National Savings (Remediation Scheme) Regulations 2026

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, has clearly explained, the estates of deceased customers of NS&I were not always repaid money from all their accounts following a bereavement claim. The operational failure was identified in December 2025 but reported to Ministers and publicised only in March 2026. The issues were resolved for current and new bereavement claims from January 2026, but I understand that the revised process is proving hard going and, in and of itself, is causing more delays. Can the Minister update us?

As the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, said, some 34,000 estates, with a total value of £476 million, were affected by the original failure. Can the Minister tell us how many of the families of the bereaved have so far been reunited with their funds in full and have been compensated for the delay? What are the costs of compensation and associated fees that will fall on the taxpayer?

I understand the pressures to resolve this issue, but frankly, when the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments reports an SI as “requiring elucidation” on quite a number of points and for “defective drafting”, we really are talking about sloppiness, and that is not acceptable. NS&I is one of our most trusted financial institutions, holding over £240 billion belonging to some 24 million customers. It is crucial that it retains trust, which means that the response by NS&I and the Government needs to be both accurate and swift.

Financial Services and Markets Bill [HL]

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

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.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Kramer]

155: Clause 40, page 47, line 30, leave out from beginning to line 2 on page 48 and insert—
“(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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

I am happy to withdraw.

Amendment 155 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

In supporting these amendments, I ask the Minister what more, in particular, HMT is planning to do to give that sense of a clear, crisp and focused mission statement to coalesce the community—it is a community in this country—around the potential and possibilities. Get that right, then right-sized regulation can flow and the growth will come.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

That was good too, though.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

King’s Speech

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

Thursday 14th May 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Fox has had to leave, as the cold lurgy got him; undoubtedly, it will now get me over the weekend. The core point of his speech—the significance of and need for ambitious and strong leadership now—is almost the central point of the debate we have had today. I hope that the Government are going to take that on board. The impact of the turbulence we face domestically and overseas on the cost of living for ordinary people is really quite devastating. The Government have to deliver bold action in response. I am not sure that this King’s Speech meets that test.

I say to the Government: stop pussyfooting in the European partnership Bill and seize the opportunity. The noble Lord, Lord Livermore, has talked in the past about the 6% to 8% scarring of the economy in 2025. I have seen the numbers and I am with him, but I will leave him to argue that case with the Conservatives, who do not appear to have taken note of them.

I also want to point to the speech made by my noble friend Lord Strasburger, who talked about the specific damage done to one of our most important industries—the creative industry—by Brexit. I could bring industry after industry before this House to make exactly the same case. To those who think that Brexit has not been a huge damage, I say: go out and speak to industry after industry. I defy anyone to continue to make that statement.

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

My Lords, does the noble Baroness speak to the NFU, which does not want to rejoin Europe because it believes that the divergences from EU rules since Brexit have benefited it enormously? Doing away with those divergences would cost £600 million to £800 million a year just for PPPs, and £500 million a year for fisheries.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

We may be speaking to the people at the NFU, but I suggest that the noble Lord go out and start speaking to individual farmers. He will find that the agricultural sector has been really badly hit by the processes that we have been through. It also underscores the inadequacy of trying to fill this just with trade agreements. I listened to a lot of the ideas that came from the Conservative Benches; if you added them together, you would be lucky to get 1% to 2% growth, even if you were able to implement them in a positive way. That does not anywhere near offset the 6% to 8% damage. Again, I will leave the Minister to continue with that argument.

This is an important time to be much more ambitious on the European front. Of course I support youth mobility schemes, the recognition of professional qualifications and the reduction of red tape, but this is the time when we need to be going for a bespoke customs union and building the trust, as well as building the British economy, that will enable us to be on a trajectory towards the single market and eventually to rejoining. If I look at just the customs union, I think it is widely accepted now that the impact of that would put £25 billion more into the UK economy every year. That money could bring some relief to our debt numbers, could help us deal with the need for additional investment in defence and could in turn help struggling people.

Missing from the King’s Speech is action to turn around the sad trajectory of small businesses. I applaud the late payments Bill, but I say to the Government that it is time to grasp the nettle and completely revise business rates to keep small businesses viable, and it is time to force the energy companies to offer competitive pricing to small businesses. I do not know what is holding the Government back from referring that industry to the CMA because it is clearly not offering competitive options to small business, and we are paying a huge price for that. A scheme for apprentices is very important, but it is meaningless if we keep losing small businesses because they are the ones that can take on apprentices and they are often the only real source of jobs in our most deprived communities.

What about access to finance for small businesses? The British Business Bank has made a commitment to support community development banks and financial institutions, which is laudable, but the Government have given it pennies to work with. A sector that can lend at best £150 million in the UK lends more than $300 billion in the US; it is the complete backbone to small business and provides the secure foundation for its economy. Will the new legislation allow the National Wealth Fund to step into that space and let us properly grow the community development investment financing sector?

These Benches will scrutinise very carefully the enhancing financial services Bill. It has not been much discussed today but I notice that, in their briefing, the Government—this counters other messages that we heard from the Conservative Benches—finally recognise that the financial sector has suffered quite severely because of Brexit and has been stagnant while other areas have been growing. It is salami slice by salami slice. The EU is building capacity in financial services across a network of cities, often in partnership with British firms. People talk fluently now of Lloyd’s of Brussels, LCH has replaced the term London Clearing House, and LCH Paris is becoming a major force. This will become far worse if in June 2028 the EU decides to limit its grant of equivalent status to UK central counterparties. The risk is not just that we lose trillions in derivatives clearing business but that the financial operations that collocate with CCPs could make that call to collocate elsewhere. Neither the EU Bill nor the financial services Bill seems to deal with any of this.

The enhancing financial services Bill intends to enable credit unions to expand. We have called for that for some time and it should help with financial inclusion, but we need a more far-reaching strategy, including clarification of the future of banking hubs. Consolidation of the PSR and the FCA can be successful if it is done with care, but I am much more concerned about plans to scrap much of the certification regime that sets the standard for senior management recruiting and accountability in the banking world. Before the certification requirements were brought in, senior bankers simply hired their friends. I was shocked, in going around to HR department after HR department, to discover that they did not even require CVs or check references if someone was referred by a senior banker within their own organisation. That accounts for a lot of the failures that we have had to deal with historically.

I also suggest that the Members here who question the importance of the certification regime look at the evidence that the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards got from senior bankers. The changes I can see to the certification regime weaken individual responsibility and return to the concept of collective responsibility. It was on that basis that bankers were shocked that they should have been expected to call out any kinds of concerns or failure in management, or carry the can for what went wrong. This is an industry that genuinely needs good regulation. I do not care if it is streamlined—that is always an advantage—but we have to recognise the importance of regulating this industry.

I am equally concerned about changes to ring-fencing. The co-mingling of retail and investment banking was a major factor in the 2007-08 crisis. The free money from retail deposits fuelled casino-type investment. Retail banking dropped credit standards, mis-sold products such as PPI, and switched to short-term funding. If anyone thinks that reducing the ring-fence will help the financing of small businesses, think again. The major banks have restructured their operations and staffing in ways that make cash-flow lending impossible except to large clients.

I cannot see how this Bill tackles risks outside the recognised institutions. I have been truly concerned with the Government’s love fest with private credit, which we saw during the passage of the Pension Schemes Bill. Private markets play an important role in financing productive investment, but these markets, which now exceed $18 trillion, as Sarah Breeden, Deputy Governor of the Bank of England, said,

“have not yet been tested, at that scale and complexity, by a broad-based macroeconomic shock in a higher-rate environment”.

There is little transparency, underwriting standards are weak, the loans are sliced and diced, and liquidity is very limited. Private credit is now deeply wound into the banks, insurance companies and pension funds through lending arrangements. Interconnection matters. Add in potential bubbles in tech and AI valuations, and the play by hedge funds now in the gilts markets, and it becomes evident that risk has not gone from the financial sector, it has simply taken a new shape. This Bill is a chance to make sure our regulators have the powers and capacity to respond. I am afraid there is a current complacency and that is very dangerous.

This Bill is also an opportunity to urgently address the issues of digital currency, both fiat and stablecoin. Too many powers have been switched from Parliament to the regulators. Digital is not just a variation on plumbing. Should sterling stablecoin be redeemable at par, for example? What quality of assets is required to back it? I suggest not gold and bitcoin. Who controls the exchanges that can shut off transactions at will? At the international level, what happens to UK monetary sovereignty when future cross-border trade is dominated by dollar and renminbi stablecoin? These issues are above the pay grade of the FCA and the Bank of England, and need to come to Parliament.

We will support the expansion of the sandbox in the regulating for growth Bill, but my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones will, I think, speak extensively on the risk of getting on a deregulation bandwagon without looking extremely carefully, particularly as we are dealing with AI. We saw the damage that has been done by the failure to regulate social media early enough—a price paid by vulnerable people and by many of our youngsters. This is not to be repeated in AI, so again, beware the worship of a deregulation programme.

We will also look closely at the highways financing Bill to make sure that the RAB funding is not a way to burden ordinary people with funding costs that the capital markets have rejected. It has a place, but we have to be careful with it.

My noble friend Lord Fox has detailed our support, but with care, for nationalising the steel industry as we try to sort out its role. There is a need for a long-term strategy to underpin that process.

I thank my noble friend Lord Stoneham for focusing on housing, which is an issue that has not been extensively debated today but which absolutely underpins the future of our economy. I also thank him for his focus on the industrial strategy.

We will work hard to ensure that the competition reform Bill ensures an independent CMA with teeth. This should not be a proposal to weaken the CMA; it should be a proposal to strengthen it in very changing times.

However, none of this, frankly, is enough. Our work is going to be to put together a programme of much greater ambition—ambition that can be managed without excessive risk but that takes real care and real energy.

Secondary International Competitiveness and Growth Objective (FSR Committee Report)

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

Wednesday 11th March 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I come from a different perspective from many of the people who have spoken today, because I am approaching this debate from the perspective of spending nearly two years on the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards following the financial crash of 2008, which was due to credit and derivative manipulation, much of it either deliberate or, frankly, due to people casting a blind eye. That was at the same time as the Libor scandal, which probably took away from creditors across the world something in excess of a quadrillion dollars through 10 years of consistent lying to the setting of the benchmark, and, frankly, at a time when mis-selling to individuals was on an industrial scale.

I quote from the final report from that committee:

“Policy-makers in most areas of supervision and regulation need to work out what is best for the UK, not the lowest common denominator of what can most easily be agreed internationally. There is nothing inherently optimal about an international level playing field in regulation. There may be significant benefits to the UK as a financial centre from demonstrating that it can establish and adhere to standards significantly above the international minimum”.


In taking evidence from those involved in causing the crash and knowingly manipulating Libor, it was consistently apparent that outperforming international competitors and generating higher profits were the two core motives, and these motives look very much like the secondary international competitiveness and growth objective.

In that context, the work of the Financial Services Regulation Committee is crucial, especially as, post-Brexit, the Conservative Government chose to transfer virtually all meaningful control of the financial sectors to the regulators by embedding that control in regulation and guidance, neither of which can be amended by Parliament. I am a strong supporter of the FSRC but I want to make sure that it understands where and why all this began.

The report that we have received reflects ongoing tensions between financial stability and an industry and some politicians who want the leash off. I completely understand the frustration with undue complexity and uncertainty of regulation—that helps no one. I also understand the need to reflect the different characteristics of different entities in regulation, and some of the discussion around MREL has addressed that. I am convinced that parts of our regulators are often slow to respond. I want to make the point that regulation is not cast in stone, but improving and customising regulation should not be a shorthand for deregulation.

I read in evidence to the FSRC that deregulation is the industry agenda—and the tool for its attack is the secondary objective.

Let us look at the risk that has been reintroduced into the financial system under the secondary objective rubric. I will give a few examples, as did the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham: the PRA’s easing of bank capital requirements; the undermining of the ring-fencing regime—there is a consultation in place but undoubtedly this will be a consequence; removal of the bankers’ bonus cap; significant limiting of the senior managers and certification regime—I am especially exercised by the removal of individual accountability; the reduction in the risk margin for insurance companies and the expansion of matching adjustment eligibility to cover highly illiquid assets; and the Mansion House Accord to put 10% of the pensions of low-income people and workers into high-risk, illiquid assets without their consent. With these changes, we see the industry, and this includes the banks, release its animal spirits—exactly what everybody wanted—and they have galloped, at quite some speed, into the private equity markets, often with little understanding of the assets.

There have been numerous red flags. On 6 March, BlackRock finally limited redemption of private credit funds as outflows continued to swell. Today, JP Morgan is marking down the loan portfolios of private credit groups. Most of this happened before the Iran war. It will accelerate with the Iran war, and in a way, which is incredibly sad, one of the side effects—perhaps we ought to regard it as beneficial but I do not want a war to create this—is that it may burst a bubble before it gets even more out of control.

While I can see the return to a much-increased level of risk, I cannot see the return to growth in either the financial sector or the broader economy. That is what is supposed to follow—you deregulate, the growth comes —but I cannot find that growth. We gave away our utter dominance of the European financial sector with Brexit, not in one step but salami slice by salami slice. The effect is somewhat masked because people always compare us with individual financial centres across the EU, which is of course functioning as a network of multiple financial centres, so we do not see how our competitive position has diminished very significantly. I am truly anxious that in June 2028 the EU will reduce its recognition of UK central counterparties because by then it will have achieved much of its own clearing capacity, and so much high-level finance co-locates with CCPs. You cannot deregulate your way out of a fundamental issue like that.

Frankly, we cannot deal with our biggest problems through deregulation. Financing scale-ups will not happen because we have made some kind of regulatory change to financial institutions; the problem we are dealing with here is one of huge market failure. In a sense, this picks up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell. There is no point kidding ourselves that we can fuss with regulation and deliver the money that is needed for scale-up.

Neither do any of the rule changes suggest that we can cure our other fundamental problem: our lack of a layer of community banks, which were once the Captain Mainwarings of this world—the backbone of finance for local, small businesses. I do not mean those which intend to be unicorns but those which want to grow just a little faster than organically, which are the backbone of our local communities and economy. Dealing with these market failures goes way beyond fiddling with the risk weightings of banks’ capital holdings. That is regulatory intervention already.

The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, mentioned that added to banking licences could be a requirement that banks fund some money for VCs. I have long argued—it has never got anywhere—that we ought to attach to banking licences a requirement that major banks fund people who can deliver that community banking profile. Exactly that happened in the United States under the Community Reinvestment Act, which has grown a community sector that, today, is the complete backbone of small businesses and the US economy. When I last looked at that sector, which was zero in 1970, it had something in excess of $300 billion in loan assets to small businesses. It is absolutely critical and it has been used by US Presidents to make sure that the US was able to survive two major economic crises.

The report asserts that

“regulators have made progress in advancing the secondary objective”.

I can see where they have advanced the objective of deregulation, but I cannot see the growth. We are pulling on a lever to create growth that does not really work. Professor Kern Alexander said to the FSRC:

“The gap we have is that, in many countries where they have been using secondary objectives for 25 or 30 years, there is no policy conclusion about whether they work, how they are applied or how the secondary objectives are defined”.


Of course it is right that Parliament and the FSRC scrutinise and question the regulators on their performance but, if we think that the answer to growth in the real economy is deregulation, we are looking in the wrong place. Its impact is marginal at best; when it is handled badly, it is a recipe for a cycle of crises. Regulation is a financial stability and anti-abuse tool. When we seek growth, as we should, we need to find other, real levers: investment, skills and productivity—to name but three.

Crown Estate: Wales

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

We have a very good relationship with the Crown Estate and work very closely with the Welsh Government. We will be appointing a commissioner to the Crown Estate to ensure that we have someone there who is prepared to look consciously at all the issues that affect Wales. We want to see a Welsh economy that is growing. One way of doing that is through investing in green industries, which I would have thought the noble Baroness would welcome.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, to pick up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, is the Minister aware that people in Wales are convinced, following conversations with the Crown Estate, that the overwhelming majority of new skilled jobs created by offshore in the Celtic Sea will go to outsiders, not to people in Wales, and that the supply chain will use a few Welsh companies but primarily suppliers from outside Wales? Therefore, can he talk to us about what the Government are doing to build the supply chain and the skills in Wales and to make sure that Welsh companies have a definite percentage of the new business and opportunities that are on offer?

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

The Crown Estate and the Government are particularly concerned about ensuring that we have investment in local supply chains, and we are going along with that in whatever we are doing. For example, as I have said, this £50 million is going to be invested in the supply chain accelerator. We are going to ensure that some of the money that will be generated from offshore wind goes into local communities. We are well aware of the issues, but we need to focus on the fact that we are heading in the right direction as far as green energy development is concerned.

National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

Report stage
Thursday 5th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

I thought I said in my earlier remarks that there will be a marginal effect: I accept that, although we do not actually know what that marginal effect will be. It is all hypothetical at the moment. One thing we do not know from the OBR figures is quite what the reaction will be and how people will adjust their behaviour between now and when this comes in.

I accept the noble Baroness’s point but, as I say, nobody likes paying tax and nobody wants to pay more tax. If you ask people whether they want to pay more tax they say no, but it has to fit in with the Government’s overall financial strategy.

Of course, only some people gain an advantage from salary sacrifice. Many private employers just do not offer it. The number is increasing all the time, which is part of the problem because it is increasing the cost. Nobody in the public sector benefits from salary sacrifice. We can, and will, have an interesting debate about public service pensions, but noble Lords should understand that it is unequal that people in the private sector can take advantage of salary sacrifice but people in the public sector cannot.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I thought it might be best to combine standing as a winder and talking for a few moments to the two amendments in this group that are in my name. I start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, who made an incredibly powerful speech to introduce the whole series of amendments in this group. I thank her for signing my two amendments, Amendments 12 and 26. Amendment 26 is the Northern Ireland parallel to Amendment 12, so we need not treat it separately. I also thank the noble Lords, Lord Altrincham and Lord Londesborough, for signing my amendments. The noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, would also have signed them had space been permitted on the Marshalled List.

I also talked very extensively, both at Second Reading and in Committee, and I will try to discipline myself not to repeat those comments, particularly because speaker after speaker has so fully described the issues that are at stake. I find myself in complete disagreement with the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, which does not happen very often, but I think that the Government will recognise that, for a whole series of political leanings around the House, there is very common ground on this issue.

My Amendment 12, as others have described, would lift that limit on salary sacrifice contributions subject to NICs relief to £5,000 a year. I discussed in detail in Committee why I talked to various people and came to that number, but the key point I want to emphasise—others have made it, but let me make it again—is that it would strongly benefit younger people and quite low earners. We are looking primarily at the second decile of earners, who are probably on their first or second pay rise. They are still low earners and still living a life much more akin to that of a student. They are sharing accommodation and do not yet have mortgages, children or families. Many have, very responsibly, with the nudge that is given by this tax relief, been encouraged to start seriously saving for pensions, well in excess of that £2,000 benchmark that the Government propose.

As these people move on in their lives and acquire children and mortgages, their pension savings drop. Those very early savings that then have a chance to accrue over a working lifetime are very significant in the end result to the quality of pension that they receive. That is why we took an approach that we thought would, in a very simple way, enable this group of people to continue with that incredibly positive behaviour.

In this group, I will certainly support the amendments that the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, will choose to move. I want to make particular reference to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, on student loans. It is absolutely essential. The Government have recognised—at least, this is what I understood from the Minister’s responses in Committee and at Second Reading—that the Bill quite unintentionally puts serious additional costs on to graduates. I find it absolutely ridiculous that, having recognised that there is an unintentional impact and that it is problematic, the Government are not correcting it in this Bill. As far as I can understand, they are waiting for some future piece of legislation to make that change.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

May I just press the noble Baroness on the point she made about serious additional costs? Would she care to quantify what those serious additional costs are?

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

Let me refer back to the example I gave in Committee. The noble Lord will be aware, on that additional contribution, that the graduates are paying the 8% additional in NICs but, on top of that, because it pulls them into scope of having to make repayments at the margin, the impact is 17%. It has a huge impact on graduates who are now just beginning to reach the level where they would have anticipated they would start to repay, and they suddenly hit this really serious spike. I think he has seen the numbers that some of the people have sent to us, and the Chartered Institute of Taxation could help him with those numbers if he wants to look at them. The Government, I think, recognise that problem but my answer is to fix it.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

I think what the noble Baroness has just explained is that for those people with the greatest earnings potential, which our nation needs, there is an arbitrary cap on aspiration. There is a point which is just not worth going past. That is not just damaging for them, their families and their futures; it is also bad for the economy. That, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, is where the prejudice lies: it is on the individual, but the whole of society suffers by having the cliff edge effect that the noble Baroness is referring to.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

On this issue of students, I really think this is unintentional, taking the Minister and others at their words. That is why accepting the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, and correcting the issue now is something that I consider to be very important.

As I said, there is no need for me to keep speaking. I have made it clear that I will support quite a number of the other amendments in this group if they are moved, because collectively they address a fundamental problem. I appreciate all the comments that have been made in support of the amendments in my name.

[Lord Londesborough (CB)]

My Lords, I support broadly all the amendments in this group, but specifically Amendments 12 and 26 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, to which I added my name. I will be genuinely brief. These amendments, by raising the cap to £5,000 per annum, would address a core problem in the Bill: the limiting or deterring of the so-called moderate earners we have heard about from contributing sufficiently to their pension pots, which, as we already know, are nowhere near sufficient for the vast majority to fund their retirements. We are talking about retirement periods of 25 to 30 years if demographic trends continue. As we have heard, this includes many in the early stages of their working lives who need to get into the habit of contributing to pensions at the formative stages of their careers.

I remind the House of a stat that came out in Committee. On average, our current workforce will outlive their pension savings by eight to nine years, and this funding gap is widening year by year. Clause 1 is, in effect, raiding pensions to keep the Treasury within its fiscal rules in three years’ time. It is another crude example of kicking the can down the road, leaving another generation to sort out another widening deficit.

I was interested to hear the comments from the noble Lords, Lord Leigh and Lord Ashcombe. They raised some pertinent questions over the revenue-raising forecasts. I also fear that the Treasury has wildly underestimated the level of accelerated salary sacrifice over the next three years in the run-up to these measures. I have witnessed a number of business plans in companies that I am involved in; I should, of course, declare my interests as set out in the register.

To conclude, I fully endorse the excellent opening comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the comments we just heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer. I encourage your Lordships to support their amendments should they decide to test the opinion of the House.

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this first group of amendments. I turn first to Amendments 1 and 17 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Altmann, and the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, which seek to exempt basic rate taxpayers from the Bill. As the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, noted, the vast majority—74%—of basic rate taxpayers using salary sacrifice will be unaffected by the changes in this Bill. Specifically, three-quarters of those earning up to £50,270 and using salary sacrifice will be entirely protected, and that rises to 95% when looking at those earning £30,000 or less who use this mechanism to save into their pensions. The minority of basic rate taxpayers with contributions above £2,000 will continue to benefit from employee national insurance relief worth £160 a year in addition to the full income tax relief they receive on their pension contributions. Half of those basic rate taxpayers contributing above £2,000 will face an additional national insurance contribution liability of less than £50 a year.

Exempting basic rate taxpayers would also be exceptionally difficult to operate in practice and would add considerable additional administrative burden on to employers. That is because, unlike income tax, national insurance does not operate on an annual aggregated basis, nor does it determine liability by reference to an individual’s final tax position. An individual cannot be confirmed as a basic rate taxpayer until their full income position is reconciled at the end of the tax year, taking account of potentially multiple employments and other sources of income. To apply a tax band-based exemption, employers would be required to undertake year-end reconciliations across employments and account for other sources of income as well that sit wholly outside the design of the national insurance contributions system. This would represent a fundamental departure from established payroll processes, imposing significant complexity, cost and risk on to employers and payroll providers.

Amendments 16 and 29, in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe, Lady Kramer and Lady Altmann, and the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, seek exemptions for small and medium-sized enterprises, charities and social enterprises. Exempting small and medium-sized enterprises and charities in the way proposed by the amendment would add considerable complexity to the tax system and would not be proportionate to the limited impact this policy is expected to have on those businesses. The changes in this Bill primarily affect larger employers, which are significantly more likely to operate salary sacrifice arrangements and to have employees contributing above the £2,000 cap.

Small businesses are significantly less likely to offer salary sacrifice than larger businesses. Only 28% of employees in SMEs use salary sacrifice for pension contributions, compared to 39% in larger firms. When it comes to contributions above the £2,000 cap, the difference is even clearer. Only 10% of employees in SMEs make pension contributions through salary sacrifice that exceed the value of the cap, compared to 18% of employees of larger firms. This underlines that the largest benefits from uncapped salary sacrifice are concentrated in bigger firms, not smaller firms.

In practice, the changes in this Bill will level the playing field between small businesses and their larger competitors, ensuring that the national insurance contribution advantages of salary sacrifice are not disproportionately concentrated among employees in big firms. More widely, the Government recognise the importance of supporting small businesses and charities alike.

This leads me to Amendments 7 and 23 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham. These amendments seek clarity on the basis on which the Government consider certain employed earners to be higher earners for the purposes of the national insurance charge and how the contributions limit reflects that assessment. The Explanatory Notes for this Bill set out clearly that the Government’s objective is to limit the national insurance contributions relief available to higher earners on employer pension contributions made through salary sacrifice, while protecting lower-earning pension savers. These changes are about fairness and consistency across the labour market.

Additionally, groups who are most likely to be undersaving for retirement, such as those on the national minimum wage and the UK’s 4.4 million self-employed workers are completely excluded from using salary sacrifice altogether. The cap we are introducing through this Bill will protect the majority of basic rate taxpayers using salary sacrifice and ensure that the cost of national insurance relief on pension salary sacrifice is put on a fiscally sustainable footing.

I now turn to Amendments 5 and 21 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Altmann and Lady Kramer, which seek to exempt salary sacrifice pension contributions over the £2,000 limit from being included in the definition of earnings used to calculate student loan repayments for employees. Student loan repayments are calculated using the same earnings base as class 1 national insurance contributions. As a result, salary sacrifice currently reduces both national insurance contributions and the earnings used to calculate student loan repayments. Any change in student loan repayments arising from this measure is a mechanical consequence of restoring those earnings to the national insurance contributions base. It is not a change to student loan policy itself; rather, it flows from levelling the playing field between those who are able to use salary sacrifice arrangements to reduce their earnings for national insurance contributions and those who are not. Of those employees making pension contributions through salary sacrifice, younger people are far more likely to be protected by the £2,000 cap than those above the age of 30. Some 76% of those in their 20s—

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

Can I just get some clarification? The Minister is making me believe now that I must have misunderstood previous comments. Is he saying that he will not be, or there is not an anticipation he will be, bringing in legislation to remove that impact on student loan repayments? I had understood—and I could have been totally wrong, but I think others have understood as well—that that was what the Government intended.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am afraid I do not know what led the noble Baroness to believe that. That is not in any way my intention at this point.

As I was saying, 76% of those in their 20s who use salary sacrifice are protected by the cap, compared to half of those aged 30 and above. The Government do not believe that this Bill is the appropriate vehicle through which to amend the basis of student loan repayments—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freyberg (CB)]

My Lords, as mentioned in the previous group, the creative industries are defined by workers holding multiple short-term contracts with different employers across a single year. The central question that this group addresses, and which has been repeated several times today, is one that was put to the Minister in Committee and remains unanswered: is the £2,000 contributions limit £2,000 per person across all employments, or £2,000 per employment? The Minister was asked precisely this question in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Mackinlay of Richborough, who has repeated it today. The Minister’s answer was:

“That intention will be set out in the regulations once we have fully consulted relevant employers”.—[Official Report, 24/2/26; col. GC 365.]


I have no doubt that that consultation will be thorough, but for workers planning their finances now, and employers designing payroll systems well before 2029, that leaves a gap that the Bill itself should fill. Amendments 6 and 22 would fill it: the limit would apply in relation to each employment.

Even with that resolved, a second problem remains. As we have heard from the noble Lords, Lord Fuller and Lord Ashcombe, when a worker moves between employers mid-year, no mechanism exists for tracking what has already been sacrificed or reporting it to the next employer. Amendments 36 and 39 would address this by making commencement conditional on the Government first publishing guidance that answers both those questions.

There is a further complication that has not been addressed by debates in either House. Many creative workers are engaged by the BBC under schedule D terms as self-employed contractors with no access to salary sacrifice. However, under the off-payroll rules that have applied to public sector bodies since 2017, the BBC must assess whether each such engagement is “employment in substance”. Where the BBC concludes that an engagement is employment in substance, the worker is deemed an employee for NIC purposes, yet they have no actual contract to vary. Salary sacrifice requires a varying employment contract; deemed employment, created by statute, is not a contract. The worker acquires the NIC liability of employment without access to its benefits. That same worker may also be genuinely self-employed with one employer and employed in an ordinary sense with another all in the same year, with no framework in the Bill to accommodate any of it.

These amendments would not change the policy or the 2029 commencement date. They would ensure that, when the Act comes into force, the people it affects know how much it applies to them. I will therefore be supporting all four amendments.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I will slightly anticipate the noble Baroness, Lady Rolfe, moving Amendments 9, 10, 24 and 25, which would require affirmative resolution for key elements of the Bill. Frankly, I do not think I have ever seen a Bill for which affirmative action was more required. In the other amendments, which have been brought forward so eloquently from across this House, we have some flavour of the extraordinary complexity.

I suspect that decision-makers at the top of the Government thought that this was something really simple, and that they were just going to put a cap on, with the rest being relatively easy to manage. However, the actual management of this is a complete nightmare. I cannot believe that a Bill that has been through the House of Commons already is on Report in the House of Lords, and yet we still do not know if the cap is going to apply to each employee or to each employment—which, to my mind, is two different Bills.

I completely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Leigh. I can see the nightmare of people wondering, “If I say this sentence, will I be caught by operational remuneration? Do I have to pretend, wink, or make sure I do not put anything down in an email?” We should not be putting people into situations where they have to try to work out how they handle this whole range of arrangements. The noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, knowing the creative industry so well, has thrown further complication into this. I very much suspect that the Government had absolutely no idea of the mare’s nest they were getting themselves involved with. I wish these issues had been teased out before this point.

The response brought forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, of at least having affirmative resolution gives us some possibility of trying to scrutinise what has happened. This is an extraordinary situation. We do not know the core character of this Bill, so we will be dependent on those working through the affirmative resolutions to decide how on earth they will deal with what will turn out to be the form that eventually comes before us.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by thanking noble Lords with amendments in this group—my noble friends Lord Fuller, Lord Mackinlay and Lord Leigh and the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann—for their proposals, and for their forensic questions on the detail of the schemes and on any guidance that the Government might issue to minimise errors and problems.

There are numerous shortcomings in the Bill around operational detail and how everything will apply in practice. The reality is that we have very little clarity on how the Bill will work. It is designed to apply to a very narrow and limited set of employment and remunerative circumstances, and anyone who falls outside that definition has to wait for regulations, which will not be subject to the affirmative procedure.

We have no clarity on how the policy will apply to people working in numerous jobs. Is the cap per employment or per person? If it is per person, it will be very difficult to administer. We also need to know where responsibility for enforcement lies. There is no clarity about people with fluctuating remuneration: will they be penalised for saving during higher income periods because they hit the cap in some years and have no income to pay into pensions in others? What about anyone who has an unconventional pattern of remuneration for their job or jobs? How will it work for them? We have heard already that the arrangements for student loans are unclear, even after recent discussion, and we heard from my noble friend Lord Mackinlay about GDPR and from the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, about the off-payroll rules. That is quite a lot of detail that has to be worked out.

My amendments in this group would help to deal with that by ensuring that all regulations would be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, aside from those designed to increase the cap—that would be positive if it goes up, and you would not need to have an affirmative resolution because it would be beneficial. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and my noble friend Lord Ashcombe for their understanding and their vocal support for having this extra scrutiny.

When the regulations are developed, they will apply the cap to thousands of people and businesses who will be drawn into complications for the first time. My proposals would not impose a cost on the Exchequer or undermine what the Government are trying to do; they would simply ensure that, when the Treasury comes up with an answer to the questions that have been raised today, we will get a meaningful chance to debate and scrutinise the answers, as we are doing with the Bill at the moment. The Government really should have put the detail in the Bill but, in the absence of that, my amendments would ensure that we retain as much oversight as possible as the detail comes through. I can think of no reason why the Minister would not adopt the affirmative resolution if he cares about oversight, due process and the scrutiny of a policy which will affects millions of people. There are 7.7 million people using salary sacrifice and Amendment 9 should be an obvious amendment to support.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Kramer]

8: Clause 1, page 2, line 14, at end insert—
“(6DA) Before making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a statement confirming that the requirements in section 1(3) of the National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Act 2026 have been complied with.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, connected with another in the name of Baroness Kramer, creates a number of criteria by which the Secretary of State has to abide, before enacting the provisions in subsection (6A).

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

The Office of Budget Responsibility published its economic and fiscal outlook, which provides the OBR’s independent scrutiny of the Government’s policy costings. The OBR published a supplementary forecast note, which provided additional information that it received prior to last year’s Budget to further increase the transparency of this measure. Taken together, these publications already provide an appropriate and comprehensive assessment of the distributional impacts.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, we have important votes ahead of us, so I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment 8 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Kramer]

12: Clause 1, page 2, line 26, leave out “£2,000” and insert “£5,000”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment changes the initial contributions limit to £5,000 in Great Britain.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

I wish to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Kramer]

26: Clause 2, page 3, line 39, leave out “£2,000” and insert “£5,000”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment changes the initial contributions limit to £5,000 in Northern Ireland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Londesborough (CB)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 31 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, to which I have added my name. I also add my vocal support for Amendment 32 from the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, which I should have added my name to but did not. Both amendments concern the impact on SMEs. I am more concerned about the “S” part of that acronym, because medium-sized businesses with payrolls of over 100 staff are a lot better equipped to deal with the provisions of the Bill. I heard the Minister saying that only 10% of this group apply for salary sacrifice, which is a glass-half-empty argument. It is precisely because of that that we should be very concerned about the 90% who are missing out entirely on salary sacrifice.

When we go back to Amendment 31 and look at the impact, the employment data this year for SMEs is utterly dire—on vacancies, payroll and employment, part-time and full-time. I will not go through all the data, but I remind your Lordships that only 10 days ago, the Federation of Small Businesses wrote a letter to the Chancellor of the Exchequer warning that one-third of its members are planning either to shut down their business this year or to reduce their headcount, and that should send a real chill down the spine. I simply do not believe that the Government understand what it is to develop and foster a thriving SME ecosphere, on which, at the bottom of the pyramid, our economic growth utterly depends. I therefore throw my support behind these two amendments.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, Amendment 32 is in my name. I realise that Amendment 31 is a broader amendment, and I have no objection to it whatever. It was written in response to a particular issue identified by the Federation of Small Businesses, which is that small businesses that use salary sacrifice regard it as one of the perks they can offer, in a very competitive market, for particular skill sets. Churn is a major problem for small businesses, so to be able to keep people and keep them happy really matters. It is tough for a small business, particularly when it is looking for a person with highly desirable skills, to compete against big businesses, which can offer perks of many different kinds. They may not offer salary sacrifice to the same degree, but they can offer other kinds of perks and advantages.

I am very concerned about the competitive impact on small businesses. I strongly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, that this group is the foundation of our economy and its condition currently leaves us worried. At a time of a big push for growth, many of the unicorns will fall into a sector where they are in a battle for skills against large existing companies. My Amendment 32 would review within 12 months the impact very specifically on SME recruitment and retention. I hope the Government will pay serious attention to this area.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendments 31, 32 and 33, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Kramer, would require a review of the legislation’s impact on small and medium-sized enterprises, charities and social enterprises. As set out earlier, the Government agree on the importance of transparency, and a number of documents have already been published which set out the impact of this measure. As I said on Amendments 16 and 29, the Government fully recognise the importance of supporting small businesses and charities alike. In practice, the changes in the Bill primarily affect larger employers, who are significantly more likely to operate salary sacrifice arrangements and to have employees contributing above the £2,000 cap.

Charities and their donors benefit from a wide range of reliefs and exemptions across multiple taxes, including VAT, inheritance tax, stamp duties and gift aid. Ahead of the cap taking effect, the Government will continue to work closely with employers, payroll providers and other stakeholders, including representatives of the charity sector, to ensure that changes are implemented in a clear and proportionate way for organisations of all sizes that operate salary sacrifice arrangements. In light of the position I have set out, I hope that the noble Baronesses will feel able not to press their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freyberg (CB)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 35 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, which would require the Government to commission an independent review within 12 months of passing the Act, covering a comprehensive range of impacts. Among the items it would have to consider are, explicitly, “workers with multiple jobs”, and

“workers who change jobs during any tax year and have made pension salary sacrificed contributions”.

Those two categories define the working life of a freelance creative. The Government’s answer throughout the Bill has been that these questions will be resolved in regulations. Amendment 35 would at a minimum ensure that Parliament sees independent evidence of whether that resolution has worked in practice.

Amendment 40, also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, would go further and make commencement conditional on a review of the Act’s practical feasibility. Given the complexity we have heard about and that I have described for workers with mixed employment statuses, including those engaged by the BBC under off-payroll rules while simultaneously working for other employers, that is not an excessive precaution. Therefore, I support both these amendments.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I shall be exceedingly brief. The amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Ashcombe, is, quite frankly, genius. We have all had a struggle trying to get our hands on information that is scattered in so many different places, and I am fairly sure that if this was put with a secret ballot to civil servants they would all sign up because they struggle as well. It makes it very difficult when new policy comes through to try to work out what on earth the consequentials are, what numbers to look at, how to weigh these issues and how to understand distribution of impact, so I support his amendment.

This is such a complex Bill. When the instructions went down to put the Bill in place, I am sure there was absolutely no sense of the complexity that was going to be entangled in it. Amendment 38 in my name was triggered particularly by the OBR publication, again in response to an FoI, Costing of charging NICs on salary-sacrificed pension contributions, which was a supplemental analysis. The word “uncertainty” appeared in so many parts of it that we began to have a sense that no one could have huge confidence in the final numbers that were appearing, and it was very honest of the OBR to make it clear that there were vast uncertainties underpinning large parts of this work.



Very much like the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, I still do not think that we have bottomed out the problem with optional remuneration arrangements. It is easy to assume that we can distinguish between a negotiation where we are choosing between cash and a pension and having a negotiation that involves cash and a pension. But can we claim that the two are not related to each other, so that we do not get trapped by OpRa? There is a lot in here, and a review is the least we should do to make sure that we have a grip on these things and that Parliament gets to see it when it is still in a position to make some decisions.

[Lord Altrincham (Con)]

I thank the Minister for his usual courtesy in hosting the debate. The amendments in this group all underscore another substantial shortcoming in how the Bill has been approached: its effects and impacts have not been properly assessed in advance. I suspect that the Minister does not have the information on how the Bill will affect pensions saving adequacy, which I highlight in my Amendment 37, and how it will affect employer costs, pensions adequacy and workers’ take-home pay, which the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, raises in her amendment.

These are serious questions. As was noted in Committee, if the Treasury had done better work in preparation for the Bill, it would already be able to give us the answers to the questions that these amendments raise. These are the questions that businesses, employers, savers and industry are asking. As my noble friend Lord Ashcombe highlighted, the information must be in an easily accessible format in a single place, because it will be relevant to more than just policymakers and parliamentarians: businesses and employers will be trying to understand what all this means for them, as well as employees saving for their pensions, who will be trying to understand how they could be affected.

My amendment raises the question of pensions adequacy. People are not saving enough for their pensions and the Government are worsening incentives to do so with the Bill. The Minister should consent to a review of this matter before the Bill comes into force. The Government must make sure that they know the facts, so that we can ensure that they do not inflict unintended harms. As a point of good governance, the Minister should accept this and the other amendments in this group.

Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Cryptoassets) Regulations 2025

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

Wednesday 28th January 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in this debate on these regulations in Grand Committee. In doing so, I declare my interests, as set out in the register: as non-executive director of Avalanche (BVI) Inc and the Avalanche Foundation, a layer 1 blockchain protocol; and as adviser to Simmons and Simmons LLP.

I thank the Minister for the way that he introduced these regulations. They are a good thing and people have had time to consider them. They set out the Government’s position and ambition when it comes to crypto assets. We should all welcome this; there is an extraordinary opportunity for the UK when it comes to crypto assets, broader digital assets, tokenisation and broader allied technologies. We could take a stat from any of the main consultancies; all we need to know is that this is material to the UK economy and measurable in the billions.

What does this statutory instrument do to help us towards that objective? First, we should probably take a moment to slay two myths that dog this area and the broader technology space. The first is that you can have either regulation or innovation, not both. I believe that the Government’s approach to crypto assets and broader digital assets proves that it is possible to regulate in a way that enables innovation, proper regulation and the necessary consumer protection. We saw similar approaches with the fintech regulatory sandbox in 2016, the market intervention from the CMA with open banking and, decades ago, the approach that the UK Government took to the mobile telephony sector. We know how to do what I describe as right-sized regulation.

The second myth is that we cannot possibly legislate in time for these new technologies and financial instruments. If we look at just two recent examples—the Electronic Trade Documents Act and the Property (Digital Assets etc) Act—we can see clear, focused, specific legislation passed in good time that is already having a positive impact on our economy and businesses and for individuals right across the UK.

It should also be noted that we are not behind the curve when we compare other jurisdictions. Certainly the GENIUS Act in the United States has perhaps had more column inches and broadcast minutes devoted to it but, when we consider the timeline for the implementation of that Act and look at what is currently happening with MiCA in the EU, the UK should not feel behind the curve in any sense.

I welcome these regulations, but with one significant caveat—one wrinkle that I believe needs to be addressed. It is simply that the regulations as currently drafted roll together stablecoins and other crypto assets. For example, unbacked bitcoin is treated in the same way as fiat-backed stablecoin. I cannot believe that this is the intention of the Government in drafting these regulations, because unbacked bitcoin and fiat-backed stablecoin operate in very different ways and have extraordinarily different purposes. Crucially, the difference can be set out just in understanding the difference between something that is backed and something that is completely unbacked. Bitcoin could largely be considered a speculative investment; stablecoin is more of a payment methodology—money, if you will. I ask the Minister whether that is the intention of the regulations, whether that follows from the stated policy around crypto assets and stablecoins and whether a change to the regulations is not required at this stage to perfect what I would argue is a significant problem.

I do not believe it can be right that fiat-backed stablecoins are treated as investments—they are not investments. If they are, there is a clear and present threat to the burgeoning stablecoin industry in the UK, which, if these regulations go through, may be stifled before it has had time to even get thoroughly under way. To be clear, stablecoins and other potential payment methods, such as central bank digital currencies, are the cash leg to these new digital markets and digital economy. If we stifle that at this stage, we will be killing off all those broader possibilities from such digital markets.

Take, for example, somebody who wished to use fiat-backed stablecoins to make a payment, engage in FX, or be involved in a money market fund. They would be using a fiat-backed stablecoin rather than fiat itself. Can it be right that the regulations as currently drafted would treat that person differently just by dint of them using fiat-backed stablecoin rather than cash? It would necessitate FCA licensing, so an increased regulatory burden for doing largely the same thing, and, in reality, that licence would not be sought—the industry would simply choose not to use that stablecoin methodology, and thus it would be killed off at that stage.

I believe a solution exists, and it is relatively straightforward at this stage: to exclude qualifying stablecoins from the definition of qualifying crypto assets. It would not be problematic. It would fit very well with Deputy Governor Sarah Breeden’s speech on a multi-money universe. Consumer protection would be unaffected, because of the issuing provisions already set out. The safeguarding duties would kick in and have a positive impact. I do not believe any changes would be needed to the staking provisions. Crucially, it would leave policy in the correct place to enable stablecoins to be integrated into the upcoming overhaul of payment regulations. I argue that payment regulations is the correct place for stablecoins, as they are, in essence, money. Another solution could be to look at how the current definitions are set out around dealing and arranging. It is more complex, but equally doable. Two options exist to setting right this wrinkle in the regulations.

It is not that this is a minor drafting point. There will be clear, present and immediate harm to our industry and economy if the regulations are passed in their current form. This is not just a matter of theory. We can see this already in the EU, where the double regulation of stablecoins—MTS in that jurisdiction—is currently causing harm, hampering the development of that industry across the EU, and is already subject to review. We can avoid that issue before it becomes a problem if we make this change to the regulations.

The policy note that accompanied the regulations when they were first set out said that this is a draft SI and should not be considered final. Does the Minister agree that that continues to be the situation and that we can make these changes to the regulations? There is a great deal at stake for the UK here. This is such an important piece of the UK’s global aspiration when it comes to crypto assets, digital assets, tokenisation, and the whole digital market and economy transformation that we all want to bring about for the benefit of the citizen and the consumer, companies and our country. The opportunity exists. We cannot allow it to founder for want of this simple change.

The Government’s growth agenda can be effectively enabled through stablecoins and broader digital assets. Similarly, does the Minister agree that there is a real opportunity for the effective and efficient offshoring of government debt through the effective deployment of stablecoins? It is a real opportunity for the UK economy. If you want a use case to prove this point, just look at how USDC is currently operating.

At stake is a growth matter and a global economic matter. This is a way to effectively change how government debt is treated in a material way for the economy. More broadly, in considering the whole issue around crypto and digital assets, having even greater clarity from the Government, beyond growth and innovation, and making a clear statement as to what we want as the UK—what position we want to play when it comes to cryptocurrencies, assets, digital assets and stablecoins, sharpening the arrowhead of the Government’s mission—would be incredibly helpful across this industry. We have an extraordinary opportunity that we can take only if we make the changes to these regulations.

Will the Minister agree to meet me and other industry colleagues, potentially with the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, to discuss how we can perfect these regulations to be the positive, clear and consistent regulatory landscape that will enable industry and consumers to have the best experience and the most economically improving approach to crypto assets, stablecoins and digital assets in the UK? I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I confess that, when tried to work my way through this statutory instrument, I felt incredibly inadequate. I cannot pretend super expertise on crypto assets and stable coins. Most of the information that comes my way is, frankly, from the industry lobbying for the maximum amount of scope, along with assurances that this is just a much more efficient plumbing of the payment system—nothing troubling here, just an opportunity to enhance the economy.

I realise that a regulatory framework is necessary, as crypto has become mainstream and is no longer fringe. While I do not oppose the SI, I retain quite a degree of uncertainty. I start by picking up the issue of stablecoin. I know Chris, or the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, really well—I apologise for almost forgetting his name; I have moments of holes in the brain that I suspect come with age—but I question the assertion that stablecoin is essentially just fiat currency in another form. I know some of the stablecoin companies such as Tether argue that basically one Tether equals $1 in the form of treasuries. I am also clear that much of this is opaque. Those who I understand see the accounts of some of these firms say that, if stablecoins were really only matched one to one with a fiat currency, their earnings would be no more than the return you would get—if it was, for example, a dollar stablecoin—on US treasuries. That does not square with the earnings that they either report or promote as part of their future. There is certainly something opaque about stablecoin. We are much safer if we continue to regard this as a subset of crypto and look at it carefully before we give it any specialist position.

I understand the need for these regulations, but I am terribly conscious that the Government’s thinking in shaping all this has been much impacted by its membership of the joint UK-US Transatlantic Task Force for Markets of the Future. That has been guided and driven by the Trump Administration’s desire to use financial instruments as a means of extraterritorial control. We see this most obviously with trade tariffs—that is where Trump’s main speeches are and those are the instruments that he talks about. I understand that anybody who was at Davos and spent five minutes with US Treasury Secretary Bessent would have quickly understood that crypto and stablecoin are indeed instruments that, in the same way, offer great potential to advance US economic interests globally and for forms of what I think Mark Carney would probably have called financial coercion.

--- Later in debate ---

The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, specifically asked what the Government think about stablecoins. The Government consider that stablecoins have the potential to play a significant role in both retail and wholesale payments. We are already seeing the benefits that stablecoins can provide in cross-border payments, reducing costs and improving efficiency. The Government also recognise that unlocking the full transformative potential for digital assets and blockchain technologies requires payments that interact with them directly, and stablecoins can play an important role in achieving this. It is therefore important for the UK to harness these opportunities in the promotion of the ongoing competitiveness of UK financial services, while it ensures the robust protection of consumers. We believe that they can go hand and hand—we can be innovative, promote growth and look after consumers.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My issue on this is related but slightly different. If we are dependent on dollar stablecoin for international trade, which is the direction of travel, and the US Government decide that they do not like either a policy that we have or a piece of trade, they can, through the companies that sit behind that stablecoin, in effect shut us down and cut us out. That is a very different set of circumstances from those in which we live today, where they might want to do that, but they cannot. They may try to make banks act in the way that they want, but they would have a far more challenging job in doing that. I am just concerned that that thinking is not embedded in the way that we are structuring this and doing the regulation. That is my concern. I see the plumbing advantages of stablecoin, but I worry about where the power levers are set. I cannot see that this addresses any of that.

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

That is a very important question about monetary sovereignty. While most stablecoins today are US-denominated—I think about 99%—and issued overseas, this instrument lays the groundwork for a thriving ecosystem, including UK- issued pound-denominated stablecoins. The Government are considering the regulators’ proposals on stablecoin-backed assets that include UK government debt. The Treasury will assess the fiscal implications and benefits of stablecoins in this context, and I think the Treasury is well aware of the noble Baroness’s concerns. It is something that we take very seriously, and we will probably hear more about that as time goes on.

The Government are committed to ensuring that the UK remains an open and connected financial centre, as we need to be in a globalised economy, and to upholding its commitment to international regulatory standards. We are working with the transatlantic taskforce on all these issues to enhance US-UK collaboration. We are aware of the issues that the noble Lord raised on capital markets, and the taskforce will explore options for short to medium-term collaboration on digital assets, additional opportunities for wholesale digital markets innovation and ways to improve links between our capital markets to enhance the growth and competitiveness of both UK and US markets.

On the specific quote used by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer—

“same risk, same regulatory outcome”—

we think that this instrument allows the FCA, as the regulator, to set appropriate and detailed rules addressing market risks. We therefore do not believe that we have the same regulations as always for the risks.

Noble Lords asked whether there is a problem with the anti-money laundering requirements and whether this instrument goes far enough to look after consumers. To be clear, the Government are not weakening the anti-money laundering requirements; for example, they will continue to apply to crypto asset firms exactly as they do today. This legislation goes further by introducing a robust financial service regulatory regime that will require all firms offering crypto asset services, either in the UK or for UK consumers, to be authorised and regulated by the FCA and to comply with comprehensive conduct and prudential rules.

It is fair to say, I think, that this SI goes a long way to help to protect consumers. The creation of a register of authorised crypto asset firms will make it easier for consumers to identify legitimate firms. The requirement for those firms to comply with the comprehensive conduct regime will reduce the risk of poorly run firms and bad practice resulting in consumer harm. By defining and prohibiting market abuse—as well as placing an obligation on firms to put systems in place to prevent, detect and disrupt such abuse—this instrument will improve the integrity of crypto asset markets and lead to better consumer protection.

Also, the regime will leave the UK well-placed. There was a question about what Europe is doing as well. We continue to co-operate internationally with our partners, including the EU; we also continue to watch the development of the digital euro with great interest.

Both noble Baronesses asked about parliamentary scrutiny, in essence. We believe that this instrument sets out a clear regulatory framework that will ensure that the Government’s aims and objectives for the sector are reflected in the regulations’ final rules. Giving the FCA flexibility on the detail of the regime will allow it to respond nimbly to developments in this fast-evolving sector; that said, Parliament will be able to hold the regulator and government to account on an ongoing basis using the regime, once it is live, through normal means such as requiring attendance at Select Committees. Also, should it become apparent that the regime is not working as intended, the Government will have the option to return to Parliament and amend the framework under which the FCA operates.

Someone asked what the impact on small businesses will be. The impact assessment published alongside the instrument sets out the impact that the Government expect the regime to have on all businesses, including small businesses. The FCA has existing duties to consider the most appropriate way of implementing this regime.

I hope to get through all noble Lords’ questions. As far as our people know, in terms of what is regulated, firms authorised for the new crypto asset activities will appear on the FCA register in the same way as firms authorised for traditional financial services activities.

As far as payments are concerned, I think stablecoin was mentioned. Government work is under way in order to take forward broader work to modernise assimilated law on payments, including to ensure that the UK’s payments regime is fit for tokenised payments such as stablecoin. That work is ongoing.

We all know about the opportunities for cryptocurrency. We cannot disinvent it. We have to make sure that it works for the British economy and the British people; and that people are protected. This SI lays down a framework so that consumers can be protected.

I turn to the two final questions. The Government are committed to making the UK a world-leading destination for digital assets. Our regulatory regime has been developed through extensive engagement with industry and international partners, ensuring it is both internationally competitive and aligned with global standards. This legislation will support UK growth by giving crypto asset firms the regulatory certainty needed to invest here and drive innovation in our financial services sector. So, in answer to the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, we do not think that this is too restrictive.

Finally, on financial education, which we are all keen to see in our schools and broader society, the Government want people to have the confidence and skills they need to manage their money. The Money and Pensions Service, an arm’s-length body of government, provides free, impartial guidance to consumers at every stage of their financial lives. More widely, the Government are taking steps to improve financial education. In November, we set out our plans for all school children in England to receive financial education. This reflects the Government’s wider commitment to financial literacy and building a population better able to make informed decisions about financial products.

I hope I have hit all the questions. If I have not done so, we will go through Hansard and get back to noble Lords about what perhaps we have missed out.

Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 (Prudential Regulation of Credit Institutions) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2025

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Jones (Lab)]

My Lords, surely these instruments must be welcomed, and surely we all want a smarter regulatory framework. I thank the Minister for his helpful and concise outlining of the regulations and the order. There is a lot of business ahead and time is of the essence, so my brevity is guaranteed.

One can only welcome the policy context as stated at paragraph 5 of the helpful Explanatory Memorandum. Can my noble friend the Minister or his department say what the Prudential Regulation Authority is? In particular, can he perhaps give some detail on how big it is and who sits on it? Who chairs it and, on the presumption that the chair is full-time or part-time, is he or she salaried and how much are they paid? Are all the PRA membership paid or are they voluntary? How often does the PRA meet? The department may not give answers now but if not, might the Minister reply by letter?

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I will take these two statutory instruments in the order in which they are on the Order Paper, which is the reverse of the Minister’s discussion. That is not a criticism; it is just to explain where I am starting from.

The first of these two SIs removes the current assimilated law on capital requirements for banks, building societies and investment firms and replaces it with rules to be set solely by the regulator—in this case, the PRA. In effect, it removes the control of capital requirements from any intervention by Parliament. As always, I want to register my concern that an issue of fundamental importance to the financial stability of the country is, in effect, being removed from any meaningful parliamentary oversight or action.

The regulators may be experts, but they got it terribly wrong in the 2000s by misunderstanding CDOs, which triggered the financial crash of 2007-08, and by not recognising the precarious state of liquidity or lack thereof in many of the big banks, which worsened the crisis. They also turned a blind eye to the manipulation of Libor benchmarks, which damaged the UK’s reputation for integrity in financial services in ways that are still with us today—never mind, frankly, the financial damage to so many clients across the globe. Recently, the PRA has been permitting an erosion of capital requirements, almost certainly to fit with the Government’s agenda for short-term growth, rather than being based on any evidence of risk reduction, which I have looked for and cannot find.

I sat on the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards that examined the 2007-08 crash for nearly two years. We predicted that amnesia about how risk actually works would set in. I note that the banks are using the new leeway provided by looser capital requirements to leverage private equity funds, even though they cannot assess the risks embedded in those funds, which are, by definition, not transparent. However, of course, we recognise that those funds pay the banks’ substantial fees. It is all so predictable.

The second SI makes provision for environmental, societal and governance ratings, as related to investments, to be set in the rulebook of the FCA. Once again, what is properly a policy decision will escape parliamentary oversight and intervention. Clear rules will be welcomed by investors, but this is a contentious area. Is nuclear included? Is carbon capture and storage included? Is defence green? I am not answering those questions; I am saying that those questions naturally arise. In the Commons debate on this SI, the Conservatives basically reflected a Trumpian view of oil and gas investments—the “burn, baby, burn” view. Is that the view the FCA will follow, or will the Minister say to me, as I think he must, “That’s not up to Parliament; it’s up to the FCA”? The investment market is an international one and, frankly, investors care much less about what the rules are and much more about whether they are globally consistent. How will the FCA rules sit with the new anti-green US approach? The EU has a new ESG framework, which comes into effect in 2026. How will the UK rules sit with that? How will the UK’s overseas recognition regime work—the Minister referred to it—and what will be its parameters and consequences?

Surely, Parliament should have more of a view than just being one of the many consultees, which seems to be the current position. I continue to be very concerned about the direction of travel away from legislation, with debate, oversight and parliamentary responsibility, to rulebooks in the sole control of the regulators.

Barnett Formula: Wales

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

Wednesday 12th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that question. I like to think that all the avenues of approach he has mentioned will be looked at and discussed at the ministerial meeting at the beginning of next year. It is also important to point out that there is direct funding to Wales, which includes 160,000 workers in Wales who have benefited from a direct pay rise due to the increase in the minimum wage and the national living wage.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, each of the four nations operates a different and independent NHS computer system, which means that doctors struggle to get information on cross-border patients in England and Wales. Will the Government now recognise the seriousness of this issue and adapt the Barnett formula, which stands in the way of providing the funding to remedy this situation?

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

The noble Baroness raises a very important issue, and I hope it is something that the ministerial meeting at the beginning of next year will look at. I like to think that all aspects of the Barnett formula, including the issues that the noble Baroness has raised, will be looked at in the round, because obviously we want to see efficiency in all our public departments.

Public/Private Partnerships: Shares

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

Monday 3rd November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

I agree with the noble Lord and accept his point of view. There have been a lot of benefits from public/private partnerships in the past—they have invested in many schools and hospitals, where pupils and patients have benefited—but we need to look at how we reform public/private partnerships and make them fit for the future. Obviously, the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority, which was set up in 2020, has a great part to play in that.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, first, we on these Benches join in the commiserations with the noble Lord, Lord Livermore. Does the Minister agree that for a successful PPP, in addition to the key point made by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, not only is an educated public sector negotiator is required but clearly defined projects that will not undergo variances, and financing, in essence, set out up front and not used as a back-end bargaining tool? Does he agree that these and the other lessons that we learned before mean that there are relatively few projects that will meet the criteria for a public/private partnership?

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

We will look at public/private partnerships in the future. We are looking at them in a limited way for neighbourhood health centres, for example, and public estate decontamination projects, but we need certainty over future funding, which is why we have committed over the next decade at least £725 billion of investment in infrastructure so that we can ensure growth.