Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Bill [HL]

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 30th July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, as the first of the winding speakers, I can repeat all the good points. This has been an exceptionally strong debate. I have welcomed the Minister on previous occasions and I welcome him again to his role. I can very much support this piece of legislation, picking up on the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson. It seems to me to be one of the first sensible approaches to dealing with the failure of small banks and, I hope, minimising the exposure of the taxpayer. However, I very much pick up the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell. If this happens on a mass or systemic basis, essentially the taxpayer is always going to be the body in play, and we should not fool ourselves that, in a really mass crisis, the banking sector as a whole will be able to pick up the problems of a large part of banking in the UK. We have to be realistic on this issue.

In fact, I have always thought that it was pretty unrealistic that most small banks could be allowed to fail, with depositors protected only up to £85,000 by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme. Therein lies the potential for a sudden run on many other banks, with flight based on rumour and social media. I suspect that, if the Government or the regulators attempt to allow failure to be a significant part of the programme for dealing with problematic banks, they are going to find once again that they are facing the impossible. Sometimes, we have to be realistic. Often, schemes which look good on paper just do not work out in the practices of real life.

The Treasury and the regulator found this out the hard way when Silicon Valley Bank UK effectively failed thanks to the troubles of its US parent. As others, including the noble Lords, Lord Vaux and Lord Eatwell, have said, SVB had to be saved through its forced sale to HSBC for £1. Perhaps this new, more realistic process could be done with an individual bank. Is that unrealistic? Can the Minister elaborate on this? Could we not just be much more open and say that we are looking for resolution? Failure would then come only in the most extreme and rare of circumstances. Picking up on the point made by my noble friend Lady Bowles, resolution is the path to go down if we are to have a banking system in which the general public at large continue to have real trust.

I want also to pick up the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. If there is to be trouble on a large scale and, as a consequence, the FSCS is turning to the banking system as a whole and asking for very large payments, does anybody within this chain have the ability to waive that and just say, “No, this demand is excessive. We are going to ask for a smaller portion from the banking system, or we are simply going to say, ‘This crisis is sufficiently large that we are going to turn to the taxpayer’”? To me, it is not realistic to suggest that, under every circumstance, the FSCS could turn to the banking system and be fully reimbursed. I would be grateful if the Minister enlarged on that. I am glad that he said that credit unions have been exempted from the levy. It would have been entirely improper to include them.

I have some related questions. The Minister knows that I was troubled by the sale of SVB UK. As the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, said, HSBC buying it for £1 was a real giveaway. HSBC played hardball, as it would, so the Government did not have a lot of choice. As the Minister knows—I have raised this before, and he referred to it in his speech—I still regard the terms of that sale as a mechanism which provided HSBC with a route to evading the ring-fencing rules that would normally apply to its retail banking, in order to separate it from investment banking activity.

When I raised this issue in Grand Committee, the Minister of the day was unable to give any kind of satisfactory answer. As far as I could tell, there was nothing to stop HSBC transferring those assets over to its Silicon Valley Bank entity, where it could engage in derivatives and securitisation on any scale it wished. If this final solution is now different, would he mind writing to me? It is probably impossible to answer that question now, but perhaps he would put a letter in the Library that makes it clear why busting the ring-fence was not a consequence of the way that sale was structured. That would be exceedingly helpful. As my noble friend Lady Bowles asked, could we get some assurances that, if the resolution pattern established for Silicon Valley Bank is going to be repeated, there will be measures in place to make sure that it does not become a backdoor to evading ring-fencing constraints? Following the 2008 crash, most of us—both in this House and in the other place—recognise that ring-fencing is a critical part of the defence against a repeat of the kind of crisis we saw back then.

As I say, I have long been sceptical of all schemes to resolve small banks, but, frankly, I am also somewhat sceptical of the plans to resolve large and medium-sized ones—those identified as systemic. As others and the Minister said, large and medium-sized banks are required to hold MREL—basically, bail-in bonds, to put it in English—to protect or provide a route to resolution. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, said, when Credit Suisse collapsed in 2023, the Swiss regulators immediately realised that the consequences of implementing its resolution plan would lead to lasting damage to the Swiss economy. Swiss regulators are not fools or softies; they were facing the absolute reality that, with a failure of a bank of that size, they could not allow the backstop of wiping out shareholders or owners of convertible bonds. In effect, they organised a takeover of Credit Suisse by UBS. So does the Minister really expect that our regulators will implement the current bail-in resolution schemes, or will we also find that “too big to fail” still rules the day? It is time to be honest about this—with a new Government, perhaps it is time to look at this again much more directly.

Will the Minister also pick up an issue raised by my noble friend Lady Bowles: MREL and medium-sized banks? As she said, the market for bail-in bonds for medium-sized banks is so small that it is almost non-existent, so the bonds are exceedingly expensive. The consequence is that UK banks are now choosing not to grow from small into big because they see no way to put in place the MREL layer that would be required under current PRA regulations. Even if they did, because of the price they would have to pay for those bail-in bonds, they would face a competitive disadvantage compared to the big banks, which access a much more liquid bail-in regime. Is now not the time to take another look at the medium-sized banks and see whether a better scheme could be devised for their resolution, rather than assuming that MREL will be an adequate way for them to put in place that kind of protection?

I draw the Minister’s attention to the other issues raised by my noble friend Lady Bowles and ask for a full response. We are supportive of the Bill. We will look at it in Committee to see whether any amendments could improve it, but, as I say, this is the first time I have looked at a piece of banking resolution legislation and thought, “Actually, that could work in practice, not just on paper”.

Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Bill [HL]

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 4th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Eatwell (Lab)]

My Lords, my colleagues from the Financial Services Regulation Committee are rather confused on two issues; that is very unusual, but they do seem to be. First, there is the idea that somehow, if MREL were exceeded in a financial crisis, that would be a regulatory failure. The only way to prevent such a regulatory failure is to have MREL at 100%; that is to avoid the total failure of the financial system. That would be a disaster for lending in this country. At the moment, MREL is set at levels that are deemed to be a reasonable buffer under circumstances that might reasonably, even in extremis, be expected to occur. As we saw in 2008-09, even events that are deemed to be events that would occur only once in a millennium can occur several times in a week in a severe financial crisis. An MREL which can never be exceeded is 100% and if my colleagues are seeking to impose that on the British financial system, I would be very surprised.

The other point that seems to be neglected—it is why I deem this amendment to be irrelevant—is that my colleagues should recall that, in one of the letters from the Financial Secretary, he pointed out there was a cap on the amount that would be raised from the financial compensation scheme for these purposes. That cap, as I recall, was £2.5 billion. In those circumstances, £2.5 billion would never be sufficient to deal with the collapse of one of the big banks. So the cap itself defines these regulations as fitting only relatively small banks.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, perhaps I could be helpful at this point. That £2.5 billion is certainly not in the Bill. If that is the argument being made by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, is it an interesting one but not one that the Government have grasped.

Perhaps I should clarify the issue of the threshold at which MREL kicks in, because that was the point to which my noble friend Lady Bowles referred. The UK demands MREL or bail-in bonds as the mechanism for resolution in the case of the failure of a much smaller bank than in any other country across the globe. The differential between us and everybody else is very large. That, we assume, is why the Government want to keep this mechanism available for banks that have been required to have MREL: they are trying to deal with that small to medium-sized group that, quite frankly, should probably never be in the MREL group in the first place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

My Lords, I support both the amendments in the names of the two noble Baronesses who have just spoken. I probably have a slight preference for Amendment 16 on the expenses—it is more direct—but we need something in the Bill that reminds the Bank of England that it is spending other people’s money, and that it needs to do that carefully and with care. These amendments are aimed primarily at that end, so I support them both.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of Amendment 7 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Bowles, Lady Noakes and Lady Vere, but I am not as minded to support Amendment 16 for the following reasons. Some in this House will know that I dislike intensely the competitiveness and growth objective that has been attached to the PRA and the FCA. If you were going to set out a pattern to repeat the crash of 2007-08, those two objectives would be essential paving stones on that route, so I do not look to attach that particular amendment to the Bank of England in its overall resolution role in, for example, setting MREL. It should be setting MREL to reduce risk, not to follow the lowest common denominator in the international banking arena.

Ironically, if you take the growth and competitiveness secondary objective and just apply it to recapitalisation, it turns on its head and becomes a risk-reduction tool, because it basically limits the ability of the collapse of one bank to then infect all the other banks within the system. That seems to me to be a risk-reduction strategy, so I am very much in favour of the way in which it has been crafted under Amendment 7. I say that to reassure others in this House who may be afraid that playing fast and loose with the competitiveness and growth agenda is always a risk-increasing agenda rather than a risk-reduction agenda. In this narrow role, it works in the opposite direction.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

I rise briefly to speak to Amendment 7 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, and Amendment 16 in the name of my noble friend Lady Noakes.

On Amendment 7, I will not reiterate the points raised. I deeply appreciated the explanation by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, as to how she got to her supportive position. From our perspective, we feel that Amendments 7 is a reasonable objective that would ensure the Bank facilitates the international competitiveness of the UK economy and economic growth in the medium term—that is very clear. It also has the ability to look at the level of risk within the banking sector over the medium term. Given the Government’s stated objective of focusing on economic growth, I am very interested to hear the Minister’s view on these amendments.

Amendment 16 in the name of my noble friend Lady Noakes, which I have signed, seeks to minimise the net costs recouped from the banking sector via this mechanism. Again, it is a very sensibly drafted amendment that would improve the Bill, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I added my name to the amendment but I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, will not be pressing it because, as he explained, there are difficulties with it.

I pay tribute to the noble Lord for chasing this issue down because it is a very real issue that could arise in certain defined circumstances, as he explained. I am not convinced that the solution of simply transferring assets into the bridge bank actually works. The complexities of a bank mean that you have liabilities—that is how you fund yourself from market sources—and in practice it may well be difficult. I hope the Government will take this away and find a way of minimising the likelihood that that ever happens, whether in the code of practice or otherwise, in discussion with the Bank of England.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, the point that the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, has been making is significant and crucial in shaping the way in which the Bank of England approaches the resolution of banks when they fail.

Unlike the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, I think there is a potential path of looking at the sale of the assets rather than the sale of the equity. That is the normal practice that one would follow in order not to transfer liabilities over to the new recovering entity. I fully understand all the complexities, and I hope the Minister will take this up with the Bank of England in his discussions. It requires a lot more work but it could get us out of some very nasty traps in future, and it will be more likely to do so if there has been thought beforehand rather than it being a reaction in a situation of emergency.

Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Bill [HL]

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Monday 12th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

My Lords, I want to ask the Minister a question that arises from this change. First, though, it is over six months since we debated these amendments. That does seem like an awfully long time for the Bill to disappear into limbo and come back, particularly when other Bills are being rushed through this House.

I wanted to ask the Minister to explain more about whether the resolution process could be used for larger banks, but I think he has actually answered that question. I am not sure his answer gives me an awful lot more confidence or comfort, but I am not going to oppose the Commons amendments. However, in the last six months, various comments have come from the PRA or the Bank of England about the fact that this Act, as it will be, may allow them to take some banks out of the MREL process. I wondered if the Minister might wish to comment on that and whether there are any consequences the other way round.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I have to say that I appreciate the explanation that we have just had from the Minister, but I and others remain disturbed by the Government’s decision not to accept the amendment, which was not just rational but well crafted, introduced by your Lordships in this House. The underlying Bill was initially presented to the House as providing a mechanism to save significant small banks from failing by recapitalising them from the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, rather than having to turn to the taxpayer. Regulated banks, as this House will know, are then required to replenish the FSCS when it is depleted for any reason, but, because the thrust of the language was around small banks—that was the intent, and that was the discussion that is in all the notes—this House very much agreed to it, with just a few probing points engaged with.

Thank goodness that we have a lot of very good brains in this House. The combination of my noble friends Lady Bowles and Lord Fox and the noble Baronesses, Lady Noakes and Lady Vere, realised that there was a significant loophole in the language. We did not realise in the beginning that any of this could be applied to the larger banks; that became clear only as those pursuing the legislation became more aware of the implications of its content. Now we have a Bill that permits the regulator to use the FSCS as its mechanism to rescue large banks. Let us be frank: it completely changes the whole profile of both risks and consequences. The amendment would have effectively closed that loophole.

The larger banks, as the Minister has said, already have their own dedicated process to recapitalise in case of failure, a process that was introduced after the 2008 crisis. The Bank of England requires each large bank to hold a tranche of MREL—in plain English, bail-in bonds—which can be converted to capital by the regulator in case of failure, with the consequence that the bank is thereby rescued. We need to understand why that is not considered by the Government to be an adequate system. The Minister has just said—if I understood him—that the regulators will always require that bail-in bonds are used first, and the FSCS is a resource of last resort. But that is not in the legislation. The legislation allows the regulator to turn first to the FSCS and ignore bail-in altogether. He will be very conscious that the Swiss regulator, with the failure of Credit Suisse, completely ignored the bail-in capability and chose other routes to manage the rescue of Credit Suisse.

Those who hold bail-in bonds—the investors who buy them—are extremely well remunerated for carrying the risk associated with a bail-in bond. I am trying to work out why they can now look at this legislation and begin to assume that they will have the benefits of receiving a risk premium for holding those bonds but never actually find that those bonds are forced into use in case of a failure. How can we rely on just a code to continue to determine that bail-in will be the first resort and not a later resort or no resort at all? Are the Government basically saying that there are now many circumstances they have identified in which bail-in is neither usable nor adequate? I refer to the Swiss example. What are the consequences for financial sustainability if we are saying that bail-in is a slightly busted system? Have there been blandishments from the various investors who have purchased bail-in bonds, trying to pressure the Government into creating an alternate route? What are the consequences for our small- and medium-sized banks if the FSCS is depleted by big bank failure?

The Minister says that the regulators will not ask for an unaffordable contribution from the various banks to replenish the FSCS, but it is our mechanism that ensures small depositors’ accounts. Who is going to do the replenishment if the number is too great to ask the banks to commit to it? I am quite troubled by this change in responsibility for where risk lies that is embedded in the Bill. If the Minister is so sure that the items in the code should be giving us reassurance, why have they not been introduced in this Bill as part of the legislation?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, this is an important Bill, which provides the Bank of England with extra flexibility to manage bank failures, particularly those of smaller banks, in a way that strengthens protections for taxpayers. It reflects proposals by the last Government in the light of experience with the demise of Silicon Valley Bank. As such, it had cross-party support and, starting in the Lords, was a good example of expert scrutiny across the House.

Special thanks go to my noble friend and predecessor Lady Vere, my noble friends Lady Noakes and Lady Penn, the noble Lords, Lord Vaux of Harrowden and Lord Eatwell, the noble Baronesses, Lady Kramer and Lady Bowles, officials on all sides—of course, not forgetting the Whips—and, above all, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, the noble Lord, Lord Livermore. I thank him both for the government amendments, notably that which was made to Clause 3 on the involvement of the Treasury Committee and the House of Lords Financial Services Regulation Committee, and for the timely publication of the draft code of practice, which helped us to overcome some substantial difficulties, as he has already mentioned.

Banking and financial services are very important to the success of the British economy. In 2022, the UK financial system held assets of around £27 trillion and in 2023 the financial insurance services sector contributed £208 billion to the UK economy. Legal regimes which govern how our banking and financial sectors operate need to promote growth and competitiveness and be easy to navigate and use. They must also balance ambition with prudence—an understandable driver of the Bill.

Noble Lords will recall the amendment we successfully added that was championed by my noble friend Lady Vere. This sought to prohibit the use of the funds from the Financial Services Compensation Scheme to recapitalise large financial institutions, defined as those which had reached an end-state MREL. The object was to reflect in law the Government’s stated objective of using the resolution framework in the event of a smaller bank requiring intervention, thus preventing the associated risk of contagion. The truth is that the Banking Act 2009 provides a robust framework for dealing with the large banks that have achieved end-state MREL status. They and the Bank of England should not be taking comfort from the fact that they could fall back on an ex-post levy of the banking sector through the FSCS in times of trouble. Resources should be focused on the SME banking sector, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, reiterated.

In view of this, I am joined by noble Lords across the House in expressing disappointment that Members in the other place voted to remove this amendment from the Bill. We are confident that it would have improved the Bill in meeting its objective and helped to embed the balance I spoke of. However, we must accept that Treasury Ministers, with their battalions of support in the other place, wish to maintain flexibility; for example, as the Minister explained, to deal with a large, unexpected redress claim leaving the taxpayer exposed, although this is very much a backstop arrangement, with a £1.5 billion cap, as the Minister confirmed. So I do not propose to test the opinion of the House again.

It was also disappointing to see the rejection of other prudent proposals put forward by colleagues in the other place in good faith. Regardless, I hope the Government will consider these proposals seriously as we try together to create a system which is balanced and simple and promotes growth—an objective that the Minister and I share.

We support the thrust of the Bill, which continues the work that we did in government to support our banking sector, protect consumers and safeguard the public finances. However, there are still outstanding questions which I hope the Government can address today or in writing. They are even more important now that the Vere amendment has been rejected.

The Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority have proposed an FSCS operating budget for 2025-26 of £109 million. This budget covers the FSCS’s administrative expenses and does not represent the total funds available for compensation payouts. Over the three financial years from 2021 to 2024, the FSCS paid just £10 million in compensation relating to deposit claims, due primarily to the defaults of 11 credit unions and one small bank. Will the Minister kindly outline the steps the Government are taking to minimise the operating costs of the FSCS?

The FSCS is a quango, which is overseen by a quango, in conjunction with another quango. The fact that it uses an industry funding model does not change this. The money in its operating budget is money that is not being utilised in the banking sector, which employs millions of people and contributes billions to our economy and to growth. Does the Minister agree that the FSCS should focus on efficiency and on keeping as much money as possible available to banks for their use and not tied up unnecessarily in its operating budget and that, like other regulators, it should have regard to the Government’s overall objective of growth?

I end by saying that this is a broadly sensible proposal designed to safeguard public finances, ensure the security of our financial sector and limit public risk. We will support the Government in their ambition to achieve the objectives of the Bill, but I hope the Minister will seriously consider the points that have been raised today and will take the opportunity to clear up some of the questions that have been asked.