PRA - Strengthening Accountability in Banking
As a general point we are concerned and alarmed by the divergent approaches that PRA and FCA have adopted in this consultation. In relation to credit unions we have one regulator taking steps to apply the regime proportionately (though not going far enough) while the other fails entirely to recognise the burden that these proposals are likely to have on credit unions (in spite of its own cost-benefit analysis). We would like to see both regulators extend their measures in support of proportionality and to devise a regime which is consistent between the two regulators. At present the proposals are messy and do not take sufficient account of the burden that they will impose upon our members.
In general we prefer the PRA’s approach to the implementation of the Senior Managers Regime and Certification Regime to that of FCA. We support the proposals for smaller credit unions (those under £25 million) to be allowed to apply a simplified regime in terms of the bespoke Senior Management Function (credit union Senior Manager) and the flexibility that is provided within this to have approved more than one individual if that is appropriate in the circumstances. We also support the provision of a simplified set of prescribed responsibilities for these credit unions which are much more appropriate in content and tone than are those applying to other firms.
However, we would urge PRA to go further and do more to accommodate all credit unions within the framework since we note the concerns of the independent cost-benefit analysis which rightly point out that these proposals are likely to have a disproportionate effect on all credit unions since our sector contributed nothing to the crises which inspired the framework and have the least resources to deal with its implementation. Most notably, we have concerns as to the potential for these proposals to present difficulties in recruiting, training and retaining senior staff and volunteers without compensation packages which many credit unions can ill afford. In particular we suggest that PRA:
- Reconsider the use of the £25 million size threshold and consider whether the simplified regime can be extended to all credit unions regardless of size.
- Within the current proposals, make it more explicit that the SMF structure should be applied in a way which fits the size and complexity of a firm and only require SMF approvals where they are materially-required.
- Consider what guidance can be provided to credit unions not falling into the smaller credit union category as to how the new SMF structure ought to be applied in a credit union context.
- Develop a set of simplified prescribed responsibilities for larger credit unions, since the complexity and granularity of the proposed framework is excessive.
- Develop guidance as to how the Statements of Responsibilities and Responsibilities Maps ought to be implemented in a credit union context.
- Develop standardised formats for Statements of Responsibilities and Responsibilities Maps.
- Remove requirements around handover meetings between successive SMF holders.
- Provide further guidance and clarity as to the application of conditional approvals, particularly in relation to competition and proportionality.
- Consider whether regulatory references should be limited to only SMF applicants, as criminal record checks are.
- Provide guidance as to how regulatory references and criminal record check results should be used by credit unions in assessing candidates for approval.
- Develop provisions for grandfathering which takes account of the conceptual clash that occurs in relation to standing guidance at CREDS 8.3.4G and offer similar guidance material for how the SMF regime should apply in the credit union context.
- Extend the transitional period for SMR, CR and Conduct Rules to 12 months.
ABCUL is keen to work with PRA to develop the framework to enable its successful and proportionate application in the credit union context.
The full response is available to download on the right hand side.