My Lords, I have broadly been in support of a Glass-Steagall separation of investment and banking banks, but there seems to me something slightly wrong with the concept of having a review and prejudging the outcome of that review. Playing devil’s advocate, I make a point on the other side of the coin. Europe has had universal banking for a long time; that is the banking tradition in continental Europe and there is still a case for universal banking to continue, although it is right out of fashion now. I repeat my point that, to a fair extent, the profits of investment banking have subsidised ordinary banking and benefited ordinary retail customers; the losses have generally come from bad lending. So it is slightly premature to prejudge the review. I cannot see what is wrong with having a review with the understanding that the Government will act on the basis of the recommendation of that review at the time. We will have moved on from the present and other factors may have come to light as well. I do not see what is gained by prejudging the result of the review.
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 c1316 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/2013-11-26/13112646000140
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2013-11-26/13112646000140
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2013-11-26/13112646000140