Banking Misconduct and the FCA

Nick's intervention in the Banking Misconduct and the FCA debate

 

Nick Herbert (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)

The hon. Gentleman rightly draws attention to the appalling stress that has been placed on individuals. That has happened in my constituency due to RBS and the Britannia building society acting entirely unfairly towards my constituents. Apart from the behaviour of the banks, is there not an issue about the ability of such ndividuals to obtain redress, and the failure of our institutions—such as the FCA and the ombudsman—to be able to offer satisfactory relief to individuals so badly affected?

 

Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)

Again, that is an excellent intervention. It is almost as if planned, because I am about to turn to the question of dispute resolution.

The FCA’s recent consultation into extending the Financial Ombudsman Service clearly sets out the complex landscape of commercial disputes, but it also identifies what it can and cannot do as a regulator to bridge this gap. The all-party group is very clear that it cannot possibly support the proposed extension of the Financial Ombudsman Service as a stand-alone solution to problems that have beset the business community for so long. Even with extended powers, it will not be sufficient to cover complex cases or those that sit outside the regulatory perimeters. The FCA’s consultation makes it very clear that it has limited powers, and that a complete solution must include action by the Government and this Parliament. It is not an either/or; we need both.

 

To read the Hansard of the full debate, please see here

Joe Coombes