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

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Why relations between Theresa May and Philip Hammond became tense so quickly

The political imperative of controlling immigration is clashing with the economic imperative of maintaining growth. 

There is no relationship in government more important than that between the prime minister and the chancellor. When Theresa May entered No.10, she chose Philip Hammond, a dependable technocrat and long-standing ally who she had known since Oxford University. 

But relations between the pair have proved far tenser than anticipated. On Wednesday, Hammond suggested that students could be excluded from the net migration target. "We are having conversations within government about the most appropriate way to record and address net migration," he told the Treasury select committee. The Chancellor, in common with many others, has long regarded the inclusion of students as an obstacle to growth. 

The following day Hammond was publicly rebuked by No.10. "Our position on who is included in the figures has not changed, and we are categorically not reviewing whether or not students are included," a spokesman said (as I reported in advance, May believes that the public would see this move as "a fix"). 

This is not the only clash in May's first 100 days. Hammond was aggrieved by the Prime Minister's criticisms of loose monetary policy (which forced No.10 to state that it "respects the independence of the Bank of England") and is resisting tougher controls on foreign takeovers. The Chancellor has also struck a more sceptical tone on the UK's economic prospects. "It is clear to me that the British people did not vote on June 23 to become poorer," he declared in his conference speech, a signal that national prosperity must come before control of immigration. 

May and Hammond's relationship was never going to match the remarkable bond between David Cameron and George Osborne. But should relations worsen it risks becoming closer to that beween Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling. Like Hammond, Darling entered the Treasury as a calm technocrat and an ally of the PM. But the extraordinary circumstances of the financial crisis transformed him into a far more assertive figure.

In times of turmoil, there is an inevitable clash between political and economic priorities. As prime minister, Brown resisted talk of cuts for fear of the electoral consequences. But as chancellor, Darling was more concerned with the bottom line (backing a rise in VAT). By analogy, May is focused on the political imperative of controlling immigration, while Hammond is focused on the economic imperative of maintaining growth. If their relationship is to endure far tougher times they will soon need to find a middle way. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.