My Lords, can I ask the Minister for a little clarity on ring-fencing in terms of what is in this pot and what is in the other pot? The point he has made is that the ring-fenced pot will essentially be individual family deposits while commercial deposits would be outside the ring-fence; but what about the other side of the balance sheet in the sense of which part of the loan portfolio is to be in the ring-fence and which part is to be outside it? My previous understanding was that the ring-fence was going to be all deposit-taking and all lending. My reservations, if you like, with regard to the Glass-Steagall solution are that history has shown it is lending and not investment banking that has always caused banks trouble. This time round it was CDO lending and the unwise lending by HBOS and RBS that actually caused the banks trouble. The idea of separating absolutely banking and investment banking as a great protection for the deposits of ordinary citizens is entirely false in terms of economic history.
Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Flight
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 26 November 2013.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
749 c1307 Session
2013-14Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberLibrarians' tools
Timestamp
2022-06-07 15:33:29 +0100
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2013-11-26/13112646000095
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2013-11-26/13112646000095
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2013-11-26/13112646000095