My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord to his place on the Front Bench. In reviewing the short list of speakers in this Second Reading debate, I am very conscious that I probably know less about this topic than anybody else who is about to speak. So, I feel peculiarly exposed, coming immediately after the Minister and giving the opportunity to all subsequent speakers to point out where I have got things wrong. None the less, that is the luck of the draw. I will say at the outset that I do not object to the measure proposed in this Bill. What I want to raise is the question of whether we have quite the robust bank rescue system that the Minister thinks we have and said we have during his introductory speech.

Silicon Valley Bank is the starting point of this. In some ways, Silicon Valley Bank was not a bank failure; the parent bank failed in America but the UK subsidiary did not in itself fail, and was successfully sold to the private sector. It was sold, admittedly, for a nominal sum, and the shareholders lost their money, but none the less that is a good outcome, and those involved are to be congratulated on succeeding in doing that. The bank continues to operate and it is there in the private sector; no taxpayer money was thrown at it, and that was a successful outcome.

The Bill arises, therefore, not so much from Silicon Valley Bank as from officials thinking about what might have happened if it had all gone wrong and whether we would have needed an additional power had it worked out rather differently. That line of thinking is also to be welcomed; it is good that officials think about what might have happened if things had gone wrong, and whether they would need an additional power. So we might reach the conclusion that we have a very robust system, but what I am saying is that it was not really tested very well.

It is worth examining the players in this system, and how bureaucratic and inflexible the system has become as we have set it up. The responsibility for sorting out a bank failure rests with the resolution authority, which is a department of the Bank of England. Should it have to acquire ownership of a bank in the course of a rescue, the bank would become a subsidiary of the Bank of England, and as long as that continued it would be, in a sense, as safe as the Bank of England, as we used to say. However, further down the corridor is another department of the Bank of England, called the Prudential Regulation Authority, and it would not be having any of that at all. The Prudential Regulation Authority would say, “It may be a subsidiary of the Bank of England, just as we and you are a department of the Bank of England, but we are going to insist that it is separately capitalised”. Indeed, the Bill is addressed at finding a route and an additional tool whereby that capitalisation could be provided. So we have two departments here that are not entirely working together, and are treating each other as alien bodies. That is rather distressing.

We then have the FCA. One of the problems that arose in relation to Silicon Valley Bank, which was an unusual species of liquidity risk as opposed to insolvency risk, was that it had a high number of accounts that were accounts of technology companies—that is its specialist business. These were ordinary current accounts for paying the bills and things like that, as businesses have to do. Some of these were large technology companies and some were small technologies companies, but, as a man, they united in saying, “If we can’t actually run our current account on Monday morning when this all opens, there’s going to be the most unholy mess”.

One way of sorting this out in the old days would have been for the Governor of the Bank of England to ring up the chairman of a bank and say, “There are only about a thousand of these customers. Would you mind very much opening current accounts for them, so that we can release some of the funds and they can operate in an ordinary way on Monday morning—we’ll sort out all the details later?” But there is another player up the road, the Financial Conduct Authority, which is not part of the Bank of England, that would not allow any of that at all because there would not be time for the “know your customer” inquiries that have to be made. Another bureaucratic step that we have put in place would have prevented a very simple and obvious solution being put into effect.

I worry whether, when the system is tested properly—Silicon Valley Bank was not a real test of the system—it will be as robust as we would all want to believe it is. Obviously, there is no political point-scoring going on here; we all have the same objective when it comes to trying to ensure the systemic robustness of the banking system in the UK.

To move on from the question of the systemic robustness of the system, there is the question about the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, which is already creaking and is a major charge on the financial system. This will add further to it, in an unpredictable way. It appears that, at the moment, the FSCS operates by way of a levy, which is paid in advance based on the actuarial likelihood of default in particular areas. I assume—the Minister might be able to tell us this—that in this particular case, if recourse was had to the FSCS, it would not be by way of the levy but by a sudden demand presented for money to be supplied immediately: we want it now, out of your reserves. If I have got that wrong, and it is to be part of the levy, some estimate of how much it will increase the levy by would be helpful. It is not clear from the Bill itself which it will be.

In addition to the FSCS levy, which is paid by more or less everybody, banks with equity and liabilities in excess of £20 billion pay the bank levy. As I understand it, the bank levy does not go to the FSCS but straight into the Consolidated Fund and is never seen again. I fully accept the Minister’s contention that there should not be a charge on taxpayer funds. However, if the bank levy is there partly as an insurance premium to help ensure that there is a way of dealing with big banks if they go wrong, maybe that should be looked at before a further dip into the FSCS as a source of funding for the recapitalisation.

I end with three questions for the Minister. First, will he confirm that the bank insolvency process will remain the default, and that recourse to the FSCS as envisaged by the Bill will be the exception and not become routine? I think in his speech he half-confirmed that, but if he was able to reconfirm it for me, that would be helpful.

Secondly, could the Minister tell your Lordships about consequential costs, particularly legal ones? If the process is followed and a bank is recapitalised using FSCS money, but there is then some endless legal dispute that goes on for ever—as there might be, involving shareholders; nobody knows how people are going to respond to these things—will those legal costs be excluded from the FSCS levy so that they could not be recovered from the FSCS? They would be a liability of the Bank of England, because presumably the Bank of England’s conduct would be the subject of any legal action.

Finally, would the Minister like to consider the future of the bank levy and make an assessment, at least, of the effect of the bank levy and the FSCS levy on the competitiveness of banking and financial services in the UK after this further addition to it? I contend that it is becoming very burdensome, and a real charge on domestic banking in a way that is beginning to contribute to what we see on our high streets—which is, frankly, the disappearance of domestic banking and the services that we all so much rely on.