The new UK and US "action plan" for safer banking

Five questions answered.

The UK and US have issued a joint paper outlining an action plan for flagging banks that hopes to protect the tax payer from costly financial bail outs.

Who exactly has issued this paper?

The Bank of England and America's Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

What are the key points of this ‘action plan’?

Key points include, establishing a single key regulator that will take responsibility for overseeing the insolvency of a big international bank.

Requiring big banks to hold enough capital and debt that could be converted into capital at the top of their corporate structures, in a hope that this capital and debt would absorb any losses the bank makes while its issues are resolved and the bank is made safe again.

They also request that banks continue with critical services, insulate foreign operations, sack reprehensible management and reduce parts of the bank that caused the problems in the first place.

What outcome is it hoped these key points will result in should there be another banking crisis?

That, for example, the Bank of England would not have to call on the Treasury  to put as much money into the Royal Bank of Scotland or an HBOS that was facing collapse, as happened in the most recent banking crisis, as the bank’s creditors would have to become shareholders.

The idea is that this would limit the cost to the tax payer and wider economy if another banking crisis should arise.

What banks in particular is this action plan aimed at?

Banks such as the UK's Royal Bank of Scotland and Barclays and Citigroup and JP Morgan in the US.

What other consequences could occur from this action plan?

According to the BBC’s business editor this could result in: “the costs for banks of raising money would rise: as you will have deduced, the risks of investing in and lending to banks increases in proportion to the perceived reduction in the implicit insurance against failure they receive from the state.”

He adds that banks will: “have to make bigger returns to generate a profit. And, everything else being equal, that means they would feel obliged to charge their customers rather more for loans and for keeping money safe."

A banker in London. Photograph: Getty Images

Heidi Vella is a features writer for Nridigital.com

GETTY
Show Hide image

Cabinet audit: what does the appointment of Andrea Leadsom as Environment Secretary mean for policy?

The political and policy-based implications of the new Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

A little over a week into Andrea Leadsom’s new role as Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), and senior industry figures are already questioning her credentials. A growing list of campaigners have called for her resignation, and even the Cabinet Office implied that her department's responsibilities will be downgraded.

So far, so bad.

The appointment would appear to be something of a consolation prize, coming just days after Leadsom pulled out of the Conservative leadership race and allowed Theresa May to enter No 10 unopposed.

Yet while Leadsom may have been able to twist the truth on her CV in the City, no amount of tampering will improve the agriculture-related side to her record: one barely exists. In fact, recent statements made on the subject have only added to her reputation for vacuous opinion: “It would make so much more sense if those with the big fields do the sheep, and those with the hill farms do the butterflies,” she told an audience assembled for a referendum debate. No matter the livelihoods of thousands of the UK’s hilltop sheep farmers, then? No need for butterflies outside of national parks?

Normally such a lack of experience is unsurprising. The department has gained a reputation as something of a ministerial backwater; a useful place to send problematic colleagues for some sobering time-out.

But these are not normal times.

As Brexit negotiations unfold, Defra will be central to establishing new, domestic policies for UK food and farming; sectors worth around £108bn to the economy and responsible for employing one in eight of the population.

In this context, Leadsom’s appointment seems, at best, a misguided attempt to make the architects of Brexit either live up to their promises or be seen to fail in the attempt.

At worst, May might actually think she is a good fit for the job. Leadsom’s one, water-tight credential – her commitment to opposing restraints on industry – certainly has its upsides for a Prime Minister in need of an alternative to the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP); a policy responsible for around 40 per cent the entire EU budget.

Why not leave such a daunting task in the hands of someone with an instinct for “abolishing” subsidies  thus freeing up money to spend elsewhere?

As with most things to do with the EU, CAP has some major cons and some equally compelling pros. Take the fact that 80 per cent of CAP aid is paid out to the richest 25 per cent of farmers (most of whom are either landed gentry or vast, industrialised, mega-farmers). But then offset this against the provision of vital lifelines for some of the UK’s most conscientious, local and insecure of food producers.

The NFU told the New Statesman that there are many issues in need of urgent attention; from an improved Basic Payment Scheme, to guarantees for agri-environment funding, and a commitment to the 25-year TB eradication strategy. But that they also hope, above all, “that Mrs Leadsom will champion British food and farming. Our industry has a great story to tell”.

The construction of a new domestic agricultural policy is a once-in-a-generation opportunity for Britain to truly decide where its priorities for food and environment lie, as well as to which kind of farmers (as well as which countries) it wants to delegate their delivery.

In the context of so much uncertainty and such great opportunity, Leadsom has a tough job ahead of her. And no amount of “speaking as a mother” will change that.

India Bourke is the New Statesman's editorial assistant.