Tax Havens
Baroness Kramer Excerpts(7 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Young of Cookham
The initiatives we are taking on tax evasion are independent of our membership of the EU, although we are pursuing some EU directives. As I said, this country is in the lead. I do not know whether my noble friend has seen page 9 of today’s Times, which says that:
“Oligarchs must disclose identity as home owners”,
with a register. That is a world first: the people behind anonymous companies that own billions of pounds-worth of property must reveal their identities under new anti-corruption rules. This shows that the country takes the matter very seriously.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, in arguing that they will not use the powers they have to require the overseas territories to make registers of beneficial ownership public, the Government say that they expect the overseas territories to do so when that becomes the international standard. Will the Minister tell me the timeframe within which he expects public registers to become the international standard—and will it be within my lifetime?
Lord Young of Cookham
The noble Baroness looks younger every day, and so I will not go there.
Class 4 National Insurance Contributions
Baroness Kramer Excerpts(7 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)
My Lords, I am fairly sure that the House will not be taking the Statement in quite the positive way in which the Minister clearly hopes. Conservative Party Budgets and U-turns seem to come hand in hand these days, but this is one of the outstanding ones. Scrapping the centrepiece of the Budget in less than a week is going some, even by Conservative Chancellors’ standards. When Chancellors make really egregious mistakes they are always compared with Hugh Dalton, who was fired almost immediately on the spot for the leak to the lobby correspondents as he walked in to deliver his Budget. When I think about other errors that Chancellors have made, this one comes pretty close to that. As the Chancellor has obviously been in close contact with the Prime Minister, I imagine that his hair has stood on end these last few days—brushed well though it normally is.
The changes announced today amount to a £325 million revenue loss in 2018-19 and a further loss of £645 million in 2019-20. They raise a number of questions, not only about the obvious gaping hole left in our country’s finances but also about the critical relationship between the Prime Minister and the Treasury. After all, we all know there is a connecting route between Nos. 10 and 11; they are adjacent properties. It therefore seems that the Prime Minister is bound to have been consulted on the Budget.
What we need to know is this. In his letter to Conservative Back-Benchers, Philip Hammond said:
“The cost of the changes I am announcing today will be funded by measures to be announced in the Autumn Budget”.
That is not good enough. At a time of already considerable uncertainty over our future relationship with the EU and the terms that we will obtain, and the impacts that that will have on trade and the whole issue of business confidence in this period, this is just about the last thing we need—a mess-up on a Budget.
If past Budgets or Autumn Statements are anything to go by, waiting for months only to hear that welfare spending or local council funding has been cut even further is not acceptable, yet we know both of those have been in the Government’s firing line in recent months. Furthermore, can the Minister assure this House and the public that the £2 billion announced for social care will be safeguarded? Informed opinion thought the emergency needs of social care were £2 billion a year, so we were already critical enough about the Chancellor’s decision to award it £2 billion over three years—that is, about one-third of what is necessary. The House will want an assurance today that that money at least is to be safeguarded.
The Prime Minister has said it was the Government’s decision to U-turn on national insurance contributions, but whose decision was it to put it in the Budget in the first place? In the consultation, were people not aware of the manifesto commitment? Surely the Government are not seriously saying that the Chancellor spoke to no one except officials before the Budget was produced. What about these other significant figures, his Treasury Ministers, who line up with their boxes in photographs and take pride in the Budget? No one among them appears to have recognised the manifesto commitment, leaving the public suspecting that it was the Prime Minister who put the Chancellor right. There will probably be consultations over a number of issues in the future and if they are at the informed and perceptive level of the construction of this Budget then we are all in for a rather bumpy ride.
This after all was one of the Chancellor’s major announcements in his first Budget. Surely he must have consulted people. We and indeed the country are at a loss as to why no one recognised what is now regarded as an important block—namely, that at the last general election the Conservative Party made a series of promises, not all of which have been fulfilled, though the ones that have been fulfilled are the ones that we on this side of the House find most onerous. It turns out that as far as this Budget was concerned this promise was the critical one, yet the Chancellor went blissfully on to deliver the Budget.
As the IFS has made clear with regard to self-employed people on low incomes, the NICs uprating was only ever small in comparison with the more significant changes that the Government are making to universal credit, yet this is the one that has shaken the Chancellor. I hope the Minister recognises that the self-employed will remain worried about what they will be taking home at the end of the month following this fracas. On the abolition of NICs 2, which the Chancellor has today confirmed will go ahead, how will the rights previously obtained by class 2 contributions be ensured?
There is now a gaping hole in the Budget and the Chancellor needs to reassure the nation that he will cope with the financial problem represented by this blunder. Finally, if no action on NICs 4 is to be taken in this Parliament, what on earth is the purpose of Matthew Taylor’s work? If there is such a block on action on this one crucial area—the Government have after all emphasised how crucial it is in terms of changing patterns of work—until after the next general election, we are all left to wonder just what will be the purpose of that work.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, what a climbdown. And what a spat between No. 10 and No. 11. The Chancellor has always had a tin ear, but did the Prime Minister not recognise that the NICs change was, in effect, a tax increase on the plumber, white van man, the entrepreneur and women working from home because of children—people who are typically “just about managing” and whose income fluctuates, is low and is often unreliable?
Yesterday, in the Budget debate, the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, spoke of the now discarded NICs change as a way to combat companies that, to benefit from tax arbitrage, push people out of employment into less certain self-employment. I suggest, as I did then, that if the NICs changes had been focused on those companies seeking that tax arbitrage, rather than on the self-employed—manifesto pledge or no manifesto pledge—the response would have been very different. Were the Tory Government following their usual pattern of protecting big companies and big business and hitting the little people?
It is crucial, as I think everyone in this House would agree, that the increase of £2 billion for social care remains, inadequate though it is, being spread over three years. How will the Government fill the gap in the public finances when the Chancellor is so constrained by expected blows from hard Brexit? Can the Minister give us today a guarantee that it will not be filled by more severe spending cuts parts of the public sector already under extraordinary pressure? Do the Government agree that the whole Victorian structure of business and employment taxes needs re-examining? The former BIS Secretary, Sir Vince Cable, is chairing such a review for the Liberal Democrats. Will this Government, among their many reviews, take on frankly a review of similar scope, because it is vital?
When spreadsheet Phil decides to shoot from the hip, we surely have a Government puffed up in hubris. I am afraid that this exactly reflects the arrogance that led the Government to hard Brexit. If they have a tin ear over their own self-employed, how bad is the tin ear that they will take into EU negotiations?
Lord Young of Cookham
My Lords, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, that we are reluctant to take advice from the Labour Party on promoting harmony between No. 10 and next door. He will recall that Budget measures introduced by the Labour Government subsequently had to be revised. For the Liberal Democrats, the noble Baroness was cautious enough not to mention manifesto commitments—there are certain issues from her party that would be brought to mind.
We have made it absolutely clear that we will make good the fiscal impact of this decision in the Autumn Statement. We are not minded to borrow more, which has sometimes been suggested. However, in response to the serious issue raised by both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, I can give a firm assurance that all the spending commitments made in the Budget will be honoured—on skills, on adult social care and on accident and emergency. We stand by those commitments.
The noble Lord asked about universal credit. There will be no change to the entitlement to universal credit by the self-employed. On the broader issues about the Taylor review, there is an issue here—and the Labour Party has recognised it as an issue; it has a commission looking at the issue. I do not think that it would be right to do what the noble Lord suggested, which is to ditch the Taylor review. It is important that we go ahead with it, but we have ruled out certain responses in how we take it forward. But there is an issue here—a threat to the tax base that we need to address.
The Autumn Budget will make good the deficit, in the normal way, so the hole will be filled, and the Chancellor remains committed to sound finance, reducing the deficit and investing in infrastructure and key public services. Those commitments remain as before.
Bank of England and Financial Services Bill [HL]
Baroness Kramer Excerpts(8 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Flight (Con)
My Lords, as I understand it, the proposed arrangements effectively give the Treasury Select Committee a sort of negative veto after the event. Why could this not be more straightforward, with senior appointments such as the head of the FCA requiring the approval of the Treasury Select Committee up front?
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, perhaps I may pick up on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Flight. The FCA is one regulator. We understand that there is great pressure to move on this issue now because the FCA had lost so much confidence and so many people have questioned whether it is genuinely an independent regulator. However, the PRA, turning into the PRC, is an equal, if not more critical, regulator of our banking system, and of course appointments to the Bank of England—particularly that of governor—are also crucial. Therefore, can the Government tell us why they have not broadened out this change in approach, which is surely just a modernisation and a recognition of the significant interest that Parliament and the country have in these appointments?
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, after those contributions I can keep my own fairly short. However, like the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, I would have thought that this change would have applied in the whole approach of this Government and would have been taken into account when the Bill was drafted. Not only have the Government had strong representations from the Official Opposition and the Liberal party—we debated this matter very vigorously in this House—but it is clear that the Treasury Select Committee had very strong views on this. Ministers are all too well aware of the fact that the Treasury Select Committee contains members of all parties, several of whom enjoy very high reputations indeed—not just the chairman, although he too deserves his high reputation. How is it, then, that the Government should have thought that they could ignore the proper position of the Select Committee in relation to this appointment?
Of course we welcome the sinner who repenteth, and the Minister, I have no doubt, will indicate in a moment how carefully he has considered all issues. But it does somewhat surprise me that it needed such a weight of parliamentary opinion, to say nothing of opinion from outside too, before the Government recognised that they could not possibly put forward this appointment without there being a substantial degree of parliamentary scrutiny.
Lord Flight
My Lords, I welcome the amendment but the issue of PEPs is by no means solved and there is still a lot of nonsense happening. The last ruling by the noble Lord, Lord Deighton, was, interestingly, that PEPs were politicians in countries outside the UK and not within it; that came as a great shock to all of us. The EU rules make it clear that that is not the case and that PEPs are to be treated as domestic. In theory, that includes all Members of this House and the House of Commons and many others. That is completely ridiculous. The bottom line is whether people have the power to engage in corruption. I suggest that Members of this House, or in the Commons, do not have the power to engage in corruption unless they are a Minister.
Banks are criticised, but operating a bank account for a PEP is a complete loss leader, because banks are obliged to always check the source of funds and question any payment into the account. This is completely ridiculous unless you are dealing with people who are potentially corrupt. Where is all this coming from? It is the FCA that is giving out very strict guidelines to banks on how the PEP rules should be implemented. As I understand it, those guidelines are, at the moment, contrary to the Government’s own arrangements and I fear they may remain too demanding in future.
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, the kind of language the Government may use in dealing with this in legislation may be limited, but I am very glad that they are taking action. Will they take on board, when talking with allies in other countries, the importance of how the concept of the PEP is handled? I am in the appalling situation of finding that my husband’s relatives in the United States have been challenged on opening accounts because they are related to me. How that relationship was disclosed, I find extraordinary. There must have been an awful lot of trawling through genealogical tables, or else someone is reading my emails. There is a serious issue about how this spreads to the families of Members of this House, of Members of the other place and of others who may rightly be regarded as politically exposed. Their relatives at many distances removed surely cannot be caught in that trap.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, have some sympathy with the concern about PEPs. My bank managed to be very surprised that my son had repaid a debt. There is no question that banks have overreacted in this area. In general, banks seem to overreact to regulation. They do not seem properly to understand proportionality at individual level. It reminds one that one does not have a right to a bank account, and suddenly one realises that one would be a non-person without one. So it is right that we look for some protection for politically exposed persons—who could be in a very widespread group.
However, one must not lose sight of the fact that the Panama papers revealed just how widespread money laundering is and how much of it happens among politically exposed persons. As far as I know, no politically exposed person has been revealed in the UK, but in the wider world money laundering is a fact and it feeds terrorism and corruption.
We welcome this amendment as an effort to produce proper proportionality on this subject, but the balance must be maintained—and, just as we must be concerned about PEPs, we must be concerned about potential crime and the maintenance of public confidence in officials.
Baroness Drake (Lab)
My Lords, I take this opportunity to thank the Minister for meeting my noble friend Lord McKenzie and me to discuss this amendment in detail. I am most grateful for that. As has been said, the amendment places a new duty on the FCA to make rules to prohibit or cap early exit charges that act as a deterrent to people accessing their savings under the new freedoms. This amendment is particularly interesting for two reasons. Unusually, it introduces legislation with retrospective effect on existing contracts and a new deterrent regime in addition to the existing fairness regime in financial conduct regulation—in effect, charges must not be at a level that deters people from accessing their savings.
The Government believe the legislation needs retrospective effect because of the need to protect existing and future consumers, and—more interestingly, when one reads the detail of their proposals—that fairness should not be determined solely by reference to whether or not it was fair to include a term in a pension contract a decade or decades ago, but that it has to be looked at against how unfair contracts legislation has evolved since those contracts were entered into, and through the new lens of the recent pension freedom reforms, all of which arguments I agree with. But given that the Government have taken the decision through this amendment to enable retrospective changes to existing pension contracts and recovery of amounts paid or payment of compensation for charges made in contravention of the new FCA rules coming into force in March 2017, and that the pension freedoms, which provide the new lens for looking at fairness, were introduced in April 2015, I cannot understand why the consumer protection in the new FCA duty does not apply with effect from April 2015. Why is it necessary to wait until March 2017 when the FCA rules are implemented—a full two years after the pension freedoms were introduced—before consumers are protected by the provisions on fair access to savings?
The Minister advised in his letter of 16 March that the Government are introducing this amendment,
“in light of detailed evidence gathering, and an imperative to act quickly in order to limit the extent of consumer detriment caused by early exit charges”.
The Government’s main defence for this two-year gap from April 2015 to March 2017 in protecting consumers is that savers who access savings between these two dates from a scheme whose early exit charges are considered excessive under FCA rules to be implemented in March 2017 cannot have been deterred by those charges and presumably are therefore not in need of retrospective protection. That argument simply does not sit comfortably with the Government’s view that some people are being denied fair access to their savings. It suggests that the new deterrent regime trumps fairness—in effect, if a person accessed their savings they have not been deterred, ergo the early access terms are fair.
There are many reasons why people may access their pension savings during that two-year gap, even though the charges may be excessive. There may be ill health or other compelling personal circumstances that override the deterrent effect. People may not be aware of, or understand, the excessive early exit charges, so do not make their decision on an informed basis. The FCA data reveal that 78% of affected consumers rated their pension provider’s explanation of the exit charge and its level as poor.
In his letter of 16 March, the Minister comments:
“In order to ensure that the provision benefits current consumers who are eligible to use the pension freedoms now … this clause provides that any prohibition or cap imposed by FCA rules applies equally in relation to existing pension contracts, as well as those entered into in future”.
In the light of that statement, it is most unfortunate that the amendment excludes from the protection consumers accessing their savings between April 2015 and March 2017, even though in other circumstances it allows for a retrospective effect.
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, I echo the objections just raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake. It is quite inexplicable that “retrospective” does not mean that the new regime will be recalculated from the date that people were able to access their pension pots. It seems equally unfair for people to have paid an inappropriate exit fee a year ago as it is for them to pay an inappropriate exit fee a year from now. Has the Minister considered how this will tend to inhibit decision-making by families until the new regulations are revealed? Instead of making the best decision for the family, there will be great pressure to delay that decision until the rules are clearer and, presumably, the exit fees are removed.
The amount of money involved in this process cannot be substantial but to the individual family that has been impacted, it is certainly significant. I really do not understand the Government’s thinking on this issue.
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his early warning of this amendment, for facilitating the meeting with officials and for addressing at that meeting some of the incisive and expert questions posed by my noble friend Lady Drake. As we have heard, the new clause places a requirement on the FCA to make rules to prohibit or cap certain early exit charges in regulated schemes which act as a deterrent to people accessing their pensions under the new pension freedoms. So far as it goes, this should be supported.
As the Minister’s letter of 16 March sets out,
“after the reforms took effect last April, it has become increasingly clear that early exit charges were preventing some people from accessing their pension flexibly under the freedoms”.
This was substantiated by the government consultation and evidence-gathering by the FCA and the Pensions Regulator. This process identified a number of weaknesses in the application of the freedoms policy: not just the early exit charges but a lack of clarity in the process for transferring pension savings and uncertainty around the need for financial advice when making transfers involving safeguarded benefits.
Although early exit charges are not an issue for the majority of those eligible to access freedoms, the Government have concluded that significant numbers of eligible individuals face charges which in absolute or relative terms present a “real barrier” to early access. This begs the obvious question of why this matter was not addressed as a fundamental component of the design of pensions flexibility in the first place. Why has it seemingly come as such a surprise to the Government that these early exit charges exist and could act as a deterrent? This is symptomatic of the rushed nature of the introduction of this policy more generally, which lacked the consultation and consensus-building that have typically characterised good pensions policy development.
It might be argued that before the introduction of the FCA cap—to be in place before the end of March 2017, as we have heard—there has been no detriment because by definition exit fees could not have been a deterrent to the 400,000 times that pension pots have been accessed to date. But it seems that exit fees could be a deterrent, making it less likely, weighed against other factors, that someone would access their pension pot, without these fees being an absolute bar. That is why, as my noble friend has argued, we consider that any capping should be applied not only to existing as well as new contracts but to pensions accessed from the start of the pension freedoms regime in 2015, a point supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer.
Economy: Productivity
Baroness Kramer Excerpts(8 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bridges of Headley
My noble friend makes an extremely good point. Sir Charles Bean recently completed a review of the UK’s economic statistics, and one of his findings was, as my noble friend said, that if the digital economy had been properly taken into account, economic growth would have been one-third to two-thirds of a percentage point higher over the past decade, with similar implications for productivity. However, I stress that that would not explain the UK’s recent poor performance in comparison with other countries, nor why productivity has worsened since the financial crisis, so we are not complacent.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, the UK’s poor performance on productivity will surely never improve until we get in place the infrastructure—housing, broadband, power and transport—that we need. Will the Government give up or curb their obsession with the budget surplus, borrow at the current zero-coupon rate available to them, stop faffing around with expensive and reluctant private sector and sovereign fund investors, and actually get spades in the ground on the major projects—Hinkley Point being one example—that are at present all suffering delays?
Lord Bridges of Headley
My Lords, we are getting going and cracking on with things. I dispute what the noble Baroness says about having a choice between ditching the projected surplus that my right honourable friend the Chancellor has set out and achieving what we are setting out. They are not mutually exclusive. For example, noble Lords might be interested to know that we have committed to the biggest investment in transport infrastructure in generations, increasing spending by 50% to £61 billion in this Parliament.
Bank of England and Financial Services Bill [HL]
Baroness Kramer Excerpts(8 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bridges of Headley
My Lords, I believe it is customary at this stage to thank all those who have helped ease the passage of this Bill through the House. It is fair to say that at times, the passage has not been entirely easy. The list of those I have to thank is therefore long but noble Lords will be glad to hear that I will refrain from an Oscaresque thank you, complete with thanking my mother and bursting into tears, and will simply thank a few people. I thank the Bill team of course, for their excellent guidance and advice, and my excellent Whip and noble friend Lord Ashton, who helped keep me on the straight and narrow throughout. I thank the Governor of the Bank of England, as well as Andrew Bailey and the officials there, and Sir Amyas Morse and officials at the NAO for all the work they did on various parts of the Bill and the negotiations over that.
Those Peers on all sides of the House who were members of the PCBS also deserve my thanks, especially the noble Lord, Lord McFall, and the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, and those on the Cross Benches who made excellent contributions on a range of possible technical issues during the Bill and spared the time to explain to me their thoughts and concerns, especially on the NAO and Bank issue. In particular I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, as well as the noble Lords, Lord Burns, Lord O’Donnell and Lord Turnbull. At one stage in proceedings, one of your Lordships asked for a collective noun to describe three former Permanent Secretaries. The answer is, of course, “a Humphrey”.
I thank my noble friend Lord Naseby for his contribution regarding mutuals, and the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, for her thoughts on the Green Investment Bank and auditing issues.
Finally, of course, I thank especially both of the Front Benches—the noble Lords, Lord Tunnicliffe, Lord Davies and Lord Sharkey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer—for all the time they spent meeting me and discussing detailed aspects of the Bill. Sometimes we agreed and sometimes we did not. But the discussion was always amiable, civilised and, above all, thanks to their efforts, we did what this House is meant to do, which is to scrutinise and test the legislation.
I said at the start of the Bill that I see this process as a form of legislative acupuncture. At times it was undoubtedly a bit painful, but, thanks to the contributions of your Lordships, the Bill leaves this place in better shape than when it began, and for that I am thankful.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
I very much join in the thanks, particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, for the way in which he conducted the work of the ministerial Front Bench. He was always open to meeting and kept us incredibly well informed—frankly, above and beyond the usual. I extend those thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Ashton of Hyde, and to the whole of his Bill team for the generous way in which they handled this piece of legislation. The Government listened, particularly on one key issue which these Benches were concerned about—oversight of the Bank of England —and the Bill will now be stronger for that.
I have to say, very briefly, that there were areas where the Government did not listen, and we will all live to regret two of them. One is the decision to end the reversal of the burden of proof, which would have had a big impact on the culture of banking, and for the better, and the other is the concern we raised over the independence of the FCA. Both those concerns have been very much underscored by the recent disclosure that the FCA has cancelled its review of the culture of banks and by the timing of the way it did so, just a few weeks after the Bank of England parachuted an executive director into the FCA to supervise this area. So we have concerns, which I am sure will be picked up in another place and by the Treasury Select Committee. But I very much thank those who worked on the Bill and who did so with great graciousness.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister and his colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Ashton, for the way in which they have conducted the progress of this Bill. We particularly appreciate that the Minister was concerned to arrange meetings at which we could discuss fully, outside the processes of the Chamber, crucial aspects of our anxieties. We were greatly exercised over the issues of the court and its powers and the oversight committee, so we also particularly appreciated the fact that a meeting was arranged for us by the Minister with the chairman or chief officer of the court. That was extremely helpful and it aided us in our consideration of the Bill. So I thank him and his team for their work on the Bill.
I also indicate to the Minister that, as a Lords starter, the Bill has further scrutiny to undertake. He will be well aware that my colleagues in the other place will subject the Bill to intensive scrutiny and will seek to find areas where perhaps the Government can be persuaded to think again, not least on the reverse burden of proof and their position with regard to the court. But this has been a constructive exercise. I suppose that it is the Minister’s maiden Bill and I congratulate him on his achievement as the Bill is about to pass.
Bank of England and Financial Services Bill [HL]
Baroness Kramer Excerpts(8 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Turnbull (CB)
My Lords, I am somewhat puzzled by the amendment, because it seems to be a power which the Treasury Select Committee already has and already exercises. I will give noble Lords three examples. It called for a report from the Bank into Northern Rock, another one into RBS, and then—with some delay, appearing only three days ago—finally into HBOS. Therefore the Treasury Select Committee, led by the people who lead it now, does not need this power. It is perfectly capable of forcing the Bank to undertake a review and to reveal the contents to that committee.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I have no wish to detain the House. The Government have listened to the concerns that we raised at previous stages of the Bill and in the discussions that the Minister generously agreed to. The amendment that the Government have brought forward does not go as far as we would like but we feel that it addresses the most essential issue, which is the independence of the non-executive directors of the court, and that it provides a mechanism so that they can resist capture by officials of the court. For that reason, we are satisfied.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I also welcome the progress that my noble friend has made since we discussed this matter on 9 November, when concern was expressed that we had not got the interface between these two independent institutions in the right place. I was delighted to hear that peace has broken out between these two institutions. My noble friend said that the memorandum of understanding would be published in due course. My noble friend Lord Higgins pressed him a little further. Will it be available during the passage of the Bill, which started in this House and will go to another place, because I am sure that it would be of interest? Finally, does one really need proposed new paragraph (d) in Amendment 9 in the memorandum of understanding? If under proposed new paragraph (c) a procedure has been established,
“for resolving in a timely fashion any dispute”,
why does one need paragraph (d), which asks for a procedure where the dispute has not been resolved?
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, I will not detain the House very long. The National Audit Office and the Bank of England are crucial institutions. It is absolutely necessary that both are not only independent but perceived to be independent. In earlier stages of this Bill, we asked that those two organisations should be brought together to come to a common understanding and agreement of how we could go forward. That has been achieved and, with that, we are pleased that “peace has broken out”—to quote what has just been said. It was essential that that should be done and I congratulate the Minister on the role that he played in this.
Lord McFall of Alcluith (Lab)
My Lords, I add my thanks to the Minister and others on this issue. I have had a letter from the Comptroller and Auditor-General, who clearly says that the Government listened to many of the concerns at Second Reading and that the threat to his role as Parliament’s auditor has been reduced. That aspect is very important.
The power of veto was one of the first things on which people came to their senses. It was explained to me that the Bank would publish its view when it refused the NAO, to which I said, “Well, it means that it would go before the Treasury Committee, and the NAO would probably go before the Public Accounts Committee”. If the Treasury Committee and the Public Accounts Committee felt that that was not very good, they would probably have a Joint Committee. I think they thought that it was the best idea to drop the power of veto, which was a good outcome.
I accept that the Bank of England’s independence is essential, particularly in the former role I had as chair of the Treasury Committee. That was very important, particularly during the financial crisis. But the democratic accountability element is important. I see this memorandum of understanding not as something set in stone but as something that can adapt to time as we go along. The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, made a point about whether it would be public. I am sure that it has to be public if there is to be credibility. If there is no intention to have it be public, that would be a backwards step on that issue. If it is not going to be public, the Treasury Committee and the Public Accounts Committee need to have sight of this as it goes along. Let us hope that we do not have that second aspect and that the memorandum of understanding is a public document. As the noble Lord, Lord Young, said, it should be here before we finish the passage of the Bill.
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, this amendment provides for the Treasury to issue remit letters to the FCA, a measure first announced in relation to both the PRA and FCA in the Government’s productivity plan in July. The Bill already makes provision for the Treasury to issue remit letters to the PRC and the amendment will enable Peers to consider provisions for the FCA and PRC remit letters together. As the House will know, the Bank of England and Financial Services Bill generally relates to the governance of the Bank, rather than the FCA. However, we have been considering the best legislative vehicle for the FCA remit letter provision and have decided that it would sit best alongside the PRC remit letter provision. As to the remit letter’s content, the productivity plan outlined that remit letters will provide information on the Government’s economic policy and will make recommendations about aspects of that policy to which the FCA should have regard. The recommendations in the letters will not be binding and will not compromise, modify, or override the FCA statutory objectives in any way; neither will they relate to individual firms or cases.
As to the timing and frequency of the publication of the letters, we are aiming to publish the first FCA remit letters following Royal Assent for the Bank of England and Financial Services Bill, after which they will be published at least once per Parliament. The letters will be used to provide a steer on the Government’s economic strategy over that period, but letters could be sent more frequently if particular issues arise.
Finally, the Treasury must publish its recommendations and lay a copy before Parliament. I beg to move.
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, our one concern with this amendment was that it could in some way compromise the statutory objectives of the FCA as laid down by Parliament. The Government wrote to us with an assurance that that was not their intention. Today, the Minister read into the record the text of the letter. He said that the recommendations would not compromise, modify or override the FCA’s statutory objectives in any way. Given that a Minister’s statement in Hansard is a weighty commitment, we are satisfied with the amendment.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, I was going to make almost exactly the same contribution and my question was exactly along those lines, so I am happy to endorse what the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, said and look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Kramer
“The FCA’s competition objective
In section 1E of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (the competition objective), after subsection (2)(e) insert—“(f) how far competition is delivering diversity of provision, including diversity of ownership, geography, community and size.
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, once upon a time not so long ago, small local banks and building societies—some of them mutual, some of them not—served our local communities. They knew their local communities, the individuals and the businesses, and were themselves tied to the economic health of that community, thriving only when the community itself thrived. It was not utopia—I think that most of us in this House would not like a loan decision to be made by Captain Mainwaring—but those banks and building societies played an incredibly important role in making sure that we had a sector of banking that supported both the real economy and local development and regeneration. We have lost that layer of banking. The United States and Germany have retained it. During the last, very severe recession, it was notable that that layer of banking provided ongoing funding to individuals but, even more importantly, to small businesses, and a mechanism for the Government to support those small businesses. It also contributed to financial stability. Here in the UK our Government had to go through the most extraordinary contortions to funnel funds to small business.
We need to restore that level of banking. Banking is changing dramatically. Online banking and FinTech are largely disintermediating the big banking sector, which the main high street banks thought belonged to them. Online is very successful. I am delighted to hear that in the third quarter of last year Funding Circle became the third largest lender to small businesses in the UK. That is phenomenal for a company which did not exist five years ago. Although that successful change is coming, there is new competition. For many small businesses, online is not necessarily the answer. They need that partnership which was on offer from a community bank, community building society or community mutual, which could help them through the early stages of development and with many of their difficulties. Very few of the online providers take on that role. I can think only of ThinCats, and it is very small. Therefore, I can see no way in which we can restore that missing layer of banking without an effort by both the Government and the regulator. That is the purpose of this amendment.
The Government often talk about diversity, and I very much support Amendment 15, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, which is in this group. But when the Government talk about diversity, they focus on making sure that the regulator treats diverse entities appropriately, which is entirely right. It should not attempt to fill the gaps and deal with the current market failure. I have named one significant area: that of local and community banks.
I am not going to press this amendment today, but I want to make sure once again that this matter enters the conversation, because it is a neglected area. In every conversation I have with government, the Treasury or the regulator, diversity is merely a fashion of regulating particular kinds of business. That does not recognise the significance of that gap and market failure. For that reason, I beg to move.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, I am grateful to both the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and my noble friend Lord Naseby for raising this important issue. I will take each of their amendments in turn.
The amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, would add diversity of provision, including diversity of ownership, geography, community and size, to the list of factors to which the Financial Conduct Authority may have regard as part of its competition objective. The Government agree that access to suitable and affordable banking services is important for communities across the UK. The Government want to see greater competition in our banking sector, with more banks challenging the large incumbents. If communities or entrepreneurs want to set up a bank, either to serve their local community or to compete nationally, and can do so responsibly, Government and regulators should not be an obstacle to this.
This is exactly why the FCA is already required to promote effective competition in the interests of consumers of regulated financial services. We would expect its consideration of competition already to involve not just the number of competitors but the diversity of approach, including geographical location and community. In advancing its competition objective, the FCA may take account of various factors including barriers to entry for new providers of financial services, the needs of different consumers and the differences of businesses.
Baroness Kramer
Can I just add one point for the Minister? The FCA has recently completed a review of its competition objective, and he may be surprised to find that the word “diverse” does not occur anywhere in that review.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
After this, it will be alert to the need to look at diversity. I will come to how we deal with mutuals in a minute. On the last point about the needs of consumers and the differences of businesses, the statute is also clear that the regulators should recognise the different features of a diverse range of business models when pursuing objectives. This is achieved by the principle of good regulation whereby the regulators must have regard to,
“the desirability where appropriate of each regulator exercising its functions in a way that recognises differences in the nature of, and objectives of, businesses carried on by different persons subject to requirements imposed … under this Act”.
As part of fulfilling the existing competition objective, the Government have worked with the regulators to lower barriers to entry. That is why the Government created the Payment Systems Regulator to ensure all banks can access the payments systems on fair and equal terms.
These reforms and others have already had a significant impact, which I hope answers, in part, the noble Lord, Lord Davies. Between May 2010 and May 2015, eight completely new UK banks, all of different sizes and locations, were authorised by the regulators, including two new banks during this Parliament, with several more in the pipeline. This compares to just one new authorisation of a UK bank in the preceding five-year period. The PRA and FCA will also launch their new bank start-up unit on 20 January next year.
Furthermore, to encourage banks to provide services across a broad range of geographical locations and improve access to finance for small businesses across the UK, a number of measures have been implemented, which I will briefly go through. There is now the SME appeals process and the Business Banking Insight survey. The Government have also established the British Business Bank. These improvements complement another initiative: the postcode lending policy, which has allowed for these alternative finance providers and challenger banks to target regional lending “black spots” through publishing lending data by geographical region. This makes the British banking industry the most transparent in the world.
Given all the activity already taking place in this field, it is the Government’s view that the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, will not add to the existing work being conducted by the FCA. It is clear the regulators already take these factors into consideration when fulfilling their competition objective, so this amendment is unnecessary. I therefore respectfully ask the noble Baroness to withdraw it in due course.
Turning now to my noble friend Lord Naseby’s amendment, I indicated in Committee that the Government looked favourably on the intention behind his original amendment. I now welcome my noble friend’s current amendment, which we are delighted to accept. I am extremely grateful to him for raising this issue, and acknowledge the work he has undertaken in advancing the cause of mutuality. I hope that introducing the amendment, which puts consideration of mutuality and other types of business organisation into both regulators’ guiding principles, reassures noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Davies, that the Government strongly support a diverse financial services sector and the part that mutuals play in achieving it.
Lastly, the noble Lord, Lord Davies, asked whether an amendment was needed to the FCA remit letter to reflect the amendment that we will accept. We do not agree, and I therefore cannot give that commitment, because the provision for the remit letter already allows the Government to make recommendations about aspects of their economic policy relevant to the application of the regulatory principles, which will apply to the principles as amended.
Lord Tunnicliffe
Thank you very much—the implementation of the reverse burden of proof. If I go back to my script, I will get it right.
It is important not to underestimate, as the Government seem to be doing, just how significant a departure this would be from the previous regime, not only symbolically but practically too. There could be no denying the intent and commitment to bring about the most rigorous and thorough regulatory regime if the reverse burden of proof were introduced. We believe that knowing that there is nowhere to hide from failure, and that the burden is on you as a senior manager to prove that you took all reasonable and necessary steps, is a more powerful tool to bring about such change. That is why Labour has tabled this amendment to ensure that it comes into force next March, along with the rest of the SMCR.
We have been prepared to listen to the Government’s defence, and accept that they have put forward a very convincing point about why the reverse burden of proof might not be wholly acceptable in its current form. I speak specifically on the issue of proportionality. Given that the Bank of England and Financial Services Bill extends the scope of the SMCR to the entire financial services sector, we fully acknowledge that exemptions from the burden of proof for those not covered by the original proposals would be entirely sensible and necessary, but we do not regard a differentiation in regime as an insurmountable hurdle to overcome.
Therefore, by way of consensus, if the Government would be willing to indicate their intention to bring forward amendments at Third Reading preserving the reverse burden of proof but making exceptions for smaller firms, we would be open to further discussions. However, if the Government fail to do that, it is our responsibility to stand up for the change that people desperately want to see in the banking sector. It is the difference between reform and the status quo—the difference between the path back to public trust and continued disbelief. It is the difference that we need and deserve.
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, I am going to speak only briefly on this issue. My noble friend Lord Sharkey, who is sitting beside me, is perhaps the greater master, with particular expertise of the detail, and I do not think that the House needs to hear the same speech twice. Still, I want to make a few remarks because this is such a crucial issue.
To pick up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, I say that the importance of the reversal of the burden of proof is, above all, its cultural impact—the impact that it has on every chief executive and every head of department to understand that if things go wrong, if there is misconduct and bad conduct within their own department, they are essentially on the line. Historically they have not been, and they know that. This reversal of the burden of proof changes that impact. We can tell that from the many conversations that I keep hearing from the Government that, if there is a reversal of the burden of proof, it might be harder to recruit new people to these posts because of the burden that now sits there.
In a world where we are sure that regulation alone cannot ensure that the banking industry behaves properly, and where enforcement is exceedingly difficult, it is very hard to follow a paper trail when lawyers have been very careful to ensure that one does not exist. There might be no electronic trail either; in fact we have just seen an example of such behaviour by Barclays, which explicitly set up a scheme, for which it has since apologised, which was designed to have no electronic trail whatever. Where the trail is so extremely difficult to follow, what matters is that chief executives and heads of department and other key players lead that cultural change; that they appoint people who will challenge them; that they put people in positions where they will blow the whistle when things go wrong; and that they drive through their whole organisation an understanding of the importance of ethical behaviour and proper conduct. That is the best defence that we can have.
Frankly, government arguments for cancelling the reversal of the burden of proof—the sort of argument for a key reason—have constantly shifted over the past few weeks when we have been discussing this issue. To gather from the last set of conversations around this issue, the argument is now primarily that the senior managers regime, which identifies who is responsible for different activities and different tasks, is both much tougher than the existing regime and much tougher without the reverse burden of proof rather than with it.
Baroness Kramer
I will just make a point of clarification, because a number of noble Lords have made this comment. The reversal of the burden of proof applies not to a criminal offence but to a civil offence.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood
With respect, as I understand it, this is a punishable offence; therefore it is a criminal offence. I certainly understand that it is proposed that this offence should be on the statute book to bring blame on those who commit it and lower them in the estimation of the public so that a conviction or finding of guilt under this provision would be to their considerable disadvantage. I have little doubt that Article 6 would apply to how one proves this breach of the law. There is nothing very new in this either. The golden thread that for centuries has been said to run through our law is that it is for those who accuse to establish a case against those who are accused.
Baroness Kramer
Perhaps I may ask a question of the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull. The FCA stated just over a week ago:
“The FCA may take disciplinary action against an individual where there is evidence of personal culpability on the part of that individual”.
Where does that differ from the regime before any of this is introduced?
Lord Turnbull
That is not exclusive. Elsewhere, there is still a duty of responsibility. There is still personal culpability where it can be proved, but there are many people to whom it does not apply—senior people—and, there, you will need to have recourse to the duty of responsibility to secure a “conviction”—that is, proof of regulatory breach.
Banking: Financial Crime
Baroness Kramer Excerpts(8 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bridges of Headley
My Lords, I echo the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McFall: the financial companies face severe financial penalties. Furthermore, a new criminal sanction was created by the previous Government for those who manage firms in a reckless manner.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, the sophisticated and complex money laundering scheme for nearly £2 billion of Middle Eastern money is unlikely to have been a one-off. What assurances can the Minister give the House that this transaction and others like it were not using funds from terrorism or that the funds generated were used for terrorism?
Lord Bridges of Headley
My Lords, I am sorry but I cannot go into greater detail on that point. However, I draw the noble Baroness’s attention to the fact that, under the FCA’s rules, money laundering reporting officers will have to be senior managers. The FCA will also require firms to allocate overall responsibility for the firm’s policies and procedures for countering the risk that the firm might be used to further financial crime to an approved senior manager, who could be the MLRO but does not have to be. This will ensure that there is accountability for financial crime matters at the top executive level.
Bank of England and Financial Services Bill [HL]
Baroness Kramer Excerpts(9 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, of course the FSA failed in its task as the problem developed over the several years leading up to the financial crisis of 2007-08. But I think it is very wrong to claim that the Bank of England did not also fail during this period, despite its access, as he reasonably said, to very extensive market intelligence. One of the frustrations of this House was that although the FSA recognised its failure, I am not sure that even up to this day the Bank of England has ever accepted that it played its role in an inadequate way during that period. Indeed, that has been part of the problem in putting remedies in place because, as many have said, a change in culture is an essential part of that process.
Lord Carrington of Fulham
The noble Baroness is failing to understand that there was a strict separation between the role of the Bank of England and the FSA, and there was no communication between them at the level which ought to have allowed that information to be passed. That was part of the problem. There was a great separation between the two. If the Bank of England understood what was going on, it did not see it as its job. If the FSA knew there was a problem but did not have the information, it could not communicate with the Bank of England. Bringing the two together—bringing the regulator together with the central bank and, I emphasise, with the Treasury as well—will find a solution.
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, I find it extraordinary that there is an argument that the Bank of England knew what was going wrong but sullenly kept its mouth shut because the constraints gave the key responsibilities to the FSA. We have to break away from that sort of cultural notion that one observes only the very narrowest interpretation of responsibility when we are talking about an organisation such as the Bank of England. I agree that that culture tends to continue. That is one of the frustrations and concerns that we have, particularly with the removal of the oversight committee, which is the one challenge to that ongoing attitude. Let us set that aside for the moment, although I find it a constant frustration not to recognise that the Bank of England did not act when it certainly had an opportunity to lay on the table the many problems it now says it saw with such clarity.
I go back to the underlying issue, which is that the PRA has been a success. The PRA has been absolutely key in establishing the kinds of regulations that have made the Bank safer for the future, setting standards for regulatory capital being an important part of that. In addition, in the period before we had the PRA, it was virtually impossible to get a new bank licensed in this country. We have had Metro Bank but essentially no new bank for 150 years. People had to find an existing banking licence, buy it and go for some sort of change of purpose. The PRA was a leader in changing that whole culture and recognising the importance of bringing in challengers and new players. Had it stayed tightly within the existing Bank family, which had resisted that approach over and over again, I very much doubt that we would have seen that kind of change. So the experience we have had since setting up a PRA which has some distance from the Bank—a small distance, I fully acknowledge, but separate responsibilities governed under company law—has been that it has brought forward change in a way that is not part of the history of the Bank. I am very concerned at the potential for losing that.
The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, also suggested that if we changed the existing structure it would not allow a proper flow of information from the Bank of England to the PRA. But look at the membership of the PRA: we have crossovers in deputy governors, and I believe that the Governor of the Bank of England is the formal chair of the PRA. If these individuals are unable to remember the meetings that they were exposed to and the memos that they read when they wore one hat, and bring that information into the meetings they have when they play their role within the PRA, I frankly find that extraordinary. As far as I understand it, there is no problem of information flow—and if there is, we would very much like to hear from the Minister what the instances are, where there has been that kind of breakdown, and why an individual involved in discussions in one particular part of his or her job has been unable to remember those discussions when participating in another part of it. Those are quite serious allegations. I would like to hear from the Minister where this communication has so badly broken down when it is quite frequently the same individuals who are involved.
Lord Tunnicliffe
My Lords, again, I support the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, on his general thrust in this debate. I come at it from a slightly different direction, although I think that the fundamental proposition is, “If it’s not broken, why are we trying to fix it?”. In fact, the supporting paperwork says that it is working well. We need to go behind that—back to the 2012 Act, the FiSMA 2000, as amended, and all that sort of stuff—to look at how the Bank is now going to work.
I think the Bank will move its emphasis from the Monetary Policy Committee towards the FPC. Regarding the control of interest rates and the Government’s injections of cash, depending on which textbook you read, it was the actions of banks in creating credit that formed the bubbles that caused the crisis of 2008-09. I believe that is the technical reason and that we are seeing many bubbles emerging again. As to the process of the FPC, by reading through the consolidated Act we see that its many powers—to make recommendations about new tools, for example—and all the things it is able to do to control the creation of credit, among other things, are absolutely fundamental to how efficiently the money system supports the economy, and hence are fundamental to the economy.
Now, what is the thing that keeps this clean? The thing that keeps it clean is the fact that the PRA is a subsidiary—an independent company, as mentioned, governed by company law—and, therefore, there has to be an arm’s-length relationship between it and the FPC. Under the various terms of the Act, the FPC can create various macroeconomic tools, which it then hands down to the PRA. It hands those down not through some side-channels or influence but, because of that independent legal status, in a very formal way to its subsidiary, and I think that is healthy. I do not believe that in effect moving the PRA closer to the Bank—and, by definition, closer to the FPC—is a good thing. The present separation is working, and I think we should continue it.
The reform included in the Bill ends this subsidiary status. The PRA board will be replaced by the Prudential Regulation Committee and, as I said, that must have the right balance. The Government so far, frankly, have not come up with a good reason for this change. The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, made the point that mechanisms for information transfer are there, and therefore that is not at risk. The whole purpose of being in a subsidiary company—I headed a subsidiary company of a large organisation—is to get focus on its business, so that there are very clear responsibilities. I think that the move in the Bill away from its being a subsidiary is a bad thing, and I hope that the Government will reconsider the inclusion of this clause.
Baroness Kramer
“PRA: Green Investment Bank
(1) The PRA must carry out its functions in a way that it considers will secure the provision of a “Green Investment Bank” service in the United Kingdom.
(2) The PRA shall by rules specify the purposes that it considers should be supported in the United Kingdom by the provision of a “Green Investment Bank” service.
(3) Rules under subsection (2) shall include the following purposes—
(a) the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions;(b) the advancement of efficiency in the use of natural resources;(c) the protection or enhancement of the natural environment;(d) the protection or enhancement of biodiversity; and(e) the promotion of environmental sustainability.(4) In subsection (3)(a), “greenhouse gas” has the meaning given by section 92(l) of the Climate Change Act 2008.”
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, I realise that some of your Lordships will be surprised that we have introduced an amendment with a clause referring to the Green Investment Bank into a discussion of a Bank of England Bill. Your Lordships will be aware that the Green Investment Bank has been one of the great successes of the coalition era. It filled a gap left by a market failure which had resulted in any green project requiring long-term, patient investment having great difficulty in accessing that kind of financing. The Government put something in the range of £3 billion into the Green Investment Bank, which has been so successful that it has since leveraged an additional £6 billion from the private sector. It is universally regarded as one of the most successful creations for enhancing our long-term investment in green infrastructure.
This Government have made the decision that they wish to privatise the Green Investment Bank. Discussions around that should and must take place in the context of the Enterprise Bill, but it is clear from the discussion so far that privatisation presents a problem. In order to completely remove the Green Investment Bank from their books, as the Government intend, they cannot continue to exercise any control over the bank after it has been privatised. They cannot require that the mission of the bank continues to be green investment; new owners could convert the bank to any other purpose at will after privatisation. Indeed, the Government cannot even require that the bank continue as a going concern. It would be quite possible for a new owner to absorb the existing assets into other parts of its business and make the decision that, as those assets were paid down, it would invest in a whole variety of other activities; it need not continue to provide a green investment bank at all. The Government, as I understand it, believe that they are helpless to provide for that requirement post privatisation. I do not think that is the wish either of the Government or, frankly, of Parliament.
As I say, this has been a successful bank. There are real concerns that private investors might turn the bank to another purpose—not because it is not successful but because there will be other ways to make money once the assets begin to return cash. Indeed, as I said, the reason why the bank was created in the first place was that the market showed very little interest in providing financing for these kinds of projects. Hopefully, attitudes have changed because the Green Investment Bank has established a very positive track record, but there is absolutely no guarantee. The future of the Green Investment Bank once it is in private hands is in question.
We faced a very similar problem when the system was set up to enable Royal Mail to be privatised. That privatisation is now going ahead. The Royal Mail, as your Lordships will be aware, was and is the vehicle through which a universal postal service is provided, under which every area of the country is covered by a postal service at a single, identical rate, which applies no matter where in the country anyone is. So my question became: if the Government could find a mechanism through which Royal Mail continued to have that set of obligations, could a similar mechanism provide for the Green Investment Bank to continue to have its existing obligations? The mechanism used for Royal Mail was that of the regulator, Ofcom.
I do not pretend that there is any quality in the drafting, but I have pulled together provisions from the Postal Services Act 2011 and the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act to try to establish a similar framework for the Green Investment Bank. The regulator in this case would appear to be the PRA, because that is the role it plays in relation to the banking industry.
I understand that the Government are willing to listen if we can find ways to keep the purpose for which the Green Investment Bank was created. I very much hope that moving the new clause creates an opportunity for the Government—for the Treasury—to become engaged. One problem that we often suffer from within government is that actions get siloed to one particular area. Frankly, the Green Investment Bank has ended up getting siloed over to BIS. But it is an issue that could impact equally well on the Treasury, because the Treasury has the relationship with the banking regulator which I propose to use in this case. It is on that basis that I move the amendment, and I hope that the Government will seriously look to see whether this route offers everyone a mechanism to get to the solution that most wish for.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, the Green Investment Bank has been one of the great successes of the coalition Government. To quote the words— which I fully endorse—of the Conservative manifesto of 2010,
“we will create Britain’s first Green Investment Bank—which will draw together money currently divided across existing government initiatives, leveraging private sector capital to finance new green technology start-ups”.
Absolutely. It was also in the Liberal Democrat manifesto and, I think, the Labour manifesto. After the Wigley commission, set up by the Conservatives, we all felt that this was an excellent way forward and one that would be successful. The management team at the Green Investment Bank has delivered that well over its first three years.
We on these Benches would prefer that privatisation did not take place quite so quickly. We do not feel that the Government will get its full value at the moment, but we accept that that is the Government’s policy. If the bank does not have proper access to additional private funding, in reality, it will be starved of sufficient future investment by the Treasury. Hence, we want to co-operate strongly with the Government to find a way to ensure that we do not just remove the legislative requirements in the Act, but keep those principles of the bank’s operation not just in its constitution but in the way that it can operate.
We are not happy about the fact that the five principles currently in statute will be put into the mem and arts of the company, because clearly those can be changed by a special resolution of 75% of the shareholders. As my noble friend Lady Kramer said so well, we have no guarantee that the bank will not be purchased just to run it down, make the most of its income stream and use it as an investment for future cash flow. That would be a tragedy for everybody. I am sure that that is not the Government’s intent but at the moment we have no guarantee through legislation that it would not be the case.
Lord Bridges of Headley
The noble Lord makes an extremely good point, and one that the CEO, Shaun Kingsbury, was asked directly. I am not going to prejudice what my noble friend the Minister in BIS is working on, but that is clearly something that we need to look at. I note that Mr Kingsbury himself said that he believed that the purchasers of or investors in the Green Investment Bank would look expressly to ensure that the specialisms that the bank currently has would continue, and we would want to make sure that that specialism and focus are the core of their investment. That said, I heed entirely what the noble Lord says and will draw it to my noble friend’s attention.
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, I was actually quite heartened by the Minister’s reply, although I suspect not in the way that he intended. He suggested that there were very few obstacles to using the PRA as an appropriate regulator in this case—so perhaps there is an avenue there to be explored. Can the Government look seriously at this issue? I know from having been in government very briefly that to direct the lawyers to look at a way to achieve rather than stop something is a very significant challenge. I hope that now the energies of the Treasury will be focused on this, as well as the energies of BIS. Frankly, if we lose the Green Investment Bank in the role that it plays, we will all be losers. It would be very frustrating to think that that was unnecessary and had only required some significant legal effort to avoid it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Gold (Con)
My Lords, I oppose this amendment. I have listened to the noble Lord, Lord McFall, and I fully agree—I suspect we all agree—that the examples he has mentioned of culpable things that have gone wrong cannot be acceptable. However, hearing his comments on the demands of public opinion makes me even more certain that we should oppose this amendment, because the rule of law must be upheld and we must allow the innocent to remain innocent until proved guilty.
Regulation is terribly important and we must give appropriate powers to the regulators to enable them to undertake their work effectively, including the ability to search out evidence in order to ascertain what went wrong and who was responsible. They must be able to break down any firewall that the institutions might have erected. Employees in financial institutions must fear the consequences of acting badly and know that if they break the rules the consequences could be very severe, including heavy fines and maybe a prison sentence.
If we have failed to achieve these things, however, the answer is not to shift the burden of proof so that the defendant has to prove his innocence. That would be tantamount to giving up the challenge. Instead, we must tighten up the regulator’s powers and create an appropriate and effective regulatory regime, one that can achieve what all of us want, which is to protect those dealing with the financial institutions and punish those who fail in their duties.
In this Bill, the Government are aiming to do just that by extending the regulatory regime to all financial services firms and giving power to the regulator to make and enforce rules of conduct. This materially strengthens the regulator’s position. In so doing, it rightly reverses the burden of proof so as no longer to presume guilt, requiring the defendant to prove innocence, and we should not now allow that to continue.
I welcome the Government’s proposals for several reasons. First, I believe it is right to extend the regulatory regime across the whole financial services industry and thereby strengthen regulation. It is also right that we should not change a fundamental tenet of English law, which is that a person is innocent until proved guilty. As I have indicated, to reverse the burden of proof in this way is an excuse for failing to create an effective regulatory regime. Indeed, it is a lazy way of dealing with a problem and should not be countenanced. The provision that it is now proposed should be reversed, frankly, should never have been enacted. I am pleased that the Government have now recognised this.
In proposing this change, the Government seek to treat all financial institutions in the same way. Surely that must be right and fair. Why should there be one rule for large institutions and another for smaller ones? If a financial institution or someone working there breaks the rules then there should be a consequence, and everyone should be treated equally. Any suggestion that there should be a two-tier system so that the present law presuming guilt applies only to certain institutions, but the burden of proof shifts for those institutions that now come within this regulatory regime, is unfair. We should not discriminate between institutions. This could lead to unfair competition and could prejudice the very people we wish to protect—the consumers and customers.
The effectiveness of these new rules, once in force, should be carefully monitored and scrutinised. If, despite the extension of the regulatory regime now proposed, more is required, the Government must not shy away from a further extension of regulatory powers. However, in so doing, they should not then restore the short cut of shifting the burden of proof.
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, I cannot in any way better the speeches of my noble friend Lord Sharkey and the noble Lord, Lord McFall, but maybe I could make a few additional comments.
First, there is the argument in favour of a two-tier system. The regulator is already managing the banks and the financial services industry as a two-tier system. There are different rules for systemically important institutions and for the much smaller institutions whose behaviour cannot disturb the financial stability of the country. If the principle is that the banking industry and the financial services industry should be regulated only under a single tier, the Government are, in a sense, demanding that a great deal of regulation be rolled back, which, they are currently arguing, makes us more secure. We have a two-tier system; we are arguing that that two-tier system should encompass this kind of liability.
I want to also talk about the difficulties in pursuing senior managers when their institutions have been involved in outrageous and illegal behaviour. These are not victimless crimes, although they are often treated as though they are. The collapse of the banking system had a huge impact on people up and down the country: people lost their jobs, had to live through a period of suppressed wages and have seen public services cut. The experiences of ordinary people over the last five years have been wretched, and the trigger for that crisis was a financial crisis created by systemic financial institutions—so many people suffered as a consequence of that.
If I look at the misbehaviour inside the banks, I see that those were not victimless crimes. The families that paid for PPI that they did not need and could not use were often families without large resources—the cost mattered. Small businesses were persuaded to enter into interest rate swaps that were completely inappropriate for them, and some went under as a consequence of the problems generated by those swaps. Money laundering, which was on an industrial scale across many of our institutions, supported the drugs trade, prostitution and people trafficking, all of which did extensive damage to our communities. LIBOR mis-selling and mispriced mortgages and loans for individuals over a long period of time came at a significant cost to them, as well as, frankly, bringing the City of London into disrepute and, for a time, putting it at risk as a financial centre. We know that the United States seriously considered whether or not London could continue to be a major player if it could so poorly regulate its financial institutions as to allow manipulation of a core measure such as LIBOR.
Lord Hunt of Wirral
I hope that the noble Lord will not mind if I try to avoid following him down that route. I hope that noble Lords will understand that my objection is that I dislike in any event the reverse burden of proof. I welcome the fact that it is to be abolished, but I want to send a message that the financial services industry should be composed of people who put the customer, the consumer and the client first and observe the highest possible principles both professionally and in the standards they seek to maintain.
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, I do not mean to be in any way offensive to the noble Lord, but we cannot afford to be naive. We were naive for decades and in that period significant abuse took place. I am not talking just about a failure to make proper credit decisions. If we look at RBS, we can see that it lost money the old-fashioned way. It made very foolish loans and abandoned appropriate credit standards. You could call that incompetence rather than venality. But what of money laundering, LIBOR mis-selling and PPI mis-selling? These were not failures of competence; they were quite deliberate abuses of the customer on an industrial scale, year after year after year. The assumption that all the people engaged in those activities have either changed who they are or have left the industry is, may I suggest to him, naive?
Part of the underlying problem is that so much money is at stake here. For senior people who turn their eyes away from abuse, there are very substantial financial rewards. As we have seen, even when there are some penalties such as clawback, they are only a small proportion of extraordinary rewards. We are in a situation where the risk is high if abuse continues. I understand the noble Lord’s concerns over the reverse burden of proof, and I do not support it lightly, but as my noble friend Lord Sharkey said, we have on the statute book at least 10 or 11 other Acts, frequently supported by Members of this House, which have decided that the reverse burden of proof is necessary because it is the only way for the law to be effective.
Lord Hunt of Wirral
I am not sure that I am supposed to try to answer the noble Baroness. Perhaps I may just say that if she examines her basic beliefs, she will agree with me that the presumption of innocence is a fundamental human right. I suppose we disagree because the noble Baroness would like to see a two-tier system. I find that very difficult to justify.
I revert back to my view that complementary self-regulation is the way forward. If the trust and confidence that the public had in the financial services industry is to be restored, the message has to go out to the industry that, rather than be subjected to even tougher statutory rules and regulations, the time has come for it to take the lead and determine how its businesses are to be run in the interests of the customer. I hope that that will be the message that goes out from this debate.
Lord Carrington of Fulham
My Lords, I had not intended to intervene on this amendment, and before I speak, perhaps I had better remind the Committee of my interests as set out in the register. I think that everything has been said about the natural justice and injustice of the reverse burden of proof, particularly on this side by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark. I do not want to take that line because the argument is clear; rather, I want to add two practical thoughts. The first is that if there has been wrongdoing in a financial institution, I do not think that anyone in this House would support the guilty parties getting away with it, however senior they are in the organisation. The question is not whether they should get away with it but whether the powers exist to enable the regulators, and then the proper prosecuting authorities, to take appropriate action. I remind the Committee that the PRA has very extensive powers. If the authority considers that there has been malfeasance in a financial institution, it is able to go in and trawl through the records of that institution in great detail, to the extent of looking at email trails.
Baroness Kramer
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, is referring to the FCA, but regardless of that, he has mentioned email trails. Is he aware that the absence of email trails was a fundamental part of the regulator’s decision that it was not able to pursue a single case to senior management level? There was an absence not only of email trails but of any other record which would enable pursuit of a trail from the bottom upwards. The evidence for that is very clear in the transcripts of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards.
Lord Carrington of Fulham
I have not read those transcripts, but I have some experience of both the PRA and the FCA, and I can tell the noble Baroness that those powers exist for both bodies. If they do not, or if they need enhancing, I would be the first to say that that should happen
Baroness Kramer
I am sorry to keep bobbing up and down, but the point that was made was that those in charge are very careful that there is no email trail and no written trail. That is one of the points about the reverse burden of proof: in effect it requires senior managers to allow an email trail to exist, or indeed some sort of audit trail, because they would be in a position where they would be required to demonstrate that they had taken reasonable steps. When the burden shifts back to the regulator, the regulator is completely stymied at the point where all conversations and exchanges take place in an environment where there are no minutes, no emails, no memos and no existing trail.
Lord Carrington of Fulham
I will come on to that in a moment; that is the second point I wish to make. The first point is that the power does exist for the PRA—and, indeed, the FCA—to be able to go and investigate what has happened inside a financial institution in very great depth and in very great detail.
The consequence of the reverse burden of proof would be to make the situation to which the noble Baroness referred even worse. An organisation which knows that there is individual liability where they have to prove that they did no wrong will have lawyers crawling all over them to make certain that at every move, nothing is recorded, nothing is said and nothing is minuted which would put them in a position where they could do anything other than deny all culpability. That is what would happen—and to some extent does happen. But I can reassure the House that destroying email trails is extraordinarily difficult. In most institutions, email trails survive through even the greatest attempts to wipe the hard drives clean. I can assure the noble Baroness that if the PRA wishes to find evidence and has the resources, the determination and the suspicion, it will find the evidence to bring the prosecutions it needs.
Bank of England and Financial Services Bill [HL]
Baroness Kramer Excerpts(9 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, I shall also speak briefly and, largely, to endorse the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey. The impact assessment does not give a rationale for why the Government have made this decision, which we seek at this point. It would be useful to understand the reasons for the decision having been taken; without such information, we are not quite clear as to the advantages. Who was consulted on this, and what are the benefits to consumers and regulators? Surely it would put more pressure on the regulators to identify wrongdoing. Have the Government conducted investigations that take any of this into account? The Minister has a chance to reassure both of us who have spoken in this short debate on the reasons for the Government’s position.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I shall say a brief word. My noble friend Lord Sharkey and the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, have both been very calm on this issue, but I shall admit that, frankly, I am outraged. The obligations that exist for so many people in the public sector to report misconduct—on teachers, police officers and members of the NHS—are taken as absolute requirements. There is no question of whether they are costly; it is understood that the importance of propriety and integrity in all those activities is crucial. I suggest that, after the years that we have been through following the financial crisis, no one should doubt that integrity in this sector is absolutely vital.
When we sat on the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, we discussed whistleblowing extensively. Every single institution that we talked to and everyone we could identify had in place mechanisms for whistleblowing; the problem is that none of them was effective. The kind of issues that were reported through whistleblowing systems were situations such as when someone had noticed someone sliding a £5 note out of a cashier’s desk—they were on that kind of scale. So none of the major abuses, whether it was PPI, the LIBOR scandal, the mishandling of credit issues or money-laundering, came to the surface through any kind of whistleblowing system. This measure—the statutory requirement to report a breach when someone sees or recognises that it is happening—is one of the few mechanisms that we could conceive of to try to counter that particular set of problems. Without exception, everybody who gave evidence to the parliamentary commission talked about the importance of making whistleblowing much more effective. So far as I can see, there is no replacement to this requirement that is effective, that has been proposed—and, frankly, if there is a burden, surely any burden is significantly smaller than living with the consequences of sustained and ongoing abuse.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Lord Bridges of Headley) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, for provoking this short debate. I heed what the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and the noble Lord, Lord Davies, have said. I shall try to explain the Government's position. I need to examine the very insightful comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, and may want to return to some of them in writing. If I do not address them here, I shall endeavour to do so in writing.
At first glance, this seems an obvious and straightforward requirement to impose on authorised persons. As the noble Lord will be aware, this requirement was introduced by the coalition Government through the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013. It is through that planned implementation of this provision that we have learnt that it is simply disproportionate.
Before I go into more detail, I reassure noble Lords that this does not mean that firms will be under no obligation to report wrongdoing to the regulators. First, a separate proviso in the 2013 Act will still apply: the requirement for firms to notify regulators that they have taken disciplinary action against an individual subject to the conduct rules, be it through dismissal, a reduction in pay or a written warning. Secondly, this requirement builds on the regulators’ existing principle for business that firms must tell them of anything that may be of interest to them. If a significant issue arose with the conduct of a member of staff that for some reason did not lead to disciplinary action, the firm would still need to consider whether it would be appropriate to alert the regulators.
In this context, the Government believe that a blanket requirement to report all known or suspected breaches of the conduct rules is disproportionate. In particular, an obligation to report suspected breaches is potentially open-ended and wide ranging for it forces firms to work out the point at which possible indications of breaches of rules of conduct would amount to a genuine suspicion. Then the firm would have to train staff to spot and assess those indications, and finally firms would need systems—
Baroness Kramer
The argument the Minister has made suggests that he does not believe that whistleblowing is a justified process. Almost every whistleblower who raises a suspicion is very unlikely to be able to present a signed and sealed case. It is surely the responsibility of the organisation where the whistleblowing has taken place to explore that. In fact, they constantly guarantee that that is exactly what they will do. The Minister is now saying that that is far too onerous. I find that incredible.
Lord Bridges of Headley
I am not saying that. I am saying that the process as a whole is potentially too onerous. I heed what the noble Baroness says, and of course whistleblowing is important. I shall continue, and we can continue to have this debate.
Finally, firms would need systems to ensure that the information is captured and transmitted to regulators, but it does not stop there. Having been notified of a suspicion, the regulators would have to decide whether to investigate and then, if appropriate, to consider what action to take. No doubt there would be many cases where there was only suspicion and nothing more and no action would be taken, but all cases would have to be investigated to some extent, and it would be difficult for regulators to do nothing at all once they had been notified.
Noble Lords should also note that, although the Government believe that an inflexible requirement to report all known and suspected breaches of conduct rules by all employees subject to them is inappropriate, the regulators can impose more targeted proportionate rules in this area if it supports the pursuit of their objectives.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, raised costs. The costs in the impact assessment are based on the detailed cost-benefit analysis published by the regulators when they set out how they would implement the regime. I understand it is available on the FCA website, but I will write to the noble Lord and all interested Peers on this point. On that basis, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, I do not think that I can improve on anything that has been said by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, because she understands these issues with such clarity and works so extensively in this field. In a strange way, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, made the argument for how a duty of care should be at the heart of everything that banking institutions and financial institutions do. I hope very much that the Government will take on board the importance of embedding these kinds of responsibilities deeply within the requirements for the financial services industry.
Lord Tunnicliffe
My Lords, what became evident both during and after the crash was that financial providers had failed to exercise any duty of care towards consumers across the sector that the industry is supposed to serve. The amendment before us was previously moved by my noble friend Lady Hayter, and I draw largely on her experiences as a member of the Financial Services Consumer Panel. The cases she worked on during her time at the FSCP were, among others, high loan-to-value mortgages and high loan-to-income mortgages. This was plainly about selling products to people who could not afford them with no consideration of their interests. This was done in spite of the fact that should circumstances change, those people would have no way of repaying their loans. As time went on and the number of loans increased, each one as reckless as the last, no account was taken of the hurt to individual borrowers or of the far wider group of consumers whose house prices fell in the subsequent crash, while future loans dried up and repayment terms became unsustainable.
The amendment would ensure that financial services had a duty of care to their consumers collectively as well as on a one-to-one basis with their clients. Case law provides for a duty of care across the financial services sector, but it is clear that that is not enough. Despite this, the Government have continued to resist writing it into legislation and have relied only on case law. The first part of the amendment would establish a fiduciary duty that would demand a higher standard of care for direct consumers, and the second part would extend that general duty to all consumers across the sector. This would fill a gap which currently exists in the financial services sector. If it were to be introduced alongside the new extended senior managers and certification regime, it could bring about a cultural change in the financial services sector that the Government, the Treasury Select Committee and the Bank of England have all said is necessary.
The experience of many of us of the financial sector has moved from a position where as a generality we expected that we could trust the industry with our money and for appropriate advice. The crash has completely destroyed that trust, so an amendment like this, if accepted, could help to bring it back. Confidence in the sector remains dangerously low and something has to be done to restore it. Perhaps this duty of care would provide a route back to public trust.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, I hope that the Government will think carefully about these proposals. I declare an interest, and therefore perhaps some knowledge of this, in the sense that I am chairman of the Association of Independent Professional Financial Advisers, am on the board of Castle Trust and also look after the Association of Mortgage Intermediaries, so this is an area in which I have a particular interest.
First, I say to the Committee that proper reporting is a crucial part of ensuring that we get changes in the world in which we live. Transparency has been brought to us partially because of the internet—we now expect to know and to be able to judge on what we know. I hope that the Government recognise that this is not an additional burden, because any financial business ought to be thinking about these things. It is not acceptable that people should carry on business without asking themselves, “Is what I do sustainable?”. If they do carry on business without thinking about that, it seems to me that it is not very good for the business. In other words, this is not a burden in the sense that we are asking business to do something that would not contribute to its own success; we are asking it to do something that is essential for its own success, and I am sorry that the industry itself has not come to the Government with its own scheme about how it should do that, because it is crucial for the future.
Secondly, when you talk to people in the financial world about these issues, they recognise them. Many of them are increasingly concerned that they should use their financial strength to promote and protect the future not only of their own businesses but of Britain, Europe and the whole globe. I think that there is a readiness to accept such a measure.
Thirdly, there is nothing that is as damaging in this area as a whole series of different ways of reporting different bits of information, so that people—sometimes without very good reason or sometimes with another agenda—can make false comparisons, because the comparisons are so difficult. It is in the interests of the industry that there should be some basic, simple and clear way of comparing one business with another.
The fourth thing that seems to me to be important is that we should recognise what a crucial role the financial services industries play in the promotion of sustainability. Choices that they make today will make a huge difference tomorrow; the choices that they make today will make an even bigger difference the day after tomorrow. We need thinking which is long term. I have been asked to speak at a whole series of meetings recently, put on not by those who are concerned with sustainable investment or socially responsible investment but by straightforward, ordinary investment businesses which believe that this is the route down which they have to go. We are not pushing people to do things that they do not want to do; we are making sure that what they do is comparable, usable and helpful. So this is an important measure for that purpose.
The last reason why I want to ask the Government to think seriously about this proposal is very simple: we need to think about these matters in every aspect of our lives. We cannot deal with the issues of climate change in particular or of environment more generally if we think that they are the perquisite of the Department of Energy and Climate Change, of Defra or even of the Department for Transport; this has to be part of what we do naturally, inevitably, all the time when we make decisions. We have to get into that mode and that mood. Therefore, I would hope that we were thinking of doing these things in a lot of other areas when we come to them.
However, we must make sure that people are not misled. I do not want to rub salt into the wounds, but the recent Volkswagen debacle reminds us how dangerous it is if we mismeasure. Measurement is a crucial part of making sure that people do things. If it is not measured, it is not done—we know that; if it is mismeasured, then it is done badly. We are trying here to suggest to the Government that ensuring that there is a sensible way of reporting what people are doing is a vital part of this legislation.
I commend to my noble friend the action of the Government on modern slavery. I do not think that there is any doubt that on all sides of the Chamber we have welcomed the Modern Slavery Act. What that Act does is tell people that they have to report what they have done to avoid modern slavery in their supply chain. That is very similar and parallel to what we are asking for here: to give the public, the campaigners and the people who care information which they deserve and ought to have.
I end by reminding my noble friend that a recent study done on behalf of the Navy discovered that there was very little difference in the way that people got information, and what they expected to get, between officers and men, men and women, and people based here in Britain and those based abroad. The one difference was between those under 30 and those over 30. Those who were under 30 expected to be able to know. This was done some years ago, so I suspect it is now those under 35, but the fact is that the internet generation does not understand why anybody does not understand that they want to know. If you ask people of that age, they do not understand why you—referring to me rather than my noble friend—do not expect information to be available. This is the world we live in.
I hope the Government will take these propositions very seriously. It may not be the right amendment and there are some bits of it that I think I would rewrite—all sorts of things might be improved, and the noble Lord who moved it on behalf of the noble Baroness would probably agree that we should settle for a different phraseology. However, we want to make sure that everybody making decisions in the financial services area recognises that they are making them in this context and reports them so that others can see that they have taken those decisions not lightly or for short-term reasons but in the context in which we all live—a world which is threatened by the most catastrophic danger that we have knowingly faced in our history.
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, and the comments of the noble Lords, Lord McFall and Lord Deben. The amendment addresses an issue which the Government now have to take seriously. The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Deben, reminded me of the old adage: “What you measure, you manage”. By measuring and reporting, which surely is not beyond any corporation of any size, we change the whole culture of short-termism which dominates at the moment throughout the financial services industry, and create the potential for many more players to start to look at the longer term and at issues of sustainability. Surely, when we have been doing so much to try to ensure financial stability, which is a long-term issue, backing that up with the kind of tools that are proposed in this amendment makes a great deal of sense.
I am very much a believer that one of the greatest risks that we face, if not the greatest risk, is climate change. However, we are also looking at a time when new technologies are disrupting the whole established structure, and we have to take that on board in some way. We are also looking at great population changes—migration and demographic changes—and this amendment seems to me to be rather good at highlighting that all those big, disruptive changes need to be captured to some extent in this reporting system.
I hope that the Government will take this seriously. I agree that no one takes particular pride in authorship of the language on these occasions, but this is about getting the principle properly embedded so that the Bank and the regulators can carry out their tasks in a way that deals not just with immediate risk but with the long term and encourage the financial services industry to play over that long-term arena as well. We have financial services businesses which are recognising the importance of long-term sustainability and are doing it exceedingly well, but it is very hard for them to communicate with potential investors when differences in reporting strategies and language make that communication so confused. Providing a level playing field in terms of reporting means that those who focus on this can get their message out and that investors to whom this is important can then shape their decisions based on that comparable information.
Baroness Kramer
I shall make one relatively small point. This is an area where I do not pretend expertise. At Second Reading, I referred to the importance of both guidance and advice and the significance of distinguishing between the two. At the moment, many people who are retiring will have spent a large part of their careers accruing pension benefits through a defined benefits plan and a relatively small proportion of their career in defined contributions, so for many people now the discretionary pot is probably quite small and many of them may feel that they can therefore make decisions without advice. That picture will rapidly change as a generation comes forward for whom defined contributions have essentially been the framework within which they have provided for most of their pension. We are moving into a situation where advice will become more significant, so this problem needs resolution. I ask that any measure the Government take recognises that this is not a front-loaded problem but a back-loaded problem, so they need to be sure that they are constantly expanding the relevant resources.
Baroness Drake
My Lords, I shall speak to paragraph (f)(i) and (ii) in the amendment which refer to the secondary annuity market, and I draw the attention of the Committee to my registered interests, in particular my membership of the board of the Pensions Advisory Service, which is a delivery body for the current Pension Wise.
In the summer Budget Statement, the Chancellor confirmed that he wishes existing annuity owners to have the freedom to sell their annuity income but announced that plans for a secondary annuities market would be delayed until 2017 to ensure that there is an in-depth package to support consumers. The Pensions Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, confirmed that the delay was to ensure consumer protection adding:
“We can’t launch without safeguards”.
It is important, as paragraph f(i) in the amendment provides, first to identify very clearly the risks in this market and the potential advantages and disadvantages to the consumer of converting an income for life into a cash sum before agreeing the regulations with regard to guidance to be provided to individuals considering trading their annuities. If the infrastructure of such a secondary annuity market were to be put in place, it is not yet clear who would be the buyers of the annuities. There are still lots of unknowns about how that market would operate. Until we understand more about how that secondary market will operate and what regulatory restrictions will be imposed, it will be difficult to assess whether customers are able to get a good deal. If an individual got a poor deal in the first place, selling the annuity on would not necessarily reverse that; indeed, it could make it worse. If, as the Chancellor argues, the pensioner freedom reforms were needed in part because the annuity market was not working in the best interests of all consumers for the simpler proposition of selling someone an annuity, why would it be expected that the reverse secondary market, where someone would resell an existing annuity, would work any better?
Some people will certainly be tempted to cash in their annuity for what looks like a large sum but their annuity may be bought at a heavily discounted price. Selling their guaranteed income could prove expensive because of the cost of individually underwriting each transaction. There will be costs to trading, complex pricing systems and consumer vulnerability to poor behaviour by some firms. So many pensioners may not be better off as a result, and it may be difficult to assess whether the lump sum that they have been offered is a fair swap for what they would be giving up. Actually, though, once they have given that up, the decision is irreversible.
The Bill refers to protecting the interests of those who have an interest in a particular annuity, and that certainly needs to be considered. What is the situation in a joint life annuity? What is the definition of those who have an interest? How will their interest be protected? What if a person is not named on a joint life annuity contract? These may seem irritating points of detail, but they will be matters of significant substance for some people who may be the beneficiaries of an income stream from an annuity.
The Government have also advised, as my noble friend Lord McKenzie said, that they want to consider how to explain the interaction between annuity income, capital and deprivation laws in the welfare, social care and council tax reduction system—something that we rather tripped over when implementing pension freedoms. In making that clear to people who are considering selling their annuity, the guidance would need to explain clearly the implications of that interaction.
In the secondary annuity market, the appropriate form of consumer protection has to be an integral part of any proposals to allow people to resell annuities, and therefore a clear identification and consideration of the safeguards and guidance that are appropriate is required before regulations come into force. It is important to be assured that they are actually fit for purpose. Creating a secondary annuity market is certainly not a simple proposition, which presumably is why the Chancellor has delayed his plans until 2017, although I accept that the proposed expansion of pension guidance to those considering selling their annuity is to be welcomed. However, it will be important for Parliament to understand what guidance will be delivered, and how, to people looking to trade in a secondary annuity market, because such a market will come with risk and complexity and that has to be reflected in the quality and comprehensiveness of the guidance provided. This is not going to be a proposition without problems. Some people have suggested introducing a requirement to take independent advice but even that is not a simple proposition, not least if a requirement to take advice significantly reduces the value of the transaction to the seller.
Lastly, the complexity of a secondary annuity market means it is essential that the pension guidance that is provided is of a high quality, delivered by people with the necessary skills and expertise. This is not going to be a straightforward set of guidance. Reflecting on experience to date, it is very important that those who bear responsibility for signposting to the guidance those who want to trade in the annuity market are not organisations with conflicts of interest in whether that guidance is followed. Sometimes, being better informed and better guided does not make people such good customers. Given that this is even more complex than the pension freedoms market, it is really important to get this proposition right.
Baroness Kramer
First, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, for allowing me to put my name to his very fine amendment, and also for drafting it in such a way that I could arrange the conversation beyond just the matter of mutuals. I very much support his comments on mutuals. They are important to our past, our present and our future.
The noble Lord commented on the regulatory scope available to the PRA in dealing with the sector, which I believe is governed by CRD IV, the relevant European directive. He will know that there is a great deal of scope for flexibility under that directive precisely to recognise the various needs of mutual—and similar and smaller—institutions across quite a wide range of facets. It is a flexibility of which the PRA has essentially not availed itself. Since those flexibilities were largely negotiated by the UK with the domestic variety in mind, it seems a little extraordinary that we have not taken advantage of them. I recommend to the Government that they might want to have an appropriate conversation with my soon-to-be noble friend Lady Bowles, who will shortly be coming to this House. She was a member—in effect, chair—of ECON, the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs within the EU. She can provide some helpful advice and direction on this issue.
I have said many times in this House, and I shall repeat it again today, that in the UK we are missing a layer of banking. In Germany, regional government—the Länder and municipalities—are able to sponsor banking institutions. The financial institutions provide the backbone to Germany’s small and medium-sized businesses, the Mittelstand. During times of recession that banking layer provided ongoing support to those companies because they understood them and their remit was such that they had to find their routes to profit from within that scope of geography and companies. It has been a very successful model and we have no equivalent here in the UK.
In the United States, which we also very much recognise as a competitor, local community and regional banks also play a much more significant role in supporting both individuals and small businesses. The community development movement in the US, which is very much local, has something in excess of $30 billion of assets under management. It is highly significant. It comes out of the US history of local banking, strengthened by the Community Reinvestment Act which was introduced in the late 1970s, largely as a civil rights measure, to deal with the red lines that major banks had drawn around ethnic minority communities, as they were not lending into those communities. That has been balanced out by the Community Reinvestment Act. It provided the Obama Administration with a very significant route to channel funds to small businesses during the recession in the US and again played a very significant role in making sure that those small businesses could be resilient.
By contrast, following the financial crisis, the major mainstream banks in the UK largely withdrew from SME funding. The Government tried to support various programmes and schemes, including the growing but still small P2P industry, to fill something of that gap and vacuum. However, that does not overcome the fact that we still do not have the appropriate layer of banking to provide the community and local perspective which enables companies to rely on ongoing support from financial institutions in both good times and bad.
I think that if you spoke today to the Federation of Small Businesses, it would say that even though we are in recovery, most of the mainstream banks have not returned to lending to SMEs and, where they do, it is frequently property lending, or at least property is required to provide collateral for what should be cash-flow loans, and that the banks are still fairly slow to come to decisions. Having been on this House’s sub-committee on SMEs and export finance, I know that it was evident that small businesses found it extremely difficult to source any kind of financing for exports. Even when they had a long history of exports and were well established, it was still very difficult and very expensive to find that kind of financing in the UK. Therefore, it is reasonably self-evident that we are missing a layer of banking. Frankly, the regulator has never addressed that issue but has always waited passively for the market to come forward rather than taking positive action itself.
A combined report from Newcastle and Coventry universities was recently published and states:
“In 2013, the unmet demand of individuals and businesses excluded from mainstream finance (‘the finance gap’) was estimated at around £6 billion per annum”.
That is a huge figure and it seems to me that the regulator must begin to pay attention to it.
During the passage of the Financial Services Act 2012, the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, and I proposed a measure to require the banks to disclose their lending practices in detail and by postcode. That led to a voluntary framework for the disclosure of bank lending which came into effect in December 2013 and was supported by HM Treasury and BIS. According to a recent letter sent to the Treasury from the Community Investment Coalition, it is starting to have a real impact. The letter states that in 2014,
“Coventry University and Newcastle University were commissioned by Big Society Capital, Citi, the Community Investment Coalition and Unity Trust Bank to analyse the data and assess its value in supporting increased market competition and interventions to overcome financial inclusion”.
That is a very interesting report. It is supported by a sibling report, as it were, from the University of Sheffield, which looked at mortgages.
The only conclusions one can come to from reading those reports is that lending across the UK is incredibly haphazard. The data do not yet allow sufficient fineness of analysis, if you like. I hope very much that the Government will look at whether or not more measures are necessary to provide appropriate data to the degree required to enable proper analysis to take place. However, it is very clear that different parts of the country have very different experiences as regards access to lending. Strangely enough, in the London area, for example, access to lending for small businesses seems to be very much less than one would expect compared with other parts of the country. It will be very helpful when we finally have those data because they will expose where the system continues to fail. Regardless of that, I hope the Government will see that there is a role that must be played by the regulator as well as by the Government in ensuring that the patchiness and inadequacy of banking facilities for small businesses and individuals is countered. I ask the Government to look seriously at the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, because it begins to tackle that particular set of issues.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, both on his amendment, for which he has secured widespread support, including from this Bench, and on the way in which he detailed the key arguments behind it, which I know the Government will take seriously. It is somewhat unnecessary for me to fill in any of the interstices that the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, may have left—which were not many—because the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, has certainly emphasised the significant point, which is that British banking needs to be a good deal more diverse than it is at present.
After all, the Competition and Markets Authority disclosed its findings last month from its review of competition in the retail banking market and found—predictably—that the four largest banks had long dominated the British scene, stifling competition that would give consumers and businesses a better deal. We all know the limited success that has been obtained by the various reforms to make the switching of accounts easier. The British people, I am afraid, are somewhat inured to minor blandishments when it comes to their bank accounts, so there is a need for much more imaginary thought at the centre on how we can make our financial provision more diverse.
We have support from the Treasury Select Committee. The chair, Andrew Tyrie, has written to the CMA to ask it to report back before the Budget in March next year regarding the 8% surcharge on bank profits. He wants to know what impact that has had on the big four and what implications it has for the wider banking sector. It is clearly the case, he believes, that one size does not fit all. That phrase has obtained throughout this short debate and is one to which I entirely subscribe. The Minister will be all too well aware that the Building Societies Association has made it clear that the problems encountered by financial mutuals in recent years almost certainly would have been fewer if there had been greater diversity in the sector.
I think that the case for this amendment has been made strongly. No doubt the noble Lord will be withdrawing it on this occasion but the purpose of this debate is to give the Government the chance to show a constructive response to what we all recognise is a real issue with regard to British banking. The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, cited the German position. Is it not somewhat extraordinary that even under the so-called northern powerhouse, our great cities do not have individual banks? They no longer have individual building societies, either. That says something about the structure of finance in this country, which surely the Government should address in the context of a Bill about the most significant banking structure of them all—the Bank of England.
Bank of England and Financial Services Bill [HL]
Baroness Kramer Excerpts(9 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I completely support my noble friend Lord Sharkey in this. Although I greatly respect the noble Lord, Lord Flight, I hope that the House will resist his blandishments. I think non-executive directors of banks finding themselves on the Court of the Bank of England would be constantly facing conflicts of interest, and the public perception would be appalling—that the Bank had become the captive of the industry that it is there to regulate. That does not seem to be a sensible principle.
With the changes that are now proposed—for there to be five inside members, if you like, of the court and seven outside—the inside members would need to persuade only one outside member to join them to achieve stalemate. That is an unacceptable balance in any institution which is so important to the economic life of this country. If the argument cannot persuade more than one non-executive director, it cannot have the standing that would allow it to prevail.
Like my noble friend Lord Sharkey, I am still struggling to understand why this change is being made. The only reason that has been presented to me is the issue of transition. If there are only seven members of the board, for a period of time there could be an incoming and an outgoing member on the board at the same time. Perhaps that is a good practice; it sounds reasonably attractive. But for that to be the reason that the board should be reduced on a normalised basis to seven seems extraordinary. I also suggest that an outgoing member might be very hesitant to exercise their rights, knowing that they were about to depart the board. Transitional arrangements could be put into the Bill, and we would be quite supportive of the idea that there might be a period when an outgoing member of the court could remain on the board in certain roles, or perhaps even in a full role, for a brief transitional period to achieve the goals that the Minister is attempting to achieve.
I hope very much that we can resist this set of issues. The Bank of England is sufficiently important and outsiders are absolutely necessary. This House has made sure over the past several years that that is central to legislation and I think we will continue to hold to that importance.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, that the Bank of England is an important institution but I am not sure that that importance needs to translate itself into how the court is constituted. The important activities of the Bank are carried out in what will be the three major committees: monetary policy, financial stability and prudential regulation. The activities carried out by the court are relatively few in number. The question then is: what size of court is going to be efficient for carrying out the functions it is there for?
The model that well serves both the plc community in this country and much of the public sector that is modelled on corporate lines is to have a majority of non-executives. That is being kept in here. I have never heard it suggested that the number of non-executives is somehow important to the quality of governance in plcs. Many have more than a bare majority of non-executive directors but a lot operate strictly within the rules to have just a bare majority. I have not seen any studies anywhere that the ratios have any correlation with the quality of governance that is capable of being exercised.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, referred to the academic evidence that smaller boards are effective boards—that is one of the things that came out of Sir David Walker’s review into the governance of banks—and that committees should be 4:5 and boards 8:10 or something like that. That is because in a smaller organisation, all members can have a proper voice and there can be a proper discussion, whereas in large boards often it is relatively simple for an inner group to dominate the larger group. That is what the behavioural studies have shown.
Baroness Kramer
I respect the views of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, very much but is she saying that the current Court of the Bank of England is ineffective because it is too large, and that the effect has been that many of the non-executive directors are not having their voice heard? That is a very serious comment to lay on the table. If that is the case, we really need that evidence because we will want to effect a cure, if this is an answer to a board that the Government have essentially decided is ineffective.
Baroness Noakes
My Lords, I have absolutely no knowledge of how the Court of the Bank of England works and have not had that knowledge since 2000, when my tenure on the court ceased. At that time I think that we were a court of 16, of whom 13 were non-executives. I will not claim that we were a very effective board at that. All I am trying to say is that what the Government are proposing is perfectly sensible and in line with general corporate practices. It seems to be entirely defensible.
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have participated in this short debate. The general theme has been that the Government have not put forward a sufficient case for reducing the number of non-executives. I hope that by the end of the debate, we will have been able to elaborate on that. The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, said that there seemed to be a pervasive feeling through the Bill that non-execs are a nuisance. That could not be further from the truth—good ones are essential, but too many non-execs are not effective. It is crucial to have very high-quality non-execs. I will come on to that as far as the court is concerned.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, that we have got the figures right in terms of what we have at the moment and what we are going to have, but I come to completely the opposite conclusions as a result of that. I will try my best to outline the Government’s feeling and will also refer, to a certain extent, to some of the points my noble friend made about the academic evidence and the experience of commercial firms, which show that sometimes reduced numbers are more effective.
As noble Lords are aware, the Bank of England Act 1998 states that the court can contain,
“not more than 9 non-executive directors”.
This Bill does not make any alteration to this provision. Before I dive into the detail, it may be helpful to remind the Committee what we are seeking to achieve: a court that is effective in scrutinising the actions of the Bank, holding executives to account, challenging their thinking and exercising its statutory functions. A number of noble Lords have cast this debate in terms of avoiding groupthink, which I agree is very important.
Given that, there are two important factors to bear in mind about the issue we are discussing here, both of which mitigate the risk of groupthink. The first is the number of non-executive directors on the court, which the noble Lord’s amendment focuses on. The second, but no less important, factor is the quality of non-execs on the court. Let me first address the issue of numbers. Within the terms of the current legislation as written, the Government plan to reduce the number of non-execs to two. This will not weaken the court; instead, it will strengthen it.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
Yes—by two, to seven. We think that will strengthen it, because the governance of the Bank will be enhanced by enabling the court to become a smaller, more focused unitary board, as several noble Lords have mentioned.
A smaller court is something the Treasury Select Committee advocated in its 2011 report, Accountability of the Bank of England. It recommended that the court’s membership be reduced to eight, emphasising that a smaller court would allow a diversity of views and expertise while still being an efficient decision-making body.
Our proposals exceed the size of court recommended by the Treasury Select Committee, but a court of 12 is significantly smaller than both the court’s original size of 24 and its size more recently, during the financial crisis, of 19.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I fear I cannot. Can the noble Lord help us? The answer is, no, I cannot tell noble Lords that.
Baroness Kramer
Perhaps I could be helpful on that point. As the noble Lord will remember, this legislation is adding one more insider, so the balance with eight would have been five insiders versus three outsiders.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
The balance would change if we do what the Chancellor has decided to do—to reduce it to seven—but, as I will come on to, the flexibility is maintained to have nine. The legislation says “up to nine”, and nothing in the Bill changes that. We are still operating on the original number of “up to nine”. The amendment would make it exactly nine and reduce any flexibility.
My original point was that our suggestion is smaller than the Treasury Select Committee’s original number of 12, the court’s original size of 24 and its size during the crisis of 19. The size of the court was identified as a barrier to its effective functioning during the financial crisis. We think that a smaller board will better scrutinise the executive. With fewer non-executive directors, each member has greater opportunity to pose questions to executive members and to debate with them. A larger court can encourage a round table of individual speeches, rather than enabling back and forth discussions and challenge to the executive.
As Professor Capie, former official historian of the Bank of England, noted in his evidence to the Treasury Select Committee, historically, larger boards have often consisted of “simply observers or rubber-stampers”. This was supported by independent evidence from the Walker report, which suggested that the ideal size for a board tends towards 10 to 12 people. Our proposal for five executive and seven non-executive members sits within this range. The Walker report notes that boards larger than 12 people become less manageable and less effective.
The Bank itself has highlighted the benefits of reducing the size of the court. In its 2014 report, it said that,
“consistent with best practice in the private sector, the Bank sees the value of continuing to evolve towards a slightly smaller body, with a non-executive chair and majority”.
Undoubtedly, board sizes in the private sector are on average relatively small. For example, according to the Spencer Stuart board index, the average sizes of boards in 2014 in the US and UK were 10.8 and 10.5 respectively.
Our proposals therefore align the court with current best practice for a unitary board. However, I accept that best practice can, and often does, evolve over time. Therefore, as I said, the current wording provides flexibility, but no compulsion, to increase the number of non-executives up to nine if future evidence suggests that this would be beneficial. Similarly, and importantly, this flexibility will ensure continuity and transfer of knowledge during periods of flux between departing and joining non-executive directors, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, mentioned. But that is not the only reason for the change. We will retain the flexibility, but the normal number will be seven. Specifying that the court must contain an exact number of non-executives, as the amendment does, would lose those benefits.
Let me now turn to the quality of non-execs on the court, which is critical and was mentioned by several noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Flight. The court has been transformed over the last three years. The Chancellor sought to appoint the highest quality team with significant experience of running large organisations and expertise in matters relevant to the Bank. All non-execs are appointed by the Queen on the recommendation of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The appointment process is run by the Treasury and regulated by the Office of the Commissioner of Public Appointments. It is in line with best practice, with open competitions held for all positions. The Government look far and wide for the best candidates, with roles advertised in the international press. The result is a board of the highest quality non-execs chaired by Anthony Habgood, one of the most experienced and respected company chairmen in the country.
I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, what consultation took place on reducing the number of non-executive directors. In its December 2014 publication, Transparency and Accountability at the Bank of the England, the Bank made the case for reducing the size of the court. The Government included the proposal to reduce the size of the court to seven in the July consultation paper, with the consultation closing in September. No respondents opposed the proposed reduction in the size of the court.
Baroness Kramer
Would the Minister remind us how many responses there were to that consultation?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
There were not that many, but I cannot tell the noble Baroness the exact number.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
So clearly it was not a burning issue. As my noble friend Lord Flight said, no member of the court is from a regulated firm—that is absolutely true—which ensures no conflicts of interest. We think that that is the correct way forward. Of course, they bring a wide amount of experience and there are many members of the court whose description is a “former” director of relevant parties, including banks.
Finally, who made the decision to reduce the number from nine to seven? That was made by the Chancellor, on the advice of the non-executive chairman of the Bank. The proposed composition of the court, as recommended by the Treasury Select Committee, was a total of eight: the governor, two deputy governors, an external chair and four other external members.
Lord Eatwell
My Lords, I find this a somewhat naive and shocking part of this small Bill, in the sense that the clause under debate has two objectives. The first is to reduce the powers of the NEDs and the second is to reduce the powers of Parliament. Both of those goals I regard as reprehensible. As the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, set out, these issues were debated extensively in this Chamber with respect to the Financial Services Act 2012. We went through them in great detail and, in particular, we followed the advice of the Treasury Select Committee of another place.
It is obvious that this measure is designed to reduce the powers of the non-executives, but perhaps I may comment on the second point that I made about the powers of Parliament. That derives from the statement by the Treasury Select Committee of another place, which at that time was referring to a new supervisory board. That, in debate, was transformed into the oversight committee. The Select Committee said:
“Our recommendation that the new Supervisory Board have the authority to conduct retrospective reviews of the macro-prudential performance of the Bank should, if operating successfully, provide”,
Parliament,
“with the tools for proper scrutiny”.
Those “tools for proper scrutiny” are being removed in this clause. I think that Mr Carney’s explanation of the role of the Independent Evaluation Office, which can be summoned into action only by the oversight committee, is particularly revealing.
It has also been argued that, in some sense, the Bank now has two boards—the court and the oversight committee—and that this is causing confusion and reducing the effectiveness of the Bank. That is a very foolish argument. The notion that there should be an independent non-executive committee reviewing the activities of a main board is commonplace, particularly given that the reviews are specifically defined by legislation to be retrospective and not to question the contemporary acts of the court. That process is one that the best unitary boards have embodied in their codes of practice. I am amazed and, as I say, shocked that the Government are attempting to reduce the powers of non-executive directors in this way and, in particular, to reduce the powers of Parliament.
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, I will make just a few comments, if I may. I join my noble friend Lord Sharkey, and the noble Lords, Lord Tunnicliffe and Lord Eatwell, in their concern about the changes being proposed and the implications that would follow from them.
Will the Government confirm that, under the arrangements to reduce the number of non-executive directors to seven and increase the number of officials on the board to five, it would take co-operation from only one non-executive director with those officials to effectively prevent any investigation into any area of Bank activity? That is, I feel, a completely unacceptable balance that is being proposed today. The Government will have to come up with a very great justification for why the hurdle must be so low—four current officials—to prevent investigation of historical activity.
Clause 4 effectively falls if Clause 3 falls. Clause 4 makes the situation yet worse, because it contemplates not that the whole court will act as an oversight committee but that a sub-committee can be created in order to carry out that work, comprised of as few as two non-executive directors. For two non-executive directors to be considered sufficient for the important work of investigation, review and oversight of the Bank of England strikes me as completely extraordinary. It is also noticeable that the number two applies to the sub-committee responsible for the remuneration of officials at the Bank.
We are moving into a “two best friends” provision here, and I find it exceedingly disturbing. The Government will have to come up with some justification for why a sub-committee of two NEDs is sufficient to carry out a crucially important task that was absent during the many years in which the Bank of England essentially failed to meet the necessary standards to prevent a systemic crisis in finance in this country. I would like to hear their justification for the number two.
Lord Bridges of Headley
My Lords, I thank all the noble Lords who have made very powerful contributions and thoughtful points.
I will not detain your Lordships with lots of history; you know it much better than I do. However, to remind the Committee how this came about, I will repeat something that has already been said. The Financial Services Act 2012 gave rise to the Oversight Committee, largely in response to recommendations made in the report Accountability and the Bank of England from the Treasury Select Committee in the other place. That report recommended that the court should be reformed into a board, with powers to conduct ex-post reviews of the performance of the Bank; that board members should be authorised to see all the papers submitted to the MPC and FPC; and that the board should be responsible for reviewing the processes of the Bank’s policy committees.
The Treasury Select Committee argued that the new board should be called the Supervisory Board of the Bank of England but, despite this name, the structure that was proposed was in fact a unitary board. As has been said, the Financial Services Act 2012 took steps to implement these recommendations, by creating a set of statutory oversight functions. However, instead of conferring powers on the court itself, the powers were conferred upon a new statutory Oversight Committee, made up exclusively of the non-executive directors.
Lord Bridges of Headley
That is my understanding. If I am wrong, I will correct myself.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, made his points very forcefully and I fear we may still have to have further discussions—if he can bear it—but let me restate the Government’s position. The problem now faced by the Oversight Committee is simple. As the noble Lord said, for the non-executives to hold the executive to account effectively, they need to meet together, not separately. There needs to be full and frank discussion between the governors and the non-executives on how best to exercise the court’s oversight functions. I am sure the noble Lord would agree that the challenge and recommendations of the non-executives need to be informed by in-depth knowledge of the Bank’s operations. Effective oversight needs to be carried out by the executive and non-executives in partnership, not in silos.
It bears repeating that the key powers of oversight, which are necessary and working, are not lost as a result of their transfer to the whole court. The court will continue to be able to commission reviews as it sees fit. Moreover, the non-executives will continue to be a majority on the court and will also continue to meet together as a group after each meeting of court, in line with best practice. As was discussed earlier today, court contains a high quality non-executive majority and is therefore well placed to oversee the work of the Bank.
It is entirely appropriate that court, as the governing body of the Bank, should be responsible for exercising these oversight functions.
Baroness Kramer
I hate to stop the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, in his flow, but could he confirm that, under the proposed structure, if the officials of the Bank collectively believe that an area is not appropriate for investigation, they need the support of only one non-executive director?
Lord Bridges of Headley
As the noble Baroness points out, that would obviously be the maths. We will probably have to have further discussion on this, but I would like to come back to the powers.
It is entirely appropriate that court, as the governing body of the Bank, should be responsible for exercising these oversight functions. The Bill is putting in place a model which is widely regarded as best practice in the United Kingdom. It also completes the model that the Treasury Select Committee recommended in 2011, and was subsequently endorsed by the PCBS in 2012. That model is a streamlined unitary board, with express powers to commission performance reviews. Parliament would still see copies of the reports of any performance review published by the court, just as would be the case for reports published by the Oversight Committee. Parliament’s powers are not being reduced and the Treasury Select Committee can summon any non-executive director to give evidence.
Lord Bridges of Headley
My Lords, it is clear that I still have some persuading to do. I would argue that those powers have not changed in the sense that they have been transferred from the committee to the court.
Baroness Kramer
The Minister said that the powers have not changed, but would he agree that who exercises the powers has changed significantly? Officials had no opportunity to exercise those powers; they were the powers only of non-executive directors. Now they can be easily exercised by the officials plus one NED.
Lord Bridges of Headley
As the noble Baroness rightly points out, obviously her maths is correct and there would be robust discussion. This comes back again to the quality of those who are on the court and their ability to persuade people that such a review is necessary.
That is all I wish to say on this matter.