Bank of England (Appointment of Governor) Bill

Debate between Brandon Lewis and Matt Hancock

Friday 6th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[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 ---

[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.