Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Bill [Lords]

Torsten Bell Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)]

I thank all hon. Members for their contributions to this debate, which were small in number but high in quality. I also thank those who contributed in the other place, or by responding to the consultation that brought the Bill forward. As today’s short debate has demonstrated, there is broad support, both political and industrial, for the Bill. I thank hon. Members on the Conservative Front Bench for their kind words and constructive approach, particularly, to echo the shadow Economic Secretary, previous Treasury Ministers, not least the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Jeremy Hunt), who brought us to where we are today.

The enhancements to the UK’s resolution regime are relatively modest, targeted and proportionate. That regime was established in the wake of the global financial crisis, and its powers were put to the test when Silicon Valley Bank UK failed in March 2023. That episode demonstrated that the regime was broadly working as intended, but it is right to learn the lessons from that experience. The first of those lessons is that the implications of a firm’s failure cannot always be anticipated before the event, and sometimes it can be in the public interest to use resolution powers even on small firms that were not deemed systemic prior to their failure. That was the case with Silicon Valley Bank UK, and insolvency would have had implications for public confidence in the stability of the UK financial system.

The second lesson is that there is a potential gap in the resolution framework when it comes to managing the failure of such firms. They do not hold the additional resources to absorb losses and facilitate recapitalisation in the event of their failure. Silicon Valley Bank was well capitalised, and it was possible to find a willing buyer in HSBC. However, such an outcome may not be possible for a small bank with a shortfall in capital. At present, such a shortfall would have to be met through the use of public funds, and there is cross-party support for reducing that risk.

We also wish to increase the options available to the Bank of England for managing the failure of a small bank. The Bill does so without imposing any new up-front costs on the banking sector, or fundamentally altering the broader resolution framework, which has been shown to work well. It rightly does not alter the public interest test that underpins the Bank of England’s decision on whether to use its resolutions powers or place a firm into insolvency. I will return to that point shortly.

The shadow Economic Secretary raised a number of points. I broadly agree with his description of the events around Silicon Valley Bank UK. It was a helpful summary of developments. I can confirm that the Government welcome the amendments made in the other place, with the one exception raised by the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, which I know we will discuss further in Committee.

We have been clear that the powers are to be used for smaller banks, but that does not mean that use of the powers will become the default. Insolvency for small banks remains the default approach. The shadow Economic Secretary also raised the wider question of banking taxation. I am sure we will discuss that in the months and probably even years to come. Our view is that banking taxation remains competitive, but his comments have been noted, and we will always keep that matter under review.

The hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) focused on the proposed size limits for banks. As I have mentioned, we do not think that what she suggested is the correct way forward, but we will continue to discuss it. The intention is that the powers will be used in the case of small banks, but the lesson of the last 20 years—not just in the UK, but around the world—is that flexibility is important when it comes to resolving bank failures. She asked whether a wider growth objective should be inserted for the Bank of England. This is a narrow Bill, and we do not think it is the right place to discuss wider issues about the Bank’s approach. The public interest test, which the Bank is already required to apply when it comes to resolution and questions of bank failure, provides much of the protection that she seeks.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) asked about the impact on ordinary workers. That is a good question, and we always need to come back to it. Another lesson of the last two decades is that a stable and strong banking sector is an important underpinning for a strong economy, and for rising wages right across the country.

I started my career in the Treasury in the years when the UK and other advanced economies were having to swiftly relearn that banks can, and do, fail, and that the consequences of them doing so in an unmanaged way are very big and very bad indeed. The lesson from that crisis was clear: a comprehensive resolution regime is important for protecting financial and economic stability and public finances in bad times, but also for underpinning confidence in the financial system at all times. This lesson is especially significant for the UK, as the financial services sector plays such a vital role in our economy—a point that was powerfully made during the debate. We have also learned that it is important for the Bank of England to have a range of tools available for managing firm failures, because those failures can be unpredictable. The best tool for managing the situation is not always apparent prior to the point of failure, as evidenced by the failure of Silicon Valley Bank UK. That is why, despite the UK’s resolution regime having worked well in practice, the Government believe that it is important to learn the lessons of the banking sector volatility of 2023.

The targeted enhancements in the Bill provide the Bank of England with a more flexible toolkit for responding to the failure of smaller banks, while also protecting public funds. The Bill also supports the Government’s growth agenda. Although it is common to focus on the trade-offs between regulation and growth, confidence in and the stability of the banking sector are key to supporting long-term growth.

I am glad to have heard this afternoon that there is broad support for this Bill in the House. Assuming that support continues for at least the next few minutes, the Government look forward to engaging further with hon. Members in Committee. I commend this Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Bill [Lords] (Programme)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Bill [Lords]:

Committal

(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.

Proceedings in Public Bill Committee

(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 13 February 2025.

(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.

Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading

(4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which proceedings on Consideration are commenced.

(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.

(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.

Other proceedings

(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Gen Kitchen.)

Question agreed to.

Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Bill [Lords] (Money)

King’s recommendation signified.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of the National Loans Fund of any sums payable out of the Fund by virtue of the Act.—(Emma Reynolds.)

Question agreed to.

Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Bill [Lords] (Ways and Means)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the imposition of charges for the purpose of meeting expenses incurred by the scheme manager of the Financial Services Compensation Scheme in connection with the recapitalisation of a financial institution.—(Emma Reynolds.)

Question agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Torsten Bell Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

4. What assessment she has made of the potential implications for her fiscal policies of recent trends in levels of investment in green infrastructure.

[The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)]

Too many parts of the country and too many families have felt the devastating effects of flooding in recent months, not least in South Wales and in the hon. Member’s constituency. The Government have committed £2.4 billion over the next two years to increase community flood resilience. Everyone in this House recognises that flooding is a challenge that will be with us for years to come, and we will set out further plans at the spending review.

[Mr Speaker]

Right—oh, go on, Bill Esterson.

[Torsten Bell]

We take very seriously the need to protect communities from flooding and to deliver on our commitments on climate in the years ahead. It is important that we consider both principles and that is what the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero are doing.

[Mr Speaker]

Let’s go back to Helen Maguire.

[Helen Maguire]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Recent flooding in Leatherhead left footpaths near essential services such as train stations overflooding with sewage. In Leatherhead, there are no alternative options to divert water. Given the importance of long-term flood preparations, will the Chancellor commit to securing funding for flood defences beyond 2025-26?

[Torsten Bell]

The hon. Member will know that specific flood defence schemes will be considered in the normal way. When it comes to funding beyond 2025-26, those will be decisions on overall levels of funding that are taken in the spending review later this year.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Let us move to Dr Allison Gardner.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

Get real!

[Torsten Bell]

I think that remark was directed at the hon. Member in a previous life.

We have committed to 100% first year allowances and to maintaining that going forward, but unless we deliver secure energy, generated at home through cheap renewables, there is no energy security to be had in the years ahead.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Minister—welcome to the Front Bench.

[The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)]

My hon. Friend is a powerful advocate for his constituents, and particularly for those who have suffered in recent weeks, including others across Greater Manchester. As I set out earlier, the Government have put in £2.4 billion to ensure flood resilience over the next two years; as he will be aware, future decisions on flood defence funding will be taken in the spending review in the normal way. I know that he will continue to be a powerful advocate for his constituents.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

Schools in Westmorland have been told that they will have to meet the costs of teacher pay rises next year, at least in part, from existing funds and by making efficiencies. Does the Chancellor not understand that all that is available to schools in my constituency is sacking teachers and merging classes? Will she instead commit to fully funding the teachers’ pay rise and other cost increases, so that our schools can do the job that they are meant to do?

Public Finances: Borrowing Costs

Torsten Bell Excerpts

Thursday 9th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

I can absolutely assure the Father of the House that we are working through this spending review on the basis of the envelope set at the Budget. Public services will have to operate within the means that we are providing to them. The OBR forecast will come in March, which will give us the latest set of information, and we will work to that with Departments. This is why we have set up organisations such as the Office for Value for Money, why we have set tough productivity and efficiency targets for Departments and why we are investing in, for example, technology to improve the productivity of the public services we provide. Public services must live within their means, as set out in the Budget, and that is an absolute guarantee from this Government.

[Torsten Bell (Swansea West) (Lab)]

I thank the Chief Secretary for his response. I have just sat through Transport questions, or some of them, during which I repeatedly heard calls for more spending from Conservative Members, but they oppose every single tax rise to pay for that spending. Does the Chief Secretary agree that one of the lessons from global developments in recent days is that we must pay for day-to-day public spending through tax rises, however tough that is?

[Darren Jones]

I very much agree with my hon. Friend. We have to pay day-to-day bills with the income we generate day to day. The lesson that we learned from the Opposition was about what they were happy to do, but this Government are not. They were happy to announce plans and programmes to make promises to the British people, even though they knew they did not have the money to pay for it. That will never happen under this Labour Government.

Finance Bill

Torsten Bell Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Wednesday 11th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

I am a Hertfordshire county councillor, and it is that authority that will have to pick up the pieces if parents cannot afford the VAT on private schools or if private schools close. A bit like in the farming debate, I have a specific example from my constituency that tears down the Government’s argument on adding VAT to private school fees.

Turnford was a secondary school in my constituency in decline. Academic standards and behaviour were poor and the quality of teaching was inconsistent, leading to students becoming demotivated and achieving less than the national expectations. Staff suffered from low morale and there were significant recruitment challenges. The school buildings, on a poorly laid-out site, were dilapidated. But thanks to a unique partnership with Haileybury, an independent school in my constituency, the tide began to turn. In 2015 the school was relaunched as Haileybury Turnford academy, with Haileybury as the sole sponsor. A generous annual improvement grant was established worth £200,000 a year; that has gone on for about five years, so more than £1 million has gone directly into that state school in my constituency. That has enabled Turnford to recruit much-needed staff and retain high-quality specialist teachers.

Haileybury also gives additional financial support for Turnford’s SEN students and provides opportunities for a wide breadth of academic and extracurricular activities, such as supporting programmes for gifted and talented pupils. Because of that partnership between state and private schools, academic standards have been transformed. We have had new classrooms constructed, and in 2022 Haileybury Turnford was judged by Ofsted to be “good” for the first time in the school’s history.

[Torsten Bell (Swansea West) (Lab)]

The hon. Member seems to be making the case that he has been seeing a pilot for this national policy in his own constituency, with higher fees, which presumably funded that £200,000 a year grant to the state school, paid by the attendees of the private school. His example therefore makes the case for exactly the Government’s policy on a wider scale.

[Lewis Cocking]

I thank the hon. Member. If he just waits for the next part of my speech, he may get the answer to his intervention.

The Government’s plan will put all that at risk. Notably, Haileybury is planning to absorb as much of the financial hit as it can, rather than place the extra burden on parents. To do so, it must look at reducing expenditure and therefore its ability to offer financial support to Haileybury Turnford, painfully contradicting the Government’s argument that their policy will result in more spending on state school pupils. It is not just about money; greater financial pressures on Haileybury will inevitably lead to staff having less time and resources available to share with Turnford, and fewer opportunities for state school students at Haileybury Turnford as a result.

Ministers think that their policy will impact only the rich, but for nearly a decade a genuinely working-class community in my constituency has benefited from a state school and an independent school working together, which is exactly the kind of partnership that we should be encouraging. We should not be encouraging the politics of envy. Sadly, the changes that the Government are introducing through the Bill will bring all that to an end.

Employer National Insurance Contributions

Torsten Bell Excerpts

Wednesday 4th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman raises the inheritance that his party has received from the Conservatives. We had the highest rate of growth in the G7. We had brought inflation right down from 11.1% in October 2022 to 2%—bang on target—at the time of the general election. We had a near-record level of employment. We had a near-record low level of unemployment. We had real wages that had been increasing month after month for 13 or 14 months prior to the general election. That was not a bad inheritance.

[Torsten Bell (Swansea West) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the shadow Chancellor for giving way, even if I cannot quite believe what I am hearing. Anyone boasting about the economic record of the previous Government, particularly in the immediate run-up to the last election, should read this week’s release from the Office for National Statistics on the reweighted labour force survey. It shows that productivity in the year running up to the election fell by 0.9%. That was in just one year. That is what economic failure looks like.

[Mel Stride]

No matter what points the hon. Gentleman may make, I am afraid he cannot get away from the fact that this Government are bearing down on growth, pressing up on unemployment, bearing down on employment and bearing down on living standards.

The OBR also says that real household disposable income by 2029 will be 1.25% lower than it was back in the spring, at the time of that forecast. We know the impact that national insurance is going to have on wages. It will press them down and it will further diminish living standards.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

I simply say—and the Chief Secretary should know this because he supposedly wrote the Budget that we voted on a couple of weeks ago—that growth forecasts were higher under the last Government than those of the Government for whom he is now leading in the Treasury. I say to the Government that business confidence is at the lowest it has been for years.

[Torsten Bell]

The hon. Member has raised the issue of business confidence, which I have heard a few times from Opposition Members. That leaves me pondering why, if businesses were so confident under the previous Government, we had the lowest private sector business investment in the entire G7, and the only country in the OECD that saw lower levels of private investment was Greece.

[Paul Holmes]

I know the hon. Gentleman liked to pride himself on being the oracle of economics when he led a think-tank, but if he looks at the bare facts of business confidence out there, he will see that it has been lower under the five months of the Labour Government than it ever was under the 14 years of the Conservative Government.

I want to mention some of the impacts that this measure will have on my constituency of Hamble Valley. There are 4,000 people employed in the hospitality sector in my constituency. Just last night, a business leader—a small business leader who owns three local venues—outlined to me that, because of the measures this Government have brought forward, he now has to find 5% extra of his total turnover to pay his taxes. That leads to a number of options: he can reduce staff count, meaning higher unemployment in my constituency and nationally; he can close venues, which again means lower employment and the death of our town centres—in every constituency, I remind Members—or he has to choose between not hiring local staff and stopping expansion, as every extra person he wants to take on will cost the business an extra £800 because of this national insurance contributions rise. That choice is facing businesses up and down the country, with lower growth, higher bureaucracy and higher taxes on the people who create jobs and wealth in every constituency in this country and drive the economy that we need to fund public services.

What is most damaging about the Government’s proposal is the catastrophic impact it will have on charities across this country. I defy any Labour MP to stand up in this Chamber and say that they are willing to bring in and happy to vote for a measure that will mean frontline services delivered through our charitable sector are cut. There are other options the Government can take, and they have chosen not to.

Finance Bill

Torsten Bell Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 27th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Torsten Bell (Swansea West) (Lab)]

I wish to reflect on the tone of the shadow Minister’s remarks. Looking at chart 4.5 in the OBR’s document, I can see a big rise in the tax to GDP ratio, but from the right hon. Gentleman’s indignant tone, one would think that there had never been a tax rise under the previous Government. What the chart shows is a significantly larger rise in the tax to GDP ratio, because of the decisions taken by the previous Government, so is it not the case that the right hon. Gentleman’s tone does not reflect the facts of the decisions he took?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Before the shadow Minister responds, may I caution him against using the word “deceit” in the Chamber? No doubt he will now want to respond to the intervention.

Fiscal Rules

Torsten Bell Excerpts

Monday 28th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for his excellent question, and I agree that £63 billion invested in this country was a sign of confidence, because investors around the world know that Britain is back after years of chaos.

[Torsten Bell (Swansea West) (Lab)]

It is good to hear about changes to address the big problem with our macroeconomic framework—the bias against new investment spending. May I draw the Chief Secretary’s attention to the other problem with the system, which acts as an incentive for Ministers not to manage well the assets that they already hold? I refer him to the 2017 sale of £3.5 billion-worth of student loans for just £1.7 billion. Will he reassure the House that the changes that he is making will ensure that we get value for money for the existing financial assets that we hold?

[Darren Jones]

I can give my hon. Friend that reassurance, and I point to the Office for Value for Money, which will work for us to ensure that we improve on behaviours of the past. I also point more broadly to the way that we manage our current assets. People have only to look at the state of our prisons, hospitals and schools, with reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete and roofs falling in, to know that after 14 years of cuts to investment, we cannot carry on like that. That is why people voted for change at the last election, and why we will deliver it.

Public Spending: Inheritance

Torsten Bell Excerpts

Monday 29th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call Torsten Bell.

[Torsten Bell (Swansea West) (Lab)]

Congratulations on your new post, Madam Deputy Speaker.

There can be reasonable political debate across the House about the total levels of public spending—there was a lot of that during the election campaign, with our calling for higher levels of public investment—but there should be complete agreement about the need for the Treasury to ensure that public money is well spent. At the top of that is making sure that the policies and commitments of every Department match their budgets. We hear from experts right around the country today that they do not match those budgets, so can the Chancellor reassure this ex-Treasury official, this House and my Swansea constituents that this will never happen under this Labour Government?

[Rachel Reeves]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question and welcome him to his place in this House—he speaks powerfully, based on his previous experience. I will fix the mess that we have inherited, but it is a terrible mess: a £22 billion in-year gap between what was forecast to be spent and what was actually being spent by the previous Government. We will get a grip on our public finances; that requires tough choices, but that is the role of Chancellor, and it is the role of Government. These are choices that the previous Government ducked and diverted, but we will make the difficult decisions to get our public finances back on a firmer footing.