Financial Services and Markets Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Altmann and Lord Massey of Hampstead

Report stage
Monday 7th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Massey of Hampstead (Con)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to support Amendment 10 from the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, to add a few of my own concerns on Clause 3 and to support the remarks made earlier on this matter by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer.

Protecting customer access to essential banking services is, of course, a goal we all share. However, the granting of such wide-ranging executive powers, basically conferring almost unlimited powers on the Treasury for this matter, seems unnecessary, even allowing for the understandable desire to act quickly. The Treasury’s own review of in-person banking access does not report until October, as has been mentioned, and we are being asked to legislate before we know the nature of the problem we are solving or the policy decisions that might follow. Would they be proportionate? Would they be effective? We really have no way of knowing this at this stage and do not even have the benefit of seeing the report.

The Treasury’s memorandum to the DPRRC seeks to narrow these powers when the review concludes, so the Government are implicitly aware, I assume, that the delegated powers are too broad. But the answer is not to grant excessively wide powers now and then tidy up later; surely it would be better to wait or bring back a properly balanced set of powers when the evidence exists. I offer my support to Amendment 10, which would delete Clause 3 altogether.

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I also support the amendments in this group. I believe that the description of these extremely wide powers should, in itself, alert the House to the dangers that Clause 3 of the Bill could pose. I believe that it is important for the Government to understand, for example, what has been revealed in the latest report, just a few days ago, from Age UK about digital exclusion among the older age groups in this country. It is all very well for policymakers—and Members of this House, indeed—to believe that everyone can manage to bank online and that there is no need to go into a physical branch. But when it comes to the older generations, that is simply not the case. Certainly in terms of the population aged over 65, the research suggests that only 15% of pensioners, or of the over-65s, are fully digitally included and able to use all services digitally—it is 20% of men and 10% of women—and that 1.4 million over-65s are fully digitally excluded. The more we see bank closures and the less access to banking these people have, the more excluded from society they become.

I hope the Government will recognise that we need to make sure that there is an opportunity for Parliament and for the legislation to ensure that these older people are not forgotten or left behind and that the access to banking that they may rely on is not removed, perhaps inadvertently, from legislation where it could have been avoided. For example, if we agreed some of the amendments in this group, they would ensure that either Clause 3 altogether or the most egregious parts of it are removed, as the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, said. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, said, we should make sure that the Lloyd review, which is meant to deal directly with this, is part of the legislation.