Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill

Lord Phillips of Sudbury Excerpts

Tuesday 15th October 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Higgins (Con)]

My Lords, both these amendments have much to commend them. The point that I would like to pick up regarding Amendment 43 is the position of the banks in which the taxpayer has a large holding. Having bailed out a number of banks, it is extraordinary that the Government have stood back completely from any involvement at all in what those banks are doing. In the context of competition, which we are now discussing, there is a strong case for them to set an example. This would enable at least a degree of competition to be introduced at this stage without much delay.

Amendment 102 also has much to commend it. It suggests that the inquiry should look into a series of aspects with regard to banks such as the level of competition, the obstacles to it, other actions and so on. One should add to that a careful study of what the economies of scale in banking actually are, because I suspect the reality is that they do not exist to anywhere near the extent that the size of the banks at present would suggest. On the other hand, we would find that there were major diseconomies of scale, not least the enormous risks to which we have been exposed as a result of banks being the size that they are. We frequently say that they are not only too big to fail but too big to manage. It is clear that they are too big to manage, and that is a major diseconomy of scale.

If we are going to set up the kind of inquiry that the Opposition are advocating, which I would support, it needs to look at economies of scale in this context and consider whether—given that the banks seem to have been motivated as much by megalomania as by anything else—they are of an appropriate size or whether some consideration ought to be given to whether competition would be increased if they were broken up. It is curious that competition in this area has been, as far as I can see, in no way affected by this or any previous Government’s overall competition policy, which has simply not been applied here. If, as the noble Lord said just now, the major banks have probably 80% of the market—given that normally anything over 30% would be appropriate for an investigation—we need to look at that carefully.

The lack of competition is affecting two things: the supply of loans to consumers and small businesses in particular, and the price. It is clear that there is a serious lack of supply for businesses that are trying to get finance for expansion. Despite all the Government’s efforts, of which there have been a number, to increase the supply of loans to small businesses and others, the loans do not seem to be getting through to the people whom the Government would like to help.

As for the price, one has only to look at the cost of capital to banks and then at the amount that they are charging consumers to realise that the situation is lunatic. I wish my noble friend Lord Flight well because there must surely be scope for something to be done on that issue. The difference between the cost and the amount being charged is totally disproportionate. This came up earlier in Question Time, when my noble friend on the Front Bench replied that there is concern about the amount being charged by banks when compared with what is charged on payday loans and so on. A helpful and illuminating article in the press in the past few days brought out this point. I hope that one can get something done about that.

We have some way to go and noble Lords will no doubt wish to return to this matter on Report. I hope that we will then take a definite decision or, even more, that the Government will respond to the proposal for a study. However, this is only a study, and a number of other measures to which I have referred go wider than this. These measures could be taken now and have some effect on the appalling oligopolistic situation in the market at the moment.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury (LD)]

My Lords, I, too, broadly support these two amendments. It is encouraging that every speaker so far has taken that broad point of view. As my noble friend Lord Sharkey said in opening this debate, the amendment in his name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Glasman, is a probing amendment. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, was advancing Amendment 102 in the same spirit. I very much hope that the Minister will say that he will take away the contributions made, so that we can come back together on Report with an amendment that answers some of these concerns.

Perhaps the most striking statistic that we have had was that given by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, who said that in Germany 80% of banking is provided by local regional banks whereas here the figure is only 3%. I think that was said by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, or perhaps it was the noble Lord, Lord Glasman.

[Lord Sharkey]

It was me.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

I am sorry, it was my noble friend. That is a stunning statistic. The fact that some of the small German banks failed in the great crisis seems to reflect a strength and virtue as compared with the situation in this country where, but for the injection of in excess of £80 billion of taxpayers’ funds, as far as I can see the whole banking system would have failed. The big clearers would have gone to the wall—that is the truth. We do not even have a market banking system that complies with the supposed basic virtues of a capitalist system: when they were tested, they could be held up only by immense government input.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Higgins]

My Lords, my noble friend says that people have been very slow in the past, but he is now telling us that the OFT will decide whether to make a referral—not actually do anything, just make a referral—by 2015. Does it really take from now to 2015 to decide whether the banks need to be referred?

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords, if I may, I would add that my noble friend talked of being too slow, but in this debate several noble Lords have made the point that it is not slowness which has afflicted the large clearing banks but immorality. Whether you are talking about trying to manipulate the LIBOR rate or PPI or identity insurance—you can go on and on—there is the sheer scale, impersonality and lack of relationship or any sort of customer allegiance. I fear that these have rotted the foundations of so many of these colossal banks. Does he not therefore understand that the gist of these amendments is to try to replace that state of affairs?

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, as far as immorality is concerned, later we will deal with amendments on the reversal of the burden of proof and on the new criminal offence which will be available should banks behave in a grossly immoral way. That is the way to deal with the narrow point my noble friend makes. The whole question of the culture of the banks is addressed only partially in the legislation because it is by definition a cultural issue. We are taking very significant steps to regulate individual senior managers and hold them to account for what they do in a way that has never been the case in the past. Again, that is quite a revolutionary change. Regarding the specific point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Flight, I believe that local authorities at least can bank wherever they choose, but I will look into the point and write to him. I simply do not know what the position is.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Desai]

My Lords, I support what my noble friend Lord Eatwell said and speak in relation to what the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, said. People who are supposed to be responsible for the conduct of, as it were, their inferiors in the bank sometimes do not understand what is happening below them. Certainly, in the case of Baring Brothers the management did not understand what Nick Leeson was doing. This is a matter of competence. I very strongly support this amendment because we ought to have periodic examinations of people in charge of banks, and see whether they pass those examinations, because the profession is changing and they are way behind a changing business.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords, I support very much what the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, has just said. We need a clear and authoritative report from my noble friend the Minister as to who is right between the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, who is a highly distinguished lawyer, and those who are advising my noble friend. If there is any doubt about the matter, I see virtue in the amendments put down in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Brennan, Lord McFall and Lord Watson of Invergowrie. I commend the organisations that have helped to craft those important amendments. There again, the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, seems to make a strong point. If on second thoughts the Minister cannot assure us that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, is superfluous, one would want him to assure the House that the noble Baroness’s concern is superfluous.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, perhaps I may start by dealing with the three points on which the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, sought clarification. The first was on the definition of “bank” for the purposes of these amendments. The regime will apply to all UK institutions that have permission to take deposits. That covers ring-fenced banks, other banks, building societies, credit unions and some wholesale deposit takers, but it does not cover things which in popular parlance are called banks but which do not take deposits.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Eatwell]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Brennan has made some powerful points. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that, as in the previous group of amendments we were discussing, these offences will apply only to institutions that accept deposits. It therefore leaves out a whole series of institutions that I believe the noble Lords, Lord Turnbull and Lord Lawson, would also feel should be included under these offences.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords, I commend the Government on bringing forward Amendment 58. It has been a source of great public disaffection that over the past few years the number of people in the City responsible for some really gross acts of criminality who have been brought to book could be measured on the fingers of two hands; indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, referred earlier to the pathetic enforcement statistics. This provision is therefore vital. However, I have two thoughts regarding the way in which this is framed: first, that it is too severe, and secondly, that it is too light, or slight.

The title of the clause is:

“Offences relating to decision”—

I suppose they mean “a decision”—

“that results in bank failure”.

I note that in two places in the clause itself it talks about a decision that “causes” a bank failure. There is a difference in the meaning of the words, “resulting” in a bank failure and “causing” it. The word “causing” is absolutely direct in a way that “resulting” is not. Perhaps the Minister might like to look at that.

The other point that strikes me about the wording of this clause is in Amendment 58(1)(c) and (d). Paragraph (c) says,

“in all the circumstances, S’s conduct in relation to the taking of the decision falls far below what could reasonably be expected of a person in S’s position”.

The noble Lord, Lord Brennan, has already made points on this. That is unsatisfactory in another sense. However, if we are—as we are—making criminal offences out of the conduct defined in this new clause, there should be a clear indication that no one can be convicted unless there is a want of integrity or honesty on the part of the person convicted. That is a fundamental principle of British criminal law. However concerned we are, and I certainly am, to bring to book the many malefactors who have ruined the reputation of the City in recent years, one cannot do it at the cost of changing or undermining that fundamental test of criminality, intent, bad faith, dishonesty or want of integrity—call it what you like. The language here does not clearly require that intent and want of integrity. There are cases that would fall within Amendment 58 that would not satisfy the normal test of mens rea in criminal offences.

I will refer briefly to Amendment 60 in this group, which is about the institution of proceedings. Subsection (4) says:

“In exercising its power to institute proceedings for an offence, the FCA or the PRA must comply with any conditions or restrictions imposed in writing by the Treasury”.

Those are the words. I cannot see anywhere, in this amendment or elsewhere, a requirement for the conditions or restrictions imposed in writing by the Treasury to be made public. Surely it is a fundamental requirement of restrictions or conditions that will potentially lead firms and individuals into the criminal courts that those conditions or restrictions be made public.

[Baroness Noakes]

My Lords, my first thought on seeing this new offence relating to bank failure was to be mildly appalled at something that might possibly impinge on one’s personal life, but I have tried to put that to one side and to look at this clause dispassionately. What concerns me is a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, which relates to causation. That is mentioned several times in this clause, but one of the conditions in subsection (1)(d) of the new clause proposed by Amendment 58 is that,

“the implementation of the decision causes the failure of the group”.

Is it clear that single decisions cause failures of the nature that we are talking about? I ask him to think, in the context of the failures that existed in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, whether any one of those, had they occurred today and been dealt with under existing legislation, could have technically satisfied the wording in this offence. Even in the simplest case of failure, which was probably Northern Rock, it was not as simple as one decision or even one group of decisions. There were multiple points of decision which contributed. Certainly, when one gets to something as complicated as the failure of Lehman Brothers, I would be absolutely astonished if anybody could have pointed to one decision causing one failure.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

I do not think the Minister has adequately dealt with the point made by my noble friend Lady Noakes and partly by myself. Surely it is an inescapable point that if you say that someone has to cause the failure of a bank, that is a direct and hugely demanding test. If it had said instead that the decision significantly contributed to the failure of a bank then I think my noble friend and I would be content because it satisfies justice as well as practicality. Is he not concerned that this will undermine the whole purpose of this amendment?

[Lord Newby]

I do not think it undermines the whole purpose of the amendment. It obviously reduces the scope of cases which can be brought under this amendment, but the challenge that the lawyers have had is to make sure, as far as possible, that there is the certainty of what constitutes an offence, which is required under human rights legislation. That has been one of the principle drivers for the particular form of words that we have got. I accept the noble Baroness’s point that in some cases there will be a whole raft of contributory decisions which over a period lead to a bank failing. It will be, I accept, more difficult to bring a prosecution in those cases. It is not inconceivable, however, to argue, without having any particular case in mind, that if a senior executive of a bank persuaded the board to make an acquisition knowing that it was a very risky acquisition which if it went wrong could bring the bank down, that decision would fall squarely, as I understand it, within the scope of the Government’s proposals. I do not think it is outside the realms of possibility that a senior manager in the bank might take such a decision.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Noakes]

My Lords, my initial reaction to these new clauses was that they constituted a sledgehammer to crack a nut. It seems to me that creating another regulator in a territory which is well occupied by regulators is unnecessary in this case. To that extent I support the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell. One has only to look at government Amendment 60YYH to see that the new regulator will have to co-ordinate with the Bank of England, the FCA and the PRA. These bodies already have to co-ordinate among themselves for different purposes in any event. I think that the world is slightly going mad on this. My noble friend Lord Higgins asks who will pay for the regulator. Obviously, the people who will operate the payment systems will pay for the regulator. I suspect that this arrangement will be more expensive than the existing Payments Council system. I do not know how much more expensive it will be. I believe that we should be told what the costs are because they will inevitably end up being paid for by the businesses and individuals who use payments systems. There is no one else.

I have one question with two parts for my noble friend which relates to the powers in government Amendments 60S and 60T. One part relates to the power to require access to payment systems. I completely understand that. If you are to promote competition, you need powers to require access. The other relates to the variation of agreements relating to payment systems to take out anti-competitive elements in arrangements that have already been made. Both those measures could have financial consequences for those who operate payment systems. I do not object to the principle involved, but where in these 40 pages of amendments can I find the principles that the payments regulator has to use in deciding how he approaches those decisions? I assume that he cannot have unlimited discretion to decide who will pay for what and on what terms. However, there appear to be no basic financial principles underpinning this arrangement in the 40 pages of amendments, which seems to me a lacuna.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords, for the record, these amendments cover exactly 52 pages. The only other point I wish to make—I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, here—is that, despite the payment system having its own regulator, new subsection (3) of government Amendment 60B states:

“The FCA must take such steps as are necessary to ensure that the Payment Systems Regulator is, at all times, capable of exercising”,

its functions. It has the job of overseeing the regulator, so why on earth does it not do the job itself?

[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.