Equivalence Determinations for Financial Services and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment etc) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Motion to Approve

Moved by

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 17 January be approved.

My Lords, this SI is an important part of the Treasury’s programme of legislation under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. It will address deficiencies related to the EU’s equivalence framework for financial services, and will make provisions for elements of the UK’s stand-alone equivalence framework for financial services, in a scenario where the UK leaves the EU without an agreement.

Many noble Lords will be familiar with the EU’s framework for equivalence. EU legislation allows the European Commission to determine that a country outside the EU—often termed a third country—has a regulatory and supervisory regime in a particular area of financial services that is equivalent to the corresponding EU regime. Granting equivalence is a key component of financial services regulation and supports cross-border activity. Equivalence decisions can reduce or eliminate overlaps in regulatory and supervisory requirements, thus decreasing regulatory burdens on firms. Some equivalence decisions provide improved prudential treatment, or facilitate the exchange of services. This can lead to increased competition, which benefits firms and consumers, while protecting financial stability.

Before making equivalence decisions, the Commission will undertake an assessment and may ask the European supervisory authorities for technical advice to support it. As an EU member state, any equivalence decisions made by the Commission currently have effect in the UK. In a no-deal scenario, the UK would be outside the EU’s equivalence framework. The Government place significant importance on having a functioning, stand-alone equivalence regime which will support our future relationship with the EU and other financial centres with which we want to build stronger partnerships.

Noble Lords will be aware that other Treasury statutory instruments which have completed their passage in Parliament have already transferred some equivalence responsibilities from the Commission to the Treasury, and functions from the ESAs to the UK financial regulators. Through these SIs, the Treasury has maintained the same substantive criteria that the EU uses to judge equivalence.

My Lords, the equivalence SI shares the same consolidated impact assessment with the next three SIs. I am grateful that this was published in advance of today’s debate and was available in good time in the Printed Paper Office. That is a significant and welcome improvement on last week’s lamentable performance. I would have preferred individual impact assessments, rather than this consolidated one. However, consolidation has the merit of making absolutely clear the unsatisfactory vagueness about the costs and benefits of these SIs and that this arises chiefly from the lack of consultation.

The summary sheet in the IA for this package of SIs notes that the likely cost for all of them is “Unknown: likely significant” in all three defined categories. The benefits are also unquantified, but are said to be “significant”. This rather dramatically illustrates the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, in his later amendments. There has been no real consultation on any of these instruments. This is unsatisfactory and is entirely the Government’s fault. Had the Treasury started preparing these entirely predictable SIs earlier, consultation would have been possible. Why has the Treasury left things until the last moment? Although I sympathise strongly with the spirit of the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, I hope he will not press the fatal ones to a vote as we would not support him in a Division. It is critical to the functioning of our financial services that we make the changes—no matter how unhappily—set out in these SIs.

I turn to the detail of the consolidated impact assessment. The first 40 paragraphs are clear, but some questions arise in subsequent paragraphs and apply generally to all the SIs. Paragraph 44 explains that,

“it has not been possible to discuss the impact of the full package of changes with firms as this impact assessment was being produced, and has therefore not been possible to produce a monetised estimate of their full impact at this stage”.

I wonder whether the noble Lord is being a little too kind to the Government. Is not the reason we have not had these figures—and we have not had them because we did not start to do the figuring early enough—that when you actually add up the figures you discover that the cost of Brexit is enormously greater than anybody has pretended, and therefore it is to the convenience of the Government and of those who want Brexit not to provide the figures? Does he know of any other occasion when the Government have proposed huge changes and not provided at least some estimate of the bill?

I am grateful for that intervention. The short answer to the final question is: no, I do not. I shall try to be slightly less kind as I move on.

Paragraph 52 of the consolidated impact assessment notes that each of the SIs covered,

“contains provisions with indefinite effect and this is the majority of the content. For this reason, we have concluded that the standard 10 year appraisal period is appropriate”.

This seems to me an entirely perverse conclusion. Ten years is far too long for an appraisal of the effects of instruments containing such wide powers in a complex and critical field, which were produced in very great haste and which lack proper consultation or impact assessment. It would make more sense, and reduce any inadvertent harm, if we were to appraise after, say, two years. I am sure that if the industry were eventually consulted, it would agree with this timing. I would be grateful if the Minister would say why he is proposing 10 years for appraisal and what is wrong with two. Will he reassure the House that he will reconsider the timing of the appraisals? Perhaps he will write to us with his conclusions.

Finally, paragraph 73 of the consolidated impact assessment deals with the impact on the public sector:

“Where changes to the regulators’ rulebooks, or to EU technical standards, are required as a result of leaving the EU, the regulators intend to consult on these changes wherever possible”.

This “wherever possible” is alarming, especially in view of the Treasury’s failure to consult in the preparation of these SIs in the first place. Can the Minister give examples of situations in which it would not be possible to consult on the changes to the rulebooks or the technical standards?

My Lords, I declare my interest as chairman of the organisation that represents financial advisers and those who manage other people’s money. I come back to the point that the noble Lord has raised. It is very difficult for the industry to understand why the Government have not found it possible to talk in a lot more detail about the costs that are going to be placed upon the industry. After all, the industry pays these costs.

I am a great believer in regulation: I think good regulation is very important. I do not like the way that people sometimes mix bad regulation with the need to have no regulation, but if we are to have good regulation, there are two very important elements. First, it must be clearly understood, and, secondly, the cost must be clearly adumbrated so that people can make proper provision. I agree with the noble Lord who spoke last that it is unacceptable that, first, we do not know in advance; secondly, we will not know until after we have passed these things; and, thirdly, we will have to wait 10 years until we know whether or not we got it right. I have enormous respect for my noble friend, as well as enormous concern, given the difficulties he faces.

Total sympathy.

As much sympathy as one can possibly have. I can think of no other Minister I would be more sympathetic to, but I have to say to him that it is pretty difficult to think of another occasion on which a Minister has had to get up and tell the House that he does not know how much something is going to cost, he will not know how much it is going to cost, it is impossible to work out how much it is going to cost, we will not know until after it is all costed, and then we will not know for another decade. I do not think that the Minister will be a Minister in another decade.

That is not in any way to be rude. Frankly, we all move on—I am not sure that I will be asking the Minister this question in another decade. That is one of the facts of life. It is a pretty difficult thing to ask the House to do and he is able to ask us only because we do not have an adequate mechanism of altering the instrument so that we can insist on knowing the figures, on having an earlier date and that 10 years is too long. We do not have that mechanism and I fear that the Government are relying on the inadequacy of our system to get these measures through, however seriously they affect industry.

I have a final point. Mazzini said that revolution, prima facie, demands an apology. Forcing through regulations without proper discussion and without the time to consider them certainly demands an apology. I have no doubt that the noble Lord who will speak for the Opposition will say, as he so often does, so elegantly, in his special way, “I have spent a lot of time on this but I have not been able to understand some parts of it, however much time I spend on it. It seems that those who have written it have had more time and expertise to do it but have so far not been able to explain it in a way that is entirely accessible by even the reasonably intelligent”. The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, always refers to himself in this way: he is, of course, extremely intelligent and has understood this very much better than most, but he has said that the Government really ought to be apologising. They ought to be apologising for asking the House to do these things, which in any other circumstances they would not and could not: it is only because the SI system enables them to get away with proposing enormous changes without any costings—either now, tomorrow or in two years’ time, and with no real answer for another decade.

Was the noble Lord in the House to hear the exchanges between the chair of Sub-Committee A and my noble friend Lord Rooker about a letter which apparently is going to be sent to the Treasury, but has not been made available to your Lordships, complaining about the way that consultation and impact assessments have been conducted? It came out only in the course of debate that this letter is in preparation: apparently, the chairs of the two Select Committees cannot agree on the terms of the letter, even though we are in the midst of debating literally dozens of these statutory instruments. Does he not think it would have been a good idea if we had had this letter before this debate? If the relevant authorities of the House are about to write to the Government fundamentally questioning the way that the Government have approached the process of consultation and assessing the impact of these regulations, surely it is not satisfactory for us to be considering these regulations in advance of the completion of that process.

I was indeed in the House to hear that exchange. It was an amazing, remarkable exchange and another example of the total removal of this whole discussion from reality. It was so unusual that I left the House to recover some sense of sanity. First, it is obviously true that we should have had that letter. We thought that the letter, according to a senior member of the committee, had gone. We were then told by the chairman of the Joint Committee that it was almost gone, or nearly gone, or on the way to going. We did not understand whether it would go or whether it still had to be recovered and discussed. The fact of the matter is, I can think of no more appropriate role for the House of Lords than to tell the Treasury that it needs to be very much more precise and correct in its treatment of this House and of the other place. The answer is that it must at least give the figures, and to do that, it has to have a useful impact assessment, not one which is merely a matter of form.

My Lords, the noble Lord is a distinguished parliamentarian of long experience. Does he not worry that the tone of self-congratulation which we always adopt in this House for the way we conduct scrutiny and the excellence of our processes is coming under serious strain as a result of this no-deal regulation process? The earlier exchanges raise fundamental questions as to whether we are fit for purpose in the way that we are conducting this process ourselves. If it has taken us six months into this no-deal regulation process even to seek to agree an approach to the Government on how they should conduct consultations and impact assessments, does that not fundamentally question the whole process which we are ourselves adopting in holding the Government to account? Earlier a noble Lord made reference to horses bolting and stable doors being closed. Already 100 or so of the statutory instruments have bolted before the Select Committees of this House have been able to agree on what the procedure should be for considering them, let alone whether they are adequate in their own terms.

I feel philosophically and religiously opposed to self-congratulation, so of course I will not suggest that we should congratulate ourselves. As I said earlier, it is quite clear that our processes do not admit the proper consideration of the issues being put before us. However, the second thing which is quite clear—and after this, I really will sit down—is that the world outside thinks that we are absolutely barmy and wonders what on earth Parliament as a whole is doing. The world outside has become less and less willing to accept that our system is fit for purpose. We all know that all political parties—I mean all of them—are not seen by the vast majority of the population as in any way reflecting what they think, want and expect. We are engaged in a serious situation, and one of the sadnesses is that, if we are trying to do the job as well as we can, we have to be involved in them. However, we are involved in them in a way which may well mean that we are ourselves part of the very situation which is undermining the whole reputation of this, the oldest of Parliaments.

My Lords, I have amendments down in respect of the later statutory instruments, and on the substance of this statutory instrument I do not have much to add to what we have heard so far from the two noble Lords. However, the earlier exchanges raise significant questions. I put on record my hope that when we have the next string of these statutory instruments on Wednesday, the chairs of the two sifting committees might address us on what their procedure will be in respect of the handling and processes of consultation and impact assessments for regulations. I hope that the letter which is to be sent can be agreed—apparently there is a dispute between the chairs of the two sifting committees—and sent tomorrow. It sounds urgently necessary that it should be agreed and sent; indeed, that should probably have happened six months ago, not now. At least we are shutting the stable door after only half the horses have bolted, which I suppose is better than after all of them have left. I put on record that if the letter can be agreed, it is important that it is circulated to your Lordships before the debates on Wednesday, because it will have an important bearing on our proceedings. It may even be possible to slightly shorten our proceedings as a result. I feel obliged to make a speech on each of these statutory instruments about the inadequate processes of consultation and impact assessment, but if the relevant committees of your Lordships’ House are making these points about all the statutory instruments and requiring the Government to improve their regime in respect of all of them, we will not have to go through this gruesome process, statutory instrument by statutory instrument.