Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill

Debate between Lord Newby and Baroness Noakes

Wednesday 27th November 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, the Government are committed to bringing payment systems under formal economic regulation to address deeply rooted failures in the UK’s payments market. In Committee, the Government tabled amendments to establish the new Payment Systems Regulator. The Government are now introducing a small number of further provisions and making amendments to some of the clauses previously tabled to ensure that the regulator is able to perform its functions effectively and that the right procedures apply to powers contained in the Bill.

First, these amendments will introduce provisions modelled on measures in the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 which prohibit the regulator and those working for or on behalf of it from disclosing confidential information without the consent of the information owner. The prohibition will be enforced by a new criminal offence. However, further provisions will permit confidential information to be disclosed to certain prescribed persons in specific circumstances, including the provision to the regulator of certain information held by the Bank of England. This will be an important element of the Payment Systems Regulator’s regulatory regime. Without a prohibition on the disclosure of confidential information, people may be dissuaded from providing to the regulator important information which would assist it in the discharge of its regulatory functions.

The Government are bringing forward a number of other amendments which mirror provisions that already exist for the FCA under the Financial Services and Markets Act. The FCA will be able to collect levies for the purpose of maintaining adequate reserves for the regulator, which will help it to meet any contingencies. Another amendment will require that the regulator uses a sum equal to its enforcement costs for the benefit of its regulated population by reducing their levy the following year. A further amendment will ensure that the FCA does not have to produce a cost-benefit analysis when drawing up fee-levying rules to govern the collection of fees to meet the costs of the Payment Systems Regulator.

The other amendments tabled today will ensure that the right procedural requirements apply in respect of certain powers in the regulator clauses. The regulator will have a power to direct participants to take or not take specified action, and amendments are tabled to expand the concept of a “general” direction that applies to more than one person. The consequence will be that more directions fall within the category to which consultation requirements apply. Another amendment will require the Treasury to publish its decisions to designate payment systems to bring them within the regulator’s scope. The amendments also make some technical drafting changes to assist the reader of the legislation, as well as some consequential amendments to other legislation to include references to the regulator—for example, to ensure that the Freedom of Information Act applies to information held by it.

Overall, this set of provisions will contribute to the creation of a robust and well functioning regulatory regime for payment systems that can deliver on the Government’s objectives. I commend these government amendments to the House.

There is also an amendment in this group in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. In Committee, the Government tabled amendments which included a provision for the regulator to order banks to give indirect access to payment systems to other financial institutions. The noble Baroness has tabled amendments to this power with a view to addressing a concern that ordering a bank to provide another institution with indirect access to a payment system would expose the access-providing bank to additional operational and compliance risks. I should like to reassure the House that the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness are not required to address the concerns that have motivated them.

This power was designed to serve as a necessary back-stop in case banks with direct access to payment systems reacted to being brought within the regulator’s scope by ceasing to provide indirect access. This would have left smaller players with no access to the vital systems. The Government envisage that the regulator will be likely to exercise this power only in such a situation. It would be used to safeguard the position of the smaller banks reliant on the larger banks for continued access to the systems and to prevent the detrimental consequences for competition in UK retail banking if such access were denied.

The Government are confident that the regulator will not exercise this power in any way that results in banks having to take on undue operational or compliance risks. The power can be exercised only if an institution applies to the regulator to exercise it. The regulator would, in practice, inform the bank which it was proposed be ordered to grant the access and would consider the circumstances of the applicant. It would be open to the bank that was subject to any order to make representations to the regulator about the applicant or any other matter concerning the application. The regulator would consider any such representations in making its decisions. It would not exercise the power if it thought to do so would expose the bank, the subject of the order, to additional risks which it would not be reasonable for it to bear. The Government would expect the regulator to provide in industry guidance more detail on the circumstances and manner in which it would consider using its powers. In the light of that, I would ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

At this point, I shall deal with the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, to certain of the provisions of the proposed regulatory system for payment systems. I should like to reassure the noble Lord that his amendments are not necessary to achieve the end of a proportionate and balanced regulatory system, which I am sure we share. The noble Lord has proposed some additional safeguards to the Treasury’s power to designate payment systems so that they fall within the regulator’s scope. I should like to reassure the noble Lord that the power would be exercised by the Treasury only after proper consideration and where it is genuinely satisfied that the available evidence indicates the designation criteria are met, and that the exercise of its discretion to designate is necessary and proportionate in the circumstances. It is not necessary to make this an express requirement in the Bill. No such provision was included in the precedent power, contained in Section 185 of the Banking Act 2009, under which the Treasury recognises systems for Bank of England oversight. I should also like to reassure the noble Lord that the additional matters that he has proposed should be considered by the Treasury when deciding to designate a system would in any event be considered, and that it is not necessary to state them in the Bill.

Under the procedural provisions, the Treasury must notify operators of payment systems that it proposes to designate and consider any representations made, so we do not believe it is necessary to write into the legislation that the operators must be consulted as that is, in practice, what the Treasury would do. The drafting of this provision matches that contained in the precedent—Section 186 of the Banking Act 2009. In relation to the regulator’s competition objective, it is important to maintain flexibility as to the matters to which the regulator may, rather than must, have regard when considering the effectiveness of competition, particularly given the fast-moving, high-tech nature of the payments industry. The Government do not think that it would be right to accept the noble Lord’s proposal to change this discretion to a duty. The regulator should be free to consider the factors which it considers relevant at any given time to its assessment of the effectiveness of competition. The Government also do not think it is necessary to add to the list of factors the two proposed by the noble Lord. The consistency of treatment of payment systems operators and the impact of any past or proposed regulatory intervention are matters to which the regulator will generally be obliged to have regard as a matter of good administration. For the same reason, the Government believe that the amendments tabled by the noble Lord to the regulatory principles to which the regulator is to have regard are unnecessary. The regulator, as a public authority, would need to act fairly and consistently, and not take action if not necessary or not justified on the basis of the evidence available.

In relation to the regulator’s innovation objective, the Government believe that the noble Lord’s suggestion to supplement it with the objective of promoting the creation and sustaining of a regulatory environment that is conducive to innovation is unnecessary. It is implicit that the regulator will consider how its system of regulation can best support innovation, and it will exercise its regulatory powers only where it thinks that will serve to promote innovation.

On the regulator’s power to order a disposal of an interest in an operator of a payment system and its power to vary certain agreements relating to payment systems, the Government disagree with the noble Lord’s proposal that these powers should be exercisable only where the Competition and Markets Authority has decided that the interest held in the operator of the system has resulted, or is likely to result, in a substantial lessening of competition. This is a power that the Government want the regulator to be able to exercise independently, given the specific knowledge and expertise it is hoped the regulator will acquire in relation to the markets in payment systems and the services provided by them. However, it is important that the interests of all concerned are adequately protected, so the use of this power, and the power to vary agreements concerning payment systems, will be subject to appeal to the Competition and Markets Authority, which could, on the application of the appellant, suspend the effect of the regulator’s decision pending the determination of the appeal. It would be open to the CMA to quash the regulator’s decision and substitute its own for that of the regulator.

In summary, the Government believe that the legislation as drafted provides a balanced and fair regulatory system. In light of that, I would ask the noble Lord not to move his amendments.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, as the Minister has said, I have Amendment 138 in this group. He has explained the amendment and the answer to it so well that I did not need to bring my speaking note with me. I thank him for the comments he has made, which have fully answered the points that lay behind my tabling of the amendment. He asked me to withdraw the amendment but as I have not moved it I cannot withdraw it. However, I confirm that I shall not be moving it when we reach the appropriate time on the Marshalled List.

Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill

Debate between Lord Newby and Baroness Noakes

Tuesday 15th October 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I shall not take much of the Committee’s time. Most of these amendments are pretty marginal to this Bill, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, said, it feels as if we are refighting the battles that we so much enjoyed on the previous Financial Services Bill.

I should like to make a small contribution on the expertise point. I believe that it is a matter of principle; it is not good to specify in legislation the characteristics that holders of particular offices should have. Things change over time and rapidly become out of date. They are useful things to debate but not in the context of writing legislation. In particular, the non-executive community should be a balance of skills and expertise. To follow the formula here, they have all to be this impossible person in having experience of running large organisations and financial institutions, and expertise in prudential policy. The gene pool is pretty limited on those, and to write that into legislation is a recipe for not being able to fill the posts as they come vacant. I am sure that it is really enjoyable to go back over all those debates that we had and to relive the points that have been raised by the Treasury Select Committee in another place, but for my purposes they are not necessary for this Bill.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, as noble Lords have said, the governance of the Bank of England was debated at great length just a year ago during the passage of the Financial Services Act. As a result of those debates, the Government accepted that the additional responsibilities for financial stability transferred to the Bank would put strain on its governance structures, and as a result we provided for a powerful new oversight committee, which has been established as a sub-committee of the Bank’s court.

These changes were introduced as recently as April this year and should be allowed time to develop. Making further changes now would serve only to introduce uncertainty into the Bank’s governance at a time of significant change in its senior management. It would also prevent the new system having time to prove itself. Moreover, it is the Government’s view that the amendments would weaken rather than strengthen the Bank’s governance structures.

I shall deal with the amendments in turn. Amendment 83 proposes that the name of the governing body should change from the court to the board of directors. Our view is simple: changing the name of the court would make no difference to how it operates in practice. Indeed, in substance the court now operates along the same lines as a modern plc board. It has a clear division between the role of the chief executive and non-executive chair; it is made up of a majority of independent non-executive directors; and there are formal, transparent appointment procedures for executive and non-executive directors alike.

Amendment 84 proposes that the number of non-executive directors should be reduced from nine to four and would require the appointment of a non-executive chairman. The reduction in the number of non-executive directors would drastically alter the balance of membership of the Bank’s governing body, resulting in an equal number of executive and non-executive members. It is our view that this would significantly reduce the level of independent advice and challenge available to the governors and increase the risk of decision-making becoming dominated by a small group. The court already has a non-executive chair, so we believe this proposal is unnecessary.

Amendments 85 and 86 propose abolishing the new oversight committee and rolling its powers into the proposed new board of directors. This would be a backward step for the accountability of the Bank. The oversight committee, which is made up exclusively of non-executives, was established to provide stronger challenge to the Bank’s executive. It has a clear remit to monitor the Bank’s performance against its objectives and strategy, including the Bank’s monetary and financial policy objectives. In order to deliver these responsibilities, the committee has the power to appoint any person to review any matter. These powers cover not only the Bank’s operational performance but also its policy decisions. These responsibilities are very important to the accountability of the Bank, and the Government believe they must continue to be carried out by a non-executive body independent from the policy-making process. These amendments would transfer the powers of the oversight committee to a board of directors whose membership included the governor and three deputy governors of the Bank. It cannot be right for the governors to have a role in scrutinising the policy processes that they themselves are responsible for administering, especially when the processes in question are of such vital national importance.

These amendments also seek to introduce more specific legislation to govern how the performance of the Bank’s policy functions are monitored. This is unnecessary. The oversight committee already has wide-ranging powers to review the Bank’s performance in relation to any matter, including specific provision to review the procedures of the MPC and Financial Policy Committee. The Government also believe that it is unnecessary to introduce legislation covering requests for information. The current arrangements are effective, and historically the Bank has been very co-operative with both the Treasury and Parliament. Moreover, Parliament already has wide-ranging powers to hold public authorities to account, including the power to call any witnesses to appear in front of any of its committees, as the governors of the Bank of England know only too well.

Amendment 87 would require the Chancellor to appoint an additional external member to the FPC with experience of financial crises. The FPC’s objectives—

Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill

Debate between Lord Newby and Baroness Noakes

Tuesday 15th October 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Noakes]

Was the Minister talking about retail deposits, as I believe my noble friend Lord Lawson has interpreted him saying, or, as the legislation seems to me to say, about deposit-taking more widely? Deposit-taking is not confined to retail banking on ring-fenced operations. Deposit-taking occurs across the whole range of banking activities, as far as I am aware. Will he clarify to what kinds of activity he intend this to apply?

[Lord Newby]

The definition relates to deposit-taking, retail and wholesale.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Noakes]

My Lords, my first thought on seeing this new offence relating to bank failure was to be mildly appalled at something that might possibly impinge on one’s personal life, but I have tried to put that to one side and to look at this clause dispassionately. What concerns me is a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, which relates to causation. That is mentioned several times in this clause, but one of the conditions in subsection (1)(d) of the new clause proposed by Amendment 58 is that,

“the implementation of the decision causes the failure of the group”.

Is it clear that single decisions cause failures of the nature that we are talking about? I ask him to think, in the context of the failures that existed in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, whether any one of those, had they occurred today and been dealt with under existing legislation, could have technically satisfied the wording in this offence. Even in the simplest case of failure, which was probably Northern Rock, it was not as simple as one decision or even one group of decisions. There were multiple points of decision which contributed. Certainly, when one gets to something as complicated as the failure of Lehman Brothers, I would be absolutely astonished if anybody could have pointed to one decision causing one failure.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, I will try to sum up some of those points. One of the big challenges that we faced in producing the exact terms of this amendment was to produce a sanction which is a credible offence and could be successfully prosecuted. Setting the conditions to include that in all the circumstances the individual’s conduct fell far below what could reasonably be expected of them and that they were aware of the risk that a decision could cause the bank to fail gives us the clarity that we need. This will capture behaviour which in normal parlance or in normal view would be considered reckless.

The noble Lord, Lord Brennan, said that he was keen that this new offence should make people think. It will make people think, but equally it must have within it a degree of certainty that means that an offence could be prosecutable. This necessarily circumscribes the way in which we define it.

I can confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, that his interpretation of the provisions in the Bill is correct.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, I am extremely sorry that the noble Lord does not understand. We just have a difference of view about that. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, asked about the kind of action that the regulator could take and whether it could, in effect, behave unreasonably. The answer is—

[Baroness Noakes]

I did not question whether or not it could behave reasonably because all regulators are supposed to behave reasonably, and can be challenged if they do not. I asked the Minister to address specific points. There are amendments here about granting access and varying the terms of existing agreements. I asked where in the 40, which I am told is now 52, pages of amendments that we are asked to consider in this group are the financial principles that will guide this new regulator in imposing terms for this new access or in varying existing access rights. I was trying to tease out, for example, whether the regulator will have the power to impose subsidies on existing payments regulators or whether he will be required to ensure that the payment system operators can cover their costs. Therefore, I asked: where are the financial principles which the regulator has to use in exercising the powers that are granted by two of the amendments in this group?

[Lord Newby]

I am extremely sorry; I misunderstood the noble Baroness. I think that I shall have to write to her on that point.

My noble friend Lord Sharkey asked whether this was the only case in which a regulator had innovation as part of his remit. I simply do not know but I think that the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, pointed out that, if it were, that might indeed be an innovation. If it is an innovation, we think that it is a good one.

In terms of divestment and who picks up the shares, we are saying that this is something that the regulator should have the power to look at as one possibility. There is no blueprint in Treasury minds as to how he will do it or whether he will do it and, if so, who the beneficiaries will be. It is something that we want to have as an option for the regulator to look at. We want to give the regulator the greatest possible scope to come up with alternative ways of developing the system and possibly of generating new sources of funding for the innovation, which we are also keen on.

I am sure that I have omitted a number of points. My noble friend Lord Phillips raised a question concerning subsection (3) of the proposed new clause in Amendment 60B and I have now forgotten what he asked. Perhaps he would like to ask it again. He is indicating that he would not—that is good.

Public Service Pensions Bill

Debate between Lord Newby and Baroness Noakes

Tuesday 12th February 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, I simply do not know the answer to that question. I will have to write to the noble Lord. I hope that, in doing so, I will be able to reassure him.

I turn to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, on the cost cap. Its operation has been extensively discussed here and I hope that noble Lords were reassured that we will not seek to use it to reduce accrued benefits. If noble Lords have not been reassured, I hope I can reassure them now by setting out the Government’s own detailed amendments on retrospective provisions and protections.

As I have stated, the new clause on retrospective protections will require that retrospective changes to pension benefits with significant adverse effects be subject to the consent of members or their representatives. This would include changes made as a result of the operation of the cost cap. I have already made clear that adjustments to benefits or contributions under the cost cap would not be retrospective. The new clause, set out in Amendment 36, also provides protections to this effect. First, there would be the procedure set out in Clause 12(6) for reaching agreement on changes that are contingent on the operation of that mechanism. Then, when scheme regulations were made to give effect to those agreed changes, those regulations would require consent for any provisions that were retrospective and had significant adverse effects on pensions.

Given this, I hope that noble Lords are convinced that Amendment 23 is not necessary either. As the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, himself said in previous debates, this would be a belt-and-braces provision to provide further protection to members in the event that the cost cap is triggered. There is no need for this additional protection because the response to the cost cap calls for the approval of the members themselves. If that response were to involve a retrospective change with a serious adverse effect, the implementing provisions in scheme regulations would also require consent. So the belt and braces are already in the Bill, were that extremely unlikely scenario ever to happen. In these circumstances and with these reassurances, I hope noble Lords will not press their amendments.

The noble Lord, Lord Flight, asked a couple of questions about whether the changes relating to restricting retrospection would reduce the Government’s ability retrospectively to reduce provisions and thus make it easier, in his view, to get the costs under control. The problem about that from a legal point of view—leaving aside whether it is desirable in practice—is that tinkering with accrued rights falls foul of human rights legislation and the Government have made it absolutely clear that they have no intention of going down that road. On the question of figures in Michael Johnson’s report, the Government simply do not recognise them. The House should be reassured that the costings for these reforms and the single tier have been fully worked through. If, at some stage in the future, the schemes appear unfinanceable, we have the cost cap; that is the whole purpose of having a cost cap. If his worse fears were borne out—and, as I say, we do not recognise the figures that Michael Johnson has produced—

[Baroness Noakes]

I thank the Minister for giving way. He says that the Treasury does not recognise the figures in Michael Johnson’s helpful report, mentioned by my noble friend Lord Flight. Could he say what figures it does recognise because, clearly, the proposals for the single tier pension and the impact on contracted-out contributions came after the development of the public sector pensions and after the OBR report? There has to be a figure, given that he does not recognise that quoted by my noble friend, so what figure do the Government estimate it to be?

[Lord Newby]

The best way of dealing with this is by writing to the noble Baroness to explain how the Government believe that the proposals for the single-tier pension can be accommodated within the finances we think are available. I do not believe that a single figure here deals adequately with it, but we will write to her. We have not had a huge amount of time to analyse Michael Johnson’s figures, but on first sight, they do not look like ones that we can follow.

As regards the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and whether “material” is different from “significant”, is one a higher bar than the other? As I said earlier, we believe that they are virtually synonymous. We do not believe that material is of a lesser or greater value than significant. Therefore, we do not think that there needs to be any concern in that respect.

Amendment 31 would require that any change to scheme regulations undergoes consultation with a view to reaching agreement. I understand why the noble Lord is concerned that there should be meaningful consultation with scheme members and their representatives when scheme regulations are made. The Government carry out consultations for a number of reasons. While it is always good to have agreement, this will not always be the appropriate focus. Pensions are complex issues and regulatory changes may often be needed for minor and technical reasons. It surely would be impractical for the Government to undergo a more onerous consultation process every time a minor change was made. Moreover, this amendment is not necessary to ensure that this consultation is meaningful. This already is a mandatory requirement of any consultation process. If any stakeholder felt that a consultation was not meaningful or fair they could challenge this in court.

Amendment 35 goes somewhat further than Amendment 36. It would require that any change to scheme regulations after the first set of regulations has been made should follow the higher standard of consultation and reporting requirements set out in Clause 22. As I have said previously, this would be simply impractical. Amendments to scheme regulations can be made for a wide range of reasons down to the most minor of changes. It cannot be right that the more extensive provisions in Clause 22 should apply to every circumstance. Very often these changes are to the benefit of members and I am sure that any delay in implementing such beneficial changes because of the legal requirement to carry out the kinds of consultation set out in Clause 22 would not be seen by members in a positive light. I hope that noble Lords can understand why such a blanket requirement would not be in anyone’s interest. The Government already are committed to proportionate levels of consultation on all scheme regulations, which is the appropriate and responsible course of action.

Amendment 35 would also change Clause 22 so that, instead of setting a high bar for changing the protected elements, it would be illegal to make any such change unless the members or their representatives consent. I fully understand the concerns of some members and their representatives around these issues but, again, such a blunt instrument does not seem to me to be a particularly sensible way forward.

The Government have committed themselves to the reformed schemes as they have been negotiated and they are even now working hard with members and their representatives to ensure that these are implemented by 2015. The Government believe that the deal which has been put in place is one which should stand for 25 years, perhaps longer. It is an arrangement which represents a good outcome for both individual members and the taxpayer. The provisions of this clause are intended to reflect that commitment. The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, would go far beyond that and would seek to bind all future Governments over the next 25 years in a way that this House does not tend to endorse.

None of us can foresee the future. I will reiterate again that the Government see no reason why these pensions should not still be fit for purpose in a quarter of a century from now. However, the responsible course of action is to ensure that, if any future Government were to take a different view, for whatever reason, strong but appropriate processes are put in place to protect scheme members and to scrutinise the rationale for any changes they might seek to make. But the protections must strike a fair balance between the interests of the taxpayer and members. The Government do not believe that this can be achieved by allowing members to veto any change to scheme design, contribution rates and benefits. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able not to move his amendment.

Public Service Pensions Bill

Debate between Lord Newby and Baroness Noakes

Tuesday 15th January 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Flight, about the need to keep the ballooning cost of public sector pension schemes under control. That is one of the key features of this Bill. The challenge, which I will come to in a minute, is that it is not straightforward, or indeed possible, to turn the tap off in pensions as you can in some other areas of expenditure.

I think everybody agrees that the cost cap is one of the key elements of these reforms and in order for it to be credible and robust we must ensure that costs will always be adjusted if the cap is breached. This can be done in a number of ways. While it would be preferable if all stakeholders were agreed on the way to do it, we have to allow for the possibility that agreement might not be reached. Clause 11 therefore specifies that scheme regulations must set out the steps to be taken to achieve the target cost if there is no agreement; there simply has to be a default adjustment.

The amendment seeks to strengthen this requirement by specifying that this element of scheme regulations must be in accordance with guidelines provided by the Treasury. This would ensure that the default action mandated in scheme regulations would be more consistent across schemes. I understand my noble friend’s intention in this amendment but it is simply unnecessary. Clause 3 sets out that the majority of scheme regulations made under the Bill require the consent of the Treasury before they are made. This requirement for Treasury approval will provide the assurances my noble friend is seeking because it covers the cost cap. He said in relation more generally to the cap that, for all the schemes, cash flow was more important than theoretical deficits and surpluses. At one level it is, but valuations of the theoretical surpluses or deficits are needed in the unfunded schemes because we have to plan how the Government will meet the cash-flow costs of the schemes over a long period going forward.

The intention behind Amendments 67B, 69B and 118A is to allow pensions already in payment to be altered, should action to adjust the costs of the pension schemes be required as a result of the employer cost-cap mechanism. In theory, this is one of the ways in which you constrain the costs. Unfortunately for the noble Lord, the Government cannot accept these amendments. Amendment 67B would allow pensioners’ accrued benefits to be reduced to reduce the cost of the scheme. As the Government have made clear, both in this House and in the other place, we are committed to protecting accrued benefits. Indeed, I hope to bring forward amendments on Report which entrench that view.

There are also significant legal hurdles to altering pensions in payment. In law, pensions in payment are owned by pensioners in exactly the same way as other possessions. Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights protects these possessions from any interference by the Government that is not only lawful but proportionate. We agree with that provision. Any Government attempting to alter pensions in payment would face a serious risk of legal challenge from pensioners arguing that their possessions should not be taken away in favour of protecting active members in employment from cost control. This would make it very hard for this amendment to work in practice even if we thought it was a good idea, which, sadly for the noble Lord, we do not.

Legal difficulties aside, it is right that those benefits that have already been paid for cannot be reduced. The ability to provide retrospective changes of this nature would mean significant uncertainty for all members of the schemes and potentially destroy any trust in them.

[Baroness Noakes]

Can the Minister clarify what he is referring to when he says that not being able to adjust existing accrued rights would also affect increases in pensions that were already in payment? One way of using the amendment proposed by my noble friend would be to constrain future increases through whatever indexation is in use at the time. Would it not be sensible for the Government to have that available to them for getting cost control? It is different from saying that you reduce the number of years accrued or the absolute amount of an accrued pension.

[Lord Newby]

It is, but I think that the same considerations apply. The employee or former employee in effect has a pension contract, which says that he or she is making a payment into a scheme; the employer is making a payment into a scheme and certain payments flow from that. Whether we are talking about rates of accrual or any other component of an agreed pension scheme, my understanding is that retrospective reductions—however they are done; even if we are not talking about a reduction but a freeze, it is a reduction of the implied or explicit rights already in the scheme—would fall foul of the legal issues I raised as much as any other component of the scheme.

I think that I had just about got to the end of what I was going to say on that amendment. Turning to Amendment 70A, I understand my noble friend’s intention in providing for an independent assessment of the operation of the cost-cap mechanism, and for transparency around the cost of public service pensions. However, the Government cannot accept this amendment. The role of the OBR is to improve the accountability of the Government by examining the state of the public finances and the long-term impact of government decisions. While it has a clear remit to analyse the long-term sustainability of the public finances, it has full independence in determining how to fulfil this obligation. The Government cannot specify that the OBR provides any specific data or analysis.

However, as my noble friend alluded to, much of the data that would be required under this amendment is already provided by the OBR. The OBR’s economic and fiscal forecasts, produced twice a year, have included a forecast of public sector pension payments and contributions over a five-year period. Indeed, the noble Lord referred to some of the figures it produced in November. For noble Lords who have not had the opportunity to look at them, I refer them to page 146 of the OBR’s Economic and Fiscal Outlook produced in December.

My noble friend’s amendments would also include provision for the OBR to pass judgment on the effectiveness of the cost-cap mechanism. This would change the role of the OBR. It is not a policy-based organisation and must be seen as impartial and independent. For the OBR to be seen to advocate or arbitrate on policies would draw it into political debate and could undermine this independence. If you allow the OBR to start giving advice or arbitrating on policies across the piece, that would completely undermine the role set for it. For that reason, policy on the cost cap, and public service pensions more broadly, must remain the responsibility of the Government.

Amendment 71A seeks to prevent the pension liabilities of local authorities falling to the Government. I should start by highlighting that the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government is not a trustee of the pension scheme. Rather, the Secretary of State is the person who may make regulations to establish the scheme. Local authorities are responsible for managing and administering both their own budgets and the Local Government Pension Scheme. The authorities, not the Minister, are responsible for their liabilities under the scheme. Legislation requires local authorities to establish and manage pension funds and then set the appropriate level of employer contribution rates to ensure that those funds are able to meet the liabilities of the scheme. In addition, the new requirements in Clause 12 of the Bill will provide additional scrutiny of LGPS fund valuations. There are, of course, safeguards in place.

[Baroness Noakes]

What the Minister is saying is very helpful. Can he say explicitly that what the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said—about there being a broad assumption that the Government stood behind local authority pension schemes—is wrong?

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, I shall write to the noble Baroness if I get this wrong—and the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, will shake his head or nod depending on whether or not I get it right—but I think that the responsibility for meeting obligations under local authority pension schemes falls to taxpayers within the local authority areas covered by the schemes.

[Baroness Noakes]

The point that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, was making was not to dispute the basic legal position but to say if that were defaulted upon, there is an assumption underpinning these schemes that the Government stand behind them. That is why I asked the Minister to clarify his view of that.

[Lord Newby]

I will be very happy to write to the noble Baroness about it but the whole purpose of the cost cap is to ensure that we do not get into that mess. Given the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, in this area, I am very reassured by his confidence that the local government schemes will not get into this mess. The reason why the cost cap covers local government schemes is that, however unlikely it is, we feel that we need a method of dealing with them in this extremely unlikely eventuality.

Financial Services Bill

Debate between Lord Newby and Baroness Noakes

Monday 12th November 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Noakes]

Before my noble friend sits down, when we discussed this matter before, the Minister replied in the same terms as the noble Lord, Lord Newby, has today, and said that there would be insurance expertise on the board. I sought to clarify whether that would include the non-executive component or whether there was a possibility that there would be simply an executive member. Subsequent to the Committee stage, the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, wrote to me—I am not sure whether the letter has been circulated more widely—to say that the intention was that there would be an insurance non-executive member. Will the Minister confirm that that is still the Government’s intention?

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, nothing has changed since the point at which the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, wrote his letter.

Financial Services Bill

Debate between Lord Newby and Baroness Noakes

Monday 12th November 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newby]

Yes, we do indeed, but the government amendment is broader and gives considerable flexibility to the FCA in the way that it deals with this new mandate.

The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, raised the question of what happens if consumers have unrealistic expectations, and she thought that this could, in effect, be a dangerous amendment. I do not think that it is, because I do not believe that this is the way that the amendment will be interpreted by the FCA when it looks at products in this area and gives advice about them. While I can see where she gets the arguments from, I am confident that the FCA will ensure that we do not have the kind of dangerous consequences which she mentions.

[Baroness Noakes]

I thank the Minister for that, but how can he be confident that the FCA will—for all time—interpret the words in the way that he wishes them to be interpreted?

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, it is very dangerous to be confident about anything for all time, but if you turn the proposition of the noble Baroness on its head, is it conceivable that the FCA would interpret this clause at any point in a way that would be dangerous? Frankly, I cannot see why it would. One can never say absolutely that in 50 years’ time—assuming that this piece of legislation is on the statute book—interpretations might be exactly the same as they are today, but it would be perverse to think that the FCA would interpret this provision in a way that opened up the dangers about which the noble Baroness is concerned.

Financial Services Bill

Debate between Lord Newby and Baroness Noakes

Wednesday 24th October 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Noakes]

My Lords, I shall also speak to Amendments 190B and 192ZA in this group. These amendments, and others in the group, concern the inquiry and investigation provisions of Part 5. I should say at the outset that I regard the provisions of Part 5 as crucial to the Bill. The earlier parts of the Bill created new regulations with very significant powers, and it is entirely likely that the new regulators will make mistakes in the use of those new powers and that things will go wrong, so we need strong provisions in the Bill—

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, I remind your Lordships that if you are leaving the Chamber, please do so as quietly as possible.

[Baroness Noakes]

My Lords, I was saying that Part 5 of this Bill is crucial because it sets up the provisions that will deal with things when they go wrong—if the regulators make mistakes or if things do not turn out well. Part 5 ensures that there are proper investigations and proper reporting of those investigations. I remind the Committee that there have been problems in this area in the very recent past. It took the heroic efforts of the Treasury Select Committee in another place to get the FSA’s report on the failure of RBS into the public domain. We still have nothing on HBOS. The FSA’s reports on both RBS and Northern Rock were internal reports, and therefore non-independent. The Bank of England, which will be the new home for the PRA, is not itself a beacon of good practice when it comes to reviews of its own performance. So we need to be sure that we get this part of the Bill absolutely right.

I welcome the new duties in Clauses 69 and 70 on the FCA and the PRA to investigate and report on possible regulatory failures. I similarly welcome the powers in Clause 73 which allow the Treasury to direct the regulators to carry out investigations in certain circumstances. However, internal investigations will often not be good enough, which is why in principle the powers in Clause 64 are very welcome. These allow the Treasury to arrange independent inquiries where there have been certain events which, to paraphrase, threatened the stability of the financial system or risked or caused significant damage to the interests of consumers or businesses.

The first amendment that I tabled to Clause 64 was Amendment 192ZA, which is one of our familiar and much-loved may/must amendments. I could see no circumstance in which the Treasury, having satisfied itself that a public inquiry is in the public interest, should have any optionality about whether to set up an independent inquiry. Amendment 192ZA would change that “may” into a “must” so that, if the public interest test is met, the Treasury must set up an independent inquiry. Having looked at this a second time, however, I tabled Amendment 190AA, which would replace subsection (4) and turn it round. Under my proposed new subsection (4) the Treasury must arrange an inquiry unless it believes that the inquiry is not in the public interest. I believe that this more naturally represents the thought process that would go on in the Treasury; that is, the Treasury would order an inquiry unless there was a sound reason for not doing so. For good measure I have also tabled in this group Amendment 192ZA, which is another may/must amendment, this time to Clause 73, which allows but does not require the Treasury to direct the FCA or the PRA to carry out an internal investigation. My amendment would require a direction.

I am aware that the wording and structure of Clause 64 follow that of Section 14 of FiSMA. However, I do not believe that that is necessarily conclusive. The new duties set out in Clauses 69 and 70 in respect of regulatory failure positively require the PRA and the FCA to organise investigations in specified circumstances. The only let-out is if the Treasury directs them that they are not required to carry out investigations. Can the Minister explain why “must” is the correct formulation for the PRA and the FCA, but not the correct formulation for the Treasury?

I hope that the Minister will explain the relationship between Clause 64 and Section 14 of FiSMA. It seems to me that Section 14 becomes redundant when this Bill is made law, but I could not find any provision for its repeal. So I ask my noble friend whether it is to remain in force, and if so, for what purpose?

Lastly, I ask the Minister to explain in what circumstances the Government would intend to use the independent inquiry route in Clause 64, as opposed to the self-investigation route in Clauses 69, 70 and 73. I tried to research how often Section 14 of FiSMA has been used but drew a blank; in fact, I am not sure that it has ever been used. I hope that the Minister will be able to explain in what circumstances the Government would want to use the independent inquiry route, rather than relying on self-investigation. For example, given the circumstances surrounding the financial crisis, would they have thought it appropriate to have ordered an independent inquiry—that is, one not left simply to the regulator concerned—or do the Government believe that self-inquiry is the appropriate route? If there is no independent inquiry for something as grave as the financial crisis that we have recently experienced, what is Clause 64 for? I look forward to hearing my noble friend’s response. I beg to move.

Financial Services Bill

Debate between Lord Newby and Baroness Noakes

Monday 15th October 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, I hope that I can reassure my noble friend. As she says, this amendment removes the provision that specifically aims to allow organisations that wish to act on Money Advice Service’s behalf to do so, even if there is otherwise a limitation on their ability to do this. This is to enable bodies such as charities, credit unions or friendly societies to work with MAS without constraints imposed by, for example, tightly specified charitable objectives. This provision, as my noble friend pointed out, was inserted into FiSMA by the Financial Services Act 2010. I vaguely remember her tabling amendments on that point when the Bill that became that Act was being considered by this House but, as she said, there was insufficient time to debate them during the wash-up.

I think that I can put my noble friend’s mind at rest relatively straightforwardly: there is a direct precedent for what is being proposed here in relation to the National Lottery. National Lottery distributors encountered similar difficulties working with particular bodies whose constitution was narrowly drawn. Accordingly, amendment was made to the National Lottery Act 1993, in Section 25A, to permit charities and similar bodies to act on behalf of the distributor. A similar provision was included in paragraph 7 of Schedule 3 to the Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Act 2008. An example of the circumstances in which such a power might be used is where a charity’s objects may be wholly in sympathy with Money Advice Service’s objectives, but when read narrowly the objects are narrower than a particular project on which Money Advice Service wishes to work with the body. This provision lifts that constraint and, given the active interest of a large number of charities in the financial capability agenda, I hope that the noble Baroness would not wish such organisations to be prevented from working with Money Advice Service in future. Having received this explanation, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

[Baroness Noakes]

My Lords, that explanation has left me as concerned as I was to begin with. While his examples seek some sort of plausible minor extension of a body’s activities, paragraph 5 is not confined to minor changes to a body’s constitution and it is not confined even to charities whose objectives are related to those of Money Advice Service. It is very broad indeed and would apply under a very much broader basis, including to a large number of bodies set up by statute. I shall consider carefully what my noble friend has said and look at the precedents that he has offered as justification for this, but I have to say that I am not entirely happy with his explanation. I beg leave to withdraw.

Budget Responsibility and National Audit Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Newby and Baroness Noakes

Monday 29th November 2010 Grand Committee

[Lord Newby]

I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, and possibly to bring to the Minister’s attention the fact that when the Monetary Policy Committee was established, a specific committee of your Lordships’ House was established for the sole purpose of reviewing the way in which that committee worked. There can be no issue of propriety about whether the House of Lords should have a role here. This raises a broader question about the coalition’s view of the role of the House of Lords on financial and economic matters. The previous Government and the former Prime Minister were almost implacably opposed to this House having anything to do with economic affairs, which I thought was a pity because there is clearly expertise here. Last week, we discussed ways in which the House of Lords might play a part in tax policy-making. That would be very sensible as well and it would form part of the piece, along with these amendments, under which the House of Lords would have an enhanced role.

[Baroness Noakes]

My Lords, if this document is really about fiscal policy and the fiscal mandate only, it is entirely logical that the approval of the charter and the other matters referred to in the other amendments in this group should be for the other place. If it were widened to include economic policy, which most of us here, with the exception of my noble friend, favour, then it would be entirely logical for it to be widened to include the House of Lords, but I believe that, as currently drafted, it is entirely logical to confine it to the other place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Newby]

I almost agree with the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, but it would strike me as slightly odd if at this stage, when the office is being established as the definitive independent forecaster on which the Government are going to base their actions, the Government retained the right the disagree with the OBR and carry on as though it did not exist. In terms of the central forecast, it would be a bit like having a dog and barking yourself. Perhaps the Minister can give us an example of a circumstance in which the Government envisage they might invoke that right.

[Baroness Noakes]

I do not quite agree with my noble friend Lord Higgins on this. In particular, the prohibition in Amendment 7 on the Treasury making economic forecasts does not appear realistic. I know that we are concerned that there will be a recreation of the functionality that has now been transferred from the Treasury to the OBR, but the plain fact is that the Treasury has to consider whether to accept the forecasts. It may wish to disagree and, if it cannot do its own forecasts, how is it going to deal with that position? This is a very difficult area but I do not think that it would be right to legislate in this way.

My noble friend’s Amendment 38 made me look at Clause 8. This is a small point but I should be grateful for my noble friend’s comments. He suggested that the OBR need not send a copy of its report to the Treasury. Can he explain how this quango lays a document before Parliament? Does it not normally go through a government department to Parliament? It was always my understanding that documents were laid via Ministers, although I may be wrong.