Financial Services Bill

Lord Peston Excerpts

Wednesday 17th October 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Noakes]

My Lords, Amendment 190ZE is in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord McFall of Alcluith. This represents the last of the amendments in our joint names which respond to the first report of this Session by the Treasury Select Committee in another place.

Clause 57 provides a welcome power of direction that enables the Treasury to direct the Bank of England when public funds are at risk. The Treasury Select Committee initially recommended that such a power be created when the Bank notified the Treasury that there was a material risk to public funds. The committee regarded such a power of direction as a necessary corollary of the leading role of the Chancellor in any financial crisis. Unfortunately, the Bank of England sought to water this down to a power of direction operating only in relation to certain instruments of crisis management. Even more unfortunately, the Government have sided with the Bank and have restricted the power of direction to the three areas listed in Clause 57(2).

The Treasury Select Committee remains unhappy with this and believes that if the legislation is to stand the test of time, it should not be restricted to the specific tools listed in subsection (2) but should be capable of being exercised in relation to tools not currently considered appropriate; for example, those tools that would be available to the Financial Policy Committee or other tools that have not yet been developed. The Treasury Select Committee believes that this power should be broader and future-proofed.

Amendment 190ZE seeks to achieve this by saying that the direction can relate to any of the powers or functions of the Bank of England, leaving the three specified tools as a non-exclusive list of such powers.

I am told that the House could not hear me in my previous position so I have moved.

[Lord Peston]

Start again.

[Baroness Noakes]

This is a probing amendment for today, not least because I think that it is too wide. For example, it would allow the Treasury to direct the Bank in relation to monetary policy functions, which would not be appropriate. Section 4 of the Bank of England Act 1946, which took the Bank into public ownership, has a general power of direction, which puts monetary policy out of scope. I believe that any Clause 57 power should similarly be constrained but I cannot see that there needs to be any further restriction on the Treasury’s power of direction when public money is at stake.

When my noble friend the Minister replies, can he also explain the relationship between the 1946 Act’s power of direction and the new powers of direction in Clause 57? The 1946 version is very broad and, monetary policy apart, seems to cover everything that is in Clause 57, and more. I do not believe that the 1946 Act power is being repealed or otherwise amended in this Bill, so I am puzzled as to the relationship.

I am aware that general powers of direction have rarely been used in practice, because their force lies mainly in the threat of their use rather than their actual deployment, but I hope that my noble friend the Minister can say what effect Clause 57 has on the existing power of direction. I beg to move.

[Lord Peston]

My Lords, this is a most interesting amendment, which enables us to clarify one or two aspects of the Bill. I literally did not hear the first part of what the noble Baroness was saying, so I was not joking when I suggested that she started again and she may well need to repeat what she said at the beginning.

This amendment brings into focus the relative power of the Bank of England in the areas that the Treasury is concerned with. This has worried quite a few of us throughout the proceedings on the Bill. To put it too simply, the question that emerges is: who really is in charge of the stabilisation process? Before I press that a little bit further, I take it that when in this part of the Bill we are talking about stabilisation powers, we are restricting ourselves to stabilisation powers within the financial services sector and not discussing a subject to which I have devoted most of my academic life; namely, powers to stabilise the whole economy—or, if people had followed my advice, probably destabilise the whole economy. We are not discussing the general question of the theory of economic stabilisation here. We are discussing just stabilisation.

Can the Minister throw some light on the simple question here? Who really is in charge? The noble Baroness includes in her amendment “not limited to”. However, unless this was part of what I did not hear, I do not think she said what else she had in mind that might then arise if it was not limited to these things. It may well be that she did say it and I missed or it may well be that she would like to say it now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sassoon]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, is getting ahead of me. That was precisely what I was going on to explain. He is absolutely right that the power has never been used. Even at the height of the recent financial crisis, the then Chancellor felt unable to use this power to direct the Bank. Indeed, Alistair Darling’s book is rather interesting on this point. He explains in it that he was told,

“that it might be legally possible”,

to direct the Bank, but that,

“there would be wider implications of such an action. We had set great store by making the Bank independent and a public row between myself and Mervyn would have been disastrous, particularly at this time”.

The 1946 Act direction power is considered, and was considered by a Chancellor very recently, to be such a nuclear option because it is so broad that it would be very difficult to use. This means that any use of the power would likely be interpreted as the Chancellor overruling decisions and judgments that should rightly be for the Bank. This would be seen as a direct challenge to the Bank’s independence and a judgment on the competence of the Bank’s senior executives, which could cause a crisis in leadership in the Bank and a serious loss of public confidence. That line of thinking has prevented Chancellors from using the 1946 Act power in the past, as the fallout could be more damaging than the situation that they might be trying directly to address.

That risk was recognised by the Treasury Committee. That is why their report recommended that,

“the Chancellor should be granted a power to direct the Bank in a crisis which is free of the problems associated with the power under the 1946 Act”.

That is why the new power of direction in Clause 57 is designed to be a targeted and usable power. There will still be the power in the 1946 Act, for the reasons that underlie what my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, said. It is probably worth maintaining that reserve power somewhere in the system, albeit with the caveat that it is difficult to see the situation in which it might be exercised.

On the other hand, and going to the heart of who is in charge and who is responsible for what is in the new system, it was muddled and confused under the tripartite system but we want to make it much clearer in the new system that the Chancellor and the Treasury are principally there as guardians of public funds. That is why the specific direction in Clause 57 is designed that way. It is targeted. It does not allow the Treasury to overrule the Bank’s decisions and judgments; it allows the Treasury to take the decisions that are rightly for the Government to take. It is designed to allow the Chancellor to intervene to require the Bank to take specific action in a crisis management situation where public funds are at risk. That is why the power covers only the Bank’s crisis management functions, specifically the provision of liquidity and the operation of the special resolution regime. Again, I hope that that helps the noble Lord, Lord Peston, with the intended scope of this.

[Lord Peston]

My Lords, the noble Lord has clarified that very well. I take it that there would still be, as happens all the time, informal meetings between the Chancellor and the Governor, where the Chancellor might say, “Well, it is your decision but I am a bit worried about this or that”. Nothing will infringe on that because, as the noble Lord well knows, no system can work without informal and off the record meetings and things of that sort. This will not get in the way of what one might call ordinary human behaviour.

[Lord Sassoon]

No, indeed. The next time, in another context, the noble Lord challenges me about why we are not disclosing more meetings, I shall remember what he just said about informal and confidential meetings. It is important that they happen. Having seen how things happened before and how they happen now, it is striking to see the much greater regularity of meetings between the principals—they are critical—than happened at some periods in the past. That is very important as a background in peacetime as well as in crisis time.

I hope that is clear. The Bank is in charge of operating the resolution regime, but the Chancellor must agree to any use of public funds and has the final say when they are used. Even setting aside the unintended drafting of Amendment 190ZE to include a power that would be even more widely drawn than the 1946 Act, the targeted power that we have drawn is the appropriate one. If we had drawn the power more widely to allow for future proofing, as my noble friend puts it, I would be standing here defending why we had left such an important area open in the Bill. It is better to draft such a power related to the system as we know it. It is broadly future proofed in the sense that there is a clear distinction between the use of public funds and other matters, and after that helpful debate I hope that my noble friend will withdraw her amendment.

[Lord Sassoon]

My Lords, although I believe that we are allowed to use portable electronic devices in the Chamber, I cannot in 30 seconds find it. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, that it is done on either a quarterly or six-monthly basis. I do not know whether the search was made on the OBR website or the Treasury website, but my recollection is that the OBR releases something on its website periodically. I will find the appropriate link and let the noble Lords have it.

[Lord Peston]

I understood him to say the other day that it was on the Treasury website and I wasted three-quarters of an hour this morning. There is lots of good stuff on it. You can spend a happy day searching the Treasury website, but it did not contain anything that the Minister had told us it did contain. We can leave it at that.

[Lord Sassoon]

I apologise if I directed people to the wrong website. I will find the right one, which I think might be the OBR’s own website.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

I think that some of what the Minister has just said is quite a shift from what Clause 54 says. I would be delighted if he came forward on Report with some amendments that contained a duty to look at scenarios and a duty to bring forward a notification at the point of a possibility. There has been considerable debate in another place and in various committees, as to what “a material risk” means. There is a commitment in Clause 61 that it must be in the MoU, but as I search the MoU I cannot find it coming readily out to me—I shall be asking about that later. I invite the Minister to consider what he has said and see whether he can improve the legislation so that there will be no ambiguity about the test that the Bank has to apply in bringing forward a notification.

[Lord Peston]

My Lords, perhaps I can help the Minister—it is not a question of persuading him to say yes or no at the moment. Looking at Clause 54, I take “material risk” to mean a significant probability; “possible” is much less than that. I think that my noble friend suggests in his amendment that Clause 54 would be strengthened if we went down the “possible” line, the technical point being—and I do not press it—that there is deep philosophical argument, particularly within probability theory, about the difference between possible and probable.

I interpret the amendment to mean that if the relevant body—whether the Bank of England or another regulator—is looking at a specific part of the financial services sector, or even a specific firm within it, it should let the Government know that it is doing so and that one definitely possible outcome is a need for the use of public funds. The amendment, as I understand it, is simply an attempt to be helpful to HMG when it comes to the control of public money. The Minister may say, “We do not want to know about possibles; we only want to know when the real demand for the money is coming”. That may be his argument, but that is the difference—am I not right?—as to what we are talking about here.

[Lord Sassoon]

Perhaps I did not make sufficiently clear the rather obvious point that we need to look at the heading of Clause 54, “Duty of Bank to notify Treasury of possible need for public funds”. At the risk of stating the obvious—it seems that we need to come back to the obvious—this whole duty is about the notification of a possible need for public funds. If we wanted to say “probable need for public funds”, the Bill would say “probable” in the clause heading, but it does not, it says “possible”. I advise the noble Lord that we are looking at the heading of Clause 54 in part 4 on page 134 of the Bill.

[Lord Peston]

Forgive me. I am willing to accept that I am wrong. I agree that the top line says “possible” but “material risk” is what goes into the material section of the Bill. That seems to me to undermine the clause heading. That seems to me the real point. Why have the Government put in “material risk” if they meant possible risk?

[Lord Sassoon]

My Lords, there are some points where, frankly, I have to take the advice of the legal experts here, which I have done. Frequently Bills, this one included, contain constructions which follow some sort of drafting formula and are sometimes difficult to understand. As I say, my starting point is that if I really thought that the Treasury was not going to get the sort of early warning which the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, and the Treasury Committee rightly ask for, I would propose a government amendment. I take the point that “possible” appears in a heading and not in Clause 54(1) but it is very clear from the heading that we are talking about the material risk in the context of the possible need for public funds. I assure the Committee that all the advice that I have been given is to the effect that this will achieve the purpose that the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, desires. Finally, I draw the noble Lord’s attention to paragraph 13 of the draft MoU to find the interaction between the MoU and these issues. On the basis of those explanations, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.