Bank of England (Appointment of Governor) Bill

Brandon Lewis Excerpts

Friday 6th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Hammond]

In this case, it would be for the judgment of the Treasury Committee or the Government. Someone with some financial experience might well be helpful in the current world.

This is not a filibuster, because this is exactly the point at which I am going to leave the history of the Governors of the Bank of England, merely making the point that the Treasury Committee might have rejected some of the candidates who have been appointed, even though they have been among the most excellent Governors of the Bank of England.

[Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)]

Under the current system, with a Select Committee able to provide a view, if not exercise a veto, is it not the case that any concerns could be made very public and very clear to the Government? That can already happen in the present system.

[Stephen Hammond]

I can only concur.

The Financial Services Bill, now in the other place, is designed to redress the inadequacies of the current regulatory regime. As the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington noted, the new proposals view the Bank of England as absolutely at the heart of the regulatory system. It will now be charged, which it was not previously, with the protection and enhancement of the UK’s financial system. I do not need to rehearse in detail the fact that the Bank of England is therefore charged with looking at the working of the Financial Policy Committee and, underneath it, the Prudential Regulatory Authority and the Financial Conduct Authority.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Hammond]

My contention was not that he would not have been appointed, but that he might not have been, simply because he had been a Bank of England insider all his life and had no experience of other parts of the financial system, or indeed of the economy. I am merely suggesting that if we empower the Committee to appoint the Governor, it may not take account of a number of the salient factors that the Chancellor can consider. It may take a narrower view.

The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark), who has now left the Chamber, made an interesting point about a split along political lines. In the case of Lord George, Committee members on both sides of the political divide might have taken the view, as a caucus, that a Bank of England insider would be entirely inappropriate as a Governor. I am not saying that he would not have been appointed; and my earlier remarks were not a filibuster, but a deliberate attempt to show that the appointments of some of the greatest Governors might have been called into question.

The Financial Services Bill rightly confers increased powers of scrutiny, but I do not understand how this Bill would safeguard independence, and I did not hear the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington explain that this morning. When he kindly allowed me to intervene earlier, I suggested that it would safeguard the independence of the Governor from the Government, but did not necessarily take account of his independence from Parliament. I think he should bear in mind the possibility that the independence of both the appointee and the institution itself would be undermined if the Treasury Committee were given the power of veto.

[Brandon Lewis]

Could it not be argued that if the Committee had such a direct power of appointment and veto, that in itself could bring into question its ability properly to scrutinise an independent Governor for whose appointment it was responsible in the first place?

[Stephen Hammond]

That is an interesting and valid point, and one that I had not intended to make myself. I look forward to hearing my hon. Friend’s views in more detail.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)]

I oppose the Bill. Based on the principles and the ethos expressed by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), I share one or two common interests with him. I understand that he attended the local grammar school in my constituency of Great Yarmouth in his formative years, and I am sure that he still holds our town in great affection, as do I as its Member of Parliament. His reason for introducing the Bill is to ensure that there is full and proper scrutiny and an open and transparent approach to the appointment of such an important position, but I fear that that is the only principle on which, for this morning at least, the hon. Gentleman and I are likely to agree.

The Bill threatens us with direct parliamentary interference in the appointment of the Governor of the Bank of England and, through that, unnecessarily jeopardises the wider political independence of the Bank. I want to address two particular elements of how the Bill approaches the problem, on which some comment has already been made. First, does it provide the right mechanism in how it goes about considering an appointment? I will come to that point in a few moments. Secondly, what effect would such a change have on how the Select Committee works and on the role of a Select Committee? As a member of the Select Committee on Work and Pensions, I fully appreciate its scrutiny role, and we have also considered appointments and commented on them. To my knowledge, there has not yet been a cry from our Committee to have the direct power of veto or appointment. It is simply important that the Committee has the chance to interview, take a view and make clear our opinion on a particular appointment.

I understand that the Bill was drafted in response to the comments made in wider circles, including by the Treasury Committee, about the need to have a greater say in the appointment of the Governor of the Bank of England. That has arisen partly through the extension of powers provided by the Financial Services Bill. That Bill, as we know, is being examined in Committee in another place at this very moment and I am sure that that scrutiny will involve comment on whether there is any need for direct parliamentary involvement in the appointment of the Governor of the Bank of England.

[Mr Hoban]

I want to offer some assistance to my hon. Friend and to the House. The subject was debated in the other place recently and the noble Lord McFall withdrew his amendment suggesting that the Treasury Committee should have such a role, in recognition of the fact that many in the other place felt that that was going far too far.

[Brandon Lewis]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, which highlights the fact that when this subject was considered in depth in the other place the view was taken that the Bill might not be the right way forward. When their lordships considered whether the non-statutory arrangements for scrutinising the appointment of the Governor and the deputy governors were adequate, they will have done so in the light of the extensive new powers in the Bill and will have considered whether the Treasury Committee might or might not require a more formal role in the process. They have clearly commented on that. That process and involvement would require legislation to enshrine it in law and the Bill endeavours to formalise that process within the law. I am sure the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington will have read carefully the Lords deliberations in Committee to see whether there are any pronouncements in favour of the course of action that he prefers. So far, as we heard from the Minister, the Lords seems to have taken the view that that is not necessarily appropriate.

I shall listen carefully to the views expressed today and those expressed in another place. At present my view is that the Bill would interfere with, rather than strengthen, the Select Committee’s scrutiny. The current system used for the non-statutory hearings that precede the appointment of members of the Monetary Policy Committee is working and should continue to be used for the appointment of the Governor of the Bank of England. The Treasury Committee has held those hearings since 1997 and has carefully scrutinised, reviewed and commented on appointees.

Members of the Select Committee have disagreed with the Government’s nominee. They urged the then Chancellor of the Exchequer to think again about appointing the economist Christopher Allsopp to the MPC. Well known in some circles for his flexibility on policy, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) promptly took no notice of the Committee’s recommendation and went ahead with that appointment. That was his ministerial prerogative, as he was exercising the powers that he was given as a member of the Executive. A Treasury Committee report after that incident was still able to observe that the hearings played an important role nonetheless.

In a parliamentary democracy it is right for Ministers to make Executive decisions and it is also right for Parliament to scrutinise those decisions. I stress the word “scrutinise”. There is a clear line of differentiation in the current structure between the Executive and Parliament’s ability and role in scrutiny, and it is one that we should protect. It would be wrong for Select Committees to have Executive power, in effect, and such a change would create an Executive power for a Select Committee in an appointment.

[Neil Carmichael]

I am in huge agreement with my hon. Friend, who is making exactly the point that if a Select Committee is involved in decision making, no matter how slightly, it becomes less inclined or less able to scrutinise ruthlessly the decisions and outcomes. Does he agree?

--- Later in debate ---

[Brandon Lewis]

Indeed. One of the problems with the Bill, as I noted a few moments ago, is that it focuses on one appointment from one Select Committee. What would be more interesting is a debate in the House on the role of Select Committees in the public appointments that they scrutinise.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Is the hon. Gentleman therefore saying that Parliament got it wrong on the Office for Budget Responsibility?

[Brandon Lewis]

Not at all. I shall come to that in a few moments. That is not the point that I am making. There is a clear difference between a role in making an appointment to the OBR and a role in making an appointment to a position that has Executive powers and makes Executive decisions. If this were a Bill that considered the role of Select Committees, there would be an interesting debate to be had about whether Select Committees should have a power of appointment or veto, but that would apply equally to all Committees and all appointments, particularly where they have an Executive role. That is an important delineation, of which we should be aware.

It would be wrong to give one Select Committee, as important as the Treasury Committee is, a power of Executive appointment over and above that of other Select Committees, which I am sure would take the view that they have equal power and an equally important role in the House, but which would thereby potentially be put in a second category of Select Committee. Creating divisions and different types of Select Committee would impede the function of all Select Committees.

[Mr Love]

The Public Administration Committee had a debate on Executive agencies and appointments. The Public Accounts Committee has included its Chairman in the decision on the appointment of the Comptroller and Auditor General. The Treasury Committee has developed the chairmanship of the Statistics Commission. In other words, piecemeal change is going on. Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that the proposal is part of that piecemeal change, and that we ought to give the Bill a Second Reading not so that we can pass it in its current form, but so that Parliament can have an honourable debate about the arrangements between the Executive and the legislature in relation to major appointments?

[Brandon Lewis]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very strong point. I do not entirely agree because there is a clear difference between the type of appointments we are talking about and the role that those appointees take on and the powers that they have. However, a good argument can be made for the House to consider the role of Select Committees in public appointments, the associated power and at what level it sits. Perhaps he would like to come to business questions one week and make the case to the Leader of the House for time for such a debate, or make a case for it to the Backbench Business Committee.

The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington argued that part of the aim of a private Member’s Bill such as this is to get the Government to listen, to hear a message, to take a view. The Minister will hear the points made in the debate. He will hear various arguments from various Members about the role of a Select Committee, its power or lack of power to appoint or veto an appointment, and will take that into account as part of the Government’s plans for the future. That is quite different from whether the Bill should have a Second Reading, when it is fundamentally flawed by giving priority and special treatment to one Select Committee over and above others. As much as I respect the Treasury Committee and all its members, I, as a member of the Work and Pensions Committee, do not think it fair that the Treasury Committee should be seen in a premier league, above the other Select Committees.

The Treasury Committee has argued for a role in appointing the Governor of the Bank of England by using as a precedent, as the hon. Gentleman did, the establishment of the OBR and the Budget Responsibility and National Audit Act 2011. The provisions of that Act give a statutory role, I agree, to the Committee in the appointment of the chairman of the Office for Budget Responsibility. Additionally, they give a statutory role to the Public Accounts Committee when a new Comptroller and Auditor General is appointed. However, that argument ignores a fundamental and crucial difference between the roles undertaken by those organisations and the role of the Governor of the Bank of England.

The Bank of England sets policy. Although the Office for Budget Responsibility is important, it primarily has an analytical or forecasting role, not an Executive ability to set monetary policy. It provides independent information to Government. That information is a powerful tool for Parliament to use in its scrutiny role and it is right, therefore, for Parliament to protect that role from political interference.

The Government’s position on the issue has been sensibly pragmatic. They have encouraged the involvement of the Treasury Committee in the appointment of the Governor. It has been interesting to hear from two speakers the private views of the Chairman of the Treasury Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie), in his comment that what he thinks the Treasury Committee is looking for is the ability to have a clear and open influence on the role, which indicates that there is not necessarily a strong view from the Chair—it is a shame that he is not in his place, but he made a comment earlier—about having the power of veto or appointment. That is an important distinction from such an eminent Member of the House, who would be the Chairman who benefited from any change.

The Government made a commitment in the coalition agreement to

“strengthen the powers of Select Committees to scrutinise major public appointments”.

The key word is “scrutinise”. That emphasises a right to examine, challenge, query or inspect closely and thoroughly appointments to major public bodies. My Select Committee has done that as well. However, it rightly makes no mention of a right to appoint or veto. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) said, that would be a substantial constitutional change to the way in which Select Committees work.

It is worth exploring what would happen if there were a right of veto and the Government and the Treasury Committee reached a stalemate in the appointment of a new Governor. If the Government—the Treasury—were unwilling to back down, and the Treasury Committee were determined to uphold its right to veto, given to it by this Bill, that could lead to uncertainty, creating turmoil in the markets, and at the moment we do not need any more of that. We can certainly see what such turmoil means for international relationships as much as internal markets. It could lead to a loss in international confidence in the Bank of England and the United Kingdom, which we benefit from at the moment. The result would be untold economic chaos and damage.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

What does my hon. Friend think about the lengthy process for Supreme Court appointments in America, where people very often wait for months before an appointment is made? What might be the repercussions for our financial position in such an instance?

[Brandon Lewis]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. The way in which the American system can create turmoil is the very point I am making. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon said, we in this House know that the Treasury Committee would deal with the issue properly. The problem is the perception outside of such turmoil. We have seen in the press how such matters have been dealt with in the United States, which shows that what matters is what the public and the markets would think of such an impasse, particularly if there is a lengthy process.

[Mr Love]

The hon. Gentleman uses the term “turmoil” and makes lurid comparisons with the United States. The US Congress endorses literally hundreds of appointments every year. The Treasury Committee has had confirmation hearings, and on only one occasion has it vetoed an appointment. The Committee has no buy-in; they are only confirmation hearings. Is not the so-called turmoil that the hon. Gentleman suggests vastly overstated?

[Brandon Lewis]

The argument that something has not happened so it will not happen could have been put some years ago about the present financial turmoil in the eurozone. The argument that something will not happen because it has not happened before has unfortunately been proved wrong time and again. As has been said, one sees regularly in the press and hears in the markets in America the argument that a particular appointment has been made purely because it will get through a committee. There is no disrespect to the successful applicant, but it can give the impression that the appointment is a second choice. It is a matter of the most acceptable common denominator rather than the person wanted by the Executive or any other body; it is the person they can get through the door. That in itself detrimentally affects the individual’s credibility and authority to do their job. Such an impasse here, if the Treasury Committee and the Treasury were at loggerheads for any prolonged period in deciding on the appointment of the Governor of the Bank of England, could result in chaos in international markets and our markets.

I appreciate that it is unlikely that an impasse would result in an unfilled post. It is almost unthinkable, but, as we have seen in recent years, too often now the unthinkable can become the reality. I hope that, in reality, the Treasury and the Select Committee would reach a compromise, such as extending the tenure of the incumbent Governor until a successor was confirmed. Although before my time, some hon. Members will have seen how a person’s authority wanes as soon as it is known that they are about to go. Continued uncertainty about the next appointment, with no decision and no sign of an end to the impasse, would damage the Bank of England’s credibility, which would be hugely detrimental to the role, not just of the Governor but of the Bank of England itself, in both our internal and external markets.

The constitutional quagmire would be further exacerbated if the Treasury Committee adopted the procedure proposed by the Institute for Government. After a Select Committee hearing with the proposed candidate, the Committee would deliberate before announcing its verdict. Then it would have the opportunity to call the Chancellor before it to tell him why the nominated candidate was unsuitable, expecting him to justify why it should change its mind and agree with his proposal. Then we would be into further deliberation before the Committee decided that it did not wish to change its mind. Potentially, the appointment would then be referred to the House for resolution. If, after that lengthy process, the original candidate were confirmed, there is no doubt that their credibility and authority would have been fatally undermined by the whole political ping-pong between the Government and Parliament, never mind the trouble that that would cause to the markets during the weeks or months that passed while parliamentary time was made available.

Even if the Treasury and the Select Committee could agree on a compromise candidate quickly—regardless of this morning’s examples, we all know what “quickly” can really mean—the new appointee would be undermined before they had even taken up the post. The media would portray a second-choice candidate as not having the confidence of the Treasury, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Government or the Select Committee, whichever had originally been against the appointment. In those circumstances, what confidence would the wider banking and financial sector have that the new Bank of England Governor would be able to fulfil their role while working closely with the Government?

As I said earlier, the very Select Committee that scrutinises the role of the Bank of England and the Governor might be the Committee that appointed the Governor. For that reason there is a strong argument for allowing the Executive to appoint the Executive-imbued role of the Governor, and for allowing the Select Committee to scrutinise and comment on it, rather than having a Bank of England Governor who is answerable to the Committee for their job in the first place. As was said earlier, we in the House know that the integrity of members of Select Committees is strong enough and powerful enough to deal with that properly, but what matters is not necessarily what we in the House think about the role of the Governor of the Bank of England, but what people outside think, and what the markets think. It is the perception that becomes the reality, and we need the markets to have confidence and faith in the Governor and in his ability and independence, which the House can scrutinise.

Why stop with the Governor the Bank of England? The Bill’s purported aim is to preserve the Governor’s independence, to remove the appointment from political considerations and pressures. As I have said, it would do quite the opposite, but why stop there? Surely if there is a suspicion that the system is sullied by political interference because the appointment is made on the recommendation of the Chancellor, the appointment of the deputy governor or any members of the court of the Bank of England are likewise politically contaminated. Yet we hear little suggestion that their appointment process politically compromises those positions. In fact, these people act as a powerful check and balance within the Bank of England’s internal governance structure, to prevent any Governor of the Bank of England acting in a politically motivated way. At the moment he does not have to be concerned about the views and role of those on the Select Committee who appointed him.

There is also a substantial list of other public appointments made by her Majesty the Queen following recommendation by the Prime Minister or other Ministers. The Bill’s supporters could end up advocating that the relevant Select Committees should have an opportunity to veto or to make those appointments too. As the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr Love) said, with the changes that have already happened there is a drip, drip effect, and we gradually see the evolution of change around such appointments. If the Bill were to be enacted there would be a big jump, and bigger jumps would follow. Perhaps members of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee should have the ability and opportunity to veto or choose the appointment of the chairman, vice-chairman or other members of the BBC Trust. Perhaps members of the Defence Committee should have an opportunity to veto the appointment of the Chief of the Defence Staff. I have no doubt that members of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee would enjoy the power to veto the appointment of the chairman of the Forestry Commission or any of the other 10 forestry commissioners, particularly in the current climate.

Where should we stop? It is a valid question, and one that I think deserves some time in this House. Indeed, the power that Select Committees have to veto appointments might be a good topic for the Backbench Business Committee to put forward for debate. However, I do not think that it is right for a single private Member’s Bill to give that Executive power to a single Select Committee. The Minister is here and has heard the views expressed and no doubt will take those thoughts forward. Should Parliament have the final say on the president of the Valuation Tribunal for England, or on which judges are elevated to the Supreme Court, or even on who is installed as the next Archbishop of Canterbury, a debate that I am sure would be of great interest to Members on both sides of the House?

As odd as some of those examples might be, they are all appointments made by Her Majesty following recommendations from her Ministers. I could list many more examples, but I assure hon. Members that they will not have to listen to that right now. Those are all positions of which the holder has a responsibility for making decisions that affect people’s lives.

[Matthew Hancock]

Is it not odd that one of the previous Government’s last acts was to give the Prime Minister only one recommendation to Her Majesty on who should be Archbishop of Canterbury, which effectively took away from the Government and from Parliament a real choice over who would take that role and, therefore, moved appointments away from the proposal before us today, rather than towards it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Brandon Lewis]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point, and one that counters the argument made a few moments ago on the continual drip, drip in that direction. He highlights the fact that that has not been happening. There have been some changes in some areas, but in others things have moved in a different way. It is also interesting that that decision was made potentially by the same Member who decided not long ago to ignore the Treasury Committee’s comments on the appointment of a member of the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee.

We must be clear that in all the positions I have mentioned the holder has responsibility for making decisions that affect people’s lives. As has been commented on a few times now, there is a clear and precise line between those positions and the appointments in which some Select Committees have been involved—the Public Accounts Committee and the Treasury Committee, with the Office for Budget Responsibility and the Comptroller and Auditor General—because those Committees have a different type of role. They have a scrutiny role and a statistics role, but they do not have Executive powers to make decisions affecting people’s lives. That is what we in this House are elected to do through legislation and the appointments that flow from Ministers.

[Mr Love]

The OBR is responsible for bringing forward an economic forecast on the basis of which the Government must set out their public expenditure plans. That makes it an incredibly important body that can have significant influence on the direction of the Government’s economic policy.

[Brandon Lewis]

It is a joy to be able to agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Gentleman, who makes a good point. He highlights and confirms the argument I am making. The OBR makes forecasts, but it does not have Executive power to set monetary policy. As he has just pointed out, it is the Government, following those forecasts, who make Executive decisions on how to move forward. Indeed, the Governor of the Bank of England might use Executive powers to decide the Bank’s monetary policy. There is a difference between the role of making forecasts and scrutinising and the Executive power that the Government hold.

[Mr Love]

The Government, through the Chancellor, set the inflation target for the Monetary Policy Committee, so it is the Government who set the benchmark. It is for the Governor and the Monetary Policy Committee to try to target that benchmark.

[Brandon Lewis]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for further enhancing my point about where Executive power actually sits, in contrast to the scrutiny and forecasting role, as important as it is, which is very different from the Executive power wielded by the Government and some of the Executive bodies we are talking about.

If we are to extend the right to veto the appointment of one public official to any given Select Committee, the natural extension is to do so for other public appointments. In doing so, we would turn our Select Committee system and this House into a new form of Executive recruitment agency. Our Select Committees were established to scrutinise, investigate, consider, report and recommend. Principally, our Select Committee system is there to hold the Executive and other public officials and bodies to account. It was not created to veto the Executive, and it was not envisaged that the Committees would be used as quasi-recruitment advisers.

We should be striving to make the Bank of England more accountable to Parliament—I have no disagreement with that—but we should be looking to do so without shackling its sovereignty with more direct control over certain aspects by Parliament. Current concerns from constituents about the Bank of England do not focus on how the Governor is appointed. I certainly have not had in my postbag any letters, let alone a deluge of letters, on that.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

I want to hear my hon. Friend’s view on my suspicion that constituents simply want the Bank of England to do its job and do not want the process to be politicised any more than it needs to be. A move towards a Treasury Committee veto would make it more political and less appealing to the very constituents to whom he has referred.

[Brandon Lewis]

I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. I attended a business forum meeting only 10 days ago and talked with businesses about the financial situation in our country. They were very optimistic and upbeat, but they were talking about what more we can do to make it easier for them to grow their businesses and create more jobs. Residents want to know what the Government are doing to allow more jobs to be created and to match the skills with the jobs that are available. They are not talking to me about how we choose the Governor of the Bank of England. They see a very clear difference—this relates to the interventions I have been enjoying from the hon. Member for Edmonton—between the Executive powers and the scrutiny powers and see that it is the Government’s job to set policy that will allow our economy to grow and, therefore, do not necessarily see, understand or have an interest in how the Governor of the Bank of England is appointed. They want to see that job being done properly and the Government setting out the economic policy correctly.

[Mr Gyimah]

On that point, is there therefore a risk that if the Treasury Committee were included in this process, to the extent of having a veto, ministerial responsibility could be blurred in relation to the appointment of the Governor of the Bank of England?

[Brandon Lewis]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, and not one that I had planned to make, so I hope that he will expand on it later.

In addition to the risk of having a Governor who is perceived to be a second choice or a lowest acceptable common denominator, which I hope I have outlined graphically, there is also the risk that that politicisation itself is part of the problem. In recent weeks many Members have made the point that we should focus our time and effort less on the process, which our constituents are not interested in, and more on the result and how we deliver for them and for our country. Suddenly giving a Select Committee the power to veto an appointment would detract from its ability, power and credibility to scrutinise what the Executive are doing to improve our country, because it would actually be focusing on being part of the Executive.

As I have said, the concern that our constituents might have about the Bank of England’s role in the banking and financial sectors, which is particularly prominent at the moment, is that its decisions are transparent. Any concerns they have about the Bank’s enhanced role under the Financial Services Bill focus on whether those functions are open to proper public scrutiny through Parliament. The inalienable political independence of the Bank of England is something that we, as Member of the House of Commons, should cherish, defend and uphold, which I think we do. When the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), published his insider’s account of the financial crisis that beset this country in 2008, I was alarmed at his suggestion that he considered overruling decisions made by the Governor of the Bank of England. He so seriously considered that course of action that he sought advice from Treasury officials to ascertain whether it was within his competences to do so as Chancellor of the Exchequer. If he had done so, the political uproar would have been enormous. The media and other commentators would and, no doubt rightly, could have criticised it as a blatant attempt at political interference, and, as Members will know, we had a debate along those lines just yesterday.

I urge Members to create no similar furore through this Bill, which blatantly attempts to assert direct parliamentary control over the appointment of the politically independent Governor of the Bank of England. Such unnecessary interference risks turning the appointment into a political football between the Executive and the legislature, which our financial markets would not tolerate or consider a sensible way forward. Indeed, they would, I believe, go into complete turmoil again, and our constituents would not thank us for being the ones who put them in that potential position.

The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington said earlier—I made a note—that the Select Committee would seek consensus on the appointment, but our current system allows for that. The threat of a veto or the power to appoint moves things in a different direction, to an Executive role, and the appointment would therefore become an Executive one. It would be a mistake for the House to go down that route. Select Committees rightly have the power to scrutinise, but we must be clear about where the line is between the ability to scrutinise and comment as a critical friend and, from time to time, a non-friend, and the ability to adopt a decision-making power in an Executive role. That is something which rightly lies with the Executive—the Government—themselves, and I therefore oppose the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brandon Lewis]

The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to know that I must challenge that comment. The core point I was making throughout my speech, from start to finish, was that there is an important distinction between what the Executive do and their power, and that we should not give a Select Committee an Executive power to make Executive recruitment decisions.

[Mark Durkan]

The hon. Gentleman made a long contribution, and I am sure that that top-up will add value to it.

At the start of this debate and in a number of interventions, reference was made to yesterday’s motions and debate, and a challenge was laid down: “How could anybody support this Bill if they didn’t vote for the parliamentary inquiry yesterday?”. The argument was that the Bill seeks to give an enhanced role to the Treasury Committee and that we cannot support it if we did not support yesterday’s motion for a parliamentary inquiry.

I did not support the vote for the parliamentary inquiry yesterday; my name was on the other motion, precisely because I really value the role of the Treasury Committee and the service it provides to the House. People have talked about the dangers to the Committee if its gets the powers in the Bill, and that it will fall apart and start to divide along party political lines, but there is more danger to the Treasury Committee from the decision that the House took yesterday, because its Chairman will find himself committed to a significant inquiry, which we are told will be time-intensive and extensive.

The Chairman said yesterday that he wanted the membership of the inquiry Committee to be heavily drawn from the Treasury Committee, so a select number of the Select Committee will also be absorbed by the inquiry throughout the autumn when what the Treasury Committee needs to do is concentrate on many other things, not least following up what emerges from the Wheatley review, which the Chancellor has announced. That review will recommend amendments to the Financial Services Bill, so the Government have recognised that in the light of what has happened with Barclays and the whole LIBOR issue, significant amendments to that Bill will need to be considered.

In essence, the Bill that my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) has tabled today is a prompt, which canvasses for a fairly modest amendment to the Financial Services Bill—a modest amendment that might have its case reinforced by whatever recommendations emerge from the Wheatley review and the amendments we make to that Bill. As hon. Members on both sides have said, it already creates significant added powers, responsibilities and potential difficulties for the Governor of the Bank of England, the Bank and the whole hinterland of authorities and agencies around it.

Parliament has devolved more responsibility to the Bank and the Governor, and the appointment of the Governor will remain an appointment of government, although, as the Minister in the Financial Services Bill Committee, when correcting me and others, insisted on saying, “It is not appointment by the Government or the Treasury, but by the Crown.” I understand the distinction; I do not believe the fiction; and it is quite clear from his hon. Friends’ contributions today that they do not, either. They are ruthlessly defending the appointment as an Executive—ministerial—appointment.

[Mark Durkan]

The hon. Gentleman tries to take up a point that the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) made earlier, when he talked about the Bill representing “a major constitutional departure”, a phrase that he used, I think, three times. But he ended up criticising the Bill for not going far enough or ranging wide enough. He wanted a Bill to give all Select Committees responsibilities and powers of appointment in relation to all sorts of other things. Hon. Members can have it both ways in their own contributions, but they are not going to have it both ways in mine.

[Brandon Lewis]

The hon. Gentleman is being generous with his time, but he misunderstands the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), and certainly I, was making. We do not necessarily think that a Bill that changes the whole structure of Select Committees and how they work is the right thing to do or that we would vote for it; we just think that it would make more sense, if people feel that way, than a Bill that focuses on one Committee and on one particular power.

[Mark Durkan]

That is not what the hon. Member for Wimbledon said and certainly not what I heard. We seem to be hearing a lot of interventions from Government Members interpreting what each other said. Several Members have mentioned what the Treasury Committee Chair, the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie), is saying in private, and that it is different from what members of the Committee have said and different from the fact that the hon. Gentleman’s name is on the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joseph Johnson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his excellent intervention, but I would make an important distinction between being consulted and having the right of decision. That is a fundamental distinction and, on balance, arrangements that tilt towards giving the Select Committee system powers of decision over public appointments are going too far. The role of Select Committees might be better restricted to consultation than decision.

[Brandon Lewis]

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is another distinction, particularly for the example of local authorities? I was a local authority leader when we appointed a chief executive, and there are two implications. First, although the chief executive is approved by the council, they are always clearly the choice of the leader and, more to the point, they are the chief executive of the body appointing them. They do not become the governor of a body that is, in theory, completely independent, as would be the case with the Select Committee.

[Joseph Johnson]

I thank my hon. Friend for that point. I remind the House of what I was permitted to relay about the private views of the Chairman of the Treasury Committee. His private view—he was not speaking in his capacity as Chairman of the Committee—

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)]

I rise to speak in this important debate to challenge some of the views that have been put forward, but also to set out the deep constitutional changes that are built into the Bill. It is appropriate that the Bill is given full scrutiny in the House, and those who have said otherwise are, with the greatest respect, slightly missing the point about the Bill’s centrality to our constitutional settlement. That is quite a strong thing to say, but I will go into it, and also discuss some of the international and historical examples that the Bill brings to light.

Dr Johnson, in his celebrated dictionary of the English language—a man almost as wise as my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Joseph Johnson)—defines a Tory as one who adheres to the ancient constitution of the state. While the Tory party is putting that to the test more broadly, I stand as a proud defender of our ancient constitution, even while it needs upgrading from time to time. It is in that role that I speak against the Bill today.

The proponents of the Bill, in particular the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), underestimate its profound implications and how it would alter the foundations on which the Westminster system is built. For it is the job of the Executive to provide strong and decisive government, and it is the task of the legislature to hold that Executive to account. We have heard many speeches that make that distinction. It is a distinction that has survived revolution, war and financial crises, and it even broadly survived 13 years of new Labour Government. It has been adopted and revered by some of the greatest and most successful democracies in the world, such as Australia, New Zealand and Canada, all countries with records of strong central bank performance and all countries in which the governor of the central bank is appointed by the Executive without the legislature having a veto.

[Brandon Lewis]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the structural relationship between our Executive and legislature, the line we have talked about quite a bit today, and the way the Bank of England works and its autonomy are exactly why countries around the world have mirrored our structure so that they can deliver for their residents?

[Matthew Hancock]

Indeed. The English-speaking world and countries more widely have been wise to mirror that structure because it leads to strong Executive Governments who can deliver for the people in good times and bad. The Bill would have us rend asunder the gossamer fabric of the British constitution. I note that the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), who is no longer in his place, supported the Bill, but described it as a significant constitutional departure. However, he also said that it was not a major constitutional departure. I will not go into an analysis of the difference between a significant departure and a major one, but I think that the Bill would wrest a key instrument of Executive power—the power of appointment—away from Her Majesty’s Government and confer it instead on a single Committee of this House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Hancock]

I do not think that the principles in the Bill have been well thought through. That is why I started by arguing that the constitutional implications of the Bill are profound and underestimated by its proponents. Many of the questions that are being raised in interventions on me are ones that I had not even thought of while I was wondering what view to take on the Bill.

[Brandon Lewis]

To add to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng), does my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock) agree with the point that I made in my speech, which was that the complication and complexity in this debate highlight the turmoil that this process would create for the markets, even if it lasted for only 24 hours? The damage to the markets could be enormous. My hon. Friend has great experience of this world. What does he estimate would be the cost to our economy of even a 24-hour delay, let alone a delay of several weeks, because of this kind of back-and-forth?

[Matthew Hancock]

If there was parliamentary deadlock and votes were needed to change the Standing Orders of the House in order to get a Governor of the Bank of England, the cost would depend on the economic circumstances. In good and calm economic circumstances, there would undoubtedly be a cost because of the increased uncertainty in the markets. For example, one might expect the yield on Government bonds to rise and for uncertainty over the future of the banking system to grow, which might have an impact on the LIBOR market. I do not want to touch too much on the LIBOR market. In times of financial stress, such as those that we have been living with for five years with few signs of abatement, the impact of the uncertainty could be very serious indeed.

[Brandon Lewis]

Does my hon. Friend think that an unintended consequence of the proposal might be that the belief that such complications could happen would put off some of the best potential candidates for Governor of the Bank of England from putting themselves into the process in the first place?

[Matthew Hancock]

I have no doubt that the appointment of a Governor of the Bank of England should be above politics. We should appoint somebody for their economic, financial and policy-making experience. They should be somebody of weight from that world. The position has rarely been filled by somebody from the world of politics, and for good reason. As well as having to engage in the political world of the country, the Governor has great duties in putting the economic and financial interests of the nation to the fore. I would therefore be concerned if a potential Governor chose not to put their name forward because they did want to get involved in the quagmire of party politics during their appointment. The point that my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis) makes is an important one, and it anticipates a point that I have on page 36 of my speech. Since I am only on page 4, perhaps I should make some progress.

I will not dwell on the argument that the constitutional precedent would be much wider than simply the implications for the Treasury Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth made the point that the Chief of the Defence Staff might have to be confirmed by the Defence Committee, so I shall cross that line out of my speech. A potential head of MI6 might have to be scrutinised by and avoid a potential veto from the Intelligence and Security Committee before being given the job. There are more extreme and absurd examples showing that we should not take this lightly and push a new principle through the House on a Friday afternoon.

My point about Parliament and our system of government is only one consideration, but it is the reason why the principle of the Bill deserves serious and profound reflection. Its ramifications could outlive the Government of the day and last many Sessions of Parliament, because once such changes are made they tend to take hold. The appointment of the judiciary is a long-standing and slowly evolving matter, and very few Members would support the idea that the Justice Committee should have a veto over the appointment of High Court judges, but that is analogous to the proposition in the Bill.

I will go through some of the lessons from history and some of the international lessons that are pertinent to the Bill. Central banks are unique financial institutions and have a delicate balancing act to perform. As has been pointed out, the Bank of England was set up in 1694 to finance the nine years war against France. We won that war largely because Britain had the ability to finance a standing Army effectively, through the Bank of England. Instead of borrowing directly from the market, Britain established the Bank of England to issue debt on behalf of the Government. From then on, the strength of the institution was watched and repeated in countries around the world. In 1844, the United Kingdom broke new ground by issuing to the Bank of England a monopoly on the supply of money, so that competing banks could no longer issue banknotes of their own.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Hancock]

In that example, there was one person who understood the implications of returning to the gold standard and whose views were more consistent with the Labour Government’s. John Maynard Keynes argued vociferously for the strategy that many in the Government wanted to pursue but which he could not persuade the rest of the Bank to pursue, which was that they had to stimulate the economy in times of economic weakness and that there would not be an automatic return to growth. That is an argument with which I strongly agree. It is important to ensure an effective stimulus when the economy is weak. The most effective such stimulus today is monetary policy.

That brings us directly to the strategy now. The Bank and the Government broadly agree on the economic strategy of tight and responsible fiscal policy and loose monetary policy in order to deliver economic growth that is sustainable and not based simply on building up more debt. However, immediately before the 2010 general election, when I entered the House, it appeared that the Bank did not agree with the then Government’s strategy. This was destabilising. I used the example from 1716 to show that there is a long history of problems when there is disagreement on strategy, but it is by no means a problem that went away after 1716—it was with us right up until 2010, although fortunately it is not the case right now.

[Brandon Lewis]

My hon. Friend might have heard an Opposition Member say earlier that this kind of thing will not happen because it has not happened before. Does he agree that the examples he has just given prove that just because something has not gone wrong for a long time, it does not mean that it will not cause a problem in the future?

[Matthew Hancock]

I agree strongly. We need to be vigilant and—dare I say it—humble about how little we know about the future, instead of making grand assertions that because something has not been a problem in the past, it will not be a problem in the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Hancock]

Hear, hear, I say. I think that all sorts of communication are very useful in this modern age. I respect my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Mr Carswell) a great deal—and the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith)—but I have a very simple response. As I said at the start of my speech, I think that this proposal would mark a significant constitutional departure. It is about the distinction between the legislature and the Executive and about blurring that distinction. The idea that we should pass the Bill after only five hours of debate on a Friday lunchtime, compared with the 10 days of debate in Committee of the whole House proposed by the Government on House of Lords reform, which merely changes the architecture within that legislative branch, is absurd. If we want to make a change of such importance, we should be able to debate it fully and frankly. Going through some of the historical and international comparisons is vital to a significant change.

[Brandon Lewis]

Is it not important to consider not only whether we should allow a Select Committee to have the power of appointment or dismissal of the Governor, but the impact that that has on all Select Committees, and the difference between their scrutiny role and their Executive role, which is a big constitutional change in the way that the House works?

[Matthew Hancock]

My hon. Friend makes the point well so I will not dwell on it. No doubt all Members who have a serious interest in the impact of the Bill are in the House. Those who do not want to come to the House to discuss it are perfectly at liberty not to do so; that demonstrates the amount of interest they have in the consideration of the matters before the House.

Given the scale of the change proposed in the Bill, it is vital that we look at what has happened in the rest of the world. I hope hon. Members will indulge me a moment as I do that. About one tenth of major countries involve their legislatures in the appointment of central bank governors. The United States has been mentioned. Japan, Croatia, Latvia, Armenia, Belarus, Georgia, Macedonia, Lithuania and the Ukraine are also examples of countries where the decision and the veto power are vested in the legislature. Nine out of 10 countries have broadly the set-up that we have. Of that list of countries, only two have financial systems of the same size and sophistication as the UK. They are the USA and Japan. The US system, which is comparable to the proposition in the Bill, has already been discussed.

When I looked a little more closely at the US system, I was surprised to find that in the entire history of the Federal Reserve since it was founded in 1913, not a single presidential nominee for the chairman of the board of the Federal Reserve has ever been rejected by the Senate. We heard the argument earlier from the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr Love), a member of the Treasury Committee, that we should not worry, as the veto will never be used. It that is an argument for a change of constitutional significance, I do not know of a weaker one. The argument that we should change something of great importance because it is never used would not find much support.

The US Senate’s record in vetting all presidential nominations shows little evidence that elected representatives are any better than the Executive at rooting out views on economic policy. One of the people who was most frequently re-vetted and given a warm send-off by the Senate was Alan Greenspan, who served as chairman of the Fed from 1987 to 2006. He was reconfirmed five times, yet his final tenure at the Fed resulted in some of the most disastrous economic policy decisions in central banking history. He got it wrong on derivatives when he argued in 2005 that

“sophisticated approaches to measuring and managing risk are key factors underpinning the greater resilience of our largest financial institutions”.

He was wrong in thinking that the price that investors are prepared to pay is the only valid valuation of an asset. He was dogmatically opposed to action against financial bubbles, saying:

“Bubbles generally are perceptible only after the fact.”

He went on to admit that he got these things wrong when he told a congressional hearing in 2008, after the bubble had burst,

“I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organizations, specifically banks . . . were such that they were . . . capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms . . . I have found a flaw. . . I have been very distressed by that fact”.

The Senate failed in its job of vetoing people who would make great and grave economic policy mistakes. That stands as a great question that the Bill’s proponents need to answer. Why would the Treasury Committee be better than the Senate at rooting out people whose economic policy propositions are mistaken? I also use the other counter-factual, which is that the Senate has vetoed people who have a wide reputation for being excellent in their field. For instance, last year the Senate vetoed Patrick Diamond—who I am assured is no relation—a Nobel prize winner in economics. He was vetoed by the Republican Senators in retaliation for the Democrats refusing to reappoint a Bush nominee in 2008. Such political tit for tat, which led to a Nobel prize-winning economist not being allowed on to the Federal Reserve board, is a strong argument for rejecting the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)]

I was particularly interested to hear the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock), who added an international and historical dimension to the debate, which I think should be broadly appreciated. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), my near neighbour, on bringing the debate to the House. I think that his measure would contribute in some way to scrutiny, but I am afraid that the Bill raises important constitutional considerations and, on those grounds, I am reluctant to support its Second Reading.

Another feature of the debate has been the frequent comments, often from a sedentary position, about the length of the speeches. I have been a Member for two years and know that the constant refrain is that proceedings are guillotined, debates are not fully developed, ideas are not fully expressed and that there is far too little consideration or earnest debate on important matters on the Floor of the House. Today, by contrast, we have had a very full debate, yet some Members are complaining about that. They cannot have it both ways. They cannot complain about the truncated nature of many of our debates and then complain about the full and thoughtful speeches that have been made today. Those are inconsistent principles.

[Brandon Lewis]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it seems particularly odd to hear those comments from some Members, as we have had to sit in the Chamber at 1 o’clock, 2 o’clock and even 3 o’clock in the morning listening to long speeches from Opposition Members?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

Absolutely—

--- Later in debate ---

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

The hon. Gentleman leads me down a dangerous path.

[Brandon Lewis]

The points that Opposition Members have made go to the heart of the problem with this Bill, because it would be stage one of—to quote what an hon. Member said earlier—a drip-feed effect that changed the very way in which Select Committees worked by changing their power from one of scrutiny to one that is linked to the Executive.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

Absolutely. If the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) wants to debate that point, he should include it in his own private Member’s Bill, if he is fortunate enough to introduce one. He should introduce a Bill, and then we might have a lengthy debate.

The specific proposal before us is not appropriate, however, and I shall say why. The historical examples, which have been too little regarded, are very important. We have to look at the development of Parliament, to understand its powers and to understand the evolution of the Bank of England and its unique role in the historical and current governance of political economy. We have to understand a range of things.

As my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk said, we have to look also at international examples from recent history and throughout the world, and it is quite wrong for Opposition Members to try to curtail or to truncate debate. As I said at the beginning of my speech, I do not think it wrong for the House of Commons to debate things fully, and, on that basis, I turn to what Parliament does and what we are trying to do.

We scrutinise the Executive. Our job is not to make Executive appointments, to opine upon or to veto people appointed by the Crown; it is simply to scrutinise the Executive. The appointment of a Bank of England Governor is a matter for the Executive, and has been ever since the Bank’s nationalisation in 1946. One of the more interesting speeches today related to the origins of the Bank, because we have to understand where it has come from, and I repudiate any attempt to curtail Members’ right of speech when they are describing the history of the Bank. Everything is contingent: one has to understand the history of institutions to understand better how we can develop them.

The Bank of England was for almost 270 years an independent institution. It was a private bank, and its governor would spend two years in the role on a rotating basis. That broke down after the first world war, in 1920, when Montagu Norman was appointed Governor of the Bank of England. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington suggested that the new Governor—this superman or superwoman—would have such enormous powers and influence that no Governor has ever equalled them. That is completely unhistorical and false. Montagu Norman was Governor of the Bank from 1920 to 1944. He was Governor in 1925 when we went back on the gold standard and in 1931 when we came off the gold standard. He was Governor in 1939, just before the second world war, when exchange controls were imposed. He only left, dragged kicking and screaming from his post, after 24 years. He was a man of enormous power and influence, and it is very unlikely that any subsequent Governor will exercise the same kind of power. The simple reason is that under the current proposals we suggest that a Governor should have a single term of eight years, so there is no question of a man or woman being Governor for the same length of time as Montagu Norman or, similarly, Kim Cobbold, who was Governor for 12 years.

Members who are trying to make the case for supervision are utterly exaggerating the nature of this man or woman’s power once he or she is appointed to this important role. That is obviously due to their desire to exaggerate the power of the Governor to try to justify the appropriation of power on the part of the Treasury Committee. Under the Bill, that Committee, which is made up of 13 Members of this House, would have inordinate powers unequalled by that of any other Select Committee. That would distort the relationship of the Treasury Committee to this House and give it a preponderant influence in relation not only to scrutiny but to the Executive branch through its power of veto.

The proposal imports an alien structure from the United States, and that frustrates and disappoints me. The American constitution is a very different beast with a very different history from ours. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah), who is no longer in his place, pointed out, it has a strict division of powers. In America, no members of the Executive sit in the legislature. It is therefore right and proper that the legislature, as embodied in Congress, should have the power of scrutiny over an Executive who have no role in the legislature.