Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Garnier Excerpts

Tuesday 8th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

There is a great deal of speculation about the future of the cash individual savings account. As we know, it is an important savings mechanism for many savers across the country, all of whom will be dismayed at the loss of a significant cash savings opportunity. Just as importantly, cutting cash ISAs will deprive building societies of important funds for their balance sheets, reducing the amount of capital available for the residential mortgage market. This point has been raised with me by the mutual societies. Given that the loss of the cash ISA would have a profound effect on mutuals’ ability to raise debt capital, what research have the Government undertaken to establish the extent of the damage that such a measure might inflict on the residential mortgage market, which is not just important for all our constituents, but crucial for the 1.5 million new homes that the Government propose building?

[Emma Reynolds]

I work closely with the mutuals and other financial services firms, and I think the hon. Member is slightly jumping the gun, if he does not mind my saying so. We are considering options to reform ISAs, but we need to get the balance right between cash and equities. We know that many people have investments in cash ISAs who could think about investing in our capital markets, which would be a win for them through higher returns, and also for the economy. However, we absolutely understand the role that cash savings play in people having money for a rainy day.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Garnier Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

The City of London has been a leader of innovation in the world of finance and savings for a few hundred years now, and it has been successful because it has always seized opportunities and innovation when presented. In that spirit, we are pleased that the Chancellor in her Mansion House speech embraced the concept of securities tokenisation, but we now find that the catalyst for this innovation in the UK—a pilot for the digital gilt instrument known as DIGIT—has found itself in a two-year black hole. Innovation is not something that can hang around for two years, so will the Minister give assurances that she will do everything she can to deliver DIGIT as soon as possible?

[Emma Reynolds]

That sounds like a criticism of the previous Government. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that we are committed to innovation and to DIGIT.

Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Mark Garnier Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 11th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Emma Reynolds]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, but I am sure not the last, Ms Jardine. Government amendment 1 ensures that the Bank of England will have the flexibility to use the mechanism provided in this Bill in a broad range of circumstances. It does that by removing the provision added in the other place that prevents the Bank of England from using the new mechanism in relation to firms that have been directed to hold additional loss-absorbing resources, also known as MREL, or minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities. I will also speak to amendment 3, tabled by the hon. Member for Wokingham, which aims to ensure that the mechanism is used only for small banks.

I appreciate that this issue is of interest to many hon. Members, as we discussed it on Second Reading, and also to those in the other place, where it was debated. However, the Government’s position on the matter is clear: as I set out on Second Reading, the intention is for the mechanism to be used primarily to support the resolution of smaller banks. The Government reaffirmed that position in their draft updates to the code of practice to which the Bank of England must have regard when using its resolution powers, and in the written statement that my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Tulip Siddiq), made to the House on 15 October 2024.

The Government appreciate the intent of the amendment passed in the other place and of amendment 3, and are conscious of the intent to preserve flexibility to use the mechanism on firms transitioning towards holding their full allocation of MREL. I also appreciate the remaining key concern that, without restriction on the scope of the mechanism, the Bank of England could use it on the largest banks. I make it absolutely clear that that is not the Government’s primary policy intention. The Bank of England should always, first and foremost, rely on a firm’s MREL resources, ensuring that its shareholders and investors bear the losses, rather than turning to this mechanism.

However, having considered the matter carefully, the Government believe that it is still not desirable to limit the mechanism’s scope in the Bill. That would in effect hardwire in legislation the principle that the mechanism is unavailable for larger banks, and it is that hardwiring that the Government are concerned about. As we have seen and experienced, bank failures are highly unpredictable. The Government’s concern is that if the legislation is overly restrictive, that might mean that the mechanism is unavailable in the very unlikely circumstances of large bank failures in which public funds may still be exposed. We must remember, in relation to this Bill, that the primary objective is to protect the taxpayer. The Government consider it important that the mechanism’s use is not overly constrained in the legislation, ensuring that it provides comprehensive protection for public funds—that is, the taxpayer.

To explain the Government’s thinking on this issue in more detail, I will make three points. First, there may be very limited circumstances in which the flexibility to use the mechanism on larger firms would help to protect public funds. The largest and most complex firms are required to hold additional resources to be bailed in—known as MREL—which aim to provide a robust level of self-insurance for larger firms. The Bill’s mechanism can be used only where a firm is transferred to a buyer or a bridge bank upon failure—something that is not envisaged for a large bank, which is expected to be bailed in instead. To take the points together, large banks should therefore have sufficient of their own resources to meet their recapitalisation costs, and the mechanism is unlikely to be available for use on large banks, even with the scope in the Bill remaining broad.

However, it is theoretically possible that circumstances could emerge for which a larger bank is not sufficiently resourced, although these are highly unlikely. One example would be if the firm were subject to a large redress claim, resulting in a higher recapitalisation amount than envisaged. Another example would be if the market value of the firm’s assets changed over time. That could result in more losses than expected at the point of failure—again, resulting in a higher amount of recapitalisation. Those examples, however unlikely they may be, show that there is a clear benefit in having the flexibility to source additional resources from the mechanism, having already written down the firm’s available MREL. Restricting the scope in the Bill would prevent the mechanism from being available in these types of scenario, leaving public funds and therefore the taxpayer exposed instead.

Secondly, I reiterate that the Bank of England would first look to write down or otherwise expose to loss available MREL and would then consider use of the mechanism only if a sale to a buyer or transfer to a bridge bank were needed. Funds from industry are therefore not expected to be used to cover a large bank’s full recapitalisation amount. Instead, they are expected to be needed only for an additional shortfall over and above that which the firm’s resources could fulfil and once these resources have been written down or exposed to loss. Use of the mechanism would simply be a “top-up” to achieve recapitalisation, rather than covering all of a firm’s recapitalisation costs.

Thirdly and finally, the Government agree with the intent behind amendment 3, in that it is important for there to be sufficient safeguards to prevent any inappropriate use of the new mechanism on larger firms. I reassure the hon. Member for Wokingham that a range of safeguards is already in place, which the Government believe provide the necessary checks and balances. For example, the Treasury is involved in the exercise of any resolution powers through being consulted about whether conditions for resolution have been met. The Treasury would also need to approve any resolution action with implications for public funds. If the Bank of England requested a large sum from the financial services compensation scheme, which it could not provide through its own resources, it would have implications for public funds, as the financial services compensation scheme would need to borrow from the Treasury. This means that, in practice, Treasury consent would be required if the Bank of England had requested a large sum.

The Bill also includes some important mechanisms to ensure transparency and parliamentary scrutiny. For example, the Bill now requires the Bank of England to report to the Chancellor on the use of the new mechanism, and it requires the Chancellor to lay those reports in Parliament. The Bill also requires the Bank of England to notify the Chairs of the relevant parliamentary Committees—namely, the Treasury Committee and the House of Lords Financial Services Regulation Committee—following the use of the mechanism. Those measures will ensure that Parliament can scrutinise the Bank of England’s actions in relation to the new mechanism. They were added to the Bill during the debate in the other place.

I hope that my explanations go some way to providing reassurance that the Government’s approach is the right one, and that ultimately, flexibility in the legislation is better for economic and financial stability, and for limiting the risk to public funds, which is what the Bill is all about. As a result, I hope that hon. Members can support the Government’s amendment, and I ask the hon. Member for Wokingham not to press his amendment.

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Ms Jardine. I also thank the Minister, because we have had a fantastic time of agreement so far—but not on this particular point.

I will speak to Government amendment 1 and amendment 3 from the hon. Member for Wokingham. Government amendment 1 is aimed at reversing an amendment that was put in place by those in the other House. It was proposed by my colleague Baroness Vere, so we refer to it as “the Vere amendment”.

The Minister made quite a strong and convincing case for why the Bank of England feels that it needs the ability to use this type of financial services compensation scheme redress in the case of some of the larger banks. But what worried me, as I was listening to the Minister’s words, was that she was highlighting the fact that the MREL regime could fail. I spent three and a half years or so on the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, coming up with this MREL stuff in the first place, and also on the Treasury Committee, analysing the banking crisis. We completely accept that there is no way we can legislate for any possible type of failure in the future. However, we can try to learn from mistakes. The Minister is suggesting that there is an exception—that the MREL regime is not right—but I would prefer the MREL regime to be looked at again to make sure that it operates properly.

The Minister makes the very good point that a bank could issue an MREL convertible bond, which converts into equity in the event of a default; and that the bank could be successful during the course of its life and the MREL bond is not, in fact, sufficiently big enough to meet the liabilities in the event of a default. To me, the answer is not to try to squeeze into place another bit of legislation that tries to fudge it. We should look more carefully at making sure that the MREL regime is right, although I completely understand her point that the regime is only going to make up the top-up. However, the problem is that if the Government are going for a growth agenda—we all know that the City of London and financial services institutions can grow quite quickly—we could end up with a situation in which quite a lot of money is being asked for by the other banks to be able to support this.

We will press this amendment to a Division and vote against it. I am glancing towards my Liberal Democrat friend, the hon. Member for Dorking and Horley, and I hope that enthusiastic nod means that we will not be by ourselves in doing so.

Liberal Democrat amendment 3 would bring back, in a slightly different form, the amendment proposed by Baroness Vere in the other place, but it adds something else that we are slightly worried about. Having looked at this on the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards for a number of years, I have become quite a purist about it. The amendment restores a fundamentally important point but what worries me is that it looks to have a negative resolution statutory instrument to ensure that that happens.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Reynolds]

Coming on to the amendment, I am a little bit confused by the shadow Minister, because he rightly says—I agree with him about this—that it would not have been possible to use a negative SI, for example, during the weekend when everything was happening with Silicon Valley Bank. The Government at the time and the Bank of England rightly moved during that weekend to reassure the markets and everything was sorted, really—well, I say everything was sorted, but there was still more to do. However, the big decisions were made over that weekend.

If the Government had to lay an SI in order to give the Bank the permission to do that, it would not have been a good scenario. I think the shadow Minister is saying that he will back the other amendment, but not this one. I am a bit confused by his position.

[Mark Garnier]

To be absolutely clear, the Minister and I are absolutely as one on that particular point: to have a negative resolution SI, or indeed any SI, would hold up progress and create a lot of hassle. The substantive part of the amendment, which is the MREL bit, prevents us from being able to support the amendment, so we will vote against it. It is the other amendment—the growth amendment—that we will support. My apologies to the Chairman; I hope that is clear.

[Emma Reynolds]

I thought that was what the shadow Minister was saying, but it is good to get some clarification. I think I am not the only one who was a little confused.

As I said in my opening remarks, we do not support the amendment that the hon. Member for Wokingham tabled, but I understand the intent behind it and the concern that the hon. Member for Dorking and Horley raised.

A couple of other issues were raised; they go slightly beyond the bounds of the Bill, but I will respond to them anyway. As the hon. Member for Dorking and Horley knows, there is a consultation by the Bank of England on the MREL thresholds. That consultation closed recently and, as he would expect, the Treasury is working very closely with the Bank as it looks through the feedback to that consultation. That is not in the substance of this Bill, but it is a relevant consideration and I hope that reassures the hon. Gentleman that we are working closely with the Bank on this issue.

I hope that I have addressed the concerns raised by Opposition Members, but I am sure that they will tell me if I have not done so.

[Mark Garnier]

Yes.

[Emma Reynolds]

I think we will get on to the amendment on growth and competitiveness in the next stage of line-by-line consideration of the Bill.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Reynolds]

Clauses 2, 3 and 5 relate to the reporting and accountability requirements on the Bank of England when it uses the recapitalisation mechanism. The Government added these clauses to the Bill in the other place, reflecting the understandable concerns raised about how the Bank of England will be held to account when using the new mechanism. Together, they aim to ensure that there is effective transparency and scrutiny when the mechanism is used, helping to provide important assurances following a resolution to the Chancellor, Parliament, industry and the public.

Clause 2 requires the Bank of England to report to the Chancellor following its use of the mechanism. These reports must relate both to the exercise of the mechanism and the stabilisation option it is used in connection with. The “final report” produced by the Bank of England is intended to be a comprehensive account of the use of the mechanism, with the content and timing of the report to be specified by the Treasury.

As alluded to in the published draft updates to the Bank of England’s code of practice, the Government expect such final reports to include a number of important points: first, an explanation of the choice to use the new mechanism; secondly, how the resolution conditions and objectives were considered and given regard to; thirdly, an assessment of the costs of using the mechanism compared with placing the firm into insolvency; and finally, an explanation of why any ancillary costs were considered reasonable and necessary.

Clause 2 also requires the Bank of England to produce an interim report within three months of using the mechanism, if the final report has not been provided within that period. This guarantees that scrutiny of the Bank of England’s actions takes place in short order after a resolution involving the mechanism. The Chancellor will be required to lay any reports before Parliament, ensuring that there is appropriate transparency and accountability regarding the use of the mechanism. The Chancellor, however, will have the discretion to omit certain information from such reports when they are published if doing so is deemed to be in the public interest—for example, if reports contain commercially confidential information, or if disclosure could potentially frustrate an ongoing resolution process.

Clause 3 requires the Bank of England to notify the Chairs of the Treasury Committee of this House and the Financial Services Regulation Committee of the other place as soon as is reasonably practicable after the recapitalisation mechanism has been used. This means that Parliament will be engaged promptly following the use of the mechanism. Finally, clause 5 requires the Government’s code of practice, which sets out how the resolution regime is expected to work in practice, to include guidance on the contents of the reports of the Bank of England, which it is required to produce under clause 2. Clause 5 places an important obligation on the Treasury to ensure that there is transparency over what the Bank of England should expect to include in such reports.

At this point, I note that the Government published draft updates to the code of practice, which set out the sorts of things that are expected to be included in reports by the Bank of England. For example, reports would be expected to include an explanation of the choice to use the recapitalisation mechanism, as well as an assessment of the costs of using the mechanism compared with putting the failing firm into insolvency. The Government will issue a full update to the code of conduct in line with the provisions in the Bill that are coming into force. As mentioned at the start, these clauses provide important clarity for the Bank of England, industry and Parliament on the accountability mechanisms that apply when the recapitalisation mechanism is used. I therefore commend clauses 2, 3 and 5 to the Committee.

[Mark Garnier]

I will be brief, because I do not want to take up too much of the Committee’s time. I reiterate that accountability is an incredibly important part of the Bill; accountability of the Bank of England and the Treasury to Parliament is absolutely crucial. Having had the experience of spending my first five years in Parliament scrutinising this sector, the more information Parliament has when making legislation, the better it is for us all in producing good legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Reynolds]

I will briefly speak to clauses 6, 7 and 8, which cover the more technical aspects of the Bill. Clause 6 makes amendments to the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. It ensures that, where the FSCS makes a recapitalisation payment to the Bank of England, its ability to levy the banking sector is extended to cover such a payment. This is key to recouping the FSCS’s funds, and thus achieving the Bill’s aim of reducing potential risk to public funds in a resolution. The clause also stipulates that credit unions are exempt from levies for this purpose, which I am sure Members will agree is a sensible and proportionate approach, given that credit unions are out of scope of the resolution regime.

The rest of clause 6 makes minor amendments to existing legislation. It clarifies that a recapitalisation payment is not classed as a management expense of the FSCS, and it clarifies that payments that are made in error, in connection with the recapitalisation funds provided to the Bank of England, can be levied for, which is consistent with the approach for the other statutory functions of the FSCS.

Clause 7 makes amendments to the Banking Act 2009. It makes it explicit that funds provided by the FSCS, in resolution in connection with the new mechanism, would not count as extraordinary public financial assistance, reflecting that the new mechanism is intended to reduce risk to the kind of public funds described within this definition. The clause allows the Bank of England to take into account the funds provided by the FSCS when calculating the extent to which certain liabilities are bailed in, when the Bank of England exercises its bail-in tool alongside executing a transfer. Without this, the Bank of England would not be able to consider the funds provided by the FSCS in instances where it exercises its bail-in tool. That might mean that the Bank of England would have to continue to write down certain liabilities, potentially including uncovered deposits, where doing so could negatively impact and destabilise the continued operation of the failed firm.

Clause 7 also gives the Bank of England the express ability to require the failing firm to issue new shares, allowing FSCS funds to then be used to pay for those shares, thereby injecting the funds into the firm. This will ensure that the Bank of England can move swiftly to recapitalise the failing firm. The clause also ensures that funds provided by the FSCS can be taken into account appropriately when deciding whether sale proceeds or compensation are due to those who owned the firm before it was transferred. This would avoid including value that was contributed by the banking sector in any assessment of the compensation payable to former shareholders and creditors, which would clearly be inappropriate and increase the cost of compensation to taxpayers.

Finally, clause 7 disapplies a requirement for the Bank of England to notify the Treasury as to whether a certain condition for providing financial assistance to a failing firm has been met, otherwise known as the 8% rule. The 8% rule states that resolution financing arrangements may be used only where the shareholders and creditors of the bailing institution have made a contribution equal in value to at least 8% of the institution’s liabilities. The Government have disapplied that requirement in their updates to the code of practice, as it is unlikely that the condition could be met by small banks since they will not hold sufficient loss-absorbing resources to reach the threshold. As such, the statutory notification requirement is redundant.

Finally, clause 8 sets out the procedural matters of the Bill, which I trust will cause no concern to hon. Members. At this point, I should note the Government’s second amendment, which removes the financial privilege amendment inserted in the other place. That is standard procedure and I trust that hon. Members will raise no objections. I hope hon. Members agree that the clauses are sensible provisions to ensure that the Bill works as intended and, as such, I commend them to the Committee.

[Mark Garnier]

You will be delighted, Ms Jardine, as I am sure the whole Committee will be, to hear that my contribution will be even shorter than the last one. The Minister rightly says that we are considering a lot of procedural-type amendments to do with the delivery of the Bill. I thank the Government for listening to industry over excluding credit unions from falling within the scope. It is incredibly important that we do not find lots of other people emerging into these sectors and suddenly finding themselves being part of a much more complicated area. On the procedural point of the Government amendment, we will absolutely support that.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 6 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8

Extent, commencement and short title

Amendment made: 2, in clause 8, page 6, line 1, leave out subsection (5).—(Emma Reynolds.)

This amendment removes the privilege amendment inserted by the House of Lords.

Clause 8, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

[Emma Reynolds]

I commend the Bill to the Committee.

[Mark Garnier]

I thank everybody for their work. It is a great pleasure to see so many new Members of Parliament and former hedge fund managers; it is terrific. On so many occasions, I have joked about being a former investment banker and hedge fund manager, and now that I am a politician, I have the hat trick of the three most unpopular jobs known to humanity. For a next job, I will be a traffic warden. I thank everyone for their hard work.

[Emma Reynolds]

May I also take the opportunity to thank the officials of the House and you, Ms Jardine, as well as the Treasury officials who have worked so hard on the Bill? We still have some stages to go, but it is an opportune moment to do that.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, to be reported.

Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Bill [Lords]

Mark Garnier Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

I welcome the new Minister to her place. I think this is her first Bill that she has taken through as Economic Secretary and, interestingly, she is absolutely right. This is one of the frequent occasions on which we will agree on pretty much everything. This Bill was obviously written by the previous Government who, I think we all agree, delivered 14 years of strong and stable government.

Broadly speaking, we will not disagree on this Bill. As the Minister set out in her opening speech, this legislation was born out of the learnings of the failure of Silicon Valley Bank. The failure came out of the US parent company, with a contagion that quickly spread to its UK subsidiary. Although the Bank of England had initially planned to use insolvency procedures, HSBC emerged as a buyer thanks to the tireless work over the course of a weekend in March 2023, and much credit must be given to the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Jeremy Hunt), and the former Economic Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith). They secured an outcome that has not cost the taxpayer any money at all, and which protected millions of pounds’ worth of customer deposits, primarily in the tech sector. The bank’s customers would face an uncertain financial future were it not for that intervention, so I am sure that the House will join me in commending the action that was taken by the previous Government.

The failure and subsequent transfer of Silicon Valley Bank UK shows how robust our post-2009 banking reforms have become. The Bank of England has used its resolution powers only three times since 2009, and this was the first time since the Southsea Mortgage and Investment Company failed in 2011. It is fair to say that the process worked absolutely as it should have done: the transfer of Silicon Valley Bank UK to HSBC was done in an orderly manner, there was no wider contagion in the banking sector, and withdrawals and panic did not spread to other banks. In short, it demonstrated why the UK is such a financial centre of excellence, and we must continue to champion that point.

However, we can continue to uphold our world-leading reputation only if we review and learn from when the system is stressed in real life. In some ways, we were very fortunate. HSBC was the only credible bidder for Silicon Valley Bank that did not require financial support or guarantees from the Government or the Bank of England. In addition, HSBC’s level of capital and liquidity resources greatly reduced the risk to public funds, delivered stability and boosted market confidence. However, had HSBC not come forward, the only option for the Bank of England was the bank insolvency procedure. This Bill comes out of the subsequent root-and-branch review, and it went for industry consultation under the previous Government. I thank the current Government for supporting it.

The Opposition recognise that some banks may fail due to issues outside their control and should have pathways to continue as a going concern if transferred to another entity, and it is right that the Bank of England has more tools in its arsenal to support the financial system. We are therefore delighted to support the Bill—it is one that we started. As it made progress in the other House, it benefited from considerable scrutiny from noble peers. The successful amendments and new clauses enhanced the Bill and will significantly improve transparency.

This was a point addressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) during the Delegated Legislation Committee on Monday, which finalised the transfer of Silicon Valley Bank UK to HSBC with no compensation to shareholders. He rightly raised some of the unanswered questions on what changed the Bank of England’s decision between announcing that the Silicon Valley Bank UK was going into insolvency procedures on the Friday and being transferred under resolution by the Monday. These additional transparency arrangements will ensure that colleagues in this House remain confident in the independence of the Bank of England. Will the Minister confirm that the Government intend to support those amendments in this House? I would be amazed if he said no, actually.

I will move on to what could be the crux of any potential disagreement. When this Bill was introduced in the other place, there was no limit to the scope of this regime. We can safely categorise our banks into three different groups. First, there are the large-scale institutional banks that have reached the end-state minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities, or MREL, as it is known. Secondly, there are the challenger banks such as Monzo and Starling that are working towards end-state MREL. Finally, there are the smaller banks that do not meet the threshold for MREL, such as Silicon Valley Bank.

The Banking Act 2009 provides a robust framework for dealing with banks that have achieved end-state MREL status, and while there is a sensible argument for saying the new mechanism could provide top-up funding for banks working towards end-state MREL, it is not fair or reasonable to expect the mechanism to be used for the largest banks. The consequences of such a decision could be extremely costly for banks and their customers, and if an institutional bank failed and this mechanism were used to facilitate a transfer, our fear is that there could be a recapitalisation requirement that was many times the annual cap of the financial services compensation scheme. The only decision left to the FSCS would therefore be to borrow from the national loans fund via the Treasury. The ex-post levy set out in this legislation would therefore be charged not only in the year in which the levy was first implemented but potentially for many years thereafter. MREL requirements should ensure the safety of our largest institutions. Bank directors should be ensuring sound compliance of MREL, not taking comfort in the fact that they can fall back on to an ex-post levy of the banking sector in times of trouble.

The Opposition took reassurance from a policy statement that the mechanism would be used for the largest banks only in exceptional circumstances. However, this still left the key question as to why the legislation allowed large-scale banks to trigger the mechanism. In her opening speech, the Minister referred exactly to this. Baroness Vere’s amendment makes it clear that this mechanism cannot be used on the largest banks—those that have achieved end-state MREL. That amendment was opposed by the Government in the other place. I was hoping that the Minister would update the House today on the Government position and she has done that, but we may want to talk about this at greater length. Concerns were also rightly raised by peers that this mechanism, and using resolution to transfer failing banks, should not become the default position of the Bank of England, which is important.

Ultimately, banks are businesses. They have shareholders that bear the responsibility and the burden of risk, and we should not create a system where banks can always expect to fall back on industry-funded life support. The code of practice, alongside this Bill, rightly states that using the insolvency procedure should be the default position. I would welcome the Minister’s comments on whether there could be further need for that to be strengthened in the legislation.

The introduction of this mechanism is another example of a banking industry in strong health. In 2007, it was the taxpayer bailing out the banks. Now we have a system whereby the industry is expected to cover the cost of a failing bank. This raises questions as to whether the Government need to review how we can make the UK banking sector more internationally competitive—we have had an informal chat about this.

Let us take the bank levy as an example. It was introduced for three main reasons. First, it was introduced to help repay the cost of the banking bail-out, and it has raised something in the region of £25 billion since it was first introduced. Second, the bank levy acted as a kind of insurance premium in case the post-financial crisis stability of the banking sector were to falter and fall and there needed to be another bail-out. Finally, it was almost a quasi-punishment to the banking system for the failures that led to the financial crisis. It was there to reassure unhappy shareholders that there were consequences for a sector in which there was bad practice. If we add up the total cost to the UK taxpayer of the financial crisis, it was £137 billion, according to the House of Commons Library, as of 2023. That has been reduced to £33 billion now, so there still is some outstanding cost.

On top of the bank levy, other post-2009 reforms include much more stringent ringfencing and capital requirements. That might not be a subject for this debate, and I am not calling for the bank levy to be abolished, but I would certainly welcome the Minister’s comments on whether there could be scope to review the international competitiveness of the banking sector alongside the Chancellor’s growth agenda. The international competitiveness of the City of London should be an absolute priority for this Government—I believe that it is—yet according to UK Finance’s 2024 banking sector tax report, produced by PwC, UK banks face the highest tax contribution since the study started a decade ago.

In terms of international competitiveness, according to PwC, the total tax burden of a model bank operating in the UK is currently 45.8%. That is significantly higher than our competitors in Frankfurt at 38.6%, in New York at 27.9%, or in Dublin at 28.8%. The City, as I am sure Ministers and the whole House will agree, is an extraordinary asset for this country. For a Government who are seeking a growth agenda, the City is the oil in the engine of that economic growth.

Banks do a very important job, and it is a job of significant social and economic importance. Banks take money from where it has accumulated and distribute it to where it is needed for investment. This is crucial to fairness across our economy and delivering growth. They transfer overnight deposits into 25-year mortgages that provide hope and opportunity for people to bring up their families in safety. So we should not demonise banks, and we must remember that shareholder returns on bank investments are as important as shareholder liability in the event of a failure. We must ensure that there is a good return, given the fact that bank shareholders bear the ultimate risk of losing everything.

This Bill is a shining example of the fact that the banks and regulators are now in a position to keep their industry in order. As I said at the start of this speech, I believe that there is cross-party support for the Bill, and I look forward to working with the Government as these reforms progress through the House. They are magnificent, because of course they came from the previous Government, but I thank the Ministers for continuing with them in the spirit with which they were intended.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Garnier]

It gives me great pleasure to wind up this debate, with the leave of the House, on behalf of the Opposition.

First, I thank the handful of Members present, who have made very helpful contributions. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) rightly asked questions on behalf of his constituents. He asked whether they will be under the cosh if a bank goes bust again—they should not be, under this legislation—and what banks will do to generate economic growth in his area. The Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), rightly raised a point about the legislation being extended to and used for the larger banks, which is not its intention. As ever, my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) has brought an intelligent scepticism to the question of what could happen with this legislation, and has demonstrated why Parliament is such a brilliant place, with intelligent people like him scrutinising what goes on.

I also welcome the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury. He has had a glittering career, and has done extraordinarily well in his meteoric rise to Minister in not one but two Government Departments in his first Parliament. He is double-hatting already; he is a clever chap. We have come across each other in the past.

I will not take too much of the House’s time, as I was on my feet just a few minutes ago, but I would like to come back to three points that I hope the Minister will address. The first is the amendment to the Bill; the Economic Secretary to the Treasury made the point that the Government do not want to support that amendment. This may come up later, and we may have more conversations about it. Secondly, does the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury feel that the Bank of England’s code of practice provides enough reassurance that the bank insolvency procedure remains the default option for failing smaller banks? Finally, how does he weigh up continued use of the bank levy and regulation of our banking system against the Chancellor’s growth agenda? I appreciate, however, that that is beyond the scope of the Bill.

As I said in my opening remarks, the Bill retains surprisingly strong cross-party support. It is a good thing for the Bank of England to have more tools at its disposal during periods of heightened stress, and the version of the Bill before us today—the version amended in the other place—is more robust than it started out. We look forward to getting clarity from the newly appointed shadow Minister. [Hon. Members: “The Minister.”] My apologies—it will be a few years before that. I congratulate the newly appointed Minister on his appointment.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Garnier Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

The Chancellor makes reference to the PWC report, but half of the survey in that report was done before the Budget. The Chancellor and I spent a very happy three years sitting next to each other at the Treasury Committee, and she was incredibly good at demanding straight answers from the witnesses that came in front of the Committee. She has already been asked questions about the fact that the fiscal headroom is only £10 billion and the increase in the cost of borrowing is now going to go through the roof so, at some point, she will have to raise taxes, cut investment or increase debt. Which will it be?

[Rachel Reeves]

The headroom in our Budget was larger than the headroom that we inherited from the previous Government, so we have put aside more money for changes in economic prospects. The OBR has not yet done its forecast, which will take a whole variety of factors into account, and we will make decisions based on that. I have been really clear that our fiscal rules are non-negotiable because, unlike the Conservatives, we are determined to meet the fiscal rules, not break them time and again.

Draft Silicon Valley Bank UK Limited Compensation Scheme Order 2024

Mark Garnier Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2025 General Committees

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to be standing opposite—albeit in opposition—the newly promoted Minister. I look forward to spending an entire week locking horns with her.

Let me start by saying that it is fantastic that we have seen some very swift action. It just goes to show that the Banking Act 2009 has worked extraordinarily well, and how efficiently the previous Government did when it came to resolving this financial problem. A huge amount of work was done by a number of people in the previous Government, including the Treasury Committee, which looked at the Financial Services Act 2012, and the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, which looked at the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013. A huge amount has gone on and it is reassuring to see that when something does go wrong, the system cuts in incredibly quickly and resolves the situation very well. The Minister and I will be talking directly about bank resolution on Wednesday; it is incredibly important that we work together on this, and I think we are probably in broad agreement.

This order raises an incredibly important point about shareholders—the people who take the ultimate risk in any sort of business. Shareholders are at the bottom of the list of people who are compensated in the event of the winding-up of any privately owned institution. That is the right thing—at the end of the day, private shareholders need to take that risk—but we need to remember that they are taking the ultimate risk in any business. We in this place sometimes beat them up, because we do not necessarily like to see them make too much money, but part of the risk-reward ratio of the current system is that shareholders take a lot of risk; we should not attack them for taking good returns, given the fact that they can lose every penny of their money. The other point about shareholders is that they provide an incredibly useful service in the governance of any institution: making sure that something like this situation should not happen. There was a single shareholder in this case, but multiple shareholders do provide good scrutiny, and we need to address the tone with which we talk about them.

The instrument is absolutely right, and the Opposition recognise that the system is working extraordinarily well. We will certainly not oppose the order; it is very good that we are finally delivering the last part of the resolution. I have no more to add.

Draft Building Societies Act 1986 (Modifications) Order 2024

Mark Garnier Excerpts

Monday 9th December 2024 General Committees

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

This Committee may go on record as one of the swiftest yet!

It makes perfect sense to modify the Building Societies Act 1986 to bring it in line with the Companies Act 2006. We have no objection to the order. It is possible that it may only affect one building society, but none the less it would be fairly old-fashioned to have two separate sets of rules depending on which type of business we are discussing. We are behind the order, which makes a huge amount of sense. I will not take any more of the Committee’s time.

Question put and agreed to.

Draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 (Addition of Relevant Enactments) Regulations 2024

Mark Garnier Excerpts

Monday 9th December 2024 General Committees

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

I think this is the fourth or fifth time that the Minister and I have met across a Committee room, and yet again I do not think we are going to have any problems at all. At the last of our meetings in one of these rooms, I asked her a number of questions, and I am incredibly grateful to her and her office for getting back to me so quickly. I think that illustrates the very good working relationship between the Opposition and the Government in this respect.

The Opposition are delighted with all these measures. I was struggling to work out some complicated questions in order to make the Minister work for her office, but the only one I could come up with is on the timeline. She made reference to some further statutory instruments that will be introduced, and it would be very helpful if we had an idea of the timeline for when the process will be completed.

Aside from that, we are very happy to support the draft regulations and I thank the Minister very much for all those acronyms—I am learning more and more each time we meet.

Draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Ombudsman Scheme) (Fees) Regulations 2024

Mark Garnier Excerpts

Monday 25th November 2024 General Committees

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

I think the Minister and I are going to have an outbreak of unanimity in just about everything we do; we have yet to find something we disagree on. Members will be aware that this legislation was originally due to be implemented in May, but we got caught up in a bit of a general election, which unfortunately did not go quite so well for us. The Opposition therefore fully support the instrument, as Members would imagine.

The Minister made a good point about why the regulations are incredibly important: there are far too many people gaming the system. To support what she was saying, banks incur a great deal of costs as a result, and those costs are inevitably reflected on to consumers; so although it sounds in the first instance like the claims management companies are doing everybody a favour, they are actually increasing the cost of financial services for absolutely everybody. We are therefore wholly supportive of this instrument.

I have a couple of questions. To make sure the instrument does not affect some people badly, can the Minister set out how the Treasury proposes to monitor the changes to ensure that they go according to plan and that, where there is a two-tier system, vulnerable people do not unwittingly find themselves not represented if they use a claims management company?

My other question is on a technicality, and the Minister may not know the answer. The first 10 claims are free of charge for professional representatives. After that, claims cost £250, reduced to £75 if they are successful. Can claims management companies put in class actions—for example, a claim for 1,000 people 10 times—hoping to get a lot of people covered, and thereby potentially increasing the return they could get for each claim, since it is a class action rather than an individual claim, or is the intention that each claim will be an individual case, rather than a group of cases? If the Minister does not know the answer to that now, she should feel free to write to me.

We have absolutely no intention of opposing the instrument. It is a fantastic piece of legislation, brought in by the previous Government, and it is good to see that it has survived the general election, unlike the Minister who signed it off in the first place.

Draft Collective Investment Schemes (Temporary Recognition) and Central Counterparties (Transitional Provision) (Amendment) Regulations 2024 Draft Insurance Distribution (Regulated Activities and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2024

Mark Garnier Excerpts

Tuesday 19th November 2024 General Committees

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Efford, for chairing these proceedings.

I thank the Minister for going into quite a lot of detail on what is highly technical stuff. The Opposition welcome the changes. They continue the important work started by the previous Government to ensure that our legislative framework is fit for purpose after Brexit. Removing redundant EU references and aligning our investment fund regulations with UK priorities, we are streamlining oversight and maintaining stability in our financial markets. More of interest to the industry will be the clarity given in extending the temporary marketing permissions regime before the roll-out of the overseas funds regime.

As I said, we absolutely welcome the changes; but I do have a couple of questions, the first of which is on the application process for the funds. We are introducing landing slots for UCITS funds transitioning from the TMPR to the OFR. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that fund operators are fully prepared and supported to meet the deadlines to avoid any disruptions?

The other thing that is important for the future of the City and the growth agenda of the City is reciprocal access. While this is all about allowing access for European operators to come into the UK post Brexit—this may be a wider point to do with the growth agenda—what measures will the Government be taking to try to get reciprocal access for UK products to be marketed in the European Union?

Aside from those two questions, we are very happy with this move and will be supporting these measures.