Financial Services Bill

My Lords, I shall address the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Lawson, Lord Higgins and Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts. When the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, said that he should perhaps have made a declaration, I thought that it might even have been a declaration of his previous directorship of Barclays Bank. Earlier today, during Question Time, the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, declared an interest in a body that she had chaired some time ago. What noble Lords are meant to declare in debates seems a confusing matter. One of the strengths of this House is that everyone who participates in a Committee such as this one makes a contribution on the basis of extraordinary involvement and experience in the financial sector—in clearing banking, private equity, investment management and all other spheres. We draw great strength from the fact that Members of this House have such experience. Perhaps I may make a conditional apology to the noble Lord, Lord Lawson of Blaby. If I was incorrect in what I said, of course I will apologise to the House. However, I am not at this stage convinced. The difference in regulatory responsibility which Canada reflects in the division of responsibility between prudential regulation and conduct of business—a difference which one or two other regulators also reflect either in their structure or in the fact that there are two different bodies—does not depart from the fact that Canada, like the UK, has a separation of responsibilities between the Treasury, the central bank and the bodies that are responsible for regulation. Specifically, I do not believe that regulation and conduct of business in Canada are the responsibility of either the Treasury or the central bank. It was on that basis that I suggested that Canada’s structure was similar to that of the UK. I would also argue, if time permits, that I was not suggesting that Canada was saved by its regulatory structure alone. There are a number of features to the Canadian banking market—in particular the guaranteeing of residential mortgages—which meant that many of the problems experienced in the United States and elsewhere with subprime mortgages were not visited on Canada.