Financial Services and Markets Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Altmann and Baroness Kramer

Committee stage
Wednesday 8th July 2026 Grand Committee

[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.

Financial Services and Markets Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Altmann and Baroness Kramer

Committee stage
Monday 22nd June 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, first, I declare an interest, which perhaps I should have done at the beginning. I am a director of a pension company that is regulated by the FCA. I apologise for not having declared that earlier.

I will reflect on an issue that could arise because the Financial Ombudsman Service is in charge of complaints about pensions. We know that many people who are taking out pensions products may have problems that do not become apparent to them for six or 10 years or beyond. Perhaps we could consider an amendment that would carve out the extent to which the Financial Ombudsman Service deals with a pension complaint in relation to this element of the Bill.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I have only a few comments on this group. As I listened to the comments on Amendment 17A, particularly those of my noble friend Lady Bowles and the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, I understood what reminded them of mortgage prisoners. In that case, people who held mortgages with banks that failed, and who were rescued by the Treasury, were then sold on to private holders who were not themselves lenders of mortgages. In effect, they lost the ability to refinance, and so they remained imprisoned in very high-rate mortgages at a time when everyone else was able to remortgage. We can see echoes of that in some of the limitations that would be introduced by these amendments. I am therefore always concerned about those time limitations, particularly in situations where assets can be sold on, as they often and increasingly are today.

Amendment 44, from the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, seeks to deal with the issue of consumer redress. If a consumer has been abused in some way and has a moral right to redress—a right in law—should that be lost simply because we have a regulator that fails to act promptly and within a reasonable time? I understand that it is tough for the industry, because it leaves it with uncertainty, but some of these products are life-changing for individual consumers and have life consequences. That is what made me think of mortgage prisoners; their lives were completely ruined by that process.

Where there are such consequences for the individual, it is very concerning to take away the right to redress because there was a delay in the functioning of the regulator. I understand that it means that the industry has to live with uncertainty, but my advice to it is to behave well to your customers. That really is the very best way not to get into these issues.

National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill

Debate between Baroness Altmann and Baroness Kramer

Report stage
Thursday 5th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, this group has just two amendments: Amendments 8 and 11. While the former is just a paver for the latter, it is apparently required for Amendment 11 to go into the Bill. I make it clear that I am speaking in order to get the contents of my speech on the record; I do not intend to press either amendment, even though I think they are important.

It has been clear from the debate so far that the Bill fails to provide Parliament with the information it needs to assess the legislation. I am very glad that we have now passed the language on affirmative resolution. I also thank the Minister for giving us clarity now on how the cap operates: it is per employment rather than per employee. That is hugely important clarification.

Throughout the debates on the Bill, there has been confusion over the numbers and consequences. To get greater clarification, my former colleague and pensions expert, Sir Steve Webb, submitted an FoI request to obtain the numbers that can explain the conclusions of the Budget Red Book of November 2025 and the OBR’s supplementary analysis of 2026 as it refers to the impact of the Bill. Sir Steve’s request was answered in part, but key requests were refused. Therefore, I am trying to capture those requests in Amendment 11.

The amendment seeks the estimates used by HMRC of the number of basic rate taxpayers using salary sacrifice arrangements above £2,000; a similar disclosure for higher and additional rate taxpayers; the expected number of employers expected to reduce their pension contributions in each group; and the contribution to the revenue numbers in the Red Book from increases in employers’ NICs—and, separately, employees’ NICs—as a consequence of the Bill. With that information, we can make a reasonable judgment of the impact of the Bill on workers, employers and pensions, and get a grip on the likelihood of the revenue outcomes forecast in the Red Book, which at present look exceedingly doubtful, as others have said.

Sir Steve was not denied the disclosures he requested because they do not exist—quite the opposite. HMRC said in its letter to him, “We can confirm that HMRC holds the information you have requested. The reason for the denial is to protect the integrity of the policy-making process and to prevent disclosures that would undermine this process”. Apparently, transparency

“needs to be weighed against the public interest in avoiding the disclosure of information which may inhibit the decision-making process”.

The information—noble Lords have heard me list it—is not commercially sensitive; it does not deal with state secrets. We are not looking for transcripts on advice but simply for basic numbers that any person would require to assess the Bill. I begin to think that, if the numbers were shown the light of day, the policy might collapse. I greatly fear that we really should be aware of them, and I want to be sure that no regulation can be put in place until Parliament has seen and scrutinised this information. I very much hope that the affirmative action resolution we passed a few moments ago will help us do that.

This is simply a statement to the Government: they need to give Parliament the information and numbers it needs to assess a piece of legislation properly. Scrutiny is meant to be our job, and we cannot scrutinise if the appropriate numbers are not provided. I beg to move.

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I have added my name to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer. It would be helpful if the Minister could explain a little more about what the Government believe the intention and the outcome of this policy will be. He did not answer my question earlier on why there is a rush to get this measure through Parliament so fast. Have the Government quantified the extra employer costs of the higher 15% national insurance contributions from the employer, and the 8% or 2% extra national insurance contribution per member, and quantified it in money terms and in what it will mean for pension provision and future pensioner poverty?

National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill

Debate between Baroness Altmann and Baroness Kramer

Committee stage
Tuesday 24th February 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

I will speak in support of my Amendment 9, as well as the amendments to which I have added my name, Amendments 7 and 20.

I have proposed my amendment so that—if we are to go through this exercise, which I hope we will not—no basic rate taxpayers would be likely to be caught by the measure. If the minimum contribution on which they can have national insurance relief is £10,000 a year, they are unlikely to be caught, unless they get a very large bonus. I hope that we will be able to deal with some of these issues.

The reason for suggesting a £10,000 per year pension contribution is based on the minimum amount that the very top earners are able to contribute to pensions. Under the tapered annual allowance, for example, £10,000 seems considered to be, if you like, an acceptable level of pension that is not egregious in some way.

My preference would be that, if we are to go down the route of capping the national insurance reliefs available to anyone who is paying into a pension, we do that in the way that I have just suggested, which is the same as one does with tax relief. If you pay in more than £60,000 a year, you do not get any extra tax relief; but if you pay in, for example, more than £10,000 a year, you do not get any national insurance relief on the amounts on top of that. That would be so much simpler.

I stress to the Committee that I believe that the Government and the Minister have not realised the complexity—the sheer scale of the administrative tasks—that will be involved if the Bill proceeds as it is. I liked the idea suggested by my noble friend Lord Leigh to put this on hold and do the work that we are trying to get the Government to do straight after the Bill passes before we finish and finalise the legislation, so that we have a better idea of what we are doing.

I also have a lot of sympathy with the approach that the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, has outlined. We all seem to be trying to make the Bill operate in practice in a rather less difficult, complicated and costly administrative manner. The amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, to which I added my name, on £5,000 are just another way of trying to square this circle. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s thoughts.

I must confess that the idea of inflation linking this limit, if we were to get it, each year would probably just add to the complexity of an already incredibly complex set of changes that we are thinking of making to the Bill. We would not know, from one year to the next, what the new limit will be, because it will not be £2,000 or £10,000—I hope we will not end up there. I hope the Minister understands the spirit in which I am trying to suggest the £10,000 figure and the people I am trying to help: the basic rate taxpayers. I really do fear that they will have a much worse pension outcome if this goes ahead.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, this is the group of amendments on which I have been the most focused. I will not repeat my Second Reading speech, in which I talked about the importance of growing pension savings to fuel the growth agenda, but the Government must realise that this policy just does not align with that. However, I hope that the Government are beginning to understand that life today is long and it is not easy to put aside enough from the working years to achieve a decent retirement without depending on the state. According to the Resolution Foundation, changes made under the Bill will hit at least half of those who use salary sacrifice, affecting a large number and a wide range of households.

Different noble Lords, as we see in the amendments here, have proposed different increases to the contributions limit. Amendments 7, 10, 11, 20, 22 and 23 are in my name, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, for signing some of them. The core of my amendments would increase the contributions limit from £2,000 to £5,000, preferably with a further annual increase linked to RPI. I confess that there is not a lot of science behind my choice of £5,000, but running it past people who deal with pensions, I began to think I had hit a sweet spot with that figure. The response was that it would support people making the rather difficult choice of what to do with their money and provide a little more of an incentive to save in a pension rather than to spend.

As part of this process, my colleagues in the other place were able to obtain some research from the Commons Library, using PolicyEngine and its interactive dashboard. That work is not definitive but it provides a useful picture of the distributional effects of raising the contribution limit. An uplift of £5,000 would give the greatest gains to the two top income deciles—we would all expect that. But just a shave behind those two deciles, the next highest gainers are the second decile, which is not, I expect, the result that the Government would have predicted. This group would have within it a cohort of young people, probably in their early to mid-20s, perhaps one pay rise into their careers, still willing to live in shared accommodation and to live quite frugally, and not yet trying to pay off student loans, get a mortgage or support children. Surely this is the group that any Government should target to get into saving for a pension in a big way.

Early investment enables a pension pot to grow, but it is a narrow window. As people move into the age of families and mortgages, they cut or even stop pension savings, and women are even more affected if they reduce work to care for children. Only later in life do people return to significant savings and by then it is very late in the day. Frankly, we should make sure that they also have strong incentives to save at this point in their lives to avoid sharp drops in living standards in old age. I think the Government have looked at earners as if they belong to fixed blocks: low earners, middle earners and high earners. In reality, most people’s profiles as earners and savers change as they go through life, and the incentives therefore have to be shaped to maximise and to meet that profile.

Some of my amendments would increase the £5,000 contribution limit annually by RPI. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, discussed increasing the £2,000 limit by CPI. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, considers this an additional complication but, frankly, we have to tackle this issue of frozen thresholds, which in eras of inflation have just such a negative impact.