Government Debt

Debate between Baroness Kramer and Lord Pitt-Watson

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]

Debate between Baroness Kramer and Lord Pitt-Watson

3rd reading
Tuesday 15th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[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

Debate between Baroness Kramer and Lord Pitt-Watson

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.

Financial Services and Markets Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Kramer and Lord Pitt-Watson

Report stage
Monday 7th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)]

Again, if the noble Baroness will accept it, I will write to her on that. I do not know the timetable offhand.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, the online platforms know exactly what they have to do to stop online fraud; they are just choosing not to do it. The Government say that the answer will come from Ofcom, but that has certainly not worried the platforms one iota. The platforms will take notice only when they have to pay out to reimburse people who have been victims of those fraud scams. That is why Amendment 17 matters, and that is why I am going to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)]

In moving my Amendment 22, I will also speak to government Amendments 58 and 59. Amendment 22 is developed from our discussions in Committee.

Payment systems are essential national infrastructure. They allow households to pay bills, businesses to trade and financial institutions to transfer funds securely. As technology changes how we pay, those systems must continue to evolve, becoming more efficient and capable of supporting new services while remaining trusted and resilient. The Bank of England has a critical responsibility to protect and enhance UK financial stability. The Bank is also working with the Government and other authorities to support safe innovation in payments and digital finance. The Bank has welcomed this measure and will reinforce that work while preserving the primacy of financial stability.

Amendment 58 places the Bank’s role in facilitating innovation on a clear statutory footing. When exercising certain key functions for recognised payment systems, recognised digital settlement asset service providers, and in-scope service providers, the Bank must, so far as is reasonably possible, facilitate innovation with a view to improving the quality, functionality and economy of those systems and related services. The objective is expressly secondary and does not require the Bank to facilitate innovation where doing so would undermine its primary financial stability objective. This change will also bring the regulation of systemic payment systems and digital settlement assets into closer alignment with the Bank’s supervision of other financial market infrastructure. The Bank already has a secondary innovation objective for central counterparties and central securities depositories. Providing a comparable objective for payment systems and digital settlement assets provides the Bank with a clear and consistent statutory framework.

Amendment 58 also ensures that the Bank can be held accountable under its new objective. It enables the Treasury to make recommendations about aspects of the Government’s economic policy for the Bank to have regard to when considering how to advance its financial stability and secondary innovation objective in relation to payment systems. Those recommendations must be published and laid before Parliament. The Bank must explain the action it has taken, or its reasons for not acting, and provide updates where required. The Bank’s annual reports must now also explain how it has advanced the secondary innovation objective and engaged with interested stakeholders.

Amendment 59 reinforces that accountability by requiring the Bank to publish a stand-alone annual report on both secondary innovation objectives. The report must explain how objectives have been embedded in the Bank’s operations, processes and decisions, and how it has advanced them with respect to relevant functions. This will give Parliament and industry clear sight of how the objectives operate in practice.

Amendment 22 is consequential. It ensures that the mechanism already in the Bill for co-ordination between the Financial Conduct Authority, the Prudential Regulation Authority and the Bank with respect to relevant payment functions makes appropriate reference to regulator objectives, which would now include the Bank’s secondary innovation objective.

In summary, these amendments together place the Bank’s role in facilitating safe innovation on a clear statutory footing, while preserving financial stability as its primary objective. They also provide stronger and more transparent accountability for how the Bank applies the objectives in practice. I hope that noble Lords will join me in supporting these amendments.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I have a couple of very brief comments. I am comfortable with the amendments that the Minister has just described, but I have one note of caution. The drive for innovation, which we all think is a good thing, in many ways also increasingly exposes the UK to a loss of monetary sovereignty, particularly where that innovation has to be brought in from overseas, and gives overseas companies far greater control of the payments systems in the UK. That is one of the ongoing fears that we have had. Scott Bessent has been quite open in saying tariffs are very old-fashioned in controlling western economies’ and that stablecoin is the way to do it.

I am therefore cautious when I hear this drive for innovation without some counter-warning and counter-consideration of the monetary sovereignty impacts. I never hear those words used, nor are they captured in any way in anything that I hear around regulation. So often, the move into digital assets—which is, in essence, what this is all about—is about plumbing and pipelines; it does not recognise the political implications. We have seen this in many other areas, such as where we have given away food security and energy security. We need to be very careful that we do not give away security in the financial services and payments sector.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)]

I am not aware of an individual calculation that has been done for that. I do not think that there will be a materially greater cost once the move is made. The key issue that we are trying to address here is that, right now, we have 23 regulators of AML, and that job needs to be done in a more co-ordinated and consistent fashion. If I have information on that, I would be delighted to write to the noble Lord on those costs.

Finally, Amendment 30 addresses the FCA’s capacity to undertake effective AML/CTF supervision across all parts of the United Kingdom. Amendment 30 would require the FCA to report on its capacity to supervise firms throughout the UK. The FCA already operates across the United Kingdom through its offices in London, Leeds and Edinburgh and anticipates having a significant presence for the new AML regime outside London. This provides a strong foundation for maintaining regional coverage, preserving local knowledge and ensuring that jurisdiction-specific issues continue to inform supervision and implementation planning. This will also help with ensuring that regional risks and jurisdiction-specific considerations are understood and addressed, while maintaining a consistent approach across the United Kingdom.

I recognise the objectives behind these amendments: careful implementation, appropriate support, maintenance of expertise, proportionate fees and sufficient FCA capacity. The Government understand why these assurances are being sought. However, additional statutory reports, assessments and fixed requirements are not necessary. These matters are being addressed through implementation planning, capability building, stakeholder engagement, consultation and parliamentary scrutiny of the necessary secondary legislation. The Government will continue to work closely with Parliament, industry, existing supervisors and the FCA. Our aim is to deliver a more consistent, effective and co-ordinated AML/CTF supervisory framework, while ensuring that firms receive proportionate supervision and appropriate support. I therefore ask the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

I withdraw the amendment.

Financial Services and Markets Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Kramer and Lord Pitt-Watson

Report stage
Monday 7th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I will be extremely brief because my Bench has just spoken very clearly on this issue. I share with the Conservative Front Bench concerns about accountability with a further removal of powers directly into the hands of the regulator, and had they pressed their Amendment 1, we would have supported it.

Very briefly, I will address the other amendments. I am still in a state of genuine concern that the Government will not accept an amendment that would confirm that the changes they are proposing to the Consumer Credit Act, which will be absorbed now into the role of the FCA, will not involve a diminution of consumer credit protection; this is the non-diminution of rights that the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, described. Of course, the FCA could keep those rights in place, but there is nothing that compels it to do so. I find it extraordinary that we cannot be given this reassurance.

However, I am more exercised than anything else about the position of mortgage prisoners. The people who have been impacted, and many are now elderly, have dealt with a shocking situation over the past years. We could now give them relief for the remaining years in which they will be tangled with paying extraordinary levels of interest on mortgages that were taken out in good faith, for which they properly qualified and which were, at the time, market-standard mortgages. It has happened because, in essence, an arm of government has made mistakes when it has sold on those loans to vulture funds. It is shocking that we have not corrected this. The amendment before us today is new thinking. It is incredibly effective at making sure that, going forward, this incredible injustice is ended, and I hope very much that, even in these last few minutes, the Government will think again and provide support.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, HM Treasury (Lord Pitt-Watson) (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a privilege to be here today to debate the Financial Services and Markets Bill. I put on record my thanks to my noble friend Lord Stockwood for leading the earlier stages of this debate and thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate in Committee and beyond.

If noble Lords would allow me, I would like to say a few things about the Bill itself before moving on to address the amendments that have been put forward. The Bill has a purpose on which I think we are all agreed: to construct rules that help the financial services industry to serve its customers better and to prosper as a result of doing so. Noble Lords will therefore see that, in responding to the debate in Committee, the Government have been persuaded of some significant points made then and are proposing some significant amendments which I hope will be welcomed by the House. There are also amendments that will be suggested on Report where the Government disagree with the specific measure proposed but, in many cases, have great sympathy with the ultimate goals of the particular amendment.

However, there are many amendments which we do not believe belong as part of the Bill, in part because they are complex and require consultation, and/or go beyond the scope of the Bill, and in part also because the aims of the amendment are not best served by changing primary legislation but where the Government often would want to help promote the goals of the amendment—indeed sometimes, they already are—and can perhaps seek to encourage better practice. Central to all this is accountability, which I will come to at beginning and end of this group and then again later today.

To turn to these specific amendments, Amendments 1 and 6 would remove Clause 1 and Schedule 1 from the Bill and prevent the Government’s programme of Consumer Credit Act reform. Amendments 2 and 3 would ensure that the reforms do not diminish consumer protections, and Amendments 4 and 5 relate to the assignment of student loans and of mortgages. Similar amendments were debated in Committee, and the Government have carefully considered the concerns raised. However, we have concluded that we wish to press ahead with these much-needed reforms.

I think that we all in this House agree that the FCA is the right body to take on the role of consumer protection, and Parliament has already given it the right powers and objectives to do so, including a consumer protection objective. Since the 2014 transfer of consumer credit to the FCA, important protections, including creditworthiness and affordability assessments, have successfully operated through the FCA framework. I recognise the concern, raised both in Committee and again today, that Parliament is being asked to approve reform before replacement FCA rules have been finalised. However, I emphasise that the FCA must consult on proposed rules and engage with parliamentary committees as part of an established statutory framework. This includes the Financial Services Regulation Committee, ably chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes.

Both the FCA and the PRA are clearly aware of scrutiny. Last week, they sent me a letter, which I think has been circulated to all noble Lords, making a number of commitments further to enhance parliamentary scrutiny, and I have placed those letters in the Library. I expect to cover this information, including that in the letter, in detail in a later grouping today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)]

My Lords, I am hearing two arguments here: a strong consensus across the House for the need for access to banking and for the appropriate actions to be taken to make sure that that takes place; and a concern, also raised in Committee, about the breadth of the power, particularly its constitutional implications and the degree of scrutiny that Parliament would be able to exercise over any regulations made under it. These are serious points and the Government have considered them seriously, but they have concluded that Clause 3 is needed at this stage. Because the independent Lloyd review of access to banking has not yet concluded, we do not know whether it will recommend intervention, which consumers may be most affected, the nature of any detriment, and what form any intervention should take. Removing Clause 3 altogether, as Amendment 10 would do, would risk leaving the Government without a mechanism in the Bill to respond promptly if the review identifies a focused and time-sensitive need for intervention.

Amendment 9 would remove the ability to amend primary legislation through regulations made under Clause 3. If acting on the review’s findings required changes to an Act of Parliament, removing this ability would risk removing the mechanism to respond promptly to the review and could delay implementation. Amendment 7 would take a different approach by limiting the powers to matters arising directly from the review. I understand the intention behind that amendment and the review should clearly play the central role in shaping any future intervention. That is why the Bill already requires the Treasury to have regard to the review’s recommendations, but it would not be right to prevent Ministers from considering other relevant evidence alongside the review when deciding whether and how to act. The Government need to preserve the ability to respond proportionately to the full evidence that is available.

Amendment 8 is probably one on which we all agree. The noble Lord, Lord Holmes, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, talked about the central part that post offices can play in making sure that banking access is available. I can confirm that the chair of the review into access to banking services has received representations from and has engaged with the Post Office and the National Federation of SubPostmasters and that officials will continue to engage as part of the development. As noble Lords know, the target is more than 350 full banking hubs, plus 10,500 post offices, involved in this, and I thoroughly commend the points that they have made.

I absolutely understand the concerns about the Henry VIII powers, which seem very broad. Clause 3 does not itself impose new obligations on firms, or any specific model of banking provision. Any regulations under the power would also be subject to the affirmative procedure. However, I assure noble Lords that the Government do not expect Clause 3 to remain in its current form. I forget how the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, said her hopes would be fulfilled, but I think they would be fulfilled by amendments that were focused on the thing that we all agree on, which is the need for proper access to banking for older people, for younger people—for everyone.

The Government remain committed to keeping the scope of the power under review as the independent review completes its work. We expect to narrow this power after the review reports in October, when I expect the Bill will be in the Commons. Once the Lloyd review has concluded, the Government will be in a better position to consider the correct scope of this power. It would therefore be premature to narrow the power at this stage. For those reasons, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment, though perhaps more in hope than expectation.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, given that the Conservative Front Bench have expressed their interest in moving Amendment 10, I will withdraw Amendment 7.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)]

My Lords, I start with an apology to the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, if I have failed to respond to him appropriately, but perhaps I can do so in the remarks that I will now make. In response to my noble friend Lord Davies, I am clear that treating customers fairly is one of the business principles of the FCA and is therefore one of the criteria by which a complaint will be able to be made to the FOS.

The FOS plays a vital role in the redress framework for financial services, ensuring that consumers have confidence that, if there is a complaint about a financial services provider, there is an independent, impartial service that can resolve that complaint and has the ability to put things right. That role will not be changing as a result of these reforms. However, the framework within which the FOS operates is not as consistent as it needs to be, and that is not good for consumers or financial services firms. That inconsistency is not surprising because the FOS’s fair and reasonable test was determined before the consumer duty came to the FCA.

The Government’s review of the FOS found that there is a small but possible minority of cases where that inconsistency in the framework could cause false determinations to have the effect of quasi-regulations by setting standards that may not be in line with FCA regulations. To be clear, these are all the FCA regulations. If noble Lords had been with me three months ago, they would have seen me writing letters to my predecessor confirming that that was indeed the case.

As far as the House of Lords is concerned, the Financial Services Regulation Committee stated in its report Growing Pains, that the FOS’s actions can,

“have regulatory impacts by creating precedents that the FCA requires firms to follow”—

again, a quasi-regulator. That is the background to why we are doing this.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

The key issue that I think the Minister has rather glossed over is the evidence base for making these changes. We have been told it would be coming; it has not come. Consistently, we have been told that letters are being developed, but letters have not arrived. I asked for a specific letter and was told that of course it could be provided. It is about the car finance scandal, which was basically exposed through the FOS while the FCA stood to the side, and what would be different now in the consequences of the complaints. What would happen to the complaints that would be different? This seems to be the issue that lies at the heart of this. The FOS exposed a major scandal. As the Minister will know, car finance is the second largest financial market in the UK. Nine out of 10 people who buy a car finance that car. The redress scheme that the FCA has been forced to put into place is currently £7 billion. If I understand correctly from listening to the Minister and his various advisers, in future the FCA approach to the problem would reign, this scandal would never be exposed and there would never be redress. I am waiting for the letter that is supposed to tell me whether that is exactly correct.

[Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)]

Let me try to address that question. The FCA and the FOS are independent. It is not for the Government to decide what was a correct or a false decision. All that the Government are saying is that the criteria by which the FOS adjudicates should be similar to the rules that practitioners are trying to exercise in the way in which they are working. I think that is just good common sense. I believe there will be a publication coming out shortly from the industry with examples of where the industry may think that the FOS treated it in a way that was inconsistent with the FCA. It is not for me to judge whether that took place. It is for the FOS to judge whether that took place. That may be the reason that I am proving so frustrating in being able to write back properly to the noble Baroness.

Amendment 14 would remove Clause 8 from the Bill and add a list of factors that the FOS must take into account when determining what is fair and reasonable in all the circumstances. In Committee, the noble Lord and others raised concerns that Clause 8 might remove the ability of the FOS to consider fairness in the round. That is not the case. The FOS will still make its determination based on all the circumstances of the case.

The amendments made to FSMA by Clause 8 do not abolish the fair and reasonable test. That is the final adjudication that will be made by the FOS and, because of the principles of business, treating customers fairly is one of the criteria by which a complaint could be made.

Where the relevant FCA rules apply, the Government consider that FOS determinations should be consistent with those rules. Consumers and firms should be able to understand and rely on the FCA rules as providing the standards against which conduct is going to be assessed. I want to be clear: that extends to all the FCA’s rules—I think that addresses my noble friend Lord Davies’s question. That includes the principles for business, the consumer duty and the code of conduct. These are designed to secure high standards of conduct and consumer protection. If a firm fails to meet its obligations under these broad principles-based rules, the FOS may conclude that it should pay redress to the complainant, taking into account this failure and any other relevant information, such as the impact the failure had on the complainant. There is no requirement for a firm to have breached one of the more specific, detailed rules in the FCA’s rulebook.

The consumer duty was introduced by the FCA to improve consumer protection across all financial services, and the Government are confident that it sets a high standard of care that firms should provide to their customers. It includes a requirement to act to deliver good outcomes and an expectation that firms will act in good faith, avoid causing foreseeable harm and enable and support retail customers to pursue their financial objectives. The consumer duty, as I pointed out, did not exist when the FOS was established and the fair and reasonable test was introduced. It is right that the framework governing the FOS should be updated to reflect this landmark piece of consumer protection regulation. Without clarification, we are left with a situation where two different bodies are independently making assessments of what standards firms need to meet, and that does not seem like a sensible approach. The reforms to the fair and reasonable test strengthen consistency across the framework. They do not weaken consumer protection.

Amendment 13 would remove Clause 7. In Committee, the noble Lord suggested that the referral mechanism would in effect subordinate the FOS to the FCA. That is not the case. The FOS will remain completely independent and responsible for resolving complaints between consumers and financial services firms. The FCA will not determine individual complaints, it will not investigate disputes and it will not direct the outcome of cases. Those functions will remain entirely with the FOS.

The amendments to FSMA made by Clause 7 ensure that, where the FOS considers there to be an ambiguity within the FCA rules, the FCA must provide an opinion requested by the FOS. That is entirely consistent with its statutory role as a rule-maker. The FOS will then use that opinion, applying it to the individual circumstances of the case to make a determination.

Lastly, some noble Lords expressed concerns about the potential for referrals to lead to delays, including with reference to the FCA’s comment about the potential operational load. The Government recognise the importance of maintaining the FOS’s quick and informal model, but the Government anticipate that only a very small number of cases are going to be referred to the FCA. The vast majority will be resolved without the need for referral. To avoid delays, the timeline for the FCA to respond will be set out in secondary legislation.

The FCA and the FOS are already gaining practical experience of operating such a mechanism by trialling arrangements through their memorandum of understanding. The experience gained through this trial has provided valuable lessons for the implementation of the legislative mechanisms. The Government will continue to work closely with the FOS and the FCA ahead of those changes taking effect, preparing them to ensure that the new system works effectively. The memorandum of understanding, by the way, is creating a very small number of referrals from the FOS to the FCA.

Building Societies Act 1986 (Assimilation to Company Law and Changes to Funding Limit) Order 2026

Debate between Baroness Kramer and Lord Pitt-Watson

Wednesday 2nd September 2026 Grand Committee

[The Parliamentary Secretary, HM Treasury (Lord Pitt-Watson) (Lab)]

My Lords, building societies are a vital part of the United Kingdom’s financial services sector, and the Government are committed to ensuring that their legislative framework remains fit for purpose. This order is the latest step in the Government’s programme of updates to the Building Societies Act 1986 to ensure that it continues to align with company law, where appropriate, and that the Act’s funding framework operates to support financial stability and strong prudential standards among building societies.

The order before the Committee makes two targeted changes, and I will take each in turn. First, the order modernises requirements on building societies when executing legal documents. At present, building societies are required to execute certain legal documents, such as deeds, by affixing a common seal. Companies, by contrast, have greater flexibility under the Companies Act 2006: they may execute documents either by using a common seal or by the signature of authorised signatories.

This order aligns the position for building societies with the company law framework. It provides that a building society will be able to choose whether to execute documents by affixing a common seal or by having the document signed by authorised signatories. Those authorised signatories will include directors and the secretary of the society, and the order also provides for execution by a director in the presence of witnesses. This is a practical and proportionate modernisation: it will reduce unnecessary administrative burdens and it reflects the Government’s broader commitment to keep building society law aligned with company law, where that is appropriate.

The second element of the order concerns building societies’ wholesale funding limit. Under the 1986 Act, building societies must raise at least 50% of their funding from members’ deposits. That requirement is central to preserving their distinctive mutual model, which means that building societies are owned by their members. I want to be clear that this order does not change that fundamental principle.

Instead, the order makes targeted changes to the ways that wholesale funding is calculated. It specifies certain sources of funding that are to be disregarded for the purposes of that calculation. These include funding from specified Bank of England liquidity facilities, debt instruments issued to meet the Bank of England’s minimum requirements for own funds and eligible liabilities, and certain sale and repurchase agreements using high-quality liquid assets that are being held to meet prudential requirements.

The purpose of this change is straightforward. It is inappropriate to treat funding that supports prudent liquidity management or compliance with prudential regulation in the same way as ordinary wholesale funding. Doing so can distort the calculation and, in some cases, in effect, double-count funding.

That outcome is not consistent with the objectives of UK prudential regulation; nor should the funding limit create unintended disincentives for building societies to use Bank of England liquidity facilities. The order ensures, therefore, that the funding limit operates in a more appropriate way by exempting those sources of funding from the calculation. It supports the objectives of prudential regulation, protects financial stability and gives societies greater funding flexibility, while preserving the statutory requirement that at least half of their funding must come from members.

In conclusion, this order makes focused, practical and positive changes. It modernises the legal framework for building societies, supports prudent liquidity management and helps ensure that building societies can continue to compete effectively while maintaining their mutual business model. For those reasons, I commend this order to the Committee and beg to move.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister is exactly right, of course. Building societies and mutually owned banks are absolutely crucial to our economy. They hold some 29% of all outstanding residential mortgages, and that figure is growing. They are especially significant for first-time buyers as conventional banks are less active in this market. So, as we try to solve the housing crisis and restore economic growth, both the capacity of the sector to grow and its lending matter—but so, too, does the stability of the sector.

As the Minister said, the Building Societies Act 1986 requires that a building society must raise at least 50% of its funds from individual member deposits, with the consequence that funding from wholesale markets cannot exceed 50%. However, this order changes the way in which the 50% is calculated to specify that certain funding sources will be excluded from the wholesale calculation. The examples given include specific Bank of England liquidity facilities, loss-absorbing instruments —we would typically cite MREL—and specific repo agreements. This is clearly of importance to the larger societies. It sets them on a more level playing field in competing against banks, as well as increasing their lending capacity. However, even though I support this change, I have two questions.

First, have the Government assessed the impact of increased wholesale funding in times of interest rate volatility? I point out to the Minister that there will be an increase in wholesale funding, if one is not going to be highly technical, because MREL, for example, is raised in the wholesale markets, as are the repos. A number of the instruments that are covered and will be excluded from the calculation are, in fact, wholesale market transactions.

Funding short—the characteristic of the wholesale funds—and lending long, at a fixed rate, was the curse of HBOS when it failed. Once, in a conversation with me that discussed such a situation, Warren Buffett’s number two, Charlie Munger, talked of funding short and lending long as living proof of the walking dead. It is a riskier strategy because of the duration mismatch. I am not suggesting that these changes are going to lead to those extreme outcomes, but it is clear that the squeeze on margins that comes from greater wholesale funding can end up inhibiting lending—and does so exactly at the time when the economy typically needs new liquidity and lending the most.

My second question is slightly different. Is there any risk of diluting the mutual identity by, in a sense, changing this weighting of wholesale versus membership funding? Building societies are much more community-driven than conventional banks. If that link were weakened by the need to respond to the pressures from wholesale lenders, we would all be losers, frankly. I would appreciate the Government’s comments on that.

The other issue in this statutory instrument, offering choice on how to execute documents, strikes me as simple common sense. Frankly, I had no idea that common seals are still in use. Indeed, I may be the only person in this building who has actually closed contracts by using a seal. That was under armed guard, because it had to be removed from the vaults and every movement was observed, because the seal was of such extraordinary value. I really thought that those days were over, and I am pleased that building societies are now going to be relieved of the burden.

Overseas Prudential Requirements Regime (Credit Institutions and Investment Firms) Regulations 2026

Debate between Baroness Kramer and Lord Pitt-Watson

Wednesday 2nd September 2026 Grand Committee

[The Parliamentary Secretary, HM Treasury (Lord Pitt-Watson) (Lab)]

My Lords, the Committee will consider together two statutory instruments made under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023, known as FSMA 2023. Although these instruments address different areas of financial regulation, they share a common purpose, which is to ensure that the UK’s regulatory framework remains stable, proportionate and internationally competitive. Together, they provide greater certainty for firms, preserve appropriate regulatory safeguards and support the continued effective functioning of UK financial markets.

The first instrument supports the Government’s wider programme of replacing retained EU legislation by creating a new overseas prudential requirements regime. The second concerns over-the-counter, or OTC, derivatives and establishes a permanent regulatory framework for certain intragroup transactions. I will address each instrument in turn, beginning with the overseas prudential requirements regulation.

The first instrument is the Overseas Prudential Requirements Regime (Credit Institutions and Investment Firms) Regulations 2026. Following EU exit, the UK retained a body of EU-derived financial services legislation, known as assimilated law. This includes the capital requirement regulation, or UK CRR, which sets detailed prudential requirements for credit institutions, such as banks and building societies, and for larger investment firms.

In 2025, the Government consulted on their approach to repealing a number of equivalence provisions currently contained in that assimilated law. This instrument delivers that approach. In particular, it restates the existing UK CRR equivalence regimes within a single overseas prudential requirements regime, helping to make the prudential framework easier to navigate while maintaining continuity for firms. Existing equivalence decisions will be preserved as overseas regime decisions under the new framework, providing continuity and certainty for firms.

This forms part of the Government’s wider programme under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 to repeal assimilated financial services law while preserving the necessary policy outcomes. This supports the implementation of the FSMA model of regulation, under which detailed firm-facing requirements are set in regulators’ rulebooks rather than in legislation.

As part of this wider reform agenda, the Government are replacing the existing equivalence regimes inherited from the EU with overseas recognition regimes that are tailored to the UK’s needs and reflect the Government’s outcomes-focused approach to the unilateral regulatory recognition of overseas jurisdictions.

This instrument is intended: first, to consolidate currently fragmented equivalence provisions into a single, coherent regime, while maintaining continuity for existing CRR equivalence decisions; secondly, to adjust the treatment of exposures to overseas exchanges so that capital treatment better reflects the underlying risk; thirdly, to replace the definition of “third-country investment firm” with “overseas investment firm” while maintaining the overall scope and effect of the existing treatment; and, finally, to enable the Government, subject to a further statutory instrument and parliamentary approval, to recognise eligible covered bonds from overseas jurisdictions in the future.

I turn to the second instrument, which makes a targeted and important reform to the UK’s framework for regulating OTC—over-the-counter—derivatives, those traded directly between buyer and seller, by addressing intragroup transactions. It replaces the temporary intragroup exemption regime, known as TIGER, with a permanent framework. In doing so, it provides firms with long-term certainty while preserving appropriate safeguards and regulatory oversight.

As I think all my audience knows, derivatives are contracts whose value is linked to an underlying asset, benchmark or index. They are widely used by businesses to manage risks. Intragroup transactions, where companies within the same corporate group are counterparties to a derivative contract, allow groups to manage their risks efficiently. The benefits of intragroup transactions are well recognised, so exemptions from certain clearing and margin requirements for certain transactions are a feature of regulatory regimes in the UK and in other jurisdictions.

TIGER was introduced following EU exit to provide a temporary regime for exempting certain transactions between a UK counterparty and an entity within the same group located in a jurisdiction that has not been declared equivalent under UK legislation. It was only ever intended to be a temporary measure and, having been extended once already, it is due to expire at the end of 2026. The Government consider that a further, time-limited extension would not provide the long-term framework that firms need. This instrument therefore establishes a permanent framework for qualifying intragroup transactions with overseas group entities to benefit from a regulatory exemption. The instrument also provides continuity for firms relying on TIGER exemptions.

These reforms do not remove safeguards. Firms must continue to meet the conditions for intragroup treatment, and for relevant cross-border exemptions, the Financial Conduct Authority will continue to have visibility through a notification process, while retaining oversight of the regime.

In summary, these are proportionate reforms that replace EU exit arrangements with a stable UK framework, reduce unnecessary friction, support firms’ global risk management and maintain robust regulatory oversight. I beg to move.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I will address each of these instruments separately. First, on the overseas prudential requirements regime, in the Government’s perspective, this statutory instrument is simply the application of the FSMA model to decisions on equivalence. The Government know that I am quite concerned that the FSMA model removes from parliamentary oversight decisions that were once considered to require democratic engagement and puts them into a model that is notably weak on accountability to Parliament. This is obviously a much bigger issue than this SI.

Initially, existing equivalence decisions will remain in place. Can the Minister explain whether future changes and additions will come before Parliament in any way? Will it be a deciding situation or will it be merely reported? I stress that, to me, transparency and accountability are two different things, yet sometimes, in conversations with the regulators, you would think that they were the same.

United Kingdom: Business Competitiveness

Debate between Baroness Kramer and Lord Pitt-Watson

Tuesday 1st September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)]

We would all like tax to be as low as possible and investment to be as great as possible. Britain is the number two destination for external investment, according to the PwC CEO survey; the United States is number one. Huge investment is taking place in this country—£360 billion in the areas that have been identified for our industrial policy. The chief executive of Lloyds Bank said it is a “phenomenal” place to invest. Although one needs to be careful about the enthusiasm of entrepreneurs from Silicon Valley, Jensen Huang of Nvidia said it is

“a great place to invest … You’re the envy of the world”.

Of course we want to have more investment, but equally we are seeing that growth is coming—in the last six months, the highest in the G7—and last year productivity was the best for 10 years if you take out the effect of the pandemic.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Pitt-Watson, to his post. He has already allowed me and my colleagues to badger him, and we will continue to do so. When the Government increased employers’ NICs and reduced the threshold, it gave protection to the tiniest small enterprises. But surveys now estimate that more than 40% of small and medium-sized enterprises have been significantly negatively impacted. Have the Government tracked the growth lost from the impact on this critical sector, particularly in the most disadvantaged regions of the country?

[Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is correct that 900,000 small businesses are protected from this. There are also protections for hiring people under 21 and apprentices under 25. But there is not a specific study of this, and the reason is because we view this as a system. People pay their tax and therefore we are able to do education, transport and all those other services. Would we want that tax to be lower? Absolutely, but we will do it in a way that balances the books and maintains the fiscal discipline to which this Government are committed.

Financial Services and Markets Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Kramer and Lord Pitt-Watson

Committee stage
Wednesday 1st July 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)]

My Lords, both the amendment and the speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, were sensible in terms of making us think about bank capital requirements and whether we have got them right. As she says, the first step is undertaking proper analysis to be able to work out whether that happens. I noticed she caveated everything that they may not be right. They may be right, but they may not.

My worry is that that is a sensible position to take but it did not sound like the position being taken by the Leader of the Opposition when she made her speech last week saying that she was going to reduce bank capital requirements to release £450 billion in capital. Where did the calculation that hundreds of billions are sitting idly on bank balance sheets come from? Where do those hundreds of billions come from? If we are going to release £450 billion, what is the calculation in the reduction of bank capital requirements that sits behind that calculation? While I feel quite supportive of the issues that the noble Baroness was raising, we need to be sure—I hope she will agree—that we do not jump the gun on this.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Pitt-Watson, was rather generous in his comments. Sometimes it is important to speak truth to power. This is a lowest common denominator strategy. We have heard it before from the Conservatives, and it is repeated with enthusiasm today. I heard so many of these arguments back in the early 2000s. It contributed and was a fundamental part of the reasons why we ended up with such a major financial crash with huge financial and political consequences that echo through to this day. I could see the argument being made that we need to take proper care that we are looking at capital requirements and that we need to assess them and look at the consequences and do so on a regular basis. That is already part of the programme and certainly would always need to be part of it.

I notice that in line seven of the amendment the phrase is,

“while also considering financial stability”.

If ever there was a phrase lowering the significance of the primary objective with which we tasked the Bank of England, that phrase does it—merely a consideration of financial stability. I was afraid when the growth and productivity objectives were introduced as secondary objectives that quickly the attraction of the phrases would cause them to cannibalise the primary objective. This is a very good example of the way in which that, frankly, has been happening.

I have seen across so many of the measures in the Bill a step away from the precautionary principle—in this case, of looking for appropriate capital requirements, whether in equities or in MREL—to a notion that we deal with all this through a resolution regime. I am suspicious of resolution regimes and of after the fact ways of ensuring financial stability. I would much rather we did not have a bank failure that we must then attempt to remedy through the use of something like bail-in MREL, which I do not think will ever work. Frankly, MREL is held by insurance companies and pension funds, and we are never going to wreck them to save a major bank. I am very concerned about the change in approach that we are hearing today from the Conservative party.

Financial Services and Markets Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Kramer and Lord Pitt-Watson

Committee stage
Monday 29th June 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)]

If I might talk on this point, I have huge sympathy with the overall direction of where people want to go on this. Climate risk is clearly relevant for any financial manager managing the assets—the cash—of any ordinary citizen, be they a vicar of the Church of England or simply a worker setting money aside, and that needs to be taken into account.

Even if you do not buy that argument, there are financial risks that go with climate that need to be recognised—for example, assets that will become stranded if we responded to the climate crisis, which should not be recognised as being valuable today. By the way, if I were to find an institution that is a mile ahead of the regulation in trying to make this take place, the Church of England pension fund is exemplary of what it is that we want to do.

As I look at this, I find it rather ironic that we are focusing on the FCA. In the past five years, if there is a financial regulator that has taken steps forward on this, it is the FCA rather than the others. I think—I have tried to check on the internet—the UK now has the highest number of transition plans by companies, and the highest standard of transition plans by companies, of any country in the world. I want to celebrate the companies doing that and the senior appointments that the FCA put in place to make these sorts of things happen.

It might be a good idea for us to scratch our heads about those regulators that, even where there are clear rules on reporting on financially material matters, are finding it difficult to see them enforced. We might want to raise those sorts of issues as well as additional reporting. If it is additional reporting, as the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, said, let us be sure that we know that the extra reporting is bringing about some good.

In Amendment 80, and perhaps in some other amendments, there is a question about parliamentary oversight. Does the Minister consider that parliamentary oversight might be kept under review so that we know that we have a financial services industry that is properly responding to the risk of climate change, and might perhaps do some other things as well?

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

I shall be exceedingly brief because the position of my party has been so well-voiced by my noble friends Lady Northover and Lady Sheehan, and there is a great deal more to say in the clause stand part debate in today’s fourth group. My party has made it very clear that it has a deep commitment to the climate, nature and sustainability agenda. I am conscious that it has become quite fashionable in financial circles to say that this agenda should not be the concern of the Bank of England or of any of the regulators. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Pitt-Watson, can indicate to me where in the five-year strategy of the FCA he can find any reference to it, because I cannot.

[Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)]

For five years, there has been a director of ESG at the Financial Conduct Authority who has specifically taken responsibility for ensuring that, where relevant, it is embedded in what the FCA is doing. Most of the feedback I get from the FCA and financial practitioners suggests that he is called Sacha Sadan, and that he had a senior role in financial services beforehand and has had considerable success in being able to do that. Is it perfect? No, I am sure it is absolutely not perfect. We have a long way to go, but I want to do something that says, “Let us celebrate some success when we have it”.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

I always join in celebrating success but, from our perspective, this is a pivot moment away from what has been the practice and emphasis over the past several years. Indeed, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, said, there was consensus across the parties, with perhaps different strategies, but this appears to be a time when much of this has changed, or is about to change or is changing. I have to say that it makes absolutely no sense. Climate risk is so obviously a financial and economic stability risk, as indeed is the loss of nature and the issue of sustainable growth; surely “sustainable” belongs in growth programmes that we put in front of us.

I am also very conscious that the City and others, which have tended to have very short-term perspectives—typically the next quarter’s results—have voiced opposition to the inclusion of climate and nature in the financial regulators’ remit and that it should have the significance it has had to date, and I am very afraid that the Government are now responding to that particular set of views. Moving these regulatory principles from the Bill—from primary legislation—into a “have regard” for the five-year strategy strikes me as an acquiescence with those voices we are hearing from the City. To me, there is some confirmation in not finding a firm strand in the FCA’s own five-year strategy; that is its forward look, not its historic look backwards.

In a few minutes the Conservative Party will speak, and it will make its own position clear, but I understand that Kemi Badenoch has now said that her party, if in government, would scrap the Climate Change Act. That is a very significant change. I know it is motivated by fear of Reform, but it really has an impact on the overall discourse and the cross-party commitment we have had up to this point.

I agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester—I think it was him, although I may have attributed this to the wrong person—that this is a very strange week in which to downgrade the significance of climate change. I happened to be in conversation with my daughter in the midst of last week’s heat. When I described what we were doing, she said, “I guess the universe has heard the intention and it’s decided to bite back”. I think it must have been the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, who made the remark; I am so sorry not to have recognised that.

I think that both Labour and the Conservatives hope that by Third Reading, we will have forgotten the extreme heat and they can reassert a much more convenient and easy agenda of pretending that climate change is no longer an issue of urgency. It has now dropped down the scale and there are other issues of much greater urgency on which we must focus, and this one can be largely set aside. But I and my party continue to look at it as a series of risks that will cause extraordinary pain to ordinary people in Britain, both relentlessly and increasingly—and not just to people in the UK but to far more vulnerable countries across the globe.

The Bank of England and the financial sector have crucial and powerful tools in their hands. Those tools are vital if we are to redesign our world to limit nature loss and climate change, and to ensure that we grow sustainably in the future. As the Bill is now structured, it takes away from those tools and will encourage their being regarded as secondary or tertiary instruments, to be used only when it does not irritate certain voices in the City of London. That is not appropriate for the legislation we pass today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly in general across this set of amendments and specifically to Amendment 141 in my name, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann.

In the general remarks, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, that I am excited and thrilled by his amendments in this group and I support every one of them—I would even open champagne; I am that pleased. I say to my noble friend Lady Tyler that I totally support the amendments that she has introduced here. I share with both of them the perception that financial inclusion is absolutely at the core of the requirement that we must place on our financial services sector and on the regulators that deal with it.

To pick up on a point that my noble friend Lady Tyler made, the consumer duty does not deal with financial inclusion, and that is exactly right. The consumer duty is very much a protection against mis-selling. It is not a duty of care, which could indeed have required that gaps left in the market are filled and the regulator take steps to fill them; the regulator was absolutely determined not to have that responsibility when this House attempted to make it address the issue, and the Government of the day were also very determined that the regulator should not play that role. We cannot look to the regulator to be a key player in financial inclusion.

In the five-year strategy of the FCA—I really have read that document—there is reference to financial inclusion; in fact, it is in big, black, bold letters. The problem is that what it anticipates as the role that it will play is to try to address how low financial capability holds people back from accessing financial services and how it could support them in managing their financial life. That is important and it matters, but the reality is that for many people who are excluded, the way to give them support is not to try to get them digital—it would be brilliant if you could but that is not the reality—but to deal with those people as they are in the world that they live in. There is absolutely no reference in this five-year strategy that you could in any way interpret as related to what has become the Richard Lloyd review—to things such as banking hubs. It is focused solely on the individual, whereas issues that we have addressed in previous groups have also been about the financial exclusion of small businesses from financial services. There is no reference to any of that.

I have had so many conversations with the FCA over the years, and it has said things like, “Yes, if we had a set of community banks, that would be absolutely brilliant; CDFIs are absolutely wonderful—not our job. If they appear, we will make sure that we regulate them appropriately, but it is not our job to fill that gap and we resolutely hold to that position”. That clarity needs to be here in this debate. I will not repeat what has been said because it was so well said by the three previous speakers, but I very much hope that the Minister will pay serious attention to this issue. From things that he has said in the past, I hope that he takes it to heart. It very much belongs in a very central way in primary legislation.

The issue I am raising is perhaps not an obvious one to raise in the context of this Bill, but it is in scope. It is dear to my heart, but I think it is widely supported. I am using this opportunity to deal with an issue that, frankly, the Government should have dealt with without any problem. It is child trust funds and the ability of young adults with learning difficulties to access those funds that sit in in their name. My party leader, Ed Davey, who, as I think all in this Committee know, has a son with very severe learning difficulties, has written of his eight-month battle to access the child trust fund put in place and invested in for the benefit of his severely disabled son, who is now 18. The fund should be easily accessible when a child turns 18, but, as the Davey family found out the hard way, this is not true for children with learning or other disabilities who lack the capacity to fill in the forms themselves.

The process of applying to the Court of Protection for a deputyship order is Kafkaesque, consumes endless time and places such a burden and cost that many parents give up altogether. The many steps, and my goodness there are many, include obtaining written permission from three different relatives to demonstrate that you are unlikely to abuse the funds that you will access, and obtaining various doctors’ assessments—well, perhaps that is fair—but then the courts kick in. The Court of Protection charges £412 for a deputyship order. It requires you to obtain insurance against misuse, and the Davey family found that that cost £48. Then comes the Office of the Public Guardian, which charges £100 for its assessment, and it then levies an annual supervision charge of £320. If you add this up, it basically becomes £1,000 to be able to access a child trust fund for your severely disabled child.

What is really extraordinary is that most child trust funds do not have a lot of money in them. I think the average amount is £2,000. You would have to spend 50% of it to be able to access that fund for your child. The people accessing it are parents whom the DWP already relies on to deal with a variety of much more significant pots of money to support that child. I use the Davey family not to ask for any kind of sympathy, but here is an MP whose wife is a lawyer, and they cannot work their way through this maze. How are people without those kinds of expertise going to work their way through this system?

Unfortunately, there is a new legal offering from specialists who will, for a significant sum, offer to negotiate the way through for you. That is a practice that none of us wants to encourage. There are a few child trust fund managers who handle the process a bit better and have been helping some of the people whose funds they manage to minimise the process, but it is a lottery in terms of finding that you have taken out your child trust fund with an entity that takes that approach. Charities estimate that 80,000 to 123,000 young adults are essentially locked out of their child trust funds.

I tried to look for what response the Government have been making to the overtures of the charities and other civic society groups that have been out there trying to speak for these youngsters. Two things came to my attention. The only response I could find from the Department of Justice was that it has now digitised the application form and provided a guide.

My amendment would force the FCA to simplify the whole process for CTFs paying out under £5,000 in any one year. It is formulated around an amendment put before the House in 2021—I am pretty sure that is the correct year—by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, who is really skilled in developing, designing and presenting the appropriate amendments. In speaking to that amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, who was the Minister when child trust funds were put in place, made it very clear that no one had thought of this particular set of problems and that that was why the system was designed in a way that set up this obstacle course. It was not intentional or planned; it was simply a failure to recognise what could happen and has in fact happened.

I say this to the Minister: all the arguments we hear in support of the Bill are about deregulation; here is a piece of deregulation that I think no one could argue with, and which I would definitely and clearly support, as would my party and, I suspect, many others. If the Minister cannot control this himself, could he please go away and berate his colleagues? These youngsters need to be able to access their funds. We are talking about small pots. Simply digitising the 106 sections of the application form is not the answer.

[Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)]

My Lords, if I might add to this debate, I begin by noting the huge cross-party agreement we have on lots of the issues the Bill raises, most particularly on this issue of ensuring access to financial services for everyone. That is what is behind so many of the amendments here. It is also the issue that was raised in the debate about affordable credit by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, and at Second Reading by the noble Baroness, Lady Hyde, and the noble Lord, Lord Kamall. We all, from all parties, want to know that such services are available to everyone. The question is simply how we can make sure that that takes place and that the industry that has to be there to deliver it buys in to making sure that those services take place. We need to be sure that our actions as rule-makers are helpful in that regard.

At Second Reading, I heard a number of speeches about excessive regulation, all doubtless intending to encourage financial services to do their job better. But there is an issue with regulation and how much of it there is. If there is any concern about this amendment, that is absolutely not its objective. Critically, we need financial services to be available to everyone; the question is whether, by regulating them, that gets us to where we want to be. Maybe it will, but we might argue that, unless we have persuaded those whom we wish to influence that they will strive to improve performance in this regard, the danger is that it might just be another regulation. Whatever we ask the FCA to report, we need to first take a step back and think through how this will affect performance on the ground. It is the finance industry that has to deliver this, and we need to be working in partnership with it—with the industry, customers, potential customers, the Government and regulators, moving ahead together. There are also initiatives, some of which might work, and which, if they had real momentum, with everyone behind them, might start to deliver the sort of things we want.

As many noble Lords know, I have done quite a lot of work with the financial services industry in Scotland. Its industry body, Scottish Financial Enterprise, has laid out as its objective that it intends to

“have a financial services system that allows every citizen and business of Scotland to connect and access appropriate services”.

Wow. Is that not exactly what we are trying to get to happen? But who is following up to make sure that that statement, that vision is realised? It feels to me that we need a new settlement, and institutions to see that such a settlement is delivered.