← Back to House of Commons Debates
Compensation and Regulatory Failures Bill - Amendment 1
22 September 2021
Lead MP
Peter Grant
Debate Type
Bill Debate
Tags
Standards & Ethics
Other Contributors: 19
At a Glance
Peter Grant raised concerns about compensation and regulatory failures bill - amendment 1 in the House of Commons. Other MPs contributed to the debate.
How the Debate Unfolded
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said:
Lead Contributor
Opened the debate
The amendment would require the Secretary of State to report back within six months on regulatory failures, measures taken to prevent future failures, reasons for compensating LCF customers but not others, criteria for Government compensation in similar cases, and reasons for capping compensation at 80% under this section. The amendment seeks transparency and accountability regarding the mis-selling scandal involving London Capital & Finance plc.
Kevin Hollinrake
Con
Thirsk and Malton
Asked whether the Gloster report, which assesses regulatory failures, sufficiently addresses the issues raised in amendment 1.
Gareth Thomas
Lab Co-op
Harrow West
Questioned the adequacy of relying solely on the Gloster report for future oversight and suggested the need for an additional body to monitor the quality of financial regulation by the FCA.
Rehman Chishti
Con
Gillingham and Rainham
Asked whether priority should be given to those who suffered most severely in compensation allocation, acknowledging that all victims are deserving of attention.
Kevin Hollinrake
Con
Thirsk and Malton
Supports the principle of greater scrutiny of the FCA but opposes the specific amendment, citing ineffective measures already addressed by the Gloster report. He argues that investors should be responsible for their own investments due to the high-risk nature and need for caveat emptor.
Asked about the effectiveness of the proposed consumer duty in preventing malpractice and whether an independent committee would be a useful tool to support consumers.
Kevin Hollinrake
Con
Thirsk and Malton
Suggested that the FCA should have direct accountability to elected parliamentarians, rather than being an unaccountable independent body.
Pat McFadden
Lab
Wolverhampton South East
Mr McFadden raises concerns about the compensation level being set at 80% of £86,000 and questions why this limit is fixed. He also asks how future regulatory failures will be addressed to prevent similar incidents from happening again.
Mr Chishti intervenes, supporting the need for prioritising compensation for those who have suffered the most and suggesting that data should be used to identify these individuals quickly.
Sammy Wilson
DUP
East Antrim
Mr Wilson argues against defining those who have suffered the most due to investment losses, highlighting the complexity in determining whether it should be based on financial loss or overall impact on a person's life.
Mr Grant intervenes and questions whether the outlawing of mini-bonds targeting retail investors by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) indicates broader issues with such bond sales, suggesting a need for further protections.
Guy Opperman
Con
Hexham
The Minister argues against the amendment by stating that the Government will not stand behind all bad investments in future. He emphasises the uniqueness of LCF's case compared to other failed mini-bond firms and highlights that only three compensation schemes have been established over the past three decades, with this being an exceptional situation.
Rehman Chishti
Con
Gillingham and Rainham
Intervened to ask about the response of social media companies during discussions on online harms, suggesting that more pressure is needed from MPs for these companies to take responsibility.
Pat McFadden
Lab
Wolverhampton South East
Asked the Minister questions about clause 2 and pensions, including the flat-rate levy on pension schemes, the relationship between pension freedoms and financial fraud risks, advice take-up rates for pensioners, and tax charges for those accessing pensions early. He emphasised the need to protect consumers better against scams and advised that these issues will likely be revisited in future debates.
Kevin Hollinrake
Con
Thirsk and Malton
Calls for better regulatory oversight of the Financial Conduct Authority, noting that the FCA failed to act on warnings about London Capital & Finance. Argues that there should be a mechanism within Parliament to hold regulators accountable directly. Suggests creating a Regulatory Accounts Committee modelled after the Public Accounts Committee to scrutinise regulators. Emphasises the need for online platforms like Google to verify bona fide organisations advertising investments.
Sally-Ann Hart
Lab
[INTERVENTION] Agrees with Kevin Hollinrake's point that victims of London Capital & Finance who acted in good faith and followed proper advice should be protected, suggesting a need for stronger safeguards to prevent such situations.
Peter Grant
SNP
Acknowledges that while his specific amendment may not have received full support, there is significant backing across the House for its intent. Critiques the failures of both the FCA and Companies House in preventing regulatory breaches by scam companies like LC&Finance. Calls for further parliamentary inquiry into these systemic failures.
James Grundy
Lab
Supports the Government's compensation scheme but argues that the level of compensation should be increased to 100% capped at £85,000. Emphasises the ordinary nature of those affected and their reliance on regulated and approved companies. Suggests a case for full FSCS-level compensation given the regulatory failure.
Rehman Chishti
Con
Gillingham and Rainham
Rehman Chishti echoed previous speakers, thanking the Government for offering compensation to individuals affected by fraud. He raised two key points: determining who has suffered the most and addressing delays in compensation payments. Additionally, he suggested that the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Secretary look into platform verifications to prevent false advertisements and online harms.
Guy Opperman
Con
Hexham
Guy Opperman responded to colleagues and wrapped up the Bill, praising the Government's rapid progress in drafting and introducing legislation. He confirmed that payments will be made within six months of Royal Assent for about £120 million compensation to approximately 8,800 bondholders. Clause 2 provides a loan to the Pension Protection Fund for fraud compensation, ensuring ongoing payment to eligible schemes.
▸
Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy
About House of Commons Debates
House of Commons debates take place in the main chamber of the House of Commons. These debates cover a wide range of topics including government policy, legislation, and current affairs. MPs from all parties can participate, question ministers, and hold the government accountable for its decisions.