Financial Services and Markets Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Neville-Rolfe and Baroness Noakes

Committee stage
Monday 6th July 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I will just comment briefly. I completely agree with the notion that wholesale markets and retail markets should be dealt with separately for the reasons that have been given. I am less than clear that a structural solution, such as the one proposed by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral, is the right one. I think that the problem is deeper; it lies in the construction of FSMA because the FCA is given a consumer protection objective that makes no differentiation between wholesale and retail markets . The meaning of “consumer” is generic and there is no understanding that there are radically different markets for retail and wholesale participants. All that means that the burden of treating these markets differently falls on the applicability of the proportionality principle in Section 3B, which we have discussed many times and is due to be downgraded under the current proposals. I do not know what the answer is, but I suspect that, in legislative terms, it is a deeper answer than simply setting up a separate division within the FCA because the construction of FSMA simply does not accommodate easily the fact that there are two quite different types of market.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Hunt and Lord Ashcombe for bringing forward Amendments 142A and 142C. We have heard from industry that there is often insufficient clarity around whether retail or wholesale regulatory standards apply in particular cases. That lack of clarity matters because it means that firms can find themselves applying regulatory standards, processes and levels of prudence that go above and beyond what is required simply because they are concerned that the boundary is not clear. That is why the proposals from my noble friends Lord Ashcombe and Lord Hunt of Wirral for a clearer statutory distinction are important. Any threshold would, of course, need to be carefully considered, but the principle is right. Firms should know which rules apply to which clients. Regulators should avoid applying retail-style requirements to wholesale clients unless that is genuinely proportionate.

I also welcome the broader point behind Amendment 142A, which would create a dedicated wholesale markets and firms division within the FCA. The case for that amendment in a highly competitive global industry, as my noble friend Lord Hunt explained, is that wholesale markets require specialist expertise and a regulatory culture that understands institutional, professional and capital markets activity. If the FCA is regulating retail consumer markets, with lots of SMEs, and complex wholesale markets at the same time, it must have the internal structure and expertise to apply the right approach to each. The noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, a member of the Lords committee, rightly suggested that consumer preference has become a problem mindset in the wholesale area. My noble friend Lady Noakes explained that that followed from the way that FSMA was set up. Interestingly, the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, cited MAS in Singapore, where regulation is split by target market. Another member of the committee, the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, rightly called for proportionality, which was endorsed by my noble friend Lord Holmes. This is complicated, but it is important that we look at these amendments seriously.

Amendments 165 and 173 are in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Altrincham. These raise the related but distinct question of whether the FCA is operationally ready to take on the significant new functions being handed to it under the Bill. This is a matter for the FCA, as it is an independent regulator, but the fact is that some do not trust it, including those in the payments and consumer credit industries who will be new or largely new to its fiat.

We need a plan to show what will happen and when in all cases where the regulator is taking over responsibilities from elsewhere—which, on reflection, I should have added to our amendment. We also need to know how many staff the FCA plans to add and the accommodation arrangements. The industry pays for our regulators, and the latter should spend every pound as carefully as if it were their own. In time, we would hope to see some economies of scale as the proposed changes drive efficiency. The Explanatory Notes for the Bill explain that because the FCA will take over AML supervision of legal service providers, accountants and trust company service providers, it will need significant preparatory work, including the hiring and training of staff and establishing necessary IT infrastructure. We need more clarity on that point, and particularly on ensuring service standards and value for money.

The point behind Amendment 165 is simple: before significant new FCA functions are commenced, a report would look at FCA staffing and resourcing; systems capability; the impact on authorisation, supervision and enforcement timeliness; the effect on service standards for firms and consumers; and any mitigation measures considered necessary by the Treasury and the FCA. That would have the benefit of allowing Parliament and its committees to examine the plans.

One example that has been raised with us is the movement of the Payment Systems Regulator into the FCA. Firms have told us that there is very limited clarity about the timeline for that transition, the operational arrangements, the treatment of existing PSR work, the continuity of functions and how the FCA will absorb these responsibilities without disruption. They do not see that as a satisfactory position.

I thank my noble friend Lady Lawlor for her support and for her amendment to my amendment. It makes a valuable point about the importance of training staff to ensure a smooth transition, and I very much agree with this from my experience in business and in government.

I look forward to hearing from the Minister, first, on how we can better avoid duplication and the excess caution that is sometimes caused by the existing overlap between retail and wholesale at the FCA, and, secondly, on his view on how Parliament and stakeholders can best scrutinise plans for the handover of new areas of responsibility to the FCA.

Financial Services and Markets Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Neville-Rolfe and Baroness Noakes

Committee stage
Monday 29th June 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

I shall make a brief comment on why Parliament has not offered any guidance on risk metric. The committee was well aware that the FCA sought to get clarity about the risk appetite that it was taking. The PRA had not made that request; it regards it as its responsibility to judge the balance of risk. There is no unanimity in the regulator community on this, but we reported the issues as we found them in one of our reports.

The noble Baroness asks why Parliament has not given its answer. The straightforward answer is that the Government have not brought forward anything. Parliament gives an answer only when it approves something that the Government bring forward. When we asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether she intended to operationalise the giving of a more specific risk appetite to the FCA, she said pretty clearly that she thought that the Government would not do that.

If the Government do not bring forward something for Parliament to approve, it is not going to happen. Parliament does not act in the way that the noble Baroness seemed to think that we would act, which is that a committee would somehow produce an answer on risk appetite. The committee can comment on the issue of risk appetite and has done so, but it is fundamentally for the Government to take any action that is to change the way in which the risk appetite is specified for any regulator.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, this is an important clause, and I understand why noble Lords wish to probe the Government’s approach to Clause 17. It is always right that we scrutinise carefully any change to the statutory framework governing our financial regulators, and the sponsors have set out their case well. I note that they were introduced into the 2023 Act for good reason: to try to ensure that financial regulation in the UK is proportionate, accountable, flexible and aligned with economic and market objectives.

As I said earlier, I am glad that a meeting with the Financial Services Regulation Committee will take place next week. Certainly, I would like to get to the bottom of whether the change neuters the committee, as has been suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, and my noble friend Lady Noakes; indeed, I think that committee was unanimous that there was a problem. I thought it was interesting that my noble friend Lord Bridges echoed concerns that key, case-by-case analysis by the committee would disappear, and that the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, expressed concern about the way that her questions about cost-benefit analysis had been answered, presumably under the existing system.

These are all very legitimate questions, but there are other considerations—the noble Baroness, Lady Bi, touched on some of them. Our position is that we do not want to perpetuate overburdensome regulation. In discussions with industry, we have heard repeatedly that the regulatory principles in Section 3B of the 2000 Act can themselves lead to tick-box exercises. That is particularly true where the principles require regulators to consider wider public policy objectives, which may have only a very indirect connection with the firms being regulated or the activities in question. For example, Section 3B(1)(c) includes

“the need to contribute towards achieving compliance by the Secretary of State with section 1 of the Climate Change Act”—

the net-zero target—

“and … the Environment Act 2021 (environmental targets) where each regulator considers the exercise of its functions to be relevant to the making of such a contribution”.

My own experience of serving on a challenger bank’s board is that there is already a lot of climate-related activity required by the regulators that creeps into many aspects of governance. It is generally costly and sometimes of little worth. That was before the regulatory principles were added. That reflects, harking back to our earlier conversation, the extensive net-zero regulations that exist, the remit letters and the sustainability reporting network, all of which were cited earlier. Therefore, the real question is whether financial regulation is the right vehicle through which to pursue such goals and whether embedding such considerations produces better regulation or simply more process, as we suspect.

The Bill is meant to be deregulatory, and it is meant to simplify the regulatory environment and to support growth and competitiveness. I think the Government may be genuinely reducing a burden that has been identified by industry. We should be careful before assuming that every principle must remain in place. For me, the real tests are about what improvements are coming about here. I am interested in the detail. Does it make the FCA or the PRA more effective? Does it protect consumers? Does it support financial stability? Does it help growth? Alternatively, does it simply create another layer of process, the cost of which falls on firms?

I would be grateful if the Minister could explain more clearly the Government’s rationale for Clause 17. What burdens have been identified and what will the impact be of the changes proposed here? What evidence have the Government received from industry and regulators about the operation of the current Section 3B principles? How will the Government ensure that removing or amending such principles reduces unnecessary burdens, without weakening the core protections that consumers and markets expect?

As the Official Opposition, we are, in essence, in listening mode on this quite radical proposal. We would like to understand whether the “whereases” that are being partially abolished are a burden on only the regulators or whether that feeds through to industry and consumer protection—and, if so, how. I believe that, sometimes, a clearer, simpler and more focused framework is more effective. If Clause 17 helps move us in that direction, it may be needed in the Bill, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bi, suggested. However, it also seems very important to work out how the two parliamentary committees will exercise proper oversight going forward in a post-Brexit regulatory environment, and to ensure that any regulatory resistance, which we have been hearing about this evening, is minimised.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of Amendment 88 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles. It would be a useful addition to FSMA to have a specific power for the Treasury to issue a statement of concern; I particularly like the fact that it could be used without the full parliamentary process of regulations. As the noble Baroness may recall, when we debated the then Bill in 2023, the Treasury took a power to tell regulators to make rules. However, that power has to be exercised via regulation, so it needs to go through the whole statutory instrument procedure. It has not yet been used, as far as I am aware, but it is a useful backstop that the Treasury has if it wants to direct the work of the regulators, which is a perfectly reasonable thing for it to do in certain important areas.

The existence of the Treasury’s ability to issue a statement of concern would be particularly useful when interested parties were trying to get a point about things that were not working heard by the regulators. The ability to engage the Treasury in that would be very helpful, although I am sure that it would be used more as a background factor in the relationship than as an active part of the Treasury’s relationship with the regulators. I applaud the noble Baroness on her ingenuity in bringing this amendment forward.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, for bringing forward these amendments. They raise two very salient points about the accountability of the financial regulators and the mechanisms by which Parliament, the Treasury and the public can scrutinise how those regulators use their powers.

One of the core functions of the Bill is to increase the power and scope of the remit of the regulators, in particular the FCA. Across the Bill, more responsibility is being transferred, more detail is being left to rules and more of the practical operation of the regime will depend on regulatory judgment, rather than primary legislation. My concern is that although the Bill increases the power of the regulators, it does not always provide a corresponding increase in oversight or scrutiny of them; as an ex-Treasury Minister, I am slightly surprised that the Treasury is entirely happy with that.

To me, Amendment 88 seems a sensible and proportionate form of challenge. It would create a formal and transparent way for the Treasury to say that, in effect, a regulator may have gone beyond what Parliament intended or may have acted in a way that is not consistent with its statutory remit. This matters because the Treasury is directly accountable to Parliament in a way that independent regulators are not. If regulators are to exercise substantial powers delegated by Parliament, there must be some meaningful mechanism by which Ministers can challenge, explain and account for how these powers are being used. We will come back to this point again at a later stage in Committee; my noble friend Lord Bridges has tabled an amendment that speaks to this same broad issue.

The underlying point is simple: if regulators are powerful, they must also be accountable. How best to achieve this should be a key objective of our scrutiny in Committee and on Report. I would be grateful, therefore, if the Minister could set out the Government’s position on this wider issue. He wrote to us shortly before Committee—a little too shortly before Committee; I say that politely—but I am not sure whether what he sent us, including the Treasury memorandum, answers our outstanding questions. So do the Government accept that the Bill increases the powers and responsibilities of the FCA and PRA? If so, do they accept that stronger oversight mechanisms are called for? What formal routes currently exist for the Treasury to raise concerns about regulator rules or guidance that may not reflect Parliament’s intention?

Also, what is the Government’s objection, if any, to periodic independent reviews of regulator performance and burden? As a former Minister, I found that, although such requirements were unpopular with the department at the time they were put into law, they proved useful in helping me keep on top of the responsible regulators and their policies.

I very much hope that the Minister will engage constructively with the problem, answer my questions, on both the previous group and this group, and appraise in a constructive spirit the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles. Above all, we need reassurance that the Government recognise the importance of scrutiny, transparency and trust in the regulatory system.

Financial Services and Markets Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Neville-Rolfe and Baroness Noakes

Committee stage
Wednesday 24th June 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, the Financial Services Regulation Committee has also been looking at stablecoin, so I have a few words to say on the topic.

I go back to my earlier point: this is not a regulatory principle that can be applied by the FCA and the PRA. It has very little to do with them, as it is the financial stability part of the Bank of England that has issued the policy. The backstop is just one part of the arrangements, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, will be aware. A very significant part of the assets of stablecoin issuers also need to be held in unremunerated form at the Bank of England—30%, which is a significant amount of money. If the noble Baroness is worried about the cost to the taxpayer, she might also reflect on the gain to the taxpayer for all the time that there is not a crisis because the Bank of England has access to free money, which is part of the whole deal.

The stablecoin package needs to be looked at as a whole, rather than one small part of it being picked out. The noble Baroness may still disagree with it, but it is a calibrated package which balances the risks, including keeping one-to-one asset backing, which will also go a long way to allaying her concerns.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, that digital assets are a serious issue and that they deserve proper scrutiny. We come at it from a slightly different perspective. I note the point made by my noble friend Lady Noakes that this is not a matter for regulatory principles.

This week, as we have heard, the Bank of England published its final policy statement and draft code of practice for sterling-denominated systemic stablecoins. This may go some way to supporting institutional scale-up, but we are concerned by the general reaction, which has been that the fundamentals have not changed and that the prevailing regime we are left with could still leave UK issuers less attractive internationally.

We are very grateful for the work of the Financial Services Regulation Committee, under my noble friend Lady Noakes, with the help of her very distinguished committee. Yet again, it features in almost every part of this Bill. Its report, Stablecoins: Waiting for Regulation, makes it clear that the UK, in its view, is lagging behind the US and EU on stablecoin regulation. Stablecoins and other forms of digital money are no longer simply niche products or theoretical innovations; they have the potential to become part of the wider payments and financial infrastructure.

The danger now is that we risk creating, or at least allowing to persist, a regulatory grey zone. Firms need clarity on the duties, expectations and requirements that they will have to meet. That is why we are calling for a much clearer digital asset strategy from the Government. We need Ministers to take a position of leadership in this area. It is not enough to simply respond to developments as they arise in different parts of the digital stratosphere. We have tabled amendments alongside the noble Lord, Lord Ranger, who is somewhat expert in this area and is not here today, to probe the Government on the wider question of digital assets and digital finance strategy. We will come to those amendments in a later group. I do not want to pre-empt that debate now—not at this late hour, with so few people in Committee on such a hot day.

This amendment touches on the same underlying point: that the Government need to provide clarity and certainty. They need to provide leadership, whatever that is. I would be grateful if the Minister can briefly explain the Government’s position on stablecoins, and— in response to the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, has rightly raised—explain how stablecoins will help growth and competitiveness.

Financial Services and Markets Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Neville-Rolfe and Baroness Noakes

Committee stage
Monday 22nd June 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to open our deliberations on the Financial Services and Markets Bill. I thank the Minister for his constructive engagement so far and I thank noble Lords across the House who have shared their initial views with us. These conversations have been very helpful and have underscored a shared objective: to improve financial services regulation in a way that promotes growth, attracts investment and supports innovation. Although there are differences between us, we all agree on the importance of the financial services industry across the United Kingdom: the contribution it makes to GDP, the 2.5 million jobs it supports and the £110 billion in tax it pays.

However, I think this first group of amendments will challenge the Minister on a very important issue that we will want to address at several points throughout Committee: oversight and parliamentary scrutiny. We have approached this with slightly different amendments, but I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, shares the concern, which also applies to her amendments in group 2.

Clause 1 is short, but it is the gateway provision that introduces Schedule 1. It provides for the repeal and recasting of significant parts of the remaining Consumer Credit Act framework into FCA rules. The reasoning behind this desire for reform, as we said at Second Reading, is broadly understandable. The Treasury’s policy statement on CCA reform says that the current framework is increasingly out of date because it was designed for a paper-based credit market and now sits awkwardly alongside modern regulation. The Government say that the aim is to create a more “agile and proportionate” regime, and we do not disagree with that assessment. Certainly, that is the feedback we have been getting in our discussions with stakeholders.

However, identifying the right problem does not necessarily mean that the Government have chosen the right solution. Their approach has two serious consequences. First, Parliament will lose control and oversight of the core consumer protections currently contained in the CCA. Secondly, we are being asked to approve the repeal of these protections without being able to scrutinise the regime that will replace them. This sets a deeply concerning precedent. The purpose of your Lordships’ House is to scrutinise legislation, challenge the Government, ask questions and ensure that the law is workable, proportionate and effective. Yet there is nothing for us to scrutinise. The Government are dismantling the existing regime without showing Parliament what will take its place.

Both Houses contain a wealth of expertise—much of it is here today—including Members with extensive industry experience, who can identify unintended consequences and suggest more effective solutions. As we have frequently made clear, we want to work constructively with the Government on this Bill, but asking Parliament to surrender its powers to a regulator before it can examine the replacement regime is not meaningful scrutiny and it is not an approach that we can support.

Consumer credit in particular matters because it is woven into the everyday financial lives of millions of people. It allows households to spread the cost of major purchases, manage short-term cash-flow pressures and access funds when they are needed, all of which supports wider economic participation but needs to be done carefully and responsibly. This is a very important area and, as with the other parts of the Bill that delegate power, the Minister must take this opportunity to answer some key questions.

First, which core consumer rights and remedies do the Government intend to keep in primary legislation? By what principle have they decided which protections may safely be moved into the FCA rules? Secondly, when will Parliament be able to see the FCA’s replacement rules in draft? Will these rules be finalised before any repeal of the existing statutory protections is commenced? What transitional arrangements have the Government found? Thirdly, how do the Government intend Parliament to scrutinise future changes once the substance of consumer credit protection sits in the FCA rule book, rather than in statute? Finally, what assessment have the Government made of the effect of these reforms on smaller lenders, brokers and intermediaries, as well as on the availability of credit and related services more broadly? What effect is uncertainty on this point around the future regulatory regime having on economic activity and how much is that costing?

My amendment seeks to re-establish a basic constitutional principle that is being threatened by the Government’s approach in this part of the Bill. Parliament should not be asked to repeal important statutory protections before it knows what will replace them, how the new regime will operate and how it will be held to account. Modernisation and agility are worthwhile objectives, but they cannot justify Parliament legislating in the dark. Before Parliament agrees to transfer such significant powers, the Minister must show us not only that the destination is right but that the safeguards, accountability and route for getting there are right as well. I look forward to the Minister’s response and I beg to move.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, as this is my first contribution in Committee, I declare my interests as recorded in the register, in particular that I hold listed shares in financial services companies and technology companies that may be affected by the Bill or amendments tabled to it.

I am going to use the opportunity of this first group of amendments to raise the issue of the accountability of the financial services regulators, which, as we have heard, are being given significant regulatory powers. This theme certainly applies to Clause 1 and Schedule 1, because of the vast new powers in relation to consumer credit being given to the FCA, but the theme is pervasive and we will debate it several times in Committee.

I should start by saying that I agree that consumer credit legislation needs a massive overhaul. The current legislation focuses on paperwork and processes. It was written in a pre-digital age and does not have a sophisticated approach to consumers—for example, it does not have the concept of a vulnerable customer. It is crying out for change. Indeed, when we scrutinised the Financial Services and Markets Bill in 2023, I tabled an amendment to give the Treasury significant powers to rewrite the legislation, including the ability to delegate to the FCA. My noble friend Lady Penn, who was the Treasury Minister at the time, convinced me that this was a step too far because of the many significant consultations that were needed. In withdrawing my amendment, I suggested that the extensive consultations sounded to me like an excuse for not making any progress. I am, therefore, supportive of the Government using this Bill as a vehicle to make some progress, although I regret that they still have not completed the task.

That support is qualified by issues that have become apparent since the 2023 Act was passed. At that time, I was a supporter of the FSMA model, which allowed Parliament to determine the overall principles of financial services regulation and left the detail to the regulators. Instead of challenging the huge burden being put on the FSMA model by the 2023 Act, which made provision for the repeal and replacement of retained EU law, a number of us focused on the accountability of the regulators. This was an error. I now believe that we failed to understand fully what that meant for democratic oversight of what the regulators do with the powers that they acquire. We also failed to appreciate the scale of the task of holding the regulators to account.

The FSMA model was set up by FSMA 2000 in an era when the most significant financial services regulation was set by the EU and either applied directly or incorporated by our own legislation. In either event, there was significant oversight through the processes of the European Parliament, particularly ECON, which was chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted. In addition, both Houses of Parliament had committees dedicated to oversight of the regulatory outpourings of the EU, and, in the case of your Lordships’ House, we had a Sub-Committee of the EU Select Committee dedicated to financial services.

The FSMA model was not designed to do the heavy lifting that it is now being asked to do, first via the 2023 Act and now via this Bill for consumer credit legislation. I do not advocate scrapping that model but I believe the time is right for re-examining Parliament’s oversight and the accountability of the regulators. The 2023 Bill initially provided for some additional oversight by the Treasury Select Committee in the other place but was amended during its passage to add what is now the Financial Services Regulation Committee of your Lordships’ House. I am a member of that committee, along with several other noble Lords present today, and I currently chair it.

These arrangements were designed to increase the accountability of the regulator, but I have to tell the Committee there remains a significant accountability deficit. Of more importance, committees of Parliament cannot and should not replace democratic oversight of the judgments made by the regulators. That is particularly important when we come to consumer credit law. The arrangement envisaged in the Bill passes to the FSA almost total responsibility for judging the complex balance between consumer protection and the need for innovation and competition in the market. Quite simply, that is not the right answer and Parliament needs more involvement.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, has some amendments to Schedule 1 that we will be debating in the next group, and I believe they are designed to alter the balance between Parliament and the regulators. I look forward to that debate, but that measure alone would not be enough because any reasonable approach to modernising consumer credit legislation will still involve significant delegations to the regulators. That is why we need to use the Bill to revisit the mechanisms for the accountability of the regulators.

At a later stage in our Committee, we will be reaching some important amendments designed to tackle that: the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, has a provision requiring a periodic independent review of the regulators, and my noble friend Lord Bridges of Headley has some amendments dealing with an office of financial regulatory accountability.

These issues of democratic oversight and regulatory accountability are unfinished business, and we must use the opportunity of the Bill to strengthen both and not sleepwalk into a situation where the regulators govern us rather than the other way around. We will be debating the accountability of the regulators again when we get to Clauses 16 and 17, when we reach the accountability amendments that I have just referenced.

Pension Schemes Bill

Debate between Baroness Neville-Rolfe and Baroness Noakes

Report stage
Thursday 19th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I am sorry for forgetting having agreed to that intervention.

In moving Amendment 105A, I will also speak to Amendments 114 and 115 in this group. I thank my noble friends Lady Stedman-Scott and Lady Neville-Rolfe for adding their names. In the previous group, we concentrated on size not being everything when determining which pension schemes will be allowed to live on after the consolidation enforced by the scale requirements. My noble friend’s Amendment 77, which the House has just agreed to, has modified the size test. However, even with that important change, the scale requirements will represent a major market intervention by the Government. It is the DC schemes market that I am addressing with these amendments.

My amendments focus on the role of competition and innovation. The one thing that we really need in the long term is a market that will continue to evolve and work for the interests of pension savers. The one thing that we do not need is a mature market consisting of a limited number of large players untroubled by the potential for market disruption. Mature markets can still be competitive and there would be incentives to innovation within a mature market, but that innovation tends to focus on incremental and often process-based improvement. The plain fact is that factors such as incumbent inertia and investment in legacy systems act as counterweights. Disruptive innovation is typically associated with new entrants that spot underserved markets, structural rigidities and the opportunities to harness technological breakthroughs. They do not all succeed but often end up reshaping mature markets, such as is happening with fintechs.

The rules that the Bill sets out for pension schemes must ensure that the benefits of competition and innovation, which ultimately deliver better returns for pension savers, are kept alive and well in the new pension scheme universe that the Bill will deliver. My Amendments 105A and 115 focus on the regulation-making powers surrounding the new scale requirements in Clause 40, and the new entrant and consolidation powers in Clauses 42 and 44. They would both require those making the regulations to have regard to

“the encouragement of innovation in the design and operation of pension schemes, and … the benefits of competition among providers of pension schemes”.

These regulation-making powers will be operated in part by the Secretary of State and in part by the FCA and the Pensions Regulator. The important thing is that, when deciding on the regulations, the person making them must keep competition and innovation in mind as relevant factors for shaping how the detailed rules are framed and will affect how the market develops over time. This is especially important in relation to the Pensions Regulator, whose statutory responsibilities are very narrowly drawn and do not extend to the pension provision market as such.

My other amendment in this group, Amendment 114, would add competition and innovation to the matters to be addressed by the review of non-scale default arrangements as required by Clause 43. I am currently minded to test the opinion of the House on the two amendments seeking to affect the regulation-making powers—Amendments 105A and 115. I beg to move.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 105A and the proposed new clause in the name of my noble friend Lady Noakes, to which I added my name. It is essential, in my view, to require the regulations to be pro-innovation and pro-competition rather than over-exclusionary. The £25 billion minimum provided for in the Government’s reforms seems set to deter innovation. My noble friend Lady Noakes has explained the case and the reach of our proposal very well, so I will not speak at length.

I was a trustee of the pension fund at Tesco, which at the time was worth less than £25 billion. We were innovative: we invested in private equity, including US private equity, when others did not, and we had part of our portfolio in housing—just the sort of innovation that the Chancellor is seeking to encourage. However, today that would not be seen as innovation. I am sure that my successors are looking at today’s innovative investments: fintech, quantum, space, rare earths, new types of weapons and other types of disruptive innovation. I have also been struck by the arrival in the pensions market of online-only operators. They started small, made good returns and are a growing part of the market.

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Debate between Baroness Neville-Rolfe and Baroness Noakes

Report stage
Tuesday 25th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to my amendments in this group and to Amendment 42 in the name of my noble friend Lady Lawlor.

One of the difficulties the House has faced in dealing with this Bill has been the Government’s refusal to provide official estimates of the effects they expect the proposals to have on the individual sectors of the economy where its effects are likely to be the most profound. When we discussed their assessment in Committee, the Minister referred us to the impact note published on 13 November 2024. But I am afraid it is a very limited document, with only five pages of substantive text and no detailed assessment of the impact of the national insurance charge on a number of very important areas. Given the harm this policy will have in the many sectors we have already discussed, it is vital that the Government assess this properly. So, as a second-best measure, we have suggested additions to the Bill requiring the Government to look at the various areas of concern and make an assessment of the effect of the NICs changes—including the employment allowance, which should of course limit the damage to the very smallest businesses.

My Amendment 38 would require a sector-by-sector analysis of the impacts of the Government’s jobs tax. I am very grateful to my noble friend Lady Noakes and the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, for supporting the amendment. It includes key areas that are adversely affected but that we have barely discussed today, notably hospitality, the creative industries and retail, whose challenges were starkly set out in Committee by my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Aspley Guise, with his unique experience of the sector.

Amendment 37 seeks to establish the Government’s view on the effect of the jobs tax on economic growth. We know that economic growth is the Chancellor’s number one policy, so I hope the Minister will be able to give the House some clarity on the Government’s expectations in this area. I also support my noble friend Lady Lawlor’s Amendment 42 and look forward to hearing from her.

We are very concerned about the Government’s failure to publish a full sector-by-sector impact assessment for this policy. I therefore intend to test the opinion of the House on my Amendment 38.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I have added my name to my noble friend’s amendment. We debated impact assessments several times in Committee and the Minister’s reply was always the same formula. It went along the lines of: “HMRC has published a tax information note”—which the rest of the Committee thought was wholly inadequate—“and the Government never do any more than this on tax legislation. The Government intend to do no more in respect of this Bill”. That was not a proper debate on impact assessments. The formula hardly changed over the four days we spent in Committee. The Minister eventually cited some precedents, but they were much smaller in scale and different in impact, and provided a precedent only really for the fact that the Treasury treats Parliament with contempt when it comes to providing full information on legislation. It is about time that Parliament stood up to the Treasury. I urge noble Lords to support my noble friend’s Amendment 38.