Proceeding contribution from Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 7 July 2009. It occurred during Adjournment debate on Structured Products Marketing.
Structured Products Marketing
I shall put that question to the Minister when I conclude. It is important for our constituents to be aware of that investigation. In the jurisdiction of Hong Kong, advisers who sold such products appear to have had their feet held to the fire. Hong Kong's regulator has forced them to pay back some of the money to investors. In January, Sun Hung Kai investment services paid back £8 million to 310 investors, and only last week Bank of China Hong Kong announced that it will buy back bonds at between 60 and 80 per cent. of the original price—a total of $322 million. As my right hon. Friend indicated, the role of the FSA has proved frustrating for many of our constituents. How could it have allowed financial advisers to market products as "100 per cent. secure" and "100 per cent. guaranteed" when there was obviously an inherent risk? Why is the FSA—and the Treasury—now hiding behind procedures that are clearly inadequate when it should be taking action? Why is it not using its power to force such advisers to come forward with proposals for compensation? How can it argue that this is an issue of investment performance and not one of negligence? Why does it pretend that the contract was effectively between Lehman Brothers and the investors when, clearly, there was a contract between our constituents and the financial advisers who sold them such products? Will the Minister tell us why the Treasury and the FSA believe that such products are outside the scope of the FSCS, and use the opportunity to set out exactly what the FSA is doing? What is the scope of its investigation, what are its terms and when will it be completed? What does the Minister think are the possible range of outcomes of the FSA inquiry? As I said at the start of the debate, 6,000 people have lost their life savings. They have not done anything wrong. They were not playing the markets, gambling or day trading. They were buying products, mostly at the end of their working life, which were advertised as 100 per cent. capital secure. They specifically bought those products because they wanted to keep their capital secure. They have been left high and dry, not with poor investment performance, but with losing every single penny of their investment. Those of us who contacted the Treasury on behalf of our constituents had to wait four or five months for an initial response. We now have an FSA inquiry going on behind closed doors, and nobody knows what its terms are, when it will be completed or what the possible outcomes are. This is a great opportunity for the Minister to set out in detail what is going on in this significant financial scandal.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 495 c241-2WH
- Session
- 2008-09
- Chamber / Committee
- Westminster Hall
- Subjects
- Compensation Bankruptcy Investment Financial institutions Financial Services Authority Personal savings Marketing Sales Regulation Lehman Brothers
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-05 22:45:58 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_575302
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_575302
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_575302