Financial Services Bill
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts Excerpts(11 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, this amendment takes us back to social impact investments. In moving Amendment 118AZA, I also very much support Amendment 121A in the name of my noble friend Lord Hodgson; it is also in mine. However, I know that he will speak eloquently to that amendment so I ask noble Lords to assume my support in the interests of the time pressures that we have today, and I will confine myself to speaking to the first amendment in this group.
Again in the interests of time, I will not go through the issues that define why social impact investment is so important and so beneficial, yet it currently feels very constrained. That has been done already, very eloquently, by my noble friends Lord Phillips and Lord Hodgson, both of whom are in their places here today, so I will talk within the narrower terms.
I want to make two points about social impact bonds, which are the primary form of social impact investment under general discussion. These bonds are, by definition, small. If the sector develops as it hopes, the range typically will be £1 million to £5 million. The bonds are small because they deal with very specific, local social problems, which might include building new social housing within a particular community or the resettlement of prisoners from a particular prison. That small size is key to understanding the regulatory environment in which these bonds need to live and thrive.
Secondly, qualified investors are not likely to provide a very large market for social investment bonds. Certainly the one that has been offered in Peterborough for prisoner resettlement is indeed funded by qualified investors, but that will be a less frequent occurrence. The real market for these bonds is people who live in the community and whose primary objective in purchasing the bonds is social good, with a financial return being secondary. That is the market that has to be reached if we are to develop this sector effectively.
That brings me to the problem that is addressed by this amendment, which is Clause 21 of FiSMA on the financial promotions order that sits underneath it. Under these rules a financial instrument cannot, in effect, be marketed except by an authorised person. Under the order there are a few exceptions but they do not apply at present to social impact investments. To become an authorised person requires going through a process that costs some £150,000. We have talked directly with the FSA and the FCA, with independent financial advisers and with others who do structuring, and there is a general consensus around that number. In a traditional investment, which might include a fund for £20 million, £30 million or £40 million, £150,000 is nothing. However, for a bond issue of £1 million, £2 million or £5 million, £150,000 is a very large amount of money and effectively makes it impossible to develop the instrument and market it to the general public. Therefore the rules as they stand make it impossible, in practical terms, for social impact bonds to actually be marketed to their primary would-be buyers, who are the general public.
That strikes all of us, I think, as a real flaw in this legislation and it has to be tackled. We have the irony that a charity could come to any Member of this House and say, “We have a very good cause. Please give us some money to fund this cause”—no problem with that at all. However, if that charity were to go to any of your Lordships and say, “We have a very good cause. Please give us some money and, no promises, but I will try to get you back your original investment and maybe even a small return on it”, that is handcuffs at dawn; it is actually breaking the law. That is an insane situation in which to be placed, but it is where we currently sit.
I say to the Government, to the Minister and even to the Bill team that, since the Government themselves are considering whether they should enter the field of promoting social impact bonds, I would hate to see members of the Civil Service finding themselves serving at Her Majesty’s pleasure as the consequence of having promoted these kinds of investments. It is an anomaly, and we seek to address it by this amendment. I will not pretend that the amendment is brilliantly crafted, but our goal is to get the Government to sort this problem out before the law of unintended consequences has a severe impact. This rule is already inhibiting the development of this market for no good purpose. It needs to be dealt with promptly, and I ask the Government to consider this issue seriously.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
My Lords, I proposed Amendment 121A in this group. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Kramer for her support. She has covered some of the ground that I wish to cover, and I will endeavour not to repeat the very powerful arguments that she has made. My amendment proposes inserting into the Bill a new clause with a further consumer protection objective, as stated in its subsection (a), in situations where consumers are,
“engaging in investment activity … to benefit society or the environment”,
so it comes at the problem in a slightly different way.
As some noble Lords will know, I have just completed a review of the Charities Act 2006. My terms of reference, given to me by the Government, were widely drawn. One of them stated:
“Measures to facilitate social investment or ‘mixed purpose’ investment by, and into, charities”.
My report, published a week ago, ran to 159 pages and contained 130 recommendations, a large number of which—15 or 20 or so—were concerned with social investment. I think that there is a great opportunity here, as my noble friend mentioned, and we are in danger of missing it.
So far my noble friend Lord Sassoon’s comments on this, no doubt written for him by the Treasury, are disappointing. As my noble friend Lady Kramer pointed out, we have this counterintuitive situation where you can give money but you cannot invest it. As long as you give it away and cannot possibly get it back, you are fine. However, you cannot say, “I will give you this money. I might lose it but I might get it back, and I might get it back with a small incremental return”, perhaps linked to gilts. You cannot do that, which must be counterintuitive. As the Government seek to develop social impact bonds—covering school exclusion, prisoner reoffending, getting people back into work—where charities and voluntary groups can do better than the state, which is therefore prepared to share some of the savings with these very effective voluntary groups, it must be sensible for us to try to find ways to facilitate the flow of money from the private sector into these sorts of schemes.
As we said in earlier debates, this idea is at an early stage, and there are many challenges. The first, not least, is to find some corporate form that can encompass all the different strands of funding: the charity itself, other funding charities, the Government and the private sector, which subdivides into corporate investors and individual investors. All these have different timescales, different legal requirements, different tax structures and different objectives. It is on the last of these—in particular, the objectives of private individuals—that I think we should focus and that my amendment seeks to focus.
Research suggests that if people could invest relatively modest sums—say, £500 or £1,000—in a social investment proposal with which they sympathised, with the possibility of getting their money back but no certainty, and perhaps with a modest incremental return, it would attract substantial support from across our society. One would hope that successful operators in this field might create a record of success that would enable them to raise larger sums of money and provide increasing services in the future.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
I am extremely grateful to the Minister for suggesting that we might be able to make some progress over the summer. His example of an industrial and provident society underlines exactly the point we are making. That is one of the areas that falls between the stools. At the moment it is neither a charity nor a proper regulated body, and this is exactly what we are trying to get at. We are trying to get our arms around this space in a way for which the present regulations do not provide coverage as regards the IPSs.
Lord Sassoon
I entirely accept that. However, the effect of these particular amendments would be to take away all regulation and protection. We certainly do not want to go from the current situation, which it appears people are already seeking to exploit, to one where merely because the apparent purposes of the investment were perfectly worthy and the overwhelming majority of promoters would obviously be people of the highest standing, others would be allowed to fly under their banner.
Financial Services Bill
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts Excerpts(11 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
My Lords, my Amendment 129ZA in this group follows the line of argument ably put forward by my noble friend Lady Noakes. It is about how we set the regulatory bar at a level that does not discourage and squeeze out innovation if it is too high but not so low that there is a free for all and loss of reputation. As someone who briefed me on this said, “This is the Goldilocks’ porridge issue: not too hot and not too cold”.
As my noble friend said, there is a danger of regulators becoming risk averse and, as she put it, having a low tolerance for failure. Innovation stifled because the bar is too high will not cause problems for the regulator because the innovation will disappear, but the failure of a firm trying innovation obviously does. We have a particular interest in the UK because our financial services industry is vulnerable; it is not backed, as is that of the US, say, by a very large domestic market and therefore we have to be smarter, quicker and more innovative. That is what my amendment intends to facilitate.
To give a real-life example of what I mean, some noble Lords may have seen the briefing from the Equity Release Council, which is the industry body for equity release, which allows individuals aged 55 and over to respot money from the property they live in without having to make any monthly repayments. They have a no-negative-equity insurance policy so that people cannot go overdrawn. This equity release is a thriving, growing industry with 150,000 customers and about 25,000 new customers each year.
We have discussed in this House the problems of funding old age. Of course, equity release enables people to stay in their home, either by withdrawing some equity to pay for care, or to make physical alterations to their home to make it easier for them to stay there, but it is not a concept that has taken root anywhere else in the EU, so if the PRA does not have a competition objective, there will be no formal requirement for the regulator to strive for this effective balance between financial stability and an appropriate level of market competition and growth. This could lead to the PRA taking the default position of, first, increasing capital buffers in response to any market issue; and, secondly, disproportionately gold-plating future EU legislation when transposing it into UK law, which could be to the disadvantage of UK firms.
As I say, this will be a particularly difficult issue where EU regulations are being promoted which effectively do not cover any country but the UK because the practice is not carried out elsewhere in Europe. Other noble Lords will have had other briefings; there was one from the Council of Mortgage Lenders that mentions:
“The uncertainty that the FCA’s product intervention powers can have the potential for stifling innovation within the market. There are few details of how these powers might be used and under what circumstances. It is crucial, therefore, that a clear set of governing principles are developed”.
Therefore the four sub-paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) of my Amendment 129ZA, which inserts a completely separate clause on Page 26, deal with the point made very ably by my noble friend, but do so in a slightly wider way.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
I ask my noble friend one practical question. I entirely understand what he says about the competition objective of the FCA on page 17. In his argument, that is a reason why it should not be on the PRA. There is no way that the PRA, without its competition objective, can overrule the FCA: that is, there must always be a competition objective in all cases where the PRA cannot outgun the FCA. If there are any occasions where the PRA can outplay the FCA, then of course the competition objective falls away, if there is not one for the PRA. Reading this, it looks to me as though there is a danger that the PRA will be the established centre—the capital centre and so on—and the FCA will be, in some senses, implementing what has been decided as a strategic framework by the PRA. If I have got that wrong, I am delighted to be put right.
Lord Sassoon
I do not think that my noble friend has got it quite right. However, I cannot hide from him the fact that we believe that, because it is right and goes to the heart of the flaws in the present tripartite arrangements, the PRA should have as its single objective the one that I have described. Therefore, the nub of his concern remains, and I cannot pretend that it is not there. All I can say is that we consciously want to have the architecture as I have described it. However, the mitigation—and I think it is an important one—is that the PRA must consult the FCA before taking any steps that could in any way harm the FCA’s objectives, including, in this case, the competition objective. I think it is a reasonable check on the PRA’s action, given the basic architecture which we think is important.
Lord Flight
My Lords, I address Amendments 130B and 144B. I am not entirely clear why these have been grouped together as they cover very different territories.
Amendment 130B reverts to points which I endeavoured to stress much earlier on in the process of this Bill: at the end of the day it is the consumer who pays the costs of regulation; the new twin-peak arrangements are likely to be inherently more expensive because they double up in certain areas; there is no shared overhead cost and there is not that much in the legislation which is at least there as a discipline to keep costs of compliance to a minimum. Amendment 130B seeks simply to write into the Bill that the PRA and FCA should use their resources efficiently and economically towards minimising the cost and burden of compliance on individuals.
Amendment 144B is in very different territory. The Bill provides for the FCA to have product intervention powers, which in the main I accept is a sensible proposal, because without those intervention powers time drags on before faulty products get addressed. In the mean time, consumers get hurt. However, it seems to me that everyone should be learning from that process. Therefore the amendment provides that the FCA should report annually on the use of these powers and on how it has complied with its statement of policy, including an evaluation of the outcomes of the regulatory actions and whatever intervention powers have been used.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
My Lords, I have Amendments 131, 132, 133, 134 and 135 in this group. I certainly support Amendment 130B moved by my noble friend Lord Flight but my amendments go rather further and are rather more prescriptive in their approach. They relate to the attitude, approach and culture of the regulator, which we have been discussing. There has been a lot of hollow laughter about culture in the banking system, which I understand, but the financial services industry covers much more than the banks—it covers the IFA community, the insurance community and Lloyds. I think that in recent years the regulator has moved from a reasonably open, even-handed relationship with its regulated firms to one of much greater risk aversion. Of course, I understand that safeguarding client money and avoiding financial crime are very important indeed, but the regulator seems to have forgotten many chunks of the introduction to FiSMA, which sets out other objectives, requirements and issues that it has to consider in carrying out its regulation. Nowhere has this shift in culture been seen more than in the relationships with the smaller and medium-sized firms. Very often these are firms where innovation and some of the most exciting developments are taking place.
Specifically, I should like to draw to the Minister’s attention three or four things which I hope we can agree are being practised in an undesirable way at present and which are regulatory commercial approaches that henceforward we should try to avoid in the structure.
The first is Section 166 inquiries—the expert person investigations. These were designed to be used rarely but there are now 840 outstanding. A rough estimate of the cost of a Section 166 inquiry in professional fees for the regulated firm is £100,000, although it could be £200,000. Therefore, we are talking of between £84 million and £150 million of costs, and that is without the cost in terms of the management time spent providing the information needed for the professional firm carrying out the inquiry on behalf of the FSA.
This is sub-contracting regulation. There is really no restraint at all on the FSA in undertaking these inquiries. Such an investigation costs it nothing; it simply has to engage a professional firm to carry it out and away it goes. That is without the Section 404 thematic reviews, and without TC4, which are the run-off requirements when a firm is closing down. Of course, closing down a firm requires some very difficult judgments to be made about what you will be able to realise from the assets, the time over which you will be able to realise them and the consequent costs incurred during that period. If you make a series of extremely negative and conservative estimates, then of course you can put a firm in a very difficult position and make it almost impossible for it to carry on.
Last but not least is the position of the SIF—significant influence function—committee. I should like to give a real-life example of this, which I want to use to underpin the detail of my amendments. I have recently resigned as the chairman of a regulated firm. In April 2011 we took on from another regulated firm a new finance director, who came with good references. In July, he was told by the SIF committee that he was not able to take up the role of finance director. I went to the FSA and asked why. It said it could not tell me as there was an investigation and it was confidential. I asked the FSA if it could tell him what he had done. It said it could not do that either as it was confidential. That was June or July 2011. He is still waiting to hear the outcome a year later. He cannot find out what he has been accused of and is in a Kafkaesque situation. This is the sort of culture and risk-averse nature of the situation we now find ourselves in. My amendments are designed to prevent this being carried over into the new structure.
In the regulatory principles to be applied by both regulators in new Section 3B on page 28, I seek to add “operational rules” after “burden or restriction” because it is the unofficial stuff that can be made extremely expensive and difficult. It should cover firms as well as people. In particular, in Amendment 134, after “proportionate” I want to add “reasonable and fair”.
I have just given in some detail—and I apologise for going back to it—the example of the SIF committee. I can see how the regulator could argue that, if you have a person who has been involved in a firm which is under investigation, preventing him operating might be proportionate but to hold him in limbo for 13 months cannot be reasonable or fair. It offends the principles of natural justice.
I hope very much that my noble friend, when he comes to wind up and reply to this important set of amendments, can give me some assurance as to how we are going to make sure that the culture going forward is more even-handed and better than it has been over the past couple of years. It is absolutely vital that the future regulatory architecture enables financial services firms to play an effective role in the economy. To enable this role to be fulfilled, the regulatory regime needs to take an approach that considers whether interventions are proportionate, reasonable or fair.
My set of amendments would address a number of concerns. There would be assessment of business-specific risks—for example, the insurance sector presents very different risks from those of banks and has a very different business model. If the regulators are required to consider whether their approach is reasonable and fair, they should ensure that consideration is given to whether it is appropriate to apply regulations drafted with banks in mind to other industries in the financial services sector, including insurance. Then there is the question of the culture. My noble friend has said many times that the Government wish to avoid the stability of the grave. A requirement to have regard to what is reasonable and fair will help to ensure the regulators take a more measured approach. For example, the PRA has signalled a desire to make greater used of skilled persons and external auditors in its approach to supervision. While you have to recognise that these are important regulatory tools, it is imperative that they are used appropriately and in relation to those firms which represent a significant risk to the PRA’s objectives. This set of amendments is designed to help these considerations.
Baroness Noakes
My Lords, I have Amendments 144A and 147C in this group. They are in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McFall, and myself. I want to start by saying that I support what my noble friends Lord Flight and Lord Hodgson have said in respect of their amendments.
My amendments are much more modest. They just deal with Schedule 3, which sets up new Schedules 1ZA and 1ZB to FiSMA, which deal with the much more routine aspects of the FCA and the PRA. These little amendments simply add one requirement to the list of things that the FCA and the PRA have to include in their annual reports to the Treasury. That requirement is to include an analysis of the costs and benefits arising from regulation for which the bodies are responsible. It is important that this report is then laid before Parliament so the issue is kept visible.
These amendments come from the Treasury Select Committee’s first report of this Session, as do others in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord McFall. The Treasury Select Committee has received a lot of evidence from the financial services sector about the rising cost of regulation—I have mentioned that once already this afternoon. I know that in particular the non-bank parts of the financial services sector feel that they are paying a price that cannot be justified by reference to the risks related to their own activities, which is why the issue of costs and benefits is particularly important.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
I return momentarily to Amendments 131 to 135. I am extremely grateful for the Minister’s comments and the comfort that he gave on operational rules and the exchangability of “person” or “firm” under the Interpretation Act 1978, of which I was not aware. On the point about “reasonable and fair”, I think that he said the firm could always take the regulator to the Upper Tribunal. That is not an answer at all. No firm, particularly not a small one, will want to take the regulator to the Upper Tribunal. That is only in theory an answer. There is no way that any firm will want to go through the risks—in publicity, time and reputational damage—to ensure that the regulator has been reasonable and fair. I am not asking my noble friend to come back on this; I understand his point; but his officials should not think that that is an answer, because it is not a practical answer in the real world.
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, I appreciate that the processes of challenge, whether it is by the Upper Tribunal or under the rules of natural justice, are very much back stops and expensive and difficult for firms. That does not mean that large firms have not challenged the FSA and in some cases been successful over the years. I am not sure that it would be any cheaper and easier if such requirements were written into the Bill.
It just remains for me to ask my noble friend Lord Flight to withdraw his amendment.
“(g) the need to ensure that each regulator employs staff with the necessary knowledge, experience and expertise of the sectors that they regulate, and of policy making at the European level.”
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
My Lords, Amendment 138C proposes a new paragraph (g) to the regulatory principles referred to in new Section 3B. It would ensure that,
“each regulator employs staff with the necessary knowledge, experience and expertise of the sectors that they regulate, and of policy making at the European level”.
The FSA has had issues in retaining quality staff in recent years, and recruitment will remain one of the biggest challenges facing the new regulatory bodies. A failure to address the issue of experience and expertise will undermine the introduction of the new regulatory framework—in particular, the proposed move towards a more judgment-based supervisory approach. The amendment is intended to probe the Government on how they and the regulators plan to address those staffing challenges.
I argue that there should be a commitment that the regulators will ensure that they recruit and retain staff with the necessary knowledge, experience and expertise to apply the regulatory regime in an appropriate and proportionate manner. It will be particularly important that the staff have a balance of sector expertise reflecting the range of industries that they cover, and that appropriate expertise is present at all levels and in all functions. Without proper staffing the regulators will be unable to make sound judgments about the strategies, plans and actions taken by individual firms. They will also struggle to understand the potential impact that regulations and supervisory actions taken against individual firms might have on the financial system as a whole.
Staff employed by the new regulatory bodies will also need to acquire skills and expertise to aid their interaction with the new European supervisory authorities. The ESAs will drive more of the regulatory agenda in future and it is essential that the new authorities play an increasingly influential role in the early stages of development and throughout the process governing the agreement of new regulation. To succeed in this area staff will need the necessary negotiating and influencing skills and require a high level of awareness of the political processes at a European level. We touched on this point during our debate on Amendment 96A, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, at our meeting on 10 July.
I have already referred in slightly unflattering terms to the significant influence of the function committee that authorises individuals on a case-by-case basis before they can take up their roles. A major part of the interview with the SIF committee is taken up with questions designed to discover if the interviewee has the necessary knowledge, expertise and experience. If this test is to be applied to those who run the financial services industry, it should surely also be applied to those who regulate it. I beg to move.
Lord Tunnicliffe
My Lords, I am somewhat surprised to find myself agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts. I have been involved in a lot of reorganisations and all too often people do not think about the human content of the organisation, the size of the jobs that they are creating and the extent to which a reasonable human being can do them—whether even an unreasonable human being can be found to fill those roles.
At first sight it is a matter of motherhood and apple pie. To try to get a feel for this Bill and speaking particularly about the PRA, I searched the internet and came across a splendid document by the Bank of England and the FSA, published in May 2011. It is called The Bank of England, Prudential Regulation Authority: Our Approach to Banking Supervision. It is written as a narrative and really it is a gripping one. All that the Minister says about the PRA is that it is going to be focused. It is going to be much more than focused. It is going to be based on a judgment-based supervision, and I quote from paragraph 15 of this document:
“The PRA’s proposed approach has, at its centre, supervisors making judgements, when needed, about current and future risks to an institution’s safety and soundness and about the action it should take to address these risks. It is recognised that this will mean that, at times, the supervisor’s judgement will be at variance with that of the institution. Furthermore, there will be occasions when events will show that the supervisor’s judgement, in hindsight, was wrong. This is inherent in a forward-looking system”.
This is a very significant intervention. Later the document describes the proactive intervention and at stage 3 points out where,
“significant threats to a firm’s financial safety or soundness may have been identified”.
It continues:
“The PRA may require any of the following actions: a change to management and/or composition of the board; limits on capital distribution; restrictions on existing or planned business activities; a limit on balance sheet growth and/or stricter leverage limits; and setting tighter liquidity guidelines and/or capital requirements”.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, is not with us at the moment, but he said that the PRA will not become a shadow director. It is pretty clear that I do not understand what a shadow director is, but this is a significant level of intervention. Then you look at the role. A lot of the time, the people in this role will be doing base-level supervision. Let us hope that we have some financial tranquillity. We are now looking for people who will be capable of taking that level of intervention at pretty short notice, interfering in major institutions’ affairs, and having effects which, it is admitted, could be wrong decisions. That will have to be done with enormous care by people of very high quality.
I am pleased that the amendment brings Europe into play. In front of us we have a very complex set of organisational changes. It is not clear how it will fit with Europe. There will almost certainly be a number of jarring edges. We need people in this organisation who are capable of overcoming the ambiguities and smoothing the path of the relationship with Europe.
I am sure that the Minister will say that this is not the sort of thing that should be on the face of the Bill. If I were in his place, I know that my brief would say that. Nevertheless, it is for the Minister to assure us that processes will be in place, particularly in the PRA, given the intention to use these powers, which already exist, in such a significant way to meet these very serious challenges.
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, I cannot answer that here and now, but I will write to my noble friend on that point.
Meanwhile, I assure my noble friend Lord Hodgson that while staffing is not a matter for the Bill—as the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, suggested—we regard it as absolutely key for the regulators themselves to consider. On this understanding, I ask him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
I am grateful to my noble friends Lord De Mauley and Lady Noakes and to the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, for their support. Inevitably, we get down a bit to motherhood and apple pie on these things. However, I say to my noble friend on the Front Bench that the reputation of the regulators will be made quite early on, because the firms will say, “Are these bodies with whom we can have a sensible, grown-up, informed, well judged set of discussions, or have they sent boys to do men’s jobs?”. If they send boys to do men’s jobs, the relationship will never recover, because the regulated firms will not feel that the regulators have the capacity, ability or knowledge to be able to make the informed judgments that this Bill expects of them. I will withdraw the amendment; however, my noble friend must emphasise to the regulators that this will be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. If they get it wrong, their reputation will be damaged from the start.
Lord Flight
My Lords, Amendment 140 and Amendments 140B, 140C and 140D are really about the same territory of the co-operation and collaboration between the PRA and the FCA. Amendment 140 is very concerned to focus on the actual, practical dealing with firms in everyday business; it seeks to avoid the making of,
“duplicate requests and the imposition of inconsistent requirements on such persons”.
Those in the industry will be moving from regulation by one body; virtually everyone regulated by the PRA will be regulated by the FCA as well. There is an inevitable tendency for duplication. As we will come to later on, some of that is not necessary. This amendment calls for an addition to Clause 5, which puts in the Bill the objective of avoiding such duplication.
Amendments 140, 140B, 140C and 140D are essentially about the memorandums of co-operation between the two bodies. With regard to Amendment 140B, there are certain exemptions which could significantly limit the territories in which co-operation is required. The amendment seeks to require that additional guidance be given which makes clear the extent to which these exemptions must be used to disapply the duty to co-operate.
Amendment 140C relates to the MoU, which is required to be reviewed regularly and published. However, there is no requirement in the Bill for the PRA and FCA to consult on the changes from year to year and this amendment provides that such consultation should take place. New Section 3E(8)(b) allows technical or operational issues relating to co-operation between the two authorities to be left out of the MoU, but I cannot see any particularly good reason why this is so. Again, this could have a material impact on firms, where important things end up being omitted. Amendment 140D redrafts new subsections here so that they only cover items where publication would be against the public interest, and removes the references to technical and operational issues as being able to be left out.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
I have added my name to Amendment 140, moved by my noble friend Lord Flight. I underline the importance of co-ordination and think some means of measuring the effectiveness of the co-ordination mechanisms and processes between the FCA and the PRA should be established. Some annual review would bring significant benefits, and changes could then be incorporated in the MoU that exists between the two bodies, and would help control costs.
As I am sure other noble Lords have, I have had briefings from London First and the Council of Mortgage Lenders stressing the importance of this co-ordination and the need for these two bodies to work closely together. One swallow does not make a summer, but a very large firm rang me up to say that their chief executive was having to have a get-to-know-you session with the FCA and the PRA, talking about the generality of the firm, but they refused to co-ordinate the meeting. The FCA said, “Come down here and we will see you one time but then come down a second time to see the PRA”. He is going to have to make two visits to these organisations. It is a swallow and a cost, but also denotes an attitude, which is the very attitude that I think has to some extent poisoned the present relationships. In order to work in a cost-effective and business-friendly way, the regulators have got to understand that these firms have to operate and cannot just be at the beck and call of the regulator. They have commercial lives to live and the chief executives of these big companies are busy men. It is not beyond the wit of man, and common politeness, for the regulators to be able to agree a common diary approach for what is a getting-to-know-you arrangement, not an inquiry about something relating to their own particular functions. I very much underline what my noble friend’s amendment says. There is an awful lot of work to do if we are not to set off down the wrong road in this very sensitive and potentially extremely costly area.
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 140A, which is in this group. It is slightly different but we did not seek to have it regrouped, just in the interest of time. Amendment 140A would establish in the Bill that the PRA and FCA are considered equal in status. We have a letter from the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, dated 18 June, which indicates that it is the Government’s intention to have parity of status, but I would defy anyone to read the Bill and come away with that particular conclusion. In the Bill, as your Lordships will be aware, the PRA has the right to veto certain of the FCA’s regulatory actions. I have no problem with that—it can be right and proper—but it reads over very quickly into a sense that the PRA is the superior body. The PRA is also part of the Bank of England family, a very powerful family. The FCA stands outside of that, which is right and proper. However, it creates the issue about the balance between those two regulators, particularly since the Governor of the Bank of England chairs the PRA as well as the FPC and the MPC. The FCA therefore stands in a different relationship to the governor and has a very different role. The governor is a very important individual in the international community in terms of public recognition and public standing.
Building a little on the comments just made about culture and behaviour by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, we must recognise that within departments there tends to be a sort of default behaviour to live in a silo. It is very difficult to persuade organisations to co-ordinate effectively with each other, and to have the kind of respect that goes with parity. Although there is a memorandum of understanding, a great deal of judgment is involved in that memorandum in terms of deciding when it is appropriate to share information, to consult and to co-ordinate. It depends a great deal upon attitude. I have been in at least two meetings with members who were a fairly broad representation of the financial services sector when it has been evident that the assumption of the sector is that the PRA is the lead institution and the tough guy, and that the FCA plays a somewhat secondary role.
This is of particular concern because of the range of financial services sectors that the FCA will regulate. It comprises 27,000 firms contributing £63 billion in tax revenues, providing over 2 million jobs, two-thirds of which are outside London. We must be very careful that it is not regarded as second class in its role. The London Stock Exchange is particularly concerned about this issue because of the role that the FCA must play in Europe. As your Lordships know, it has the seat of ESMA, which is highly significant. The UK market accounts for between 60% and 80% of EU securities trading but has only 8% of the vote on ESMA. Therefore, the status, standing and significance of the FCA will matter enormously in those European discussions which affect the City, the financial services industry, and the international world of finance more generally.
This amendment seeks to, in a sense, make it clear in the Bill that the FCA does not have second-class status and that it is equal in its standing with the PRA. It seeks to make sure that that then gets embedded into the culture of how these regulators relate to each other and co-ordinate with each other, and that the FCA has standing in international eyes, and is recognised by international regulators as the body they can appropriately talk to, and not as a body that they must go around in order to speak to the genuine powerhouses.
Financial Services Bill
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts Excerpts(11 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
My Lords, my noble friend has moved a very interesting amendment. We may be in danger of confusing two issues. The noble Baroness referred to impenetrable language. I quite accept that, but that is a question not of financial literacy but of improving the form in which the communication is made. To try and deal with financial literacy is a much narrower issue than impenetrable language. I support her entirely, but I would also add the form and content. How often do we get a letter from our credit card company saying that it is going to amend the terms in which the credit card is offered? It is four pages of closely packed print and what do we do but drop it straight in the waste paper basket. However, the company has complied with the requirement. In those cases, the famous phrases “less is more”—less information, better focused—is what we should be all about.
That is an important point though not exactly what my noble friend was driving at. I think my noble friend was driving at something designed to deal with people at an earlier stage of their life. In particular, it has relevance to Amendment 104C, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Peston and Lord Barnett, about the unavoidability of some risk. One of the issues that has somehow got about in the world is that we can actually insulate people from risk. When we have financial literacy lessons, we need to emphasise to everybody that there is no product anywhere that does not carry some level of risk. I am looking forward to hearing the two noble Lords on this issue in a few minutes. I have only one question on my noble friend’s amendment. Who pays for all this?
Lord Peston
Sorry—Andrew Haldane. I am not good on these things. Names are one of my Alzheimer’s problems. Mr Haldane says, in a typically short paragraph of his brilliant lecture:
“This evolution in the topology of the network”—
that is, the network of financial intermediaries—
“meant that sharp discontinuities in the financial system were an accident waiting to happen. The present crisis is the materialisation of that accident”.
Financial literacy means being able to understand those two sentences. I am not a bad mathematician but even I had difficulty with the topology of networks. That is the problem in this area. What you can teach at the level at which the noble Lord, Lord Flight, wants to teach, is very little indeed. As I said, that does not mean that we should not do it, but we should not delude ourselves that we can produce a financially literate population because most people simply do not have the mathematics to understand this kind of work. I cannot believe that anybody could write a non-mathematical explanation of what Andrew Haldane said.
Nothing I have said should stop us from trying—I am not going against the noble Lord, Lord Flight, on this—but financial literacy is not the easiest thing to achieve.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
Does the noble Lord not agree that two or three basic things could be taught relatively easily? The first is the impact of inflation and how it affects the value of savings. The second is the impact of compound interest and the costs and returns of borrowing. Those two subjects do not require the brilliant mathematics of which the noble Lord alone is capable. Quite realistic, real-life examples could be given to people in their final two or three years at school.
Lord Peston
I have had a little experience of this. In my younger days in the Treasury we tried to persuade senior Treasury officials that capital investment projects ought to be dealt with by discounted cash flow. We were talking to senior officials who were brilliantly clever, but it was nearly impossible to teach them even about compound interest. When we had taught them compound interest, they had no idea how to convert it into discounting. Again, I am not saying that we should not teach compound interest in schools—quite the contrary. All I am saying is that it is not easy.
Lord May of Oxford
I shall make a couple of comments in favour of the amendment. As I understand it, its general sense is to state that there is a duty of care. The medical profession and the legal profession have an explicit duty of care. An interesting seminar brought together economists, lawyers and philosophers in Oxford over the past year and a half, working towards trying to say something sensible about this. As I understand it, the amendment is intended to say that, of course, we have to understand that there are risks, but that we know of specific examples where customers have had cheerfully and aggressively marketed to them investment instruments that the vendor itself, Goldman Sachs, was betting against. The gist of the amendment—and other things that I would like to be in the Bill in a much more explicit and in-your-face way—is to assert that there should be a real duty of care.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
My Lords, I very much support the amendment, as I said when speaking to my noble friend’s amendment a few minutes ago. There is a real danger of failing to distinguish between risk and fraud. They get intermingled in the public’s mind. Clearly, fraud is absolutely unacceptable and needs to be chased down and prosecuted with all possible vigour. Too often, in this compensation-culture era, a risk that goes wrong is seen as fraud: “I should not have lost money”. One difficulty with the interesting concept, proposed by the noble Lord, of duty of care is that although you can explain very clearly to people the risks that they are taking, when it does not happen as you and they hope—things are volatile—they are inclined to forget that they were given the appropriate warnings. Our emphasis must be on making sure that risk is understood; and that fraud is unacceptable; but that the two are completely distinct. There is a confluence in the public mind, sometimes encouraged by the way that the newspapers report it, of two issues. There are plenty of cases where fraud has happened—that is wrong—but there are also cases where people have taken risks which they anticipated would deliver them huge returns. When they did not, because they were highly risky, they did not see themselves in any way responsible; they sought someone else to blame.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, I was particularly grateful to hear the words of the noble Lord, Lord May of Oxford. We will shortly come to a specific amendment about a duty of care. I hope that he will be here to repeat his words in 20 minutes or whenever we reach the amendment. I also hope that the Minister can pick up a briefing note that says “support”. His face tells me possibly not.
At Second Reading, I talked about caveat emptor, not having realised that it is no longer the accepted term. I have concerns about it because it is rarely used as an excuse for ordinary consumers to say, “Oh, I lost money”; it is far more used by producers to say, “Well, we told you so”, even if it was, as the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, said on an earlier amendment, on page 4 of small typed script of something that had been sent to them. I remain of the view that responsibility for ensuring that consumers know what they are buying rests with the provider by producing intelligible and appropriate information. We will turn to the issue of duty of care shortly.
The Joint Committee on the Bill wrote that, should it be essential for the FCA to have regard to the behaviour of consumers, the FCA duty should be amended as set out in Amendment 105, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Eatwell. As the Joint Committee stated,
“provision of information alone will not significantly improve consumers’ ability to make well-informed decisions. The information needs to be easily understandable and accessible”.
There is widespread suspicion that many purveyors of financial products deliberately try to keep certain customers in the dark. That confusion can mean that some, blinded by graphs and numbers, sign up to a product and later down the track find themselves caught by certain clauses and conditions of which they had, sadly, been unaware.
An issue just as difficult, of course, is the ability to compare prices and thus to shop around—an essential element of the much-vaunted caveat emptor, or competition, on which the Government rely to improve services. Martin Wheatley, the chief executive-designate of the FCA, has described the difficulty for consumers in comparing products such as bank accounts, which are structured in a way that makes it really difficult to establish whether the product is good value. We all know of practitioners who talk in terms so remote from the common-sense understanding of contractual agreements that people are unaware of what they are signing up to. This was undoubtedly the case with the recent interest rate swaps.
Asked whether firms had a duty to go beyond their legal responsibility to consumers, Mark Hoban MP said in another place:
“It is in the interests of firms to ensure that consumers do understand the products that they are buying because it then minimises the risk of problems further down the track”.
Although I agree with those sentiments, that answer seems to be about not having to pay redress later, rather than trying to prevent the mischief in the first place. Unless we do something to reduce such occurrences—today we have already mentioned PPI, personal pensions and mortgage endowments—we will have learnt nothing from what has gone wrong.
However, as the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Peston makes clear, it is not simply language—the “crystal mark” of plain English—that is important. This is about explaining the risk to which the consumer is signing up, or for which they are paying money so that someone else takes that risk in exchange for the payment. So they might buy a product that covers the risk of inflation but does not cover longevity, or vice versa. Or a product might cover their life expectancy but not that of their surviving spouse. The permutations are endless. What is key is that, in addition to the language being clear, the limits of the product should be clear so that—in the famous words—there are “no surprises”. If I buy a bottle of Coke I will know its size, volume, sell-by date and taste. Regulation has sorted out much of that. We need to give this regulator the ability to expect no less from the providers of services which they are selling to largely unsuspecting customers.
In the other place, the Minister said:
“The Government recognise that there can be significant information and capability asymmetries between firms and consumers”,
and that poor “provision of information” could be a key factor in,
“a consumer ending up with an unsuitable product”.
He therefore fully supported,
“the intention behind the amendments”—[Official Report, Commons, Financial Services Bill Committee, 1/3/12; col. 261]—
in the other place, and therefore the intention behind the amendment that is in my name in this group. I hope that the Minister will now go further than his colleague in the other place, who accepted only the intention behind the amendments, and that he will accept the amendments as they stand. If it would make him feel better, perhaps he could agree to the intention now and bring back a suitably worded amendment on Report.
Financial Services Bill
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts Excerpts(11 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, I was delighted to add my name to Amendment 139A. The excellent speeches which precede me really laid out the case, so I have just a couple of comments. Although the financial services industry is currently the target of very much justified anger, I hope that this legislation sets a regulator in place which will last more than a decade. I think that the previous legislation lasted pretty much for 12 years. We have to take the long-term view and make sure that it is fit for purpose for the long term and when the period of correction within the industry has passed.
It also seems that the language is carefully crafted in such a way that it did not in any way encourage the regulator to look at this as an opportunity to take more risk but as an opportunity to make sure that there was healthy and sustainable growth within the financial services sector. Perhaps I may give a simple example: in a few later amendments we will look at social investment, which is one of the new fields that are beginning to gather some momentum. That is an aspect of the financial services industry which has initially gone to Luxembourg.
The City now is expressing serious interest in the opportunities. Many institutions in the UK could use those kinds of instruments. But the regulator has not been aware of the differences between that sector and other sectors and, therefore, the sensitivity of regulation necessary to support the growth in a new area. I think most people would agree that we are not talking about unethical behaviour or the kind of risk that might be involved in some aspects of the more casino side of investment banking.
There are many areas where there is huge potential going forward. It will be absolutely essential that the regulator takes that on board and is a supporter of the healthy and sustainable growth of this industry, both to support the real economy and the many direct jobs involved with the sector.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
My Lords, I support Amendment 101A in the name of my noble friend Lord Flight about the importance of maintaining the competitive position and that that needs to be uppermost in our minds. But I am also attracted by Amendment 139A which has drawn in the regulatory principles that are to be followed by both regulators. It seems to me that here we will be starting to set the culture. It is the culture of the regulator that will have such an important impact on the way our financial services develop and the way the people who work in them behave. As my noble friend Lady Noakes said, it is important not just to see this through the prism of City eyes but to realise that there are a wide range of financial services in Edinburgh and the provinces of this country which require the appropriate regulatory framework.
Competition, by its nature, introduces novelty—novelty being something that the regulators tend to fear. It carries risk, but of course what is old and familiar is much easier to deal with. In a way, that is liked. But, particularly when established firms tend to draw attention to the risks of novelty, the regulator tends to back down. I am not suggesting that we should not take risks. We need to be risk aware but we must not be risk averse. There is a danger that in the pendulum within the Financial Services Authority and, no doubt, driven by the criticism that it has faced, we have gone to the end of the risk-averse scale. There is a great deal we still need to do in this Bill to provide the right framework and culture. I shall look forward to returning to this in amendments to which we will come shortly. For the time being, I am delighted to support my noble friends’ two amendments.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, this side of the House has already acknowledged the role of competition in serving the consumer. Indeed, we could do with rather more of it in the retail banking sector. A rather more creative vision of competition could address some of our concerns in that regard. For example, Age UK has suggested shared branches which offer a perfectly competitive environment, ease of comparison, and switching from one customer to another within the same location. We are wholly in favour of a competitive environment for the benefit of consumers.
That being so, I obviously support most of the amendments in this group. However, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Flight, why the first amendment is needed, given that it seems to put competition as a brake on the FCA. I worry what the driver is behind this. I hope it is not to protect bankers’ bonuses, given there are still some in the City who seem to believe that high wages and bonuses are a vital aspect of what makes the UK competitive in this sector. I would instead call on the coalition programme, which says the Government will bring forward detailed proposals for robust action to tackle unacceptable bonuses in the financial services sector. Amen to that, although I am rather sad that—I think it is today—the Chancellor of the Exchequer is in Brussels voting against such an amendment.
Or is the amendment drafted because there is a feeling that regulation is too burdensome? I hope it is not for that reason, but the Prime Minister has form in this regard. In 2008, he said he thought that the problem of the past decade was too much regulation. The current Chancellor also said, in 2006, that financial regulation was,
“burdensome, complex and makes cross-border market penetration more difficult … and it threatens the global competitiveness of the City of London”.
I hope that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer are now grown up enough to accept that it was too little rather than too much regulation from which we suffered.
I hope it is not—maybe we can get some assurance on this—the idea that international competitiveness should trump consumer protection. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, was much more concerned about the wholesale market. I think she will also understand the concern of consumers that this might trump the consumer protection aspects. Although we very much want this to be an internationally competitive industry, we do not want it at any price. We do not want a race to the bottom for moving wherever regulation is cheapest or less obvious.
In respect of Amendment 104A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, I know that Martin Wheatley, the CEO designate of the FCA, is very unkeen to have this duty. He does not think that in its intervention it is the function of a regulator to have to have regard to that as well as to consumer protection, and is concerned that it would create a set of conflicts. He said that,
“to have a specific UK competitiveness competition point can only lead to compromises in regulation”.
Perhaps the Minister can indicate whether the Government have the same concerns. Perhaps the “no regard” comment of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, is a better way of describing this, rather than making it trump some of the other aspects. I imagine the Minister will say something similar, because I know the Government, in responding to the Treasury Select Committee on this issue, while recognising the importance of a competitive sector, do not feel that these words would add much to the Bill.
Amendment 129 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Flight, is rather easier. It requires the PRA to consider the desirability of promoting the UK’s competitive position within financial services. We have no argument with that. London First I know is particularly supportive of this, stressing also the stability of regulation in financial services, which means no more change after this.
Amendment 110 in the name of my noble friend Lord McFall refines the FCA’s objective so that the integrity of the UK’s financial system includes the confidence that it generates within the UK, as well as in foreign financial markets. This would encompass consumer confidence, which would clearly be vital in rebuilding trust in savings and investment, so we are happy to support this amendment.
Finally, Amendment 139A in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and my noble friends Lord McFall and Lady Cohen of Pimlico provides that the objectives of both the PRA and the FCA should include consideration of the capacity of the sector to contribute to the UK’s economic growth, also supported by the CBI. As the coalition programme said:
“We want the banking system to serve business, not the other way round. We will bring forward detailed proposals to … create a more competitive banking industry”.
I am pleased to say that this is one element of the coalition programme that, again, we are very happy to endorse. Given that, sadly, growth continues to flatline under this Government, if ever there was a time to ensure that these new and powerful institutions focused on job creation, this surely is it, and we happily support that.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
My Lords, my name is down to four amendments, Amendments 104, 120, 137 and 139, and I support very strongly what my noble friend Lord Phillips has just said. I take issue with him on only one technicality. He talked about “not for profit”. I think the words should be “not for profit distribution” because these small organisations must be able to accumulate reserves for the bad times, for the contracts that do not go quite as well as—
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
I am grateful to my noble friend for making the point. He is absolutely correct.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
Apart from that, I agree with the thrust of his remarks.
I chaired the task force that produced Unshackling Good Neighbours, and I am glad to be able to tell my noble friend that we have already had the Government’s response and are meeting on 26 July to produce our follow up. The problem with this is not making the recommendations but making sure that they are followed through. As I have told the House before, I am completing the review of the Charities Act 2006 for the Government and will be publishing a report on that next week. The terms of reference for that review required me to consider the barriers to the growth of social investment.
This is a very interesting area. The market is immature and therefore carries with it some dangers, such as overexpansion, perhaps of too much money being raised before there are projects sufficiently ready to absorb that money, and of overoptimism. There is a weight of expectation about what can be done that we have to make sure is not disappointed. As my noble friend made clear, this idea has the capacity to transform the financing structures in the charity and voluntary sector and so radically increase the amount of funding and the number of people who will give support to those sorts of endeavours. As I have said elsewhere, how do we persuade someone who would give £50 to invest or lend £500? How do we turn this social investment chrysalis into a butterfly?
There are lots of regulatory challenges, and not all of them are in my noble friend’s department. Not all of them are actually for the Government; they are also for the professions and the sector. As my noble friend said, we need to send signals from this area because this is the keystone that will set in train other serious changes. Therefore, the enabling provisions contained in Amendments 104, 120, 137 and 139 are important because they recognise, and ask the regulator to recognise, the distinctive features of social investment and regulate appropriately in an even-handed way. The hour is late. I could go on for a lot longer, but this is important, and I very much support what my noble friend said.
Amendment 104ZA is tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter. That amendment is not suitable, because it requires the FCA to promote the growth and development of social finance and social investment. The role of a regulator is not to promote but to enable. It can promote good behaviour and good approaches, but it should not promote a particular form of finance, because that could lead to the disillusionment that I have referred to. I quite understand her good intentions, but they do not help us. Nevertheless, I very much support Amendments 104, 120, 137 and 139, and I hope that my noble friend will be receptive to this important part of the big society and localism, on which we as a party and a Government have placed such stress.
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, we will have to disagree on the construction of some of the words here. Taking some of the amendments in the group, I appreciate that some of them are couched in the way in which my noble friend has just elaborated. However, for example, Amendment 103 inserts into new Section 1B(4) the words “and society” at the end of a very critical recital of what the FCA must do. It says it must,
“discharge its general functions in a way which promotes effective competition in the interests of consumers and society”.
I accept that it is all driven with an override,
“so far as is compatible with acting”,
in a way that advances the consumer protection objective, but it would add something which is tantamount to asking the FCA to be proactive in driving forward the social objective.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
I am sorry. The hour is late, but that simply cannot be the construction. As I explained in my remarks, I could not support the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, because it said “promote”. The four that I have signed up to, and the only four, are the ones which are entirely neutral, and all they are is enabling. With the greatest respect to my noble friend, who has dealt with us with courtesy and kept smiling despite the most enormous amount of provocation, the fact of the matter is that a lot of what he is saying is about investor protection in conventional investments. We are not talking about conventional investments here; we are talking about social investments, where the parameters are entirely different. The Treasury will persist in seeing it as a profit-making type of investment, as opposed to a profit and a social return. It simply cannot get it into its head that this is a different type of investment. It keeps writing for my noble friend speaking notes that do not recognise that difference.
Baroness Kramer
I am sorry and recognise the late hour, but if we let this opportunity go we will not get it back again. I wonder whether the Minister will—even if it is afterwards—sit back and think through this issue. I am a simple person. I come from a banking background where you look at outputs. We know that investors are seriously interested in these kinds of products. We know that there is a need on the far side, whether individuals, small start-up businesses, charities, social enterprises and whatever else. In the middle we have a regulatory pattern of behaviour. If the regulation was not acting as a barrier, surely the outputs we would have would be a thriving community development banking sector, a thriving social investment sector, and a thriving social bond market. We can look at other countries and see these things in far more advanced states of development than we have. The conclusion has to be that the regulator is playing a significant role as a barrier in this process. If we cannot tackle that in this legislation, how on earth can we tackle it?
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
The FSA currently has responsibility for one particular sector of the social enterprise movement—the industrial and provident societies. I suggest that the Minister asks his officials in the morning to ring the FSA and ask how many people are working in the industrial and provident society section. The answer is half.
Lord Sassoon
I am not quite sure what happens to the other half of this unfortunate person.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, that is a strictly out-of-court request at the moment. However, if the Committee will indulge the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and myself, I will give him a short answer.
I am concerned, and those who have supported the amendment and the whole of the social investment sector are deeply concerned, that there is no single recognition in 168 pages of its special nature—not one single indication. I agree with them—others have made the point—that that is a profound omission given where we are, the financial sector we have got and the innovative drive and importance—potentially more than actually—of this new social sector.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
Does the noble Lord not accept that we have a very immature sector still? We have not got the right corporate forms that will combine the different streams of investor, whether it be a Government, a charity which is running the scheme, a grant-giving charity or private investors, who may be corporate or private individuals. We must be very careful not to put too much weight on the structure too early because if we arouse expectations about what it can deliver and it crumbles away, not only will the sector be disappointed but—dare I say it with my noble friend on the Front Bench?—the regulator will say, “I told you so”. We need to be very careful about that.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
I wholly agree. That consideration is not at all incompatible with the intent of this group of amendments—indeed, my noble friend has strongly supported the group. It is partly because I share his concern about the immaturity of this new branch of the financial sector that I want it to be incorporated within the regime that will follow on from this massive piece of legislation.
At this time of night and with this tiny number of people present, the Minister can be safe in the expectation of there not being a vote called, but I say to him that we must, by hook or by crook, have included in the Bill by Report some form of words which recognises this new sector and gives it proper allowance and scope to develop and thrive, because, as everybody agrees, including the Government, it has the potential to be hugely important in the future. If the Minister will agree to meet between now and Report, which I hope will be after the Summer Recess, we may be able to concoct something which satisfies the new financial sector and those of us who supported the amendment. I do not think that that is beyond the wit of man. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Financial Services Bill
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts Excerpts(11 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Noakes
My Lords, in moving Amendment 42A, I shall also speak to Amendment 62A in this group. These are probing amendments. Amendment 42A deletes line 38, on page 5. New Section 9F of the Bank of England Act 1998 sets up the functions of the FPC, and subsection (1)(c) creates the function of making recommendations. Amendment 42A deletes this function.
Amendment 62A deletes a lot of lines, but in practice deletes the whole of new Sections 9N to 9Q, inclusive, which detail the functions created by new Section 9F. The purpose of tabling these amendments is to probe why the FPC needs the power to make recommendations, and what the legal significance of this function is in practice.
When I first saw the Bill, I was mystified by the need to create a statutory power to make recommendations. I was not familiar with that being a requirement, so I did a little research. I seemed to find that this statutory power of recommendation-making is a relatively new phenomenon in legislation, with similar provisions in a handful of laws, all of which have been created since the Government came to power in 2010. I am beginning to think that this might be one of those constitutional innovations for which we have to thank our colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches, although I may be wrong on that.
The Minister wrote to noble Lords with an interest in this Bill yesterday, following the first Committee day, which I was unable to attend. In the letter he said that the Treasury has a common law power of recommendation, but that bodies created by statute need a specific power. I find that pretty odd, given that bodies created before 2010 managed perfectly well without a statutory power of making recommendations. Indeed, the Bank of England has managed perfectly well for over 300 years without any kind of power to make recommendations.
It may be just a matter of legislative fashion. One has to go with the times. The main purpose of my amendment is to probe what is meant in practice by the ability to make recommendations.
New Section 9N allows the FPC to make recommendations within the Bank. I found it difficult to get my head around making recommendations within the Bank. The FPC is a committee of the Bank’s court, and that is under Section 9B. Under new Section 9N, this committee can tell the corporate body in which it is housed what it thinks that body should do. What is the purpose of that? More to the point, what is the effect? The Bank, which acts through its court, fulfils its own function, and as far as I can see, those functions do not include paying any particular attention to what one of its committees says. I do not believe that the functions of the Bank or its court are changed by the Bill in this respect. If I am wrong on this, I know that the Minister will correct me. However, I am completely mystified about what making recommendations within the Bank means in practice. The Committee discussed the circularity of this in the context of the financial stability strategy under proposed new Section 9A, which covers the FPC making recommendations to the court. I must say that I was no wiser after reading both Hansard and the Minister’s letter on this point.
Proposed new Section 9O—9 Oscar—would allow the FPC to issue recommendations to the Treasury. However, while the FPC has to take notice of any recommendations made to it by the Treasury and has to respond to them—that is set out in proposed new Section 9D—there does not appear to be any reciprocal provision requiring the Treasury to respond to the FPC’s recommendations. If that is the case, why on earth do we have to provide in legislation for the FPC to make recommendations to the Treasury?
Proposed new Section 9P covers the FPC making recommendations to the FCA and the PRA—and does contain requirements for the FCA or the PRA to comply or explain their non-compliance. This seems to be the only part of the Bill dealing with the FPC’s recommendations that makes sense and has any real-world impact.
Will the Minister explain why, in drawing up the functions of the FCA and the PRA, no reference is made to their duties in respect of the FPC recommendations? If it is necessary as a matter of law to set up a power to make recommendations, why is there no requirement to set up a reciprocal duty or requirement of compliance with the recommendations?
Finally, proposed new Section 9Q allows the FPC to make recommendations to the whole world. The justification for this is that it may make recommendations to bodies such as the Financial Reporting Council. However, since the recipients of these recommendations can—as far as I am aware—do what they like with them, I fail to see the point of the provision.
I looked at the June 2012 FSR, which has been referred to already this evening. The executive summary makes either six or seven recommendations, depending on how one interprets “recommendation”. In six instances it states that the committee “recommends” that other people should do things, but in one instance it states that banks “should” continue to do something. I have no idea whether that constitutes a recommendation. In any event, most of the recommendations were addressed to the FSA—which will be the PRA and the FCA in due course—and two or three, depending on one’s interpretation, were addressed to banks. That is interesting because making recommendations to banks was not mentioned at all in the extraordinary recommendation-making powers, although clearly this will be an important part of their activity.
Perhaps I ought to be less worried about the scope of the recommendation-making power that is not bounded by space or time, because it appears to be of little substance. If my noble friend tells me that it does have real substance, we would look to constrain it in some way so that it did not include the ability to tell the whole world how to act.
In summary, this is a set of largely one-sided recommendation-making powers that might amount to something of importance—or alternatively, not much more than window dressing. We should be told. I beg to move.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
My Lords, I have some sympathy with my noble friend’s amendment. When the Minister replies, perhaps he will focus some remarks on proposed new Section 9Q, which is the declaratory piece about the whole world. It seems that either the parliamentary draftsmen are saying, “Because you said certain people were included, you must include everybody else”, or it is otiose.
It would also be helpful to have some suggestions about the sort of events and recommendations that might fall under new Section 9Q, so that the Committee gets some understanding of the purpose behind this clause, if it is anything other than declaratory, to avoid, for parliamentary draftsmen’s reasons, the view that, because certain parties have been suggested, by definition they could make recommendations to nobody else.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
Just to be clear, the FPC is going to make recommendations within the Bank, so that the governor of the Bank, wearing his hat as chairman of the FPC, writes to himself as governor—is that what will happen? Have I got this right? I presume that the two deputy governors will also join in and send it in one door and walk next door to receive it—is that right?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, that is broadly right. [Laughter.] We should remember that the FPC will be made up of a different group of people, including independent members, who will be making recommendations. Taking the example I gave of the supervision of payment systems, the FPC, with its independent members and statutory responsibilities, could be making recommendations to the Bank regarding its supervision of payment systems. It would therefore be a mischaracterisation—it really does not matter who signs a letter to whom, it would be the FPC making a recommendation to the Bank. To reduce it to a suggestion that the governor will be writing to himself would be a mischaracterisation of an important power that should have a degree of formality around it, in the same way that the FPC will be required to exercise its powers of making recommendations for other regulatory bodies.
Financial Services Bill
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts Excerpts(11 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Davies of Stamford
My Lords, I will comment on the two previous contributions. I very much agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. It would be quite wrong to put the FPC in a position in which it was simply a mouthpiece for the government policy of the day. It is very important that it is independent. In response to the views of the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, on competitiveness—the suggestion that the FPC should pursue competitiveness as an objective in itself—my answer would be that competitiveness is an intermediate objective, not something that one pursues for its own sake. If one has an obligation to have regard to or to pursue—we will come back to the differences in a moment—growth and employment, anyone pursuing or having regard to those objectives is bound to take competitiveness into account because without it we will not get growth or employment. Growth and employment are ends in themselves, unlike competitiveness; that is the distinction.
We have a menu of choices before us this afternoon. All three amendments believe there should be a link between government economic policy, particularly on growth and employment, on the one side and financial stability on the other. No one has contended—nor could they easily do so—that those objectives should be pursued totally in isolation from each other. However, of the three choices before us, the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham is the most coercive and creates an unqualified statutory obligation to pursue growth and employment. That is very dangerous because it is likely to result in a conflict of objectives. It is a great mistake to place in statute what could be regarded as contradictory objectives. The government amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, does not do that because the reference to government economic policy and growth is subsidiary to the obligation to pursue financial stability. The least coercive of the three amendments, and the one that I most incline towards, is that of my noble friend, Lord Eatwell.
It is particularly important that we should discuss this today, because the results of our discussions, deliberations and votes may have a very specific impact on the economy, about which we must all be very concerned. The situation today in relation to the pursuit of financial stability is particularly grim. There are at least a couple of areas where the Government appear, as of this afternoon, to be contradicting themselves very sharply and dangerously—namely, their policies on economic growth on one side and financial stability on the other. I will set out those two examples in the hope of carrying the Committee with me.
One is in relation to quantitative easing. The Government have promoted or encouraged the Bank of England to promote—in all events the 1946 Act makes it clear that the Bank cannot incur liabilities without the Treasury’s agreement, so the Government must be responsible—a policy of quantitative easing that runs into several hundred billion pounds, as we know. That policy was designed to encourage banks to increase their lending by automatically increasing their reserve assets as they received money from the Bank of England in exchange for bills and other instruments that it is purchasing under the quantitative easing programme. It has not worked at all and that has been very marked indeed. The Minister must have noticed the figures that show that the two quantitative easing exercises have not resulted in any increase in bank lending. The bank lending figures do not seem to correlate at all to quantitative easing. The Government need urgently to ask themselves why that is.
One of the extraordinarily perverse and, frankly, foolish aspects of the quantitative easing programme is that the Bank of England is paying the clearing banks or the commercial banks for the deposits that result from the programme. Its whole purpose was to encourage banks to lend and to encourage an increase in the money supply—in M3 or M4. That has not occurred because the banks have been keeping their deposits at the Bank of England. They are not using them under the fractional reserve banking system to leverage out and increase their lending to the rest of the economy, to the private sector. It is extraordinarily foolish to pay interest on deposits at the Bank of England because that reduces the opportunity cost to the banks of not lending—of not responding to the quantitative easing programme by increasing their lending.
When the Minister responds to the debate, can he first tell me the amount of interest—I am not sure whether it is 50 or 75 basis points—paid by the Bank of England on these reserve assets and deposits, which is a completely wrong thing to do? Secondly, why is the Bank acting so perversely? If it did not pay any interest on those deposits, there would be a much greater financial incentive on the banks, given that they would not be earning anything on that aspect of their assets, to lend more to the private sector, which they are noticeably not doing. Had the Bank decided, under the quantitative easing programme, not to buy in instruments from the banking system—the financial institutions—but to go out into the market and buy instruments, such as short-term gilts at the short end or Treasury bills and so on, from the non-financial private sector, it would have automatically increased the money supply. The Bank did not do that, and I do not know why the Government did not decide to do it that way. The way that the Government have done it seems to be somewhat contradictory and it certainly has not produced the desired result.
The Minister will not be surprised to hear my second point because I have made it two or three times already in this Chamber. It is contradictory to pursue a policy of encouraging bank lending to move the economy to greater growth, while at the same time forcing the banks to increase their capital ratios. In an ideal world, it would be a good idea for the banks to increase their capital ratios. It is something that we should have been doing in the good times when banks were running up their assets, perhaps to an excessive level in both quantity, which was too great in relation to their capital resources, and quality, which was subject to the law of diminishing returns as the assets were increased in the boom times. Those were the days when we should have been pursuing such a course. Of course I recognise that the Government of which I was privileged to be a member was in power at that stage, but the Tory party and members of the coalition cannot claim any virtue in this matter, given that, far from urging us at the time to bring in any such measures, they were always urging us to deregulate the banks further. Nevertheless, we are dangerously pressing on the accelerator and the brake at the same time.
The Minister normally replies to me by saying, “It doesn’t matter. These new capital ratios do not have to come into effect until 2018”. That is a somewhat naive approach. Anyone who has sat on the board of a bank, as I have, knows that if you know you have to achieve certain capital ratios in five years’ time, that is the trajectory that you have to pursue from now until the end of that period. In other words, it constrains you in your lending. It means that you have to be much more selective in the loans you take on because you are concerned that otherwise you will not reach the target that has been imposed on you. I recognise it is very difficult, with the present state of the financial markets both here and in the eurozone, to go back on an announced programme of strengthening the capital ratios of banks.
However, it is an almost textbook example—which will probably be cited in business schools and seminars in economics departments for several decades to come—of the Government pursuing two completely contradictory policies and now finding themselves in great difficulty. Even if they want to extricate themselves from this contradiction, they have already engaged in this particular programme and sent instructions to the banks, and it would obviously cause considerable problems in the financial markets if we suddenly announced that we did not want to strengthen the capital ratios of banks.
These are two good illustrations of how easy it is to run into a contradiction between the Government’s main economic policy objectives—which must always be to stabilise the economy, and in bad times, such as we are in now, to increase growth and employment—and the financial stability mechanism. From the menu of the most coercive, the medium and the least coercive amendments before us, I reject, as I have already said, the most coercive. I think that it is a mistake. I am fairly open-minded about the other two. It is very important that the FPC has an obligation to take into account my noble friend’s formulation of “other, wider economic objectives”. It would be very wrong of it to act blindly, as though it were in a watertight compartment. It may be that we can go a little further and place an obligation on it, provided that it is subsidiary to its main obligation in the view of the Government.
This controversy parallels discussions we have had in both this House and the other place. I remember the discussions in the other place 15 years ago, when we made the Bank of England independent, quite well. There were two great examples of successful independent central banks in the world at that time. One was the Federal Reserve system, which had a double objective statutorily imposed on it. Those objectives were price stability and employment, which in the short term can sometimes be in contradiction. It was left to the Federal Reserve board to resolve that contradiction. On the other side was the ECB which, basing itself on the Bundesbank tradition, had a single technical objective of price stability defined by maximum inflation rate of 2%. We had to choose between the two but ended up with something slightly between them, which may also be the right solution on this occasion, in this context.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, has given us a pseudo-economic lecture. I have to tell him that the lesson that will be drawn by future business schools will not be about the economic policy of this Government but about the economic policy of his Government, which led this country to the edge of ruin. That is the case that will be taught in business schools: how not to do it. It was his Government, of which he proudly said he was a part, that led us to the pass that we are now in.
Turning now from the general to the specific, the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, in his introduction, described—
Lord Davies of Stamford
I realised when the noble Lord said that I had given a pseudo-economic lecture that he was going to disagree with me. He appears to have ignored the point that I made, to which I should like him to respond. Although in retrospect it is true that the previous Government might have taken moves other than those they did on financial regulation and supervision—I regret that we did not but this is very easy with hindsight—at the time, the party that he was and is a member of was urging us to deregulate. It said that we were constraining the competitiveness of the City of London with excess regulations. I have no doubt that he would have been one of the first on his feet to object and protest had we increased capital ratios, supervision and the examination of the quality of the assets in banks in this country.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
I am very glad that the noble Lord appreciates that the previous Government got it wrong. The reality is that it was the macroperformance of the Government, which they now seek to blame on sub-prime lending in the United States, that left the country without adequate protection, not having taken adequate financial decisions in time. That is what a Government are supposed to do. It is the prime responsibility of the Government to make sure that the economic security of the country is maintained.
Going back to Amendment 34, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, he used, if I may say—in no patronising way—the attractive phrase, “leaning into the wind”, when he introduced it. Amendment 34 is stated in fairly general terms. It refers to,
“having regard to the Government’s growth, employment and other economic objectives”.
The noble Lord raised the issue of tension between that and the other objectives. Amendment 35A “leans into the wind” rather better than the noble Lord’s amendment. It refers to,
“contributing to the achievement by the Bank of the Financial Stability Objective, and … subject to that, supporting the economic policy of Her Majesty’s Government”.
That is a much more precise way of approaching this than the rather more general way that the noble Lord explained in his amendment. I am comfortable with Amendment 35A. It is more specific and purposive than Amendment 34 and does not contain the coercive elements of Amendment 35, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, with whom I agree on many other things but with whom I do not agree on this occasion.
Financial Services Bill
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts Excerpts(11 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
My Lords, I found this amendment attractive because it seemed to be very direct and to provide a very important check. Having served on the boards of companies, it is extraordinary how often you find in the post-investment assessment report, which is what we are talking about here, that you have not quite landed up where you thought you were going when you set the policy and made the decision in the first place. That is a very important issue. As my noble friend Lord Flight has just said, the court is the body responsible, and it is perfectly possible when dealing with a matter that may be sensitive, such as individual directors’ conduct, for appropriate arrangements to be made to avoid that. I am not entirely convinced of the need for an oversight committee, and I am not sure that it cannot be carried out within the arrangements of the court as it stands.
I am very grateful to my noble friend for the extensive answer that he gave. Perhaps I might raise one point about proposed new Section 3D, on publication. Subsection (1) of the proposed new section says:
“The Bank must give the Treasury a copy”.
I do not want to sound cynical, but one wants to be able to ensure that this can come out unimpeded. One does not want to find that the hidden hand will be able to say, “Actually, it’s most inconvenient if you say this. We’d like this to be doctored, monitored, removed or dealt with in one way or the other”. The “public interest” referred to in proposed new Section 3D(3) is always a useful cosh to avoid things that are not necessarily against the public interest but may be simply embarrassing at the time. When he comes to speak further, can my noble friend give an assurance that my cynicism is unfounded and can he address the point made by my noble friend Lord Flight about the proliferation of committees?
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, I join with the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord McFall, and I have a couple of quick comments to make on this very substantial proposed new section. I have two queries on it, which I wonder whether the Minister can clarify. The oversight committee, as he conceives it, is to be chaired by the chair of the court. Am I correct in understanding that he expects this to be a non-executive chair? Although there is currently a non-executive chair of the court, the Minister will know that I have concerns about the Banking Act 2009. In Part 7 of that Act, Section 241 seems to be quite ambiguous about whether that is a requirement or merely in the gift of the Chancellor. If I am right, I hope that that can be corrected at some later stage of the Committee.
My second set of comments concern proposed new Section 3C(5), on performance reviews. When the cynics among us—I am afraid that I confess to being one—read a phrase that says:
“In the case of a performance review, the Committee must have regard to the desirability of ensuring that sufficient time has elapsed … for the review to be effective”,
the Minister will understand that there is an element of thought that that could mean the long grass, if we are not careful. Paragraph (b) of that proposed new subsection,
“to avoid the review having a material adverse effect on the exercise by the Bank of its functions”,
could be read as “no serious criticism required”. I would like some assurances from the Minister that that is not a possible reading.
The Minister will understand that some of those concerns are reinforced by widespread criticism of the delay, under the current banking structure, of the three reviews that were started in May this year. Seeing those reviews now in place, it seems an awfully long time since the financial crisis. There are also real questions about the scope of the reviews, particularly the review looking at the provision of emergency liquidity assistance in 2008-09. Many of us would have asked, “Why did this not start in 2007?”. Notwithstanding the fact that the Treasury Select Committee has looked at that, it is surely not a substitute for the Bank of England or the court doing the work itself. There are concerns in that area, and I look for reassurances from the Minister.
Lord Flight
My Lords, my two amendments follow those in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McFall, and are essentially probing. They up the stakes from having six members appointed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to having eight and require that all members of the FPC are,
“sufficiently independent of the Bank of England”.
To me, the issue is this: the FPC will be crucial. Its job is to detect things going wrong in the financial system and to direct institutions to put things right if they are in trouble. My view is that if the FPC is just part of the Bank of England, it runs the risk of being overdominated by what I will call the Bank of England establishment. It is important that FPC members are independent and, if they can be persuaded, may be people with central bank experience from other economies, who are the sort of people who will be good at the job for which they are chosen.
That gives rise to another issue which I have only just appreciated. The wording is slightly ambiguous. The implication is that members of the FPC must be directors of the Bank of England, members of the court. That seems to be slightly questionable. I am not sure that all members of the Monetary Policy Committee are members of the court. The FPC is parallel to the MPC in its role, and it would not be satisfactory if the Court of the Bank of England got to such a size that it was unwieldy. I question, therefore, and think it might be worth considering, whether there should be the requirement that FPC members are directors of the Bank of England. That does not seem to add anything.
However, the main point is to achieve a body of people that delivers the job it is there to do. It is not directly relevant, but I am mindful that the one banking system that entirely escaped all the troubles of 2007-09 was that of the Lebanon. The governor of the Central Bank of Lebanon, who is a very wise old bird and has seen many things before, spotted the trouble coming in terms of mortgage instruments and kept the banks of the Lebanon out of it all in good time. We want an FPC that, whatever the next problem is that faces us, will be capable of steering in that sort of direction. The wider the experience it has, the better.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
My Lords, I do not wish to upset the noble Lord, Lord McFall, or my noble friend Lord Flight, but I urge my noble friend to resist these amendments. If we look at the objectives of the Financial Policy Committee, it needs to be a pretty focused, pretty small body. Having 14 people, or 12 people, depending on which of those amendments one is addressing, seems not to lead to the operational focus and directness that this particular policy committee will need. Having four external members will give a perfectly adequate external perspective; more would be more likely to confuse than to illuminate.
Lord Burns
I argued at Second Reading that it would be very useful if we were able to get some balance between the way the MPC is formed and behaves and the way that this new FPC works. The MPC has existed on the basis of four internal members, four external members and the governor, which is a total of nine. The other important principle that has always been emphasised is that each member of the committee had to act as an individual. They were not there to behave as a collective body; indeed, we have often seen, in the case of the internal members of the Bank of England, that they have voted in different ways. I would see great merit in carrying over the principles of the MPC into the FPC, which is that there should be a governor plus equal members, excluding the governor, from inside the Bank and outside the Bank.
I have two questions to add. The first is, does the Minister understand that the arrangement will be the same as for the MPC, which is that the members of this committee are being asked to behave as individuals, and to have individual, rather than collective, responsibility? That is important. The second question is that, as I read this, there is scope for all three deputy governors to be on this committee. Will all three deputy governors be on the MPC? I cannot remember what happens. If that were the case, it would change the balance of the Monetary Policy Committee. The membership includes the chief executive of the FCA. I can quite see that he would wish to be present at the meeting, but it does not seem to me that he needs to be a voting member of the FPC, given that his responsibilities are somewhat distant from the FPC’s main tasks.
My main point is about individual accountability as far as the people are concerned, not an expectation that the internal members would be acting as a group. As far as possible, we should hold some kind of symmetry between how the MPC and the FPC are set up, otherwise I can see that, over time, there would be constant pressure, with one saying, “Well, the other one is set up in a different way—shouldn’t we move to that?”.
Lord Sassoon
I need every cheer I can get at this hour of the evening—I am very grateful to my noble friend. Let me press on. This group deals with various aspects of FPC membership, and I will address in turn each of the amendments that have been moved.
Amendments 21 and 21A would fundamentally alter the balance of membership of the FPC by adding either two or four additional external members. Following the advice of my noble friend Lord Hodgson, I disagree with these amendments for three reasons. First, the ratio of the FPC between Bank executives and non-Bank members is six to five, which closely mirrors the MPC, where the ratio is five to four. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Burns, I can confirm that as with the MPC, the FPC members will act as individuals, and that no change to the membership of the MPC is proposed in this. The MPC model has worked well, and is much admired around the world, and we should not fix something that is not broken.
Financial Services Bill
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts Excerpts(11 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
My Lords, when one is the 36th and last speaker in a debate of this length and quality, inevitably most of one’s foxes have been shot—in many cases, in fact, not so much shot as riddled. I do not want to trespass on the kindness of the House, especially at this late hour, by repeating familiar arguments.
I declare an interest: I am chairman of two firms that are regulated by the FSA, and until recently I was chair of a third. I want to make three points about the Bill: my gloss on the architecture; something about the philosophy and culture that are currently around in the Financial Services Authority and which I fear may be transmitted to the new bodies; and an area that has been less well covered today—the question of social impact investment, which is important for the future.
I first became involved in City regulation some 12 years ago. I was one of the first directors appointed by the Bank of England to the then new Securities and Investments Board. Experience has taught me since then, and I have served on regulatory boards since, that every crisis is always followed by cries to move the architecture around and change the bodies. Indeed, the SIB itself was the result of a crisis—a rather minor one by today’s standards—in that the Bank of England suddenly became enthusiastic when it found that, rather unpleasantly, its own pension fund had been adversely affected by the activities of a firm called Barlow Clowes. The Bank immediately agreed that there needed to be one central regulator, with subsidiary regulators that could carry on more specifically focused activities. In the end, there were three such: the Securities and Futures Authority, the Investment Management Regulatory Organisation and the Personal Investment Authority. In fact, this was a triple-peak regulatory system as opposed to a double-peak one.
Why did that system not prove successful? In a word, to follow what the noble Lord, Lord Desai, said: Barings. The overnight collapse of one of Britain’s most historic merchant banks caused ripples of concern. The need for reform was given further impetus by the view that the subordinate regulators were too introverted—my noble friend Baroness Noakes referred earlier to regulatory capture—and not sufficiently accountable. We have had echoes of that today, and no doubt we will continue to in our discussions about the Bill. It was felt that a unitary approach should overcome these problems, and the FSA was the result. Now, with the events of 2008, that in turn has proved to be found wanting, and we are now going back to a more diversified structure.
The danger of changing a structure in response to a specific crisis is that you create one that is too backward-looking. In essence, generals tend to fight the battles of the previous war. The three issues that I hope that we can explore in Committee are whether the structure permits or encourages peering into the fog of the future and taking preventive action; how the relationships between the FPC, the PRA and the SCA will be integrated and managed in a way that does not place a double or triple regulatory burden on the regulated firms; and, as many noble Lords have said, whether the system contains a sufficient element of accountability.
So much for structure. I turn to the second issue, regulatory focus and culture, which the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, referred to in his opening remarks, and many other noble Lords have referred to subsequently. In my view, the relationship between the Financial Services Authority and regulated firms has deteriorated in recent years. At root, the authority has given undue weight to just one of its regulatory objectives—protecting consumers. That is a perfectly respectable objective but one to which the authority has given huge weight, and in consequence it has placed insufficient weight on its other objectives, especially the need to weigh the cost of regulation, encourage innovation and consider London’s competitive position. In short, the FSA has become process-driven and risk-averse.
That focus on process has led to a number of undesirable consequences. First, there has been an increasing reluctance by firms to maintain an open relationship with their regulator. Any admission of weakness, however slight, is seized upon by the regulator, and no credit is given to the firms for having identified the weakness in the first place. That is an unproductive way to behave.
Secondly, there has been a dramatic increase in Section 116 investigations. Section 166 of FiSMA permits the FSA to require a skilled person investigation. It is clear from debates at the FiSMA proceedings that this idea should be used sparingly, but investigations are increasingly being thrown around like confetti. It is not just the cost of the investigation or the diversion of management time; it is the feeling abroad in the City that Section 166 achieved very little other than providing the regulator with cover, so that if something subsequently goes wrong he can say, “We had a Section 166 investigation. What more could we do?”.
Thirdly, and finally, there is an abuse of power—and I use this phrase carefully—by the SIF committee. Where a person has a particularly influential position in the company, he or she requires specific approval by the FSA via the SIF committee. The SIF committee is a star chamber. It is as simple as that. Individuals can be left in regulatory limbo for months. I know of one man who has been in regulatory limbo for 11 months without recourse or redress and without being able to find out what he has been accused of because confidentiality is required by the FSA while the procedure investigation is going forward.
This is the philosophy that is prevalent in the regulator at present, and it is one that may be transmitted to the new organisations. Therefore I agree with my noble friends Lord Hunt and Lord Flight when they call for proportionality. Looking through the Bill, I see Clause 5 and the references there, but we will really need to bottom out the practical implications of the statement of intent and what they are going to mean on the ground in the operation of the City of London.
I now turn briefly to my third topic: social impact investment. It is something that the Government are very keen to encourage but about which the Bill is almost entirely silent. The social investment process poses particular challenges for all trustees, as well as for grant-giving foundations, especially those with a permanent endowment, but the real regulatory crunch and challenge that is relevant to this debate lies at the interface between the charity and its individual supporter or investor. The missing piece in the jigsaw at present is the ability to approach individuals about social impact investments without the need for a full Companies Act prospectus, the cost of which renders almost any scheme uneconomic. We are therefore in the counterproductive and counterintuitive position that an individual can give his or her money to a project and be certain that he or she will not get it back, but he or she cannot lend or invest it if there is any prospect of any return at all. That cannot be a sensible way of proceeding to try to encourage our fellow citizens to put money behind social impact projects that this country badly needs.
I hope that in Committee we can discuss how we can help the social impact butterfly out of its chrysalis. We will need to create an appropriate position for the regulator and perhaps establish a class of individual supporters or investors, perhaps by creating a self-certified social investor along the existing lines of the self-certified sophisticated investor. To be fair to my noble friend on the Front Bench, it is not up to the Treasury alone. Contributions will be required from other government departments—BIS, the Ministry of Justice and the Cabinet Office—as well as, as we have covered this evening, from the professions: actuaries, investment managers and accountants. In my view, it will probably take a generation for the social impact investment movement to reach its full potential, but we need to plan now, and financial regulation, more than any other sector, holds the key, so I hope my noble friend will be able to help us during the passage of the Bill to speed this process on its way.
I do not doubt that the events of 2008 showed weaknesses in the regulatory structure and that we will need to give the Bill very careful consideration and examination in Committee if we are to manage to create the delicate balances between risk and reward and in doing so avoid hamstringing the dynamism of the City of London.
Economy: Government Policies
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts Excerpts(13 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend for giving us the opportunity to debate this important topic today.
With the passing of time, the reality of the economic record and performance of the previous Labour Government becomes clearer. Having inherited a decent economic situation in 1997, it is a pretty depressing story. To be sure, there were some nuggets amid the dross—the decision to stay out of the euro and handing over the setting of interest rates to the Bank of England— but the underlying theme was that the man in government, whether central or local, knows best. Complexity was piled on complexity, needing armies of enforcers. Measures were so complex that they often missed their target. They were presided over by a man who claimed that he had abolished boom and bust—hubris indeed.
Today, one of the most amazing features is the collective amnesia that seems to have overtaken the Labour Party on that whole matter. As the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, reminded us, the perilous situation in which we remain appears to the Labour Party to be nothing to do with its record in government but merely the result of a malign alliance between sub-prime mortgages in the US and rapacious bankers elsewhere in the world.
For me, the most depressing statistic of the past 12 years—here I echo my noble friend Lord Trenchard—has been the shift in employment from the private to the public sector. As my noble friend told us, more than 1 million jobs went out of the productive economy into the state sector, so that there are now parts of the country in which 40 per cent or even 50 per cent of the people employed are employed by the state. That trend leads to madness and is certainly no way to build a prosperous Britain.
I particularly welcome the Chancellor's efforts to rebalance the economy by stimulating private sector economic activity. It is true that because, as his Labour predecessor told him when he took office, there is no money, these measures are necessarily modest, but cuts in corporation tax, extending EIS tax relief, relief for small businesses from further regulation and so on are all very welcome.
Although the Government can set the mood and prime the pump, reviving the economy will need a much greater contribution from the private sector banks than there is at present. Here I follow my noble friend Lord Newby. When he winds up the debate, my noble friend will reply that the banks have promised to lend an additional £190 billion to SMEs. That is quite true, but stating the quantum is not the whole answer. The equally important issues are, first, the process by which the funding is obtained, secondly, the time it takes to complete it and, thirdly, to whom it is being offered.
The past few years have seen the end of what has been called relationship banking for SMEs. In prior years, the bank manager would get to know his customer over a period of years and would have a certain amount of latitude on extending credit facilities on his own initiative. Certainly his assessment of the credit-worthiness and likely success of the borrower would be taken into account in any lending decision. That is no longer the case. Now it is all down to credit scoring. The credit committee knows nothing about the business. It does not know whether the applicant has been a customer of the bank for five minutes or 50 years; it is all down to the credit score. In effect, the relationship manager in most of these banks now fulfils a function akin to the speak-your-weight machine that you find on a seaside pier.
Then there is speed. SMEs are time constrained. They do not always plan ahead as well as they should, so speed of response is very important. While it is true that the banks have made some progress in this regard since the darkest days of 2009, there is more to be done. Then there is the question of which firms will get the funding. Let me illustrate with a practical example. A firm of my acquaintance needs occasional short-term funding for one to seven days, usually of about £1 million. It is well secured and is therefore low risk. The firm decided that, in order to allow for a margin of error, the application to the bank should be for a credit facility of £2 million. You may imagine its surprise when the credit facility offered was £5 million and a covering note suggested that the bank would happily entertain a request for £10 million. Inquiries revealed that this lending would qualify to be part of the bank’s contribution to the £190 billion and because it was very low risk, so the higher the amount it could attribute to it, the better. I hope that my noble friend will monitor carefully not just the quantum of lending but the process by which it is made available and its destination.
This promise by the banks, like the Chancellor’s Budget, addresses the short-term tactical challenges. Looking further ahead, if we are truly to rebalance the economy, there will need to be much higher capital investments by SMEs in the future than in the past. This will require the availability of longer-term funding facilities than envisaged by the £190 billion pot. That in turn poses a challenge to the banks under the matching liquidity provisions envisaged by the Basel 3 proposals. I trust that the Government are keeping this longer-term issue firmly in mind as they navigate their way through the choppy short-term seas.
Financial Crime: Legislation
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts Excerpts(13 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to be the first to congratulate my noble friend on her extremely and expectedly impressive speech. She has given us the grand sweep, as I would have expected. I am afraid that I will take a slightly different tack. I will give a worm’s-eye view. Before I adopt the position of the worm, I need to declare some interests, because I am a director of, and am involved with, companies that export goods and services around the world. I am anxious about some of the practical implications of the Bribery Act and the money-laundering regulations. However, I shall focus on the bribery ambiguities to which my noble friend referred a few minutes ago.
To cut to the chase, I urge my noble friend the Minister, who was for a number of years our distinguished representative on the Financial Action Task Force, to hold his nerve, continue with the period of consultation and extend it if necessary, because it is absolutely vital that we get the guidance right, particularly in respect of small and medium-sized businesses, which are not surrounded by armies of lawyers and advisers to provide them with comfort.
I do not want my noble friend to think that I am soft on bribery. It corrupts the recipient and also the giver. In my experience, firms that are slack about oversees payments are often slack about internal procedures such as management expenses, and sometimes confuse what is the company's—the shareholders’—money and what is the management’s. But—and this is a very big but—the Bribery Act poses considerable challenges for UK-based small and medium-sized companies. The crux of the problem is Section 7, which creates the new offence of failure to prevent bribery and is linked to Section 8, which defines “associated person” very widely.
I will give the House an example. I am afraid that it is detailed, but it is the only way to explain the practicalities we face on the ground, where they do not seem as easy as they do in the calm and rarefied atmosphere of your Lordships' House. The company I have in mind is a mid-sized one. It has a good product and it sells well abroad. It is growing and is increasing its employment in the United Kingdom. In short, it is just the sort of company that politicians of all political parties wish to encourage. One of our export markets, which is not yet large but is growing, requires us to pay a transport tax. We pay that through our agent. I am afraid that it is not a tax in the conventional sense. It is a payment to customs officials and to transport union officials to ensure prompt and timely delivery of our goods. We know that our continental European competitors also pay it.
We are advised that when the Act comes into force, the transport tax will constitute a bribe. We do not know whether any comparable legislation will affect our continental competitors; we think probably not. My noble friend referred to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act in the United States. We know that they will get round this because that Act has a specific carve-out for “facilitation payments”, of which this transport tax would be one. Noble Lords may cite proportionality and ask what UK Government would pursue a minor payment of this nature. Quite so—but one Government might one day do it, and the prospect of 10 years in jail and an unlimited fine concentrates the mind.
However, our major concern lies in a quite different direction. In this market, our major competitor is local and does not pay the transport tax. He ships direct from his factory to the customer. We are advised that there is a considerable risk that this competitor, who will be aware of the transport tax, will make an official complaint to his Government that a UK company has been bribing individuals under the terms of the Bribery Act, and the UK Government will be asked to undertake a prosecution. Who knows what will happen then? My noble friend Lady Williams talked about ambiguities. There are many more like this. They are the sort of practical issues on which our legal advisers will need guidance before they in turn can advise us.
I will make one thing clear. If the guidance does not give us sufficient comfort, we shall withdraw from the market, and from others where we face similar challenges. We will leave them to our competitors. Exporting is hard enough work without risking the very grave penalties that this Act carries with it. Therefore, although we all, understandably and rightly, work ourselves into an indignant frame of mind on what I appreciate is a very important topic, please may we not forget my little company, and thousands like it, which are concerned with how to meet the requirements of the Bribery Act while dealing with the complex and varied demands of customers and social systems in highly competitive markets across the world.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
My Lords, in no year since the turn of the century have there been more than 25 successful prosecutions for bribery in England and Wales. Indeed, in 2005 there was only one. Those numbers are ludicrously small. Anyone who believes that the numbers reflect a standard of probity in British business that leaves little to be desired is suffering from an excess of complacency or an excess of naivety that leaves them blind to the reality. Those prosecutions were brought under the old legislation, which was principally passed in 1906 and 1889. Those statutes were plainly not fit for purpose. It is a mark of the lack of seriousness with which we have treated bribery, particularly bribery in a commercial context, that it has taken so long to replace legislation which is more than a century old and which produced such a limited response to serious criminal activity.
The OECD anti-bribery convention, to which we are now signatories, marked a milestone in international co-operation in stamping out bribery in international business. However, the UK’s response to its obligations under the convention has to date been mediocre at best. That should all have been set to change with the passage of the Bribery Act last year, yet this admirable legislation has not come into force and we are now entitled to be impatient. It was supposed to come into force last October. In September, a brief consultation on the proposed guidance was announced, which would last until November, with a view to commencement in April this year. The consultation paper had draft guidance annexed to it. In January, further delay was announced and further work on the guidance was said to be needed.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Justice says that we are back on track. He rightly says that corruption is bad for business and that we must be at the forefront of stamping it out, not only in the developing world but in international trade generally. That must mean that he completely rejects the argument that British businesses cannot compete with others that may be corrupt unless they, too, offer bribes. It is that argument that represents precisely the evil that the anti-bribery convention was designed to stamp out.
It is a pity that on occasions in recent months the CBI and the Multinational Chairman’s Group, to which my noble friend referred, have sounded close to rehearsing that argument in seeming to press for further delay and in their complaints about the implications of the Bill. That is the answer to the point powerfully and elegantly but, I suggest, wrongly advanced by my noble friends Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts and Lady Wheatcroft. It is no good saying that it is acceptable for small companies to pay small bribes, perhaps disguised as something else such as the transport tax that was referred to, and that it is only large bribes that the Act should outlaw. We have to rely on our markets wanting to buy British goods and services because they are competitive on price and quality.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
I know that my noble friend has just six minutes, but it is a travesty of what my noble friend Lady Wheatcroft and I were saying to suggest that we were advocating small bribes. From the beginning, both of us have said that we are absolutely against bribery. It is the reality of the situation that we are asking the House to address.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
My Lords, that is what was said, but the description of the transport tax being moneys paid to officials in small amounts to enable goods to be imported into those markets amounts to small bribes. I do not accept that they are acceptable. It is to be conceded by those who take our position that there may be a cost to that strict position, as my noble friends Lord Hodgson and Lady Wheatcroft point out. However, if it is a cost, it is a short-term cost, with the prize of a long-term business environment that is clean. The enforcement of the anti-bribery convention internationally and the Bribery Act in this country is a prize worth gaining.
The delay has been damaging to the reputation of this country and its business. As my noble friend Lady Williams explained, there is great anger with the United Kingdom in the United States and in the OECD. In the United States, the very strong legislation in the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which is rigorously enforced by the SEC and other federal enforcement agencies, has brought about a complete change of approach. The United Kingdom’s performance has been seen as hopeless and the delay in passing the Act has been seen as worse than that.
Meanwhile, we have regular reminders of the extent of the problem. Noble Lords have referred to the British Aerospace scandal and, in particular, to the previous Government’s extraordinary decision to stop investigating the Al Yamamah contract for the sale of aircraft to Saudi Arabia. The emergence even now of further evidence, which was highlighted in the past few days by my right honourable friend Sir Menzies Campbell, of a $70 million payment in connection with the contract makes the point
We have recently had the MW Kellogg engineering case, with a £7 million settlement over a contract for a gas liquefaction plant in Nigeria after payment of more than £100 million in bribes by the parent company. We had the disgraceful Innospec case last year, where a British company had paid bribes of $17 million to secure sales in Indonesia of a highly toxic lead fuel additive that is banned in the UK and elsewhere, the bribes having been paid to prevent the chemical from also being banned in Indonesia.
The list goes on. The evil of corruption is a cancer in our international trading system. It must be removed. The anti-bribery convention and the Bribery Act are powerful instruments. In Richard Alderman we have an energetic and effective director of the SFO, but we need the Bribery Act to become law. The guidance is needed fast. It needs to show a commitment to thorough enforcement. It must not be said that it waters down the effect or the effectiveness of the Act. Only in that way can Britain’s damaged reputation for probity in international business be restored.