Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, shall we make a start? The Committee will be aware of what might take place in the Chamber; if it does, a Division Bell will ring and we will all scamper off, do our voting and come back. Before we begin debate on the Bill, I understand that the Whip would like to make a few remarks.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
As usual, I want to make a couple of remarks, as I have done over the last five sessions. I remind noble Lords that they should declare any relevant financial interest the first time they speak at each stage of the Bill. This means that, in Committee, relevant financial interests should be declared during the first group in which a noble Lord contributes. The declaration does not need to be repeated in debate on later groups at this stage, and it should be specific and brief. Members should briefly indicate the nature of their financial interest, not simply refer to their entry in the Register of Lords’ Interests.
I also remind the Committee again of guidance in the Companion at paragraph 8.82 that, when withdrawing amendments, noble Lords should
“be brief and need not respond to all the points made during the debate, nor revisit points made when moving the amendment”.
This applies to all Members of the House, including the Front Benches. A number of contributions last week were lengthy and I encourage all participants to keep their remarks shorter, in the spirit of the guidance.
Financial Services and Markets Bill [HL]
Wednesday 8th July 2026
(3 weeks, 4 days ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Financial Services and Markets Bill [HL] 2026-27 View all Financial Services and Markets Bill [HL] 2026-27 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 5-VI Sixth marshalled list for Grand Committee - (7 Jul 2026)
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, our amendments in this group concern the future of the bank ring-fencing regime. I will start by setting out clearly the position that we have reached as the Official Opposition. Through our diagnostic work, we have found a consensus that the bank ring-fencing regime is no longer fit for purpose. It adds costs to banks and their customers and it has been superseded by other rules since its introduction. A regulatory regime should not be preserved simply because it exists. It must continue to justify itself against present-day risks, tools and costs. In our view, the ring-fencing regime no longer does so. The next Conservative Government would repeal the post-global financial crisis ring-fencing regime, bringing the United Kingdom more closely into line with other international jurisdictions. Amendment 160A reflects that policy.
It is worth reminding ourselves what ring-fencing is. The regime was created through the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013, which amended FSMA 2000. The implementing regulations and orders came into effect in 2019, more than 10 years after the onset of the global financial crisis. At its core, ring-fencing is the structural separation of certain retail banking activities from activities normally conducted by international wholesale investment banks. In practice, that means a separate legal entity, with restrictions on what it can do and how it can interact with the rest of the banking group. Retail and small business deposit-taking is placed inside the ring-fence, while certain other activities must be conducted outside it.
The regime was introduced for serious reasons. The Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, convened after the financial crisis, identified three broad objectives: to make it easier to deal with failing banks without taxpayer-funded solvency support; to insulate vital banking services used by households and SMEs from problems elsewhere in the financial system; and to curtail implicit government guarantees, thereby reducing risks to public finances and incentives for excessive risk-taking.
Since ring-fencing was designed, the wider regulatory landscape has changed profoundly. We now have a much more developed resolution regime. We have recovery and resolution planning. We have operational continuity arrangements in resolution. We have stronger capital and liquidity requirements. We have the leverage ratio, the liquidity coverage ratio and the net stable funding ratio. The Bank of England, the PRA and the FPC have a broad toolkit for reducing the risk of bank failure and dealing with failure if it occurs. Moreover, we have sounder management of banks as a result of the senior management regime.
That is precisely the point that we wish to highlight in our amendment. The risks that ring-fencing was designed to address are now addressed through other more modern, more targeted and more internationally coherent tools. The 2022 Independent Panel on Ring-fencing and Proprietary Trading, chaired by Sir Keith Skeoch, reported that the regime has an annual cost to the UK banking sector of around £1.5 billion, which comes from running multiple separate legal entities, duplicating governance systems and raising the cost of capital and lending conducted by non-ring-fenced bodies. This is because large retail deposits inside the ring-fence cannot be used as sources of finance elsewhere in a group to support lending and investment. That review also found that the reduction in the implicit government guarantee and progress in ending “too big to fail” were not attributable to ring-fencing but instead to the development of the UK resolution regime. Ring-fencing is therefore a good example of a broader problem in financial services regulation: rules that are introduced in response to a crisis which then remain in place long after the conditions that justified the change.
We are now left with two regimes that are not aligned in the way that they aim to address “too big to fail”. That adds complexity, cost and burden. It also risks making the United Kingdom less competitive than jurisdictions that rely on resolution, prudential supervision and capital frameworks, rather than structural separation of this kind. Clauses 39 and 40 show that the Government recognise that there is a problem. They seek to make changes to the ring-fencing regime and give the PRA more flexibility over ring-fencing arrangements, but in our view these reforms do not go far enough.
Amendment 160A would repeal Part 9B of FSMA and the core statutory ring-fencing provisions introduced after the financial crisis. It would require the Treasury, the PRA, the FCA and the Bank of England to take the necessary steps to unwind the related rules and guidance. It would require an orderly transition, with attention paid to financial stability, continuity of core banking services and the competitiveness of the United Kingdom. Consumer savings would continue to be protected. Banks would continue to be subject to prudential supervision. Resolution planning would remain in place.
This reform matters for competitiveness. Other major financial centres do not operate a UK-style ring-fencing regime. If UK banks are required to carry costs and structural constraints that their international competitors do not face, that affects the cost and availability of finance. It affects the ability of banks to deploy capital efficiently and it affects the attractiveness of the UK as a place to operate and invest in. It also matters for customers. Regulations that increase costs without delivering commensurate benefit feed through into pricing, service innovation and lending capacity.
If the Government believe that ring-fencing remains necessary, will the Minister explain precisely what financial stability objective it now achieves that is not already achieved through the resolution regime and other prudential rules? Ring-fencing was created in response to a particular crisis at a particular moment for reasons that were understandable at the time. But regulation must evolve. It must be reviewed against current conditions. It must be removed when it no longer serves its intended purpose.
Finally, I would add that whatever changes are made, it is right to have a proper process of consultation with business and stakeholders and a follow-up report to Parliament. That is the purpose of my Amendments 159 and 174.
Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)
My Lords, if I may respond to that, I had thought until recently that what we were debating was a response to the Skeoch commission established by the last Government, but we have new amendments now, it seems—Amendment 160A and the abandonment of clauses—that are really throwing ring-fencing out. I guess that they are tabled in response to a speech by the leader of the Conservative Party, Kemi Badenoch—a speech underpinned by a policy document from her party. That speech, the policy document and this amendment are not asking to think things through further from the Skeoch report: they have made their minds up. Kemi Badenoch announced that a future Conservative Government will end ring-fencing—definitive end of discussion. That, I believe, would be a bad idea. So did the review by Keith Skeoch, who was commissioned by the Conservative Government to opine on this and whose recommendations we are now trying to take forward.
Worse still, the evidence for Mrs Badenoch’s statement is based on really questionable claims, numbers and Mickey Mouse logic. For example, the claim was that the Skeoch report reckoned that the cost of ring-fencing was £1.5 billion. In fact, the report notes that that figure was presented to the review and that
“it has not been possible to draw a strong conclusion based on aggregating these costs”.
The report recognises that there are some costs to ring-fencing, but notes that that was expected and acknowledged by the Independent Commission on Banking, which said that that would not be a cost to the economy, but rather
“a consequence of returning risk to where it should be—with bank investors, not taxpayers—and so would reflect the aim of removing government support and risk to public finances”.
The policy paper has a Mickey Mouse logic that costs should be placed on the taxpayer, when they should be paid by the banks and the investors in the banks.
We should of course be in favour of reviewing the ring-fencing regime to be sure that it is properly doing its job. This is what Skeoch did and, now, if this Bill follows that report, I ask the Minister to ensure that we are careful with definitions in the implementation. For example, we should ensure that, within the growth allowance, the definitions are very carefully drawn up. We do not in future want the taxpayer subsidising proprietary trading—what many refer to as “casino capitalism”.
Badenoch suggests that her reforms would release £450 billion in capital—another number from nowhere. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, will not have a lot of time to sum up, but I would be grateful if she might write afterwards on how these numbers have been derived and what reduction in bank equity capital they assume. If these numbers do not stack up, that pulls the rug from under the policy document and the speech that was made by the leader of the Conservative Party.
The policy paper suggests that we should abandon the Financial Ombudsman Service. In this industry, which represents 8% of GDP but attracts 42% of corporate fines, Mrs Badenoch has decided that the front-line institution that protects consumers should be abolished. We could say that this does not matter and that Kemi Badenoch is unlikely any time soon to be Prime Minister, but it should matter to us. As the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, has pointed out, there is considerable expertise in financial services across all parties in the House. Although we have differences, we are united, I hope, in trying to set a framework for the industry that allows it better to serve its purpose: to serve the outside world; to help get money from point A, where it is, to point B, where it is needed; to keep our money safe; to help us transact; and to help us share risk.
If the Opposition Benches feel mandated to follow the policy documented last month, we have a problem. I could not find a single reference in that document to any input from any consumer group anywhere. It felt like a lobbyist document from the City, but I have talked to at least one lobbyist who said “No, it goes way further than we would ever suggest”.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
In Committee, it is normal to address the amendments and not opposition parties’ policy documents.
Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)
The amendment has been put to us at the last minute. The points that it relates to have been there for weeks, indeed months, but I would argue that what has triggered the amendment is the speech by the leader of the Conservative Party and the policy document that underpins it. If the noble Baroness thinks, like me, that the policy document is lacking, I would be pleased to hear it because, as she knows, it would abolish the FOS and seek to mandate regulatory changes that come close to invading the independence of the regulator.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
I rise to speak to the Motion that Clause 40 does not stand part. As I explained at Second Reading, I have no professional knowledge of the banking industry but, because of circumstances, for more than 14 years I have been in this Room talking about the finance industry and doing my best to pretend to understand at least bits of it.
The one thing that I think I bring to this Bill is my long experience of concern about problems of little likelihood, even small likelihood, but with catastrophic results if the risks mature. It is on that theme that I am concerned that we are creating risks. In 2008 we had the crisis. It is now 18 years ago, just long enough for most people to have forgotten it. We had the Vickers review, which we all felt was pretty good, and after that came ring-fencing, and we convinced ourselves that this would solve most of the problems. There were some other things as well. There was the splendid clause that vested criminal responsibility on the boss of a subordinate who committed some criminal offence. Clearly this was too uncomfortable for the City, so it was changed. I led the opposition to the change and failed with a 200-vote tie. Because we were the Opposition not the Government, we failed.
The preparation for my consideration of this ring-fencing issue caused me to read through a lot of stuff. I came to the conclusion that the ring-fencing was not nearly as effective as we had felt it would be at the time, but, in a sense, I was reluctant to be overly concerned about it because I felt that the resolution regime developed by the Bank of England, in which I had personally taken a great interest, would be good enough to pick up the holes in the Bill.
I was comfortable in this position—almost willing to ignore it—until, at Second Reading, the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, for whom I have immense regard, rather woke me up. I quote her speech:
“Picking up on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe—I disagree with him completely—that in the case of resolution, we do not need ring-fencing because we have a resolution regime in place or we can weaken the one because the other exists. Will the Minister be able to look me in the eye and say that he would activate a bail-in bond scheme if a big bank failed? The consequence would be huge financial instability among those who held those bail-in bonds—I am talking about the insurance companies and pension funds. Many would be on the verge of collapse if we ever exercised bailing in those bonds. That is one of the reasons why, in the financial crises that have happened, no Government have ever taken that step”.—[Official Report, 8/6/26; col. 1206.]
I do not have the weight of knowledge to be able to disregard such a statement.
The Minister was kind enough to facilitate a visit to the Treasury and the Bank of England to take me through the bail-in regime. It took four people from the Treasury and four from the Bank of England to try to persuade me that it was in good hands. I came out of that uncomfortable. If one is uncomfortable about a potential catastrophe, one feels that one has to pursue it, I am afraid.
Then one comes up against the mechanisms of legislation; here, I have to give notice of my concerns. If we are going to remove or take away activity from the ring-fencing solution and replace it with the resolution regime, it is important that that is tested much more intrusively than is proposed. I hope to persuade the Minister that, between now and Report, some mechanisms that are convincing to like-minded, fair-minded people have to be put together so that that balance will be achieved.
I was responsible for all sorts of safety, but particularly in the railway industry. You would not be able to do this in the railway industry. If you make a change that is of critical importance, there is a set procedure that must be gone through, and it must be signed off at the highest level. We should recognise that Clause 40 is of that magnitude. It just so happens that, in yesterday’s Times, there was an article that said:
“The Bank of England is planning to loosen rules it brought in to make the financial system safer after the 2008 crisis despite worries about the proposed changes voiced by some of its own officials … The central bank’s financial policy committee announced on Tuesday that it intended to revamp some regulations on the loss-absorbing capital that lenders must hold because it wanted to tackle the ‘unintended consequences’ of its rules and make it easier for banks to lend to households and businesses … Andrew Bailey, the Bank’s governor, insisted the overhaul would ‘make our capital regime more effective, proportionate and better calibrated to the risks in today’s financial system without unduly compromising the safety and soundness of firms’”.
“Without unduly compromising” is not nearly a powerful enough test. The limited test is that the risk should be lowered—as low as reasonably practicable.
We have all sorts of problems in this world, and all sorts of unprecedented things are happening. We have cryptocurrency. Now, I do not understand cryptocurrency; it seems a series of charades to me, but I suppose the purist would also point out that the dollar is a series of charades, because that is the essence of paper money. Nevertheless, things that can go and down up like that are fundamentally dangerous, given how large they are becoming in the banking world.
We also have the unregulated banking area. Without knowing the detail, but from listening to people who know about it talk about it, that seems to be an increasing threat. We also have wars all over the place. If we are moving to a regime where we give up ring-fencing, depending on resolution, we will need to subject it to a stronger set of tests through the processes of this legislation.
Lord Massey of Hampstead (Con)
I support Amendment 160A. I want to start by briefly addressing a couple of issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Pitt-Watson. Most importantly, I want briefly to quote the conclusions of the Skeoch report. The panel judges that the ring-fence
“is worth retaining at present”
but adds a number of considerations:
“The Panel recognises that the regime’s benefit will likely diminish with time, especially as the resolution regime—designed to ensure the continuation of all critical functions … —is embedded. This is because … UK authorities become comfortable with the viability of the large banking groups’ restructuring capabilities”.
I mention this only because the impression was given—
Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)
I did indeed talk to senior members of the Skeoch commission before writing my speech, and what I said is completely consistent with the conclusions of the Skeoch commission, which was set up by the previous Conservative Government, as I said.
Lord Massey of Hampstead (Con)
I am just reading the conclusions from the report, my Lords. They make it very clear that the continuation of ring-fencing made sense at the time the report was written, but the commission clearly envisaged that it might not be needed over the passage of time. I also remind noble Lords that Glass-Steagall was abolished some 25 years ago with no detriment to the American banking system. I say this just to make the point that it is not so obvious.
Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)
I find it difficult to believe that someone has told me that the withdrawal of Glass-Steagall, which took place 13 years before the global financial crisis, had no detriment to the American banking system. As I say, I have read the Skeoch report and discussed it with senior members of Skeoch, and I believe that what I said is entirely consistent with the recommendations that they made to the Government and this House, which is recognised in the Bill.
Lord Massey of Hampstead (Con)
I also draw attention to the abolition of FOS, which the noble Lord mentioned. I draw the Committee’s attention to Amendment 172A, which discusses the changes proposed to FOS. It is to be abolished and replaced with something called the financial adjudication service, which is a broadly similar methodology to give redress to consumers and private clients, in the event of problems with the firms that serve them. While it is a change, it is a reform to FOS with an organisation with a different name, but it is not a straightforward abolition of that very important process. This will be dealt with in that later amendment—not in my name, I might add.
Governments, like some businesses, are very good at locking the stable door after the horse has bolted. Our reaction to 2008 was an example of just that. But we are now 18 years on and the banking sector has been solid during that time. However, as we know, growth has flatlined, despite many years of ultra-low interest rates. I am not suggesting that we are an exception here; there has been a similar experience across most of Europe. But we now have a substantial cost of capital for business to bear, with interest rates stuck at 3.75% and sadly not much prospect of a reduction in the near term.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I have some experience of ring-fencing as, in my capacity as the chairman of the risk committee of a major bank, I oversaw the implementation of ring-fencing. At that time, it was a significant risk to the bank that we would not be in compliance with the ring-fencing legislation and therefore this required considerable oversight.
I am clear that ring-fencing has been a very expensive element of the post-financial crisis reforms. The Skeoch report, which has been referred to, put the upfront cost at £2.9 billion and the ongoing cost at £1.5 billion, which amounts to about £14 billion to date. The noble Lord, Lord Pitt-Watson, tried to undermine those numbers, but, from my experience, I do not doubt that order of magnitude. More importantly, the implementation, and, to a lesser extent, the ongoing element—
Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)
There were two points, one of which is that the Skeoch report says that the numbers given are not its numbers. The report is clear that whatever the cost of ring-fencing, it is not a cost to the economy—this is what the Vickers report said earlier —and that, by removing ring-fencing, it suddenly becomes a cost to the taxpayer rather than to the bank’s investor. That is the key point that Skeoch is bringing to our attention.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I understand the point that the noble Lord is trying to make, but I argue that the risk of the taxpayer picking up the tab is now considerably lower, which means that it is reasonable to re-examine whether ring-fencing should be an ongoing part of the regime.
I was about to say that, in addition to the cash costs, there was during the implementation, and to some extent on an ongoing basis, considerable diversion of scarce management resource, which will have damaged the banks in a number of ways. My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe has registered her opposition to Clauses 39 and 40 standing part of the Bill. I support Clauses 39 and 40 on the grounds that any improvement in the ring-fencing regime is better than none. The flexibility that will come with letting the PRA handle some of the changes via rules is a constructive solution. The PRA is, however, heavily invested in ring-fencing and no one should be under any illusion that the power will be used by the PRA to make significant changes to the regime. That is why I believe that we need to make provision to go further and I support the other amendments in this group.
As we have heard, since the implementation of ring-fencing, the parallel and very expensive requirement to maintain and develop resolution plans has been implemented, and the Bank of England has confirmed that the major banks are resolvable. In addition, bank capital levels are significantly above the levels that they were immediately after the financial crisis and well above regulatory minima. Regulatory capital is expensive and can restrict the ability of banks to lend to support the economy. I am always extremely sceptical about claims that reducing capital requirements on banks will immediately lead to masses of extra lending by the banks—there is some element of truth in it, but the effect is not as great as might be claimed.
We are hugely proud of the robustness of our financial regulation and what we do in the UK is often copied abroad. No one anywhere else in the world has ever copied ring-fencing and that is for a very good reason: it is a very expensive solution to a problem that can be and has been addressed in other ways. That is why I support the amendments from my noble friend, which pave the way for eliminating ring-fencing. It cannot be done away with overnight, so I support the measured approach taken in my noble friend’s Amendment 160A.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, it has been an unusual experience to have had a debate with two sides to it on the Bill; the Minister must be pleased about that. I am afraid that I sit firmly on the fence—indeed, on the ring-fence. I am in two minds on this issue. Ring-fencing requirements were put in place after the financial crisis for very good reasons. You can argue that they went too far and that, to some extent, they have been overtaken by other regulations and that they perhaps overburden and create some restrictions on the banks. But, in the Bill, the Government recognise that.
On the other side of the equation, the economy and the banking system are currently facing a whole range of threats, which are arguably greater than have been faced at any time since the financial crisis in 2008. We have the private credit situation and the impacts of AI, to name just a few. Is it really the right time to remove ring-fencing entirely?
I am also not entirely convinced by the argument that removing ring-fencing would have that much impact on domestic lending. Domestic lending is inside the ring-fence. In fact, you could argue that it would have the opposite effect, as banks could then use deposits for more risky non-lending activities. Therefore, I confess that I find that argument unconvincing.
I am open-minded, but I am more minded to support the government proposals to loosen the ring-fencing rules and introduce some flexibility to them. I do not think I am ready to support complete removal at this stage. However, I am drawn to Amendment 159, which requires a consultation and assessment to take place before the proposed changes can be made.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to have the debate, and I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Pitt-Watson, for raising questions which have encouraged debate, but I support my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe’s opposition to Clause 39 standing part of the Bill. I also support her Amendment 160A about ring-fencing.
Clause 39 gives the Treasury powers to loosen the ring-fencing scheme. It has been anticipated, as others have said in this debate, by a number of announcements and reports, not least the Skeoch report—I hope I have pronounced it rightly, in the Celtic way—and the announcements this year by the Treasury itself. All of these point to and address a real problem. The question before us today is whether the Government’s solution in their Clauses 39 and 40 is sufficient to deal with the problems raised by reviews and announcements going back to the 1 March 2022 independent review of the working of the scheme.
I have a concern. The clause may seem to be the answer to some of the serious questions raised in that review and other concerns, and allow for the mitigation of problems arising from the ring-fencing regime—to allow for “proportionate” changes, to use a word which continues to recur throughout the assessments of how the scheme is working. However, in essence, it protracts the dominance of the regime and the regulators in what should be business decisions under good law, which is the spirit of the common law. It is a law which is permissive of risk-taking rather than prohibitive of the spirit of enterprise, or looking over the shoulder to the precautionary principle.
Officials and regulators can be very intelligent, competent and talented people, but it is not part of their skill set to drive through an entrepreneurial idea from the drawing board to production, sale, expanding their markets, developing a business, taking risk, and hiring and training people—which is an additional cost—while all the time keeping on top of the services sector, one of the fastest growing sectors in the UK and a jewel in the crown. Enabling officials to decide which activities should or should not be prohibited, and under which circumstances, does not tackle the fundamental problem to which the ring-fenced regime has given rise: the artificial and contrived structure. We are dealing with a structural problem—an artificially separated structure.
This structure inhibits the financial services sector from functioning in the best possible way, as an enabling hub for the whole UK economy, to allow small businesses, in particular, to grow and credit to flow. It is unlikely to remedy what we are dealing with, the fundamental problem of risk aversion imposed by ring-fencing law on businesses and the endemic risk aversion in the operation of the law.
Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)
I wonder whether there might be some confusion here. The thing about the ring-fence is that there are activities within it that the Government are promising to bail out. Those things are being insured. By the way, the move in the ring-fence proposed by the Government will extend these a little, but they include lending to the small businesses that the noble Baroness has talked about. The question is: are we going to be rid of that? Is it the case that the implicit guarantee that the Government are giving can go to any other activity that the bank decides that it wants to undertake? That could include, although Skeoch would say it is not a problem right now, the sort of proprietary trading that brought the American banks down in 2008—of course, they had been allowed to do that because Glass-Steagall had been removed 10 years earlier. What we are talking about here is: how much of bank activity will the Government stand behind? As Mervyn King said, we must make sure that it is just the very most important things.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, but it is about where the line is drawn in law, so that businesses can be certain and have predictability, because activities change day by day.
Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)
With respect, that is what Skeoch is recommending and what is being allowed in what we are being asked to accept here—there is an extension of the ring-fence. He is saying, “Look, there are other important activities that go beyond the ring-fence that are administratively complicated for the banks. Please can you move this? Also, can you move this in a way so that it doesn’t need to go to primary legislation any time it needs to change, because all these things are moving?” What we are trying to do here is recognise that the independent commission is run by a senior financial businessperson—he used to run Standard Life—whom we are going to back. He indeed said that, in the long term, you may want to think about how ring-fencing goes together with the resolution regime, but that is not for now. He certainly did not say that we should abandon it.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, but he was speaking about 2022, which was light years away for the financial sector. Things have moved on and have changed. We have different regimes in place now. As my noble friend Lady Noakes has explained, the banks are now resolvable. There are other schemes that will avoid the problems for the taxpayer. That should be borne in mind.
I had better finish quickly. That is my objection. It is about who decides for businesses. If you have a ring-fence, ultimately, no matter how much you relax it, the Government are never going to have the knowledge of the sector, and the detailed tactical and strategic ability, to be ahead of the game and make businesses grow. They will always play slightly safe, but maybe they are over-safe.
I will finish on why we need to repeal the ring-fence, not just why Clause 39 is not good enough. In a sense, we are seeing the inhibition of risk-taking and a structure that inhibits it. As other noble Lords have pointed out, we do not have parallels in other economies. I know that there is the Volcker rule in the US, but Switzerland has solved its “too big to fail” problem without a ring-fence and it has a very instructive banking sector. France and Germany have it individually but not the EU, which rejected it. Australia reviewed it again in 2019 and rejected it on the grounds that noble Lords have mentioned. It is well worth going back to the famous Skeoch review, which contends that, in the longer term, we will not need the ring-fence and we will have resolution schemes in place. For those reasons, I support my noble friend’s opposition to the clause standing part of the Bill and her Amendment 160A.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I support Amendments 159 and 174 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham. I would be concerned about abolishing the ring-fence for similar reasons and concerns as those expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux. However, I believe that a review of the workings of the alternative protections, such as the higher capital cushions and the bail-in regimes, would be appropriate. I also think that consultation would be advisable rather than simply removing these clauses. We are talking about taxpayer risk; that is basically what the ring-fencing is designed to mitigate. When it comes to consumer deposits, we have done an awful lot for retail savings to make sure that there is protection.
I apologise that I have been unable to participate fully in Committee, but I would like to put on record that there is another risk to the taxpayer in the form of retail pensions. In particular, I have concerns about the lack of any underpinning for the Financial Services Compensation Scheme around annuities, which are assumed to be 100% protected. There is a risk to the taxpayer, which I hope the Minister may consider or take back to the department to ensure that some of those issues are addressed through this Bill. Currently the implicit 100% guarantee can be met only by the taxpayer, and offshore operators of bulk annuities pose a serious risk to the retail pension sector.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I thought the Committee might like to be reminded why such a radical step as ring-fencing was taken after the 2008 financial crisis. It was in part because, in a universal bank encompassing both retail and wholesale banking, failure in the investment bank could and did destroy the viability of the retail bank. It was also in part because, as the noble Lords, Lord Tunnicliffe and Lord Pitt-Watson, said, the investment bank, able to access retail deposits at zero interest and protected by deposit interest, could now take risks that it never would have been able to take if it had had to raise that funding in the financial markets. That was a major factor behind the extraordinary and careless risk-taking that led us into the 2008 crash.
There was also a further reason: cultural contamination that led to irresponsible lending and funding in the retail banks and the abuse of customers as, under pressure from directors, they sought to catch up with the performance of their investment bank equivalents. We all, as a community, paid a very high price for that. Even at the time when the ring-fence was introduced and the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards recommended it as the best way to provide protection for the future, all of us knew that there would at some time in the future be a dangerous complacency. I quote from evidence to the PCBS:
“The classic problem for human institutions and for the design of our regulatory structures and our policy is how do we design against [delusion] in 25 years’ time, when … we have another: ‘This time it’s different. This time we’re cleverer than the previous generation.’”
Another quote is that
“financial crises don’t often happen immediately one after another; there tends to be a lag while those people who learnt lessons move out of the industry”.
In opting for ring-fencing, the PCBS warned of future pressures to weaken the separation:
“Those pressures will include the siren voices of those who contend that structural separation as implemented represents a barrier to financial innovation and growth”.
That was prescient indeed.
The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, said in a previous day of Committee that I look too much to the past. I accept that memory is inconvenient, but the amendments today from her and her colleagues come from a party that, perhaps with the exception of Nigel Lawson, never accepted its responsibility for light-touch regulation, the culture of hubris and the casino mentality that was quite heralded and led to the crisis in 2008. I still hear little sympathy, frankly, from those Benches for the ordinary people who bore the consequences. I do not want to denigrate the banking community—there are many good people in it—but most of them walked away largely untouched and with the personal rewards for the activities that led to the crisis still in their pockets. Respecting the positives of the financial sector always has to sit with a recognition that so much money can be made from a bending or an adjustment of the rules that guardrails are a necessity.
As I listened to the proposals in this group, I realised that growth has become an excuse and resolution has become a cover for eliminating the ring-fence and, essentially, the precautionary principle. Resolution for systemic banks is not just untested but—I was thankful to the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, for quoting my Second Reading speech—it has a poisonous side-effect for others in the financial sector, notably the insurance and pension funds that in this case hold most of the bail-in bonds through MREL, and for their customers.
In 2023, the Swiss financial regulator FINMA—I was reminded of this when the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, talked about the Swiss being so secure—saved the equity holders of Credit Suisse, a collapsing bank, in order to rescue it, but wiped out the bondholders, an issue that is still in litigation and has cost the Swiss very dearly in their bond issuances. FINMA took its decision on the grounds that any other action would have undermined financial stability, it was so conscious of the contagion that comes when you activate a resolution procedure. While the Bank of England has said it would not hesitate to activate resolution procedures and wipe out both equity and bondholders, I find very few people in the industry who actually believe it on those kinds of statements. No one should look with equanimity at the idea that we allow a bank to fail and be rescued only through the extreme activities of resolution, rather than looking at the precautionary principle.
Yesterday, the ground shifted even more. The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, referred to the financial stability report of July 2026 from the Bank of England. I have not had time to read it thoroughly. I have done only a first read but, frankly, it is schizophrenic. The first half of the report, as others have raised, is chilling in its assessment of the increased risk—the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, raised some of these questions—of private credit, the Iran war and AI, and especially of these crises crystallising at the same time. But the second half of the report explains policy decisions to weaken the regulatory capital buffers for banks—the regulatory system that several people have spoken about here as the reason why it is possible to remove the ring-fence. That was weakened in yesterday’s publication. The reasoning appears to be that regulators overseas are weakening their buffers and, for international competitiveness reasons, we should too.
Last Sunday, the Sunday Times ran a piece in anticipation of this change, saying that the Bank is set to relax capital rules for lenders again. My reaction to the report is mirrored by the quote from Sir John Vickers in that article, in which he cautions against reducing capital requirements:
“At a time when risk has plainly gone up, it would not make sense to dial down insurance”.
The Bank, I suspect encouraged by the Treasury, is weakening the resolution system. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and her party propose in addition to remove the precautionary protection of ring-fencing. All this is at a time of increased risk to financial stability. I came away from going through these amendments, frankly, in a mood of despair. We have to start once again to recognise the reality of risk.
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade and HM Treasury (Lord Stockwood) (Lab)
My Lords, I have enjoyed this exchange of views today. As the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, pointed out, it is refreshing and a little unsettling to find myself in the middle ground in a debate.
Before I turn to the specific amendments and stand part notices, it may be helpful if I briefly set out the Government’s approach to ring-fencing. The Government remain committed to retaining the ring-fencing regime as an important safeguard for financial stability and depositor protection. As the Chancellor set out in her 2025 Mansion House speech, the Government will uphold the regime while delivering meaningful reforms that support growth. Following a review undertaken by the Bank of England, and consistent with the conclusions of the independent Skeoch review, we concluded that aspects of the framework have become unnecessarily rigid and duplicative over time. The measures in the Bill address those issues by making the regime more flexible and proportionate while preserving its core protections.
I turn first to the question of whether Clause 39 should stand part of the Bill. Clause 39 addresses a key conclusion of both the Government’s review of ring-fencing and the Skeoch review: too much operational detail is fixed in legislation, meaning that even relatively minor and technical updates can require legislative amendment. Clause 39 therefore allows HMT, by order, to provide for certain detailed aspects of the excluded activities and prohibitions framework to be specified in the PRA rules, rather than in legislation. This will make the framework more flexible and responsive as market practice, prudential standards and firms’ business models evolve.
Importantly, the clause does not remove parliamentary oversight. Any future delegation would require secondary legislation and be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and approval. This allows the regime to evolve alongside market developments while ensuring that Parliament retains control of the overall framework. Where functions are delegated, the PRA will be subject to the same statutory tests and considerations as currently apply to the Treasury. The clause therefore preserves the existing safeguards while allowing detailed provisions to be updated more efficiently over time.
I now turn to the Clause 40 stand part notice, which was tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lords, Lord Altrincham and Lord Tunnicliffe. Clause 40 makes the ring-fencing regime more flexible and better aligned with the wider prudential and resolution framework. Since ring-fencing was introduced, those frameworks have evolved significantly and, in some areas, they now provide protections that overlap with ring-fencing rules. The clause reduces unnecessary duplication and helps the regime operate more coherently alongside the wider framework.
Some noble Lords have suggested that developments in resolution remove the need for wider ring-fencing altogether. I am afraid that I cannot agree. Ring-fencing and resolution perform different but complementary functions. Ring-fencing seeks to reduce risks and improve resilience before a firm gets into difficulty, while resolution provides the tools to manage failure if it occurs. Ring-fencing also complements resolution by creating simpler and more self-contained banking structures, which can support resolvability and make an orderly resolution easier to execute if a firm fails.
These resolution powers have been tested in practice, demonstrating that the framework can be used effectively. For example, the Bank of England used its resolution powers in relation to Silicon Valley Bank UK in 2023, facilitating its sale to HSBC without disruption to customers or the use of public funds. The independent review led by Sir Keith Skeoch concluded that ring-fencing has contributed towards the resilience of retail banks, while recommending reforms to improve its flexibility and align it more closely with the wider prudential and resolution framework. Clause 40 gives effect to that approach.
I turn to Amendments 159 and 174, which would require a further consultation and assessment before Clauses 39 and 40 could be commenced. I agree that it is important that proper procedures are followed. When exercising the powers in Clause 39, HMT will follow the better regulation guidance on consultation, and further legislation will be subject to parliamentary debate. The PRA is required by FSMA to consult and conduct cost-benefit analysis on most rule changes. So, in my view, the best point for detailed consultation and impact assessment is when specific changes are proposed.
Amendment 160A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lords, Lord Altrincham and Lord Howard of Rising, would repeal the ring-fencing regime in its entirety and require the Government and regulators to make arrangements for an orderly transition to a non-ring-fenced banking system. I am afraid I cannot agree with this. The ring-fencing regime was introduced following the global financial crisis in response to the recommendations of the Independent Commission on Banking. The commission concluded that separating core retail banking services from riskier activities would help protect the continuity of essential banking services and reduce the risk that taxpayers would be exposed to the costs of a bank failure. The Government’s view is that those objectives remain as relevant today as they were after the financial crisis. Ring-fencing continues to play an important role in supporting financial stability and protecting depositors by helping ensure that essential banking services remain resilient in times of stress. The Skeoch review recommended retaining the regime for now but reforming the regime, just as we are doing.
Several noble Lords highlighted the cost of ring-fencing. It is true that the regime results in costs, but those costs must be weighed against the benefits of a safer banking system, stronger deposit protection and a reduced risk for taxpayers. As I set out when speaking to Clause 40, the Government do not accept that developments in the resolution framework remove the need for ring-fencing. Ring-fencing and resolution perform different but complementary functions, and the Government remain of the view that both continue to play an important role in supporting financial stability. Our objective is therefore reform, not abolition, retaining ring-fencing’s core protections while ensuring that the regime remains effective, proportionate and, importantly, fit for the future.
Alongside the changes in the Bill, the Government are taking forward further reforms intended to support lending, investment and growth while maintaining financial stability. This includes a new growth allowance that will unlock significant additional financing for UK businesses and infrastructure. I assure my noble friend Lord Pitt-Watson that this will be subject to careful consultation.
This has been a genuinely fascinating debate. There has been a range of views, and I hope the Committee will agree that the Bill strikes the right balance between these different positions. For those reasons, I ask that Clauses 39 and 40 stand part of the Bill and respectfully ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her opposition to Clause 39.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I am grateful to noble Lords who have contributed to this lively debate, and to the Minister for his response. I am grateful for the support I have received, particularly for my Amendments 159 and 174 and, from some of my noble friends, for Amendments 160A. While I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Pitt-Watson, that this House is admirably expert, he tried to politicise the discussion in a way that I regret. I set out clearly why I think that ring-fencing should go. I want to be absolutely clear that our amendment is not about weakening financial stability or compromising the safety of firms. It is about looking forward, not backwards, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, has done, and recognising that the financial stability framework has changed significantly since ring-fencing was first proposed and introduced. As my noble friend Lord Massey of Hampstead argued, we now have a much more developed resolution regime, stronger prudential supervision, capital and liquidity requirements, recovery and resolution planning, and operational continuity rules. They support financial services and consumers right across the country, as the noble Lord, Lord Pitt-Watson, rightly pointed out.
I am also going to quote from the Skeoch review, as I am winding:
“It was acknowledged at the outset that the regime would impose direct costs on the banks in setting up new structures and operating within the regime. Based on banks’ submissions, implementing the ring-fencing regime had a one-off cost for the industry of c. £2.9 billion, which has already been incurred, and has an annual aggregate ongoing cost of £1.5 billion”.
My noble friend Lady Noakes said that she thought that was a reasonable figure, and I think that is not something we are disagreeing on, which is good. She also said that the risk to the taxpayer is now much lower. The £450 billion figure came from UK Finance in its response to the FPC and the PRA’s capital assessment in April this year. That figure relates to the changes in capital requirements reform, which we have already debated.
I am very grateful to the Minister for his comments, including his reference to this new growth feature, which I will have a look at. But I remain concerned that the Government’s approach, while moving in the right direction, is too limited. Clauses 39 and 40 suggest that the Government accept that there is a problem with the current regime, but their answer is to adjust it rather than to ask the more fundamental question of whether it is still needed, following international practice, which has been quoted. In our view, ring-fencing has been superseded. It imposes real costs on banks, customers and the wider economy; it affects competitiveness, capital efficiency and lending; and it places the UK at a disadvantage compared with other international jurisdictions.
My noble friend Lord Massey of Hampstead rightly said that we will discuss the FOS on a later amendment, and he rightly referred to the risk-aversion problem in the sector, which I recall was a theme of the excellent report by our committee, now chaired by my noble friend Lady Noakes.
We will reflect carefully on what the Minister said, but my approach is a measured one, putting any unwinding in the hands of the Treasury and other stakeholders. But the central problem remains: if we are serious about growth, competitiveness and reducing unnecessary regulatory burden, ring-fencing cannot be exempt from scrutiny. Of course we must learn from the past and look after the consumers, but their savings would continue to be protected, and resolution and prudential supervision have changed our financial services framework since the financial crisis. For now, we have had a good debate, and I beg leave to withdraw my opposition to Clause 39 standing part.
Baroness Kramer
“(1) The appropriate regulator shall consider whether there is sufficient provision to ensure the effective provision to a ring-fenced body of services and facilities that it requires in relation to the carrying on of a core activity.(1A) Subject to subsection (1B), when considering whether there is sufficient provision for the purposes of subsection (1) concerning services and facilities that are provided to a ring-fenced body by another member of its group, the appropriate regulator shall take account of all relevant circumstances, including—(a) the appropriate regulator’s ability to assess and influence the terms on which such services and facilities are made available to a ring-fenced body,(b) the availability, continuity and sufficiency of such services and facilities, including in circumstances where the Bank of England would be entitled to exercise any of the stabilisation powers under the Banking Act 2009, and(c) any assessment that the Bank of England has made of a group of which the ring-fenced body is or proposes to become a member under a statement of policy that the Bank of England has issued pursuant to section 3B (safeguards relating to directions under section 3A) subsection (9) of the Banking Act 2009 and, where applicable, the absence of any such assessment.(1B) The appropriate regulator shall not consider that there is sufficient provision for the purposes of subsection (1) where a ring-fenced body is, or proposes to become, a member of a group for all or part of which the appropriate regulator is not responsible for consolidated supervision, and such services and facilities are provided to the ring-fenced body from outside the United Kingdom by a member of the group that is not in a part of the group that is subject to consolidated supervision by the appropriate regulator, unless the appropriate regulator has made rules to ensure that—(a) there is no less uncertainty concerning the availability, continuity and sufficiency of such services and facilities than there would be where they are provided to a ring-fenced body within a group that is subject as a whole to the consolidated supervision of the appropriate regulator, and (b) the ring-fenced body is not permitted to receive such services and facilities unless the provider of those services and facilities is adequately resourced and the arrangements under which those services and facilities are provided would facilitate the orderly exercise by the Bank of England of its stabilisation powers under the Banking Act 2009 in circumstances where the Bank of England would be entitled to exercise those powers.(1C) If, having regard to all the circumstances, including the matters referred to in subsection (1A), the appropriate regulator does not consider that there is sufficient provision for the purposes of subsection (1) or may not do so under subsection (1B), the appropriate regulator must exercise its power to make rules requiring a ring-fenced body to make arrangements to ensure the effective provision referred to in subsection (1).(1D) The appropriate regulator shall consider whether there is sufficient provision to achieve the group ring-fencing purposes.(1E) The appropriate regulator shall not consider that there is sufficient provision for the purposes of subsection (1D) where a ring-fenced body is or proposes to become a member of a group for all or part of which the appropriate regulator is not responsible for consolidated supervision, unless the appropriate regulator has made rules to ensure that there is no less uncertainty concerning the achievement of the group ring-fencing purposes in those circumstances than would be the case where the ring-fenced body is a member of a group that is subject as a whole to the consolidated supervision of the appropriate regulator.(1F) If the appropriate regulator does not consider that there is sufficient provision to achieve the group ring-fencing purposes, or may not do so under subsection (1E), the regulator must exercise its power to make rules for the group ring-fencing purposes that apply—(a) to ring-fenced bodies, or(b) to authorised persons who are members of a ring-fenced body’s group.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, and others in the name of Baroness Kramer, seek to require the PRA to assess whether existing law and regulation makes sufficient provision in the case of regulated companies based outside the United Kingdom.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, this group originally preceded the one we just debated. I noticed the change this morning. My points in this group on ring-fencing are quite narrow. I am not particularly happy about the changes in Clauses 39 and 40, but I do not feel strongly enough that we need to change the relevant clauses wholesale.
But I have a problem with a narrow area that feels to me like a Trojan horse. In easing ring-fencing in this Bill through giving the regulator greater flexibility to adjust the ring-fence, the Government are still taking greater risk. I find it frustrating that people who remove a protection then say that there is no additional risk. Let us be honest: there is greater risk. I am cautiously relieved that ring-fencing has not been holed below the waterline by the Government. But, in Amendments 155 to 158 and 160, I am trying to address a breach that has been identified in the ring-fence and that potentially has serious unintended consequences.
In the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013 and the SIs under FSMA, which implemented much of it, the structural separation between retail and wholesale banks within the same overarching bank group left few shared operational services. The ring-fencing rules prohibited receiving services or facilities that are regularly required from any entity or company within the group that is not a permitted supplier, so that, in case of failure—for example, the failure of the wholesale bank—the retail bank could continue unaffected. This Bill relaxes the rules on intragroup services, and it argues in the Explanatory Notes that the current situation causes duplication and overlap.
As far as I can understand, the Government think that there is no risk to changing the rules because the bank resolution process now includes the operational continuity in resolution regulation, OCIR, which ensures that critical banking services are provided to customers should a bank have failed and be in resolution. There are some problems because the ring-fencing rules and the OCIR rules do not fully match, and what happens to non-critical shared services is not clear. At the very least, we need to know the intention around that.
Much more seriously, if a banking group is not headquartered in the UK, so that the PRA is not the group supervisor and the Bank of England is not the group resolution authority, how can shared services to customers be assured in a crisis? It depends completely on the voluntary support of an overseas regulator. Given the fragmentation in international co-operation that we see today, that becomes a serious potential risk.
Lord Altrincham (Con)
My Lords, I speak briefly to Amendments 155 to 158 and 160 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and hope that she will forgive me as a former banker with cultural contamination, perhaps. I notice a lot of quite warm language about banking in this debate, with references to the casino and the rest of it.
The concern behind these amendments is that a ring-fenced bank may depend on services, systems or facilities provided by other entities within its wider group. Those entities may be based outside the United Kingdom or supervised primarily by an overseas regulator. I very much hear what the noble Baroness says, but the PRA does look at intragroup services in protecting UK domestic businesses.
We of course have our own amendments on ring-fencing, which we have just discussed. However, as we have said before, our approach to this Bill is that it will regulate in the immediate term and, therefore, our wider policy ambitions can sit alongside proper scrutiny of the provisions before us. Even where we take a different long-term view of the future of ring-fencing, it is still right to test whether the regime, while it remains in place, operates properly and consistently. That said, I have some concerns about the effect of these amendments, even if they were to impose additional safeguards or burdens specifically on foreign-owned banks, as they could place those banks at a competitive disadvantage. That matters because foreign-owned banks contribute to competition in the UK market. If additional requirements make it harder or less attractive for them to operate here, the results could be less competition for deposits here and, ultimately, worse outcomes for consumers.
International supervisory co-operation has also been significantly strengthened since the financial crisis. Crisis management groups, co-operation agreements and regulator-to-regulator engagement are now central parts of the framework. Recent experience has shown that this co-operation can work in practice, including during the failures of Silicon Valley Bank, as referenced by the Minister, and perhaps also in the case of Credit Suisse, where co-ordination between overseas regulators and UK authorities helped to maintain continuity and manage risk. I just note that Credit Suisse was the fifth-largest bank by balance sheet in the UK at the time. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister could explain how the PRA currently assesses overseas group structures and whether he believes that any gap exists in its present powers. In particular, does the PRA already satisfy itself that critical services provided from outside the United Kingdom will remain available in stress or resolution?
We may differ from the noble Baroness on the broader future of ring-fencing, but the questions that she raises are important. My concern is that the proposed solution may be unnecessary and may risk reducing competition by placing foreign-owned banks at a disadvantage. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Stockwood (Lab)
My Lords, Amendments 155 to 158 and 160 all relate to Clause 40. As I set out in the previous debate, Clause 40 makes the ring-fencing regime more flexible and proportionate by allowing the PRA to take account of protections already delivered elsewhere in the prudential and resolution framework, when considering whether ring-fencing rules are required. The clause is intended to reduce unnecessary duplication, while maintaining the core protections and purposes of the ring-fencing regime. We have already debated this, and it was clear that there were a wide range of views.
The noble Baroness’s amendments focus principally on shared services arrangements, operational continuity and cross-border group structures. The Government recognise the importance of these issues and we have spoken to a couple of outside parties on this topic. Ensuring the continuity of critical services and managing operational dependencies are important objectives of the ring-fencing regime.
However, I am not persuaded that these amendments are the right route forward. They would introduce detailed statutory tests governing when the PRA may rely on protections delivered elsewhere in the prudential and resolution framework, particularly for shared services arrangements involving cross-border or non-consolidated groups. Their practical effect would be to make it harder for the PRA to rely on equivalent protections elsewhere in the framework, increasing the likelihood of additional ring-fencing rules, greater complexity and additional compliance burdens, even where the PRA considered that the relevant outcomes were already being achieved.
In contrast, Clause 40 is intended to make the regime more flexible, streamlined and proportionate by reducing unnecessary duplication while maintaining core protections. It does not allow the PRA simply to assume that protections provided elsewhere in the framework are sufficient. The PRA may rely on those protections only where it considers that there is sufficient provision to achieve the relevant ring-fencing purposes and ensure the effective provision of services and facilities to ring-fenced banks.
For example, the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, asked whether the OCIR framework can be replaced by the PRA’s rule 9.1. This is a matter for the PRA, but it has indicated that it intends to consider these issues through consultation. Where the PRA does not consider that sufficient provision exists, including in relation to shared services arrangements or cross-border groups, it must act, including through making ring-fencing rules where necessary. The clause therefore preserves key protections.
If further details are required, I am more than happy to follow up before Report, but, for those reasons, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
“(5) After section 284A insert—“284AA Tax treatment of risk transformation arrangements(1) The Treasury must, after consultation with the Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, publish guidance concerning the tax treatment of investments issued in connection with risk transformation arrangements within the meaning of section 284A.(2) Guidance under this section must include the circumstances in which a risk transformation arrangement is to be regarded as having been entered into for genuine insurance risk-transfer and capital markets purposes. (3) In exercising functions relating to the assessment, collection and management of taxes, the Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs must ensure that arrangements falling within a description specified by guidance under subsection (2) are treated in a consistent and certain manner.(4) Where—(a) a risk transformation arrangement falls within a description specified in guidance under subsection (2), and(b) the arrangement complies with applicable requirements relating to authorisation and supervision,the arrangement is to be treated for all tax purposes as a commercial arrangement entered into for bona fide insurance risk-transfer and capital markets purposes, and not as having as its main purpose, or one of its main purposes, the obtaining of a tax advantage.(5) The treatment in subsection (4) applies without any requirement to consider the purpose of the arrangement other than by reference to the conditions in that subsection.(6) Subsection (4) does not apply only where the Commissioners can demonstrate that—(a) one or more of the conditions in subsection (4) is not met, or(b) there has been fraud, deliberate misrepresentation, or material non-disclosure of relevant facts.(7) The Treasury must review guidance published under this section at intervals not exceeding three years.””Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment requires HM Treasury to produce guidance in consultation with HMRC to confirm the tax status of Insurance-Linked Securities vehicles.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, this amendment is about insurance-linked securities—ILS—which are the UK’s version of fully funded risk transfer vehicles, which were legislated for in 2017. They include catastrophe bonds, collateralised reinsurance, sidecars and other fully funded mechanisms used by insurers to transfer peak and speciality risks to the capital markets. Catastrophe bonds are the most visible part of the market, but they represent only a portion of a global ILS market now estimated at over $136 billion. The catastrophe bond market alone is estimated at somewhere between $35 billion and $65 billion.
When the regime was introduced, the hope was that London, as the world’s leading commercial reinsurance marketplace, would become a major provider but, almost immediately, Singapore copied the PRA’s work and moved faster. I recall hearing evidence about this when I was on the Industry and Regulators Committee before the formation of the Financial Services Regulation Committee. At that time, the PRA was being blamed for sluggishness. However, it is not the problem now. Since then, London has not built a substantial market, and we now have only 2% of the global market that we should have led.
Clause 44 on transformer vehicles is part of the reforms to which the Government have committed under the Leeds reform package. Those reforms are welcome. They will improve flexibility and the ease of delivering transactions, including allowing the PRA to widen the scope of permissions. But even with Clause 44, one major block remains: tax uncertainty. HMRC continues to rely on a main-purpose anti-avoidance test that is inherently subjective. Investors and sponsors are forced into a costly, months-long clearance process with the Treasury for every single transaction. This destroys the speed to market that is required for catastrophe bonds, so they are out of the game. There is no hope of competing with jurisdictions that do not impose this hurdle, which rightly puts more trust in these fully funded, transparent risk transfer mechanisms. They are not tax-driven structures, yet they must prove that fact afresh every single time for every single contract.
A competitive ILS market cannot grow while this situation prevails. The window of opportunity closes before HMRC’s clearance process reaches a conclusion. When Parliament created the ILS regime in 2017, it included a deliberately broad anti-avoidance clause because the market was new. Ten years on, HMRC should be comfortable that these are not avoidance vehicles. There are no cases of mass tax avoidance via these vehicles. They are, by definition, highly regulated and fully funded, yet HMRC appears unwilling to update its existing guidance. Some recent case law on avoidance purposes has only increased uncertainty. The existing guidance is non-binding and investors cannot rely on it. Amendment 162 would require the Treasury to publish clear guidance that provides a presumption of commercial purpose for vehicles that meet all regulatory and authorisation requirements. It would shift the burden of proof away from the investor and provide the certainty that our major competitors already offer as a matter of course.
This is not the only area where the clearance culture is acting as a drag on growth and competitiveness. It also affects infrastructure investment, and it casts a long shadow over the Mansion House Accord. How can we expect a trustee to back a vital infrastructure project if they fear that the tax status of the vehicle will be held hostage by a subjective, years-long tax process? The Government have recognised the need for certainty by launching the Advanced Tax Certainty Service this July, but that service is restricted to multi-billion-pound megaprojects; they are looking after their own. This might work for the largest infrastructure schemes, but what of the hundreds of medium-sized and local infrastructure projects and the ILS transactions that form the backbone of our growth agenda?
I recognise that tax avoidance is a sensitive subject, and that none of us wants a return to the abuses of the past, but there is a world of difference between a structure designed to extract value from a company—that is cheating—and a structure designed to ring-fence risk for a power plant or a catastrophe bond. One is misuse of corporate law and the other is a structural necessity of it. HMRC’s current main-purpose test fails to distinguish between the two and treats structural necessity as a potential abuse.
Lord Ashcombe (Con)
My Lords, I remind the House of my interest as an employee of Marsh, an FCA-regulated firm. I wish to speak in support of this amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, but before doing so, I would like to pick up briefly on something I said earlier this week about regulatory clarity. I talked about how firms need clear definitions so that they can plan investment with confidence. That principle matters across the Bill, for not just client definitions, but for how we approach emerging markets and new structures.
Amendment 162 is a good example of that. The amendment addresses tax clarity on insurance-linked securities. These are important instruments. They attract capital into insurance, help firms manage catastrophic risk and have become a serious part of global risk management practice. Since being created in the 1990s, the global market has grown to about £136 billion, making up close to 20% of the insurance/reinsurance industry. According to Swiss Re, one of the world’s leading providers of reinsurance, insurance and other forms of insurance-based risk transfer, 2025 was the busiest year in its history of this market.
The London insurance market is phenomenally well placed to lead here. We are larger than our five closest competitors combined. However, we need to be honest: our ILS regime has been somewhat underwhelming at best. That is not because we lack expertise or capital—we do not—but because the regulatory approach has been disproportionate and the legislation inflexible. Firms simply cannot transact deals here as efficiently as they can in Bermuda or other jurisdictions.
To the Government and the PRA’s credit, they have listened. This Bill moves us in the right direction: it gives the PRA flexibility on fully funded definitions, allows multiple contracts in protected cell companies and there is a consultation pipeline on further simplification. That is good. However, there is one thing that the Bill has not addressed, and, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, that is tax clarity. When the ILS regime was created in 2017, there was a broad anti-avoidance clause. That is fair enough, but a decade on, I think that HMRC and the Treasury should be comfortable that these are not tax avoidance structures, but are risk transfer vehicles.
Right now, firms have guidance from HMRC, but it is not legally binding. Therefore, every transaction requires a tax lawyer’s opinion every single time, as the noble Baroness mentioned. That cost, that time, that friction is the difference between doing a deal and doing it somewhere else. This amendment asks for something straightforward: a clear and legally underpinned directive that HMRC will presume that ILS vehicles are not being used to secure a tax advantage. That is not asking for exemption from anti-avoidance rules; it is asking for clarity so that legitimate risk transfer does not get caught up in unnecessary caution. That clarity matters because it removes the last barrier to this market. We have the regulation sorted and we have the expertise; what we really need is tax certainty.
This is about positioning London correctly in a competitive global market. It is about letting the PRA’s sensible reforms work, and it is about giving firms the clarity they need to invest with confidence in the United Kingdom.
Lord Altrincham (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 162 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles—perhaps from the Liberal Democrat risk-transfer derivative desk. This amendment raises what seems to be a sensible and practical point about certainty in the treatment of insurance-linked securities and related risk-transformation arrangements. Insurance-linked securities can play an important role in allowing insurance risk to be transferred into capital markets. Catastrophe bonds and similar structures can help insurers and reinsurers manage exposure to major risks, including natural catastrophes, while providing investors with a different form of capital markets instrument.
The United Kingdom has quite rightly sought to develop itself as a competitive centre for these structures, but for that to happen, firms and investors need clarity, as my noble friend just explained. As I understand it, the amendment would require the Treasury, after consulting HMRC, to publish guidance clarifying the tax treatment of these arrangements. It would also provide that where an arrangement falls within that guidance and complies with the relevant regulatory authorisation and supervision requirements, it should be treated as a bona fide commercial insurance and capital markets transaction, rather than as one entered into for tax avoidance purposes. It does not appear to be an attempt to protect fraud, misrepresentation or non-disclosure. HMRC would still be able to challenge arrangements where the conditions are not met or where there has been improper conduct, but it would give legitimate market participants greater certainty where they are using properly regulated structures for genuine commercial purposes. That certainty matters: if the UK wants to attract insurance-linked securities business, investors and firms need to understand the tax position in advance. Uncertainty can deter activity, reduce confidence and make other jurisdictions more attractive.
I would therefore welcome clarity from the Minister on this point. Do the Government accept that greater tax certainty would help to support the development of the UK insurance-linked securities market? Are they aware of the concerns that uncertainty about HMRC treatment may be limiting the attractiveness of the UK regime? Will they consider whether further Treasury or HMRC guidance is needed to ensure that properly regulated ILS vehicles are treated consistently as genuine commercial arrangements. This seems to me to be a practical amendment aimed at supporting competitiveness and certainty in a specialist but important part of the financial services market. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Stockwood (Lab)
My Lords, risk transformation is a key element of the UK’s insurance market, and the growth of this market is critical to the Government’s objective of making the UK the location of choice for specialist and complex insurance. The Government’s reforms in Clause 44 aim to support this market by increasing the attractiveness of the UK for establishing the legal vehicles used to undertake risk transformation. I am glad to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, and the noble Lord, Lord Ashcombe, broadly welcome these reforms.
The Government recognise the role that the bespoke tax regime for transformer vehicles plays in ensuring that the UK is competitive in this area. We also recognise, as does this amendment, the role that robust anti-avoidance measures and clear guidance have in ensuring a well-functioning regime for transformer vehicles. These anti-avoidance requirements are set out in the bespoke tax regulations for transformer vehicles, the Risk Transformation (Tax) Regulations 2017. HMRC has worked extensively with industry to produce guidance on how anti-avoidance measures apply to transformer vehicles.
I appreciate that some people consider that this guidance could be clearer, but it is important that any guidance does not constrain the Government’s ability to apply anti-avoidance rules. It must be aligned with the broader approach taken by HMRC to anti-avoidance. The current guidance allows HMRC the flexibility effectively to pursue instances where vehicles are established for the purposes of avoiding tax. It is important that we preserve that ability. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, I thank all those who have spoken in the debate. I must say that I find the Minister’s response rather disappointing. He is saying that the status quo is all right, but the status quo is not all right, so we will not have the business. I think that is all there is to it. Surely, there must be a way in which you can have something that moves faster when you have to negotiate things faster: otherwise, the door is shut on these transactions. So I ask the Minister to engage with the industry on this and find out more detail, because it is being treated as if it is something dodgy. How will an investor invest in something that has a ticket on it saying, “Careful, I might be slightly dodgy”? That is in effect what is happening. How will we get these things into pension funds if the trustees are thinking, “Whoa, something might happen way down the track”?
These are very serious questions. I realise that it is very specialist, but we need to take action: otherwise, we are closing the door on opportunities for good investment and opportunities for pension funds. The fact that the ATCS solves the problem for really big infrastructure shows that the Government know what they are about when they are in the business of having to negotiate contracts, but the smaller people are being left out. That is just not the right way to proceed. So I hope that the Minister will report back to the Treasury and reread my speech and that of the noble Lord and come to a better conclusion. For now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment, although I think that this is so important that I may wish to return to it on Report.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“Review of tokenisation in UK wholesale financial markets(1) Within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Treasury must lay before Parliament a report on the development of tokenisation in UK wholesale financial markets.(2) A report under subsection (1) must consider, in particular—(a) the extent to which the existing legal and regulatory framework supports the safe adoption of tokenisation in UK wholesale financial markets;(b) the extent to which current arrangements provide sufficient legal certainty in relation to the issuance, holding, transfer and settlement of tokenised financial assets;(c) the prudential treatment of tokenised assets and the extent to which such treatment is consistent with equivalent non-tokenised assets, where the underlying risks are equivalent;(d) the availability and suitability of settlement arrangements for tokenised financial market transactions;(e) the progress of the Digital Securities Sandbox and the extent to which it is expected to support the development of any permanent regulatory framework;(f) barriers to interoperability between tokenised and non-tokenised market infrastructure, and between different tokenised market infrastructure arrangements;(g) the effect of the current framework on innovation, investment and the international competitiveness of UK financial markets;(h) any further legislative or regulatory changes which the Treasury considers may be required.(3) In preparing a report under subsection (1), the Treasury must consult—(a) the Bank of England;(b) the Prudential Regulation Authority;(c) the Financial Conduct Authority;(d) such other persons as the Treasury considers appropriate.(4) The Treasury must publish the report.”Member’s explanatory statement
This probing amendment would require the Treasury to review the framework for tokenisation in UK wholesale financial markets, including legal certainty, prudential treatment, settlement arrangements and barriers to innovation and competitiveness.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I will speak also to Amendment 164 and thank my noble friend Lord Ranger of Northwood for his very interesting amendments. This is a really important group. It is clear that digital assets are becoming an accelerating part of our financial and economic landscape, yet the Government, for all their warm words and the work done by the FCA, still lack a clear digital asset strategy. More than one in 10 UK adults now owns a digital asset. Sovereign bonds issued on blockchains, digital settlement systems and collateral, tokenised assets and new payment technologies are all developing fast. They are part of the future of financial services. With financial services changing at extraordinary speed, we have to ask ourselves whether the regulatory framework being created is fit for the future.
We raised this point at Second Reading and we return to it today. This is an area where we see a real risk of regulatory grey zones. Firms are innovating, consumers are participating, institutions are exploring tokenisation and market infrastructure providers are looking at distributed ledger technology. Yet, too often, the answer from the UK regulatory system is uncertain, fragmented or slow. Major banks, asset managers and market infrastructure providers are now exploring tokenised bonds, tokenised funds, digital collateral, digital repo markets and blockchain-based settlement systems. These products are increasingly part of the future of wholesale finance.
Lord Ranger of Northwood (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend’s Amendment 164 and will speak to Amendments 164A, 164B and 164C in my name. I declare my interest as a non-executive director of Ecila.Group—an R&D-focused firm in digital assets and payments infrastructure. I am also a member of the UKUS Crypto Alliance and, for completion, the co-chair of the Digital Markets and Digital Money APPG.
The amendments in my name go some way towards the underlying point, which is that, if the United Kingdom wants to be a serious global centre for digital assets, tokenisation and digital financial markets, we need a regulatory framework and, as my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe mentioned, a strategy that is clear, coherent, proportionate and capable of supporting innovation. We do not have that at the moment. We have a lack of clear regulatory direction, too many overlapping areas of responsibility, regulators with differing priorities and, in some cases, different and changing levels of appetite towards digital assets. We also have firms that are trying to understand whether the UK is genuinely open for innovation or whether it will remain a jurisdiction where uncertainty and delay make it harder to invest, scale and launch new products.
I say this because I have heard it directly from industry, particularly over the last 18 months. During that period, I have engaged extensively with businesses in the digital asset arena. I have also travelled to other jurisdictions such as the US—I have been to Washington four times in that period—and the UAE. I have spoken to the US SEC chair, Paul Atkins, I have met with Commissioner Hester Peirce several times and I have spoken to policymakers in these jurisdictions to understand their approach, as well as what they think we should be considering.
These are issues, as my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe said, because we are looking for growth. Firms are developing products, consumers are engaging with digital assets, and institutions are looking at tokenisation, digital collateral, new settlement systems and digital market infrastructure. The world is changing; it is already happening. Other jurisdictions are therefore moving fast. If we do not provide clarity, firms and—as has been said—jobs, growth and investment will move and move fast. This is very much a global market change.
The problem is not simply too little regulation. In some respects, a deeper problem is that the regulatory landscape is not yet properly constituted to support the market. If we simply layer new regulation on top of old regulation, without first clarifying who is responsible, what the objectives are, what the vision is and how the different regimes fit together, we risk creating an even more complex framework, with more duplication and confusion, than the one we have already.
That is why Amendment 164A is important. It would require the FCA and the PRA to establish and maintain a defined and representative digital assets industry forum. The forum would be co-chaired by senior regulatory representatives and a senior industry figure, and would bring together regulators, digital asset firms, tokenised businesses, banks, payment firms, market infrastructure providers and relevant trade bodies. The point is simple: the Government and regulators need a proper, structured mechanism for engagement with the industry if we are to take sensible steps in this area.
This is a fast-moving and highly technical area. Regulation cannot be developed in silos by separate regulators. Regulators need to understand how these products work, where the risks are, where innovation is taking place and where proposed rules may have unintended consequences. Industry needs to understand what regulators expect and where the UK intends to go, if not lead. At the moment, that dialogue is not sufficiently structured and there is not the sort of ongoing forum that a market of this complexity requires. Without that, we risk regulating by assumption, rather than by evidence, and we risk fragmentation.
My Amendment 164B addresses a related issue: access to banking, payment and settlement services for digital asset firms. This is a very real concern. A digital asset firm may be regulated or registered—it may have compliance systems, governance and legitimate commercial activity—but still struggle to obtain the basic banking and payment services that it needs to operate. This is a serious barrier to growth and market entry, which again I have heard many times from businesses in the sector.
There is also a debanking point here. If the regulatory environment is unclear, banks and payment providers may respond by taking the most conservative approach possible. They may decide that it is simply easier not to serve digital asset firms at all, rather than navigate regulatory uncertainty. Financial crime risk, supervisory expectations and reputational concerns all build a very strong defensive risk posture. That does not support innovation. It does not support competition. It entrenches incumbents, disadvantages new entrants and pushes activities to other jurisdictions. This is a consequence of the regulatory environment that we have right now. Yes, we must balance the risks that are out there, but we must also seek to encourage innovation and the market.
My amendment would require the Treasury to review how access to banking, payment and settlement services affects competition, innovation and market entry into the sector. It would also require consideration of whether the current and proposed framework risks conferring an advantage on incumbent firms over new entrants and firms developing new products. That is an important question. If the UK says it wants a thriving digital asset sector but firms cannot get bank accounts, access payments infrastructure or access settlement services, policy ambition will not be delivered in practice.
Amendment 164C concerns consumer redress. This is another area in which clarity is required. Digital assets do not always fit neatly into existing financial services redress frameworks. Consumers need to know what protections they have, where complaints should go, what remedies may be available and how responsibility is allocated when something goes wrong. Firms also need to know what standards apply to them and the liabilities they face. The amendment would require the Treasury to review whether the existing consumer redress framework can provide a clear, coherent, proportionate and internationally competitive basis for regulated digital asset markets. The key word is “proportionate”. We need consumer protection, but we must not create a redress environment that is so uncertain or open-ended that firms decide that the UK is not a viable place to operate. Equally, we must not leave consumers in a position where they do not understand their rights or where harmful conduct falls between regimes.
The wider concern behind all three amendments is that the UK risks falling behind because of a lack of clarity. Industry is not asking for no regulation; it is asking for clear, proportionate regulation that reflects the pace of technological change and the markets that are beginning to exist. My fear is that if we carry on regulating digital assets in a piecemeal way, we will end up with a regime that is consistently playing catch-up or that delivers unintended consequences. It will be unpredictable, overly burdensome and difficult for firms to navigate—even more so than it is already. That would be a bad outcome for innovation, for consumers and for the competitiveness of the United Kingdom.
I will therefore be listening carefully to the Minister’s response to my noble friend’s amendment that calls for a digital assets strategy, to which I have added my name. We should be trying to streamline, simplify and clarify the regime, not add more layers of uncertainty. I would be grateful if the Minister could also address the following three points. First, will the Government commit to establishing a proper representative industry forum for digital assets so that regulators and market participants can engage continuously and constructively? Secondly, what assessments have the Government made of the difficulties digital asset firms face in obtaining banking, payment and settlement services, and the effect this has on competition and market entry? Thirdly, how will the Government ensure that the consumer redress framework for digital assets is clear, coherent and proportionate without making the UK an unattractive place for responsible firms to operate?
As has been said, the UK has a real opportunity in digital assets and tokenised finance. The opportunity will not be realised unless firms know where they stand, so we need clarity, co-ordination and confidence. These amendments are designed to help the Government to provide that.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Ranger of Northwood. I agree with all the amendments that he has eloquently described. I support my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, and particularly her Amendment 163, to which I have added my name. The Government rightly talk about growth. The reality is that digital assets, tokenisation and market dematerialisation are sources of growth in potentially a shorter time than some other sectors that have had greater focus.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, we on these Benches in large part support the amendments in this group, with a few caveats. It is important to emphasise the frustration that we do not have today, and do not seem to see in the near future, that comprehensive regulatory framework that will draw together the UK approach to all these assets. It is a disservice to Parliament, because it makes it hard for us to investigate as we attempt to pull together a report from one committee or one regulator and try to mesh it with something that has come from another. The experience of even trying to do that demonstrates a lot of the fragmentation. Many of us thought that the Bill would be one of the mechanisms to create that framework, but it is not here. I very much support the amendments that begin to address that issue.
My caveats may seem minor but reflect some fundamental frustrations. For example, subsection (2)(g) proposed by Amendment 164, which is to “have regard” to various factors, puts financial stability and international competitiveness on exactly the same standing. That is an ongoing frustration that I have had through much of the Bill. We have to understand the primacy of financial stability. It is one thing to have a secondary objective but, in general conversation, and over and over again in amendments, we see the two merged as being essentially on a par. That is highly questionable.
We have a history of variations on the digital industry forum. In the early days of fintech, it was the industry that really pulled itself together into a representative body and then the Government indicated their willingness to negotiate with that body. Out of that came a coherent set of appropriate regulations, which met the needs of both sides and were developed by engagement with both sides. I would like to see that industry begin to pull itself together. I am always suspicious when Governments set up forums, because then they pick and choose who sits on them and who the voices are. When industry does it, it tends to be a far more inclusive and more effective group, but the Government need to indicate that they would wish to have such a body and to engage with it. That would move us very much forward.
The issue of interoperability is absolutely key, but I take it further: it also needs to be looked at from a consumer perspective. If you get your salary in sterling stablecoin going into your virtual wallet but then you, as an individual, want to be able to go and get pounds, how on earth can you do that at a current ATM? That is simply impossible, so interoperability in all kinds of ways is fundamental to developing the whole new digital direction. However, costs are always involved when you look at interoperability. I would like the Government—or the regulators, if they are the appropriate bodies—to establish a principle that those who use the payment system and are part of it all carry a part of the burden, rather than simply falling back on the traditional banks to carry the costs. That would get us a whole lot further and make the banking community far more willing to be engaged in this process.
I hope that the Government will take these amendments seriously. They seem to move us very much in the right direction. As I say, my caveats are fairly small and I will be looking forward to the Minister’s response. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ranger, for engaging with the industry to be able to bring forward amendments that take us in this direction.
Lord Stockwood (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lords, Lord Altrincham, Lord Ranger of Northwood and Lord Holmes of Richmond, for these amendments and their contributions to this debate. It is an important discussion of how technology and finance will play an increasingly important role in global markets. I declare that I have been personally trading cryptocurrency since 2017; none of the gains have gone towards political donations—I think it is worth mentioning that at the moment.
Taken together, these amendments seek to support the UK’s focus on innovation, competitiveness and consumer protection in digital asset markets. The Government strongly support the digitisation of financial markets and share many of the objectives that noble Lords have set out today. However, before we turn to the detail of the amendments, it is important to recognise that the UK already has a comprehensive programme of work in train to support the development of digital assets and a tokenised market.
First, on the registry framework for crypto assets, the Government have legislated to establish a framework coming into force on 25 October 2027. This will bring a wide range of crypto asset activities within the registry perimeter, providing the legal certainty and consumer protections that noble Lords rightly identify as essential.
Secondly, I can assure noble Lords that we have a strategy on wholesale market digitisation and tokenisation and an expert to drive it forward within the sector. The Government published the Wholesale Financial Markets Digital Strategy last year, setting out an ambitious plan for government, regulators and the industry to support digitisation of the UK wholesale financial markets. As part of this work, the Government have appointed Chris Woolard CBE as the Wholesale Digital Markets Champion to provide market leadership and co-ordinate industry efforts on tokenisation. The champion has already established a cross-sectoral task force and will report to the Chancellor this year and next on progress on how the UK can further advance the adoption of distributed ledger technology in wholesale markets.
Thirdly, on payments, the National Payments Vision sets out our ambition for a world-leading payments ecosystem delivered on next-generation technology. The Government are working with regulators and industry to renew retail payments infrastructure and ensure that the regulatory framework keeps pace with innovation in digital settlement assets. There is clearly more to do in a fast-moving environment, but the Government see the opportunity and are moving to take advantage of it.
Turning specifically to Amendments 163 to 164A, these relate to the Government’s overall strategy for digital assets and engagement with industry. I agree that, as I said, the underlying objective has already been taken forward through the wholesale financial digital market strategy and the work of the Wholesale Digital Markets Champion. There are also a number of existing mechanisms via which the regulators engage with industry on the subject of digital assets and the wider strategy—whether that be joint Bank of England and FCA engagement with firms experimenting with new technologies in the digital security sandbox, or the recent Bank of England and FCA call for input on tokenisation, which is seeking views on opportunities and risks associated with the wider use of tokenisation in financial markets. I do not think that we need to push such engagement with industry on a statutory footing when it is something that regulators are already prioritising.
Amendments 164B and 164C seek reviews of banking access and consumer redress for digital asset firms. On banking access, the Government recognise the difficulties that some firms have encountered and we are engaged with the sector on those matters. While such decisions are commercial in nature, we also expect businesses to be treated fairly. Under the crypto asset regulatory regime, firms will need to be licensed by the FCA to provide relevant crypto asset services. We would not expect such licensed firms to be subject to the restrictions by banking service providers simply because of the sectors they belong to.
On consumer redress, the Government agree that consumers should have clarity about the protections available to them. However, the existing FSMA framework and the regulated activities orders are deliberately flexible. When new activities are brought within regulation, the relevant regulatory protections, including complaints handling and access to the Financial Ombudsman Service, can be considered as part of the process.
I therefore agree with the underlying objectives of these amendments but I think that the existing strategy and ongoing work provide the most effective route forward. I am a strong believer in the need to digitise financial markets, and I am confident in the actions that the Government are taking with this agenda, which is a key strategic priority for the UK. If I have missed any questions in my response, I will be happy to follow up and write. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friends Lord Ranger of Northwood and Lord Holmes of Richmond for their support and the amendments that they have tabled on this important topic of digital assets.
I am very glad to hear of the Woolard review of tokenisation and the progress on crypto assets. I hope that the Minister is right about that solving the debanking issue—we will see. However, I am slightly disappointed in his response, because I know that he comes from a sector where digital progress has underlined success. I think that the industry lacks the clarity it needs. That is what it has been telling us. Firms need to know what the Government’s overall strategy is and how the different regulators will work together—I am sure there are some good examples. There is also the question of what definitions will apply to digital assets, along with how the UK intends to remain competitive internationally. There has been a lot of progress around the world.
Therefore, the points that we have raised and those put forward by my noble friend Lord Ranger need to be addressed. I was very struck by the way that he has travelled the world in his international search for success and growth in digital assets. Listening to him, I believe that we can learn from what both Rishi Sunak and the current Government have done together to get behind AI. I also agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, that we can learn from the successes on fintech—which I remember being involved with probably nearly a decade ago.
If the UK wants to be a leader on tokenisation and digital assets, we need a clear strategy. We need a joined-up and proportionate regulatory approach and a framework that supports innovation, while—most important of all—protecting consumers. I think that we will want to return to this issue on Report. Progress is being made, but we would like to see a little more ambition. However, for now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Holmes of Richmond
“Shared digital identity and compliance utilities(1) The Secretary of State must, within 18 months of the day on which this Act is passed, publish a specification for—(a) a shared digital identity utility (“the identity utility”), providing API-based identity verification services accessible to authorised persons and regulated institutions operating in both legacy and digital markets;(b) a shared anti-money laundering and know your customer compliance utility (“the compliance utility”), providing API-based access to customer due diligence data and screening services.(2) The specification must address— (a) governance arrangements, including whether the utilities are to be publicly owned, privately owned under public specification, or operated as industry utilities;(b) data standards and interoperability requirements;(c) access arrangements for legacy and digital ledger technology-based market participants;(d) privacy and data protection safeguards, including compliance with the UK GDPR;(e) the transition period during which legacy and digital know your customer processes will operate in parallel.(3) The FCA may make rules—(a) requiring regulated institutions to register with and use the identity utility or compliance utility once operational;(b) providing that compliance with compliance utility standards satisfies the customer due diligence requirements of the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017.(4) Use of the identity utility or compliance utility by a regulated institution does not, of itself, discharge that institution’s obligations under the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017 or under the FCA's financial crime rules.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is modelled on Singapore’s MyInfo and the EU's European Digital Identity Wallet framework.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to open this group of amendments in my name. I can only apologise to the Committee that I did not manage to get through the full alphabet and require Roman numerals to be used after some of the amendments —perhaps when we come to Report. I will take Amendment 164E first before moving to the substantive group, which all speak to tokenisation and market demat.
Amendment 164E goes to the digital opportunity that we have when it comes to many issues, not least what passes for KYC and AML. In many ways, KYC has failed to deliver for more than quite a long time in the UK. Indeed, as a jurisdiction, we are not alone in that fact. It would be a joke if it was not true that you can avail yourself of financial services and other products by demonstrating what a capital, stand-up character you are because you produce a paper gas bill. We can do better, and we need to do better not only in terms of KYC and AML, but in terms of being able to realise all the opportunities from digital assets, tokenisation and market demat. We need an effective system of digital ID, and that is what Amendment 164E is all about. It is uncontroversial and draws on systems already in place, such as the MyInfo system in Singapore and the EU digital ID wallet framework. I will be interested in the Minister’s response on Amendment 164E and, if he is not in favour of it, his thoughts on the current situation and how it is working in terms of the digital ID framework in the EU and, indeed, the MyInfo system in Singapore.
The remainder of the amendments in this group continue the discussions that we had on the previous group. My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, in her Amendment 163, displayed brevity in what I have taken an entire group of amendments to do. I have sought to open up the detail: the critical factors and principles we need to consider and put into the Bill to enable tokenisation and market demat, to have the right frameworks in place, and to send the right signals across the UK and around the world that we, the UK, not only understand what is required but want to be market leaders, market shapers and market makers in this space.
Many colleagues joined me in this Room in 2021 for the Financial Services Bill, in 2023 for the Financial Services and Markets Bill and through these past six days on this latest Financial Services and Markets Bill. Is the conclusion we draw from that that we are having too many financial services Bills or do we see that given there has been a three-year gap since the last one they are becoming fewer and farther between? Whatever the right conclusion, if we have a sizeable Financial Services and Markets Bill in front of us now, why would we not take the opportunity to put in at least a clear framework for what is required: tokenisation, market demat and all the potential opportunities of digital assets for the United Kingdom? I will not try the patience of the Committee by running through every amendment in detail, so long as I can be assured that the Minister will address every amendment when he comes to respond. I definitely saw a nod from him.
However, the issues that I set out, and the underlying principles, are clear. We have to move to tokenisation. There will clearly be a period in which we have tokenised and traditional assets coexisting. They need to be able to interoperate; there need to be bridges between them, and from one to the other. They need to be clearly understood and set out. When many argue that we cannot legislate in time, I merely offer the Electronic Trade Documents Act and the Property (Digital Assets etc) Act. Both are very precise, clear and blessedly very short statutes that enabled clear opportunities in the similar area of what these emerging technologies can deliver.
Lord Ranger of Northwood (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Holmes’s amendments across the alphabet, particularly because he is right about the detail and the need for us to look at the ambition and see whether we are really targeting changes that will help us fulfil the ambition. When it comes to the point about regulation and whether or not it has worked, in terms of KYC, AML and even PEP, we know that these fundamental versions of regulatory burdens do not succeed. We hear constantly of their failings, so how are we going to adopt and adapt as we move into the digital assets universe, as I have been calling it, rather than naming each different type?
Fundamentally, one of the elements here is the use cases. These amendments speak to specific points and changes that could be brought through, but we must look at the use cases in which these will apply. We talk about tokenisation or how stablecoins will be used. We must talk about how property and assets might be traded differently. We must look at how services will be adapted and the wholesale settlement that international markets are looking at. We must talk about and consider the use cases around retail e-commerce. With that, I support my noble friend’s amendments.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I am going to be brief again: these are very interesting amendments. The breadth of the amendments put before us by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, gives us a sense of the extensive work that must be done, right across the plumbing of the entire financial services sector, to move and take advantage of the opportunities of the digital world. There is no discussion here of some of the risks, namely about the levers of power shifting to different hands and whether we should be concerned about that or whether there are monetary sovereignty issues. Those are crucial issues, and we cannot walk away from them. Plumbing seems boring, but it is crucial. It seems that every aspect of that plumbing has been raised here, something that I hoped we might hear about in greater detail from the Government. I am particularly focused on the first of the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, which is Amendment 164C. I apologise, I have the wrong one.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
That was very good too. I meant Amendment 164E, which is headed,
“Shared digital identity and compliance utilities”.
I come from a party that is always very concerned about identity cards, whether they are digital or traditional, old-fashioned cards, and what they do to privacy and independence, so I have those caveats constantly in the back of my mind. It seems to me, however, that a series of fundamental questions are raised by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, in subsection (2), where he talks about the various specifications, the governance arrangements, the very straightforward things such as whether utilities are to be publicly or privately owned, under public specifications or operated as industry utilities. There are issues of data, access to digital ledgers, privacy, data protection and how to cope with the transition period, which will be very complex and very different for different individuals. Some people will transition completely almost in the blink of an eye, and others will be very late adopters. That creates a whole set of issues around financial inclusion and exclusion. I hope very much that we will get the discussion that we need, particularly around subsection (2), which then sits as a foundation to all the other issues that are raised. These are issues that engage the regulator, of course, but many of them are above the regulatory pay grade, and we need to be engaged on those issues here in this Committee.
Lord Altrincham (Con)
My Lords, this group is a snapshot, in a sense, of where we are now in digital regulation for financial services in the UK, as discussed by my noble friend Lord Holmes. This group somewhat dovetails with the amendments that we discussed in the previous group, which sought to probe the Government’s strategy for digital assets, tokenisation, access to banking and payment services and consumer redress. However, I am concerned that this package rather jumps the gun. The issue is more profound than the absence of individual regulatory provisions.
As my noble friends Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lord Ranger of Northwood, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, said, we do not yet have the basic architecture in place, and we do not yet have a clear digital assets strategy. We do not yet have a settled framework of engagement with the industry, and we do not have a proper industry forum through which the Government, regulators and market participants can work through these questions in a structured way. That matters because this is a fast-moving area: if we legislate too quickly, or in too much detail, without proper consultation and industry engagement, we risk creating a framework that is either obsolete before it is implemented, or misaligned with how the market is actually developing.
The point that we have been making throughout these debates is that the Government need to move from ambition, the Digital Markets Taskforce and their initiatives to strategy. It is not enough to say that the UK should be a global centre for digital assets or tokenisation: we need to know what that means in practice, who is responsible for delivering it, how the regulators are working together, what definitions will be used, and what sort of regime firms can expect. At present, the problem is not only a lack of regulation: in some respects, the problem is the way the regulatory system is operating, those overlaps between the Treasury, the FCA, the PRA, the Bank of England and other bodies. There are sometimes different emphases, different attitudes and different levels of appetite toward digital assets and tokenised finance. That creates uncertainty for firms.
Industry does not need more rules; it needs clarity, a coherent regulatory perimeter, regulators that are aligned with one another and confidence that the UK is developing a framework that supports responsible innovation, rather than simply adding new layers of process and permission. This is why we need to be careful before layering further statutory requirements on top of a system which has not yet been properly clarified. That said, the principle raised by my noble friend about looking to world leaders for inspiration is a good one. This is something we should be paying attention to if we wish to remain internationally competitive.
In addition, the principle for higher regulatory neutrality between traditional and tokenised assets is a sensible one. If two instruments have the same economic substance and risk profile, there is a strong case for treating them consistently. But before that principle can operate effectively, the Government and the regulators need to define clearly what counts as an additional asset—a tokenised security, a crypto asset, a stablecoin or a form of digital market infrastructure. That is why the industry forum proposed in the previous group seems so important. We need a better mechanism for engagement before we decide the detailed architecture, and we need to hear from banks, payment firms, digital asset businesses, market infrastructure providers, asset managers, lawyers, technologists and consumer representatives. Without that, we risk legislating for a market as we imagine it, rather than for a market as it is developing.
In summary, my noble friend Lord Holmes raises important issues and many of the ideas in this group may well form part of the future architecture for digital finance. The first task is to sort out the foundations. We need strategy, clarity, co-ordination and proper industry engagement before we start building further layers of regulations. For those reasons, I welcome the debate and the questions raised by these amendments. The Government must first address the more fundamental uncertainty at the heart of the UK’s approach to digital assets and tokenised finance.
Lord Stockwood (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, for tabling these amendments and for his contributions to this and the previous debate. I will not rehash the arguments I made previously. We believe that we have a strategy, and we believe that that has been executed. These amendments cover a wide range of issues. The noble Lord asked me to respond to all of them; I will try to do so but, if I miss any, we can follow up afterwards.
The amendments include proposals on shared digital identity, AML utilities, prudential treatment for tokenised assets, an additional digital financial markets sandbox, education and use-case libraries, issuer governance, common token and data standards, model contractual clauses, custody and bridge infrastructure, issuer pathways and payment rail neutrality. The Government agree that the development of tokenised markets depends on proportionate regulation, legal certainty and effective payment and settlement infrastructure. These are all important issues, and the Government are already taking extensive action to drive forward this agenda, which I set out in the last debate.
On Amendments 164E to 164H, the Government recognise the importance of trusted digital identity, effective AML processes, proportionate prudential treatment, testing environments and education. I am happy to assure noble Lords that these matters are already being progressed through existing frameworks, including the UK digital identity and attributes trust framework, guidance on the use of digital verification services under the money laundering regulations, the digital securities sandbox and wider government and regulator work on tokenisation and market digitalisation.
The Government also recognise the importance of market understanding. However, I have concerns about requiring in legislation for the FCA to maintain a detailed use-case library or to prescribe particular commercial models for the development of digital financial markets. The role of the Government and the regulators is to establish clear and proportionate frameworks that support innovation while protecting consumers, market integrity and financial stability. The development of specific use cases and business models is a matter for industry, operating within those frameworks. The wholesale digital markets champion, whom I mentioned previously, can look at these issues if this is raised with him.
Across all these areas, the Government’s approach has been to support innovation through enabling frameworks rather than prescribing particular models in legislation. The Government believe that it is preferable to continue building on these flexible frameworks rather than putting in place detailed statutory requirements.
Amendments 164J, 164K, 164L, 164N and 164P focus on the infrastructure needed to support tokenised markets. The Government recognise the importance of legal certainty, interoperability, custody arrangements and clear issuer pathways for tokenised financial instruments. These are precisely the issues currently being considered by the Government and regulators, including through a joint call for input published by the FCA and the Bank of England earlier this year on the future of tokenisation in UK wholesale financial markets. The regulators have made clear that this work will inform a joint road map of reforms developed in partnership with industry.
The digital securities sandbox was also specifically designed to provide that flexibility, allowing government, regulators and industry to test how legislative and regulatory frameworks may need to evolve before making more permanent changes.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. It certainly seems that I am getting more from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench than my own Front Bench at the moment—strange times, but there we are. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Young of Cookham) (Con)
As Amendment 165 has not been moved, I cannot call Amendment 165A for reasons of pre-emption.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“Duty to promote public understanding of financial services and financial capabilityThe FCA must take such steps as it considers appropriate to promote public understanding of—(a) financial services and markets,(b) personal financial management,(c) saving, borrowing and long-term financial resilience,(d) financial decision-making and financial risk, and(e) pensions.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would give the FCA a statutory duty to promote public understanding of financial services and financial capability, and to report annually on the steps it has taken, the groups most at risk of poor financial literacy or exclusion, and the contribution of improved financial capability to consumer resilience, competition and economic growth.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 167, I am grateful for the support of my noble friend Lord Altrincham and the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann.
Financial education is incredibly important, but it is unusually weak in the UK compared to, for example, Finland, the Netherlands, Singapore and Australia. The Times rightly has a campaign to improve it. Rishi Sunak has spent time and effort since leaving office trying to do so, citing how much better people do in life if they understand inflation, the magic of compound interest and the importance of diversifying risk. Financial education is an issue on which I have campaigned for a very long time, notably in my 2022 review of the state pension age. I believe it is central to how people live their lives, make decisions, protect themselves and participate responsibly in the economy. It helps them to make sensible decisions about borrowing, mortgages, insurance and pensions, to avoid scams and financial harm, and to understand basic financial and economic statistics. This is a mission that I hope noble Lords of all political perspectives can support.
Amendment 167 would give the FCA a new statutory duty to promote public understanding of financial services and financial capability. For example, it could produce succinct basic explanatory material on concepts such as compound interest, basic banking, and portfolio and asset diversification. The amendment would require the FCA to report annually on the actions it has taken to improve financial capability, the groups most at risk of poor financial literacy, the groups most vulnerable to financial exclusion, and how improved financial capability contributes to consumer resilience, competition and economic growth.
The reason this matters is that the FCA’s current objectives focus on consumer protection, market integrity, competition, and growth and competitiveness. There is not currently a primary statutory duty on the FCA to improve financial capability across society. Better-informed consumers are less vulnerable to fraud and more likely to save, plan for retirement, compare products, switch providers and exercise choice. That supports not only individual resilience but competition and growth. Poor financial literacy often falls hardest on those who are already vulnerable or excluded. If people do not understand the financial system then they are less able to access it, less able to challenge poor treatment, less able to avoid expensive mistakes and less able to make decisions which improve their long-term security.
One problem is that financial education provision is scattered and variable in quality. There are many good initiatives, some even by the private sector, as I remember from the work done by Tesco Bank in Scotland, but they are not joined up. The curriculum has been improved slightly, although mainly through citizenship and maths, with some schools doing very good work but others being less effective. As recent debates on student loans have shown, this is something that we really need to grasp. We ask 17 and 18 year-olds to make significant financial decisions with long-term consequences, yet we do not ensure that they are equipped with the skills and knowledge needed to make the decisions well.
Many teachers find financial education difficult, and, like people from all walks of life, they are not aware enough of it in their own lives, let alone skilled enough to teach the basics well. They need support, resources and confidence. Financial education needs to be included in teacher training and linked to university teaching. I echo the difficulties of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, with the scope of the Bill, since an amendment I tabled on the subject was rejected.
The truth is we need a step change at every level. My amendment does not ask the FCA to replace schools, teachers, parents, charities, or the Money and Pensions Service—although that service is too divorced from most financial transactions to do a good job. Our amendment would impose a duty on the FCA to recognise that improving financial capability should be part of its mission, and would require it to report properly each year on what it is doing. That could have a catalytic effect.
I welcome Amendment 170, in the name of my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond, which would require the FCA to work with the Money and Pensions Service to produce a national financial education strategy. That is complementary to my amendment.
There is a strong case for a more joined-up national approach. Financial education should not be a patchwork of disconnected initiatives. We need a coherent strategy, covering budgeting, saving, investment literacy, pensions, debt, fraud prevention, digital finance and support for vulnerable groups. I was glad to have a positive response on this issue from the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, to a recent Question, and would be very grateful if the Minister could respond to our pleas. Better financial education could be a key pillar of consumer protection. This is an area where a legacy is waiting to be created. I beg to move.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is an absolute pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe. I support her Amendment 167, which, as she rightly identifies, has many common themes with my Amendment 170.
I have been working on financial education and financial capability for a long time. As my noble friend rightly identifies, and as we have mentioned in other groups, the need for a coherent cross-society, cross-economy financial education and financial capability strategy, covering every stage of life, could barely be more needed than it is today.
There are two pernicious forces striding our streets, walking hand in hand: financial exclusion and digital exclusion, one often causing and compounding the other. Becky Francis’s review found that it was absolutely key to have financial education and capability within the curriculum, but it is about how that naturally touches on digital capability, media literacy and capability, and AI literacy and capability. These threads all come together, and can do so a positive, additive fashion if they are seen as positive, and are personalised and focused on the individual at every stage of her or his life, to enable all of us to make choices and to be included. With so much in society going digital—to be fair, not much in the Bill is going digital, but that is perhaps an outlier—financial exclusion for want of financial education and capability could dramatically increase and exacerbate the exclusion already felt by those at the most extreme end of our society.
Education is not just about what happens with the curriculum; it is a matter for our regulator. Through that, when it is a primary concern for the regulator, it gives it a sharpness of focus, putting it right at the centre for the regulator responsible for our financial services. It works with the Government’s stated aims in other areas. If the Government constantly state that they want to take a domain-specific approach, a financial education and capability, together with a domain-specific approach, will mean that the FCA will bring in money advice and a pension service alongside that.
I add to this to ensure that financial education and capability go beyond traditional products. When one considers how many young people are engaging with and investing in—in some senses, I put quotes around “investing in”—crypto, it is clear that the financial education and capability need to cover all the financial products, instruments and assets that are currently out there and being used and traded, not least by young people, who need to be enabled, empowered and given the capability and capacity to choose which products they want to engage with in a meaningful and capable fashion.
Amendment 171 is a different matter. It is a very specific amendment on SME right of action with the FCA—a right of action that is currently not available to SMEs. One can see at first blush why this is the case, because there is a clear distinction between a private person and an SME. The difficulty is, as currently set out in Section 138D of FSMA on the definition of a private person, that a private person and an SME are, in reality, characters that represent a principle and policy that sit underneath them. That is what the amendment is all about. The principle being set out is the assumption that a private person is always in need of a right of action because of their circumstances, which an SME is not.
This is beguilingly appealing at first blush, but entirely wrong in being a coherent strategy that includes everyone. The reason is that it inevitably tends to the mean: the average private person on the famous omnibus or the average SME with levels of understanding, support and financial wherewithal. But that does not cut it. That should never have cut it, and it does not cut it for current situations, because, on the one hand, it is clearly entirely possible and a reality that thousands of small and micro entities out there do not have these assumed resources, capabilities and capacities. On the other hand, there are millions of private persons who are far more capable and economically sophisticated than these small and micro entities.
This amendment is specific, clear and coherent: it is to extend that right of action to small and micro entities. I am not suggesting that the drafting is perfect; there may need to be de minimis levels put in, or a clearer definition of what small and micro entities are. But again, if the Government want growth and to back our businesses, not least our small and micro businesses, it is a question of coherence, clarity and fairness. SMEs should have a right of action when it comes to the FCA. This should not be limited just to private persons, as currently set out. I look forward to the Minister’s response and I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I cannot but support the desire for greater public understanding of financial matters. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, have made a powerful case for better understanding, but I am not convinced that they have made the case for it to be focused in the way that they have set out in their amendments, so I look forward to the response from my noble friend the Minister. I want to make two points about these amendments.
The first is that better understanding is not a magic trick. We can be in favour of it but we must never overstate what it can achieve. It certainly does not weaken the case for effective regulation or remove the need for it at all. We need to be clear about that because, sometimes, when the issue is discussed there is a slight—or sometimes more than a slight, perhaps an overt—suggestion that that is what it would achieve.
It is worth my quoting a bit from the interim report from the Second Pensions Commission, which is obviously about pensions but gets to the heart of the matter. It says in its report:
“As with the principles underlying automatic enrolment, the pensions system needs to work in the interests of savers as they enter retirement and protect those who do not, or cannot, engage”.
That is the bottom line: whether people choose to take education or are capable of taking it, they are still entitled to first-class financial services. I am sure everyone here would agree with that, but sometimes it is not front and centre to the way that people think about it.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
Just to be clear, is the noble Lord suggesting that in anything that I have set out—I will not speak for my colleagues—financial education and financial capability would then be used to weaken and have lesser regulation? I do not believe that that is what I said.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
No, I am not for one moment suggesting that. I am saying that, in other discussions, I have heard it said explicitly or by implication. It is a danger and, given what we are trying to achieve, it is one that we should recognise and take account of.
My second point is that both amendments refer to the FCA. The first amendment, from the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, specifically refers to pensions. Let us be clear: the FCA knows little or nothing about pensions. It is the wrong body to undertake any form of public information about pensions. I have heard the discussion on the regulation of pensions and people asking, “Why do we have two regulators?” Well, we do have two: one is the Pensions Regulator and the other is the FCA, but the FCA’s involvement is narrow and we should understand that it is dying. It is going because personal pensions are dead, and the FCA will have little or nothing to do with pensions in the future. The life companies have not quite realised this yet—they are fighting against it—but history will remove them from this market.
Clearly, pensions do not fall within the ambit of the FCA for these purposes. It can provide information about life insurance products and annuities, but those are not pensions. The word “pensions” is wrong in Amendment 167.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I suspect that nobody in this Room would not speak out very strongly in favour of financial education and that, in this House, we would be really grateful if there were some capacity for it, particularly in the ever-changing world that we are dealing with today, with all its complexity. I sign up totally to that underlying concept, although I think that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, alighted on an important point. I know that my noble friend Lady Tyler speaks a lot on financial inclusion and always talks about financial education as part of that, but she becomes extremely frustrated when people seem to think that, somehow, financial education is a substitute for the other actions that are needed, such as access to cash or to personal services. The noble Lord is completely right that we want financial education, and it is brilliant if we have good financial education, but that does not take away from the need to make sure that our financial services sector delivers proper, safe, first-class services, appropriately regulated.
Of all the bodies to choose to provide financial education, the FCA would be right at the bottom of my list. This is a body that has so many responsibilities already, and to take on another absolutely massive task—communicating with the ordinary person on the street, among other things—would be way beyond its capacity. It has plenty to do without this. Also, has anybody read letters from the FCA? It does not write human in its general communication. I think this is probably a government responsibility, and to me it makes a whole lot more sense to fund someone—I am picking this out of the blue—such as Citizens Advice, with people who speak with normal people and understand the issues they face and how they face them, if we are going to look for a financial education champion. I am sure people will come up with others.
I want to address Amendment 171 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, because it is very important. It would provide a right of action to SMEs for breaches of the FCA handbook. I have from time to time, in this House and even in this series of debates, expressed my very deep frustration with the regulatory perimeter: the consumer protections that the FCA provides are limited to individuals—consumers. It now includes very small micro-businesses, but it does not include small businesses. Bad actors in the industry completely exploit that. We have seen that in example after example of mis-selling, whether back in the days of asset stripping or the mis-selling of derivatives or a play with mini-bonds. That perimeter has been used as a mechanism, because, on the far side of the perimeter, from the FCA perspective, there is not protection: it is entirely caveat emptor. In the complex world of today, where small businesses have to deal with so much and compete on a scale that they never had to if you go back a generation or so, I think it is wrong not to recognise that they will not have the capacity to be able to deal with some of that financial complexity.
I have always been keen on a right of private action; it is a very old and core tradition in British common law. One of my frustrations with the FCA has been that, in a sense, it went down the path of adopting the consumer duty to avoid doing what this House had intended it to do: look for a duty of care—because embedded in a duty of care is a right of private action. The FCA opted for a tick-box approach, rather than the principled approach that lies with a duty of care and the right of an individual citizen to get redress through the court system if they feel they have been damaged. For small businesses to now have a right of private action when they deal with the regulator seems to be an important step forward and a recognition of the reality of the challenges that small businesses face today.
Lord Stockwood (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Peers for raising the important issues of financial education and the right of action for SMEs. On financial education, Amendment 167 would place a statutory duty on the FCA to promote financial capability, and Amendment 170 would require the FCA to publish a national financial education strategy. I am clearly supportive of the motivation, but I do not believe that new statutory duties on the FCA are the right way to achieve it.
The noble Baroness has already mentioned some of the good work that is being done by the Government on financial capability as part of their financial inclusion strategy, such as the work the Department for Education is doing in schools. The Government are also taking steps to improve financial education for adults. For example, we have announced the expansion of the Money Guiders programme, which is run by the Money and Pensions Service. This helps front-line workers, such as nurses and social workers, to have conversations about money with those they support. Fair4All Finance is also deploying £50 million funded by dormant assets in England to support financial capability initiatives. I assure the noble Baroness that the Money and Pensions Service already has a statutory function to develop and co-ordinate a national strategy to improve financial capability and education, as set out in the Financial Guidance and Claims Act 2018, and the FCA also carries out substantial work in this space. Helping consumers navigate their financial lives is already one of the FCA’s four priorities for 2025 to 2030.
Amendment 171 relates to SMEs and would significantly extend private rights of action. The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 already draws a clear and deliberate distinction between general private law claims available to all parties, including SMEs, and the specific statutory right of action under Section 138D, which is limited to “private persons”—generally individuals and persons not acting in the course of a business. That reflects Parliament’s long-standing judgment that FCA rules are primarily regulatory and supervisory standards, rather than offering a comprehensive basis for civil liability for all market participants. SMEs can and do bring claims under contract, misrepresentation, negligence and other established causes of action.
I understand why the noble Lord is motivated to extend the right of action to SMEs for regulatory breaches. Historically, SMEs were often left with little option outside litigation, and I agree that those firms have fewer resources to seek redress. This was deliberately addressed in 2019 with the significant expansion of the Financial Ombudsman, which is now accessible to 99% of the UK’s small businesses.
I hope I have gone some way to reassuring noble Lords on the action the Government are taking on these important issues, and I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this important debate, and to the Minister for his response. I commend the remarks of my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond and the work that he has done on financial education, and I support his complementary amendment on that subject. This has been a useful discussion, because it is an area that deserves a great deal of attention. There is clearly broad agreement that financial education is too important to be left to a patchwork of uneven provision.
The Minister cited the Money and Pensions Service, which I think is based in the DWP. To date, I have not been terribly impressed by the speed or breadth of the education that it provides. It is not only individual groups that I am worried about. We could get an enormous improvement in growth and performance if financial education were spread much more widely, but I should be happy, if it could be arranged, to talk to the service to understand what it is doing before we get to Report. It may be that some of the plans it has are dealing with this wider problem.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“Reform of financial services dispute resolution(1) The Treasury must, within the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, publish draft legislation containing provision—(a) replacing the ombudsman scheme established under Part XVI of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 with a scheme to be known as the Financial Adjudication Service;(b) removing the requirement in section 228(2) of that Act that complaints be determined by reference to what is fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case; (c) requiring complaints within the compulsory jurisdiction of the Financial Adjudication Service to be determined by reference to such statutory requirements as may be specified.(d) providing free access to the Financial Adjudication Service for complainants;(e) providing that the expenses of the Financial Adjudication Service are met by levies or fees imposed on regulated persons;(f) providing that determinations of the Financial Adjudication Service are binding on both parties unless appealed as described in subsection (2);(g) making such amendments to Part XVI and Schedule 17 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, and any other enactment, as the Treasury considers necessary for the purposes of that provision.(2) Draft legislation published under subsection (1) must propose the establishment of a chamber of the First-tier Tribunal to be known as the Financial Services Chamber to hear appeals against determinations by the Financial Adjudication Service and make decisions which are binding on the Financial Adjudication Service unless and until overturned on appeal.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Treasury to publish draft legislation to replace the Financial Ombudsman Service with a Financial Adjudication Service and to establish a Financial Services Chamber of the First-tier Tribunal to determine appeals according to law, to provide speed, expertise and high settlement rates.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 172A is in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Altrincham. It would require the Treasury to publish draft legislation to replace the Financial Ombudsman Service with a new financial adjudication service, and to create a dedicated financial services chamber within the First-tier Tribunal. This is a significant amendment but also a serious and necessary one. As noted earlier, it follows the policy announcement made by the leader of my party, Kemi Badenoch, at TheCityUK’s conference last month.
The amendment reflects a wider concern about the way in which the Financial Ombudsman has evolved, and about the need for a consumer redress system that is fast, expert, accessible and legally certain. A little bit of history: the Financial Ombudsman Service was created to provide a low-cost and informal alternative to the courts. That purpose remains important. Consumers and SMEs need an effective way of resolving disputes with financial firms. Going directly to court can be expensive, intimidating and slow. There must, of course, be a route to redress that is accessible and free to use.
However, the FOS has moved far beyond a simple dispute-resolution function. It now operates in many respects as a quasi-regulator. Its decisions can set expectations for firms, shape market behaviour and influence the way in which FCA rules are understood. Yet it does not receive the same scrutiny as regulators such as the FCA, nor does it produce binding legal precedent in the way that a court or tribunal would. That creates a serious problem of legal uncertainty.
At the heart of this issue is the “fair and reasonable” test. The ombudsman is required to decide complaints, not simply according to law, but according to what it considers fair and reasonable in all the circumstances. That gives the FOS a broad discretion. It means that firms can comply with the law, the FCA rulebook and their contractual obligations but still be found against on the basis that the ombudsman takes a different view of what is fair and reasonable. That is not a stable foundation for a predictable regulatory system and that has been recognised, I am glad to say, by the Government but they are not going far enough.
Courts have confirmed that the FOS must take account of the relevant law but is free to depart from it. Firms do not know whether compliance with the FCA’s rules will be enough. They do not know whether the FOS will go further than those rules or whether an individual determination will be treated as an indication of wider expectations. That uncertainly drives gold-plating and overcompliance.
One example that has been raised with us concerns packaged bank accounts and the consumer duty. The concern is that the FOS may take the view that providers should look at whether a customer has used any of the benefits of a packaged bank account in the previous year and, if not, prompt them that this might not be the right account for them. That goes far beyond current FCA guidance.
The wider point is that if the FCA believes that its rules need to change, it should amend them prospectively. If Parliament believes that the statutory framework needs to change, it should legislate. We should not have a system in which major changes in practical standards emerge through a redress body applying a broad fairness jurisdiction.
There is also a serious performance issue, which we have touched on before. The FOS is under significant strain. The backlog has become very large and timeliness targets have been missed. The FOS is now being used as an instrument of mass redress when it was not designed to operate as a quasi-court, a quasi-regulator and a quasi-mass claims mechanism.
Our proposal is to reform the architecture. The financial adjudication service would retain the benefits of a specialist and accessible adjudication system. It would be designed to provide speed, expertise and high settlement rates. Consumers and SMEs would continue to have a route to redress without the cost and complexity of ordinary litigation. The key difference is that decisions would be made according to law. The “fair and reasonable” test would be removed. The new service would apply statute, FCA rules, contractual obligations and legal principles. Where the law is unclear, that uncertainty should be resolved through proper legal determination, not discretionary case-by-case judgment.
Where a dispute required appeal or authoritative determination, it would go to a dedicated financial services chamber of the First-tier Tribunal. That would create binding precedent. It would fill the gap that currently exists between the FOS and the courts, where the only meaningful challenge to an FOS decision is judicial review. Judicial review is not a proper merits appeal. It requires firms to show that the decision was not merely wrong but unlawful or irrational. In practice, this means that FOS decisions are rarely challenged.
A tribunal system would be different. It would allow principles to be determined clearly, openly and according to law. Over time, that would create a body of precedent that would help firms, consumers, advisers and regulators to understand what the rules mean in practice.
That is the point of our amendment. It is not about removing redress but about making redress clearer, faster, more expert and more legally certain. Nor is it about weakening consumer protection. Consumers benefit from certainty too. They benefit when firms understand their obligations, when decisions are consistent, when disputes are resolved quickly and when similar cases are treated in similar ways. This amendment therefore asks the Government to publish draft legislation for a new model. It would not require every operational detail to be settled in the Bill today. It asks the Treasury to come forward with the legislative architecture needed to move from an ombudsman model based on broad discretion to an adjudication and tribunal model based on law.
The purpose of the amendment is to begin a serious conversation about the future architecture of financial redress. We need a system that is accessible for consumers, fair to SMEs, predictable for firms and capable of generating clarity over time. The current model sadly no longer does that. It is too uncertain and discretionary. A financial adjudication service, backed by a dedicated financial services chamber of the First-tier Tribunal, would preserve access to redress while restoring legal certainty. That is the balance that we should seek to strike. I beg to move.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
I have one question for the noble Baroness, as my noble friend Lord Sharkey will speak for us on this. What will the cost be to the individual of going to the tribunal system? I am conscious that an individual needs to raise between £40,000 and £50,000 to get to preliminary hearing at the employment tribunal. Is that the kind of number that she has in mind?
Lord Massey of Hampstead (Con)
I support this amendment and just raise the point of the First-tier Tribunal. I have experience of dealing with the FOS as a firm. At the moment, if you want to appeal the decision of the FOS, you have to go to judicial review. Therefore, whatever the cost of this First-tier Tribunal, it would be very substantially less than going through a process of judicial review, which firms are reluctant to go through, as noble Lords can imagine, because of its cumbersome nature.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
Can I ask the noble Lord to clarify? Judicial review can determine a matter only if there is a matter of law involved, not a matter of adjudication; is that right?
Lord Sharkey (LD)
My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, remarked earlier in our Committee discussions, we often agree about things, but not, I am afraid, about this amendment. There are three reasons for that: first, the amendment is not necessary; secondly, it probably would not work, although its lack of any real detail makes it quite hard to tell; and, thirdly, it would significantly bypass parliamentary scrutiny mechanisms. For example, proposed new subsection (1)(c) says that the determination of complaints will
“be determined by reference to such statutory requirements as may be specified”,
without actually specifying them. This does not make for proper scrutiny.
How complaints are determined is absolutely critical in how redress is obtained. The amendment tells us nothing about how that would be done, or on what criteria judgments would be made. Proposed new subsection (1)(g) contains what looks suspiciously like a Henry VIII power. None of these provisions is really necessary, and nor is the amendment as a whole. That is because there does not appear to be a convincing evidence base for the radical root-and-branch reform that abolishing the FOS would bring about. The nearest we have to evidence is in the assertion by the Minister that:
“The Government’s review found that, in a small but significant minority of cases, the FOS has acted as a quasi-regulator”.—[Official Report, 22/6/26; col. GC 260.]
That is all the government explanation there is for the proposed radical reform and, by extension, for the amendment before us.
I have repeatedly asked the Minister for more detail; I asked at Second Reading, and I asked again on the first day in Committee. I have had no response to what are essentially simple questions. How many cases are small? How was their significance assessed? How is the FOS, in this small number of cases, acting as a quasi-regulator? What we have currently is an assertion, but it certainly is not evidence. When he speaks, can the Minister tell the Committee what “small” means in this context? How many and what kind of cases were involved and how did they come to be characterised as significant? As for HMT’s rather bland consultation report, the frequent use of the phrase “broadly speaking” does not inspire a lot of confidence about the strength of its case.
The amendment before us is essentially skeletal and removes the complaints procedure to a wholly different legal arena. Given the grossly overstressed nature of our justice system, it is very hard to see any improvements being located there. The FOS is meant to be, and is, a quick, simple alternative to costly court processes for consumers. There is no hard evidence to support the proposals made in this amendment and, indeed, no clear sense of what kind of redress system and what criteria for determination are envisaged.
Last July, the FCA and the FOS signed a memorandum of understanding. Article 21(b) of the memorandum says that the two parties will
“seek to achieve a complementary and consistent approach, so far as that is consistent with their independent roles by consulting each other at an early stage (including on the interpretation of regulatory requirements where they are relevant to the resolution of disputes)”.
Article 24(c) says:
“For the Financial Ombudsman Service: seek a view from the FCA on the interpretation of its rules and how redress could potentially be assessed, as early as possible in advance of issuing a final determination, and provide the FCA with any relevant information and draft determinations it can share, to assist the FCA in formulating a view.”
The following article says that the FCA should try to respond to the FOS’ submission within 30 days.
Lord Stockwood (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for tabling this amendment and giving the Committee a further opportunity to discuss the FOS.
An effective ombudsman service ensures that consumers have quick and easy redress when things go wrong, improving customer confidence in, and engagement with, our financial services system. The FOS largely fulfils that vital role, and the reforms in the Bill will improve that further, ensuring that it provides a quick and informal route for resolving disputes in financial services.
The amendment would undermine this vital role entirely. We believe that replacing the FOS with a financial adjudication service alongside the new tribunal appeal structure would create a more formal, legalistic and adversarial system. That approach would move away from Parliament’s intention of providing consumers and firms with an accessible alternative to resolving disputes through the tribunal and courts system. The Government’s view is that this would not be the right outcome for consumers and firms. The Government’s reforms have been developed in response to issues identified through the review and consultation last year to stop the FOS acting like a quasi-regulator, to stop it taking the lead on mass redress events and to deliver a clearer, more consistent and predictable framework.
I thank the noble Lord for raising that issue and I apologise for not writing in answer to his question. I promise that I will get back to him as soon as we have that information to hand again.
Lord Stockwood
I do not have it to hand. My apologies, I will bring it to the noble Lord. We are confident that the changes will improve trust and confidence that the FOS acts fairly and impartially, while ensuring that decisions are closely aligned with the high standards of conduct and consumer protection set by the FCA where relevant.
The right approach is this careful, targeted reform that preserves the core strengths and benefits of the FOS model—quick, informal and accessible dispute resolution—while delivering the necessary changes to improve the overall operation of the framework. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. I also thank the Minister for his response.
I recognise the concern that replacing the Financial Ombudsman Service with a financial adjudication service could make redress more formal, more logistic or less accessible. I understand that concern, but it is not the intention of our amendment. I say this also in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer. The purpose of our amendment is to retain a specialist, accessible and free-to-use route for consumers and SMEs while ensuring that decisions are made clearly, consistently and according to the law.
Clearly there will be set-up costs. However, the Treasury could advise on that because part of our proposal is to require the Treasury to look at the issue and publish draft legislation for a new model. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, that parliamentary scrutiny would be important. There are also other questions that he addressed that the Treasury could answer. Indeed, some of the points that he made also apply to the proposal from the Government for the FOS. Like the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, I would very much appreciate replies on those points before we get to Report, so that we can make sure that we understand what the Government are proposing properly.
I remain concerned that the Government’s approach does not go far enough. Recalibrating the existing model may improve some aspects of the system but it does not solve the fundamental problem, as I tried to explain at length. Firms and consumers still lack a body of binding precedent that explains what the rules mean and how they will be applied. Consumers would gain from extra certainty. They benefit when firms know what is required of them, when similar cases are treated consistently, and, above all, when disputes are resolved promptly and predictably; I know that from other parts of the consumer market. A system that is unclear and overstretched does not serve consumers well.
We will consider carefully what the Minister has said and look at any follow-up material but, for now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“Review of the City of London Corporation(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, appoint an independent person or panel to undertake a review of the functions of the City of London Corporation in relation to regulation of financial services and markets.(2) The review must consider—(a) the arrangements relating to engagement between the City of London Corporation and the FCA and PRA, and(b) the extent to which the City of London Corporation contributes to the regulation of financial services and markets.(3) The reviewer must publish a report setting out their findings and recommendations no later than 18 months after appointment.(4) The Secretary of State must lay the report before Parliament and, within six months of receiving it, publish a response setting out what steps the Government intends to take in response to the recommendations.”
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, this amendment would provide for a review of the City of London Corporation with regard to the regulation of financial services and markets. At Second Reading, I referenced my intention to address this issue—here it is.
In the interests of transparency, I note that my interest in the City of London Corporation extends beyond that. Noble Lords who read the Politico email newsletter may have noted that it has reported that I am working with the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Investment Fraud and Fairer Financial Services on a survey of people’s views of the City of London Corporation, including whether it should be retained as it is, reformed or abolished. That extends beyond the regulation of financial services and markets as covered by the Bill.
I also note that the survey’s existence has led to me being contacted by a significant number of both city residents who are unhappy with the way in which the corporation fulfils its local government-type functions and organisations that receive funding from it and are concerned about the way in which things are done. Those organisations are most keen that what I say does not identify them in any way, for fear of reprisals—I suggest that that is disturbing and telling in itself—but significant elements of the corporation’s operation not being covered by the freedom of information legislation makes it difficult to uncover exactly what is going on.
The survey and my expression of my personal views on the subject have sometimes been confused, as in a letter sent on 1 July by the corporation’s policy chairman, town clerk and chief executive to members of the APPG, including me. The letter seemed to be unable to distinguish between the questions in the survey and comments that I have personally made about the corporation. As the letter from the corporation notes, my views on its existence are well known. Indeed, when I was elected as leader of the Green Party of England and Wales in 2012, the city diary in the Evening Standard noted my calls for its abolition; that was the only record of the election result in that newspaper.
However, the letter of 1 July from the corporation contains powerful arguments for my amendment, which calls for an independent person or panel to be appointed by the Secretary of State to undertake a review of the functions of the City of London Corporation in relation to regulation of financial services and markets. The letter refers to the corporation’s place
“in the delivery of strategic, financial and professional services initiatives”.
It says:
“Mayors have helped to catalyse major initiatives such as the Mansion House Compact and Accord”.
As one industry commentator has noted, in seeking to channel pension fund capital into growth assets,
“private equity, infrastructure, private credit and venture capital are now firmly on the radar”
of pension funds. These are all sectors where we know that benefits are more likely to flow into the financial sector than to investors.
The corporation’s letter also points to its role in the Office for Investment: Financial Services, which describes itself on its website as providing
“international fintech firms with a single front door for regulatory assistance and wider business support”.
I direct noble Lords who want to explore the issues around this so-called foreign direct investment further to an excellent book by Angus Hanton, Vassal State: How America Runs Britain. It quotes a late Member of your Lordships’ House, Lord Myners, who said in 2021:
“Britain is open for business in the same way that a car boot sale is open for business”.
It is now even more open for business, with the Financial Times recently reporting that the value of acquisition by foreign buyers is now up to £128 billion this year—more than triple the level in the same period in 2025, and that was before the apparently pending sale of easyJet to yet another US private equity firm. That the last rotten borough in the country—finally otherwise removed by the Reform Act 1867, with non-residential votes removed from other council areas in 1969—operating under rules that would be unacceptable anywhere else in public life and that shield it from scrutiny, skewing democratic representation in favour of business, overwhelmingly financial businesses, can exercise privileged influence over our laws and their administration over regulation is surely something that should be examined, particularly over financial laws that, as we discovered in 2007-08, are so essential to our security.
That is all that this amendment asks for: to conduct an independent review of the corporation’s impact on financial regulations and markets. Surely, if the corporation is so confident about the claimed positive impacts that it likes to trumpet, it and the Government could have no objection to a review. Given the problem we have with trust in our politics and financial system, more transparency and consideration would surely be a good thing. I note a recent Public First survey that found that 40% of people think that financial markets have too much influence over decisions made by elected Governments. I also note—the Minister might like to consider this—that the same survey found that 52% agreed that the UK should prioritise financial stability and consumer protections, even if this limits investment and economic growth. When asked about the potential changes to the UK’s post-2008 bank ring-fencing regime, 64% agreed that financial stability should be the priority.
Questioning the City’s place is not, after all, new. The Royal Commission on the Amalgamation of the City and County of London recommended its abolition in 1894. It was Labour Party policy to abolish today’s City of London Corporation until Tony Blair took over the party, and he instead chose to give even greater weighting to the business votes against those of residents.
Defenders of the City of London Corporation tend to reach for the language of heritage, as does the letter of 1 July: the corporation is ancient. It is part of the fabric of London’s history. Reform would be complicated. These are not effective arguments against examination. Age alone does not confer legitimacy—just look at the UK constitution. The corporation’s structures were not designed for a modern democracy. They pre-date it and have been carefully preserved by those who benefit from them.
The corporation is not the financial sector, but it is its lobbyist, its defender and a power base enjoyed by no other part of our society. Its existence cannot be separated from the fact that the financial industry is in a privileged position in our society. Giant financial corporations do not need any further boost to their power; they have more than enough already. No other major financial centre has anything resembling the City of London Corporation—not New York, Tokyo, Frankfurt or Singapore. Surely we should be examining the impact of this singular entity on the state of the UK. I beg to move.
Baroness Bi (Lab)
My Lords, I remind the Committee of my interest as the chair of Norton Rose Fulbright. Although my firm was located in the City of London for more than 200 years, from its founding in 1794, we are no longer within the jurisdiction of the corporation, having ventured south of the river a few years ago. My current office at More London gives me what is probably the best view of the Tower of London, which, notwithstanding the imminent arrival of the Bayeux tapestry, has been a daily reminder that not even the conqueror had the poor sense to interfere with the freedoms of the City, which worked extremely well, and we should be careful before we consider doing so. I oppose this amendment, which contemplates a two and a half year process after Royal Assent, with the attendant costs and distraction for the Treasury that such a review would entail. We should therefore ask what the review is actually meant to uncover.
Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, has suggested that we inquire into the City of London’s role with the regulators and regulation. My noble friend Lady Bi summed it up well: there is no direct role there. But I wonder whether we could send a message to the City of London, perhaps a little more collegiate and, as a result, more effective. We all recognise that the role and constitution of the City corporation is quite difficult to defend from 21st-century principles. Why does one square mile of the country have these unique privileges? It has billions of pounds worth of property and investment, and the Lord Mayor of London has the status of a Cabinet Minister, apparently, when he or she goes on trips abroad. Why is it charged with the powers of a local authority but also with promoting Britain’s financial services industry? I point out that your Lordships’ House bears witness to the fact that historic institutions can—and often do—do good and important work. I wonder whether, harking back to the traditions of the City of London, there is one that we could help revive, in the spirit of what the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, may want to happen.
Historically, the City of London was responsible for the good conduct of the trades in the city, ensuring that the goods produced could be trusted to be of high quality. Indeed, I believe that Elizabeth I even had the goldsmiths of London check that the coinage that the Mint was producing was of a high enough standard, because the goldsmiths were more professional than the people at the Royal Mint.
Over time, that role of policing good conduct has passed to professional bodies and then to regulators, but we often forget that it is the professionalism that we need. Regulators cannot replace professionalism, for which so many people from Britain and around the world come to use Britain’s financial services industry. Professionals, whether individuals or institutions, are a disciplined group possessing special knowledge and skills in a widely recognised body of learning. They are prepared to apply this knowledge and exercise these skills in the interests of others. That professionalism, both for individuals and for institutions, harks back to that old role of the City of London: not regulation but professionalism. It is and should be the core and unique selling point of the UK financial services industry. I sense that that is what we in this Room would like to achieve.
The City of London promotes financial services, but surely, if it does that, it must be sure that the services it promotes—maybe not every financial service—serve a purpose in the world. There is still enormous room for the City to identify and help to encourage good practice, not just to promote financial services generally but to ensure that all the services it promotes deliver benefit to the customer and the world. That may, from time to time, involve talking to a regulator—I do not see that as a problem—but it should seek much more to ensure that professional good practice becomes a norm. The City already does some of this, but it could be so much clearer about its focus and role. There would be no better way to promote the success of financial services in Britain.
I have one last coda on this and a more immediate thought. Spokespeople from the City of London Corporation like to explain—correctly—that they represent the whole financial services industry of Britain, two-thirds of which works outside London. But those who work to promote the industry are exclusively employed in the square mile, and it is difficult to express the level of frustration that I have felt among some that the City talks the talk about employment around the country but maybe needs to walk the walk in its own practices on where people are employed. I hope that might be a constructive suggestion about how this venerable institution might serve its country better.
Baroness Dacres of Lewisham (Lab)
My Lords, I fear that Amendment 172C strays beyond the purpose of the Bill, which is concerned with improving the regulation of financial services and markets. It is not, in my view, the appropriate vehicle for reopening broader questions about the role and governance of the City of London Corporation. This amendment takes us into a rather different debate—it asks us to examine the role and function of the City of London Corporation—whereas the purpose of the Bill is to strengthen the UK’s financial regulatory framework, ensuring that it is effective, proportionate and capable of supporting growth, investment and innovation, while maintaining high standards. Our focus should remain on achieving those objectives.
It is important to be clear about the respective roles of the organisations involved. The City of London Corporation is not a financial regulator. It does not authorise firms, supervise markets or enforce regulatory rules. Those responsibilities rest with the Financial Conduct Authority, the Prudential Regulation Authority and the Bank of England, all of which are independently accountable to Parliament.
The City corporation performs a different, but none the less valuable, function. It acts as a convenor of expertise, an advocate for one of the United Kingdom’s most important industries and a champion of the UK as a global financial centre. Through its international engagement, it promotes inward investment, supports exports of financial and professional services, and works with industry to help maintain the UK’s reputation for high standards and innovation.
I question whether the amendment has demonstrated that there is a genuine accountability gap requiring statutory review. Before Parliament creates a new review mechanism, we should be satisfied that there is evidence of a problem that the existing arrangements have failed to address. I have not yet heard that case made. The City corporation is already subject to established governance and oversight arrangements, while the regulators are independently accountable to Parliament.
At a time when the Government are rightly seeking to promote economic growth and strengthen the United Kingdom’s competitiveness as a leading international financial centre, I am concerned that this amendment risks creating uncertainty without identifying a clear public benefit. Our efforts should be directed towards ensuring that regulators can carry out their duties effectively, while organisations such as the City of London Corporation continue to play their distinct role in supporting the wider success of the UK’s financial and professional services. For those reasons, I believe our attention should remain firmly on the purpose of the Bill: strengthening the United Kingdom’s financial regulatory framework. I cannot support Amendment 172C.
Lord Altrincham (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak briefly to Amendment 172C in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, on the promotional role of the corporation and the survey views of local residents. Let me also say how interesting the speeches of the noble Baronesses, Lady Bi and Lady Dacres of Lewisham, and the noble Lord, Lord Pitt-Watson, were on this.
I have some concerns about whether this amendment is necessary, proportionate or properly directed at the issues before us in this Bill. If the concern is about the regulation of financial services and markets, Parliament should scrutinise the regulators and the Government. Indeed, much of our debate on this Bill has been precisely about that: how we ensure that the regulators are accountable, transparent, proportionate and properly focused on growth and competitiveness.
The City of London Corporation, however, is not a financial services regulator and does not set prudential rules. I am therefore not persuaded that a statutory review of the City of London Corporation’s role is the right mechanism in this Bill. At a time when we are trying to strengthen the competitiveness of the United Kingdom, attract global capital, support innovation and ensure that financial services remain one of our national strengths, we should be cautious before creating unnecessary uncertainty around one of the institutions that help to promote that sector internationally. I think the noble Baroness would recognise that as one of its roles.
There is also a question of evidence. Has there been a regulatory failure caused by the City corporation? Has there been a financial stability concern arising from its role? Has there been evidence that its activities have distorted the regulatory process in a way that existing scrutiny mechanisms cannot address? Without that evidence, I am cautious about launching a statutory review through the Bill.
Nor do I think that the Bill is the right vehicle for a wider constitutional debate about the governance of the City of London Corporation. This Bill is about financial services regulation, market infrastructure, consumer protection, competitiveness and the regulatory framework. The governance of the corporation is a broader issue, and one that would need to be considered separately if Parliament wished to do so. That is not to say that scrutiny is unimportant, but we should focus scrutiny where regulatory power actually sits. In this Bill, that means the FCA, the PRA, the Bank of England and the Treasury. Those are the bodies whose powers are being expanded or adjusted, and those are the bodies that Parliament should be most concerned to hold to account. For those reasons, I do not support this amendment.
Lord Stockwood (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for her amendment. I have listened carefully to the arguments presented both in support and in opposition. I want to put on record my respect for the expertise of the City of London Corporation. I have worked positively with the corporation over the last year while I have been in office. It is an institution that represents the interests of the financial and professional services sector and, in that role, it contributes hugely to our mission of strengthening our financial services sector and ensuring that it delivers for people across the country.
It participates in initiatives designed to promote the UK as a place to do business and attract vital investment into the UK that will provide good jobs and pay for vital public services. I am aware that the noble Baroness is keen to revisit the structure of the corporation. However, I can assure her that, as my noble friends Lady Bi and Lady Dacres have said, the corporation has no unique role or special access in designing or influencing the development of financial regulation. The Government engage with a wide range of interested stakeholders in the development of financial services legislation. This includes the regulators, firms, trade associations and consumer groups. The City of London Corporation can and does participate in that engagement on the same basis as other interested parties.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response and everyone who has taken part in this interesting and informative debate. We have engaged with some interesting and broad issues. I particularly commend the noble Lord, Lord Pitt-Watson, who gave us some interesting suggestions and proposals that I am certainly going to go away and think about. I do not think that continuing with the history is necessarily the right thing to do, but that does not mean we cannot learn from history. The idea of the City of London having responsibility for its tradespeople has an interesting comparison, which makes me wonder: had we held the City responsible for the financial crash of 2007-08, and if the City had paid some of the large expenses that were instead, by austerity, put on the shoulders of the poor, the disabled and the young around the country, how different things might have been.
I note that the noble Lord also said that the City should be responsible for seeing that these services should deliver benefit to the world. That is an interesting proposal that I will take away. In responding to what the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Dacres, said, questioning what influence the City has over the FCA and the PRA, I will refer to the contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Bi—
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
The noble Baroness was not here at the start of this sitting, which started earlier this afternoon, almost five hours ago. I point out that, as far as the Companion is concerned, when noble Lords are withdrawing amendments, they must be short and not rehash the whole argument or make responses to all the points made during the debate. If the noble Baroness would move towards withdrawing the amendment, that would be good.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I thank the noble Lord, the Whip. I am not rehashing; I am engaging with the contributions.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
No. Paragraph 8.82 of the Companion says that when withdrawing amendments, noble Lords should be short in doing so and should not engage, because they will have done that during the debate.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I was speaking for about a minute and a half before the noble Lord interrupted me. I think three minutes might count as short, and I have two short points to make. The first, as I was saying before I was interrupted, is that the noble Baroness, Lady Bi, said that the City—
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness, but I support what was said from the Government Front Bench. This matter was discussed again in our Procedure Committee this morning: arguments that have been put are understood by a committee or by the House, and there is often merit in moving on relatively quickly, so, from the Opposition Front Bench, I support what was said.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I note the noble Lord’s contribution. As I said, I would have finished by now had I not been interrupted multiple times. The simple point I want to make is that the noble Baroness, Lady Bi, said that the City engages constructively with regulators. She also said that it uses its convening power to promote the sector. I would argue that, put together, those two things make the case for this amendment.
However, I was going to be brief; I would otherwise have finished a minute ago. We have had an interesting discussion. I will think about where this might go on Report but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“Review of regulatory causes of debanking(1) Within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Treasury must lay before Parliament a report reviewing the extent to which individuals, businesses, charities and other organisations have been refused access to banking services, had banking services terminated, or had the use of banking services materially restricted as a result of regulatory requirements, regulatory uncertainty or risk aversion arising from the operation of the regulatory framework.(2) A report under subsection (1) must consider, in particular—(a) the scale and nature of debanking in the United Kingdom;(b) the categories of individuals, businesses, charities and other organisations most affected by debanking;(c) the sectors, industries or lawful activities most affected by debanking;(d) the extent to which debanking decisions are attributable, wholly or partly, to—(i) anti-money laundering requirements,(ii) counter-terrorist financing requirements,(iii) sanctions compliance,(iv) financial crime prevention requirements,(v) regulatory reporting, monitoring or due diligence obligations,(vi) regulatory guidance or supervisory expectations,(vii) fear of regulatory enforcement or supervisory criticism,(viii) uncertainty or confusion as to the proper interpretation of regulatory requirements, or(ix) the cumulative cost or burden of regulatory compliance.(3) In preparing the report under subsection (1), the Treasury must seek evidence from, and consult—(a) the Financial Conduct Authority;(b) the Prudential Regulation Authority;(c) the Financial Ombudsman;(d) relevant financial institutions;(e) persons who have been refused banking services, had banking services terminated, or had such services materially restricted;(f) politically exposed persons, their family members and known close associates;(g) persons appearing to the Treasury to represent the interests of politically exposed persons, their family members and known close associates;(h) persons representing firms operating in the defence sector or sectors connected with national security;(i) persons representing charities, voluntary organisations and civil society organisations;(j) persons representing small and medium-sized enterprises, start-ups and new market entrants;(k) persons with expertise in anti-money laundering, counter-terrorist financing, sanctions compliance and financial crime regulation;(l) such other persons as the Treasury considers appropriate.(4) The Treasury must publish the report.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would require the Treasury to review whether debanking has occurred as a result of excessive regulation, regulatory uncertainty, confusion, supervisory expectations, enforcement risk or risk aversion arising from the operation of the regulatory framework. The review would identify the sectors and customer groups most affected, including politically exposed persons and their families, defence firms, charities, SMEs and other affected persons.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, in moving this amendment in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Altrincham, I shall speak also to Amendments 172E and 172F.
Amendment 172D probes on debanking. It would require the Treasury to carry out a review into whether individuals, businesses and organisations are being denied, having restricted access or losing access to banking services as a result of the way in which the UK’s financial regulatory framework operates. The core issue is this: the regulatory environment we have at the moment, and the way in which it is constituted, can mean that people, firms and organisations are denied access to banking services. Without access to a bank account, payment services or basic financial infrastructure, people and businesses are severely constrained in their ability to trade, to invest, to employ, to grow and to participate fully in the economy. The amendment asks the Treasury to examine whether debanking is taking place because of excessive regulation, uncertainty, regulatory confusion, supervisory expectations, enforcement risk or general risk aversion.
We have heard concerns from a number of sectors that they are, in effect, playing it safe. They are not necessarily closing accounts because there is a clear requirement to do so; they are doing so because the regulatory environment has become so complex and uncertain that the safest option is to avoid certain customers and sectors altogether. This matters for SMEs. A small business that cannot obtain or retain banking services may be unable to trade properly, receive payments, manage cash flow or invest. It matters for charities, particularly those operating internationally or in complex environments. It matters for defence firms, which may face additional scrutiny because of export controls, sanction concerns or reputational sensitivity, even where their activities are lawful and important to national security. It matters for politically exposed persons and their families; I am sure that many noble Lords will have experienced this. As we have discussed in relation to digital assets, it also matters for innovative firms that are trying to build new products and services but cannot access the banking or payment infrastructure they need.
My amendment therefore underpins our broader calls throughout the Bill for simplification, streamlining and clarity. I appreciate that the regulators have done some work on this, such as a new requirement to provide notice before closing an account and the recent FCA reviews of account closures. The amendment therefore asks the Government to look at how the regulatory landscape interacts with this work, as well as what other steps can be taken to address this problem more effectively.
I turn to Amendments 172E and 172F, which are probing amendments on the protection of sensitive commercial information and the ending of the compensation cap for senior managers under the Employment Rights Act. They were born of a conversation with my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising; I thank him for his insight. The financial services sector depends heavily on confidential and proprietary information. Firms hold business plans, client data, pricing information, trading strategies, algorithms, models, methodologies, internal systems and processes. Such information, as I know well from my business career, represents a major part of a firm’s competitive advantage. These amendments are designed to probe the Government’s position on the protection of that information, including the continued ability of employers in the financial services sector to use non-compete clauses, which can be an important mechanism for protecting commercially sensitive information.
I know that the Government have issued a working paper on options for the reform of these clauses in employment contracts. However, I want today to explain that their use in financial institutions and firms is crucial. I would welcome clarification from the Minister that no provision in the Employment Rights Act will prevent employers in the financial services sector using appropriate and proportionate non-compete clauses. It is important not only for individual firms but for the integrity and competitiveness of the UK financial services market. We have heard that the change could lead some firms to close up in London.
Finally, I turn to Amendment 172F, which is designed to probe the Government on the impact of changes to the rules for senior managers and, in particular, the wider implications of the removal of the compensation cap. The Bill reforms the statutory regime governing the recruitment, approval, mobility and accountability of people working at authorised firms. The Government have, in their Explanatory Notes, identified slow senior hiring and internal mobility as barriers to operational agility.
In the Government’s own analysis of the Employment Rights Act, they accept that high-paying sectors may be affected by the removal of the compensation cap. However, some in the financial services sector have told us that the removal could affect decisions on the future of UK operations because of the risk of enormous million-pound or million-dollar payouts to those who have highly paid roles. Indeed, an article in the Financial Times last month reported that firms were seeking urgent legal advice on how to prepare for the changes. This amendment therefore raises a financial services competitiveness and regulatory agility issue that is properly connected to the Bill; we believe that it is vital that the Government consider this issue as a part of financial services policy.
I would be grateful if the Minister could address three points. First, what assessment have the Government made of the sectors and groups most affected by the loss of access to banking services? Would a review not be useful? This amendment looks backwards. Secondly, can the Minister clarify the Government’s position on the continued use of proportionate non-compete clauses in financial services, where they are necessary to protect commercially sensitive information? Thirdly, will the Government assess the effect of changes to the rules on the employment of highly paid senior managers, and consider changing the rules in the interests of growth and competitiveness? Those are the rules that relate to compensation. Both amendments look forward, and the Minister should be concerned. I beg to move.
Lord Howard of Rising (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 172E in the name of my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe. She expressed her support for it far more ably than I ever could, but I want to say that it would be unrealistic to think that sophisticated financial businesses with complex computer systems and programmes can continue to operate in this country if they cannot protect the secrecy of systems oh whose development they may have spent millions of pounds or dollars.
Whether this is carried out by non-compete clauses, which I imagine will be the easiest way to do it, or some other method, what must be achieved is the ability of financial companies to preserve the security of their systems—that is, if we wish these businesses to remain in this country and not go somewhere else where they will get security for what, as I say, may have cost them many millions to develop. In that context, they just do things that we do not know about. For example, the method of communication in the United States now is to bounce radio waves off the ionosphere. They do not want to come here and show everybody how to do it. So I urge the Minister to pay good attention to what my noble friend has said.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe’s Amendment 172D. The problem of debanking has reached a serious level in the UK, with roughly half a million people reported to be affected last year alone. I welcome and recognise that the Government have moved on this and that the new rules require banks to give 90 days’ notice and provide a clear explanation. I also welcome the fact that there is a right to challenge unresolved disputes via the ombudsman.
Lord Stockwood (Lab)
My Lords, this is the final group before Committee stage is completed. I am grateful for the discussions so far, not just on this group of amendments but on each of the more than 220 amendments we have discussed over the past three weeks. I appreciate the insights and wisdom shared by everyone in the six sessions. As someone relatively new to the House, I come away from this stage of the Bill’s journey with renewed faith and belief in the importance of scrutiny in the House of Lords. I thank noble Lords.
These amendments propose that the Treasury conducts reviews into a range of important issues in financial services. I will first speak to Amendment 172D, which would require HM Treasury to undertake a review into the scale and nature of debanking in the UK. The Government recognise the serious impact the loss of access to those services can have, but there is already a significant amount of work under way. Parliament has legislated to ensure that domestic politically exposed persons and their family members and close associates are treated in a more proportionate manner under the anti-money laundering framework. The FCA has also undertaken significant work on account access, account closures and debanking as required by Parliament. The FCA has collected evidence to understand where account closures and refusals are occurring and why, and has undertaken further work better to understand the reasons behind account closures and refusals.
I am not sure that regulation is a principal driver of debanking. Decisions to refuse, restrict or terminate banking services may arise for a range of reasons, including commercial decisions, firms’ assessments of risk, legal obligations and financial crime concerns. The FCA has emphasised that when accounts are closed or denied, providers must adhere to their consumer duty obligations. They include ensuring that all communication with customers is clear and easy to understand. The Government have also legislated to address concerns around account closures. This includes ensuring that providers give customers at least 90 days’ instead of two months’ notice before terminating payment services and provide a sufficiently detailed explanation of their decision and signpost appropriate complaints routes.
The Government have also taken steps to reduce the impact of anti-money laundering rules on legitimate customers through recent changes to the money laundering regulations. This included measures to make customer due diligence requirements more proportionate and effective while maintaining robust protections against economic crime.
Amendment 172E would require the Treasury to conduct a review into whether financial services firms have adequate means to protect commercially sensitive information. Confidentiality and the protection of commercially sensitive information is vital to the strength of the UK’s financial sector, and the Government take the importance of this matter very seriously. Without robust protection of commercially sensitive information, investors lose confidence, consumers are at risk and the reputation of the sector is degraded.
The FCA and the PRA have rules and expectations that address the protection of commercially sensitive information by firms. However, I am afraid that I am not an expert in the Employment Rights Act and the contracts that were mentioned are not within the scope of the Bill. While I am aware that I am giving Charles Dickens a run for his money in the number of letters I have suggested I will write, I will write to the noble Baroness on the Government’s position on this as well.
Amendment 172F concerns the effectiveness and operation of the senior managers regime. The Bill already introduces reforms intended to make the regime operate more proportionately, while preserving the accountability standards which are central to it. As I mentioned on Monday, the changes will help deliver the ambition of the Government and the regulators to reduce burdens from this regime by 50%; the reforms to this regime alone are expected to reduce administrative burdens on the sector by almost £600 million over the next 10 years. The detailed operation of the reformed framework will be taken forward by the regulators through their rules, subject to their statutory consultation requirements.
In those circumstances, the Government’s view is that the right course is to allow those reforms to be developed, implemented and monitored through the existing framework. The Government will also continue to engage closely with the regulators as they implement these changes, to ensure that the regime is more proportionate in its approach.
I will write on the compensation cap for senior managers, which the noble Baroness also mentioned, as this is a matter of employment law. I thank her for raising that issue. For those reasons, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friends Lord Howard of Rising and Lady Lawlor for their support, and the Minister for his response. These amendments have raised three distinct but connected issues: problems with access to banking services, protection of commercially sensitive information, and the ability of financial services firms to recruit, retain and deploy talent in the UK under the new Employment Rights Act. I hope the Government will reflect further on these issues before Report and provide more concrete evidence on what has been happening on debanking to those who have been involved in Committee. The Minister made some encouraging remarks, but some data would be useful. I very much look forward to his letter on the points that I have raised about the impact of the Employment Rights Act.
As the last speaker, I also thank all those who have been involved in the Committee. We have completed it on time and with great good humour, in general. I look forward to Report and, for now, beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
House of Lords
Royal Assent
Wednesday 8th July 2026
(3 weeks, 4 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate National Security (State Threats) Act 2026 View all National Security (State Threats) Act 2026 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: HL Bill 35-I(b) Manuscript amendment for Committee (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (30 Jun 2026)
Unpaid Carers
(3 weeks, 4 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Pitkeathley
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the finding in the Carers UK report The ‘tipping point’: when unpaid carers can no longer combine caring with paid employment, published on 12 May, that 47% of carers are considering reducing their working hours or leaving paid employment because of the pressures they face; and what steps they intend to take as a result.
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and I declare an interest as vice-president of Carers UK.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the millions of unpaid carers across the UK whose compassion, sacrifice and dedication support loved ones every day and make an immeasurable contribution to our society and economy. The Government recognise the immense contribution made by unpaid carers and the pressures highlighted in the Carers UK report. We take its findings seriously. Supporting carers to remain in work is good for individuals, employers and the wider economy. That is why we have launched a public consultation reviewing employment rights for unpaid carers, including where further workplace support is needed, while ensuring that any future changes remain fair, proportionate and workable for employers.
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. The public consultation that has been launched is very welcome. As my noble friend knows, carers want to combine paid work with caring if they can because it provides income, independence and social interaction. There is never a problem making the moral case for carers—everyone knows they are unsung heroes and heroines—but does my noble friend agree that there is a strong economic case, too? The DWP estimates that carers leaving work results in about £37 billion a year in lost productivity and increased welfare expenditure, so there are economic benefits to supporting them in any way possible, such as paid carer’s leave—as I have said, the consultation is most welcome—access to reliable social care and better support from both employers and healthcare services.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I totally agree with my noble friend that supporting unpaid carers is both a moral and economic imperative. When experienced people are forced to leave work, we lose their skills, productivity and contribution to our economy. That is why we are reviewing employment rights for unpaid carers, including paid leave and wider workplace support. But this goes beyond employment rights. We must also consider how healthcare, social care and employers can better support carers to remain in work.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, the Minister is quite right that this goes beyond employment rights. The chief executive of Care England, Professor Martin Green, warned that the Government’s changes to employer national insurance contributions would leave many care organisations
“on the brink of bankruptcy”.
During the passage of the national insurance contributions Bill, His Majesty’s Official Opposition pressed the Government to exempt adult social care from these damaging provisions, but the Government rejected that exemption for no good reason. Will they now think again and exempt adult social care providers from these employer national insurance changes before more essential care provision—provision on which so many vulnerable people so desperately depend—is lost?
Lord Leong (Lab)
I hear what the noble Lord says about national insurance, but let me say this. There is a moral imperative on employers to play their part in supporting unpaid carers. There are fantastic employers up and down this country that are doing fantastic things to support carers. I shall give an example: Centrica estimates savings of £1.5 million last year in reduced absence costs alone, achieved through support measures for unpaid carers, with further savings on retention. So these measures result in improved retention, better productivity and reduced absence from work.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, when I was piloting the Carer’s Leave Bill 2023 through your Lordships’ House, Centrica was one of the companies I spoke to. Centrica and other companies were already doing phenomenal work, but we all agreed that the Bill was the first step for unpaid carers. The Act has now been in force for just over two years, and data on take-up is sketchy. At best, the Minister’s department puts take-up at 29% of those eligible, but other data says just 10%. We do not have to wait for a consultation. The barriers have been researched by the Minister’s department. The first barrier is that it is unpaid by nature: that is what we hope to change. But the second is awareness, or lack of awareness, by people who might benefit. The third barrier is fear from employers. Can the Minister tell your Lordships’ House what the Government are doing in order to take away those two important barriers—for people getting what little benefit they have already—before his consultation finishes its work?
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, let me be absolutely clear. There is active cross-governmental engagement on how we better support unpaid carers, because we recognise that employment cannot be considered in isolation from health and social care. My department is working with colleagues across government, including the DWP and the Department of Health and Social Care, as we consider the evidence and responses to our current consultation. We must take our time to ensure that we get this right. Our shared objective must be to help those carers who want to work to remain in employment, while ensuring that they can access the wider support that they and those they care for need.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, some employers are now adhering to the principles of Hugh’s law when there is a seriously or critically ill child and those unpaid carers are particularly severely affected. Will the consultation cover the issue of children who are very seriously ill? Will the Government also consider —and I declare my interest in Cardiff University—monitoring the family-reported outcome measures of different interventions? These are put in place to support families where there are unpaid carers, and would enable us to get a better idea of what is effective and what is less so.
Lord Leong (Lab)
As the noble Baroness has said, the Casey commission is considering the long-term future of adult social care. We must let the review take its course. Alongside that, we are already reviewing employment rights for unpaid carers through a separate consultation. We are not waiting to gather any evidence, but we will consider carefully what more can be done to help carers remain in employment.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there is a particular difficulty for those who have given up full-time work—indeed given up work altogether—in order to be full-time carers? They are then left in a position where they have virtually no pension and no security. When their loved one dies, they are left entirely on their own without much support.
Lord Leong (Lab)
I totally agree with my noble friend. That is why we are conducting a review and various consultations to ensure that we better support our carers up and down the country to have unpaid leave as is necessary, and also to get the care that they need to support their loved ones.
Baroness Dacres of Lewisham (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend will know that many young carers take on significant caring responsibilities at an early age. What further action are the Government taking to identify and support young carers, so that their caring responsibilities do not limit their ability to reach their full potential in education, well-being and future opportunities?
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right: young carers often face unique challenges in balancing education, work and caring responsibilities. Although the consultation before us focuses principally on employment rights for unpaid carers, we recognise the importance of ensuring that younger carers receive appropriate support and opportunities to fulfil their potential.
Baroness Monckton of Dallington Forest (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that parents who look after children with 24-hour needs, and who cannot get to work, need as much support as everyone else?
Lord Leong (Lab)
Absolutely. We recognise that carer’s allowance has not kept pace with the way that many carers now combine work and caring. The current earnings cliff edge can create uncertainty and unfair outcomes. That is why the Government have launched a call for evidence to modernise the benefit, including on whether payments should gradually taper as earnings rise. We have also increased the weekly earnings limit to £204. We want a system that supports carers to work, rather than one that penalises them for doing so.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, given that the issue of NEETs has been looked at by His Majesty’s Government, and that they will report back on Milburn’s recommendations, will the Government please look at the possibility of providing a free bus pass for young carers, particularly given that they have sometimes had to sacrifice their education to look after their loved ones? This support from the Government might be a step up for them in seeking work, training or education.
Lord Leong (Lab)
The noble Lord makes a very interesting suggestion. I will take it back to the officials in my department and other departments too.
Safe Refugee Routes for Students
(3 weeks, 4 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
To ask His Majesty’s Government what recent progress they have made towards developing safe refugee routes for students from Afghanistan, Cameroon, Myanmar and Sudan.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government committed to three new safe and legal routes in the Restoring Order and Control Statement. The Home Secretary announced that the refugee study route will be open this autumn, with arrivals in autumn 2027. Officials are working closely with stakeholders to design the new routes to ensure that they are both safe and controlled, and further information will be set out in due course.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, I am delighted to hear that there is progress and that the Government are determined that the scheme should be in operation by the next academic year. However, I ask my noble friend for his assurance that those students who might be able to take up the offer being provided by the Government, and who meet the criteria and have scholarships, will know that they will be able to take up the places by 2027. Further, is the Home Office consulting with UUK to ensure that universities are not overburdened by whatever scheme is put in place?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
We intend to set out details of the scheme very shortly, which will, hopefully, provide clarity on what the Government are intending to do with the safe and legal routes. As my noble friend said, it is also important that the universities themselves are involved in, and at least have some discussion with the Government on, the implementation and design of the scheme. I will feed that back to colleagues who are dealing with this directly.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest that I am supported by RAMP. What advice would the Minister give to Afra Elmahdi, a cancer specialist from war-torn Sudan who has secured a master’s place to do cancer science research at Oxford University? That post, that job, that relationship, has ended. What message would the Minister send to her? She seeks to be able to diagnose cancer more swiftly in a country that is torn apart by civil war.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
As I as have said, the Government are examining safe and legal routes. However, at the moment, we have temporarily suspended the issuing of visas to those from Afghanistan, Cameroon, Myanmar and Sudan. We have done that because there has been an increase of over 470% from 2021 levels, and over a third of asylum seekers have previously entered the UK on a visa. We are trying to put safe and legal routes in place. We will look at that scheme, and the noble Lord and others will be able to facilitate that scheme, with effect from autumn next year.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, the Government have recently announced that they will allow communities to sponsor refugees on new asylum routes. Given that we had 93,525 people claiming asylum in the United Kingdom in the year ending March 2026, can the Minister tell the House how the Government can be contemplating increasing this number even further?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
If the noble Lord does not want the Government to meet their obligations on asylum, he should say so. The Government are about trying to meet our international obligations, which we are trying to ensure that we do through this scheme, as the Home Secretary announced in a press conference on 26 June, by giving refugees study and named sponsorship routes, which will be open to applications from lead sponsors in the autumn. That will put real guidelines around asylum applications. It is important that people have sponsorship and places to go, including at university, but it is also important that we meet our international obligations and do not have the abuse of the system that, sadly—dare I say it?—occurred under the Government opposite.
Baroness Gohir (CB)
My Lords, first the Taliban prevented Afghan females studying and now the Home Office are preventing them studying. Why have the Government not given them an exemption, given that Afghan female students make up a tiny proportion of all international students, to allow them to study in this country?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
As I have said, the Government have decided to put a brake on all applications from nationals of Afghanistan, Cameroon, Myanmar and Sudan. The brake is not intended to be permanent; it will be lifted when the Government consider it appropriate to do so. In the meantime, we are trying to put in place proper safe and legal routes for individuals such as those mentioned by the noble Baroness to be able to come to the United Kingdom with sponsorship in a proper and effective way. That brake is temporary, but it has been put in place for an important reason that I have to report to the House today.
Lord Isaac (Lab)
My Lords, I reinforce the point about the devastating impact on refugee students of the introduction of the visa brake. I am really pleased to hear the assurances from my noble friend the Minister that the brake is only temporary and that there will now be an opportunity for sponsorship from universities. I declare an interest as provost of Worcester College, Oxford. Can my noble friend give an assurance that clever refugee students from Afghanistan, Myanmar, Sudan and Cameroon will be able to come to the UK, study and return to their countries as future leaders?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
That is really important. My noble friend will know that one of the great things the UK has is soft power through the university sector. People will go back to their countries from United Kingdom universities to be business and political leaders. The brake is in place now, but we are looking at how we design the scheme to ensure that we have safe and legal routes from next year for the type of sponsorship that my noble friend mentions. Further discussion will be undertaken by the Home Secretary very shortly, and I would welcome any contribution he wants to make to that.
Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)
My Lords, given the interpretation that British courts and tribunals have put on the UN and European conventions in recent years, I assume that the entire population of places such as Sudan and Somalia would qualify for asylum and be granted it if they could get their feet on to British soil. Would the Government not prefer to tackle this legal problem, get our asylum rules back to common sense and consider putting a cap on the total numbers that our public services and society can absorb before opening up more safe and legal routes for people to come from these and other countries?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord makes an important point. He will know that I repeated a Statement from the Home Secretary last November on controlling the very issues he mentions. As announced in the King’s gracious Speech earlier this year, there will be an immigration Bill to put into effect some of the issues covered in that Statement on asylum. I suggest that the noble Lord will have a great contribution to make in ensuring that that Bill leaves both Houses of Parliament in a form that meets the objectives he has set out and the Government’s objectives to have safe and legal routes at the same time as putting some control into the system in an effective way. We are cognisant of European human rights issues and are reflecting on them as part of the legislative programme.
The Lord Bishop of Winchester
My Lords, if I may broaden the scope of the Question, given that the recent conflict has not led to any evident improvement in the situation facing ordinary Iranians, what assessment have His Majesty’s Government made of the availability of safe and legal routes for Iranian nationals? I am thinking in particular of members of Iran’s persecuted and vulnerable religious minorities, including Christian converts, Bahá’ís, Sunni and Sufi Muslims.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The right reverend Prelate puts his finger on an important point. The scheme that I have outlined to the House is one that the Government are currently developing. We intend to announce further details of the scheme, and we have given a date for when it will be operational. I am happy to receive representations from the right reverend Prelate and his colleagues on how we implement that scheme for countries outside the four that are in the original Question from my noble friend.
Lord Hussain (LD)
My Lords, I hear what the Minister said about setting temporary bars for students from certain countries. However, in relation to the students who belong to the families of Afghan interpreters who are stranded in Pakistan, is there a special provision for the children of the interpreters who worked with our forces in very difficult circumstances?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Again, the Government will look at all cases on an individual basis. I am aware of the issue, but I am not aware in relation to where the Government currently examine that aspect of policy. If the noble Lord will allow me, I will write to him on the specific issue of interpreters in Pakistan. Where there are legitimate claims for asylum, they will be considered under existing policies and, with the changes we are proposing, under future policy as well.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
I strongly support what the Government are trying to do here. The Minister will be aware of my long-standing interest in Sudan, and I agree with what he said. There are many Sudanese students who have contributed a great deal to our society and, every time I go to Sudan, I meet many people who have been to our universities and are now in positions of considerable authority in Sudan. If students come here on the safe refugee route, the key point is that they should be returned to their home country if that country then enters a period of stability at the end of their course.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
On all those aspects, the intention is to allow individuals to benefit from the safe and legal route that gives them the opportunity to study, work or bring a required skill to the United Kingdom. However, it is also important that we do not have a brain drain, or individuals leaving but not returning to their countries when possible. The noble Lords’ points are extremely important. In the scheme we are designing, we are trying to ensure that there are sponsors who have responsibility for the individuals who come to this country and that, ultimately, they return to their home countries to use the benefits they have learned in the United Kingdom to improve their home countries.
Lord Advocate
(3 weeks, 4 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Lord Cameron of Lochiel
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the appropriateness of the role of the Lord Advocate as a Scottish Law Officer and head of the system of criminal prosecutions in Scotland as delineated in the Scotland Act 1998.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Curran) (Lab)
My Lords, this Government acknowledge there is a live debate about the dual role of the Lord Advocate in Scotland. The Scottish Labour manifesto in 2024 committed to splitting the role of legal adviser to the Scottish Government and head of the system of criminal prosecutions in Scotland, and that remains our position. The UK Government would of course consider any proposal brought forward by the Scottish Parliament.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I warmly welcome the Minister to her post on the Front Bench. The dual role of Lord Advocate as both the chief legal adviser to the Scottish Government and the head of the prosecution system in Scotland has become increasingly difficult to justify, not least in light of recent events and the potential for conflicts of interest. The current Prime Minister has acknowledged this as a problem. However, any changes to the status quo of course require UK Government legislation. Given that the Labour Party has long supported separating the Lord Advocate’s roles, will the Minister now commit to bringing forward legislation to do just that?
Baroness Curran (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord and recognise his position as a former Scotland Office Minister and his knowledge and experience on this matter. He is of course right to emphasise that this has become a very significant issue of public debate in Scotland at the moment, given very high-profile criminal cases. It is a matter that demands attention. The UK Government of course have a significant interest in this, and the Prime Minister has acknowledged that this is a serious issue.
The noble Lord will know that the Law Society of Scotland has recently suggested that there should be widespread consultation on this matter and has acknowledged that this is a complex matter. We recognise that the Scottish Government also have a strong interest in this and would welcome co-operation between the UK Government and the Scottish Government to pursue this matter.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I too congratulate my noble friend on her well-deserved appointment to the Front Bench. On this occasion, however, I agree—for once—with the Opposition spokesperson.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
It had to happen some time. We should not wait for the Scottish Government to ask for the legislation to be changed. This is a responsibility of the UK Government and the UK Parliament. There are other areas, such as the Murrell controversy—that embezzlement. Now, there is £1.2 million of Yes Scotland money that has gone missing, and two legal actions against the Scottish Government—and they have had many in the past. We have a responsibility for ensuring good governance in every part of the United Kingdom, including in devolved Governments, and I hope that my noble friend will persuade the Secretary of State for Scotland to take some action on this.
Baroness Curran (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that question—I think. Of course, he is right on so many things, and I will listen very closely to what he has to say. He makes reference to the Peter Murrell case. Here, I must emphasise to noble Lords that this is a matter of great scandal in Scotland, and there are very serious concerns about what this has meant for Scottish politics and governance. So, I take very seriously these points and recognise what has been said. I commit to having that discussion with the Scottish Secretary and will of course communicate his views, and those of the Opposition, as forcefully as he has put them.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, we welcome the outline position taken by the Minister. But formally, and uniquely in the United Kingdom, the Lord Advocate is both head of the Prosecution Service in Scotland and a Government Minister who attends Cabinet. This duality, as has been said by everyone, has long been criticised. It has caused considerable public unease, particularly in relation to the Peter Murrell case. So, when will the Government separate and clarify the two roles, probably with the Solicitor-General responsible for prosecutions and the Lord Advocate for advising the Scottish Government on the law? That is the position in Wales with the Counsel General, and I suggest it represents a sensible position that everyone can support.
Baroness Curran (Lab)
I recognise the depth of the argument that the noble Lord has put forward and understand the issues at stake, which are live in Scotland. We also have to acknowledge that this has implications for the Scottish Government, because they are responsible for the justice system and for prosecutions in Scotland. I am sorry to repeat the point, but the best way forward, I believe, is for joint co-operation between the UK Government and the Scottish Government. But, believe me, this is a live issue for the UK Government; it is one that is on our agenda and which we will pay attention to.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
I also welcome the Minister to her seat. The conflicts that have been described are particularly bad for political party and election law. The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, which applies to the whole of the United Kingdom, has an enormous raft of criminal offences. If you look down that list of criminal offences and compare them with the facts in the Murrell mess, you will see that there are quite a lot of things that may well come up and would present a terrible conflict straight away to the Lord Advocate. Given that the political party concerned there is one that operates nationally and is represented in our Houses, it is a UK Government thing and therefore I very much support what the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, has just said. One way to do something about it now would be to say that at the next interministerial group this will be the number1 item on the agenda and the group will not move on to the second item on the agenda until there is a satisfactory conclusion to something which is potentially so damaging to our democracy.
Baroness Curran (Lab)
What an interesting suggestion. I thank the noble Earl for putting that forward. I will take that back to the department. I draw his attention to the Scottish Government-commissioned McMillan report which looked into these roles. It was a very limited report and was not required to make any recommendations, but even so it highlighted some of the conflicts of the job and some of the political tensions that are there. So I can commit to making sure that I have that discussion with the Secretary of State.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, recent events engulfing the SNP with the Murrell conviction crystallise the conflict of interest. The Lord Advocate, Scotland’s independent chief prosecutor, felt able to share information only with her client, the Scottish Government. A chief prosecutor either shares information with everyone or shares it with no one. I am comforted by the response from the Minister, to whom I also extend a welcome to her place. I think she is picking up from this House that there is an overwhelming unease that the duality of this role has run its day and change has to be made.
Baroness Curran (Lab)
I pay tribute to the noble Baroness as well, who commands great respect in Scotland across the political divide. Her comments therefore are of great significance. I repeat that I will take that back, because if someone of her standing is making that point, I regard that as significant.
Lord Jack of Courance (Con)
In the spirit of good will, I start by agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes. If we are to look again at this Scotland Act, that requires primary legislation, and if we are going to have primary legislation opening up the Scotland Act again, which I think we should, can we further look at Schedule 5? Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act is everything that was a reserved matter, and anything that was not on Schedule 5 back in 1998 was not a reserved matter. Since then, many things have come to pass: AI, hydrogen gas and other things. I would be happy to give the Minister a list. I think it is important we look again at Schedule 5 and review all the things that should be reserved to this Parliament.
Baroness Curran (Lab)
Again, as a former Secretary of State for Scotland, I pay tribute to the work of the noble Lord and recognise his status within these discussions. I would not want to be in a position where I contradict many of the things that I have recently said about Scottish politics, and I do not dismiss or undermine any of the points that have previously been made. But in Scotland there is a real appetite to talk less about the constitution and more about the interests of ordinary Scots, the standards of public services and some of the failures of the SNP Government. I will be honest with the noble Lord and say that that is my priority going forward.
Maritime and Coastguard Agency
(3 weeks, 4 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hendy
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the effect on recruitment and retention of Coastguard Rescue Officers of the decision of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency to cease on-call payments.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, in the light of a Westminster Hall debate last week, representations from coastguard rescue officers and unions, and other information, the Maritime Minister in the other place has been clear on the need to listen and to reflect on the way forward, which he is doing. That is why further scheduled engagement by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency this week has been paused.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble kinsman for that Answer.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
I have waited a long time to use that expression, and it is a pleasure to do so. The judgment of the Court of Appeal on 14 January was entirely predictable: that coastguards are what lawyers call limb (b) workers. However, the decision of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, in response to that, was not predictable. It has degraded that status to nothing at all and removed the protections that Parliament bestowed on limb (b) workers for our heroic coastguards. Those coastguards are no longer entitled to the national minimum wage for the hours they work—indeed, to any payment at all. They are not entitled to paid holiday, to apply for protection from unlawful deductions from wages, to the protection of whistleblowing or to seek recognition for collective bargaining. Following the Court of Appeal case, which turned on this issue, they are not entitled to a trade union representative in a disciplinary hearing. Can my noble kinsman say whether he will use all the weight he can bring to bear to lean on the Maritime and Coastguard Agency to get it to reverse this awful decision?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I am not sure that I am as grateful to my noble kinsman as he is to me—but, as usual, I will answer his questions. This change has not taken place yet; it is due to take place in September. There is time for my colleague, the Maritime Minister in the other place, to listen and reflect. I have talked to him three times today and I will talk to him again after this Question. He will reflect deeply on what he has heard and what needs to be done.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, the staff survey on which the Maritime and Coastguard Agency has relied in making its case has been reported in the press as having been misrepresented by the agency to Ministers and, consequently, by Ministers to Parliament. In that light, do the Government still have confidence in the chief executive of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency? Do they continue to rely on that staff survey?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I have two things to say. First, in the course of the Maritime Minister reflecting on what he has heard, he will reflect on the accuracy and veracity of the information he has been given. Therefore, it is far too early to say what the consequence of that might be. Secondly, he has asked his officials to tell him the data that can be legitimately released so that Members of Parliament in the other place and Peers in this Chamber can hold the Government to account.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that making it so much harder for working people on low incomes to serve as coastguard rescue officers may jeopardise this life-saving service? Therefore, in this period of reflection that he has described, will he ensure that assessment is made of the impact on the diversity of workforce in this context?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I will say two things. First, the Government recognise and are fully grateful for the extraordinary service of brave and selfless volunteer coastguards. Secondly, the noble Baroness is absolutely right that, in the course of this contemplation, we need to reflect on the diversity of those volunteers. Decisions should not be made that adversely affect that.
Baroness Bull (CB)
Can the Minister say what discussions might have taken place with other government departments to compare the approach that could be taken to the coastguard with the retained firefighter model? There is a risk that, from September, both will provide on-call emergency services, often at great personal risk, but one will be recognised as a worker and remunerated while the other will not be.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I am grateful for that question. I am not currently aware of those discussions, but clearly there are similarities between some of the things that we ask selfless people in our society to do. I am sure that the Maritime Minister and the department will reflect on that with other appropriate government departments.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
My Lords, the cuts proposed by the MCA have been resisted by the GMB union, as well as by coastguard rescue officers themselves. Is the Minister certain, at a time when we see more people around the coast of Britain using the sea for leisure, that the potential reduction in staff that could come from this will not put people at risk?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The course of action that needs to be taken needs to recognise that the volunteer coastguards have attended over 14,000 incidents each year for the past three years and rescued over 4,000 people annually. The Government have no intention of putting any of those people in danger. That is why my colleague in the other place is thinking so carefully about what to do next.
Baroness Shephard of Northwold (Con)
My Lords, it was a delightful surprise to find that there are two Lords Hendy in this House. Who knew? We are very familiar with the Minister’s skills. He will be aware that more than half of our coastguard rescue officers will leave this vital service if the Government continue on their present course. The Minister mentioned the magic word “September”. I ask him to reconsider that. We are now entering the peak risk period on our coasts, when our coastal waters are full of swimmers and sailors, and when the work of the coastguard rescue service is in peak demand. Do the Government plan to overturn the court decision on which all this stands? Given the risk, how soon should they do so? September is too late. The risk is now.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
There are at least two of us in here who knew that there were two Hendys in the House. Maybe that is common knowledge now.
The noble Baroness is right: September is not far away. I put in the present tense the fact that the Maritime Minister is considering this because it needs to be considered right now and for the reasons that the noble Baroness said. Whatever course of action he decides to take needs to be taken very quickly to avoid the service being in anyway affected and to ensure the safety of people on the coast and in the sea.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that the Maritime and Coastguard Agency’s total budget last year was £450 million, of which coastguard volunteer allowances cost under £6 million—around 1%—for which we, as a public, get a 24/7, 365-day emergency response network covering 11,000 miles of our coastline by 3,500 volunteers, who get a call-out allowance of £11 an hour, which is a tiny fraction of the 1,200 paid staff in the agency? This is a petty, punitive and pernicious cut, which I urge Ministers to reverse.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My noble friend is entirely right about all the statistics he quoted. That is why I said that the Maritime Minister is currently considering what needs to be done as a result of what he has heard, what I have heard in this House this afternoon and the other information available in order to make the right judgment about how to proceed.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s opening Answer, when he noted that the Maritime Minister was reflecting. This sounds like a case where it would be better to embrace the court decision, recognise the worker status and take the steps necessary to properly reward people who do incredibly valuable work. As the noble Lord, Lord Hain, said, it is very good value for the taxpayer. The MCA is an executive agency of the department; the Minister should take the right decision and direct the agency to carry out its instructions. That is what we expect Ministers to do, and I am sure that the Minister will impress that course upon his Commons colleague.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I do not need to do that, because the course of action that he will take, after having listened and reflected, may well be the course of action that the noble Lord suggested.
Business of the House
(3 weeks, 4 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon
That Standing Order 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with on Tuesday 14 July to allow the Supply and Appropriation (Main Estimates) Bill to be taken through its remaining stages that day.
Business of the House
(3 weeks, 4 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon
That Standing Order 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with on Tuesday 14 July to allow the Taxation (Energy and Vehicles) Bill to be taken through its remaining stages that day.
Commercial Payments Bill [HL]
(3 weeks, 4 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Leong
That the order of commitment of 9 June be discharged and the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House; and that the instruction to the Grand Committee of 9 June shall also be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House.
Rochdale Grooming Gang: Offender Deportation
(3 weeks, 4 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, when this Urgent Question was asked by my honourable friend Katie Lam in the other place on Monday, the Minister responding, Alex Norris, said:
“I could not be clearer that all options are on the table at this stage”.—[Official Report, Commons, 6/7/26; col. 28.]
With respect, the only option that should be on the table is the deportation of Shabir Ahmed. There is no justification whatever for him to remain in the country after the despicable crimes he has committed. If the Government say that they cannot deport him because of the law then they must change the law. The Opposition have said we will support that change, so why will the Government not commit to bringing forward the necessary amendment to the Immigration Act 1971 as a matter of urgency?
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
The crimes which led to the imprisonment of the individual concerned were despicable and horrendous. I say again to the noble Lord that we are urgently looking at these matters and will bring potential urgent action on them. We are examining this in detail and nothing is ruled out at all. I will keep the noble Lord updated on this matter. It is not acceptable that this individual is protected. For information, in the last 12 months we have deported 187 foreign national offenders for rape offences and 392 foreign national offenders for sexual offences. However, as the noble Lord mentioned, the 1971 Act places a restriction on this individual, and we are urgently examining that issue.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, this case arises from one of the most despicable and notorious failures of local agencies to protect local vulnerable girls. Can the Minister tell the House what specific lessons have been learned from the original Rochdale investigation? How have those lessons now been built into national policing guidance on grooming gangs? How will the Minister ensure that the guidance on grooming gangs now with police will be applied consistently across the UK?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness. Self-evidently, there are a number of lessons to be learned. That is why we have established the grooming gangs inquiry, currently operating under the auspices of the noble Baroness, Lady Longfield. There are a number of lessons to be learned on this matter. We want to ensure that we take action to give guidance to the police and help prevent future victims. In this case, it should be remembered that of the individuals who were participating in this grooming gang, Mr Ahmed was deprived of his citizenship in 2016, and of the eight gang members in total one was deported to Afghanistan and one was deported to Pakistan, two are British and therefore exempt from deportation but have faced the penalty of prison, one left the UK last year clandestinely, and the final three have been deprived of their British citizenship and have deportation orders in place. We are working speedily to make sure that those individuals face further justice.
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
My Lords, I wholly agree with the point that has been raised around this case. It truly is a despicable case. Yesterday in the Chamber, I raised comments regarding the Government’s position on early release. This is not in isolation. Thousands of victims—women and young girls—are now left in the most awful situation due to the proposals of this Government on early release. Can the Minister tell us, yes or no, whether rapists will be part of the early release scheme that the Government are about to bring in?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I told the noble Baroness yesterday, but will repeat it today, that those who are convicted of serious offences will not be considered under the early release scheme. I could not have been clearer yesterday and cannot be clearer today. The early release scheme details will be brought forward in due course. It is the intention of the Government to protect the public while dealing with a prisoner backlog in prisons, which, with due respect to the noble Baroness, lies at the door of the previous Conservative Government.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, talked about lessons learned from the original case, but are there lessons to be learned about the release process and the way in which this individual’s immigration status was flagged up to the authorities at an early stage? I have the impression that the Government were slightly blindsided by this case. Frankly, that should not have been the case. It should have been clear earlier on from the file which no doubt follows the individual around the prison system.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My noble friend asks me about the individual’s management within the prison system, which is a Ministry of Justice responsibility. The individual is on the sex offenders register for life, has been ordered to stay away from victims, is banned from contact with any child or young person, faces strict curfews and restriction zones, and is required to wear an electronic tag. Should he breach his conditions, he will be immediately returned to prison. As I have said in response to other questions, we are urgently examining all options. Nothing is ruled out in the response regarding the deportation. Sadly, the deportation issue relates to the 1971 Act, which was a long time ago, under the Government of Ted Heath. There are Members in this House—I am looking at one now—who were Members of Parliament at that time. It is a long time ago, but we need to examine how we ensure that individuals who have been convicted and face deportation do face the consequences of their actions.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, the Minister has been commendably robust and consistent on this. There are reports in the media today that the Home Secretary, Shabana Mahmood, is bringing forward legislation. Can he be more precise on the expected timescale to expedite that legislation? Is his department having discussions with the Government of Pakistan on the issuance of visas? The Pakistani Government have issued a number of, frankly, unnecessarily intemperate comments about colonialism over what is essentially one of their own citizens.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
We are in discussion with the Pakistan Government at all times. I hope that the noble Lord and the House understand that we keep all options under review and will take whatever action is required to ensure that we deal with this issue. I am not in a position today to answer the points that he has mentioned, but can reaffirm that we keep all options under review.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, it appears that the said gentleman, Shabir Ahmed, has ripped up his Pakistan passport and claims to be without a state at the moment. That is an issue that has not yet been addressed. The issue of the law, the Immigration Act 1971, could simply be addressed in the Government’s legislation before both Houses. Is that not an option?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am going to sound like a broken record: we keep all options under review. If the noble Baroness will listen to what I have said, we keep all options under review and will take whatever action is required. I cannot further update the House at this moment, except to say that point.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, at lot of the attention at the moment is rightly on Shabir Ahmed, but there are two other individuals who are facing deportation. Is the Minister able to update the House on whether there are any obstacles to their deportation from this country? Are they in a similar situation to Shabir Ahmed or is it more straightforward?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
If it were straightforward, we would have, as the noble Lord will know, dealt with the matter in a way that met the objectives that the House is pressing me to meet. There are three British citizens who have had their citizenship deprived. They have deportations in place and we are in discussions with the authorities in Pakistan to make sure that they can be deported. We will keep all options under review, to make sure that we achieve that objective. If the House will bear with me, that is as far as I can go today, but I hope the House has heard the meaning behind the words that I am saying.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that a country that prides itself on keeping the rule of law and on the fact that nobody is above the law cannot hastily amend legislation which goes back to 1971? Such a country has to look at all the processes. Does he agree that it is time that he and the Attorney-General appoint somebody to go through all old legislation where we find ourselves caught up because it is the law?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful for the noble and right reverend Lord’s comments. The legislation in 1971 was put in place for a proper purpose, and that was to secure the rights of Commonwealth citizens to remain in the United Kingdom. That is a positive purpose. Part of the challenge for the Windrush generation has been a consequence of the avoidance of dealing with that in a proper way. That does not mean to say that, ultimately, the Government cannot then examine legislation when serious offences have occurred, such as those for which Mr Ahmed has been imprisoned. If that legislation is causing challenges in how we can deal with that individual, we need to examine those issues. As I have said to the noble Lords opposite, we are keeping all those matters under review. I will report back to the House as soon as possible on any outcome of that review.
Police Leadership Commission Report
(3 weeks, 4 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing this Statement to the House today, and I am grateful for the opportunity to ask questions on it. Failures of police leadership are all too evident. Police leadership failed when forces overlooked, ignored and actively downplayed the scale of the grooming gangs. Police officers and police leaders were too afraid of being called out for being racist, and, as such, they left vulnerable young girls to suffer while the perpetrators got away scot free. Police leadership failed when officers manipulated evidence to ban Maccabi Tel Aviv fans from the football match in Birmingham over fears of “inflaming community tensions”. Police leadership is failing when we have officers spending more time trawling through social media posts than investigating and stopping burglary and shoplifting. When the policing of tweets and so-called diversity, equality and inclusion take precedence over the prevention and investigation of crime, we know we have a serious problem.
In 1829, Sir Richard Mayne, the first commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, wrote:
“The primary object of an efficient police is the prevention of crime: the next that of detection and punishment of offenders if crime is committed. To these ends all the efforts by police must be directed. The protection of life and property, the preservation of public tranquillity, and the absence of crime will alone prove whether those efforts have been successful and whether the objects for which the police were appointed have been attained”.
Like all officers who joined Hendon Police College, I had to learn those words by memory, and they are just as relevant today as they were in 1829, so I welcome the statement in the report that:
“Police leaders should be resolute in refusing to take sides, or to be diverted from the course of focusing entirely on the prevention, detection and prosecution of crime”.
I agree wholeheartedly. Unfortunately, that is not what is happening.
We might ask how we got here. Noble Lords might have different answers, but, for me, it is in large part because we took our eye off the ball. We allowed policing to focus, particularly after 2020, more on representation and identity politics than on promoting the best and most qualified people for the job. The report also acknowledges that nepotism has impacted progression at senior ranks, again challenging the notion that promotion should be based on merit alone. I must press the Minister to think seriously about these points. If the Government want to improve public trust in the police and restore robust but fair policing, we cannot have reforms that place greater emphasis on the identity of senior officers than on their experience and leadership qualities.
Fundamentally, good police leadership is not hard. It is about cutting crime and having your officers’ backs. Those on the ground need to know that they can take action they deem necessary and will not be hung out to dry by senior leadership when they do so. Officers need to be able to exercise their professional judgment and common sense, and not be second-guessed by endless policies and guidance. Police leaders must stop prioritising public perceptions over robust policing.
This all requires a significant cultural shift within police leadership. But to engineer that, we need to improve not just the quality but the amount of leadership training. The report highlights the striking disparity between military leadership training and the police equivalent. It points out that:
“15 years after leaving Sandhurst, a colonel in charge of 1,500 people will have undertaken 72 weeks of leadership development. By comparison, chief superintendents in the MPS”—
the Metropolitan Police Service—
“who have had comparable progression are likely to have had two or three weeks”.
The comparison with the military is particularly apt here, because British military leadership training is widely regarded as some of the best in the world—there is a reason why military officers from around the world flock to Sandhurst. I urge the Minister, when considering the work of this commission, to feed in best practice from our military academies into future police leadership training.
I also ask the Minister to think carefully about introducing new direct entry schemes. I can say from my own experience that I do not think they had a positive effect on senior leadership. The report acknowledges that the total cost of the previous direct entry superintendent programme, which ran from 2015 to 2021, was almost £10 million. Only 33 people graduated from that scheme, putting the cost per graduate at around £342,000. I do not think that can quite be considered a success. Bizarrely, though, after pointing out the cost and low numbers passing through the previous direct entry route, the report goes on to recommend the creation of new direct entry routes. This is a somewhat bizarre situation.
I wish to end with some simple questions to the Minister. The Government have this report, it is obvious to us all what is going wrong with police leadership, and it is not too difficult to figure out what needs to change, so how are the Government going to take forward these recommendations? What work is going on within the Home Office, right now, to implement leadership reforms, and when will be able to see the outcomes of the Government’s work?
If the Government are serious about restoring trust in policing and fulfilling the aims of the commission, they must take swift action to overhaul police leadership training. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the report from the noble Lords, Lord Blunkett and Lord Herbert, which rightly starts with an uncomfortable truth: leadership across policing is too inconsistent and, for decades, we have failed to invest in developing leaders for the world they now face.
We support clearer standards, stronger developments of all ranks, and more transparent senior appointments, but consistency must not become Whitehall control. Before creating a national police service and a national academy, the Government must explain how police chiefs will be protected from politicisation. A central appointments panel may help, but only if it insulates chief constables’ appointments from political influence and ensures a diverse candidate pool, including those with neighbourhood and safeguarding experience.
We urgently need clarity about what we expect policing to deliver in the 2030s. Too often the police are left to pick up responsibilities that properly belong to other agencies, because those agencies are underfunded and lack the capacity to respond. But the police cannot walk away; they have a duty to the public, even when the work falls outside their remit. This results in police being increasingly drawn into non-crime work, spending hours in hospitals awaiting mental health assessments or caring for vulnerable children, leaving forces overstretched and officers shuttled from one crisis to another.
Ethical leadership cannot be a values programme instead of the hard work that inquiries have already recommended. Delivering ethics requires legally enforceable vetting and misconduct standards across forces, a complete overhaul of the complaints investigations so that they do not drift for years, and transparent monitoring of disproportionality in discipline, including for BAME officers. The public will not judge us by how many workshops we run but by whether the Angiolini, Jay and inspectorate recommendations are finally implemented in full.
Around 80% of crime now has a digital element, yet policing is still largely analogue, with 43 forces running separate IT systems and an obsolete police national computer. Outdated, poorly connected systems with multiple entry points heighten cyber security risks, given the high value of police data on the dark web. A lack of national co-ordination and the scrapping of ring-fenced capital funding means that most technology spending is now used just to maintain existing outdated systems. What is needed is a unified cloud-based technology platform and common procurement to enable seamless information sharing and good practice across forces. This will require very significant investments in IT and AI but offers the prospect of rapid returns in improved outcomes and would finally allow policing to exploit the wealth of operational data already at its fingertips.
We need national training frameworks that prioritise digital investigation skills for every officer and proper professional pathways for cyber, data, digital and forensic specialists. But highly trained specialists are locked into the same nationally set pay scales as everyone else, and chiefs have virtually no flexibility to pay them more than an entry-level constable. That is almost unbelievable. Is it therefore surprising that these specialists are routinely poached by the private sector, after they have been trained by the police for many years, on salaries that are several multiples of their police pay? If we are serious about tackling AI-enabled fraud, deepfake child abuse imagery and complex online exploitation, we must introduce genuine pay flexibilities for shortage specialties and parity of esteem for police staff.
I am deeply concerned that we are proposing a national academy and a licence to practise when there has been no independent national audit of police training since 2012. Officers need high-quality, regular, properly accredited refresher training to keep themselves and the public safe. If the College of Policing is absorbed into a new police service, we must avoid the police marking their own homework by ensuring that appropriate standards are set and independently audited.
This report gives us an opportunity to transform how we choose and develop leaders. But those leaders will succeed only if we define the mission clearly, fix the broken funding and training systems, and give policing the technological tools and special staff it needs. I very much hope the Government are prepared to meet those challenges.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
I place on record my thanks to my noble friend Lord Blunkett and the noble Lord, Lord Herbert of South Downs, for their work on this important report commissioned by the Home Office to look at the important issues of policing. My noble friend Lord Blunkett is a former Home Secretary and the noble Lord, Lord Herbert, is a former Policing Minister; indeed, I shadowed him for a while in a previous life. They both bring extremely important experience to bear and on a cross-party basis they have examined the future training needs of the police service.
My noble friend and the noble Lord have made 27 recommendations and, in answer to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, we are going to consider those recommendations. We are going to examine them in detail. We want to give them a fair wind. We will report back in the autumn with our response to those recommendations. I will be able to provide further clarity and discussion at that time on the Government’s approach to the points that have been made.
I begin in, I hope, a constructive way but also in a way of challenge to say that I do not accept the characterisation of the police to date by the noble Lord, Lord Davies. The police are doing a very good job in dangerous circumstances. Police officers at every level, from chief constables to ordinary police officers on the beat to police community support officers, do a very strong job. Our duty is to ensure that the recommendations that have been made by my noble friend Lord Blunkett and the noble Lord, Lord Herbert, help support those police officers to do a better job in the future.
Crime is down: theft offences by 11%; vehicle-related crime by 14%; domestic burglary by 22%; shoplifting by 1%; personal robbery by 12%; knife-enabled offences by 10%; knife-enabled homicides by 21%; and knife-enabled robberies by 15%. Those are just some examples from the past 18 months of statistics of how the police are helping to tackle those issues. But that does not mean that there is not room for improvement.
The noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, has pressed me many times to examine the issue of training; she is absolutely right to do so, and these recommendations form the basis of us examining how we can take those issues forward. I do not accept that we should not put diversity at the heart of our police service. I want to see diverse police officers representing their communities and representing the communities they police. But it is important that we secure training and support for all those officers, whatever their ethnic background.
There is a need for reform. The noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, is absolutely right that we need to examine what policing is for and how to ensure that we have the back-room support for front-line police officers. She and the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, will know that we are in the middle of a radical programme of police reform. We are abolishing police and crime commissioners. We are waiting for a report from the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, on police force areas. We are establishing a national police service, which will encompass the very issues currently considered by the noble Lord, Lord Herbert of South Downs, as chair of the College of Policing, with national procurement and a focus on what national policing should do, which is, from the National Crime Agency’s perspective, serious organised crime, counterterrorism policing and other important issues such as economic crime.
This reform programme is ongoing, but self-evidently —and this is where I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey—we need to put in place support and training to ensure that police officers both meet the needs of the 21st century and have the support to do their job in an effective way. In their report, my noble friend Lord Blunkett and the noble Lord, Lord Herbert, have put great care and skill into the recommendations. I also thank the other members of the commission who took part.
There is a particular emphasis on giving voice to those on the front line. It is right to say, as the report itself says, that
“the policing profession has not consistently had the excellent leadership it needs”.
The commission has highlighted the critical importance of leadership and we all know that. It will also ensure, I hope, that we maintain that principle of policing by consent.
It is right that we take time to consider the recommendations in full. We welcome the commission’s proposals and the intent behind them. We are actively looking at the recommendation to create a formal senior constable rank and how that can be done. The commission also recommends a new professional digital passport for policing, along with other measures to put in place stronger supporting structures around professional development. The review’s recommendations on a fast stream for policing, on a targeted direct entry scheme and on the role of the forthcoming national police service in promoting ethical policing are all issues that we want to look at and respond to. We will do so in due course.
The points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, about police conduct and ethical standards of policing are extremely important. She will know from when we passed the Crime and Policing Act recently, because we spent a gazillion hours dealing with it in this House of Parliament, that there is a strong emphasis in it on improving the performance of the ethical standards and on the ability to remove police officers who are not performing well. Again, that goes to the heart of the recommendations before us.
In summary, the noble Lords, Lord Blunkett and Lord Herbert, will both know that I cannot respond today to the 27 recommendations, but I welcome them. They give us a strong foundation to examine how we can improve police leadership, police performance and skill levels to face the 21st century. It is a valuable piece of work. I commit to the House, on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, that we will report back in the autumn on the recommendations and what we intend to do about delivering them.
In the meantime, there are police officers and leaders out on the streets now, and they are doing a dangerous job on behalf of us all. They should have our admiration but they should also have our support in improving their performance, and that is what the recommendations are aimed at doing.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a former president of the Police Superintendents’ Association of England and Wales and as someone who submitted evidence to the police leadership commission chaired by the noble Lords, Lord Blunkett and Lord Herbert, who I see are in their places.
Having served for 35 years in both uniform and the CID, I want to say that the report is a major piece of work on the leadership of the police in England and Wales, and I congratulate both noble Lords on its content and its clarity. It recommends major changes throughout the service and builds on the proposed creation of a national police service, the NPS, which should take a lead role in promoting ethical and inclusive policing and be responsible for building a community of good practice across the country.
I have served under both excellent leadership and bad. The report tackles the problems, which are identified as poor training and supervision, a lack of resources and the culture of leadership across the service. The surprise is that the police service continues to deliver—remarkably, every day—to protect the public 24/7. You have only to witness the annual police bravery awards to witness this all the time.
Like the armed services, the police are legally prevented from taking strike action, which was last witnessed in England in 1919. We have witnessed major problems in recruitment and vetting following the slashing of 3,000 officers a few years ago. That was followed by the murder of Sarah Everard by PC Wayne Couzens and the conviction of serial rapist David Carrick, both in the Metropolitan Police. As a result, the commission’s report recommends a root and branch modernisation of police recruitment and training, development, promotion, monitoring and appraisal. Scotland Yard is known throughout the world—
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, I ask my noble friend if he could bring his comments, interesting though they are, to a conclusion with a question.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl)
I support the provision dealing with senior constables, and I wish the implementation of the commission’s report every success.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend for bringing his experience of policing at a leadership level to the debate and this discussion. He will know that leadership is critical in delivering high performance and for the public. The recommendations intend to help generate that discussion and to focus on how we improve leadership. Last year, for example, we had significant levels of vacancy for chief constable positions and a relatively small pool, sometimes internal, of people applying for them. We need to encourage better use of senior leadership.
I was a Member of Parliament for 28 years and my local police force probably had around 30 police superintendents during that time. That is not sustainable for continuity and performance. We have very strong leadership at the top of the triangle but a large pool of officers at the bottom end who need to be recognised for the work they do, and encouraged to have training and to have ambition to go through the system in a positive way. We will look at the recommendations and I give my noble friend the assurance that we will report back when we have had a chance to consider them in detail.
Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful for the report and I see that the recommendations include the creation of a national academy of police leadership. I declare my interest, as the First Civil Service Commissioner, as a regulator for entry into the senior Civil Service. I argue that, at that level of leadership, the different professions—whether it be the Armed Forces, the police or the most senior civil servants—have a lot to learn from each other and would benefit from each other’s experiences. As the Government respond to that, I urge the Minister to look at other professions and top-level leadership so that they can learn from each other and exchange their experiences.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My noble friend brings great experience from her role in the Civil Service Commission to the matter of recruiting individuals at a senior level. It is quite clear—the report makes this point very strongly—that police officers at all levels must be able to develop skills earlier in their career to enable them to develop and progress. The commission’s report highlights the fact that policing needs a clearer and more coherent system that supports professional development at all ranks. As the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, mentioned, there are undoubtedly lessons and models that can be looked at in other aspects of society that will help support the development process.
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as the director of the Free Speech Union. I welcome this report, which contains many sensible suggestions.
Gavin Stephens, the chairman of the National Police Chiefs’ Council, announced a review last month of guidance contained in the NPCC and College of Policing’s race action plan and its anti-racism commitment. That guidance suggested that officers should treat ethnic minorities differently in order to ensure what it described as equality of outcomes, defined as equalising arrest and charging rates between different groups. Given that some ethnic groups are more likely to commit crimes than others, that inevitably means treating some groups more leniently than others—aka, two-tier policing. Will the Minister give the House a progress report on Gavin Stephens’s review of this guidance? Can he also tell us when the independent review into hate crime and public order legislation by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, will be published? A couple of weeks ago the Minister said that it would be published before the Summer Recess.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
On the latter point, we are hoping to publish the review as soon as possible. As the noble Lord will recognise, there are some things that the Government wish to announce but which they are not able to due to the upcoming change of Prime Minister. However, I intend to publish the document as soon as is practicable and will ensure that a report is made to the House in due course.
With due respect, I do not accept the noble Lord’s contention that there is two-tier policing. The document to which he refers is designed to give guidance to officers to understand the various pressures and some of the diversity issues that exist. Ultimately, officers deal with crime, no matter who commits it or where it is committed. They need to bring people to justice and make arrests accordingly. I will reflect on what he said and will discuss the matter, via our offices in the Home Office, with Gavin Stephens of the National Police Chiefs’ Council but, from my perspective, the general contention is that crime is crime, the police are there to deal with it, and we must have an understanding of the diversity issues in order to have the confidence of the whole community when dealing with those issues.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for making this Statement. As he is in his place, I must also mention my noble friend Lord Blunkett, who brings experience and common sense to pretty much everything he does. There is a “but” coming, and it is this: I get slightly worried when I see phrases in a Statement such as
“a new police leadership fast stream”,
and
“a focus on leaders from professions with transferable skills”.
The first thing leaders need for leadership is respect from the people they are trying to lead. They will not get the same proportion of respect unless the police constables, in whatever force in the country, know that the leaders have been through the same traumas, challenges and anxieties that a normal policeman finds in his normal work, such as when he has to break up a fight in a city centre. I am not sure a degree helps a great deal with dealing with issues like that. I would therefore like my noble friend to assure me that police recruitment does not just need to be diverse, although it is important to represent the community; it also needs to be diverse in people’s professional and other backgrounds, just as much as it does in academic qualification.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend; it is good to see him in his place. The recommendations are looking at how we can significantly improve senior leadership. Some of the recommendations may mean that we need to look at how we fast-track individuals to leadership and, in doing so, how we give them effective training and support to understand the issues that they face. Ultimately, the core element of policing is the officer on the beat, male or female, who deals with the fight on a Saturday night, who deals with the shoplifter, who deals with anti-social behaviour, and who deals with all the issues that police officers deal with on a regular basis—including, as the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, said, issues that are not directly their responsibility but which they have to deal with, because they are the last, and first, port of call in many cases.
With this whole package, we are trying to look at how we improve skill levels across the board, and that might well include looking at how we give greater skills, support and training to the front-line police officer. However, a clear issue has been identified: the failure of effective management at a senior level in some areas. It is equally important that that is addressed, and that is what we intend to do when we have a chance to reflect on the recommendations.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, I welcome the report and the sensible recommendations in it. It highlights the current importance of cliques and networks in promotions in the police. There are comments such as:
“If you don’t have a network, you’re not going to get a promotion.”
The Met has decided that membership of organisations such as the Freemasons has to be declared, and many hundreds have declared their membership, but has that made any difference, and do other forces go far enough? Does the Minister think that more needs to be done to rule out the sort of nepotism and networks that have meant that, in the end, the pool of talent is much reduced?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes a very interesting point on the discussions. I believe that promotions should be made on merit. They should be made on the skills and adaptations of individual officers to do the next job that they face—or, for an ordinary police constable, on the different types of skills that might be required, such as those that do not necessarily involve being on the beat. That should be done on merit. Going back to the recommendations that have been made, the commission’s report highlights that policing needs a clearer and more coherent system that supports professional development and, by that very mechanism, supports people being promoted on merit. When we have a chance to reflect on those recommendations, I hope that will be at the heart of what we do.
Lord Paddick (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a non-executive director of the Metropolitan Police. I welcome this report, but a lot of it appears to be reinventing wheels that came off policing many years ago. For example, we had a physical, centrally located police staff college—a centre of excellence—as this report recommends, and by the time I reached chief superintendent I had had 18 months of full-time police leadership training, the same as an equivalent Army officer, on an accelerated promotion scheme as a non-graduate. Most of this was lost because of cuts to national police training budgets. Because of my declared interests, I am not allowed to ask for more money for policing, so I will put it like this: what will the Government do to make these recommendations a reality?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Maybe I should also have declared an interest, because I have a very close relative—a daughter—who works as a serving police officer. The key thing is that, while 27 recommendations have been given to the Government and we have to look at and assess them, we accept the general tenor of what the noble Lords, Lord Blunkett and Lord Herbert, have said. We need to improve the basic level of training, look at the skills needed for the 21st century, improve senior leadership and the training for it, and make sure that we have a wider pool for people to reach the senior chief constable positions. There is a very limited pool for chief constables at the moment and, very often, internal candidates have been inoculated through the police forces they have worked in, generally without any examination.
As part of wider reforms, as the noble Lord will know, we are looking at improving the College of Policing’s work by merging with it a senior level of activity. We are looking to shrink the number of police forces to give more effective local control and change the management structures from police and crime commissioners to mayors and other authorities, as part of a wider programme that the recommendations from the noble Lords, Lord Blunkett and Lord Herbert, fit into. I cannot give definitive answers now but, as I have said, we will report back on the recommendations and our responses as soon as practicable.
Lord Sahota (Lab)
My Lords, I read this report from cover to cover. It acknowledges that ethnic-minority officers have a poorer retention rate and slower progression because they continue to face discrimination within their organisation. Some 20 years ago, when I was on the West Mercia Police Authority as a councillor, I raised this issue constantly, yet here we are and ethnic-minority officers are still leaving at a far higher rate than white officers. This report acknowledges this issue, yet it offers no tangible or practical solution to this problem. Does my noble friend agree?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend. It is important that the police reflect the communities they serve. Many parts of this United Kingdom have populations with a level of ethnic-minority British citizens who will want to see people who look like them in the police service. The point he makes is extremely important. Once we have recruited individuals, we need to value them, retain them and train them for the future, not lose that skill to outside businesses or because they are facing discrimination inside the force. The recommendations highlight the problem; we need to examine how we improve that. I want the police service to reflect the community it serves.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, the Minister has explained over and over again the number of changes that are occurring. I welcome them all, just as I welcome the noble Lords’ report. However, there are various ways in which these changes can be implemented. Can we have in the autumn a broad strategic overview, pulling together leadership, governance and the changing of the police forces? All of these interlock, so it would be of immense assistance to this House if someone could be asked to produce an overall strategic document, dealing also with the very real issues of technology.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. I will take that suggestion away and discuss with my right honourable friend the Home Secretary how and whether we can do that. We had a police White Paper which has led to the changes that will see legislative approval, as announced in the King’s Speech this May. He makes a valid point. At some point we will have to pull these strands together. I can commit only that changes to senior levels of activity at a national level and to local policing will be put into the potential police Bill announced in the King’s Speech. I will respond to these suggestions in due course. There are a range of issues that we are continually dealing with, so I will take his suggestion away.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his generous response. With the House’s indulgence, I want to say what a great pleasure it has been, and how much I appreciate the tremendous collaboration with the noble Lord, Lord Herbert of South Downs, the 10 other commissioners who generously gave their time, the secretariat from the college and my own employee, Joanna Firth. On the response in the autumn, if anything is going to happen quickly, it will be fundamental that recommendation 27 to set up an implementation group be put front and centre, because without immediate steps to bring these recommendations to fruition, they will languish on a shelf until another report some years hence will come back with the same recommendations we are making today.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I assure my noble friend that when we have agreed the recommendations, we will make sure that we include the very point he mentioned. If I sit down now, it gives one other Member a chance to ask a question.
Lord Barber of Chittlehampton (Lab)
My Lords, it is an honour to follow my noble friend Lord Blunkett. I congratulate the noble Lords, Lord Blunkett and Lord Herbert, on an outstanding report. Does the Minister agree that police leadership is at its best when police leaders feel they can confidently take on crime, and have the skills they need, the backing they deserve from Government and the active support of the other public services involved in tackling crime in our country?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Absolutely—that is central to what the Government seek to achieve. I again pay tribute to both noble Lords, their staff, the commission members and the voluntary staff who supported them. They have tried to identify the challenges in leadership, and that the policing landscape and crime are changing—some 45% of crime is online fraud. The police will face a range of new challenges, and we need effective, strong leaders who reflect their communities, understand the levels of crime and have the strategic skills to tackle them. At the same time, we are still going to rely on the support of the everyday police officer working on the street. We need to recognise those who have given long service and the skills they need.
In closing, the noble Lords’ recommendations are valuable and welcome, and I thank them for their assistance. I assure the House that we will reflect on the recommendations and bring back a coherent plan of action.
Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill
Wednesday 8th July 2026
(3 weeks, 4 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Act 2026 View all Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Act 2026 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 22–R–I(a) Amendment for Report (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (7 Jul 2026)
18:22 - Division on Amendment 31 - Ayes: 95 / Noes: 202 - Amendment 31 disagreed.
Lord Fox
(b) has had regard to the impact of exercising that power on the public finances.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would add a new condition that the Secretary of State must consider before exercising principal transfer powers.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 1, I will speak to Amendments 7, 9 and 24 in my name.
In Committee, I noted the difficulty of phasing the exercise of the principal transfer powers and the need for scrutiny by Parliament—there is a dichotomy. At the heart of my concerns then was that Parliament would potentially be signing a blank cheque. On the other side, there may very well be a need to move swiftly in the event that a decision is made to nationalise a steel asset.
The first three amendments in my name in this group go some way to brokering this compromise. They offer two different routes of addressing the issue of the Secretary of State’s obligations regarding the financial cost of any intervention. Amendment 1 directs this attention to Clause 2 and inserts an obligation on the Secretary of State to take into account the impact on public finances before exercising the principal transfer. However, during Committee and subsequent discussions with the Minister, it became clear that the Government feel they have some legal reservations about any modification of Clause 2. Therefore, Amendments 7 and 9 seek a similar action but focus on Clauses 4 and 15 respectively instead.
Overall, of course, government decision-making relies on tests that must be conducted by accounting officers. I expect the Secretary of State would have the impact on public finances in his or her mind at all times, and I am sure there would be some Treasury Ministers leaning over that particular Secretary of State in the event that any decisions were made. However, by putting this responsibility in the Bill, it will be easier to hold the Secretary of State and the Government at the time to account on the value for money of any issue. In the event that the Minister feels constrained in accepting Amendment 1, I hope he will accept Amendments 7 and 9.
Amendment 24 addresses a different issue and returns to pension liabilities, which we debated in Committee. It is clear that, in the event the Government exercise the principal transfer power enabled by the Bill, the pensions of all ex and current workers of that asset become an important responsibility. This amendment is clear in its assertion that Parliament needs a view on these liabilities. If the Minister is unable to accept this amendment, I hope he will take the opportunity to clarify the Government’s approach to pensions from the Dispatch Box. I beg to move.
Lord Redwood (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for reminding us of the importance of contingent liabilities and the need for the Government to complete due diligence before any acquisition. He rightly says that in a hypothetical case—not British Steel Scunthorpe—it might be necessary to move quickly, and then there will have to be some trade-offs. But if we are talking about British Steel Scunthorpe, there is obviously no need to move quickly. The Government moved very quickly many months ago, and there can still be proper analysis. I would hope, indeed, that as Ministers and their chosen executives are now responsible for British Steel, while they do not own the assets, they would have done a lot of this very important preparatory work on discovering the contingent liabilities.
Where in Amendment 11, the contingent liabilities are mentioned by category, there is an omission which could be extremely important: liabilities to employees for past problems with safety and health, and—God forbid that this does not happen—for any liabilities that might follow now that the business is under the operation or control of Ministers and their chosen executives, if some safety or other health problem arose. Where people are running these very large, industrial businesses, with the obvious threats of a very powerful fire in the furnace and the dangers of extremely hot liquid steel being moved around, it is crucial that Ministers and their chosen executives have taken all the right decisions on making sure people have the right protective clothing, there are the right protocols, and there is an absolute segregation for the employees from the risks. There also needs to be an understanding of whether there have been any longer-term health risks from the atmosphere around the blast furnace or the intense heat of some working conditions.
If Ministers have not already done so, they need to take this very seriously. Whenever I was responsible for a big plant, my main nightmare was that something would go wrong on safety, and that would be unforgivable. I am not expecting the Government to give ground on these amendments, but it would reassure the House and the wider public if the Minister could tell us more about where they have got to, at least in general terms, with exposing the contingent liabilities on pensions, safety and employee health, as well as with the other financial matters mentioned clearly in these amendments.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I am delighted to support the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and I agree with his earlier analysis. As it happens, I agree with a lot of what the noble Lord, Lord Redwood, said on this as well. Whereas there may be certain safeguards in Scunthorpe, there is considerable worry in somewhere like Port Talbot arising from some of the experiences we have had, which I referred to in Committee. I hope the Minister will be able to give some assurances on this.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I rise to speak to Amendment 11 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral. It is vital, as we have said throughout our consideration of this Bill, that there is clarity about the liabilities which may be acquired when the Government exercise a principal transfer power. That is particularly important in relation to environmental liabilities. Steelworks are substantial and long-standing industrial sites and any environmental liabilities associated with the transfer could represent a significant future cost to the taxpayer.
I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for his amendments in this group, which rightly focus on the need to consider the public finances. We have consistently raised the issue of the costs associated with share and property transfers and pension liabilities when compensation is assessed. I thank the Minister and the Government for their engagement on these amendments, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say and hope that at least some of these amendments will be accepted.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, before turning to the amendments before us, I begin by placing on record my sincere thanks to the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe, Lord Hunt and Lord Fox, for the constructive and collegiate way in which they have engaged throughout the passage of this Bill. We have not agreed on every point, but their contributions have been thoughtful, serious and rooted in a shared recognition of the importance of the UK steel industry. I am grateful for the time they have taken to meet with me to test the Government’s position and, for raising their concerns in such a fair and friendly spirit.
Responding to the points raised in this group, I will speak first to Amendments 7 and 9 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fox. Over the course of this Bill’s passage, I have had ongoing and constructive conversations with the noble Lords, Lord Fox, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, about the cost of nationalisation and the importance of parliamentary scrutiny. The noble Lords and I agreed that the Government must consider the costs of any nationalisation before exercising the powers. As I have stated to this House previously, existing public spending governance controls provide for this, with cost and value-for-money considerations embedded in the Managing Public Money principles and the well-established process of accounting officer tests.
However, the noble Lords have sought a statutory requirement on the face of this Bill. Through our conversations, I have been persuaded by their arguments, and I am pleased to say that the Government will support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, which requires the Secretary of State to consider costs before exercising the share or property transfer powers in Clauses 4 and 15. We hope the House will agree. Our agreement on this issue reflects the commitment of noble Lords to ensure that this Bill is as comprehensive and effective as possible. It is an excellent representation of this House’s ability to work collaboratively, and I thank the noble Lords, Lord Fox, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, for their engagement on this issue.
The noble Lord, Lord Fox, has also put forward Amendment 1, which would require the Secretary of State to have regard to the public finances when considering exercising the principal transfer powers. Given that the purpose of this amendment is achieved through Amendments 7 and 9, I do not think this is necessary in addition.
The noble Lords, Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Hunt of Wirral, have tabled Amendment 11, which would require the Government to provide a statement to Parliament outlining the value of contingent liabilities associated with a steel undertaking, and the steps taken to minimise taxpayer exposure to them, prior to an intervention. As I have set out previously, I have concerns about creating additional hurdles that must be cleared prior to the exercise of the transfer powers, given the likely need to act at pace. There is also a practical difficulty in publishing the details of a private company’s financial information prior to a nationalisation. None the less, the Government share the desire of the noble Lords to minimise the taxpayer’s exposure to liabilities as far as possible, and that will inform our decision-making. If a steel undertaking is nationalised, we would expect its annual report to include details of its liabilities, where relevant. We will discuss liabilities again in later groups today, and I look forward to that discussion. I hope that that helps to clarify the matter and provides the noble Lords and the rest of your Lordships’ House with sufficient reassurance.
Amendment 24, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, requires that where the Government have exercised the transfer powers, the independent valuer must prepare a written estimate of a steel undertaking’s pension liabilities and provide that to the Secretary of State, who should then publish the estimate before Parliament. Pension liabilities will of course differ for different companies. If the Government were to decide that it was in the public interest to nationalise British Steel, I reassure noble Lords that our understanding is that there would not be significant pension liabilities, as the company has a defined contribution scheme and so pensions would be funded from an existing pot. In cases where pension liabilities are relevant to the value of a steel undertaking that is subject to the powers under the Bill, the independent valuer should consider that as part of their assessment. None the less, publishing this in isolation would be unhelpful without the full context. The Government have already committed to publishing the outcome of any compensation scheme. Therefore, I do not consider this amendment necessary.
I hope I have been able to reassure noble Lords, even though there are amendments in this group that I do not support.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. Before coming to the Minister’s words, I will pick up on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Redwood, on health and safety. I turn his attention to Amendment 21, which returns to the issues of health and safety and environmental liabilities. Although his point does not need to be made again, the debate on that amendment is when the Minister can respond to it.
I thank the Minister for his response to Amendments 7 and 9; I believe that they will take scrutiny a step forward. His approach to accepting them is very heartening. It is therefore clear that, if we accept Amendments 7 and 9, we do not need Amendment 1.
On Amendment 24, I am reassured by the Minister’s comments on one particular steel asset. Although we do not expect it, in the event that the future Act is used for other assets, pensions may become an issue. Picking up on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, particularly in Committee, there have been some missteps around employee pensions. It is very important that, whoever the Government of the day are, they do not make those missteps again and create the situation we have seen and on which the noble Lord commented.
On that basis, and in thanking the Minister for his acceptance of Amendments 7 and 9, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 1.
Lord Hunt of Wirral
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would limit the public interest test to the areas set out in paragraphs (a) to (c).
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 2, 3, 4 and 5 standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom. I have no wish to repeat at length the arguments made in Committee, but I feel that the Government should be clearer about the public interest test that lies at the heart of these powers.
Lord Redwood (Con)
My Lords, there will be an issue with the public interest case, if and when we get to the full nationalisation of British Steel at Scunthorpe. Many of us are unclear as to whether the Government’s aim is to find a medium-term or longer-term solution to the problem of how to keep the two existing blast furnaces running and keep a basic steel-making capability in the United Kingdom, or whether their policy aim is still—as with the previous Government and as is the case in south Wales—to move to closing the blast furnace and opening an electric arc furnace in a new plant, which may be on that land or somewhere else.
If it is the latter, it will be much more difficult to establish the public interest case for the complete nationalisation and transfer of the blast furnaces, because that will end in tragedy for the people working there, so it will no longer be the case that the main purpose is to keep the jobs. It will not resolve the issue of the electric arc furnace, because that will need separate grant aid and might even be better on a different site. We need to know more about the phasing. In the case of south Wales, the blast furnaces were closed before the electric arc furnace was available. If they did the same again at Scunthorpe, there could even be a period when the United Kingdom will not be making any steel at all on those two works, given the transition plan.
It would be very helpful if the Minister, who will have to take this policy on, gave us a little more on the Government’s thinking about the duration of the investment in the blast furnaces, and whatever information he has about the state of those plants and the ability to maintain continuous production there, and on the Government’s intention in their net-zero strategy, which implies that steel would have to be made in a different way.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, because this is Report, I will not repeat my Committee speech. Briefly, Clause 2 is unchanged and Clauses 4 and 15 have been amended along the lines that the previous groups suggested and begin to bring the rigour at the start of this process. The request made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for information after the fact, if it has to be brought forward, seems reasonable, but on that basis I do not support the amendments as they stand.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the contributions to this debate. Noble Lords have highlighted that the public interest test in Clause 2 is a vital part of the Bill and I very much agree. It is important that we get it right. Noble Lords have tabled several amendments to this clause and we have had fruitful discussions on them at previous stages, but I am happy to return to them.
Amendment 2, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, would limit the public interest factors that could be considered by the Secretary of State to those explicitly set out in statute in Clause 2. As I have set out previously, the Government agree that these are likely to be the most pertinent issues in relation to an intervention in the steel sector. We have sought to strike a balance in the Bill between minimising the scope as far as possible and ensuring that we can adapt to evolving circumstances. That is why we think it is necessary to retain some flexibility to consider other factors that may be relevant to a particular case, which may be difficult to anticipate.
Let me be clear that the legal test in this clause places particular emphasis on the factors that are explicitly set out. Where the Government seek to rely on other factors, they will need to be satisfied that those factors mean that an exercise of the powers is necessary in the public interest. I therefore do not consider the amendment necessary and respectfully ask that it be withdrawn.
Amendments 3 and 5, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, would create procedural steps that would need to be fulfilled before the transfer powers are exercised. Amendment 3 would require the Secretary of State to commission an independent assessment of whether the public interest test has been met and for that assessment to be met prior to using the powers. Amendment 5 would require the Secretary of State to provide details of the criteria used to demonstrate the public interest. Both are difficult to reconcile with the likely circumstances under which the powers could be exercised. The Government will likely need to act at pace to deliver an effective transfer. However, the Government will commit to publishing a Written Ministerial Statement following an exercise of the principal transfer powers, which would include details of how the public interest test has been met. I hope that provides some reassurance to the noble Lords, even if we cannot meet the full ambition of their amendments.
Finally, Amendment 4, also tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, would require the Secretary of State to be satisfied that the exercise of the transfer powers would represent value for money for taxpayers. The Government are mindful of the potential costs that could be incurred in relation to the nationalisation of a steel company. This consideration is already taken into account in government decision-making under the usual public spending processes, as I have set out previously.
Additionally, as we discussed in the previous grouping, the Government are supportive of Amendments 7 and 9 from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, which would require the Secretary of State to consider costs prior to the exercise of the principal transfer of powers. These amendments go some way to addressing the concerns raised by the noble Lord Hunt, and I hope that will provide some reassurance.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Redwood and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for their comments. I am grateful indeed to the Minister for his reassurances and the commitment that he has given, which meet many of the concerns I expressed earlier. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would retain the ability for the Secretary of State to extend the principal transfer powers, but only in increments of up to two years at a time and only with the approval of both Houses under the affirmative procedure.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, these amendments stand in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral. As we stated in Committee, we cannot have a perpetual sunset clause. A sunset that can be extended indefinitely and for an unlimited period at a time is not a meaningful sunset at all.
I welcome the Minister’s engagement on this aspect of the Bill. The amendment would provide an important safeguard by ensuring that any extension of the principal transfer powers can be for no more than two years at a time. That would provide greater certainty for investors, greater assurance for taxpayers and a clearer expectation that these exceptional powers are not intended to become a permanent feature of the Government’s industrial policy. It is also important that we have a Government who are confident in their stated aim of securing private investment for British Steel so that it can thrive on a commercial basis. Regular parliamentary approval for any extension will help to ensure that Ministers continue to focus on that objective.
I thank the Government for recognising these concerns and for working constructively with us to ensure that this amendment can be accepted. I beg to move.
Lord Redwood (Con)
My Lords, two years is quite enough for these powers, and it is generous of my noble friend to suggest allowing another two-year extension. As I understand it, these steel matters are being considered under a £2.5 billion multiyear estimate, which was meant to be for the modernisation of the steel industry. When it was originally agreed, people had in mind that this was going to be grant aid for new electric arc furnaces and other such investments—not to pay continuous and high losses on an older technology plant that may not have the long future we would like.
To get into better order with the Treasury, the Government might want to have some self-imposed restraint on the duration of this. We have been led to believe that the rate of loss is at least £500 million a year on the two blast furnace activities that are currently under the Government’s control but not in their ownership. That would be a totally unacceptable continuing rate of loss and would eat into what should be modernisation money. That would mean they would get to the end of this Parliament with very little improvement to show.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I am in slight confusion that I hope the Minister can clear up. My understanding of Amendment 6A is that it offers a one-term renewal of two years, meaning a four-year total for any sunset clause. I might have misheard what the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, said. I am assuming that is what Amendment 6A is seeking to achieve.
If we are reassured by the Government’s assurances on their intention, in a sense we do not need this—but it is certainly helpful to have it. If my reading of Amendment 6A is correct and it moves it four years as a maximum, it will move it into the next Parliament, where the Liberal Democrat Government will take a view.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions. I will respond to the point from the noble Lord, Lord Redwood, on financial assistance when we cover financial assistance in the sixth group.
I am grateful for the points raised regarding the sunset provisions in Clause 3. The noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, have tabled an amendment that would limit any extension of the sunset period to two years. I have had helpful discussions with them on this matter. Throughout debates on this Bill, we have emphasised that the Government are strongly minded to use the powers in the Bill to nationalise British Steel, subject to the public interest test, and do not currently see a need to use them for other steel undertakings. However, the steel sector faces challenges that can be beyond the control of government or companies themselves. It is important that we reserve the possibility of intervening in this way if it is needed in the public interest.
The amendment from the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, strikes a good balance, allowing the Government to preserve the powers if absolutely needed while limiting any extensions of those powers to a limited period and subjecting them to an affirmative parliamentary debate. We recognise the need for this level of scrutiny, and it is appropriate that any extension be limited to a short period only. I am therefore pleased to lend my support to the noble Lord’s amendment.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would provide that, where the Secretary of State extends the period during which a principal transfer power may be exercised, the extension may not be for more than two years.
“(3A) When deciding whether to make share transfer regulations under this section in respect of a steel undertaking, the Secretary of State must consider the costs that the Secretary of State thinks are likely to be associated with the exercise of the power.” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consider the costs associated with making share transfer regulations under clause 4.
Lord Hunt of Wirral
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require regulations transferring securities of a steel undertaking to be subject to the affirmative procedure.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 8, 10, 12 to 14 and 40, standing in my name and that of my noble friend. I thank the Minister for working constructively with us on Amendments 12 and 13. It is vital that where the Bill confers regulation-making powers of real consequence, the default should be the affirmative procedure. Amendments 8 and 10 would apply that principle to the core transfer powers, regulations transferring securities, and regulations transferring property rights and liabilities. We understand the Minister’s argument that in exceptional cases powers may need to be exercised.
Turning to Amendment 40, I ask the Minister for a clear assurance that a thorough impact assessment will be brought before both Houses of Parliament after the various powers in the Bill have been used. Given the potential effect on taxpayers, workers, investment and the wider steel industry, they must assess whether these exceptional powers have delivered the outcomes claimed for them.
Finally, Amendment 14 would remove Clause 50. The Constitution Committee was clear that the broad power allowing the Secretary of State to modify the law in relation to a share or property transfer
“should either be removed or significantly tightened”.
That is a serious recommendation from an important committee of this House. The Government should either accept the committee’s recommendation or make much clearer in the Bill the limited circumstances in which such a power may be used. I look forward, therefore, to the Minister providing some assurance on Amendment 40 and on the Henry VIII powers. I beg to move.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 15 and 16 in my name, but first I speak in support of Amendments 12 and 13 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, which I have co-signed. Importantly, these would add necessary additional parliamentary control over continuity obligations and property transfer regulations. We moved similar amendments in the Commons that failed to attract sufficient support there.
Regarding Amendment 10, the Minister has convinced me that the need to quickly transfer property rights transcends the necessity of moving to an affirmative form of approval from a negative regulation. That is why I have not co-signed Amendment 10.
I tabled Amendments 15 and 16 as it is important that Parliament must be kept informed once any nationalisation is effected. Amendment 15 would create a new clause causing there to be a report on principal transfer powers from the point at which those powers are exercised under the Act. It says that the Secretary of State must
“make a written statement to each House of Parliament setting out … the progress, and the operational and financial performance, of the steel undertaking in respect of which a transfer power has been exercised, and … the impact of this Act, including (so far as it is possible to assess) its effects on the steel industry in the United Kingdom, on employment and on the public finances”,
and that this duty
“continues until no steel undertaking remains in public ownership”.
I hope the Minister has something positive to say on this, which includes reflecting on how the communities and skills requirements are being met in whichever part of the UK is affected by any nationalisation and subsequent changes.
It is a shame that the noble Lord, Lord Empey, was not with us in Committee, because he would have participated in a debate on an amendment that was very similar to Amendment 15, which covers not only the territory of Northern Ireland but the whole of the United Kingdom. I feel that the noble Lord’s point is important, but if it is important for Northern Ireland then it is important for the rest of the UK. I think he will see that Amendment 15 seeks to bring that across our entire country.
Amendment 16 seeks to create a stakeholder advisory committee. I will not repeat my speech from Committee, but its aim is to have stronger input into the steel strategy from steel users. The Minister responded with news that the steel council may be augmented by additional new members. I hope he can elaborate some more on how the voice of steel users is reflected more effectively in order for the Government to avoid such issues as those that have been created by the steel tariffs.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I draw attention to a part of Amendment 16. I am delighted to see that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, has included the words
“industries that rely on the supply of steel, including the defence sector”.
That is one of the themes that is running, perhaps in the undergrowth, behind much of the thinking on the Bill. We must have a steel industry that is capable of responding, and quickly, in an emergency to the needs of the defence industry. The model has to be developed with that in hand. That is why I very much welcome the fact that that is written in the amendment.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, my Amendment 45 arises from an exchange in the other place last week with the Minister, Sir Chris Bryant. Members will be aware that Northern Ireland’s situation is different in so far as, for goods, it is covered by the Windsor Framework. Therefore, EU quotas on steel obviously apply. The issue is that we have the preposterous situation of having quotas of steel flowing from one part of the United Kingdom to the other. These two regimes are clashing.
The Minister in the other place indicated that HMRC is
“taking steps to confirm the arrangements with industry”.
Bearing in mind that this was happening with about 36 hours’ notice, it was a huge challenge for businesses and so on to get their heads around it. He went on to say:
“The Government will continue to provide guidance and support to traders moving goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland through the trader support service”.—[Official Report, Commons, 30/6/26; col. 764.]
That is another example of why we do not have a free internal market within the United Kingdom. Can the Minister confirm whether both these matters have taken place: has HMRC taken the steps to confirm arrangements with industry, and is the Trader Support Service providing that guidance? It was not available last week, which is why I tabled this amendment.
The other issue arising is speciality steels, because of the United Kingdom’s current limited ability to produce them and because some firms which intend to produce them are not actually doing so. I will give the Minister an example of our concerns. If a European company has a branch in our jurisdiction in Northern Ireland—for instance, Harland & Wolff—and has access under its quota arrangements to speciality steel for, say, the defence sector, which the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, mentioned and which is a particular issue in my mind, and it bids for defence work that will require a significant amount of speciality steels, those steels may not be able to be sourced within the United Kingdom. Our anxiety, therefore, is that competitiveness, price and other things could create difficulties.
I fully understand the rationale for having quotas, because there is huge surplus capacity throughout the rest of the world. We understand that that has to be managed but, given that we cannot necessarily get the steels from within the United Kingdom, can the Minister give an assurance that those steels will be available, that the quotas are adequate—whatever we say about having them in the first place—and that there is sufficient headroom to ensure that companies’ competitiveness will not be significantly damaged by the unavailability of those products within the United Kingdom?
Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard (UUP)
My Lords, I support the amendment from my noble friend Lord Empey and will speak to the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, in Amendment 15, which unfortunately does not cover the specific circumstances of Northern Ireland. I support Amendment 15, but my noble friend’s amendment goes further to, I hope, give protection to Northern Ireland.
The UK introduced a new steel trade measure on 1 July—
Lord Fox (LD)
I have a point of information. The Bill has nothing to do with steel tariffs. We have had several Statements on steel tariffs in your Lordships’ House, to which I do not think the noble Lord spoke. I am happy to debate the effect of nationalisation on the Northern Irish market and to dispute that issue. However, the issue of tariffs is not covered in this legislation.
Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard (UUP)
I recognise the noble Lord’s point about the tariffs, but the issue is that we need some protection, and my noble friend Lord Empey believes the only way to have that protection is through this amendment. There is no other mechanism for protection. We have had Statements and I have asked Written Questions, but the answers we have had are unsatisfactory. Why is it not reasonable to table an amendment to this legislation that could assist the processors and manufacturers in Northern Ireland?
Maybe the Minister will find another way of doing this. If he can then that would be extremely helpful to us, but we want to raise the issue and it is not beyond our reasoned power to do so. At the moment, there is no other way of doing that except through this legislation.
The tariffs are extremely important. We now have dual tariffs. We have not only EU tariffs, because we are part of the EU economic base, but UK tariffs. This is important in Northern Ireland, and we and our processors, fabricators and manufacturers will have to deal with it. It is unfair for the noble Lord to indicate that it is unreasonable for us to table this amendment—
Lord Fox (LD)
I am just confused, because the wording of Amendment 45 from the noble Lord, Lord Empey, asks for an impact assessment on the likely effects on Northern Ireland, and the wording of paragraph (b) of my proposed new clause in Amendment 15 asks for an impact assessment of the effects on the United Kingdom, which, of course, includes Northern Ireland. I wonder what Amendment 45 brings in addition that is not covered by Amendment 15. Thereafter, I will shut up.
Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard (UUP)
I thank the noble Lord for his intervention, but will he not agree that we are in a different situation in Northern Ireland from that in GB? We are under a double tariff. We are under a tariff from not only the European Union but the United Kingdom, which does not impact on those processors, fabricators and manufacturers in GB. So why is it not reasonable to ask for a special impact assessment for Northern Ireland? I think that is quite reasonable. I am surprised that the noble Lord has indicated that he does not want that. Surely, if he wants transparency and a reasonable outcome to this, it is only reasonable that we would have that impact assessment for Northern Ireland. I am happy to give way to the noble Lord if he wants to argue and demonstrate why that is not reasonable. If you are a Northern Ireland fabricator, like I have in my area in Northern Ireland, you will possibly have a double tariff now: one from the European Union and one from the United Kingdom. That is totally unfair and totally different—
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
My Lords, I think we have given the noble Lord a fair hearing. I ask him to bring his comments swiftly to a close so that we can get on with the business in hand today.
Lord Redwood (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friends on the issue of the affirmative resolution. I think it is a superior device, given the importance of the matters that could be brought before us. I also fully support the idea of a proper impact assessment, which should of course include the impact on Northern Ireland, which may well be different because of the Windsor Framework—an arrangement which, in another life, I opposed very strongly.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions and for ensuring the ongoing scrutiny of any steel undertaking that is subject to the use of the powers in the Bill. Before turning to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, I will reflect on conversations I have had with noble Lords from across the House in recent weeks as we have sought to secure agreement on the drafting of the Bill.
The noble Lords, Lord Sharpe, Lord Hunt and Lord Fox, have provided detailed feedback on and suggestions for how parliamentary scrutiny can and should continue following any acquisition. Following consideration of their feedback, I am pleased to confirm the following government commitments, which reflect the importance of transparency and parliamentary scrutiny.
I confirm that a debate will take place in both Houses on the steel strategy and the impact of the Bill, within 12 months after Royal Assent. Alongside this, the Secretary of State will lay a quarterly Written Ministerial Statement for at least the first year that a steel undertaking is in public ownership, reverting to a slower rate after that. Where a Minister considers it appropriate, the Written Ministerial Statement may provide an update on jobs, communities and other issues; I will detail this further in subsequent groups. As I have already set out, the Government will lay a Written Ministerial Statement following the acquisition of a company, setting out how the public interest test has been met.
In addition to these commitments on the impact of the Bill, I can confirm that, following any acquisition of a steel company, the company’s new chair would be able to attend a Select Committee to set out their plans for the publicly owned steel undertaking. I hope that that reassures the noble Lord, Lord Redwood. Alongside the chair’s attendance, the Government will write to Select Committees, including the Business and Trade Select Committee, with information following any acquisition, and subsequently on any future plans for any steel undertaking that falls within the scope of the Bill’s powers, and to respond to any specific requests from a Select Committee. I emphasise that it is for the Select Committees to set their agenda. If the Government, or the chair of a nationalised company, are asked to provide information and attend meetings, we will of course do so. These commitments build on the statutory reporting requirement on financial assistance in Clause 59, the company’s annual report and accounts, and the quarterly Written Ministerial Statements, which I have already set out.
Any nationalised steel undertaking would not be exempt from the corporate reporting requirements set out in the Companies Act 2006. This Act contains various reporting requirements that vary depending on the size of the entity. The Government will work closely with the company and, where necessary, if there are any material changes to the company’s circumstances outside the regular reporting cycle, the Government will be able to ask the company to produce an interim report on that particular issue.
Noble Lords have also raised a concern about ensuring that stakeholders are appropriately engaged in decision-making. I will provide further detail on this later, but I emphasise that the Steel Council will continue following the publication of the steel strategy. The council is made up of representatives from across the sector, and they would include a representative from any publicly owned steel company.
In addition to our continued engagement with the sector, I recognise the importance of ensuring that there are opportunities for Parliament to engage with the sector. I therefore confirm that the Government will convene an ad hoc round table on the future of the steel sector six months after Royal Assent. I hope that this series of commitments reassures noble Lords that the Government are committed to ensuring that Parliament can scrutinise any publicly owned steel undertaking where appropriate.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, for his continued engagement with the Bill. I reassure him that Minister McDonald, the Minister for Industry, recently met with Minister Price from the Welsh Government, and my officials continue to engage with Welsh Government officials to try to secure a recommendation of legislative consent for agreement on the Bill. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, for the discussions on these matters, and I hope to update the House on the outcome of these conversations at Third Reading.
I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in debates on Amendments 12 and 13, and particularly the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, for their constructive engagement with me over the past few weeks. The Government respect the concerns that have been raised. Throughout the passage of the Bill, we have been clear that the Government are committed to as much transparency as possible with regard to the powers in the Bill. We have listened carefully to the cases made during our debates to date and have considered where it may be possible to amend the procedure for the power without harming the Government’s ability to carry out their objective under the Bill.
I am therefore delighted to confirm that the Government will support Amendments 12 and 13, which amend parliamentary procedure for continuity of obligations and enforcement powers. Under these amendments, the power to make regulations in relation to certain aspects of continuity obligations will change from the negative procedure to a draft affirmative procedure unless the Secretary of State considers the made-affirmative procedure necessary, and the power to make regulations on the enforcement of obligations will change from the negative to the made-affirmative procedure respectively. This compromise reflects your Lordships’ House at its best.
I shall address the other amendments in this group. Amendments 8 and 9, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, set out the opposition to the parliamentary procedure associated with the exercise of the share and property transfer powers in Clauses 4 and 15 respectively. While I recognise the magnitude of these powers, I must emphasise that any use of the principal transfer of powers would need to be exercised promptly to ensure operational and legal certainty. I cannot overstate the importance of this. In a scenario where the Government chose to use these powers, they would need to be exercised at pace in a commercially sensitive environment. The affirmative procedure would introduce significant delays to the transfer process and create a lack of clarity regarding ownership. This in turn would significantly affect the business, particularly supply chains and third-party contracts. This must be prevented.
Amendment 14 was tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, and they have indicated their opposition to Clause 50 remaining part of the Bill. I am afraid that I have to disagree unequivocally in this case. I have previously set out that removing the clause would risk undermining the effectiveness of the Bill. The Bill confers powers that interact with the complex area of commercial company and insolvency law in a way that was not anticipated during the drafting of the legislation concerned. There will therefore be some tension in the way that the powers are applied. Clause 50 allows us to smooth over those challenges and avoid any unintended consequences or obstacles to a successful transfer.
I am sympathetic to the fact that it is difficult to justify a power of this nature when its potential use is quite abstract at this stage. By its nature, it is intended to deal with unforeseen circumstances in non-consensual, highly atypical transfer scenarios, and I remind noble Lords that it was necessary in the Banking Act context as well. As an example, the power could be used to modify or disapply certain corporate laws, such as disapplying shareholder voting or approval requirements to prevent any delay to the transfer. That is not to say that we plan to use it in this way but merely to illustrate its potential utility. It is worth repeating that the power can be used only to ensure that the transfer of power can be exercised effectively. It cannot be used outside the context of nationalising a steel undertaking to change or amend other laws. The use of the power will be subject to the draft affirmative procedure except in particular circumstances that justify proceeding on a “made affirmative” basis. I hope that this provides some comfort regarding the issue.
Amendment 5, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, would require the Secretary of State to provide quarterly Written Ministerial Statements to Parliament updating on the progress of the nationalised steel undertaking and the broader impact of the Bill. I thank the noble Lord for our discussions on this point, and I recognise the appetite for further parliamentary scrutiny of the approach to a nationalised undertaking. As I have already set out to the House, I can confirm that the Government will commit to provide quarterly Written Ministerial Statements to Parliament for at least the first year of a steel undertaking in public ownership. This reflects the Government’s commitment to ensuring that Parliament is appropriately informed about the progress of any publicly owned steel undertaking.
I turn to Amendment 16, and thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for his continued discussions on stakeholder engagement throughout the passage of this Bill. This includes the amendment he has tabled, which would require consultation with the stakeholder advisory committee on whether an intervention was in the public interest before exercising the powers in the Bill. I believe that the noble Lord and I agree that stakeholder engagement is critical to supporting the Government’s vision for the future of the steel industry and to ensuring appropriate scrutiny. As previously mentioned, I am pleased to confirm that we will shortly be inviting the UK Metals Council to join the Steel Council, which will ensure that the views of downstream users can be fed into engagement and discussions.
However, as I previously set out, any decision to exercise the transfer powers would need to be made at significant speed. The amendment would delay the exercise of the transfer powers, creating additional risks to the business viability and ongoing operations and uncertainty over ownership. In addition, there are commercial sensitivities associated with any decision to exercise the transfer powers, making it extremely difficult to consult in advance of a decision. While I cannot accept the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, I will reflect on the range of ongoing engagement that Ministers and officials from my department undertake with industry and stakeholders.
A notable forum for engagement is the Steel Council, which I have already confirmed will continue following publication of the steel strategy. The council will support the delivery of the strategy by providing evidence and feedback on evolving or emerging policies that affect the sector’s competitiveness, and by providing strategic oversight of the working groups on research and development, investment and skills. Having considered the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, I can confirm that the Government will convene an ad hoc parliamentary round table on the future of the steel sector six months after Royal Assent. I hope this reassures the House that the Government regard stakeholder engagement as critical to the revitalisation of the steel sector.
The noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, have tabled Amendment 40, which would require the Secretary of State to publish an impact assessment of the operation and effect of the Bill within two years of Royal Assent. This is straightforward for me to address. As the Government have already published an impact assessment for the Bill, in line with our Better Regulation Framework requirements, further impacts will be assessed as part of a post-implementation process or review. I reassure noble Lords that if the powers under the Bill are exercised, we will publish further impact assessments to accompany any transfer regulations. Following this, the Government will consider any further impacts in the post-implementation review. As I have already set out, the Government will ensure that a debate on the steel strategy and the impact of the Bill takes place in both the House of Commons and the House of Lords within 12 months of Royal Assent. This reflects our commitment to ensuring that parliamentarians remain well informed about our plans for the steel sector.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, this has been an important debate. I pay tribute to the Minister. His approach to the Bill has been exemplary. We may disagree, and we do disagree, but the Minister has set an example that will be difficult for his ministerial colleagues to follow. He has listened and cared deeply about all the points we have raised. I am sure I speak for the noble Lord, Lord Fox, as well as for my noble friend and friends across the House, when I say that the Minister has not only listened to us but responded in positive terms, and, where he has not been able to agree, he has explained why he cannot agree.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, for making sure that we do not forget the vitally important Welsh dimension. I thank my noble friend Lord Redwood for always scrutinising the public expenditure side of the Bill.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, that, with him, I believe we have now received from the Minister a series of comprehensive assurances, particularly on the impact assessment, which will enable us to proceed in a positive way.
The noble Lords, Lord Empey and Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard, have raised issues that—as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, pointed out—do not fall directly within scope, but they do fall within the impact assessment. That is why it was important that those points were raised.
The Minister will argue that there is a case for a Henry VIII power in an emergency Bill of this kind. We remain concerned about the breadth of Clause 50 and the precedent it may set, but I am grateful to the Minister for his engagement with this debate, and I thank him. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 8.
“(3A) When deciding whether to make property transfer regulations under this section in respect of a steel undertaking, the Secretary of State must consider the costs that the Secretary of State thinks are likely to be associated with the exercise of the power.” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consider the costs associated with making property transfer regulations under clause 15.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
(a) the affirmative procedure, or(b) if the Secretary of State thinks it necessary to make regulations without using the affirmative procedure, the made affirmative procedure.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would upgrade, from negative to affirmative or in some cases made affirmative (see clause 61), the procedure for regulations about consideration and terms for the performance of continuity obligations (see clauses 33 to 38).
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would upgrade, from negative to made affirmative (see clause 61), the procedure for regulations about the enforcement of obligations under share transfer or property transfer regulations.
Lord Leong
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require (rather than enable) compensation scheme regulations to make provision for the role of an independent valuer and would focus more explicitly on their role in carrying out valuations for the purposes of the regulations.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to introduce a set of amendments that the Government have tabled. I hope that we have demonstrated throughout this Bill’s passage a willingness to listen to and engage with the concerns raised by your Lordships and to consider potential solutions. In tabling these amendments, we seek to address the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, regarding the discretionary nature of the appointment of an independent valuer. I previously noted that the Government intend to appoint a valuer whenever the principal powers in the Bill are exercised. We therefore consider the noble Lord’s suggestion to make this mandatory reasonable.
Amendment 17 will therefore make the required change by ensuring that any compensation scheme regulations must provide for the appointment of an independent valuer. The amendments that follow to Clause 54 make minor consequential changes clarifying that the valuer’s role is to carry out valuations for the purposes of the regulations, which is a critical step in determining any amounts of compensation. I hope that these amendments demonstrate the Government’s constructive approach and that noble Lords will support them.
Turning to Amendments 20, 21 and 23 from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, I am grateful to him for his engagement over the past few weeks on this and other points. These amendments would ensure that compensation scheme regulations must require the independent valuer to take into account environmental and health and safety liabilities when assessing the value of the relevant steel undertaking. I refer also to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Redwood, earlier. I have said during the Bill’s passage that the Government will seek to address concerns from noble Lords as far as possible.
Many companies operating in heavy industries such as steel operate as normal with contingent liabilities. The precise cost associated with environmental liabilities would depend on many factors, including the extent to which land will be retained for future steel-making, kept safe or remediated for alternative light industrial use. None the less, we agree that the environmental and health and safety liabilities are likely to be an important part of any compensation determination and that this should be made clear in statute. I am therefore pleased to confirm that the Government will support these amendments, and I hope the House will support them too.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, that was a very positive response from the Minister, and I thank him and his team for really listening to what we have been saying. Amendment 17 is an important step forward and I am pleased that he has tabled it. Amendment 21, as the Minister pointed out, makes something that might happen mandatory, taking on board fully the issues raised on another group by the noble Lord, Lord Redwood, and absolutely taking on board the issues I raised in Committee. I thank the Minister for his enthusiasm and look forward to this being added to the Bill.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I echo my noble friend Lord Hunt’s comments on the previous group. I thank the Minister for his engagement, and the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for their amendments in this group. Amendment 17 is very welcome. It ensures that compensation regulations must provide for valuations to be carried out by an independent valuer rather than leaving that as an optional feature of the scheme.
I also welcome the Government’s work with opposition parties to ensure that relevant liabilities are properly reflected in the valuation process. In particular, Amendment 21 ensures that environmental and health and safety liabilities must be taken into account, as my noble friend Lord Redwood powerfully articulated on an earlier group.
Lord Redwood (Con)
My Lords, I too welcome this from the Government. I think they will find it very helpful because, should we move on to the full acquisition of British Steel at Scunthorpe, there remain, as I understand it, financial issues outstanding with the current Chinese owners. It will be very important to have an accurate and full account of all these long, deep-rooted and sometimes very expensive liabilities to provide some counter to what we read in the press is their rather extravagant idea of how much they ought to be paid.
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank all noble Lords for their support. I want to share with noble Lords that the issue of health and safety is definitely a priority. At British Steel there has been a clear improvement in health and safety standards since the introduction of the special measures Act last year. This will remain a central priority going forward. Indeed, since the passage of the Act we have already spent some £8.1 million on essential improvements in this area, so we do take health and safety seriously and it is a priority for the Government.
Lord Leong
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 53(1).
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 53(1).
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on Lord Fox’s amendments to clause 54(4).
(a) must require;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would make it mandatory for an independent valuer to take environmental and health and safety liabilities into account when making a determination.
Lord Leong
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 53(1).
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on Lord Fox’s other amendment to clause 54(4).
Lord Leong
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 53(1).
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 53(1).
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 53(1).
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 53(1).
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 53(1).
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 53(1).
Lord Hunt of Wirral
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would limit the financial assistance that can be provided under the Act.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 31 I will also speak to Amendments 32, 33, 35 and 36 standing in my name and that of my noble friend. I support the similar sentiments and approach expressed in Amendment 37.
I do not wish to repeat the arguments made in Committee, but on these Benches we remain gravely concerned by the open-ended cost to the taxpayer that the Bill potentially permits. The Government have already announced £2.5 billion of taxpayer funding for the steel sector. That is the figure that Ministers have chosen to present as a demonstration of their commitment to rebuilding and modernising British Steel and the steel sector. Yet in this Bill they seek an unlimited power to provide financial assistance with no statutory ceiling whatever. I believe this is bad economics, bad politics and, unless some clarity is forthcoming, quite possibly bad faith too. If £2.5 billion is not enough, how much is? Is there any maximum figure at all that Ministers are prepared to put before us and then stand behind?
Lord Redwood (Con)
My Lords, I am so glad my noble friend has raised once again this crucial and fundamental point. It is of great importance and of help to the Government.
When I have in the past had some responsibility for trying to recover the financial position of the odd distressed company—although nothing nearly as distressed as British Steel at Scunthorpe—I have always found it was an essential discipline to first of all institute very frequent reporting, because you need to signal to the executives undertaking the day-to-day work that the financial state of the company is at risk and that they need to give great priority to this. You need to help them get clarity over why cash is draining out of the business. This business, British Steel, which is under the operational control of the Government, is draining cash, we believe, at £500 million a year. That is a phenomenal rate of loss, which is going to have an obvious impact on the public accounts, at a time when we know that government money is scarce and there are many other priorities. We need to know rather more about why it is £500 million.
Is there any residual investment programme left? That would be the first thing to go when you are trying to save cash. Is it still committing money to raw material stocks? It clearly should not be allowing more material stocks. Does it have a very large stock of finished product which it is not able to sell? If that is the case, what is the plan for trying to move that stock on? What is the reality of the price level it is going to get for that stock? Obviously, stock is a mixture of volume and value, and you have to try to maximise the cash you can get for the stock you have got before you would normally go on to produce more. This plant has the particular problem that it has to keep producing, even if it is not able to sell enough of the product at a sensible price. You would expect regular reporting, certainly to the chief executive appointed by Ministers, but I would have thought that the Minister with day-to-day responsibility for this would know what is going on, and on the trading accounts, because a lot of the cash going out may be trading losses. You would want to see an urgent plan for selling more and economising on costs wherever you can, whether that is bought-in materials, the productivity of labour or other overhead costs that the business is incurring.
During the debates so far, I have not felt the Government’s urgency around this financial problem. Every pound that goes out of the door on losses that you are responsible for as a steel-maker is a pound that cannot be spent on the new and better industry that you really need in order to take the country forward. I am not blaming the Minister, who has been exemplary in his conduct and helpfulness—I am sure he wants, as we all do, a good outcome to this—but in those conversations within ministerial offices, it would be good if a Minister in the other place, for example, could make more Statements which showed that there was a plan and a determination to rescue this industry that we all wish to rescue.
In this group of amendments, there is talk of quarterly reporting. That is a big enterprise in terms of people and scale of loss. Quarterly reporting is quite common and normal now in the public quoted sector. It is a good discipline, even for the most profitable businesses in the world, because people like to make sure the trends are still good and the managers are in charge of it. I would have thought that quarterly reporting was the bare minimum, and if it was somebody’s day-to-day responsibility then they would obviously need rather more frequent reporting than that.
The public deserve quarterly reporting from this industry, which they now have a substantial operational stake in. I urge the Minister to think about more regular public clarity. I hope that such detailed, short-term regular reporting is going on. It would be good to get some good news out of the Government that they are applying the right kind of financial disciplines to control the outflow of cash. If they do not control the outflow of cash, it will end in tears and redundancies.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, I want to simply question Amendment 31. In Clause 58(2), there are many different ways in which the Government can provide assistance, such as
“by way of grant, loan, guarantee or indemnity … by the acquisition of shares or any other interest in, or securities of, a body corporate, … by the acquisition of any undertaking or of any assets … pursuant to a contract, or … by incurring expenditure for the benefit of the person assisted”.
I am one who believes that we should plan for the future and make sure we do not spend above our means. However, it seems to me that, in a Bill of this nature, putting a tag of £2.5 billion by the end of 15 August 2029 is a restricting element and it does not give me confidence that we are actually interested in nationalising steel.
There are so many unknowns. During the debate when we were all summoned by the Prime Minister to rescue the steel industry in Scunthorpe, it was quite clear that the books were not very encouraging—but this is a national asset, so what do you do? It seems to me that to put that amount in the Bill is almost legislating for failure. If, for example, it is £2.6 billion, not £2.5 billion, what would happen? Would the whole thing collapse? Putting figures in the Bill is not good for legislators. We have got the Exchequer and all kinds of other people for that. Let us not try to conduct this Report as if we are the Treasury—we are not. I urge the noble Lord, having flagged it up, to nevertheless withdraw his amendment. I would find it difficult to support.
I remember being in Birmingham when Rover collapsed. BMW announced that it would build the Mini there but left the other plant. The Government were being asked for only £600 million to keep the plant. They were already in agreement with China to sustain it, but, because of the laws around government support for businesses from the EU, the Government found that they could not, and the plant went.
I always respect the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Sharpe, because of their wisdom. However, if they do not mind me telling them this, as a Cross-Bencher rather than one of those rarefied Lords spiritual, I think that they are losing a little of what I have always taken them for—just no.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the noble and right reverend Lord’s descent from the spiritual to the temporal, and indeed the financial. His contribution is appreciated. I also welcome all those who have not had the joy of participating in the steel Bill debate so far.
Before I speak to Amendment 31, I am going to speak to Amendments 34 and 37, which are in my name. I am happy to say that the Minister pulled the rug from under my feet with respect to Amendment 34 when he spoke to a previous group of amendments. Amendment 34 seeks to promote a role for Select Committees going forward. I am happy to say that the Minister has taken that suggestion on board to a large extent. It is important that Select Committees are able to get under the bonnet of this, to look at the nature and amount of financial assistance, the beneficiaries of that financial assistance, the purpose and the effect of that financial assistance, and the conditions of repayment. I am happy to say that the points the noble and right reverend Lord made about the nature of any support were covered by previous comments.
Amendment 37 would insist on a report to outline the impact of financial assistance provided under Clause 58, with a focus on the short-term and long-term investibility of any nationalised steel undertaking. In tabling this amendment, I hope the Minister can put on record again what he told us in Committee about the long-term aim of the Government regarding returning these public assets into private hands. It would help your Lordships if the Minister were able to repeat that.
On Amendment 31, the Liberal Democrats in the Commons tabled an amendment to cap financial assistance, but we are now dealing with a different Bill. The Government have accepted Amendments 7 and 9, where value for money is accepted as a criterion in the Bill. We have inserted rigorous quarterly reporting. The noble Lord, Lord Redwood, will remember from two groups back that that amendment has been accepted and we will have quarterly reporting. As we have just said, we have ensured a role for Select Committees in scrutinising any nationalised industry, and we have implemented mandatory valuation of contingency liabilities. That Bill is not the Bill we are talking about.
I am persuaded that flexibility is required. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, put in a spirited performance and, at one point, was possibly auditioning for the role of Chancellor—when he talked about magic money trees, I thought he was pushing his name forward to become the next Chancellor of the Exchequer. But then, he seemed to very freely talk about spending £2.5 billion here and £2.5 billion there. My worry is that his £2.5 billion would become a target, rather than the limit. Given the controls that we have put into the Bill, we will not be supporting Amendment 31.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions, and I thank the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, for his support.
Amendment 32, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, would require that details of any proposed financial assistance under Clause 58 be provided to Parliament before the assistance can be granted. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, has raised the issue of parliamentary scrutiny in respect of this clause in Amendment 34, which would require detailed proposals to be put forward before Parliament for a 90-day period and allow the Select Committee to make recommendations which the Government must respond to before any assistance is forthcoming. I understand that these amendments address the concerns of all noble Lords about the potential to incur costs in relation to the powers in this Bill.
As I have noted previously, there is a framework of public-spending principles and governance, designed to ensure that public funds are well managed, and the Public Accounts Committee holds government to account in this respect. Where the Government use the powers in the Bill to transfer a steel undertaking into public ownership, costs may be incurred from day one and will need to be funded to maintain an ongoing operation. It is vital that a steel company that is running production continuously does not face disruption due to funding shortfalls. That is why these two amendments cannot be accepted by the Government, despite the good intentions behind them. As set out in Clause 59, we will provide annual reports to Parliament detailing the costs incurred under the financial assistance provided. A nationalised company will also need to publish an annual report and accounts, as the department does, so this information will be available in several places.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister, in particular for those additional comments. I and my noble friend Lord Sharpe—as well as, I believe, the noble Lord, Lord Fox—have been reassured by how the Minister has termed the positive future that we all want to see. However, as my noble friend Lord Redwood pointed out, the Government have still not provided Parliament with a clear limit on the potential exposure facing taxpayers. I do not know whether the Minister has any aspiration to become a Treasury Minister. To become one, you have to believe in caps—there is no other way to become a Treasury Minister.
I say to the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, that the Government just have to come to Parliament. If they require more money, they should ask Parliament for more money. At the moment, they have said that £2.5 billion is necessary. If there is a need for more money, it is perfectly open to the Government to come to Parliament and ask for it. Without a clear limit, there is a real risk that the cost could run into tens of billions of pounds.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
Therefore, if they can come to Parliament to ask for it, do not put the limit in the Bill. That is what the noble Lord seeks to do in his Amendment 31.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
If the noble and right reverend Lord does not support this amendment, it will be unnecessary for the Government to come and ask for more money. It is only when there is a cap that the Government have to be accountable to Parliament. For the reasons I have outlined, and because taxpayers should never be asked to sign a blank cheque, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, before we divide the House, I need to inform the House that there have been intermittent network issues on the estate. Because of the small risk that this may cause temporary disruption to the pass readers and the Division system, I have agreed with the usual channels to extend the time for Divisions from eight to 10 minutes.
I ask all noble Lords to ensure they firmly tap their pass on the pass reader. If in doubt, they should tap their pass a second time. The system will only record a vote once. If we all remember that beep means you have voted and no beep means no vote, we will all be fine.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
“Report on the impact any nationalisation of steel undertakings has had on inward investment to the United KingdomWithin six months of the day on which this Act is passed and every subsequent six months, the Secretary of State must lay a report before Parliament which sets out the impact that nationalisation of any steel undertaking under this Act has had on inward investment to the United Kingdom.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would place a duty on the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the impact any nationalisation of steel undertakings has had on inward investment to the United Kingdom.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 38 and 39, standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral. On Amendment 38, I hope that the Minister can give a clear assurance that the future impact assessment will include an assessment of the effect of nationalisation on investment in the domestic steel sector.
On Amendment 39, the Minister gave assurances in Committee that financial assistance would comply with domestic and international subsidy control rules. I would be very grateful if he could put that reassurance more clearly on the record. Could he please confirm that the Government have assessed whether any proposed support could give rise to concerns under the domestic subsidy control regime, including any conversations that they have had with the Competition and Markets Authority? Could he also confirm that Ministers are satisfied that the proposed support will comply with the World Trade Organization’s subsidy rules? I look forward to the Minister’s response. I beg to move.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, the amendments in this group address inward investment and a level playing field. I emphasise at the outset that the Government are committed to ensuring that any publicly owned steel undertaking is subject to the same requirements and standards as any privately owned steel undertaking.
Amendment 38, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, would place a duty on the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the impact of any nationalisation of a steel undertaking on inward investment in the UK. I reassure your Lordships that the Government are committed to revitalising the steel sector and to establishing an investible and competitive business environment. To date, we have had positive feedback from industry on the Bill and the Government’s approach to nationalisation.
To be clear, public ownership is not an end in itself; it is a means of safeguarding our strategic domestic capability in exceptional circumstances. Our intention behind any intervention would be to make the changes necessary to put the steel undertaking on a sure footing and, where possible, return it to a position where it could attract private investment.
As I have set out previously, any use of the transfer powers would require an impact assessment. This would set out the impact of a nationalisation on the economy and, where appropriate, the Government would undertake post-implementation reviews. As I have confirmed, the Government will ensure that a debate on the steel strategy and the impact of the Bill takes place in both the House of Commons and the House of Lords within 12 months of Royal Assent.
Amendment 39, again in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, seeks to require the Secretary of State to maintain a level playing field between publicly and privately owned steel companies. I sympathise with the concern expressed by the noble Lords and want to make it clear that the governance and regulatory treatment of any nationalised steel company will seek to ensure a level playing field.
To emphasise this, I state that any financial assistance would be time-limited, targeted and proportionate to avoid market distortions. The provision of any funding would comply with domestic and international subsidy control obligations. I hope this reassures noble Lords that the Government are committed to ensuring that any publicly owned steel undertakings will not be unfairly advantaged.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for his remarks. It was particularly pleasing to hear that the Government have received positive feedback from the industry. It is not for now, but I wondered whether the Minister might be in a position to be a little bit more specific and perhaps write to noble Lords who have taken part in the debate, outlining some of those positive comments. That would help to contextualise our future debates. I am also pleased, as we have discussed in earlier groups, that we will deal with post-implementation reviews and that there will be a debate within 12 months in both Houses. That is a very welcome development.
As regards Amendment 39, I listened to what the Minister said. I am particularly pleased that he assured us that the Government will seek to pursue a level playing field quite explicitly and to avoid market distortion. Those are incredibly important things for so many reasons, particularly when it comes to encouraging inward investment and ensuring that existing operations are not disadvantaged by anything that the Government do on behalf of the taxpayer. In the light of those assurances, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Hunt of Wirral
“Exemption of iron and steel carbon border adjustment mechanism goods(1) Section 143 of the Finance Act 2026 (charge to carbon border adjustment mechanism) does not apply to emissions embodied in a CBAM good which is an iron and steel good for the purposes of Schedule 16 to that Act where the good is imported by a transferred steel undertaking for use in connection with the carrying on of its business.(2) In subsection (1), “transferred steel undertaking” means a steel undertaking in respect of which the Secretary of State has exercised a principal transfer power.” Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would exempt iron and steel CBAM goods imported for use by a steel undertaking brought into public ownership under this Act from the carbon border adjustment mechanism.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I will also speak to Amendments 42 and 43 standing in my name and that of my noble friend.
As we stated in Committee, the carbon border adjustment mechanism and emissions trading scheme will have a material effect on the domestic steel sector. The Government will no doubt argue that the CBAM and ETS are necessary to meet their net-zero objectives and that they will not harm British industry. We may have significant disagreements on that point. However, what cannot be disputed is that these measures will affect steel undertakings in this country. The question is whether that effect will be positive or negative on costs, production, exports and international competitiveness.
In Committee, Ministers suggested that the business environment, including the ETS and CBAM, would be relevant to valuation. But that is not the same as a clear assessment of the practical effect of these policies on the future of domestic steel-making. I therefore invite the Minister to confirm that the future impact assessment to which the Government have referred will include a full assessment of the effects of the CBAM and ETS on the domestic steel sector.
If the Government are right that these measures will protect industry, support investment and improve competitiveness, they should have no difficulty at all in providing that assurance. If, however, that assessment shows that these measures are damaging production, exports, investment or competitiveness, that would also give the Government the evidence needed to change course, and that is why I wish to move this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Redwood (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful that my noble friend has raised this important point. We would probably not be having these big debates about steel nationalisation if the United Kingdom in recent years had had competitive energy pricing, and if it had not gone in for carbon pricing and carbon taxes that can have an adverse bearing on energy-using industries. However, we are where we are, and so my noble friend is right to ask the Minister to give some reassurances. We seem to be involved in overtaxing carbon and then having to subsidise those businesses that suffer as a result.
Of course, the CBAM is an EU-designed scheme which we are copying, to try to offset the impact that very high carbon and energy costs have on domestic economies and industries, by imposing a similar tax or tariff on the imported goods from countries that do not impose such carbon taxes and carbon additions to the energy they are using in industrial plant. That does help in some way for the domestic steel-producing industry; it becomes a problem for the domestic steel-using industry where it is having to import steel beyond the tariff-free quota provided under the CBAM. We note that the tariff-free quota is skewed to favour European producers, rather than other producers around the world who might be otherwise cheaper or more advantageous.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, we debated CBAM and the ETS in Committee, so I will not add to that debate, but I will ask a question of the proposers which I did not ask then: how is a steel business affected differently by CBAM or the ETS, whether it is publicly or privately owned? The answer is that it is not. The Bill is about the potential public ownership of steel. We will have to have a debate about CBAM and the ETS. The Liberal Democrats often talk about energy prices but not in the context of this Bill, because it is about whether a steel entity is in public or private ownership, and frankly, the CBAM will affect them the same way, no matter where that ownership lies.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this debate on the emissions trading scheme and the carbon border adjustment mechanism, which I will refer to as CBAM, and their impacts on the steel sector.
Notably, these amendments seek to exempt a publicly owned steel undertaking from both these environmental measures, thereby undermining the level playing field that the noble Lord mentioned in the previous group. At the outset, I emphasise the Government’s commitment to their industrial decarbonisation policies and to moving towards a green, decarbonised steel sector. Although I appreciate that there may be differing views on this issue, these amendments would completely undermine the Government’s objectives for these measures.
These commitments build on the statutory reporting requirement on financial assistance in Clause 59, the company’s annual report and accounts, and the quarterly Written Ministerial Statements, which I have already set out. Any nationalised steel undertaking would not be exempt from the corporate reporting requirements set out in the Companies Act 2006. That Act contains various reporting requirements, which vary depending on the size of the entity. Where relevant or material, our Written Ministerial Statements may refer to any wider contextual or regulatory impacts. In addition, as previously mentioned, the Secretary of State would have the ability, if needed, to request an interim report on a particular issue.
Amendment 41 seeks to exempt a publicly owned steel undertaking from CBAM. I understand the concern expressed by the noble Lord; however, I emphasise that CBAM’s purpose is to ensure that imported carbon-intensive goods face comparable carbon prices to those of domestically produced goods. It gives industry confidence to invest in the UK, knowing that its decarbonisation efforts will not be undermined. CBAM makes no exemptions for particular UK firms. Its intent is to target the problem of carbon leakage and ensure that highly traded, carbon-intensive goods from overseas, including steel, pay a comparable carbon price to that paid by UK manufacturers.
I understand the intention behind Amendment 42 and the desire to ensure that Parliament remains informed about the impact of carbon pricing policies on the steel sector. The Government are committed to supporting a competitive and sustainable steel industry while delivering our decarbonisation objectives. However, the UK emissions trading scheme and the carbon border adjustment mechanism are economywide policies designed to address carbon leakage and support the transition to net zero across industry as a whole, rather than for any particular company or ownership model.
The UK ETS Authority already keeps the operation of the scheme under review. The scheme contains statutory review mechanisms. The authority has committed to continued monitoring of both free allocation policy and the interaction between ETS and CBAM. The authority has also recently confirmed the extension of the UK ETS beyond 2030 and will continue to engage with industry and consult on future scheme design, ensuring that the impacts on affected sectors are properly considered. Given these existing review mechanisms, it is not necessary to create a separate statutory requirement for a particular transferred steel undertaking.
Amendment 43 seeks to exempt a publicly owned steel undertaking from the emissions trading scheme. I am sympathetic to the fact that this imposes a cost on activities that have significant emissions. However, as with Amendment 41, accepting Amendment 43 would grant preferential treatment based on ownership and undermine a level playing field across the industry. The transition to low-carbon steel must be fair, credible and consistent across all operators, whether publicly or privately owned. I emphasise that the ETS includes targeted protections for energy-intensive, trade-exposed industries, including steel. Further protections will be introduced through CBAM from 2027.
The Government remain firmly committed to both a competitive steel sector and our decarbonisation objectives. Exempting a publicly owned steel undertaking from ETS or CBAM would create an uneven playing field, weaken the integrity of these schemes and undermine efforts to tackle carbon leakage. Steel producers, regardless of ownership, should operate within the same fair and consistent framework. I hope that my comments reassure noble Lords.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Redwood for highlighting the importance of ETS and CBAM. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, that the British taxpayer has a right to know the effect of ETS and CBAM. I take his point that it would apply whether it was in the private or the public sector, but we are now dealing with a nationalised industry which is funded by the taxpayer, and the taxpayer has a right to know exactly what the effect of the UK ETS and CBAM will be on the costs, production, exports and competitiveness of the transferred steel undertakings.
However, I recognise that the Minister has done much to explain the method by which the Government are approaching this situation. We will keep it under careful scrutiny but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
“Industrial action affecting a transferred steel undertaking(1) Where the Secretary of State has exercised a principal transfer power in respect of a steel undertaking, the Secretary of State may prohibit or restrict industrial action affecting that undertaking if the Secretary of State considers that the industrial action creates, or is likely to create, a sufficient risk to the public interest in respect of which the principal transfer power was exercised.(2) An act done in contravention of a prohibition or restriction under subsection (1) is not protected by section 219 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (protection from certain tort liabilities).(3) Industrial action in contravention of a prohibition or restriction under subsection (1) is not protected industrial action for the purposes of section 238A (participation in official industrial action) of that Act.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would enable the Secretary of State, following the exercise of a principal transfer power, to prohibit or restrict industrial action only where it creates a sufficient risk to the public interest grounds on which the steel undertaking was brought into public ownership.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, when we debated this amendment in Committee, the Minister suggested that it was somehow about industrial relations. It is not. This amendment is about our national security. The Prime Minister himself has warned the House and the country that we may face aggression from Putin’s war machine against a NATO ally before the decade is out. Let that sink in. It is not “if” but a real and growing risk, on our watch, in this decade.
What is the Government’s answer when it comes to the very steel from which we forge our warships and our defences? Their answer, apparently, is that production could grind to a halt whenever a strike is called—no matter the stakes, no matter the moment, no matter who benefits from Britain’s weakness. This amendment does not abolish the right to strike. Let no one on the Benches opposite pretend otherwise. It says something far narrower and far more reasonable: that, where the Secretary of State has taken a steel undertaking into public ownership precisely because of its importance to the public interest, industrial action which threatens that public interest cannot simply proceed as though nothing were at stake. Where the risk is sufficient and where the ground for public ownership was the public interest itself, the Secretary of State may act to protect it.
We are told again and again that this Bill is about safeguarding a strategic national asset. Very well, we accept those arguments—but let us mean them. You cannot claim with one hand that steel production is too vital to be left to the market and with the other hand leave that same production exposed to disruption whenever it suits a dispute wholly unconnected to the nation’s defence. You cannot have it both ways.
If a strike stopped the plates and the girders needed for a Royal Navy hull at the very moment that the Prime Minister’s own warning came to pass, would the Government stand by, hands tied by statute, and watch it happen? If the answer is no, the Government should accept this amendment today rather than legislate the problem into existence and hope it never arrives.
In an earlier group, the Minister used as a defence how difficult the industry is and the massive external pressures that it faces. This is an issue that is within the Government’s potential control. They should accept this amendment. We on these Benches are not afraid to say what needs to be said. In an uncertain and dangerous world, national security must remain a priority. I urge the Government, in the interests of national security, to accept this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, raises a serious issue. There was a moment when I thought I had passed through the looking glass. Your Lordships on that side of the House were sitting on this side, and those Lordships who were here were sitting on that side of the House. The only thing that broke me from that reverie, far from it being the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, at the Dispatch Box, was the noble Lord, Lord Callanan. He was proposing the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023, with which the Government of the day sought to do exactly as the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, seeks with this amendment.
I ask the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, how many times that Act was applied. How effective was it? The issue that he raises is important. Of course the security of the country is important, but this is not the way to ensure the security of our country. Having a proper partnership with the workers in the industry is the way in which you secure the security of this country.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for those words. As this is the last group of amendments, I thank all noble Lords for their constructive approach to the scrutiny of this Bill. In particular, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe, Lord Hunt and Lord Fox, for taking the time to meet me over the last few weeks. The way in which we have been able to collaborative to refine and improve the Bill truly shows your Lordships’ House at its very best.
Amendment 44 is in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt. Before I speak to it, I state that the Government take national security seriously; it is a priority. The amendment seeks to prohibit or restrict industrial action where there is a sufficient risk to the public interest grounds on which the steel undertaking is brought into public ownership. I understand that the intent of this provision is to ensure that any publicly owned steel undertaking can operate effectively without delay.
However, this is not the appropriate means to achieve this goal. I emphasise the absolute importance of workers’ rights. The steel workforce is the backbone of this industry. This Government are committed to protecting their rights and working with the trade unions and the workforce to ensure that operations are as effective and secure as possible. Noble Lords will know that I was closely involved in the delivery of the Employment Rights Act. Workers’ rights is an issue that is close to my heart. While political differences remain, we are not in the business of counterproductive approaches to industrial relations. As part of delivering the Employment Rights Act, our plan to make work pay, we are continuing to consult with businesses, trade unions and civil society to make sure we get the detail right. Several consultations are still live, including on reforms to zero-hours and similar contracts. This amendment is neither necessary nor appropriate to ensure that a publicly owned steel undertaking can operate effectively.
I hope I have convinced noble Lords of the reasons why the Government cannot support this amendment. I therefore respectfully ask that it be withdrawn.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for his response and, in particular, for the recognition of the central importance of national security in this matter. That is very welcome, but recognition is not the same as resolve. If the Minister truly accepts the force of the argument, the surest way to demonstrate that is not warm words at the Dispatch Box but acceptance of the amendment. I gently say to him that he could have strengthened his own case considerably by doing just that.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for pointing out my party’s admirable consistency, which sometimes we are criticised for. I suggest that nothing in this amendment would prevent any sort of proper partnership—to use the noble Lord’s words—with the workforce, which of course we would approve of and endorse as a first and foremost. The simple fact of the matter is that this is a different set of circumstances. We are talking here about the national interest and national security. They are of fundamental importance as regards this entire Bill, and that is why we have proposed this amendment.
To finish there would be to finish on a slightly discordant note, and I do not wish to. I am enormously grateful to the Minister for all his engagement and for accepting so many of our arguments. We are very grateful for the reassurances we have received from the Dispatch Box and the acceptance of some of our amendments, and we wish the Minister well in his future endeavours. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.