Labour was behind failure to regulate RBS, FSA report says
Pressure from last government was partly responsible for hands-off approach, review claims
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Political pressure from senior Labour politicians – including the now Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls – was partly responsible for the failure to regulate the Royal Bank of Scotland in the years leading up to the banking crash, a highly critical report concluded yesterday.
The review by the Financial Services Authority blamed deficiencies in the management and culture at RBS and called for tougher rules to make bankers more accountable. The regulator also admitted it had failed adequately to monitor and challenge the bank – but blamed the previous government for encouraging it to take a hands-off approach. It cited speeches by the former Prime Minister Gordon Brown and the then Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls backing light regulation.
In a speech in 2006 quoted in the report, Mr Balls said: "We must keep the UK's regulatory system at the cutting edge ... At all times we will apply a system of risk-based regulation, without unnecessary administration burdens... Nothing should be done to put at risk a light-touch regulatory regime." The report concludes: "In response to this focus and belief, FSA senior leaders were conscious of the need to reassure political leaders that the supervisory approach being pursued was not heavy-handed."
It added: "If senior leaders of the FSA had proposed, before the first signs of the crisis a supervisory approach which entailed higher capital and liquidity requirements, caps on bank balance-sheet growth, or intensive analysis of asset quality, it is almost certain that their proposals would have been met by complaints the FSA was pursuing a heavy-handed approach which would harm London's competitiveness."
Labour yesterday said the party was clear that they had made mistakes over banking regulation but pointed out that it was not alone in calling for light-touch regulation. It quoted a speech by David Cameron in 2008 in which he referred to Labour's "excessive bureaucratic interventionism" and "too much regulation".
The Business Secretary, Vince Cable, said yesterday he was seeking legal advice about whether any of the directors should face disqualification proceedings. The report shone a light on the poor relations between the FSA and RBS and said its chief executive Sir Fred Goodwin's "assertive" management style was flagged as a potential risk as early as 2003. RBS management was resistant to what they saw as unnecessary FSA interference.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments