Amendments of the Law (Resolution of Silicon Valley Bank UK Limited) Order 2023

Debate between Baroness Kramer and Baroness Noakes

Wednesday 19th April 2023 Grand Committee

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a shareholder in UK banks which are subject to the ring-fencing regime. My husband and I hold shares in HSBC, which will benefit from this order, and in both NatWest and Lloyds, which are subject to the ring-fencing rules but do not derive a benefit from this order. I think my registered interests in this case probably cancel each other out.

I should say that I have never been a big fan of ring-fencing. The triple whammy of an electrified ring-fence, elaborate resolution planning and higher capital and liquidity requirements have imposed a very high set of costs on UK banks which can in the long run result only in disbenefits for UK bank customers —that is, all of us. I do, however, believe passionately in fair competition and level playing fields, and my concern about this order—and, more so, the one that we are promised that will come later—is that it distorts competition and creates an unlevel playing field by creating unfair advantage for one particular bank in relation to the ring-fencing rules.

I completely understand that the Bank of England had to operate under pressure to achieve a sale of Silicon Valley Bank over a weekend and that avoided having to place it into an insolvency procedure, and we owe the Bank a debt of gratitude for what it achieved over that weekend. But there are some aspects of the transaction—and therefore this order—which I find mysterious. I am also, as I said, concerned that HSBC has obtained an unfair competitive advantage compared with other UK banks, so I have some questions to put to my noble friend.

First, SVB UK is not a ring-fenced bank under UK legislation and it remains outside that legislation. Why did the Bank not agree to sell the bank to HSBC itself rather than to HSBC’s UK ring-fenced subsidiary? Had it done that, I do not believe that any special legislation would have been necessary. HSBC operates a narrow definition of ring-fencing—unlike other UK ring-fenced banks—such that the majority of its commercial customers are serviced within the non-ring-fenced part of HSBC. Why was it decided to place Silicon Valley Bank UK into the ownership of the ring-fenced bank? Would it not have been more appropriate to have put it somewhere else within the HSBC Group along with other commercial customers?

Secondly, what activities of Silicon Valley Bank UK would disqualify it from being housed within a ring-fenced bank? Commercial banking business can be satisfactorily included within a ring-fenced bank provided that the business within the ring-fenced bank is in effect plain vanilla business—that is, conventional lending and very simple derivatives, which are allowed. What does Silicon Valley Bank UK do which would disqualify it from being placed properly within the UK ring-fence of HSBC, and what policy grounds make it necessary to allow the ring-fenced bank to own this kind of business when it cannot carry out that business itself?

Thirdly, the Minister has said that the order was necessary to allow HSBC’s ring-fenced bank to provide funding out of the ring-fence at preferential rates to Silicon Valley Bank UK. Why was this funding not provided out of HSBC’s other, non-ring-fenced resources? Of course, I can see the attraction to HSBC of using the cheap funds that it has from its ring-fenced depositors, but the ring-fence regime was set up precisely to stop such funds leaching out of the ring-fence. Related to that, is there any limit on the amount of funding that HSBC UK can provide from within the ring-fence to Silicon Valley Bank in breach of the ring-fencing philosophy, and if there is not a limit, why not? Are there any limits to the generosity with which the ring-fenced bank can provide the funds, since it is going to be providing at rates below market rates? Will there be any limit to that degree of discount that it will allow, and again, if not, why not?

Fourthly, can the Minister confirm that Silicon Valley Bank UK will not be allowed to form part of HSBC UK’s Bank Domestic Liquidity Sub-group, or DoLSub, and that liquidity will be monitored separately for the ring-fenced and non-ring-fenced parts of HSBC UK? If that is not the case, can the Minister explain the position on how liquidity is to be managed and monitored within the ring-fenced bank and its new subsidiary?

Lastly, it is clear that the intention is to provide some long-term exemptions from the ring-fencing regime, and the Minister referred to this. I appreciate that the precise details may not yet be finalised, but will the Minister set out what exemptions are likely to involve? I believe that the Minister said that this would be in a separate statutory instrument and therefore Parliament would be able to look at that, but it would be good if she could confirm that. My main concern when we come to the second order is whether it will be fair and reasonable for ring-fencing exemptions to be provided on a long-term basis, which disadvantages other UK banks which have to operate completely within the ring-fence rules. Put another way, when considering the case for HSBC to be allowed special treatment, will the Government ensure that they consider the case for equivalent relaxations to be more generally available? I look forward to my noble friend the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, first, let me say that obviously we will support this order—although I cannot see any way in which one could not. In retrospect, it confirms the regulatory adjustments that were necessary or enabled the efficient rescue of Silicon Valley Bank UK and the transfer of ownership to HSBC, effectively protecting customers from the implications of the collapse of the US parent. We need to congratulate the Government, or the Treasury, the Bank of England and indeed the industry—Coadec, Tech London Advocates and BVCA—for acting together, co-operating and moving swiftly to make sure that a problem did not turn into a crisis or catastrophe.

That said, I have a whole series of questions. I am incredibly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, who in far more detail and far more effectively than me raised the relevant questions on ring-fencing. Where she and I slightly disagree is on her request that, if there is going to be a long-term exemption that gives a competitive advantage to HSBC, let us let everybody have it, whereas I am concerned about the undermining of ring-fencing in a fundamental way. I can understand that sometimes one has to act to undermine ring-fencing on a short-term basis, but this has pinned into it that second exemption, which effectively makes this a life-long exemption.

I will not repeat the points that the noble Baroness made. I have a lot of them down on the piece of paper in front of me, but she made those points so well that I think the Minister needs only to hear them once—they were so detailed and rightly crafted. We have to understand whether to some extent the Government are pre-running the changes that they anticipate making under the Edinburgh proposals. We saw that with previous financial services Bills, when powers were given to the regulator ahead of the consultation processes that would all be relevant to it, so the consultation process then led to a phase 2 or part 2 Bill that came in later. I am very anxious to understand whether this is reflective of the Government’s approach to ring-fencing from now on—in other words, that they no longer intend to separate retail banking from investment banking.

I recommend to everybody the work that we did in the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, in taking evidence for more than two years. The reasons for ring-fencing retail banking from investment banking were multiple and complex, and certainly included culture. Retail banking is essentially a utility and investment banking is very different in its risk profile. There is no question but that some of the misbehaviour that we saw in retail banks, PPI being just one of many examples, was inspired by that cross-cultural flow between the investment bank and the retail bank.

It was also true that many risks that we saw banks take, which were entirely inappropriate and not well understood and which led to a crash, for which we all continue to suffer, were inspired by access to what was seen as very cheap and easy money—money sitting in retail deposits, checking accounts and saving accounts, and not protected to a certain degree by insurance, which took away any sense of responsibility to customers. Banks took on risks that they would not have been able to take on had they been financing themselves wholly in the financial markets, because the markets would have recognised those risks and demanded far higher returns if they were going to finance such activities. So that access to a pool of cheap money was absolutely critical to the structures that led to the financial crash of 2007-08. I am really concerned that we have changes here that foreshadow a much more extensive undermining of ring-fencing, and I hope that the Minister will respond to those broader issues, as well as to the detail that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, asked for.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

I am afraid I have to disappoint noble Lords and say that I have no further comment to make on the decision to purchase it by the ring-fenced bank. It was a commercial decision for HSBC.

My noble friend had some other questions on the use of the ring-fenced bank. She asked what activities SVB UK undertakes that are not allowed under the ring-fence regime. SVB UK provides lending to certain types of financial institutions, such as venture capital funds, which is not allowed under the ring-fencing regime. It also provides certain equity-related products in relation to its lending, which is also not allowed under the ring-fence regime. She also asked whether I could confirm that SVB UK will not be added to HSBC’s domestic liquidity subgroup. That is a matter for the regulator to decide.

All three noble Lords asked about the implications for competition and whether this move has given a competitive advantage to HSBC. The exemption is limited to the acquisition of SVB UK by HSBC, and was necessary to facilitate this acquisition—something I think all noble Lords welcomed. As Sam Woods explained at the TSC recently, a necessary condition of HSBC moving forward was that it could keep the entirety of SVB UK as one business. The value was in the integrated nature of the business, and HSBC could make that work only if it had it as a subsidiary of HSBC UK, the ring-fenced bank.

It is also worth reiterating that SVB UK remains very small compared to HSBC. Its assets amount to around £9 billion compared to HSBC’s $3 trillion group balance sheet.

To come on to the second statutory instrument and the permanent exemption from ring-fencing for SVB UK, the second exemption was also crucial, as it ensures that SVB UK can remain a commercially viable stand-alone business, as part of HSBC UK. It will be subject to conditions, which are intended to ensure that the exemption is limited to what was needed to facilitate the sale of SVB UK. We will set out details of those conditions alongside the second statutory instrument, which noble Lords will have the opportunity to debate. Alongside that, as I said earlier, the PRA outlined in its response to the Treasury Select Committee that it has a range of tools that it can and will draw on to ensure the effective supervision of HSBC and the protection of retail deposits.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

Can I just clarify something with my noble friend? I can just about understand why, for the transaction to happen over the weekend, HSBC was allowed to bully the other participants into breaking the ring-fence rules to allow it to be set up. However, allowing a permanent change means that the ring-fenced bank will be allowed to provide liquidity, and presumably capital as well, on advantageous terms to a bank which can be used as a growth vehicle within HSBC, thereby increasing the risk to ring-fenced funds. I understand why you might have to do that initially, to get the deal through, but I do not understand whether there are any limits at all on what can happen after the acquisition has happened. These permissions have been set up in a way, and are likely to continue in a way, that will allow Silicon Valley Bank to continue to operate in a way that is completely antithetical to the ring-fenced banking regime. As I have said, I am not a fan of it, but I have a strong objection to one bank being allowed to operate in a distinctly different way from other banks.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

I shall just add something, so that the Minister does not have to repeat herself constantly. The Minister was very clear that the flow of funds out of the ring-fenced HSBC would go into the hands of a body that will then use it to fund venture capitalists. That is not normally permitted under the ring-fence because it is a very high-risk speculative activity. The whole purpose of ring-fencing is to split activity like that away from the utility role of retail banks. Since there is, apparently, no constraint on the amount of money that can be moved, it has just opened up a massive chasm in the separation, and a massive advantage for one particular high street bank versus the others. I think that the Minister said that the amount of money that could be moved was limitless —so it is really a big issue.

Financial Services and Markets Bill

Debate between Baroness Kramer and Baroness Noakes

Committee stage
Wednesday 1st February 2023 Grand Committee

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

If I could just interrupt, the noble Baroness might want to go back and take a look at the MREL rules. It is in the UK that smaller banks got loaded up with the MREL requirement. I do not have the exact numbers in front of me but I could easily get them for the noble Baroness. She will discover that within the EU, small banks do not have to deal with the MREL issue. This was the particular interpretation by the UK PRA and has long been a battle that I have every time I meet PRA officials.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for that. Of course, I got carried away by my usual desire to knock the EU and lost sight of the essential principle, which is that the PRA is in fact applying the MREL rules disproportionately. I think that on that, the noble Baroness and I will agree.

So the PRA is applying a system that is designed for systemic bank failure to smaller banks, which present no systemic risk at all. While some modifications were made in 2021, medium-sized banks still end up having to issue MREL-compliant capital, which adds to their cost of capital, and this in turn reduces their capacity to lend. A number of mid-sized banks told the Treasury late last year that this reduction in the capacity to lend could amount to £62 billion over the next five years. Everyone loses—except the larger banks, who see smaller competitors facing considerable competition barriers. I believe that the regulators need to focus more on proportionality, which is the aim of my amendment.

Earlier I said that I was sceptical about the regulatory principles in FSMA, but they exist and we need to make sure that they are comprehensive. My Amendment 77A introduces an additional regulatory principle of being evidence-based. We have inherited all those EU rules, which were drawn up in the context of the EU’s well-known precautionary approach to regulation. I can see how easy it is to slip into the habit of regulating in the UK in the same way, just because we had to regulate that way in the past.

On our first day in Committee, we had a short debate on short selling. There is no evidence that short selling is or has been a problem in the UK, and yet the Government and the FCA are lining up to carry on regulating it. We need a shift of mindset in financial regulation in the UK, because the regulators should regulate only where the evidence points to the need for regulation, and we should not be regulating on the basis of hypothesis or speculation. That may well mean stepping back from regulating in areas where there is a possibility of a problem but no evidence that problems actually exist.

If we have a nimble system with agile and responsive regulators—I accept that that might be a rather big assumption—we should have no problem in stepping back, because we can act when a problem emerges. I certainly do not recommend or seek the widespread dumbing down of our regulation, because good regulation is part of the strength of our financial services sector. However, I believe that we are failing to take advantage of our Brexit freedoms to liberate our financial services businesses where there is no evidence that it is not safe to do so. That is what lies behind my seeking to add an additional regulatory principle.

Financial Services and Markets Bill

Debate between Baroness Kramer and Baroness Noakes

Committee stage
Wednesday 25th January 2023 Grand Committee

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I understand regulators’ desire to have more insight into the risks that critical third parties present to the provision of financial services. The regulators have been fretting about the provision of cloud services for some time—not always with good cause, because cloud providers offer some significant benefits to financial services firms in a range of areas. The PRA and the FCA have already increased their focus on critical third party suppliers by way of operational resilience requirements on regulated firms, and they already have the ability to get information via the regulated firms.

I was not hugely surprised to find a regulatory power grab regarding critical third parties in this Bill, but I was genuinely shocked to find 10 whole pages of legislation giving the regulators huge powers over critical third parties: the power to make rules, a power of direction, information powers, censure and disciplinary powers, and so on. This is typical regulatory gold-plating of the kind that I hoped we had left behind when we exited the EU. The Treasury ought to be on the alert against this kind of thing, rather than being complicit in it.

The regulators will have to exercise real care when they use these new powers. It would be a very bad outcome if some—for example, the cloud providers or the major ICT providers—decided to exit the UK financial services market because of heavy-handed regulation. If that happened it would likely increase the concentration risk within the financial services sector, as well as reducing competition in the provider market.

My Amendment 37 is in fact extremely modest. TheCityUK has called for one of the regulators to be in the lead for any critical third party, so that the likelihood of duplicative requirements and other burdens between the regulators involved would be minimised. TheCityUK is not comforted by the co-ordinating duty in the new Section 312U of FSMA because just about everybody who has been involved in financial services has been on the receiving end of unco-ordinated regulator action, despite the existence of co-ordinating duties already in FSMA. Those duties have not been a resounding success, and I may return to the idea of a lead regulator on Report.

For today, my Amendment 37 would delete subsection (3) of new Section 312U and replace it with a more third-party friendly version. Subsection (3) says that the duty to co-ordinate

“applies only to the extent that compliance with the duty does not impose a burden on the relevant regulators that is disproportionate to the benefits of compliance.”

This is typical of regulation, in particular financial services regulation. It sees things through the prism of the regulators, not the persons impacted by the regulation. My amendment would replace this with a requirement to minimise the burden placed on critical third parties so far as is reasonably practicable.

I do not regard this rebalancing of the new rules as a radical proposition in the context of the radical new powers that are being taken. The impact on third parties really does need to be taken into account, and it is curiously absent from the 10 pages of the Bill dedicated to the new powers over critical third parties. The need for rebalancing of the new regulatory provisions ought to go wider than the duty to co-ordinate, and I should probably have drafted something broader to consider in our Committee today. My purpose is to probe how the Government see the new provisions impacting on third-party suppliers, not just on the regulators, and whether they even acknowledge that they might have created something of a monster in these new rules. I beg to move.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I shall speak only very briefly, because I have a great deal of sympathy with the proposition that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, puts before us. The resistance in the industry to rules is not to the principle of the rules but to the way in which they operate, and the cumbersome methodologies—the dotting of every i three times and crossing of every t four times—that drives people completely insane. It has undermined respect for both the regulator and its effectiveness. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, said she had something broader in mind, and she will find amendments coming forward later, particularly in the name of my noble friend Lady Bowles, focusing on the issue of efficiency. I think that is something we would all like to see.

There are those who would like to see less regulation per se, and those like me who are very cautious about having less regulation. Obviously, less regulation may release animal spirits and innovation, as the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, pointed out earlier; in fact, he did not talk about animal spirits, but he talked about innovation. The downside is that light-touch regulation could leave you with a financial crisis, an awful lot of victims and, potentially, an undermined economy. It is very asymmetric. But efficiency ought to be built into the very heart of this, and regulation ought to be designed to put a minimum operational burden on the various parties affected. If we can adopt that somewhere as a principle in the Bill, it would be exceedingly useful.

UK Infrastructure Bank Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Kramer and Baroness Noakes

Committee stage & Lords Hansard - Part 2
Tuesday 14th June 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

I am really confused about why company law would provide operational independence. It would be really helpful if the Minister could address that. I think she just said that it had to behave with proper propriety or reference to its reputation, but that is nothing to do with operational independence.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

Perhaps I could help the noble Baroness: as a matter of company law, shareholders have relatively few powers in relation to how a company is operated on a day-to-day basis. Their powers derive from their ability to pass resolutions, either at annual general meetings or special meetings, but there are no powers within the articles of association, et cetera, for shareholders to intervene, except via the mechanisms of calling general meetings and passing resolutions. Almost by definition, they are not involved in operational matters. I think my noble friend made a fair statement that for a company operating under company law, it is already hard-wired into its structure that shareholders cannot intervene on a day-to-day basis, just because there is no mechanism for them to do so.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

I will just challenge that slightly, because this all goes hand in hand with the direction, which can be specific. We are talking not just about general direction but about specific direction. I am completely unclear that the shareholders of a company could instruct it, for example, to invest in a particular pharmaceutical process to serve a particular customer base. That is entirely within scope; it is equivalent to the language within the Bill.

Financial Services Bill

Debate between Baroness Kramer and Baroness Noakes

Report stage
Wednesday 14th April 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, at this late stage of the evening I shall not try to emulate the previous speaker’s length of contribution—indeed, I shall deliver a slightly shorter version of what I had originally intended to say. I speak in favour of Amendment 24, in the name of my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe.

Amendment 24 focuses on ex post analysis of the impact of changes introduced by the regulators or the Government. It therefore gives us a different lens on the impact that interventions have had in practice. My noble friend normally focuses on impact statements, which are ex ante evaluations and often suffer from highly questionable assumptions and confirmation bias. When we deal with ex post analysis, however, we can rely on outcomes and facts. That kind of analysis is really important when helping to shape policy going forward or correcting any mistakes in policy already introduced, so I support this amendment. I personally would not have gone for an annual report, because the ability to see the cumulative impact of changes is quite important but difficult to track in an annual report. However, a report is an extremely good idea.

The noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, has tried to add a consumer focus to the report that my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe has proposed. I think it is better focused on small business, innovation and competitiveness; to add consumer matters would dilute the focus of that report. I am not against a report on consumer protection but it would not help to stick it in the middle of something focusing on issues such as competitiveness.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, will not expect me to support her Amendment 37. The analysis we got from her and the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, seemed to be of a world I do not really recognise. I believe the financial services sector is a great success story for this country and makes a big contribution to our economy. A number of the things that noble Lords cited seemed to be clinging to an outdated bricks-and-mortar vision of what banking is really about; frankly, that is not the world we live in today. Just as we have seen that bricks-and-mortar retail is not the way forward, it will not be for banking either. We must not keep tying ourselves to the way things were in the past.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, given the hour I shall also be very brief, but I have to say I rather like the amendments in this group. I like Amendment 24, as amended by Amendment 25—I do not care if it is a separate chapter. But it is quite dangerous to get tangled into issues around competitiveness without making sure there is a lens on consumer protection at the same time. Many small businesses fall into the consumer category in reality, certainly the micro end of small businesses.

What I like about this amendment is: what you measure, you manage. We are so constantly focused on change, new regulation and new rules, without ever going back and looking at the consequences of what we have done and trying to identify what worked, what did not and where the gaps are. It seems that this proposal goes absolutely in the right direction.

There is something interesting in Amendment 37 because one of the big questions that has never been answered is: how does our financial services industry impact on the real economy, in contrast to something much more circular within the financial services economy? I do not think that one is good and the other bad but they are very significant questions, particularly in a country where we have such a dominant investment banking culture, which does not necessarily provide a wide range of relevant services to a great deal of our economic base—particularly our small business base. There is a very interesting question wrapped up in all of that. The approach of saying “We need to look at this in a serious and consistent way, perhaps regularly” strikes me as important when feeding the strategy which then informs the way in which the regulator, the Treasury and the Government behave.

Financial Services Bill

Debate between Baroness Kramer and Baroness Noakes

Committee stage
Wednesday 10th March 2021 Grand Committee

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, as many Members of the Committee have already noted, my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe is well known in your Lordships’ House for her pursuit of impact assessments and is a stern critic of government departments that hide behind the exact wording of Cabinet Office guidance. Recently, many of us have joined her in being appalled by the complete lack of impact statements published to support the Government’s coronavirus policies, involving—I remind the Committee—the greatest ever peacetime infringement of civil liberties. The Department of Health and Social Care used the flimsy excuse that the Cabinet Office does not require impact assessments for policies intended to have a temporary effect.

I am particularly interested in my noble friend’s Amendment 104, which requires an annual report to Parliament. I am not wholly in favour of annual reports, because they can degenerate into boiler plate and have a very short-term horizon; I prefer the concept of periodic reports that can look at impacts over a longer time span. However, whether such reviews are annual or less frequent, I suggest to my noble friend that the report could also usefully concentrate on the quality of consultation carried out by the regulators, and that would include the quality of impact statements.

Consultations by the PRA and the FCA often feel like not much more than going through the motions. They are not alone in the public sector in seeming to exaggerate the benefits and underestimate the costs. HMRC, for example, is a particular case in point, having been criticised more than once by the Economic Affairs Committee of your Lordships’ House for the use of cost assumptions that seem to bear little relationship to reality. Similarly, the PRA’s consultation on ring-fencing rules was widely regarded as a massive underestimate of the cost of compliance, as was borne out by subsequent cost experience. A superficial impact assessment, or one that overstates the benefits or systematically underestimates the costs, is worse than useless and can lead to poor policy-making. It would be wise to ensure that the regulator’s performance in this regard is kept under review.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, in many of the groups of amendments to the Bill we have discussed the issue of accountability, and it has been a very important discussion. However, we have also discussed the necessity to have proper evidence and information to make that accountability worthwhile, valid and effective. These amendments follow exactly that direction.

One of the pleas that I will put in is that an impact assessment should be studied and then reviewed. The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, is not speaking in this group of amendments but I can think of numerous occasions when he has spoken on a financial services Bill and pointed out that the information in the assessment did not seem to answer any of the obvious questions that a sensible person would ask in order to understand the regulations involved. I would join him in that. We seem to have narrow definitions of what an impact assessment is, and it seems to me that it should do what it says on the tin. It ought actually to assess the impact in a way that is meaningful to the regulation or piece of legislation in front of us.

This push for evidence and information, and quality in both, is an important thrust of the conversations and debates that we have had around the Bill. I very much hope that Ministers take that on board, because this is starting a pressure that will not go away. In fact, for the Government, if they want to produce the highest-quality legislation possible, the discussion created by developing a high-quality impact assessment will lead in the end to far better legislation.

Financial Services Bill

Debate between Baroness Kramer and Baroness Noakes

Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 24th February 2021 Grand Committee

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I will not speak on the substance of most of the amendments in this group. In general terms I do not believe that alterations are required to legislation governing the PRA and the FCA, in view of the enthusiastic work that they have already commenced to embed climate-related financial risks in their work and in the work of the institutions that they regulate. Neither the FCA nor the PRA needed any alteration to their statutory powers and duties to start this process, and I do not believe they need anything in statute to carry on their work.

My noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom said that he was worried about the meaning of “climate-related financial risk”. In practical terms, the sectors of the financial services industry have an understanding of what is meant by climate-related financial risk in relation to them, and that will inevitably evolve over time. If you take banks, it is fundamentally a credit risk problem; you can track almost all the issues back to credit risk. If you take an investment company, it is an investment risk problem, as I think the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, said in an earlier contribution. With insurance, we are talking about something like the shifting nature and scale of conventionally insured risks in that sector. I am sure that other parts of the financial services sector will have an understanding of climate-related financial risk. So I am not concerned about the definition of that; I am just not sure that it is necessary to find its way into legislation, because it is already being done.

I would also caution people who want change overnight in this area that a huge amount of work is needed to implement, for example, measuring the carbon intensity of a bank’s balance sheet, or indeed an investment company’s balance sheet. These are not simple things to do but require huge amounts of new data and new ways of manipulating it, and the industries need to work out how efficiently to do that. I know a little about insurance companies and I am sure that there are similar challenges to overcome there too. I make a plea to leave it to the regulators to determine the pace of change that is required and not to impose additional duties on them. They must judge themselves how best to achieve the aims which I believe they share with the people who have tabled and moved this amendment.

I have a couple of comments on two of the amendments. Amendment 48 would bring forward the timing of the disclosures from the task force on climate-related disclosure to the end of next year, with the draconian penalty of not allowing companies to continue to operate in the UK if they have not made the disclosures. Are the proposers of this amendment seriously saying that they will stop a FTSE 100 company from doing business in the UK if its disclosures are not quite in line with the recommendations? Are they prepared for UK employees to lose their jobs because of technical disclosures? I do not believe that the amendment does anything to advance substantive climate change measures, only disclosures in annual reports which, at the end of the day, very few people actually read. This is not a real-world amendment, in my view, and it seems to be drafted in a disproportionate way.

My main reason for putting my name down to speak on this group is Amendment 75, which provides for the appointment of a member of the FCA board to have responsibility for climate change. This contains a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of boards, whether of public bodies such as the FCA or of private sector companies. Boards are there for governance purposes. They set strategy and hold chief executives to account for delivering against that strategy. They should review performance against what is required of them by statute and what they themselves set. They do not make operational decisions and should not get involved in day-to-day activities. That is why the FCA, like most major organisations, has to have a majority of non-executives on its board.

The amendment is silent as to whether this board member is to be an executive or a non-executive but I believe that either would be wrong. A non-executive should not have responsibility for particular activities within an organisation. This distracts from the core function of a non-executive which is around strategy, oversight and accountability. If the amendment is intended to create an executive board member with responsibility for climate change, that is misconceived as it implies that climate change is not the responsibility of the chief executive. The only way for any policy—whether it is climate change, diversity, social purpose or whatever—to gain traction in an organisation is through its leadership and that is sourced in the chief executive. I believe that the amendment is wrong, likely to be counterproductive or both.

I want to pick up on something that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, said. She said that this would bring it in line with the requirements of the senior managers and certification regime, which requires—I think she said—a board member to be responsible for climate change. That is not what the SMCR requires. It requires only the identification of a senior manager, as defined within the SMCR, who has to have identified responsibility. It is absolutely not required that it is a member at board level, so that is not an appropriate precedent to cite in aid of this amendment.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, listening to today’s really outstanding speeches, I think most of us can agree that tackling climate change is not an optional extra. It is necessary to the survival of a liveable and civilised world, and it is urgent. The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, seemed rather the stand-out among the speeches. If I understand him correctly, he shares the general principles but would like them parked in some very long grass for a very long time. That fails to recognise the real urgency that we face. We are past the point where long grass is an appropriate place to put concerns.

This is a substantial group of amendments. It looks to the financial regulators, influencing the financial sector as they do, to become part of the solution. The amendments break roughly into three parts—a cluster of “have regards” and “considerations” that would influence the FCA and the PRA in shaping the rules to support the net-zero target; disclosure and reporting requirements; and the setting of a climate change objective for the FCA, together with appointment to the governing board of an individual responsible for climate change. Here, I disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. I think there should be an individual with particular responsibility at the highest level to make sure that things happen in organisations.

I almost wonder that we are having to discuss disclosure, because, in American terminology, it seems to me a slam dunk. Andrew Bailey, in his Mansion House speech last November, called for “data and disclosure”, and repeated that time-honoured but real truism:

“What we cannot measure we cannot manage”.


The other measures proposed are equally straightforward —it is a very straightforward set of amendments. I have my name to many of them, but the range of names on various amendments underscores the cross-party nature of the concern and the determination of this House to use the Bill to leverage change. I join others in saying, that if you cannot tackle the issue of climate change in a financial services Bill, it is going to be hard to tackle it at all.

The hour moves on, so I do not want to repeat the brilliant discussion, except to say that speaker after speaker detailed the urgency of acting on climate change and the necessity that it become a priority for this sector. My message to the Government is carpe diem, because this House will if the Government will not. If the UK is to be a leader—and of all the years in which we wish to show leadership, it must be this one—it must break new ground.

There will be more to say on the next group of climate change amendments, which I consider more powerful and radical. They deal with risk and capital requirements. I very much hope that we receive a strong response from the Minister. I can understand that someone looking at the Bill and a template of previous financial services Bills may not have thought that climate change had a place. By now, Ministers surely must. Included among this group of amendments are so many that are exceedingly reasonable and, frankly, quite uncontroversial. I hope that the Government will begin to shape some amendments of their own, drawing on the content so very firmly placed before them.

Business and Planning Bill

Debate between Baroness Kramer and Baroness Noakes

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 13th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kramer (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I shall be brief. I just want to pick up on a point made earlier by my noble friend Lady Bowles: that the opening up promoted by this Bill—which I support, particularly given some of the safeguards embedded in amendments —should not extend to supermarkets and convenience stores. When pubs reopened just over a week ago in Richmond, I and others observed that licensed premises managed their customers and alcohol very responsibly. The problems that occurred were caused by people buying discounted alcohol from supermarkets and reading the relaxation of the rules governing pubs as, in effect, a relaxation of the constraints they had been observing during lockdown; therefore, they were out on the streets, frequently exceedingly drunk. As the chair of the Police Federation noted, it is crystal clear that people who are drunk cannot socially distance.

I could not find a way to shoehorn a specific amendment into this Bill, but I hope the Government will take on board that discounted alcohol served or sold by supermarkets and convenience stores late at night is a fundamental cause of problems that, unfortunately, are frequently being attributed to licensed premises. Locally, we find that those with a licence are well embedded in the community, have a strong and well-established relationship with the police and manage their customers exceedingly well. Going out on Richmond Green in the middle of the night, it becomes clear that it is supermarkets providing very cheap alcohol that are fuelling highly risky behaviour.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I too shall be brief. I support what my noble friend Lord Balfe said about the House getting back to work. Indeed, I encourage my noble friend to come and join us in the Chamber, where he will find a warm welcome awaiting him.

I hope that he was wrong when he said that he was expecting Divisions on Report. We have to get this Bill on to the statute book as soon as possible. I hope we will not lose sight of the fact that these are temporary relaxations designed to help get the economy working again. Many of the issues raised are problems of normal times; we are not in normal times and we should not judge the relaxation proposals in the Bill by the issues we encounter in normal times. The important thing is to give the benefit of the doubt to premises that want to get going again. There are provisions in the Bill which allow licences to be revoked at a later stage if it does not work out. The most important thing is that we embrace the liberalisation encompassed in the Bill and do not hold it back by trying to make the application process more difficult or by putting more barriers in the way of our economy getting going again.

Bank of England and Financial Services Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Kramer and Baroness Noakes

Monday 9th November 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kramer]

My Lords, I will briefly join in the debate. We have two very highly regarded independent organisations—the Bank of England and the NAO. I say to the Government that it is unfortunate that legislation has come forward without resolving the relationship between the two of them. This House should not be in this position today, and neither should either of those two institutions. I very much hope that the Government will take the advice proffered and bring these various parties together to get a resolution here. Both are key institutions that need to have their independence appropriately protected.

In answer to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, the two lines about which he was concerned a moment ago, which are taken out and replaced by what he read as almost two identical lines, almost get to the crux of this matter. The amendment strengthens that assurance that the NAO and the Comptroller and Auditor-General do not in any way seek to question the merits of policy objectives. It is trying to make that absolutely clear by putting in a stronger statement to that extent. The problem the NAO has, as the noble Lord, Lord McFall, said, is that due to the way in which the language is now drafted, the Bank effectively now has a veto over which studies are undertaken. Frankly, that is, I think, unacceptable to every party.

We in Parliament depend very much on the NAO and the reports it provides to us. It is very important for us to be able to receive that information, knowing that it is impartial and independent, for us to be able to perform the role we play. All the discussions today have talked of the importance of oversight. While we very much respect the Bank of England, we are all incredibly conscious that it has made very serious mistakes in the past which have cost us dear, and that we all need to play a role in interacting and making sure that we understand and are appropriately taking on our responsibilities toward that institution. Frankly, it is very hard to see how we in this House or in the other place can do that without effective reporting from the NAO.

I hope that the Government will take this matter away for reconsideration because these are significant concerns. I take great heart in hearing from the noble Lord, Lord McFall, that the Federal Reserve board in the United States is one of the bodies on this globe that most asserts its independence and integrity. The Federal Reserve accepts a similar kind of oversight from the US Government Accountability Office, and it seems to me that we have a template there. If it works for the Federal Reserve, surely it can work for the Bank of England.

I hope that these amendments will be taken exceedingly seriously. While the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, is not in a position to speak himself, there are many in this House, including the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, who will be able to appreciate the importance of the points that he would have made had he had the opportunity.

[Baroness Noakes]

My Lords, I support the amendments. I was deeply shocked to see that the Government proposed to give the Bank of England a veto over whether the Comptroller and Auditor-General could undertake a particular value-for-money study. I have believed for a long time that it has been an anomaly that the Bank of England has not been within the remit of the Comptroller and Auditor-General. I do not believe that any public body, however great and however independent, should be able to stand on that greatness and independence and say, “I do not want the National Audit Office or the Comptroller and Auditor-General to examine what I have been doing”. Public audit can be effective only when it is unfettered, and the concept of fettering the Comptroller and Auditor-General is, frankly, unacceptable.

Bank of England and Financial Services Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Kramer and Baroness Noakes

Monday 9th November 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I completely support my noble friend Lord Sharkey in this. Although I greatly respect the noble Lord, Lord Flight, I hope that the House will resist his blandishments. I think non-executive directors of banks finding themselves on the Court of the Bank of England would be constantly facing conflicts of interest, and the public perception would be appalling—that the Bank had become the captive of the industry that it is there to regulate. That does not seem to be a sensible principle.

With the changes that are now proposed—for there to be five inside members, if you like, of the court and seven outside—the inside members would need to persuade only one outside member to join them to achieve stalemate. That is an unacceptable balance in any institution which is so important to the economic life of this country. If the argument cannot persuade more than one non-executive director, it cannot have the standing that would allow it to prevail.

Like my noble friend Lord Sharkey, I am still struggling to understand why this change is being made. The only reason that has been presented to me is the issue of transition. If there are only seven members of the board, for a period of time there could be an incoming and an outgoing member on the board at the same time. Perhaps that is a good practice; it sounds reasonably attractive. But for that to be the reason that the board should be reduced on a normalised basis to seven seems extraordinary. I also suggest that an outgoing member might be very hesitant to exercise their rights, knowing that they were about to depart the board. Transitional arrangements could be put into the Bill, and we would be quite supportive of the idea that there might be a period when an outgoing member of the court could remain on the board in certain roles, or perhaps even in a full role, for a brief transitional period to achieve the goals that the Minister is attempting to achieve.

I hope very much that we can resist this set of issues. The Bank of England is sufficiently important and outsiders are absolutely necessary. This House has made sure over the past several years that that is central to legislation and I think we will continue to hold to that importance.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, that the Bank of England is an important institution but I am not sure that that importance needs to translate itself into how the court is constituted. The important activities of the Bank are carried out in what will be the three major committees: monetary policy, financial stability and prudential regulation. The activities carried out by the court are relatively few in number. The question then is: what size of court is going to be efficient for carrying out the functions it is there for?

The model that well serves both the plc community in this country and much of the public sector that is modelled on corporate lines is to have a majority of non-executives. That is being kept in here. I have never heard it suggested that the number of non-executives is somehow important to the quality of governance in plcs. Many have more than a bare majority of non-executive directors but a lot operate strictly within the rules to have just a bare majority. I have not seen any studies anywhere that the ratios have any correlation with the quality of governance that is capable of being exercised.

The noble Lord, Lord Davies, referred to the academic evidence that smaller boards are effective boards—that is one of the things that came out of Sir David Walker’s review into the governance of banks—and that committees should be 4:5 and boards 8:10 or something like that. That is because in a smaller organisation, all members can have a proper voice and there can be a proper discussion, whereas in large boards often it is relatively simple for an inner group to dominate the larger group. That is what the behavioural studies have shown.

[Baroness Kramer]

I respect the views of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, very much but is she saying that the current Court of the Bank of England is ineffective because it is too large, and that the effect has been that many of the non-executive directors are not having their voice heard? That is a very serious comment to lay on the table. If that is the case, we really need that evidence because we will want to effect a cure, if this is an answer to a board that the Government have essentially decided is ineffective.

[Baroness Noakes]

My Lords, I have absolutely no knowledge of how the Court of the Bank of England works and have not had that knowledge since 2000, when my tenure on the court ceased. At that time I think that we were a court of 16, of whom 13 were non-executives. I will not claim that we were a very effective board at that. All I am trying to say is that what the Government are proposing is perfectly sensible and in line with general corporate practices. It seems to be entirely defensible.

Financial Services Bill

Debate between Baroness Kramer and Baroness Noakes

Monday 12th November 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Noakes]

My Lords, I hear what the Minister said about the drafting of Amendment 26 not referring to social investment or anything like that. As drafted, however, it says that the things which the FCA must take into account include,

“the differing expectations that consumers may have in relation to different kinds of investment or other transaction”.

Read as it is, that seems to require the FCA to take account of consumers’ expectations, whether or not they are reasonable. So if consumers have unrealistic expectations about what they will have in return from their pension investment, for example—and that is a fairly widespread misconception—because the Government have chosen to use this unspecific form of drafting this could quite easily be interpreted as applying to expectations that operate in a quite different sphere from that intended. While the Government might say that it is intended only for social investment, these are clear words; they do not need any other explanation from the Government to make them understandable. It may be dangerous in its current drafting to leave it without the reference to social investment that my noble friend’s Amendment 31 has. His amendment is clearly rooted in what it is that is trying to be achieved.

[Baroness Kramer]

My Lords, I just want to join in the chorus that essentially says to the Government that we appreciate the move forward that comes with their amendment. I am very supportive of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, and his thought process over Amendment 31. It has tremendous overlap with Amendment 26—and I think that I can be very happy with Amendment 26 today. But the financial promotions order issue is going to have to be tackled. I would like to reply very briefly to the noble Lord, Lord Flight, who suggested that a social investment should be marketed only to sophisticated or high net worth individuals. The kinds of projects involved in social investment may be an extension to a local school, or a resettlement programme attached to a local prison. It is quite likely to be a small project—that is the whole point—of the kind that cannot afford to go and get regulated so that it can be marketed to the general public. It is the kind of project of £1 million or £2 million, which cannot pay the £150,000 that would put it into a regulated environment so that it could be marketed to the general public. The whole point is to provide those people with an alternative who, typically, might be asked to donate to a local project, so that they could invest in that local project. You are talking about people who would be close to the project, understand the community and perhaps even engage themselves in the work that the community does. So we are looking at a very different range of projects when we talk about social investment.

Although the language is very tricky and I recognise that it will not be easy, at some point the Government will have to get a grip on the financial promotions language and find a way to craft it so that it can be sold appropriately to people who know and understand what is going on but will never meet that benchmark of being a high net worth individual or a sophisticated investor. They might put £1,000 or £2,000 into a project, or perhaps even £50 or £100. At the moment, they are barred from doing anything other than donate, which seems reasonably insane when we look at the kind of projects that are involved.

Financial Services Bill

Debate between Baroness Kramer and Baroness Noakes

Tuesday 10th July 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kramer]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Peston, for giving way on that because I am again working in murky waters here. The Minister may correct me but I think the example that he referred to was of a leverage ratio, in which the assets had to be weighted in some way for their riskiness or toxicity. There would be an argument for using those weights within a leveraged ratio, would there not? You can use risk weights on anything, I say, having used them. However, that is not the kind of detail we would want to get into on the Floor of this House. My argument is that it would become so highly technical. If there is an amending capacity, that is exactly where we will take ourselves—and without a series of blackboards and three academics to lead us through it, I am not sure we could manage, frankly.

[Baroness Noakes]

Perhaps I might intervene on whether there is the power to amend or not. Debating under super-affirmative procedure is not like considering a Bill. There are no amendments tabled and voted on but there is the ability of either House to pass a resolution saying what it thinks. Much as the noble Lord, Lord Peston, articulated, either House would be able to consider whether it thought that the tools were up to the job. More importantly, as I tried to explain in my opening remarks, Parliament could consider the potential impact of using those tools and say to the Government whether it thought the tools appropriate in the context of the wider impact, not simply the narrow impact, on the regulation of financial institutions. The super-affirmative procedure does not allow a specific amendment process but it allows Parliament to say, “Government, we think you have got this wrong”. It is in contradistinction to any of the other procedures where we have the nuclear option: we either accept the order or we do not accept it. It is a more deliberative and amenable process, in particular for considering these very new tools which are being talked about. I hope that helps the Committee.

Financial Services Bill

Debate between Baroness Kramer and Baroness Noakes

Monday 11th June 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kramer]

I have relatively little experience in this area, but it is my understanding that one of the advantages of Grand Committee is the easy access to officials. If the Government are seriously considering a range of amendments, as the Minister has indicated in the debate today, I presume that the ability to discuss and negotiate those and to make sure that government amendments come forward that meet the required standard will be easier within the Grand Committee context. I am something of a novice on this, so I would take the guidance of the House.

[Baroness Noakes]

Perhaps I may challenge the suggestion made by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer. While officials sit rather nearer to the Ministers in Grand Committee, I think that they take no active part. All we have is that the same number of officials sit rather closer to the Minister, so it makes very little difference in terms of determining government policy. In practice, because no decisions are made in Grand Committee, or at least they are made very rarely there, the proximity of officials is of no account whatever.