Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Yvette Cooper:
Once again, I point out that the approach in the business plan will need to be compliant with the new state aid rules. The European
Commission is likely to propose particular conditions on the operating of the bank to ensure that it complies with state aid rules. We will need to have further discussions with it about what those conditions should be and what the appropriate arrangements will be. It would not be in the interests of the Government, the consumer or long-term financial stability to have a bank that abused its position in the public sector. That would not allow it to withdraw from the kind of public support that is currently there for it, and we would like to withdraw as rapidly as possible. A series of frameworks is in place.
Hon. Members are asking perfectly legitimate questions that will need to be answered. The difference between us is that I am setting out very clearly the fact that it is important for Ron Sandler and his team to do a programme of work before we fully answer all these questions. The amendment asks for them to be answered even before any transfer can be executed. Given the risks to financial stability that the Bill is designed to address, it would be irresponsible to tie Governments hands in terms of dealing with financial stability and potential risks to the banking system as a whole by requiring a programme of work to be done that cannot properly and effectively be done until after the transfer has taken place. On that basis, I ask the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) to withdraw the amendment.
Mr. Hoban: It almost beggars belief that the Minister made those comments about what is going to happen to Northern Rock. In most businesses that I knowI have been involved with businesses throughout my professional careerthe starting point for a business plan is the businesss objectives. What plans do the Government have for how Northern Rock should behave in future? Are they expecting it to get bigger or smaller? Those are important issues for the Treasury, as a guardian of taxpayers money, in giving guidance to Northern Rocks new management. The Minister says that the business should be transferred back to the private sector at the earliest point. It would be easier for Ron Sandler to come up with his plans if the Minister were able to say that the Government would prefer it to happen in one year, three years or five years. That will affect how he runs the businesswhether he shrinks it or grows it. That lack of strategic direction comes across in yesterdays statement, todays Second Reading debate and the Ministers response to the amendment.
As taxpayers, we need some clarity about the Governments objectives for Northern Rockwhen they think that it should emerge from nationalisation and what shape of business they are expecting. It is ludicrous for them to have turned down two private sector offers and not to know what the outcome will be. The Minister should get a grip and demonstrate that the Government know what they expect Northern Rock to be like when it emerges from nationalisation, whether in one year, three years or five years. It is time for them to give much greater clarity about how they expect Northern Rock to develop over the next few years. That is why we tabled the amendment and, given that the Minister has not given a satisfactory response to the issues that affect not only this House but the business community and taxpayers, why we will press it to the vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made:
Mr. Michael Fallon (Sevenoaks): I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 2, leave out Treasury consider and insert Bank of England considers.
This amendment is simple and does not require a lengthy explanation, but it is important and I alluded to it on Second Reading. The amendment proposes that the Bank of England rather than the Treasury should advise on whether there is a serious threat to the
stability of the UK financial system. The Bank has a detailed knowledge of that system and can better judge it from inside than some civil servants at one end of Whitehall.
By replacing the Treasury with the Bank of England in that key role, we would also remove the Chancellor and his Ministers from any perception that they were making a political judgment when they decided to intervene. There have been scurrilous accusations that Ministers intervention last September was perhaps designed to assist their friends in the north, or, indeed, to prepare the ground for a general election, which appeared imminent. It is essential to remove, as far as possible, any perception that the decision on whether systemic risk is present and how it is defined is being taken by Ministers.
The Treasury Committee gave this matter a lot of thought while looking into a special resolution procedure, and we recommended that the Banks deputy governor for financial stability should become the Chancellors principal adviser. Of course, the Chancellor has to take the final decision. He is the guardian of the taxpayers interests, and the amendment is not attempting to evade that fact, but we need to put that position at one remove from any suspicion of political judgment. The best people to advise on whether there is a serious, systemic threat to the stability of the UK financial system are those in the Bank of England.
Yvette Cooper: The powers in the Bill to transfer the shares or business of a deposit-taker are exercisable only for the purposes set out in the clause. The first of these purposes is to maintain the stability of the UK financial system in circumstances in which the Treasury considers that there would be a serious threat to its stability if the order were not made. It is right that the decision should be taken by Treasury Ministers, just as the decision to authorise exceptional financial support is a decision for the Chancellor, under the memorandum of understanding. Ministers are accountable for the exercise of these powers, so it is right that such a decision should be based on their assessment of the threat. They are accountable to the House for that decision. It would, of course, be based on the advice of the Bank of England and the FSA, as required by the memorandum of understanding. The memorandum of understanding is clear about that. That is what has happened for Northern Rock and it is what would happen in the future, should the powers in the Bill ever need to be exercised again. Given that, the amendment is unnecessary and inappropriate.
The Government are consulting on providing the Bank of England with a statutory basis for its role in financial stability under the banking reform Bill, which will be introduced later in the Session. That would be the appropriate vehicle for formalising the Bank of Englands role. We have made it clear that we think that there is a stronger role for the Bank of England to play, but it would be more appropriate to provide for that in the banking reform Bill, rather than in the Banking (Special Provisions) Bill, as the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) has suggested. His amendment would result in our not being clear about the accountability for decision making and assessment, or about accountability to the House. On that basis, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.
Mr. Fallon: I am grateful to the Minister for the consideration that she has given to the amendment. I accept her point about accountability. Of course it is the Chancellor who is in charge and he must account to the House for his decisions to put taxpayers money at riskor not, as the case may be. I am not quite clear about the Ministers answer. First, she said that the amendment was unnecessary, then she said that under the new banking reform Bill she proposes to put the Bank of Englands role as the Chancellors principal adviser on a more statutory basis, so there might not be as much between us as I originally thought. I will certainly reflect on what she has said and, in the meantime, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge): I beg to move amendment No. 10, in page 2, line 40, leave out year and insert month.
The amendment seeks to replace the provision in clause 2(8), which gives a limited period of one year for making an order under sections 3 and 6 of the legislation, with a provision for a limit of one month. I should say at the outset that this is not intended to be a wrecking amendmentfar from it. We have already debated the overall principle of the Bill and we are now looking at its working realities.
The Bill was presented to the House as emergency legislation, designed specifically to deal with the problems of Northern Rock, and on that basis we are asked to expedite its passage. Whatever else we do, Sir Michael, I suggest that we cannot concede to this Government or to any Governmentthe hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) made this point earliera standing power to nationalise banks and building societies. There are huge issues pertaining to our international reputation and about the propriety of a Bill going through the House according to a time scale that might be appropriate for dealing with an immediateor what the Americans would call a clear and presentdanger that needs to be addressed, but is certainly not appropriate for Bills with a longer period of application that might be used to deal with circumstances unforeseen and, perhaps at the present time, even unforeseeable.
Conservative Members feel strongly that if the Government find they have a need for such a Bill, as they have for Northern Rock, to deal with a specific problem in the immediate future, they should justify their need for further expedited legislation. In the fullness of time, we will have a properly debated, properly scrutinised and properly considered series of measures to reform the banking regulatory regime that the Prime Minister introduced in 1997, the failure of which is at the root of current problems that have given rise to the Bill that we are debating today.
Next Section | Index | Home Page |