Bank of England and Financial Services Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Eatwell and Lord Turnbull

Tuesday 15th December 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Eatwell (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, this amendment seeks to provide the Treasury Select Committee of another place with the ability to stimulate the oversight function of the Court of the Bank of England. It may be helpful to provide some context for this proposal. The measures in the Bill, in so far as they refer to the Bank of England, return the regulatory scope and powers of the Bank to roughly the same position that they were in in 1997. From 1997 onwards there was, first, the transfer of many, though not all, of the Bank’s regulatory powers to the FSA, then the abolition of the FSA and the transfer of prudential regulation to the PRA, and now the subsidiary status of the PRA is to be abolished and its activities fully reincorporated within the Bank, so we have come full circle. After major institutional reforms, we are back where we started, with all the powers of prudential regulation being exercised by the Bank. Conduct of business regulation, amalgamated in the FSA from various sources, now resides with the FCA, but it should be noted that few of these powers were originally exercised by the Bank of England.

It is worth recalling that the Bank of England that we began with, prior to the creation of the FSA, was not a successful regulator. The Bank failed in the case of the Johnson Matthey bank and over BCCI, and so glaring was its failure with respect to Barings that the then Board of Banking Supervision commented acerbically that the Bank of England should try to understand the institutions that it purports to regulate. Regulation was taken away from the Bank because it had failed as a regulator. Then, of course, the new tripartite regulatory structuring of the FSA, the Bank and the Treasury failed dramatically in the financial crisis of 2007-08, so the FSA was abolished. At least the PRA can hold its head up and declare that its position as an independent subsidiary is being abolished in this merry-go-round not because it has failed but because of a desire to restore the unitary power of the Bank of England. It is neater that way.

What this tale of circular institutional reform should teach us is that there is no specific institutional structure that can guarantee to deliver regulatory competence. The all-powerful Bank that we are now recreating has proved in the past to be a regulatory failure, while the tripartite structure of the FSA, the Bank and the Treasury failed even more spectacularly. Given that institutional reform will not be a panacea, there is a powerful case for thorough parliamentary scrutiny to at least attempt to identify the failings when they occur, as we can be sure that they will. Moreover, I remind noble Lords of the words of the Treasury Select Committee of another place with regard to the original proposal that a supervisory board be established at the Bank. The committee said:

“The Bank is a democratically accountable institution, and it is inevitable that Parliament will wish to express views and, on occasion, concerns about its decisions. Our recommendation that the new Supervisory Board have the authority to conduct retrospective reviews of the … prudential performance of the Bank, should, if operated successfully, provide the tools for proper scrutiny”.

In Committee I asked the Minister if he agreed with the proposition that the Bank should be a democratically accountable institution. He failed to reply. I will happily give way now if he wishes to comment. Apparently he does not.

Therefore, the Treasury Select Committee argued, correctly, that proper parliamentary scrutiny depends on internal reviews of the Bank, not just on the external inquiries of parliamentary committees. Internal review provides Parliament with the “tools for proper scrutiny”. The reason is obvious. The court that as a consequence of the Bill will be invested with the oversight function has full information about the operations and policies of the Bank—a level of information that even the most assiduous Treasury Select Committee could never have. Indeed, the court has information which is not, and sometimes should not be, in the public domain.

My amendment would allow the Treasury Select Committee of another place to request that the court exercise its oversight function. Note, as the Minister said, that the court is not compelled to comply. The wording of the noble Lord’s amendment, to which my amendment refers, states that the non-executive members of the court “may”—not must—“arrange for a review”.

Let us suppose that the Treasury Select Committee’s request stimulates a review. What happens then? First, as the noble Lord’s amendment requires, a report or reports will be made to the court. To discover what happens next we turn to Sections 3C, 3D and 3E of the Bank of England Act 1998, as amended. There we find that the Bank must give the Treasury a copy of the report and that the report must be published, unless the court of directors decides that publication is not in the public interest. Finally, in exercising its oversight function the court must monitor the response of the Bank—including the court itself—to any recommendations made in a report.

I have detailed the path that any report stimulated by a Treasury Select Committee request might take in order to reassure the House that safeguards are already built into the structure of the legislation before us that will ensure that information which it is not in the public interest to publish at a particular time will indeed not be published. Yet even without publication, a request by the Treasury Select Committee may well stimulate an important investigation that results in valuable internal reform at the Bank.

The government amendment makes a valuable addition to the powers of the non-executive members of the court in the exercise of their oversight function. However, the procedure envisaged by the government amendment is such that investigations can be stimulated only by insiders—not what might be considered proper democratic accountability. My amendment will at least provide a pathway along which proper democratic accountability may be exercised: not will be, but may be. The Treasury Select Committee will be able to request that the court institute a review. That is just a small increase in democratic accountability but one that may well avert future regulatory failings. I beg to move.

[Lord Turnbull (CB)]

My Lords, I am somewhat puzzled by the amendment, because it seems to be a power which the Treasury Select Committee already has and already exercises. I will give noble Lords three examples. It called for a report from the Bank into Northern Rock, another one into RBS, and then—with some delay, appearing only three days ago—finally into HBOS. Therefore the Treasury Select Committee, led by the people who lead it now, does not need this power. It is perfectly capable of forcing the Bank to undertake a review and to reveal the contents to that committee.

Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill

Debate between Lord Eatwell and Lord Turnbull

Wednesday 23rd October 2013 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, we are slightly out of order because the noble Lord has not moved his amendment and started the debate. Perhaps the noble Lord would like to finish moving his amendment.

[Lord Turnbull]

I thought that I had started by begging to move Amendment 104E, but if I have not I shall do so now, and if that allows the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, to offer his clarification I should be very grateful. I beg to move.

[Lord Eatwell]

I usually try to be difficult. When I try to be helpful I am stopped. I was referring to the Bank of England response, published today, in which it says that,

“the Government’s legislative proposals in this area”—

this is referring to the senior persons regime which we talked about last time—

“will apply only to deposit takers but not to investment banks and insurance companies”.

So the Bank of England is clear that both the senior persons regime and, I presume, also the offences issue—for which I remember the same issue arose as to the definition of a bank—do not apply to investment banks.

Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill

Debate between Lord Eatwell and Lord Turnbull

Wednesday 23rd October 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Eatwell]

My Lords, this amendment, which I hope will become a new clause in the Bill, is probably the most important in the Bill. It defines whether we are really serious. If we are not serious, we will reject the idea of having a leverage ratio as one of the armaments of the FPC. If we are serious, the Financial Policy Committee must have this tool.

As the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, has argued, risk-weighted assets have been discredited as a measure of risk within the banking system. It is regrettable that so much legislation both here and in some of the discussions in Basel and in the European Union still use this discredited measure as a means of devising appropriate regulatory measures.

The leverage ratio is simple, it is clear and it provides a protection to the overall stability of the financial system; it provides protection for a resolution regime; and it provides protection for depositors because, with the regulatory determination of the amount of capital relative to the asset base of the bank, that regulatory determination pursuing those goals will have the effect of reducing an important component of systemic risk. It is not me who makes that argument; the Government did so in the Financial Services Act 2012. In defining systemic risk, that Act defines one of the characteristics of systemic risk as “unsustainable levels of leverage”.

If the Financial Policy Committee is supposed to be managing systemic risk and a component of systemic risk is unsustainable levels of leverage, why cannot the Financial Policy Committee have the tools to do anything about it? At the moment the Government are telling us that they will review whether the FPC should be given this particular tool in 2017. They will review it: we are not even sure that the Financial Policy Committee will receive the ability to manage the leverage ratio in 2017-18.

By the way, even if it does appear in 2018, the Financial Policy Committee and the Governor of the Bank of England will be given this tool just as Mr Carney gets on the plane back to Canada. We have managed to secure someone who the Government tell us—and I think is generally acknowledged—is a highly skilled central banker and we are not giving him the tools to do the job which he is asked to do in the 2015 legislation. I notice that it was said in the Commons Public Bill Committee that:

“The Financial Policy Committee cannot be expected to work with one hand tied behind its back”.—[Official Report, Commons, Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill, 26/3/13; col. 207.]

Not giving the Financial Policy Committee this particular power ties both its hands behind its back because it is, as I have already said, required to take account of unacceptable levels of leverage and yet it has no tool to do anything about it. The amendment of the noble Lords, Lord Lawson and Lord Turnbull, and of my noble friend Lord McFall, achieves that goal. Surely this is what is necessary if we are serious and are not overwhelmed by the lobbying of the banks.

[Lord Turnbull (CB)]

My Lords, I support the amendment and the account given by the noble Lord, Lord Lawson. I shall add a bit of background to this matter. For probably two decades, up to about 2004, the leverage ratio of the British banking system fluctuated between 20 and 25. It then rose, reaching a peak in 2008 of somewhere over 40. The Government’s wish that the number of the leverage ratio should not be greater than three implies that the limit of their ambitions is to get this leverage ratio back to 33, which is still, by historical standards, a very high ratio.

A very interesting chart in the Vickers commission report shows how risky people thought assets were. It shows that they fell—this is the assessment that banks put into their own models—between 2004 and 2008. How can anyone believe that 2008 was a year of greater financial stability? I believe the way this came about was as follows. You said in 2004, “I have a portfolio of commercial property and have not lost a penny on it in the past 10 years, so I will give it a weight of X”. You come to 2008, four or five years later, and say, “I have still not lost any money on this, which tells me that this portfolio is not as risky as I thought it was in 2004, so I will give it a lower risk rating”. What is happening all the time when you have an upswing is that, as the upswing gets riper and riper, the risk weights go down and down, until there is a crash. The whole purpose of having a leverage ratio is to provide a backstop to that. One or two people argue that we should run on basic leverage ratios alone but, in my view, both the leverage ratios—unweighted and risk-weighted—should run in tandem. Each provides a check on the other. Relying solely on risk-weighted assets leads you into the farce of banks marking their own homework and doing the opposite of what they should be doing by marking things as less likely at precisely the moment in the cycle where they become more likely.

Another argument that has come up in relation to 3% and 4% is that we must not get out of step with regulation abroad. However, when it comes to risk-weighted assets, the Government have accepted that they want to impose a higher figure—partly because we have more systemically important banks and it is important for a medium-sized economy running a very large banking sector for that sector to be safe. When you say, “Does that not mean that what we thought was a 3% figure should move pari passu”, the answer is, “Oh no, we can’t do that because we will get out of line with what everyone else is doing”. But if you can do it for one of these measures, why can you not do it for the other? I find that argument completely unconvincing.

There was a view in the commission that higher leverage ratios were a good thing. However, that is not what this amendment is about. Although we thought that, the amendment says that it should be the FPC that makes the judgment. As my noble friend Lord Eatwell has pointed out, the absurdity of hiring this super-duper, global-standard central banker and then not giving him this essential tool until the very point at which his contract ends is beyond belief. It seems an absolutely simple point that the FPC should start this. Elsewhere in the world, other people will be thinking about this and it seems very strange indeed to leave the Bank and the FPC unable to start deploying this measure.

There is an argument that certain kinds of banks, particularly those with low-risk assets, will find that this 4%, or the leverage ratio, becomes the binding ratio. People making that argument cite, principally, various former building societies. You have to look around and ask where the biggest failure in Britain was. It was former building societies thinking that they had a portfolio that was a good deal safer than it really was. Some of them also got into quite a lot of commercial real estate. Northern Rock, for example, would have been well advised to have followed a leverage ratio of this kind. If it turns out that the supply of mortgages is not adequate—although we are doing lots of other things to promote it—you might want to differentiate between one kind of organisation and another. That should be done by the regulator as a derogation from a world in which we are working with higher leverage ratios than the Government currently envisage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Turnbull]

This amendment stands in my name and in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Lawson and Lord McFall. It seeks to legislate for a remuneration code for banks administered by the PRA and the FCA and to provide some headings on its content. I shall speak also to Amendment 96 which seeks to establish a more stringent regime for clawback.

We can analyse this remuneration issue at several levels. Is a special regime needed for banks? We already have a regime for remuneration in UK corporates, partly determined by BIS regulations and partly enforced by the guidance issued by investors and investor groups such as the ABI and the NAPF. This remuneration structure has recently been reinforced by increasing the amount of disclosure and by increasing the voting power of shareholders. We also have—or have had—a remuneration code for financial institutions—going wider than banks—administered by the old FSA. Why should we go to something more stringent for banks?

The Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards took the view that a special regime for banks beyond that required for other financial institutions and listed companies generally was justified. Why was that? We identified a number of characteristics that make banks special. They are responsible for an essential service which has to be operated continuously and has, hitherto at least, created a presumption of being too big or too complex to fail, thereby creating an implicit guarantee which can be exploited. Banks are highly interconnected and can fail very quickly, damaging not just themselves but affecting people’s confidence in other parts of the banking industry and the wider economy. Banks are also very highly geared, as has been mentioned today. Their capital structure is not at all like that of the general run of FTSE companies. Equity counts for low single figures. Like the noble Lord, Lord Flight, I read Essays in Money and Banking in Honour of R S Sayers, and the ratios were vastly higher in those days. As a result, those running banks are incentivised to take risks and their shareholders are incentivised to support them. Therefore, I think you can rely less on countervailing pressure from shareholders to achieve restraint in bank remuneration.

Banks are also special in the way they behave. Total remuneration has increased hugely and takes a very high share of the total surplus compared with dividends, taxation, retentions, building up capital and so on. As has also been said today, cash bonuses have been paid on the basis of mark-to-market profits which, in the end, proved ephemeral. There is unlimited upside when remuneration takes the form of equity but, unlike the old partnerships which have gradually been superseded, there is limited downside.

If you accept the premise that there should be something special for banks, what should be the content of this regime? The first thing that should not be there is what the EU and the European Parliament are trying to put in: a limit on the ratio of variable pay to base pay. That is likely to be counterproductive, pushing up base pay and reducing the quantum which is provisional and, therefore, at risk of clawback. What should be there is something about the proportion of variable pay that is deferred and the time period over which it is deferred. The commission recommended that some, not necessarily all, could be deferred for up to 10 years, in recognition of the cyclical nature of banking.

Amendment 96 seeks to strengthen clawback. The terms “clawback” and “malus” sometimes get muddled up. Most of what people have said is strengthening clawback is better described as malus. It is where remuneration has been conditionally offered but not yet vested and there is still the option of cancelling the vesting. This clause suggests that, in the really serious case of a bank being run so badly that it fails and ends up being taken into public ownership or requiring the commitment of public money, even sums that have been vested should be at risk. Some of this could be pension money. If someone has paid for a pension regularly, through contributions, I would, by and large, say it was their money. However, we have seen instances where very large, discretionary amounts are paid into people’s pension funds precisely in order to put them somewhere where, hitherto, they have had immunity.

Those are the principal components of the amendments. You could go further. For example, Charles Goodhart has argued that it is a mistake, in the case of banks, to make variable pay take the form of shares because the shares are highly geared and it would be better if a significant amount was not in shares but in bailable bonds. This would limit the upside but that value would not be transferred if the bank failed.

What is the scope of these arrangements? How far down the bank should they go? They should certainly cover the senior managers’ regime. What is offered below that is not the licensing regime that we suggested which should apply to people who had the ability to damage the bank in some way. As it is set up at the moment, it could be any employee, which is a much less focused scope in terms of who is covered.

The other issue is about which parts of banking should be covered. We came across this argument and are still uncertain about whether it is those people who work in entities which take deposits or whether it should also cover people engaged in investment banking, which is the common sense view. Another amendment in my name attempts—probably unsuccessfully—to produce a definition which is wider than simply those who are in banking entities which take deposits. However, the noble Lord, Lord Newby, has written to a number of noble Lords recognising this problem and undertaking—I hope he will confirm this—to work with us to find a definition which covers the kind of people and activities that we want it to.

The final question is whether this all needs legislation. I can confidently predict the noble Lord’s response as we have had it at least three times today. I think he will say, “We agree there is a need for a special regime for banks and we agree on lots of the components that should be in it. We will work with you to agree the coverage, but we do not agree that it needs to be in legislation as the PRA has all the powers that it needs”. I think that is pretty much what is in his folder. Why is the commission pressing for legislation? In the whole of the financial crisis, two issues have infuriated the general public. The first, which we dealt with last week, is the absence or extreme weakness of personal accountability. The second is the sense that the bankers made the money but did not lose it in the bad times. They were incentivised to excessive risk-taking: too much upside, not enough downside. The public find the existing regime incomprehensible and they want something done about it. In particular, they want assurance that it cannot happen again. The way to ensure that there is no backsliding is to provide the powers proposed in my amendment. We should also set some of the parameters of what that covers.

[Lord Eatwell]

My Lords, we have already, on some previous amendments, begun to discuss the issue of the culture within banks and the culture which contributed significantly to the disaster in the banking system of the past four or five years. Nowhere does that bite become more evident than in the issue of remuneration. There has been considerable disquiet about the sheer scale of remuneration but this amendment, particularly in terms of the elements listed under subsection (3), goes to the heart of the matter which is the relationship between remuneration and risk-taking and the way in which remuneration systems incentivised, to an extraordinary degree, risk-taking which went way beyond the ability of the financial institution to manage it effectively.

If we are to persist with the banking structure we now have in this country, with very, very large banks—which are extremely difficult to manage—dominating the banking scene, then it is necessary to de-incentivise the risk-taking which did so much damage. That is the most valuable element in this amendment. The elements to which the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, referred are also important, but we need to provide a clear statement that a remuneration code will be developed which does not incentivise selling insurance or financial instruments that individuals or firms do not need. This has been a characteristic of banking in this country over the past four or five years and has been directly incentivised by remuneration structures. We have to remove that sort of structure by giving the FCA and the PRA the responsibility to develop a code, expressed here in quite flexible terms, without the excessive rigidity in current European Union proposals. This is a very flexible structure but it focuses on the exact issue of incentives and risk-taking. In that sense, I think that it could achieve an enormous amount in changing the culture in British banking and in ensuring that banking is more stable and significantly safer than it has been in the past.

Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill

Debate between Lord Eatwell and Lord Turnbull

Tuesday 15th October 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Turnbull (CB)]

I speak to Amendments 89 and 90 in my name. A recurrent theme in the reforms to which we have come back several times this afternoon and this evening has been to increase competition in the banking system. This should engage not just the banks but their regulators too. We tabled these two amendments, Amendment 89 relating to the FCA and Amendment 90 relating to the PRA.

The proposal for the PRA is to add an additional objective to promote competition in a way that is as far as possible consistent with its main duty of providing financial stability. The difference between the amendment tabled by the Government and my amendment is sufficiently small that I think we can accept their measure as taking us forward on that front. However, the parliamentary commission also believed that a change was needed to the architecture of the FCA’s objectives. I wish to put the other side of the case. A fear, which many in the financial world share, is that the FCA will give too much emphasis to bringing about change through enforcement, will wait until something goes wrong and then intervene heavily. However, the FCA, when properly directed, can be a very powerful force for improving competition.

As the Minister has set out, the present architecture has the overall strategic objective of ensuring that relevant markets function well, and has three operational objectives below that: namely, the appropriate degree of protection for consumers; enhancing the integrity of the UK financial system; and promoting competition in the interests of consumers. We queried whether the strategic objective did anything or even whether it could be unhelpful and could be used to trump or confuse the clarity of the operational objectives. Our preferred solution was to drop the strategic objective and promote the other three to primary objectives by deleting the word “operational”, thus ensuring that the competition objective comes into the front rank along with the other two. I am rather surprised that the Government have not supported this, particularly as they accepted the pro-competition logic in the PRA case. I was not convinced by the Government’s response with regard to providing a mission statement. My riposte to that is that the chief executive of the FCA thought the strategic objective,

“added little or nothing to the three operational objectives”.

He continued:

“You could argue that promoting effective competition in the interest of consumers and the market, enhancing the integrity of the system and ensuring an appropriate degree of protection encompass everything that is in the phrase ‘ensuring markets work well’”.

Therefore, if you can achieve something in fewer words and with fewer objectives, and the other one is largely redundant, I would dispose of it.

In my view the aspect of FCA culture that most people feel needs to be bolstered is competition. The current architecture is weaker in that respect than the proposed amendment. We have heard the opposing view from the Minister, but that is the logic behind the position which the commission took.

[Lord Eatwell]

My Lords, I remember discussing this at length during the passage of the previous Financial Services Bill. At that time, I commented that one could often detect whether a proposition made any sense by proposing a negative outcome. If we suppose that the duty is to make the markets work badly, that does not make any sense at all. Therefore, it seems to me that the strategic objective is entirely redundant and serves no useful purpose. Indeed, the idea of changing what were previously operational objectives into prime objectives places competition at that prime level and achieves the objectives which the Government themselves have argued are necessary. For some reason, this issue was never satisfactorily explained previously and has not been satisfactorily explained now. We should apply Occam’s razor and take it out.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Turnbull]

I shall speak also to Amendments 84, 85 and 86. I believe that my colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, may speak to Amendment 87.

For those who took part in proceedings on the Financial Services Bill in 2012 these clauses will be Groundhog Day—fighting old battles all over again. The arguments about accountability are familiar, were set out in great detail in the Treasury Committee’s report Accountability of the Bank of England, and rehearsed again in the report of the banking commission. This is not surprising, given the overlap in membership of the two groups.

The dispute can be briefly summarised. The Bank of England’s responsibilities have been hugely enhanced, and its accountability has changed—one has to concede that—but not kept pace. Not only has the scope of the Bank’s responsibilities grown but so has its nature. It is now not just responsible for generic policies such as monetary policy or financial stability; it also has powers over the lives and livelihoods of individual citizens and individual businesses. It is therefore important that its accountability keeps pace with those changes.

Just as important as the Bank of England’s accountability to Parliament is its ability to be self-critical. This is the key feature about which people were dissatisfied. The Bank should be ready to review what it has done, consider how successful it has been and draw lessons from that. One can see that at some time in the not-too-distant future, the Bank will need to review the whole exercise of QE, which involves the spending of billions and billions of pounds, and be able to review the policy candidly, even when the results may not be entirely satisfactory or the Bank thinks that it can make improvements.

Amendment 84 would abolish the Court of the Bank of England and replace it with a board of directors. This is the most eye-catching measure—after all, the court has existed for 319 years—but not the most important. In a sense, it is what you would do last, having made the other changes to signify that the Bank’s governance had conclusively changed. The court has some desirable features, which were noted in earlier discussions. It is a unitary board and is no longer chaired by the governor. When I worked for the Treasury, I had to recommend appointments to the court. However, it has come a long way from the old 16-member court, which was like an in-house focus group on which every region or interest imaginable was represented. It has been replaced by a 14-member court with five executives and nine non-executives.

The Financial Services Act 2012 genuflected in the direction of improving internal review by creating an oversight committee of non-executives. I would contend that that still does not go far enough. The central recommendation in Amendment 86 is not about whether the court should be a supervisory board or a board of directors; it concerns the abolition of the oversight committee and the transfer of its responsibilities from a committee of non-executives to the whole board—as I will call it—of the Bank.

We are seeking this change because we believe that the responsibility to be self-critical should not reside solely with the non-executive directors but should be fully embraced by the whole board, including the governor and deputy governors. Looking critically at one’s own work should be something that the governors embrace enthusiastically and not have imposed on them. It is illogical to praise the court for being a unitary board but with regard to this particular function —the function of review—to assign self-examination to the non-executive directors.

I should make it clear that, as with the oversight committee, it is not implied that the commissioning of a review is to be done internally. The board should determine in each case how best to conduct it—whether it is to be done internally with help or to be done externally.

The next important element of the amendments relates to expertise. The chairman of the Bank has hitherto been a highly experienced, highly respected, all-purpose FTSE chairman with an industrial rather than a financial background. Amendment 84 requires that whoever is appointed should have experience in financial matters and financial markets. However, looking at the advertisement that has just been issued for the new chair, I wonder whether it has really caught up with the change in the nature of the work that the Bank is now involved in. The words “prudential” and “macro” do not appear in the advertisement; nor do the words “central bank” or “knowledge of central bank work” or “knowledge of international financial policy”—for example, familiarity with the work of the Financial Stability Board. It still looks pretty old fashioned. Therefore, we are trying to change the nature of the people who are appointed to this organisation to reflect the new, wider role that it is taking on.

With regard to the new arrangements, this proposal is not meant to trample over current operations. The review work would always take place at a time when the operation was no longer critical, so there would be a clear difference between reviewing performance in the past and day-to-day operations.

Finally, the Treasury Committee and the parliamentary commission recommended that the board, or whatever it is called, should be smaller than the current one of 14 members. It was recommended that there should be a board of eight, including three internal members—the governor and two deputy governors—and four external members. Although the governance of the Bank has moved somewhat, my contention is that it still does not fully reflect the change in the nature of the work that it has to do.

[Lord Eatwell]

My Lords, we had a considerable discussion about the creation of the rather unfortunately named oversight committee, given the dual meaning of the word “oversight”, during the passage of the Financial Services Bill, now an Act. I am broadly in sympathy with the argument that the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, has made, which carries through the logic from the ICB or the Treasury Committee—I cannot remember which had the initial discussions—through the banking commission, looking at the overall problem of Bank of England governance in the 21st century, particularly now, given its greater responsibilities.

I should like to make only one major point, which the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, and his colleagues, including the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, might like to consider, and that is the business of expertise. I entirely agree that the chairman should be a non-executive with considerable experience of prudential or financial matters. That is fine. However, Amendment 84 then says:

“The persons appointed to be non-executive members of the Bank must have—

(a) experience in the running of large organisations and financial institutions”.

That would exclude a lot of people who would be highly desirable. It would exclude Sir John Vickers, for example, and that seems to me to be undesirable. I am very much in favour of academics being in these organisations, such as Sir John Vickers, and I would not like that area of expertise to be ruled out.

Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill

Debate between Lord Eatwell and Lord Turnbull

Tuesday 8th October 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Turnbull]

My Lords, in responding to the points that have been made, I want to make it clear that the commission is not seeking to use this Bill to reopen the position we have reached and try to get us back to a policy of separation. What we have is a policy of ring-fencing plus safeguards plus vigilance. I listed some of those safeguards at the start. If that is the policy we are on, we have to make the safeguards and vigilance work. In response to the Minister, I do not think that a process in which the reviewing is done by one of the key players in it, which is the Prudential Regulation Authority, carries any credibility whatever. Its work is important and it should be a contribution to a wider study, and the wider study should be undertaken by someone who is independent of it.

The other argument used by the Minister was that we do not want a state of permanent vigilance. I do not think that it is possible, in an industry which is highly innovative—reference has been made to the term “half-life”—that you can find one system that will last for ever and therefore you need to be able to keep an eye on what you have created and make sure that you are taking steps to keep to that policy until such time—which may be the point of the amendments we shall come to in another group—that you conclude that it is not working. But the search for something which you can just do and then simply routinely maintain is an illusion. If ring-fencing is to be the policy, it is absolutely essential that it is backed by maximum vigilance and some high-powered mechanisms for review. I really do not think that what the Minister has promised us today meets that requirement.

The Minister pointed out that there are of course two reviews here. The other one is much less important and serves a completely different purpose. It is to safeguard a bank that has been threatened with separation against the arbitrary behaviour of its regulator. You could ask why that is needed because there are other safeguards, but if you do not have it, you come to the question of whether the Regulatory Decisions Committee, which is a step on towards the tribunal, should be beefed up. However, that is a recommendation we will come to, which the Government have not accepted. I do not think that the lesser review, the Amendment 10 review, can be taken off the table. If you do that, you increase the case for Amendment 91, recommending a new RDC. My conclusion is that we have not reached an agreement in this area. The debate is interesting, but what it means is that a lot more work has to be done between the opposition, the commission, other members and the Treasury to get to a point of resolution. However, it is essential that the point we reach has a much more high-powered review mechanism in it than is currently set out in subsection (6). I am content to withdraw the amendment on the basis that further discussions between now and Report will take place and that there will be flexibility on the part of the Government in their consideration.

[Lord Eatwell]

My Lords, as I have tabled an amendment to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, I believe that it is for me to withdraw my amendment first and for him to follow. The noble Lord, Lord Deighton, has two objections to the process of review, both of which have, I think, been demonstrated to be false. He said that the first was to secure consensus. From the discussion today, he should be effectively disabused of the idea that the ICB has secured consensus. People have settled around the ICB as the best that can be obtained under the current circumstances, but there is a considerable degree of uncertainty about whether the ring-fence is actually a good idea.

The noble Lord also said that he wanted certainty, but he absolutely does not get certainty in this way because we are very uncertain as to whether this system will actually work. That is why his second objection—that time should be given for the system to settle down and work—is a very dangerous one. As we go through the process of implementation—if eventually Parliament agrees to these ring-fence proposals and implements them—we will discover by sheer practice where the lacunae may be, where things simply go wrong with unintended consequences, and so on. Unfortunately, we will be conducting an experiment and under those circumstances, it is very important that the sort of expert committee that the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, has proposed, focusing on the particular question of whether this works, with growing expertise and experience, should be in place to review what is happening as the process unfolds.

That is why in particular I was very nervous about one aspect of the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, with respect to the review not taking place for four years and then taking place at five-year intervals thereafter. Although it is “up to” four years, I would be willing to bet that the “up to” will turn out to be about two. None the less, my amendments were intended to ensure particularly that we have the expert committee proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, virtually in place as a standing committee with the expertise to guide us through what is going to be a very difficult and uncertain process.

Given the debate, and the views expressed around the House, this is a matter to which we certainly must return after significant negotiations have occurred between Committee and Report stages to try to achieve something of a consensus—at least on the issue of the nature of review. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 4.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Turnbull]

I very much welcome this simplified process. It took two steps for the Government to get there, but the prodigal son is welcome at any time. Let us pocket that. I said we would look again at this special review that the commission suggested inserting into the process. I noticed that the Minister was drifting on to the next group, and I thought I was going to introduce it, but let us come to that at the appropriate time.

[Lord Eatwell]

My Lords, I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull. I think this is a significant improvement on the procedures that were previously outlined. I have a number of exploratory questions about this procedure. First, the regulator essentially seems to be judge and jury in this respect. It was the role of the old Regulatory Decisions Committee and, I believe, the ambition of the commission with respect to its development of the Regulatory Decisions Committee to ensure that there was an independent step in any major regulatory enforcement. The main reason why that was introduced into FiSMA was because it was felt that otherwise it would contravene human rights legislation. Are the Government confident that this procedure does not contravene such legislation?

Secondly, with respect to the publication of notices, in the very thorough and welcome briefing that the Minister’s staff provided on these amendments, the Government argued that they would not accept the commission’s proposal that the existence of a preliminary notice or of various stages be publicised. Instead, it was felt that these matters should be kept “secret” until such time as any impact on Stock Exchange listing rules demanded publication that the group was being subjected to such a procedure. It seems to me that this is a slightly dangerous structure. It is a traditional structure of central banks. It has always been strongly opposed by securities regulators which believe much more in transparency in this respect. This lack of transparency is likely to produce rumour and false information in the marketplace. Consequently, if we are going to have this procedure—which I think is well thought out, apart from the one issue that I raised, on which I would like to have assurances—we should make it a transparent procedure because rumours and false information are really damaging to markets. Transparency is always to be preferred, even if that transparency may be extremely uncomfortable for the firm being subjected to this process.

Budget Responsibility and National Audit Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Eatwell and Lord Turnbull

Monday 6th December 2010 Grand Committee

[Lord Eatwell]

My Lords, Amendment 36 refers to Clause 6(1)(b) and seeks to remove the attempt to qualify Clause 5(2). I begin by confessing that, on close inspection, my amendment is imperfectly drafted. I did not wish to eliminate any guidance that the charter might provide with respect to the beleaguered Clause 5(3) because guidance is certainly needed there. However, if Amendment 31—or something like it—appears on Report, the qualification of Clause 5(3) will be unnecessary. The core purpose of the amendment is to remove the ability of the Government to use the charter to qualify Clause 5(2).

Noble Lords may think that the terms “objectively”, “transparently” and “impartially” are perfectly well defined by the Oxford English Dictionary and that no further guidance or qualification is required and, if they examined the draft charter, they would find that they were absolutely right to think that. Taking just one of the words which one would think would be easy to understand, I invite noble Lords to consider the charter definition of “objectively”. Paragraph 4.7 of the charter states that this means that,

“the OBR should not analyse or comment on the particular merits of Government policy”.

The problem is that the philosophical issue has been pushed on to another word because we now need a definition of the word “merits”, as I will illustrate.

In Clause 5(3), which we have toiled over for some time, the OBR is required—as we all agree—to consider government policies that are relevant to its forecasting duties. Let us suppose that the OBR demonstrates that a particular government policy results in an increase in unemployment—and one must give credit to the Government and to the OBR for now publishing unemployment forecasts—then, as it is universally accepted that unemployment is a bad thing, such an assessment will inevitably reflect on the merits of the policy. If it increases unemployment, that is a bad aspect of the policy and is a comment on its merits; it cannot be anything else. Therefore the definition of “objectively” has been qualified in such a manner that it no longer has the generally accepted meaning of the word.

If we accept the guidance of the charter, the OBR could not comment on what is happening to unemployment because employment and unemployment are universally accepted as merits and demerits. Trying to define these words is simply an exercise in exclusion and limitation. The words have clear, commonsense meanings. Moreover, as the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, told me earlier, the word “impartiality” in government circles has already been defined by the Committee on Standards in Public Life. A definition of the word exists in government life and it does not require another one. If the Treasury definition were contrary to that of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, that would be very disturbing.

The question is: why do we need this? The fundamental danger in Clause 6(1)(b) is the possibility of further guidance distorting the normal meaning of words that are fully understood in common parlance. It is far better to rely on common sense in understanding these words. The lack of qualification gives them strength; any qualification would seriously weaken their value. I beg to move.

[Lord Turnbull]

I support the amendment, at least in so far as it relates to Clause 5(2), for much the same reasons as those set out by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell. These words are meant to be drawn either from the seven tenets of public life set by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, or from the synonyms for them in the Civil Service Code. If there is any amendment to be made it is that Clause 5(2) should bring the words used into line with the accepted vocabulary that is used in these other documents. You would then dispense with Clause 6(1)(b) as it relates to subsection (2).

At Second Reading, the most telling criticisms that were made on an occasion where this initiative was largely welcomed, was the sense that independence was being granted with one hand by the Treasury and that another clause subtly began to claw it back, and that this somehow undermined the sense of true independence. We can dispense with this and, if any changes are desired, the wording of Clause 5(2) can be brought into line with the vocabulary that is used in these other statements of the values of public life.

[Lord Sassoon]

My Lords, I find this interesting because what the noble Lords, Lord Eatwell and Lord Turnbull, have said exemplifies why we need some back-up explanation of these terms in the charter. That must be the right place for it because the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, started by saying that we could rely on the Oxford English Dictionary definition of the three terms but then went on to refer to the usage given to the terms by the Committee on Standards in Public Life. That in itself points out that, even on his construction of how these words should be used, there are at least two sources. I have neither the OED nor the committee’s statement in front of me, but I would be surprised if they were precisely the same. Then the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, referred to the Civil Service Code.

In arguing for the amendment, the noble Lords have precisely explained the difficulty that we are in: however you do it, you go back to different sources for the meaning of these important terms. It is therefore important in the charter to try to tease this out. I agree that this could be done in a number of ways; it could refer to the OED, the Civil Service or a number of other things. However, this discussion has reinforced my view that somewhere we need to provide some guidance.

I shall give the Committee another example, very much in this space, about the kind of difficulty that we can otherwise get into, and this relates back to one of our previous discussions. The US Congressional Budget Office has an impartiality remit, but it defines “impartiality” to mean that it has to include analysis of policy proposals made by all political parties. I think that we all agreed earlier that that is precisely what we do not want the OBR to do, and that suggests to me that it is a reason why we need to give a bit of guidance in the charter for what the three critical terms mean. Indeed, Robert Chote himself, following questions on impartiality, told the Treasury Select Committee:

“I think you want to make sure that the remit of the OBR is agreed ex ante, rather than the subject of a contentious debate ex post on whether it is doing what people want it to do … if it is left to the OBR on its own to draw the line, there will always be people just below the line who will be disgruntled … which will reflect on the OBR”.

That was in the context of a wider discussion about the virtues of, and the need for, clarity.

Nothing is set out in the charter that can undermine the Bill. The guidance can relate only to functions conferred by the Bill; it cannot add to or distort them. Further, as we have noted, the charter must be approved by another place before it can come into effect. I have listened carefully to the debate, which has suggested to me that even those who say that we do not need the interpretation of the charter are actually using different definitions. I think that the charter is the right place in which to provide the OBR with the clarity that it quite rightly seeks. For that reason, and because the noble Lord admits that the amendment does not quite work technically, I ask him to withdraw it.