Bank of England (Economic Affairs Committee Report)

Lord Bridges of Headley Excerpts

Thursday 2nd May 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

That this House takes note of the Report from the Economic Affairs Committee Making an independent Bank of England work better (1st Report, HL Paper 10).

[Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)]

My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to open this debate. I begin by thanking all members of the Economic Affairs Committee for their time, toil and commitment which went into producing our report, and our excellent clerk, our policy adviser, and our special adviser Professor Rosa Lastra. I also remind the House of my registered interest as an adviser to and shareholder in Banco Santander.

Our report aimed to answer a simple question about the Bank of England: how is independence working? We asked that partly because last year marked a quarter of a century since the Bank was granted operational independence over monetary policy—a decision that signified an enormous transfer of power from elected representatives to unelected officials. Since then, the Bank’s remit has grown. It has undertaken quantitative easing on a massive scale and inflation hit a 41-year high in October 2022, resulting in a loss of public confidence in Threadneedle Street. All this raises questions about the Bank’s accountability and performance. Accountability and performance are different, but clearly related. If an unaccountable body performs poorly, what then? Our committee thought it was time to kick the tyres and learn lessons. Our focus was primarily on monetary policy; we did not examine individual decisions, nor events.

Let me start with the Bank’s overall record on inflation; I stress “overall”. Inflation remained within 1% of the MPC’s target almost 90% of the time between 1997 and 2021. The precise contribution of independence to that record is difficult to quantify—we heard that globalisation contributed too—but we concluded that independence should be preserved for the simple reason, to quote one witness,

“that there is a greater likelihood of interest rates being adjusted for economic reasons, rather than to suit … political objectives”.

That said, we concluded that reforms are needed and I will highlight some of the reasons why.

The first is the Bank’s recent performance on inflation. Like many central banks, the Bank of England mistakenly thought that inflation was transitory. Possible reasons for this include a perceived lack of intellectual diversity in the Bank, as in other central banks, which contributed to insufficient challenge to modelling and forecasts. In particular, our committee was struck by the notable absence of any detailed discussions about money supply in the monetary policy reports. To quote one witness,

“money supply was ignored in a rather foolish fashion”.

The second reason we need reform is what has happened to the Bank’s remit, which, as I said, has ballooned. This complexity risks jeopardising the Bank’s ability to prioritise its primary objectives. The governor told us:

“It makes policy-making more complicated”.


Its sprawling remit risks drawing the Bank into the Government’s wider policy agenda, raising questions about accountability, which I will come on to.

Another reason we need reform is to address the blurring of monetary and fiscal policy thanks to quantitative easing. A powerful tool to combat the monetary contraction after the 2008 financial crisis, QE’s continued deployment since then swelled the Bank’s balance sheet to a record high of just under 50% of GDP and shortened the overall duration of the Government’s liabilities, increasing the vulnerability of the Government’s overall debt stock to movements in short-term rates.

Although the quantum of quantitative easing is a monetary policy decision, decisions on debt duration have consequences for debt management. Furthermore, and crucially, the taxpayer is on the hook for any losses incurred by the Bank thanks to QE. But the deed of indemnity—the contractual document between the Bank’s asset purchase facility and the Treasury—is secret. That all needs addressing.

That brings me to another reason we need reform: accountability. The growth in the Bank’s remit and QE have not been met with a commensurate increase in accountability and parliamentary scrutiny. A democratic deficit has emerged which risks undermining confidence in the Bank and its operational independence.

Given those reasons, we proposed a number of what I consider to be very reasonable steps to address all this. I shall not read out a long laundry list, but they included: pruning the Bank’s remit; reviewing hiring and appointments; a memorandum of understanding which clarifies how the interaction between monetary policy and debt management should operate; publishing the deed of indemnity; and a parliamentary review of the Bank’s remit and operations every five years. Our overarching point was simple: the framework for independence and the operations of the Bank need reform.

What was the response from the Bank and the Treasury? Let me start with our concerns around forecasting and the big issue of groupthink. As many Lords will know, the Court of the Bank of England commissioned the Bernanke review into its forecasting. That review, in itself, shows the benefit of challenge. The review’s findings were pretty scathing of the Bank’s approach to forecasting and recommended changes on which I am sure a number of noble Lords will want to comment. But the review did not go into any depth on the key issue of diversity of thought, for the simple reason that it was not included in the review’s remit. To my mind, this is odd. As the governor himself told us, the models are not like a “sausage machine”, in his words, but reflect people’s judgment. I agree with that; in fact, I would go further: the output of models are not tablets of stone. They might shape decisions, but they should not determine them. What is more, the Bernanke review’s tight remit specifically excluded looking at any past decisions or events, so it was really not set up to ask the basic question: what went wrong, and why?

What is being done to improve challenge and tackle groupthink? In the responses, we are pointed to dissenting votes on the MPC. This is obviously true, but it rather ignores the fact that, between March 2020 and September 2021, when inflation was rising, the MPC was, month after month, unanimous in its view that this rise was transitory. Next, we are told that no review of Bank appointments is necessary, as the Treasury is committed to diversity in public services in its appointments. But what kind of diversity? Is diversity reflected in the recent appointments to the Bank’s most senior positions? Might they suggest that the Treasury is the primary school for the Bank?

We are told that the MPC monitors monetary aggregates, so our recommendation, that there should be an analysis of their relevance to the Bank’s inflation outlook, was rejected. I am conscious that we might fall into the trap of groupthink that there is groupthink. However, having mulled over the evidence that we received, I think that our recommendations are measured, and that the response to them was—to be polite—somewhat defensive.

What of the other reasonable proposals we made, that the remits of the MPC and the FPC should be pruned? The Treasury’s written response states that:

“As both Committees have complex roles, it is right that their remit reflects this complexity”.


But the next paragraph says that it agrees that there is benefit in improving the clarity and focus of the remit letters—something the Chancellor confirmed to us a few weeks ago, when he told our committee that the Treasury “could probably do better” at simplification. However, he then pointed out that, despite his slimming down the remit as regards climate change, climate change objectives

“are bedded into what the Bank of England has to do anyway”.

I find all this slightly confusing, so I have a simple question for my noble friend the Minister: does the Treasury think that the remits are still too complex? Are we at the beginning, not the end, of the process of simplification?

Let me now turn to QE and QT. Both the Bank and the Treasury argue that we do not need a memorandum of understanding to clarify how the interaction between monetary policy and debt management should operate. I beg to differ. The taxpayer is ultimately bearing the risk of QE and the costs incurred, and decisions are being taken concerning huge sums of public money without regard to the usual value-for-money requirements—a position that the Treasury Select Committee in the other place concluded is “highly anomalous”. More clarity is needed.

That brings me to the need to publish the deed of indemnity. The governor told us:

“I could not see anything in it … that I think would excite people if it were published, but it is not my decision—it is the Treasury’s”.


Yet the Treasury’s response says that the document should not be published because it contains “market sensitivities” and

“operationally sensitive information relating to QE”,

which risks

“undermining the transparency of the APF”.

The Bank and the Treasury appear to be at odds on this. In my simple mind, either this document will not excite people, or it contains market-sensitive information which will. Can the Minister tell us who is right—the Governor or the Chancellor? But the bigger point is this: given that the taxpayer is bearing the cost of QE, Parliament should surely be told how the relationship between the Treasury and the Bank works and who is responsible for taking what decisions and on what grounds.

That brings me to the final issue: parliamentary accountability. Operational independence should mean just that: politicians stay out of the Bank’s day-to-day decisions. But how often does Parliament debate the Bank’s overall performance, its remit letters or issues such as QE and QT? The answer is: not much. Our focus here in Parliament is largely on fiscal policy, not monetary policy—the Treasury in the City of Westminster, not the Bank in the City of London. We need to address that democratic deficit. An overarching review of the Bank’s remit every five years, as our committee recommended, would not undermine independence but strengthen it. Such a review could look at one of the other big issues: the inflation target itself, on which we heard conflicting views as to whether 2% is the right target.

Another question a parliamentary review could consider is whether we have the right balance between accountability and independence with regard to the appointments of the most senior Bank officials and their tenure and reappointment. As I said at the start, when things go wrong, does Parliament really have sufficient means to hold the Bank’s leadership to account?

The Bank and the Treasury are staffed by many professional, committed public servants. I certainly do not want to trash either institution, but I fear that the tone of the Bank’s and the Treasury’s responses to our report and its reasonable recommendations reminded me of a policeman at the scene of a crash. Concerned onlookers want to know what has happened and why, but the policeman politely shuffles them off, saying, “Nothing to see here. Just an unfortunate incident. Move along, please”. Well, I am staying put. Yes, operational independence should be preserved, but reforms are needed.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Secretary, HM Treasury (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)]

My Lords, what an outstanding debate. I particularly thank my noble friend Lord Bridges for so skilfully opening it, and the Economic Affairs Committee. So many of its members have spoken today, and I thank them for their contributions, for the thoughtful and detailed way in which they carried out the inquiry and the report on the Bank of England, and for the breadth of witnesses they chose to interview. I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Moynihan of Chelsea chose a Treasury debate in which to make his maiden speech—of course, I am not surprised. He will make a great contribution to your Lordships’ House for many years to come, and we look forward to it.

Price stability is essential for a strong economy and, consequently, strong public finances. It is widely recognised that an operationally independent central bank is the best way to achieve price stability. That is why the UK enshrines the Bank of England’s operational independence in law, with price stability as the primary objective of the Bank’s Monetary Policy Committee. The Treasury and the Government remain committed to not only independence but the objective of price stability, and I am delighted that I therefore agree wholeheartedly with the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and the noble Lord, Lord Livermore—not a frequent occurrence in my life—with both Front Benches also wishing to retain the independence of the Bank of England.

My right honourable friend the Chancellor wrote to the chair of the EAC in January this year. It is worth briefly summarising some of the commitments that he made in his letter. At the outset he noted the operationally independent monetary policy, which is so important within the broader macroeconomic framework, and indeed the importance of the separation of fiscal and monetary policy in the effective delivery of monetary policy. The Chancellor noted the negative impacts of inflation on so many elements of society and our economy when it is greater or lower than 2%, and he again resolved not to change the definition of price stability. This aligns with the view of the EAC, but it should also be noted that the Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank have the same inflation targets. The Chancellor also noted the Government’s previous review of the monetary policy framework in 2013, which drew the same conclusions.

The Chancellor went on to note the Government’s commitment to ensuring that fiscal and monetary policy remain aligned to support the Bank’s efforts to return inflation sustainably to 2%. This is in agreement with the conclusions of the committee. This has meant reducing the level of government borrowing in a way that gradually withdraws support from the economy, as demonstrated by the declining path for the cyclically adjusted primary deficit.

On the relationship between the Bank and the Debt Management Office—the DMO, which many noble Lords have mentioned today—the Chancellor noted that monetary policy and debt management are distinct areas with separate mandates and decision-making processes. Given the institutional separation of monetary and debt management policy, in addition to existing public documents clarifying the relevant governance structure, the Government do not consider that an additional memorandum of understanding between the two organisations is necessary to clarify their relationship further.

On the committee’s call—and indeed that of many noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, and the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos—for the Government to publish the deed of indemnity, the Chancellor reiterated in his response that the Government would not. The deed contains operationally sensitive information relating to government cash management practices. It is not government practice to release information of this kind, and nor is it in the public interest. However, crucially, the Government are confident that this does not undermine the transparency of these arrangements, given the publication of other relevant reports and accounts, in addition to public comment and costings from the Office for Budget Responsibility, or OBR, on this topic.

[Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)]

Can my noble friend explain why, then, the Governor of the Bank of England told our committee that the publication of the deed of indemnity would not excite people?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)]

My Lords, this has been an absolutely terrific debate and I thank all speakers who have taken part. In particular, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Moynihan of Chelsea on his maiden speech, and I very much look forward to his further contributions. In passing, I would like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord King, on moving from looking after the MPC to looking after the MCC, where I am sure he will root out groupthink and shoddy forecasting.

We covered an enormous amount of ground and your Lordships will be delighted, given that I am sure everyone wants to get a very late lunch, that I will not try to repeat it all. I will just summarise what I have heard by saying that I can sense broad consensus—I stress “broad”; there is not unanimity—on four key points.

The first is about independence itself. It is clear from this debate that the vast majority of speakers think that independence should be preserved. Some have questioned its contribution more than others, but as far as I can sense noble Lords think that independence should be kept. On the framework for operational independence, here I sense that there is a consensus that that framework is, as our report stated, under quite considerable strain. A number of noble Lords—the noble Lords, Lord Burns and Lord Turnbull, for example—spoke of the blurring of the distinction between operational independence and policy independence. A number of your Lordships referred to the blurring of the lines between fiscal and monetary policy. Why has this happened? Obviously, we debated that: the remit being expanded, QE and QT and the enormous fiscal and economic impact of that. Therefore, there seems to be consensus that there is quite a significant challenge we need to face on the framework.

The second area where there seems to be consensus is, pretty obviously, that the Bank failed to control inflation in recent years. Again, there was consensus on the need for much more focus on intellectual diversity, not just forecasting—although my noble friend Lord Lamont made a very good speech on that. We need to look at both people and process.

Area number three where I sense there is broad consensus—here I stress “broad”—is about what should be done. Let us just try to divide this up. There is performance: issues that need to be tackled to improve performance. I do not think there is consensus on the remit; I sense from noble Baronesses opposite that there is opposition, obviously, to some of the points that were made in our report. However, I stress—I will come back to this in a moment—that those differing views highlight the need for much more debate and scrutiny of the remit letter. That said, there is consensus that a lot more needs to be done on the hiring and appointment processes within the Bank, and again, for different reasons. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, has a different view to mine on this, but I think that we would all welcome that and, again, more scrutiny and accountability are necessary there.

The next area where I sense there is consensus is the need for more transparency and more clarity. I am sorry to have intervened on my noble friend, but I am still completely baffled as to why we cannot have the deed of indemnity published. It is an absolutely critical document. Billions of pounds are at stake here, and I find it very odd that we in Parliament cannot be told the details around the deed of indemnity. I find it extraordinary just simply to be told it is market sensitive when the governor told our committee a very different thing. We will have to return to that. Likewise, I think that there is a need for clarity on debt management. I will not repeat the points there, but I want to stress points made by my noble friends Lady Noakes and Lord Blackwell. It is important that, at times, we take a step back and ask ourselves whether we are absolutely clear as to where our responsibility for fiscal and monetary policy lies. As I said, I think this framework is being challenged. We should not see it as pickled in aspic. We should be courageous enough to ask questions about it, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, said. Challenge strengthens independence.

Finally, therefore, I think that there is broad consensus on the need for Parliament to up its game. Indeed, this debate, lasting three hours, shows the value of constructive criticism and challenge. I note what my noble friend Lord Gadhia said. Of course we need to be mindful of the tightrope between independence and accountability, and to be respectful of what operational independence means. However, that is no reason to say that we should not up our game.

Ahead of this debate, I asked the House of Lords Library to look up how many debates have taken place in this Chamber and the other place specifically on issues relating to the Bank’s performance. How many do we think there might have been over the last five years—10? There has been one in this House on QE, one Private Notice Question and none in the other place. I completely agree with what my noble friend said. There are opportunities for parliamentarians to question the operational framework of the Bank, the remit letters and so on. We are delighted to welcome the Governor of the Bank and the Chancellor to the Treasury Committee—or, in our case, the Economic Affairs Committee—but given the magnitude of the topics that we have been discussing today, enormous issues such as climate change and QE, is that really enough?

We may differ on the role and remit of the Bank, or on monetary policy, but surely we all agree that if we are giving these enormous powers to unelected officials, we need more transparency, more scrutiny, more accountability and more action in Parliament. Overall, reform is needed.

Motion agreed.