UK Parliament / Open data

Financial Services Bill

Proceeding contribution from Geoffrey Robinson (Labour) in the House of Commons on Monday, 30 November 2009. It occurred during Debate on bills on Financial Services Bill.
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The one consoling factor is the fact that the shadow Chancellor will not have any prospect of implementing his proposals and causing the ructions that he clearly wants to. When he prays in aid people like Jacques de Larosière and Mr. Fisher, I wonder what supernatural financial wisdom he chooses to invest in them. I would have thought, and I put this to the Minister in his place on the Front Bench, that the House, the country and particularly the City of London should be much more concerned about another French person, namely Michel Barnier—I hope I have pronounced the name correctly and apologise if I have not. He seems to me to be a greater threat to our interests than anything from Jacques de Larosière, who was governor of the rather different French central bank in a rather different set of circumstances and with a different range of responsibilities. I propose to look more closely to home and discuss the words of Andrew Large in commenting on the proposals. I do not want to say that he has any particular claim or any unique knowledge to be prayed in aid in any way, but he does speak with a great deal of authority, having been a former deputy governor for financial stability at the Bank of England. He wrote:""So I am not convinced that to split the FSA and put supervision squarely into the Bank is wise or necessary, or that it would deliver a better result than the improvements under way"—" the improvements in the Bill that we debating now, which have been welcomed throughout the House. He continued:""Changing architecture involves real risks and the burdens of migrating roles"," which I could not have put more succinctly myself. In a supplementary but relevant point, he goes on:""Besides this, the consumer improvements suggested by the Conservatives do not require splitting the FSA in two."" That was one of the original responses. Here is a clear case for doing more on the consumer front by combining the two agencies that deal with consumer credit. That clear view comes from someone who knows the banking world pretty much inside out and where the precise responsibilities lie. He is saying that the suggestion is unnecessary and not worth the hassle, as it will create uncertainty and divisions, when what we need at the moment are clear responsibilities under—I very much agree with the hon. Member for Twickenham on this—the leadership of the Bank of England. That was very clearly agreed. I can well imagine the late Eddie George—some of us risk taking his words in vain today—giving a different impression to different people than he gave to me on the several occasions when the current and previous Chancellors and others were negotiating with him. At the end of that obviously difficult period, I remember him saying that we had come out with a very good role for the Bank of England, with a clear Monetary Policy Committee that was transparent and accountable. He made it plain on each occasion that he still retained the overall responsibility and the lead role for financial stability and for eliminating, in so far as one can, systemic risk. That is where we were then and I believe that that is where we still are today. Clearly, we are not going to make any impression on the shadow Chancellor, even in the emollient, consultative frame of mind that he has developed on this matter. As I have said, we have one consolation—the extreme unlikelihood of his having the chance to implement what he is proposing. Let me briefly deal with another important matter—the provisions for the class action for consumers. I remember the issue coming up many times with consumers when I was in the Treasury and many times since: it is simply impossible to take legal action as an individual at the moment. With the best will in the world, the financial ombudsman simply cannot cope with the problem. This is a very important new step. No doubt much of the Bill will be further clarified and amended, but I believe that that is one important change to our arrangements and we should not lose sight of it.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
501 c903-4 
Session
2009-10
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Back to top