Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill

Lord Deighton Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd October 2013 Lords Chamber

[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 Lawson of Blaby]

My noble friend will not be surprised to hear that I am wholly unconvinced by his reply; nevertheless I shall please him by withdrawing the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Brennan]

My Lords, perhaps I may take up the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. Paragraph (a) of the proposed new clause refers to a “fiduciary duty” by the ring-fenced body. In practical terms that means a duty exercised by, ultimately, the board of directors. The body acts through it. The practical consequences of such a duty, which does not involve enforceability by the regulators, are twofold. First, if the board of a bank breaches its fiduciary duty to customers in this way, it is perfectly reasonable for the shareholders to refuse to indemnify it in respect of any claims made by customers on the basis that it has breached a statutory duty, which could not conceivably be said to have been acting in the shareholders’ interests. That is the first practical consequence. It is a deterrent. Secondly, although I have not checked this yet, I suspect that in the field of commercial insurance you would not be able to get D&O insurance for protection in respect of a fiduciary duty until you have satisfied the insurability test of having acted reasonably and in accordance with commonly accepted standards of probity and good behaviour in the commercial sector. Therefore, the point is answered, I suspect, by practical consequences.

[Lord Deighton]

My Lords, this amendment is an opportunity to revisit the imposition of fiduciary duties or duties of care on financial services firms. The other place debated the same amendment at the Committee and Report stages of this Bill. Of course, no one in this House is going to disagree with the proposition that customers need a better deal from their banks, whether we call it treating customers fairly, having better standards or putting customers first. The Government have been keen, for example, to see more competition between banks as another way of addressing this concern. We all want to see better standards in the banking industry and a return to the days when the customer relationship mattered and the customer came first. We want the leadership of banks to appreciate that it is also in their long-term interests in building successful banking businesses. The Government’s amendments so far, which implement the recommendations of the PCBS, will be an important step in the round in that respect.

However, I note that the commission did not itself recommend the introduction of either a fiduciary duty or a duty of care. To cut to the chase, the Government do not consider that the introduction of either a fiduciary duty or a duty of care in legislation would help to drive up these standards within ring-fenced banks. First, banks are already subject to a wide range of legal duties. Most obviously, they are subject to contractual obligations to their customers. Any banking relationship or transaction is subject to a contract between the bank and the customer. Of course, a bank is subject to obligations under FiSMA and the regulator’s rules. Further, the Government’s amendment on banking standards rules means that in future senior managers and ordinary employees will also be subject to conduct rules. Therefore, it is not clear that imposing a fiduciary obligation on a bank would add any value. The fiduciary obligation is the kind of obligation that a director owes to a company, or a trustee owes to a beneficiary under a trust. It is an appropriate obligation when one person is acting on behalf of another or dealing with another’s property on their behalf. However, deposits with a bank are not property held on trust, so a fiduciary obligation would have no place in the contractual relationship between a bank and its customer.

Similarly, it is not clear what a duty of care—

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

I hesitate to interrupt my noble friend at this time of night, but there is an important issue in relation to what he said that needs clarification. He said a couple of times that the relationship between a bank and its customer is a contractual one, and therefore that that was sort of QED. The problem is that until not long ago all banks, in the small print of their contracts, which they knew full well that customers would not read, put material which, had the customers read it, would have led them to not agree the contract. In that situation, the contract said such and such, but the purport was wholly antithetical to the real interests of the customer. How does my noble friend deal with that situation, if he is rejecting the fiduciary concept?

[Lord Deighton]

It is clear that the essential contractual relationship still exists, regardless of the fine print. It is not clear what a duty of care would add to the existing contractual obligations or regulatory requirements to which the ring-fenced body is subject. The primary duty of a ring-fenced bank is to repay its borrowings, such as deposits, when they fall due, in accordance with the terms of its contracts. If a ring-fenced bank does that and complies with its regulatory obligations, such as those relating to ring-fencing or leverage, it is hard to see what a duty of care would do to make it care more for its customers, inside or outside the financial services industry.

Therefore, the Government firmly believe that it would be better to impose specific and focused requirements, and standards of business, on banks, than to rely on high-level, generic concepts such as a duty of care. Banks can comply more easily with specific requirements. Customers and regulators can more effectively hold to account the banks, and, if appropriate, their senior managers, when they do not comply. Moreover, if our ultimate objective is to improve the deal that customers get from their banks, one of the most effective and direct ways to achieve this is surely by enhancing competition. Banks must be spurred to treat their customers better by the threat of the customers voting with their feet. Through the introduction of the measures in this Bill, including the changes to the regulator’s objectives and powers, and the new payments regulator, we believe that a better deal can be achieved.

Imposing a duty of care or a fiduciary duty would not give banks or their senior managers a clear understanding of what conduct is expected of them. It would not provide a viable and effective means of holding banks to account, and it would not benefit consumers. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord McFall of Alcluith]

On the duty of care, at the present moment if an individual opens a bank account, they get 170 pages of dense text to look through. No one is going to look through that. If a duty of care were imposed, does the Minister not think that banks would look at that again and perhaps fillet a lot of the information, so that the information that went to the customer would be readily understood?

[Lord Deighton]

I certainly agree with the noble Lord’s observation that sometimes the way in which business is done clearly is not in the interests of the customer. However, the Government do not believe that the duty of care is the right way to address those kinds of problems.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Lord Eatwell]

My Lords, that was not a very satisfactory answer. First, market sensitivity is an extraordinary red herring. Whoever wrote that bit should not be allowed to write any bits again. This is not about market sensitivity: it is about the overall structure of the banking sector and any issues of market sensitivity would, of course, be kept carefully out. Anybody would do that, so it is a really silly argument.

Turning to the good bank/bad bank story, value for money with respect to the disposal of assets is obviously an important component, but so is the future of the banking industry and its performance in relation to the UK economy as a whole, especially its support of the real economy in the provision of financial services. That aspect does not seem to have been considered. After all, the good bank/bad bank story is essentially a defensive move. It is dealing with a bank which is hampered—or potentially hampered; we will see what the report says—by its current mixture of assets and liabilities, particularly non-performing assets. The good bank/bad bank split is a defensive measure; a device for ensuring that you have an operation in the good bank which we hope can start increasing lending, as the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, said, particularly to the SME sector.

However, Amendment 103 is asking for something different, which the Minister did not actually address. It is asking for some thought about what the structure of the banking industry should look like in future. Are we simply going to repair what we have in the best way we can or do we want something really different? Could progress towards that “something different” be made in the sale of state-owned assets? It seems to me that that was what the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, was talking about when he referred to the second element of the banking commission’s recommendations. Clearly, this recommendation has not been taken on board by the Government. Perhaps it has simply been overlooked; they might look at it now and think more seriously about it. I am sure that we will be returning to this issue later. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.