Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Bill [HL]

Baroness Noakes Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 4th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)]

My Lords, in moving government Amendment 1, I shall speak also to government Amendment 4. The Government have tabled these amendments after considering the concerns raised in Grand Committee by the noble Baronesses, Lady Noakes, Lady Bowles, and Lady Vere, and the noble Lord, Lord Vaux. I am extremely grateful to all of them for all of the points they have raised.

Reflecting in particular on the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, the Government have decided to clarify in the Bill whose expenses can be covered by a recapitalisation payment from the Financial Services Compensation Scheme. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her engagement on this matter since Grand Committee.

The Bill as introduced permitted a recapitalisation payment to cover the expenses that the Bank of England or another person has incurred, or might incur, in connection with the recapitalisation of the firm in resolution. These amendments replace that broad formulation with “relevant person”, then specify that “relevant person” means the Treasury, a bridge bank or an asset management vehicle. They further specify that “bridge bank” and “asset management vehicle” have the meanings given by Sections 12 and 12ZA of the Banking Act 2009 respectively.

In Grand Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, indicated that she had no objection to the Treasury, the Bank of England and its entities having certain expenses covered by the new mechanism, but that this should be specified in the Bill. These amendments tabled by the Government seek to do just that; I hope that she and other noble Lords will be able to support them.

In Grand Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, also asked questions about the specific expenses that would be in scope under the terms of the Bill. On this point, I should be clear that the Government maintain the position set out in Grand Committee: it is important that the Bill is not overly prescriptive, allowing the Bank to respond flexibly when costs arise. I refer to the explanations given in Grand Committee, in the Government’s response to the consultation and in the draft updates to the code of practice of the types of expenses that will be expected to be covered. The Government maintain that it is prudent to ensure that there is broad provision to cover these potential additional costs. Ultimately, it should be borne in mind that the alternative may be for such costs to be met by the taxpayer.

By way of reassurance, I reiterate that, in determining whether to include certain ancillary expenses in its request for funding, the Bank of England is subject to the usual obligations under public law to act in a way that is reasonable and proportionate. In addition, the legislation does not allow the Bank of England or any other person to claim expenses that arise exclusively for preparing for a Bank insolvency. The draft updates to the code of practice also set out that the Government would expect any final report on the use of the mechanism to explain why certain expenses were considered reasonable and necessary.

I hope that the Government’s approach as set out in these amendments addresses the points raised by noble Lords in Grand Committee, and that noble Lords will feel able to accept them. I beg to move.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I spoke in Committee. I draw attention to my interests as included on the register; in particular, I hold shares in a number of banks that could be affected by the contents of this Bill.

I thank the Minister for the comprehensive letters that he wrote to Members who took part in Committee—and, indeed, for the subsequent meeting that he organised. I also thank the Treasury for publishing the draft extra chapter for the code of practice, which has been very helpful to those of us trying to work through the Bill.

I certainly support the two amendments to which the Minister has just spoken, which go some way to limiting the wide power in new Section 214E(2), but I have some further questions for the Minister, building on the comments he has just made. These amendments constrain to whom payments can be made under that new subsection but they do not do anything to constrain the types of expenses that can be incurred. In Committee, I tried to explore what happens if litigation or regulatory actions arise in relation to issues that had occurred prior to the resolution action being taken but which do not emerge until a little later. We did not get very far, so I will spend just a couple of minutes on them here.

I am talking about material litigation or regulatory action. There could be shareholder litigation, which happened after RBS was bailed out by the Treasury. There could also be other kinds of issues that result in both regulatory action and civil litigation, as happened in relation to Libor, for example. Today’s hot issue is vehicle financing commissions, following the Court of Appeal’s decision recently, and no one knows how much it will cost.

Before this Bill, the working assumption was that smaller banks would be placed into the insolvency procedure and that, in that event, the kind of liabilities I am talking about would likely be extinguished as part of the insolvency because there would simply be insufficient money there to pay for them. However, once the recapitalisation power is used, it opens up the possibility that the Bank of England could use the power to raise capital in order to pay for litigation or regulatory costs that had arisen and were crystallising after the recapitalisation event.

The issue of litigation was raised by my noble friend Lord Moylan at Second Reading, and the Minister wrote to him on 21 August. The letter confirmed that litigation costs could well be covered through the use of the recapitalisation power. The Minister expressed this in terms of it being

“a judgement to be taken at the time, noting that the alternative could be to use public funds instead”.

From the perspective of the financial sector, which will be picking up the costs using the power—then doubtless passing them on to their customers—the alternative is using not public funds but the insolvency procedure. If we let the insolvency procedure take its course, at least nine times out of 10, those costs will not be met at all. So, that is the heart of the problem from the financial sector’s point of view.

I have not tabled an amendment on Report because it is very difficult to table one that would cover all eventualities. The redraft of the code of practice does not appear to deal with this issue either, whether in relation to expenses per se—in the terms of the new subsection we are discussing—or in relation to which liabilities the Bank should allow to go into the bridge bank. Today, I am seeking that the Government recognise that this is an issue and that it should be dealt with somehow as part of the code of practice.

I accept, as I have throughout, that there may be public interest reasons for avoiding the bank insolvency procedure, and for settling historical liabilities through the recapitalisation power, but the public interest test is a rather slippery concept and gives no real comfort to those who are expected to pick up the tab. I hope that the Minister will accept that this new power must not become a blank cheque to avoid bank insolvency and to pick up all kinds of costs that would otherwise fall by the wayside. I look forward to hearing what reassurances he can give.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

My Lords, I add my support to Amendment 2 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Vere. From the outset of this process, the Bill was intended to cover only small banks. That was made clear in almost the first paragraph of the original consultation. It was then extended and now covers all banks, regardless of size. I thank the Minister for making sure that the draft code of practice was published by the Treasury before Report; it has been incredibly helpful in this process, and we are all very grateful for that. The draft code of practice is clear that the resolution mechanism is designed primarily to support the resolution of small banks and that the Bank of England will not assume use of the new mechanism when setting a preferred resolution strategy of bail-in and the corresponding MREL requirements of a large bank.

So why does the Bill cover large banks? The argument from the Government seems to be along the lines of, “Well, it might be useful to have this flexibility”. That does not seem a very strong argument. As we have heard, larger banks are required to hold additional capital resources, known as MREL, effectively to ensure that they are able to bail themselves out—a process known as bail-in. If the Government are not confident that the MREL regime is sufficient for those larger banks, they should be looking to strengthen that regime rather than extending a measure that is designed specifically for smaller banks whose failure would not create systemic risk, to act as a further insurance policy for the big banks.

I am afraid that unless the Minister can come up with a stronger argument than he has so far, I will be minded to support the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, should she decide to test the opinion of the House.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I add my support to my noble friend’s amendment.

If the power were used on a bank that had already achieved the MREL set for it, that use of the mechanism would raise questions about whether MREL and the minimum capital requirements had been set correctly—and whether there had been a regulatory failure. In either event, the Bank is conflicted, whether through the setting of MREL in its capacity as a resolution authority or through setting capital levels through its PRA arm. I am clear that the Bank should not have the power to cover up regulatory failure, which this unconstrained provision allows. There is no way for the Treasury to stop the Bank using the power other than by using the power of direction that exists but has never been used in the existence of the Bank since nationalisation. Unconstrained powers are unhealthy. That is why I support my noble friend’s amendment.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)]

My Lords, I concur with what other noble Lords have said about this amendment: that is why I have added my name. It cannot be left as a possibility for any size of bank; if it needs to apply to a larger bank, perhaps the MREL level should have been set higher. We have this rather unusual situation in the UK where we set MREL at a much lower level; it is set at about a quarter of the level of other countries. If there is a nervousness about needing to use it for a bank that is a little bit larger, perhaps some other fundamentals about where MREL is being set are wrong.

The premise of this Bill is based on it being an alternative to insolvency, where that would have been the normal end result. Maybe the compensation scheme would have had to pay out on deposit guarantees and so there is the happy thought that the money could be perhaps put to different use this way round. But the assumption should still be insolvency and we need a public interest test before we go looking at the Financial Services Compensation Scheme. It is already an extraordinary event—so how extraordinary are extraordinary events? I do not think one can layer extra extraordinariness on top of it: there has to be a line somewhere.

We do not know how many dips into the Financial Services Compensation Scheme there are going to be. In insolvency, there is one dip for the deposits that are guaranteed. It does not say that there cannot be multiple dips. There is already the notion that there is this enormous pot of money. Maybe it looks like a bank tax—and everybody hates banks and it is a pot to raid—but it is a very good way to cause more issues within the wider banking sector. Frankly, it is unfair if there are not some bounds somewhere. So I think this is the right one and, if the Minister is not going to incorporate the amendment, which I think would be a jolly good idea, we on these Benches will be supporting the noble Baroness, Lady Vere.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

My Lords, this group covers reporting and accountability to Parliament on the use of the resolution mechanism, which was probably the greatest area of discussion in Committee. The Bill gives significant rights to the Bank of England to impose costs on the banking industry. It can only be right, therefore, that the Bank should have to explain the reasons for its decisions and the outcome to both the Treasury and Parliament.

A number of concerns have been expressed throughout the process, and again today, about how the Bank might use the mechanism. At Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson of Earl’s Court, said:

“I can foresee circumstances where the Bank will choose to recapitalise a small bank rather than put it into a bank insolvency process, less because it is in the national interest and more as a way of minimising the reputational damage of regulatory failure”.—[Official Report, 30/7/24; col. 914.]


The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, said something similar earlier today. The noble Lord and others have pointed out that there is nothing in the Bill that would incentivise the Bank to control the expenses of the process; again, we discussed this to an extent earlier. Those expenses will be picked up by the FSCS, by the wider financial services industry and, ultimately, by the customers of that industry.

As we have just seen, the Government have tabled amendments to clarify that last point, which we have already discussed—but the point remains. Fears, which I share, have been raised that this resolution mechanism could become the default, rather than insolvency. I believe—others share this view, I think—that, in principle, a failing institution should be allowed to fail unless it is in the public interest for it to be bailed out. The draft code attempts to deal with this but the concern remains.

For all these reasons, it is essential that the Bank should have to explain its decisions and that Parliament should have the ability to scrutinise those decisions. For that reason, I have tabled Amendment 5, which would require the Bank to make a report to the Chancellor that must then be laid before Parliament every time a recapitalisation payment is made. The amendment sets out some minimum requirements for what the report should cover, including why the Bank chose to make a recapitalisation payment rather than allowing the institution to go into insolvency; the costs that will be incurred; and how those costs compare to the costs the FSCS would incur in an insolvency situation. It would also require a final report explaining what actually happened—and, if different, why—at the end of the resolution process.

Since I tabled Amendment 5, I am pleased to say that the Government have issued the draft code of practice—for which we are all grateful, as I said—and tabled Amendment 8. I am extremely grateful to the Minister for his constructive approach on this. Given that the two together deal with most of the areas covered by my Amendment 5, I will not push that.

However—there is always a “but” in these things—there is one important omission in the Minister’s Amendment 8. Although it requires the Bank to report within three months of any recapitalisation payment, it does not require a final report on what actually happened at the end of the resolution process. Although the resolution will happen quickly in many cases—the example of Silicon Valley Bank, where it happened over the weekend, is a good one—that may not always be the case. Under these rules, a bank can be put into a bridge bank for up to two years, which can be extended further. We can have multiple recapitalisation periods during that period, so the process can last a number of years. If the Bank reports within three months of each payment, we may never see a report on what actually happened at the end—for example, if the failing institution is put into insolvency two years later.

It is essential that the Chancellor and Parliament have an opportunity to review how the resolution worked out and, most importantly, to ensure that any relevant lessons are learned. So I have tabled Amendment 9, as an amendment to the Minister’s amendment, to cover that point. I think that this may have been the Minister’s intention all along, but I cannot agree with him that his amendment, as drafted, actually achieves this. On the report it requires, his amendment says:

“The Bank must report to the Chancellor of the Exchequer about … the exercise of the power to require a recapitalisation payment to be made, and … the stabilisation power and the stabilisation option to which the payment relates”.


Nowhere does it talk about what happened at the end, which could be a number of years later.

I am alive to the concern that we should not have too many potentially repetitive reports, so my amendment would have effect only if the reports published by the Bank, in accordance with the Minister’s amendment, do not cover the final resolution results. I hope that this is not controversial and that the Minister will be able to accept Amendment 9 to his amendment. However, as I say, it is essential that the final outcome of any resolution is made transparent and open to scrutiny.

If the Minister is unwilling to accept my proposal, or accepts the principle but does not like some of the detail—he has mentioned to me that he is not terribly keen on the three-month timeframe—perhaps he could commit to coming back at Third Reading with his own version of the amendment that satisfies the guaranteed requirement to report on the final outcome. He can tweak it as he likes on timing and things—I cannot get too excited about that—but, if he is not prepared either to accept it or to do that, I will be minded, I am afraid, to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 9 when the time comes.

The other amendments in this group relate to notifying the relevant committees of both this House and the other place of the use of the recapitalisation power. The amendments tabled by the Minister, as well as the amendments to his amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, arose from amendments that the noble Baroness put down in Committee. I am pleased that the Government have accepted those amendments. However, all the amendments do is say that the committees must be notified. Those committees need something to look at; it makes it all the more important that we have the reports we are talking about, both on the use of the recapitalisation power and on what finally happens, at the end of the day. I beg to move.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I have Amendments 11 to 13 in this group; they are amendments to the Government’s Amendment 10, to which the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, has referred. Before I address those amendments, I shall refer briefly to the reporting amendments in this group. I certainly praise the Government for bringing forward their Amendment 8, as well as for beefing up the code of practice on reporting. However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, that the issue of the final report made by the Bank of England is outstanding; I therefore support his Amendment 9.

On Amendments 10 to 13, I start by thanking the Minister for listening to the case, made in Committee, that parliamentary committees should be notified of the use of the bank recapitalisation power. I had tabled an amendment that named the Treasury Select Committee in the other place and the Financial Services Regulation Committee in your Lordships’ House; this was supported in Committee by fellow Members of the latter committee, as noble Lords might imagine. I retabled my amendment for Report—the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, and the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, added their names—but the Government then tabled Amendment 10, which was similar in principle to my amendment but drafted using the language of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023. That Act did not refer to the Financial Services Regulation Committee for the simple reason that it did not exist at the time—indeed, it was that Act that led to creation of that committee. So, following the helpful meeting that we had with the Minister, I was told that the Government were happy to refer directly to the Financial Services Regulation Committee. They suggested that this be achieved by my tabling amendments to the Government’s amendments. So I hope that, when the Minister gets up to speak to his amendment, he will confirm that he accepts my Amendments 11 to 13.

Noble Lords who have joined the House in the past eight years might be mystified by the reference to the Chairman of Committees in my Amendment 13. Although the House has not used the title since 2016, the post to which we now refer as the Senior Deputy Lord Speaker technically remains the Chairman of Committees. One learns something every day in Parliament.

Let me conclude by saying that I hope the principle of requiring notification to the Treasury Select Committee in the other place and your Lordships’ Financial Services Regulation Committee is now regarded as a precedent for any future creation of significant or unusual powers granted to the Bank of England or any of the other regulators in future. The strength of parliamentary accountability for those bodies, with their massive powers, must always be maintained—and, indeed, enhanced.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak principally to Amendment 7 in this group, which has also been signed by the noble Baronesses, Lady Vere and Lady Noakes. Amendment 6 was my first attempt, when I was worried that defined first and secondary objectives were not already specified in connection with resolution. In fact, there are a whole load of objectives that have to be balanced in Section 4 of the Banking Act 2009. However, I then hit upon the formulation of claim 7, to make it agree with how it had been rendered in FiSMA 2000. I am suggesting that this is a secondary objective to all the existing ones, and the formulation is the one with which we are already familiar.

We on these Benches are not always certain of the merits of the competitiveness and growth objective, which is what I am inserting into the Bill here, in respect of the resolution authority. Our concern is that in other places, it might return to too much of the animal spirit that led to the financial crisis, but here, it has a different and particular role. The Bank has to balance all the Section 4 objectives to get the best results, and, in its resolution capacity, it is not really in a situation to be prey to animal spirits.

When it comes to the Financial Services Compensation Scheme as a source of funds, as we have already said, there are no bounds, or at least no written ones. How many dips into it can be made if the first one is not enough? How big can those dips be, compared to what might have been needed to compensate depositors if the Bank had gone bust instead? What happens if there are multiple resolution events in a narrow period of time? For how many years can the extra levy be put on to the banking sector in order to pay back the scheme? As the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, has said before, how can we be certain that, years later, it is not called upon again in connection with some kind of legal action?

All these things are left open for the Bank of England resolution authority to decide and to do its best on. It will, of course, receive advice from the PRA, which has to consider what is an affordable levy for the industry, but it is receiving advice from a body which has in one sense just failed, and to which it is always close. It is advice that it does not actually have to take, either.

The only lever—other than the one suggested in the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, a requirement to minimise cost—is to impose the objective of competitiveness, which in this instance means affordability, and for that to be imposed on the resolution authority itself. It is secondary to everything else, so it cannot kick the other objectives into touch in any way; it is just making sure that there is a small reality check about what this does to other banks, especially in the circumstance that this is not the only bank or that this is not the only dip into the fund.

So, this is an instance where the secondary competitiveness and growth objective is relevant, and I hope the Minister can see his way to accepting it. If not, I shall probably seek to test the opinion of the House. I beg to move.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I have Amendment 16 in this group and added my name to Amendment 7, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, just spoke. As she indicated, the two amendments are related in that the imposition of unnecessary costs, which is the target of my Amendment 16, will do nothing to help the financial sector grow, be competitive or, indeed, support the real economy.

I fully supported the growth and competitiveness objectives introduced for the PRA and the FCA in the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023, and I am very glad that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given her support to those. But I hope that the Government will want to go further and make all regulators, and indeed all other public sector bodies, pay attention to growth and competitiveness. Extending this to other organisations is important, particularly in the financial services universe, as they were not included within the competitiveness and growth objective in the 2023 Act.

One of those omitted at that time—perhaps we should have spotted it during the passage of the Financial Services and Markets Act—was the Bank of England in its capacity as a resolution authority. The noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, has had to confine her amendment to the use of the bank recapitalisation power because of the Long Title of the Bill. But the competitiveness and growth objective ought to apply to the Bank as the resolution authority in toto, not simply when it exercises the new bank recapitalisation power but also when, for example, it is setting MREL levels.

My Amendment 16 adds a special resolution objective to the seven already listed in Section 4 of the Banking Act 2009, and it requires the Bank to consider the minimisation of costs borne by the financial sector when the recapitalisation power is used. It is not an absolute requirement, as it would be just one of eight objectives, and it is for the Bank to determine, under the 2009 Act, how to balance those various objectives.

When it is using the power, the Bank is playing with other people’s money. Ultimately, it is the money of those of us who are customers of the banks, because at the end of the day the money that flows through the banks will end up being borne by customers, and it is only right that the Bank should have regard to the minimisation of costs that are ultimately borne by the banks’ customers.

In Committee I tabled an amendment that focused on the costs being borne through the FSCS not exceeding the counterfactual of the bank insolvency procedure to which the Bank should be paying regard in any event. My amendment today is a less complex test and is simply designed to act as a reminder to the Bank that it should treat other people’s money as carefully as it treats its own. If it does that, it should also help to keep the sector competitive and to help it grow. I hope that the Minister will agree that this amendment is right in principle and that it responds to a number of concerns expressed by several respondents during the consultation on the power over the last year or so.

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

My Lords, I support both the amendments in the names of the two noble Baronesses who have just spoken. I probably have a slight preference for Amendment 16 on the expenses—it is more direct—but we need something in the Bill that reminds the Bank of England that it is spending other people’s money, and that it needs to do that carefully and with care. These amendments are aimed primarily at that end, so I support them both.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Noakes]

11: In inserted subsection (2) leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
“(b) the Financial Services Regulation Committee of the House of Lords”

--- Later in debate ---

I am not going to press my amendment but I hope the Minister recognises that there is a genuine issue here, will keep it under review and will consider amending the code of practice in that respect. I beg to move.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I added my name to the amendment but I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, will not be pressing it because, as he explained, there are difficulties with it.

I pay tribute to the noble Lord for chasing this issue down because it is a very real issue that could arise in certain defined circumstances, as he explained. I am not convinced that the solution of simply transferring assets into the bridge bank actually works. The complexities of a bank mean that you have liabilities—that is how you fund yourself from market sources—and in practice it may well be difficult. I hope the Government will take this away and find a way of minimising the likelihood that that ever happens, whether in the code of practice or otherwise, in discussion with the Bank of England.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, the point that the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, has been making is significant and crucial in shaping the way in which the Bank of England approaches the resolution of banks when they fail.

Unlike the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, I think there is a potential path of looking at the sale of the assets rather than the sale of the equity. That is the normal practice that one would follow in order not to transfer liabilities over to the new recovering entity. I fully understand all the complexities, and I hope the Minister will take this up with the Bank of England in his discussions. It requires a lot more work but it could get us out of some very nasty traps in future, and it will be more likely to do so if there has been thought beforehand rather than it being a reaction in a situation of emergency.

Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Bill [HL]

Baroness Noakes Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 10th September 2024 Grand Committee

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)]

My Lords, I hope I can address the concerns of the noble Baronesses, Lady Bowles and Lady Vere, and provide them with reassurances about the protections in place for depositors as a result of the mechanism under this Bill. I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, that in the event that the mechanism under the Bill is used, it would not reduce a covered depositor’s entitlement to a payout in the event of a subsequent bank insolvency. In this situation, eligible depositors would continue to be paid out up to the coverage limit set by the Prudential Regulation Authority, which is currently £85,000. That protection is enshrined in the rules set by the Prudential Regulation Authority. If the mechanism under the Bill is used and a bank subsequently enters insolvency, the Financial Services Compensation Scheme will continue to have access to the same resources as it does now. This means that it would first seek to use any existing funds or its commercial borrowing facility to meet its costs. If that is not sufficient, the Financial Services Compensation Scheme is able to turn to the Treasury and request a loan under the National Loans Fund. Any borrowing under the National Loans Fund would then be repaid by future levies. That is an important backstop that means that the Financial Services Compensation Scheme can continue to access the funding it needs.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, asked a specific question about affordability being taken into account when deciding to recapitalise using the payout in insolvency. The answer to that is yes. The bank would consult the PRA when deciding to use its powers to consider affordability in levies. I hope this provides the reassurance that the noble Baroness is seeking that covered depositors will not face a reduction in what they are entitled to in insolvency if the new mechanism is used. On that basis, I hope she will be able to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

Can I just clarify what happens when the FSCS has gone to the Treasury, because there does not appear to be a limit on the amount of money that it could draw down to meet its obligations to protected depositors? As the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, pointed out on our first Committee day, there might be several financial institutions—my noble friend also raised this—in play at one time. It cannot be the case that an infinite amount of money can be funnelled through the FSCS and ultimately funded by loans from the National Loan Fund with the expectation that that will always then be met by subsequent years’ levies on the institution. Is there is there no break in the system which says, “No, this is too much for the FSCS to deal with”, especially as it is now potentially being loaded with a different kind of expense to process through its mechanisms?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

As the noble Baroness said, we touched on this briefly in the first day of Committee. If it is okay with her, I will write to set out the precise way in which the mechanism would work in that instance.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Noakes]

15: Clause 1, page 2, line 3, at end insert—
“214F Engagement with Parliamentary Committees(1) If the Bank of England exercises the power under section 214E it must, as soon as reasonably practicable, notify in writing the chair of each relevant Parliamentary Committee that the power has been exercised.(2) Relevant Parliamentary Committees are—(a) the Treasury Committee in the House of Commons, and(b) the Financial Services Regulation Committee in the House of Lords.(3) References to the committees referred to in subsection (2)—(a) if the name of the Committee is changed, are references to that Committee by its new name, and(b) if the functions of that Committee (or substantially corresponding functions) become functions of a different Committee of the House of Commons or the House of Lords, are to be treated as references to the Committee by which the functions are exercisable.(4) Any question arising under subsection (3) is to be determined by the Speaker of the House of Commons in relation to committees of the House of Commons and by the Senior Deputy Speaker of the House of Lords in relation to committees of the House of Lords.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the Bank of England must notify the Treasury Committee of the House of Commons and the Financial Services Regulation Committee in the House of Lords if the recapitalisation power is used.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 15 would add a new section to FSMA. This would create a requirement for the Bank of England to notify the Treasury Select Committee in the other place and the Financial Services Regulation Committee of your Lordships’ House of the use of the recapitalisation power.

On our last Committee day, I tried to add a requirement for Treasury consent when the recapitalisation payment power was used in order to improve parliamentary accountability around the use of the power. That would, in effect, have tied Ministers into the decision, thus allowing Parliament—in particular, the other place—to hold Ministers to account. As I have said many times, the accountability of the Bank of England is weak. Unsurprisingly, because Ministers have never been known to be in love with ministerial responsibility or accountability, the Minister turned this down.

However, in response to my amendment, the Minister said, as if it was a self-evident truth, that:

“It is important to maintain the position that the Bank of England can take decisions on the appropriate resolution action independently”.—[Official Report, 5/9/24; col. GC 33.]


I am not sure that that is correct. The independence of the Bank of England certainly exists in relation to monetary policy, but it does not extend to the totality of its functions.

I invite the Minister to look at Section 4 of the Bank of England Act 1946, which was when the Bank of England was nationalised. Section 4 allows the Treasury to issue directions to the Bank of England—it has in fact never issued a direction, but the power exists. There are carve-outs from that power of direction to cover monetary policy, the activities and functions of the PRA, and something to do with central counterparties. It does not carve out the Bank as a resolution authority, so a power exists for the Treasury to direct the Bank on resolution functions. We should not therefore get hung up on the so-called independence of the Bank in considering amendments to this Bill, though we may well return to the topic on Report.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My Lords, the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, focuses on the important theme of how the Bank of England is accountable to Parliament. As I have said in response to other amendments, the Government agree that it is right that the Bank of England is held to account for the actions it takes in resolution. That includes being accountable, as appropriate, to Parliament, so I do look warmly, in the words of my noble friend Lord Eatwell, at the intent of this amendment. I also stress that it is right that the Bank of England can act quickly and decisively when exercising its powers. That is particularly important in a crisis situation.

That said, the Government expect that the Bank of England would engage with Parliament after taking resolution action, including when the mechanism under the Bill is used. Specifically, under the existing provisions of the Banking Act, when the Bank of England exercises its resolution powers it must provide a copy of the relevant legal instrument to the Treasury. The Treasury must then lay that instrument in Parliament and the Bank of England must also publish it. This will continue to apply under the new mechanism and ensure that Parliament is notified when resolution action is undertaken. I shall give one specific example. In the case of SVB, the Bank sent to the Treasury the copy of the legal instrument the same morning as it exercised its power. The Treasury then laid the relevant document in Parliament on the very same day.

I also reiterate points I have made elsewhere about the Government’s commitment to require the Bank of England to produce reports in the event that the mechanism is used. The Government strongly expect such reports to be made public and laid in Parliament unless there are clear public interest grounds for not doing so, such as issues of commercial confidentiality. I hope this provides some comfort to the noble Baroness and, on that basis, I respectfully ask her to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

Just to clarify something with the Minister, I understand that the resolution instruments are notified to the Treasury and laid before Parliament but they, of course, do not refer to the use of the mechanism in the Bill. That is what I was focusing on, rather than the resolution action itself. They may be separated, so it is not quite satisfactory to say that the law already provides for the resolution instruments to be relaid, unless that bit of the legislation, from the 2009 Act, were amended to cover the use of the Bank’s payment capitalisation power. I was trying to fill in a gap that I thought existed.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I do not know whether this goes far enough for the noble Baroness but we absolutely intend, and would be clear, that we expect the same exact procedure to apply for this new mechanism.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

I am very glad that the Minister has said that.

First, I thank my fellow members of the Financial Services Regulation Committee for their support on this amendment—I was never in any doubt that I would get it—and I thank my noble friend, the shadow Minister, for her support.

I think this will come down to whether the Treasury’s expectations should be backed up somewhere in the legislation or whether we can allow it to exist on the basis that Treasury expectations will always somehow work out in practice. I favour the former: we need to be clear in the legislation about the trail of information that needs to go and when it needs to go.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

My Lords, this amendment is simply intended to try to obtain some clarification on how a recapitalisation payment that has been made by the FSCS to the Bank of England will be treated if the failing bank eventually gets into insolvency. This could occur if the bank is transferred to a bridge bank, the buyer is not found and the bank’s financial situation does not improve. There is a two-year deadline for the bridge bank although that can be extended in certain circumstances but, eventually, the process can end up with the bank being wound up.

If that happens, the recapitalisation payments should be treated as a debt of the bank and should rank ahead of all other liabilities, debts or other claims other than the fees of the official receiver when it comes to distributing any value that might be left in an insolvency situation. This is related to other discussions that we have already had and partially to Amendment 23, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, which we will debate later.

The principle should be that the shareholders, lenders and other creditors should not be put in a better position as a result of the recapitalisation. To put it another way, the industry-funded compensation scheme should not, in effect, be bailing out the losses of shareholders and creditors other than the depositors who will be compensated under the scheme should their deposits be lost in the insolvency. However, that is not clear in the proposed Bill, although it is entirely possible that I have missed something in the interplay between the various Acts that apply here. I would therefore be most grateful if the Minister could explain exactly how the amount provided by the FSCS would be treated in such a situation. It might most easily and clearly be dealt with by including it in the worked example that the Minister agreed to consider providing during our discussions on Amendment 1 on Thursday.

I should say that I suspect that my amendment as it is currently drafted probably does not work, and that it may require some changes to be made to insolvency legislation to work properly if there is an issue. Rather than worrying about the specifics of the amendment, I hope that the noble Lord will concentrate on the principle and explain how the recapitalisation payment would be treated in an insolvency process, as it stands, in particular in making sure that it does not advantage shareholders and lenders, and ideally point me to the relevant clauses of the relevant legislation. If I am right that the situation is unclear, we can sort the details out on Report. I beg to move.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

I support the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, has put forward, and in particular the request for worked examples, preferably with numbers in, because the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, and I are accountants and we like looking at numbers rather than words. Having read the proceedings of the first Committee day in Hansard, I realised that I did not know how some of these things work in practice, so I think that it is important to have those worked examples.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)]

I support this amendment as well, or something like it, and I would be very pleased if the Minister was prepared to try to work out something that might go in the Bill, because we need to have some clarity around these issues. We come back, as has been suggested, to our shareholders being advantaged at the end of the day. I find who is getting what in insolvency remarkably difficult to follow anyway; I certainly defer to the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, who is an accountant and a lot better at it than I am. I suggest that, if the noble Lords present cannot get their heads around it or are wondering, it needs laying out somewhere for clarity, ideally in legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Noakes]

20: Clause 4, page 3, line 15, at end insert—
“(2A) In section 4 (special resolution objectives), at the end of subsection (9) insert— “(9A) Objective 8, which applies in any case in which the Bank of England uses the power in section 214E of the Financial Services and Markets Act (recapitalisation payments), is to ensure that the costs which are born through the Financial Services Compensation Scheme do not exceed those which would have been born if the bank insolvency procedure had been used.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment adds to the special resolution objectives so that the Bank of England has to consider the net costs recouped via the FSCS if it uses the recapitalisation power with the counterfactual of the use of the bank insolvency procedure.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, this amendment would insert a new special resolution objective into Section 4 of the Banking Act 2009. That objective is to ensure that the costs of using the recapitalisation payment power, thus loading costs on to the banking sector and in due course on to its customers, are not more than if the bank insolvency procedure had been used.

The special resolution objectives in Section 4 are not absolute requirements. The Bank has to have regard to them when using the resolution and related powers under the 2009 Act. There are seven existing objectives, and I am simply adding one more “have regard” for use only when the bank recapitalisation payment power is used. Section 4(10) states:

“The order in which the objectives are listed in this section is not significant; they are to be balanced as appropriate in each case”.


Thus, I am not trying to impose a requirement which trumps everything else in the special resolution regime. I regard this amendment as quite modest.

Two strands of analysis underlie my tabling of this amendment. The first is that the code of practice is clear that the bank insolvency procedure is the default option, unless there are public interest considerations that outweigh the important market discipline of failure. I am not sure we have seen in practice the use of the default option, but it ought to remain the core option for smaller banks in particular, which the Government insist are the main target of this new power.

The second concern was expressed during the consultation on this Bill—that there ought to be something akin to the “no creditor worse off” provisions of the Banking Act 2009. These provisions ensure that creditors are not disadvantaged by the use of one of the resolution tools compared with the option of insolvency. I am trying to ensure that the banking sector, which is footing the bill via the recapitalisation payment, should not be worse off than if the failed bank had been put through the insolvency process, resulting in the banking sector picking up the costs of reimbursing protected depositors.

I completely accept that there are difficulties in making this an absolute rule, because the Bank of England may well prioritise other matters, such as the continuity of banking services for critical functions. That is why I have drafted this amendment as an additional objective rather than an absolute rule. However, its inclusion in the 2009 Act would ensure that the Bank was especially mindful of the costs that would fall on the banking sector when using the bank recapitalisation power. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My Lords, the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, seeks to introduce a new objective into the special resolution regime. The new objective would state that the costs in using the new mechanism should not exceed those that would be incurred in the counterfactual of placing the firm into insolvency. This amendment therefore touches on an important point raised both in consultation and during Second Reading, which is whether there should be a formal test or objective that seeks to prevent the use of the new mechanism, or make its use significantly more challenging, where the cost is higher than insolvency.

I also note that the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, raised similar points on the first day of Committee, which he alluded to today, making the case that the Bank of England should be required to present an assessment of costs in reports to the Treasury and to Parliament.

The Government carefully considered the case for inclusion of various forms of such a safeguard, sometimes referred to as a least-cost test, in response to feedback received during the consultation. In considering this matter, it is important to strike the right balance between ensuring that the Bank of England can respond quickly and flexibly to a firm failure and ensuring that costs to industry are properly considered. Having considered this, the Government concluded that the existing public interest test and special resolution regime objectives remained the appropriate framework for deciding whether the mechanism in this Bill could be used.

Adding a specific objective for the Bank of England to ensure that the costs to industry from using the new mechanism do not exceed insolvency could prevent it taking the most appropriate action to advance its broader resolution objectives. Those objectives include protecting financial stability, certain depositors and public funds. It is right that these aims are prioritised at a time of significant risk, which is part of the reason why the Government have not proposed changes to the broader resolution framework.

There is also the potential for such a change to impose important practical challenges. Resolution would likely take place in an uncertain and fast-paced context. Estimating the costs of different approaches during this period will be highly challenging and could change over time. There is therefore a risk that such an objective could create legal uncertainty around any resolution action, which in turn may undermine the usability and effectiveness of the new mechanism in situations where it is justified. This could have significant and undesirable consequences, including crystallising a set of indirect costs for the financial services sector and the wider economy. Further, it should be borne in mind that the alternative if the new mechanism is not available may be to use public funds.

However, I appreciate the intent behind the noble Baroness’s amendment and hope that I can provide some reassurance by reiterating previous points on the subject of the scrutiny and transparency of the Bank of England’s actions. As I have noted, the Bank of England is required under the Banking Act 2009 to report to the Treasury when exercising some of its stabilisation powers and, as was set out in response to the consultation, it is the Government’s clear intention to use these existing reporting mechanisms to ensure that the Bank of England is subject to appropriate scrutiny when using the mechanism provided by the Bill. However, I take the point that the noble Baroness made in response to my earlier point.

The Government have committed to updating the code of practice to provide further details on how these reporting requirements will apply when the mechanism is used. I reaffirm that the Government intend to include confirmation in the code that, after the new mechanism has been used, the Bank of England would be required to disclose the estimated costs to industry of the options considered, including the comparison with insolvency. The Government consider that using the code of practice in this way, rather than putting these requirements in the Bill, is the best approach to hold the Bank of England to account for its actions.

The Bank of England is legally required to have regard to the code and the Government are required to consult the Banking Liaison Panel, made up of regulatory and industry stakeholders, when updating it. Using the code will therefore ensure that a full and thorough consultation is taken on the approach. Given the complex and potentially fast-moving nature of bank failures, this will also ensure that any approach is sufficiently nuanced to account for the range of possible outcomes under insolvency or through the use of other resolution tools.

As I have previously said, the Government will share drafts of the updates to the code of practice as soon as practicable and provide sufficient opportunity for industry stakeholders to be consulted on them. The noble Baroness also made the case that insolvency should be a preferred strategy for small banks and I stress that this is the case. I hope that I have provided some helpful explanation to her of the Government’s position on this matter and respectfully ask that she withdraws her amendment.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for supporting the principle behind my amendment, even if they did not fully align with the mechanism that I have chosen. We have had a useful debate on the issues involved. The Minister’s response was clearly helpful and I want to consider it carefully.

The Minister talked about things being very fast-paced, which I completely accept. Nevertheless, the Bank has to make a decision on the best information that it has. I am trying to build only on what it should be doing anyway, even though that is difficult to do when things are moving very fast.

Let me reflect on what the Minister said. It may come back to the issues which I am going to discuss in the next amendment, which are about the code of practice and needing to see what is likely to be said in that. I will shut up at this point and save my powder until the next group. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 20 withdrawn.

Moved by

[Baroness Noakes]

21: Clause 4, page 3, line 15, at end insert—
“(2A) In section 5 (code of practice), at the end of subsection (1) insert “and—(iv) the bank recapitalisation power under section 214E of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Treasury to include the use of the recapitalisation power created in this Bill in the Code of Practice issued in respect of the special resolution regime.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

Amendment 21 would amend the Banking Act 2009 so that the code of practice, which has to be issued for various aspects of the special resolution regime, must cover the use of the bank recapitalisation payment power being created by the Bill.

My reading of Section 5 of the 2009 Act is that it would not require the Treasury to cover the use of the recapitalisation payment power in the code of practice. Although I am aware that the Treasury says that it intends to update the code of practice—the Minister repeated that again, a few minutes ago—it should be put beyond doubt in the Bill that it is one aspect of the resolution regime, as a result of the Bill, that should be covered in the code of practice. It should not be optional now or at any point in the future.

We debated the code of practice a little in our first Committee day, and we do not yet have any idea of when the revision to the code will appear. Can the Minister assure the Committee that it will be reissued before the Bill comes into force? The Treasury has control of that because it has control of the regulations bringing the Bill into force, and it clearly is important that there is a revised code of practice covering the use of the recapitalisation of payments available at the same time.

The Minister would not give any specific timing for the updated code or the consultation on it when he responded last week. He repeated that a few minutes ago. Last week, I specifically asked him whether the draft updates, which he had said to my noble friend Lady Penn would be provided, would be available ahead of Report. On checking Hansard, I found that he had sidestepped that question. I hope that he will answer it today because, if he cannot commit to sharing draft updates before Report, it puts the House in a difficult position when it comes to that stage of the Bill.

Turning from timing to topics, can the Minister outline which topics are likely to be addressed in any updates?

In our first Committee day, when we debated the first group of amendments which sought in various ways to constrain the scope of the bank recapitalisation payment power to small banks or those on the glide path into the MREL regime, the Minister said:

“I appreciate noble Lords’ concerns about this issue and am happy to commit to exploring how to provide further reassurance on the Government’s intent via the code of practice”.—[Official Report, 5/9/24; col. GC 11.]


I found that rather alarming, as it implied that it was not the Government’s current intention to include something about the key target of the bank recapitalisation payment power being small banks. However, that is exactly how the power in the Bill has been marketed—a power to deal with the insolvency of small banks or the failure of small banks. I would have expected the code to set out where the Government expect the new power to be used, especially as the power has been drawn so very broadly.

Our second group of amendments on the first Committee day concerned the extremely wide definition of costs which can be covered under the bank recapitalisation power. The Minister said that it was important that the Bill was “not overly prescriptive”; that might have been an opportunity for him to say that the issues would be covered in a code of practice, but he did not do so. Does that mean that the code of practice will be silent on the important issues surrounding this very wide ability to charge practically any cost under the recapitalisation heading? That may be important to those of us who think that the current formulation of the Bill goes too far.

When we discussed double dipping into the FSCS last week, I asked the Minister whether the code of practice would cover the use of the power more than once for the same institution. This would also cover the need to reconsider the resolution strategy of not using the banking insolvency procedure before using the power a second or subsequent time. When I asked the Minister if that would be covered in the code of practice, he said:

“We can certainly take that away and look”.—[Official Report, 5/9/24; col. GC 25.]


at it. In other words that, too, was not in the plans for updating the code of practice. The only definitive reference to the content of the updated code of practice that the Minister made last week—he made it again in the previous group today—was in relation to the reporting requirements, where he said that the bank

“would be required to disclose the estimated costs”.—[Official Report, 5/9/24; col. GC 47.]

involved in using the power.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My Lords, I should state at the outset that the Government have no objections to the principle under discussion. Indeed, the Government have already stated publicly in our response to the consultation on these proposals that we intend to update the code of practice to reflect the measures in the Bill. I have already committed to share a draft of the proposed updates at the earliest opportunity, and I am happy to reaffirm that commitment today. I am aware that this is not the answer that the Committee is looking for, but I am afraid that I cannot commit to providing that before Report. However, I expect it to be available before the Bill comes into force.

As set out in the Government’s consultation response, the updates to the code will do three things: first, they will ensure that the code appropriately reflects the existence of the new mechanism; secondly, they will set out that the Bank is expected to set out estimates of the costs of the options considered and, as noted elsewhere, this is expected to include the case of insolvency; and thirdly, they will set out the expectation that any use of the mechanism is subject to the ex post scrutiny arrangements that I have described elsewhere.

The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, perfectly fairly asked for a series of clarifications of what the code will include. She asked about two points specifically. The first was whether the code will confirm the mechanisms intended for small banks and the expenses covered? Yes, it is the intention that it will. She also asked whether the code will cover multiple uses of the mechanism. Yes, the code will cover that. I will answer other specific questions in writing.

In preparing these updates, the Government are mindful to ensure that they are done efficiently and carefully to ensure that they achieve the intended effect within the wider resolution framework, for instance, ensuring that the right set of costs is considered on the appropriate basis.

The Government will ensure sufficient opportunity for industry stakeholders to be consulted on these proposed updates to the code of practice. In particular, the final wording of any proposed updates would be subject to review by a cross-section of representatives from the authorities and the industry on the statutory Banking Liaison Panel, which advises the Treasury on the resolution regime. As noted, the Government will aim to progress these updates and make the proposed changes available for consultation with industry as soon as practicable.

Finally, I note that the Banking Act 2009 already imposes an implicit requirement on HM Treasury to update the code of practice, even without this amendment. Addressing the operation of the new mechanism would therefore already fall within the scope of this requirement.

I know that this explanation may not be sufficient, but I respectfully ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

The Minister just referred to an “implicit requirement” in the Act. Does he believe that Section 5 can be interpreted only as requiring the code of practice to include matters relating to the bank recapitalisation power? That would be extraordinary because nobody knew about the bank recapitalisation power when the 2009 Act was drafted, so under the principles of ordinary interpretation, it would not be included.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I will write to the noble Baroness on that.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

I thank noble Lords for taking part in this short debate. There were three parts. First, Section 5 of the 2009 Act needs to mention the bank recapitalisation power, which is what the amendment does. The Minister is going to write on that.

We moved on to issues with the content and timing of the code. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, that we all understand that the Bank needs powers to act as quickly as possible. Nobody is trying seriously to harm that. Taking what the noble Lord said to its logical conclusion, the statute would say just that the Bank of England can do whatever necessary when it comes to situations of bank failure—full stop. We would not have the many pages of the 2009 Act and all the complicated, mind-blowing arrangements that exist, holding companies and everything like that. We would not need that because we could just say that it could do everything. It is overstating the case to say that trying to write codes of practice would hold the Bank up in doing its duty when things go wrong.

What the Minister said on content is a helpful move forward from where we were. We may want to explore that a bit further on Report. However, timing is a concern, as we will not have further clarity by the time we reach Report. The only useful thing he has said is that they expect to reissue the code of practice prior to this Bill coming into force. I suggest that it would be pretty negligent not to update it before bringing the Bill into force.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)]

I am afraid that I will have to spend a little time on this, although we will still close well before time. We are in a slightly new world. The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, referred to how—although he did not say it like this—once upon a time, when there were problems, you left it to the Bank of England to do the right thing. By and large it did, within the state of knowledge of that time.

However, banking and the way that we deal with resolutions have moved on a long way since then. We are moving further with this small but significant Bill, using the funds of other banks to give to a bank that has failed. Beyond the public interest of depositor guarantees, which in their day were a new thing, we are using private money for what would in the past have been done with public money. That is a different place. Just as with insolvency, you put in the right safeguards about priority orders and so on, we need to put in priority orders for how that money is properly used.

Turning to my amendment, I will have to delve into realms where words have taken on different meanings over time. “Recapitalisation” now seems to incorporate bits of resolution; it does not just mean “putting capital in”. I used that sense of it in my amendment but I will carry the Committee through it as best I can.

The purpose of this amendment is to probe further whether the language used in the Bill, which ends up meaning “reducing the shortfall”, is too broad and therefore allows the FSCS funds to be used not only as new capital for the ongoing bank but to reduce the write-down of other capital instruments and correspondingly increase the amount that would otherwise have been taken from the Financial Services Compensation Scheme above the level that would have been needed if those other capital instruments were fully written down, as is the present presumption under the Banking Act 2009 and everything that feeds into it.

When I wrote the amendment, I was thinking of the ordinary meaning of recapitalisation—replacing capital—and not covering write-down manoeuvrings. So, please think about it as if I had said that and at the end it said: “and without reducing write-down of loss-absorbing capital instruments or shareholdings”, or some such wording. That was the intention of the amendment; if I go around the loop again, I will have a better shot at it.

Overall, I now come to the thought that my previous Amendment 22, which just deleted this, was probably a better option and a good thing for a variety of reasons. We need to avoid capture by the dubious “shortfall” wording from the Banking Act 2009 and the EU BRRD. The things that feed into shortfall are now synonymous with the things that are called MREL but they are looking at it from different ends. If we are going to tie back to the BRRD, I remind noble Lords that the shortfall is the sum of write-down of eligible liabilities to zero—that is what it says under Article 47.3(b)—plus the recapitalisation amount under Article 47.3(c). In essence, I am saying that the FSCS should be used only for amounts under Article 47.3(c)—that is the recapitalisation, which is what I am trying to capture—and that it cannot be used ahead of the writing down to zero of what is in Article 47.3(b). However, the trouble is that we are dealing in this world now where different things have been put in a pot, this time called the shortfall, linked by “and”, and we have no idea which bit we are allowing to be changed.

If we look at the broader picture of trying to cover banks with MREL, that is where it starts to get messy. It was quite simple if we just did it for the smaller banks, and we did not have to worry about things that were supposed to be written down to zero not being written down to zero again. It seems that that is exactly what the Explanatory Notes are telling us—I will quote from my copy to keep myself on track. They say that Clause 4(3)

“amends section 12AA”,

which goes back to the things I have just talked about,

“to allow the Bank to take into account the funds provided by the FSCS when they are calculating the contribution of shareholders”—

that is what it says at paragraph 26—

“and creditors required when exercising the bail-in write-down tool. This is to ensure that the Bank is not required to write-down more capital than necessary”.

However, as I read the law when it came from BRRD in the Banking Act 2009, you have to write down to zero unless you have so much that you get there before you have written it down to zero, and then you should not be going fishing in any other ponds anyway. So, there is some inconsistency or there is a hidden agenda.

There are some things in the insolvency stack that are worthy of rescue, as was the Silicon Valley Bank reasoning—such as uninsured deposits—but not things in that loss-absorption stack, especially not shareholders, because they are right at the top. Otherwise, what is the point of all the expense and effort that we go to to provide MREL, which is further on down, if we are then not going to use it? I really cannot understand what is meant to be going on by adding in this reference to the shortfall. I tried to amend it to say that it should not do bad things, in effect, but I think that we are a lot better off without it.

I then went back and looked at the response the Minister gave me when I raised this on the first day in Committee. He said:

“The noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, asked whether the Bank of England should reduce MREL requirements in the knowledge that it could instead use FSCS funds. The Bank of England sets MREL requirements independently of government but within a framework set out in legislation … The Bank of England will consider, in the light of this Bill and wider developments, whether any changes to its approach to MREL would be appropriate”.—[Official Report, 5/9/24; col. GC 11.]


The Minister was answering a question that I did not ask, but it is an interesting response, which the larger banks should get quite excited about. Is a quid pro quo for chipping in through the FSCS that you end up having less MREL? What an interesting suggestion. I can read what was said that way. According to that interpretation, reading through what is in the Bill, it is perfectly open that you could then not write down to zero things that appear under article 47.3(b) of the BRRD.

I can skip a lot of the other things that I was going to say but, to summarise, if the Explanatory Notes are correct, the intention is to use the FSCS to reduce the amount of write-down for shareholders or other loss-absorbing capital instruments. That is almost going backwards to the days that the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, was perhaps recollecting of the Bank basically choosing who it should favour in the capital and liability stack. That seems to be the power we are giving it. If we are returning to something like that, it should be done in the context of a proper review of the Banking Act 2009, not in a kiss-me-quick Bill like this one, which was sold to us as being rather more about saving uninsured deposits, not saving sophisticated investors who have enjoyed good returns from bail-inable bonds or who are at the top of the stack and are the shareholders in the failing bank.

The FSCS cannot just be a pot for general usage; it has to be targeted. I tried to amend it with this amendment, but I am now coming to the conclusion that linking back to shortfall has no place in this Bill because it introduces too many ambiguities. I beg to move.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I will be brief. The noble Baroness raises some important issues in her amendment. I think the Minister confirmed earlier that shareholders would disappear because the Bank of England would take over their share capital, so they could not benefit from the use of the recapitalisation, but if there is any suggestion that the recapitalisation amount will excuse the bail in of some of the bail-inable liabilities, that would be pretty unacceptable. I hope that the worked examples that I hope the Treasury will enjoy working on while we are on Recess can illuminate how all this is going to work.

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

My Lords, I find my head spinning a little about some of this. It comes back to the confusion about how the various flows here work, so that worked example is becoming more and more crucial. I come back to the principle that I raised before: recapitalisation by the industry should not bail out those who should be at risk in the case of a failure. MREL capital et cetera must surely be used up first before we take recourse to the industry. It is similar to, but slightly different from, the point we made in Amendment 17 that, again, people who are creditors of the failing bank should not be bailed out by the recapitalisation in the event that it all goes wrong. It seems rather confused, so I look forward to the worked example, and I wish the Minister good luck with getting something that covers all the aspects.

Budget Responsibility Bill

Baroness Noakes Excerpts

2nd reading & Committee negatived & 3rd reading
Monday 9th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I have a number of regrets about the Bill. My first regret is that it is a money Bill. It is customary that this House does not challenge the decision of the Speaker in the other place, and I will not do so. It is not, however, a Bill that has any direct fiscal impact, but it makes changes to a body that has become an integral part of the country’s economic management. I believe the Bill would have benefited from a normal Committee, where we could have scrutinised it in detail. For example, noble Lords might recall that when income tax was first introduced in 1799, it was labelled a temporary tax, which raises interesting questions about this Bill’s exclusion of temporary measures from the OBR’s new powers.

Secondly, I regret that the Government have not taken the opportunity to ensure that the OBR’s forecasting is fit for purpose. My noble friend Lord Altrincham raised several of the issues here. On its own internal assessment, the OBR is not particularly good at forecasting. It claims, with no sense of irony, that its performance is in line with that of the Bank of England. The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, from whom we have just heard, pointed out in his speech on the gracious Speech in July that the OBR was set up to reinforce austerity and is ill-suited to underpin the Government’s growth ambitions. In the same debate, I argued a similar point: the OBR does not use dynamic modelling, so growth measures will struggle for a full evaluation in the OBR’s calculations. These areas would have been a better target for the Government’s reforming zeal.

Thirdly, I regret that the Bill does not ensure that the OBR operates to high standards of governance. I cannot think of another public sector body which has an executive chairman and does not have a majority of non-executive directors. Like most independent quangos, its external accountability arrangements are weak. It is quite simply dangerous to allow a public body, which can exert great influence on the Government’s fiscal policies, to exist with weak internal governance alongside weak external accountability.

Lastly, I regret that the Government have used this Bill to peddle untruths for political purposes. At Second Reading in the other place, the Chief Secretary said:

“The country cannot afford a repeat of the calamitous mini-Budget of September 2022, when Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng’s reckless plans unleashed economic turmoil that has loaded hundreds of pounds on to people’s mortgages and rents”.—[Official Report, Commons, 30/7/24; col. 1211.]


The Minister repeated the substance of that in his opening remarks. The fact is that interest rates were already on the way up in the fight against inflation, and they remain high for the same reason. They did spike immediately after the mini-Budget, but the Bank of England’s own internal analysis shows that two-thirds of the 103 basis points spike in the 16 days after the mini-Budget was due to the Bank’s own mismanagement of the risks inherent in LDI strategies. Furthermore, the Bank had already unsettled financial markets by failing to raise interest rates in line with the US and with market expectations. It does not reflect well on either of the Chancellors who succeeded Kwasi Kwarteng that they have turned a blind eye to these truths.

It was political opportunism that led to the creation of the OBR, and it is the same motivation driving this Bill. This is a poor foundation for legislation.

Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Bill [HL]

Baroness Noakes Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 5th September 2024 Grand Committee

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)]

My Lords, I am pleased to open the Committee stage of this Bill. I expect this to be the only longish speech that I will make, so noble Lords should not worry about getting six of this length.

I have two amendments in this group but, first, for the benefit of anybody following these discussions either now or later, I shall mention the scope issue that has reared its head for several noble Lords in trying to formulate amendments. The Long Title, which defines scope, is:

“A Bill to make provision about recapitalisation costs in relation to the special resolution regime under the Banking Act 2009”.


The Bill’s provisions have effects that reach into resolution decisions, bail-in and capital structures, but various amendments’ attempts to take that into account in other relevant ways have been ruled out of scope. Indeed, in the light of this amendment-drafting experience, I wonder whether all the bits of the Bill pass the scope test; that may become clearer as we work through the amendments, in particular my Amendment 22 in this group and Amendment 23 in the final group.

I turn to my Amendment 1 and the similar amendments in the rest of the group. They have a common theme: making sure that the provisions really are limited in application to small or smaller banks, which is what we have been told they are about following on from the actions taken for Silicon Valley Bank. However, there is no such small bank limitation in the Bill. Clearly, the question arises: how small is “small or smaller”? Like other noble Lords, I have taken the view that the only clear distinction is for non-systemic banks—that is, those required to hold MREL, bail-in bonds or whatever you wish to call them, which represent the only regulatory division we have.

Of course, as raised by me and others at Second Reading, we then have the issue that the PRA has extended the MREL requirements far lower down the bank size range than systemic banks, well into the “smaller bank” range. This may well be the reason that there is no differentiation in the Bill: so that, in theory, the Bill applies to any bank and everything rests on the Bank of England’s decision. It seems that the majority of us here disagree with that and think that it should be limited by a defined measure; the obvious one is the level at which MREL is required. If the PRA causes the resolution provisions to be impeded by its MREL choices, that will be something for it and the Bank of England to consider and live with.

My Amendment 1 has another little tweak, in which I suggest that the cutoff is linked to the index-linked value of the net assets at which MREL was originally set in 2016: £15 billion. In numbers, that would mean the size now would be £22 billion if it were index linked, not £15 billion, and it would not continue to dwindle, relatively speaking, as is happening with the PRA MREL threshold. My amendment therefore overlaps with regimes that can do bail-in, although my real hope, as I have already suggested, is to make the PRA see that, for various good reasons, it should increase the MREL threshold at least by indexation, and ideally to the level where it applies only to banks that have full capital market access, so that bail-in instruments are not disproportionately expensive for them. However, if we want to coalesce around MREL as the dividing line, I am not going to rock the boat. Indeed, I tabled an amendment to that effect, but it got lost somewhere. I think the Bill Office thought that my other amendment was an amendment to my amendment.

I turn to my Amendment 22. This deletes Clause 4(3), which is not needed in the event that there is limitation to application only to non-MREL banks. I will explain how I came to that conclusion. The subsection references Section 12AA of the Banking Act 2009, which in turn references Article 47.3(b) and (c) of the EU’s Resolution and Recovery directive. Most compliance with EU directives has been put into the 2009 Act.

I happen to think, especially nowadays, that it would be much better to say more clearly what we actually meant in Clause 4(3) than to have to pedal all the way back to a European directive. I have another amendment on it, Amendment 23, right at the end of our considerations next week. I will let noble Lords know what it is all about. Article 47.3(b) of BRRD is the amount by which the authorities assess that common equity tier 1 items must be reduced to the relevant capital instruments written down or converted, pursuant to Article 61. The latter gives the order of writing down priority. Article 47.3(c) is the aggregate amount assessed by the resolution authority, pursuant to Article 46. To save noble Lords the misery of me reading out Article 46, it is the sum of write-down and recapitalisation.

To cut this long story short, the subsection refers to things that happen only when you are in a bail-in situation. So, if we limit it to non-MREL banks, it would seem to be superfluous, because there cannot be any bail-in as they are not required to hold MREL. Of course, if we use my Amendment 1 with the index threshold of MREL, we might need it or need to rewrite it.

However, thinking about it further, I also query whether this subsection is properly in scope as it seems to relate to changing bail-in requirements and not to recapitalisation. That is made clear in the Explanatory Notes, which state that Clause 4(3) basically amends the bail-in sequence and conversion of capital instruments to allow adjustment to the contribution of shareholders and creditors when exercising the bail-in write-down tool. We should bear in mind that there are other parts of legislation that tell you the sequence in which you must do one, and how you exhaust the first before you move on to the next, and all those kinds of measures.

The end result that it has a knock-on effect of increasing recapitalisation costs that are then to be met by the FSCS. As I said, that seems to depart from what I envisaged was the purpose of the Bill. I did not have in my mind that it was about levying banks to help rescue shareholders or bail-in bond holders of another bank. I understood that it would be more like the Silicon Valley Bank rescue, where the point would be to rescue unprotected depositors.

Overall, we can do without this clause in all circumstances and I wait to hear the Minister’s explanation. It would be useful, before we get to Report, if we could have some kind of laid-out worked examples of where this might come in and what might happen. I understand why the Government wish for flexibility but it is a flexibility that goes way beyond what I have understood to be the intents of the Bill. I beg to move.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I have Amendment 5 in this group, to which I will speak. I regret that I was unable to take part at Second Reading in July, but I have read the Hansard report of the debate and I can see that there is a lot of common ground on the Bill between those of us not on the Government Benches.

As this is the first time that I have spoken in Committee, I draw attention to my interests as recorded in the register of interests, in particular that I hold shares in banks which, under the terms of the Bill, will end up footing the bill if the bank recapitalisation power is used.

My Amendment 5 is slightly different from Amendment 1 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, and slightly different from Amendments 8, 10, 12 and 18 in the names of other noble Lords. Those amendments basically seek to confine the use of this power to small banks—typically using MREL as the deciding point. Mine does not rule out using the power for larger banks but instead inserts the requirement for Treasury consent.

The Government clearly sold this legislation, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, explained, as being about smaller banks, referring to it as being a better route for a better outcome compared to using the bank insolvency procedure, which is the current default assumption for smaller banks. As is often the case with legislation, however, the stated aim then gets converted into a very broad power. This power is so broad that if the RBS failure happened again it could cover the recapitalisation of RBS, which, I remind noble Lords, cost £45.5 billion in 2008. The Bank would have that power with nothing in the Bill to prevent it.

There is a constraint on the amount of annual FSCS payments set by the PRA, which I think is £1.5 billion a year, but that can be changed by the PRA at any time, and the PRA is not, of course, independent of the Bank of England; it is fully part of it.

I am not surprised that the Treasury does not want to narrow the drafting of the Bill to cover only those banks that do not have MREL. The Government have themselves talked about wanting to cover the case where MREL has been set but the banks are on a glide path and have not yet achieved the full amount of their MREL. It seems reasonable for the power to be used in those circumstances, but the Government have not even offered to amend the Bill to confine it in that way.

I broadly accept that there may be a good case for using recapitalisation schemes beyond non-MREL banks or those that have not yet raised their full amount of MREL, because it is genuinely difficult to predict circumstances where such a power would be extremely useful. However, when the Government draft broad and unconstrained powers, they have a duty to put checks and balances in place, and there are none in the Bill. If they do not put checks and balances in place, we must take that on as part of our duties in scrutinising legislation. My amendment has opted for Treasury consent, but there could well be better ways of putting guard rails in place. Treasury consent is not an onerous requirement when the Bank of England is handling a potential bank failure. It inevitably works closely with the Treasury; the Treasury has to be consulted whenever a stabilisation power is used, and we should be in no doubt that when, for example, SVB UK was in trouble, the Treasury was intimately involved in the arrangements to deal with HSBC very rapidly. Therefore, obtaining Treasury consent need not cause a delay or any other real problems.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I will write to the noble Baroness on that point.

I turn finally to Amendment 22 in this group, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, which concerns the use of the bail-in resolution tool. Section 12AA of the Banking Act 2009 sets out the principles by which the Bank of England calculates the shortfall amount when the bail-in tool is used and, as a consequence of that calculation, how much of a failed firm’s resources needs to be bailed in. The addition to Section 12AA in Clause 4, which this amendment seeks to prevent, ensures that any available funds from the Financial Services Compensation Scheme via the new mechanism could be taken into account when calculating the shortfall amount and, as a consequence, how much of a firm’s resources would need to be bailed in when the new mechanism is used alongside the bail-in tool.

This change to Section 12AA is important as there are some circumstances where bail-in may be the preferred tool for the Bank of England to use as a precursor to transfer of the firm to a bridge bank or private sector purchaser, even if the bank is small. This is because the bail-in tool permits the writing down of subordinated debt or other liabilities, to which mandatory reduction under the bridge bank or private sector purchaser tools does not apply. There may be circumstances in which it is appropriate to write down the subordinated debt or other liabilities of a small bank. The intention is therefore for the bail-in tool to be available alongside use of the new mechanism.

In such circumstances, this amendment would preclude the Bank of England, when calculating the shortfall amount, from being able to take into account any funds that were available from the Financial Services Compensation Scheme under the new mechanism. As a consequence, when determining how much of the firm’s subordinated debt and other liabilities should be bailed in, the Bank of England would be obliged not to factor in those external funds and would have to write down more of the firm’s resources than it needed to. In certain circumstances this would be undesirable and could undermine the wider goals of a resolution process. The noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, and the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, suggested worked examples. We will of course take that idea away for further consideration ahead of Report.

I hope that these explanations have been helpful and that I have provided some reassurance on these points. I will of course write where I have indicated that I will do so. In the circumstances, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, before the noble Baroness decides what to do with her lead amendment, I will raise two points. The first is that the noble Lord referred fairly briefly to the code of practice. Could he explain, first, how he sees the code of practice being used for the issues that we have identified in this group of amendments? Secondly, will he update the Committee on when we expect to see a revision to the code of practice? At Second Reading, my noble friend Lady Penn asked whether she could have sight of the draft updates. The noble Lord responded very positively to that, but clearly no draft updates have yet appeared. My additional question is: are we likely to get those draft updates? Clearly they have not arrived before Committee; will we get them ahead of Report? Seeing codes of practice, or updates of codes of practice, helps us to understand exactly what the Government are doing.

The second point I wish to address is a mechanical one. The noble Lord has already said he will write on a number of things; I expect he will say that quite a lot as we go through Committee. It would be very helpful if those letters were copied to all the Members who are taking part in Committee, or that the mechanism of “will write” letters on the publications page of the Parliament website is used promptly so that all noble Lords who have an interest in the areas get an opportunity to see the correspondence.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

On the noble Baroness’s first point, we are committed to updating the code of conduct, to doing so swiftly and to consulting with industry thoroughly on it. I cannot give her a timescale today. On the commitment to write letters, of course I will make sure those letters are copied to all noble Lords.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Noakes]

2: Clause 1, page 1, line 18, leave out lines 18 to 20
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment probes the nature of “other expenses” and the persons other than the Bank which could incur expenses.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 2 is a probing amendment. It would delete new Section 214E(2)(b) of FSMA. Under new subsection (2), a “recapitalisation payment” includes the cost of recapitalisation; that is at new paragraph (a). There is clearly no issue there because that is what the Bill is about. However, new paragraph (b) would allow the Bank to include

“any other expenses that the Bank or another person has incurred or might incur in connection with the recapitalisation of the institution or the exercise of the stabilisation power”.

This raises a number of questions.

First, who are these other persons who can incur expenditure in connection with the recapitalisation? The Government’s consultation referred to the Treasury, the Bank of England and a bridge bank. If that is the case, it seems that the paragraph ought to be confined to those persons, as I could not think of any other person who could make a case for receiving money under the auspices of the recapitalisation payments power.

Secondly, why is there not more precision about exactly which costs could be covered? Again, the response to the Treasury’s consultation gives the sorts of expenses that could be covered—legal fees, consultancy fees and the like—but is virtually silent on what should not be covered. The only example cited for what is not covered is the cost of preparing in parallel for an insolvency process, but that leaves a huge swathe of costs that could well be brought within the ambit of the recapitalisation payments. As drafted, it could certainly include many expenses that no one could reasonably label as being related to recapitalisation.

The Minister will be aware that UK Finance has expressed very real concerns that the banking sector will be left exposed to litigation or regulatory costs that emerge once a failed bank is in a bridge bank. In a bank insolvency procedure, such litigation or regulatory action would lead nowhere, as there would almost certainly not be any spare funds to cover any costs arising in that way. However, once the possibility of financing via the recapitalisation power arises, a new deep pocket appears, which could act as a magnet for litigation. Does this legislation mean that the banking sector is writing a blank cheque for whatever litigation emerges and which the Bank then chooses to engage in? Can there be any constraints on the Bank’s decision to fight or concede litigation? What are the incentives for the Bank to seek the optimal outcome, which may or may not be to concede a case in litigation? How is the banking sector to be protected in these circumstances?

Costs arising from regulatory action is even trickier. Let us assume that, following a small bank failure, the FCA decides to take regulatory action in relation to non-compliance with the consumer duty prior to the failure. As anybody who has been involved in one of the regulatory actions taken by the FCA, or indeed the PRA, will know, these are long, drawn-out and very expensive processes. Who should decide whether to fight regulatory action or concede and pay fines or redress? These could end up being funded by the recapitalisation payments. If the PRA were involved in regulatory action, rather than the FCA, how can the conflict of interest within the Bank be dealt with so that the costs falling on the banking sector are seen to be fair?

Lastly, new paragraph (b) allows the Bank to include costs that “might” be incurred. I completely understand why, when the recapitalisation calculations are made at the outset, that will involve an element of forecasting, because the formulation is not confined to, say, costs that are reasonably expected to be incurred. Instead, the Bank is allowed to include any costs that “might” be incurred, however improbable that might be. An overly conversative approach to working out what costs might be incurred will result in the banking sector bearing too much cost up front. It is not good enough to just say that, if there is a surplus left at the end of the day, it will be returned via the FSCS.

To sum up, the formulation in new subsection (2)(b) is simply too wide. As I said at the outset, this is a probing amendment and I shall listen carefully to what the Minister says, but my instinct is that new subsection (2) needs some guard-rails drafted into it. I beg to move.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)]

I only need to say briefly that I am in agreement with the noble Baroness. This is drafted too widely. Part of me thinks that some of this should be covered by the ordinary banking levy, and that the PRA and the Bank of England have to manage their budget, as anybody else would have to, in expectation of sometimes having adverse effects, rather than there being some bottomless pit, or pool, of money into which they always have access. The truth of the matter might need to be somewhere half way in between, but it is too open at the moment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, first, many thanks go to the noble Lords who supported my amendment. I thank the Minister for his response but, with the greatest respect, he did not go much beyond what is in the Treasury’s response to the consultation document. He reiterated that the Bank and the Treasury, or the Bank and its entities, are likely to be the ones that have their costs covered. I have no real problem with that—put it in the Bill.

Similarly, the Minister talked about the Bank needing to be reasonable but I am not sure that being reasonable about the kinds of expenses that could occur via litigation is going to satisfy the banking sector, which fears that judgments working significantly to its disadvantage are going to be made and that it will have no way of influencing those decisions. There is not even the kind of protection that you get in insolvency, where you get, for example, creditors’ committees that act as a constraint on what liquidators can do. So I do not think that the Minister has really given a proper response on how the sector, which is going to pick up the tab—ultimately borne, as my noble friend Lady Vere pointed out, by the customers of banks—can be satisfied about the judgments made about the huge range of costs that could emerge during the course of handling a failed bank using the recapitalisation power; and how those costs can be seen to be properly incurred and not acting against the interests of the banks.

The Minister also did not engage with the issue of whether, in estimating future costs, you should constrain the costs to those that are reasonably foreseen, which is a natural formulation in legislation. Frankly, “any costs that might be incurred” is too big a definition to be used reasonably. I think that that formulation needs to be used again.

I will read carefully what the Minister has said in Hansard but my instinct is that he has not added to anything that is already in existence via the Treasury’s response to the consultation. I suspect that we will want to return to this on Report but obviously, for now, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment 2 withdrawn.

Moved by

[Baroness Noakes]

3: Clause 1, page 1, line 20, at end insert—
“(2A) The Bank may not exercise the power in subsection (1) more than once in respect of the same financial institution without the consent of the Treasury.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Bank to obtain Treasury consent before it can require the FSCS to make a second (or subsequent) recapitalisation payment in respect of an individual bank.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, it is me again, I am afraid. That is the trouble with getting enthusiastic about amendments during recess—you pay for it when you get back.

Amendment 3 is a probing amendment to find out the Government’s approach to using the recapitalisation power on more than one occasion. The amendment uses the technique of requiring the Treasury’s consent to the use of the recapitalisation power more than once in respect of the same financial institutions. My purpose in this amendment is not to debate the formal involvement of the Treasury, as I will return to that broader topic in a later group. I am using the amendment as a technique to find out whether there are any constraints at all on the use of the recapitalisation power on multiple occasions.

When the Bank of England decides to use the recapitalisation power, it works out what sum of money it needs to put the bank in a position where it can be sold on. We discussed in our debate on the previous amendment the kinds of expense that can count as recapitalisation costs for the purposes of the power. My own view is that the Bank must try at the outset to reach as clear a view as possible on the amount of the whole that the recapitalisation payment is designed to fill because, if the Bank does not do that properly at the outset—making a good, honest assessment of what the total cost will be—it cannot reach a realistic judgment about whether to proceed with a bridge bank or to initiate an insolvency process.

So I find it disturbing that the drafting of new Section 214E seems to allow the Bank to double-dip into the FSCS without any other process or consideration. If the Bank runs out of recapitalisation cover, it probably means that it did its sums wrong in the first place or that additional facts have emerged, increasing the costs in ways that were not anticipated at the outset. In either event, that can call into question whether the initial decision to use the bridge bank instead of the bank insolvency procedure was the correct one. It may also raise the question of whether the bridge bank strategy should be continued or replaced with the bank insolvency procedure.

It also brings into question the nature of the additional hole in the finances of the failed bank, which is covered in part in the previous amendment. It may not be clear that the incentives are in the right place for the correct judgments to be made about whether any additional costs arising from regulatory action or litigation should be accepted or challenged. If the costs are down to PRA action, there are clear conflicts of interest involved.

I completely understand the need for flexibility in legislation. I hope that the Minister will also appreciate that the open-ended nature of the Bank’s powers in the use of the recapitalisation payment technique carries particular problems when a second or subsequent attempt is made to obtain a recapitalisation payment. I hope that the Minister can explain how the Government see this power being used, if it is to be used more than once, and whether—including to what extent—there are mechanisms in place to ensure that the way in which the Bank uses that power is fair to the banking sector.

The Bill makes the banking sector pick up the costs. The sector itself will probably have had no involvement whatever in the failure of a bank yet it has to pick up the tab, ultimately borne by its own customers; that is whenever the Bank decides to use the recapitalisation powers. So it is only fair and reasonable that there should be some checks and balances in return. I hope the Minister can reassure the Committee that there are checks and balances and that, when the Bank uses the power in what has to be quite an unusual situation—for example, it has got the sums wrong or something else has caused a requirement for more to be put in—it raises the need for additional safeguards in order to satisfy the banking sector that the costs that will be loaded on to it are reasonable.

I beg to move.

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

My Lords, I rise again briefly. The noble Baroness has made some really important points. Once again, I have attempted to deal with this as a reporting question in Amendment 12, which states that a report would be required each time a recapitalisation payment was made; that should stand anyway.

This can become quite significant if, for example, there is a situation where the Bank of England expects to be able to sell a bank immediately but that falls over and then goes into a bridge bank for two years—or, indeed, more—and picks up all those costs along the way. One can see a situation where you could have, for example, an annual payment covering the costs of the bank until the Bank eventually decides to put it into insolvency. The critical factor must be that, any time a recapitalisation payment is being considered, whether it is the first one or a subsequent one, the insolvency route is reconsidered at each point and this does not become an open-ended default drag on costs—but the reporting point, which we will come on to later, stands as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

Okay.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

I am not sure who the “it” was.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

The Bank.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

Okay. We understand that the Bank has to make these decisions. The issue is what there is to provide a check or balance on the Bank. That has not been addressed by the Minister.

I thank noble Lords who supported this amendment. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, that there has to be something that allows a proper judgment to be made if there is a second go. It is also important to consider at each stage whether the bank insolvency procedure should be the right route. It is not clear that that is written into the legislation. It appears not to be very transparent after the initial use of the powers. I think the Bank is required to consult the Treasury on the initial use of the powers, but it is not required to consult the Treasury on any subsequent use of the stabilisation powers or of the bank recapitalisation power itself. I think the Minister referred to the fact that there was a lot of contact between officials. I know that, but the issue is what is formally required.

The Minister’s response in respect of guarding the finances of the industry seemed to be that the PRA has to be consulted, but the PRA is not overinterested in the finances of individual institutions. Indeed, a big conflict of interest exists between the Bank of England and its component part of the PRA. The governor chairs both the Bank of England and the PRA and the deputy governor sits on the Court of the Bank of England. This is all very intertwined, so consulting the PRA does not provide a mechanism that gives comfort to the banking industry that its interests are being dealt with. This is another bit of unfinished business.

I have one question for the Minister: is any of this territory, such as using the mechanism more than once, likely to be covered in the code of practice?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

We can certainly take that away and look into doing so.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

That means you were not thinking about it, but you might think about it, so I will leave that for the time being.

I remain uncomfortable at the scale of the powers that the Bank has without any real practical constraints on how they are used. Given that we are using the banking industry to avoid amounts falling on taxpayers, which is reasonable and accepted by the industry up to a point, I think we need to make sure that it is protected in that, and I cannot see where the protections are.

I need to think about this further. I will certainly read what the Minister has said, but I suspect we will return to this in some way when we get to Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 3 withdrawn.

Moved by

[Baroness Noakes]

4: Clause 1, page 1, line 20, at end insert—
“(2A) The Bank may not exercise the power in subsection (1) in respect of a financial institution which meets the condition in subsection (2B) without the consent of the Treasury.(2B) The condition is that the financial institution is a subsidiary of a company based outside the United Kingdom.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Bank of England to obtain Treasury consent before it can require the FSCS to make a capitalisation payment in respect of a bank which is a subsidiary of an overseas body.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, this is another probing amendment. In this, I want to probe the circumstances in which the Treasury believes it would be appropriate for the UK banking industry to stump up for the recapitalisation of a foreign-owned bank. This amendment uses the technique of Treasury consent, as some of my other amendments do, but this is not what I am trying to talk about in this amendment. I am trying to probe the substance of using the recapitalisation power for the subsidiary of a foreign company.

Of course, I know that SVB UK was a foreign-owned bank and the simple answer to my question might be that this gives the Bank another way of avoiding what happened in that case: SVB was gifted to HSBC with the additional present of permanent exemptions from the ring-fencing regime. If we accept that we should avoid being held over a barrel by HSBC in future, this would be a good use of the power. So can the Minister say whether, if presented with the same facts as those relating to SVB UK, the Bank would have preferred to recapitalise SVB via a bridge bank and then sell it on a timescale consistent with achieving better value for money from the UK? The heavens are opening as we are discussing these important things.

More broadly, is it not the case that the Bank should satisfy itself that the foreign subsidiary banks are either adequately capitalised in their own right or parts of groups that are expected to be resolvable via bail-in-able capital, in line with international expectations? In general, the regulatory system for banks following a financial crash is designed to ensure that they hold capital or bail-in liabilities, which avoids the need for extraordinary support. When a UK bank subsidiary of a foreign company fails and requires money to keep it going, there has been at least a prima facie case that there has been some element of regulatory failure, either in the UK or elsewhere. There should not be an expectation that the failure of a foreign bank would impose costs on the UK banking sector—nor, indeed, the UK taxpayer, if that is the alternative.

It would be helpful if the Minister could explain in what circumstances the Government would consider it appropriate for the Bank to use the recapitalisation power in relation to foreign-owned banks and, perhaps more importantly, when the Government would not consider it appropriate to use the power. Can he also say whether any of this is likely to be covered in the code of practice? I beg to move.

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

My Lords, this weather sounds like the reason I ended up tabling a load of amendments in south-west Scotland: I had nothing better to do for a few days.

Again, the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, raises a really important point. I have tried to attack it in a different way in Amendment 16, where I look at the recovery of money from shareholders. I will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say. I had in mind the sort of scenario where a foreign company sets up a bank in the UK, it does not go very well and it decides just to walk away from it, having perhaps removed all the assets in the meantime. Clearly, it does not seem fair that the costs of sorting that out should fall on the industry or, indeed, the British taxpayer. It would be really interesting to understand how we can ensure that foreign shareholders behave properly and how, when it does go wrong, we can recoup the money from them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My Lords, in response to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, I hope I can provide some clarification on how the resolution regime operates currently with respect to subsidiaries of international banks, and therefore how the Government have approached the design of the new mechanism with respect to those banks.

One of the strengths of the UK’s banking sector is that a number of international banks seek to operate within the UK, including by setting up subsidiaries. These are often providers of critical banking services, such as current accounts, business accounts and sources of working capital to businesses. It is therefore important that a robust system of regulation is in place to ensure that such subsidiaries can operate safely within the UK. This includes ensuring that in the event of their failure they can be managed in an orderly way. The resolution regime does not currently make a distinction between domestic UK banks and subsidiaries of international banks in terms of which authority is responsible for taking resolution action in the UK. In all cases, this responsibility falls to the Bank of England, except where there are implications for public funds. The Government continue to believe this is appropriate.

While the failure of banks is rare, the most recent example, and the genesis of this Bill, was Silicon Valley Bank UK, itself a subsidiary of an international bank. The Government consider that there were two key lessons from that event. First, it is critical that the Bank of England has the flexibility to move decisively during a crisis. Secondly, it is important to introduce the new mechanism delivered by the Bill in those cases where there is not a willing buyer. The Government do not therefore believe that there is a strong justification for treating subsidiaries differently from domestic UK banks and requiring a further set of approvals. To do so would create additional obstacles to efficient resolution decisions, which recent experience suggests can be necessary.

The noble Baroness asked whether the Bank would have used the mechanism on SVB. I cannot comment on an individual case or decision that it may have taken, but the case showed the usefulness of the option of having a mechanism provided to the Bank.

The noble Baroness also asked whether this issue will be covered in the code. The code updates will cover a broad range of issues following the Bill’s passage. We will progress and publish that code swiftly.

The noble Baroness further asked whether a parent company should be able to support the failure of a subsidiary. While the parent company may be able to recapitalise its subsidiary outside of resolution, there may be circumstances where that is not possible, as was the case with SVB UK. It is important that the Bank of England has the necessary tools to deal with a failing firm regardless of its home jurisdiction. In practice, the mechanism uses the Bank of England’s transfer and writedown powers, so the parent company would suffer losses on its investment in a subsidiary.

I therefore respectfully ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

I thank noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I found what the Minister said very helpful. What the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, said, was also helpful, although I had understood that, where there are large groups, the group parent will be responsible for ensuring the capitalisation of the subsidiaries, in particular by holding MREL at the top level, but I may need to check my facts on that. I thought colleges of regulators would be working among themselves towards the health of the group overall, so I did not I think it was entirely located in the UK, but I will check that out.

What the Minister said is very helpful and I will reflect carefully on it. If the case is that there is no difference between a UK-owned and a foreign-owned bank, no issue arises. But if there are any differences in the way that a foreign-owned bank is treated in the UK, then that would be a case. I will go away and think about that further and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 4 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Noakes]

6: Clause 1, page 1, line 20, at end insert—
“(2A) The Bank may not exercise the power in subsection (1) without the consent of the Treasury.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Bank of England to obtain Treasury consent before it can require the FSCS to make a capitalisation payment.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

I rise to move Amendment 6. Noble Lords will be pleased to know that I get a bit of a break after this one.

This amendment would require the Bank of England to obtain Treasury consent before it uses the recapitalisation power. When I introduced my last two amendments, which contained a requirement for Treasury consent, I explained that they were a device to probe issues about the use of the recapitalisation payment power. In this amendment, my use of Treasury consent is not a probing device and I am focusing on the role of the Treasury in the broader context of accountability.

The Minister is a newcomer as far as the passage of financial services legislation in your Lordships’ House is concerned; some of us are older hands at it. When the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 went through this House, accountability was one of the key themes which was debated on and off throughout its passage. This amendment and a later amendment return to that theme of accountability.

The Bank of England has been given huge powers by successive Governments, which we debated at length in passing the 2023 Act, but, like many other bodies which have accumulated in the public sector, it has relatively weak accountability. The governor may need to turn up to the Treasury Select Committee for an uncomfortable couple of hours from time to time, but that is just about it. One great outcome from the 2023 Act has been the creation of the Financial Services Regulation Committee in your Lordships’ House, which is chaired by my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean and on which several noble Lords on this Committee sit. I hope that our new committee will add significantly to parliamentary scrutiny of financial services quangos, but neither House of Parliament has any real powers in relation to these public sector bodies that have been given very significant powers.

This problem is not confined to the Bank of England or to financial services. The Industry and Regulators Committee of your Lordships’ House produced a report earlier this year, Who Watches the Watchdogs?, which will be debated in this House next week. One of its findings was that regulators, as a particular kind of public sector body

“exercise substantial powers on behalf of Parliament and the public, but are not subject to the same forms of accountability as ministers; to quote one witness, ‘the people can replace their elected representatives, but they can’t vote out bad regulators’”.

That applies, mutatis mutandis, to many other forms of public sector body.

The report noted that there was a

“widespread perception … that regulators’ accountability to Parliament is insufficient”.

It went on to recommend that there should be a new independent statutory body to support Parliament in holding regulators to account. All of this will sound familiar to those of us who took part in debates on the 2023 financial services Bill, because my noble friend Lord Bridges of Headley tabled amendments trying to set up something similar for the main public sector bodies in financial services—the PRA, the Bank of England, the FCA and so on. I hardly ever support setting up new public sector bodies, so I did not support my noble friend last year, and I would not support the Industry and Regulators Committee’s recommendation either. It does not form an approach that I think is the right one, but I wholeheartedly agree with the analysis that accountability is a real issue for these public sector bodies.

By enjoining the Treasury in any decisions as to the use of the recapitalisation power, Parliament gains the additional ability to question Treasury Ministers about the use of the power and the circumstances that surround the use of it. At the moment, it is easy for the Treasury Minister to say, “Nothing to do with me; it’s all down to that lot up in Threadneedle Street”. We have had many frustrating exchanges with Treasury Ministers along these lines, including when SVB UK was given away to HSBC. Treasury consent would be an important enhancement of the process of parliamentary accountability.

As I said in the earlier group, I do not believe that getting Treasury consent is necessarily an onerous part of the process, but it would be a small price to pay for an increase in accountability, so I regard this as a modest addition to the framework created by the Bill. Obviously, I have drafted this in connection with a specific power in the Bill, but it is a principle which could be applied to many uses of significant powers by the Bank of England, the PRA and the FCA.

The use of the power by the Bank of England could be entirely straightforward, in which case it is unlikely to engage the interest of Parliament, but there are likely to be some cases where the use of the power is controversial or where there are questions to be asked about whether bank failure is associated with some form of regulatory failure. Parliament should be very much engaged in cases of this nature, and my amendment would provide the platform for such engagement.

I know that the Minister will be briefed by his officials to resist this amendment, and I am sure that it suits the Treasury to be able to operate behind the scenes with the Bank of England but in a largely deniable way. I appeal to the Minister’s instincts, which I am sure are sound, about the need for effective parliamentary accountability. I beg to move.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

My Lords, I am incredibly grateful for all the amendments from my noble friend Lady Noakes, but particularly this one. It gives the Committee the opportunity to consider the overarching balance of power and I think it is right that we start to do so—or continue to do so, as my noble friend pointed out.

I am the poacher turned gamekeeper. I am no longer a Treasury Minister. I have just spent many glorious months at the Treasury and prior to that I spent eight years as a Minister in government. I was in the Department for Transport for a long time and a Lords Whip, which many noble Lords will know puts one in touch with all sorts of government departments and various people giving you briefings and all sorts of things. One learns quite a lot about things and it is all very interesting. I am grateful for the opportunity to touch on the bigger picture, which my noble friend has allowed us to do.

The scrutiny and accountability of regulators is somewhat lacking. It was possibly the biggest surprise that I had as a Minister over the years. Having said that, each regulator is very different, and I have worked with a wide variety of them. Each wears the independence cloak in a different manner: some regulators, despite claiming independence, will actually work very closely with and listen to the Minister; other regulators, when I tried to ask them a question, literally slammed the door. It is really not on. Something needs to change.

It is entirely natural that operational decisions, based on a set of detailed regulations, should sit with regulators. Of course they should; that is unarguable. Ministers do not really have the time or the knowledge. They could do it, because they could have the knowledge as Ministers can be briefed, but they would not have the time to do it and it would gum up the system. That is fine. However, the balance between who takes the operational decisions and the broader operations of regulators is somewhat awry, in my view.

We have handed over a large amount of policy-development, policy-making, regulation-drafting, code of practice-drafting and consultation-issuing activities to regulators, over which Ministers have no insight. I know that officials from the Treasury will recall some issues that happened under the last Government fairly recently, when one of the regulators just took off on a path. I asked, “Why are you going down that path? That’s not a path you should be on. Come back”. They replied, “But we’re independent”.

How are we going to fix this? I have a niggling feeling that the Bill continues a trend to which I see no end. Fairly broad-brush powers are being given to a regulator or regulators that are then subject to interpretation and implementation. Often that interpretation and implementation cause the problems. There is mission creep. The regulators add another team of officials; the Minister never sees these officials and does not know what they do. They interpret the policy slightly differently, because they were not involved in its original development and so on. All this happens with little or no oversight.

I used to sit on the other side and would happily stand up to say—my goodness—the best thing that a Minister can say: “I’m sorry; I cannot comment on that. Regulators are independent”. It is really easy. The second thing I would say, if that did not wash, is that, “Ministers are accountable to Select Committees in Parliament”. Are they really? No, they are not really. I have appeared before Select Committees and it can be a bit uncomfortable for a while. They might ask you a couple of difficult questions, but it is not going to cause you to lose more than a couple of nights’ sleep.

Quite often, by the time you get to a Select Committee appearance by AN Other head of a regulator, it is too little, too late. The policies have already been devised, developed and put in place. The damage has already been done.

Furthermore, there seems to be no mechanism by which recommendations from these accountability sessions in Parliament are mandated for action by the relevant regulator. Many regulators can be told or asked by the Select Committee, “Please can you do X, Y and Z”, but they can basically take no insight from that at all.

I feel this quite personally, having recently lived through it, because throughout my time as a Minister I had the fear that if things go horribly wrong—sadly, sometimes they do—it is not the regulator that feels the heat. It is the Minister. One cannot go to the media and say, “The regulator is independent. I had nothing to do with it”. That does not wash with the public. Now that we have broken the connection between Ministers and regulators, we are in a very difficult situation. The Minister has no power—and that is why the fear exists—to make sure that things cannot go horribly wrong, even if they spot things that need to be improved.

This is but one amendment in a whole series. Yes, it was a useful device for getting amendments down for other elements for debate, but this is serious. My noble friend Lady Noakes is trying to take back control from the regulators and rebalance the system to enable Ministers to input at an appropriate point. She has a point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)]

I did not speak earlier because all the points I wanted to make were picked up, but there are two things on which I wish to comment. We have a change now in that, before, the Treasury would be more involved when the matter involved use of public funds; now, that has been transferred to the industry, so the Treasury is less involved and perhaps less concerned. Yet the Treasury remains the only possible constraint around and is far from perfect.

For the PRA and the FCA, there are plenty of powers to instigate reviews by government. The big mistake, apart from us not having proper oversight of regulators in general—there are various mistakes—is that those reviews have not been used a lot more often. They should be done almost on a rolling regular basis, not just when there has been a big disaster.

The other thing we have done differently is that we have made the central bank the resolution authority. Therefore, you cannot hold the central bank to account, because of its independence, in the same way that you could if you had constructed an independent resolution authority. That is, as you might suppose, the subject of a big debate that went on in Europe when I was ECON chair. There is an independent resolution authority there; it is not the central bank. That was one of the big considerations, because you cannot really hold a central bank to account. Ultimately, the sort of change that is envisaged in this Bill may move us further towards considering whether we need to do that.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part. The predictions made by my noble friend Lady Vere on the content of the noble Lord’s response were pretty accurate in places. The noble Lord has not really engaged with the weak accountability that exists. The noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, is absolutely right about the use of the Bank of England as the resolution authority and giving it all those powers with almost no constraints whatever, other than consultation. Whoever chose to do that back in 2009—whichever Government were in power then—did not set up the right accountability environment for the use of those powers to exist. Once you put something inside the Bank of England, it is very difficult to engage in those issues, because it guards its independence on practically everything.

This is one of the big issues that will need to be addressed at some stage. There may not have been an instance yet that has caused people generally to realise how dangerous it is to have large, unaccountable bodies in the public sector with huge powers but relatively weak accountability. That is because we are still muddling through, and it is frustrating to some people who are dealing with these regulators, including Ministers, that they cannot fully engage. We have not had one of those big instances where everybody says that we have the wrong model. In a sense, I know that my pleas for a greater level of accountability to be included in statute are not really being heard, but that will not stop me raising them at every single opportunity I can. Indeed, I have some more amendments through which to talk about accountability further.

This has been a useful exchange. I will think about it further, having read the Minister’s response in Hansard. I will think further about whether I take this forward again on Report. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 6 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, has said, I have Amendment 14 in this group. In substance, it is the same as the noble Lord’s amendment. The only real difference, as he pointed out, is that mine is less prescriptive. I am entirely happy with either version, but it is important that we deal with the specific reporting requirements, because the existing provisions are simply not adequate. At Second Reading, the Minister basically said that the Government would use the existing reporting requirements in the Banking Act, but the time involved is simply too long. It could take at least a year after the powers have been exercised. When the recapitalisation powers are used, that deserves more immediate scrutiny and, unless there is awareness of it by way of a report, that is simply not going to happen. So I stand completely behind whichever of these amendments the Minister cares to choose.

I also completely support what the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, has tried to do with his Amendment 24. It is a pity he cannot do it more generally in relation to Section 79A, but at least it rectifies what is clearly an anomaly that Parliament should not have allowed through when the Act was brought in. When the recapitalisation power has been used, it should be a requirement to lay a report before Parliament. This is in line with what the Minister said at Second Reading would happen, so I expect the Minister to accept the amendment with alacrity.

I am not quite sure why the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, allowed her amendment to be brought into this group. That said, I do think it is an important opportunity to look again at MREL, in particular because those banks that do not have MREL now become potentially subject to the use of the bank recapitalisation power. There ought to be more transparency about how banks can be categorised in that way and more understanding by those in the banking sector of which institutions they might have to pick up the tab for in due course.

It is generally a contentious issue in the banking sector, and the way in which banks trip from no MREL to MREL can be a deciding factor in whether they can scale up, because the cost of raising MREL when you are a very small bank, if you trip over into needing to raise it, can have a very significant impact. I have certainly heard smaller start-up institutions say that they deliberately do not grow above a certain size in order to avoid coming within the MREL provisions, and that cannot be good for the UK. So I am not quite sure about the wording of the noble Baroness’s amendment, but I completely support the principle.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)]

The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, asked why I allowed my amendment to be grouped in this way. I was simply trying to expedite matters for us and I thought we did not need another whole group, which would get the Minister up and down again. I agree with the other amendments and everything that has been said on this group. They deal with issues around conflicts and so on, and transparency is one of the best weapons we have that presumably will be allowed or in scope.

My amendment is one of those that do not read as I originally wrote it, because again we came into scope issues. I could not get the exact amendment that I wanted, so this was the best that I could do. Obviously, it is a companion to the amendments in the first group, which were saying that the majority of us want to limit to a threshold equal to MREL. If you therefore want to resolve banks that are a little bigger, you would have to shift MREL. I am not going to cry over that; I will cheer.

That may be an improper tactic but we do not have any other tactics to try to focus the PRA on the damage being done to the growth of smaller banks by putting MREL where it was not intended to be. We are out of line internationally and we do not really have any good justification for that. If there is a division between those banks that can be resolved and those that cannot, I still think that it goes there and the Bank will therefore have to give its view as to why. Perhaps it wants an extension in some way, so that it can get at bigger banks. What do we get back from that? That is the thought process that lies behind my amendment.

I support all these amendments. If they are knocked into a format that is suitable for Report, they would be very good additions to the Bill.

Bank of England (Economic Affairs Committee Report)

Baroness Noakes Excerpts

Thursday 2nd May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I was a member of your Lordships’ Economic Affairs Committee when this report was produced last year, and I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Bridges of Headley has been able to secure this debate today.

As we have heard, the Bank of England acquired independence in relation to monetary policy as one of the Labour Government’s first acts in 1987. At the time, I was a non-executive director on the Court of the Bank of England and so had something of a ringside seat as this unfolded. It was hugely popular in the Bank and, I believe, with almost all the commentators at the time.

The Bank of England was not and is not completely independent of the Government. When it was nationalised in 1947, the Bank of England Act gave the Government various powers over the Bank, including the power to appoint the governor, the deputy governor—who was a singleton at the time, but there are now four—and its Court of Directors.

As was common for nationalisation legislation, which we have fortunately not seen much of in recent years, the Act contained a power of direction that can be exercised by the Treasury, although this does not extend to monetary policy. That power has never actually been used but, when I tried, during the passage of last year’s Financial Services and Markets Bill, to get the Treasury to give it up, it was absolutely sure it needed to keep it, so we must regard this power of direction as a live part of the constitution of the Bank of England. My point is that this means that the Bank of England has only qualified independence—but, importantly, the extent of its independence is in the hands of the Government and of Parliament.

Similarly, monetary policy independence is not absolute, either. The members of the MPC are appointed by the Government and statute defines the monetary policy objective—that of price stability. That is then amplified by letters from the Treasury which, inter alia, tell the Bank what price stability means: that is where we get the inflation rate target. This is just a roundabout way of saying that I do not think we should overstate Bank of England independence. It is not absolute but is always bounded by political decisions. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Burns, said about QE raising the important issue of whether further political decisions should be taken to change the scope of the Bank’s independence as we define it.

Our report set out to find out how independence was working in practice. In the inflationary turmoil of the last few years, it is easy to forget that the UK experienced a relatively long period of low and largely stable inflation, from the early 1990s until 2020. It would be wrong, however, to give the credit for that to Bank of England independence. First, my noble friend Lord Lamont, as he explained earlier, introduced in 1992 the concept of publicly targeting the inflation rate. By the time the Bank was given independence in relation to monetary policy, inflation was already at its then target rate of 2.5% in terms of RPI. So the Bank did not bring inflation down. Secondly, as evidence to the committee made plain, there were other factors at play—in particular, the impact of globalisation, which created a benign price environment. None of our witnesses claimed that the years of low and stable inflation were down to central bank independence.

We also looked at the strength of the independence model in light of the inflation experience of the last three years, which has clearly been less than impressive. The model appeared to do well for the first 20-odd years, but more recently it has been tested and found wanting. There have been serious misjudgments about whether the inflation spike which emerged was temporary, and we are still a way off the 2% target, as the OECD charmingly reminded us this morning.

As we have heard, the Bank’s forecasting record is not stellar. An independent review within the Bank in 2015 found that, while the Bank appeared to be in the pack with other central banks, its two-year horizon forecast—the important one in bringing inflation down within target—had, to use the bank-speak in which the report was written,

“statistically significant evidence of inefficiency”.

I think that means that the Bank was not very good at it, and its recent experience has raised even more questions.

As we have heard, last year the Bank commissioned an external review by Dr Bernanke, the former chair of the Fed. The Bank should take credit for that. The conclusion of the report was that the models needed a serious overhaul, and that it needed to move towards more scenario analysis and away from fan charts. However, the narrowness of its terms of reference, which has already been referred to, meant that it did not shed any real light on what went wrong.

As has already been referred to in this debate, several of our witnesses drew attention to what was happening to money supply—fuelled by the continuing QE—in the two years or so before inflation took off. But this barely got a mention by the Bank or MPC members at the time. Some serious thought about what was happening would have been useful, but the Bank is part of a global central bank consensus that has largely ignored money supply for a considerable period of time. I was disappointed, but not surprised, to find that the Bernanke report made no comment on this.

The committee’s conclusion that the Bank’s independence should be preserved was in line with that of our witnesses, but I think the conclusion owes more to sentiment than to hard evidence of the success of the model. I am not arguing that monetary policy independence should be done away with, but we need to see it as a pragmatic judgment which suits politicians and central bankers alike, rather than one with a firm evidence base, and we should be prepared to modify what we mean by independence as new facts emerge.

Of course, the key issue becomes whether the accountability framework surrounding the Bank is strong enough to underpin continuing monetary policy independence. I believe that the Bank failed the British people when it let inflation get out of control, but what has happened as a result of that? The governor has had a few uncomfortable appearances before parliamentary committees, and he has had to write a few letters to the Chancellor. Who takes responsibility for the dire state of modelling found in the Bernanke report? Who carries the can for the damage inflicted on the economy from excessive inflation and the resulting interest rate hikes? It seems that no one does.

I believe that there is outstanding business here. The Government have confirmed their commitment to monetary policy independence, but independence cannot exist in a vacuum. The Government need to reflect on whether that independence has sufficient checks and balances built into it, because independence without strong accountability is a recipe for disaster. The modest recommendation in our report is for a five yearly review by Parliament, and that would be a very good start.

Spring Budget 2024

Baroness Noakes Excerpts

Monday 18th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I will start by being positive about the Budget and talk about the things that I like. First, tax cuts are good, so I support the reductions in national insurance contributions. This will increase incentives to work.

Secondly, the longer-term ambition to eliminate employee national insurance contributions is excellent and will help to simplify the tax system. The contributory principle has been a fiction for a very long time, although I note that the Benches opposite have not yet caught up with that. I hope that the Chancellor will also look at employers’ national insurance, which is a tax on jobs and therefore a disincentive to job creation. I find it bizarre that we tax people-intensive businesses more highly than capital-intensive ones.

Thirdly, I support the focus on increasing public sector productivity. Too often, fingers are pointed at the private sector when discussing the UK’s poor productivity performance. The 20% or so of our GDP generated in the public sector has often been in negative territory and has been a significant drag on our overall performance. Because the NHS sucks up so much of our public sector resources each year, it was inevitable that the Chancellor would look there first, but my heart sank when I heard him talk about stuffing several billion pounds into NHS IT. The NHS’s history is littered with IT failures and, if the Government go ahead with this, they really must hold NHS England to account and not let it off the hook this time.

Fourthly, I was thrilled that the Laffer curve has been embraced. I have often extolled this in debates in your Lordships’ House. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, on many things, but on this I definitely do not. The reduction in the capital gains tax rate on residential property is pretty small beer in the overall Budget arithmetic, but it is a start, and I hope that the Chancellor will pursue tax rate reductions with more fervour in future. The OBR recognises the dynamic effects of tax changes only to a very limited extent, and the Chancellor must not let the OBR be a roadblock to more reductions in tax rates in the future.

I really wanted to find more things to praise in the Budget. I tried very hard, but I failed. This is yet another Budget which delivers very little to break out of the low-growth, low-productivity rut in which we find ourselves. We have a high-tax economy. Tax at 37% of GDP by 2028 is nothing to be proud of. We have fiscal drag, high marginal rates for individuals, a high rate of corporation tax and windfall taxes, all piled on top of a vastly complex tax system, and these are just some features of our current tax landscape. It is no wonder that, in last year’s tax competitiveness index, the UK was ranked 30th out of 38 countries, three places lower than the previous year.

We also spend too much. Public expenditure is way over 40% of GDP, and while it is on a downward trajectory, nobody really believes that this will last, absent detailed plans of how that is to be achieved. It is possible to get public expenditure down, but it will not be achieved by productivity gains alone. At the end of the day, we will have to stop doing some things. It will be very hard work, but I can see no evidence in the Budget papers of a commitment to doing it.

The Chancellor labelled his Budget

“a Budget for long-term growth”,—[Official Report, Commons, 6/3/24; col. 840.]

but the truth is that it lacks a single-minded focus on growth. The Chancellor’s speech was complacent on our recent dismal growth figures, and failed even to acknowledge that we seem to have slipped into a technical recession in the second half of last year. The Chancellor seems to think that bullying pension funds into investing in UK equities amounts to a pro-growth policy, but I think it amounts to a sub-optimal pensions policy. While I rarely agree with the chairman of the National Infrastructure Commission, he hit the nail on the head last week when he emphasised that pension funds need to invest for the benefit of current and future pensioners, and that means investing in the best investment opportunities wherever they are found.

The new UK-only ISA announced in the Budget is not much more than a gimmick. Apart from its being unlikely to have any significant impact on anything, the consultation shows that this is just another complicated scheme in an already complicated savings landscape. There are already five different types of ISA; we do not need a sixth, especially one which could well prohibit savers from making rational investment decisions. Growth will not come from this tinkering.

A key plank of supply-side reform is deregulation, especially for smaller businesses. It cannot be said too often that businesses just want to be left to get on with running their businesses. Every minute spent on the complex web of regulation which successive Governments have spun around the business world is a minute not spent on wealth creation. Large companies love regulation, because it squashes smaller competitors. A proper Conservative Government would smash through this, but there was not even a mention in this Budget.

I am used to being disappointed by Budgets produced by Conservative Chancellors. This one was no exception.

Autumn Statement 2023

Baroness Noakes Excerpts

Wednesday 29th November 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I warmly welcome my noble friend to her new ministerial brief, but I am sorry that I cannot be as welcoming to the Autumn Statement. I know that all sides of the House, with the possible exception of our Green colleagues, who are not in their places, want to see a significant boost to the UK’s economic growth. They will not find that in this Statement.

Our growth prospects are uninspiring: the OBR says 0.7% next year and only 1.7% at the end of the forecast period. The Chancellor announced quite a lot of allegedly pro-growth policy measures, but the OBR calculated that they would increase potential output by only 0.3% at the end of the forecast period. Of course, that is better than nothing, but it does not transform our economic prospects by a very long way. I and many of my Conservative colleagues believe there are three foundations for growth: low taxes, low regulation and a small state. This Autumn Statement achieves none of these things, and for us it is not surprising that economic growth remains feeble.

On taxes, full expensing has been welcomed by the business community and by many noble Lords today, but it is very expensive and achieves very little. The policy costs £30 billion over the forecast period but produces extra investment of only £14 billion. I cannot see that this is a good use of taxpayers’ money.

A much bigger driver of business investment is the headline rate of corporation tax, which the Chancellor has kept at 25%. This is the main reason that the UK has plummeted down the competitiveness league tables for tax. The latest OECD figures show us at number 30 out of 38 countries.

I am sure that those in work will welcome the national insurance reductions, but they probably do not realise that they are paying for this themselves through fiscal drag. For all the talk in the Autumn Statement about tax cuts, there has been nothing to change the trajectory for this Parliament to be the biggest tax-raising one since the Second World War. Taxes as a percentage of GDP continue on an upward path and are even higher than at this year’s uninspiring Budget.

The Autumn Statement does nothing about reducing the size of the state, with total managed expenditure still around 43% of GDP at the end of the forecast period. The Chancellor missed another opportunity to get rid of the triple lock, which remains one of the biggest fiscal sustainability risks identified by the OBR. I applaud the efforts by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to get more people into work, and to bear down on the bill for out-of-work benefits. However, he is barely making a dent in that bill, or cutting the nearly 9 million economically inactive people of working age who are a major drag on the economy. Apart from welfare, the Autumn Statement said nothing about cutting the size of the state.

Similarly, the Autumn Statement said nothing about cutting regulatory burdens. It bragged that the Government are

“bringing forward an ambitious package to supercharge small and medium sized enterprises”.

I got quite excited about this, until I read five meagre paragraphs. These include something on faster payments —I have lost count of the number of times that faster payments have been announced as an initiative—and something arcane about HMRC rewriting its guidance on the tax deductibility of training costs. SMEs need something more transformative than this.

The Chancellor announced in his Statement that he had 110 growth measures. I had expected the Autumn Statement documents to set them out. There are some costings covering 67 policy decisions in chapter 5 of the Statement, and a separate policy costings document which has detail under 55 headings. However, quite a lot of these could not conceivably be regarded as growth measures. Chapter 5 also has 200 paragraphs on policy decisions, some of which presumably have growth implications, but this is not always clear. The OBR has some analysis of the main policy decisions, but it does not reference the growth ones specifically, so I cannot find anything that says, “These are the 110 growth measures”. My question for my noble friend the Minister is: what are the 110? If nothing in the public domain sets them out, will she undertake to write to me and put a copy in the Library of what those 110 measures actually entail? I should be clear that if even by some miracle she has a list of the 110 measures in her briefing for this evening, this is not an invitation to her to read them out.

GDP growth of 1.7% at the end of the forecast period is nothing to be proud about. We must not be self-congratulatory about merely being in the pack with other G7 countries. This country needs more ambition and more imagination—certainly much more than this Autumn Statement provides.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

I will probably write to the noble Lord with clarity on that, because I would like to make a little progress.

A number of noble Lords tried to pull out one element of the Autumn Statement and made the point that it will benefit rich people more than poor. One cannot look at one measure in isolation. The Government have conducted extensive assessment of the policies announced both in this Autumn Statement and in previous years. It shows that, across all government decisions dating back to the 2019 spending round, the combined impact of tax, welfare and public services spending measures has benefited the lowest-income households the most.

I will touch briefly on welfare reforms. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Jackson for his support for these reforms. We want to see people who can work be able to work; we are absolutely willing to provide support for them.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester mentioned mental health. I agree with him that we must confront this issue in our country. It remains a priority for the Government. Alongside other recent mental health interventions, the back to work plan includes nearly £800 million over five years to expand talking therapies for those with mild or moderate conditions, as well as individual placements and support to be delivered within community mental health schemes for those with more serious conditions.

I will write to noble Lords on a couple of other things. I come back to growth because it is undeniable that growth in many developed nations has been difficult. Since 2010, when this Government first came to power, the UK has grown faster than many of its competitors, including France, Germany, Italy, Spain and Japan. Would I like to see us grow even faster than we currently are? Absolutely—indeed, the growth trajectory is on an upward trend after the first two years. The noble Lord, Lord Livermore, did not quite get to those numbers but they are higher, peaking at 2% a year. This Autumn Statement is focused on creating sustainable growth without adding to inflation or overall borrowing. It is sensible supply-side interventions that boost business investment.

This is in stark contrast to the plans set out by the party opposite, such as they are. It is not clear to me which parts of the Autumn Statement the Labour Party actively oppose or would do substantially differently, and the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, has not enlightened me. So not only do we have a cut-and-paste shadow Chancellor; it seems we have a cut-and-paste shadow Exchequer Secretary too. It is worth reflecting on the much-vaunted flagship Labour spending policy of £28 billion. For clarity, that is £28 billion per year. In the absence of significant tax rises or substantial cuts to public spending—and only the former is in the traditional Labour playbook—this £28 billion per year will just add to our national debt, piling pressure on future generations and busting through fiscal rules. As I said, this Conservative Autumn Statement is about sensible supply-side reforms to support British businesses and boost productivity.

The noble Lord, Lord Howarth, asked whether full expensing represents value for money. The Government have prioritised the business tax cut as a targeted way to support businesses which invest. It does this by reducing the cost of capital for UK companies. This policy will drive 0.1% GDP growth in the next five years, increasing to slightly below 0.2% in the long run. Whereas the benefits of the policy will grow over time, the costs will reduce. Full expensing brings forward relief that would otherwise be claimed over decades, meaning that the costs are highest in the policy’s introduction.

The noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, talked about a productivity council. The Government take a range of advice on matters of growth and productivity from all sorts of organisations, including public sector organisations such as the National Infrastructure Commission and the Competition and Markets Authority, but also from academics, think tanks and businesses. While I respect his idea, at the moment we will probably not take it forward.

There was some interesting comment around the pension reforms. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, welcomed the proposals. He asked for the timing of implementation of changes to retired benefit schemes. This will become clearer when the consultation period has completed. I will write on the second question about pensions, because I am conscious that I will imminently run out of time.

My noble friend Lord Northbrook and the noble Lord, Lord Lee of Trafford, asked why the Government are not bringing back the VAT retail export scheme. The Government continue to accept representations from industry regarding the tourist tax and are considering all returns carefully. It is about providing very robust evidence on this. At the moment, we feel that it is a little lacking.

The noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, talked about the creative industries. There is a large number of specific asks for a very specific sector, so I will certainly write.

It is also worth noting some of the more general discussions that noble Lords had today, and I hope will continue to have in the future. There were considerations around the size and shape of the state, the amount of contributions that should come from taxpayers, and, from the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, public versus private sector investment. My noble friend Lord Willetts talked about the shape of the state. These are things to mull on, definitely. They will not change government policy today or in the near future but are really important issues that should be debated.

I second what my noble friend Lady Noakes said about regulation. We need to look at regulation as our economy develops. It is most helpful for the Government when noble Lords can go into specifics. I am always very happy to hear about specific regulations that we feel are not fit for purpose and which need to be improved.

Also, to my noble friend Lady Noakes, on the 100-plus measures, I say that the details can be found in the “Policy Decisions” chapter of the Autumn Statement document.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My request was quite simple. I did say that there were 200 paragraphs in Chapter 5 and a number of policy costings, but none of them actually shows what amounts to the 110, which was one of the leading statements made by my right honourable friend the Chancellor in his Autumn Statement. I am simply asking: which are the 110? Does my noble friend undertake to let me have that information if she cannot provide it now?

King’s Speech

Baroness Noakes Excerpts

Monday 13th November 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, there is predictably little in the gracious Speech on the Government’s economic policies, other than a reference to the Government’s focus on increasing economic growth. I know the Government believe in growth, but sadly I have often struggled to reconcile this with their actual policies. I am, however, an optimist and I am looking forward to next week’s Autumn Statement. I hope it will set out some clear policies to support a healthy and growing economy. I will be looking for three things: lower taxes, less regulation and a smaller state.

First, a high-tax economy is not a healthy economy. The current tax burden is around 37% of GDP. This Parliament is on track to be the biggest tax-raising one since the Second World War, higher even than that of the first term of the Blair Government. Thirty years ago, the UK was several percentage points below G7 and EU levels of tax, and we are now broadly on a par with them. If we look at the economies that are growing rapidly, we rarely find them carrying that level of taxation.

Our corporation tax headline rate of 25% is quite simply anti-growth. No amount of relief for R&D or investment will change this, because headline rates are often a deciding factor in major investment decisions. The 25% rate is the key driver of the UK plummeting down the international tax competitive league tables. This year, we are 30th out of 48 OECD countries. For corporation taxes alone, we have fallen 17 places in the last year. This is shocking. We certainly cannot tax our way to economic growth, but the depressing thing is that our current corporation tax policies are doing the exact opposite. Our personal taxes are no better. In the last three years, frozen tax rates and thresholds have pulled around 4 million more people into the tax net and 1.6 million have moved into higher tax brackets.

The Government’s addiction to fiscal drag means that as many as one in five taxpayers will be paying the higher income tax rates. Very high marginal rates around the thresholds exacerbate this and create perverse incentives. Lower tax rates do not have to result in lower tax yields, as my late noble friend Lord Lawson of Blaby demonstrated when he was Chancellor. Low rates liberate the economy and higher activity, and that drives higher tax yields.

My second area is less regulation. We may have taken back control from the EU, but we have done little to relieve regulatory burdens, especially on SMEs. Big businesses love regulation, because it acts as a barrier to entry. We need to smash those barriers down to unleash the growth potential in our smaller businesses. The Government and their quangos need to get serious about deregulation, especially in the SME space.

Thirdly, we need a smaller state. The size of the Civil Service is shocking. Having wrestled the numbers down to around 385,000 in 2016, the numbers have gone back up again to around half a million. Quangos employed nearly 320,000 people in 2020, up nearly threefold since 2008. What on earth is going on? The public sector needs to stop doing things. Cancelling the white elephant of HS2 was a good start, but there is much more that needs to be done.

At some point, the Government, whichever party is in power, will have to face the fact that the NHS monolith needs serious reform. It eats up around 40% of day-to-day government spending and it has an insatiable appetite for taxpayers’ money, but it does not deliver a world-class health system. Even the British public are starting to realise that their precious NHS is letting them down.

I conclude with energy. I have been much encouraged by the Government’s new pragmatism on vehicles and on gas boilers, as well as by the announcement in the King’s Speech that there will be more licensing of oil and gas fields. Energy policies need to be affordable today or they will undermine our economic growth ambitions. It is time to get real and take net zero off its pedestal.

Amendments of the Law (Resolution of Silicon Valley Bank UK Limited) Order 2023

Baroness Noakes Excerpts

Wednesday 19th April 2023 Grand Committee

[The Parliamentary Secretary, HM Treasury (Baroness Penn) (Con)]

Noble Lords will be aware that Silicon Valley Bank UK Limited, or SVB UK, was sold on Monday 13 March to HSBC. Customers of SVB UK are now able to access their deposits and banking services as normal. This transaction was facilitated by the Bank of England, in consultation with the Treasury, using powers granted by the Banking Act 2009. In doing so, we limited risks to our tech and life sciences sector and safeguarded some of the UK’s most promising companies, protecting customers, financial stability and the taxpayer. We were able to achieve this outcome—the best possible outcome—in short order, without any taxpayer money or government guarantees. There has been no bailout, with SVB UK instead sold to a private sector purchaser. This solution is a win for taxpayers, customers and the banking system.

SVB UK has become a subsidiary of HSBC’s ring-fenced bank. Ring-fencing requires banking groups that hold over £25 billion of retail deposits to separate their retail banking from their investment banking activities. The regime provides a four-year transition period for an entity acquired as part of a resolution process before it becomes subject to the ring-fencing requirements. As a result of this existing provision in legislation, SVB UK is not currently subject to ring-fencing requirements. However, HSBC UK, SVB UK’s parent company, remains subject to the ring-fencing regime.

To facilitate this transaction, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury laid in both Houses of Parliament on Monday 13 March a statutory instrument using the powers under the Banking Act 2009 to broaden an existing exemption in ring-fencing legislation with regard to HSBC’s purchase of SVB UK. This is the first time that the Treasury was required to use these powers since the resolution of Dunfermline Building Society in 2009. I note that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has raised this statutory instrument as an instrument of interest in its 35th report, published on 30 March.

This exemption allows HSBC’s ring-fenced bank to provide below-market-rate intragroup funding to SVB UK. This was crucial for the success of HSBC’s takeover of SVB UK, because it ensured that HSBC was able to provide the necessary funds to its new subsidiary. HSBC has since stated publicly that it has so far provided approximately £2 billion of liquidity to SVB UK, money that it needed to continue to meet the needs of its customers. The Bank of England and the Prudential Regulation Authority fully support this modification to the ring-fencing regime as a necessary step to facilitate the sale.

In view of the urgency, and given that this statutory instrument was crucial in enabling the sale, the Treasury determined that it was necessary to lay this instrument using the “made affirmative” procedure under the powers in the Banking Act 2009. Parliament provided the Treasury with these powers for exactly these situations: recognising that exceptional circumstances can arise where the Government must take emergency action in the interests of financial stability, depositors and taxpayers.

The statutory instrument also makes a number of modifications to the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 in relation to the rule-making powers of the Prudential Regulation Authority and the Financial Conduct Authority. Specifically, these rule-making powers are modified to ensure that the regulators can exercise them effectively, where these powers relate to the Bank of England’s transfer of SVB UK to HSBC and write-down of SVB UK’s shareholders and certain bondholders. The statutory instrument also waives the requirement for the regulators to consult on certain rule changes related to the sale.

In addition to the statutory instrument we are debating today, the Government will also lay a further statutory instrument to make further changes to the ring-fencing regime with regard to HSBC’s purchase of SVB UK. This is to permit SVB UK to remain exempt from the ring-fencing rules beyond the four-year transition period, subject to certain conditions. Unlike the legislation we are debating today, this second exemption is not required immediately and will be introduced in due course. The second exemption was also crucial to the success of the sale of SVB UK, as it ensures that it can remain a commercially viable stand-alone business as part of the HSBC Group.

A clear determination was made by the Bank of England and supported by the Government that these amendments were crucial to facilitating the purchase of SVB UK by HSBC. The UK has a world-leading tech sector with a dynamic start-up and scale-up ecosystem, and the Government are pleased that a private sector purchaser has been found. Therefore, I hope noble Lords will join me in supporting this legislation. I beg to move.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a shareholder in UK banks which are subject to the ring-fencing regime. My husband and I hold shares in HSBC, which will benefit from this order, and in both NatWest and Lloyds, which are subject to the ring-fencing rules but do not derive a benefit from this order. I think my registered interests in this case probably cancel each other out.

I should say that I have never been a big fan of ring-fencing. The triple whammy of an electrified ring-fence, elaborate resolution planning and higher capital and liquidity requirements have imposed a very high set of costs on UK banks which can in the long run result only in disbenefits for UK bank customers —that is, all of us. I do, however, believe passionately in fair competition and level playing fields, and my concern about this order—and, more so, the one that we are promised that will come later—is that it distorts competition and creates an unlevel playing field by creating unfair advantage for one particular bank in relation to the ring-fencing rules.

I completely understand that the Bank of England had to operate under pressure to achieve a sale of Silicon Valley Bank over a weekend and that avoided having to place it into an insolvency procedure, and we owe the Bank a debt of gratitude for what it achieved over that weekend. But there are some aspects of the transaction—and therefore this order—which I find mysterious. I am also, as I said, concerned that HSBC has obtained an unfair competitive advantage compared with other UK banks, so I have some questions to put to my noble friend.

First, SVB UK is not a ring-fenced bank under UK legislation and it remains outside that legislation. Why did the Bank not agree to sell the bank to HSBC itself rather than to HSBC’s UK ring-fenced subsidiary? Had it done that, I do not believe that any special legislation would have been necessary. HSBC operates a narrow definition of ring-fencing—unlike other UK ring-fenced banks—such that the majority of its commercial customers are serviced within the non-ring-fenced part of HSBC. Why was it decided to place Silicon Valley Bank UK into the ownership of the ring-fenced bank? Would it not have been more appropriate to have put it somewhere else within the HSBC Group along with other commercial customers?

Secondly, what activities of Silicon Valley Bank UK would disqualify it from being housed within a ring-fenced bank? Commercial banking business can be satisfactorily included within a ring-fenced bank provided that the business within the ring-fenced bank is in effect plain vanilla business—that is, conventional lending and very simple derivatives, which are allowed. What does Silicon Valley Bank UK do which would disqualify it from being placed properly within the UK ring-fence of HSBC, and what policy grounds make it necessary to allow the ring-fenced bank to own this kind of business when it cannot carry out that business itself?

Thirdly, the Minister has said that the order was necessary to allow HSBC’s ring-fenced bank to provide funding out of the ring-fence at preferential rates to Silicon Valley Bank UK. Why was this funding not provided out of HSBC’s other, non-ring-fenced resources? Of course, I can see the attraction to HSBC of using the cheap funds that it has from its ring-fenced depositors, but the ring-fence regime was set up precisely to stop such funds leaching out of the ring-fence. Related to that, is there any limit on the amount of funding that HSBC UK can provide from within the ring-fence to Silicon Valley Bank in breach of the ring-fencing philosophy, and if there is not a limit, why not? Are there any limits to the generosity with which the ring-fenced bank can provide the funds, since it is going to be providing at rates below market rates? Will there be any limit to that degree of discount that it will allow, and again, if not, why not?

Fourthly, can the Minister confirm that Silicon Valley Bank UK will not be allowed to form part of HSBC UK’s Bank Domestic Liquidity Sub-group, or DoLSub, and that liquidity will be monitored separately for the ring-fenced and non-ring-fenced parts of HSBC UK? If that is not the case, can the Minister explain the position on how liquidity is to be managed and monitored within the ring-fenced bank and its new subsidiary?

Lastly, it is clear that the intention is to provide some long-term exemptions from the ring-fencing regime, and the Minister referred to this. I appreciate that the precise details may not yet be finalised, but will the Minister set out what exemptions are likely to involve? I believe that the Minister said that this would be in a separate statutory instrument and therefore Parliament would be able to look at that, but it would be good if she could confirm that. My main concern when we come to the second order is whether it will be fair and reasonable for ring-fencing exemptions to be provided on a long-term basis, which disadvantages other UK banks which have to operate completely within the ring-fence rules. Put another way, when considering the case for HSBC to be allowed special treatment, will the Government ensure that they consider the case for equivalent relaxations to be more generally available? I look forward to my noble friend the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, first, let me say that obviously we will support this order—although I cannot see any way in which one could not. In retrospect, it confirms the regulatory adjustments that were necessary or enabled the efficient rescue of Silicon Valley Bank UK and the transfer of ownership to HSBC, effectively protecting customers from the implications of the collapse of the US parent. We need to congratulate the Government, or the Treasury, the Bank of England and indeed the industry—Coadec, Tech London Advocates and BVCA—for acting together, co-operating and moving swiftly to make sure that a problem did not turn into a crisis or catastrophe.

That said, I have a whole series of questions. I am incredibly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, who in far more detail and far more effectively than me raised the relevant questions on ring-fencing. Where she and I slightly disagree is on her request that, if there is going to be a long-term exemption that gives a competitive advantage to HSBC, let us let everybody have it, whereas I am concerned about the undermining of ring-fencing in a fundamental way. I can understand that sometimes one has to act to undermine ring-fencing on a short-term basis, but this has pinned into it that second exemption, which effectively makes this a life-long exemption.

I will not repeat the points that the noble Baroness made. I have a lot of them down on the piece of paper in front of me, but she made those points so well that I think the Minister needs only to hear them once—they were so detailed and rightly crafted. We have to understand whether to some extent the Government are pre-running the changes that they anticipate making under the Edinburgh proposals. We saw that with previous financial services Bills, when powers were given to the regulator ahead of the consultation processes that would all be relevant to it, so the consultation process then led to a phase 2 or part 2 Bill that came in later. I am very anxious to understand whether this is reflective of the Government’s approach to ring-fencing from now on—in other words, that they no longer intend to separate retail banking from investment banking.

I recommend to everybody the work that we did in the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, in taking evidence for more than two years. The reasons for ring-fencing retail banking from investment banking were multiple and complex, and certainly included culture. Retail banking is essentially a utility and investment banking is very different in its risk profile. There is no question but that some of the misbehaviour that we saw in retail banks, PPI being just one of many examples, was inspired by that cross-cultural flow between the investment bank and the retail bank.

It was also true that many risks that we saw banks take, which were entirely inappropriate and not well understood and which led to a crash, for which we all continue to suffer, were inspired by access to what was seen as very cheap and easy money—money sitting in retail deposits, checking accounts and saving accounts, and not protected to a certain degree by insurance, which took away any sense of responsibility to customers. Banks took on risks that they would not have been able to take on had they been financing themselves wholly in the financial markets, because the markets would have recognised those risks and demanded far higher returns if they were going to finance such activities. So that access to a pool of cheap money was absolutely critical to the structures that led to the financial crash of 2007-08. I am really concerned that we have changes here that foreshadow a much more extensive undermining of ring-fencing, and I hope that the Minister will respond to those broader issues, as well as to the detail that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, asked for.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

Before my noble friend leaves this point, I do not think she has addressed the question of why the ring-fence resources had to be used to do this. HSBC is very large and has very large UK operations that are not within the ring-fence, so I have been probing—and I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, is also interested in this—why the ring-fence has to be used. Why did the ring-fence exemption have to be used, because it is clearly not necessary in any absolute sense for HSBC to provide liquidity support to Silicon Valley Bank out of the ring-fence?

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

In bringing this back to us, as the Minister will have to do for the second SI, and responding to these questions, can we have some analysis of the competitive advantage that HSBC will get out of this transaction?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

I am afraid I have to disappoint noble Lords and say that I have no further comment to make on the decision to purchase it by the ring-fenced bank. It was a commercial decision for HSBC.

My noble friend had some other questions on the use of the ring-fenced bank. She asked what activities SVB UK undertakes that are not allowed under the ring-fence regime. SVB UK provides lending to certain types of financial institutions, such as venture capital funds, which is not allowed under the ring-fencing regime. It also provides certain equity-related products in relation to its lending, which is also not allowed under the ring-fence regime. She also asked whether I could confirm that SVB UK will not be added to HSBC’s domestic liquidity subgroup. That is a matter for the regulator to decide.

All three noble Lords asked about the implications for competition and whether this move has given a competitive advantage to HSBC. The exemption is limited to the acquisition of SVB UK by HSBC, and was necessary to facilitate this acquisition—something I think all noble Lords welcomed. As Sam Woods explained at the TSC recently, a necessary condition of HSBC moving forward was that it could keep the entirety of SVB UK as one business. The value was in the integrated nature of the business, and HSBC could make that work only if it had it as a subsidiary of HSBC UK, the ring-fenced bank.

It is also worth reiterating that SVB UK remains very small compared to HSBC. Its assets amount to around £9 billion compared to HSBC’s $3 trillion group balance sheet.

To come on to the second statutory instrument and the permanent exemption from ring-fencing for SVB UK, the second exemption was also crucial, as it ensures that SVB UK can remain a commercially viable stand-alone business, as part of HSBC UK. It will be subject to conditions, which are intended to ensure that the exemption is limited to what was needed to facilitate the sale of SVB UK. We will set out details of those conditions alongside the second statutory instrument, which noble Lords will have the opportunity to debate. Alongside that, as I said earlier, the PRA outlined in its response to the Treasury Select Committee that it has a range of tools that it can and will draw on to ensure the effective supervision of HSBC and the protection of retail deposits.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

Can I just clarify something with my noble friend? I can just about understand why, for the transaction to happen over the weekend, HSBC was allowed to bully the other participants into breaking the ring-fence rules to allow it to be set up. However, allowing a permanent change means that the ring-fenced bank will be allowed to provide liquidity, and presumably capital as well, on advantageous terms to a bank which can be used as a growth vehicle within HSBC, thereby increasing the risk to ring-fenced funds. I understand why you might have to do that initially, to get the deal through, but I do not understand whether there are any limits at all on what can happen after the acquisition has happened. These permissions have been set up in a way, and are likely to continue in a way, that will allow Silicon Valley Bank to continue to operate in a way that is completely antithetical to the ring-fenced banking regime. As I have said, I am not a fan of it, but I have a strong objection to one bank being allowed to operate in a distinctly different way from other banks.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

I shall just add something, so that the Minister does not have to repeat herself constantly. The Minister was very clear that the flow of funds out of the ring-fenced HSBC would go into the hands of a body that will then use it to fund venture capitalists. That is not normally permitted under the ring-fence because it is a very high-risk speculative activity. The whole purpose of ring-fencing is to split activity like that away from the utility role of retail banks. Since there is, apparently, no constraint on the amount of money that can be moved, it has just opened up a massive chasm in the separation, and a massive advantage for one particular high street bank versus the others. I think that the Minister said that the amount of money that could be moved was limitless —so it is really a big issue.

Financial Services and Markets Bill

Baroness Noakes Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 23rd March 2023 Grand Committee

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I have put my name to two of the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, in this group: Amendments 243A and 243B, which would require the super-affirmative procedure to be used. I have not added my name to Amendment 241G. I am in complete sympathy with the call for Parliament to be able to amend statutory instruments; I pay tribute to the work done by the committees chaired by my noble friends Lord Blencathra and Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts. They have highlighted the dangerous shift to skeleton legislation with the resultant reliance on secondary legislation, which has inflicted great harm on Parliament’s ability to scrutinise and hold the Executive to account.

On the other hand, I recognise that this is a large issue that needs to be taken forward at a high level within both Houses of Parliament, and also of course with the Government. I do not believe that this Bill is the right place to start that process, although I do believe that we need to find a way of progressing the dialogue to find a way forward. I am of course concerned about the parliamentary processes around the many statutory instruments that will come under the powers in this Bill. The super-affirmative procedure is certainly better than the ordinary affirmative procedure, which is why it has my support.

In adding my name to these amendments, I am in fact hitching a ride on them in order to raise some wider issues about the statutory instruments that will come forward once this Bill is made law. This is an issue that should probably have been debated earlier in Committee but I have only recently been made aware of it. I have given my noble friend the Minister only a very small amount of notice of the nature of my concerns; I accept that she may not be able fully to answer at the Dispatch Box today.

The amendments focus on parliamentary oversight of legislation being brought in by statutory instrument. What I think we have not focused on is whether there will be adequate consultation by the Treasury before the statutory instruments are laid in Parliament. Many of the statutory instruments will of course be uncontroversial in the sense that they will merely recreate the EU law in a UK-based framework for the rules that will then be made by regulators.

However, it is entirely possible, as the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, said, that the statutory instruments will contain significant changes from EU law. Clause 4, which allows the restatement of EU law, can be used to incorporate changes to the law within the huge range of possibilities that are allowed for by Clause 2(3). There is no requirement in Clause 4 for the Treasury to consult anyone at all before laying these statutory instruments. This is in stark contrast to the regulators, who have very clear statutory obligations to consult in respect of any rules they will be laying under the terms of the statutory instruments that give them the power.

In addition to Clause 4—this is the actual example that has come to my attention—the Treasury might choose to use the new designated activities power in Clause 8 to set up the replacement regulatory regime under UK law. As with Clause 4, the use of the Clause 8 power does not require the Treasury to consult anyone at all. The example that has been brought to my attention concerns the prospectus regime. I am indebted to the briefing provided to me by a partner in one of the Magic Circle law firms.

As part of the Edinburgh package, the Government published a policy note and a draft statutory instrument on how they intended to replace the EU prospectus rules. Put simply, the designated activities regime will be used to create the new prospectus regime when the existing EU law is repealed. The publication of the draft statutory instrument and the policy note was well received because it allowed those who specialise in this territory to get to grips with the proposed legal framework. Although the policy note was clear that the drafting was not final, it was not clear whether there would be a proper consultation on the new regime.

By way of background, there was a policy intent to deal with the issue of mini-bonds in the light of the London Capital & Finance scandal; that policy is, of course, uncontroversial. The Government were clear in their policy note that they intended to affect retail investors only and did not intend to cover things that were regulated elsewhere. It appears, however, that the chosen vehicle of relevant securities, as defined in the draft statutory instrument, also captures things with no likely impact on the retail market, including—somewhat incredibly—over-the-counter derivates and some loans, securities and financial transactions. I believe that this analysis has been made available to the Treasury via various players in the wholesale financial markets.

Although I understand that communications are constructive, there is a fundamental problem emerging: the so-called illustrative statutory instrument now seems to have morphed into a pre-final document on which no formal consultation will be held. This is important, given the significant widening of the reach of the proposals, well beyond the existing prospectus regime. I would be grateful if my noble friend the Minister could set out how the Government see the next steps for the prospectus statutory instrument and whether formal consultation will occur. I hope that she will be able to respond not only on the particular issue of the prospectus statutory instrument but, more broadly, on the extent to which the Treasury will consult across the range of replacement EU law when it brings that law forward.

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as stated in the register.

I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, on finding a way to amend statutory instruments. If it really is possible to change what noble Lords have always believed about SIs, that is welcome news indeed. As the noble Lord says, this procedure would be used only on the rare occasions when your Lordships’ House or another place considered it vital.

I support the noble Lord’s Amendments 243A and 243B, to which my noble friend Lady Noakes has added her name. These would create a super-affirmative category of approval process, introducing a higher bar but only after a resolution is made by either House of Parliament. I also agree with the points made by my noble friend on the prospectus directive and other matters. I support all these amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

The Government will make those changes only within the agreed scope set out in the Bill. That is perhaps why the DPRRC was content with the approach that they were taking.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

Does my noble friend accept that the specification in Clause 3 allows for very significant changes to be made? There are many heads under which the Government could fit a change in policy, and that policy change could be significant in the context of the restatement of EU law.

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

The intention is to allow for the restatement within EU law or to adapt it to a situation or circumstances within the UK. As I have said, in undertaking that work the Government will seek to undertake a combination of formal consultation and informal engagement appropriate to the changes being made. As set out in the Government’s policy statement on the repeal of retained EU law in financial services, the Government aim to balance the need to deliver much-needed reforms with the need to consult industry and stakeholders. They will take the decision on the approach to this on a case-by-case basis.

I wanted to address my noble friend’s specific question on the prospectus regime. The Government intend—