Financial Services and Markets Bill

Debate between Peter Grant and Lord Grayling

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 26th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[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!

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Peter Grant and Lord Grayling

Thursday 19th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

23. What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the future of the aviation industry after the UK leaves the EU.

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Chris Grayling)]

I meet my right hon. Friends and Cabinet colleagues on a regular basis to discuss the UK’s exit from the EU. Ministers and officials across Departments are working closely to consider carefully the implications for the aviation sector after we leave the EU.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Grayling]

Clearly, airline ownership is more complex as part of the European Union than it was in the pre-EU days, but nobody is seriously suggesting that we are not going to continue with the same kind of transatlantic partnerships we have at the moment. British Airways and American Airlines, for example, operate in lockstep with each other. We will progress in due time towards a sensible agreement that continues the extremely prosperous, important and successful transatlantic aviation routes.

[Peter Grant]

We have less than a year to sort this out. Already people who are attempting to book foreign holidays for next Easter, less than a year from now, are finding that they are having to accept a clause in the contract that waives any right to compensation if their holiday is cancelled because of problems with the lack of an open skies agreement. Is the Secretary of State trying to tell us that those reports from reputable travel agents are myths that we should not believe? Is it not a fact that the travel industry and the aviation industry understand how serious this problem is becoming and the Government, in their complacency, do not?

[Chris Grayling]

That is not accurate at all, as the hon. Gentleman will find if he listens to the chief executives of the International Airlines Group, EasyJet or a number of other airlines. I have had no airline, bar one, come to my desk and suggest that they are concerned about the situation. I think we know which the one is, and no other airline believes there is any likelihood of any impediment to aviation next year. Indeed, there will not be. Can you imagine, Mr Speaker, a situation where the Spanish, Italian, Portuguese or Greek Governments did not want holidaymakers to arrive from the United Kingdom in 2019? I have spoken to my counterparts and they snort with derision at the idea that the planes will not fly.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Peter Grant and Lord Grayling

Thursday 23rd February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

It is already the case that when an EU citizen arrives in this country, they have to show their passport. I do not envisage that changing in the future.

[Peter Grant]

The reality is that since 2011 this Government have cut the UK Border Force budget by 15%, despite it having to cope with an 11% increase in passenger numbers over the same period. That is already having an impact on passengers. What discussions has the Secretary of State had with the Home Secretary to make sure that neither passengers nor border security are prejudiced or compromised after Brexit?

[Chris Grayling]

The hon. Gentleman will know that in recent years we have significantly increased automation at airports, with e-gates for passports, which provides a good way of balancing the need for effective border controls and the ability to live within our means.

Business of the House

Debate between Peter Grant and Lord Grayling

Thursday 10th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of manufacturing. I wish him well with his event this evening. He could certainly bring to the attention of the Backbench Business Committee the need for a general debate on the importance of manufacturing. However, I gently remind him as a Labour Member of Parliament—this is more directed at his Front Benchers than at him—of the popular myth in this country that manufacturing fell sharply as a proportion of our national income under Conservative Governments in the 1980s. In fact, that proportion barely changed at all in the 1980s, but under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown it almost halved.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

Last Tuesday, when the Leader of the House announced the arrangements for the Syria debate, he told us that he was not aware of any “specific reason” why the Prime Minister could not be in the Chamber on Thursday to allow us to have a second day of debate. Is the Leader of the House now in a position to tell us where the Prime Minister was last Thursday, and is it standard practice for him to be kept in the dark about his Cabinet colleagues’ commitments?

[Chris Grayling]

Surprisingly enough, I do not watch every inch of the Prime Minister’s diary. What I told the House then, and I say again today, is that if a matter is sufficiently important for the Prime Minister to be in the House, he will be in the House. It was important for him to be in the House, and he was here last Wednesday to lead the debate, which lasted for 11 and a half hours. I think that showed this House at its best: it was the right way to do things.

Business of the House

Debate between Peter Grant and Lord Grayling

Thursday 5th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

We have made a number of decisions not only to encourage and support the growth of renewable energy so that we can keep the lights on—an issue that was raised earlier—but to meet the financial challenges that we face. However, I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman has made. The Energy Secretary will be in the Chamber the week after next, and he will have an opportunity to put it to her directly then.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

The Commons European Business Order Paper lists details of legislation and other documents which, although their source is the European Union, the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee has deemed to be of sufficient legal and political importance to merit a debate in either the House or its Committees. It shows that there is currently a backlog of 24 documents awaiting debate, to only one of which even a provisional date has been allocated, and that no provisional date has been allocated to any of the 12 documents that have been deemed important enough to be debated on the Floor of the House by all Members. Will the Leader of the House tell us who is responsible for this lack of respect for the due process of parliamentary scrutiny?

[Chris Grayling]

I am happy to update the House. The Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee raised the matter with me recently, and the Government have just written to him setting out plans for a series of further debates. There are enormous pressures on time in the House—as we have heard today, there are many demands for the use of its time for debates on a variety of subjects—but we take this issue very seriously. We have just made additional time available, and we hope to provide further time as the Session progresses.

Business of the House

Debate between Peter Grant and Lord Grayling

Thursday 17th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I suppose the only explanation for this is that, having been flushed down the pan politically, the Liberal Democrats have decided to do the same to the public conveniences of Cornwall. I am sure they will continue to pay the political price for doing so.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

On 16 July, the Leader of the House gave me some helpful advice on how I might track down the elusive Secretary of State for Scotland so as to get a direct answer to the question of whether he was on the circulation list for the infamous “Frenchgate” memo. Since then, like a good obedient Back Bencher, I have followed the Leader of the House’s advice and pursued the matter. I asked an oral question in the Chamber, but it was not answered. I put a written question to the Prime Minister but that was not answered either. In a Westminster Hall debate on a Scotland Office answering day, not only did the Secretary of State not answer my question; he did not turn up. A Cabinet Office Minister turned up instead, but he did not answer it, either. Will the Leader of the House now find 30 seconds of parliamentary time in which to get the Secretary of State for Scotland in here to give a simply yes/no answer to the question of whether he was on the circulation list for that memo?

[Chris Grayling]

I think the hon. Gentleman might not be distinguishing between getting an answer he does not like and not getting an answer at all. I am sure he is going to continue to ask the question.

Business of the House

Debate between Peter Grant and Lord Grayling

Thursday 16th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

What the Government’s policies have done is create more employment in Wales, as they have in every other part of the country. What our policies in the benefits arena are doing through the introduction of universal credit is to simplify a complex system and create proper incentives for people to move back into work. People with disabilities should do small amounts of work in order to enable them to start making a move back into the workplace. That is the kind of strategy this country needs—to help those who genuinely cannot work, but to make sure that the support is there for those who have the potential to get back into the workplace and that the jobs are there when they need them.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

On 18 June the Leader of the House answered questions that I had raised on behalf of a number of people who were unable to get information from the Scotland Office through the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Clearly, I, a Member of Parliament, should not have to rely on that Act. Is the Leader of the House aware that I subsequently attempted to use a number of parliamentary procedures, but have as yet been unable to get the Secretary of State for Scotland to tell us who wrote and who received the infamous “Frenchgate” memo? I cannot even get him to admit whether he saw a copy of it before it was leaked. I cannot get him to tell us which Ministers or whether any Ministers saw that memo before it was leaked. No doubt the Leader of the House would agree that it would be enormously embarrassing for this place if I as an MP were forced to raise this matter under FOI. Does he agree that a Government who have nothing to hide should stop hiding? Will he arrange for the Secretary of State for Scotland to be brought before the House to explain himself as soon as possible?

[Chris Grayling]

Of course, one of the benefits of how this place works is that Members have a number of ways to bring Ministers before the House to answer questions—whether it be through Adjournment debates, oral questions, debates called by the Backbench Business Committee or whatever. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman will use one of those different approaches to bring the Secretary of State for Scotland here so that he can put those questions directly to him.

Business of the House

Debate between Peter Grant and Lord Grayling

Thursday 18th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

This subject is debated regularly in this House and will continue to be so. I know that health service managers and Ministers in the Department of Health are focused on the unnecessarily high level of cost. Personally, I am strongly in favour of creating banks within the NHS rather than externally generated ones, and some trusts are now doing that—certainly, that is beginning to happen in my area. It is right and proper that we try to bring down costs in the health service where we can, and this is an important way of doing so.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

The Leader of the House will be aware that a few days ago the UK Government rejected a freedom of information request on the grounds that compliance would involve the release of information that could damage our relationship with France. Given that the request was about the circumstances in which a then Minister of the Crown authorised the deliberate leaking of a confidential, but probably inaccurate, record of a private conversation between another Minister of the Crown and a senior representative of the French Government, may we have an urgent statement from the Secretary of State for Scotland to reassure the House that the Government’s attitude to secrecy and open government is based on what is in the interests of the public and not on what is politically expedient for individual politicians?

[Chris Grayling]

Given the recent changes, the Government have no particular reason to have a vested interest in this matter, but I would say two things to the hon. Gentleman. It is important that Government can operate in a way that is in the interests of the country, and I know that those who look at ways to respond to such inquiries will always seek to do that; but if he and others are concerned, the point of having an Information Commissioner and an Information Tribunal is to enable decisions to be challenged, to establish whether they were right or wrong.