Financial Services Bill

My Lords, I, too, support my noble friend in opposing that these clauses stand part of the Bill. In the past three or four hours we have teased out of the noble Lord, Lord Myners, several interesting aspects of these clauses. We are essentially formalising an existing structure. It did not work that well and a lot of the top people did not turn up, but good deputies came so that was all right. When push came to shove, it did not work at all well, so we will put some more bells and whistles on it and give it a bit more formal structure, which will now make it fit for purpose. We have had no answer as to how it will work with three independent bodies, each with its own independent strategies. How will they be co-ordinated, how will they pull together and how will they avoid duplication and overlap? Some of the points that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, made are applicable here. Who will take responsibility for some of the points that he has raised? Where I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Newby, is over the need for some analysis. We need to consider carefully how we can draw the best lessons from the crisis that we have been through and are still going through. It is a shame, therefore, that the Government saw fit to oppose my noble friend’s amendment, which sought after the truth. As the noble Lord, Lord Desai, told us, the financial world is cyclical by nature. It is said, in the vulgar phrase, that the City is a battle between fear and greed. At the moment, fear has the upper hand but it will not have the upper hand for ever. In this case, the Government are following the old saying that generals prepare to fight the battles of the last war. This structure is designed for the last war. The next war will not at all be in this shape. We are creating a bureaucracy and structure that will not help us to look forward; it looks backwards. Because this structure is not fit for purpose, I support my noble friend in opposing that this clause stand part.