Financial Services and Markets Bill [HL]

Baroness Bi Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 8th July 2026 Grand Committee

[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.

King’s Speech

Baroness Bi Excerpts

Thursday 14th May 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bi (Lab)]

My Lords, in following that speech, I will cover many of the areas covered by the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, but I welcome the focus on economic growth, trade and our partnership with the EU contained in the gracious Speech.

It is imperative that we take measures to improve our rate of growth to offer hope to the many people who feel that society no longer works for them. I am particularly concerned about the impact on young people, not just those who are not in employment, education or training but the many others who do everything right and then find that they cannot find a job that reflects their training and aspirations, and that they cannot buy a home or start a family. History is full of examples of revolutions started by disaffected young people who do not have a stake in the society in which they are living, and I am concerned about the impact on the future of our democracy if we are not able to grow the economy to meet their legitimate expectations.

We are all now hearing a clamour for bold change from my colleagues in the other place, and I join it to this extent: the broader geopolitical situation means that we need to choose whether to seek growth primarily through deregulation, as the United States has done, or through closer dynamic alignment with the European Union—our largest and nearest market. I accept that both routes have the potential to offer us higher growth than we are experiencing. However, as a cake enthusiast, I know that we cannot have the benefits of both while accepting the discipline of neither. The choice we make—whether to follow a US model or to be more closely aligned with the EU—has to run through all our decision-making on tax, regulation, skills, capital markets and energy costs.

Like my noble friend Lord Liddle, I urge the Government to choose alignment with the EU and hope that the British public have an opportunity to reverse Brexit in due course. We ultimately belong in the European Union not just because it makes economic sense but because we share the same values as our neighbours. We need to work together with them to enhance our joint defence capability, the importance of which my noble friend Lord Robertson so eloquently explained. In a world of large economic blocs, we are exposed. Although I applaud the Government’s progress on free trade agreements, the increase in growth that these FTAs are able to achieve does not make up for the loss of access to the single market and customs union.

I also accept, not least because of the manner in which we left, that the EU is understandably hesitant in responding to our overtures, but the review of the TCA due this year and the upcoming EU-UK summit provide an opportunity to make meaningful progress within the current framework to achieve business mobility, youth mobility, mutual recognition of professional qualifications and civil judicial co-operation, all of which will help to boost growth. Increasing growth depends on strengthening those sectors in which Britain is genuinely world class. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, that financial and professional services are some of our world-beating industries. The sector generates jobs, tax revenues and exports, but it is overregulated, with compliance costs for just financial services exceeding £30 billion each year. I accept that regulation is necessary for growth, but it must be targeted and proportionate.

In the past, our approach to EU regulation was often to overcomply and gold-plate requirements. As we consider dynamic alignment in the future, I urge the Government to adopt the method advocated by Marie Kondo and consider keeping those regulations that spark joy and discarding those that we no longer need. As a lawyer—I declare my interest as the chair of a law firm—I hesitate to suggest fewer laws and thereby deprive my colleagues of the prospect of advising clients at attractive hourly rates, but too often new laws and regulations are issued in response to a failure or scandal, when existing legislation should simply be enforced. Solicitors, from sole practitioners to those in larger firms, are now contemplating the prospect of being regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority, which has no experience of overseeing professional services to date. This is for anti-money laundering, a role that has been performed thus far by the Solicitors Regulation Authority—one of 15 regulators and bodies whose requirements and guidelines we are currently required to observe in the UK.

I am bemused by the fact that, in London, we are deemed to need ever more regulation, overseen by growing numbers of regulators, whereas colleagues in New York, Paris and Frankfurt seem to get by perfectly adequately with a local Bar Association and compliance with the laws which apply to the rest of society.

I note that many noble Lords have discussed concerns about overregulation, but I am afraid my experience in the legal sector is replicated in many other areas of the economy. We need to be much bolder in deciding what regulatory oversight is actually needed to protect consumers, preserve stability and sustain confidence—with significant input from those sectors themselves, as they have a primary interest in maintaining their good reputation—and to remove the rest. We need proportionate regulation, alignment with the EU and support for our great industries, especially financial and professional services, to drive the growth that is needed for the next generation.