View more on these topics

Lord Flight battles on over long-stop review but Labour is unsupportive

Lord Howard Flight
Lord Howard Flight: Raising the issue again

Conservative peer Lord Howard Flight has called for an “urgent” FSA long-stop review with the aim of introducing it around the same time as the RDR.

Speaking in a Financial Services Bill debate in the House of Lords yesterday, deputy chief whip Lord Dick Newby said the FSA is considering whether to include a review in its 2014/15 business plan.

He was responding to a proposed amendment from Flight who again called for a 15-year long-stop for advisers after it was rejected earlier in the bill.

Flight said: “The industry feels extremely upset that it is picked on in this particular way. The Government should consider working with the FSA for greater urgency so it might be introduced alongside the RDR.

“It is particularly important right now because with RDR there will be a large number of financial advisers going out of business and wanting to close them down. As long as the statute of limitation doesn’t apply, those businesses have an open-ended liability. It would make the RDR more manageable.”

Last month advisers pledged to keep fighting for a long-stop after the FSA refused to commit to a review and only to “consider whether to investigate” it in its 2014/15 business planning, a pledge repeated by Newby in yesterday’s debate.

Newby said: “We believe this is an extremely important question for the regulator to review and clearly they need to take into account the different features of financial services and products.

“When it looked at the issue previously it noted the long-term nature of financial products meant it can take many years for consumers to notice such as inappropriate pensions switching.”

Labour Treasury spokesman Lord John Eatwell rejected the amendment and said advisers should focus on giving appropriate advice.

He said: “It is unreasonable to provide this sort of protection for financial advisers who should take full and appropriate care in the advice they give.

“If they have taken full and appropriate care they should be able to defend themselves at a later stage. It is inappropriate that they are not sensitive for potential comeback for inappropriate and misconceived advice.”


News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up


There are 19 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. Is that so Lord Eatwell. And how long is your liability for your actions?

  2. Becoming a headcase IFA 27th November 2012 at 9:46 am

    “Lord” Eatwell probably does.

    I do hope I will be able to adequately defend myself against a spurious claim of stakeholder mis-selling when I am demetia riddled.

    Come the glorious day!

  3. I think that by now all IFA’s are aware that the FSA do not care what MP’s and/or Peers think. The FSA and those in charge believe that they do not have to listen to our elected and appointed government reps. The FSA has ruined the financial services in GB and just could not care less

  4. They really don’t get it…or do they?

    Advisers have less rights than criminals. Our human rights are stripped away, our ability to plan for the future is demolished, our reasonable expectations are denied.

    Parliament never debated the removal of the longstop and nor did the FSA consult on it, despite the implications within numerous comments.

    What a society.

  5. I think Eatwell misses the point.

    Nobody is suggesting that a advisers should not take responsibility for their actions.

    The problem is that things happened so long ago that there it is not possible to safely establish what really happened.

    That is why the long stop was put into the Limitation Act.

    If we believe the long stop is wrong then it is wrong for all and should be taken out of that Act, not partially reinstated just for financial advisers.

    Nigel Farage has a good measure of what the FSA are about and has said that regulation of IFAs’ is like something out of former eastern block countries.
    If neither of the mainstream parties are going to allow IFAs’ the same human rights as muggers, rapists and terrorists, DO NOT VOTE for them.

  7. I am all for people taking responsiblity but not for th rest of their lives. This is ironic when you consider the reponsiblity of parliamentarians stops when they leave office. Especially considering the real misery they can cause whilst in office. Anyway, I will know Lord Eatwell when I meet him and explain the realities of life to him.

  8. Typical comment from a Labour treasury spokesman, the majority of the so-called incidents of bad advice have come from the policies his party put in place when in power.

  9. What a shame that the mind-numbingly stupid actions of politicians across the aeons cannot be complained about in the manner that this industry suffers continual complaints.

    MPs and Lords do not have to be qualified. In fact, from what I’ve seen and heard, it is a positive disadvantage to have a brain that thinks matters through in a cogent manner.

    Totally disgraceful.

  10. The only issue I have with this is that the regulator continues to apply current rules retrospectively and allows the FOS to employ unqualified adjudicators with no knowledge of financial products or services, to make decisions about what is allegedly fair and reasonable when a claim comes through.

    The Stasi in East Germany even allowed prisoners clients legal representatio before hanging them

    We can expect nothing more now from these arrogant self servicing functionaries whose sole motivation is to ruin the iFA sector and send our industry back to the days of yore, when the only product available was a deposit account.

  11. The next time they want your vote write to them telling them why you will NOT vote for anyone who does not recognise your human rights.

  12. Lord Eatwell – you are putting yourself against above God by claiming that one job and one job alone should have INFINITE liability and be judged at a later date based on opinions at that later date rather than when the advice was given/reecived and with one party and one party alone being the judge, jury and executioner.
    If the long stop is wrong then it is wrong for all and should be taken out for all UK citizens (including solicitors, accountants, architects and most importantly policians), not partially reinstated just for financial advisers.
    As someone else said, “come the glorious day”. At least we now know who to take it out on if someone tties to pursue as 16 yearsw after advice was last given……

  13. Lord Eatwell’s comment was beneath contempt.
    I could not believe the words I read. What are this person’s experiences/background such that he could open his mouth and come for with such execrable nonsense. And to think he’s being subbed £300+perday to open his mouth…… head being shaken here.

    The FSA has foisted RDR on us; we’ve hopefully met all the benchmarks:
    Level 4;
    Complete change around in the way we are paid
    Full CPD
    Statement of professional standing
    All to make us so called more professional and reputable and less likely to missell;

    BUT STILL no slack is cut as regards the longstop. As so many have pointed out, we are treated worse than any other professionals that deal in very long term advice/design/surgical procedures.

    Architects 15yrs
    Structural Engineers 15 yrs
    Surgeons 15 years
    LAWYERS 15 yrs
    Builders 15 years

    YOU NAME IT…..15 years.

    errrr…. except us.

    It escapes me why we as a body of people in the same profession have not managed to extract a judial review of the situation.

    So to all you FSA people that monitor these blogs/threads, I say to you: do the decent thing.

  14. According to the web this is Lord Eatwell’s CV
    Eatwell has held several positions within the University of Cambridge, including Professor of Financial Policy at the Judge Business School and University Lecturer at the Faculty of Economics: he was a fellow of Trinity College from 1970 to 1996, when he was elected President of Queens’. With his other duties, Eatwell taught Economics at the New School for Social Research in New York city in the 1980s and 1990s. He is also a member of various important national bodies. He was chief economic adviser to Neil Kinnock, the then-Leader of the Labour Party, from 1985 to 1992 and is a Labour member of the House of Lords as Baron Eatwell, of Stratton St Margaret in the County of Wiltshire. In 2010, he was appointed a Labour Opposition Spokesman for the Treasury in the House of Lords by new leader Ed Miliband.[1][2]

    Eatwell is the former chair of the British Library, a director of the Royal Opera House and the economic advisor to the Chartered Management Institute.

    In July 2006 Eatwell married Suzi Digby, the founder and Principal of The Voices Foundation, a national music education charity.

  15. RegulatorSaurusRex 28th November 2012 at 11:45 am

    Lord John Eatwell should have the statute repealed because nobody can override it, the FSA’s David Kenmir said so.

  16. Economic adviser to neil Kinnock? That will be why Kinnock & his mrs are able to get such a large paychecque from brussels. All without accountability of course.
    He said: “It is unreasonable to provide this sort of protection for financial advisers who should take full and appropriate care in the advice they give.
    unreasonable to provide? the law proivided it for us eatwell, the fsa took it away.
    Eatwell has a right to trial by jury if he does something wrong, wonder how he would feel if someone said ” We should not provide this sort of protection for his sort.

  17. Lord Eatwell’s joke at the beginning of this is quite pretinent. He is a bood presenter who appears to accept that economist cause chaos whilst lawyers change chaos ro order. That would rather explain why his likes the idea of the longstop being ignored for one party (chaos) with infinite liability.
    also worth looking at the date of this speech and listening to it at 7.09 minutes and then putting it in context of what the economy is like now.

  18. Lord Eatwell was a member of the Board of the Securities and Futures Authority, a member of the Regulatory Decisions Committee of the Financial Services Authority. Both he and Ron Sandler (ex chair of the Chartered Institute of bankers) are advisers to Private equity Company Palamon Capital (amongst others)

  19. It just goes to show that you can have numerous high profile, highly paid jobs and still be a gormless twat !

    If it was a fair world, Blair would have been hanged, Brown shot and Miliband drowned at birth (how can any human be so ugly).

    And all the f****** expense cheats would be behind bars.

    Finally, every self-righteous moron at the FSA (that’s most of them) should be held personally accountable when it is finally realized that their 13 years of causing mayhem has damaged the financial prospects of almost every adult in the UK.

Leave a comment


Why register with Money Marketing ?

Providing trusted insight for professional advisers.  Since 1985 Money Marketing has helped promote and analyse the financial adviser community in the UK and continues to be the trusted industry brand for independent insight and advice.

News & analysis delivered directly to your inbox
Register today to receive our range of news alerts including daily and weekly briefings

Money Marketing Events
Be the first to hear about our industry leading conferences, awards, roundtables and more.

Research and insight
Take part in and see the results of Money Marketing's flagship investigations into industry trends.

Have your say
Only registered users can post comments. As the voice of the adviser community, our content generates robust debate. Sign up today and make your voice heard.

Register now

Having problems?

Contact us on +44 (0)20 7292 3712

Lines are open Monday to Friday 9:00am -5.00pm