Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill

Lord Lawson of Blaby Excerpts

Tuesday 15th October 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Higgins]

I come in on the same point, if I may, because my reaction was the same as the noble Lord who has just spoken. Am I right in thinking that all these bail-in provisions apply only to ring-fenced banks? Is that the case, or not, or are they extended to banks that are not within the ring-fence? Perhaps the Minister could make absolutely clear what the position is, because it was not clear earlier.

[Lord Lawson of Blaby (Con)]

The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, said something which I think is profoundly wrong, but I can understand why he said it. Will my noble friend the Minister make it absolutely clear that it is not the position of Her Majesty’s Government, and it is not the purpose of this Bill, to ensure that no ring-fenced bank will ever be allowed to fail? That is not the position; it must not be the position and I do not believe that it is the Government’s intention.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, I can confirm what the noble Lord, Lord Lawson says. It is not the intention to have a situation where it is impossible for a ring-fenced bank to fail. What we are doing, particularly through the guarantee scheme, is ensuring that ordinary depositors are protected in those circumstances. Through these potential provisions we hope to ensure that there will be continuity of activity, which might not be the case without them.

In terms of the scope of these provisions, they are the fourth of what are now four options in the Banking Act for dealing with a bank that is in danger of failing. One is sale to another bank; one is the bridge bank and the other is nationalisation. Those measures apply to all banks covered by that legislation. I believe that that extends the measures beyond the ring-fenced banks.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lawson of Blaby]

My Lords, I do not want to go into the issue of money-laundering; we have had a good debate on it and I am sure that my noble friend may have some further observations to make in the light of what has been said.

I endorse very strongly what the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, had to say when speaking to this group of amendments. The Government are indeed to be commended on this series of amendments. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, pointed out, in certain important ways, they do not go far enough. There is also the critical question of the definition of a bank in government Amendment 55. We would like to hear very clearly what is the definition of a bank and we would like the Government to look again at the points that the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, my fellow commissioner on the banking commission, made. Although the Government have made a huge advance, there are still important areas where they have not gone far enough.

I should also like to address what lies behind this and what my noble friends Lord Trenchard and Lord Flight said in casting doubt on the whole drift of the provision. We have sought to say that there must be personal responsibility on members of the senior management in banks. It is not good enough for there simply to be fines on banks when things have gone wrong and there has been culpability. What happens if there are fines on banks? Who bears the burden? It is the owners of the banks, the shareholders. The shareholders are the innocent victims here. There must be individual responsibility on the management where such behaviour can be demonstrated or where the management neglectfully failed to exercise responsibility.

As the noble Lords, Lord Turnbull and Lord McFall, said, in hearing evidence, the commission heard one of two things: either, “It wasn’t me; it was a collective board decision, so no individual is responsible”; or, “It wasn’t me; I had no idea what the traders in my bank were doing; it was all them”. Of course, we strongly suspected that the reason that they had no idea what the traders were doing was that they took great care not to know. The point is simple: if they did not know what the traders were doing, they were culpable. It is their business to know what their traders are doing. That will not wash either.

Then we have heard the excuse: “What about the regulators? The regulators were at fault”. So they were; that is beyond dispute. The Government have introduced a new system of regulation and supervision which they hope will be better than the one that preceded it. We will come to this later, but we have suggested ways in which that, in our judgment, needs to be further strengthened. That does not exculpate the bankers.

It has also been suggested that the Bank of England was pursuing an inappropriately cheap money policy and, therefore: “What were the bankers meant to do? It is the Bank of England’s fault”. I shall not detain the House by going into this now, but it is arguable whether the cheap money policy was wrong or right at the time. I think that you could make a very good case that it was appropriate at the time, but anyhow, whether it was wrong or right, it is no good a banker saying, “I couldn’t help making a bad loan. I couldn’t help taking excessive risks. I couldn’t help being reckless”. That is absurd and pathetic.

Of course, others were culpable. The auditors were culpable. They never raised a finger to warn the boards of the banks of the risks that they were running. Again, we all know that the ratings agencies were culpable. The ratings agencies made mistakes in calling rubbish derivatives triple-A. But at the end of the day, the buck stops with the bankers. It is their responsibility. That is what they are paid to do. It is their judgment that they are meant to exercise.

Finally, we were told, “Oh, there may be other jurisdictions, such as Hong Kong”, or wherever, “where standards are lower, so we cannot afford to have higher standards and more direct responsibility than in Hong Kong”. That is no good at all. The standards in the City of London should be the highest in the world. The whole thinking behind the commission on banking standards was that we wanted to clean up banking, not to destroy it, so that British banking can be even stronger and make an even greater contribution to the British economy than it has in the past. That is what we were about.

Personal responsibility is not the whole of the solution, but personal responsibility of the senior management is a vital and necessary element. Therefore, as I said, I commend the Government for having moved a long way in that direction, but a little more needs to be done, as the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, pointed out.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, I am proud to have my name associated with that of my noble friends Lord Brennan and Lord McFall in this group of amendments.

I certainly agree with much of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, not least when he said that we have covered the question of money-laundering in some detail. Indeed we have, but I shall not apologise for reinforcing some of the points made and, I hope, finding one or two that have not been made. At its mildest, it is disappointing to hear the Minister say that the amendments are unnecessary and that what they are intended to achieve is largely covered in the Bill or in the government amendments

My noble friend Lord Brennan called that naivety. Yes it is; I would say that it is also complacent in the extreme. The examples given by my noble friend Lord McFall show that the current system for British banking is not working. The huge fines levied on HSBC and Standard Chartered by the US authorities showed that the US authorities do not think that British banking standards are high enough. I absolutely concur with the view of the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, that the standards of British banking should be the highest in the world. If that puts off some people from working in this country, so much the better.

It should be stressed that money-laundering regulations in the UK are designed to protect our financial system. That is primarily why they are there. Money-laundering is more widely defined in the UK than in several other jurisdictions, notably the USA and much of Europe. UK money-laundering offences are not limited to the proceeds of serious crimes, nor are there any monetary limits. Financial transactions need no money-laundering design or purpose for our laws to consider them a money-laundering offence. A money-laundering offence under existing legislation need not even involve money, since the money-laundering legislation covers assets of any description. The law applies to a person who by criminal conduct evades a liability such as a taxation liability, and that individual is deemed to have obtained a sum of money equal in value to the liability evaded. That is a very important point. Just a week ago HMRC announced that every year some £35 billion of taxes due in this country is not collected.

With that in mind, we should be careful about setting aside the idea that money-laundering is an issue. I suggest that it is very much an issue. My noble friends have rightly outlined a number of reasons why we really cannot afford to miss the opportunity the Bill provides to deal with failures in anti money-laundering compliance. Not only would that compromise the outstanding work and considerable efforts of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, it could have a tragic human cost. Some of the most vulnerable people in poor countries around the world suffer in many ways as a result of the effects of money-laundering.

I want to stress the matter of our own economy. The parliamentary commission rightly argued that good standards in the banking industry are important for not only the health of that sector, but the wider UK economy as a whole. Correspondingly, failures in standards jeopardise the health of our economy. That may seem self-evident, but surely the banking sector in this country has been responsible for enough damage to our economy in recent years.

It is vital that we take the opportunity to ensure that failures to comply with anti money-laundering laws and other financial regulations do not lead to any further damage. I suggest that there is a real risk of that, notwithstanding that, as was highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Flight, HSBC has taken rather stringent measures as a result of being hauled over the coals in the US. If as a result some individuals have lost out or been inconvenienced, as he seemed to be suggesting, then that is regrettable. However, it is really pretty small beer compared to some of the issues involved in and the amounts affected by money-laundering throughout the world, often with the involvement of parts of the British banking sector.

When dealing with this issue it is important that we do not easily say that it is all right, that the legislation covers everything we need, and that there is no need for amendments such as these. In preparing for this part of our discussions this afternoon, I looked at the Bill in detail. I was able to find a total of eight separate pieces of legislation mentioned in the Bill, as it was originally published. Not once in the Bill did I find any mention of the words “anti money-laundering”, for a start. Nor did I find any mention at all of the three pieces of legislation—the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, the Fraud Act 2006, or the Money Laundering Regulations 2007—in some of the amendments we are discussing. Apparently the Government do not think that there is any need to link, at least explicitly, those pieces of legislation with the Bill. That is a grave mistake.

My noble friend Lord Glasman came up with a phrase that struck a chord, certainly with me and I suspect also with other noble Lords: without incentives to virtue, you get incentives to vice. That is absolutely the case, and I very much hope that the Minister will reconsider what I believe to be his rather complacent position on these amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Newby]

I will take it back to the Treasury, but I want the noble Lord to be in no doubt as to what the Government are currently proposing.

[Lord Lawson of Blaby]

May I reinforce what others have said? I am horrified by the Minister’s explanation. He must take it back to the Treasury and get the Treasury to think again. I refresh his memory, for example, about the evidence that we took from UBS. Not only was it culpable to an extraordinary degree in the LIBOR scandal but its top management also said that it knew nothing about what its traders were doing. This was in spite of the fact that when it had its capital-raising exercise, it presented to all the funds that its great profit centre was trading in LIBOR derivatives. Then it said, “We know nothing about it”. This made it immensely culpable. The Minister is saying that if you had a bank that was not taking retail deposits but was doing just that, there would be no individual responsibility at all under this Bill. I am afraid that he must look at that again.

[Lord Eatwell]

I would like to reinforce the position of the official Opposition on this. We are totally behind what the noble Lords, Lord Lawson and Lord Turnbull, have said. It is disgraceful to suggest that investment banks that are not deposit-taking but offer a wide range of financial services should not come under this senior persons regime.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, I will try to sum up some of those points. One of the big challenges that we faced in producing the exact terms of this amendment was to produce a sanction which is a credible offence and could be successfully prosecuted. Setting the conditions to include that in all the circumstances the individual’s conduct fell far below what could reasonably be expected of them and that they were aware of the risk that a decision could cause the bank to fail gives us the clarity that we need. This will capture behaviour which in normal parlance or in normal view would be considered reckless.

The noble Lord, Lord Brennan, said that he was keen that this new offence should make people think. It will make people think, but equally it must have within it a degree of certainty that means that an offence could be prosecutable. This necessarily circumscribes the way in which we define it.

I can confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, that his interpretation of the provisions in the Bill is correct.

[Lord Lawson of Blaby]

May I ask my noble friend one question? The commission’s recommendations refer to this as reckless misconduct. The word “reckless” is very important. Speaking to this, the Minister used the word “reckless”, but I do not see it in the amendment. Can he explain why?

[Lord Newby]

Yes, I hope I can. As I was just saying, we had to put in the Bill a form of words that would create a credible offence that could be successfully prosecuted. The two requirements that an individual’s conduct had to fall far below what could reasonably be expected of them and that they were aware of the risk they were taking, would, in the view of the lawyers, capture recklessness. It is a definition of recklessness without the use of the word. The wording gives a greater chance of having a credible offence than using the word “reckless”. It is an attempt to make sure that we have got something that we could use, while capturing the concept.

The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, asked about the difference between the heading and the text. My understanding is that headings of sections of the Bill do not constitute part of the Bill for legal reasons. It may be possible to improve the heading, but the noble Lord should not worry about it. The noble Lord asked whether any restrictions on conditions which were imposed might be made public. At first sight, I cannot see any reason why that should not be the case, but I will write to him to confirm the position.

We have had a good debate on these amendments. I commend the government amendments to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharkey]

My Lords, I have two simple questions. One is to do with the innovation objective. Government Amendment 60M states:

“The innovation objective is to promote the development of, and innovation in, payment systems”.

It just occurred to me to ask whether there is any example of a regulator successfully promoting innovation. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s reply to that.

[Lord Lawson of Blaby]

It would be an innovation.

[Lord Sharkey]

An innovation regulator.

[Lord Lawson of Blaby]

No, it would be an innovation.

[Lord Sharkey]

Government Amendment 60U is headed, “Power to require disposal of interest in payment system”. New subsection (2) states:

“The power conferred … may be exercised only if the Payment Systems Regulator is satisfied that, if the power is not exercised, there is likely to be a restriction or distortion of competition in—

(a) the market for payment systems, or

(b) a market for services provided by payment systems”.

How is that a remedy for anything? When it comes to divestment or disposal, is it the Government’s notion that someone will pick up the shares that have been disposed of; and, if so, who will it be? What would be the incentive for anyone to pick them up?