Bank of England and Financial Services Bill [HL]

Lord Sharkey Excerpts

Monday 26th October 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharkey (LD)]

My Lords, this is a much shorter and simpler Bill than its two financial services predecessors, and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, on this welcome innovation, but, on the whole, it does not work to strengthen the regulatory framework put in place by those predecessors. On the contrary, and in very significant ways, it appears to weaken much of the work done in the past two Sessions.

There are four major areas of concern. The first is the abolition of the Bank’s oversight committee alongside the reduction in the number of non-executive directors on the court. There is also the role of the National Audit Office, the change in the status of the PRA and the changes to the senior manager regime and, particularly, the U-turn on the reverse burden of proof.

I shall start with the abolition of the oversight committee. The committee was recommended by the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards and was introduced into the Financial Services Bill by lengthy and detailed government amendments at the suggestion of the Bank. The very helpful Treasury briefing note to this Bill says that these new oversight functions have been a successful innovation, but it describes the oversight committee as an “unnecessary layer of governance”. As a reason for removing a key part of the Financial Services Act, this “unnecessary layer of governance” seems pretty weak. Will the Minister explain exactly how the existence of the oversight committee harms the bank’s ability to operate or how its existence as a separate body, as Parliament deliberately designed it, is damaging in any real or significant way?

The oversight committee consists only of non-executive directors. Its replacement, the court, has five bank officials and seven non-executive directors. This inevitably raises questions about robust independence, which was entirely the point of the non-executive director-only structure in the first place. The Bill reduces the number of non-executive directors on the court from nine to seven, although it contains the rather odd provision to allow restoration of the number to nine. There is nowhere any justification for the reduction in the number of non-executive directors from nine to seven: not in the Explanatory Notes, not in the HMT briefing note and not in the impact assessment. Will the Minister say why there is to be a reduction in the number of non-executive directors and why to seven? The abolition of the oversight committee seems certain to reduce the independence of oversight activity. The Government have presented no convincing reason why this committee should be abolished, and I am certain we will want to have a much better justification before agreeing to it.

The second area I want to discuss is the role of the NAO. The Treasury briefing note asserts that the purpose of this part of the Bill is to increase the accountability of the Bank to Parliament. There seems to be some significant disagreements on this. In evidence to the House of Commons Treasury Committee, the chair of the Court of the Bank of England, Anthony Habgood, said that the extent of the NAO’s proposed involvement had come as a surprise. That is a surprise in itself. Will the Minister say why Mr Habgood was taken by surprise? Was he consulted? Will he say whether the chair of the Court of the Bank of England is in favour of the NAO proposals in the Bill and whether he believes they will in fact increase the accountability of the Bank to Parliament? Certainly, Sir Amyas Morse, the Comptroller and Auditor-General and head of the NAO, does not think so. As the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, said, the Financial Times reported on 11 October that Sir Amyas had,

“attacked ‘unacceptable’ government plans to increase transparency at the Bank of England, saying that they created a false impression of greater accountability”.

These are very important matters.

We welcome the prospect of increased public accountability of the Bank via the NAO, but it is not at all clear that that is what the Bill really offers. As the Financial Times pointed out, under the Bill’s proposals the Bank would have a veto over what the NAO could scrutinise. This would be the first time that a public entity could restrict the scope of a value-for-money study. It is very hard to see why the Bank should have this power of veto and fairly easy to see why it should not. At the moment, the NAO is responsible for the financial audit of the PRA. The Bill proposes to end that arrangement and hand over the financial audit responsibility to the Bank’s auditors. This seems a retrograde step and seems to signal a reduction in the independence of the PRA, which is the subject I want to turn to next.

The Bill proposes to end the PRA’s status as a subsidiary and make the Bank itself the Prudential Regulation Authority, exercising its functions through a new prudential regulation committee. The chief reasons given for this proposed change in the impact assessment are that it will,

“maximise the synergies between micro-prudential supervision and macro-prudential policy”,

and be,

“better able to exploit internal efficiencies by sharing knowledge, expertise and analysis”.

Will the Minister explain this in a little more detail and perhaps in plainer language? Will he give concrete examples of the synergies anticipated? Will he explain how internal efficiencies can be exploited in a way not possible under the current set-up?

Both the HMT briefing notes and the impact assessment assert that the PRA’s independence will be retained. The impact assessment says that the new PRC will have a majority of external members. However, the chart provided with the Treasury briefing note is open to a quite different interpretation. This chart says that the PRC will consist of the governor, three deputy governors, the CEO of the FCA, one governor’s appointment and at least six external Chancellor’s appointments. Unless one counts the CEO of the FCA as an outsider, which seems completely implausible after the summary sacking of Martin Wheatley, the outsiders are not in a majority. Would the Minister care to clarify this? Is he counting the CEO of the FCA as an outsider and, if so, on what grounds?

I now turn to the Bill’s proposal to make changes to the senior managers regime. I welcome the extension of the regime across all sectors of the financial services industry, as was recommended in 2014 by former members of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards and by the 2015 Fair and Effective Markets Review. However, I am very concerned about the U-turn on the reverse burden of proof. This reverse burden of proof test has not even come into force-yet the Government are now proposing to abolish it before it does. The reverse burden of proof was a key recommendation of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, which said that it would,

“make sure that those who should have prevented serious prudential and conduct failures would no longer be able to walk away simply because of the difficulty of proving individual culpability in the context of complex organisations”.

The Government accepted this and wrote it into law. They were right to do that: the issue remains a serious problem.

Members of the House of Commons Treasury Select Committee, in February this year, investigating the scandal in which HSBC reportedly helped people around the world evade tax, were frustrated by senior executives, one after another, disclaiming personal responsibility. The Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards was right to conclude that having a named executive with personal responsibility for key risks, accompanied by reversing the burden of proof, was essential to removing what it called this “accountability firewall”.

It seems to me that the Government have advanced three main arguments in favour of this U-turn. They are, first, that it was necessary because the Bill extends the scope of the senior managers regime to financial institutions for which the reverse burden of proof would not work. The Chancellor said that he wanted to avoid a dog’s dinner of a two-tier accountability system. This is very unconvincing. It is not obviously the case that a two-tier system would be problematic. In fact, a two-tier system may be necessary to keep the large, globally systemic financial institutions accountable.

The second reason, advanced by Harriet Baldwin in our recent meeting, was that senior bankers were losing focus on their real jobs because of the compliance burden imposed by the reverse burden of proof—presumably in preparation for it. We need to see the evidence for this. I assume that this is what the banks are claiming. Can the Minister say how these assertions have been evaluated? How do we know they are true and not the obvious special pleading?

The Minister also told us that the looming reverse burden of proof was causing senior managers to avoid the jurisdiction. This is a serious charge and I think we need to see evidence for it. Could the Minister provide us with some examples? The Bank has described the removal of the reverse burden of proof test as a matter of process rather than substance. I believe that is simply, straightforwardly incorrect. The issue of abandoning the reverse burden of proof is extremely serious and is central to the ability to hold bankers properly to account. I have no doubt we will return to this issue at later stages in the Bill.

There is one other provision in this part of the Bill that raises concerns: the removal of a senior managers regime obligation to report breaches of rules of conduct to the regulator. I can see no rationale for this in either the Treasury brief or the impact assessment. The impact assessment simply notes that this measure is likely to “mainly benefit larger firms”. Can the Minister say why this provision is in the Bill?

Our discussions of this and other changes to the senior managers regime will be helped, I think, by the full, quantified impact assessment covering these measures promised in paragraph 103 of the current impact assessment. Can the Minister assure the House that we will have sight of this further impact assessment well before Committee?

This is an unsatisfactory Bill. It undoes much of Parliament’s work on the previous two Financial Services Bills; it overturns a key recommendation of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards; and it acts to reduce accountability and independent supervision. We have recently seen many moves in favour of the banks: we have seen changes to the banking levy and the sacking of Martin Wheatley, and we have heard talk of imposing a time limit on PPI claims. We should not let this Bill add to all that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

I certainly will do so, my Lords. Communication between us all will be very fruitful as we proceed. There are many technical issues here that we cannot perhaps do justice to on the floor of the House. It would be good to meet beforehand. I should also extend my apologies to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, because I believe he was unable to come to the briefing we had on this Bill, but that is my fault, not his. I am entirely in favour of good communication.

[Lord Sharkey]

Can I simply ask whether the Minister agrees that we will see the new impact assessment, promised in the current impact assessment, prior to Committee?

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

My Lords, I can agree that it is certainly being worked on. We will continue to work on it, and share and discuss the issues of the impact of these measures with the noble Lord. I absolutely agree that we need to make sure that the measures on the extension of the SM&CR, which is what I presume the noble Lord is referring to, are done in a proportionate and careful way. We must heed previous cases where that has not been properly, so I entirely agree on that.

Let me end by thanking your Lordships for your contributions today. I ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.