Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill

Debate between Lord Flight and Lord Barnett

Tuesday 26th November 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Barnett]

My Lords, the Minister has told us that the Government consulted widely and got agreement. Well, more recently, there were 300 professionals who were consulted in a survey and only 35 of them thought it would work. I do not know who he consulted. He also talked about the robust regulations. Who is going to supervise these robust regulations—the old FSA, now called the FCA? Is he confident that it can? I am certainly not clear myself, nor do many people have a lot of confidence that the old FSA, now the FCA, can do that job. He is confident, however, that it can.

My noble friend Lord McFall pointed out what Volcker said to that committee: the chairman of a holding company, of which some part got into trouble because of the lack of regulation or whatever—what would he do? I know what he would do. He would seek to save it. These merchant banks may lose money at times—indeed they have done—but most of the time they make a lot of money and do not want to lose it. They want it separated, but under the same roof, with one holding company. That is what they have got and are going to get under the new administration.

I cannot see this regulation working and would like to hear the views of any other Member of the House who has an interest in this.

[Lord Flight]

My Lords, can I ask the Minister whether I am right in thinking that the PRA would be the main regulator of the balance sheets of the two entities under ring-fencing, and not the FCA, which is about protecting customers? Secondly, if there were a Glass-Steagall separation, is the job not exactly the same, in that you would need to look carefully at a separate investment bank and a separate banking bank to make sure that one did not have things in it which ought to be in the other? I would have thought that the job of regulating would be exactly the same as under a ring-fenced structure.

Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill

Debate between Lord Flight and Lord Barnett

Wednesday 23rd October 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Flight (Con)]

My Lords, I strongly support these two amendments and the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Lawson and Lord McFall. I will add only the point that IFRS renders accounts virtually impenetrable, and fund managers have to convert them into a more understandable form of accounting to understand what on earth is going on within the organisation. I have been critical of IFRS for more than 10 years. The point was made to me initially that this was not a matter for Parliament but for the profession. It is of crucial importance to Parliament, because if it leads to things such as the banking mess, the nation at large is responsible. Secondly, as the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, pointed out, not only did it exaggerate profits in good times and create fictitious profits on the back of which excessive bonuses were paid, but it also exaggerates the other way in bad times, and therefore arguably can lead to an underappreciation of a bank’s strength. I had thought that France and Germany had some sympathy with this view and, notwithstanding other criticisms, I had been hopeful that the EU was looking to address this issue. I am disappointed that, to date, nothing seems to have happened.

I also make the point that, going back 20 years, Switzerland actually put a legal obligation on the auditors to do the compliance regulatory checking. The auditors were then liable if they had not done their job properly. I think it is a pity that Switzerland changed from that practice because I thought that it worked extremely well. I am not necessarily recommending it for this country but it was a novel idea, and the auditors ought to know what is going on within a bank if they have done their duty in auditing that bank properly. Switzerland has since changed its approach. Indeed, it was after it did so that Switzerland, too, encountered problems.

When the crisis broke in 2007-08, I asked myself: where were the auditors? Since then, candidly, there has been justified criticism of the regulators, but the issue of what the auditors were doing and why, and why bank accounts were so unsatisfactory, has not been adequately examined. I believe that the Treasury Select Committee has looked at this, but I am not sure whether it has done so in any detail. It is still quite an important issue and I believe that this Government should exercise pressure to effect reform of IFRS. In addition to the havoc it caused in the banking industry, it has also been significantly responsible for massive damage to our pension systems by overestimating the liabilities, especially when bond interest rates are artificially low. That has led to massive closure of justifiable defined benefit schemes. It really is a problem and it needs addressing.

[Lord Barnett (Lab)]

My Lords, I strongly support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lawson. I declare what I suppose is a former interest, as many years ago I was a senior partner in an accountancy firm of modest size—I say “modest size” by comparison with the three or four firms that audit banks or, indeed, any of the FTSE 100 companies. That firm became bigger since I retired, because it merged with a fairly large international group, but at the moment it is not one of the likely auditors of any bank, whether small or large.

The noble Lord who just spoke asked where the auditors were. That question arose constantly, and understandably. If a bank gets into that kind of trouble, what were the auditors doing over the years? Never mind dialogue with the regulators; what about a dialogue with themselves or with the banks? Something serious will have to be done by the Government or by the profession about there being only three or four firms which audit all banks or, as I said, any FTSE 100 company. It is a serious matter and will obviously have to be addressed. It has been broadly spoken about for years, but nothing has ever been done about it.

Amendments 92 and 104D relate to some extent to leverage, which is what Amendment 93 concerns, and to whether banks have adequate capital to do the job of being a normal bank. This clearly is a serious issue, which nobody has properly addressed. How do we get to the situation where other major banks can be called on to have some kind of competition for who does that auditing job? When a firm knows that it will have that job permanently, the likelihood is that it does not do the job as well as it could or should. That has been happening all the time.

I hope that the Government will listen very carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, my noble friend Lord McFall and others said, and what previous Select Committees said. This is an all-party issue, as the noble Lord, Lord Deighton, knows. I hope that he will be able to tell us that the Government will seriously consider what has been said today. If they cannot accept the amendment because the drafting is not quite as it should be—which I would understand—I hope that they broadly agree with it and will come back on Report with an amendment that does the job. We cannot just leave this; something will need to be done. I hope that the Government will listen very carefully today.

Financial Services Bill

Debate between Lord Flight and Lord Barnett

Tuesday 6th November 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Barnett]

My Lords, I strongly agree with much of what my noble friend has said. As I have said before, I have been extremely concerned about the new governor’s huge job. As my noble friend has spelt out, we would be giving enormous powers to that new governor. That is why I have expressed my dissatisfaction, to put it mildly, with the way that this Bill has been drafted. I hope that my noble friend will accept an amendment from me to his amendment; namely, that it should be available not only to the House of Commons but to Parliament. This House has scrutinised this Bill to an enormous extent. To say now that the appointment should be deferred only to the House of Commons is something that I certainly do not like. I hope that my noble friend will rearrange his amendment to accept the word “Parliament” rather than “the House of Commons”.

We will come later to the question of “must” and “may”, but I am very pleased to see that in this amendment my noble friend has put “must” rather than “may”. It is certainly crucial that it should happen, because the appointments are extremely important. Somebody should be doing the job that the current governor is not doing, and which he is not being asked to do. Now we are asking the new governor, whoever that may be, to do such an enormous job that some potential contenders have already withdrawn from the race—and understandably, because the job that will be asked of this man or woman is enormous. I hope to have the opportunity to propose an amendment a little later to reduce some of those powers, but for now I strongly commend my noble friend’s amendment, subject to my suggested draft amendment to his amendment.

[Lord Flight]

My Lords, I do not particularly see how having a debate about the appointment after the governor has been appointed does very much to improve accountability. Ongoing accountability is needed. The debate is whether or not that should be through the Treasury Select Committee, or whether potentially there should be much greater constitutional development in terms of appearing before one or both Houses of this Parliament, in the sort of way that occurs in the USA. I agree with the principle that there is a great deal of power, which needs to have some accountability. Looking back over the events of the past five years, there was certainly a period between autumn 2007 and summer 2008 when it was very clear that the Governor of the Bank of England was completely unaware that a major banking run was overtaking this country. A bit of accountability and some questions from this House or the other place would perhaps have stirred things up.

Financial Services Bill

Debate between Lord Flight and Lord Barnett

Wednesday 24th October 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Barnett]

My Lords, this is a big enough Bill without two more new clauses being put in it. I hope the noble Lord will forgive me but the amendment refers of course to the Banking Act 2009. Why have we got these amendments here? We have got a banking Bill wending its way through the House of Commons which will no doubt arrive here soon, so why do these new clauses not go into the banking Bill and we could consider them then?

The likelihood is—certainly I want to see it—that the present situation will be substantially changed so that investment firms, which are referred to in both these new clauses, are no longer part of the main bank. There will be a separate bank looking at investment firms so these amendments, it seems to me, are certainly very relevant to the new banking Bill. Why are they here? Perhaps the noble Lord could first tell us the answer to that one?

Are we now to understand that the Government are absolutely set on accepting the Vickers report? I have not yet seen the details of what they are accepting, but I hope the noble Lord will forgive me since there are enough papers to look at on this huge Bill without looking yet at the banking Bill. I am sorry if I am straying into areas I should not be entering—except that these two major amendments are related to banking. I wonder why they are here.

[Lord Flight]

My Lords, in relation to these proposed new clauses, can the Minister tell me where lender-of-last-resort doctrine stands with regard to this legislation? A brief piece of history I observed in the course of my career was that at the time of the collapse of Johnson Matthey and Barings, there was a change in lender-of-last-resort doctrine. Since the 1870s it had operated on the basis that, in the event of a run, the central bank stood behind any bank that was properly managed. It was changed to stand behind any banks which were too big to fail. That led on to moral hazard and cartel, and a lot of smaller banks like Hambros closed, resulting in much less competition. At the time I had conversations and correspondence with Eddie George when he was Governor of the Bank of England, who virtually said he agreed with me but it was the way the then Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer, Ken Clarke, had cast things.

Some of what the Minister just talked about touched slightly on the issue, but I would very much hope that the intent is to go back to lender-of-last-resort arrangements as originally intended, and as operated amazingly well for more than 100 years. I am not at all clear where we are.

Financial Services Bill

Debate between Lord Flight and Lord Barnett

Wednesday 18th July 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Barnett]

My Lords, the amendment stands also in the name of my noble friend Lord Peston. It is fairly self-evident, referring to,

“the need to inform and educate consumers”—

which I assume everybody is in favour of—

“with special emphasis on the unavoidability of some risk”.

Life is full of risk, certainly in the financial area— I hope that everybody accepts that. New Section 1C(1) states:

“The consumer protection objective is: securing an appropriate degree of protection for consumers”.

If the Minister is unable to accept our amendment, I hope that he can explain what,

“appropriate degree of protection for consumers”,

the Government have in mind. It is unclear to me what is “appropriate” in this case. I hope that,

“emphasis on the unavoidability of some risk”,

can be considered seriously. When my noble friend talked a little earlier about his experience in school, he said that he did not think that he would not have been terribly interested if anybody had taught him about financial affairs, but I think that risk would be fairly simple to explain even to most teenagers at school. In those circumstances, this amendment seems reasonable to me and I hope that the Minister will be able to accept it. I beg to move.

[Lord Flight]

My Lords, it strikes me that the Bill slightly buries “buyer beware”, which was in FiSMA, and that we are creeping towards a culture where a lot of people think that if they lose money on any investment they are entitled to compensation. I do not wish to be overly harsh but it is fundamental, as the noble Lord said, that people understand risk and graduations of risk. That is backed by financial education.