The Independent Banking Commission publishes its interim report

Via the BBC:

UK banks’ retail operations should be “ring-fenced” from their investment banking arms, the Independent Commission on Banking has recommended.

However, in its interim report the commission stopped short of recommending the two should operate as separate entities.

It said more competition was needed in retail banking, including the sell-off of more Lloyds branches.

The commission’s final recommendations will be published in September.

Robert Peston adds,

The big banks will claim that putting their retail banks into subsidiaries would impose significant extra costs on them – because it would force them to raise and retain more capital (which is expensive), and it would increase what they pay to borrow. Their fear is that these incremental costs would put them at a disadvantage compared with their international competitors.

However the ICB says that the banks have exaggerated the size of this new financial burden. It calculates that the extra costs would be a good deal less than the £12bn to £15bn a year estimated by the consultants Oliver Wyman in a report prepared for the banks.

Perhaps more importantly, the commission is convinced that the social benefits of the reform – in respect of reducing the likelihood of destabilising financial shocks that increase unemployment and cut growth – would significantly outweigh the costs.

Lib Dem peer Matthew Oakeshott, who has been extremely vocal about regulating banks further, has welcomed the proposals:

Lord Oakeshott has just given his seal of approval to the work done by the Vickers Commission on banking, declaring it an “excellent piece of work“.

The fact that Lord Oakeshott approves of the suggested remedies for making the banks safer and more competitive is significant: it means that the Lib Dems in the coalition are unlikely to try to toughen up the proposals in the coming months.

Read more by or more about , , , or .
This entry was posted in News.


  • The one key point that I found interesting is this one:

    * The costs of the package could fall on the wider economy but this is “outweighed” by the benefits of reducing the likelihood and impact of future crises.

    I suppose the ” wider economy ” means that instead of fleecing you as a taxpayer, they will fleece you by increased bank account charges as a kind of insurance policy for their (banks) future mistakes.

    This madness goes on and on. and I have to ask the question in all seriousness. Is there ANYONE in government with a moral compass ??

  • Keith Browning 12th Apr '11 - 8:23am

    All seems very cosy. This is a world where everyone knows everyone else. They went to school together, they went to university together. They were probably work colleagues at some time, or at least were familiar with each other through banking business.

    How can any of this be seen to be objective or fair. Would any committee composed of members of passengers on the ‘Clapham Omnibus’ have come up with the same report.

    Reports say the banks and vested interests will now ‘lobby’ to get more of what they want. Why are they allowed to ‘lobby’ to protect their interests? Who is going to ‘lobby’ for you and me who has no banking connections?

    Am I allowed to have lunch with the committee to express my thoughts and fears about the future of the banks? If not why are the bankers given that opportunity. Oh I forgot, they are all ‘chums’ so thats alright.

    Perhaps we need our ‘peoples revolution’ more than some of the Middle East and African countries.

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?


Recent Comments

  • Nonconformistradical
    I second expats. This is a case where exercising personal freedom clashes directly with other peoples’ right to breathe air free from tobacco smoke...
  • expats
    I might agree with you if smoking only affected the smoker, but it doesn't..Smoking is estimated to cost the NHS £2.5 billion every year, equivalent to 2% of t...
  • Roger Lake
    @ Peter Davies above Well said, Peter! Indeed, not either/or, but both....
  • Martin Gray
    @Martin Bennett... Adults are aware of the addictive nature of nicotine & are quite capable of managing their own risks in a free liberal society. What w...
  • john hall
    You could stop suppressing comments that support the rights of Palestinian people not to be ethnically-cleansed from "Palestinian Zion" nor to be subjected to s...