Compensation (London Capital & Finance plc and Fraud Compensation Fund) Bill — Clause 1 — Report on Compensation Payments to Customers of London Capital & Finance PLC — 22 Sep 2021 at 14:45
The majority of MPs voted not to require a report on the impact of the payment of compensation to the customers of London Capital & Finance PLC and also covering some wider related considerations.
MPs were considering the Compensation (London Capital & Finance plc and Fraud Compensation Fund) Bill.[1][2][3]
The Bill provided for publicly funded compensation for:
- investors in London Capital & Finance PLC's "minibonds" (following the firm going into administration in January 2019).
- occupational pension schemes whose assets have been reduced as a consequence of an offence involving dishonesty and where the scheme employer is insolvent and unable to make good the shortfall.
The amendment rejected in this vote was:
- page 1, line 18, at end insert—
- “(5) Within six months of this Act coming into force, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report that assesses the impact of the payment of compensation to the customers of London Capital & Finance plc under this section, and in the light of that assessment, sets out the following—
- (a) an assessment of the regulatory failures that gave rise to the need to compensate the customers of London Capital & Finance plc;
- (b) measures the Government is taking to prevent such regulatory failures in the future;
- (c) the reasons why the Government is providing compensation to the customers of London Capital & Finance plc but not the customers of other failed investment firms;
- (d) criteria for when the Government should be expected to provide compensation following the collapse of investment firms; and
- (e) the reasons for the capping of compensation payments under this section at 80% of what customers of London Capital & Finance would have been entitled to under the Financial Services Compensation Scheme.”
The rejected amendment was accompanied by the following explanatory statement from its proposer:
- This amendment would require the Secretary of State to lay a report before Parliament that assesses the impact of the Government compensating the customers of London Capital & Finance plc, as well as broader issues relevant to the mis-selling scandal.
The rejected amendment would have added an additional subclause to clause one of the Bill.
--
- [1] Parliament's webpage on the Compensation (London Capital & Finance plc and Fraud Compensation Fund) Bill , Parliament.uk
- [2] Compensation (London Capital & Finance plc and Fraud Compensation Fund) Bill, as introduced 12 May 2021, Parliament.uk
- [3] Explanatory notes to the Compensation (London Capital & Finance plc and Fraud Compensation Fund) Bill, as introduced 12 May 2021, Parliament.uk
Party Summary
Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.
What is Tell? '+1 tell' means that in addition one member of that party was a teller for that division lobby.
What are Boths? An MP can vote both aye and no in the same division. The boths page explains this.
What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.
| Party | Majority (No) | Minority (Aye) | Both | Turnout |
| Alliance | 0 | 1 | 0 | 100.0% |
| Con | 286 (+2 tell) | 0 | 0 | 79.1% |
| DUP | 4 | 0 | 0 | 50.0% |
| Green | 0 | 1 | 0 | 100.0% |
| Independent | 1 | 2 | 0 | 60.0% |
| Lab | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.0% |
| LDem | 0 | 7 | 0 | 58.3% |
| PC | 0 | 3 | 0 | 100.0% |
| SDLP | 0 | 1 | 0 | 50.0% |
| SNP | 0 | 37 (+2 tell) | 0 | 86.7% |
| Total: | 291 | 52 | 0 | 54.2% |
Rebel Voters - sorted by name
MPs for which their vote in this division differed from the majority vote of their party. You can see all votes in this division, or every eligible MP who could have voted in this division
Sort by: Name | Constituency | Party | Vote
| Name | Constituency | Party | Vote | |
| no rebellions | ||||