SIR John Vickers, chairman of the Independent Commission on Banking, said the downgrade of British banks by Moody's Investors Service was an "entirely benign" development because it showed the taxpayer was less likely to have to step in to rescue a bank.
Part-nationalised institutions Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds Banking Group, owner of Bank of Scotland, were particularly hard hit in a downgrade of 12 UK lenders last week.
Sir John told the Treasury committee of back-bench MPs: “I would see it as a natural reflection of the taxpayer getting one step further off the hook.”
Moody’s said the ICB report published last month could mean investors bearing more of the pain of a bank failure.
The ICB’s proposals centre on the ring-fencing of banks’ retail and commercial operations from their potentially higher risk investment banking business to make it easier for them to be wound down if they get into trouble.
Sir John said that small businesses could find it easier to get loans under the ICB’s plans by freeing up deposits and capital. He said: “We expect the supply of credit to be affected, if anything, in a positive direction.”
However, fellow commissioner, former Barclays chief executive Martin Taylor, noted that SME loans were only a “low single percentage” of UK banks’ balance sheets.
Sir John said there was a “low probability” banks would flee from the UK to escape his measures and that no British banks had threatened to move abroad if the recommendations come into force.
There has been speculation that HSBC, Barclays or Standard Chartered might move abroad. But Sir John said he saw a “rather small incentive” for banks to relocate, adding that to move abroad they have to overcome “pretty formidable practical, legal and administrative obstacles”.
Questioned as to whether the ICB had considered splitting HBOS back out of Lloyds, which acquired it three years ago, Sir John said: “One cannot go back to the situation that was three years ago from where we are now.”
The Government has pledged to pass legislation required to implement the reforms before the 2015 general election.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article