Financial Services Bill

Debate between Lord Newby and Lord Myners

Wednesday 5th December 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Myners]

Perhaps I may also ask a question following that of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer. The concept of interoperability is very important in the clearing of derivatives, so that corporates in particular can offset a position with one platform where they have a credit with another platform where they have a deficit. Will the Minister clarify that that involves a degree of mutualisation in the event of a failure of a platform because the failure of that platform will transfer to other platforms?

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, I am extremely grateful for the warm welcome that these amendments have received from across the House. I will deal with some of the specific questions that have been raised. The noble Baroness, Lady Cohen, asked about my vision for the way in which this provision would be used and how I saw the co-operation between the Bank, HM Treasury, the FCA and the PRA.

It may be marginally less than a vision but the situation would be that there is no requirement for the Bank to consult HMT or the other regulators before using the additional power of direction. This is because the additional power of direction is a supervisory tool and, as such, should not require the express permission of HMT before it is used. As I am sure noble Lords would agree, it is not necessary for regulators to consult with HMT before acting on day-to-day supervisory measures. It is also consistent with the similarly broad powers that the FSA currently has to vary permissions in the banking sector.

As for how the Bank intends to use its powers, as I said in my speech, it expects to publish a supervisory approach document in the coming week. Its purpose will be to give further information on how the powers of direction will fit within its wider supervisory powers over recognised clearing houses.

My noble friend Lady Kramer asked a number of questions about where the liabilities would lie and she set out her understanding of where they were. I can confirm that her view of where the powers lie is correct. As a final question, she asked about a backstop power and whether public funds were the backstop. That, of course, is the de facto position today. With this provision, we are seeking to put in place arrangements and resolution arrangements that would greatly reduce the likelihood of public funds being called upon by demonstrating in advance how these issues would be dealt with. I realise that that is a contentious statement because a number of noble Lords will no doubt think that it is extremely difficult to achieve that. Whether it is easy or difficult, that is what we are seeking to achieve by these powers and what the Bank will be trying to achieve.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, asked about going concerns or not-going concerns. The clause refers to a clearing house. It does not matter if the clearing house is no longer a regulated going concern, as I suspect he expected me to say.

The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, followed up on what the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, said. Perhaps the only additional comment I should make is that these powers now go beyond any resolution powers of which we are aware elsewhere in the EU, and they are part of our drive to ensure that London is the safest place—in the EU, at least, if not globally—to do financial services business.

The noble Lord, Lord Myners, asked me an extremely interesting question, which was also extremely technical. I hope he will not mind if I write to him about it. I beg to move.

Property: Commonhold

Debate between Lord Newby and Lord Myners

Monday 19th November 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newby]

Our experience is that everyone wants some Treasury cash but, sadly, they cannot all have it. It may be of some comfort to the noble Lord to know that in the past quarter, housing starts were up 18% over the previous quarter. In terms of social housing, housing association starts were up almost one-quarter.

[Lord Myners]

My Lords, will the Minister explain the circumstances in which it would be cheaper for the taxpayer for infrastructure to be financed with the use of a Treasury guarantee than for that same expenditure to be funded directly by the Treasury?

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, the noble Lord is making a classic error to assume that there is an endless pot of Treasury money for use in infrastructure expenditure. As he knows only too well, guarantees do not feature as public expenditure unless they are called in. Our expectation is that the 70 expressions of interest we have had so far under the Infrastructure (Financial Assistance) Act are all extremely viable schemes and that the guarantees will not be needed.

Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Exemption) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2011

Debate between Lord Newby and Lord Myners

Monday 17th October 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, there seems to be a muddle over the consultation. The Explanatory Memorandum said that the summary of responses to the March 2010 consultation will be published shortly. I think the Minister said that it was published today. I do not know when the March 2010 consultation formally finished, but it was presumably quite a long time ago. It is indeed unsatisfactory that we do not have the results of that consultation.

However, I think it is appropriate to look at what the order says. It is an extraordinarily short order, and it says nothing, as the Minister said, about the detail of how this change will be effected. All it says is that the change will be effected and that Northern Irish credit unions will be brought under the ambit of the FSA. I do not know, but I would be surprised if there was a single, solitary soul in Northern Ireland who would oppose that change, particularly if they look at what has been happening south of the border in recent weeks. Only a couple of weeks ago, the Irish Finance Minister was called upon to inject €1 billion into the credit union sector south of the border, because many of those credit unions—and we are talking about a sector that is as predominant as it is north of the border—found themselves, as a result of rising unemployment and declining income, in some difficulties. Of the 407 credit unions in the Republic of Ireland, some 79 are now in need of this injection of capital. It seems likely not only that that will need to happen but that there will have to be some consolidation in the sector and smaller credit unions will need to merge.

My question to the Minister is, in a completely different sense to that of the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, why it has taken the Government so long to bring this legislation forward, given that the majority of the population of Northern Ireland would be affected if their credit union got into difficulty. Even if we approve this order in due course, it does not come into effect until 31 March next year. My question to the Minister was going to be, and remains, whether he has any evidence that the travails that afflict the Republic of Ireland credit union sector are spreading north. Does he envisage that any individual credit unions north of the border will get into difficulties over the coming weeks and months? In the absence of any covering FSA jurisdiction, what would the Government’s response be were they to find themselves in the same position of the Government south of the border, where a significant number—in their case about 15 per cent of credit unions—required short-term capital support?

[Lord Myners]

My Lords, I broadly welcome the intention of this order, but I find myself wanting to ask the Minister why it has taken such a long time to bring it forward when it was self-evident that it was necessary and had been agreed by the previous Government and endorsed by the coalition parties when previously discussed. It seems lamentable that the Government have allowed the situation to go on for as long as it has without taking any necessary action.

When it comes to this particular order, we do not have sight of the evidence that we were assured would be available to us in informing our discussion and agreement. What harm would be done if the Government withdrew the order and brought it back after we have had an opportunity to consider the evidence that is so clearly necessary to inform our decision on this matter? It simply cannot be acceptable that the evidence has been published only this morning. As far as I am aware, no effort has been made to make it available to those who are likely to attend this session and discuss this matter. That is an inexcusable failure by the Minister and the Treasury, for which the Minister owes us a full and proper account. The right approach would be to withdraw this order until we have had adequate opportunity to discuss the evidence.

In the mean time, I support the question that the noble Lord, Lord Newby, asked. Can the Minister give us clarity, given that the Government have been so slow in bringing this matter forward, as to the position of people with accounts and business relationships with Northern Ireland credit unions that have experienced difficulty? Do the Government stand behind them until such time as the Financial Services Compensation Scheme becomes an eligible right of those with relationships with credit unions? Will the Minister also assure us that to the best of the knowledge of the Treasury and the FSA credit unions are not currently offering products in Northern Ireland to which they are not entitled by virtue of their authorities? The Minister at the end of his speech listed some of the products that credit unions would be able to offer once this order was implemented, but which they are not currently able to.

Finally—I ask this having dealt with these matters myself—can the Minister tell us whether any further action is intended with respect of the failure of the Presbyterian Mutual Society, and in particular the directors?

Budget Responsibility and National Audit Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Newby and Lord Myners

Monday 31st January 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Myners]

My Lords, I support Amendment 6 to Amendment 5. I was not in the House for the beginning of Report, but I add my congratulations to those that I understand were expressed to the Minister on rejecting the advice that Ministers so often receive to resist and instead listening carefully to what was said by all sides in Committee, taking that into consideration and bringing forward a set of very constructive and welcome amendments. That shows the House performing its correct and proper function of revision, being professional and efficient, enhancing the quality of the Government’s intention and not unduly delaying the House in so doing.

I repeat my support for the concept of the Office for Budget Responsibility. I hope that, just as the Minister reminded us during Oral Questions that the previous Government established the Monetary Policy Committee which is now an important part of our financial and economic infrastructure, the OBR will be a similar testament to this Government’s contribution to building a sustainable and effective architecture. However, I support the amendment put forward by my noble friend Lord Eatwell because it seems to me that the symmetry between the electoral cycle and five years is simply inappropriate for something which should be established to stand well apart from day-to-day politics and the electoral cycle.

It is particularly important that the work of the OBR should be subject to independent review in a shorter period than five years at commencement. It is new, and it is going to be establishing a lot of new ways of working and new formats for reporting that no doubt will evolve over time. It would be unfortunate if we did not have a chance to stand back and look at how it was performing and how its contribution could perhaps be further enhanced before five years had elapsed—before we got to 2016.

There is a strong reason for having these reviews in periods of not more than three years, rather than in periods of not more than five years, as proposed. However, the noble Lord, Lord Burns, is right to remind us, as I am sure the Minister will in his closing speech, that the current draft says that, as it should not be more than five years, it could well be that the committee, the membership of which has not yet been selected or identified, could choose to make the reports earlier. For the purpose of good order and good process and, frankly, to strengthen further the integrity of the OBR and the confidence that it will be able to sustain from the broader public, these reviews should take place more frequently than once every five years. Once every three years would be a better outcome. It is for that reason that I support Amendment 6.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, I support the government amendments to introduce an external review. The debate in Committee and, to an extent, at Second Reading demonstrated why that was a good idea.

As for whether three years or five makes better sense, I have a lot of sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Burns, said about the benefits of five years. The amendment is very flexible. It does not say that the review will be commenced on 1 October five years hence. It says that at any point a review can be undertaken; as soon as the non-execs were appointed, they could cause a review to be undertaken if they were worried ab initio that the office was not performing well. If they then felt that it carried on causing them concern, they could have another review relatively quickly. The draft gives the non-execs a lot of flexibility.

What we are doing here is a belt-and-braces job. On the assumption that the office is doing a reasonable job, and bearing in mind that it will be subject to a huge amount of external scrutiny—this body is not operating in the closet with no one looking at what it is doing; every time it produces a report, 50 economists mark it—to do that roughly once a Parliament sounds about right.

Budget Responsibility and National Audit Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Newby and Lord Myners

Wednesday 1st December 2010 Grand Committee

[Lord Myners]

So, the OBR will have its own information staff—it will not be relying on the Treasury for that. Of the 13 people, there is now minus one who is doing FOI; minus two was a PA. I must note that when the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, was an employee of UBS Warburg, he probably had more than 13 PAs, let alone 13 staff. Can he confirm that that number now includes a freedom of information officer in the OBR, and that it does not rely on the Treasury for that function?

[Lord Newby]

Surely there is an easy solution: make the PA also responsible for freedom of information.