Financial Services Bill

Stephen Flynn Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons & Programme motion & Programme motion: House of Commons & Ways and Means resolution & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Monday 9th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake). It is safe to say, as others have done, that this is not a debate that will have folk at home sitting on the edge of their seat awfully excited, that is for sure. None the less, it is an incredibly important debate. It is an incredibly important matter for the UK economy, but also for the Scottish economy, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) outlined. The financial services sector in Scotland is incredibly important, and it is linked to tens of thousands of jobs across our nation. It is in that broader context that we are obviously quite content to let this Bill pass on Second Reading, bearing in mind the fact that a regulatory framework is needed at this stage. I hope the Government will be amenable to some of the amendments we will put forward. Those amendments will broadly—how shall I put it?—be borne out of frustration that perhaps the Bill does not necessarily go as far as it could or should go. I will seek to touch on a couple of those matters during my speech today.

The first one I would like to touch on is about clause 31, which is on money laundering. Clause 31 in itself appears to be one that is quite self-congratulatory in its nature. To quote, as I feel is appropriate to do on this occasion, the Government say that the Bill

“will further support the public and private sectors to efficiently and effectively target their resources towards potential criminal activity using trusts, maintaining the resilience of the UK’s defences against economic crime.”

On the face of it, that looks like a fantastic thing, but when we look a little bit more at what we on the SNP Benches have been saying for a number of years now about Scottish limited partnerships, it appears that the warm words of the Government do not actually bear fruit given the reality of the picture on the ground. It should not need to be said to Members on the Government Benches, but when we are talking about Scottish limited partnerships, we are talking about organisations through which people can access financial products without having to name who they are. If that is not an open invitation to money laundering, I do not know what is. When we look at money laundering in the context of Scottish limited partnerships and also of tax avoidance and £35 billion tax gap that exists in the UK at this moment in time, it is probably safe to say that the public are a little bit sceptical about whether the Government take this as seriously as they should.

Our frustrations do not stop there. They also relate to clause 32, on the debt respite scheme. The Government say that clause 32 will

“empower the Government to make regulations which will compel creditors to accept amended repayment terms”.

Again, on the face of it, that seems like a perfectly legitimate and correct thing to do, but does it necessarily address the situation at this moment in time, when businesses across Scotland and the UK have taken out bounce back loans and coronavirus business interruption loans that they will not be able to pay back? Does it meet the reality of the situation? I am very sceptical as to whether it does.

The Government have two options on that front. They could simply write off that debt for small to medium-sized enterprises, which are the lifeblood of our economy, or they could take strategic moves to turn some of that debt into equity stakes, where it would be appropriate to do so, to boost economic activity and perhaps gain some money back for the public purse. Unfortunately, again I am sceptical as to whether the Government will seek to do either of those things. That is not in any way a positive outcome.

Thirdly, I want to touch briefly on clauses 24 to 26, on the overseas funds regime. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central said, the ABI has expressed concerns about the potential for equivalence to be used as a political football. I think all of us have that concern. We heard warm words from the Chancellor earlier today about the fact that he would not seek to use it as a political football, but being a bit of a sceptic about this Government, I think that warm words from the Chancellor at the Dispatch Box are not quite good enough. The record of this Government when it comes to saying one thing and doing the complete opposite is all too clear for everyone to see, so I have grave concerns in that regard.

The issue of equivalence takes me on to the final point that I wish to make, which is about the ongoing shambles in relation to Brexit. The UK Government website states that the Bill will “promote financial stability”. We do not have a trade deal with the European Union, and the transition period is a matter of weeks away. We do not know whether it will be possible for our financial services to access markets in Europe uninhibited. The scale of that issue is immense, particularly when we consider the fact that the City of London alone accounts for just under a third of all capital market activity across Europe. The market that we are seeking to leave is enormous, and this Government appear to have no plan and no desire to act prudently.

We heard from the Chancellor earlier, and we will probably hear it again from Government Members, that the blame for this lies at the EU’s feet, because it is refusing to partake in discussions in a proper and appropriate way. Who can blame the EU when, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) said, this UK Government are actively seeking to break international law? Who can blame the EU for being a little bit sceptical about the intentions of this Conservative Government? The sabre rattling needs to end, and the Government need to realise that the financial services industry must have the access it needs to support the tens of thousands of jobs that are reliant upon it, not only in England but in Scotland.

To conclude, I want to once again clarify that this Bill is very much born out of necessity, and we broadly support the regulatory framework around it. However, what is clear from this Bill, from the Brexit shambles and from the fact that the UK’s credit rating once again got downgraded just three days before the Bill was published, is that this Tory Government are no longer a Government of financial stability. I long for the day when Scotland no longer has to take its decisions in this place but can take its own decisions as an independent European nation.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I call Gareth Davies. I will give him a moment in case he is here—I should have gone to Specsavers. I call Jim Shannon.

Financial Services Bill (Third sitting)

Stephen Flynn Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 3rd sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 19th November 2020 Public Bill Committees

[John Glen]

Thank you very much. I will now let other colleagues take part.

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

Q Thank you, Dr Hawley, for the information you have shared so far. Can I refer you point 16 of your written submission? It says:

“However, there is no corporate offence in the FSA and it is therefore not clear that prosecutors would be able to hold companies to account were similar conduct to reoccur.”

I will be open and honest with you: I do not have a legal background, so perhaps you could elaborate on that further. Either there is the ability to do something or there is not. That ties in with the remarks about Barclays in point 21, which quotes remarks that it

“effectively removes companies with widely devolved management and functioning boards”.

The term “effectively” implies that it could or could not. Can I have a little more clarity on that point?

Dr Hawley: Yes, absolutely. We have checked that with lawyers, and it is the case currently under the Financial Services Act that if you wanted to bring a prosecution for misleading statements on benchmarks—let us hope that will not happen again because financial institutions have learned the lessons from last time—the only way that you could hold a company to account would be under the directing mind principle that I mentioned earlier. You would have to show that one of the directors knew and intended for this to occur. There is no comparative offence, as there is under the Bribery Act, of a failure to prevent misleading statements being made, for which there could be a corporate fine. That would be almost impossible to do if a bank were making misleading statements.

The Barclays judgment has made that even more difficult and narrower. Prosecutors and the Serious Fraud Office can no longer say, “We’ve got the evidence on the CEO and CFO, and we think we can prove it, so we will take this to court.” The court then turns round and says, “No, it’s not just that. You have to show that the board actually delegated authority to these people.” It set a whole new hurdle for how you hold corporates to account. What we are hearing from people is that this is going to lead to a massive decrease in corporate prosecutions, because the grounds for bringing a company to account are so narrow now that they are almost impossible. I cannot say that it would not happen, but I can say that it would be an extremely brave prosecutor to risk public money in the courts to try.

[Stephen Flynn]

Q Thank you for that clarity. To play devil’s advocate a little, in terms of the individual versus collective responsibility, which is effectively what is being inferred here, do you see any dangers in going down that route?

Dr Hawley: The corporate route?

[Stephen Flynn]

Yes.

Dr Hawley: We do not see any dangers, because, generally, if you can hold the company to account, you are more likely to be able to hold the individuals to account. There is some evidence from the US, where the lack of senior executives going to jail has been contentious.

I think there is a real issue around senior executive accountability. We have seen a series of acquittals in the UK courts, in the Tesco’s case and in the Barclays case. There are some quite serious issues that need to be looked at in terms of how senior executives are held to account. I could argue to bring forward an amendment to address that as well, but that is not what we have done in this written evidence. We are just focusing on the corporate offence, and we do not see any reason why it would undermine efforts to hold senior executives to account. I would be interested to hear those arguments, because I have not heard any coherent arguments about why it undermines individual accountability.

[Stephen Flynn]

Thank you.

[The Chair]

It might be helpful for colleagues and our witness to say that we have 18 minutes left and three people who want to ask questions, so people might want to be mindful of that.

Financial Services Bill (Fourth sitting)

Stephen Flynn Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 4th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 19th November 2020 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Stephen Flynn, could you make your way to the mic and speak right into it? That one will work, although it has Duncan Hames’s name by it.

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

Q I am sure that Duncan would be overjoyed to be associated with me.

Thank you, Minister Isola, for presenting yourself before us today and for the information that you have provided. I would like to follow on from the shadow Minister’s questions about the competitive advantage that Gibraltar may or may not have. As I see it, the Bill seeks to create a level playing field, but it could be inferred that Gibraltar has a competitive advantage over our constituent parts of the United Kingdom—indeed, the home nations—given that it has abilities in relation to corporation tax and other forms of taxation that the home nations do not. How would you assess that? I appreciate that you sought to answer Mr McFadden in that regard, but do you feel that we could see a situation in which businesses will seek to take advantage of what is clearly a level playing field with a competitive advantage for yourselves?

Albert Isola: The simple answer is no, and I will tell you why. If you think about it, we have been setting our own tax rates for the past 20 years, during which we have had access to the United Kingdom market through the European Union single passporting system. I do not think that I have ever heard any discussion in the financial services environment about different tax rates in different member states of the European Union, let alone Gibraltar, having an impact. It is not as if an advantage were being created by the Bill that would endure to 1 January next year and beyond. Where we are today is where we have been for the past 10 or 15 years with different tax systems.

I do not think that you will find a company that—with the level of investment that it requires in terms of capitalisation, particularly with respect to insurance—will make a judgment call on a difference of 9% in corporate tax, assuming that it can make a profit. As I said to the shadow Minister, the information that I have from the firms that have come here is that that is very low on their list of priorities, if it is there at all. I do not see it having the impact that you suggest; if there were such an impact, it would already have happened a long time ago. As I mentioned, the firms that are in Gibraltar today have been here for a very long time, and as they have grown, so have we. Our market share has been 20% for the past year or two; it was a lot less before those businesses grew and became more successful.

[The Chair]

As there are no further questions, I thank you, Minister, for joining us remotely from Gibraltar as our final witness of the day. This is the end of our fourth and last evidence session.

The Committee will meet again, not here but in Committee Room 14, on Tuesday at 9.25 am—bright-eyed and bushy-tailed for our first sitting of line-by-line scrutiny.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(David Rutley.)

Financial Services Bill (Seventh sitting)

Stephen Flynn Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 7th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 26th November 2020 Public Bill Committees

[John Glen]

At this point I cannot give her chapter and verse on the exact attribution of resources to this measure, but I can look into that and come back to her.

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I will be brief. The Minister has made a compelling case, but perhaps not as compelling as that made by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East, who made illuminating remarks on the potential price of bread, although I encourage him to go to Aldi, where he will get it for a lot cheaper than £1.10.

What is proposed here is a common-sense approach that would give the wider public confidence that the Government are taking this matter seriously, notwith- standing the Minister’s remarks thus far. In general terms, I do not think there is a huge difference between the two positions, but looking at both sides, I think the common-sense approach would be to tighten this process and make it more robust; that would provide the public with the confidence they feel they need on these matters, particularly given the scale of past scandals.

[Mr McFadden]

I listened carefully to what the Minister said. I do not think anyone looking at the issue would conclude that the responsibility for these actions had been fairly allocated, so there is an issue. I am not saying we want to go around looking to put people’s heads on spikes—we do not want that sort of politics—but it does rankle with our constituents when certain types of crime that are, candidly, easier to understand are met with heavy punishments while somebody who does a very complex crime that is more difficult to understand can somehow get away with it.

Having said that, I accept that legislation for criminal offences, and particularly for custodial sentences, needs to be very carefully drafted in exactly the right way, and I cannot say that I am 100% certain that my amendment is, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

Financial Services Bill (Eleventh sitting)

Stephen Flynn Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 11th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 3rd December 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Mr McFadden]

Thank you for your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I rise to speak to new clause 2, in my name and the names of my hon. Friends. We discussed equivalence when we were debating clause 24 or 25, so it might relieve the Minister and the Committee to know that I will not repeat everything I said about how we got to this position, but let us look at what the current situation is.

First, we have withdrawn from the EU, and in so doing we have withdrawn from any joint decision-making process about mutual access to financial services. Secondly, a few weeks ago the Chancellor announced a unilateral move on the UK’s part to grant equivalence recognition to EU member states and their firms. Thirdly, there is a legislative mechanism to do that in the Bill. Fourthly, we now await decisions on equivalence from the EU. Finally, in terms of the regulatory picture, we have spent a lot of legislative time in this House—probably no one more than the Minister in the past two years or so—legislating to onshore various EU directives. That is where we are.

The aim of onshoring that vast body of legislation was to have a parallel position, or as near to one as we could reach, on day one of the end of the transition period. At the same time, though, we have given our regulators powers to diverge in various ways from the terms of these directives in future. We have discussed that quite a few times in Committee, and the Minister said that the Government are not interested in diverging for the sake of divergence, but of course there are many in the Government, and in his party, for whom divergence is the whole point of the exercise, because it is all about sovereignty. Although we may be almost totally in line on day one—new year’s day—what about day 100 or day 1,000?

Nothing in new clause 2 alters the power to diverge. If the package of onshoring and granting new powers to the regulators that the Minister is taking through is there, nothing in the new clause alters that, but it asks for a report on where we have reached in that process. We know that a positive outcome of this process could have a very significant bearing on the UK financial services industry. It would mean better access for our firms than without that process. It certainly would not give them what they have at the moment, but that is water under the bridge—we debated that earlier in Committee.

The converse is also true, of course: if we do not get equivalence recognition, it would have implications for jobs, tax revenue and how the UK is viewed as a home for inward investment in the financial services industries. All that the new clause does is to ask for a report on where we have got to in the process or, alternatively, a statement on who has refused to grant equivalence of recognition.

I hope the Economic Secretary does not mind if I point out that I cannot be the only one who is struck by the clamour, particularly on the Government Benches, for economic evidence to justify covid-protective measures. Everybody wants the exact detail of how that will affect their local economies. If that is the case, it is only right that the Government report on the economic consequences of the other major process that we are going through. That is the intention behind the new clause.

The sector is hugely important for the United Kingdom, as has been mentioned many times during our debates over the last couple of weeks. All that the new clause does is to ask for a report on where we are on market access. I very much hope that we have a positive outcome on that. Some of it may be about good will, and it might depend on what is agreed in the next week or two—we do not know. It is certainly in the interests of the sector to have a positive outcome. The least we can ask is that the Government report to the House on that.

Finally, if the outcome is positive, the Government will probably want to report back anyway. If the outcome is not positive, Parliament has a right to hear about that, too.

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

Just to be clear, Mr Davies, do you wish me to speak to new clause 2 or to new clauses 28 and 36?

[The Chair]

You can speak to new clause 2 as well as to your new clauses 28 and 36.

[Stephen Flynn]

Then I will do that—thank you. It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair once again, Mr Davies. It is probably accurate and correct that the new clauses are grouped together, because they are quite similar in scope, particularly when considering the wider issue of divergence. I will come back to that.

New clause 28 seeks to provide an impact assessment before disapplying European Union rules or applying rules different from those of the EU. That is incredibly important, because it goes to the core of what the Bill is about in relation to our leaving the European Union. Only a few day ago, the Governor of the Bank of England highlighted that a no-deal Brexit could of course lead to a worse economic situation than covid. We need to be in a position to assess the reality of what the Government seek to do. That should apply in the case of no-deal, a good deal—as far as the Government see it—a bad deal or a “Boris deal”.

We should compare what we could have had with what we get. We should be open and transparent with the public about that. The Government talk about wanting to take back control and parliamentary sovereignty; let us take that back to the people as well and show them that the Government are being open and transparent with everything that is put forward. That is particularly important in a Scottish context because—lest we forget—the people of Scotland did not vote for Brexit, and they do not want it to happen, so it is incumbent on the UK Government to provide that clarity to them, particularly on such important matters.

If the Government are proud of the actions that they are taking and seek to go down a different path, they should be willing to follow up on their actions and be open and transparent, not shy away from that.

That takes me on to new clause 36, which would do something very similar to new clause 28, but rather than looking at the potential impact of future decisions, it would provide for an annual review of the decisions that had been taken. That, as the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East said, is, in the context of equivalence, incredibly important, particularly if we are to see the UK diverge from the European Union in any way, shape or form. As we have heard, the Chancellor has guaranteed equivalence to the European Union, so it will have access to the UK markets, but of course there is not a similar agreement in place for us. Conservative Members would, understandably, argue that that is the EU’s fault and that the EU should be delivering that for us, but, as I said on Second Reading, who can blame it when this is a Government who simply cannot be trusted, a Government—lest we forget—who are willing to break international law?

Irrespective of that, we should all be concerned about the reality of not having equivalence in place and what that could lead to. We have made and heard suggestions that it could mean, ultimately, divergence in relation to MiFID—the markets in financial instruments directive. It could mean divergence in relation to the wider insurance regulatory framework. I appreciate that there are arguments both in favour and against in that regard, but we need always to be mindful of what we are seeking to diverge from in relation to our wider relationship with the European Union. I appreciate that it will ultimately be in the gift of the Government to do these things, but they should surely have some concerns about the actions that they will be taking.

I go back to the comments that I made about new clause 28. If the Government are proud of the actions that they take and have taken, they will be willing to accept both new clause 28 and new clause 36 and to put their money where their mouth is and be open and transparent with the people of Scotland and the people of the United Kingdom that their decisions have not been ones that have had disastrous consequences for the economy of the UK. I suggest that if they do not accept the new clauses, that is because they know the damage that they are going to do.

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

What a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mr Davies. These new clauses seek to place requirements on the Government to make various reports related to the UK’s withdrawal from the EU and the subsequent evolution of our financial services regulation.

New clause 2 deals with equivalence, which is an important mechanism for managing cross-border financial services activity. I can well understand hon. Members’ interest in that. However, the obligation that the new clause would impose on the Government—essentially, to report on the status of the EU’s considerations about UK equivalence—is beyond the Government’s power and therefore not something that the Government can agree to do.

The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East rightly referred to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor’s speech on 9 November, in which he made clear that we have made equivalence decisions—17 of the 30 that we have to make. We have co-operated very fully with the EU in terms of a timely response to the 17 questionnaires. Again, we cannot determine how it responds. Equivalence assessments are an autonomous process, managed separately from trade negotiations. That applies in the case of the EU, and where the EU chooses to grant the UK equivalence, that will be done in accordance with its own decision-making process. EU equivalence determinations are unilateral and do not require the UK’s agreement. Those decisions will be published and readily available to all, including UK parliamentarians.

I can reiterate today the Government’s commitment to operating an open and transparent approach to equivalence as the Chancellor explained in his speech on 9 November. Our overall approach is outlined in the recently published guidance document on the UK’s equivalence framework. That document makes it very clear that transparency will be one of the key principles of our equivalence framework.

As part of this, the Treasury will provide Parliament with appropriate information about the operation of the equivalence framework. After the end of the transition period, future equivalence decisions will be made by regulations laid before Parliament, giving Members the opportunity to consider and scrutinise the Treasury’s decisions as part of the UK’s normal legislative process.

As I said, the Chancellor recently announced a package of equivalence decisions following the completion of our assessment of the EU, where we took a thorough but proportionate outcomes-based assessment against the criteria in legislation. As the EU has confirmed publicly, there are many areas where it is not prepared to assess the UK at the current time. In the absence of clarity from the EU, we have made decisions to provide clarity and stability to industry, supporting the openness of the sector and to help to deliver our goal of open, well-regulated markets.

Financial Services Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Stephen Flynn Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 12th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 3rd December 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 27—Legal protections for small businesses against the mis-selling of financial services—

‘(1) Regulation 3 (Private Person) of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Rights of Action) Regulations 2001 is amended as follows.

(2) In sub-paragraph (1)(a), leave out “individual” and insert “relevant person”.

(3) In sub-paragraph (1)(b), leave out “individual” and insert “relevant person”.

(4) After paragraph 1, insert—

“(1A) For the purposes of this regulation, a “relevant person” means—

(a) any individual;

(b) any body corporate which meets the qualifying conditions for a small company under sections 382 and 383 Companies Act 2006 in the financial year in which the cause of action arises;

(c) any partnership which would, if it were a body corporate, meet the qualifying conditions for a small company under section 382 Companies Act 2006 in the financial year in which the cause of action arises.”’

This new clause seeks to give small businesses greater legal protections against the mis-selling of financial services products.

[Stephen Flynn]

New clause 26 seeks to give retail clients greater legal protection against the mis-selling of financial services products, and new clause 27 seeks to give small businesses greater legal protections against the mis-selling of financial services products. I want to make a couple of quick remarks on that matter.

I do not need to tell hon. Members how important small businesses are. They make up three fifths of employment, and half the turnover in the UK private sector goes through small businesses. Those are telling figures. What is more, just 36% of small businesses use external finance; indeed, seven in 10 would rather forgo any growth than take on external finance. That is an important point that the Government must reflect on.

As they deliberate on why that may be the case, I will provide some additional information. There is a history of mis-selling, which causes small businesses a great deal of concern. Although regulation has been tightened, gaps remain. For example, small businesses complained earlier this year about the mis-selling of interest rate swaps. The FCA found that 90% of those businesses did not have a clue what that meant in reality, and it went on to talk about the dialogue between sophisticated and unsophisticated businesses in that regard.

The ultimate issue is that small businesses did not know what they were getting themselves into, and I think that is telling. No one wants that situation to arise, now or in the future. I encourage the Government to take heed of that and, therefore, agree to both new clauses.

[John Glen]

The Government are committed to ensuring that the interests of individuals and businesses that use financial services are protected. With the creation of the conduct-focused Financial Conduct Authority in 2013, we have ensured that those interests continue to be placed at the heart of our regulatory system and given the priority that they deserve.

The Government have given the FCA a strong mandate to stop inappropriate behaviour in financial services, and it has a wide range of enforcement powers—criminal, civil and regulatory—to protect consumers and businesses alike. That means taking action against firms and individuals that do not meet appropriate standards.

These new clauses, which have been tabled by the hon. Members for Glasgow Central and for Aberdeen South, seek to broaden the scope of parties that can seek action for damages related to mis-selling of financial services. The changes are unnecessary, however, because businesses already have robust avenues for pursuing financial services complaints. The Government are committed to ensuring that we do not unnecessarily push up the cost of borrowing for small businesses by creating additional legislative burdens.

In April 2019, the remit of the Financial Ombudsman Service was expanded to allow more SMEs to put forward complaints, and that covers 97% of SMEs in the UK. An enterprise that employs fewer than 50 people and has a turnover that does not exceed £6.5 million is entitled to bring a complaint to the FOS. If that complaint is upheld, the FOS can make an award of up to £350,000 in relation to acts or omissions that took place on or after 1 April 2019.

Moreover, SMEs will also have access to the business banking resolution service, an independent non-governmental body, which will provide dispute resolution for businesses. It will serve two purposes. First, it will address historical cases from 2000, which would now be eligible for the FOS but which were not at the time, and which have not been through another independent redress scheme. Secondly, it will address future complaints from businesses with a turnover of between £6.5 million and £10 million.

Given the robust avenues that are available to businesses for pursuing financial services complaints, I hope the Committee will agree that the new clauses are not necessary, and I respectfully ask the hon. Members not to press them.

[Stephen Flynn]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 29

Review of Impact of Scottish National Investment Bank Powers

“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the effect of the use of the powers in this Act in Scotland and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the date on which this Act receives Royal Assent.

(2) A review under this section must consider the effects of the changes on—

(a) business investment,

(b) employment,

(c) productivity,

(d) inflation,

(e) financial stability, and

(f) financial liquidity.

(3) The review must also estimate the effects on the changes in the event of each of the following—

(a) the Scottish Government is given no new financial powers with respect to carrying over reserves between financial years,

(b) the Scottish Government is able to carry over greater reserves between financial years for use by the Scottish National Investment Bank.

(4) The review must under subsection 3(b) consider the effect of raising the reserve limit by—

(a) £100 million,

(b) £250 million,

(c) £500 million, and

(d) £1,000 million.” —(Alison Thewliss.)

This new clause requires a review of the impact of providing Scottish Government powers to allow the SNIB to carry over reserves between financial years beyond its current £100m limit.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Alison Thewliss]

I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

New clause 29 would require a review of the impact of providing the Scottish Government with powers to allow the Scottish National Investment Bank to carry over reserves between financial years beyond its current £100 million limit. As Members may know, the Scottish National Investment Bank has been firmly established as a public limited company and has a proposed mission to focus the bank’s activities on addressing key challenges and creating inclusive long-term growth, including

“supporting Scotland’s transition to net zero, extending equality of opportunity through improving places, and harnessing innovation to enable Scotland to flourish.

It will provide patient capital—a form of long-term investment—for businesses and projects in Scotland, and catalyse further private sector investment.”

The bank’s first investment, announced the other week, was £12.5 million to the Glasgow-based laser and quantum technology company, M Squared, to support the company’s further growth in Scotland, which speaks to the bank’s proposed core missions.

The Scottish National Investment Bank will help to tackle some of the biggest challenges we face in the years to come, delivering economic, social and environmental returns, but currently there is a slight barrier, in that the Scottish Government can only roll over £100 million of their annual reserves. We are asking for the UK to look at increasing that to allow the Scottish National Investment Bank to get on with the job that it is set up to do.

As the Committee can see, the new clause asks the Government to introduce an impact assessment—because that is what we can do in this Committee; we can ask for reports and impact assessments—looking at increasing the Scottish Government’s reserves by £100 million, £250 million, £500 million or £1 billion for business investment, employment, productivity, inflation, financial stability and financial liquidity. We need the Government to come on board with that and provide some help to us. It is a huge and important project, so much so that the UK Government seem to be copying it by having an investment bank.

We would like to have an infrastructure bank for Scotland that can meet Scotland’s needs and priorities. It is desperately important that we do that. The bank will learn from banks such as KfW in Germany, which was set up after the war by the UK, and then we learned nothing from it ourselves. We want to be able to get on and do this and invest in Scotland’s future, but unfortunately we need the Government’s co-operation at this point to do that.

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Stephen Flynn]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss

New clause 32—Scrutiny of FCA Powers by committees—

“(1) No provision may be made by the Financial Conduct Authority under this Act unless the conditions in subsection (2) are satisfied.

(2) The conditions in are that—

(a) a new statutory committee comprising Members of the House of Commons has been established to scrutinise financial regulation, and

(b) a new statutory committee comprising Members of the House of Lords has been established to scrutinise financial regulation.

(3) The Treasury must, by regulations, make provision for and about those committees.

(4) Those regulations must provide that the committees have at least as much power as the relevant committees of the European Union.”

This new clause requires statutory financial regulation scrutiny committees to be established before the FCA can make provisions under this Bill.

[Stephen Flynn]

I will be incredibly brief. Again, both new clauses 31 and 32 are about oversight and scrutiny. I have absolutely no doubt that Conservative Members will want to take back parliamentary sovereignty and ensure that this place has oversight of the Government’s actions.

[John Glen]

I think I have previously detailed my response to new clauses 22 and 26 why it would not be appropriate for Parliament to scrutinise all regulator rules made in relation to those two specific measures. These new clauses go further, and would require all rules made by the Financial Conduct Authority in relation to anything within this Bill to be approved by Parliament before the rules can be made, and would prevent the FCA from exercising its powers effectively. New clause 31 would make the FCA’s rule making subject to parliamentary approval. New clause 32 prevents the FCA from making rules under the Bill until two new parliamentary Committees are established. The same arguments that I made previously are relevant here: new clause 31 would apply a higher level of parliamentary scrutiny—to the FCA only—when making rules in areas covered by the Bill. That would mean that those areas were inconsistent with other areas of financial services regulation not covered by this Bill or within the remit of the Prudential Regulation Authority, which will retain the existing scrutiny requirements.

Parliament would need routinely to scrutinise a large number of detailed new rules on an ongoing basis. That is very different from the model that Parliament has previously put in place for the regulators under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, where it has judged it appropriate for the regulators to take these detailed technical decisions where they hold expertise.

Turning briefly to new clause 32, although I note that Select Committees of both Houses already have the option to scrutinise the regulators as they see fit, it is naturally for Parliament to decide how best it wishes to scrutinise financial services regulation. However, I do not believe that it is appropriate to make the introduction of an investment firms prudential regime, or any of the other changes enabled by this Bill, subject to the establishment of new parliamentary Committees. Nor do I believe it is for the Treasury to make regulations related to the establishment or functioning of parliamentary Committees. As the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East pointed out in an earlier sitting, that is a matter for the House to decide.

I would like to reassure the Committee that I am committed to ensuring appropriate accountability and scrutiny around new rules for our financial sector. That is why I recently published a consultation document on the review of the future regulatory framework for financial services. This review seeks to achieve the right split of responsibilities between Parliament, Government, and the regulators now that we have left the EU. It seeks views, including those of all parliamentarians, on how we can best scrutinise and hold the regulators to account, while respecting and safeguarding their independence. I look forward to engaging with hon. Members on that subject but, given what I have said, I suggest that they might consider withdrawing the new clause.

[Stephen Flynn]

I am not surprised, but I am disappointed. I would like press new clause 31 to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.