Financial Services Bill

Debate between Baroness Neville-Rolfe and Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted

Committee stage
Wednesday 10th March 2021 Grand Committee

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to my Amendments 103 on impact assessments and 104 on reporting. I have been like a long-playing record on the importance of cost-benefit analysis of legislation, regulations and new rules in the form of an impact assessment. I return to the charge today with renewed vigour, as we are transferring very substantial powers from Brussels to Britain. I know that the process of preparing a cost benefit and the sunlight of transparency help enormously in avoiding difficulties and disasters. By the way, I thank my noble friend the Minister for producing an impact assessment on this Bill—always one of the most useful Bill documents, even if in this case it is shortish on numbers.

Amendment 103 is in two parts. First, it requires the Secretary of State—in this case, usually Treasury Ministers—to lay an impact assessment of each SI or regulation that they make before it comes into force. I know from my time as a Minister that having to put my own name to such an impact assessment made me look much more effectively at any instrument I was signing and thus avoid cock-ups—which do unfortunately happen from time to time, even in the Treasury! Secondly, as so much of EU power is being transferred to the FCA and PRA, it requires them to publish their proposed new rules on their respective websites for public scrutiny and to add an impact assessment of the rules. By impact assessment I mean an analysis of the costs and benefits of the proposed change, compared with the existing position and other policy options, including the expected impact on UK businesses and the economy. All I seek is a simple way of ensuring that the authors of new rules always consider the economic impact of their proposals in the interests of good government.

So far, so good. But—and I accept it is a big but —in part these provisions seem to be required already by the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, as subsequently amended. I have been through the relevant explanations and websites and am still not completely sure whether that is the case. Perhaps the Minister can kindly explain the position and give us some encouraging words as to the present and future position on this important matter. If my proposed provision is genuinely unnecessary, I am of course happy to withdraw it.

Amendment 104 follows on from Amendment 103. However, it is distinct and could be adopted alone. It requires the Secretary of State to publish an annual report on the impact of measures taken by the FCA, the PRA or the Government to regulate financial services with a particular focus on small business, innovation and competitiveness. While there has been a great deal of excellent discussion in this Committee on holding financial service operators to account and improving enforcement, we can lose sight of the value of smaller operators, including those based outside London. Moreover, innovation can bring huge value to consumers—online banking, easy money transfer overseas and share trading on mobile phones are good examples—and our strained economy will benefit from the competitiveness and attractiveness of the UK’s financial sector.

I know from my experience in the intellectual property area, which I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, will remember as well, how valuable an annual report of this type can be in focusing staff attention. Writing the report is a complement to the usual in-tray—the focus on risk and the avoidance of banana skins that exercises public servants, sometimes to the detriment of more strategic thinking. I look forward to hearing from my noble friend the Minister on how we might best take some of these matters forward. I believe that they could encourage the intelligent scrutiny of new rules and their early dissemination and publication, and that a strategic look once a year will help the sector to stay ahead in the new world. I beg to move.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]]

My Lords, for the purposes of today’s debates I again remind Grand Committee of my financial services interests as in the register.

I have signed Amendments 103 and 104 and agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, so I will not repeat what has already been said. It is a subject that the noble Baroness pursues with diligence, and it is right to do so, even if at times—at least as far as I am concerned—the scope and content of impact assessments are a little disappointing. The amendment relates to the final impact assessments as rules are coming into effect, although, of course, to be useful, impact assessments are needed at each stage. Indeed, if proportionality is to be properly taken into account, that is surely a prerequisite for the regulator.

But returning again to the FiSMA theme, where much of the proportionality, flexibility—call it what you will—will be done on an institution-by-institution basis, so the rules will enable that but not demonstrate how it is to be carried out, I am not sure how that will be properly assessed in an impact assessment based only on the rules. Therefore, it will also be important to be able to capture what actually happens after the rules have come into operation. That might be by way of a retrospective impact assessment after a period of time, and would seem to be another matter that Parliament will need to investigate.

Included in that, it should be relevant to capture the effects of frequency of rule change, which is presently greatly emphasised by regulators and the Government as part of the reasoning behind the Bill, yet somehow I doubt that rule churning was what industry felt it was signing up for by supporting FiSMA. It will be important to understand the scale and nature of that rule tweaking. Amendment 104 gets in part to that with the Government producing a report, but perhaps it should be part of the annual report or an annual impact assessment from the regulators, so that it can be further queried and those regulated can be interviewed by the relevant parliamentary committee. So perhaps the Minister can confirm how this frequency of tweaking will be tracked, what is the Government’s planned part in it and would they support Amendment 104 in particular as part of the way to do that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]]

I am sorry to intervene again, but I feel I must correct what the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, said—or at least remind him that the unbundling of the analysts’ report was an invention of the FSA that the UK then sold to the EU, and now the EU is blamed for what the UK did through the EU. There are many other examples of that, although I can confirm that AIFMD was definitely not one of those. It would be nice if sometimes the Minister could intervene to at least have the record straight.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, for her thoughts and for raising the ante to talk about a slightly more dynamic form of impact assessment.

I thank my noble friend Lord Trenchard for the very example that is now the subject of debate. I think the point that he was making, which I would support, is that impact assessments can reduce the perverse effects of such measures. We know—it is a matter of record, I think—that the number of analysts, especially small analysts, has gone down as a result of the MiFID legislation. An impact assessment on how it was enforced, whether its origin was in the brain of the UK or of the EU, could have been helpful. Of course, that is what my amendment is all about.

I was glad to have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for working up a decent impact assessment model. I share his tribute to public servants, having been one a long time ago, and the work of bodies that produce evidence for things, such as the Low Pay Commission and social trends, and the MPC in our own sector of financial services. Better scrutiny would take place with better impact assessment. It is why, regarding proposed new subsection (3) which Amendment 103 would insert, I talked about both the existing position and other options, because I agree with the noble Lord that it is much better if you can look at several options when developing difficult policies. I agree that pre-legislative scrutiny can sometimes be very useful.

My noble friend Lady Noakes reminded us, rightly, of the lack of impact assessment on the various Covid measures. I thank her particularly for the suggestion that the quality of consultation by the FCA, the PRA or the Government and of impact assessment should be added to any review.

I was glad to hear noble Lords build on what an impact assessment system should look like, including the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer—I echo her concerns about accountability—and the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell. There is a feeling that it is important to have a decent system.

My noble friend the Deputy Leader explained, as I had already anticipated in my own remarks, that a system does exist: both for government regulation and regulation by the two regulators, and for cost-benefit analysis to be produced. What I am not clear about is whether that is fit for purpose. It is very difficult to find out what the requirements are and to read all the various bits of paper. This is why I tabled the amendment, so that we could have an intelligent debate. Even if noble Lords do not want to go along with Amendment 103, we should make an effort, with the dissemination of the Bill, to ensure that the requirements are better understood.

That means that Amendment 104 is perhaps more important, because it asks that we review regularly what is being done in the way of cost-benefit and impact assessment, and how the objectives set out are achieved. I suggested some objectives in Amendment 104; others will no doubt be concerned about other objectives of the regulators. As we have said on earlier amendments, competition is not really the same as competitiveness. I was also keen to throw in small business—for reasons that my noble friend knows very well—and innovation, because of their value.

With this Bill, we need to satisfy ourselves that the new framework satisfactorily replaces, indeed, improves on, what went before. I take the point—the Chancellor is right—that we now have the chance to do the right thing in the UK, and to do it better than was done under the auspices of the EU. I may come back to this on Report, because a simple well-understood system of impact assessment, and of annual review in some form, would boost scrutiny and transparency, which has been a key theme of the Bill, as well as the governance of our largest and most important economic sector. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Financial Services Bill

Debate between Baroness Neville-Rolfe and Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted

Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 24th February 2021 Grand Committee

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, intimated when he introduced his amendments, Clause 3 is very important to prudential regulation and the banks and financial institutions concerned. However, we must make progress with this Bill, so I will speak briefly. I look forward to the Minister’s explanation of what is intended here and why, and what the safeguards will be for those entities regulated by the PRA in terms of purpose, consultation, impact, cost benefit and so on. I do not read it in the same way as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle.

I would like to understand the competitive position. My son works in London for a French investment bank regulated primarily in Paris rather than London, under the equivalence arrangements that we have granted. I suspect that the local branch here may be part of a legal entity based in Paris. How would such an EU bank be affected by the proposed changes in Clause 3 and whatever replaces the revoked regulations? Is there a level playing field?

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, has reminded us that this is the clause where the legislation on the CRR gets waived away into rules without any legislative replacement. This follows the pattern that the Government proposed in their consultation: once there are rules from the regulators, the statutory instruments are revoked.

Paragraph 2.25 of the Financial Services Future Regulatory Framework Review states:

“The default approach would be for any retained EU law provision that is in scope of the regulators’ FSMA rule-making powers to be taken off the statute book to become the responsibility of the appropriate regulator.”


Therefore, although there may be consultations on replacement rules at the point of revoking the SIs, there are no checks further down the track, so at some time further on all the rules could be revoked too. As a practical matter, that will not happen, but it is possible that for some things big changes could happen. It is probably more of a worry when it is happening to the wider generality of financial services legislation than with standards that are underpinned by Basel provisions, but I make this point because the Minister said on Monday at the start of Committee that everything is being listened to in the context of the consultation, although I must say that his replies so far do not inspire too much confidence.

It may seem convenient to have a more flexible arrangement of having regulators doing everything and not bothering Parliament with statutory instruments, and the view being pushed by the Government seems to be that Parliament should not become too bothered by rules because they contain frightening Greek letters such as Σ that really just indicate some very simple sums that could easily be explained in a sentence. Underlying that is that there should not really be challenge, only fig leaves and what the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, called the rear-view mirror.

Even though I have no great love of statutory instruments as a measure for showing parliamentary consent, there is a qualitative difference compared with rules, and I want to flag up that this clause is where the notion that we will no longer have any firm policy against which to hold the regulator accountable is endorsed. From here on, the regulator makes the policy, and there is no policy guidance between the regulator’s rules and the simple objectives, have-regards clauses and perhaps a few generalised statements, such as supporting UK economic growth. I do not like this sparseness, and it is ridiculous to suggest that rules are constantly, rapidly needing change. That is not true and not internationally sustainable.

To some extent the Government acknowledge this, otherwise there would not be the statement in the consultation that some things may have to be put into SIs as a consequence of equivalence decisions. So other countries can measure our standards, but not Parliament. How embarrassing. I heard what the Minister said in reply to my equivalence information point in the first group today. He said that such things may have to stay out of the public domain—at least until they become a statutory instrument—but I never suggested that they be public, just that there should be some sharing with Parliament about the policy direction. I am pretty sure that the EU will take the view that regulator rules alone are not enough and are potentially too transient when it comes to such a large financial centre as London, not least when it comes to looking at the lavish use of “bespoke”, which was always one of Brussel’s most hated words because it thought, and I tend to agree, that it was tailoring cut to flatter and trick the eye. That is fine for clothes, but not so good for financial services rules.

As I want to mark resistance to this passing of all policy to the regulators so they end up held accountable only to their own rules, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, in the suggestion that Clause 3 does not stand part.

Financial Services Bill

Debate between Baroness Neville-Rolfe and Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 22nd February 2021 Grand Committee

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]]

My Lords, Amendment 3 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Sharkey is an amendment to Amendment 2 and probes what is meant by “high market standards”. Could these mean, “no lower than current standards”, and what are they measured by? Are they just rules, which we hear a lot about, or do they also include enforcement? Regrettably, we also hear about that when it has all gone wrong, with the Gloster and Connaught reports being the latest examples of that. Like a taster menu, our amendment then leads on to the connection between standards and oversight of regulatory performance with respect to both rule-making and enforcement, and suggests that there should be regular independent reviews every three years. For clarification, that would not be instead of whatever Parliament decides it wants to do; it would be additional.

I will put my cards on the table and say that I am nervous about any introduction of competitiveness as a general duty, even with the qualification, or as a bidding, to consider ranking. If one thing was learned from the FSA’s demise and the financial crisis it is that giving a financial services regulator a competition duty can lead to disaster through creating incentives to balance industry profit against safety and consumer protection. It can potentially lead the regulator astray from its essential objective of safety and soundness. If there is such a remit it will inevitably lead to calls from parts of industry that do not want fetters, or even from shareholders that want profits. If competition appears as a duty there will be pressures to go just a little bit lighter touch, then just a little bit more, with arguments that this is all okay because it is among experienced market participants.

Unfortunately, light touch in one part of a market that may seem remote from retail consumers does not prevent contagion. Let us not forget the investment bank “slice and dice” of subprime mortgages, which fuelled the financial crisis by stimulating yet more subprime lending—what gets made gets sold and invested in. Later amendments deal with what happens nowadays with regulated mortgages that are sold on to unregulated entities, so let us not kid ourselves that different parts of the market are in self-isolation or lockdown.

However phrased, a competition mandate is different from a proportionality mandate, which the regulators already have. I am all for regulators making it much clearer how they categorise activity as part of proportionality and transparency. I wish they would do more of it—it can aid competitiveness too—but put in an additional competitiveness mandate and what does that mean, other than to go lighter than proportionality requires?

On the other hand, it is necessary to recognise that regulation is a good way to end up with a closed shop, preventing new entrants and new products, and there can be incentives on regulators to seek the stability of the graveyard. I can think of areas where I would lay that charge, such as fixation on gilts and sluggishness around approving new banking models. However, I do not see a primary competitiveness mandate solving that, even alongside a “high market standards” statement.

This takes us back to what is meant by high market standards. Who sets those? Whatever they are, I am sure they will be lauded as “world beating” even before the rest of the world has been looked at. However, I think that a regular, expert independent assessment can check and report on all aspects—the standard of rules, whether they are gold plated, how good enforcement and operational systems are and, yes, what can be learned by comparison with elsewhere. However, I do not think it is for the regulators to advise on whether they are better at doing things than elsewhere. I already know their answer.

The final part of my amendment suggests that the regulators pay for the reviews—so it is rather like a Section 77 review. Then it says that the review must be published without modification, because there was a certain amount of photoshopping of the Promontory report about GRG and it was made public only via the Treasury Select Committee publishing a leaked copy.

However, there are other ways that regular independent reviews could be done—more like an independent person FiSMA Section 1S review that the Treasury can require—or through an oversight body led by a handful of skilled individuals, as the Australians are now doing. It seems to me that, if you want assurance on high standards, which I do, that is the way to do it, in line with what looks like becoming the new best practice, and that is where the UK should be.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 6 and 7 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Trenchard, who has a lifetime of experience in the financial services sector and understands the whole issue of competitiveness and UK influence from banking for many years in Japan. I am so sorry that because of procedural changes he is now unable to speak to these amendments.

I refer to my interests in the register, particularly as a non-executive director of Secure Trust Bank plc in Solihull and of Capita plc and as a member of this House’s EU Financial Affairs Sub-Committee. I was especially sorry to miss Second Reading of this very important Bill.

These amendments—like the one moved by my noble friend Lord Blackwell and those in the name of my noble friend Lord Bridges—introduce a competitiveness objective for the FCA and PRA. My Amendment 7 also applies to the Bank of England itself. My amendments differ because they spell out aspects of competitiveness that I know are important from a lifetime in business and from nearly three years as UK Minister attending the Competitiveness Council in Brussels.

Of course, consumer protection, stability and standards are important, but they are very well looked after in the structure of financial services regulation, even if the regulators do not always deliver or enforce properly, as we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles. I come from a different perspective. Those of us with an understanding of economics know that needless red tape, inefficiency and lack of care for UK interests end up hurting UK consumers with prices that are higher than they need to be, delays that frustrate, and a failure to get things right first time. These also hamper innovation and productivity growth, two of the best ways to both benefit consumers—and I come from a consumer background—and stay ahead internationally.

This matters today even more than in the past. Financial services are the leading sector in the British economy, not only in London but in many other areas of the UK: Edinburgh, Cardiff, Newcastle and Birmingham, to name but a few. In the wake of coronavirus, Brexit and international competition, we need to treasure and enhance our leading position. France, the Netherlands, Germany, Ireland and Luxembourg are trying to steal our lead—but ineffectively, as this hurts their business and consumers and encourages investors and services to move to New York or Singapore. As Mr Barney Reynolds has argued, we must look again at the legacy of EU law, and I know my noble friend Lord Trenchard will have more to say on his ideas on another day.

We must not forget one point: small and entrepreneurial businesses are the backbone of this country. Everyone should remember that the big, powerful multinationals find it relatively easy to adapt to new regulations, rules and requirements, and to lobby for arrangements that suit their interests.

We must also create a benign climate for innovation, which is a vital part of improving efficiency. There is one great example: the Financial Conduct Authority’s so-called “sandbox”—clear, simple and easy regulation for fintech. Thanks for this are due to the current Governor of the Bank of England, but Mr Bailey and I were promoting this as good practice in India four years ago. It is dispiriting that there are not more such initiatives.

As my amendment states, we need “efficiency” and “competitiveness” in the interests of UK plc to feature in the purview of our regulators. A competition objective is not enough; indeed, it can sometimes harm smaller players, driving them bankrupt and causing problems for their customers, as bigger institutions mop up and take over their client base. Competitiveness is sometimes wrongly associated with bad aspects of globalisation. That is wrong: UK competitiveness is what this country now needs to strive for to support the UK base, rather than encouraging the sale of wonderful companies such as Arm to overseas interests. Alex Brummer has argued this forcefully in a series of books, and I agree with him.

While we come at the issue from different angles, I really do want my noble friend the Deputy Leader to listen to those of us who are seeking a change to the Bill to bring in considerations of “competitiveness”. So I will finish with the word’s dictionary definition:

“1. Possession of a strong desire to be more successful than others … 2. The quality of being as good as or better than others of a comparable nature.”


What could be better than that?

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Debate between Baroness Neville-Rolfe and Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted

Committee stage & Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 2nd November 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I am a retired patent attorney, which is what made me curious about Amendment 107. I guess that is an interest of some kind, though no longer pecuniary.

In this group I have tabled Amendment 107A, which is intended to clarify what has become a confused situation. It can accurately cover all the legal professions named in Clause 25, although the confusion relates only to patent and trademark attorneys. Essentially, it says—as I think the Minister agreed—that there is no change to the status quo under the Legal Services Act 2007, which was the Government’s intention all along.

The background to this is that patent and trademark attorneys may be in the unique situation of being regulated and qualified on a UK-wide basis, while, through their sectoral professional qualifications, also engaging in four specific English and Welsh reserved legal activities, no matter where in the four nations of the UK they qualified, reside or practise. They do this as patent attorneys or trademark attorneys, not as lawyers.

The purpose of that unusual provision is, broadly, to enable conduct of litigation for all in the specialist England and Wales Patents Court, and for associated matters such as deeds and oaths to be dealt with. That unique construct does not fit within the definition of Clauses 22 and 23 for the professions when they are identified as patent attorneys or trademark attorneys because you cannot work it out so that there is a relevant part and the other part. Noble Lords are welcome to try—it takes quite a few pieces of paper. The point is that it is the same for all patent and trademark attorneys, wherever they are.

However, somewhere the niggling thought arose that perhaps it was confusing, or that the mutual recognition would apply notwithstanding that Clause 22 did not apply and would somehow extend the enjoyed England and Wales reserved activities to Scotland or Northern Ireland courts, deeds or oaths. Amendment 107 has, therefore, been proposed. It has the effect of defining patent and trademark attorneys as a legal profession in Clause 25, thereby putting them into Clauses 23 and 22 and simultaneously taking them out again. This hokey-cokey amendment was meant to stop confusion. It has, however, also created its own confusion, perhaps best illustrated in an explanation from the Ministry of Justice that said:

“If trademark and patent attorneys were not excluded from the UKIM bill, then one of your practitioners authorised to conduct litigation in Northern Ireland, for example, could potentially argue that under the automatic recognition principle IPReg must also allow them to conduct litigation in England and Wales without meeting the normal IPReg authorisation requirements for doing so”.


However, that does not fit the present circumstances that I have just explained. The patent or trademark attorney in Northern Ireland is qualified to conduct litigation in England and Wales but, actually, not to conduct litigation in Northern Ireland—and that is not the only wrong explanation that has been offered. Indeed, a few moments ago, the Minister referred to attorneys being qualified in respect of the part of the UK in which they practise. There is no such provision for patent and trademark attorneys. They just have that extra bit of add-on, no matter where they practise, which relates to being able to access the England and Wales Patents Court. That is quite fundamental, because that is where you would see appeals from the comptroller and so on.

I believe that a true analysis of the facts ends up as I have said, that these particular professions were not in the original construct, but some people might have been confused. Now they are defined as in and out again but, unfortunately, this leads to other confusions, suggesting divisions in the profession that do not exist but which have just been replicated in the words of the Minister. If the Minister and an MoJ official can get it wrong, who else might? A wrongful accusation, no matter that it can be refuted, is still damaging. My amendment clarifies that the status quo is maintained. It neither adds nor subtracts anything, other than giving clarity—something to point to on the same page as the confusing hokey-cokey.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, in probing the effect of these two government amendments. As a well-known supporter of a well-functioning IP profession, right across the United Kingdom, I have to say that I am still confused. It seems to me that, in the UK single market, the rights of these various attorneys should be fully reciprocal. Can my noble friend confirm that that is the intention? Will he further kindly reflect on whether it is the effect and, if they are not reciprocal, whether that is justified? Indeed, is there any read-across to the problems that we have encountered on the lack of reciprocal rights for EU and UK attorneys? We have discussed this elsewhere. I know that the department has had a rethink, but are we quite there?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 110 in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Noakes. My noble friend the Minister has been kind enough to write to me following the debate on where the new office for the internal market should sit. However, I remain to be convinced that the Competition and Markets Authority is its appropriate home. For this reason, I have tabled an amendment attaching it to BEIS. To make that effective, I am also supporting the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, in opposing Clauses 28 and 29.

I will put it simply and bluntly: no case has been made for locating the new office in the CMA, except, I suppose, that it is already an independent agency and the department has some involvement in the appointment of its well-paid top brass. However, the CMA is generally highly sceptical of business, especially the bigger businesses that operate across the UK, which need to flourish if the economy is to recover. That is my past personal experience with various different hats on.

We need an office—call it what you will—that can do two things: it needs to be able to monitor objectively and to advise sensibly on difficult and developing internal border issues. These are highly politically charged, as we can see from experience during Covid. Therefore, we need an office that reports directly to BEIS and, arguably, we need a Minister for the Single Market, in the same way that we had a commissioner in Brussels when we were an EU member. Actually, I prefer the notion of a single market to that of an internal market. Most of us, including the devolved Administrations, had a great deal of time for the single market when we operated within it. Indeed, I devoted some of my career to advancing it because of its benefits to consumers, manufacturers, services, other businesses and, of course, GDP.

I am sure the Minister would agree that not everything done in Brussels is wrong, and I believe we need an in-house and a political dimension. Therefore, for me, the right model for this office is the Intellectual Property Office, which has a chair and a board from outside but also a strong CEO reporting to a BEIS Minister and advising on both policy and enforcement as well as negotiating internationally and across the UK. If BEIS, for some reason, cannot do all of those things in an in-house office, the monitoring role could go to the ONS, which is well regarded in statistical matters. However, above all, the office must be subject to ministerial direction. Recent experience with Ofqual, PHE and even the CMA itself does not persuade me that the approach in this Bill is right. It is not too late to make a change.

I note that Amendment 155 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, has been added to this group. I have a great deal of respect for the noble Baroness and worked with her successfully on consumer legislation in the past. However, I am not convinced that a consumer duty makes sense here, certainly not without balancing provisions on business and the economy. Business stands to lose so much from this new legislation already and from the inappropriate appointment of the CMA as the office of the internal market, and this is at a time when business is more and more adversely affected by the never-ending Covid nightmare. I think we should reflect further, but, for now, I beg to move.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I have given notice of my intention to oppose Clauses 29, 30 and 41 standing part. This is part of a full set of not stand part notices that signals concerns, in principle and to specifics, throughout Part 4 and Schedule 3. I will also probe what has been left unsaid about what the CMA or the OIM will do in total regarding the internal market. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, for supporting my opposition to the clauses standing part. We have some common concerns, but we are not entirely in the same place. I will be interested to hear her response to some of the points I will make as the debate develops.

There are three parts to my concern. First, as I said at Second Reading, it seems odd to use the powerful investigatory might of the CMA—or a lookalike OIM—whose information-gathering powers, with accompanying enforcement and penalties for non-compliance, bear down on individuals and companies, but where the main purpose, from weighing up the clauses’ wording, is to advise administrations about their own and one another’s regulation, and not anything the companies themselves have caused. This is extraordinary.

Secondly, there are aspects in the Bill that relate to business activity. However, this is not articulated, except that businesses are presumably among those who could make a proposal to the CMA for it to undertake a review under Clause 31. I am left asking: what else is happening that has not been said? Thirdly, there is the matter of making the CMA or the OIM properly representative of the four nations.

Overall, this seems an authoritarian, unexplained and unfinished state of affairs. The use of the CMA is a hangover from when Mrs May envisaged a corresponding body to the European Commission for all competition and state aid matters. State aid considerations have now dropped away to WTO-type considerations of distortive and harmful subsidies that will not be looked at by anyone; the Trade Remedies Authority might have to respond on incoming international complaints, but the domestic side is bare. That still leaves the market access principles to be enforced somewhere.

The Government’s response to the internal market consultation says that the expansion of the CMA’s remit will not position it as an enforcer. In a letter to my noble friend Lord Purvis after last Monday’s debate, the Minister confirmed that the OIM will provide expertise in scenarios where the economic impacts of particular regulations lead to disagreement between one or more administration, and that the non-binding assessments will ensure a technical underpinning to otherwise political discussions. Under the heading:

“On the Office for the Internal Market, disputes and governance”,


the letter to my noble friend Lord Purvis says:

“The Bill does not introduce new enforcement bodies, but instead relies on enforcement of regulatory compliance provisions in existing goods regulation to ensure that enforcement of regulatory compliance takes account of the opportunities offered by the market access principles of mutual recognition and non-discrimination”.


Does that mean that the CMA or the OIM will take account of the opportunities offered by market access principles? Does the CMA enforce the regulatory compliance provisions in existing goods regulation?

The impact assessment also mentions businesses and stakeholders. Page 29 says that stakeholders can “raise complaints” on internal market matters. This could arise by way of Clause 31 and seeking a review. However, the word “complaints” smacks of adjudication. It would be helpful if the Minister could explain whether that will be the case. Is it related to the mentioned regulatory compliance? How will that work?

Business and Planning Bill

Debate between Baroness Neville-Rolfe and Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard) & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 20th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I speak in support of Amendments 9 and 10, although many in this group which make a lot of sense. I welcome the Government’s Amendment 16 and will possibly welcome what follows on from it even more. I hope so. I cannot better what those who tabled them have said about needing more space on pavements, other than to add that I can think of many more reasons to have one and a half metres of space as well as disability needs.

I welcome Amendment 9 from the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, which probes how much scope local authorities will be able to have in what they put on under the conditions. Could the Minister make it clear whether local authorities can stipulate a set of standard requirements in advance that will always apply to every licence? Examples could include space, no smoking or types of barriers, but I am sure that there would be other things for particular circumstances. To have a list in advance that you knew would apply to your licence would be helpful both to those seeking licences and to those who may have concerns. Such sets of requirements are far more easily consulted on. Is it reasonable to expect the public to respond to a continuous flow of licence applications? Will fatigue not set in? Ultimately, responses that should perhaps have been made will not go in.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I always take great pleasure in following the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles. I note that we debated many of these issues very well in Committee. Things have come on a great deal, and my noble friend the Deputy Leader has tabled a number of well-judged amendments and concessions in this and later groups.

I wish to reiterate the importance of balance. This legislation is intended to help businesses, particularly in the hard-pressed hospitality sector, so that they can get back to work, lure back customers and support broader economic recovery. We are concerned with temporary measures and must not confuse matters by adopting regulatory amendments, some of which we might feel would be well justified if we were talking about permanent laws. To my mind, we have already gone quite far enough and the detailed draft guidance—I think its extent will make many small businesses blanch—makes it quite clear that where a pavement licence is granted, clear access routes on the highway will need to be maintained, taking into account the needs of all users, including disabled people, as my noble friend Lord Blencathra made clear earlier. The guidance also requires applicants to fix a notice to the premises when they make their application.

The noble Lord, Lord Addington, made a good point about enforcement. I look forward to hearing from my noble friend the Minister on that.

We have to get the economy, our construction industry and our high streets going again if we are not to live through a number of frigid economic winters. In particular, our hospitality sector has been decimated and needs all the help it can get. We must stop debating this Bill with its temporary provisions and get it on to the statute book.

Pension Schemes Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Neville-Rolfe and Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard) & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 30th June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe [V]]

The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, has adapted his amendments to meet some of the concerns that we all expressed in Committee, for which I thank him, but I am afraid that I am still not happy with the two amendments that he has tabled. For example, nearly all pension schemes are in deficit. Amendment 50 would allow the Pensions Regulator basically to stop all buybacks, which is a matter not for this Bill but for a governance Bill—following proper review and consultation—because buybacks can be justified in some circumstances and we have not had a chance to debate that.

The coronavirus measures, with which a parallel was drawn, are unique and different—that has been made clear in parliamentary agreement to them—so it is better to leave the arrangements to ministerial discretion, as the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, suggested. We have to remember that, however good the regulator is, he or she introduces delay and uncertainty, so we need to make sure that the powers are used with care.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted [V]]

My Lords, I declare my interests as in the register: I am a non-executive director of London Stock Exchange plc, which has a pension scheme of which I am not a member.

I have signed both amendments, which are about getting priorities right on the matter of how a company uses spare cash and the importance of paying down deficits, especially if it is over too long a time. If there is spare cash around, deficit reduction should rank ahead of share buybacks and be balanced with regards to dividends. Both those issues have already been well elaborated, especially by the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and the noble Lord, Lord Vaux.

The amendments would not prohibit either of those eventualities; they would make them notifiable events. The regulator could then exercise discretion about whether there were good reasons; for example, checking that, in the circumstances, the quantum of the dividend was acceptable. I am less certain about good reasons for buybacks, but if there were any, they could be discussed. I therefore support the amendment. To deem it excessively cautious would not be to take it as it is intended. Although we say that the matter would need to be investigated, we would expect the Pensions Regulator to be reasonable in all the circumstances. For example, if everybody had fallen into big deficits, obviously the situation would be different, because of what was going on in the markets, from where a company was being a laggard in making up its deficits. However, we must not forget that if those deficits are not repaid and the company is under stress, it will be the workers and the pensioners who lose out in the end. They cannot always be put at the end of the queue.

Pension Schemes Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Neville-Rolfe and Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted

Committee stage & Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 4th March 2020 Grand Committee

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Young, has done the job for me, but broadly speaking, I support this amendment. As well as what has already been elaborated, it plays into the feelings that have come up several times as we discussed the Bill as well; namely that, although the noble Earl has said that there is policy, a lot of implementation is also yet to come, and perhaps some of us feel that some policy is also yet to come. I therefore hope that a commission could come along subsequently and that it would be able to have an overview of some of the newer things as well as reviewing older things and looking forward. Therefore, I also support the notion of having this pension schemes commission.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I look forward to hearing from my noble friend the Minister on this, but I confess that I have a little scepticism about this proposal. We have had many reviews of pensions, including the trailblazing Pensions Commission led originally by Adair Turner—the noble Lord, Lord Turner. Many changes have been made to the law, including auto-enrolment, which I think we in this Committee have all welcomed. Of course, those in the current Bill are important as we seek to tackle the issues raised by the BHS and Carillion cases and to introduce dashboards.

I am not convinced that this is the time for another commission and another review. I feel that this is the job of the Pensions Minister and the DWP. Quite a lot is going on in pensions, and the priority should be to make sense of the sort of issues we have discussed on this Bill or issues that arise on things such as exit from the EU, and to get on with those in a practical manner. I look forward to hearing from my noble friend. If she takes a different view, of course, I am happy to reconsider.

Pension Schemes Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Neville-Rolfe and Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted

Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 26th February 2020 Grand Committee

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted]

The point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, is similar to the point that I was going to make. Some of the answers the Minister gave, in particular to my questions, were good and comprehensive, but they rely on having an appropriate plan in place. The point is that there are times when the appropriate plan is no longer appropriate, and at that point it all falls apart. I think what the Minister has said is that in regulations there will be things that will allay some of our fears, but it would be nice to have something about that in the Bill, because otherwise we are taking it on trust. It is not that we inherently mistrust the Minister or her officials. Of course there have been previous framework provisions that have been remarkably empty of policy, but that does not make it correct. The Government and this Parliament make policy. Regulators do not make policy; they shy away from it. There is no greater making of policy than putting it in the Bill.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

I would also like to be involved in the further talks. We have to try to find a way of dealing with big risks between recovery plans without gungeing up the system for the regulator so that it cannot focus on what matters rather than on what does not matter with the bureaucracy overtaking the objective.

Pension Schemes Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Neville-Rolfe and Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting & Committee: 1st sitting : House of Lords
Monday 24th February 2020 Grand Committee

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted]

My Lords, this important group of amendments deals with the definitions of new criminal offences and new regulatory fines, and with the defences to the criminal offences. I will also speak to my Amendments 18 and 22 as well as to Amendments 23 to 26 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hutton.

Amendments 17 and 22 are probing amendments. They would require that, for the criminal offences of avoidance of employer debt and risking accrued scheme benefits, the person has to have behaved wilfully, recklessly or unscrupulously. I want to say a few words about each of those terms, which is where the probing comes in.

I do not think that “wilfully” changes much in the sense of the clauses because later, in subsection (2)(b) of the respective new sections, it is stated that the person intended the actual course of conduct to have such an effect. It could be argued that the wording of the subsections further highlights the necessity for a greater understanding of the consequences but, in my view, the insertion of “wilfully” would make those subsections redundant. My Amendment 18 and Amendment 24, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hutton—to which I have put my name—would delete those subsections.

It gets a little more complicated when it comes to considering “recklessly” but it is important to consider that term because, as several noble Lords pointed out at Second Reading, the Government consulted on “wilfully” and “recklessly”. As I see it, “recklessly” does not require the same degree of intent as to outcome, so it broadens the scope. It implies a lack of due diligence or a high degree of negligence. One could perhaps express it almost as wilfully negligent—that is, not bothering to have proper checks in place and caring even less.

These are egregious matters we are considering, when pensions are put at risk either deliberately, without caring or for ulterior motives. To my mind, it would be unthinkable to allow unscrupulous individuals to get off the hook of criminal charges with the defence of “I didn’t know” because they had not made, and had no intention of making, the right kind of checks. “Recklessly” is not the same as “accidentally” or “incidentally”; “recklessly” is “I don’t care” and it should be covered. It should not require that the precise end effect was intended, which is why both subsections (2)(b) in the offences, which say that the person intended the actual course of conduct to have such an effect, need to be deleted because they would negate recklessness as an offence.

Of course, having appropriate checks and procedures in place would be an obvious defence, just as they are in the various “failure to prevent” types of offences that have come into being, such as for bribery and money laundering.

Now I come to probing the third term: “unscrupulously”. This may not be a normal legal term, but everyone knows what it means. It is used in describing the objectives of those whom it is wished to catch. It is used about the new offences—starting at the bottom of page 7 of the Explanatory Notes, which state:

“They will provide additional deterrents for unscrupulous behaviours and will enable the Regulator to punish abuse and wrongdoing within the occupational pensions industry appropriately.”


That is exactly what we want to be able to do: punish unscrupulous behaviours.

Compared with some of our Commonwealth colleagues, we in this country are rather a soft touch. Australia has an offence of unconscionable conduct in commerce. It works under common law and shows that expressions describing bad behaviour do not need to be shunned in legislation. Yes, it is a catch-all phrase, but we should be starting to give it serious thought when it accurately describes the underlying behaviour.

As a little thought experiment, what happens if we apply the three words “wilfully”, “recklessly” and “unscrupulously” to driving fast in a 30mph zone? What would we get? “Wilfully” means that there was an intention to drive faster. “Recklessly” might mean not bothering to look or have regard to surroundings or missing the sign. What might be “unscrupulous”? I have had some fun thinking about this. Here are a few possibilities: blanking out your number plate with a fancy gizmo or having false number plates; getting a friend to remove the 30mph sign; or perhaps making someone else the fall guy, saying that you were not the one driving. These may be wilful acts but while it is questionable whether they are specifically wilful at the time of the actual offence or what the precise intended effect was, they are certainly unscrupulous.

I turn briefly to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hutton. I apologise for going ahead of the mover but there are words in common. In his amendments, “wilfully” and “recklessly” are used in a slightly different place but what I have said about their meaning also applies. There is also the consequence of needing to delete the subsection reciting intent.

Amendments 23 and 25 are applied to deal with the criminal offence and civil fine relating to putting accrued scheme benefits at risk. The wording

“detrimentally affects in a material way”

appears and has caused some concerns, which were referenced at Second Reading. I think that the positioning of the wording works well and support the addition of those words to the fine offence. Obviously, it is possible to merge the noble Lord’s proposal and my own with regard to the criminal offence of risking the accrued scheme benefits.

More broadly, it seems that “wilfully” or “recklessly” could be usefully incorporated into the financial penalty on avoidance of employer debt, so that it was in all four of the new offences, including the two criminal ones and the new fines. Then there would be no playing off about different meanings. But I will listen carefully to the Committee, particularly to see whether the noble Lord, Lord Hutton, has a different nuance to mine.

The other amendments in this group, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Noakes, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Sherlock, relate to defences and call for guidance. I sympathise with the general intent but have some reservations; however, I will speak to them later when we have heard from the movers, as their wording is not interconnected like my amendments and those of the noble Lord, Lord Hutton. I beg to move.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, I refer to my entry in the register of interests and shall speak to Amendments 19 to 21, which are grouped with those of the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles. My amendments are also in the name of my noble friend Lady Noakes, who sadly cannot be in her place today. We are concerned that the powers in Clause 107 may be drawn too widely. This is a concern shared by a number of those involved in the pensions sector—indeed, it was touched on by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, a great expert in pensions matters, at Second Reading.

In the same debate my noble friend the Minister helpfully said that the intention of the clause was,

“to punish those who wilfully or recklessly harm their pension scheme”.—[Official Report, 28/1/20; col. 1353.]

In the light of that, it seems that the criminal offence is really aimed at parties whose conduct is extreme and lies outside the range of ordinary reasonable conduct. If so, we believe that the thought could be captured better by applying the offence only where,

“no reasonable person having regard to all of their duties and all relevant circumstances”,

would have acted as they did. The change from “reasonable excuse” to “no reasonable person”, as in Amendment 19, may not sound like much of a change; however, I assure noble Lords that it is important. I am advised that a substantial body of case law makes it clear that the two are very different. The former potentially creates a fine objective judgment, while the latter recognises that there is a range of conduct that can be seen as reasonable. Our Amendment 20 proposes for consideration today a list of factors that could be taken into account by the courts.

Finally, Amendment 21 proposes an exemption, drawing on an idea in the Pensions Act 2004. It would provide a system of binding comfort that could be given by the regulator or the Pension Protection Fund. Given the gravity of the criminal offences those involved in the pension world will potentially face as a result of the Bill, there seems to be a strong case for examining this. We want good, honest people to be involved in the sector and not deterred from any involvement. These amendments deal with new Section 58A of the Pensions Act 2004, but obviously if the argument were accepted by the Government, a similar change would be needed to new Section 58B.

In responding to these amendments, would the Minister —I think it will be the deputy Leader—give more detail and further examples of the harms we are trying to remedy in this part of the Bill? Much mention was made at Second Reading of BHS and Carillion, but these companies had unique factors that went way beyond pensions. The impact assessment assumes up to five cases every year. Is there other evidence in recent years that justifies criminal penalties and these estimates?

In closing, I shall make a wider point. We need to get this legislation right, and we have been trying to do that today, because the costs of getting it wrong, and the inevitable legal costs, will fall on pension schemes and therefore leave less for the very pensioners we are trying to help with the Bill. The new criminal offences appear to cover not only the employer but trustees, advisers, third parties and possibly the regulator. They could embrace routine debt funding necessary for a viable business, or changes to investment strategy designed by trustees to improve their fund. The perverse effect of getting the arrangements wrong—this is a theme I always return to—could be cost and delay, which might be problematic in a tight financial situation and push more businesses into the Pension Protection Fund, which is exactly what we all want to avoid. It could also deter trustees from taking on the responsibility for pension funds. My noble friend Lord Eccles, who I am sorry to see is not in his place, made this point in relation to the wider regulation-making power in Clause 51, although I very much understand the difficulties that my noble friend faces in this area.