Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill

Debate between Lord Phillips of Sudbury and Baroness Noakes

Tuesday 15th October 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords, I commend the Government on bringing forward Amendment 58. It has been a source of great public disaffection that over the past few years the number of people in the City responsible for some really gross acts of criminality who have been brought to book could be measured on the fingers of two hands; indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, referred earlier to the pathetic enforcement statistics. This provision is therefore vital. However, I have two thoughts regarding the way in which this is framed: first, that it is too severe, and secondly, that it is too light, or slight.

The title of the clause is:

“Offences relating to decision”—

I suppose they mean “a decision”—

“that results in bank failure”.

I note that in two places in the clause itself it talks about a decision that “causes” a bank failure. There is a difference in the meaning of the words, “resulting” in a bank failure and “causing” it. The word “causing” is absolutely direct in a way that “resulting” is not. Perhaps the Minister might like to look at that.

The other point that strikes me about the wording of this clause is in Amendment 58(1)(c) and (d). Paragraph (c) says,

“in all the circumstances, S’s conduct in relation to the taking of the decision falls far below what could reasonably be expected of a person in S’s position”.

The noble Lord, Lord Brennan, has already made points on this. That is unsatisfactory in another sense. However, if we are—as we are—making criminal offences out of the conduct defined in this new clause, there should be a clear indication that no one can be convicted unless there is a want of integrity or honesty on the part of the person convicted. That is a fundamental principle of British criminal law. However concerned we are, and I certainly am, to bring to book the many malefactors who have ruined the reputation of the City in recent years, one cannot do it at the cost of changing or undermining that fundamental test of criminality, intent, bad faith, dishonesty or want of integrity—call it what you like. The language here does not clearly require that intent and want of integrity. There are cases that would fall within Amendment 58 that would not satisfy the normal test of mens rea in criminal offences.

I will refer briefly to Amendment 60 in this group, which is about the institution of proceedings. Subsection (4) says:

“In exercising its power to institute proceedings for an offence, the FCA or the PRA must comply with any conditions or restrictions imposed in writing by the Treasury”.

Those are the words. I cannot see anywhere, in this amendment or elsewhere, a requirement for the conditions or restrictions imposed in writing by the Treasury to be made public. Surely it is a fundamental requirement of restrictions or conditions that will potentially lead firms and individuals into the criminal courts that those conditions or restrictions be made public.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Noakes]

My Lords, my initial reaction to these new clauses was that they constituted a sledgehammer to crack a nut. It seems to me that creating another regulator in a territory which is well occupied by regulators is unnecessary in this case. To that extent I support the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell. One has only to look at government Amendment 60YYH to see that the new regulator will have to co-ordinate with the Bank of England, the FCA and the PRA. These bodies already have to co-ordinate among themselves for different purposes in any event. I think that the world is slightly going mad on this. My noble friend Lord Higgins asks who will pay for the regulator. Obviously, the people who will operate the payment systems will pay for the regulator. I suspect that this arrangement will be more expensive than the existing Payments Council system. I do not know how much more expensive it will be. I believe that we should be told what the costs are because they will inevitably end up being paid for by the businesses and individuals who use payments systems. There is no one else.

I have one question with two parts for my noble friend which relates to the powers in government Amendments 60S and 60T. One part relates to the power to require access to payment systems. I completely understand that. If you are to promote competition, you need powers to require access. The other relates to the variation of agreements relating to payment systems to take out anti-competitive elements in arrangements that have already been made. Both those measures could have financial consequences for those who operate payment systems. I do not object to the principle involved, but where in these 40 pages of amendments can I find the principles that the payments regulator has to use in deciding how he approaches those decisions? I assume that he cannot have unlimited discretion to decide who will pay for what and on what terms. However, there appear to be no basic financial principles underpinning this arrangement in the 40 pages of amendments, which seems to me a lacuna.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords, for the record, these amendments cover exactly 52 pages. The only other point I wish to make—I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, here—is that, despite the payment system having its own regulator, new subsection (3) of government Amendment 60B states:

“The FCA must take such steps as are necessary to ensure that the Payment Systems Regulator is, at all times, capable of exercising”,

its functions. It has the job of overseeing the regulator, so why on earth does it not do the job itself?

Financial Services Bill

Debate between Lord Phillips of Sudbury and Baroness Noakes

Monday 12th November 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords, my name is on Amendment 31, but before saying a word or two about that I would like to thank my noble friend the Minister for government Amendment 26, which is surely another big step forward to take account of social investment.

Amendment 31 is a harmless amendment, I am almost inclined to say, which gives a bit of flexibility in the light of experience for the Government to amend the considerations to which they must have regard when considering what degree of protection to make for consumers under proposed new Section 1C. That seems a bit of good common sense, so I hope that the Government will accept it.

[Baroness Noakes]

My Lords, I hear what the Minister said about the drafting of Amendment 26 not referring to social investment or anything like that. As drafted, however, it says that the things which the FCA must take into account include,

“the differing expectations that consumers may have in relation to different kinds of investment or other transaction”.

Read as it is, that seems to require the FCA to take account of consumers’ expectations, whether or not they are reasonable. So if consumers have unrealistic expectations about what they will have in return from their pension investment, for example—and that is a fairly widespread misconception—because the Government have chosen to use this unspecific form of drafting this could quite easily be interpreted as applying to expectations that operate in a quite different sphere from that intended. While the Government might say that it is intended only for social investment, these are clear words; they do not need any other explanation from the Government to make them understandable. It may be dangerous in its current drafting to leave it without the reference to social investment that my noble friend’s Amendment 31 has. His amendment is clearly rooted in what it is that is trying to be achieved.

Financial Services Bill

Debate between Lord Phillips of Sudbury and Baroness Noakes

Tuesday 6th November 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords, I will add a rather mundane legal point. I do not believe that the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, would achieve anything, even if it were accepted. Subsection (1), whose two limbs cover the matters to which the Financial Policy Committee must have regard, is quite clear about the stability objective. However, in a situation where the Government had no objective for growth, it would not bite, even if you took the words “subject to that” out of the clause. That is, as I said, a very mundane lawyer’s point.

[Baroness Noakes]

My Lords, I recall that when the previous Government set up the Monetary Policy Committee, they formulated its secondary policy objective in precisely this form, “Subject to that”. Can the Benches opposite explain when they had a damascene conversion on this topic?