---

Finance Bill

The Minister is well aware that consumer advocacy agencies have been very pleased with the transfer of National Savings and Investments from the specialist adjudicator to the Financial Ombudsman Service, because there is a tradition at the FOS of accessibility and low-cost remedies for complaints. However, there is concern among the same community—I hope that the Minister will give us some reassurance about it—that, because of pressure from various parts of the financial services industry, new hurdles will be placed in the way of those seeking redress from the financial ombudsman in the form of greater opportunities for appeal by institutions against whom complaints had been upheld. Can the Minister give us an assurance about that matter, which is entirely material to consideration of the elimination of the special adjudicator and the transfer of National Savings and Investments under clause 69? Will the Minister also clarify why the transfer is only to the voluntary jurisdiction of the Financial Ombudsman Service? I understand that National Savings and Investments has said that it will regard the provision as a binding commitment, but under those circumstances, it is extraordinary—and perception matters—that the same compulsory rules that would apply to virtually any other party over which the FOS is to have jurisdiction do not apply in this instance. Why has a voluntary structure been chosen in this case?