Author: admin

  • HISTORIC PRESS RELEASE : 240 million pounds venture capital funding for small businesses [June 1998]

    HISTORIC PRESS RELEASE : 240 million pounds venture capital funding for small businesses [June 1998]

    The press release issued by HM Treasury on 2 June 1998.

    Three new venture capital funds totalling 240 million pounds to support small and medium size businesses – particularly in high-tech sectors such as computers, biotechnology, electronics and communications – were announced by Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown today.

    The announcement was made at a major conference on venture capital, growth and employment, hosted by the Chancellor as part of the UK Presidency of the EU. Commenting on the announcement, Mr Brown said :

    “The UK has made the creation of prosperity and jobs a keystone of its Presidency of the EU.

    “Encouraging entrepreneurs to start up new businesses and helping dynamic and innovative small businesses to grow is vital to achieving the high levels of growth and employment we all want to see.

    “The funding announced today is an important addition to the steps already taken to encourage UK businesses to prosper. It will do much to encourage initiative among businesses seeking to launch new ideas and new products, supporting them in the vital early stages of development and giving them greater confidence to enter highly competitive market places where they can make their mark.” The funds announced today are:

    120 million pounds regional development fund set up by Baring Private Equity Partners, in collaboration with the parent company, ING Bank, and the European Investment Bank.

    100 million pounds fund established by British venture capital company Advent, aimed specifically at start-up and early stage high tech firms. The fund, including 7.5 million pounds from the European Investment Fund, will invest 80 per cent of its funds in the UK and the remainder in the rest of Europe.

    20 million pounds support for the network of Midland Enterprise Funds, to be raised by the Midland Bank and the European Investment Bank.

    Today’s conference was addressed by a range of international speakers, including Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the French Minister for Finance, Economics and Industry, EU Commissioner Mario Monti and representatives of US and European venture capital and entrepreneurial sectors. It was attended by experts from the UK, other EU Member States and Eastern Europe.

    It is seen as a vital opportunity to share lessons from those who have already succeeded in developing a vigorous venture capital sector, particularly to hear the views of entrepreneurs and investors from the United States and from other EU countries.

    The conference will raise the profile of venture capital and to underline its importance across the EU in supporting small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), particularly in high tech, high growth areas such as IT and biotechnology. It will promote venture capital finance for innovative SMEs with high growth potential, focussing on start-up and early stage finance.

    Gordon Brown’s invitation to French Finance, Economics and Industry Minister Dominique Strauss-Kahn to address the conference reflects cooperation under the Franco-British Taskforce on Entrepreneurship, announced by the Prime Minister in his speech to the French National Assembly in March 1998, and subsequent progress in paving the way for effective assistance to developing companies.

    The Taskforce has already met once, chaired by Christian Pierret, Minister for Industry in the French Finance Ministry and his UK counterpart, Lord Simon. The countries share the enthusiasm to develop an agenda to encourage entrepreneurship, looking at areas of public policy which impact on entrepreneurs – taxation, regulatory structures, quality of labour and access to venture capital.

    The UK is keen to learn from the French about their system of tax credits for research and development, and to share experience of trying to reduce red tape, making the tax system more entrepreneur-friendly, and to hear about progress in changes initiated by Mr Strauss-Kahn to French research and development funding which facilitates the move from hi-tech research into commercial development.

  • HISTORIC PRESS RELEASE : UK official holdings of foreign currency and gold – May 98 [June 1998]

    HISTORIC PRESS RELEASE : UK official holdings of foreign currency and gold – May 98 [June 1998]

    The press release issued by HM Treasury on 2 June 1998.

    Part I: UK Government Reserves

     

    The overall level of the UK Government’s spot reserves fell by $13 million in May, bringing the end-May total to $34,792 million (21,325 million pounds) compared with $34,805 million (20,809 million pounds) at the end of April.

    The underlying change in the reserves was a fall of $1 million.

    The underlying change excludes capital transactions that are included in the overall change. In May:

    • there were repayments of $13 million of public-sector borrowing for which the Government has provided an exchange-rate guarantee under the Exchange Cover Scheme (ECS); and
    • receipts of $1,064 million from Government ECU Treasury bills issued exceeded capital repayments of $1,063 million on those maturing by $1 million.
    $ million
    end-May reserves  34,792
    less
    end-April reserves  34,805
    OVERALL CHANGE  -13
    less adjustments  12
    UNDER LYING CHANGE -1

     

    Part II: Bank of England Holdings of Foreign Currency and Gold

    The level of the Bank of England’s spot holdings of foreign currency and gold was $4,957 million (3,038 million pounds) at end-May compared with $4,407 million (2,634 million pounds) at the end of April.

    $ million
    end-May holdings  4,957
    less
    end-April holdings  4,407
    OVERALL CHANGE  +550

     

    The change in the Bank’s holdings includes changes in foreign-currency and gold deposits placed with the Bank by overseas central banks and other customers and the change in valuation over the month.

    The change also includes an increase of $755 million in the Bank’s spot holdings due to the net effect of foreign-exchange swaps conducted in the course of the Bank’s money-market operations. These foreign-exchange swaps are undertaken as a supplement to the Bank’s usual money-market techniques to provide sterling liquidity to the market. The operations are purely technical in nature and have no monetary-policy significance; they are likely to be used from time to time in the future, depending on market conditions.

     

    Notes to Editors

     

    1. Due to the two-day settlement lag in the foreign-exchange market, both the UK Government figures and the Bank of England figures include transactions conducted in the last two working days of March exclude transactions conducted in the last two days of April.

    2. The Quarterly Report on UK Official Holdings of Foreign Currency and Gold, to be published on 2 June 1998 and covering the quarter ending 31 March 1998, will contain further information about the foreign-currency and gold holdings of the Government and the Bank of England. This will include, for each, the size of the forward foreign-exchange position, the currency composition of foreign-currency assets, the size and currency composition of foreign-currency liabilities and information on intervention operations, if undertaken.

    3. The Government and Bank of England figures have been produced on the basis of different accounting authorities. Therefore, no overall total for the two is shown. Details of the accounting methodologies were included in the Quarterly Report published on 3 March 1998 (covering October-December 1997) and will be included in future Quarterly Reports.

    4. The underlying change in the Government’s reserves is the result of a variety of transactions, both debits and credits, including, for example, transactions for Government departments, transactions with other central banks and interest receipts and payments. For these reasons, the underlying change should not be taken as an indication of market intervention.

    5. Repayments under the Exchange Cover Scheme in May were as follows:

    Organisation  $ million
    British Nuclear Fuel  4.943
    Strathclyde Regional Council  4.140
    Newcastle County Council  0.843
    Lancashire County Council  0.530
    Clywd County Council  0.521
    Other smaller repayments 1.856
    Total  12.833

     

    6. Capital repayments on the ECU Treasury Bills relate solely to the repayment of the original amounts which were received when the maturing Bills were issued. The difference between the full redemption payments on the maturing Bills and this capital repayments figure (the “discount” on the Bills) is regarded for this purpose as an interest payment rather than a capital repayment, and therefore does not form part of the capital transactions which are excluded when calculating the underlying change in the reserves.

    7. The figures contained in this press release can also be obtained from the Reuters Monitor (page TREA), Bridge News (page 170), Telerate (p22494) and Topic (p6800).

  • Helen Liddell – 1998 Speech on Money Laundering

    Helen Liddell – 1998 Speech on Money Laundering

    The speech made by Helen Liddell, the then Economic Secretary to the Treasury, on 1 June 1998.

    I welcome the opportunity to speak to such an important gathering, to welcome you to London and to wish you well in the difficult and important work you are tackling here over the next two days.

    Financial crime covers a multitude of sins ranging from advance fee fraud to market manipulation and insider dealing. Today I want to focus on one particular aspect of financial crime, the theme of this conference, money laundering.

    This gives me an excellent opportunity to emphasise the importance the UK places on the fight against money laundering. The Treasury – and indeed the whole Government – is committed to defending the integrity of our financial systems and building stable and sustainable economic growth.

    Money laundering is a threat to our democracies and our people. International organised crime, corruption, subversion, violence and misery inevitably thrives wherever criminal activities go unchecked. Estimates of the amount of money being laundered suggest that it is at least $500 billion per year. The risk that such flows of dirty money may destabilise our economies and corrupt our financial and legal institutions is apparent to all. And unless we can successfully tackle the proceeds of crime, we are not going to be effective in combatting the criminals themselves.

    The international nature of money laundering means we have to tackle the problem together. Through international cooperation we can meet the challenge of building an alliance against crime that respects our legal, political, cultural and economic differences. Organised crime thrives on international inertia so we must act soon to seek out and plug the gaps in our approach.

    The Commonwealth has always set high standards in this area and I am sure your work will add to that record of achievement.

    The problem

    Money laundering presents an ongoing challenge. The techniques and structures used by launderers are changing all the time as they try to circumvent the preventive measures we have introduced. Only ten years ago, in most of the world criminals could walk into a bank with the proverbial suitcase of ‘dirty money ‘ with little fear of challenge or detection. In many countries this has now changed – certainly the UK.

    But if the criminals cannot risk putting the cash directly into the financial system, they transport it abroad to countries where questions are not asked. So issues concerning the use and transportation of high denomination notes are still with us. Indeed, this is one area where we are working closely with our European partners, as we prepare for the launch of the Single Currency. However, criminals are using increasingly sophisticated and complex ways of managing their financial affairs to legitimise assets, obscure profits and hide identity. There is increasing use of securities, derivatives and insurance products as well as the services of accountants, lawyers and financial advisors to launder money.

    The Internet and electronic money also provide particular challenges, as they enable money to be moved around the world with relative ease and with little trace. So there is a need to constantly adapt and develop the fight against money launderers. Systems need to be flexible and experiences shared to ensure constant access to best practices.

    The Commonwealth

    The Commonwealth plays a crucial role in the fight against money laundering. Its role in the exchange of information is essential and I hope existing initiatives will be built on.

    I particularly welcome the multi-disciplinary approach you are taking. To succeed, the legal and financial aspects of laundering must be tackled together.

    We have worked together long enough to understand each other’s concerns. There is enough common ground to make us uniquely placed to contribute to raising the benchmark of international work on money laundering.

    Financial Action Task Force

    The leading international body concerned with developing policies to combat money laundering is the Financial Action Task Force – FATF. As many of you will know, the FATF has recently carried out a review of its future mission and strategy and the UK has played an active role in the agreement to extend the FATF’s mandate for a further five years.

    The FATF’s 40 Recommendations are now widely recognised as the international benchmark in this area. But the FATF is not becoming complacent. It acknowledges that, although standards have improved enormously in the past few years particularly within its own membership, the challenge is to make those standards truly global. The FATF’s strategy for the future therefore emphasises the importance of establishing and strengthening regional efforts in every part of the world.

    The great success and professionalism of the Caribbean Financial Action Task Force demonstrates how vital regional efforts are in moving forward. There are several reasons for the success of this regional approach. It encourages the use of mutual evaluation and peer group pressure. And crucially, it offers the flexibility to tackle local challenges with local solutions.

    The Deputy Chairman of the Caribbean Task Force will be addressing you later. I urge you all to consider what role you can play in establishing and building up your respective regional bodies. Success is important not only in the fight against crime but also in encouraging soundly-based and sustainable economic growth.

    Development and expansion of the regional Task Forces will be accompanied by the gradual expansion of the FATF itself. New members to Task Force are likely to be have key regional roles to play. The main Task Force should therefore to continue to grow in understanding and become more truly international in character.

    The twin track approach, of strengthening and widening both the regional and main Task Forces will ensure real progress is made in the coming years.

    G7

    Encouraging news on international action to tackle financial crime also emerged from the recent meeting of the Finance Ministers of the G7. Ministers agreed to review the laws and procedures on international cooperation and information exchange between financial regulators and law enforcement agencies. The review will identify ways of improving our systems and ways of implementing these measures as quickly as possible. The review will be completed by October.

    Finance Ministers also decided to take a number of practical steps to improve cooperation. A G7 reference guide to procedures and contact points on information exchange in our countries has been drawn up and we intend to expand this Guide to cover all major financial centre countries.

    The G7 also agreed a new initiative to improve the coverage of anti-money laundering systems and the effectiveness of tax authorities. The Initiative is designed to ensure that financial institutions report suspicions of tax related crime and that this information is shared both domestically and internationally.

    This work will begin to address the potential loophole which allows criminals to masquerade as tax-dodgers in order to avoid the reporting obligations of our anti money laundering systems.

    I think we all welcome these measures taken by the G7 and other international organisations to tackle financial crime more widely, money laundering in particular.

    UK

    However, it is not only on the international stage that we are doing much to tackle money laundering. Many of you have active domestic programs. We are very busy in the UK too.

    The anti-money laundering systems in place in the UK have, on the whole, been successful. There is, as indicated by the Financial Action Task Force’s mutual evaluation of the UK, some room for improvement.

    We are actively addressing these issues. As a result of the Task Force report and an internal Treasury review of the impact of our money laundering systems, a number of weaknesses were identified which are now working to remedy.

    Firstly, the Financial Services Authority, our new single regulator, will take a pro-active role in regulating compliance with money laundering requirements. This will be underpinned by a high level objective in primary legislation obliging the FSA to monitor, detect and prevent financial crime.

    The FSA will have the power to make rules in relation to money laundering and bring criminal prosecutions for breaches of the UK’s money laundering regulations that are applicable to internal systems and training.

    Secondly, we intend to introduce a system of civil penalties for behaviour which, though falling short of criminal, nevertheless damages, or has the potential to damage, financial markets. Again this power will be exercised by the Financial Services Authority.

    Finally, our approach to asset confiscation has not been as successful as we had hoped. We are actively considering the idea of a national confiscation agency, that would have the remit to confiscate not only cash but also all property that might be derived from the proceeds of crime. These views are still at a tentative stage but the Government is determined to do all it can to take the profit out of crime.

    Conclusion

    I am delighted to have had the opportunity to address you on some of the key areas of activity on money laundering both internationally, and here in the UK.

    I would also emphasise again my belief in the key role the Commonwealth can play in raising international standards in the struggle against financial crime. We have shown already how much we can achieve through working in partnership. We have to build on this success to ensure we tackle the ever more complex and dynamic challenges we face.

    1 June 1998 wish you well in your work over the next two days – and perhaps more importantly – in carrying this work forward on the ground in the coming years.

  • HISTORIC PRESS RELEASE : Taking the profit out of crime [June 1998]

    HISTORIC PRESS RELEASE : Taking the profit out of crime [June 1998]

    The press release issued by HM Treasury on 1 June 1998.

    A national confiscation agency, which would seize cash and property obtained from the proceeds of crime, is one of the ideas the Government is considering to take the profit out of crime.

    Speaking today to Commonwealth Finance and Law officials in London, Economic Secretary Helen Liddell outlined the UK response to the threat of money laundering.

    “Money laundering is a threat to our democracies and our people. The risk that dirty money may destabilise our economies and corrupt our financial and legal institutions is apparent to all. And unless we can successfully tackle the proceeds of crime, we are not going to be effective in combatting the criminals themselves.

    “The anti-money laundering systems in place in the UK have, on the whole, been successful, but there is room for improvement. Firstly, the Financial Services Authority, our new single regulator, will take a pro-active role in regulating compliance with money laundering requirements. This will be underpinned by a high level objective in primary legislation obliging the FSA to monitor, detect and prevent financial crime.

    “The FSA will have the power to make rules in relation to money laundering and bring criminal prosecutions for breaches of the UK’s money laundering regulations that are applicable to internal systems and training.

    “Secondly, we intend to introduce a system of civil penalties for behaviour which, though failing short of criminal, nevertheless damages, or has the potential to damage, financial markets.

    “Finally, our approach to asset confiscation has not been as successful as we had hoped. We are actively considering the idea of a national confiscation agency, that would have the remit to confiscate not only cash but also all property that might be derived from the proceeds of crime. These views are still at a tentative stage, but the Government is determined to do all it can to take the profit out of crime.”

  • Alistair Darling – 1998 Speech to the FSA European Conference

    Alistair Darling – 1998 Speech to the FSA European Conference

    The speech made by Alistair Darling, the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury, to the FSA European Conference on 1 June 1998.

    Introduction

    1. The Financial Services industry is of immense importance, not just to the United Kingdom but throughout the world. It is a global industry with millions of people depending on it. It transcends political and geographical boundaries. It has brought immense benefits. And because of its nature, it brings new risks every day. That’s the nature of the industry. And that is why the way in which we regulate and supervise the Financial Services industry is so important. In a world where the markets are continually changing, we need a regulatory system that can develop with them.

    The Financial Services Industry

    2. Here in the UK, the industry accounts for 7% of our GDP. It employs over 1 million people. Many towns and cities depend on it for employment. Not just London, but throughout the country – Leeds and Manchester for example. And in terms of funds under management, Scotland ranks fourth in Europe. Edinburgh is the UK’s second financial centre. And of course millions of people rely on its services. The industry is an example of how the UK can compete on quality and excellence at home and throughout the world.

    3. Of course, at the heart of the UK’s financial services industry is the City of London, one of the world’s three leading financial centres. The London Stock Exchange is the largest trade centre for foreign equities in the world. The Foreign Exchange market here is the largest and most important in the world, with an average daily turnover of $464 billion. Net overseas earnings of the UK financial services industry amounted to 23 billion Pounds (in 1996) – equivalent to 3.5% of national income.

    4. The City has a critical mass of expertise. It is home to 520 foreign banks. It is a major insurance centre with Lloyd’s and the London Insurance Market. The Baltic Exchange is here, trading throughout the world.

    5. Their presence has built up a formidable range of expertise, attracting investment from all over the world. There are brokers, loss adjusters, risk managers, accountants, actuaries and of course lawyers. All of them providing quality employment and generating significant earnings. And supporting considerable expertise and skills.

    6. London’s success has been built on individual flair and innovation. No Government can do that – but it is for Government to complement that process. To create an environment where business can flourish. Where business can expand and where the public has confidence in the integrity of the system. That’s why getting the supervisory and regulatory regime right is so important. Not just in the UK – but in Europe and indeed throughout the world. Before I turn to our proposals here, I want to say a word about Europe, and its implications.

    Europe

    7. The introduction of the euro on 1 January next year will also have significant implications for the financial services industry.

    8. In October last year we became the first British Government to declare that in principle, a successful single currency, like the Single European Market, would be of benefit both to Europe and to the United Kingdom. We don’t believe there is any constitutional bar to membership: the test for us is what is in Britain’s best economic interest. That’s an important point. We are the first Government to declare in principle for support for the single currency.

    9. The fact is of course that it would not be in our economic interests to join next January as there is not the necessary convergence with the rest of Europe. To join now would be to accept a monetary policy which suited other European economies but not our own. Our official interest rate is 7.25% (base rate), while in Germany and France it is 3.3% (repo rate), reflecting the different stage of the economic cycle we are at compared with them.

    10. We need a period of stability and settled convergence before we can join, and our policies are designed to achieve that. And in order to ensure a genuine choice in the future, we must also make the necessary practical preparations now. We are working closely with business to do just that.

    11. The existence of the Euro will present a huge challenge to the Financial Markets. Not just in preparation but also because of increase competition for business.

    12. The industry and the City of London must maintain its competitive advantage. We cannot be complacent. There is a lot of business in Europe. There are plenty of people and institutions that would love to get some of the business now conducted in London. We need to anticipate that competition. Business comes to London because of our competitive advantage. But no one – no institution – can rest on its laurels. The Government is determined to do everything it can to enhance London’s reputation as one of the world’s foremost financial institutions.

    13. That is why we’re preparing Britain for the euro. Indeed, why we’re modernising the governance of London itself. Modernising the Underground system. And why we’re determined to put in place a regulatory environment fit for the 21st Century. London and the UK must be the market of choice for the global industry. All of us – Government and industry need to do what we can to achieve that goal.

    The Single Market in Financial Services

    14. I said that the Financial Services market was global. It needs to be. And the Government is committed to pursuing open markets in Europe and throughout the world. The European Single Market in financial services is not complete, but its evolution has been significant. Banks, investment firms and insurance companies now have a “passport” to sell across borders on the basis of their home state authorisation.

    15. But local rules, differences in implementation, and gaps in legislation mean that further action is needed to consolidate what has been achieved.

    16. Some new and amending legislation has been identified as necessary. For example, the Commission intends to update the UCITS directive and bring forward a new directive reducing the restrictions on investments by pension funds.

    17. The Prospectus Directive has been identified as a candidate for updating to enable firms to raise capital more easily and cheaply. Something that is particularly important for small firms.

    18. But legislation alone will not complete the single market. It has to be implemented in a consistent way across the Union if we are to benefit consumers and businesses that rely on financial markets to provide the dynamic which leads to higher growth and more employment.

    19. One of the most significant changes we have seen in recent years is the recognition that regulators need to exchange information with each other all the time. The industry is global. So must be the regulators.

    20. That cooperation will be key in completing the single market in financial services. We need to ask ourselves how we are facilitating the single market, breaking down barriers, and ensuring that the regulatory system complements this process, and that it doesn’t simply add another layer of bureaucracy.

    21. Within the UK, bringing together existing regulators will mean that rules and practices will be re-examined. In many areas the rules will be similar, in others they will be very different, but the objectives will be the same. There may be a logic to some rules being different to reflect sectoral or cultural differences but in many areas best practice can be identified and a common approach agreed. National legislation, including implementation of European legislation, will be updated. That process is going on here now.

    22. The same must apply in Europe. We have the bulk of the single market directives in place. The framework is in place but differences remain. We need to examine those differences, and ask ourselves how we can simplify the system and make it more effective.

    23. The Commission is well placed to facilitate consensus without the need for new legislation, although in examining implementation in member states and developments in financial markets it may identify areas where legislation needs to be updated through amending directives.

    24. The regulators will have to talk and exchange best practice, explain problems and accept change. Accepting change should be much easier when it is offered rather than imposed.

    25. Following the informal ECOFIN at York we are examining our implementation of the Prospectus Directive. The directive includes options which permit member states to review and update their implementation to meet tomorrows challenges. But that may not be enough and a new directive introducing the concept of a passport may be necessary.

    26. Over time we will need to examine other directives to ensure implementation keeps pace with developments in the markets and the demands of users of financial services. This is something all member states will need to do if their financial institutions are to prosper in the global marketplace.

    27. Global competition is intense but within Europe we are moving into a period of consolidation in the single market. But we must face up to the need to change and adapt if Europe as a whole is to remain competitive. It is in all our interests that the European as well as the UK market is as efficient as possible.

    The UK regulatory system – the case for reform

    28. Let me now turn to our approach here. We have in the front of our minds not just the global changes to the nature of the market I talked about but also the problems and failures of the regulatory system at home. We wanted to build a new modern regulatory system. One that would be designed for both our domestic and international needs. And we were determined that any reform would be managed efficiently and effectively.

    29. For some years now, a consensus has been developing for change. There is a recognition that change is necessary, both in terms of structure and, importantly, in terms of the nature of the regulatory system, at every level.

    30. Both the industry and the public have recognised that the present system, underpinned as it is by the somewhat misleading concept of “self regulation” could not continue. The system was not self-regulating in the proper sense. And serving two masters – the trade interest and the public interest – proved to be too difficult in many cases. The system pleased neither the industry or the consumer and general public.

    31. And reform is necessary not just because of the domestic needs of industry. As I have said, the need for international cooperation and a regulatory system that can deal with complex international dealings has become increasingly urgent.

    32. So, in the UK, it was clear that we needed a new system. One that had sufficient clout, and stature to command respect both in the domestic and international markets. One that enhanced the credibility of our financial services industry.

    33. There have been, of course, substantial changes in the structure of the industry here and elsewhere. The distinction between banks, insurance companies, building societies and other institutions is becoming so blurred that a regulatory system that is modelled on an old industrial structure that no longer exists is inappropriate.

    34. We have nine financial regulators at the moment. It isn’t uncommon for large institutions to find that they are regulated by many or most of them usually requiring several different systems to cope with their demands. The distinction between regulators, especially for consumers has become especially confusing. And the costs escalated.

    35. Many firms are currently subject to a range of statutory regimes, for insurance, investments and deposit taking. In many cases equivalent provisions relating to different kinds of business are subtly different – in some cases radically so. It is not in anyone’s interests for firms to have to consider in each case which regime they are operating under. Neither in theirs nor their customers.

    36. Also, the current system is riddled with many anomalies. Firms supervised by different regulators receive different disciplinary sanctions for similar offences. And perversely, punishment depends not on the offence but on the regulator. These anomalies are unfair and blatantly damage the credibility of the financial regulation.

    The case for a single regulator

    37. The case for a single regulator is clear. A single regulator will be able to provide effective and consistent regulation across the traditional financial services sectors. It can get away from outdated and increasingly irrelevant distinctions between business sectors.

    38. Firms will no longer be regulated by multiple bodies and have to deal with overlapping regulatory demands.

    39. A single regulator will be more effective because there will be no duplication of effort and no doubt about which body is responsible. There can be no passing the buck.

    40. Consumers will benefit because a single regulatory structure will be able to provide single points of access for the public for enquiries, complaints and compensation.

    41. Providers will benefit because bringing different regulators together should make regulation more cost effective.

    42. A single, efficient, transparent regulatory regime which commands the confidence of the industry and its customers will be of competitive advantage to the UK’s financial services industry in the global financial services market. The global market place is ever more sophisticated, changing ever more rapidly. Right regulatory structure will enhance prospects for growth in this global marketplace.

    43. But the new system will succeed only if it works in partnership with the financial services industry. And the new system of regulation must reflect the diverse nature of the industry.

    44. We promised reform at the election. And three weeks after the election we set out how we would deliver the radical overhaul to the regulatory system we promised.

    45. And in October the new Financial Services Authority was launched. It will take over the work of nine existing regulators – assuming responsibility for the supervision of banking, insurance (including Lloyd’s), investments and securities firms, investment exchanges and clearing houses, building societies and friendly societies.

    46. This is radical reform. The City of London and the UK market will be the only major financial centre in the world with a single supervisor.

    47. It will put the UK at the cutting edge of financial supervision. It will offer huge competitive advantages for us.

    48. I recognise that bringing together the supervision of banking, building and friendly societies, securities and insurance is a formidable challenge. The existing supervisors each have their own rules and culture.

    49. But the creation of a single body is the only answer to the challenge of supervising the modern financial services industry.

    The role of the regulator and the role of management

    50. It’s important to remember that regulation must be seen as a complement to business. It isn’t a substitute for individual judgement or good management. Far from it. It’s management that sets the ethos of a business. It’s management that should know the risks to which it is exposed.

    51. I have said many times before that it is not the Government’s job, nor it is the job of the regulators, to sit in the boardroom and try to run a business. Good regulation should be a complement to business and should create a climate where the industry and individuals can deal with each other with confidence and trust. That’s our objective.

    52. It’s also important to remember that the industry itself benefits from a decent regulatory system. It’s in the interests of the industry that investors, both domestically and internationally have confidence in the financial system to bring in their money.

    Flexibility

    53. It is important for the regulator to be flexible. Markets are changing rapidly and the statutory framework that underpins the regulatory system has to allow for continuous development and changes in the future. Development of over the counter products and derivatives, for example, have transformed the market. Selling to consumers has changed, with more telephone sales and direct selling.

    54. Regulation shouldn’t drive changes in the market. The market should provide what the consumer wants. And it is the job of the regulator to complement that and ensure that it doesn’t distort that process in harmful ways.

    55. One of the key functions of the regulator is to reconcile the balance of the cost of the regulatory regime and the perceived benefit. The cost of the regulatory system is borne by the industry, but ultimately of course, by the consumer. And the cost therefore must be clearly related to the benefit of the regulatory system.

    56. There is a balance between what is reasonable for the regulators to require and what becomes unreasonable because of the excessive cost compared to the gain.

    Single Regulator – what we’ve done so far

    57. For the first time ever, the regulator will have statutory objectives covering market confidence, consumer protection, consumer awareness and financial crime. The FSA will be required to pursue them in an efficient and economic way, which facilitates innovation and takes account of the international dimension.

    58. The Government is committed to strong consumer protection. But caveat emptor is an essential part of any regulatory system. It is no part of the regulator’s job to stand in the shoes of the consumer. But the regulatory system can ensure that the customer has sufficient information to make an informed decision. Customers should be aware of the risks attached to different products. And they should know what their investment will cost. And it is in the interests of the economy, the industry and the public that people have the confidence to buy the products they need.

    59. A vital part of the new single regulator’s job is to sustain confidence in the market, and assist in the detection and prevention of financial crime. We are determined to ensure that the financial markets remain open and clean places to do business.

    60. That is why we have announced a number of measures, including civil fines for market abuse and new prosecution powers, which will help ensure that those who abuse the markets, including insider dealers, do not get away with it.

    61. The powers of intervention and discipline given to the regulator will be tough and effective – and they will be exercised fairly. The Bill will create a new single Tribunal, which will be entirely independent of the FSA, to consider appeals against the exercise of its regulatory powers.

    62. Having a strong and effective regulator will further enhance the UK’s reputation as one of the best regulated and attractive financial markets in the world. We are determined to maintain the UK’s position as one of the world’s foremost centres. We value our reputation as a clean market to do business.

    Phase I – Bank of England

    63. Reform is being implemented in a manageable way. The first stage of reform, is already complete. The reforms to the Bank of England come into force today. The Bank of England Act which gave the Bank operational independence in monetary policy as well as moving banking supervision from the Bank to the FSA comes into force today. And as you know, the FSA has already started work – publishing a number of consultation documents following its launch last October. The progress that it has made and the ready acceptance of its very existence is due to a large extent to the work of Howard Davies and his colleagues not just in the FSA but in the existing SROs who are all working hard to make the new system work.

    Phase II – New Financial Services Legislation – moving on from here

    64. The next stage is the new Financial Services legislation which we will publish in draft in the summer. We will publish draft legislation in the summer. There is now consensus over the broad framework for financial regulation, but it is important to get the detail right. We are committed to reform and have set out our approach. But we are also committed to consulting as widely as possible. We want a system that will endure, and time listening is time well spent.

    65. Getting the detail right is as important as getting the overall framework right. The period of consultation on the Bill will allow us to get the detail right.

    66. There remains much work to be done to ensure the single regulator works. The Government and the FSA are determined to put in place long overdue reform, and to get it right. The consultation period for the Bill is one way in which the industry can help us make it work.

    Conclusion

    67. I have covered a wide field. But that is inevitable. Regulation of the financial markets – and the pursuit of open markets are, by their very nature, objectives which are no longer domestic concerns.

    68. The rationale for change is clear. The first stage in our reforms is already complete, and we will be publishing the new financial services legislation in the summer. It is important to get this right. We are creating a new regulator for the new millennium. A single regulator to replace the outdated divisions of responsibility in the past. A regulator capable of adapting to change – adapting to a single market and a single currency in Europe and a rapidly changing global industry beyond. A regulator that is outward looking and as international in outlook as the markets themselves. And a regulator which commands the respect of the industry and enhances public confidence.

    69. There’s a lot of work to do in the meantime. But we’re making good progress. I am confident that the FSA will become a role model for the future.

  • HISTORIC PRESS RELEASE : A new regulator for the new millennium [June 1998]

    HISTORIC PRESS RELEASE : A new regulator for the new millennium [June 1998]

    The press release issued by HM Treasury on 1 June 1998.

    The Government’s reforms of the financial services regulatory system are on track to deliver a new regulator for the new millennium said Alistair Darling, Chief Secretary to the Treasury today. He was speaking at the Financial Services Authority’s European Conference in London.

    On the day that the new Bank of England Act comes into force, he said;

    “The first stage of our reforms is already complete with the changes to the Bank of England coming into force today. These give the Bank operational independence in monetary policy as well as moving banking supervision to the FSA. The next stage is the new Financial Services legislation which we will publish in draft in the summer. There is now consensus over the broad framework, but it is important to get the detail right. We want a system that will endure, and time spent listening is time well spent.”

    Setting out the rationale for the Government’s reforms, Mr Darling said,

    “The case for a single regulator is clear. A single regulator will be more effective because there will be no duplication of effort and no doubt about which body is responsible. Consumers will benefit because there will be single points of access for enquiries, complaints and compensation. Providers will benefit because bringing different regulators together should make regulation more cost effective. And a single, efficient, transparent regulatory regime which commands the confidence of the industry and its customers will be of competitive advantage to the UK’s financial services industry in the global financial services market. The right regulatory structure will enhance prospects for growth in this global market place.”

    Concluding, he said,

    “We are creating a new regulator for the new millennium. A single regulator to replace the outdated divisions of responsibility in the past. A regulator capable of adapting to change – adapting to a single market and a single currency in Europe and a rapidly changing global industry beyond. A regulator that is outward looking and as international in outlook as the markets themselves. And a regulator which commands the respect of the industry and enhances public confidence. The Financial Services Authority will become the role model for the future.”

  • HISTORIC PRESS RELEASE : Chancellor announces new framework for Monetary Policy [May 1997]

    HISTORIC PRESS RELEASE : Chancellor announces new framework for Monetary Policy [May 1997]

    The press release issued by HM Treasury on 6 May 1997.

    STATEMENT FROM THE CHANCELLOR on the Central economic objectives of the new Government.

    The central economic objectives of the new government are high and stable levels of growth and employment. Our aim therefore is to rebuild British economic strength with a modern industrial base,high levels of investment and a culture of entrepreneurship  that, through economic opportunity for all, unlocks British economic potential.

    This can only happen if we build from solid foundations of prudent economic management and sound finance. The enemy of growth, and the investment necessary for it, is the instability of short periodic bursts of high growth followed by recession.

    So we must break from the short termism of the past – the  economic instability that has characterised the British economy not just in recent years but for most of the century. That is why I want British economic success to be built on the solid rock of prudent and consistent economic management, not the shifting sands of boom and bust.

    Now is the time for long-termism. This is the time to set the British economy on a new long term course that will deliver high levels of growth and employment through lasting stability.

    First interest rates.  Over the last few days, I have been scrutinising all the available economic data and taking a view on the economic outlook,informed by the latest Treasury forecast. Having looked at the latest internal information  now available to me, my judgement is that we have inherited a situation in which, in the absence of corrective action, inflation will overshoot the Government’s inflation target next year.  This view,in fact, confirms what the Bank of England has repeatedly advised over recent months, as reflected in the published minutes of the monthly monetary meetings.

    I have to make decisions on interest rates the results of which will only be clear eighteen months ahead.  In reaching my decision I am influenced by the forecasts I have now received for inflation in 1998.  But I have also been influenced by what we see in the economy today, which affects these forecasts:

    • recent rapid growth of consumer spending which has grown by 4 per cent over the last year;
    • house prices, which are currently rising at an annual rate of 6 to 9 per cent, and are rising particularly rapidly in the south east;
    • the recent pick up in average earnings, which are currently growing at 5 per cent a year;
    • and the rate of growth of broad money which has been above its monitoring range for over a year.

    Against these pressures, I have had to weigh the current strength of sterling, particularly against the Deutsche Mark.  And I have also taken into account the subdued level of producer price inflation, disappointing levels of manufacturing activity, the weakness of industrial investment and the reduced optimism about prospects for exports,all of which are associated with sterling’s strength.

    No one should doubt my determination to create the conditions in which British business, and manufacturing, can flourish. But because inflation is the enemy of investment, we must ensure that it is under control, as it has not been so often in the recent past. We want a stable and competitive pound over the medium-term, consistent with our objective of price stability. I am convinced that it is in the interests of industry that our commitment to low inflation is delivered in practice.

    Looking at all the evidence, I believe that the case for an immediate tightening of policy is conclusive.I have decided to raise interest rates by  1/4  per cent with immediate effect. The Governor has indicated his positive agreement with my decision.

    Price stability is, as I have said, an essential precondition for the Government’s objectives of high and sustainable levels of growth and employment. The question is how to achieve the long-term stability that we seek?

    As the Prime Minister and I have always made clear, this is a new Government that is going to move beyond the old dogmas of the past, and provide a modern and lasting framework for economic prosperity. I have said on repeated occasions that we must tackle the underlying weakness of the British economy- low investment, skill shortages and inadequate infrastructure – all of which have beset the British economy in recent years. These problems are themselves some of the underlying causes of inflation.

    I have also made clear that reform is required to put monetary policy on a stable, long-term footing. In a speech in May 1995 and subsequently in our 1995 policy document, A New Economic Future for Britain, I set out my view of the proper roles of the Government and the Bank of England in economic policy.

    Government has a responsibility to the public in setting the objectives of economic policy and that means that the Government rather than the Bank of England must set the targets for monetary policy.

    However, as I have repeatedly made clear since 1995, we will only build a fully credible framework for monetary policy if the long-term needs of the economy, not short-term political considerations, guide monetary decision-making. We must remove the suspicion that short-term party political considerations are influencing the setting of interest rates.

    As our election manifesto said:

    “We will reform the Bank of England to ensure
    that decision-making on monetary policy is more
    effective, open, accountable and free from
    short-term political manipulation.”

    It has become increasingly clear that the present arrangements for policy-making are not generating the confidence that is  necessary. That is one reason why Britain has higher long-term interest rates than most of our major competitors. And the perception that monetary policy decisions have been dominated by short-term political considerations has grown.

    I am now satisfied that we can put in place,with immediate effect, reforms of the Bank of England to ensure that it can discharge responsibilities for setting interest rates in an effective, open and accountable way.

    This is the time to take the tough decisions we need for the long-term interests and prosperity of the country.  I will not shrink from the tough decisions needed to deliver stability for long-term growth. I have therefore decided to give the Bank of England operational responsibility for setting interest rates, with immediate effect. The Government will continue to set the inflation target and the Bank will have responsibility for setting interest rates to meet the target.  The Government’s policy is set out in a letter I sent to the Governor yesterday, the text of which I am releasing now. It is the Government’s intention to legislate for these proposals as soon as possible.  In the interim, the Governor has agreed to put in place the arrangements that will apply once the legislation has been enacted.

    The main elements of the reforms are as follows. In place of the current personalised system of decision-making, decisions will be made by  a new nine-member Monetary Policy Committee, on the basis of a majority vote.  This is similar to arrangements in other countries including the USA and other G7 members. In addition to the Governor and two Deputy Governors, nominated by the Government, who will sit on the committee, the Government will also appoint four members of the Monetary Policy Committee from outside the Bank of England.

    Openness of decision-making will be ensured by the publication of minutes of proceedings and votes of the Monetary Policy Committee. There will be enhanced requirements for the Bank of England to report to the Treasury Select Committee of the House of Commons to explain and be questioned on their decisions. The Court of the Bank of England will review the performance of the Bank of England, including that of the Monetary Policy Committee. The Court will be substantially reformed to make it representative of the whole of the United Kingdom and to take account of the full range of Britain’s industrial and business sectors. These changes in accountability and the new breadth of representation on the Court amount to the most radical internal reform to the Bank of England since it was established in 1694 – over 300 years ago.

    Britain is, in fact, one of the few major industrial nations in which its Central Bank does not have operational responsibility for decisions on interest rates. And our record on inflation and interest rates over recent years is poor, while other countries with independent Central banks have performed better.

    Taken as a whole, these proposals will ensure that decisions are taken for the long-term interests of the economy and not on the basis of short-term political pressures. This is the way to create the stability we need for higher investment and high levels of growth and employment.

    The changes I have proposed are the right decisions: the right decisions for business which wants to plan ahead with confidence, the right decisions for families who have suffered enough from the uncertainties of short-term economic instability, and the right decisions for Britain.

    The specific reforms I am proposing are British solutions, designed to meet British domestic needs for long term stability. Our monetary reforms provide the platform for stability  and are the building block for  a new economic policy that will equip us for the challenges of the future: one that takes steps to ensure higher levels of investment, for which I will announce new measures in due course, and improving employment opportunity by the modernisation of the welfare state. These measures will be addressed in the coming Budget and future Budgets.

    But there is, as I have suggested today, a more long term context. In the last century, Britain was industrially pre-eminent. The history of this century has been one of economic decline, not least because of short termism and the pursuit of stop-go economics. I am determined that we make the right preparations for  long term national economic success, as we look to the century that lies ahead, so that we can move forward again economically. I am therefore setting in place a long term policy for long-term prosperity. The ultimate judgement of the success of this measure will not come next week , or indeed in the next year but in the long- term. I am convinced that this radical reform, together with measures we will announce to equip our economy for the challenges ahead, creates the platform of stability upon which Britain can build.

  • HISTORIC PRESS RELEASE : Robinson re-invigorates the PFI [June 1997]

    HISTORIC PRESS RELEASE : Robinson re-invigorates the PFI [June 1997]

    The press release issued by HM Treasury on 23 June 1997.

    Paymaster Accepts Bates Review in Full New Treasury Taskforce to Combine Project and Policy Expertise Private Finance Panel Stood Down and Executive Disbanded 27 Other Recommendations Promise Real Change

    Paymaster General Geoffrey Robinson today announced new institutional and policy changes to streamline the Private Finance Initiative:

    Launching his programme of action to re-invigorate PFI, he said:

    “We promised to re-invigorate the PFI and that is what we have done.  Malcolm Bates has applied a businessman’s mind to this policy and produced specific recommendations which I accept in full.  We have started work today on those where the Treasury leads and will pursue others as an agenda for action.  We will make a reality of the PFI idea.

    “Malcolm says the public sector structure must be simplified and responsibilities made entirely clear.  Departments and agencies must be accountable for their own procurement decisions. However, he has identified an immediate need for strong central input to ensure delivery of quality transactions that provide a sound basis for future business.

    “To meet this need, I am creating a new Treasury Private Finance Taskforce  – combining project and policy expertise. We will appoint a top class Chief Executive on the projects side who will report direct to me.

    “The new Chief Executive will focus on the quality of PFI transactions.  He will be supported by 6-8 Executives from the private sector with direct project management experience and financial skills.  Until now, the Treasury has been involved too late in the process, leading to frustration and increased costs.  The Taskforce will help central government departments and agencies  road-test significant projects for their  commercial viability before procurement begins.

    “The Taskforce’s policy side will also have its hands full. Malcolm’s review include specific recommendations to produce rapidly more standardised documentation for key stages of the procurement process.  We want greater certainty wherever it can be provided.

    “The Private Finance Panel will be stood down.  I have written to all members today thanking them for their past contribution.  Malcolm Bates acknowledges the immense value that high calibre members made in freely giving their time to meet key players, speak at conferences, write articles and support a growing band of Executives.  However, he felt their on-going role was unclear and was keen to simplify organisational structures.

    “Malcolm’s proposal to strengthen departmental Private Finance Unit’s alongside the  new Treasury Taskforce is directly in line with a key recommendation of the 12 point plan published in our business manifesto.  It also takes away the need for Private Finance Panel Executive.  I therefore accept his recommendation that it should be disbanded by the end of September.  Opportunities will, of course, exist within the new
    structure for those individuals currently with the Executive who have the skills and experience we now require.

    “The agenda for action is detailed, practical and full of common sense.  I am sure it will be welcomed as long overdue by companies and departments who have struggled for too long under previous management.  I am confident that at last we have the foundations on which public and private sectors in partnership can deliver an Initiative to be proud of.”

  • HISTORIC PRESS RELEASE : Head of Treasury enterprise and growth unit [June 1997]

    HISTORIC PRESS RELEASE : Head of Treasury enterprise and growth unit [June 1997]

    The press release issued by HM Treasury on 12 June 1997.

    Geoffrey Robinson, Paymaster General, today took the first step in creating a Treasury Enterprise and Growth Unit by  announcing the appointment of Harry Bush, a senior Treasury official, to head the team which will be working with the Paymaster and business on the development of policies to help promote growth and innovation.

    Notes to Editors

    1.   Increasing the sustainable rate of long-term growth is central to the Government`s economic policy.

    2.   In his speech to the CBI the Chancellor announced that the Paymaster General will head a new Enterprise and Growth Unit within the Treasury.

    3.   Growth is already a central part of the work of a number of  Treasury teams.  The  new Enterprise and Growth Unit will complement this and ensure that the whole Treasury puts promoting growth at the top of its agenda.  A biography of Mr Bush is
    attached.

    Biography

    Harry Bush, age 43, was educated at Quintin Kynaston School (north London) and Merton and Nuffield Colleges (Oxford).  He joined the Treasury in 1979.  Since then he has worked in a number of areas including export credit policy, press office, defence expenditure control and nationalised industries.  Most recently he has been working with other departments, industries, the City and overseas governments on privatisation issues.  Mr Bush will be taking up his new post immediately on promotion to Deputy Director (Grade 3).

  • HISTORIC PRESS RELEASE : Welfare to Work Task Force Gets Underway [June 1997]

    HISTORIC PRESS RELEASE : Welfare to Work Task Force Gets Underway [June 1997]

    The press release issued by HM Treasury on 5 June 1997.

    Chancellor Gordon Brown, Chair of the Welfare to Work Committee, today appointed Sir Peter Davis to Chair the Advisory Task Force on the New Deal for Young People and the Long-Term Unemployed.  Sir Peter is Group Chief Executive of the Prudential and Chairman of Business in the Community.

    The Task Force will be a powerful tool in helping to deliver the Government`s commitment to help 250,000 young unemployed people move from welfare to work and to provide new opportunities to the long-term unemployed.

    Making the announcement Mr Brown said:

    “This government is determined not to continue down the road of a permanent have-not class, unemployed and disaffected from society.  Our Welfare to Work
    programme, funded from the proceeds of the Windfall Levy, will break this cycle of despair and give hope and opportunity to a whole section of our society. The best form of welfare for people of working age is work.

    “For the programme to be a success, it is vital that there is an enthusiastic response from employers and the voluntary sector.  Sir Peter, who was knighted
    this year for services to training and industry, has the perfect blend of experience and skills to turn our ambitious plans into reality.  He and his Task Force will be bringing his considerable energy and business skills to bear on this priority task.  Sir Peter will get British business working to get the British back to work.”

    Looking forward to his challenge, Sir Peter said:

    “My work with both the Basic Skills Agency and Business in the Community has demonstrated to me the vital importance of getting unemployed people into work or proper training schemes.

    “I was pleased to accept this position but in order to make time available, I am giving up certain outside commitments.  I have therefore today told David Blunkett that I must stand down after eight years as Chairman of the Basic Skills Agency.”