Chelsea FC: Releasing Funds from Sale

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

Wednesday 11th November 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)]

The Government’s position is that Mr Abramovich gave a deed of undertaking when Chelsea was sold that, for the sale to take place, he would meet conditions under European law that the full sale proceeds would go to humanitarian purposes in the Ukraine. That remains the position.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, do the Government understand that this legal warfare and paralysis is playing right into Putin’s hands by failing to deliver moneys that should be going to humanitarian causes in Ukraine because of constant delays. I am very concerned that £1.4 billion is not transferred to companies owned by Abramovich that claim they made loans to the entity and therefore have first rights. Can the Minister give us the Government’s assurance on that issue?

This is turning into Jarndyce v Jarndyce. How much is being consumed in legal fees and how much will that deplete the money that goes to the very worthy causes for which it is intended?

[Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)]

As I said, the Government have laid out a clear legal route for the transfer of the money and are fully prepared to go to court if necessary to enforce the commitment that was made when Chelsea was sold. But, as the noble Baroness would expect, it would be ill advised for the Government to publicly discuss any potential litigation strategy.

High Streets Strategy: Business Rates

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

Wednesday 11th November 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)]

There is quite a long list of things to help. In the Budget alone, there is a 20% reduction for pubs and venues, 70,000 shops which will have no rates at all, and other leisure and retail outlets are frozen in real terms. There is the high streets strategy, with £210 million for the community assets programme, £125 million for derelict and vacant properties, and support for the extension of business improvement districts, including property owners outside of London being involved in the business improvement districts—I could go on. It is a broad programme to support the things that my noble friend would like to see happening.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, with small and high street businesses under so much pressure, surely this is the time for the fundamental reform of business rates to, I suggest, a commercial landowner levy. I think we are past the point of fiddling at the margins. Do the Government recognise that a change such as this would enable hard-pressed small businesses to compete, to invest in energy improvements and to upgrade, bringing new vitality and jobs to the very heart of our communities?

[Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)]

I reply to that in the same way as I did to my noble friend Lord Pitkeathley. The evidence suggests that shifting rates liability to landlords would be administratively quite cumbersome and would make it difficult for the funding of certain local services that want to go to particular types of shops and venues. That is why it is not being considered at this time.

Interest Rates

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

Tuesday 10th November 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)]

The answer is yes to those questions. How it works will be complicated for different people, depending on the terms they got from the banks. We have an absolute commitment to the fiscal rules.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, the OBR has forecast that, by 2031, the Government’s payment on annual debt interest will rise to a staggering £160 billion. Part of the reason for that very high number is that the Government remain, through the Treasury and the Debt Management Office, absolutely addicted to issuing index-linked bonds, which pay not a fixed coupon but a coupon based on the level of inflation and, even worse, on RPI. No other G7 country does this general idiocy and the pension industry, which once benefited from such bonds, no longer uses them. Can the Minister please explain why the Treasury and the Debt Management Office, which is part of the Treasury, continue with this addiction?

[Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)]

I answered a similar question in the past, maybe as a Written Question, and noted that the issuance of index-linked bonds was indeed falling, but I would be more than happy to write further to the noble Baroness if she thought that was critical.

Binance Security Breach: Consumer Exposure and Interim Safeguards

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd November 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)]

We are looking to learn from what happened at Binance, but I am not clear that it makes sense to put in an interim arrangement. By October next year, we will have a comprehensive FCA regime for crypto assets, including disclosure, market abuse and resilience. To put that in place requires changes by the firms, and it then requires authorisation. There will be an iterative process there, and I think it might not be helpful to have an interim regime in the middle of that. It would perhaps slow things down.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, the hacking of Binance demonstrates that large-scale theft is far more possible in a crypto world. At present, UK banks are resisting providing accounts, financial services and credit lines to crypto service providers, but that is expected to change in the next year when the FCA’s crypto providers authorisation scheme kicks in. What would be the consequence to bank stability of such a heist happening after that authorisation and the relationship created between the banks and the crypto world? Would the banks be covering the losses? It is certainly unclear who is covering the losses now.

[Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)]

I am not quite sure what heist the noble Baroness has in mind. We can say that, right now, the Financial Stability Board does not believe that crypto assets are a systemic risk to the financial system, but if she would like to write to me with her thoughts on how this heist might come about to affect one of the large banks, I would be very interested to read that.

Tax-Free Shopping: Economic Impact

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

Monday 26th October 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)]

I am absolutely sure they will. But, to be clear about the evidence here, if we look at the difference in spend by foreign visitors from 2019 to 2024 in the major EU countries and in the UK, we see no evidence that the withdrawal of this scheme has been negative. Britain is actually a little above the average. It is not statistically significant, because it is comparing only five countries, but I really do not think that there is evidence that the withdrawal of this scheme has done great damage, and the scheme comes at some cost.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister is someone who understands calculation. My understanding is that the Treasury and the OBR have not calculated the lost revenue from the higher visitor activity in the UK that would have resulted had this scheme not been withdrawn, have not calculated the potential revenue from the spend of those additional visitors to the Treasury, and that that number, according to the industry, is roughly £2 billion a year. Will he go back and try to understand why the OBR and Treasury do not include those calculations when they assert that they are saving money by scrapping the scheme, because it looks to everybody that, at the worst, it would be a wash, and, if the industry is even vaguely correct, the Treasury is actually losing money in this way?

[Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)]

Let me reassure the noble Baroness that the £540 million figure that I gave, which is a Treasury figure, fully includes all the knock-on effects of the introduction of the tax-free shopping scheme for non-EU citizens. The £2 billion quote was from Jeremy Hunt after Liz Truss’s disastrous mini-Budget. I cannot tell noble Lords how that number was calculated, because in the Liz Trust Budget the OBR was not consulted.

Defence Sector Banking Services: Environmental, Social and Governance Rules

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

Monday 26th October 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)]

Again, I am in total agreement on this. The FCA did this, and we encouraged it to do so, for precisely for that reason. In particular, we want to make sure that new start-up companies and small and medium-sized enterprises in the defence sector have access to the financial services they need to carry out their business and help protect the nation. I thoroughly agree with the comments made by the noble Baroness.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I asked that this action be taken in an amendment to the financial services Bill, so I am very pleased that we are going to get more vigour from the FCA. I join others in insisting that that vigour be sustained. There was a second, equally important issue: the public procurement process for small defence businesses, including the Government’s failure to protect SMEs’ intellectual property. Given that these small businesses are vital for innovation in the defence sector, as other noble Lords have said, will the Government look seriously at this issue, which is also undermining development in this area?

[Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)]

The Government are sympathetic and are putting their money where their mouth is. For example, the British Business Bank’s growth guarantee scheme, which is specifically focused on defence and other SMEs, provides £3.5 billion a year. One example is Kraken Technology, in marine defence, which aims not to be the sole lender but to crowd in private finance as well. The national security strategic investment fund, for start-up companies like the one we were talking about earlier, will invest £100 million by 2029-30. So, again, we have a full consensus and considerable action is taking place on the issues being raised by this Question today.

Cash and Card Payments: Reduction in Availability

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)]

There is no current plan for legislation, but this is being monitored. The British Retail Consortium believes that all its members are accepting cash, and I think 99% of corner shops are accepting cash. The Bank of England did a survey where 40% of people accepted that, where they had not been able to use cash, they had found somewhere else where they could get the service they wanted. This remains under review, rather than there being any plan at this stage, but the issue raised is an important one.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, this is getting more complicated. In a year or so, payments, including some salaries, will start being paid in stablecoin. What happens if you do not have an electronic wallet? Even if you have a smartphone, how can you use it to access cash from an ATM? Who is going to pay for interoperability, and will it fall on the consumer or the banks but not on the companies that will make increased profits out of stablecoin?

[Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)]

On people getting hold of cash, there are initiatives taking place. On future payment systems, the National Payments Vision is trying to put together what an entire system using different payments methodologies would look like. Some of this is work in progress, around where we are and where we are going.

Government Debt

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

Wednesday 16th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)]

Overall fiscal discipline is the central question. Discipline is really important. The noble Baroness mentioned the moron premium. I do not know whether all noble Lords understand what that term refers to: it was a slight by an economist describing the behaviour of the team responsible for the September 2022 mini-Budget. To give a sense of the cost, it is £15 billion a year. I think we have learned lessons from that. When I spoke in the debate last week, speakers from across the House agreed that fiscal discipline, independent oversight and not moving the goalposts were critical. The balance of spending on tax might be something on which we disagree, but on fiscal discipline we agree entirely.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, under the 2026-27 Treasury remit to the Debt Management Office, index-linked gilt issuances will account for 9.3% of total new gilt issuances. Why was this decision made when a quarter of UK gilts are already index-linked well above the international norms, when we are in a period of inflation and rising interest rates, and when defined benefit plans—the schemes which had a hedging rather than a speculative use for index-linking—are rapidly disappearing? Does this make any sense?

[Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)]

The Debt Management Office is part of the Bank of England. I would be more than happy to write to it, or the noble Baroness herself might wish to write for the answer to her question.

Financial Services and Markets Bill [HL]

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

3rd reading
Tuesday 15th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to briefly follow the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and to applaud the work of her and her allies that has got us to this place, as she said, after a great deal of struggle. One day, we will simply have these provisions arriving in the Bills without the need for struggle—we can but hope.

I have one simple question to put to the Minister, which was inspired by attending “The People’s Emergency Briefing” on climate and nature in Gravesend on Saturday night. It was one of some 3,500 events held all around the country after the initial event in Westminster. We have yet to hear from the Conservative Front Bench, but House rumours suggest that the Opposition are going to oppose this amendment. If that is the case, would the Minister agree that they would benefit from seeing that briefing? I therefore ask the Minister—this is the first time I have asked under the new Prime Minister —whether the Government will organise a live national televised emergency briefing on climate and nature, as all these local events are asking.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, my colleagues and noble friends Lady Sheehan and Lady Northover spoke eloquently on these issues on Report. If this amendment is pressed and the others are moved by the Government, we will support them.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, as this is Third Reading, I want to start by extending my warm thanks to the Minister and his team for their work on the Bill. I welcome the movement that the Government have shown on several of the issues that we have raised during the passage of this 137-page Bill, which in general we support.

Chief among them is proportionality, which will continue to apply to the regulators in the exercise of their day-to-day functions. That change reflects concerns on all sides of the House; my hope is that it will help to reduce the burden on SMEs, so I thank the Minister for this. I also welcome the movement we have seen on the important issue of financial education and look forward to engaging on that. It is becoming ever more important, whether you are a pupil, a student applying for a loan, or an adult managing your finances or thinking about retirement.

However, there remain important issues which the Government have not yet addressed sufficiently. Among them are the Henry VIII powers in Clause 3 and Clause 50 and the first use of the extensive new powers in the Bill. I understand the Government intend to reintroduce Clause 3 at a later stage in the Bill’s passage with further detail, and that is welcome, but it does not detract from the fundamental point at issue. One of Parliament’s principal functions is to scrutinise government legislation, and we simply cannot do so properly when Bills confer broad powers without setting out clearly how they are to be used.

A digital asset strategy to support faster action to stop further loss of digital entrepreneurs and less aggressive use of Section 166 are two areas where we believe the Government should go further, because we have heard consistent concerns from industry.

Turning to the amendments, I deeply regret the amendments the Government are introducing today on climate change. This represents a serious U-turn by the Government. Their original proposal was to move these considerations into five-year strategies. The existing requirements they dispensed with are largely superfluous and burdensome. There is little evidence that today’s amendments to restore them make any meaningful contribution, either to reducing climate change or to protecting the environment. At a time when businesses are already facing considerable pressure, and when our wider economic circumstances demand an unrelenting focus on growth, competitiveness and investment, imposing further needless regulatory burdens is the wrong direction of travel.

I would also suggest that, for an economy as dependent as ours on international investment, these amendments send entirely the wrong signal. We should be demonstrating to investors overseas that the UK is a predictable and attractive market. Instead, they reinforce the perception that doing business here means ever more regulation, additional cost and greater complexity for no clear practical benefit. At Second Reading, the then-Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Stockwood, who I am glad to see in his place, said that the purpose of the Bill was to

“modernise how the sector is regulated”

and

“enable it to grow”.—[Official Report, 8/6/26; col. 1146.]

These amendments seem to run directly contrary to that objective. I am deeply disappointed that the Government have abandoned that principle so quickly and with so little resistance. We on these Benches have been consistent in our opposition to this duty, which we have made clear in the House and in discussions with the Minister. I shall seek to divide the House when the amendments are called.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)]

My Lords, this Bill delivers important reforms to ensure that the UK’s financial services sector remains open, innovative and internationally competitive while maintaining high regulatory standards and protecting consumers. It strengthens the legislative framework for financial services, supports growth and investment, and ensures that our regulators have the appropriate powers and responsibilities to respond to a rapidly changing market.

The Bill has benefited considerably from noble Lords’ detailed scrutiny and expertise throughout its passage. I hope noble Lords feel that the Government have listened carefully to the arguments advanced in Committee and on Report, and that we have brought forward amendments which were appropriate in response. The Bill, of course, is broad. It touches on lots of areas, but it is united by one common theme, shared by the House: we want to create a clear set of rules which allow the financial industry to serve its customers better and to prosper by doing so.

I thank all noble Lords who contributed to our debates, perhaps in particular my noble friend Lord Stockwood, who led the early stages of the Bill. I also thank my officials, who supported the Bill throughout its passage. It was no mean task. I am also particularly grateful to the Opposition and Liberal Democrat Front Benches; to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and other members of the Financial Services Regulation Committee; to members of Peers for the Planet; and to noble Lords across the House, including Cross-Benchers, for their constructive engagement. If I had a special thank you it would be to my Whip, my noble friend Lord Wilson, without whom I would have found this process quite impossible.

The Bill leaves this House strengthened by the scrutiny that we have given it. I beg to move.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I will be brief, which has been my practice—as people may have noticed —throughout much of this Bill. I open by saying thank you to the Minister and to the Box. They have been very willing to share their time with us, brief us and listen to issues that we raised. We did not always get the response that we wanted, but it was a positive engagement that gives us some hope for making progress.

I think the Minister came to this Bill having been told that it was a minor, technical Bill. That probably could not have been more wrong. I am glad we achieved what we did, working across the Opposition Benches. I give credit to Conservative Peers—the noble Baronesses, Lady Noakes and Lady Neville-Rolfe, and others—as well as, on my side, to my noble friends Lady Bowles and Lord Sharkey in trying to deal with the issues around proportionality.

There is a great deal left in accountability that will have to be tackled in future Bills. As we see the speed-up in AI, crypto and the other rapid changes that are coming, we will have to find a new way, as a Parliament, to engage. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, for putting in an amendment that began to deal with the digital issue. I really believe that not covering that within this Bill was a miss-out. The Government will have to step up to the plate again very shortly.

I am also very grateful for the fact that we got support on the child trust fund issue, again from the Tory Benches. It is something I feel very personally, as people can probably guess. It benefits 80,000 disabled youngsters who have been unable to access money that is theirs that is sitting in trust fund accounts.

I thank my noble friend Lord Sharkey in particular for fighting the battle for the FOS—that battle is not over either. I also thank my noble friends Lady Northover and Lady Sheehan; we would have gone farther on the climate change, environment and deforestation issues, but we feel that an important step was taken by the Government in the amendments moved today.

This has been a very constructive Bill, but, frankly, it was not the maximum use that could have been made of a financial services Bill and I hope that we will see another one come along shortly. There are problems to be tackled, not least the issues of mortgage prisoners and community development financial institutions, as well as the utterly significant constitutional issue of accountability and how the regulators need to be effectively accountable to Parliament. I thank the whole House for working on a very complex set of issues, particularly as it entered this phase with the understanding that it was only going to be about minor technicalities.

Hospitality Industry: VAT

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

Monday 14th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)]

I cannot comment about changes in taxation, particularly in the run-up to the Budget, but if I might just correct the noble Lord, the point I made in my first Answer was that there has been support given, particularly to pubs and music venues. Support has been given particularly to smaller businesses—750,000 properties—and in reductions in national insurance to 900,000 people who work for smaller businesses. The corporation tax here in the UK is the lowest in the G7 and it is reduced for small businesses, so I reject the thought that no help has been given.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, back in November 2025 my party called for a 5% cut in VAT on hospitality because the situation was so dire, with at least a third of the industry operating at a loss. Will the Minister now look again at the VAT cut? Will he also follow through on those other issues where small businesses need help, such as a different regime for NICs for part-time workers? Will he look at their energy costs, because most of them cannot access the attractive energy packages as they are not available to the small firms? The change in business rates favours the corporate chains but actually disadvantages most of the small independents. They are the backbone and they are the employers, especially of our young people.

[Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)]

I entirely echo the noble Baroness’s congratulations to the hospitality industry. I will be more than happy to answer the questions she has asked after the Budget, but I think most of them anticipate changes in tax, which it would be inappropriate for me to discuss at this point.