Pensions: Online Dashboard

Debate between Baroness Kramer and Baroness Buscombe

Tuesday 24th July 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Buscombe]

My Lords, let me first say that the figure of 50 million referred to is an estimate made in 2012 of the number of dormant, not lost, pension pots by 2050. To suggest that 50 million pension pots will be lost unless a pensions dashboard is introduced is wholly inaccurate: I want to make that very clear. We are looking through the whole process and at experience overseas in order to understand more about pensions dashboards. The noble Lord knows that the whole process is very complex. We are working through the options around scheme participation in any potential pensions dashboard. The decision whether to compel participation depends on a number of issues, such as the functionality, delivery model and governance of the dashboard. We will set out the Government’s view in due course.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, can the Minister address this feet-dragging? George Osborne announced that this project would go ahead in 2016, it was meant to be up and running next year, and Guy Opperman, in his role, constantly says that he is actively supporting it. The industry is—to put it mildly—cross, having done all the work it needs to contribute towards creating a pensions dashboard. It is vital so that savers can make the best investments of their pension money, and it is key to fraud prevention. Both of those are crucial issues. Can the Minister confirm that the rumours that the scheme is in jeopardy are false, and can she please finally give us a timetable?

Financial Guidance and Claims Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Kramer and Baroness Buscombe

3rd reading (Minutes of Proceedings): House of Lords
Tuesday 21st November 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Buscombe]

My Lords, I announced on Report in response to amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, the Government would bring forward amendments to introduce an interim fee cap in respect of PPI claims management services. Amendments 25, 26, 27, 29 and 30 honour that commitment—and I am sorry to see that the noble Baroness is not in her place.

As noble Lords are aware, this Bill already puts a duty on the FCA to cap fees charged in respect of financial services claims. This will ensure fair and proportionate prices for consumers using these services. However, as we have previously discussed, the implementation of the new regulatory regime and an effective, robust cap will necessarily take some time. This is a particular concern, given that the FCA’s PPI claims deadline may have passed by the time the FCA’s fee cap is in place. That is why the Government are introducing an amendment to set a fee cap at 20%, excluding VAT, of the claim value. The interim fee cap will apply to both CMCs and legal services providers that carry out claims management services in relation to PPI claims, to be enforced by the relevant regulators. It will be enforced by relevant regulators from two months after the Bill receives Royal Assent, until the FCA is in a position to implement its own cap. This cap will complement the range of measures in relation to PPI and other financial claims that the claims management regulation unit has announced. These include banning upfront fees and banning charges, where it is identified that the consumer does not have a relationship or relevant policy with the lender, as well as ensuring that all cancellation charges are reasonable and that consumers are provided with an itemised bill setting out details of what they relate to. This package of measures will support the Government’s aim to ensure that the claims management sector works in the interests of consumers by protecting them from excessive fees.

On Report, I also committed to tabling a government amendment to extend the FCA regulation of claims management to Scotland, should the UK and Scottish Governments agree that position. I am pleased to be able to confirm that the Scottish Government have now written to the UK Government to confirm agreement to extending regulation there. It highlighted that the situation in Scotland has changed since this issue was first discussed earlier this year. Legislation is currently progressing through the Scottish Parliament that will allow Scottish solicitors to offer increased funding options to clients on a no-win no-fee basis. As a result of these changes, Scottish solicitors will no longer need to set up CMCs to offer damages-based agreements to clients, and the CMC landscape is expected to change significantly.

To ensure that CMCs are not able to take advantage of this potential gap in regulation by targeting Scottish consumers, the UK and Scottish Governments have now agreed that FCA claims management regulation should extend to Scotland. This will ensure that there are appropriate regulatory standards in place to deal with CMC practices across Great Britain. These amendments follow up on my commitment on Report and do just that, extending FCA regulation of CMCs to Scotland, which will ensure that Scottish consumers are protected in the same way as those in England and Wales.

I note that the constitutional position of this issue has not been entirely straightforward as CMC regulation clearly concerns a mix of reserved and devolved matters. The regulation of the legal profession in Scotland is of course devolved, whereas matters of competition and aspects of consumer protection are reserved. It is the UK Government’s view that CMC regulation concerns reserved matters of competition and consumer protection. The Scottish Government have confirmed that they will seek the legislative consent of the Scottish Parliament for the CMC provisions as part of the wider legislative consent Motion for this Bill.

For the purposes of record, I should note that the UK Government’s view is that only Clause 20(4) relating to consumer advocacy is relevant to the legislative consent process, although I am aware that the Scottish Government might take a broader interpretation of how much of this is covered by the LCM. Nevertheless, the crucial issue here is that we have agreement that FCA regulation of CMCs should cover Scotland. I believe that this represents a sensible outcome which will benefit and protect consumers across Great Britain.

I am sure your Lordships will agree that the introduction of an interim restriction on charges in respect of CMCs is a positive step forward in ensuring that the claims management sector works in the interests of consumers. I am sure you will also agree that it is desirable to extend FCA regulation of CMCs to Scotland, given the change in circumstances there. I beg to move.

[Baroness Kramer]

My Lords, I apologise, as when I last spoke, I attributed to the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, a very eloquent speech that was made on cold calling and the way it targets vulnerable people, when it was the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, who made that speech. I apologise to both parties. If I have any excuse, it is that I confuse my own children, and one of them is male and the other is female, so it is even more embarrassing.

As regards this group of amendments, my only regret is that the cap on fees is set at 20%. It would have been better to have a lower cap. However, we congratulate the Government on the underlying principle of taking temporary action because it is very likely that by the time the FCA gets its grip on this issue we will be beyond the reach of future PPI claims. However, other than that, I once again thank the Minister for being responsive to the issues that have been raised all around the House, including this one and those of cold calling, debt respite and financial inclusion. This is a very important move by the Minister and her name will be attached to these issues well into the future.

Financial Guidance and Claims Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Kramer and Baroness Buscombe

Report: 1st sitting: House of Lords
Tuesday 24th October 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Buscombe]

My Lords, I beg to differ. Despite the noble Lord’s extensive experience in another place, it is entirely possible for us to bring forward an amendment in the Commons to introduce such a ban.

As I was saying, we want to ban pensions cold calling because a private pension plan is often an individual’s most valuable asset. A ban will send a powerful message to consumers to put the phone down. My officials recently met a range of stakeholders to explore the details of the ban and are currently working on developing the details of the policy arrangements.

Pensions cold calling is also a complex area which we want to get right. Indeed, the recent discussion with stakeholders uncovered interesting questions around how to define existing relationships and express requests for information. The Government will continue to finalise these complex policy details and we intend to publish draft legislation for scrutiny in early 2018. Following this, we will legislate at the earliest opportunity. This gives us the opportunity to develop legislation which is more carefully targeted and allows us to make proper provision for enforcement which this current draft does not allow.

The Government have listened and want to work at pace to introduce a targeted response which will strengthen the arrangements already in place. However, the proposed approach in this amendment could delay implementation of any such ban. If this amendment were passed, the Government would first have to wait for the body to be set up. It is not expected to be set up and operational until October 2018. Then, recommendations would have to be made to the Secretary of State. No doubt, this would not be immediate because this body will have a huge amount of work to undertake when it is first set up. So it could be at least another year or two before any consideration could be made, prior to a recommendation being put to the Secretary of State to introduce such a ban. Then the Secretary of State would have to make and lay affirmative regulations.

The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, said that we need protection now. If Amendment 2 were passed, there would be much more delay than if the Government were to wait.

[Baroness Kramer]

I think the Minister distinctly said that she was considering a ban being introduced in the Commons on cold calling for claims management but not for pensions. So the timetable she has described becomes rather complicated compared with the alternative for which she has not given a timetable.

[Baroness Buscombe]

I have already made it clear, as we did in Committee, that we intend to bring forward a ban on pension scams. We cannot be entirely accurate on timing because, as the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, made clear, we have to find a legislative opportunity. As I have just said, we will introduce draft legislation early next year and that will go through a process of pre-legislative scrutiny. I hope noble Lords will accept that this is very sensible in order to get it right. Indeed, some years ago, this House introduced the possibility of draft legislative scrutiny in important situations such as this. We do not want to get it wrong.

I also say to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, that it is not without this planet to expect and hope that there will be opportunities—gaps in the timetable—for legislation to come forward. Given the timetable for setting up the body and for the many things it will have to undertake in its early months, I suspect that passing this amendment would mean a protracted delay in introducing a ban on CMCs. The noble Baroness knows perfectly well that we cannot introduce the ban on pensions cold calling in this Bill because it is out of scope. CMCs are actually in scope.

[Baroness Kramer]

This amendment is in scope. It allows the banning not only of cold calling, but of a broader range of issues. The point made from the Labour Benches was that the Government always said they would have done it in this Bill had there been any mechanism for it to be in scope. It is now in scope, which is why we are debating it on the Floor today. We are not debating an out-of-scope amendment.

[Baroness Buscombe]

That is why I am making it clear that banning pensions cold calling is out of scope of this Bill, but the CMCs are in scope. I am sorry; this is very confusing for noble Lords. I shall focus on what really matters—namely, whether this amendment would bring forward a ban on cold calling. I must stress that that is not the case; there would be a protracted delay.

To reiterate, the Government agree with the spirit of these amendments and will bring forward legislation in this Bill, in the other place, in relation to cold calling for claims management activities. Along with our pre-stated commitment to ban pensions cold calling, I hope that reassures the House.

My noble friend Lord Faulks asked whether the SFGB is the right body to handle cold calling. I stress that I do not believe this is the right duty to place upon this body. It should be the subject of primary legislation. However, the Government intend to bring forward the appropriate legislation that will work in practice. That is the important thing here. My noble friend Lord Trenchard questioned whether this amendment was right and said that we needed to take care to avoid unintended consequences with a complete outright ban that could possibly work to the detriment of the consumer.

I shall detain noble Lords no longer. I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.

Financial Guidance and Claims Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Kramer and Baroness Buscombe

Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 13th September 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Buscombe]

I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this important debate. I thank in particular the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, my noble friend Lady Altmann, and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for tabling the amendments and prompting this debate about cold calling. I think we are all familiar with the nuisance calls and texts that noble Lords seek to address.

However, I fear I shall disappoint noble Lords, but will do my utmost to persuade the Committee that legislating for a ban on cold calling at this stage is not the right thing to do. The arguments against the amendments are twofold. I shall begin with what we are doing by way of this Bill. The Government have put on record their commitment to clamping down on rogue CMCs that bombard consumers with unsolicited nuisance calls and texts, or provide poor service for consumers, by transferring regulatory responsibility to the FCA. Strengthening the regulation of claims management services—good regulation, I might add—should reduce the number of unsolicited calls made by CMCs as they will have to comply with any additional rules that the FCA makes in relation to how CMCs obtain customers or pass their details on to others.

The FCA will consider unsolicited approaches to consumers in the wider context of rules around advertising and marketing. It is too early for the FCA to have decided on specific rules for CMCs. I make that point clear to all noble Lords who entered into the debate on this amendment: this is not something the FCA has had a chance to do before but now, through the Bill, it has the opportunity to decide on specific rules for CMCs. It will consult on its proposals.

There are already measures in place to tackle unsolicited calls. The Information Commissioner’s Office enforces restrictions on unsolicited direct marketing. Unsolicited directing marketing calls to a person who has subscribed to the Telephone Preference Service or told the company they do not wish to be called is prohibited under the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003. In addition, organisations responsible for breaching these regulations can be fined up to £500,000 by the Information Commissioner. In 2016-17, the Information Commissioner’s Office issued more civil monetary penalties for breaches of these regulations than ever before, issuing 23 companies over £1.9 million of fines for nuisance marketing.

There was reference to scams. Of course, scams fall into the sphere of fraud and are therefore criminal. Many cold calls are conducted by unauthorised businesses. CMRU increased its capacity to identify, investigate and take enforcement action against unauthorised businesses, including all call centres marketing unauthorised claims management services. Since these regulations began, CMRU has taken enforcement action against 1,280 unauthorised CMCs. Moreover, in May this year, a company behind 99.5 million nuisance calls was fined a record £400,000 by the ICO. Action is being taken now and the FCA will introduce tougher regulation in this area.

The noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, asked why, if we are able to ban calls for mortgages and pensions, we cannot ban them for CMCs. It is important to differentiate between the two types. The Government absolutely decided that cold colds in relation to, for example, pensions are a special case because the levels of consumer detriment are uniquely high. For some UK customers, especially inexperienced investors, pensions savings may be their largest financial asset. Often, CMC nuisance calls are just that—a nuisance. The potential for customer detriment is therefore also much less.

It is not that this is not an issue for the Government to consider. I say that with some feeling. Strengthening the regulation of claims management services should help reduce the number of unsolicited calls made by CMCs. As I said, there are already measures in place enforced by the ICO.

[Baroness Kramer]

The Minister talked about the current enforcement and recommended it with such vigour. Could she then explain why the number of calls is so great? I think the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, cited a figure of 50 million and it is growing every year. To my mind, the two things do not tally.

[Baroness Buscombe]

I am trying to make the point that the transfer of claims management company regulation to the FCA will result, we believe, in tougher regulation and should reduce the number of unsolicited calls made by CMCs. What I am really saying is: can we please give the FCA a chance? While there are already measures in place to tackle unsolicited calls, enforced by the Information Commissioner’s Office, unfortunately there is a minority of disreputable companies which flout the law. The ICO will take enforcement action where appropriate; as I have said, in 2016-17 it did so against 23 companies. We need to improve on this and we hope this will happen through tougher regulation.

I hope I have explained the difference between cold calling for CMCs and cold calling for pensions, which we are taking action on. I think my noble friend Lord Deben was suggesting, as indeed were other noble Lords, that we should have a wholesale ban on cold calling, but one has to be really careful what one wishes for. This point about access to justice is very important. Clearly, there are different routes to making unsolicited approaches. If we had a wholesale ban on cold calling, what would political parties do?

Financial Guidance and Claims Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Kramer and Baroness Buscombe

Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 11th September 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Buscombe]

My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, for tabling this amendment.

The purpose of Clause 14 is to provide for the single financial guidance body to be dissolved and for its functions, property, rights or liabilities to be transferred to the Secretary of State or another body. It provides for wind-up to be effected through affirmative regulations that must be debated and approved by both Houses of Parliament.

We believe that this provision is a pragmatic measure. It seeks to ensure—should it ever be necessary—that there is a smooth transition of the delivery of government-sponsored debt advice, pensions and money guidance from the single financial guidance body to another body or the Secretary of State. I appreciate that as we are here today debating the establishment of the single financial guidance body, it may be difficult to envisage that at some point in the future we may need to revisit again how we deliver government-sponsored financial guidance. Yet, just as we are now looking to meet the needs of members of the public by bringing together three separate services into this body, we may find there is a case to join up financial guidance with other services in the future. This clause would facilitate a smoother transition should we need to transfer the functions, assets and employees of the body to another.

The ambition behind this clause—should it ever need to be used—is to facilitate a more flexible approach to transition that would deliver the best outcomes for members of the public who need financial guidance. There would be no need to find a primary vehicle to transfer functions and to wind up the body. It would provide the opportunity for Parliament to respond more quickly should it be more appropriate for public financial guidance to be delivered by another body. It will be important, should this clause need to take effect, that the service to consumers is not compromised.

Where a Bill does not provide a fixed lifetime for a public body, Cabinet Office guidance states that departments should consider whether legislation should contain powers to permit winding up at a later date and for finalising and auditing the closing accounts. However, I assure noble Lords that this power does not take away Parliament’s ability to scrutinise or reject any proposals. Regulations would be required to dissolve the body, following the affirmative procedure, giving both Houses the opportunity to debate the proposals and—if they see fit—to reject them.

Before taking the decision to repeal the legislation for the Money Advice Service and Pension Wise and establish the new body, the Government consulted three times over a period of two years. We have chosen not to go down the same route as the Public Bodies Act or the Enterprise Act, which were referred to by noble Lords, but I assure noble Lords that in taking this power to wind up the new body by affirmative regulations we were not suggesting that consultation would not happen or that it would not be necessary. We would, of course, want to involve stakeholders and the public in the decision to dissolve the body in the same way that we have involved them in the development of these provisions.

[Baroness Kramer]

So often in this House I have heard Ministers argue that it is totally inappropriate for Members of this House to support a fatal Motion to a statutory instrument, yet the Minister is here arguing the rights and appropriateness of this House to do just that. I find it somewhat confusing that there is one message on these issues when it appears to suit the Government’s purpose and a completely different message on an occasion such as this.

[Baroness Buscombe]

I reject what the noble Baroness says. For example, with regard to banning cold calling in pension scams we are finding it extraordinarily difficult to find a primary opportunity to introduce that legislation. Here, there is no question of hubris, recklessness or carelessness on the part of government. We are trying to enable a smoother transition if, following consultation some time in the future, it is felt necessary to have a fundamental change to the current body, for whatever reason. At the moment I cannot foresee it, but it could happen.

[Baroness Buscombe]

Far from it; we are not ignoring Parliament—indeed, we have listened to the committee that the noble Lord sits on—but we do not always have to accept what the committee proposes. It is important that we listen, but no—we do not always have to accept what the committee proposes. We propose instead that there should be affirmative regulations, with consultation, that would allow a smooth transition if in future we found ourselves in a situation where it was decided that there should be a fundamental change to the make-up of this body. For example, Pension Wise was set up only a few years ago. However, since then it has been decided that it would be far more effective, efficient and supportive of the consumer if we were to have one single body, following considerable consultation both with the public and with stakeholders to ensure that the Government are reflecting the wish of the consumer.

[Baroness Kramer]

I must question the Minister on this. Is she saying that she wishes that she was in a position to be able to introduce the Bill, in effect, as a regulation rather than as a Bill, and that the Government are frustrated that at present they have three bodies, consider that one body would be better, and that in future they wish such decisions to be made through not primary but secondary legislation?

[Baroness Buscombe]

The noble Lord’s amendment seeks to add safeguards to the winding-up provision by mandating the Secretary of State to undertake procedures set out in Section 11 of the Public Bodies Act before the wind-up can take effect. The power in the clause would mean that the draft regulations would be subject to the affirmative procedure where both Houses of Parliament would have to approve a Motion before the regulations could take effect.

Further, as I have indicated, I can see no reason why—should it ever be necessary—the Government would not consult prior to taking any action to dissolve the body. This would be contrary to the open and transparent culture that we are all committed to. However, as I noted earlier, I have some sympathy with the noble Lord’s intentions on consultation and, in the light of the committee’s comments on this clause, as well as the debate, I will consider further whether there is anything more that we can do to meet any concerns that have been raised. I therefore urge the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, to withdraw his amendment.

Financial Guidance and Claims Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Kramer and Baroness Buscombe

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 19th July 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Buscombe]

I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this helpful debate, and in particular my noble friend Lady Altmann for raising these issues through her amendments. It is important to be straight about it: let us not get hung up on legal terms that we need to use in the Bill to ensure that the body can deliver the crucial support on problem debt need. How the sector and others promote the services is another matter. It needs careful consideration based on evidence and insight.

I thank my noble friend Lady Altmann for bringing forward Amendments 4, 12, 44 and 67, which replace references to “debt advice” with “debt counselling” or “guidance and counselling”. My noble friend has tabled a further amendment in this group, 21, which would add to the body strategic functions to improve public understanding of the distinction between certain personal finance terms and improve their knowledge of how to access relevant information and guidance. I also thank the noble Lords, Lord McKenzie of Luton and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, whose Amendment 38 would establish a definition for the terms “advice” and “guidance” used in the Bill.

Regarding Amendment 38, I reassure noble Lords that the Financial Conduct Authority provides thorough definitions of guidance and advice in the relevant section of its handbook. The handbook includes examples which clarify how the distinction between guidance and advice works in practice, and the Government believe that such detail is best articulated by the regulator rather than through primary legislation. I also observe that through the specifications in Clauses 6 and 7, the FCA will have a formal role in ensuring that all the activities conducted on behalf of the new body are in line with its regulatory standards and guidelines.

The FCA has conducted a significant body of work in this area, providing clear definitions of the terms “guidance” and “advice”. The Government are grateful to it for these efforts and believe that any ambiguity over the use of these terms has been appropriately addressed. It is therefore not appropriate to insert definitions of these terms in the Bill.

As she did on Second Reading, my noble friend Lady Altmann raised the important point about language and its consequences, as have other noble Lords. I agree that it is important to ensure that the Bill’s wording accurately reflects the activities the new body will be undertaking, and that members of the public fully understand the nature of the support available to them. I have reflected on this point, take it seriously, and have therefore given it careful consideration. However, I have concluded that it would not be right to include these amendments.

The first reason for not including the amendments is that “debt advice” is the term that most appropriately reflects the provision that the new body will deliver in relation to its debt function, so it should be used instead of alternatives. There are two key reasons for this. First, “debt advice” reflects a broader set of activities than “debt counselling”, and this broader set of activities is precisely what the new body will have a duty to deliver. For instance, while “debt advice” can be said to cover providing recommendations for individuals about which debt solution they should pursue, as well as adjusting individuals’ debts through a debt management plan, “debt counselling” can be said to cover only the first of those activities.

Secondly, I should note that, like financial advice, debt advice is an activity regulated by the FCA. It involves advisers offering a personal recommendation to an individual which steers them towards a particular course of action. Under FCA rules, in giving this recommendation the adviser is required to make it clear that they are giving a consumer regulated advice. Only those providers who have been authorised by the FCA to deliver this service or who are exempt from authorisation can provide this advice. As such, this makes it different from the other functions delivered by the body and means that other previously been suggested terms—for instance, “debt guidance”—would not be an appropriate description. “Guidance” in this context refers to the provision of generic information about money matters without the inclusion of a personal recommendation. Authorisation is not required for guidance, so using a term such as “debt guidance” would, we believe, be equally misleading.

The second reason why I do not believe that we should amend the term “debt advice” brings me back to the underlying purpose of ensuring that the language we use is clear, accurate and consistent. We must ensure that the way we structure and label the services on offer to individuals reflects the way they use and understand these services. There is no compelling evidence that use of the term “debt advice” is an issue for consumers or that it affects their ability to access appropriate provision. Indeed, the term is almost ubiquitously used among leading debt charities. We also need to bear in mind that we have carried out three consultations covering this issue, among many others, and have found that to be the case.

[Baroness Kramer]

Perhaps I may ask the Minister for some clarification. My question relates to a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, the reply to which I did not clearly understand. If an adviser provides debt advice to an individual who has a debt issue but also belongs to an auto-enrolment scheme for a pension, is the adviser permitted to propose that the individual opt out of that pension or would they be violating their authority as an adviser if they did so? From looking slightly to the Minister’s side, I gather that they would, and therefore they would be unable to provide that advice, even if it was the correct and best solution for the individual. That is part of the complication that is coming out of this language.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Kramer]

Perhaps I may add to that. Partly this is problematic because individuals receiving the debt advice may not understand that there is no discussion of their pension pot, because the adviser is unable to raise the issue and, therefore, they may not recognise that they are being offered a series of potential solutions within a limited framework that does not make use of the full financial resource that describes essentially who they are and what they have available to them. We use advice only in the regulated sense, but the person listening thinks that it is advice in common terminology, and that is why we end up with the problems that the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, is trying to address.

[Baroness Buscombe]

This turns on the question of what we mean by seamless. The point is that this body will be able to signpost people. The most important thing about the use of language, in a sense, is the ability of the advisers to clearly signpost and explain who can advise on what. It is a question of who has the advice, the skills and permissions to give debt advice and who can only give guidance.

I am not sure why there is an issue about this. It is more about the ability to signpost people in the right direction. Certainly, all the analysis has shown that changing the terminology makes no difference at all. What makes a difference is the ability of people to understand what it is they are able to receive and from whom.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Buscombe]

Noble Lords may laugh, but I have the advantage of having been at the other Dispatch Box in opposition when noble Lords opposite were in government. We suffered continually from the inability to get that Government to introduce and think about really important measures like this. That is why the situation has become so much worse over the past 19 years that I have been in your Lordships’ House. But we want to get this right.

[Baroness Kramer]

I think the Minister may have misread noble Lords’ tone and intent. As everyone has said, there is common ground on this issue across all the Benches. Everyone is attempting to put in a breathing space and everyone wants to stop cold calling. The Minister’s argument is that the amendments have been twisted to come into the scope of this Bill. They are not the ideal amendments and everybody has said so. But in response to the discussion that has taken place across this House—a discussion that these amendments enabled—would the Government look at making a small amendment to the Long Title to enable the introduction of powers through statutory instrument? This could introduce both the breathing space and the stop on cold calling, without describing exactly how that is done, so the Government would have the opportunity to think through those complexities.

This measure is being proposed because the legislative timetable means that no vehicle other than this Bill is available for at least 24 months to make those changes. The Government may be ready to make the changes three months from now, but will find themselves without any legislative vehicle to enable them to do so. A small change here could enable the Government to act on the timetable they have identified, but which they now have no mechanism for because of the way the legislative timetable is playing out. Perhaps I am being confusing, but I am trying to make the point clear.

[Baroness Buscombe]

My Lords, I understand entirely and accept what the noble Baroness is saying. Indeed I understand that that is the purpose of all noble Lords who have spoken this evening. However, I take issue with the idea that there is no legislative opportunity over the next two years. The Government have made it very clear that we will not be confining ourselves to Bills relating to our departure from the European Union. There will be other opportunities to legislate in these important areas, but we want to make sure that when we do it, we get it right. It is important that I address—

[Baroness Buscombe]

No, I cannot do that at the moment and I think it is unfair to ask me to set out the Bills that could be used at this time. What I am saying, though, is that noble Lords should not presume that there are no other opportunities to bring forward legislation over the next two-year period, other than those relating to the departure from the European Union—

[Baroness Kramer]

I am sorry, but other than a Private Member’s Bill—I think even all the Private Member’s Bills have been allocated over the next two years—I am not sure it is possible to identify such a vehicle. If it is, we would all feel much comforted. A reassurance that such a vehicle is coming within a reasonable timeframe would be very helpful, but we cannot see one.

[Baroness Buscombe]

I hear what the noble Baroness is saying, but I stick to what I said before: there may be opportunities in the coming few sessions or so. The important thing is that we want to take this forward with care, and we are very committed to it in principle.

I should also refer to cold calling and the question the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, raised. We are consulting on pensions cold calling, but the situation is different from mortgages cold calling. We have consulted on banning pensions cold calling through legislation, while a ban on mortgages cold calling has been put in place through FCA rules. Legislating to ban cold calling makes the activity illegal and therefore sends a stronger message to members of the public to put down the phone.

There are already measures in place to tackle unsolicited calls more broadly. The Information Commissioner’s Office enforces restrictions on unsolicited direct marketing, and the Digital Economy Act, passed earlier this year, required it to issue a statutory code of practice on direct marketing activities. The code will include guidance for direct marketing organisations on complying with the law, including the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations (EC Directive) 2003, and the upcoming data protection Bill. Unsolicited direct marketing calls to a person who has not agreed to be contacted are illegal.

Financial Guidance and Claims Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Kramer and Baroness Buscombe

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Wednesday 19th July 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, that the amendment is possibly sitting in the wrong spot, because the various pension bodies being absorbed into this single body have provided guidance directly. It is advice provided through a commissioning, contractual arrangement, which I am sure everyone intends should remain in place. However, the underlying spirit of the point the noble Lord makes and the request for clarification are important.

I rise to speak merely because the Minister may answer that such issues are covered somewhat in Clause 4. I simply wanted to point out that that clause regularly uses “may”, whereas I think the Government’s intention —and that, I suspect, of many others in this Committee —is that this be a “must”. So, the argument that Clause 4 is the answer to the question raised may not exactly work.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Buscombe) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for the amendment and for the opportunity to clarify. Amendment 8 would change the wording of the pensions guidance function by replacing “provide” with “ensure provision of”.

I am of the view that the amendment would make little difference to the outcomes that the body will deliver. Pensions guidance will be provided by the body itself or on behalf of the body by its delivery partner organisations, whether or not the requirement is that the body “provide” or “ensure provision of” pensions guidance. It is important that the body be able to design its services in a way that best meets the needs of the public.

It is better to establish clearly the body’s functions in Clause 2 and then set out in another clause which of those functions may be carried out by others. The amendment rather brings the two concepts together in Clause 2 in a way which is less clear.

Taken with Clause 4, as referenced by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, the wording of the pensions guidance function allows the body either to deliver information and guidance itself or to make arrangements with partners to deliver some, or all, of it. The mix of in-house and delivery partner provision will be for the body to decide. It would be wrong for me or indeed any of us to try to judge at this stage how much of the body’s work will be done via commissioning and how much in house. That may to some extent depend on how much certain advice is sought and what direction and guidance—

[Baroness Kramer]

I am sorry to interrupt the Minister but am not clear on what she just said. The provision in Clause 4 says that,

“The single financial guidance body may arrange for another person”.

That applies not just to the pensions guidance but to debt advice. My understanding was that the structure of debt advice currently underpinning MAS would be carried over into the Bill. Is this raising the option that the new body would provide debt advice directly? I am slightly unclear on that point. Could she help us with that?

[Baroness Buscombe]

I thank the noble Baroness for her intervention but I read it myself and I do not think it does—as she suggests—create that opportunity for the single financial guidance body to deliver the debt advice function. It says that it,

“may arrange for another person … to carry out any of the following functions on its behalf”.

The SFGB is the delivery partner. On the reference to “may” rather than “must”, from a legal standpoint it is already in the Bill that the guidance body can arrange for another person to carry out any of those functions. Indeed, it is implicit that it will.

I apologise but I have just been corrected in relation to the debt advice function. It is an option but not the plan—if that makes sense. I hope this explains what the wording of the pensions guidance function means in practice. I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.