Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Bill [HL]

Lord Macpherson of Earl's Court Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 30th July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Macpherson of Earl’s Court (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as chairman of C Hoare & Co, which would almost certainly be classified as a small bank for the purposes of the Bill.

I congratulate the Minister on becoming Financial Secretary to the Treasury. After the chancellorship of the Exchequer this is the oldest Treasury ministerial post, and I am pretty sure that it is the first time that it has been held by a Member of this House. I had the good fortune of working with the Minister for a decade around the turn of the century. He has huge Treasury experience and considerable ability and was a pleasure to work with. I wish him well in what will inevitably be difficult times ahead when no doubt he will come to this House on many occasions to make Ministerial Statements.

I speak in support of the Bill, which is a model of good legislative practice with a well-handled consultation and cross-party support. It is welcome that the new Government have seamlessly picked up where the previous Government left off. Politics is all about difference, but at least 90% of governing is about continuity.

Having been the Permanent Secretary and accounting officer when the Treasury had to nationalise Northern Rock and resolve the Icelandic banks in 2008, I am acutely aware that having the necessary powers in place makes it a whole lot easier. Of course, the Government can generally rely on common-law powers in such circumstances or, in the case of Northern Rock, pass an emergency Bill in 24 hours. I pay tribute to the late Lord Darling for managing the financial crisis so effectively with the limited powers then at his disposal, but I would not recommend a make-do-and-mend approach; it diverts finite resources from the job in hand, which is managing the crisis itself. It is better to have the right legislative and institutional framework in place, and to learn from each time the framework is tested in order to improve its functioning.

In 2008, it fell to the Treasury directly to resolve failing banks. I recall asking the Bank of England whether it would take on the role, thinking that the clue was in the name—it is a bank—and that a bank might be better at taking the necessary steps rather than a government department, but the Bank of England declined my request. Lord Darling put that right in his 2009 Act, which ensured that the resolution authority resides in the Bank of England. In my view, that is the right approach; the Bank of England is better placed to retain the necessary expertise and experience, not least because it can pay its staff more generously.

However, the Treasury needs to remain alert to one important point, which the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, touched on indirectly: the conflict of interest created by the abolition of the Financial Services Authority in 2013. The Bank of England is now the regulator and the resolution authority, and responsible for macro- prudential policy. It also in effect has the power to tax the industry through PRA fees and the wider Bank of England levy. The Bill extends its powers of taxation by allowing it to draw on the Financial Services Compensation Scheme to recapitalise a failing bank. There is nothing wrong with that in principle; it is much better that the industry finances its failures rather than the general taxpayer.

The Bank of England generally does its job well. All I am asking is that Treasury Ministers maintain adequate oversight. To this end, they need to be vigilant to three issues. First, apart from the brief period in 2007 when fear of moral hazard dominated its thinking, the Bank of England has a historical tendency to intervene. I recall Sir Douglas Wass, one of my predecessors at the Treasury, some 40 years after the event still expressing irritation at the Treasury being kept in the dark about the Bank’s intervention in the secondary banking crisis of 1973-74. 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.

Secondly, because of the Bank’s power to tax the banking industry, I fear that it will pay insufficient attention to minimising the costs of resolution. I may be wrong, but my recollection is that the Bank of England incurred greater costs, with advisers and so on, in resolving the Dunfermline Building Society than the Treasury did in resolving the Icelandic banks. Unlike the Government, the Bank does not have to stand for re-election, so its incentive to contain costs is rather less.

Finally, it is important that small banks remain well capitalised. Challenger banks are adept at lobbying government and central banks for special treatment, arguing that this enhances competition. To some degree it does, but they are not slow to make political donations. I witnessed this at first hand a decade or so ago. It is important that the authorities ignore these blandishments. As my old friend the noble Lord, Lord King of Lothbury, used to observe, the best way to ensure that the banking system is safe is to ensure that it is adequately capitalised.

I should emphasise that these are minor points that are more about the spirit of Treasury oversight than the substance, and I am happy to support the Bill.