Financial Services Bill

Lord Peston Excerpts

Wednesday 5th December 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Barnett]

My Lords, the amendment relates to something originally in the Bank of England Act 1998 which should not have been there in the first place. My noble friend Lord Peston and I tried very hard for it not to be put in but failed at the time. I hope that we will be more successful today.

The words “subject to that” should never have been there in the first place. All they mean is that the Governor of the Bank of England—and we will have a new one next July—will have his hands tied fast. He must first get stability—that is, control inflation—and only then can he look at the Government’s economic policy. Frankly, I would prefer that he looked at someone else’s economic policy than that of the present Government because I am not very happy with it. However, that is how it should be: the governor should look at the Government’s economic policy—and given what we heard in the Autumn Statement, someone else certainly needs to look at the situation and at this Government’s economic policy.

The new governor may be as good as everyone says—I hope he is—but I think what he can do with the economy has been massively overstated because that is primarily the responsibility of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Sadly, the present Chancellor—whose first line in the Autumn Statement should have been an apology—has said everything is marvellous. It is hard to believe that anyone could do that, but the Chancellor did it.

It would help if the new governor had at least a responsibility to look at the economy to see whether he can help the Chancellor. It would be helpful to the Government to have the words deleted and that is all I am seeking to do. I shall not take up any more of the House’s time. I beg to move.

[Lord Peston]

My Lords, I wish to add two or three remarks to what my noble friend Lord Barnett has said.

On any logical grounds, “equal weight” is precisely what the Government would want to see in this part of the Bill. One feels that somehow the computer got jammed and “subject to that” got stuck in all over the place for no good reason. I would be surprised if the Minister is not sympathetic to the amendment.

I wish to make two remarks in regard to the prospective governor. First, I know that he felt it was right for him to appear before the Treasury Select Committee in the other place in order that its members should know who he was. Bearing in mind the vast amount of work that noble Lords have put in to this Bill, which is devoted overwhelmingly to the Bank of England, and given that, with much regret, we will be dealing some day with a Bill about the Bank of England without the Minister being the lead figure, I would like to go on record as saying that it would be a good idea if the prospective Governor of the Bank of England appeared before your Lordships’ Economic Affairs Committee so that he could become known to us as well as to the other place.

My second remark is in favour of the prospective governor. Eyebrows have been raised that he is being paid approximately £600,000 for this job, which is a lot of money—certainly to an impoverished ex-professor. None the less, given that the prospective governor could earn between £10 million and £15 million per annum—most of which, I would guess, would end up being tax-free—someone ought to reassure him that, if anything, we are getting a bargain and he is doing us a favour rather than us doing him a favour by appointing him.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Lord Bishop of Guildford]

My Lords, those of you who were present for prayers earlier this afternoon will have perhaps noted the irony with which this Prelate quoted from Psalm 15, which speaks about taking money upon usury. In rabbinic and Jewish interpretation that is interpreted as “not unreasonable” usury.

I have to express my gratitude to the Government and the Minister for this excellent amendment. I do so on behalf of the Bench that I sit upon and especially on behalf of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, who has had unfortunately to go home for urgent diocesan business, otherwise he would have been making some of the comments that I have been making. I will not go into the detail but I will make one final comment—on the way that your Lordships’ House conducts its business when we are at our best. This seems to me to be a very good example of that. We had an amendment and then rational discussion in debate at various levels—Cross-Bench, opposition, government—and then we had an excellent amendment. For that I thank the Government and all who have taken part in this important debate.

[Lord Peston]

My Lords, I start by congratulating my noble friend Lord Mitchell and the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, on a very great achievement. However, as everybody seems to understand the amendment in every way except for me, I have three questions in case I have misunderstood what the noble Lord said.

I read the amendment as saying that it gives the FCA the power to do all the things that we want it to do. However, I was not very clear whether he was then saying that, under its consumer protection mandate, it follows immediately that it must exercise that power. This is our favourite “may” and “must” question. You can give someone power but they may not use it. However, am I right in understanding that this amendment, coupled with the whole of the rest of the remit for the FCA, essentially means that it will now have to go into this field and deal with it in the way suggested, or is it still up to it whether it bothers with it? I would like the answer to that question.

The second question we had—if we recall our little debate on this last week—was on the concept of transparency. The great reason why this is a racket is of course that the average consumer/borrower who is not an expert in this field does not know until he has signed up what he is signing up for. Am I right in assuming that this amendment will make sure that the one thing that would happen as a result of this—do not let us worry for the moment about bankruptcy and all that for these firms—is that consumers will definitely know what they are letting themselves in for? Certainly my attempt to look up at least one site on this showed that you do not get to what you are letting yourself in for until you are virtually locked in. Am I right that this amendment is both transparent in general and also transparent with regard to what you have let yourself in for?

I do not say this in a negative way in terms of saying we do not want this; this is a tremendous achievement. I am looking for a bit of enlightenment to make sure that I understand what it means.

[Lord Barnett]

My Lords, perhaps I may add to what my noble friend Lord Peston has said. I will not repeat the may/must argument; it has been well enough made, and I hope that we will get a reply from the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon. Incidentally, in congratulating my noble friend Lord Mitchell, perhaps it is right that I should also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon. This may be our last exchange before he retires.

The noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, mentioned the assumption that the FCA will now have the powers to deal with these unscrupulous people regarding payday loan schemes. As my noble friend Lord Mitchell said, they will have lots of good lawyers because when people have many profits to defend, as they do, they tend to use lots of lawyers. While I am not a lawyer, I hope that the noble Lord’s lawyers have indeed drafted this correctly. I know that these things can never be done tightly enough and that once lawyers get involved it finishes up in the courts for somebody else to decide. That is bound to happen and I am not blaming the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, or his legal advisers for it. In my experience, when court actions involve lawyers on two sides in major cases, both advise their clients that they are right and that they should go to court about it. That becomes very expensive and they eventually resolve it only in the court.

As the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, said, although he is confident about this provision, it is nevertheless not a silver bullet. Does he think that the advice he has been given will result over the next few months or weeks in the lawyers worrying about it? At the end of the day, will we require secondary legislation to deal with this? I hope not—I hope that the lawyers have it absolutely right this time. However, as the noble Lord said, one of the worries is the law of unintended consequences.

This is such a complex area but I like the point that my noble friend Lord Mitchell made about what happens in, I think, Canada.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Barnett]

I understand that I must not do that, so I will mention the question that I would have asked him. There are going to be investigations into the LIBOR scandal. Will they include looking in detail at whether there is anybody else liable or culpable in this regard? It clearly is a scandal of its own to say that nobody knew anything about it. I will leave it at that. I hope that the Government will produce sensible secondary legislation in the way we hope when we pass this Bill.

[Lord Peston]

My Lords, I will make a brief personal remark to the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, who I believe is about to retire as a Minister after the passage of the Bill. My words are those that David Ricardo wrote to Thomas Malthus in the very last letter he wrote to him:

“And now, my dear Malthus, I have done. Like other disputants, after much discussion we each retain our own opinions. These discussions, however, never influence our friendship; I should not like you more than I do if you agreed in opinion with me”.

I hope that he will accept that message.

Amendment 33 agreed.