator accountability through his new clauses on a new regulators’ supervision council and ending regulators’ statutory immunity from civil damages. I understand where he is coming from, and I note that he chairs the all-party parliamentary group on personal banking and fairer financial services, but the Government’s position is that a new supervisory council would duplicate existing accountability structures. Indeed, none of the representations that I receive from industry says that the biggest thing that will help growth and competitiveness is another layer of regulators. There is also a great deal of existing accountability structures, including the role undertaken by this House and its various Committees, which is why that position was supported by the Treasury Committee in its July 2021 report. Removing the regulators’ statutory immunity from liability and damages would risk regulators over-regulating to avoid the risk of liability. There are already mechanisms for holding regulators to account, including the complaints scheme. That scheme is overseen by the independent complaints commissioner, who has powers to recommend redress.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I certainly appreciate the Minister’s concern that we might see precautionary regulation, but is the best way to avoid that not simply to restrict the removal of liability to cases in which the regulator has clearly and negligently failed to act to deal with a situation in which an already regulated activity was being carried out in an unacceptable way? That is what happened with Blackmore Bond. It was not an unregulated activity; it was an activity that fell within the scope of the Financial Conduct Authority, but it failed to act and £46 million was stolen from people as a result.

[Andrew Griffith]

The hon. Member draws our attention to the very tragic cases that occur when financial regulation goes wrong and does not do its job in the way every Member of this House would like to see. He also talks about a legal threshold for that. He will perhaps appreciate that I do not have the facts of that particular case before me and that we are not drafting things here and now. I have heard from Members on both sides of the House about some of the problems in what we are talking about, which is essentially the conduct of the regulator, and I understand colleagues’ desire to look at legal liability as one remedy, but there are many powers in the Bill, and as I say, the Bill will not constrain the ability of this House or Ministers going forward.

The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy), with whom I spent a lot of time in the Bill Committee—I suspect we will hear from her later this afternoon—has tabled a new clause on considering economic risks in regulators’ cost-benefit analysis panels. I would like to reassure her that the regulators already take steps—and, to assuage her concerns, they could perhaps do more—to think about economic crime when they do that. They have the power, of course, to consult experts where they consider it relevant.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire again for raising the issue of regulatory proportionality. I wish to reassure him that the Government are clear that the burden of any regulation should be proportionate to its benefits, and that is set out in existing legislation. I am very happy to reiterate again today that I expect the regulators to fully and proactively embrace that principle, which is embedded in statute. That is particularly important, as the Bill confers on them greater rule-making responsibilities. I suspect we will hear from my hon. Friend later on.

I will now turn to Government amendments 8 to 11 —I apologise, but there are quite a lot of amendments to crack on through. Clause 6 already enables the Treasury to exempt regulators from the statutory requirement to consult on rules when they are replacing retained EU law repealed by the Bill without making material changes. Amendments 8 to 11 go further. They create a blanket exemption from the statutory requirement to consult in situations in which the regulators remove EU-derived rules from their rulebooks without replacement. The amendments also allow the Treasury to exempt the regulators when they are amending EU-derived rules or replacing retained EU law in their rulebooks, and when the only material effect of the change is to reduce regulatory burdens. That ensures that the regulators can take that proportionate approach to consultation, accelerate the repeal of retained EU law, and not let the requirement to consult be an obstacle or delaying factor. It is a long time since the British people voted for Brexit, and it is time to start delivering those benefits. Nothing in the amendments changes the obligation on the regulators to act to advance their statutory objectives, so any reduction in regulatory burdens must be compatible with those objectives.

Let me briefly cover the two remaining Government amendments, and I will then move on. New clause 20 ensures that a new type of fund vehicle currently being explored—the unauthorised contractual scheme—would be commercially viable if it were introduced. The proposed fund has the potential to improve the competitiveness of the UK by filling a gap in the UK’s existing fund offering and supporting the domestic growth agenda by facilitating greater investment in UK real estate by UK funds. Amendment 17 is a minor and technical amendment to rectify an inadvertent omission in drafting.

I will now address the amendments tabled by other Members. I am conscious that I am speaking before Members have had a chance to introduce their amendments, so I look forward to responding in more detail, where necessary, at the end of the debate. Let me start with the important issue of access to cash. I represent a rural constituency with a higher-than-average proportion of elderly and vulnerable residents, so I am acutely aware of the very real concerns around this topic. As of today, there remains extensive access to cash across the UK as a whole—over 95% of people live within 2,000 metres of a free cashpoint. I want to be clear that it is not acceptable for people to have no option but to travel large distances or pay ATM fees to access their own money.

If hon. Members have a concern in their local area, as I know many have, I strongly recommend that they reach out to LINK, which is leading the industry-led initiative to see what can be done to help constituents. LINK is delivering, for example, a new free-to-use ATM in the Pollards Hill estate in the constituency of the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh)—I have already made a commitment to her to visit and open it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Grant]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Scottish National party in this afternoon’s debate, and I find myself in a strange position: after welcoming the new SNP leader last night, it is quite possible that, having stood up from the Front Bench, I might be sitting down on the Back Benches. It is a strange experience for me, but it has been quite common on the Conservative Benches for most of this year.

Colleagues who served on the Bill Committee will know that I had to miss most of its considerations for family reasons, and I want to place on the record my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes), who unhesitatingly took on my share of the work on the Committee as well as his own. By all accounts, from what I have heard from Members of all parties, he did so very well. None of them said that he did it better than I would have done, although quite possibly he did.

We have well over 60 new clauses and amendments in front of us today, and we are not going to do justice to 10% of them—that is the nature of the way this place operates. I am also well aware that since we started the Committee deliberations, only three parties have had the chance to contribute, and I think it is only fair—I hope it is possible—that that balance be addressed later today. Other parties have voices and constituents, and the voters and constituents who do not like the governing party have a right to have their voices heard in the debate, which will be the only chance that they get.

I intend to simply restate the SNP’s position on the main themes of the Bill, as an indication of where we stand on most of the amendments. I will mention some specific amendments, but I hope that my comments will give an indication of which ones we support.

We recognise that there is a need for a complete overhaul of the UK’s financial services regulatory framework, although possibly in a slightly different direction from where the Government want to take it. For example, I have long argued that the Financial Conduct Authority does not have enough powers or resources. It has to be said that sometimes it does not seem to have the desire to take swift and effective action to stop frauds before they happen, and sometimes it does not have the power to compensate victims afterwards.

The SNP continues to have severe reservations about forcing regulators to put international competitiveness on an equal and sometimes higher footing than their actual regulatory responsibilities. There is a potential and very clear conflict of interests between being responsible for regulating the conduct of organisations and being responsible for helping them to become profitable. There are ways that companies can become more competitive that are quite clearly helpful to the public interest, and there are ways they can do it that are neutral to the public interest. There are also ways that a company can become more competitive that are extremely damaging to the public interest—for example, look at the way P&O treated its workers a few months ago. That made the company more competitive, but it was clearly against the wider public interest.

The regulators should have clear responsibilities on matters such as financial stability, consumer protection, fraud prevention and climate change objectives. On climate change objectives, I will not shilly-shally and make excuses; I will support new clause 25 if the House divides on it.

The Government have missed the chance—although from the Minister’s comments, I think we can assume that they have deliberately ignored the chance—to put financial inclusion at the heart of the Bill, so we will support amendments that address that. My understanding is that the official Opposition will press new clauses 2 and 7 to a Division today and we will certainly support them. As has been mentioned, free access for people to get their cash out of the bank is important and has to be available as a legal right, not simply as a by-your-leave on behalf of the banks and other financial institutions. I share the suspicion that if the amendments had not been tabled and if the banks had not known that those were coming, they would not have been nearly so keen to adopt voluntary codes of practice, and so on. We will also support new clause 23, which will force the FCA to give much more recognition and priority to the requirement for greater financial inclusion.

As I mentioned, we welcome the Bill’s anti-fraud measures, but they do not go nearly far enough. The Bill is hardly even present-proof, never mind future-proof. It is almost as though we are finally catching up to legislate, at the end of this year, for last year’s scams, and we are failing to notice that the bad guys and gals have designed new scams for this year and are already working on next year’s. For example, I welcome the fact that the Bill will give the Payment Systems Regulator a duty to improve the reimbursement of authorised push payment scams, but the same provision will not be carried over to the victims of crypto-scams, pension scams, investment scams or various others.

We will support new clause 1, as well as new clause 36, if that is pushed to a vote. New clause 36 emerged from a conversation between Public Accounts Committee members after we took evidence recently on the Government’s record on tackling fraud. A lot of us were struck by the fact that we knew, but had never really thought about, the fact that nobody has any idea of what the real level of fraud is in the United Kingdom, because, too often, financial institutions have a self-interest in choosing to cover it up rather than to report it. We know that 40% of reported crime in the United Kingdom is fraud, and the proportion is probably higher than that because a lot of the frauds against individual institutions are covered up rather than reported.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake) for taking the time and trouble to introduce that new clause. If, as I strongly suspect will happen, the Government say that they are not against the principle but that they do not like the way in which it has been drafted, I hope that they commit to introducing a similar amendment in the other place in due course.

I remember—I think a lot of Opposition Members do—that not that long ago, the Tories were very enthusiastic about the idea of forcing people, including Members of Parliament, to report cases of suspected illegal immigration. It will be a real test and give a real indication of how seriously the Government take the damage that fraud causes to all our constituents if they refuse to even consider a similar requirement to report cases of suspected fraud.

The final serious concern that we have about the Bill, as with several other Bills that we have seen being rammed through this place, is the relentless drive to become as different as possible from the European Union, just for the sake of it. Although I do not know whether amendments 8 to 11 will be voted on tonight, had the Government submitted those as new clauses in Committee, or had they been part of the Bill as published, it is almost certain that we would have opposed them.

It will come as no surprise that, on behalf of the people of Scotland, the SNP will resist any attempt to drag us further from our European friends and neighbours than we already are. We make no secret of our intention to keep our country in a position where the restoration of our independence will be followed as swiftly as possible by our restoration to our rightful place as a sovereign nation in the EU. We want the transition back into EU membership to be as easy as possible, so we want that to be from the starting point of being as close to alignment with the EU as we can be.

This morning, an opinion poll showed support for Scottish independence at 56%—by jings! The new leader of the SNP group has fairly made his mark, has he not? Fifty-one per cent. would vote SNP in a Westminster election; that is even more than the landslide that we had in 2015. That increases to 53% if, as the SNP intends, the Westminster election becomes a de facto referendum.

The prospect of Scotland applying to rejoin the European Union as an independent nation within the next few years is not just a fanciful idea, nor is it just likely; it is now highly probable and is rapidly becoming a certainty. We have to act in the best interests of the people of Scotland by making sure that after independence we remain as close as possible to our friends and neighbours in the European Union so that our transition back to European Union membership can be as swift and smooth as possible.

When we rejoin the European Union, it is very likely that central Scotland will immediately become its second biggest financial services centre. It matters to our economy to be able to get back into the European Union with as little fuss and disruption as possible. For that reason, the future of our financial services sector lies not in isolationism from the Government, but in internationalism through membership of the European Union.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Grant]

I endorse and share the thanks of both the previous speakers to all those who have helped the democratic process to happen. Obviously, we are not particularly happy about the results of some of the votes, but that is what happens in life. If we go back to the day before this Bill got its First Reading, we will see that the six Treasury ministerial posts have been held by 21 different people. Who knows, we might have the same Minister on the Front Bench by the time the Bill comes back from the Lords, but I would not bet on it.

Among the people I want to thank personally are my very good and hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes), who did such a power of work on his own in the Bill Committee, and someone who will not be a well-known name to most people here, although those of us who know her will understand she has been an absolute star, and that is Sarah Callaghan of the SNP research team. She joined a very good research team not long ago and she has been a fantastic support to me and my colleagues in preparation for this Bill, so I say thanks to Sarah.

I thank the Minister for the courtesy he has shown throughout political debates in which we have not always agreed, but in which I hope we have always been able to be courteous to each other. We will not oppose the Bill; we have reservations about it, but on balance it is just about good enough to get through.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I pause, lest there be further excitement—but no.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Financial Services and Markets Bill

Peter Grant Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 26th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Griffith]

I am delighted to speak again to the Bill, following its passage through the other place. I thank my colleagues, Baroness Penn and Lord Harlech, for their expert stewardship of the Bill, as well as the Opposition spokespeople for their generally constructive tone.

Hon. and right hon. Members will be aware that the Bill is a crucial next step in delivering the Government’s vision of an open, sustainable and technologically advanced financial services sector. Members will also recall that this sector is one of the crown jewels of our economy, generating 12% of the UK’s economic activity and employing 2.5 million people in financial and related professional services. Few constituencies will be untouched by those jobs and economic benefits. For example, Scotland benefits from £13.9 billion of gross value added and an estimated 136,000 jobs.

The Bill seizes the opportunities of Brexit, tailoring financial services regulation to UK markets to bolster the competitiveness of the UK as a global financial centre and deliver better outcomes for consumers and businesses.

The Bill repeals hundreds of pieces of retained EU law relating to financial services and gives the regulators significant new rule-making responsibilities. These increased responsibilities must be balanced with clear accountability, appropriate democratic input, and transparent oversight. There has been much debate in this House and in the other place about how to get that balance right. As a result of the considered scrutiny, the Government introduced a number of amendments in the Lords that improved the Bill in this regard.

Lords amendments 32 to 34 require the regulators to set out how they have considered representations from Parliament when publishing their final rules. Lords amendments introduced by the Government require the regulators to report annually on their recruitment to the statutory panels, including the new cost-benefit analysis panels created by the Bill. The amendments also require the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority to appoint at least two members of authorised firms to their CBA panels. This will ensure that their work is informed by practical experience of how regulatory requirements impact on firms. My hon. Friends the Members for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), for North Warwickshire (Craig Tracey) and for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) may recognise that amendment and I thank them for their efforts to ensure that the Bill delivers proper accountability.

Amendments from the Government also provide a power from the Treasury to require statutory panels to produce annual reports. The Treasury intends to use this power in the first instance to direct the publication of annual reports by the CBA panels and the FCA consumer panel. I hope the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) will welcome this as he tabled a similar amendment on Report.

Lords amendment 37 will enhance the role of the Financial Regulators Complaints Commission, which is an important mechanism for raising concerns about how the FCA, the PRA and the Bank of England carry out their functions. The amendment requires the Treasury, rather than the regulators themselves, to appoint the complaints commissioner, significantly strengthening the independence of the role.

In response to a debate in this House, the Government amended the Bill to introduce a power in clause 37 for the Treasury to direct the regulators to report on various performance metrics. On 9 May, I published a call for proposals, seeking views on what additional metrics the regulators should publish to support scrutiny of their work, focused on embedding their new secondary growth and competitiveness objectives. We have already had a number of helpful responses and we will come forward with proposals at pace following the expiry of the deadline next week. To further support that, Lords amendment 6 requires the FCA and the PRA to publish two reports on how they have embedded those new objectives within 12 and 24 months of the objectives coming into force. Taken together, these are a significant package of improvements to hold the regulators to account.

I know that access to cash is an issue of huge importance to many Members on both sides of the House. Representing the rural constituency of Arundel and South Downs, where the constituents are older than the UK average, this has always been at the forefront of my mind during the passage of the Bill. I also pay tribute to the campaigning work done by the Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph on behalf of their readers as well as by groups such as Age UK and the Royal National Institute of Blind People.

Let me be clear: the Government’s position is that cash is here to stay for the long term. It provides a reliable back-up to digital payments, can be more convenient in some circumstances, and many, particularly the vulnerable, rely on cash as a means to manage their finances. The Bill already takes significant steps forward in protecting the ability of people and businesses across the UK to access cash deposit and withdrawal facilities for the first time in UK law. I am pleased to report that we have gone even further and introduced Lords amendments 72 to 77, which will protect people’s ability to withdraw and deposit cash for free. The amendments will require the FCA to seek to ensure reasonable provision of free cash access services for current accounts of personal customers. This will be informed by regard to a Government policy statement, which I expect to publish no later than the end of September.

Many Members are concerned about the separate issue of face-to-face banking. The FCA already has guidance to firms around the closure of bank branches and I hope that they and the industry will listen to the concerns of Members on behalf of their constituents on that issue.

Many Members across the House will have experienced the disproportionate application of rules requiring enhanced due diligence for politically exposed persons— PEPs. They and their families should not face some of the challenges and behaviours by banks that I have heard about. The Government are taking action to ensure that PEPs are treated in a proportionate manner. Lords amendment 38 requires the Treasury to amend the money laundering regulations to explicitly distinguish between domestic and foreign PEPs in law.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

Will the Minister be more explicit as to what the close associates of domestic PEPs might include? Will it include, for example, somebody who has been elevated to the Lords by a former Prime Minister against the advice of the security services?

[Andrew Griffith]

In the interests of making progress on this substantial Bill, I shall not be tempted to comment on this further other than to say that I undertake, as I have to many other Members, to look very closely at that issue. For example, if by “associates” we mean either the adult children of people who have no real connection to the business that happens in this House, or family businesses that, again, are not directly connected to those who have put themselves forward for public service, I shall look closely at that. That is why we have tabled the amendments.

Lords amendment 39 requires the FCA to conduct a review into whether financial institutions are adhering to its guidance on the treatment of PEPs, and to assess the appropriateness of its guidance in light of its findings. Together, the amendments will lead to a change in how parliamentarians and their families experience the regime, and I am confident that they will be welcomed by all.

I will now set out the Government’s response to the non-Government amendments made in the Lords. The Bill introduces a new regulatory principle requiring the regulators to have regard to the Government’s net zero emissions target. Lords amendment 7 seeks to add conservation and the enhancement of the natural environment and other targets to this regulatory principle. The Government cannot accept the amendment as drafted, which is very broad and open to interpretation. The regulators must balance their objectives carefully, and they have a very important job to do. At a time when the Bank of England is rightly occupied by getting a grip on inflation, and the FCA is dealing with a range of challenges including working with lenders to ensure that there is support in place for those experiencing increases in mortgage interest rates, we must not overburden them with other considerations, particularly when they are vague or of uncertain relevance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

May I start by sending my condolences to my fellow Treasury Committee member, the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh)? Her sister will be greatly missed by Members across all parties.

I am delighted at the Bill’s progress. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on all his work in taking into account the views expressed across the House. Of course, the existence of the Bill is a huge Brexit dividend in itself, enabling us to deregulate while strengthening financial services in the UK, which is in the top two financial services sectors in the world and creates up to 2 million jobs right across the UK.

So far, the Treasury Committee has proven to be a good overview body for the financial services and markets regulation that is coming back to the UK. That Committee has done a great job, and I can say that without appearing to boast because I was not on the Committee when it did that scrutiny. We have done a good job, and the Treasury Committee will continue to be the right place to provide the scrutiny and checks and balances that will always be needed in the financial services sector.

I point out, however, that their lordships need carefully to consider their approach to the Bill. Far from enabling us to seize the opportunity and recapture the initiative, they seem to be trying to over-burden the regulators, pinning them down with reports and further obligations and duties that would militate against the UK continuing to be one of the most successful places on earth for financial services.

[Peter Grant]

As a counter to that point, is the right hon. Lady as concerned as I am about the fact that, as well as being a successful breeding ground for financial services businesses, the United Kingdom is now seen worldwide as one of the best places to commit financial fraud?

[Dame Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Gentleman raises an extremely important issue. He will know that huge efforts are being made to clamp down on financial fraud. It has been an insoluble issue over many decades, and of course, with advances with technology and so on, scammers and financial fraud continue to be a big problem, but that does not detract from the fact that the UK is hugely successful in financial services. I predict that the UK will also be hugely successful in green financial services around the world, enabling the net zero transition to take place using UK expertise and exports in that crucial area.

I was delighted to see the new competitiveness and growth objective, and that the PRA and FCA will be required to provide reports on how well it is being addressed. The Treasury Committee has taken evidence from both organisations, which welcome the opportunity to focus not just on stability but on how it affects our competitiveness around the world. That is important and represents a big opportunity for UK plc.

The complaints function is a great initiative that will definitely address the absolutely valid concerns of so many constituents across the UK about the poor behaviour in some of the responses to inquiries led by the FCA or the PRA. That independent, Treasury-led complaints function will be very important.

It is vital that my constituents in South Northamptonshire can have access to cash, so I am delighted that an obligation to ensure that that remains the case will be enshrined in this legislation. I share the concerns of the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) about the closure of banks. The Government initiative to create a new arrangement for post offices to provide “the last bank in town” services was a good one. I wonder whether over time we can expand that, because the loss of banks continues to be a big issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I call the SNP spokesman.

[Peter Grant]

As has been said throughout the passage of the Bill, our chief concern has always been that too many provisions in it do not go far enough. I am pleased to say that the other place has tightened up some aspects of the Bill. It is disappointing that this evening the Government seem determined to oppose some amendments that could have addressed more of our concerns and, in at least one case, seem determined to make an amendment that makes things even worse.

In the interests of brevity, I will not go through all the Lords amendments that the Government are happy to accept; I ask Members to take those as read. The first Government proposal that I have some concern about is their motion to disagree with Lords amendment 7. I appreciate that they have tabled alternative amendments, which they might think say pretty much the same thing or better, but Lords amendment 7 explicitly refers to targets set by any of the UK’s national Parliaments. They are not mentioned anywhere in the Government’s amendment (a) in lieu. I hope the Minister can explain why the Government are opposed to giving targets set by the devolved nations of this Union of equals the same status as those set in this place, because some of those targets and activities will relate to responsibilities that are explicitly devolved to one or more of the other nations of the United Kingdom. It does not seem very equal that some Parliaments can have their targets effectively regulated and others cannot.

I do not have any issue with Government amendments (b) and (c) in lieu of Lords amendment 7, although it seems strange that they have been tabled as alternatives, because they are entirely compatible with it. In fact, the Government could quite easily have tabled them in the Lords at the time.

As was said by the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq), Lords amendment 10 is a good amendment. I do not understand why the Government want to take it out. Are they against financial inclusion? If they think that financial inclusion is a good idea but that this amendment is not best way to pursue it, I would remind them that they have had months to come up with a better amendment. “Take it back, don’t agree it just now, and we promise to bring something back in the near future.” However, we have been promised effective measures on financial inclusion since before I was a Member of this place, but it has not happened yet, and the problem is getting worse all the time.

To answer the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom), it is all very well for the Government to find ways to make post offices the last bank in town, but they are being shut left, right and centre as well, so there is no long-term protection for access to cash, especially in our poorest and most deprived communities, of which I represent more than my fair share. It is no comfort to them to be told, “The bank has closed, but you can use the post office,” if, as I have seen happen literally at the same time, the Post Office is saying, “We’re going shut the post office, but you can still use the bank.” That does not give any protection or comfort whatsoever.

Lords Amendment 36, on illegal deforestation and so on, is also a good amendment that we would have supported. We are willing to accept the Government alternative as an improvement in some regards. The biggest concern we have—it is one on which we would very much want the opportunity to give the House the chance to express its will this evening—is about one of the crazy ways in which this place deals with things, especially once legislation has been back and forth between here and the Lords. If this House wanted to disagree with Lords amendment 38, as I think quite a few of us will, we will not be allowed to do that unless the debate finishes within three hours. The ability of the democratically elected House of Commons to scrutinise and perhaps overturn a decision taken by the undemocratic, unelected House of Lords along the corridor therefore depends on how many people want to speak, how long they want to speak for, and how fast they want to talk.

Lords amendment 38 is about politically exposed persons and the way they are risk-assessed in relation to money laundering. It makes a very broad assumption about the amount of due diligence that needs to be exercised to prevent money laundering in the case of a politically exposed person from the UK—someone who, in the words of the amendment, is

“entrusted with prominent public functions by the United Kingdom”.

The assumption is that they are always less of a potential money laundering risk, as are their family and “close associates”, whatever that means. That is far too broad and sweeping an assumption.

I do not have an issue with any regulation being worded in a way that is proportionate to the risk, and I can understand the attraction of being able to designate some individuals as less of a risk than others, but this exemption is far too sweeping. What do we mean by “entrusted with prominent public functions”? As we all know, we have had very recent examples of people who were entrusted with the most prominent public function of all—the office of Prime Minister—turning out to be totally untrustworthy. How do we define a “close associate”? Would, for example, Evgeny Lebedev have been regarded as low risk simply because he could accurately have been described as a close associate of the then Prime Minister, who himself has turned out, as the House now agrees, to have been untrustworthy? When is a close associate not a close associate?

[Chris Grayling]

I want to probe a little on this. Would the hon. Gentleman classify somebody who, for example, gave a parking space to a camper van as a close associate?

[Hon. Members]

Aah!

[Peter Grant]

I think that both that intervention and the muttering from a sedentary position on the Treasury Bench give an indication of just how seriously this Government take money laundering. Perhaps we can all speculate as to the reasons why.

We are not against the idea that any regulation should be applied proportionately, but it is too sweeping a generalisation to say that, because of someone’s job or who they know, they somehow become less of a risk. Let me give just one example. Would Baroness Mone of PPE Medpro have been regarded as being at low risk of anything because she was a Member of the House of Lords and a one-time Government envoy?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I gently remind the hon. Member that we are not allowed to directly criticise Members of the House of Lords by name.

[Peter Grant]

I stand corrected, Mr Deputy Speaker. Unless I said more than I intended to, I think I was asking a question; I was not expressing an opinion.

Let us not forget that over the last 10 to 15 years a huge amount of dirty money from Russia and other former Soviet republics has been laundered into the United Kingdom by people who, at least financially and in terms of their donations, were very closely associated indeed with leading politicians. It has to be said that, had Putin not carried out a second invasion of Ukraine last year—if he had been satisfied with the original illegal activity in Ukraine 2014—that money would probably still be coming in, because the Government only moved in a big way on dirty Russian money after the second invasion of Ukraine. They did not do anything, or anything like enough, in 2014 or afterwards, so we have to ask whether they are really serious about cutting off this dirty Russian money at source and handing it back to the people that it was originally stolen from.

I thought it was quite interesting that the Minister said that it was a bad idea to agree Lords amendment 10, to improve financial inclusion, at such a late stage, when the Government are happy to accept Lords amendment 38, to weaken our defences against money laundering, at the same late stage. That may give an indication of what the priorities might be of people who wield a lot of influence over the Government—maybe not the Minister’s own priorities.

As I have said, we in the SNP continue to support the Bill. Our concerns on almost all counts have been in areas that did not go far enough, such as the accountability of the regulators—the Financial Conduct Authority, for example. My issue is that the regulators have not been held properly to account for the myriad times they have failed to regulate and have simply not protected the public and investors. Other authorities have not protected pensioners. We can look at Blackmore Bond, London Capital and Finance, Premier FX, the British Steel pension scheme, the AEA Technology pension scheme, and hundreds of other financial scandals that were allowed to happen—or certainly allowed to happen as badly as they did—because the regulators did not do the job they were set up to do. They should be held accountable to this place and to the public for their failures to regulate. I am concerned that if we tie them up with too much regulation about how they regulate, and if they are worried about being dragged into Parliament or politically overruled when they do regulate, there is a danger that they will start to lose their independence from political interference, without which no regulator on these islands can ever be effective.

It is disappointing that the Government seem determined to reject some Lords amendments that would have made the Bill better, and to push through at least one that will significantly weaken it. It would be sad indeed if this elected Chamber were not allowed to express its will on whether amendment 38 makes the Bill better or worse. I for one believe that it makes it worse, and I hope we will be able to divide the House on it tonight.

[Chris Grayling]

I find it slightly ironic that I am following an SNP spokesman demanding more action on financial fraud, but there is always a place for a bit of amusement in the House. I will focus my remarks on the issue of deforestation.

[Peter Grant]

I am absolutely confident that the Scottish National party Westminster group will submit clean audited accounts to the Electoral Commission before the deadline. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Conservative party parliamentary group will not?

[Chris Grayling]

I think I may have touched a slightly raw nerve there, Mr Deputy Speaker.

First, I am personally grateful to the Minister, who has been extremely responsive on an issue that is crucially important, not just to the future of this country but the future of our planet. The loss of forest cover around the world—cleared for the growing of soy, the planting of palm oil plantations and beef cattle ranching—has been ecologically disastrous for the planet. Of course, in many of those areas, it has not created sustained agricultural land, but land that has been used for a few years and is now lying semi-derelict.

One of the great challenges for us as a planet is to restore some of the land that has been lost and replant some of the forest that has been lost, but we cannot tackle this problem unless we bring it to a halt now, and in many parts of the world, there are still real issues with illegal deforestation to produce those products. As a Government, we have already taken steps that I think are pathfinders: the introduction of the Environment Act 2021 has set a path for dealing with forest risk products, particularly in the supply chain and our retailers. That was a positive step that I think will make a real difference, and I look forward to seeing that process completed through the secondary legislation that identifies the individual products we are tackling. Through his amendments, the Minister has clearly set that as a starting point for financial services as well.

However, there is now a broadening consensus about the need to extend the due diligence provisions that we have introduced for the retail sector to financial services. The financial sector is lending money to, investing in, and doing bond issues for international businesses that have sometimes done a good job of monitoring their supply chains, but other times simply do not do enough to protect the products they are sourcing from the risk of illegal deforestation. The Minister may reference the Global Resource Initiative work led by Sir Ian Cheshire, who has been a great champion of this issue, and the Minister was very right to have been willing to pick up the initiatives set out in that report.

It is also something that is increasingly backed by the financial sector itself. I do not believe there is any contradiction between a successful financial services sector and proper responsibility in key areas such as deforestation, and we now see that the GRI report and the direction of travel set out in Lords amendment 7 is attracting support from institutions, including well-known ones such as Aviva, that amount to nearly £3 trillion of funds under management. The support is there, and I am grateful to the Minister for picking up that initiative and being willing to run with it. My request of him is not simply that we get on with it; we need to ensure that what he has announced today does not end up as just another review. Governments have review after review—not all lead to action. I take the Minister at his word that he will make this a process of action, rather than simply a further stage of looking at the issues again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Griffith]

I am grateful to all hon. and right hon. Members who have contributed to this debate. I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), who together with my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) started this Bill’s progress through the House. I spoke at length and tried to cover as many topics as possible in my opening remarks, so I will be brief.

I extend my thoughts to the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh). I have never actually made it to the cash machine promised in her constituency, but her words echo whenever we talk about access to cash. I did make it to the constituency of the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq), one of the lucky constituencies to have one of the six hubs, of which we seek to see many more.

I welcome hon. Members’ acknowledgement of the substantial steps that the Government have taken to further enhance regulatory accountability through the passage of the Bill. The hon. Members for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) and for Glenrothes (Peter Grant), my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) and my right hon. Friends the Members for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) and for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns) all talked about that.

The largest part of the debate was about the importance of access to cash, and the Government have introduced Lords amendments for precisely that. I wish my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Sara Britcliffe) good luck with procuring a hub for Great Harwood. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Robin Millar) spoke about access to cash, as did the Member with the most formidable knowledge of the important role played by the Post Office, my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker), and my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Anna Firth). I and, I hope, the banks have heard the debate. It is important that they have been listening to the strong points made about not just access to cash but access to face-to-face branch facilities.

We heard from the hon. Member for Glenrothes about why Lords amendment 7 does not cover the devolved Administrations. I understand that this is not necessarily his desired outcome, but financial services legislation is a reserved matter. As an outcome, I hope to deliver a Brexit dividend—he may not particularly welcome that—for citizens in all parts of the country to protect those 140,000 jobs that, as we heard, Scotland relies on.

[Peter Grant]

Just to be clear, the Minister is saying that if the Scottish Government set a higher target for something than the UK Government do on behalf of England, the regulators will go with the UK Government’s low target, and if the UK Government set a higher target than the Scottish Government feel comfortable with, the regulator will go with the UK Government’s higher target, even in areas where an activity is devolved.

[Andrew Griffith]

We are always happy to listen to the hon. Member, but we are in danger of repeating ourselves.

Let me briefly give my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) the assurance he seeks that we will not just have another review. We seek action. We will be looking for a framework for due diligence and for how we can hold the financial sector to account. Both he and my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire talked about how we can make the UK financial sector an exemplar on deforestation and support for nature. That is my aspiration, and I believe that it is shared across the House. The Government’s amendment in lieu of Lords amendment 36 will do that.

Government amendments made throughout the passage of the Bill reflect the comprehensive scrutiny and engagement of both sides of the House, just as we have heard tonight, and the Bill is the better for it as a result. I hope that their lordships will listen to the voice of this House. It is now time to pass the Bill and begin the really important work of tailoring our financial services regulation to serve the interests of the UK, bolster our competitiveness as a global financial centre, power growth in every part of the country and every part of the economy and, above all else, deliver better outcomes for the consumers and residents we represent.

Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 7.