The influential House of Commons Treasury select committee has
recently reprimanded the part-taxpayer-owned Royal Bank of Scotland for
being economical with the truth when giving evidence.
The industries trade body the Asset Based Finance Association was ridiculed when it submitted evidence to the Treasury Select committee.
Martin Morrin the Chairman of ABFA was left looking a rather pathetic figure with no concept what was going on the asset based finance industry.
The industries trade body the Asset Based Finance Association was ridiculed when it submitted evidence to the Treasury Select committee.
Martin Morrin the Chairman of ABFA was left looking a rather pathetic figure with no concept what was going on the asset based finance industry.
Andrew
Tyrie, the committee’s chairman, in his letter to Derek Sach, of the
bank’s Global Restructuring Group – regarded by some small businesses as
the hit squad – pointed out that it appeared the bank had known of the
concerns of one small businessman, yet in its evidence and its follow-up
letter, failed to mention this apparent fact.
Whatever the
truth or otherwise of the RBS/select committee row, the reality is that
this is not a side issue. It is becoming clear that a number of senior
regulators and business people appear to treat parliamentary select
committees and inquiries with little short of contempt.
In
many ways the standard was set by the now dissolved FSA, but senior
bankers too more or less share this attitude, that the committee is a
waste of time. Many may recall Bob Diamond, late of Barclays Bank,
suggesting that we put the banking crisis behind us and move on.
Apart
from this breathtaking arrogance, it is important to remind those
people and their chorus of supporters that Britain is a parliamentary
democracy, that select committees act on behalf of parliament and must
be accorded the full respect and co-operation that they would give, for
example, a court of law.
In our system parliament is
supreme, and anyone treating a lawfully appointed parliamentary
committee with contempt, whether in the veracity of their evidence or in
their general demeanour, should be brought before the bar and charged.
Bankers
or others giving evidence before a US senate committee would face
contempt charges if in many ways they behaved in the manner in which our
regulators and senior business people seem to do before the UK
parliament.
Many of us are horrified that the factoring industry believes that it is not answerable to any institution, not the Treasury,
nor parliament.
No comments:
Post a Comment