Public Service Pensions Bill
Baroness Noakes Excerpts(11 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Noakes
My Lords, I can just about support the Bill, because it is in the right direction of travel. However, I do not think that the Government have got their policy on public sector pensions right. They most certainly cannot claim to have produced a lasting solution. I am profoundly disappointed by the policy that this Bill will implement.
I am not against pensions for public service employees. I fully support workplace-based pension provision, but I have great difficulty in supporting public sector pension arrangements that are disconnected from those in the majority of the economy—namely, the private sector.
Put simply, I do not believe that taxpayers should be asked to pay for public sector pensions on terms that are increasingly not available outside the public sector. There is no fairness in that. I have the greatest respect for the noble Lord, Lord Hutton of Furness, and his report, but I think that he was wrong to have landed his recommendations in a space that is not in touch with what is happening to pension provision generally. The noble Lord characterised alternatives to his recommendations as a race to the bottom, and that formulation has been used whenever his recommendations have been discussed. But that language grossly overstates the argument. The majority of private sector employees currently have no pension provision, although after auto-enrolment we hope that most of them will be in what is admittedly a minimalist version of a pension scheme, via the NEST arrangements. But no one, not even from the right-wing think tanks that I occasionally dip into, suggests that public sector employees should be levelled down to that. This is not an issue about racing to the bottom. The real issue is about the available issue of defined benefit pensions.
The facts are stark. In the last Office for National Statistics survey, 79% of public sector employees had access to DB pensions, while the figure is only 9% for the private sector. In 1995, there were more employees in open private sector DB schemes than in public sector ones, but the blow dealt by Gordon Brown's ACT raid added to other emerging factors, notably longevity, resulted in pension burdens that the corporate sector simply could not bear. Some companies have even been forced into bankruptcy because of the impact of their DB pension liabilities. In 1995, 4.9 million private sector employees were active members in open DB schemes; by 2011, this was just 0.9 million. This is the real background to public service pension reform. The reforms which are delivered in this Bill continue to give DB pensions to public service employees, and this is simply out of alignment with the rest of the economy.
There is, of course, a policy shift to a career average approach, rather than a final salary one, in line with the recommendation from the noble Lord, Lord Hutton. This will put downward pressure on the costs of providing pensions to public sector employees, but mainly for the minority who have significant salary progression through their career. However, the public sector will still unambiguously be entitled to defined benefit pensions, which is beyond the grasp of the vast majority of the UK's workforce.
There are some good things in this Bill. The alignment of the pension age with the state pension age, as recommended by the noble Lord, Lord Hutton, is long overdue and welcome. The inclusion of judicial pensions, so long virtually a no-go area in pensions reform, is also welcome. Control of the costs and risks of providing public sector pensions must be at the heart of these reforms, and I welcome the cost control clauses. The Government have accepted the recommendation of the noble Lord, Lord Hutton, of a fixed-cost ceiling. It remains to be seen how robust the arrangements will prove to be in practice, if faced with very high cost increases, but I agree that it is well worth the effort to see if an automatic cost-stabilising mechanism can be made to work.
The most important measures, which will help to reduce the cost of public sector pensions, will come from other sources. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, has already referred to these. By far the biggest financial impact will come from shifting pensions indexation from RPI to CPI. The fiscal sustainability report issued by the Office for Budget Responsibility this year shows that the vast majority of the forecast reduction in the costs of public sector pensions as a percentage of GDP comes from this source, from the shift to CPI, and calculates it as 0.4% of GDP benefit by about 2050.
The second most important contribution to reducing the cost burden on the public sector is additional member contributions. However this produces only about 0.1% of GDP and is a long way behind the contribution of CPI. All the rest of the changes facilitated by this Bill trail in behind that, accounting for around 0.1% of GDP. As I have mentioned, these cost reductions are not fully delivered until around 2050, according to the charts in the OBR’s report. Of course, massive modelling assumptions lie behind those figures. Without any sensitivity analysis, it is difficult to be certain about whether a long-term benefit will actually be delivered by the reforms in this Bill.
In the short term, however, there will be an increasing net cash cost of pensions, according both to the OBR’s figures and the Treasury’s public expenditure survey figures. An excellent paper for the Centre for Policy Studies by Mr Michael Johnson shows that the expected cash cost for public sector pensions over the three years to 2014-15 has risen by £10 billion in just the past year. This is cash that the Treasury has to raise from today’s taxpayers. This Bill should fight against the shorter-term real costs, as well as the longer-term implications of public service pensions.
Lord Hutton of Furness
I did not intend to interrupt the noble Baroness’s speech, which I was enjoying. However her last point is very important. If she is saying that the Government should reduce those additional costs that she just identified, the only way would be to interfere with the accrued rights of those pensioners. To do so would raise serious legal challenges. Does she advocate a policy of retrospectively amending accrued rights?
Baroness Noakes
Perhaps the noble Lord can wait. I will deal with part of the issue of accrued rights in a few moments. I said that the Bill should fight against this short-term cost as well as the longer-term cost because of the large and growing cash impact—which is a real impact that we can measure—set against the rather more esoteric longer-term modelled reduction expressed as a percentage of GDP. Given the assumptions embedded in there, those longer-term projections are not much more than conjecture.
Lord Flight
I thank my noble friend for giving way. The issue of funding the growing cash deficit is not necessarily about altering rights, but also about contributions for as long as there is a pay-as-you-go system.
Baroness Noakes
My noble friend is right. Nobody would pretend that the solutions are easy, but there are solutions other than altering accrued rights. The important aspect of needing to deal with the short-term cash costs brings us to the transitional provisions. I believe that the Government’s transitional provisions are nearly incomprehensible, certainly to those who have had to make the hard decisions about changing pension arrangements in the private sector. First, the Government adopted a classic short-term/long-term political fudge by giving protection to all those within 10 years of retirement. This is designed to buy off most of those who might work out how much it would cost them. Most private sector changes to pension arrangements come with transitional protections, but I have never come across a transitional protection extending to 10 years, as the Government have devised theirs.
Secondly the Government have adopted the definition of the noble Lord, Lord Hutton, of accrued rights and protected the final salary element of pensions for anyone who has accrued rights prior to the implementation of the changes. This is out of line with private sector practice where schemes are increasingly closing to further accrual, with indexation of accrued benefits rather than salary-based post-award dynamism. This makes a significant difference to the ultimate costs. All this adds up to a very disappointing Bill. At the very least, I hope that the Government will remain committed to resisting calls to dilute this Bill further.
I conclude by saying that I firmly believe that the total pay package for public sector workers should be comparable in the round with those available in the majority of the economy—namely, the private sector. This is fair. However, it is not fair for taxpayers to have to support the preservation of benefits in the public sector beyond those available to employees more generally, unless—and this is a big proviso—the value of those benefits is fully reflected in other elements of pay, generally in basic pay. I fully support the recommendation of the noble Lord, Lord Hutton, which stated that public service employers should,
“take greater account of public service pensions when constructing remuneration packages”.
I had hoped that this Bill would enshrine that requirement and its absence is yet another disappointment.
Financial Services Bill
Baroness Noakes Excerpts(11 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Wheatcroft
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for taking up the issue of auditors. Clearly, auditors did not emerge well from the financial crisis. The clean audit reports that they delivered on banks that were on the verge of bankruptcy, as later became apparent, were evidence of deep failings in the system. Much as I am grateful to my noble friend for attempting to address that, I am not entirely convinced that these amendments go far enough.
I am unclear about what these amendments might achieve. As far as I can see, they do not go much further than reiterating what is already in the Financial Services and Markets Act but failed to deliver. I hear what my noble friend says about the approach being much harsher but I am not sure. Section 342 of FiSMA contains a power for the Treasury to make,
“regulations prescribing circumstances in which an auditor or actuary must communicate matters”
to the FSA. Equally, there are provisions allowing the FSA to communicate matters to the auditors. These amendments may contain a subtle increase in the duty that is imposed, but I am not convinced that they go far enough.
My original amendment was intended to heighten the duty on auditors to report on the risks they found. I continue to believe that it is essential that they should not be able to give a nearly bust bank a clean bill of health. The Financial Reporting Council takes that view and has made changes to its corporate governance code that increase the duties on directors and auditors. It remains to be seen whether these will be effective. The FRC is also launching a consultation into changes on the interpretation of “going concern” and “liquidity risks” following the Sharman inquiry. Directors would be required to give greater disclosure on the risks in their business and how they were being addressed, and auditors would be required to report on whether they concurred with the directors’ report. On past performance, I am not sure we should be confident that auditors will take issue with directors, who, after all, pay their fees.
We should be putting more of an onus on auditors to voice any doubts that they might have about the risks being taken by any business, but particularly by a bank. The FRC says that it is keen to encourage what it terms “professional scepticism”. I hope that the Minister will forgive me if I remain somewhat sceptical about these changes and I hope that he will at least undertake to keep under review the effectiveness of the amendment that he is now proposing.
Baroness Noakes
My Lords, unfortunately I was not able to be present when my noble friend’s amendment was debated in Committee, but I read Hansard and noted that my noble friend had undertaken to take the issue away and bring an amendment back. I was surprised when I looked at the amendment and saw what it was trying to deliver. It seems to me, as my noble friend has just pointed out, that there are already provisions in FiSMA, which covers the relationship between auditors and financial institutions. In addition, the Minister said that these are things that could and should have been done—but they are being done.
I have a copy of the code of practice for the relationship between the external auditor and the supervisor. This was refreshed after the financial crisis and is dated May 2011. It sets out a number of principles. Principle one states:
“Supervisors and auditors shall seek an open, cooperative and constructive relationship”.
Principle two is that they should “engage in regular dialogue”. Principle three states:
“Supervisors and auditors shall share all information relevant to carrying out their respective statutory duties and in a timely fashion”.
That code is already in existence and governing the dialogue between the FSA and auditors. Under the current legislative framework there is no reason for this not to continue when the PRA takes over its functions. I am struggling to see what it is that adds any substance to the current arrangements. The Government have brought forward an amendment, which is—and I hate to use this term—window dressing.
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, I assure you that it is not window dressing. I am not sure how much I can add for the benefit of my noble friend other than what I have said already. It is important to think about these amendments in the context of what the FRC and BIS are doing, and also to recognise that hardwiring the code of conduct into legislation in the way that I have described does considerably more than window dressing. Over time, we will be able to prove the scepticism of my noble friends to have been misplaced. I agree that this is a matter that will not go away, and we should and will, as Treasury and Government, keep these matters high on our list of things to be watched.
Financial Services Bill
Baroness Noakes Excerpts(11 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Peston
My Lords, my contribution is also entirely interrogative. I have a lot of questions. I shall put the matter in context. Before we started today's proceedings, I thought that this was all very straightforward and simple but I now realise that I did not understand any of it at all. I am not certain that I am alone in not understanding it. I shall go through my questions and give some examples to elucidate them. First, I may have missed the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, making the relevant statement, but can noble Lords assume that everything in these amendments has been agreed by Mr Wheatley and that he also agrees that they do every single thing that he wanted done? That was not said, but I assume that perhaps we are to take that for granted. My second question, which was not in my original notes, but I listened to what was said, is: do these amendments go well beyond what is in the Wheatley report? I would like an answer to that. My third question is: why are we talking about benchmarks? That was the first thing I scribbled when I saw the amendment. Why are we using this expression? It is so broad that it seems to me to cover all sorts of things that have nothing to do with LIBOR. My main puzzle is that I thought that this was all about LIBOR, exactly LIBOR, no more than LIBOR and no less than LIBOR, but it seems to me that it is about 101 other things.
In order to elucidate that, perhaps I may give some examples. I am sticking to the investment paragraphs, whereas my noble friend Lord Eatwell rightly says that benchmarks are used for all sorts of contracts, not just investment contracts. Let us stick with investment contracts. Suppose a firm issues a long-term bond which is specified in the following way: “This firm agrees to pay the holders of this bond 5% interest over its life”, say 25 years, “plus the rate of rise of the GDP deflator”. That seems to me to be a good way of issuing a bond and raising money. Does the GDP deflator, and do all those who set the GDP deflator, come into the scope of this Bill? I can see nothing that stops them coming into the scope of the Bill, but those people are the Office for National Statistics and if the Government manipulate the GDP deflator by subsidising certain key elements of it, the Government may face criminal charges. I have seen nothing in this Bill to stop that happening. I mention that because the GDP deflator happens to be my favourite price index as compared with the CPI and the RPI, but it would apply just as well to them.
Let us go further. In order to produce stability in its enterprise, suppose a firm says, “I will pay you 3% per annum over the lifetime of this contract, which we wish to last for five years, plus the rate of rise of the GDP deflator. Will you agree to that?”. That relates to a question that occurred in your Lordships' House yesterday. It is the kind of wage contract many of us would like to see used in order to stabilise the economy but I can see nothing that prevents such a contract coming under the scope of this Bill. To my noble friend Lord Eatwell, I say that it is not just a matter of commodities trading, but it seems to me there is nothing in the Bill that prevents almost anything that is index linked coming under its scope. Am I right that this goes well beyond LIBOR? I would take the view that it should not; that is not what we are here for.
Those are my contributions, they are all interrogative and I am perfectly happy to be told that I have misunderstood everything that is going on here. I do however agree with my noble friend Lord Barnett that I may misunderstand it, but the lawyers involved in this kind of activity will not and they are going to look for trouble. Has the Minister asked his officials to guarantee that no trouble can arise in that way within this part of the Bill?
Baroness Noakes
My Lords, I ask my noble friend a simple question, for which I apologise for not having given him notice. It is a question I had intended to raise in respect of an earlier amendment but for various reasons I was not here when that amendment was dealt with. It relates to the definition of financial crime. The FCA has, as one of its integrity objectives, the financial system not being used for a purpose connected with financial crime, and financial crime is defined in new Section 1H. An amendment moved by my noble friend earlier was to include terrorism financing in the definition of financial crime. It seems to me that the definition as it stands does not automatically include the new offences that are created in this rather large group of amendments, which we can shorthand as the LIBOR offences, because it would not otherwise have been within the remit of the FCA. I would be grateful if my noble friend would answer that point.
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, I was rather getting into the swing of this. I have never had so many questions in such a short time and I was waiting for more to come. Noble Lords know that I usually try to group my answers together in some coherent way, but the questions have come so thick and fast that I fear that in answering as many as I can the answers may not be grouped together quite as efficiently as I would like.
Let me start with the definitional issues around what we are trying to cover here. First, to the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, benchmark may be defined by Chambers Dictionary, on Google and in many other places, but it has never before been defined in FSMA and I think it is necessary to have a FSMA definition. I am sorry the noble Lord went to all these other sources and did not look at the very particular definition in the Bill, but that is where these amendments start. The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, asked if the definition was wide enough and the noble Lord, Lord Peston, takes the view we should only be talking about LIBOR so the definition may be too wide.
Baroness Noakes
I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend. I know he wants to get on to the rest of the interesting questions that he has been asked but I want to come back to this definition of investment. “Investment” is defined in Amendment 112 for the purposes of the offences but it does not appear to be defined for the purposes of defining “Benchmark” at the beginning of this group. I have spent some of the past 30 minutes or so using my iPad to see whether FiSMA already had an equivalent definition in it and I cannot find it. That does not mean it is not there but I cannot find it.
Lord Sassoon
As I said in response to the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, I will look again. I believe that, as I have set it out, everything that is intended to be covered is covered. I am grateful to my noble friend for pointing out that,
“‘Investment’ includes any asset, right or interest”,
for this purpose. That points to the wide scope of the definition. I will take away these points and make sure that it all knits together in the way intended. If it does not, I will write and seek to put matters right at Third Reading.
Let me move on to some other questions that have been asked. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that this group of amendments does what Mr Wheatley intended and that he and, on his behalf, his FSA team have rightly crawled all over it. I just want to be clear that it does not go beyond Wheatley except in the sense that we are future-proofing it for other possible benchmarks, which is entirely consistent with what Mr Wheatley wanted. While I am dealing with one or two of these questions, I can also confirm to my noble friend Lady Noakes that the definition of financial crime catches the new offences. The definition in proposed new Section 1H(3) provides that,
“‘Financial crime’ includes any offence”,
and the list of offences is not exhaustive, so the answer to my noble friend is yes.
I see the noble Baroness, Lady Hogg, in her place. It is good to see her here. There were various questions about the process for appointing the administrator. I can assure noble Lords that the noble Baroness, to whom I am very grateful for taking on this responsibility, will be taking this forward in a measured way, as your Lordships would expect. That process will take place over the next few months. My understanding is that considerable interest has already been shown in the opportunity to be the administrator. It would have been inappropriate to have an independent body setting LIBOR. As we know, it has been set by the BBA. That has presented all sorts of difficulties and conflicts of interest. Independence was weak. The BBA is handing over to the new administrator but, critically, the oversight of that new administrator will be the responsibility of the FCA. The behaviour of the new administrator will be regulated, not just the behaviour of the banks supplying the information.
Financial Services Bill
Baroness Noakes Excerpts(11 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Noakes
I added my name to this amendment because my noble friend has raised some important issues, and I support everything he said. When approaching consumer protection, it is often easy to want to insure or underpin the consumer in every possible way, but we have to have a market in which financial service providers can be confident that when they provide a financial product, whether it is a mortgage, an ISA or an insurance or pension product, they know the risks they are undertaking in relation to that. Understanding the balance that will be taken by the FCA when approaching its consumer protection objective is extremely important to the financial services industry. If the financial service industry gets very unconfident about how this will play out in practice, we will end up with a worse outcome for consumers because it is almost certain that the range of products and the degree of financial innovation that will be invested in would decline. It will not happen immediately, but it will decline over time because firms will not be confident about how they can approach them.
The financial service industry reads very carefully what the people involved in regulation say about these things. The FSA recently put out a document dealing with the direction for the new FCA. It was very useful to be updated how those in the part of the FSA which is migrating to the FCA developed their thinking. In the introduction to that document, Mr Martin Wheatley, who will be the chief executive of the FCA, said:
“We expect a mortgage that is affordable”.
That sounds like an uncontroversial statement, until you think that that might mean that a variable rate mortgage could never be provided to a consumer if it were at all possible that plausible fluctuations in the interest rate could end up with some kind of consumer detriment. We might end up closing off certain products that would benefit consumers because the firm cannot be confident that the standard by which it would be judged will allow it to provide those products safely. The issues raised by my noble friend are extremely important, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
Lord Deben
My Lords, I refer again to my declaration of interests. I understand the reason for this amendment, but it seems not the right way to achieve its end. To suggest that you have to balance protection on the one hand with access on the other seems a misunderstanding of what protection ought to be. I am sorry that the Government have so far been unwilling to place upon the regulator a responsibility to have regard to the extent to which advice is available. That ought to be part of what the regulator does when he thinks about how he is going to regulate and the demands that he is going to make. There is a real argument that we are going to find that there will be fewer opportunities for those of modest means to get proper advice. It is important for the regulator to take that into account when he lays burdens upon the industry. I think that is right, but I am sure that this is not the way to achieve that end, partly because it does not help the industry to suggest that somehow or other protection for consumers is necessarily contrary to the need to provide for a wider range of people to have advice. The failure to get this right has been one of the problems with the industry in the past.
I hope that the Minister will resist this amendment, but that he will do so recognising that there is a real concern behind it, which is that the cost of regulation and the degree to which regulation is disproportionate falls most on those who most need advice and very often are not in receipt of a great income and do not have large reserves. I hope that the Minister will accept that there is a concern here. It is one that the Government have failed properly to address, and it is not well addressed by suggesting that there is a kind of conflict where conflict does not necessarily occur.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, my name is on Amendment 31, but before saying a word or two about that I would like to thank my noble friend the Minister for government Amendment 26, which is surely another big step forward to take account of social investment.
Amendment 31 is a harmless amendment, I am almost inclined to say, which gives a bit of flexibility in the light of experience for the Government to amend the considerations to which they must have regard when considering what degree of protection to make for consumers under proposed new Section 1C. That seems a bit of good common sense, so I hope that the Government will accept it.
Baroness Noakes
My Lords, I hear what the Minister said about the drafting of Amendment 26 not referring to social investment or anything like that. As drafted, however, it says that the things which the FCA must take into account include,
“the differing expectations that consumers may have in relation to different kinds of investment or other transaction”.
Read as it is, that seems to require the FCA to take account of consumers’ expectations, whether or not they are reasonable. So if consumers have unrealistic expectations about what they will have in return from their pension investment, for example—and that is a fairly widespread misconception—because the Government have chosen to use this unspecific form of drafting this could quite easily be interpreted as applying to expectations that operate in a quite different sphere from that intended. While the Government might say that it is intended only for social investment, these are clear words; they do not need any other explanation from the Government to make them understandable. It may be dangerous in its current drafting to leave it without the reference to social investment that my noble friend’s Amendment 31 has. His amendment is clearly rooted in what it is that is trying to be achieved.
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, I just want to join in the chorus that essentially says to the Government that we appreciate the move forward that comes with their amendment. I am very supportive of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, and his thought process over Amendment 31. It has tremendous overlap with Amendment 26—and I think that I can be very happy with Amendment 26 today. But the financial promotions order issue is going to have to be tackled. I would like to reply very briefly to the noble Lord, Lord Flight, who suggested that a social investment should be marketed only to sophisticated or high net worth individuals. The kinds of projects involved in social investment may be an extension to a local school, or a resettlement programme attached to a local prison. It is quite likely to be a small project—that is the whole point—of the kind that cannot afford to go and get regulated so that it can be marketed to the general public. It is the kind of project of £1 million or £2 million, which cannot pay the £150,000 that would put it into a regulated environment so that it could be marketed to the general public. The whole point is to provide those people with an alternative who, typically, might be asked to donate to a local project, so that they could invest in that local project. You are talking about people who would be close to the project, understand the community and perhaps even engage themselves in the work that the community does. So we are looking at a very different range of projects when we talk about social investment.
Although the language is very tricky and I recognise that it will not be easy, at some point the Government will have to get a grip on the financial promotions language and find a way to craft it so that it can be sold appropriately to people who know and understand what is going on but will never meet that benchmark of being a high net worth individual or a sophisticated investor. They might put £1,000 or £2,000 into a project, or perhaps even £50 or £100. At the moment, they are barred from doing anything other than donate, which seems reasonably insane when we look at the kind of projects that are involved.
Lord Newby
Yes, we do indeed, but the government amendment is broader and gives considerable flexibility to the FCA in the way that it deals with this new mandate.
The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, raised the question of what happens if consumers have unrealistic expectations, and she thought that this could, in effect, be a dangerous amendment. I do not think that it is, because I do not believe that this is the way that the amendment will be interpreted by the FCA when it looks at products in this area and gives advice about them. While I can see where she gets the arguments from, I am confident that the FCA will ensure that we do not have the kind of dangerous consequences which she mentions.
Baroness Noakes
I thank the Minister for that, but how can he be confident that the FCA will—for all time—interpret the words in the way that he wishes them to be interpreted?
Lord Newby
My Lords, it is very dangerous to be confident about anything for all time, but if you turn the proposition of the noble Baroness on its head, is it conceivable that the FCA would interpret this clause at any point in a way that would be dangerous? Frankly, I cannot see why it would. One can never say absolutely that in 50 years’ time—assuming that this piece of legislation is on the statute book—interpretations might be exactly the same as they are today, but it would be perverse to think that the FCA would interpret this provision in a way that opened up the dangers about which the noble Baroness is concerned.
Baroness Noakes
My Lords, I am grateful to the Government for the amendments that they have tabled, commencing with Amendment 32, in regard to the PRA practitioner panel. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, said, that is not the solution that the industry wanted and it is a rather narrow solution. Therefore, I have considerable sympathy with what the noble Baroness said in relation to the need for the PRA to listen to a broad spectrum of views, including that of the consumer panel. In particular, I am more attracted to her Amendment 37ZB, which would require the PRA to have some sort of dialogue with each of the panels which are being set up for the FCA: that is, the practitioner panel, the smaller business practitioner panel, the consumer panel and the markets practitioner panel. Each will have their own particular issues which would be usefully communicated to the PRA in certain circumstances.
Notwithstanding the fact that there will now be a practitioner panel for the PRA, I continue to have concerns that the PRA’s concept of consultation is a narrow one when it should be a broad one based on regular dialogue and feedback loops with the industry. Therefore, I have very great sympathy with what the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, has said.
Lord McFall of Alcluith
My Lords, I support the amendment and the proposition of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. If we look at the history of prudential regulation and consumer interest, we find that prudential regulation has trumped conduct of business for a number of years. I suggest that the PRA will be a more enhanced body than the FCA and therefore will win out all the time. Therefore, what the noble Baroness is saying about a broader range of opinion is extremely important. We need to look at the history of the representation of consumers in the financial services industry over a number of years. I lobbied the FSA for years to get a consumer representative on board. It came back to me very excited one day and said, “We have someone on board”. However, one out of 12 or one out of 13 is inadequate. It is very important that we redress the asymmetry of knowledge that is at the centre of selling because we have to restore trust and confidence in the industry, and to do that we have to balance the needs of the industry with those of the consumer. Therefore, I could not agree more with the need to have broader representation. That would put the status of the PRA at one with that of the FCA so that they served the interests of the industry and the consumer.
Financial Services Bill
Baroness Noakes Excerpts(11 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Noakes
Will the Minister elaborate on what he said about the role of this amendment in relation to the fostering of a successful financial services industry in this country? The UK is a service-led economy, and the largest sector within it is the financial services sector. If we are looking at sustainable growth in the UK economy in the medium term, and probably in the long term as well, we need to look to a successful financial services sector. I thought that I heard the Minister say something along the lines that this is really about the non-financial services sector and about underpinning economic growth outside it. It seems to me that the amendment enables the regulators to take into account the importance of a successful and sustainable financial services sector that is competitive internationally, because it is through that that we will produce growth in the UK economy. I will be interested in the Minister’s views.
Lord Tunnicliffe
It is not often that I rise to offer sympathy to the Minister. He was quite right to say that the generality of this amendment, which in my recollection came from all sides of the House, particularly from these Benches, was stressed by us in another place. Every now and then, one has to look at a massive Bill such as this and recognise that the final test of all legislation is that it contributes to the general good. I think that the two lines of this growth amendment produce the right reminder to the regulators that they have to contribute to the general good—I share the emphasis placed by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, on the medium and long term—and I warmly welcome it.
Baroness Noakes
Before my noble friend sits down, when we discussed this matter before, the Minister replied in the same terms as the noble Lord, Lord Newby, has today, and said that there would be insurance expertise on the board. I sought to clarify whether that would include the non-executive component or whether there was a possibility that there would be simply an executive member. Subsequent to the Committee stage, the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, wrote to me—I am not sure whether the letter has been circulated more widely—to say that the intention was that there would be an insurance non-executive member. Will the Minister confirm that that is still the Government’s intention?
Lord Newby
My Lords, nothing has changed since the point at which the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, wrote his letter.
Financial Services Bill
Baroness Noakes Excerpts(11 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Eatwell
My Lords, this amendment refers to an oddity in the drafting of new Section 9T(1)(a). The Bill requires the Financial Policy Committee to review each direction that it makes over the relevant period, which is 12 months, other than,
“a direction revoked before the end of the review period”.
I do not understand this business about leaving out directions revoked before the end of the review period. Suppose the direction has been a great success but was enforced for only 11 months. Or suppose the direction was a great failure but lasted for only 11 months. Should not these directions be reviewed? Can lessons not be drawn from them just as much as from directions which are in force for 12 months? Why would you have a direction that has been revoked from which we are not allowed to draw lessons but a direction that has been kept in place from which we are? This is too limiting in a novel area of economic policy from which we should seek to get all the information and draw as many lessons as we possibly can, whether or not a direction has been revoked within the relevant period. I beg to move.
Baroness Noakes
My Lords, what the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, has said is entirely sensible. I cannot see the distinction between those directions which have been made and continue in force and those which have been made and revoked. This is about public communication, the directions being made and their effect. The information that we gain from a revocation must be at least as good as from the making of a direction.
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, the amendment reflects a slight misunderstanding of the purpose of the reviews that we are talking about in new Section 9T of the Bank of England Act, as inserted by Clause 4. The purpose of these reviews centres around live actions and requiring the FPC regularly to look again at all live actions—in other words, at the directions and recommendations that still have effect—and to review whether or not the action is still needed. That is a rather different matter from the admittedly important question of reviewing past actions and learning lessons, which is not the subject of the clause.
The idea behind the new section is to ensure that FPC actions do not remain in place if the circumstances which originally merited them have disappeared or changed substantially. Of course, we would expect the FPC as a matter of course to keep its past actions under review and revoke them once they are no longer needed, but new Section 9T ensures that this will be the case by creating a formal requirement for the FPC to review regularly all of its live directions and recommendations.
Amendment 7D seeks to remove the wording in subsection (1)(a) which provides that the FPC need not review directions that have already been revoked. The provision is appropriate because once a direction has been revoked there is no need for the FPC to review it to determine whether it is still needed; the direction is already defunct. It is as simple as that.
The concern of the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, lies clearly in the importance of the FPC evaluating the impact of its actions. I can reassure him that mechanisms already exist elsewhere in the clause to address this issue. First, new Section 9S requires the FPC to set out for each of its actions an explanation of its reasons for believing that the action is compatible with its objectives and associated “have regards”, including where practicable an estimate of the costs and benefits of the action. Secondly, subsection (4)(b) of new Section 9W requires the FPC to include in each financial stability report an assessment of how its actions have succeeded in achieving its objectives. Finally, the new oversight committee of the court has an explicit remit to oversee the FPC’s performance and can undertake or commission a more comprehensive review of the FPC’s past actions or approach where appropriate.
I am confident that the FPC’s actions are already subject to extensive mechanisms of oversight and evaluation and, as I said at the outset, that the amendment reflects, perhaps, a slight misunderstanding of what the purpose of the specific provisions in new Section 9T is all about. I hope that on the basis of that explanation the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Eatwell
My Lords, Amendment 7F picks up an amendment that I moved in Committee and promised to return to on Report, concerning the establishment of a financial stability advisory panel.
I will not go through the whole argument of different forms of financial stability arrangements as between this country and the United States and so on, but I will deal with one central issue: we want people of very high quality advising and reflecting on financial stability issues. The appointed members of the Financial Policy Committee are crucial but there is going to be some difficulty in identifying them satisfactorily because there will be a number of conflicts of interest in the financial services industry that will be difficult to manage.
We can overcome that difficulty by creating an advisory panel that does not have powers, as such, to make decisions, but which can advise on a variety of areas, including the success of measures taken and general effectiveness, by presenting a report to the oversight committee—not the “Supervisory Board”, as mistakenly referred to in the amendment as printed on the Marshalled List. We could gather together a wider group of people who felt it to be their responsibility to follow carefully the actions of the Financial Policy Committee and to express their views even if they have significant conflicts of interest, because these could be taken into account in the assessment of their views. Of course, they are distanced from any actual decision-making, unlike the appointed members of the Financial Policy Committee, who are right at the heart of decision-making.
Given that we are dealing with an area of policy which, as I have said already this evening, is novel, we are going to encounter entirely new problems. We will probably make some mistakes. We want to be able to assess a very wide horizon of experience around the world, where the European Union, the United States and other major jurisdictions are introducing financial stability committees of one sort and another to deal with the issue of macroprudential regulation. An advisory committee could be a valuable supplement to the information and assessment to which the Bank and its committees have access. I beg to move.
Baroness Noakes
My Lords, we do not need to hardwire this into legislation. If the FPC thinks that it needs some form of advice from other parties in relation to most of the matters mentioned in subsection (3) of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, it can arrange it. Similarly, if the oversight committee thinks that it needs any assistance from outside parties in relation to matters mentioned in paragraph (e) of subsection (3) of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, it can arrange it. I do not see why these matters need to be enshrined in law. If there are gaps within the resources available to the Bank, it can supplement them, or it may have them sufficiently internally. The statute does not need to deal with these matters.
Lord Sassoon
I completely agree with my noble friend Lady Noakes. This amendment was debated in Committee, as the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell says. The gremlins seem to have been getting into one or two of these amendments. He has already pointed out that this has been retabled in the previous form that it was in and should refer to the oversight committee and not the supervisory panel.
Putting that aside, the nub of this is that I am puzzled and disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, does not agree that the oversight committee that we have already created will have responsibility for carrying out the function of performance evaluation referred to in this amendment, and that the oversight committee will have a wider-reaching role looking over the entirety of the Bank’s financial stability remit. That is surely better than an advisory panel with rather limited and specific terms of reference.
I am also disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, feels that an independent oversight committee led by non-executives would be either inadequate or insufficient to hold the Bank to account. I cannot see how it is better to create a committee chaired by an executive of the Bank who would simultaneously be a member of the FPC, responsible for providing advice to the FPC and expected to assess its performance.
Of course, the Bill already creates in the FPC a committee on which the deputy governor for financial stability sits, together with external members, some of whom may indeed be academics. As we have discussed before, there is plenty of provision for either the FPC or the oversight committee to take on any additional expert, academic or other advice that it requires at any point. The FPC will have a statutory responsibility to assess risks to financial stability and to take action to mitigate them. If it wants to take advice it is entirely able to do so, but it should have the autonomy to do so on its own terms if it is to be properly responsible for financial stability.
In conclusion, the effect of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, would be to create duplication of responsibilities, to blur accountabilities and to diminish focus. As such, there is no way that I could accept such an amendment and I hope that, on reflection, he will withdraw it.
Financial Services Bill
Baroness Noakes Excerpts(11 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McFall of Alcluith
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend on this issue. Anyone with experience of the Court of the Bank of England would say that its impact has been less than useful over past years. Given the powers that we have given to this Governor for an eight-year period, it is important that the sentiments expressed in the other place as regards accountability are satisfied, because, paradoxically, if that is not the case, it will make the role of the Governor even more political and members of the court will come under pressure.
I had personal knowledge of this during the height of the financial crisis. My concern at that time was to ensure both the political and the financial stability of the situation. It is therefore important that that is adhered to. There needs to be, as the Treasury Committee said, proper records of the court’s proceedings. If transparency is not available, the accountability element will not be pursued. The Government are making a big mistake by establishing what is, in effect—although some people may disagree—a multinational corporation with one person at its head, with little corporate governance best practice.
There needs to be a stage at which the Government can listen to Parliament on this, make the Bank truly accountable to Parliament and ensure the best outcome for the country. We have the Financial Policy Committee and the Prudential Regulation Authority, but there is no doubt that there will be conflicts of interest there. There will be one individual responsible, while the Government and Parliament are spectators and bit players. That should not be the case, and the Government really need to think very clearly and seriously about this issue.
Baroness Noakes
My Lords, as a former member of the court, I feel slightly under attack this afternoon, but I was long gone before the financial crisis. In the context of the previous amendment, my noble friend Lord Flight pointed out that the important way to express accountability is on an ongoing basis, not at the point of appointment. The most important thing, going forward, is whether or not the new oversight committee will do its job and who will make sure that it is held to account. It seems to me that it should be the Treasury Select Committee in another place and it is not something for which we need to legislate. The Treasury Select Committee is well apprised of the need to ensure that there are proper accountability mechanisms to act as a counterweight against significant additional powers for the Governor of the Bank of England; and that there are proper checks and balances within the Bank of England and then from the Bank to Parliament.
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McFall of Alcluith, and to my noble friend Lady Noakes. My noble friend was an estimable member of the court and I am sure that she brought great distinction to its deliberations. As she reminds the House by referring to the oversight committee, the noble Lord, Lord McFall is right to say that the court has not always necessarily done everything that Members of Parliament would have wished in recent years. Critically, that is why the oversight committee that we are introducing changes the way that the court and particularly non-executives on the court will operate. I am grateful to be reminded of this critical background to our discussion. The other background point to make is that the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, has made a number of references in this and earlier debates about politicisation and transferring powers from elected politicians to the Bank. This is a red herring. I am sure that I should not say it is nonsense, but I simply do not accept this background analysis.
Powers are not somehow being moved from elected politicians to the Bank. The Bank is being granted a range of powers which are regulatory in nature. Financial regulation has been undertaken by independent regulators for over a decade in the UK and before that, of course, large swathes of it were not in any way carried out by elected politicians or even properly constituted regulators. They were done in a self-regulatory way. So this idea that somehow we are transferring stuff from politicians to the Bank, as if some heinous crime was being committed and that we need lots of belts and braces, is the wrong background.
Let me specifically address the amendments here and the role of Parliament in key appointments. As we have heard, they are different in some respects from the previous amendment about appointing the Governor. The appointments of non-executive directors of the court are not currently subject to a pre-commencement hearing by the Treasury Select Committee. As with the Governor, the appointments of non-executive directors are made by Her Majesty and governed by the OCPA code. As I explained earlier, this stipulates certain practices in terms of a robust and fair appointment process, with appointments made principally on merit. Members of the court are accountable to Parliament and it is right that the Treasury Select Committee can and does invite them to give evidence at the appropriate juncture. However, the non-executive directors are not policymakers. Their role is to oversee the running of the Bank and it would be highly unusual to make such appointments subject to the consent of the Treasury Select Committee. The Government therefore believe that the current appointments process for non-executive directors of the court remains the right one. Similarly, the appointment of external FPC members will be subject to a robust process that seeks qualified and experienced candidates. External members of the FPC will be subject to pre-commencement hearings—as was the case with the appointees to the interim FPC. The FPC will be accountable for its actions to the Bank’s oversight committee and directly to the Treasury Select Committee, which we expect to take regular evidence from the external members of the FPC, as it does already from the MPC and the interim FPC.
As with the roles of governor and external members of the MPC, the market-sensitive nature of these roles means that the combination of pre-commencement hearings and Treasury Select Committee scrutiny in-post offers an appropriate balance in terms of parliamentary scrutiny. Again, the Government welcome the ongoing role played by the Treasury Select Committee. I hope that I have provided sufficient reassurance for the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Eatwell
Then I am sure that the noble Lord, having given the amendment such mature consideration, will be able to accept it.
I hope that, at the very least, the Government will agree to take this proposal away and think about it. After all, if we are going to have an oversight committee it should oversee; otherwise perhaps the Government should simply change the committee’s name. I beg to move.
Baroness Noakes
My Lords, I am a bit puzzled by these amendments and I should say that while the Minister’s officials may have had them since last Friday, those of us who are trying to take part in this Report stage saw them only first thing this morning, which comes of when the party opposite chose to table its amendments.
The noble Lord says that there is no oversight in the new section dealing with the oversight committee. If I were to define oversight I would say it is about reviewing and monitoring; that is the very nature of what is involved. The noble Lord suggests it means some real-time involvement by the non-executives in what happens on a daily basis within the Bank. That simply cannot be—it seems to me the noble Lord misunderstands the role of non-executive directors.
This group of amendments also contains the concept of the non-executive directors, via the oversight committee, approving the strategy. The oversight committee is a sub-committee of the Court of Directors and is not there to approve what the court should be doing. This is correctly formulated in that it is the court that is preparing the strategy. The oversight committee has no role in relation to that except by virtue of the membership of the individual non-executive directors who are also members of court. I really do not understand this sequence of amendments.
Lord Eatwell
My Lords, I am afraid it is me again. These amendments refer to the decision to publish performance reviews. Let me remind the House that the performance reviews referred to in the particular clauses which are to be here amended are reviews that the oversight committee has commissioned or conducted. The amendment removes the Bank’s veto over the oversight committee: a veto which the Bill gives to the Bank—otherwise known as the governor—over the publication of such reviews.
Again, the Bank has form in this respect. As Members of your Lordships’ House will be aware, the Bank of England is the only major public institution directly involved in the financial crisis that has not seen fit to conduct and publish a full assessment of its own activities, procedures and policies during the crisis and to own up to the contribution it made to the crisis. The Financial Services Authority has done that as has the Treasury. The Bank has not seen fit to do that. The three reviews published last week have been very carefully circumscribed in their terms of reference to prevent proper consideration of the Bank’s record. You only have to read the Bank’s tepid response to the reviews—it did not refer at all to the comments on the Bank’s excessively hierarchical structure—to realise there is still a deep-seated cultural failing in this respect in the Bank. Where other organisations review what they have done, think through and learn from their experiences, the Bank seems to be unwilling to do this.
In these circumstances, it would be quite wrong to give the Bank a veto over the publication of the oversight committee’s reports. If this serious committee of non-executives—a majority of the court—put together a report and decide that it should be published, then why should there be a veto over them? The oversight committee is quite capable of taking the advice of the Bank, the governor or whoever on whether the publication is against the public interest. If the Government really want effective performance reviews and not whitewash I am sure they will support these amendments.
Baroness Noakes
My Lords, I share many of the frustrations that the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, has exposed in relation to the reviews that were commissioned, late and inadequate, and I completely accept that the Bank’s response did not seem fulsome. However, I think we have to give the new Government’s arrangements within the Bank a chance. While the Bill says that the Bank will decide about publication, that should be the Court of Directors and, as we know, the Court of Directors has a majority of non-executives. I hope that they will be invigorated by the new context provided by the separate oversight committee. If we keep trying to make functions of the Bank be carried out by the oversight committee we will undermine the court. We need to ensure that the court is strengthened and takes its responsibilities seriously. I also sincerely hope that the Treasury Select Committee in the other place becomes more active in seeking to engage with the non-executives via the oversight committee on how things work in practice.
Lord Barnett
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend very strongly indeed. He has made a very strong point. I should declare an interest, I suppose. Until very recently I was probably the oldest living non-executive chairman of a plc. I hope I was a very active chairman. However, I know through many experiences of my own that some non-executive directors do not play a very constructive part, they just take their money and go and do very little—so there are two different kinds of non-executive directors.
I hope my noble friend manages to persuade somebody to change the name from the oversight committee. It is, as my noble friend Lord Peston said, a very strange name to have in the Bill, but it is not the only strange thing in the Bill. I hope the officials who advise the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, will perhaps come up with a new name but on the whole I would like to commend the officials, particularly those headed by Mr Whiting. He has been extremely diligent in the job he has done on all sides of this Bill, sending things and meeting people. He has been excellent.
I wish I could say the same about the Minister. I like him personally but I cannot say the same about his response to the amendments. My noble friend has made a very important point that an important committee here—whatever we call it, it is now called the oversight committee—can be overruled by the governor. I find that quite unacceptable. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, shaking his head means he cannot overrule it. I would be glad to hear that, but that is what it seems to be saying. I would like to hear how he puts that given the wording of the Bill, but for the moment I strongly support my noble friend Lord Eatwell.
Baroness Noakes
Baroness Noakes
In moving this amendment, I will also speak to Amendment 5 in this group. In so doing, I hope to give the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, a break from his obsession with the difference between the court and the Bank.
The amendments concern membership of the Financial Policy Committee. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord McFall of Alcluith, and I tabled an amendment that reflected the conclusion of the Treasury Select Committee in another place that there should be a majority of external members on the FPC to mitigate against groupthink. The Joint Committee that examined the Bill had reached a similar conclusion.
The Bill prescribes 12 members of the FPC in total. There should be six from the Bank, the chief executive of the FCA, four external members and a representative from the Treasury. I will ignore the Treasury in my remarks because the Treasury person cannot vote and his views can be ignored quite a lot of the time according to Schedule 1. I will talk about the 11 active and voting members.
The Government like to portray this composition of the FPC as a 6:5 split, putting the chief executive of the FCA in the external-to-the-Bank category, with six internal to the Bank and five outside. But the chief executive of the FCA, while he is external to the Bank, is not a completely independent member because of the many and varied associations and interactions between the FCA and the PRA which are envisaged in this Bill. While the chief executive of the FCA will have independent responsibilities in relation to the FCA, he will inevitably be susceptible to the kind of groupthink that the Treasury Select Committee warned against. The de facto ratio in the Bill is 7:4, because seven members have custodianship of the financial system as part of their day jobs and only four would be independent of that. I do not believe that that ratio is a healthy one.
In Committee, my noble friend the Minister argued against having external members in the majority because it would interfere with the holding of the Bank of England to account in some way. I think that that is a highly arguable position but my noble friend will be relieved that I am not going to argue with it this evening. Instead, I propose with Amendment 4 a more modest rebalancing of the FPC and I am delighted that my noble friend Lady Wheatcroft and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, have added their names to this amendment.
Baroness Noakes
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this important debate and I thank the Minister for his welcome remarks. I believe the technical response in this situation is “bingo”. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, I will add a rather mundane legal point. I do not believe that the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, would achieve anything, even if it were accepted. Subsection (1), whose two limbs cover the matters to which the Financial Policy Committee must have regard, is quite clear about the stability objective. However, in a situation where the Government had no objective for growth, it would not bite, even if you took the words “subject to that” out of the clause. That is, as I said, a very mundane lawyer’s point.
Baroness Noakes
My Lords, I recall that when the previous Government set up the Monetary Policy Committee, they formulated its secondary policy objective in precisely this form, “Subject to that”. Can the Benches opposite explain when they had a damascene conversion on this topic?
Baroness Noakes
“(1A) If the Treasury considers it appropriate to proceed with the making of an order under section 9L, the Treasury may lay before Parliament—
(a) a draft order, and(b) an explanatory document.(1B) The explanatory document laid under subsection (1A) must—
(a) introduce and give reasons for the order,(b) explain why the Treasury considers that the order serves the purpose in section 9L, and(c) be accompanied by a copy of any representations received from the FPC or the Governor of the Bank.(1C) Subject as follows, if after the expiry of the 40-day period the draft order laid under subsection (1A) is approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament, the Minister may make an order in the terms of the draft order.
(1D) The procedure in subsections (1E) to (1H) shall apply to the draft order instead of the procedure in subsection (1C) if—
(a) either House of Parliament so resolves within the 30-day period, or(b) a committee of either House charged with reporting on the draft order so recommends within the 30-day period and the House to which the recommendation is made does not by resolution reject the recommendation within the period.(1E) The Minister must have regard to—
(a) any representations,(b) any resolution of either House of Parliament, and(c) any recommendation of a committee of either House of Parliament charged with reporting on the draft order, made during the 60-day period with regard to the draft order. (1F) If after the expiry of the 60-day period the draft order is approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament, the Minister may make an order in the terms of the draft order.
(1G) If after the expiry of the 60-day period the Minister wishes to proceed with the draft order but with the material changes, the Minister may lay before Parliament—
(a) a revised draft order, and(b) a statement giving a summary of the changes proposed. (1H) If the revised draft order is approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament, the Minister may make an order in the terms of the revised draft order.
(1J) For the purposes of this section, an order is made in the terms of a draft order or revised draft order if it contains no material changes to its provisions.
(1K) In this section, references to the “30-day”, “40-day” and “60-day” period in relation to any draft order are to the periods of 30, 40 and 60 days beginning with the day on which the draft order was laid before Parliament.”
Baroness Noakes
My Lords, this has taken me a little by surprise—I thought I had another few minutes’ rest before we got to my amendment.
Amendment 7 deals with the parliamentary procedure for approving the Treasury’s direction to the FPC setting out the macroprudential measures that the FPC can impose on the PRA and the FCA. Under proposed new Section 9N of FiSMA, as inserted by Clause 4 of the Bill, the procedure is to be the draft affirmative one. My amendment seeks to convert that into a super-affirmative procedure.
The draft affirmative procedure requires parliamentary approval of the draft of an order before the final order is actually made. It gives slightly more opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny than an ordinary affirmative order, but the end result of the parliamentary procedure is binary—it is either approved or not. Such an order is not amendable and the only option available to either House would be to reject the whole order. The political composition of the other place effectively means that an order is always passed, whether draft or not. It does not matter whether the debate is in a Committee Room or, as has been suggested by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the Floor of the House. The end result is the same. In this House, technically we can reject an order but by convention we do not do so. It has happened only very rarely and is rightly regarded as a nuclear option.
Like the Joint Committee that scrutinised the draft Bill, the Treasury Select Committee in another place concluded that the content of an order setting out macroprudential measures deserves an enhanced level of parliamentary scrutiny. The Treasury Select Committee believes that the situation satisfies the Erskine May formula that talks of the super-affirmative procedure being used where,
“an exceptionally high degree of scrutiny is thought appropriate”.
The super-affirmative procedure in my amendment would require the Treasury to set out, in some detail, why the order is to be made. It would allow either House of Parliament to make recommendations on the draft order, which the Government would have to have regard to before returning with the final version of the order. Neither House would have any power of amendment but would have the power to recommend amendments, which the Government would have to consider.
It was suggested in Committee that macroprudential measures are very technical and not amenable to amendments—the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, made this point. That may or may not be correct, depending on the particular measure. It is certainly true that the wider economic impact of the use of macroprudential tools is a proper subject for parliamentary debate, and either House may well want to say to the Government that their chosen tools are perhaps too wide or not wide enough. In contentious cases, Parliament may well say that the tools should be sunsetted or should be subject to additional reporting to Parliament on the impacts of the measures over time. Many important things could come out of a proper parliamentary debate that may or may not represent suggestions for amendment.
I have no particular concerns about the initial macroprudential toolkit. The FPC has been open about what it wants and why, and the Government are consulting transparently on their draft order. However, the initial tools are probably the easy ones because they largely align with international developments, and my amendment is directed at the development of the measures over time. For example, the FPC deliberately held back from asking for loan-to-value or loan-to-income powers, recognising that these should be decided by Parliament and that a full public debate would be necessary before such measures were introduced. If enforced, loan-to-income or loan-to-value rules could have a massive impact on the availability of mortgage credit and therefore raise wider societal issues as well as financial stability ones. Without the backstop of the super-affirmative procedure it is far from clear how Parliament could ensure that its—or anyone else’s—voice would be heard.
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, of course, this is another issue that was discussed at some length in Committee. The Government recognise the importance of proper public and parliamentary scrutiny and accountability for macroprudential tools. That is why the Bill requires that macroprudential orders be subject to the affirmative procedure.
The Government have given a number of undertakings to further demonstrate our commitment to ensure transparency and effective scrutiny of macroprudential orders. In another place the previous Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Mark Hoban, clearly stated the importance that the Treasury places on taking a consultative approach to policy-making, and that he expected this to apply to macroprudential tools. In addition, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that he would be happy for debates on tools to take place on the Floor of the House, subject to arrangement through the usual channels.
The Government have also committed to consult on their proposals for the FPC’s initial toolkit. I note that my noble friend has no complaint on that score. Nevertheless it is important to recognise that the consultation document containing the Government’s proposals, a draft order and an impact assessment on those proposals was published on 18 September. The consultation will run for a full 12 weeks. In Committee a number of noble Lords highlighted the 90-minute restriction on debates and the inability for orders to be amended. However, I believe that consultation and the statement made by the Chancellor address these concerns effectively. I encourage noble Lords to read the consultation and respond if they feel able to improve the drafting of the order. I also hope that the relevant parliamentary committees will make their views on the Government’s proposals known.
Importantly, the Government’s stance on the parliamentary control of these macroprudential orders has been endorsed by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. Maybe I did not notice it, but I do not think that my noble friend referred to the DPRRC. I know that she regards the committee, in her words, as an early warning system of problems for Parliament to address. In this instance, it has considered our proposed procedure and determined that there is not a problem to address.
As I suspect my noble friend knows, the DPRRC has stated:
“The importance of the power is recognised by the application of the draft affirmative procedure or, in urgent cases, the 28-day ‘made affirmative’ procedure … The Joint Committee on the Draft Bill and the House of Commons Treasury Select Committee have recommended an enhanced affirmative procedure for the non-urgent orders, based on that in the Public Bodies Act 2011. But the affirmative procedure provided for in the Bill should be a sufficient safeguard against inappropriate use of these powers”.
It is also important to remember that orders made under new Section 9K will not always be major pieces of legislation. It could be the case that minor technical amendments need to be made to the tools over time. Under such circumstances, requiring the super-affirmative procedure would be a disproportionate use of parliamentary resources. I note that my noble friend has made some adjustments to the super-affirmative procedure that would make it less onerous, and she has addressed those at some length in her remarks. I still feel that her proposal would require a disproportionate amount of parliamentary time and resource.
The bare minimum amount of time to pass an order under these proposals is 40 days, which can be increased to 60 days by resolution of either House or by recommendation of a committee of either House. The time taken to make an order where the consultation process shows that substantial changes are required is even greater. Even once the 60-day period has elapsed, this amendment would require the Treasury to obtain prior approval to the amended instrument before it could be made. This would introduce a significant amount of uncertainty around the time it would take to amend the FPC’s macroprudential toolkit.
I have stated many times that the Government place great importance on public and parliamentary scrutiny of the macroprudential tools. Given the steps already in the Bill and the commitments made by this Government, I ask my noble friend to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Noakes
My Lords, I am disappointed with my noble friend’s response on this. He has repeated that in the other place there can be a debate on the Floor of the House, but the location of a debate on a statutory instrument is completely irrelevant. The outcome is exactly the same. He has rested on the full process for the early order but, as I said, those ones, with a high degree of international agreement on what the early phase of macroprudential tools should be, were easy to do. That is not really an issue. My noble friend rightly raises the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, for which I have the highest respect. I have equally the highest respect for the Joint Committee which scrutinised the draft Bill, and high regard in particular for the Treasury Select Committee in another place, which has been tireless in its scrutiny of this legislation. I have two committees to play one.
The best parliamentary procedure would in this instance be the super-affirmative. I can only say that I am extremely disappointed with my Government for hiding behind the easiest option of parliamentary procedure, but I will accede to my noble friend’s request and beg leave to withdraw.
Financial Services Bill
Baroness Noakes Excerpts(11 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Noakes
“(4) If subsections (2) or (3) apply, the Treasury must arrange for an enquiry to be held under section 65 unless the Treasury consider that it is not in the public interest that there should be an independent inquiry into the events and the circumstances surrounding them.”
Baroness Noakes
My Lords, I shall also speak to Amendments 190B and 192ZA in this group. These amendments, and others in the group, concern the inquiry and investigation provisions of Part 5. I should say at the outset that I regard the provisions of Part 5 as crucial to the Bill. The earlier parts of the Bill created new regulations with very significant powers, and it is entirely likely that the new regulators will make mistakes in the use of those new powers and that things will go wrong, so we need strong provisions in the Bill—
Lord Newby
My Lords, I remind your Lordships that if you are leaving the Chamber, please do so as quietly as possible.
Baroness Noakes
My Lords, I was saying that Part 5 of this Bill is crucial because it sets up the provisions that will deal with things when they go wrong—if the regulators make mistakes or if things do not turn out well. Part 5 ensures that there are proper investigations and proper reporting of those investigations. I remind the Committee that there have been problems in this area in the very recent past. It took the heroic efforts of the Treasury Select Committee in another place to get the FSA’s report on the failure of RBS into the public domain. We still have nothing on HBOS. The FSA’s reports on both RBS and Northern Rock were internal reports, and therefore non-independent. The Bank of England, which will be the new home for the PRA, is not itself a beacon of good practice when it comes to reviews of its own performance. So we need to be sure that we get this part of the Bill absolutely right.
I welcome the new duties in Clauses 69 and 70 on the FCA and the PRA to investigate and report on possible regulatory failures. I similarly welcome the powers in Clause 73 which allow the Treasury to direct the regulators to carry out investigations in certain circumstances. However, internal investigations will often not be good enough, which is why in principle the powers in Clause 64 are very welcome. These allow the Treasury to arrange independent inquiries where there have been certain events which, to paraphrase, threatened the stability of the financial system or risked or caused significant damage to the interests of consumers or businesses.
The first amendment that I tabled to Clause 64 was Amendment 192ZA, which is one of our familiar and much-loved may/must amendments. I could see no circumstance in which the Treasury, having satisfied itself that a public inquiry is in the public interest, should have any optionality about whether to set up an independent inquiry. Amendment 192ZA would change that “may” into a “must” so that, if the public interest test is met, the Treasury must set up an independent inquiry. Having looked at this a second time, however, I tabled Amendment 190AA, which would replace subsection (4) and turn it round. Under my proposed new subsection (4) the Treasury must arrange an inquiry unless it believes that the inquiry is not in the public interest. I believe that this more naturally represents the thought process that would go on in the Treasury; that is, the Treasury would order an inquiry unless there was a sound reason for not doing so. For good measure I have also tabled in this group Amendment 192ZA, which is another may/must amendment, this time to Clause 73, which allows but does not require the Treasury to direct the FCA or the PRA to carry out an internal investigation. My amendment would require a direction.
I am aware that the wording and structure of Clause 64 follow that of Section 14 of FiSMA. However, I do not believe that that is necessarily conclusive. The new duties set out in Clauses 69 and 70 in respect of regulatory failure positively require the PRA and the FCA to organise investigations in specified circumstances. The only let-out is if the Treasury directs them that they are not required to carry out investigations. Can the Minister explain why “must” is the correct formulation for the PRA and the FCA, but not the correct formulation for the Treasury?
I hope that the Minister will explain the relationship between Clause 64 and Section 14 of FiSMA. It seems to me that Section 14 becomes redundant when this Bill is made law, but I could not find any provision for its repeal. So I ask my noble friend whether it is to remain in force, and if so, for what purpose?
Lastly, I ask the Minister to explain in what circumstances the Government would intend to use the independent inquiry route in Clause 64, as opposed to the self-investigation route in Clauses 69, 70 and 73. I tried to research how often Section 14 of FiSMA has been used but drew a blank; in fact, I am not sure that it has ever been used. I hope that the Minister will be able to explain in what circumstances the Government would want to use the independent inquiry route, rather than relying on self-investigation. For example, given the circumstances surrounding the financial crisis, would they have thought it appropriate to have ordered an independent inquiry—that is, one not left simply to the regulator concerned—or do the Government believe that self-inquiry is the appropriate route? If there is no independent inquiry for something as grave as the financial crisis that we have recently experienced, what is Clause 64 for? I look forward to hearing my noble friend’s response. I beg to move.
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, I do not want to get the Committee too excited about this matter because, as any noble Lord, including the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, will know, it is very rare for a piece of considered legislation, particularly coming from the Treasury, to get any of these matters wrong in the drafting. I really do not want to raise false expectations.
All I would say is that the exercise is carrying on and that the matter raised by my noble friend Lady Noakes is certainly one of the may/must instances that merits serious consideration. When there is any more news to report to Peers who are interested in this Bill, we have plenty of ways of communicating it. If there is anything to say, the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, will be among the first to hear.
The group of amendments on which the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, spoke rather modestly towards the end of this discussion nevertheless are ones which we need to take seriously. Amendment 192ZZA would provide that if the Treasury issues a direction to the FCA not to proceed with an investigation into possible regulatory failure, that direction must be laid before Parliament. Amendment 192ZZB makes similar provision for such investigations by the PRA.
Amendment 192C would provide that where the Treasury issues a direction specifying the parameters of an investigation into regulatory failure by the PRA or FCA, or suspending or halting such an investigation, that direction must be laid before Parliament.
The Bill is drafted to give the Treasury some discretion here and, all things being equal, we had wished to preserve this. However, in this instance I am somewhat persuaded by the case that noble Lords have made. The Government are very much committed to greater openness and transparency in our regulatory architecture. With that in mind, I am happy to confirm that I will be taking on board the insightful comments of this Committee and will return to this issue on Report, placing the Treasury under a duty to disclose any directions issued under Clause 74, unless doing so would not be in the public interest.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, is looking a bit surprised by this turn of events. On previous occasions he has compared himself and his batting average to the late, great Sir Donald Bradman and I really did not want to disappoint this Committee by seeing his batting average going down too far. I do not think that the noble Lord does himself justice: he is a great strike bowler when it comes to this type of thing. By my reckoning, the noble Lord’s success rate is now back up to around 20%. I have no idea how one translates that into a conventional bowling average but I think that it is pretty good. I note that his fellow Lancastrian, Jimmy Anderson, is on 30.41 for his test average. I think we can say that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, is close to that. However, I am left with the question as to why the noble Lord is not being promoted to the strike bowler role. He comes on as the first change bowler day after day; we want to see him, like Jimmy Anderson, as the strike bowler from hereon.
I hope I have reassured the Committee that we share its desire to see accountability and transparency in the system, and that my noble friend will be prepared to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Noakes
My Lords, despite having spent a couple of years in the Treasury in the dim and distant past, I could never do cricketing talk so I shall not try to follow my noble friend the Minister. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, is thrilled with his success in this opening group of amendments. I am very grateful for the support of noble Lords opposite for my amendments and I was pleased to hear what my noble friend had to say. I look forward, as do we all, to the outcome of the may/must investigations which are clearly occupying the great brains that live in the Treasury night and day. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Financial Services Bill
Baroness Noakes Excerpts(11 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Noakes
Baroness Noakes
My Lords, Amendment 190ZE is in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord McFall of Alcluith. This represents the last of the amendments in our joint names which respond to the first report of this Session by the Treasury Select Committee in another place.
Clause 57 provides a welcome power of direction that enables the Treasury to direct the Bank of England when public funds are at risk. The Treasury Select Committee initially recommended that such a power be created when the Bank notified the Treasury that there was a material risk to public funds. The committee regarded such a power of direction as a necessary corollary of the leading role of the Chancellor in any financial crisis. Unfortunately, the Bank of England sought to water this down to a power of direction operating only in relation to certain instruments of crisis management. Even more unfortunately, the Government have sided with the Bank and have restricted the power of direction to the three areas listed in Clause 57(2).
The Treasury Select Committee remains unhappy with this and believes that if the legislation is to stand the test of time, it should not be restricted to the specific tools listed in subsection (2) but should be capable of being exercised in relation to tools not currently considered appropriate; for example, those tools that would be available to the Financial Policy Committee or other tools that have not yet been developed. The Treasury Select Committee believes that this power should be broader and future-proofed.
Amendment 190ZE seeks to achieve this by saying that the direction can relate to any of the powers or functions of the Bank of England, leaving the three specified tools as a non-exclusive list of such powers.
I am told that the House could not hear me in my previous position so I have moved.
Baroness Noakes
This is a probing amendment for today, not least because I think that it is too wide. For example, it would allow the Treasury to direct the Bank in relation to monetary policy functions, which would not be appropriate. Section 4 of the Bank of England Act 1946, which took the Bank into public ownership, has a general power of direction, which puts monetary policy out of scope. I believe that any Clause 57 power should similarly be constrained but I cannot see that there needs to be any further restriction on the Treasury’s power of direction when public money is at stake.
When my noble friend the Minister replies, can he also explain the relationship between the 1946 Act’s power of direction and the new powers of direction in Clause 57? The 1946 version is very broad and, monetary policy apart, seems to cover everything that is in Clause 57, and more. I do not believe that the 1946 Act power is being repealed or otherwise amended in this Bill, so I am puzzled as to the relationship.
I am aware that general powers of direction have rarely been used in practice, because their force lies mainly in the threat of their use rather than their actual deployment, but I hope that my noble friend the Minister can say what effect Clause 57 has on the existing power of direction. I beg to move.
Lord Peston
My Lords, this is a most interesting amendment, which enables us to clarify one or two aspects of the Bill. I literally did not hear the first part of what the noble Baroness was saying, so I was not joking when I suggested that she started again and she may well need to repeat what she said at the beginning.
This amendment brings into focus the relative power of the Bank of England in the areas that the Treasury is concerned with. This has worried quite a few of us throughout the proceedings on the Bill. To put it too simply, the question that emerges is: who really is in charge of the stabilisation process? Before I press that a little bit further, I take it that when in this part of the Bill we are talking about stabilisation powers, we are restricting ourselves to stabilisation powers within the financial services sector and not discussing a subject to which I have devoted most of my academic life; namely, powers to stabilise the whole economy—or, if people had followed my advice, probably destabilise the whole economy. We are not discussing the general question of the theory of economic stabilisation here. We are discussing just stabilisation.
Can the Minister throw some light on the simple question here? Who really is in charge? The noble Baroness includes in her amendment “not limited to”. However, unless this was part of what I did not hear, I do not think she said what else she had in mind that might then arise if it was not limited to these things. It may well be that she did say it and I missed or it may well be that she would like to say it now.
Baroness Noakes
It might help those Members of the Committee who did not hear my opening remarks if I say that my amendment is designed to ensure that the power of direction can be used for all of the functions of the Bank of England not simply those listed in Clause 57(2). I also said that it probably ought to exclude the functions related to monetary policy.
Lord Tunnicliffe
I spent some years sitting on the Benches opposite facing the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and it comes as a refreshing new experience to find myself so frequently in agreement with her on this Bill. I am sure that will distress her as much as it is distressing me. Unfortunately, her caveating remarks are every bit as important as the lead remarks recommending the amendment.
We would not be able to support the amendment as drafted because, as she rightly points out, it could involve a direction to the MPC. This part of the Bill is a limiting list. The noble Baroness may want to consider either extending the list—we would look at that with great interest—or reversing it and extending the powers to the whole of the activity as her present amendment does and then caveating it with a number of areas where this power could not be used. This is a very useful amendment to develop the debate. I look forward to the Minister’s reply and thank the noble Baroness for proposing it.
Baroness Noakes
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate. I thank my noble friend for his response. I take the point on general powers of direction. They have not been used since these have been written into statute. They existed in all the nationalised industry legislation, which gives rise to the question as to why they are there, but I am sure Ministers feel more comfortable that they have this nuclear option should nuclear war ever need to break out.
The Treasury Select Committee would still say that it thinks that the power is too narrow. If there were a crisis where it is clear that he should be in charge, the Chancellor should not be restricted in what he can direct the Bank to do. For example, he may feel the need to direct the Bank on the use of macroprudential tools. These are in the hands of the Financial Policy Committee. If the Bank were slow in using them and where it took a particular view on something on which the Chancellor took another, public money would be at risk. The Chancellor ought to be able to get his way on things. On that basis the Government have drafted too narrow a power, but I shall not pursue it any further. It is the Government’s choice, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Financial Services Bill
Baroness Noakes Excerpts(11 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Noakes
“Omit paragraph 5.”
Baroness Noakes
Like the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, I, too, am fighting one of the battles left over from the Financial Services Act of 2010. As the Committee will find out, mine is a very much more modest affair.
I shall move Amendment 190, which is a probing amendment to Schedule 15 to this Bill. This schedule makes a number of amendments to the law governing the consumer financial education body which likes to go by the name of Money Advice Service. This body was created by the 2010 Act. As noble Lords who were involved in that Bill will be aware, it received little detailed scrutiny in your Lordships’ House and was eventually passed into law, as the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said, under the wash-up procedure and the Bill ended up in somewhat truncated form. The provisions relating to Money Advice Service received no scrutiny whatever in your Lordships’ House. My noble friends and I had tabled 40 amendments at the time, all of which went undebated. I said when we did the final wash-up procedure that I hoped that if we formed the Government after the general election, we would revisit these remaining unsatisfactory aspects of Money Advice Service. Of course, other more pressing issues faced the Government in 2010 and going back over legislation creating minor public bodies was clearly never going to be a priority. However, as we have the opportunity of this Bill before us, I have decided to raise just one of the 40 issues that I wished to explore in April 2010.
Lord Newby
My Lords, I hope that I can reassure my noble friend. As she says, this amendment removes the provision that specifically aims to allow organisations that wish to act on Money Advice Service’s behalf to do so, even if there is otherwise a limitation on their ability to do this. This is to enable bodies such as charities, credit unions or friendly societies to work with MAS without constraints imposed by, for example, tightly specified charitable objectives. This provision, as my noble friend pointed out, was inserted into FiSMA by the Financial Services Act 2010. I vaguely remember her tabling amendments on that point when the Bill that became that Act was being considered by this House but, as she said, there was insufficient time to debate them during the wash-up.
I think that I can put my noble friend’s mind at rest relatively straightforwardly: there is a direct precedent for what is being proposed here in relation to the National Lottery. National Lottery distributors encountered similar difficulties working with particular bodies whose constitution was narrowly drawn. Accordingly, amendment was made to the National Lottery Act 1993, in Section 25A, to permit charities and similar bodies to act on behalf of the distributor. A similar provision was included in paragraph 7 of Schedule 3 to the Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Act 2008. An example of the circumstances in which such a power might be used is where a charity’s objects may be wholly in sympathy with Money Advice Service’s objectives, but when read narrowly the objects are narrower than a particular project on which Money Advice Service wishes to work with the body. This provision lifts that constraint and, given the active interest of a large number of charities in the financial capability agenda, I hope that the noble Baroness would not wish such organisations to be prevented from working with Money Advice Service in future. Having received this explanation, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Noakes
My Lords, that explanation has left me as concerned as I was to begin with. While his examples seek some sort of plausible minor extension of a body’s activities, paragraph 5 is not confined to minor changes to a body’s constitution and it is not confined even to charities whose objectives are related to those of Money Advice Service. It is very broad indeed and would apply under a very much broader basis, including to a large number of bodies set up by statute. I shall consider carefully what my noble friend has said and look at the precedents that he has offered as justification for this, but I have to say that I am not entirely happy with his explanation. I beg leave to withdraw.