The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:
Binley,
Mr. Brian
(Northampton, South)
(Con)
Cable,
Dr. Vincent
(Twickenham)
(LD)
Clwyd,
Ann
(Cynon Valley)
(Lab)
Coffey,
Ann
(Stockport)
(Lab)
Corbyn,
Jeremy
(Islington, North)
(Lab)
Curtis-Thomas,
Mrs. Claire
(Crosby)
(Lab)
Dhanda,
Mr. Parmjit
(Gloucester)
(Lab)
Duddridge,
James
(Rochford and Southend, East)
(Con)
Hoban,
Mr. Mark
(Fareham)
(Con)
MacShane,
Mr. Denis
(Rotherham)
(Lab)
Moffatt,
Laura
(Crawley)
(Lab)
Mudie,
Mr. George
(Leeds, East)
(Lab)
Pearson,
Ian
(Economic Secretary to the
Treasury)
Pugh,
Dr. John
(Southport)
(LD)
Viggers,
Sir Peter
(Gosport)
(Con)
Walker,
Mr. Charles
(Broxbourne)
(Con)
Simon Patrick, Committee
Clerk
attended the
Committee
Second
Delegated Legislation
Committee
Monday
29 June
2009
[Janet
Anderson in the
Chair]
Financial
Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) (No.2)
Order
2009
4.30
pm
The
Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Ian Pearson): I beg to
move,
That the
Committee has considered the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000
(Regulated Activities) (Amendment) (No.2) Order 2009 (S.I. 2009, No.
1389).
It
is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs.
Anderson, to discuss the order this afternoon. The Dormant Bank and
Building Society Accounts Bill received Royal Assent on 26 November
2008 and establishes the legislative framework for a UK dormant
accounts scheme that allows banks and building societies to make funds
in dormant accounts available for distribution to the wider benefit of
the community, while protecting the rights of account holders to
reclaim their money. The 2008 Act was widely supported by both Houses
during its passage, and we are grateful to hon. Members for their
contributions during those debates. Following its passage, the
Government consulted on consequential secondary legislation, including
on extending the scope of Financial Services Authority regulation to
cover reclaim funds, which we are dealing with today. The Government
published a summary of responses to the consultation on 10 June this
year, and all respondents firmly supported the
proposals.
The
Governments approach to developing the scheme has focused on
three key principles: first, consumer protection, by ensuring an
ongoing legal right for account holders to reclaim their money at any
time; secondly, reuniting, by encouraging account holders to be
reunited with their rightful assets; and, thirdly, better regulation,
by adopting a proportionate regulatory approach. The Government intend
the scheme to be effective, transparent and fair. Although the order is
largely technical in nature, it contributes importantly to that
objective by extending the scope of FSA regulation to include reclaim
funds. FSA regulation will help to ensure that the reclaim fund manages
dormant account funds prudently and can meet repayment risk and that
consumers are properly protected and not unfairly disadvantaged should
their dormant accounts be transferred into the
scheme.
Before
going into the details of the order, it might be helpful to the
Committee if I briefly provide an overview of how the UK dormant
accounts scheme will work. Banks and building societies are committed
to reuniting account holders with their dormant accounts, but if that
is unsuccessful and an account meets the statutory definition of
dormancy, a bank or building society may transfer the account balance
to the reclaim fund. Following a transfer, the banks or
building societys liability to repay the account holder is
extinguished. Instead, the customer gains a legally enforceable right
to repayment from the reclaim fund. Money that the reclaim fund does
not require to meet reclaims or to cover its own reasonable costs will
be passed on for investment in
society. The Big Lottery Fund will distribute the money for social or
environmental purposes. Furthermore, an optional scheme is in place for
small or locally based institutions, allowing them to focus on the
needs of their local communities, in which they often play an important
role.
Given that
the purpose of the order is to extend the scope of FSA regulation to
cover reclaim funds, I shall explain how we envisage that the fund will
operate, according to the requirements set out in legislation. The 2008
Act sets out the definition of a reclaim fund: it must be a company
incorporated under the Companies Act 2006. The industry is committed to
leading on selecting or setting up a reclaim fund. Once established, a
fund will be entirely independent of the Government, the banking
industry and the Big Lottery Fund. The 2008 Act also requires the
activities of a reclaim fund to be restricted, by its articles of
association, to the meeting of repayment claims, to the management of
dormant account funds to meet whatever reclaim fund claims it is
prudent to anticipate and to the transfer of money to the Big Lottery
Fund or any other body charged with the distribution of unclaimed funds
for social or environmental purposes.
The
transparency of the reclaim funds operation and its good
governance are important parts of the scheme. The 2008 Act makes it
clear that the FSA must regulate a reclaim fund; and the FSA has
already consulted separately on its proposals for regulation. For the
FSA to bring forward its final rules and regulations, the Government
must legislate to enable the FSA to regulate reclaim funds, which is
the purpose of the order. The Government propose to amend the regulated
activities order under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 to
specify as regulated activities the meeting of repayment claims by a
reclaim fund and the management of dormant account funds by a reclaim
fund. That will require any reclaim fund to be authorised by the FSA,
by inserting those two activities as specified kinds of activity that
no person may carry on without FSA authorisation. FSA oversight of the
reclaim fund will help to ensure that the reclaim fund manages dormant
account funds prudently and can meet repayment risk and that consumers
are properly protected. It will also ensure that consumers have access
to the financial services compensation scheme in the highly unlikely
event that the reclaim fund becomes
insolvent.
Mr.
Mark Hoban (Fareham) (Con): Will the Minister explain
which category the reclaim fund will sit within the
FSCS?
Ian
Pearson: I hope to be able to do so in my closing
remarksit is not immediately apparent to me which category it
will fall into, so I will consult and get back to the hon. Gentleman. I
should re-emphasise that it is highly unlikely, given how the reclaim
fund would be managed, that it would need to become insolvent and seek
access to the FSCS. We are talking about theoretical
circumstances.
Mr.
Hoban: I hope that it is theoretical and that the reclaim
fund is managed in such a way that it does not become insolvent.
However, if the reclaim fund was within the licensed deposit
takers section of the FSCS, which includes banks, credit unions
and building societies,
there is a risk that it would have to meet its share of the costs of any
compensation paid to depositors in a failed bank or credit
union.
Ian
Pearson: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I am
advised by officials that it will be in deposit class A. I want to
reflect on his point, given the possibility of future
events.
In
the event of disputes, consumers will be subject to the usual
qualifying conditions and have recourse the Financial Ombudsman
Service. They could ultimately resort to the courts to enforce their
legal rights. Important consumer protection measures are built into FSA
regulation.
The order is
very technical, but it is an important part of the legislative
framework for the scheme. I think that we all support the principle of
consumer protection that is behind the order, and I hope that when we
have discussed and debated the details, we will approve
it.
4.37
pm
Mr.
Hoban: It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship,
Mrs. Anderson, for what I think is the first time.
The Minister
and I debated reclaimed funds when we debated the Dormant Bank and
Building Society Accounts Act, so there is little need to go over the
history of the matter, save to say that the order is a key part of the
architecture, because it is in effect the conduit through which money
from dormant bank and building society accounts will pass into the Big
Lottery Fund. It is important from a consumer perspective that the
process exists, and it is important that it is well managed. When a
consumer decides that they want some money back when their account has
been declared dormant, they will fall back on the reclaim
fund.
There is a
tension in the management of the fund. We would all like as much money
as possible go to the three worthy causes that were identified in the
Actchildren and youth services, financial inclusion and social
investment wholesalers. There is pressure to get the money from bank
accounts into the BLF for distribution to those good causes, but we
want to ensure that money is left in the reclaim fund so that there is
money to fall back on if someone wants to reclaim a deposit after the
10-year period. The order is an important part of that
structure.
I asked the
Minister where within the financial services compensation scheme the
reclaim fund sits. If it becomes insolvent, it is absolutely right that
account holders should have a fall-back mechanism, which is what the
FSCS exists to provide. However, at the moment, people in the
deposit-taking classes are picking up the bills for credit unions that
collapse, which happens, sadly, all too often. They are also meeting
some of the costs of Bradford and Bingley and the Icelandic banks, so
quite a lot of money is already being transferred from deposit-takers
to the FSCS in respect of those claims. It would be disappointing,
although a logical consequence of the location of the reclaim fund in
the architecture, if money expected to go to good causes was diverted
to meet the costs of compensation for failed banks or building
societies. Clarification from the Minister would be
helpful.
The
Minister said that the order was necessary to enable the FSA to produce
its own detailed rules on the regulation of reclaim funds, but will he
say more about
where the implementation of the legislation has got to? In the response
to the consultation on the UK dormant accounts scheme published last
month, he set out a series of next steps. Who will run the reclaim
fund? Page 11 of the consultation document suggests that the FSA is
available to engage candidates on a pre-application basis to set up a
dormant accounts scheme. How many candidates have come forward to run
the reclaim
scheme?
The
Minister also said that the reclaim fund must be independent of the
banking sectorI am paraphrasing his remarksyet
paragraph 4.1 of the response to the consultation says that the British
Bankers Association and the Building Societies
Association
are
committed to leading on selecting or setting up a reclaim
fund.
How
can the reclaim fund be independent of banks if the BBA and the BSA
play a role in setting it
up?
Where
are the Government in drawing up the spending directions for the Big
Lottery Fund in terms of implementing the strategic spending priorities
in the Act? When does the Minister expect the dormant accounts scheme
to be operational? It has been a long time coming; I think that it was
consulted on before the last general election. We have had the primary
legislation and are now dealing with secondary legislation, so it would
be helpful if we knew when the scheme would be launched. If I were a
betting man, I would suspect that it would be some time before next
May. I do not know why next May falls into my mind as a date for
launch, but it seems a convenient time for the Government to announce
the launch of the scheme.
I should be
grateful for clarification of those matters, particularly on the FSCS
and the role the banking industry will play in running the reclaim
fund.
4.44
pm
Dr.
John Pugh (Southport) (LD): I wish that I could say that
it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon,
Mrs. Anderson, but it is not. I am feeling thoroughly unwell
and out of sorts, so with the Committees indulgence, I will
content myself with
saying
Jeremy
Corbyn (Islington, North) (Lab): It is not the
Chairs
fault.
Dr.
Pugh: It is not her fault, no. I apologise; it is in no
way your fault, Mrs.
Anderson.
Mr.
Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab): Are you
sure?
Dr.
Pugh: Hon. Members are prolonging my suffering. The order
completes the uncontentious Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts
Act 2008, modifies the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and
introduces relatively uncontentious regulation by the FSA. We support
it.
4.45
pm
Ian
Pearson: I agree with the first three things that the hon.
Member for Fareham said. First, I agree that the reclaim fund is an
important part of the architecture of ensuring that dormant account
funds can go to worthy causes. Secondly, I agree with him about the
tension between wanting money to go to worthy causes
and
managing the reclaim fund prudentially to ensure that there is money
left should people suddenly discover after a long period that they have
funds and want back them back because they are rightfully
theirs.
The hon.
Gentleman said that the dormancy period was 10 years, but I should
correct him, because it is actually 15 years. I am sure that he
remembers that and that it was a slip of the
tongue.
Mr.
Brian Binley (Northampton, South) (Con): I am concerned
about the time limit and about how heirs and assigns fit in. If
interest accrues, there could be a sizeable amount in an account. I
imagine that that would be a rare occurrence, because not many people
go around forgetting that they have left a large amount in a bank
account. However, occasionally, there could, for whatever reason, be a
large sum in an account. How will that impact on the interest, on the
time limit and on heirs and assigns? How much right will heirs and
assigns have to reclaim from the fund?
Ian
Pearson: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that nothing in
the order directly relates to that. The dormancy period is determined
in legislation. Whether money that has been lost is reunited with the
current owner or with heirs and successors who are entitled to it, it
is clear that the money is rightfully theirs. Procedures will be put in
place to ensure that that is the case.
The third
thing that the hon. Member for Fareham said was that it would be
disappointing if money that was expected to go to good causes was
deflected to pay for failing banks and institutions, and I support him
in that comment. That will be addressed by the FSA, when it determines
the FSCS
levy.
Mr.
Hoban: Will the Minister expand on that? Is he suggesting
that the FSA would exclude the reclaim fund from contributing to the
levy?
Ian
Pearson: No, I am not saying that. I am saying that the
FSA proposes charging 20 per cent. of deposit class A
leviesonly a fifth of the levies that it would normally
require. Again, the levy is based on the size of the assets involved.
However, the hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point, and nobody on
either side of the Committee would want reclaimed funds diverted to pay
for failing banks, rather than worthy causes. I will reflect on the
point and discuss it with my officials.
The hon.
Gentleman asked a number of questions about the ownership of the
reclaim fund and about candidates. Let me try to explain where we are
on that. The reclaim fund will be a private special purpose company
independent of the Government, the banking
industry and the Big Lottery Fund. We have said that we want the BBA and
the BSA to take the lead in selecting or setting up the body, which
would then be wholly independent.
It would not
be appropriate to comment on how many candidates have come forward. In
terms of when we want the scheme to become operational, the scheme is
conditional on the secondary legislation taking effect. Following that,
the FSA will need to bring in details of its prudential framework for
the scheme. The reclaim fund will need to apply to the FSA for
authorisation once the necessary regulation and rules are in
place.
We have said
that we are looking for the scheme to be operational as soon as
possible after the authorisation of a reclaim fund. I cannot give the
hon. Gentleman a date today, but we want to get moving, and further
discussions need to take place between the BBA, the BSA and the FSA to
make sure that we do. I should emphasise that industry has always told
the Government that it is committed to setting up a reclaim fund, and
we expect industry to deliver on those commitments.
The hon.
Gentleman also asked about spending directions. The allocation between
each of the spending areas for England will be determined, as I think I
said during the passage of the Dormant Bank and Building Society
Accounts Bill, by a cross-Department working group, which includes the
Department for Children, Schools and Families, the Office of the Third
Sector, the Department for Communities and Local Government, the
Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Treasury. That will
continue to meet to draft the spending directions issued to the Big
Lottery Fund. Then they will be issued by the Secretary of State for
Children, Schools and Families. The hon. Gentleman will remember the
debate that we had about the fact that someone had to have overall
responsibility for issuing the
directions.
On
the point about heirs, the 2008 Act sets out that consumers have the
right to reclaim the balance, including interest. Those who have
inherited dormant accounts will be entitled to the balance. I hope that
that makes the matter clear to the hon. Member for Northampton,
South.
This
technical order gives the FSA the power to regulate the reclaim fund. I
think that we all agree with the general principle that the reclaim
fund should be regulated and I hope that I have answered satisfactorily
the questions that were
raised.
Question
put and agreed
to.
Resolved,
That
the Committee has considered the Financial Services and Markets Act
2000 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2009 (S.I. 2009,
No.
1389).
4.51
pm
Committee
rose.