The result in many cases has been substantial changes in retail banking services: for example, the selling off of business units, the closing down of branches, the expansion into fee-based business, such as MPF and insurance services, the development of more cost-effective modes of service delivery, such as the ATM network and the Internet, and the imposition of specific fees and charges on services that did not incur fees and charges in the past. Consumers also need to react to the changing environment – for example, through making use of delivery channels such as ATMs, telephone banking or the internet that reduce the cost of using banking services. Cost minimisation also provides the incentive for consumers to shop around, and new technology in the form of the Internet enhances the means of doing so. With the shopping around comes awareness of what else is on offer, and greater expectations on the part of the consumer. Less positively, there has been disruption and anxiety, which has been reflected in the steadily growing number of complaints and protests, and in the greater political attention being paid to this subject. What is the stance of the HKMA? We do not, as I have already said, regulate fees and charges. But we seek to ensure that there is transparency in the provision of services, particularly in the setting out of fees and charges.
It was with the intention of clarifying some of the issues surrounding banking consumer protection that we recently undertook a comparative study of the practices in the UK, Australia and Hong Kong. The report on this study has been presented to the LegCo Panel on Financial Affairs and has been made available to the general public, and, of course, to the banking sector. The study examines the different approaches to this subject in Australia and the UK, but it notes that, in contrast to Hong Kong, the regulators in both places have been given a specific mandate in relation to the protection of consumers of financial and banking services. Two further major differences between Hong Kong and the overseas regimes are highlighted: first, in the setting, monitoring and enforcement of standards of business practice; and, secondly, in the investigation, resolution, and arbitration of customer complaints. With regard to the former, Australia and the UK both, like Hong Kong, have a non-statutory Code of Banking Practice, which sets the standards. But both Australia and the UK take this a stage further, with the formal monitoring of compliance by a specialist agency, which, in the UK case at least, has the power to impose sanctions against institutions that breach the Code. For the resolution of customer complaints, both the UK and Australia have a formalised Ombudsman scheme, with powers to arbitrate in disputes.