UK Parliament / Open data

Financial Services Bill

Proceeding contribution from John Howell (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Monday, 30 November 2009. It occurred during Debate on bills on Financial Services Bill.
I want to return to the subject of architecture. I looked in some detail at the Official Report of the Queen's Speech debate on the economy in the other place, and particularly at the remarks of Lord Myners. It was difficult to see where he was departing from the view that the financial architecture was important; indeed at one stage, with consummate cheek, he accused the Conservatives of not being good at seeing the big picture of financial architecture and economic challenge, so I wondered whether the Chancellor's comments earlier, when he tried to downgrade the importance of the architecture, expose something of a rift between him and the City Minister. There is no better example of the Government's failure to see the big picture and the need to change the financial architecture than the Bill. It is a superb example of how the Government have failed to see that the crisis has made the need for a big picture change more necessary than ever. They fail to realise that it is no longer the case that just a bit of restoration to a slightly damaged canvas is required—changing the artistic imagery slightly. Instead, we need a new canvas. Instead, what we get in the Bill is detailed draftsmanship and micro-management to hide the fact that the proposals introduce little substantive change to the overall regulatory architecture of the financial sector. That is largely concealed behind quite profound changes in consumer protection and consumer action, with many of which I, like the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd), agree. In summing up in the Queen's Speech debate in the House of Lords, Lord Myners said that the Bill would ensure that the financial system was""rebuilt on a stronger…footing",—[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 November 2009; Vol. 715, c. 464.]," continuing the image of architecture that has pervaded the debate. That may be his aim, but it is difficult to see how this Bill rebuilds anything. He has presumably forgotten that architecture is relevant only if the building has strong foundations, and that merely slapping on a coat of paint and papering over the cracks does nothing.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
501 c914-5 
Session
2009-10
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Back to top