Financial Services Bill

Lord Newby Excerpts

Tuesday 20th November 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Eatwell]

My Lords, Amendment 73B reflects a concern that we have expressed at numerous stages in the discussion of the Bill about the process by which entry is possible within the financial services industry and the processes by which permissions are varied and are cancelled.

Our prime objective is to stimulate greater competition within the financial services industry. Entry is notoriously difficult, particularly in the banking sector, and it has been made more difficult since the financial crisis as the stable door has been banged firmly shut. The shutting of the stable door, of course, has not implied any extra sanction on those banks or other institutions which already exist but has made it much more complicated for new banks to be established or new firms to enter other major parts of the financial services industry.

From an examination of the provisions of the Bill on the issue of permissions, it seems clear that there will be firms that are regulated by both the PRA and the FCA and, indeed, that there will be firms that are regulated by one of these organisations but the process of granting permissions, variations and so on will require reference to the other organisation. Given the way in which permissions are dealt with at the moment, it seems likely that this will introduce further bureaucratic steps inhibiting entry. Those bureaucratic steps will be entirely unnecessary if the regulators have a statutory requirement to co-ordinate their procedures. If, on the other hand, as we suspect, the PRA and the FCA develop different procedures relative to their differing objectives, the possibility that processes will become excessively complex, slow and expensive increases significantly.

The objective of the amendment is simply to require the PRA and the FCA to,

“co-ordinate their procedures for, and provide clear and detailed guidance on, the processes for applying for, varying and cancelling permission”,

in order to facilitate competition and ease of entry into, particularly, the banking sector and into financial services in general. I beg to move.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, as I said in Committee when we debated this issue, we are extremely sympathetic to what the noble Lord is seeking to achieve. However, as I also pointed out, the PRA and the FCA are already required by proposed new Section 3D in Clause 6 to co-ordinate their regulatory processes, including the authorisation process, so this element of the amendment would have no effect.

On the publication of detailed guidance, I point out that in order for the regulators to carry out authorisation, they will need to give instructions to firms about how to engage with the process. That is what the FSA does now, and what the PRA and the FCA will have to do in the future. Firms need to be authorised before they can enter the market and the Government agree that it is extremely important to encourage new entrants. The noble Lord talked about the shutting of the stable door in respect of new banks. The truth is that the stable door has been shut for many decades and there have been no new banks. We have to try to change the culture, in terms both of the regulators and of the regulated, that has been in place for many decades, and we are very keen to do it. That is why we had brought forward an amendment requiring the PRA to have regard to the need to minimise the adverse effect on competition that arises from its actions. One of the effects will be to ensure that the PRA works to remove unnecessary obstacles to new entrants; for example, by ensuring that the authorisation process runs as smoothly as possible.

The Government agree that it is important that the regulators explain how they will co-ordinate their regulatory activities. That is why there is a statutory duty to co-ordinate and to set out in an MoU how that co-ordination will operate in practice. The process for applying for permission is one of the things that proposed new Section 3E specifically envisages being in the MoU.

The Government entirely agree with the thinking behind the amendment but we do not believe that anything further is needed to implement what it seeks to achieve.

[Lord Eatwell]

That is rather complacent. If the noble Lord thinks that the FSA provides clear guidance at the moment, he has not tried to establish a bank. I can assure him that it does not. There is a reason for that. Given that most business plans are rather different and the guidance has to be specific, the FSA has expressed a reluctance to get involved in specific cases.

General guidance is of general use but is seldom useful in the establishment of a given institution. That is why the amendment calls for the provision of,

“clear and detailed guidance”.

That is not available elsewhere in the Bill. The Government are being seriously remiss by discouraging the competitive process as regards this aspect. I know that they want to increase competition but it is a mistake to do it in this way. It is not an intentional discouragement and so it would be enormously helpful if the amendment were to be accepted or some version of it were to be considered at Third Reading. I admit that it may well be belt and braces, but the amendment derives from experience of dealing with the FSA on these matters. It is in this area that the Government do not live up to the picture of assistance and guidance that the noble Lord has painted. However, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

My Lords, I was struck by my noble friend’s amendment. In reading it, I wondered whether this was already a provision which applied, quite outside the passporting context in which she moved it, to deposits in this country. I cannot see any reference to a rule of this kind elsewhere in the Bill. It may be that it is already part of statute law or part of the rule book of the FSA—and the FCA to come—but, looking back on my own experience, I do not normally have deposits which are greater than the threshold, which I believe is £85,000. On any such occasions when I have, I do not recall a bank telling me that part of my deposit was not subject to the national retail insurance scheme or to consumer protection. That seems to be a great weakness in the system and I would be grateful if the Minister could tell me what the rules are relating to the taking of deposits. Is this or is this not an obligation of a bank taking a deposit now which is in excess of that ceiling? I may be wrong in saying it is about £85,000, as it may have increased since I last heard a figure. If not, such an amendment should be made and this Bill presents us with an opportunity to do so.

I think we all agree that a balance needs to be struck here. No one is suggesting that the state should guarantee all banking deposits. That would be a massive moral hazard and would mean that depositors no longer had to interest themselves in the quality of the banks with whom they are investing. Equally, I think we all agree that it is unreasonable for small depositors to make a credit assessment of the banks with which they are depositing small amounts of money. It is not just a question of looking at the solvency ratios or capital adequacy ratios. You need to look beyond that if you want to assess the credit-worthiness of the bank. You look at the quality of the assets of the bank and the quality of its deposits. These are areas where it is not only difficult for an individual to come to a judgment but where we know that there has been fantastic regulatory failure throughout the world, particularly in this country.

The FSA’s behaviour in this matter was negligent to an extraordinary degree. It never seemed to interest itself in the declining quality of the assets of many British banks, which were buying more and more CDOs, for example. It never seemed to interest itself in the deteriorating quality on the liabilities side of the Northern Rock balance sheet and the fact that Northern Rock was becoming excessively dependent on wholesale deposits. If the regulators fail so badly, it is all the more important that the protection available for small or medium depositors is great.

It is very important that people should know because, as I have explained, even though I try to take an intelligent general interest in these matters I do not know exactly where the threshold currently lies. In my experience, I have certainly not had a notification from a bank that I may be placing deposits with it that are not in any way subject to such a guarantee. That is an enormously important aspect of the risk involved in such a transaction and, clearly, it ought to be brought to the attention of retail depositors. Is this currently part of statute law? Is it currently part of the rule book and, if not, is this amendment an opportunity to make it so or should we take another opportunity in this Bill to bring forward an amendment of that general kind?

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, I think everyone is agreed that the regulators should require banks to make their customers aware when their deposits are not covered by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

Did I hear the noble Lord say that it is a requirement from regulators that banks should notify their depositors when they are covered? If so, that is quite wrong. They should be notified when they are not covered. That is the important thing. It is no use notifying them when they are covered and saying nothing at all when they are not covered, for that is when the risks arise.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, as I was saying, the regulators make considerable existing requirements in this area and I will explain what they are. Firms from the EEA that passport into the UK are covered by their home-state compensation scheme rather than by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme. It is obviously right that consumers are made aware of it but, as we have said before, this already happens. The FSA already has rules requiring this in the COMP 16 section of its handbook. Explicitly, EEA firms passporting into the UK are required to inform their customers that they are covered by their home state scheme. This is already included on customers’ bank statements and notices are prominently displayed in their branches.

This is what the text says:

“Your eligible deposits with [insert name of firm] are protected up to a total of 100,000 euro by [insert name of compensation scheme]”—

depending on which country is involved—

“… and are not protected by the UK Financial Services Compensation Scheme”.

Any deposits you hold,

“above the 100,000 euro limit are not covered”.

This wording is already being displayed and circulated to potential customers of these branches. In tandem, the FSCS has launched a programme to raise awareness of the scheme in general and to inform consumers how they can check whether they are covered by the scheme, so it is clear to us that this amendment is simply unnecessary. The FSA and FSCS are taking action in this area already and we strongly believe that that will continue once the new regulatory system is in place. It is right that the regulators and the FSCS have the flexibility to address this issue in the way that they see as most appropriate. On this basis, I trust that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

The noble Lord has read out the text of the communication which banks in this country must make to depositors who are resident in other EEA countries when they deposit more than the threshold amount of €100,000. Can he read out the text of the communication that banks in this country are obliged to make to depositors resident in this country when they deposit with them amounts over the threshold of £85,000 or whatever it is?

[Lord Newby]

I will check what I said, but it may have covered what the noble Lord is looking for. If it does not, I shall write to him with the relevant wording.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, I am sorry that the Minister did not listen to what I said, which was the reverse of passporting. It was about the passporting of our banks into EEA countries. I was interested in the protection of customers in those areas who are served by the UK banks that are being passported there but would be regulated here. Our regulator should therefore cover that. That is a different issue from the one that the Minister has answered. If he would check on that, I would be quite happy for us to revert to the matter at Third Reading. I am interested in consumers wherever they happen to dwell, such as the consumers in EEA areas being served by our banks. I am therefore worried about their lack of coverage by our compensation scheme, which should be brought to their attention. If I could leave the Minister to clarify that, at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, this amendment stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Eatwell as well as mine. It is about transparency and we have moved from passporting to prohibition orders, with a big jump to Clause 12. The amendment would ensure that, when a prohibition order is made, the regulator publishes its reasons and the individual's name appears on a list of people subject to prohibition orders on the Treasury website. The purpose of this is both to promote good practice, by making it clear what constitutes bad practice, and to enable investors and others easily to identify who has been subject to such an order.

As was clear in Committee, the issue did not really divide us. At that stage, I quoted Matthew Hancock as saying in another place,

“the principle that prohibition orders on people who are not fit and proper persons should be published is crucial … Prohibition must not only be a sanction for past irresponsible behaviour, but a deterrent for future irresponsible behaviour … the point of prohibition is not only … to stop the actions of those who have … committed acts that make them not fit and proper, but to demonstrate the bounds of behaviour that are deemed responsible and reasonable”.—[Official Report, Commons, Financial Services Bill Committee, 6/3/2012; col. 384.]

The then Minister, Mr Mark Hoban, agreed that prohibition is both a punishment and a deterrent.

When we discussed this in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Newby, replied in this House along similar lines, saying that,

“regulators ought to give explanations of their actions and I do not think anyone would dispute the need for the identity of persons subject to prohibition orders … to be made known”.—[Official Report, 8/10/12; cols. 860-61.]

However, he felt that the existing duty on the FSA to maintain such a list was sufficient. We disagree with regard to the list of those prohibited. Investors and borrowers here and abroad would be more likely to see the Government as a source of such information, and we would therefore like HMT, via its website, to have a role in this.

With regard to the first part of our amendment, it is crucial, if the findings of a case are to help influence the future behaviour of other firms and authorised persons, that they can read and understand exactly what was alleged and why it was found to have transgressed acceptable behaviour. Hence there is the need to publish reasons. I beg to move.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, as the noble Baroness says, we discussed this at some length in Committee and, to a certain extent, I am afraid I can only repeat what I said then. I repeat that FiSMA already requires the FSA to maintain a publicly available record of individuals subject to prohibition orders. The relevant subsection simply says that the register must include a record of every,

“individual to whom a prohibition order relates”.

and provides that the register must include the name of the individual and,

“details of the effect of the”,

prohibition order.

The FCA will keep these records in future and the Bill, in paragraph 17 of Schedule 12, also requires the PRA to assist the FCA in keeping the record up to date, including by notifying the FCA of every prohibition order that the PRA makes. The principal effect of the amendment would be to move these records from the FSA website on to the Treasury website. The noble Baroness said, in effect, that the Treasury website would almost command more respect or be more likely to be looked at for this purpose. We disagree with that. The Treasury website sets out government policy, not records of regulatory decisions. The logical place to go for a record of a regulatory decision is to the regulator. We think that it would be confusing if investors expected to go to the Treasury website rather than to the regulator’s website to get the relevant names and other information. In our view, it would be contrary to the noble Baroness’s stated objective of ensuring clarity and transparency. I am afraid I cannot give her much comfort. We believe that what we are doing meets her requirements and that those are better met by doing it via the regulator’s website rather than via the Treasury website.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

I thank the Minister for that response. I have a query that is not so much on the website. I think he said that the list was kept along with details of the effects of the prohibition order, which I assume means that this person cannot do this, that, or the other. We were asking for the reasons. I hope that he will look at this, even if there is only a recommendation back to the regulator. It is really important that the allegation and the reason why it was found proven is there as guidance for others. I hope that he will look at that and reassure me that the reasons are there, not just the effects of the prohibition order. With those comments, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, we reach the last amendment of the evening, which stands in the names of my noble friend Lord Eatwell and myself. It is short, sharp and clear. The Bill allows for FCA statements of policy relating to its use of disciplinary powers to be provided to anyone, for a fee if necessary; to be given to the Treasury, presumably for free; and to be published as appropriate. Noble Lords will have noticed that the one body not automatically to receive the statement is Parliament. This amendment would correct that oversight. I beg to move.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, no one disagrees with the proposition that certain important reports and other documents that are produced under the new regime should be laid before Parliament. A good example of this view is to be found in Clause 80 under which, if the Treasury in future receives a report relating to an inquiry or investigation carried out under the provisions of Part 5 of the Bill, it must publish the report and lay what it publishes before Parliament. Since these reports concern inquiries or investigations in connection with possible regulatory failure or on other matters relating to the public interest, this is clearly the right approach. It enables Parliament to consider the matter and, where appropriate, call upon Ministers or the regulators themselves to give an account of their actions. Indeed, the Government are so committed to ensuring parliamentary accountability in this area that they have tabled Amendment 107D to ensure that any direction that the Treasury gives regarding these investigations is also laid before Parliament.

However, the statement of policy issued by the FCA under new Section 88C is not a report of that kind. It is more like the guidance issued under FiSMA, although it is really guidance for the regulator itself rather than for regulated firms. This explains why the FCA must follow the procedure in Section 88D before it issues a statement, which is essentially the same as the procedure when the FCA issues guidance to firms set out in new Section 139A. The Treasury must be notified of any new FCA guidance or changes to existing guidance but it has never been thought necessary for the Treasury to lay that guidance before Parliament, although it will be available on the FCA website.

The approach that we are taking not only follows the general FiSMA model but it is the same approach that is taken in other regulatory legislation. For example, Section 38 of the Competition Act 1998 requires the OFT to prepare and publish guidance on the appropriate amount of any penalty imposed for abuse of a dominant position. It must get the Secretary of State’s approval for it but there is no obligation to lay it before Parliament. Equally, Section 392 of the Communications Act 2003 requires Ofcom to prepare and publish a statement containing guidelines on the penalties that it may impose under that Act or other legislation, except the Competition Act 1998. Again, though, Ofcom is not required to lay that before Parliament.

All we are doing is following normal procedure. We do not think that this kind of guidance should be laid before Parliament because it is guidance to the regulator and will be available on the regulator’s website. In those circumstances, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that answer and, via the Minister, I thank his Bill team because they have clearly done some interesting research for us in areas beyond HMT.

Ministers have probably not made the right call. There will be an increased requirement for transparency and Parliament is becoming more interested in questions of guidance, particularly in relation to disciplinary matters. My guess is that there will come a time when more of these will come to Parliament, because saying that it is normal practice and we can go on as before is not necessarily always the right view. We will get there, even if it is not in the Bill, but for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.