Contribution
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 72 and 75 and to my opposition to Clause 16 standing part of the Bill. I also support the other amendments in this group and their intentions: I think we could talk quite a lot longer about them all.
My Amendments 72 and 75 would require the regulators’ long-term strategies to include a review of their rulebooks, with the aim of identifying outdated or unnecessary requirements. That is a sensible and uncontroversial idea. No one disputes that the regulatory rulebook should be kept under review or that unnecessary or duplicative requirements should not be removed. Indeed, the FCA’s own handbook review consultation acknowledges that parts of the rulebook are outdated, unclear or internally inconsistent. I hope that this review idea can be taken up.
However, these amendments presently sit within Clause 16, which is where the problem lies. Clause 16 creates a statutory duty for the FCA and the PRA to produce long-term strategies. In principle, that is not objectionable; regulators have produced strategy documents before, and it is entirely proper that Ministers should be able to input as long as it is transparent, but there are other problems that have been elaborated on by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, which I do not need to repeat. In practice, however, Clause 16 is the delegation engine for Clause 17. It is part of a process of downgrading the day-to-day requirements, the regulatory principles on rule-making, into a commentary in a five-year strategy document. This is a profound change in the constitutional architecture of financial regulation. What were once operational regulatory principles, enforceable by judicial review—even if that route is rarely pursued—become strategic aspirations, influenced by Ministers, unchallengeable by others and reviewed only every five years. The long-term strategy is being used as a vehicle to downgrade regulatory principles and apply them in a minimalist, non-operational way—just talk, no walk. If Clause 16 is to remain, it must be made significantly better and not simply operate as a Trojan horse.
The key thing about regulatory principles is how to make them sensibly relate to operational matters— I say sensibly because that has not happened. That is the problem. It may work for some of them to be dealt with more thematically and rather more regularly than five-year intervals, but others need consideration at the rule-making and supervisory level. While Ministers are meant to stay clear of day-to-day operational interference, like the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, I query whether Clause 16 overly restricts ministerial input. FSMA 2000 has always had a difficult settlement to keep government away from day-to-day decisions, but—as the financial crisis showed—it is inescapable that the buck stops with government. Clause 16 does not strike the right balance there.
My Amendments 72 and 75 point to rulebook review. As I said in a previous group, and as noted by the Lords Financial Services Regulation Committee, it is effectively the regulators’ system that is cluttered, fragmented and difficult to navigate. It is a lot harder to navigate than a few regulatory principles that the regulators complain about, but which are the only way to challenge that regulatory clutter. In the Lords committee report, a central finding was that culture change, not structural tinkering, is what is needed. Regulators must be clearer, more predictable and more proportionate in how they exercise their powers. The Clause 16 regulatory strategy does not deliver that; it substitutes what were enforceable operational requirements about proportionality with unenforceable talk.
It rather looks as though the regulators will avoid having to step up to the mark. They did not much like the committee’s report or its suggestions of culture change, and, as we will discuss when we get to Clause 17, in the words of one City commentator, it looks like the regulators have done a job on Parliament. Clause 16 is not about transparency, nor is it new in suggesting a strategy document. It is just a vehicle to diminish the accountability and effectiveness of the regulatory principles, and I oppose it.