Bank of England and Financial Services Bill [Lords]

Helen Goodman Excerpts

Monday 1st February 2016 Commons Chamber

[George Kerevan]

I am trying to avoid pointing the finger and drawing inferences. What I will do, in agreeing with the hon. Gentleman, is to quote the right hon. Member for Chichester. I hope he will forgive me for doing so. When the LIBOR scandal emerged in 2014, after the Banking Commission, he said:

“As time passes, the pressure for reform will weaken”—

it is, is it not?—

“The old system failed disastrously…Maintaining or resuscitating parts of the failed system, whether at the behest of bank lobbying or for the convenience of regulators, must not be permitted to happen.”

I think we are getting both: we are getting bank lobbying, but we are also getting the regulators wanting a quiet time.

The hon. Member for Wyre Forest made a reasonable point. He said that by extending the senior managers and certification regime, the Bill will place in law a very detailed duty of responsibility on senior bankers to take all reasonable steps to prevent wrongdoing. However, at the same time, it will place the onus on the regulators to prove that that responsibility was discharged. Suddenly, it gives the regulators a job—

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

And no resource.

[George Kerevan]

Absolutely.

As the right hon. Member for Chichester pointed out, time after time when there have been regulatory failures, the regulators have been implicated. I therefore do not want to return to a situation in which it is up to the regulators to prove that something has gone wrong in the new regulatory regime, when they are partly responsible for it. I want the onus to fall on the bankers themselves.

It is worth looking more forensically at the reasons against the presumption of the reverse burden of proof. Andrew Bailey has argued that there is a worry that when the next crisis comes along, senior bankers will rush off to the European Court and claim that their rights under the European convention on human rights are being taken away because of the reverse burden of proof. That is rubbish.

The Parliamentary Commission was perhaps a little unwise to use the phrase “the reverse burden of proof”, even though we all use it and I use it. We are not talking about criminal law and making people guilty until proven innocent. We are talking about infractions in banking if, say, a banking crisis takes place. The legislation that the Government are trying to change would make it an infraction to be responsible for an activity in which wrongdoing took place, rather than for committing the wrongdoing itself. To give a flippant example, if it is a criminal offence to be in charge of a bawdy house, the prosecution needs to prove only that somebody was in charge of that house of ill repute, not that they were selling their own body. It would be no defence that they thought the bawdy house was a nunnery.

The reverse burden of proof regime makes managers responsible for the activity in their banks. When a disaster takes place, it is up to them to prove that they failed to stop it happening, rather than, as has always been the case, it being up to the regulators to find the solution and explain what happened, which means that everyone hides behind collective responsibility.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

I am pleased to be able to contribute to this debate and to follow the hon. Member for Havant (Mr Mak), who gave a Panglossian view of the City and the Bill. When I first read this Bill, I thought it was disappointing, but the more carefully I looked, the worse I thought it became. Of course it contains some good steps, but one thing we see here is the Tory Government circling their wagons to protect their friends and funders in the City. The Bill gives us no hope of introducing the separation between retail and investment banking that we so obviously needed after the crash and for which many, including Professor John Kay of Oxford University, Martin Wolf of the Financial Times and the former Tory Chancellor Lord Lawson, are still calling.

The main flaws in the Bill are on transparency at the Bank and the responsibility of senior managers across the sector. In the Treasury Committee, I questioned both the Chancellor and the Governor about the original draft of the Bill, which allowed the court, on an ad-hoc basis, to determine the scope of audits by the Comptroller and Auditor General. I am therefore pleased to see the redrafting of clause 11, which clarifies what the policy carve-outs will be, but I do not believe that is enough. First, we were promised a memorandum of understanding, agreed between the CAG and the Bank of England. Where is it? This House must see the memorandum before we pass this legislation. The Government are treating the House with the same disdain they do when they put substantial measures into statutory instruments and do not share those with the House either. Why have the Government brought the Bill back to this House before the memorandum of understanding has been drafted? The answer is obvious: it is because the senior managers regime comes into force in March and so the Government are desperate to get Royal Assent before that happens. I am not sure that CAG access will be enough. The Bank of England is independent in its existing judgments with respect to monetary, financial and prudential matters, and that is how it should be, but it is also democratically accountable. I believe citizens will be able to exercise their democratic rights only if we make the Bank subject to the Freedom of Information Act. Let me set out why.

When Treasury Ministers announced the RBS sale last summer, they waved about a letter from the Governor endorsing the sale. Writing this letter was not part of the Governor’s role on monetary, financial and prudential policy; it was an intervention in Government policy, at the Chancellor’s request, on the issue of a share sale. I asked the Governor whether he considered this letter to be policy, and he said it was. I asked him whether he would share the analysis that underlay the letter, but he refused, point blank, to do so. This is what he said:

“It is a policy judgment. I was asked as Governor by the Chancellor for a judgment with respect to the potential sale…as you know, and the terms of the question are outlined in the letter. I was asked as Governor; it was not a question of the FPC or the PRA Board. It was not a question in terms of safety and soundness but in terms of the overall impact. I consulted with the Deputy Governor for Prudential Regulation and the CEO of the PRA, Mr Bailey; and did analysis in the team.”

He continued:

“The analysis rested on the supervisory judgments, the input of the stress test and then the broader perspective of an institution that had been stabilised”.

He went on to say that

“the overlap between the commercially confidential information that we obtain as part of the discharge of our supervisory responsibilities of the PRA and the analytic is perfect”.

It is, however, very far from perfect—it is a raggedy hotch-potch.

The letter the Governor wrote roamed far beyond these matters. It said:

“it is in the public interest for the government to begin now to return RBS to private ownership...a phased return of RBS to private ownership would promote financial stability, a more competitive banking sector, and the interests of the wider economy.”

No information has been shared with any of us as to how this sale promotes a more competitive banking sector—it does not—or what the benefits will be to the wider economy. I still live in hope that when the CAG undertakes his audit of the RBS sale he will see this analysis, but I believe we need a structural reform: the application of the Freedom of Information Act to the Bank of England. This Bill should be the vehicle for that change.

Let me now turn to the issue of personal responsibility and the catastrophic capitulation of Ministers to their friends and funders, the banks. At first blush, the extension of the new senior managers regime for banks and building societies to all authorised persons in all financial institutions looks like a good thing, but unfortunately the quid pro quo is the significant weakening in the way this will operate. Instead of senior managers having to show that they took reasonable steps to prevent regulatory breaches, as recommended by the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, ably chaired by the right hon. Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie), the burden will be on the regulator to show that the senior manager failed to do that. As Lord Eatwell pointed out in an excellent speech in the other place, the only reason put forward by Ministers for this change is to deal with what they have described as “an excessive regulatory burden” and “costs” on firms. As he said, the Bill will result in less documentation; less awareness on the part of bankers of their responsibilities; and less examination of the relationship between the risks they take and the responsibilities they have.

The Government continue to believe it is acceptable for banks to privatise their profits and socialise their losses. Let us never forget the cost to all of us—to the British taxpayer: the £133 billion we had to stump up to save the banks. The banks continue to benefit from an implicit taxpayer subsidy, including to their risky investment activities, undertaken, as Lord Lawson said on Second Reading, “just for themselves”. But they continue also to whinge at the Government about the costs of documentation which would fall to them.

Ministers should also take note of the fact that a regime where the managers must show that they have taken reasonable steps is what applies in road traffic legislation, health and safety at work legislation, the Bribery Act 2010, legislation on terrorism, the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, the Trade Marks Act 1994, the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and the Official Secrets Act. What, we want to know, is so special about bankers?

Another argument put forward by a series of lawyers in the other place is that this approach fundamentally is unfair and outwith the traditions of English law. As Lord Pannick said, the regime, as proposed by the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, requires “strong justification”. What is the justification here? He said that he did “not understand it”.

Apart from the £133 billion bill and crashing the entire economies of the OECD, there is quite a lot to be said for what has gone wrong. Perhaps if those in the other place had constituents, they would understand that the appalling austerity now being wreaked on our constituents, especially disabled people, is something to which some of us must respond, “Never again”. If the £133 billion cost to British taxpayers is not enough justification, what about the fact that none of the senior bankers has taken responsibility or been punished for their criminally selfish and irresponsible behaviour?

In other words, what we see is yet another decision by this Chancellor of the Exchequer and this Government to put party interest before the national interest. After hours of hearings and work in the previous Parliament by the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, the Chancellor was lobbied by his friends and funders in the City and he has let them off the hook again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Harriett Baldwin]

With the leave of the House, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to speak for a second time.

I commend the fact that we have had a wide range of speeches, with 12 by Back Benchers from, I am pleased to say, almost across the country. We heard from my right hon. Friends the Members for Chichester (Mr Tyrie) and for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field), the hon. Members for East Lothian (George Kerevan) and for Bassetlaw (John Mann), my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Mr Streeter), the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards), my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr Mak), the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Marcus Fysh), the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Roger Mullin), and my hon. Friends the Members for Newark (Robert Jenrick) and for Dudley South (Mike Wood). I will deal with some of the questions they asked later.

This has been a very revealing debate. We have just heard the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Rob Marris) say that he is not satisfied with the creation of the system of regulation that was rightly criticised in 2005 and resulted in the financial crash on Labour’s watch. In fact, Labour Members, by declining to give this Bill a Second Reading tonight, are showing once again that they would be a risk to the livelihoods of everyone, most especially the poorest and the oldest, if they were ever to return to power, because their shadow Chancellor opposes giving a Second Reading to this entirely sensible Bill due to his opposition to the independence of the Bank of England—Gordon Brown’s best decision. His reasoned amendment says that

“the Bill fails to increase oversight and accountability of the work of the Bank of England”.

I thought it might be interesting to see exactly what the shadow Chancellor means by that. In 2012, he said:

“In the first week of a Labour Government democratic control of the major economic decisions would be restored by ending the Bank of England’s control over interest rates and bringing the nationalised and subsidised banks under direct control”.

That is what his reasoned amendment implies. In setting up his review of monetary policy, he said:

“Perhaps we should be even bolder, creating a national investment bank and using newly printed money to fund it.”

He does not need me to criticise that as a terrible idea that would cause inflation—he should look no further than his predecessor as shadow Chancellor, the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie), who said:

“Printing money and ending Bank of England independence would push up inflation, lending rates, squeeze out money for schools and hospitals and mean spending more on debt servicing. Higher inflation and a higher cost of living would hit those on the lowest incomes, the poorest people who couldn’t afford those goods and services.”

That is the reality of the Opposition’s economic policies with regard to the Bank of England. Inflation is a tax on the poorest, and they would hit the poorest hard.

[Helen Goodman]

rose—

[Harriett Baldwin]

Does the hon. Lady agree with that policy?

[Helen Goodman]

Surely the hon. Lady knows that it is the current Chancellor who has printed, as she puts it, £175 billion of money, and in doing so has increased the wealth of the top 5% in this country by £185,000 each.

[Harriett Baldwin]

I do worry about the hon. Lady sometimes, because she is again criticising the decisions of the independent Bank of England.

That is before we get to the Opposition’s other policies, such as bringing back secondary picketing, banning dividends, and nationalising businesses without compensation. Even Danny Blanchflower, the head of the independent review that the shadow Chancellor has set up to look at the remit of the Bank of England—