Over the last decade I have made many speeches trying to point out that Gordon Brown did not make the Bank of England independent, and did weaken the Bank’s ability to respond to financial crises. I reminded any audience willing to listen that in 1997 he took away the Bank’s power to regulate individual banks, and removed its role of running the public debt. He did not even make the MPC completely independent in the way advertised.

These two changes greatly weakened the Bank’s ability to understand and control the money markets. When the mortgage bank crisis hit the Bank of England did not itself monitor the daily cash and credit positions of the banks, and did not itself organise the daily intervention of the government in the market with its own debt instruments.The need to respond to a banking problem in negotiation with the FSA and the Chancellor was bound to slow things down and make it difficult to come to a timely and sensible answer.

I reflected this in the more meaured prose of the Opposition’s Economic Policy Review (Freeing Britain to compete - available as a download on this site). In that we wrote:

“We are concerned about the division of responsibility between the FSA and the Bank over banking and market regulation. Fortunately conditions in the last decade have been benign internaitonally, with no threats to banking liquidity. We think it would be safer if the Bank of England had responsibility for solvency regulation of UK-based banks, as well as having the overall duty to keep the system solvent. Otherwise there could be dangerous delays if a banking crisis did hit,with information having to be exchanged between the two regulators; and there might be gaps in each regulator’s view of the banking sector at a crucial time, when early regulatory action might have spared a worse problem.”

If we could see that from Opposition, why was the government unable to do so?

Trackback URI | Comments RSS