Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill

Mark Garnier Excerpts

Wednesday 11th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

It is possible, although it is difficult to answer that question specifically as it would depend on the legal process, as anticipated in the Bill. As I progress with my remarks, the hon. Lady will see the kind of actions that can lead to prosecution.

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that a lot of the changes that are coming through as a result of PCBS recommendations should in some respects be treated rather like the nuclear deterrent? It is not necessarily about trying to punish people; it is about trying to drive behaviour that avoids a crisis in the first place. Had these rules been around at the time, it is far more likely that Fred Goodwin would not have led his bank over the cliff, that we would not have had the financial crisis, and that we would have a more stable banking system as a result. That is the intention behind the proposed law.

[Sajid Javid]

My hon. Friend has explained well the reasoning behind the recommendation from the PCBS—which, of course, he was part of—and the deterrent effect this change could have should not be underestimated.

--- Later in debate ---

“kind of professional standards...that you see in the medical profession or the legal profession”.

[Mark Garnier]

Is the shadow Minister aware that the banks have already initiated the creation of a professional banking standards body?

[Cathy Jamieson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that comment. I know that he has done considerable work in his role on the commission, but it is important that these issues be put on the record. It would have been useful to consider them in Committee, and I mention them now to show that significant pressure has been applied to move things forward and bring about change. The Government appeared to resist that and some of the commission’s recommendations until, of course, their recent change of heart following their defeat in the other place on the amendment for the licensing regime. At that point, they felt they had to bring forward their own plans.

The Opposition might have expected the Government to be reasonably gracious and accept the decision of the other place, but today they have tabled an amendment to disagree with and remove Lords amendment 41 from the Bill. To be fair, what they have tabled, under pressure to replace that amendment, is better than nothing, but it does not go anywhere near as far as the amendment they wish to strike out. The main difference essentially concerns the code of conduct. Lords amendment 41 states specifically that the

“licensing regime must…apply to all approved persons exercising controlled functions, regardless of financial sector;…specify minimum thresholds of competence including integrity, professional qualifications, continuous professional development and adherence to a recognised code of conduct and revised Banking Standards Rules”.

That is important, given that the Government’s position does not call specifically for a code of conduct. In some ways, their regime legislates for the commission’s recommendations, but by failing specifically to legislate for an open and transparent code of conduct, they risk failing to address some of the ethical issues surrounding so-called casino banking. Their more permissive amendment does not focus specifically on a code of conduct.

Several other hon. Members wish to speak, so I shall conclude with some brief comments about remuneration. As hon. Members might be aware, the Opposition have given considerable thought to the regulation of bankers’ remuneration, and there remain certain issues that the Government must consider before the general public can have confidence in the industry. The public find it difficult to understand, and have concerns about, the culture of high risk, high reward that was evident in the previous system and which contributed to the crisis.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emily Thornberry]

There are other things that can be done, and I shall briefly touch on some of them. May I begin with the difficulties that exist in relation to this offence? Under the Bill, it would be an offence for a senior manager recklessly to take a decision. I appreciate that some of the additional 175 pages that have been added to the 35-page Bill have been to backfill exactly what a senior manager is and how they will be defined. That is clearly an improvement, and it is unfortunate that it was even suggested that the Bill would be sufficient in its original form. One must remember that even if a definition of senior manager is now one with which we can all be happy, there have been banks that have been brought down by people other than senior managers. Nick Leeson from Barings bank comes to mind, as does the £2 billion that was lost to UBS by Kweku Adoboli.

[Mark Garnier]

I am fascinated that the hon. Lady chooses to use Nick Leeson as an example, because he went to jail, in Singapore, for four years.

[Emily Thornberry]

The point is that he was not a senior manager and he brought down a bank. This measure will not solve the problem of banks being brought down. An offence of reckless banking that will apply only to senior managers is not by itself sufficient, which is why I want to go on to say what I think should be done instead.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emily Thornberry]

I am more than happy to put it on the record that I am a critical friend of the Serious Fraud Office. Sometimes the emphasis is more on the word critical, especially after what we have seen in the newspapers today, with the crash of yet another serious fraud case because the SFO asked an agent, which clearly had a conflict of duty, to do its investigation. That is yet another mistake that the SFO has made. If we want the SFO to turn a corner, we need to do more than show good will. This Bill provided us with an opportunity to change things. It is unfortunate that more attention was not paid to changing corporate liability.

I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie) said in his contribution, and I undertake to send him, as a Christmas present, Labour’s policy paper in relation to fraud. If we can change corporate liability to ensure that if an individual within an organisation behaves in a way that is dishonest and to the advantage of the larger organisation, we can prosecute the organisation, unless it can show, in the same way that it can under the Bribery Act 2010, that it has in place controls over its staff, it would have an impact on our banking system. If I may say so respectfully, introducing such legislation will have a greater impact than the measures proposed in this Bill. If we were to introduce a different form of corporate liability, we could increase the fines hugely, and that money could be ploughed back into the Serious Fraud Office. Then we would have an organisation of which people in the City of London would be afraid. They would be prepared in most circumstances to come to an agreement with the SFO to have a deferred prosecution agreement.

DPAs will not ever exist under the status quo. The DPA legislation has been passed but, as I understand it, no one has come forward to say that their company has been doing wrong, that they want to admit that, that they will pay a fine, that they will change their ways, that they want auditors to come and see how they are behaving and that they will point out the individuals who have been behaving in a criminal way. I respectfully submit that that is how to change the culture. That is how we ought to be working and I look forward to discussing it with the hon. Member for Chichester once he has read the Christmas present I intend to send him. If elected in 2015, Labour intends to introduce its own economic crime Act, and I hope that we will take the issues further and develop them. Obviously, I would be interested to hear the hon. Gentleman’s reactions.

[Mark Garnier]

I intend to talk principally about Lords amendment 41, but before I do so let me echo the comments made by the Chairman of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie), at the beginning of the debate. He said that he was grateful to the Government for moving such a long way along the road towards the commission’s recommendations. That is a tribute to the organisation that he chaired extraordinarily well for about 18 months and that came up with such sound proposals. It was a great honour for me to be part of that process. It also says a huge amount for the Government that they have taken great heed of what the commission said and have moved a great deal further towards implementing the proposals.

On Lords amendment 41, I suspect that there is not too much of a difference of opinion in the House about what we are trying to achieve through the Bill—that is, a change in the culture of banks. I take slight issue with the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), because it is not just about preventing banks from collapsing. It is about getting better standards and better service for consumers. Many constituents will complain about their treatment by banks and that has nothing to do with criminal matters; it is simply about the culture and how certain people address other people in their everyday lives. We want to drive that out and to ensure that the banking culture is one of which we can be proud and which consumers can trust enormously.

[Mr Love]

Is the hon. Gentleman not disappointed that, since 2007, when there has been such a focus on the problems and difficulties of banking, no greater progress has been made in creating the type of culture we all want to see?

[Mark Garnier]

I do not necessarily agree. I speak not only as a Member of Parliament, a member of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards and a member of the Treasury Committee but as a former investment banker and investment manager. My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary is also a former banker, so to a certain extent we have a private interest in ensuring that banking standards are greater than they have been. There has, however, been an enormous amount of progress. We have a new regulatory regime, there have been a number of changes in the banks and we have seen a complete change of culture at the top of many of the banks. Things are moving in the right direction but it will take a long time and this Bill is part of that process.

Although we are all trying to achieve the same thing, the important question is how we will achieve it and who, ultimately, we should ask to ensure that the licensing regime is upheld and looked after. The Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards was perfectly clear that we felt that the approved person regime was complete and utter nonsense. One of the Bank of England’s greatest thinkers, Andy Haldane, highlighted why that was the case: if regulation is devolved to a regulator, all that happens is that the individuals at the head of the banks think that they have nothing to worry about. It becomes the regulator’s problem to worry about such things, and not that of those individuals.

When we met a number of the banks—particularly UBS, the Union Bank of Switzerland, the senior directors of which appeared in front of us just after it had been fingered for its share in the LIBOR scandal—we discovered that there was an incentive to be ignorant of what was going on within them. The senior managers of UBS who were running the bank when the LIBOR scandal happened within their organisation knew nothing about it until they read about it in the Financial Times three or four weeks before our hearing. That gave rise to the accusation that there was an accountability firewall between the management of the banks and the individuals working on the front line—that is, those at the coal face on the dealing room floors and servicing our consumers.

We were trying to work out how on earth we could reach a system in which those at the top of the bank took accountability for the work and standards of the individuals in the lower part of the bank. That is crucial in leading me to support the Government in rejecting amendment 41: it does not deal with that accountability but rather gets around the problem. That is why it fails to hit the nail on the head.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

The personal responsibility argument is extremely strong and powerful, but does not the hon. Gentleman see some merit in the fact that Lords amendment 41 talks about a code of conduct? Is not the code of conduct described in the amendment a mechanism that could be used to drive the change in culture throughout the organisation that he describes?

[Mark Garnier]

I agree entirely. A number of professional bodies in the banking industry have a code of conduct. I, for example, am a fellow of the Chartered Institute for Securities and Investment, which has a code of conduct. Many people working in investment banks will be fellows of the CISI. Indeed, Sir Richard Lambert’s proposals, about which we shall hear more in the new year, will include a code of conduct. It is also worth bearing in mind that the banks are producing their own code of conduct that is being fed back to the regulator, which will consider what they are saying.

Let me wind up, because I think the Minister would like to speak at some point. I would be the last person to stand in his way, because I know that he will have some intelligent things to say. Suffice it to say that I think amendment 41 will prevent the behavioural changes we desire, and that is why I will reject it.

[Sajid Javid]

I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson), for her comments and all other—