Financial Services Bill

Lord Davies of Oldham Excerpts

Wednesday 24th October 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Barnett]

As I originally put down the first “may” or “must” group of amendments, together with my noble friend Lord Peston, I have some sympathy with the noble Baroness. We were told by the Minister—I forget whether it was on the sixth, seventh or eighth day—that he had asked his officials to go through the whole Bill for the mays and musts to see which were appropriate. Knowing Treasury officials, I am sure that they will have come back with something to say whether they thought a “may” should be changed to a “must”. Was this group included in that? Perhaps the Minister could tell us. It looks as though the noble Baroness is quite right and that this is one of those occasions where the word should be “must”. I would welcome the Minister’s reply. My own experience of the thinking of Treasury officials goes back too far for me to be sure, as I last took advice from Treasury officials more than 30 years ago and I may have forgotten a bit about how they operate. However, I am sure that they are still as good today as they were then, and I would welcome the Minister telling us what they came back with to his request.

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

My Lords, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, can stand the accolades that are coming from this side of the House after her speech. I think that she has posed the Minister some very appropriate questions, while my noble friend Lord Peston goes a little further by saying, “What’s the clause here for at all?”. So the Minister has quite a lot on his plate in responding to this debate already, and all this puts the official opposition amendments very much into the minor case. Our amendments in this group, Amendments 192ZZA, 192ZZB and 192C, call for the directions to be laid before Parliament. These are directions in respect of a direction to the FCA from the Treasury to carry out an investigation into possible regulatory failure. Of course, I am at one with my noble friend Lord Peston when he indicates that investigations are about what has gone wrong, and the lessons which can be learnt in order to prevent any reoccurrence. Intervention in time is what is needed if one wants to prevent things going badly wrong. Therefore, with these amendments, we are merely seeking for the issues to be open and transparent. Nothing could make them more transparent than that they should be laid before Parliament.

In passing, on other amendments in this group, those in the name of my noble friend Lord McFall also have some merit. He calls for the person appointed to chair any inquiry set up under these provisions to be “suitably qualified and experienced”; I hope that the Minister can give a positive response to that. He also calls for an exemption for information in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege could be made; I am sure that the Minister will look sympathetically on that. Of course, his Amendment 193 says that any investigator appointed must be “suitably qualified and experienced”. Now, the Minister and I understand that he only has to reply to the amendment that has been moved in this group but, as we are in Committee, it might be useful if the Minister gives us as comprehensive a reply as possible to the whole group.

[Lord Desai]

My Lords, before the Minister replies, I am puzzled, given what the noble Baroness has said, when I read the clause. What are the circumstances under which the Government will not order an inquiry? Are they things like when we had the fiasco with RBS, where an inquiry was conducted, hushed up and not published until we literally marched in the streets for the FSA to do so? Can the Minister explain under what circumstances the Treasury would not order an inquiry if such events had happened?

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

192ZZB: Clause 70, page 144, line 3, at end insert—
“( ) Any direction under subsection (5) must be laid before Parliament and published.”

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

I beg to move.

[Lord Skelmersdale]

My Lords, as an observer of this scene, it is clear to me that my noble friend Lord Sassoon has said that he will take into consideration the two amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, and bring something back—whether it is a total positive or a half positive, we do not yet know—at the next stage of the Bill. Therefore, it would be appropriate if the noble Lord would also withdraw this amendment.

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

My Lords, I apologise to the House. I am sure that the noble Lord is absolutely right and that I got lost in my cricketing batting average. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 192ZZB withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Peston]

It would establish the principle which everything else must follow. That is fine; I understand what the noble Lord is saying. That leads me to ask two central questions. In Clause 73, and I think in something similar earlier, subsection (2) refers to “Relevant events” that occur in relation to,

“(b) a person who is, or was at the time … carrying on a regulated activity”.

What worries me as a matter of logic is whether we will end up with the regulator having to investigate him or herself. If these people have not met the standards, who is responsible? They are partly, of course, but this would also be an indication of regulator failure. To my way of looking at it, we have a part of the Bill that is totally bizarre. From a logical point of view, the answer to the question “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” is that the regulator is the custodes himself, if you like. I would certainly welcome an analysis from the Minister in his reply which shows that we are not seriously involved in a logical contradiction here.

My second question is whether the fact of an investigation of the kind we are discussing is to be in the public domain. In other words, will it be publicly known that the regulator is investigating one of the things going on here? It may be that I have not read it properly, but is not that itself potentially enormously damaging, again a point that was raised last week? I should like the answer to these two questions. It may be that Treasury officials will have to do a bit of thinking about this part of the Bill when they are not thinking about the logical nature of “may” versus “must”. As I have pointed out before, there is a vast philosophical literature on this. How much of it they will have time to read, I do not know. However, the central point is to get a rational response to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson.

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, for identifying this issue, but I must say that if noble Lords opposite do not think that the nation is expecting a Bill and eventually an Act of Parliament that tightens up regulation in the wake of the circumstances we suffered four to five years ago, then all I can say is that such a position is not tenable. The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, is indicating that the principles of the regulator should be expressed in these terms. Who can be against the principles of fairness? Of course we want and expect the regulators to act fairly, but let us remember that they may be acting under a direction from the Treasury because something has gone wrong. The idea that the first thing the regulator must do is consider the principles on which it must act rather than in fact investigate the nature of the problem, as it has been instructed by the Treasury to do, seems to put the cart very firmly before the horse.

In responding to this amendment, I am sure that the Minister will have some warm words for his noble friends who have spoken in favour of the amendments, but I hope that he will defend the basic objective of the Bill. I shall give way to the noble Lord.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

I am extremely grateful. I did not want to interrupt his peroration, but dare I say that if he had listened carefully, he would know that I said that this is not about reducing regulatory stringency? I made that absolutely clear and I said it in terms; there is no question about that. This is a question about being fair and reasonable, it is not about reducing regulatory stringency. I do not want that particular line of attack attached to my amendments. I could not be clearer than that, and I think my noble friends on this side of the Committee are all as one so far as that is concerned.

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

The noble Lord will forgive me if the consideration that others might have with regard to a regulator potentially operating under direction from the Treasury to deal with a serious situation is that it should be dealing with it quickly and efficiently, and not just having regard to how much it acts appropriately or fairly, in the way in which the noble Lord has indicated. Of course, regulators know that if they act entirely improperly, even unlawfully, legal action will follow against them, but, in a Bill that is concerned to make regulation more effective, it surely cannot be that the principles upon which the regulators must act are more important than the effectiveness with which they carry out their role.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Kramer]

I have a couple of comments —they are really questions—on both amendments. Amendment 193F, as the Minister has said, essentially extends the Banking Act 2009 special resolution regime to investment firms. In the next two groups there are similar amendments extending that same resolution regime to holding companies and clearing houses. I am sure the Minister does not want me to speak three times on the same point, so perhaps he could extend his comments to those two groups as well.

I share some of the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, that we are getting a set of amendments which, by definition, will have to change fairly significantly because this area is being driven by European directives. Even the definition that we are using for an investment firm is a European directive. It is very difficult to understand how this works when the context and framework will be constantly changing. Perhaps the Minister could help us understand how that process is going to happen. With ring-fencing likely to change the way in which we look at and define an investment firm, that is one obvious set of problems. It may end up being different under European law from the application in the UK, because we may draw lines at different points. We may choose ring-fencing, and others separation. I cannot see how this set of language manages to comprehend all those complexities.

It is not just me who is concerned; I know that I have raised this issue before. This time, the BBA is very concerned about marching all the troops up the hill in one direction, finding that there has to be substantial change, and marching them all the way down and back up in another direction. I cannot understand why we are doing this now when we will have clarity in just a few months’ time.

I also want to raise a question which I have asked before but to which I have not had much of an answer, under Amendment 193BA. Again, it concerns the central clearing houses and the central counterparties. I am trying to understand if that amendment deals with an issue that concerns me: the waterfall of the resolution and whether, at the end of that waterfall, it is permissible under the legislation to tear up contracts. That is a reading which the Minister will know that the industry has asked about. When he talks about the protection of client assets, does that apply to contractual relationships—for derivative contract or whatever else—where the clearing house may not be able to meet its obligations because it has got into difficulties and has been put into a resolution procedure? I am unclear whether the legislation establishes that that contract may be torn up as the last resort in the resolution process. That is a big issue that needs general discussion, if that is right. It would be extremely helpful if the Minister could give us some clarity on that.

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

My Lords, the Minister has a few interesting issues to respond to, but I must say that I am very much on the Government’s side with regard to these two amendments. After all, they are the result of consultation. We agree with the Government that investment firms and clearing houses have the potential to cause instability in the financial system and that therefore, including them within this scheme to ensure their orderly resolution or, perhaps, wind-down in the event of failure, is obviously sensible.

I am slightly embarrassed by the fact that, although 35 years ago, as his PPS, I was used to agreeing with every word that my noble friend Lord Barnett uttered as a Member of Parliament, I have to say to him today that I do not quite agree with the line which he has adopted. I entirely recognise that we will be enmeshed in many of these issues in the not too distant future with another significant Bill but, on the whole, when the Government have a good and constructive idea, it is best for the Opposition to seize it with both hands as early as possible, and that is what I want to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, this small group of government amendments are of a purely technical nature. Amendment 193J amends Section 120 of the Banking Act 2009 to reflect the terminology of Scottish law, under which documents are “lodged” with the court.

Amendments 201A, 201B and 201C are concerned with the rulebooks that the new authorities will use. The FSA’s rulebook is currently made up of around 9,000 pages of rules. In the new system, these rules will become FCA rules, PRA rules, rules shared by both the FCA and the PRA, or Bank of England rules in relation to recognised clearing houses. Noble Lords will no doubt be aware that the Government intend that the new regulatory system will be put in place on 1 April next year. The Government are working closely with the FSA and the Bank of England on the practical aspects of transition to the new regulatory system, while listening to representations from industry on how disruption can be minimised in the run-up to the new system being put in place.

The amendments will give greater precision to the transition of the rulebook by enabling the new regulators to adopt relevant sections of the FSA rulebook, and its supporting materials, by designating the relevant regulatory material to the PRA and/or the FCA, or the Bank, and to make any necessary modifications. The amendments also permit the FSA and the PRA to appoint a set of persons to undertake this designation exercise. The recruitment processes to appoint members of the boards of the new regulators are well under way and the amendments will permit the future PRA and FCA boards to be appointed so that they, rather than the current boards, can make the decisions on the designation of rules.

The new rulebooks will not come into force until 1 April next year but we need the new boards to be able to make and publish their new rulebooks as early as possible in advance of 1 April next year so that industry and the public have certainty and sufficient notice to get ready. These are technical but practical and helpful amendments and I beg to move.

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

My Lords, it may be a source of some surprise on the Government Bench that I rise to speak on these purely technical amendments, but I merely ask Ministers to recognise that, their having looked kindly on three amendments that I proposed earlier today, I have kept my silence on three groups of amendments that they proposed and which have gone through without dissent.

Amendment 193J agreed.