Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill
Debate between Lord Turnbull and Lord Deighton(10 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Turnbull (CB)
My Lords, this amendment repeats an amendment tabled in Committee, the aim of which was to delete what the commission thought was an otiose strategic objective for the FCA and thereby increase the prominence and importance of what were previously called its three operational objectives, one of which was the promotion of competition. I thought that the reply from the noble Lord, Lord Newby, was unsatisfactory and I wanted to pursue it a bit further. The noble Lord concluded with the following remarks:
“After taking legal advice, the FCA has subsequently written and confirmed that it is happy with the strategic objective. On that basis, we are happy that the FCA is happy and wish to retain it”.—[Official Report, 15/10/13; col. 508.]
Perhaps I might respectfully comment that the object here is not to make the FCA happy but to make it pursue diligently the competition objective, about which a number of people have reservations. I would like to give the Minister the opportunity to give us some further assurance that the competition objective of the FCA will be pursued with the vigour that I think the Treasury and this House want.
Lord Deighton
My Lords, I confirm the observation of the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, that it is of course not our objective simply to make the FCA happy. I will give a slightly longer explanation of why we think that the current situation will work just fine but, to get straight to the point, it is absolutely because we believe that the overriding mission statement is entirely consistent with the vigorous pursuit of the competition objective.
In looking at this from a personal point of view, I am very comfortable with the notion of an overriding mission statement which works in harmony with the operational objectives, can be used to support and enforce them and is very useful when it comes to shades of difference between them. I am very comfortable in this case because the overriding objective of making markets work well is entirely consistent with our mutual objective of ensuring that the FCA is pursing its competition objective with the utmost vigour.
I hope noble Lords have been able to witness that where we have been able to compromise, I have been very keen to compromise, but I am afraid here it is either yes or no, and in this case I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment on the basis of my suggestion that I think it is going to be okay.
Lord Turnbull
In tabling amendments, there are a number of objectives. The first is to get an amendment accepted, the second is to make a point and the third is to receive an assurance. I think I have achieved the second and third objectives. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Deighton
In the spirit of the noble Lord’s approach, which was to move on from the specific amendment, I will not read out my speaking note, as entertaining and well structured as it is. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, for his valuable experience here. I feel as the noble Lord does—something in here needs to be sorted out, but at the moment we are not exactly sure quite what the right thing is. However, it is certainly likely to involve a review, as is recommended as part of the amendment. Therefore I am more than happy, in preparation for Report—I am sorry, I mean Third Reading—to see what we can come up with together on a review.
Lord Turnbull
On the basis of that quite generous assurance, I am very happy to withdraw the amendment.
Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill
Debate between Lord Turnbull and Lord Deighton(10 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Turnbull
I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, that it is certainly not intended, while this activity might remain within a banking group, that it should be done, under the plan, by a ring-fenced bank. One of the reasons why we took the view that we should wait and see is that the dividing line between a proprietary trade and a trade on behalf of a customer is not straightforward, which is why it is very difficult in the US. For example, if I lend the noble Lord money he may seek some kind of hedge which I would provide. That might mean that my position as the bank is no longer what I really want it to be. As a bank, I would look around to see what my colleagues have done during the course of the day, and we would then add up all the positions that we have taken. We may well find that that position is not where we really want to be, so on the following day the bank goes out and undertakes a trade which gets it back to the degree of hedged position that it wants. Was that a proprietary trade or was it a trade that was a consequence of serving a customer? That is why this is actually very difficult and why we are wise to wait and see whether workable definitions could be found of what constitutes real proprietary trading and of what constitutes trading in response to a customer. This measured amendment enables us to do precisely that.
Lord Deighton
My Lords, the ICB considered in detail the case for a ban on proprietary trading in the UK, but decided in favour of ring-fencing. The PCBS heard evidence from a wide range of sources that prop trading does not appear to play a large role in the UK at the moment—as my noble friend Lord Lawson pointed out—nor did it play a significant role in the financial crisis. The noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, has already addressed the question of my noble friend Lord Higgins, but it should of course be noted that the ring-fenced banks will be banned from proprietary trading as well as from market-making and other forms of trading activity that would expose them to risks from global financial markets. Therefore, from a prudential perspective, much of the risk posed by prop trading can be addressed by a suitably robust ring-fence which is, of course, the thrust of our legislation. This was the point made by the PRA in response to questions from the PCBS.
It is also worth noting that the evidence heard by the PCBS also suggests that prop trading is not necessarily the sole avenue for the cultural contamination of banks. For example, the PCBS highlighted in its excellent report the serious failings in culture and standards at HBOS, a bank which did not engage in any prop trading at all. Indeed, it is perfectly possible to run an integrated securities business with full integrity in a way that manages any potential conflicts of interest quite satisfactorily, so they do not necessarily follow. It is far from clear, therefore, that prop trading is the real problem facing the UK financial system, or that structural solutions address cultural problems. In light of that, and of observations about the practical difficulties of a ban on prop trading, as it is being attempted in the US through the Volcker rule, the PCBS did not recommend a ban on prop trading.
It is not wholly clear what further evidence would support a different conclusion to that reached by the PCBS in its own assessment, so it is unclear what a further review into proprietary trading within such a short period of the PCBS’s own report would add. Still less is there a need for such a review to be followed immediately by an independent review of the same question. Of course, we have no issue with reviews as a matter of principle: we are just not sure that, in this case, legislating for one in advance really does much for us.
As the findings of the PCBS do not suggest that prop trading presents a serious prudential risk at this time, I do not think we need to legislate for the regulator to carry out a further review. The absolutely valid point made by my noble friend Lord Lawson was that this could change in the future. That is what we are trying to address. Should that happen, the PRA has made it clear that it already has the powers it needs to bear down on prop trading where it endangers the safety and soundness of a firm or where the risk incurred is not consistent with the publicly stated risk appetite of a bank.
Moreover, monitoring and reviewing all risks to a bank constitutes an essential part of the PRA’s work. The PRA’s approach is to insist that firms adopt and follow a risk appetite that is consistent with the PRA’s statutory objective to promote the safety and soundness of firms that it regulates. This will include regular monitoring and review of all risks, not limited just to those associated with prop trading. Therefore, to require the PRA by legislation to undertake such a review seems unnecessary. Should we legislate for a review of how reference rates are set, for example? Should we legislate for a review of mis-selling practices? Why, therefore, should we do it for prop trading? It is not apparent to me what problem a review would solve. While I think that reviews can play a useful role, in this case we are not sure that it is justified in advance.
We need to give the regulator the space to allocate its resources in a way that is appropriate and proportionate when considering all the different risks to the UK financial system, not only focusing on one particular risk. Our more widely framed reporting requirements allow for this. For all of these reasons, I do not think that a review on the particular issue of prop trading is necessary. The regulators are already subject to extensive reporting requirements. I expect the PRA to make the Treasury, and Parliament, aware of any emerging risks it identifies, whether through prop trading or anything else. The deputy governor for financial stability has already written to the chair of the Treasury Committee, offering to discuss arrangements for reporting. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill
Debate between Lord Turnbull and Lord Deighton(10 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Turnbull (CB)
My Lords, there was a similar organisation set up in my time, the Shareholder Executive. The Shareholder Executive is a body attached to BIS, as it is now called, and it creates a centre of expertise for the management of shareholders. What it does not do is claim to be the decision-maker. It is all very well to have the expertise—we need the expertise—but there is a pretence that decisions relating to RBS and LBG are being taken by UKFI as opposed to being taken by the Treasury on the advice of UKFI. It is a pretence that when it suits you, you can decide, and when it suits you, you can hand it on to someone else.
At the moment, with the change of leadership in RBS—the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, may not want to comment on this—we do not know whether that was a decision of the RBS board, UKFI or the Treasury. It ought to be clear who took that decision. You can have an advisory body—in this case, almost an executive body—but not one that claims to be the decision-maker, which is the pretence of the UKFI situation.
The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Deighton) (Con)
My Lords, the intention of the amendment is to transfer into HM Treasury the function of managing the Government’s shareholdings, in particular in RBS and Lloyds. As my noble friend Lord Lawson has pointed out, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his Mansion House speech in June, has already made it clear that he rejects this particular PCBS recommendation.
As has been pointed out in a number comments already, UKFI was not a creature set up by this Government; it was set up by the previous Government when they made the initial capital injections into RBS, Lloyds, Northern Rock and Bradford and Bingley, with the idea of being able to manage these investments on an arm’s-length commercial basis. So that was the genesis.
This group works closely with the management of RBS and Lloyds to assure itself of their approach to the strategy and to hold management to account for their performance. RBS and Lloyds are led by their management and board in the interests of all shareholders, including the taxpayer. So, while it may be possible to imagine different arrangements to fulfil these objectives—you can make the arguments and the pros and cons of the different ways of doing it—the current ones work well, as my noble friend Lord Garel-Jones has said, and it would not make sense to change them at this stage. So, just as my noble friend Lord Lawson said it is a simple amendment, there is a simple reason to reject it—it does not make any practical sense. UKFI is working fine and the time and effort it would take to pull it back into the Treasury and to reorient all that work there would distract our efforts on the important work that is currently going on.
My noble friend Lord Lawson referred to the review at RBS in particular, which we are two-thirds of the way through, and the bad bank/good bank option. I am afraid I am going to disappoint my noble friend. I am not going to tell him what the result is but it will be ready this autumn and we will announce the outcome and the rationale behind it. The matter is being pursued with great urgency and the last thing we want to do at the moment is to destabilise the arrangements for conducting that important analysis, which is really the most important thing.
I reiterate that UKFI is staffed by some very good top people. I have worked with them and I have seen the work that they do. Frankly, we have been able to recruit top-class people to do this work on our behalf. I can assure the Committee that the Government continue to value the role that they play. It was demonstrated again, as my noble friend pointed out, by the role they played in advising the Chancellor on the successful divestment of 15.5% of the Government’s shareholding in Lloyds at 75p per share. They will carry on looking at the full range of options for RBS and managing the timing of the subsequent tranches of the sale of Lloyds back into private ownership.
I am grateful to the PCBS and the noble Lord for raising these issues, but the Government consider that UKFI has a vital role to play which it is performing well. I therefore cannot support the amendment and I urge the noble Lord to withdraw it.
Lord Deighton
Noble Lords will know that the Chancellor has already set out at the Mansion House the next stage of the Government’s plan to take the banking system from rescue to recovery. For Lloyds, the Chancellor has taken the first steps to return Lloyds to the private sector and will continue to consider options for further share sales. Value for money for the taxpayer will be the overriding consideration for disposals. There is no pre-fixed timescale for share sales and, given the size of the taxpayer’s stake in Lloyds, the disposal process is likely to involve further multiple stages over time.
For RBS, however, share sales are still some way off. We discussed this earlier when we debated my noble friend Lord Lawson’s amendment. The Treasury is currently examining the case for creating a bad bank for RBS risky assets. As discussed, this review is still ongoing and will be published later in the autumn. Setting out public options for structural change may be advisable in some cases, as the Chancellor’s announcement of the RBS bad bank review makes clear. However, the Government will need to judge in each case whether to do so, given the risk of generating uncertainty and speculation about likely outcomes.
Similarly, selling large numbers of shares in the market is a very commercially sensitive matter: for example, in the case of Lloyds. Any communications from government in advance of placing shares could be destabilising and affect the price that the Government get for the shares. Publication of a report as outlined in the proposed amendment could undermine the Government’s ability to sell shares quickly in favourable market conditions. This could significantly reduce value for money for the taxpayer in that case.
The Government firmly agree that all the topics set out in the amendment need to be carefully considered by any Government in making their decisions relating to the sale of banking assets. UKFI, which we talked about earlier, was established with a very clear emphasis on value for money in executing its core mandate of devising means of exiting the Government’s shareholdings in the banks. In doing so, it is required to pay due regard to the maintenance of financial stability and act in a way that promotes competition.
The amendment seeks to improve accountability. Many mechanisms already provide accountability. On value for money, the Government are scrutinised against the general principles set out in the Green Book. UKFI is also accountable to Parliament through the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and has a mandate to secure value for money for the taxpayer. Moreover, the Treasury and UKFI are accountable directly, through the accounting officer mechanism, to the National Audit Office and to the Public Accounts Committee. Indeed, UKFI published a report, following the sale of Northern Rock, setting out the rationale for returning the bank to the private sector at that time. The National Audit Office completed a review of the sales process and published a lengthy report on it, which was considered at a session of the Public Accounts Committee.
The sale of Northern Rock demonstrated the Government’s commitment to transparency on the sale of their banking assets and the ability for bodies such as the National Audit Office and Parliament to scrutinise the decisions of government on these matters. Finally, the Government are accountable for their decision to Parliament, including through the Treasury Select Committee and in public debate. Overall, it is not clear what value would be added by this mandatory reporting requirement and it might well be detrimental to the objectives it aims to deliver, particularly to value for money. I hope that the noble Lord will therefore agree to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Turnbull (CB)
The first half of a paragraph in the PCBS report asked for a report on the good bank/bad bank option by September: it is going to be a bit late but we are told it is coming soon. The next two or three sentences were on the same subject as the amendment: looking at a wider range of options. Is the Minister telling the House that the Government will fulfil the first half of this PCBS recommendation but not the second half?
Lord Deighton
The Government will announce the conclusions of the good bank/bad bank review and the rationale for why that is the option being pursued. We will be addressing the second half of the undertaking in describing the rationale.
Lord Turnbull
The Government have got to good bank status with RBS. Are they not proposing to do any further analysis on what might happen to the good bank bit that remains?
Lord Deighton
The first thing we have to determine is what we are proposing to do with the good bank/bad bank. Does the split make sense and on what basis does it work? We will subsequently look at what we do with the separate parts.
Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill
Debate between Lord Turnbull and Lord Deighton(10 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Deighton
Yes, there would be a review, but not a proper parliamentary process. The argument I am making is that this is such a switch from ring-fencing to full separation that it should benefit from that full process. While I obviously bow to the experience of my noble friend Lord Lawson, these things, if the circumstances dictate, can be done extremely rapidly, where the circumstances demand that kind of urgent move.
I think it is instructive to compare the process of developing the ring-fencing policy to that of this proposal for full separation. The ICB went through an extensive process of deliberation and analysis, carefully collected data, prepared a full cost and benefit analysis and compared that to full separation. It found that a robust ring-fence will insulate essential retail banking services from shocks originating elsewhere in the financial system. It will enhance the authorities’ ability to manage the failure of a ring-fenced bank, or its wider corporate group, in an orderly way. It will, therefore, deliver the financial stability benefits of separation. Ring-fencing will also preserve some of the benefits of universal banking. I made the argument of diversification and scale, not simply diversity. Customers will be able to access the full range of services from a single group: that is a marketing advantage as well. The frictional costs to the economy of ring-fencing are therefore lower than those of full separation. That is, of course, the reason we did not go for full separation. Further, in the event that the ring-fenced bank runs into trouble while the rest of the group is doing well, other group members can support it. That, of course, would not be possible under complete separation.
On a comparison of the costs and benefits, the ICB chose ring-fencing as the superior policy. The PCBS did not provide any new evidence to contradict this position. In this respect, the noble Lord’s proposal for an independent review of ring-fencing is an admission that the evidence base for full separation does not yet exist. The amendment asks us to put a policy into law and then establishes an independent review process in the hope that it might justify it. For us, this is lawmaking done backwards.
That brings me to the Government’s second and perhaps more powerful reason for rejecting this amendment. Let us imagine that a future Government decided that not ring-fencing, or full separation, but a third policy was appropriate. Imagine, for example, that it decided that a Volcker rule was the right policy, or a shift to full-reserve banking. In either case, a review that was limited to deciding whether to enact a reserve provision for separating ring-fenced banks from their groups would be no use at all, and the power would need to be repealed, along with much of the rest of the Bill. Coming back to Parliament would be the only way to give a future Government wanting to change policy the full range of options.
Therefore, on grounds of both substance and of proper legislative process, the Government continue to oppose a reserve provision for a move to full separation and I therefore urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Turnbull
I think the Minister has erected a straw man here. The straw man is that there is a quite lightweight review, possibly of the kind that he is recommending, rather than the kind others are recommending, and then there is a day in the Commons and a day in the Lords and, bingo, this huge change takes place. What the commission envisages is a resurrection of the ICB. It is not a coincidence that the number five was chosen, as that was the number that worked on the ICB. The ICB went through all the steps that he claimed, of looking at the options, the cost benefits and so on, and evidence was taken in various Select Committees. Therefore, there would be an enormous amount of public discussion, inside and outside Parliament, before this was enacted. That seems to me to be the process and I cannot see what is wrong with it.
The other point is that the Minister downplays the incentive effect. If you have one bank which has no incentive to test the system and is very happy with its niche in the market and it sees another bank pushing very hard at the limits, what is its incentive? Does it simply turn a blind eye? Under this arrangement it has an incentive to support suggestions that the other bank should be reined in, otherwise it then brings big change on the sector as a whole. So it produces, it seems to me, the right incentive set for all the players in the banking sector.
The Minister has heard a lot of quite strong opinions on this. As I said at the start, the prior condition of all this is a proper review arrangement. If that is in place, this is, in the opinion of many, a sensible power to have. It can be enacted, but if the view is that some alternative to separation is better, there is no problem; the Government can go down a different channel. If they want to extend separation, they have the power to do so. As with the first reserve power, further discussions need to take place. I think the divisions here are more fundamental, but, equally, I think the strength of opinion is also more fundamental. None the less, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.