Kirsty Blackman

This is quite a wide-ranging Bill, as we can tell from the variety of speeches that we have heard. It focuses not only on financial markets and financial services, but on consumer protection. In some ways, those are opposite ends of the spectrum, and we can talk about anything within that spectrum. I will talk about a few measures in the Bill, but first I want to raise a concern that I have raised before, which is that any piece of legislation that originates in the House of Lords does not take oral evidence. It is immensely frustrating that no oral evidence will be taken regarding this Bill, despite the fact that it is immensely technical and we would really benefit from that. I have been on many Bill Committees, so I know that oral evidence sessions are invaluable for providing information that we can take forward. I urge the Government to have a rethink about whether oral evidence can be taken on House of Lords Bills when they come to the Commons, because it is not fair that we miss out on that evidence. Turning to specific measures in the Bill, part 1 on credit unions is really important, and I agree with widening the membership. I think that the “Fair Banking for All” movement is really positive, and I would be keen to support it, including with access to credit. A number of Members have said things like, “We all rely on banking services”, but some people do not, because they cannot access those banking services because they are so financially excluded. Ensuring that those people who have suffered from economic abuse, for example, have access to those services is really important. I am glad that credit unions will have their common bond widened, but I do wonder about the timeline for the statutory instrument that is coming through to widen the limit of people from 3 million to 10 million. It would be really helpful if the Minister could let us know what is happening with that statutory instrument and when it will progress, because it is happening in parallel to this Bill rather than being included in it. On complaints and consumer redress, I agree with the majority of what the Chair of the Treasury Committee said. I have concerns about the absolute limit of 10 years. I do not think that that is appropriate, and consumer organisations also believe that. I also have concerns about the general principle that consumers should take responsibility for their decisions. As a general principle, that makes sense, but when it comes to specific issues it does not necessarily always work. Consumers can take responsibility in situations where they had the full information and the capacity to understand the information that they were given, but in some cases they will not have been given the full information or had the ability to understand it. They should be able to take responsibility for informed decisions but not have to take responsibility for those in which they were not properly informed. I would appreciate it if the Minister could clarify that before we come to Report stage—it relates to clause 7, which proposes amendments to section 228 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. On payment systems regulation, I absolutely agree that changes that can be made. I feel strongly that it is really important to future-proof the regulation of cryptoassets particularly and the transfer of those cryptoassets in relation to payment systems regulation and fees that are regulated by the FCA. Charities have seen a massive increase from a significant number of banking institutions in the payments that they make. For example, charities that have only a small amount of money and might be taking out a float to run a small event will now be seeing massive fees that they were not seeing before because of changes to charitable banking systems. I am not sure whether that exactly falls within payment systems regulation, but I do not think it is fair that they have to do that. Those changes disproportionately harm smaller charities and those who deal with small amounts of cash. I have a specific question on anti-money laundering supervision. I understand the move away from professional body supervisors so that we can have fewer than 25 organisations doing that supervision, but I am worried about specialisation. For example, if we put the work of the organisation that supervises lawyers and solicitors in Scotland into the FCA as a regulator that supervises lawyers, that may not be appropriate for the legal system in Scotland, and we may end up with only one person—the one who understands Scottish law—having the knowledge and doing that supervision. There, again, we would have a single point of failure, and that is really concerning in a place supervising people who are doing anti-money laundering. Will the Minister confirm that there will be appropriate specialism and understanding of all the different organisations currently supervised by professional bodies as that work is moved into one organisation? I am concerned about potential failure points. In relation to Scottish-specific things, those looking to get a child trust fund unlocked for someone in Scotland who has become an adult and does not have the capacity to manage their own finances has to go to the Office of the Public Guardian. Will the Minister please ensure that any changes in regulation made here do not make the system worse in Scotland? I understand that it is currently better than the system in England—there is no requirement to go through a court process—so will she talk to the people who understand the system in Scotland to ensure that our people will not be disadvantaged? I would love the system in Scotland to be made better, but at the very least it should not be made worse as we move forward here. I believe strongly that we need access to in-person banking services, as have been mentioned. A huge many banks have closed in my constituency—a city constituency—and some people are required to go on public transport for an hour to get to banking facilities. When banks close, they regularly say, “It’s fine, because there’s a post office.” That is not fine, because post offices are run by postmasters and postmistresses, who may get ill and have to step down at short notice, and post offices do not have to consult before they close to ensure that provision will always be there. Therefore, in terms of access to in-person banking services, if a post office is to be relied on as a backstop, that service needs to be better and better regulated, and we need to ensure that that backstop service will continue to be there. On data sharing for consumer credit and ensuring that people have credit agreements, I am concerned that if the data sharing system is to be more flexible than currently, it may be more at risk given the number of hacks we are seeing. I urge the Government to ensure that the National Crime Agency, for example, has looked into that so that people’s data is as safe as possible. I have one very last thing. On Henry VIII powers and the creation of things here, banking services should never have been a delegated authority; that should have been in the Bill. We should also have done the consultation before the legislation.