Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Noakes and Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted

Committee stage
Tuesday 10th September 2024 Grand Committee

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

I support the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, has put forward, and in particular the request for worked examples, preferably with numbers in, because the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, and I are accountants and we like looking at numbers rather than words. Having read the proceedings of the first Committee day in Hansard, I realised that I did not know how some of these things work in practice, so I think that it is important to have those worked examples.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)]

I support this amendment as well, or something like it, and I would be very pleased if the Minister was prepared to try to work out something that might go in the Bill, because we need to have some clarity around these issues. We come back, as has been suggested, to our shareholders being advantaged at the end of the day. I find who is getting what in insolvency remarkably difficult to follow anyway; I certainly defer to the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, who is an accountant and a lot better at it than I am. I suggest that, if the noble Lords present cannot get their heads around it or are wondering, it needs laying out somewhere for clarity, ideally in legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)]

I am afraid that I will have to spend a little time on this, although we will still close well before time. We are in a slightly new world. The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, referred to how—although he did not say it like this—once upon a time, when there were problems, you left it to the Bank of England to do the right thing. By and large it did, within the state of knowledge of that time.

However, banking and the way that we deal with resolutions have moved on a long way since then. We are moving further with this small but significant Bill, using the funds of other banks to give to a bank that has failed. Beyond the public interest of depositor guarantees, which in their day were a new thing, we are using private money for what would in the past have been done with public money. That is a different place. Just as with insolvency, you put in the right safeguards about priority orders and so on, we need to put in priority orders for how that money is properly used.

Turning to my amendment, I will have to delve into realms where words have taken on different meanings over time. “Recapitalisation” now seems to incorporate bits of resolution; it does not just mean “putting capital in”. I used that sense of it in my amendment but I will carry the Committee through it as best I can.

The purpose of this amendment is to probe further whether the language used in the Bill, which ends up meaning “reducing the shortfall”, is too broad and therefore allows the FSCS funds to be used not only as new capital for the ongoing bank but to reduce the write-down of other capital instruments and correspondingly increase the amount that would otherwise have been taken from the Financial Services Compensation Scheme above the level that would have been needed if those other capital instruments were fully written down, as is the present presumption under the Banking Act 2009 and everything that feeds into it.

When I wrote the amendment, I was thinking of the ordinary meaning of recapitalisation—replacing capital—and not covering write-down manoeuvrings. So, please think about it as if I had said that and at the end it said: “and without reducing write-down of loss-absorbing capital instruments or shareholdings”, or some such wording. That was the intention of the amendment; if I go around the loop again, I will have a better shot at it.

Overall, I now come to the thought that my previous Amendment 22, which just deleted this, was probably a better option and a good thing for a variety of reasons. We need to avoid capture by the dubious “shortfall” wording from the Banking Act 2009 and the EU BRRD. The things that feed into shortfall are now synonymous with the things that are called MREL but they are looking at it from different ends. If we are going to tie back to the BRRD, I remind noble Lords that the shortfall is the sum of write-down of eligible liabilities to zero—that is what it says under Article 47.3(b)—plus the recapitalisation amount under Article 47.3(c). In essence, I am saying that the FSCS should be used only for amounts under Article 47.3(c)—that is the recapitalisation, which is what I am trying to capture—and that it cannot be used ahead of the writing down to zero of what is in Article 47.3(b). However, the trouble is that we are dealing in this world now where different things have been put in a pot, this time called the shortfall, linked by “and”, and we have no idea which bit we are allowing to be changed.

If we look at the broader picture of trying to cover banks with MREL, that is where it starts to get messy. It was quite simple if we just did it for the smaller banks, and we did not have to worry about things that were supposed to be written down to zero not being written down to zero again. It seems that that is exactly what the Explanatory Notes are telling us—I will quote from my copy to keep myself on track. They say that Clause 4(3)

“amends section 12AA”,

which goes back to the things I have just talked about,

“to allow the Bank to take into account the funds provided by the FSCS when they are calculating the contribution of shareholders”—

that is what it says at paragraph 26—

“and creditors required when exercising the bail-in write-down tool. This is to ensure that the Bank is not required to write-down more capital than necessary”.

However, as I read the law when it came from BRRD in the Banking Act 2009, you have to write down to zero unless you have so much that you get there before you have written it down to zero, and then you should not be going fishing in any other ponds anyway. So, there is some inconsistency or there is a hidden agenda.

There are some things in the insolvency stack that are worthy of rescue, as was the Silicon Valley Bank reasoning—such as uninsured deposits—but not things in that loss-absorption stack, especially not shareholders, because they are right at the top. Otherwise, what is the point of all the expense and effort that we go to to provide MREL, which is further on down, if we are then not going to use it? I really cannot understand what is meant to be going on by adding in this reference to the shortfall. I tried to amend it to say that it should not do bad things, in effect, but I think that we are a lot better off without it.

I then went back and looked at the response the Minister gave me when I raised this on the first day in Committee. He said:

“The noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, asked whether the Bank of England should reduce MREL requirements in the knowledge that it could instead use FSCS funds. The Bank of England sets MREL requirements independently of government but within a framework set out in legislation … The Bank of England will consider, in the light of this Bill and wider developments, whether any changes to its approach to MREL would be appropriate”.—[Official Report, 5/9/24; col. GC 11.]


The Minister was answering a question that I did not ask, but it is an interesting response, which the larger banks should get quite excited about. Is a quid pro quo for chipping in through the FSCS that you end up having less MREL? What an interesting suggestion. I can read what was said that way. According to that interpretation, reading through what is in the Bill, it is perfectly open that you could then not write down to zero things that appear under article 47.3(b) of the BRRD.

I can skip a lot of the other things that I was going to say but, to summarise, if the Explanatory Notes are correct, the intention is to use the FSCS to reduce the amount of write-down for shareholders or other loss-absorbing capital instruments. That is almost going backwards to the days that the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, was perhaps recollecting of the Bank basically choosing who it should favour in the capital and liability stack. That seems to be the power we are giving it. If we are returning to something like that, it should be done in the context of a proper review of the Banking Act 2009, not in a kiss-me-quick Bill like this one, which was sold to us as being rather more about saving uninsured deposits, not saving sophisticated investors who have enjoyed good returns from bail-inable bonds or who are at the top of the stack and are the shareholders in the failing bank.

The FSCS cannot just be a pot for general usage; it has to be targeted. I tried to amend it with this amendment, but I am now coming to the conclusion that linking back to shortfall has no place in this Bill because it introduces too many ambiguities. I beg to move.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I will be brief. The noble Baroness raises some important issues in her amendment. I think the Minister confirmed earlier that shareholders would disappear because the Bank of England would take over their share capital, so they could not benefit from the use of the recapitalisation, but if there is any suggestion that the recapitalisation amount will excuse the bail in of some of the bail-inable liabilities, that would be pretty unacceptable. I hope that the worked examples that I hope the Treasury will enjoy working on while we are on Recess can illuminate how all this is going to work.

Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Noakes and Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted

Committee stage
Thursday 5th September 2024 Grand Committee

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)]

My Lords, I am pleased to open the Committee stage of this Bill. I expect this to be the only longish speech that I will make, so noble Lords should not worry about getting six of this length.

I have two amendments in this group but, first, for the benefit of anybody following these discussions either now or later, I shall mention the scope issue that has reared its head for several noble Lords in trying to formulate amendments. The Long Title, which defines scope, is:

“A Bill to make provision about recapitalisation costs in relation to the special resolution regime under the Banking Act 2009”.


The Bill’s provisions have effects that reach into resolution decisions, bail-in and capital structures, but various amendments’ attempts to take that into account in other relevant ways have been ruled out of scope. Indeed, in the light of this amendment-drafting experience, I wonder whether all the bits of the Bill pass the scope test; that may become clearer as we work through the amendments, in particular my Amendment 22 in this group and Amendment 23 in the final group.

I turn to my Amendment 1 and the similar amendments in the rest of the group. They have a common theme: making sure that the provisions really are limited in application to small or smaller banks, which is what we have been told they are about following on from the actions taken for Silicon Valley Bank. However, there is no such small bank limitation in the Bill. Clearly, the question arises: how small is “small or smaller”? Like other noble Lords, I have taken the view that the only clear distinction is for non-systemic banks—that is, those required to hold MREL, bail-in bonds or whatever you wish to call them, which represent the only regulatory division we have.

Of course, as raised by me and others at Second Reading, we then have the issue that the PRA has extended the MREL requirements far lower down the bank size range than systemic banks, well into the “smaller bank” range. This may well be the reason that there is no differentiation in the Bill: so that, in theory, the Bill applies to any bank and everything rests on the Bank of England’s decision. It seems that the majority of us here disagree with that and think that it should be limited by a defined measure; the obvious one is the level at which MREL is required. If the PRA causes the resolution provisions to be impeded by its MREL choices, that will be something for it and the Bank of England to consider and live with.

My Amendment 1 has another little tweak, in which I suggest that the cutoff is linked to the index-linked value of the net assets at which MREL was originally set in 2016: £15 billion. In numbers, that would mean the size now would be £22 billion if it were index linked, not £15 billion, and it would not continue to dwindle, relatively speaking, as is happening with the PRA MREL threshold. My amendment therefore overlaps with regimes that can do bail-in, although my real hope, as I have already suggested, is to make the PRA see that, for various good reasons, it should increase the MREL threshold at least by indexation, and ideally to the level where it applies only to banks that have full capital market access, so that bail-in instruments are not disproportionately expensive for them. However, if we want to coalesce around MREL as the dividing line, I am not going to rock the boat. Indeed, I tabled an amendment to that effect, but it got lost somewhere. I think the Bill Office thought that my other amendment was an amendment to my amendment.

I turn to my Amendment 22. This deletes Clause 4(3), which is not needed in the event that there is limitation to application only to non-MREL banks. I will explain how I came to that conclusion. The subsection references Section 12AA of the Banking Act 2009, which in turn references Article 47.3(b) and (c) of the EU’s Resolution and Recovery directive. Most compliance with EU directives has been put into the 2009 Act.

I happen to think, especially nowadays, that it would be much better to say more clearly what we actually meant in Clause 4(3) than to have to pedal all the way back to a European directive. I have another amendment on it, Amendment 23, right at the end of our considerations next week. I will let noble Lords know what it is all about. Article 47.3(b) of BRRD is the amount by which the authorities assess that common equity tier 1 items must be reduced to the relevant capital instruments written down or converted, pursuant to Article 61. The latter gives the order of writing down priority. Article 47.3(c) is the aggregate amount assessed by the resolution authority, pursuant to Article 46. To save noble Lords the misery of me reading out Article 46, it is the sum of write-down and recapitalisation.

To cut this long story short, the subsection refers to things that happen only when you are in a bail-in situation. So, if we limit it to non-MREL banks, it would seem to be superfluous, because there cannot be any bail-in as they are not required to hold MREL. Of course, if we use my Amendment 1 with the index threshold of MREL, we might need it or need to rewrite it.

However, thinking about it further, I also query whether this subsection is properly in scope as it seems to relate to changing bail-in requirements and not to recapitalisation. That is made clear in the Explanatory Notes, which state that Clause 4(3) basically amends the bail-in sequence and conversion of capital instruments to allow adjustment to the contribution of shareholders and creditors when exercising the bail-in write-down tool. We should bear in mind that there are other parts of legislation that tell you the sequence in which you must do one, and how you exhaust the first before you move on to the next, and all those kinds of measures.

The end result that it has a knock-on effect of increasing recapitalisation costs that are then to be met by the FSCS. As I said, that seems to depart from what I envisaged was the purpose of the Bill. I did not have in my mind that it was about levying banks to help rescue shareholders or bail-in bond holders of another bank. I understood that it would be more like the Silicon Valley Bank rescue, where the point would be to rescue unprotected depositors.

Overall, we can do without this clause in all circumstances and I wait to hear the Minister’s explanation. It would be useful, before we get to Report, if we could have some kind of laid-out worked examples of where this might come in and what might happen. I understand why the Government wish for flexibility but it is a flexibility that goes way beyond what I have understood to be the intents of the Bill. I beg to move.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I have Amendment 5 in this group, to which I will speak. I regret that I was unable to take part at Second Reading in July, but I have read the Hansard report of the debate and I can see that there is a lot of common ground on the Bill between those of us not on the Government Benches.

As this is the first time that I have spoken in Committee, I draw attention to my interests as recorded in the register of interests, in particular that I hold shares in banks which, under the terms of the Bill, will end up footing the bill if the bank recapitalisation power is used.

My Amendment 5 is slightly different from Amendment 1 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, and slightly different from Amendments 8, 10, 12 and 18 in the names of other noble Lords. Those amendments basically seek to confine the use of this power to small banks—typically using MREL as the deciding point. Mine does not rule out using the power for larger banks but instead inserts the requirement for Treasury consent.

The Government clearly sold this legislation, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, explained, as being about smaller banks, referring to it as being a better route for a better outcome compared to using the bank insolvency procedure, which is the current default assumption for smaller banks. As is often the case with legislation, however, the stated aim then gets converted into a very broad power. This power is so broad that if the RBS failure happened again it could cover the recapitalisation of RBS, which, I remind noble Lords, cost £45.5 billion in 2008. The Bank would have that power with nothing in the Bill to prevent it.

There is a constraint on the amount of annual FSCS payments set by the PRA, which I think is £1.5 billion a year, but that can be changed by the PRA at any time, and the PRA is not, of course, independent of the Bank of England; it is fully part of it.

I am not surprised that the Treasury does not want to narrow the drafting of the Bill to cover only those banks that do not have MREL. The Government have themselves talked about wanting to cover the case where MREL has been set but the banks are on a glide path and have not yet achieved the full amount of their MREL. It seems reasonable for the power to be used in those circumstances, but the Government have not even offered to amend the Bill to confine it in that way.

I broadly accept that there may be a good case for using recapitalisation schemes beyond non-MREL banks or those that have not yet raised their full amount of MREL, because it is genuinely difficult to predict circumstances where such a power would be extremely useful. However, when the Government draft broad and unconstrained powers, they have a duty to put checks and balances in place, and there are none in the Bill. If they do not put checks and balances in place, we must take that on as part of our duties in scrutinising legislation. My amendment has opted for Treasury consent, but there could well be better ways of putting guard rails in place. Treasury consent is not an onerous requirement when the Bank of England is handling a potential bank failure. It inevitably works closely with the Treasury; the Treasury has to be consulted whenever a stabilisation power is used, and we should be in no doubt that when, for example, SVB UK was in trouble, the Treasury was intimately involved in the arrangements to deal with HSBC very rapidly. Therefore, obtaining Treasury consent need not cause a delay or any other real problems.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 2 is a probing amendment. It would delete new Section 214E(2)(b) of FSMA. Under new subsection (2), a “recapitalisation payment” includes the cost of recapitalisation; that is at new paragraph (a). There is clearly no issue there because that is what the Bill is about. However, new paragraph (b) would allow the Bank to include

“any other expenses that the Bank or another person has incurred or might incur in connection with the recapitalisation of the institution or the exercise of the stabilisation power”.

This raises a number of questions.

First, who are these other persons who can incur expenditure in connection with the recapitalisation? The Government’s consultation referred to the Treasury, the Bank of England and a bridge bank. If that is the case, it seems that the paragraph ought to be confined to those persons, as I could not think of any other person who could make a case for receiving money under the auspices of the recapitalisation payments power.

Secondly, why is there not more precision about exactly which costs could be covered? Again, the response to the Treasury’s consultation gives the sorts of expenses that could be covered—legal fees, consultancy fees and the like—but is virtually silent on what should not be covered. The only example cited for what is not covered is the cost of preparing in parallel for an insolvency process, but that leaves a huge swathe of costs that could well be brought within the ambit of the recapitalisation payments. As drafted, it could certainly include many expenses that no one could reasonably label as being related to recapitalisation.

The Minister will be aware that UK Finance has expressed very real concerns that the banking sector will be left exposed to litigation or regulatory costs that emerge once a failed bank is in a bridge bank. In a bank insolvency procedure, such litigation or regulatory action would lead nowhere, as there would almost certainly not be any spare funds to cover any costs arising in that way. However, once the possibility of financing via the recapitalisation power arises, a new deep pocket appears, which could act as a magnet for litigation. Does this legislation mean that the banking sector is writing a blank cheque for whatever litigation emerges and which the Bank then chooses to engage in? Can there be any constraints on the Bank’s decision to fight or concede litigation? What are the incentives for the Bank to seek the optimal outcome, which may or may not be to concede a case in litigation? How is the banking sector to be protected in these circumstances?

Costs arising from regulatory action is even trickier. Let us assume that, following a small bank failure, the FCA decides to take regulatory action in relation to non-compliance with the consumer duty prior to the failure. As anybody who has been involved in one of the regulatory actions taken by the FCA, or indeed the PRA, will know, these are long, drawn-out and very expensive processes. Who should decide whether to fight regulatory action or concede and pay fines or redress? These could end up being funded by the recapitalisation payments. If the PRA were involved in regulatory action, rather than the FCA, how can the conflict of interest within the Bank be dealt with so that the costs falling on the banking sector are seen to be fair?

Lastly, new paragraph (b) allows the Bank to include costs that “might” be incurred. I completely understand why, when the recapitalisation calculations are made at the outset, that will involve an element of forecasting, because the formulation is not confined to, say, costs that are reasonably expected to be incurred. Instead, the Bank is allowed to include any costs that “might” be incurred, however improbable that might be. An overly conversative approach to working out what costs might be incurred will result in the banking sector bearing too much cost up front. It is not good enough to just say that, if there is a surplus left at the end of the day, it will be returned via the FSCS.

To sum up, the formulation in new subsection (2)(b) is simply too wide. As I said at the outset, this is a probing amendment and I shall listen carefully to what the Minister says, but my instinct is that new subsection (2) needs some guard-rails drafted into it. I beg to move.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)]

I only need to say briefly that I am in agreement with the noble Baroness. This is drafted too widely. Part of me thinks that some of this should be covered by the ordinary banking levy, and that the PRA and the Bank of England have to manage their budget, as anybody else would have to, in expectation of sometimes having adverse effects, rather than there being some bottomless pit, or pool, of money into which they always have access. The truth of the matter might need to be somewhere half way in between, but it is too open at the moment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)]

I did not speak earlier because all the points I wanted to make were picked up, but there are two things on which I wish to comment. We have a change now in that, before, the Treasury would be more involved when the matter involved use of public funds; now, that has been transferred to the industry, so the Treasury is less involved and perhaps less concerned. Yet the Treasury remains the only possible constraint around and is far from perfect.

For the PRA and the FCA, there are plenty of powers to instigate reviews by government. The big mistake, apart from us not having proper oversight of regulators in general—there are various mistakes—is that those reviews have not been used a lot more often. They should be done almost on a rolling regular basis, not just when there has been a big disaster.

The other thing we have done differently is that we have made the central bank the resolution authority. Therefore, you cannot hold the central bank to account, because of its independence, in the same way that you could if you had constructed an independent resolution authority. That is, as you might suppose, the subject of a big debate that went on in Europe when I was ECON chair. There is an independent resolution authority there; it is not the central bank. That was one of the big considerations, because you cannot really hold a central bank to account. Ultimately, the sort of change that is envisaged in this Bill may move us further towards considering whether we need to do that.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part. The predictions made by my noble friend Lady Vere on the content of the noble Lord’s response were pretty accurate in places. The noble Lord has not really engaged with the weak accountability that exists. The noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, is absolutely right about the use of the Bank of England as the resolution authority and giving it all those powers with almost no constraints whatever, other than consultation. Whoever chose to do that back in 2009—whichever Government were in power then—did not set up the right accountability environment for the use of those powers to exist. Once you put something inside the Bank of England, it is very difficult to engage in those issues, because it guards its independence on practically everything.

This is one of the big issues that will need to be addressed at some stage. There may not have been an instance yet that has caused people generally to realise how dangerous it is to have large, unaccountable bodies in the public sector with huge powers but relatively weak accountability. That is because we are still muddling through, and it is frustrating to some people who are dealing with these regulators, including Ministers, that they cannot fully engage. We have not had one of those big instances where everybody says that we have the wrong model. In a sense, I know that my pleas for a greater level of accountability to be included in statute are not really being heard, but that will not stop me raising them at every single opportunity I can. Indeed, I have some more amendments through which to talk about accountability further.

This has been a useful exchange. I will think about it further, having read the Minister’s response in Hansard. I will think further about whether I take this forward again on Report. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, has said, I have Amendment 14 in this group. In substance, it is the same as the noble Lord’s amendment. The only real difference, as he pointed out, is that mine is less prescriptive. I am entirely happy with either version, but it is important that we deal with the specific reporting requirements, because the existing provisions are simply not adequate. At Second Reading, the Minister basically said that the Government would use the existing reporting requirements in the Banking Act, but the time involved is simply too long. It could take at least a year after the powers have been exercised. When the recapitalisation powers are used, that deserves more immediate scrutiny and, unless there is awareness of it by way of a report, that is simply not going to happen. So I stand completely behind whichever of these amendments the Minister cares to choose.

I also completely support what the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, has tried to do with his Amendment 24. It is a pity he cannot do it more generally in relation to Section 79A, but at least it rectifies what is clearly an anomaly that Parliament should not have allowed through when the Act was brought in. When the recapitalisation power has been used, it should be a requirement to lay a report before Parliament. This is in line with what the Minister said at Second Reading would happen, so I expect the Minister to accept the amendment with alacrity.

I am not quite sure why the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, allowed her amendment to be brought into this group. That said, I do think it is an important opportunity to look again at MREL, in particular because those banks that do not have MREL now become potentially subject to the use of the bank recapitalisation power. There ought to be more transparency about how banks can be categorised in that way and more understanding by those in the banking sector of which institutions they might have to pick up the tab for in due course.

It is generally a contentious issue in the banking sector, and the way in which banks trip from no MREL to MREL can be a deciding factor in whether they can scale up, because the cost of raising MREL when you are a very small bank, if you trip over into needing to raise it, can have a very significant impact. I have certainly heard smaller start-up institutions say that they deliberately do not grow above a certain size in order to avoid coming within the MREL provisions, and that cannot be good for the UK. So I am not quite sure about the wording of the noble Baroness’s amendment, but I completely support the principle.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)]

The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, asked why I allowed my amendment to be grouped in this way. I was simply trying to expedite matters for us and I thought we did not need another whole group, which would get the Minister up and down again. I agree with the other amendments and everything that has been said on this group. They deal with issues around conflicts and so on, and transparency is one of the best weapons we have that presumably will be allowed or in scope.

My amendment is one of those that do not read as I originally wrote it, because again we came into scope issues. I could not get the exact amendment that I wanted, so this was the best that I could do. Obviously, it is a companion to the amendments in the first group, which were saying that the majority of us want to limit to a threshold equal to MREL. If you therefore want to resolve banks that are a little bigger, you would have to shift MREL. I am not going to cry over that; I will cheer.

That may be an improper tactic but we do not have any other tactics to try to focus the PRA on the damage being done to the growth of smaller banks by putting MREL where it was not intended to be. We are out of line internationally and we do not really have any good justification for that. If there is a division between those banks that can be resolved and those that cannot, I still think that it goes there and the Bank will therefore have to give its view as to why. Perhaps it wants an extension in some way, so that it can get at bigger banks. What do we get back from that? That is the thought process that lies behind my amendment.

I support all these amendments. If they are knocked into a format that is suitable for Report, they would be very good additions to the Bill.