Treasury minister unconvinced by own Bill

The Financial Services Bill is being sold as the magic answer to the many and complex problems of how banks are regulated. So it’s rather distressing to observe that even the lead minister on the Bill seems pretty unconvinced. I’m watching the Bill committee’s first, soul-sapping evidence session. Ian Pearson, the economic secretary to the treasury, looks totally unconvinced by the merits of his own Bill, the poor man. He’s now resorted to thumping the table half-heartedly with a rather tacky little biro, attempting to inject some passion into proceedings. It ain’t working. A couple of sprightly bag carriers behind him are trying in vain to leap to his assistance with hastily scribbled notes. Also not working. Two things emerge from this. The first is that Ian Pearson is unable to explain or defend his own legislation – either because he’s not clever enough (which isn’t true) or because he knows it’s mostly not strong enough to defend (which seems more likely). The second is that the Bill, a headline extracted from the electioneering Queen’s Speech and strung out over 39 clauses, is a charming mix of waffle, duplication and uncertainty, enlivened by a few genuinely sensible measures, like banning credit card cheques. It goes no way towards solving the institutional problems at the heart of the crisis. The short answer is, despite FSMA, last year’s Banking Bill and this new Bill, it’s still going to be totally unclear who on earth is responsible for financial stability. Frankly, there isn’t even an agreed definition of financial stability, so god knows how you plan for it, measure it, test it or implement it. Incidentally, MPs scrutinising new laws used to just trawl through them, clause by clause, ending up rather removed from the context of the Bill. Having ministers and stakeholders along provides some useful perspective – especially when the minister is so unable to hide his apathy.