Investment Bank (Amendment of Definition) and Special Administration (Amendment) Regulations 2017

Debate between Lord James of Blackheath and Lord Tunnicliffe

Tuesday 28th February 2017 Grand Committee

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this order. As she has already outlined, the purpose of this instrument is two-fold: to correct the definition of “investment bank” and to extend elements of the special administration regime, the SAR, which is the administration procedure for insolvent investment banks. These measures are part of an effort to improve the regulations and processes that govern the financial services sector. We oppose none of the measures the Government are proposing to introduce, but I have a number of points that I hope the Minister can clarify.

Part 2 of the instrument alters the definition of “investment bank” to include alternative investment funds and undertakings for collective investments in transferable securities. It was the intention of the original legislation that such firms be included in the SAR. However, they have fallen out of scope as an unintended consequence of the introduction of other legislation. As has been said, this is merely a correction. In practical terms, it increases the number of banks covered by the legislation from 700 to 1,000. May I be assured that this rise has been taken into account when considering the resources needed to communicate changes to the SAR?

I will focus the bulk of my time on Part 3 of the regulations. After much discussion, the Banking Act 2009 did not include any specific reform of investment bank insolvency. However, it provided an enabling power to pass new regulations that had to be reviewed within two years. Accordingly, the special administration regime was introduced in the Investment Bank Special Administration Regulations 2011. Peter Bloxham carried out a review and published recommendations in January 2014. This instrument implements some of those recommendations.

The most substantive change the regulations will introduce is changing the “soft” bar date to a “hard” bar date. Under the current legislation, claimants who fail to claim before the bar date can still receive client assets. The introduction of a “hard” bar date would remove this right. This seem perfectly reasonable. The client asset can be closed more swiftly and at a lower cost. However, the key question I have about this switch is how much longer the process of insolvency will last as a result. If I am not mistaken, the “hard” bar date will not be automatic. The administrator will have to apply to the court. For the court to accept a “hard” bar date, it must be,

“satisfied that the administrator has taken all reasonable measures to identify and contact persons who may be entitled to the return of client assets”.

How long do the Government expect the administrator will need before it can collate all this information?

Furthermore, new Regulation 12D(2)(b) sets out the criteria for when the court can grant an application for a “hard” bar date. The first of these criteria is that there can be,

“no reasonable prospect … that the administrator will receive claims for the return of client assets after that date”.

How can the administrator be sure that there is “no reasonable prospect”? Surely this will require extensive research. Again, will this not result in delay before the administrator is confident it has a strong case for the court? The longer a case of insolvency drags on, the greater the uncertainty, and with uncertainty the prospect of market instability.

The next issue is one my honourable friend in the other place the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde raised, relating to the mechanisms in place before assets are pooled, which could assist in a more efficient and reliable return on client assets. The Economic Secretary to the Treasury in the other place stated in response to my honourable friend’s questions that,

“the FCA has taken a number of steps to improve firms’ record keeping. These reforms have been extensively consulted on with practitioners who have experience in dealing with pooled accounts”.—[Official Report, Commons, Second Delegated Legislation Committee, 7/2/17; col. 8.]

I ask the Minister: what specific steps have been taken by the FCA and has it seen a reduction in the rate of regulatory non-compliance cases it deals with as a result?

I turn to the issues raised by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Why have the Government not published the full consultation response to the Bloxham review? I note the Minister’s apology but I hope she can go into a little more detail. I have read the explanation, as has the committee, and I have to say that neither it nor I are convinced by the answers so far. The Government state that:

“The areas raised in the consultation were largely technical in nature”.


Surely this is exactly the place where such technicalities should be debated and scrutinised. I look forward to hearing a more detailed response from the Minister as to why the Government feel it is appropriate to flout their own consultation principles.

My final query for the Minister relates to the procedures used in the event that the administrator’s conduct is challenged. The new sub-paragraph (e) in paragraph 14 states that the FSCS, the financial services compensation scheme:

“may make an application … on the grounds that the administrator is not performing the duties … as quickly or as efficiently as is reasonably practicable”.

I note that the new Section 10A(b) inserted by the order says the administrator must “keep the FSCS informed”, but what does the Minister anticipate that will mean in practice? Surely in order for the FSCS to be confident that the administrator is not fulfilling his statutory duty, he must have detailed knowledge of the workings of the operation. What criteria will be used to judge whether an administrator has failed, and by whom? If the administrator is found to be inappropriate, whose responsibility is it to complete the insolvency? I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord James of Blackheath (Con)]

My Lords, may I intrude a word into this debate? There is an aspect of 2008 that has never been corrected, and which did a great deal to disguise the extent of the insolvencies existing at that time. It might now perhaps be possible to squeeze a solution into something like this.

There is a practice that was prevalent in cases such as Bradford & Bingley and Northern Rock: if a bank or building society had a house on which it had an outstanding loan of, say, £10,000, and the house was worth £1 million, it entered the whole £1 million as an asset on its balance sheet, although it had no legal access or right to that surplus value. Banks did that solely to emphasise the extent of the solvency that they could demonstrate for their loans, but it made a complete distortion of what the balance sheet really was and misled people into letting them trade on for too long. Nowhere have we ever corrected this in any of the accounting rules. This may be the last chance saloon.