Commercial Payments Bill [HL]
Lord Holmes of Richmond ExcerptsTuesday 21st July 2026
(6 days, 16 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Commercial Payments Bill [HL] 2026-27 View all Commercial Payments Bill [HL] 2026-27 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 4–I Marshalled list for Committee - (17 Jul 2026)
“(1A) The purchaser must advise the supplier how the supplier should submit notice as set out in subsection (1).(1B) Where the purchaser fails to advise the supplier on how to submit notice, the supplier may rely on the notice commencing by submitting a written document (for example, a delivery notice or invoice) to the person requesting the goods or services within the purchaser’s business. (1C) The purchaser must adopt internal systems that recognise that the serving of notice commences at the point the supplier complies with subsections (1A) and (1B).”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to require the purchaser to give instructions as to how notice should be given. Where the purchaser gives no advice on notice, the supplier may rely on notice having been given by providing a delivery notice or invoice to the person within the purchaser’s business who is requesting the goods or services.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to start this Committee on the Commercial Payments Bill. In doing so, I declare my relevant technology interests as adviser to the Crown Estate and Simmons & Simmons LLP, and as non-executive director of the Avalanche Foundation and Avalanche (BVI) Inc. The Bill is incredibly significant, particularly for a small business or microbusiness which has found itself for far too long on the wrong end of late payments.
In many ways, my Amendments 1 and 9 in this group go to the very essence of the Bill. There is much that is significant in the Bill but, largely, all of it is subsequent to that fundamental point around the 60-day and 30-day payment periods. Everything else in the Bill is largely supportive of that reality, so this first group of amendments addresses the fact that it is critically important that the Bill is absolutely precise as to when the clock starts and ends. As the Bill is currently drafted, it is not only entirely possible but an actuality for thousands of businesses that they will be told that they will receive 60-day payment terms, when in reality the payment may not arrive within 60 days, 80 days, 100 days or up to 120 days. That will still be possible if the Bill remains in its current form. There needs to be greater precision about the start point and end point of that clock.
Amendment 1 in my name addresses that start point and suggests that the purchaser has to give clarity to the supplier about how they are to give notice. This is critical because at the moment time can disappear, with an invoice or other notice being given by the supplier in good faith only for them to find themselves bounced around that often larger business—this is not necessarily because it is gaming, although sometimes that is certainly the case, but because of its multidepartmental and multipoint nature—until that 60-day clock starts. Amendment 1 addresses this and would sharpen up how that notice period has to begin. If clarity is not provided, the amendment would give clarity in that the notice can be deemed to have been given by the provider of the product by means of a recognised document that anybody in business would recognise—the obvious one being an invoice.
Similarly, Amendment 9 goes to the issue of verification. It would stop, as a consequence of the Bill, verification being used to expand or extend terms other than what the Bill seeks to achieve. Together, the amendments look at the start point of the clock and would give the precision required to stop days going by before day one is triggered. We will come to amendments in later groups about effective precision around ending the clock, but these amendments, particularly Amendment 1, would give the precision required for all involved to know that day one means day one. I look forward to the debate and the Minister’s response. I beg to move.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 10 in my name. Before that, I commend the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, on Amendments 1 and 9. These seem to be eminently sensible suggestions. I wonder whether, if the Small Business Commissioner makes very clear their view on when the clock starts ticking, that would make it very clear should any dispute become necessary. At the very least, there needs to be clarity from the Small Business Commissioner if these amendments are not accepted.
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe, Lord Hunt and Lord Leigh, for their support of Amendment 10. The intention of the amendment is clear. Increasingly, economic activity is switching from familiar structures and supply chains to one where businesses market their goods and services via third-party marketplaces and intermediaries, and where the subsequent payment goes back through those intermediaries. The amendment would bring such marketplaces and intermediaries into the context of the Bill by providing that payment is not treated as made to a supplier until the supplier actually receives the money, by requiring any intermediary that collects on a supplier’s behalf to pay it within seven days, regardless of how the intermediary is legally categorised.
I think this is a fair change, though I am sure that there will be resistance from the sector. The focus may well be on the time needed by the intermediary to make the payment to the vendor. A distinction may have to be made between when an intermediary has control of the goods in a warehouse and when it is purely acting as an agent. I am happy to have a discussion and debate about this, and there may be ways in which this can be dealt with. However, it would be very remiss for the legislation to leave your Lordships’ House without any provision, either primary or secondary, for the Small Business Commissioner to have or take the power to bring intermediaries into the remit of the Bill.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate and the Minister for his response. Amendment 1 is not seeking to be overly prescriptive but merely to be clear. While I understand the Minister’s points, there is still a gap in the middle with the provisions if Amendment 1 or Amendment 9 are not accepted, with possibly too much space where the purposes and provisions that the Bill seeks to achieve may not come to pass. However, for the time being, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 1.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to make the maximum payment period 30 days, instead of 60 days, where the purchaser is not a public authority.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, there is a wonderful structure to the groupings so far. Group 1 started with Amendment 1 and group 2 starts with Amendment 2—we are all following so far. In moving Amendment 2, in my name, I will speak to Amendment 7.
Amendment 2 is simply a probing amendment and seeks to suggest 30 days as the period—period. There would be no sense of different payment periods. It would be 30 days, be you a local authority or not. In no sense am I expecting this to be accepted into the Bill. My purpose in tabling the amendment is to test where the thinking is on bringing those positions closer together over time. Ultimately, as we will come to in later groups, the potential is that, through smart contracts and fintech solutions, it will be possible to have all the terms set out. Once they are satisfied, atomic settlement automatically occurs by virtue of that smart contract and payment is instant.
Now, we are not there. On that journey, accessibility and inclusion, not least digital inclusion, need to be at the fore, and alternative means always need to be in the mix. However, as that is entirely possible today, 60 days seems somewhat old-fashioned in the light of what is already possible. It is fair to try to get all to the 60-day point because, as noble Lords will know, and as smaller micro entities out there will know even more painfully, oftentimes it is double that, never mind 60 days, if not more. However, I am interested in the Government’s plans to bring 60 through 45 to 30 on a continuing route, and to keep reducing that, because 60 is still far too long. In most instances even today, it is not justifiable or necessary.
Amendment 7 goes to the point of stopping the clock to have some greater precision as to what the end point is of that 60 or 30 days. I have used “unencumbered” funds as a proxy for that. It is not suggesting that this is the best or only measure, but there is a need for a more precise measure and to put in practical terms what this means for the service provider. If 60 days is always extended at the outset and then potentially stretched at the end, so that the funds finally get telegraphed only on the final day, there are a number of days for those funds to be unencumbered in that business’s account. But that is not 60 days. I appreciate that there are difficulties in trying to then work out what is standard practice for various financial service institutions to clear their funds. However, there are industry standards which could be considered, if not included, in that 60-day period. I look forward to the debate and to the Minister’s response. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
I advise the Committee that if this amendment is agreed to I will be unable to call Amendments 3 to 5 for reasons of pre-emption.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions and amendments in this group. The Government share the objective of fair payment rules and are committed to ensuring that businesses, especially SMEs, are paid promptly. The 60-day period was set following extensive consultation with industry, with more than 850 responses across all sectors and business sizes. The Government consider the 60-day cap to be a balanced and proportionate approach.
As I mentioned at Second Reading, there is no reason why businesses cannot pay before 60 days and I think most do. I am sure that noble Lords here who have businesses pay much earlier than 30 days; the Department for Business and Trade—now called the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade—pays 99% of its bills within 30 days. We are trying to encourage behavioural and cultural change, and 60 days is a maximum. I am sure that most businesses pay within that period.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
Does the Minister have an analysis of the various levels and sizes of the entities that responded to the consultation, married to the length of time that they sought? If he does not have it at his fingertips, he could write. In effect, does the research show an interesting picture about which size of entities were asking for which length of payment period?
Lord Leong (Lab)
I am sure we do; I will speak to officials and make sure I share that information with all noble Lords.
This represents a significant strengthening of existing law, where payment terms of more than 60 days are often imposed on suppliers. Some smaller businesses argue that 60 days remains too long, while some larger businesses express concerns about the impact of maximum payment terms on working capital and established commercial arrangements. The 60-day period therefore represents a carefully considered balance between those competing concerns.
Amendments 2 and 11 would reduce payment periods either by creating a statutory expectation that the maximum period will be tightened in future or by reducing the cap for non-public authority purchasers to 30 days. Reducing the maximum period to 45 or 30 days may not work effectively across all sectors, particularly those with complex supply chains. Amendments 3 and 5 would move in the opposite direction, extending the maximum period to 35 days for public authorities and 65 days for other purchasers. The Government cannot support these changes either. The Bill’s 30-day period for public authorities is aligned with wider public procurement rules; extending those periods would weaken the Bill’s ambition and delay payments to suppliers, including small businesses.
Amendment 7, in seeking to define payment more clearly by reference to funds being received, could result in purchasers that have done their best to pay on time being punished for issues that are out of their control—for example, when a payment instruction has been made on time by the purchaser but is subsequently delayed by banking processes outside the purchaser’s control. The Government believe that the Bill provides sufficient clarity and improvement of payment practices, taking into account the need for businesses’ flexibility on how payments are made.
Lord Leong (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for bringing that specific example. I need to be very specific about this, because it refers to a particular organisation; I need to get my facts correct and will write to him.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who participated in this debate and tabled amendments, and I thank the Minister for his response. It was already clear but is particularly so with that final exchange: the SAR provisions are particularly significant and could barely be more up to the minute, timely, and in need of serious consideration to ensure that they are got right. As my noble friend Lord Leigh pointed out, it is a very specific and very different situation to that of almost all creditors in those circumstances.
I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for his example of going to a hot country for 645 days; it is not clear whether the term was only 60 days when he went there but he liked it so much that an additional 585 days were added to the term. It is also fantastic to have the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, on the bus for the Bill.
I think we will be coming back to some of these issues on Report, and between Committee and then— particularly those pertaining to SAR situations, to stress it again. For now, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment 2.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to introduce group 4, which primarily covers the important issue of the definitions of different sized businesses. Before I open that debate, I will touch on the other amendments in this group.
Amendment 18, which was signed by my noble friends Lord Hunt of Wirral and Lord Holmes of Richmond, probes the expected impact of exempting upward payments from the new payment terms. As a preliminary question, what economic impact do the Government specifically consider new Section 2E(2) will have? The Government’s argument is that the Bill will prevent the late payments that cost the United Kingdom £11 billion and cost small businesses almost eight days a year in chasing overdue invoices, yet they are exempting upward payments, including those from micro and sole undertakings, to small businesses. I understand that smaller businesses often appear more vulnerable and will often have tighter margins and a smaller cash flow, but that does not mean that the supplier, especially if it is also a small business, can necessarily take the hit of an indefinite or delayed payment term.
More broadly, the purchaser almost always has the power in a contractual agreement. They are the ones who hold the capital. Exempting upward payments merely because the purchaser is smaller will exempt contracts that really should fall under the scope of the Bill.
That brings me to the most long-standing issue this group addresses, which is the definition of businesses. There are currently at least six different definitions in law of business sizes. There are the Companies Act 2006, the Enterprise Act 2016, and the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015. Standard settlers use the definition “less complex entities”, while this Bill uses the Procurement Act 2023, alongside giving the Secretary of State powers to make definitions.
We are not arguing that discretion is not needed in separate areas of policy, but it is widely thought that we have reached the point of confusion. At the very least, any new definition created under this Bill should not differ from any pre-established definition; that is the argument that Amendment 22 is attempting to make.
In a more ideal scenario, Amendments 20, 21, 23 and 101 attempt to offer a new standardised definition of business sizes that we believe more accurately represents the nature of today’s economy. Currently, the most used definitions in the Companies Act use a numerical number of employees as a factor in defining the size of a business. The amendments in my name, alongside those of my noble friends Lord Hunt of Wirral and Lord Holmes of Richmond, aim to replace this nominal headcount with a full-time equivalent number of employees.
I offer just one important example of the importance of this change. In doing so, I thank UKHospitality for its campaign on this issue. Members of the hospitality industry often hire more than the threshold 50 or 250 employees at their venues or events, but do so on shorter, low-hours contracts. While they may therefore have an employee count well over the threshold, it often does not reflect the amount of work that is being done by these employees. We believe that the Government should be able to offer a more nuanced system that more accurately reflects the amount of labour that a business employs.
Finally, exacerbating this amalgam of definitions is the lack of public information about which business falls where. Restricting the definitions of businesses is important, but I pre-empt that the Minister will argue that this Bill is not the vehicle for that discussion. In a sense, he is quite right. Under new subsection (7) in Clause 3, the Secretary of State could define small businesses as those with £100 million turnover. It would not matter if businesses did not know which partners fell under this definition. This is hyperbole, but it illustrates the point that, without some form of database through which businesses can see who falls under which payment term in this Bill, definitions have little meaning. At the very least, businesses will be forced to complete the administrative work themselves.
In speaking to industry representatives in preparation for this Bill, there has been general consensus that Companies House is not fulfilling this role. The Bill aims to create more symmetry between different-sized businesses, yet that cannot be achieved if there is obscure or asymmetrical information. Can the Minister confirm today that he will look into the efficacy of Companies House and, if need be, provide additional support for businesses so they do not have the burden of defining businesses themselves placed upon them? I beg to move.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Sharpe, having signed all the amendments in his name. There are two key principles at stake here, as he eloquently set out: first, not to introduce yet another definition and, secondly, to take the opportunity to bring some clarity, consistency and coherence of definition. This would not just be beneficial for this Bill but have benefits far beyond it. As he rightly set out, this Bill may not be the place for that second objective. It is obviously the place for the first but, if it is not the place for the second, it would certainly seem to provide the right level of focus and spotlight to enable the department to look at this and bring forward plans to have definitions and classifications that are clear and consistent but also provide what anybody in whatever size of business they are involved with needs. So those definitions are useful.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, brought up a number of important issues, but I do not think he brought up any viable solutions. He spoke at the beginning about the proliferation of definitions, then sought to add to that proliferation with some new definitions.
He is right that some level of consistency should be required. For the purposes of this Bill, that consistency has to come from the purchasing Act 2023, unless that is not available. However, the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, is that there should be a more concerted effort in another place to get meaningful definitions of business sizes. The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, made a point on the ease of determining those definitions. As the noble Lord, Lord Leong, will know, I am always keen to have a look at Companies House and see how it is doing. It has an important role in a number of different areas; this is just one. A progress report on Companies House when we get back would not be amiss.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as chairman of the board that advises the International Centre for Digital Trade and Innovation. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, for his support in this, and for the time that the Minister and his officials afforded to discuss it.
I set out at Second Reading the background to this amendment and how it fits entirely with the implementation of the Electronic Trade Documents Act and our participation and lead in the international moves to move payments out of the 13th century, or modifications since then, into the 21st century. I am sure no one needs to be reminded how conservative—with a small “c”—processes in business are. They need something to move them, and what I propose would help to do so.
There can be no doubt that using electronic documents and payment systems is entirely consistent with the purpose of the Bill, in that it speeds up payment. If the system can be made to work for international trade, the Bill should not exclude international trade. We are at heart a nation of tradesmen and therefore we should be encouraging trade.
I spoke of the many advantages of the Bill, but there are only two that I need mention now. The first is that we are also, as the change in the name of the Minister’s department indicates, a nation intent on innovation. This is where I think, and I encourage people to see this, we are moving. The second is to mention that this is entirely consistent with the plans to move to e-invoicing on 1 April 2029. I mention that date because it is in the amendment.
I accept that we are not in a position today to make people pay within 30 or 60 days for international trade but there is no reason why we cannot do it in two years’ time, particularly with the new department. So the amendment is designed simply to leave the policy statement in the King’s Speech and the provision for making future regulations to exclude trade, as that is okay for now, but to set a withdrawal period. The Minister is bound to say, “You can trust us in the department. When things are ready, we’ll move there”, but unfortunately we all—businessmen particularly—need to be prodded. It took centuries for people to move away from using bills of lading in three sets rather than one, despite there being no earthly purpose to it. I therefore believe that we need something in the Bill to force the move to digitalisation. Now that the department has the word “innovation” in its name, let us hope that it can do that.
The Minister may not be terribly fired up by his officials to do this, and I will always welcome other suggestions, but we must have a policy for implementation. That is not my primary purpose but I hope that at least that could be offered as a consolation prize. I therefore beg to move.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my friend, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, and the excellent and eloquent way in which he introduced his amendment, which I was delighted to sign. As he rightly pointed out, this could be seen as the absolute premier DBIST amendment. It goes to the heart of what the department is. It has business and innovation at its very heart, and it would make complete sense for the department to pass it before Ministers have even changed the stationery in their various departmental boxes.
It was a pleasure to serve under the chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord as he chaired the Special Public Bill Committee on the then Electronic Trade Documents Bill. I variously described the Bill as
“the most important Bill that no one has ever heard of”.—[Official Report, 19/7/23; col. 2326.]
and the blockchain Bill that rightly never mentions blockchain. It was perfect in its two-page shortness—perfect, in that it never mentioned any specific technology. It merely set out criteria that any technology would have to meet to perfect an electronic trade document. When we talk about electronic trade documents, we are talking about economic, environmental and social benefits and, for the purposes of this Bill, payments efficiency and payments benefits.
The ability to combine everything in an electronic digital format is possible only because of the criteria that blockchain and distributed ledger technology allows to have a possessory document—that is, if you hold the document, you hold the goods. Only through those technologies is it possible to thus have those possessory documents in electronic form. This would be good for payment but it would also be good for UK trade. There is currently a huge trade finance deficit painfully suffered by many businesses already involved in trade but, perhaps even more significantly, by all those tens of thousands of businesses that currently do not trade internationally but could. The provisions in this amendment really highlight that opportunity.
As the amendment so clearly sets out, international trade should be within the purview of this Bill and, in many ways, this lays the groundwork for many of the technology amendments which we will come to later this evening. It makes the point about what is possible today without insisting that it has to be used and come into force on the date the statute comes into force. By being in the statute, with the time period as set out in the amendment, it states the case clearly. It provides the time for adoption but really speaks to the possibility and, largely, the economic opportunities for all those businesses, particularly small and micro-businesses, which could avail themselves of all the benefits of international trade.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, very briefly, this would seem to be the perfect amendment for the Minister to accept. As pointed out, it signals an innovative forward direction for the new department, it utilises complex legislation that has already happened, it does not cost anything, and nothing will happen for two years—perfect.
“(3) Statutory interest is to be remitted to the supplier within five working days of payment of the invoices.(4) “Remitted” in subsection (3) means the point at which the supplier has unequivocal and unencumbered use of cleared funds remitted by the buyer.(5) Where statutory interest is not paid in accordance with subsection (3) the non-payment of statutory interest incurred in accordance with the period for which statutory interest runs in CPILPA 1998 will constitute a qualifying debt in the sum of the statutory interest, and will thus incur statutory interest on the unpaid original statutory interest. (6) Where statutory interest is not paid in accordance with subsection (3) it will be deemed late and be subject to the provisions relating to compensation arising out of late payment.(7) Where statutory interest is to be paid in accordance with subsection (3) and it has not been paid, the directors must write to the Small Business Commissioner stating the reasons for non-payment.”Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment seeks to require the buyer to calculate and pay interest so as not to disrupt the buyer-supplier relationship.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, I look forward to the debate on this group. Amendment 24 is incredibly straightforward. It requires that the purchaser calculates the interest and makes the payment in all circumstances because they have the means and the resources and are in the position to do such. In doing that, it does not just lead to an efficient process; crucially, it means that the relationship between the parties is maintained and not adversely affected as a consequence of these provisions. I beg to move.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond for this amendment. I am sorry that noble Lords have caught me eating a toffee, which was a terrible error.
The ability to charge statutory interest on late payments was established by the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998. That Act, however, introduced that right only as a right to charge, which many businesses may choose not to exercise out of fear of damaging commercial relationships or losing out on contracts. With this Bill, statutory interest becomes an implied mandatory term of a commercial contract. Therefore, the interest will accrue automatically on overdue payments and the burden will not fall on the suppliers to claim that interest.
The amendment from my noble friend seeks to ensure that late payment interest is paid to a supplier within five working days. It further provides that where statutory interest is not paid within that timeframe, the unpaid interest will itself form a part of the qualifying debt and therefore be liable to a further charge of statutory interest. While we support this policy, we must ensure that businesses, particularly SMEs, are given adequate time to adapt to the new regulations.
The impact assessment recognises that small and medium-sized businesses will shoulder
“a higher proportion of net costs”
associated with this policy. It further states:
“The policy does not create specific mitigations for SMEs, rather information will be provided to all business, to support their understanding and complying with the new policy requirements, in line with previous guidance issued on statutory interest”.
Those words might not be particularly comforting for many small businesses that are already struggling. Might I suggest that the Government do a little more to explain precisely how they will support those businesses? What kinds of information will they provide?
I have tabled an amendment to the commencement clause of the Bill, to be debated later, which would prevent that clause being brought into force for one year. That is the kind of measure that will give businesses the time to adapt, understand the new guidance and prepare for the new regime. I hope that when we come to debate that amendment, the Minister will give it serious consideration.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, for this amendment. I understand the concern that statutory interest is not always claimed or paid in practice, and I agree that it is important to find ways to make the systems work better for suppliers. However, the Bill already strikes the right balance. It strengthens the existing framework by making the right to statutory interest universal, ensuring it cannot be contracted out of, and underpinning it with significantly stronger enforcement and transparency. This signifies a significant advancement, transitioning from a system where the right exists, but remains underutilised, to one where all suppliers are explicitly entitled to it and are supported in its enforcement.
This amendment would go further by introducing rigid and prescriptive requirements that risk undermining the balanced approach. A fixed five-day deadline for the payment of interest does not accurately reflect the practical realities of commercial and accounting practices and processes; it may pose a risk of technical breach to businesses that are otherwise compliant. The proposed definition of payment as an
“unequivocal and unencumbered use of cleared funds”
could lead to legal and operational uncertainties, diverting attention from timely payment to technical disagreements over banking procedures.
Additionally, classifying unpaid interest as new qualifying debt, which then accumulates more interest, risks creating disproportionately large and growing liabilities. The obligation for directors to report instances of non-payment to the Small Business Commissioner would also introduce supplementary administrative burdens, without a distinct enforcement advantage beyond the provisions already established in the Bill.
Taken together, these provisions risk creating complexity and uncertainty, rather than improving payment outcomes in practice. The Bill aims to enhance behaviour by establishing clear rights, enforceability and robust oversight, rather than specifying detailed operational rules in primary legislation. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Sharpe and the Minister for their comments in this short debate. In spite of the Minister’s comments—I particularly appreciate his comments on the five-day period—there is a principle at the heart of this, which is worth exploring between Committee and Report. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and to start with his Amendment 93, which I was delighted to co-sign. As he stated in finishing, it goes to the heart of this issue. A lot is being asked of an organisation that is currently small and obviously not set up to perform the tasks that are being asked of it by the Bill, as it is currently structured. To not have clarity as to what provisions are going to be put in place, while putting the obligations on the commissioner, does not seem to be the right way to get optimal results from this.
As the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said, there are a number of examples where regulators and other bodies have been given packages that sit alongside the obligations required of them from previous Bills that we have all worked on. So there is nothing extraordinary or unusual about this. It is critical to have sight of that before having a sense of the likelihood of success or, indeed, of what other route we may choose to take with amendments when we come to Report.
I support the principles behind all the amendments in the group. In many ways, they are all in pursuit of clarity and precision. We heard in earlier debates that certain phrases and sections of the Bill were need of precision. We see it again with some of the key phrases here. I support all these amendments. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, we now come, as my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral said, to the heart of the Bill, as far as I am concerned. For many, it is the most important part. I have tabled a number of amendments, starting with Amendment 62. As my noble friend said, it seems only sensible that if the Small Business Commissioner has decided not to adjudicate, she should set out in writing the reasons why. The particular emphasis on this is to understand whether that is because of a lack of resources within the commissioner’s office. If that is the case, we want to know, so that we can push harder for proper funding for the office. I hope the Minister regards the amendments in this group as being constructive. They reflect feedback from the world of business.
In respect of my Amendment 75, I think it is reasonable to push the Government to be more specific and explain what they mean by
“a sufficient number of occasions”.
It is, bluntly, fairly meaningless and extremely woolly as is, as my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral has indicated. There is no point giving us a number; it has to be a number in a certain period and perhaps quantified as well.
To be honest, I am not entirely happy with new Sections 2K and 2L, as amendments to Section 2 of the Enterprise Act 2016, as mentioned in Clause 19, headed “Publication directions” and “Enforcement directions and financial penalties for non-compliance”. The Bill does not specify all that might be required of a company. It gives examples in new Section 2L(2). Indeed, it actually rules out a larger business being required to publish information or make payments or comply with a decision given in legal proceedings, but I would like to see some greater powers here.
Therefore, I ask the Minister to have another look at new Sections 2K and 2L and perhaps, over the summer months, consider with us what might be included within “enforcement directions”. For example, I have in mind that a company that is in breach of late payments best practices should not be given government contracts. Has that been considered at all by the Government? It seems an obvious point that if there is a serious breach and a company is constantly paying late, why would the Government want to give it any contracts at all? That would bite and force companies to think again. It may be that the Government have this in mind but do not have it in legislation, and want to do it through regulation or something, but it would be helpful to hear from the Minister, now or later, his views on that.
In my view, a solution is that the guilty company should be given the cold shoulder by the Government and, indeed, the wider business community. To be given the cold shoulder is difficult to define, although it is used in the City, as the Minister knows, in the Takeover Code—it is very rarely applied, but with great effect. For example, I would be extremely disappointed to see the chairman of a company that consistently practises poor late payment policies be given any sort of honour or award. It may be difficult to put that into legislation, but the Minister might indicate to us his views on that, and there might be from the Dispatch Box, now or later, comfort given to us that the Government will not look kindly on such companies and will take such steps as are necessary to push them along.
We have quite a long time until Report, and indeed there will be, as I understand it, a new Minister in the other place. I hope that the Minister in this House, who I am confident and hopeful will be in his seat when we return, might invite participation and agree some further amendments to this part of the Bill.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, my Amendment 58 comes out of discussions I have had with SMEs which are supplying much larger companies. I raised this at Second Reading and have now tabled this amendment to reflect that discussion. It may not be the most important to some, but I feel strongly that this issue needs to be addressed. To the extent that it can be addressed in this Bill, through these amendments, that is great, but it is part of a wider issue which the Government should look at.
Many SMEs that I talk to—and they will not put their head above the parapet and say so publicly—are spending significant time and resources assisting larger companies to fulfil their ESG ambitions. Whether or not it is obligatory, they still find themselves having to do it. What does that mean in practice? It means that they have to go on courses and webinars and fill out forms, all of which are completely vanilla, bland and meaningless, but tick a box for a larger company to say that, yes, it has gone through its supply chain to ensure that it is performing to the same standards and way of doing business as they are. It is detrimental to so many small businesses. Can a company that employs only six people be expected to have a diversity policy that is meaningful? What if all six are women? Good luck to it, but should that company be punished? It might be encouraged, but if all six are male then there would be a sharp intake of breath and a cross on the ESG form.
It is the same for small businesses having to analyse their travel activities and the amount of water that they use in their enterprise. We are talking about businesses where staff sit in an office in a building where the only water that gets used is in the facilities and the roof, but they have to fill out the form telling someone how much water they use. It is a complete and utter waste and abuse of their time, but nobody is standing up for SMEs and saying, “Up with this we will not put”.
I hope that the Government take this siren warning and pick up this issue elsewhere. In the context of this Bill, my concern is that, at some point, larger companies might wish to withhold or defer payments to suppliers whom they regard as being unhelpful to them in their ESG drive. I have no evidence of this happening but want to prevent it happening and to raise the issue for a wider debate within what is now, I think, the BIST team. I am sure that the Government can see the point and hope that they will consider it.
Although I like very many of my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond’s amendments, as always I am nervous about legislation that requires more disclosure in companies’ accounts. The average FTSE 100 company annual report has—are you ready for this?—97,000 words. I hope that we do not legislate to make them put more words in those reports, partly because nobody reads them and they are huge documents when printed out. I challenge anybody to say that they have read the annual report of any FTSE 100 company in full. They are expensive to produce and are read increasingly infrequently. I beg to move.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley. My amendments in this group largely fit into support and assistance for the small businesses that need to be put in a position to avail themselves of these new provisions from the SBC.
We will come to it in the next group, but it is clear, as my noble friend somewhat alluded to, that this will produce potentially a lot of data which goes nowhere, is of no benefit and is not used to drive any change whatever. But given the nature of the requirements currently set out in the Bill, that data will be produced. Therefore, it seems helpful to look at the various categories of small business and the equalities issues there. Since that data will be part of the collection in any event, having that angle on it will show what targeted support could come from the SBC to support those businesses to better avail themselves of the services. A small business payments charter would be a good focal point for the provisions set out in this Bill, to ensure that those it is aimed at are aware of it and enabled and empowered to make use of it, as and when they need it.
“Digital access to SBC adjudication schemeAfter section 2G of the Enterprise Act 2016 (inserted by section 18), insert—“2H Digital access to SBC adjudication scheme(1) The Commissioner must, within 12 months of the day on which this section comes into force, provide a digital service to assist small businesses in accessing the SBC adjudication scheme.(2) The digital service provided under subsection (1) must include—(a) a plain-language eligibility checker enabling a small business to determine whether a relevant payment dispute may be referred to the scheme,(b) a statutory interest calculator enabling a small business to calculate the interest owed under the Commercial Payments and Interest on Late Payment Act 1998, and(c) guided assistance in completing a referral to the scheme, using natural language processing or equivalent technology where appropriate.(3 The Commissioner must ensure that the digital service—(a) meets the accessibility requirements set out in the Public Sector Bodies (Websites and Mobile Applications) Accessibility Regulations 2018 (S.I. 2018/952), and(b) is available in accessible formats including voice interface.(4) The Commissioner must maintain non-digital alternatives to each element of the service provided under subsection (1), to ensure that small businesses that are unable to use digital services are not disadvantaged in accessing the scheme.”” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Commissioner to provide a plain-language digital pathway into the SBC adjudication scheme, including an eligibility checker, interest calculator, and guided referral process.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to open this group of amendments. It is time to talk technology. Before going into the specifics of the amendments, I will set out the overarching reasons for this group.
As we have heard, the SBC does extremely good work, but the resources that she currently has available are chronically insufficient for the task that is being asked of her. The Minister said in a previous response that discussions are already happening around staffing and resource. That is good, and we wait to see the outcome, but what is critical in those discussions is the question of the right mix of staffing and technologies. Even if the resource is put in, without the right mix of technologies and staffing the SBC will not have any chance whatever of optimising her task when it comes to what the Bill requires of her.
Another reason for these amendments is the Government’s current posture when it comes to artificial intelligence. This may be up for change, and I certainly hope it is; the announcement of an AI Minister to be in Cabinet can be only a positive thing. Currently, however, the Government’s stance on AI is not to bring forward cross-sector AI legislation. This is not a party-political point; the previous Government took the same position. What is said is that the Government will take a domain-specific approach when it comes to artificial intelligence. So here we are: we have a domain. It seems right, appropriate and beneficial to bring forward AI amendments specific to commercial payments.
Amendment 73 would introduce a digital access pathway into the services of the SBC. It should be seen with amendments in the previous group. It is critically important to have digital access, but this must be seen with accessibility of the digital tools themselves while providing non-digital alternatives. Equally, a digital access pathway would enable the commissioner to better perform her tasks, and would enable greater efficiency and effectiveness for small businesses to get involved with the processes as and when they need to do so.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who took part in this debate. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, not just on the specifics of Amendment 78, I am always 100% in agreement with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd. That is a good place to be. Despite the noble and learned Lord’s slight downer today on lawyers, I am happy to think that it is good to be alongside an ex-Lord Chief Justice. So I very much agree and would make the same point on Amendment 78.
I thank the Minister for his response. There are some principles that we can return to on Report but, for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Financial Services and Markets Bill [HL]
Lord Holmes of Richmond ExcerptsMonday 6th July 2026
(3 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Financial Services and Markets Bill [HL] 2026-27 View all Financial Services and Markets Bill [HL] 2026-27 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 5-V(b) Amendments for Grand Committee (Supplementary to the Fifth Marshalled List) - (6 Jul 2026)
“Digital operational resilience of regulated firms(1) The FCA and the PRA must each make rules requiring authorised persons to meet minimum standards of digital operational resilience, including standards relating to—(a) ICT risk management frameworks appropriate to the nature, scale, and complexity of the authorised person's operations;(b) classification, reporting, and remediation of major ICT-related incidents, including cyber attacks, within timeframes to be specified by the regulator;(c) oversight and contractual requirements for third-party ICT service providers, including cloud service providers and critical technology suppliers; (d) regular digital operational resilience testing, including advanced threat-led penetration testing for systemically significant firms.(2) In making rules under subsection (1), the FCA and PRA must have regard to—(a) the need for proportionality with respect to the size and systemic importance of authorised persons;(b) international standards and frameworks, including those adopted by the European Union;(c) the need to avoid duplication with existing regulatory requirements.(3) The FCA must publish a consolidated digital operational resilience framework within 18 months of this Act coming into force, setting out how requirements under this section interact with existing obligations on authorised persons.(4) The FCA and PRA must review rules made under this section no later than every 12 months.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to require the FCA to make rules in relation to the digital operational resilience of financial services firms.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to open day 5 of Committee on the Financial Services and Markets Bill. In moving Amendment 130, which is in my name, I will also speak to Amendments 131 and 168. This is the latest round of AI and technology amendments to the Bill. It is a Bill that is curiously silent on these subjects. At least today there is something timely about my intervention in that, as I am on my feet, across town Sheldon Mills is launching his review into artificial intelligence in financial services—more of which presently.
Amendment 130 seeks to require financial services firms to have regard to all the issues around digital and operational resilience across all their activities. I know that the Minister in his response will refer to the cyber resilience Bill, which is coming to your Lordships’ House in a fortnight. Indeed, there is much in that Bill to commend. But in consideration of the significant impact and position of financial services in the UK economy, I believe that it would be helpful to have something about digital and operational resilience in this Bill.
We are not just talking about foreign states or negative acts from international adversaries; we are talking about issues around supply chain, third-party overreliance and concentration risk on particular providers—for example, in the cloud. Circumstances change and financial services institutions, believing that things will always be as they are, may find themselves extraordinarily exposed by the flick of a switch with perhaps only 90 minutes’ notice. I ask the Minister to consider this when he responds and state, in respect of financial service institutions’ significant contribution and place in the UK economy, whether he agrees that clauses in the Bill pertaining directly to these subjects would be helpful in our endeavours.
Amendments 131 and 168 are on artificial intelligence. Certainly, some of these concepts are covered in Sheldon Mills’ review. Given the proliferation and already deep penetration of artificial intelligence into financial services institutions—and, indeed, its use by not only sophisticated but retail and individual investors—will the Minister not agree that considering AI, not just in these clauses but throughout the Bill, would be beneficial to all those involved in financial services? When we say, “all those involved in financial services”, we could just as easily say “everybody”. The principles are clearly set out in Amendment 131, which takes us to the issue that I have raised on previous days around the Government’s approach to artificial intelligence. As stated, that is a domain-by-domain approach, yet there is nothing currently within this Bill.
Amendment 168 returns to an issue of which colleagues will be well aware, because I raised it when we deliberated on the Financial Services Act 2021 and FSMA 2023. That is to have an officer responsible for AI in all financial services institutions that develop, deploy and use AI—in other words, pretty much all financial services institutions. This is not cumbersome; it is not about compliance and it is certainly not about putting burdens on smaller firms—the proportionality principle would mean that we would be talking about a function rather than an individual—nor is this about delegation or abdication of the board’s responsibility, or indeed the senior managers’ responsibility, to the business. This is about having a point person: somebody who can orchestrate, who can co-ordinate and who can have that crucial horizontal view across an organisation, to assist internally and indeed present externally as to how AI is being used and deployed, for the benefit both of AI use internally and of customers.
To conclude, without having clauses on AI in the Bill, I believe that the legislation will be chronically insufficient for the challenges of our time. That is not the challenges of next year or five years’ time: AI is already impacting financial services right now. To give one example, how can we consider the consumer duty without considering how AI impacts on all elements of that? The Mills review has much good in it, but this legislation is before us today, and I believe that we have an opportunity to thread AI through it for the benefit of individuals, of institutions, of all of our financial services and, through that, of the entire economy of the United Kingdom. I look forward to the Minister’s response. I beg to move.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I was delighted when I saw that the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, had put down these amendments, because it is so apparent, as he has clearly stated, that the whole issue of digital and AI is missing from this Bill. Because of the pace of change and the impact—and strength of the impact—across all our financial services, this is an issue that has to be dealt with and grasped with some sense of urgency.
Like the noble Lord, I have been very interested in the Mills review, although, as it was published today, I have only had time to skim its summaries and some of the newspaper references to it. It is clear that, certainly from Sheldon Mills’ perspective—I think that most of us have, one way or another, dealt with Sheldon Mills over the years and very much respect his judgment—the FCA may well be short of relevant powers in dealing with AI. He noted particularly a lack of powers under the critical third-parties regime, which made sense to me. In his recommendations, he also raised issues around the regulatory perimeter, another area that we have raised on more than one occasion.
In recent years, it has not been uncommon—though I dread it—for the Government to present on Report amendments that deal with an area that has been missed from the body of a Bill in Committee. On this Bill, that would allow a period of thought and the opportunity to absorb and consider what is presented in the Mills review. Since financial services Bills do not come around that often, I very much hope that the Minister will seriously consider taking advantage of the Bill to get those kinds of protections in place. If he fails to do that, we might collectively have to come forward with something on Report. Frankly, given the intricacy, detail and complexity, this is an area where the Government coming forward with an answer would, I think, be welcomed across the House and very much, I hope, within the spirit and theme of the amendments presented by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate and the Minister for his response. I look forward to reading the Mills review in further detail and seeing where we take these issues between Committee and Report. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, this group is really two separate groups as far as I can see, and I am not quite sure why they have been lumped together. One is on operational readiness and the other is on the different treatment of wholesale and retail activities. I will add my support briefly to the principles behind the latter, on wholesale and retail activities, and to Amendments 142A and 142C, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Ashcombe. These bring us back to proportionality, which we have debated a number of times. The Minister can probably see a few themes coming through, and proportionality is definitely one.
In this case, the question is whether the regulators treat wholesale businesses with no retail customer exposure proportionately. By definition, wholesale businesses are dealing with sophisticated customers on a much more equal basis. It cannot be controversial to suggest that the regulation of these businesses could be lighter touch than for those dealing with retail customers.
The report of the Financial Services Regulation Committee on the secondary competitiveness and growth objective gave a number of examples where it appears that the FCA may not be doing enough to differentiate between these two parts of the market, while recognising that this is not always a clearly defined black and white boundary. Howard Davies put it well in his witness evidence:
“In wholesale markets, you are aiming to produce a fair contest, whereas in the retail markets you know it is not a fair contest because there is a significant information asymmetry problem between the consumer and the firm”.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, quoted the committee’s conclusion on this matter, so I will not repeat that. Whether this means that we need a separate wholesale markets and firms division within the FCA, as the amendments propose, is debatable, but I will be interested to hear how the Minister proposes to ensure that businesses that are primarily or wholly wholesale in operation are regulated proportionally.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendments 142A and 142C from my colleagues, the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Ashcombe. As has been said, this can be summed up in one word: proportionality. We have debated these themes on previous days in Committee and they are still as strong as they were when we mentioned them on day one. To “proportionality” I would add “specificity” and “applicability” because, without making this critical distinction—though difficult in some of the marginal cases—we are effectively saying that rules apply across the piece, which inevitably means increased burdens, increased costs, a lack of specificity, inapplicability, and holding firms and the UK economy back.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, rightly said, we have the at least odd situation right now where pet insurance is treated the same as marine or aviation insurance. I can see only one potential case where this would be appropriate: if many people were petting flying fish. As I do not believe we have an increase in flying fish petting, I believe that proportionality, specificity and applicability would be achieved by embracing the principles set out in Amendments 142A and 142C.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, I broadly support Amendment 142A, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for bringing it forward. I also think that the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ashcombe, or something similar would obviously be needed as some kind of companion to it.
Whatever the FCA may have been intended to be, it is now proudly and explicitly a consumer protection body. For much of its work that is good, but some noble Lords will know that it has taken me and others four years to get incorrect cost disclosure descriptions for listed investment companies corrected, simply because consumers like the incorrect versions. Indeed, that saga led to a telling exchange at a meeting of the Financial Services Regulation Committee. The FCA chair insisted that consumer views always took priority, and I replied, “If you ask whether one and one makes two or three, and the consumer says, ‘I like three—it’s a bigger number’, is that what you use?” There was no denial. That is the scale of the problem: a regulatory culture where consumer preference for something factually incorrect overrides market integrity. It is a mindset that has already cost billions in potential investment in productive assets.
That was where it touched consumers; now let us move on to look at the wholesale areas. The trouble is that that mindset gets pasted across too. We do not need to debate whether the FCA went overboard in demanding that wholesale businesses had to proactively prove that they do no consumer harm in transactions that never touched consumers. The admission is there in consultation CP26/23 at paragraph 1.3, acknowledging overreach, as well as acknowledging
“unnecessary cost, complexity and uncertainty, without clear benefits for retail consumers”.
However, having finally identified the cancer, the regulator is merely applying a sticking plaster. All that is being offered is the mildest semantic tweak to guidance—effectively, a guide to guidance. It has no legal effect. It allows the regulator to continue its current trajectory with a slight adjustment to its vocabulary. We all know that this change was extracted only after heavy nudging by the Chancellor and intense parliamentary scrutiny. It is hardly being done with good grace and provides no guarantee of permanence.
The fact is, we must deal with the FCA as it is, not as it might have been. Since the advent of the consumer duty, the retail-first culture is irreversibly embedded into the psyche of staff, and in many instances it is the reason why they joined the regulator in the first place.
Perhaps one of the most telling things is to look at what is said about other regulators. On the Monetary Authority of Singapore, which I found a very enlightened body on my visit there some years ago, the comment is, “Although MAS is a unitary regulator, it splits its internal policy divisions strictly by target market rather than by trying to govern everything under an overarching outcomes-based code like the UK’s consumer duty”, and, “It works because the wholesale division, answerable to the MAS leadership, is judged primarily on market liquidity, innovation and international competitiveness. There is zero risk of a consumer advocacy group hijacking a wholesale policy consultation”. I wonder where they were thinking about. A ring-fenced, structurally separate wholesale unit within our regulator’s architecture must live up to that standard.
Some may argue that all wholesale activity impacts retail eventually, and I agree, but there is a massive, fundamental difference between regulating wholesale markets for the integrity of the system, which protects everyone, and regulating as if they are a high-street retail shopfloor. The former ensures safety, the latter ensures paralysis. For any noble Lord worried about this structural change, nothing being suggested would remove liability for wrongs or harms to consumers, should that occur. Let us be clear: this amendment is not an attempt to escape oversight; it is an attempt to ensure that oversight is competent, technically accurate and focused on the reality of the market being regulated. Let nobody forget that MiFID and other legislation already provides a rigorous framework governing transparency, best execution and conflicts of interest. This is no soft ride: this amendment is a necessary structural correction, and I support it.
Financial Services and Markets Bill [HL]
Lord Holmes of Richmond ExcerptsWednesday 1st July 2026
(3 weeks, 5 days ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Financial Services and Markets Bill [HL] 2026-27 View all Financial Services and Markets Bill [HL] 2026-27 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 5-IV(b) Amendment for Grand Committee (Supplementary to the Fourth Marshalled List) - (1 Jul 2026)
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, what a pleasure it is to follow my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe. I agree with everything she said, with all the principles she set out and with the amendments in this group.
I shall speak to Amendment 106 and the other amendments in my name. We are asking a lot of our financial regulators and it is only right that we offer help in the Bill. When we come to the Minister’s response —I do not want in any sense to pre-empt him—there may be comments around the amendments being overly prescriptive. I suggest that these amendments do not ask for prescription but, in fact, deliver clarity and, in a sense, are variously helpful to our financial services regulators.
My amendments seek to offer that help but also, as my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe said, to assist in driving that high-performance culture. Our regulators are well-regarded around the world. That is about high performance, but high performance in its turn is about continuous development and improvement. I think that this Bill can assist in that purpose.
In essence, this is all about the “E”s in this group: efficiency, effectiveness and economic activity. It is often said that delay defeats equity. In this instance, delay defeats economic activity and economic growth. It frustrates small, medium and larger businesses in what they are trying to do right across the United Kingdom economies. I believe that this suite of amendments offers clarity to the regulator and that, through that clarity, the regulator can give the right direction and the right support to all our businesses to do what they do best, which is to create economic activity and drive and deliver economic growth. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Ashcombe (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as an employee of Marsh, an FCA-regulated entity. These amendments in the names of my noble friends Lady Neville-Rolfe, Lord Altrincham and Lord Holmes concern Clause 21, which I very much welcome in principle. The improvements to regulators’ approval timelines are a positive step, as are the powers within the clause that enable the Government to amend those timeframes over time. In effect, the Bill already recognises the need for a mechanism to drive improvement. However, the evidence suggests that we can and should go further. The fact that regulators have consistently met their existing targets—targets that have remained largely unchanged for some 25 years—indicates that there is clear scope for more ambitious deadlines.
These amendments are therefore designed to embed a culture of continuous improvement, as referred to by my noble friend Lord Holmes. They would ensure that any future changes to the timeframe set out in Clause 21 could move in only one direction, towards faster decision-making. Moreover, where regulators have consistently met revised targets over a period of two years, the Treasury would be required to reduce those timelines further. In doing so, we would place a statutory obligation on the system to evolve and improve. This matters greatly for the competitiveness of the United Kingdom, particularly for the insurance market in which I work. The speed at which regulators handle authorisations, variations of permission and approvals for senior managers has a direct impact on the ease of doing business. These processes define many firms’ day-to-day interactions with regulation and shape broader perceptions of our market. Firms today have choices about where to deploy capital, where to grow and where to locate talent. A regulatory system that is clear, predictable and timely is a key part of that decision-making calculus.
The UK must offer a compelling proposition. There are many other places to go. Evidence from the London Market Group reinforces this point. A recent survey of firms regulated by the FCA and the PRA shows that both institutions are respected with strong overall scores, yet concerns remain. More than half of firms believe that aspects of the FCA’s approach negatively affect the attractiveness of the London market, and nearly nine in 10 highlight slow approvals for senior managers as having a strong detrimental impact on their operations. Improving timelines is not about reducing standards; it is about ensuring that our system supports growth, innovation and competitiveness. These amendments help to achieve just that.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
I would like some clarification from the Minister. Does he have, at his fingertips, figures around the stop the clock function? Are the Government currently satisfied with how the function is being used?
Lord Stockwood (Lab)
Let me come back to the noble Lord with that data; I had it in the original draft, but it seems that we have passed it out. I will write to the noble Lord over the coming days.
Our belief is that the right answer is not to hardwire this procedural restriction into primary legislation but to continue improving operational performance and scrutiny of timelines through our wider framework.
Amendment 108 would insert detailed operational requirements into FSMA for the handling of authorisation applications. I recognise the attraction of measurable standards on case allocation, initial review, information requests, publication of monitoring data and limiting the use of the stop the clock mechanism. However, as we discussed earlier, the FSMA model delegates certain responsibilities to the independent regulators and, like any other organisation, they need to figure out how to fulfil those responsibilities. They are responsible for ensuring that they have the resources, systems and processes needed to discharge their functions effectively. The right approach for Parliament and the Government is to hold the regulators to account for speed, service quality and operational effectiveness, not to prescribe in primarily legislation the detailed mechanics of how an application must be processed.
I have been passed the data that was in the original speech, which answers the question from the noble Lord, Lord Holmes. In the year 2025-26, in 55% of FCA solo-regulated senior management applications there was no stop the clock and for 32% of cases the clock was stopped only once. Even when the FCA does use its stop the clock power, it continues to determine applications promptly. In Q4 of 2025-26, 50% of senior manager cases were determined within 19 days. As mentioned previously, 99% were determined within the new target of two months.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
I thank the Minister for those statistics and very much appreciate him having them in front of him. This ability to elucidate such detail is incredibly helpful. He set out the importance of enabling the regulator to continue to have the option to increase timelines, rather than just having them set as they are or being able to reduce them, as our amendments suggest. Would he be able to set out to the Grand Committee perhaps four or five examples of where it would be helpful for the regulator to increase timelines?
Lord Stockwood (Lab)
I understand that the regulator does not have the power to increase deadlines without our consent.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, for adding his name. Unfortunately, he is not able to be in Committee today. The amendments in this group concern cost benefit panels, which were created by the 2023 Act to underpin the existing FSMA requirement for cost-benefit analysis to be undertaken and published when rules are consulted on by the PRA and the FCA. The panels were created a little under two years ago and they are doing good work, as their annual reports show. The Financial Services Regulation Committee had a private briefing session with the chairs of the two panels, and we were impressed by the progress that they have made.
My amendment has two elements. The first requires the panels to keep under review the cumulative impact of rules, including those for which a cost-benefit analysis was not required because the impact was expected to be less than the £10 million threshold used by both regulators in their cost-benefit analysis policy statements. Keeping track of the cumulative burden of regulation was a recommendation of the Financial Services Regulation Committee in its Growing Pains report on the secondary competitiveness and growth objective. It was also one of the provisional recommendations of the FCA’s panel in its first report for the period to the end of March 2025. The 2025-26 report is not out until next week, but I would be surprised if it did not feature again.
Ideally, FSMA should be changed so that the existing statutory requirement on the regulators, which is confined to cost-benefit analysis on the proposed new rules, is widened so that it will be the responsibility of the FCA and the PRA to keep the cumulative burden on regulatory activity under review. I have taken the slightly easier drafting route in my amendments by putting a narrower requirement for the role of the panels.
The second element of my amendment concerns guidance by the FCA, which was covered last time in Committee, and the PRA. I confess that proposed new subsection (4) of my amendment captures only one part of what I was trying to achieve. I realised that when I was preparing my speaking notes, but it was too late to do anything about it, so I will speak to what I intended to cover in my amendment rather than what it does cover. This is Committee, after all.
At present, the FCA and the PRA are required to issue guidance under Sections 1K and 3I of FSMA and the FCA has power to issue guidance under Section 139A. If the FCA issues guidance under Section 139A, it has to be consulted on, but no cost-benefit analysis is required to be done or published. Proposed new subsection (4) of my proposed new clause in Amendment 119 seeks to require cost-benefit analysis for Section 139A guidance. I intended, but failed, to require cost-benefit analysis for all guidance issued by both regulators—that is a difference not reflected in the amendments.
I am well aware of the Government’s plan in Clause 18 to remove all the guidance obligations from the regulators, as well as the requirement for consultation on the FSA’s guidance under Section 139A. This part of my amendment is predicated on the Government realising the folly of their ways in Clause 18 for the purposes of today’s debate.
One of the findings of the FCA’s cost-benefit panel last year was the minimalist approach taken to cost-benefit analyses by the FCA: they are undertaken only when required by statute rather than being seen as good regulatory practice underpinning the detailed actions of regulation. The Financial Services Regulation Committee, as part of our inquiry into the FCA’s naming and shaming provisions, which had a potentially very significant impact on certain firms, called for a cost-benefit analysis. However, the FCA refused, saying that it was not required to do it by law. Therefore, I believe that attaching cost-benefit analysis to pretty much everything that the regulators do is necessary. Guidance would have been a good start, but the changes required are even broader than I have tried to achieve in my amendment.
My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe’s Amendment 132 seeks to widen the work of the CBA panels, and I look forward to hearing what my noble friends on the Front Bench have to say on that. With that, I beg to move.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady Noakes. I congratulate her on her purposive, rather than literal, interpretation of her amendment. I support her amendment and everything she said, as well as the other amendments in this group. I will speak to my Amendment 129.
Many noble Lords here today were in the Grand Committee debates for the then FSM Bill 2023. As my noble friend Lady Noakes rightly identified, the CBA panels have done very good work in their first couple of years of existence. My Amendment 129 seeks to give them further clarity to assist them in doing that good work, to ensure that they have the materials they need to do it, and to bring an additional element around public awareness of the panels’ work. That speaks to greater transparency, awareness and engagement, which can help not only the work of the CBA panels but the wider work of the regulators themselves. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Altrincham (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have tabled amendments in this group, which all take broadly the same approach to the cost benefit analysis panels. The underlying point addressed here is simple: if we are serious about accountability, proportionality and reducing regulatory burden, the panels that already exist to scrutinise the costs and benefits of regulation should be able to look at the full practical impact of what regulators do.
Amendment 119, in the names of my noble friend Lady Noakes and the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, raises the important issue of cumulative regulatory burden. Amendment 129, in the name of my noble friend Lord Holmes, would give the panels a broader and more visible role, including through regular impact assessments, stronger access to information and greater transparency. Amendment 132, in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, addresses a specific gap: the use of guidance and supervisory practices, which may have significant practical effects on firms, but which do not currently receive the same level of cost-benefit scrutiny as formal rule changes.
I start with the cumulative burden point, because it is extremely important. Regulation is not experienced by firms as a series of isolated events. New rules come on top of existing ones, including guidance, reporting requirements, supervisory expectations, data requests, “Dear CEO” letters and enforcement signals. Individually, each new intervention may appear manageable, but collectively they can become very burdensome. The effect is not only on cost but on management time, operational complexity, legal advice, compliance headcount, systems changes and a reduced capacity to focus on customers, innovation and growth.
Therefore, it seems ineffective that the cost-benefit process so often considers individual regulatory interventions, without proper reference to the wider impact of the regulatory environment as a whole. If the regulator is required only to ask whether one new proposal is proportionate in isolation, there is no real incentive to look back at legacy regulation and ask whether the total burden has become excessive. That is why there is real merit in allowing the cost-benefit analysis panels to look more strategically at the total regulatory load. If we want regulators to support growth and competitiveness, they must not only justify new burdens but have incentives to remove or reduce old ones.
Amendment 132 would extend the existing cost-benefit analysis and consultation framework so that it applies not only to formal rules but to materially significant general guidance and general supervisory practices or policies. That is important because, in practice, guidance and supervisory expectations can have effects that are very close to rules. If such a measure has a material effect on regulated firms, it should not be able to escape scrutiny simply because it is not formally described as a rule.
Our amendment would create a sensible check: it would require the regulator to notify the relevant cost-benefit analysis panel early where guidance or supervisory practice may be materially significant. The panel could then give an opinion on whether the proposal is likely to have a material effect and, where appropriate, request that a cost-benefit analysis be carried out. If the regulator disagreed, it would still be able to proceed, but it would have to publish a statement explaining why it did not accept the panel’s view alongside the panel’s opinion.
The purpose of this is to recognise that materially significant guidance and supervisory practices can impose real costs and that those costs should be scrutinised. This sort of reporting would provide valuable information to inform the work of our important committees, both in this House and in the other place. I do not see why the Government would resist this as a sensible expansion of the remit of the cost-benefit analysis panels, particularly where the regulators they are overseeing have had, and continue to have, a substantial increase in their remits. Indeed, the more power we give regulators, the more important these mechanisms become. If more of the regulatory framework is to be made through rules, guidance and supervisory judgment, rather than primary legislation, Parliament must be confident that there is proper scrutiny of the costs and proportionality of the cumulative burden. The cost-benefit analysis panels are already part of that architecture; these amendments do not create an entirely new body. They strengthen the role of an existing mechanism and make it better able to do the job for which it was created.
Could the Minister explain why, if firms experience regulation cumulatively and guidance or supervisory practices can have material effects, even where they are not formally binding, the cost-benefit analysis panels should not have a broader remit to examine those wider burdens? I hope the Minister will engage constructively with these amendments and particularly with the principle behind Amendment 132.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
Shortly after my proposal first surfaced, I was contacted by people involved in the Australian royal commission on financial services, because they had noted that I had reached the same conclusion as them: that it was too big a job for Parliament to do by itself, given everything else that national Parliaments have to do.
Australia introduced two-yearly reviews, and it is not the only country to have an independent review. A similar arrangement now exists in New Zealand, and in the US all regulators come under powerful scrutiny by the Government Accountability Office. One advantage of my proposal is that it follows a path we understand from Section 1S reviews, and it could be done quickly—maybe as an interim solution, for example, until an office such as that proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, could be formed. By having regular reviews, oversight of progress would also be possible. After her review, Dame Elizabeth Gloster told the Treasury Committee that we are left to “hope” that the regulator “implements” regulations. Hope is not a system.
Why did I propose this? It was the point at which the Government were looking at the post-Brexit future financial framework. As has already been rehearsed in this Committee, this Parliament does not have the structure and focus that was available in the EU Parliament. Having been chair of the ECON committee dealing with all the post-financial crisis legislation, I can safely say that I know what it takes and that it is not easy. That is another reason why I do not recommend a continuous process.
There will be more to it in the UK, because many issues arise from the execution of supervision post rule-making. Brexit created the first need, which we eventually tried to patch with a new committee. Your Lordships heard from members of that committee and in the report of the Industry and Regulators Committee, Who Regulates the Regulator?, that now the overwhelming conclusion is that significant independent review is needed.
Now we have a new, second need due to the changes in this Bill, which remove the “have regards” away from operational effectiveness and into a five-year strategy. How is that to be monitored? Is there any intention at all for follow-through? The changes make the already difficult acquisition of information even harder. Several things that the Minister has said in his replies ring alarm bells and show the absolute need for scrutiny. We need it because financial services regulation and supervision is too important to allow issues to creep up—all the more so in a higher-risk environment. LCF-type regulator risk needs even more guarding against.
The Minister has said that proportionality will now be tested only at the strategic level. Let us be clear: testing proportionality at only the strategic level is barely a nudge. Rule-level and supervisory-level proportionality is the real test, but that has been put out of reach of accountability, as there is nothing to measure against. Indeed, they are not even looking at it apart from every five years. From that, it is pretty clear that substantial follow-ups on the five-year strategy are necessary. The Minister says that annual reports and remit letters provide accountability. Some substantial upgrading and interrogation of those is needed. What actionable event flows from an annual report? It is judge, jury and public relations all in one place. Does the Minister genuinely believe that an example here and there constitutes accountability?
The Minister argues that principles remain central, yet they are being moved into a document that cannot be enforced by the courts and cannot be used to test a specific rule or supervisory action. They are applied every five years, when the future cannot really be seen. This is not lip service; it is just print service, and as my noble friend Lady Kramer has shown us from the current version of the five-year report, there is little substance. Will we get something detailed for every category and size of financial market business?
The Government’s rhetoric suggests that reducing the burden of accountability will unleash a more dynamic and agile regulator, but that does not demonstrate the stability that is a prerequisite for competitiveness. Stability is the best friend of a competitive financial sector. Whether you cite centuries of institutional experience or the second law of thermodynamics, left to their own devices, systems corrupt or tend to disorder. Someone has to be on their case. But the Government are making the regulators far more insulated from the procedures that keep them on their toes. Avoiding the burden of accountability today is like banking a much larger, more expensive crisis for tomorrow. Additional periodic or permanent oversight has become even more necessary. I beg to move.
“Open finance framework(1) The FCA must establish and maintain a framework for open finance.(2) The framework must provide for—(a) secure and standardised data sharing interfaces,(b) rights of customers to direct the sharing of their financial data, and(c) interoperability between different categories of financial services providers, including digital asset providers.(3) The FCA may make rules to give effect to this section.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment gives the FCA the power to make rules in relation to open finance.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak to this group of amendments. Amendment 127 is also in my name, and I thank my noble friend Lady Altmann for co-signing it. These amendments are my latest attempt to get some focus on innovation and technology in a Bill that is currently, strangely, surprisingly and unfortunately largely silent on this subject. It is my latest effort, but it will not be my last.
If we take a step back when it comes to open finance, how have we got to where we are? It is something in which everybody across the UK should take incredible pride. Open banking was created here. I offer anybody who believes the false dichotomy that recurs with tedious inevitability—that you can have either regulation or innovation—open banking as a deliberate, willed and intended regulatory intervention to address a market failure. Has it had a measure of success? That is not for me to say, but open banking, which was made in the UK, has been replicated and taken up in just shy of 80 jurisdictions around the world, many of which have taken it much further and much faster than the United Kingdom.
Although open banking is an excellent, positive and inclusive innovation, it still has not come to fruition in terms of mass take-up. However, we should consider how these principles can apply to open finance. We have some good stuff in the Data (Use and Access) Act, but we need more to provide a focus on what open finance can do, not least in obviously adjacent sectors such as telco and energy. My Amendment 126 seeks to do exactly that by looking at what is possible with the data that is currently out there. This would not be a data grab. It would not push citizens off the ball, to give an up-to-the-minute analogy; it would enable and empower those citizens who are often at the sharpest end of financial services and who may even be unable to avail themselves of financial services at all. Imagine being able to look in real time, on a consented basis, at existing alternative data, such as rental history or other activity, to empower an individual to access financial services, perhaps for the first time, or to access better financial services. All too often, what happens is that those who have the least have to pay the most. How can anybody tolerate that in 2026? Open finance could be enabling, empowering and transformational. We have the technologies. I suggest that Amendment 126 would be a tiny element of the next step on that journey.
Amendment 127 suggests an innovation unit for the Financial Conduct Authority. I am well aware that the FCA already has an innovation unit internally; it does excellent work. In terms of the work of regulators across the piece on innovation, it is far more than market-leading. It goes back to the innovations on which the FCA has led for more than a decade: the excellent fintech regulatory sandbox, the digital security sandbox and the tremendous AI sandbox, which was announced last year. They are all market-leading not just in this country but internationally. It is fantastic work. It is similar on other emerging technologies, such as quantum.
Therefore, in no sense is this amendment suggesting that the regulator is not looking at emerging technologies. What this amendment seeks to do is to empower the regulator further by putting that innovation unit on a statutory footing and bringing in external voices and expertise to be part of it, not a board of the great and the good, white, male, pale, stale, but experts in the area of emerging technologies. What a fabulous addition that would be to the excellent work that it is already doing. It would be a minor change, but it would have a major impact. I very much look forward to the Minister’s response and the discussion on this group. I beg to move.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I am absolutely delighted with these two amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Holmes. To begin with Amendment 126, I have long been, as he has, a real supporter of open banking and see the potential for it to expand into open finance, and have been utterly frustrated that it languished for so many years. I am convinced that, under the current leadership, real change is happening and real progress is being made. I hope that is a correct assessment, and in other places the Bill continues to assist that process. It is absolutely logical that entities are looking for financial services and going to one provider that they presumably know or can access but are failing to find a satisfactory answer, and cannot then avail themselves of the ability to talk to the rest of the financial services provider world. Open banking and open finance provide those mechanisms.
I have one caveat. In proposed new paragraph (c) to be inserted by Amendment 126, the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, explained that the framework needs to provide for
“interoperability between different categories of financial service providers, including digital asset providers”.
I agree completely with that. The question is who pays. Traditionally, it has always been the banks that have paid. I took a position earlier in the Bill, and continue to take it, that all users of the payment system should be contributing. This should not be something that falls on the banks while the tech companies, in particular, end up with a free ride. That will leave us with an unsustainable system that is far less effective than it could be if it had the full resources of all those who participate and potentially benefit from it. It would also engage them in innovation, which is addressed in Amendment 127.
I can see the advantages presented by Amendment 127, but there is one more feature that I want to add. One of my permanent frustrations with the regulator has been that it does not step in when there is market failure. It always says that if a new company or business comes in that will fill a gap, it will regulate it appropriately—that is its contribution to encouraging players to come in and fill the space where there is market failure. One good example is lending to small businesses, but there are many more market failures that the FCA will happily acknowledge, but then say it is nots its job to get that gap filled.
The US regulators take a very different view: if there is a market failure, they will be proactive in trying to design incentives and opportunities to go out and, in effect, market to relevant players so that the gap is filled. A simple example in the United States, thanks to the regulators, is something I call “bank in the box”—I have to be careful because there is a company of that name. It was devised to enable small players to come into the lending space. In the box were all the regulatory pieces that a banking service needed to offer, so that it would be very simple for a new player to simply plug in the investors at one end and the particular customer base at the other. It also means that, in time of failure, that small bank can easily be recovered, because all the complex content of regulation and compliance is in the box in a way that that is understood by the others within the system.
I have talked to the FCA and asked about bank in the box. It says that if someone comes forward with it, it will gladly regulate it, but it will not take a step that would encourage the provision of some such service. I would love to see this approach to market failure incorporated in the innovation discussion. Regulators are incredibly influential; it is amazing what a few words from a regulator, or a proposal from a regulator, will do to make sure that action actually happens.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate. I agree entirely with the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, about who pays and I agree with the noble Baroness’s earlier amendment on APP. When we have variety in our participants in this market, it is right that, if you are in the market, you pay alongside all other participants, rather than having the asymmetry which currently exists of banks being on the hook and others swimming freely. I also agree with the main thrust of the noble Baroness’s other points, none of which made me queasy at all.
I thank the Minister for his response. I agree largely with his comments. I delicately say that bringing in expert independent voices in a more formalised but flexible structure would further empower the FCA to take the excellent work that it does in innovation and go broader and faster. I ask the Minister to reflect on that and if there is more that the Government can do in concert with the FCA, without in any sense fettering its discretion. It would give the FCA even more power to increase the fantastic work it is doing across all these emerging technologies. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Financial Services and Markets Bill [HL]
Lord Holmes of Richmond ExcerptsMonday 29th June 2026
(4 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Financial Services and Markets Bill [HL] 2026-27 View all Financial Services and Markets Bill [HL] 2026-27 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 5-III(a) Amendments for Grand Committee (Supplementary to the Third Marshalled List) - (29 Jun 2026)
“(2) In Section 3B(1) (regulatory principles to be applied by both regulators), in paragraph (b), for the words from “considered” to the end of that paragraph substitute “taking into consideration the nature of the service or product being delivered, the nature of risk to the consumer, whether the cost of implementation is proportionate to that level of risk and whether the burden or restriction enhances UK international competitiveness;””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to amend the existing regulatory principle for the FCA and PRA and require that the nature of, and risk to, the consumer and the service or product being delivered must be considered when imposing a new burden or restriction.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to open on this second group of amendments, to move Amendment 81, which is in my name, and to speak to Amendment 87. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral for variously co-signing the amendments.
We ask a lot of our financial regulators—not least in recent times, with international competitiveness and the growth objective, and with the Chancellor calling all regulators, including financial regulators, into No. 11 to seek their commitments as to what they will do to advance the Government’s stated growth objective. My Amendments 81 and 87 seek to assist the regulator in bringing some clarity to how to approach these matters.
Amendment 81 looks to the nature of the financial product and of the risk to the consumer, and how the proposed regulatory intervention sits against those factors and the need to promote international competitiveness. It is entirely possible for our financial regulators to balance their objectives and to do right by consumers and by growth, but they need to consider those objectives alongside one another rather, than having a broad-brush, non-specific approach.
This brings me to Amendment 87, which seeks to put in the Bill the nature of the response the regulators could make in their supervisory activity and interventions. It sets out the difference between retail consumers and professional market participants, not least in wholesale markets. I have no doubt that the regulators are well aware of the different levels of knowledge and experience of people who participate in financial products and financial markets, be they retail, professional, or operators in wholesale markets. But it is potentially helpful to set this out in the Bill in order to assist and support the regulators in what they seek to achieve through this approach: to drive the effectiveness of their regulatory activity, to sharpen their supervisory activities and, not least, to have that sense of dialogue—always where appropriate—rather than reaching for more severe interventions at that stage.
I support the other amendments in this group and look forward to noble Lords’ contributions and to the Minister’s response. I beg to move.
Lord Stockwood (Lab)
It goes without saying that there are many things on which I do not agree with the Labour Government of 2006, but we will leave that for another day. We believe that this is already covered. I do not want to allow the noble Baroness’s expertise to be undermined by my relative inexpertise, so let me come back in writing on that. The advice I am getting is that we believe that it is already covered, but let me come back in writing before our meeting next week.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
I paused there in case somebody else wanted to make another point—I did not want to jump in. I thank all noble Lords who participated in this excellent, informed and important debate. I would never seek to offer a Minister of the Crown advice, but, having said that, when the noble Baronesses, Lady Bowles and Lady Noakes, speak on these matters, it is worth paying attention, reflecting, reading Hansard and reflecting again.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, for all the work she has done as chair of the FSR committee. It has produced excellent reports that always cut to the heart of an issue. At a time when, as she rightly identifies, more and more is coming before Parliament as regulation which, on the Floor of the House, we have so little role in which to play or influence to bring to bear, the role of her committee is even more significant and important.
My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe summed up with her usual brevity and precision. This is all about proportionality and common sense. The only tiny addition I would bring to that is specificity. In essence, all the amendments in this group have been tabled for the same reason that we debated these subjects on previous committee days. Strategies and frameworks are important, but events do not happen in strategies and frameworks. Events happen: they impact individuals and businesses, particularly small businesses, minute by minute, hour by hour—or, to quote a phrase apropos of nothing in particular, events happen on a day-to-day basis. All the amendments in this group are significant and worthy of reflection.
In conclusion, I apologise profusely to the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, for causing her to feel queasy. I can only hope that my financial inclusion amendment in the next group can act as an effective antiemetic. For now, I thank all noble Lords who participated in this important debate and beg leave to withdraw Amendment 81.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler. I had the equal pleasure of serving alongside her during her excellent chairing of the Financial Exclusion Committee.
As the noble Baroness rightly identified, since we published our report, financial exclusion—or a lack of financial inclusion—has persisted. She rightly identified the Government’s financial inclusion strategy. There are a number of good things in it, but I ask the Minister: why was it so light on the potential role that fintech, as well as broader technologies, could play in addressing some of the elements of financial exclusion? It was largely silent on those issues.
I shall speak to Amendment 104 and all the other amendments in my name in this group. Similarly, I suggest having a financial inclusion objective and detailed reporting requirements therein. We have the Financial Inclusion Commission, which has some excellent members, but financial exclusion persists.
It is right to have our financial services regulator further empowered to be the lightning rod and the focus for this whole question of financial inclusion. To talk about the principles again, the Government are keen on growth, but financial inclusion does not run counter to that growth or the international competitiveness objective. Financial inclusion is essential to it: enabling people to have financial services and be financially included is likely to increase digital inclusion and social inclusion, as employees become self-employed and the employed become economically active. I ask the Minister: are these things—enabling and empowering financial inclusion—not what any Government should be about?
I suggest a financial inclusion unit for the FCA, so that it can be a powerhouse for innovation and research and a real regulator and driving force for financial inclusion. When the Minister comes to respond, can he identify how financial inclusion has changed in the almost two years of the current Government? Is it not time for greater focus and effort on this most significant of issues?
In many ways, the most significant issue when it comes to financial services is enabling and, in reality, empowering everybody to have a fair go, and to become active and enabled in our economy and our society. Amendment 161 builds on this, but in the specific context of broadening data-sharing requirements—always on a consenting and empowering basis—to look again at what we can do with new technologies. Let us look at other sources of data such as rental history, which can be so helpful in enabling financial inclusion—but currently are far from happening, never mind becoming the norm—to support those millions of individuals. Where is innovation when it comes to financial inclusion? Does the Minister not agree that these amendments would enable the Government to have a human lead on these technologies, with a far greater chance of much greater financial inclusion for all citizens?
My final amendment goes to KYC, or what passes for it. In many ways, you can see this within financial inclusion, where all too often, in whichever context one considers it, “know your customer” means almost completely the reverse or nothing of the sort. Does the Minister not agree that it is time to look again to innovation and the technologies that can be deployed to give us effective KYC and AML? Or does he believe that, because one is able to put a gas bill in paper form in front of a financial services business, it shows just what an upstanding citizen you must be and gives all that is required on KYC and AML? It is so gravely in need of transformation. We have the tools and technologies to achieve this, which would also add to significant financial inclusion. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
This is an important and interesting debate. I want to draw attention to and base my remarks on Amendment 95, which refers specifically to the poverty premium in insurance. This is a theme that runs across financial services. It perhaps does not get the attention it deserves, because one of the main reasons for financial exclusion is of course poverty, and poverty is clearly an issue where the Government have a clear and central responsibility.
In practice, the approach taken by the FCA has been to use the obligation for the consumer duty as the primary vehicle for dealing with the poverty premium. The FCA has directly linked the consumer duty to the poverty premium, with the argument that firms are required to deliver good outcomes for retail customers and ensure that products and services offer fair value. The FCA has not itself specifically tackled the poverty premium head on; in effect it has passed the responsibility to providers.
The most obvious manifestation of the poverty premium arises with premium finance, whereby people have to pay premiums by instalments over the year instead of paying a lump sum at the beginning of the year. The terms on which they are financed have been open to significant criticism. People think they are paying the contributions monthly but, in practice, someone lends them the money to pay the initial contribution and they repay that loan over the year. There is a widespread lack of understanding that, in fact, they have two contracts: the insurance contract and the loan contract. The terms of that loan contract have been called into question. Figures from the FCA suggest that about four-fifths of customers in financial difficulty use premium finance and that, in 2024, 60% of motor insurance customers and 41% of home insurance customers paid by instalments because they could not afford to pay annually. There is probably a series of people who fail to do the sums and just pay monthly because that looks easier.
The FCA has found that the cost of premium finance has fallen since 2022, and made it clear to firms that they are under a clear requirement to ensure that fair value is offered. There is a technical problem here in that, as well as the financial issues, with some forms of insurance there is an underwriting issue. It is possible to argue that someone who pays monthly is not in the same underwriting position as someone who pays yearly. It is very difficult to pin down that aspect of the issue. The FCA accepts that this poverty premium exists and believes that some of the premium finance provides a poor product. It has accepted that
“financial regulation cannot tackle financial exclusion or the related ‘poverty premium’ alone. We must work together across government, regulators, industry and consumer groups”
to deal with it.
The Financial Inclusion Strategy published in November refers to the issue, and we now have the FCA’s 2026 insurance priorities, which include expanding access to insurance as a central priority and emphasise the importance of helping vulnerable groups. However, the campaigning group Fair by Design has argued that the FCA is not doing enough to deal with these issues. It points out that the FCA has said that it has the tools to deal with this but, in practice, is just leaving it to the individual companies to act responsibly.
Financial Services and Markets Bill [HL]
Lord Holmes of Richmond ExcerptsWednesday 24th June 2026
(1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Financial Services and Markets Bill [HL] 2026-27 View all Financial Services and Markets Bill [HL] 2026-27 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 5-II(Rev)(a) Amendment for Grand Committee (Supplementary to the Revised Second Marshalled List) - (24 Jun 2026)
“6A After section 1QA insert—“1QB The Payment Systems Panel(1) Arrangements under section 1M must include the establishment and maintenance of a panel of persons (to be known as “the Payments System Panel”) to represent the interests of—(a) participants in regulated payment systems, and(b) those who use, or are likely to use, services provided by regulated payment systems.(2) The FCA must appoint one of the members of the Payments System Panel to be its chair.(3) The Treasury’s approval is required for the appointment or dismissal of the chair.(4) The FCA must appoint to the Payments System Panel such persons to represent interests and expertise relevant to the FCA’s payment systems objectives.””Member’s explanatory statement
Schedule 2, paragraph 6 removes the Payment System Regulator from the FCA’s statutory panel composition provisions and does not replace it with any payments-specific representation. This amendment and another in the name of Lord Holmes of Richmond seek to provide such representation.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to open day two of Committee on the Financial Services and Markets Bill. As it is the first time I have spoken in Committee, I declare my interests as set out in the register around technology, as an adviser variously to the Crown Estate, Endava plc, Simmons & Simmons LLP, and as non-exec director of Avalanche BVI Inc and the Avalanche Foundation.
I had hoped to take part in day one of your Lordships’ deliberations on the Bill, but unfortunately there was a direct clash with the Sporting Events Bill in the Chamber. I was hoping to be able to perform some kind of Bill biathlon but, sadly, time clearly caught up with me and I found myself stuck on the track in there. However, it is a pleasure to open day two of the Bill. I will move Amendment 47A and speak to the other amendments in this group in my name. I give more than a nod to the other amendments in this group and I thank my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe for co-signing two of my amendments.
In essence, these amendments can be seen as a connected group. The intention set out in the Bill is clear that the PSR is no more and its functions are to move over to the FCA. That is a defensible and clear objective and it has been communicated. The difficulty is that it is not what the Bill currently achieves. In many ways, these amendments could be summed up by “Lost in Translation”, because key elements of the functions of the PSR, not least those critical elements around competition and innovation, have not come over and certainly have not been reproduced in the Bill to the same extent as they appear in their original statutory form. This is clearly a gap in the Bill that we have before us.
Amendment 47A suggests a payment systems panel. This goes to the second element of “Lost in Translation” in the Bill. Representation of those involved in and affected by payments has similarly disappeared and has not come across from the wording in the originating statute. This is critical, not only because it does not fulfil the Government’s stated intention with these parts of the Bill but because, when you think about it, so much in life involves a payment. Something is either started with a payment or ended with a payment and, if it is neither started nor ended with a payment, odds-on it is probably a payment in its own right. This needs to be put right in the Bill and I suggest that the payment system panel achieves that.
The remaining amendments in my name very much go to putting back those requirements and obligations, as set out in the originating statute, around competition and innovation. The Government have talked variously about the growth objective, not least the role that regulators have to play in it. Indeed, they summoned regulators to No. 11 for a regulators’ showdown— I am not sure what the collective noun for a group of regulators is, but it was certainly a gathering—focused solely on growth. Well, competition and innovation are critical to that growth objective.
I suggest that this suite of amendments fills the gap that is left in the existing draft of the Bill. I very much look forward to the Minister’s response and to the debate on this and the other amendments—those who have put them forward have all done so on similar and related issues. I beg to move.
Lord Stockwood (Lab)
To come back on that, we have heard the criticism of the FCA loud and clear. The intention is for further debates to come back to what we believe is the current state of oversight and governance, and we are open to the conversations that the debates will lead to.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this important debate. One of the key themes that ran through it and the Minister’s response is the question of clarity, or the lack thereof. Certainly, as a consequence of these changes as currently drafted, there is less clarity on payment systems regulation and on how the competition and innovation requirements will be satisfied in a broader context. I fully support the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, on his amendments, and I will come to the important amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles.
I am disappointed that the Minister did not take the opportunity to offer a consultation about consultations. The reality is that the Minister could take this opportunity to bring clarity to increasing and varying levels of opacity and unnecessary levels of control in the hands of the regulator, where they currently exist. We have seen this in financial services in recent Bills that we have considered; it goes beyond financial services to this sense of leaving regulators with greater powers as a consequence of significant statutes passed, as opposed to Parliament debating and determining these decisions, which in no sense would tie the regulators’ hands. In fact, the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, would assist the regulators, because it would bring clarity on how to operate these consultations. There is a significant issue with consultations in financial services, and a significant issue with government consultations across the piece. It is not a party-political point; it has been the case for years. This is an opportunity to bring clarity to this and enable more firms, more individuals and more perspectives to be brought into what would then be better consultations and better outcomes as a result of that consultation process. I very much look forward to the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, bringing her amendment back on Report. It is strong; it would not let too many cats out of too many bags—even though I stand with a Labrador at my feet—and I do not think that this will be the last we see of a number of these amendments. For now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“(1C) Regulations made under subsection (1A) may make provision in relation to— (a) the Financial Conduct Authority, in respect of its functions under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000;(b) the Financial Conduct Authority, in respect of its functions relating to payment services or electronic money;(c) Ofcom;(d) the National Crime Agency;(e) the National Economic Crime Centre;(f) law enforcement agencies.”Member's explanatory statement
The amendment seeks to require more effective intelligence sharing between supervisory authorities.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to open on this group of amendments, which in many ways builds on the first group. This Bill is light on the use of technology and on the use of intelligence between the regulators which are spread across the financial services landscape. As my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe said in responding to the first group, in many ways the Bill feels as if it is written for a time which is already rapidly evaporating. There are new payment mechanisms and new financial instruments. In fact, there are new products which are already dominating key parts of the market.
It would seem to make sense to have provision for more intelligence-sharing across the regulators, and indeed the broader landscape. Modern technologies are deployed by both participants and bad actors in this arena. Thus, it would seem to make sense to have combined activity, connected action and shared intelligence among the regulators and, within that, to bring technologies such as AI and others to bear in achieving it. I look forward to the debate on this amendment and others in this group, and to the Minister’s response.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I should like to speak to Amendments 64B and 69AA in this group, which are in my name. They direct attention to matters arising from the provisions in Clause 14 that are of great concern to the Law Society and the Law Society of Scotland. I apologise to the Minister for their late arrival; they are based on draft amendments that were not sent to me until Monday of this week. I am grateful to the Table Office for its help in drafting them at short notice.
The background to these amendments is as follows. The Law Society and the Law Society of Scotland are both regulatory authorities. Their current regulatory roles include responsibility for supervising compliance by solicitors, in their respective jurisdictions, with the UK’s anti-money laundering and counterterrorism financing frameworks. They are, therefore, supervisory authorities of the kind referred to in the amendment to Section 49 of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, as set out in Clause 14(2).
However, the regulation of anti-money laundering and counterterrorism financing is only part of the responsibilities that these two societies exercise as regulators. Solicitors play an important role in tackling economic crime. The societies’ roles as AML supervisory bodies are a key component of their functions as regulators of the solicitor profession. This is a task that both societies take very seriously. I am told that the Law Society of Scotland employs a team of dedicated specialists with detailed, up-to-date knowledge of the trends in economic crime and the risks that are associated with the provision of legal services; I have no reason to think that the way in which the Law Society of England and Wales handles its responsibilities is any different.
The effect of the amendments proposed in Clause 14 would be to transfer, through regulations that we have not yet seen, the front-line AML supervision of the solicitor profession to the Financial Conduct Authority, as the single professional services regulator. The Law Society believes that this will amount to a seismic shake-up as to how law firms and their AML/CTF obligations are regulated, which risks sending shockwaves through the sector. It also says that adapting to this change has the potential to divert attention, resources and time from supporting clients and developing solicitors’ businesses, with effects that it would be quite hard to cope with.
The Law Society of Scotland strongly opposes this change. Its point is that it will lead to the duplication of systems of regulation. On the one hand, the society will continue to have its role as the profession’s regulator; on the other hand, there will be the FCA. Solicitor firms, large and small, will have to deal with them both in future, increasing the time spent and the cost of being regulated. This will bear heavily, especially on small firms in the remoter areas of Scotland, which often operate on very narrow margins. The population is thinly spread in these areas, as are the firms that exist to provide essential legal services there to the people who need them. Much will of course depend on how the FCA approaches its task, but anything that might lead to the disappearance of these firms due to the consequences would be very much to be regretted. That is what lies behind the Law Society of Scotland’s objection.
The Law Society of England and Wales, for its part, is concerned that, without a clear statement of their position by the Treasury and the FCA, Parliament is being asked to legislate for powers to enable the detail of the reforms to be enacted that remain unclear and which the sector has not yet seen.
My Amendment 64B focuses on the points that are of particular concern. I shall mention in relation to each one, as briefly as I can, the questions for which answers are sought from the Minister. Proposed new subsection (1C)(a) asks that the regulations be “proportionate and risk-based”. The question is whether the FCA intends to import its banking model into the process for all solicitors’ firms, small as well as large, or instead to take a risk-based approach. Should not the supervision in regard to this profession be tailored to the risks posed by the different sectors within it? Firms vary from the very small, with perhaps just one partner in a remote part of Scotland, to the very large international firms found in the City of London. How will the Government ensure that the small high street firms up and down the country are not disproportionately burdened by the system that they propose to operate?
Proposed new subsection (1C)(b) seeks appropriate protections for legal professional privilege and client confidentiality. Can the Minister confirm that nothing will be done under Clause 14 that will weaken legal professional privilege, which has a vital role in securing access to justice? The Solicitors Regulation Authority of the Law Society of England and Wales at present keeps all LPP material confidential. It may be used only for investigation and enforcement proceedings against the solicitor or the firm that it regulates. It may not be used in relation to proceedings that may be taken against its clients. Will the FCA follow the Law Society’s practice? Will it also accommodate the duty of confidentiality that underpins much legal work? Further, will it respect the obligations of the solicitor or the firm to the court?
Proposed new subsection (1D) seeks to avoid duplication. It is feared that the Treasury will introduce a broader system of regulation than the current regime, with the risk that this will duplicate the Solicitors Regulation Authority’s oversight, create unnecessary burdens and delay routine transactions. What practical mechanisms can be put in place to prevent solicitors from being subjected to overlapping requirements from both the FCA and the SRA?
Proposed new subsection (1E) calls for an impact assessment. How can the appropriateness of these powers be judged without seeing the underlying regime? Will the regulations be accompanied by assessments of their impact on those to be subjected to the system of supervision for which they provide? What estimate has been made of the compliance costs for these law firms? Will the powers be compatible with the way that legal services are regulated in Scotland, which has a different legal system from that in England and Wales?
My Amendment 69AA asks for a review of AML and CTF supervision within three years and a report that includes an assessment of each of the points to which I have drawn attention. I do not expect the Minister to answer my questions this evening. I have set them out because I hope that they may form the basis of some discussion, if the noble Lord is willing to meet me at some point before Report to go over these thoughts at greater leisure and in more detail.
Financial Services and Markets Bill [HL]
Lord Holmes of Richmond ExcerptsMonday 8th June 2026
(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Financial Services and Markets Bill [HL] 2026-27 View all Financial Services and Markets Bill [HL] 2026-27 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in this Second Reading debate, and, in doing so, I declare my technology interests as adviser variously to the Crown Estate, Endava plc and Simmons & Simmons LLP. I congratulate the Minister on the clear and cogent way he introduced the provisions in the Bill. I will concentrate largely on what is not in the Bill now but what I hope may be included by the time we get to Third Reading.
First, AI is across our society, our economy and our financial services—be that in fraud detection, credit decisioning or algo trading—yet, currently, the Bill is strangely silent on it. The regulator is having to use existing powers that were never designed for these new technologies.
To that effect, what does the Minister believe is the right approach to AI in the Bill, given that the Government have stated that they will take a domain-specific approach, leaving it to the individual regulators? If one takes that approach, how can a consumer or customer of a financial services product be guaranteed clarity, consistency and a coherent approach when they avail themselves of financial services, not least because there are two regulators in this sector? A business may well have dual regulatory responsibilities, so how would not having horizontal and cross-sector AI regulation work?
There is no effective framework for cyber resilience in the Bill. In contrast to AI, the Government have decided that, on cyber, you can have a cross-economy and cross-society approach. I ask the Minister: what is different about cyber? Why can it be seen to be cross-sector, but AI cannot?
On financial inclusion, I welcome the provisions around access to banking and in-person services. Although, as other noble Lords have mentioned, the devil is largely in the detail as to what precisely is meant by the services, there is almost no point whatever in having a branch open if, when you go into that branch, you are told that there is machine or a screen in the corner that you can go and use. How is that financial inclusion or digital inclusion? When financial exclusion and digital exclusion all too often walk hand in hand, we need greater clarity in the Bill when it comes to these financial inclusion and access requirements.
We should consider what the third-largest economy in the world is. The United States is first, and China is second. In third place is fraud and economic, cyber and financial crime—it amounts to $10.5 trillion, which could affect hospitals, schools, teachers, nurses, doctors, defence or any element of state spending. One can be sure that the UK is losing its share of billions in financial crime and fraud. Yet where is the modern framework in the Bill to address these new fraud vectors, not least AI-enabled fraud? Why is there not more in the Bill that looks to address how AI can be deployed as a sword and shield against the nefarious use of AI?
There are a few nods and winks in the Bill to financial education, but we need to see much more on this. If there is to be less asymmetry between customer and firm, financial education is critical. How can the Government, the Financial Inclusion Committee, the Money and Pensions Service, which does such great work, and firms themselves can be brought together to have a far greater, coherent and consistent approach to financial education for all? How will this tailor with what is currently proposed, with the excellent Francis review of the curriculum? What will financial education look like in that?
There are many positive provisions in the Bill, but it is marked by errors and omissions excepted. There is so much that is not in the Bill that needs to be in it. It is a significant Financial Services and Markets Bill, yet it is silent on AI and cyber and it is quiet, if not completely silent, on financial inclusion, fraud and financial education. If this continues unamended and these issues unaddressed, individuals, our communities and our country will be the worse for it. They will be under-enabled and under-empowered and, as a consequence, there will be more than suboptimal economic activity. We have the Bill. We do not need to make it bigger, but we can make it better.
AI Regulation Bill
Lord Holmes of Richmond Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Holmes of Richmond
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the case for a cross-sector AI regulation bill.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to bring this QSD to the Grand Committee for debate. In doing so, I declare my interests as set out in the register, variously as adviser to the Crown Estate, Endava plc and Simmons and Simmons LLP. I thank all noble Lords who have signed up to speak, and I look forward to their quick-fire contributions.
I have been given eight minutes to open this debate, but I can do it in one word: is there a case for a cross-sector AI Bill? Yes. To expand somewhat on that, the Prime Minister has described AI as:
“The defining opportunity of our generation”,
yet the Government are largely taking a wait-and-see, voluntary and so-called domain-specific approach. I am not sure that wait and see is ever an optimal approach to any issue, particularly one as significant as AI. But do not listen to me; let us consider, on its own merits, how the Government’s approach is going. Harms are unaddressed. Young people are not getting shortlisted for jobs, without even knowing that it is AI that is kicking them out of the process; even if they knew, there would be little, if any, redress at this time. Job seekers, benefit claimants, teachers and teenagers are all suffering the harms of AI that are currently unaddressed. Similarly, vast opportunities are being unoptimised for the UK. Wait and see has really led to partial, piecemeal and voluntary action.
Why have the Government taken this approach? Let us take just two of the elements that are offered. The first is that it is too soon to legislate; they will stymie, stifle or stop progress. Not a bit of it—we know exactly what we need to do to put in place the right-sized legislation and regulation. The second is a falsehood that recurs with tedious inevitability: you can either have regulation or innovation, but you cannot have both. We all know bad regulation—there is a deal of it about—but that does not mean for one second that regulation, of itself, is bad. Right-sized and right-touch regulation is good for citizens, creatives, consumers, innovators and investors alike. We know how to do this. Just look back to the telco regulation of some decades ago. Was it stopping an industry? Far from it: it was a key enabler of Great British telco business.
What do we need to do? What anyone needs are clarity, consistency and coherence. This is currently not the case. We have such an opportunity because we have the great good fortune of common law, which is agile, adaptable and ideal for the task at hand. We need to bring forward principles-based, outcomes-focused, inputs-understood legislation. Those principles are trust and transparency; inclusion and innovation; interoperability and international outlook; accountability, assurance and accessibility—and we need to put those principles on a statutory footing.
We need to look to AI responsible officers across business. We need labelling to address the IP challenge, which currently continues to be kicked down the road, with creatives’ work taken—unremunerated, unrespected and unconsented to. Crucially, we need public engagement across this if we are going to enable all the opportunities from AI. We know what to do. We have the legislative capability, knowledge and history of how to do this.
Do not just listen to me. Let us take the great Ada Lovelace Institute, which variously describes the Government’s approach as chronically insufficient and, in a glorious understatement,
“increasingly out of step with public attitudes”.
If the Government want growth and public trust in AI and optimal outcomes across the whole of society, we need to end this wait-and-see, voluntary, partial, piecemeal approach. For economic, social, democratic and psychological reasons, we need a cross-sector, principles-based, outcomes-focused AI regulation Bill now. We need this for citizens, creatives, consumers, innovators and investors all to be enabled and empowered to say full-throatedly together, “Our data, our decisions, our AI futures”—our human-led, inclusive AI futures.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
Our view is that AI is a general-purpose technology with a wide range of applications, and also that regulators understand well the sectors they are regulating. They understand the risks that are present and understand, as many noble Lords have raised in the debate, the specific applications that AI is bringing, the potential risks to consumers and the nature of the competitive landscape—the balance between competition, incumbents and new entrants. That is the reason we are taking the approach to regulate at the point of use and using those regulatory frameworks.
We also already regulate AI in the UK—for example, in the Online Safety Act or under the GDPR—and, in some areas, across sectors. There are some areas in which legislation applies to the application of AI technologies.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
On that question of going domain-specific, what occurs in situations where there is a domain with no competent regulator? Similarly, how do the Government assure clarity, consistency and coherence of approach? As a citizen, you may come across AI—as noble Lords have rightly identified—in defence, education, health, tax and benefits. If you do not some sense of a guiding mind or horizontal direction, how can you possibly deliver consistency and clarity for people wherever they may come across AI?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
In all regulation, there is obviously a balance between consistency and context-specific, appropriate regulation. It is not always the case that consistency is the most appropriate or first-order principle. It may be that, as we have been discussing, there are many issues: a focus on growth, a focus on consumer protection or, for the energy markets in particular, a motivation towards decarbonisation. That is why the regulator, for whichever market we are talking about, is very well placed to look at how their objectives, as set out in their statutory duties, are best applied in the context of this new technology, which provides different functionalities and the opportunity for new innovation.
That is one reason we have also given these sandboxing powers. We realise that the current set of statutory frameworks was set up assuming that humans would always, for example, be in vehicles or crew vessels. We may need to adapt that in order to take account of the potential new innovations that AI brings, while doing so in a safe and secure way.
AI Growth Lab
Lord Holmes of Richmond Excerpts(4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Holmes of Richmond
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to bring forward any legislation required to establish their proposed AI growth lab.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and declare my interests as set out in the register as adviser to Endava plc, the Crown Estate, Submer Ltd and Simmons & Simmons LLP.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Baroness Lloyd of Effra) (Lab)
The AI growth lab is a regulatory sandbox designed to accelerate AI innovation and adoption across the UK in a supervised and safe setting. In the recent call for evidence, we asked for views on how best to operationalise the AI growth lab. Responses are being carefully considered in ongoing policy development and will inform forthcoming legislation that we intend to bring forward.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, the AI growth lab is an excellent intervention. We have a great tradition in this country of sandboxes, and this follows on from there. It will require primary legislation, and it is not alone in that: there is an increasing number of areas where the Government say they want to act in terms of AI, all of which will require primary legislation. Rather than taking a bit by bit, Bill by Bill approach, does the Minister not agree that clarity, consistency and coherence will be better served by bringing forward a cross-sector AI Bill that would be good for the citizen, the creative, the consumer, the innovator and the investor? Will the Government take the opportunity of the upcoming King’s Speech to bring forward such a Bill?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The noble Lord has a great deal of expertise in this area and, as he knows very well, AI is a technology that has many different applications. We are committed to a context-based regulatory approach where most AI systems are regulated at the point of use. As a novel technology, it can develop in areas which cross regulatory barriers or give particular opportunities for new product and service development. That is the reason for the AI growth lab, which will model a new approach to regulation, with the power to make rapid temporary amendments to regulation to safely test and prove application. As the noble Lord says, the UK’s experience of sandboxes is emulated around the world.
Artificial Intelligence Legislation
Lord Holmes of Richmond Excerpts(8 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Holmes of Richmond
To ask His Majesty’s Government when they will publish the consultation on artificial intelligence legislation, and when a bill will be introduced.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and I declare my relevant interest, as set out in the register, as an adviser to Endava plc and to Simmons and Simmons LLP and as a member of the technology and science advisory committee of the Crown Estate.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Lloyd of Effra) (Lab)
I appreciate the significant interest in the Government’s intentions for AI legislation, and I thank the noble Lord for his valuable contributions on the issue. The Government do not speculate on legislation ahead of future parliamentary Sessions, and I cannot confirm the timing of any such Bill. However, we will keep Parliament updated on the timings of any consultations ahead of bringing forward any legislation. We have remained committed to ensuring the UK and its laws are ready for the changes AI will bring.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, when it comes to AI legislation, the position of the previous Government was largely “wait and see”; so it is with this Government. But what is really required if you are an innovator, investor, citizen, creative or consumer is clarity, consistency and certainty. Further, the excellent Ada Lovelace Institute recent research showed that 72% of those surveyed said they would feel more comfortable with AI were it specifically regulated. Would the Minister not agree that, to deliver that clarity, consistency, certainty, comfort and confidence to act, we need a cross-sector, cross-economy, right-sized AI regulation Bill right now?
Employment Rights Bill
Lord Holmes of Richmond ExcerptsMonday 21st July 2025
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Employment Rights Act 2025 View all Employment Rights Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 113-III(a) Amendments for Report (Supplementary to the Third Marshalled List) - (21 Jul 2025)
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 111ZA seeks to introduce a requirement for workplace AI risk and impact assessments. This amendment is focused on addressing the profound and rapidly evolving impact of artificial intelligence systems on the modern workplace. There are many opportunities for its adoption but also risks and impacts. There is potentially massive job displacement. AI could displace 1 million to 3 million UK jobs overall. There are workplaces skills gaps; more than half the UK workforce lacks essential digital skills and the majority of the public has no AI education or training.
AI recruitment algorithms have resulted in race and sex discrimination. There are legal vulnerabilities. Companies risk facing costly lawsuits and settlements when unsuccessful job applicants claim unlawful discrimination by AI hiring systems. Meanwhile, AI adoption accelerates rapidly, and the UK’s regulatory framework is lagging behind.
Organisations such as the Trades Union Congress and the Institute for the Future of Work have consistently highlighted the critical need for robust regulation in this area. The TUC, through its artificial intelligence regulation and employment rights Bill, drafted with a multi-stakeholder task force, explicitly proposes workforce AI risk assessments and emphasises the need for worker consultation before AI systems are implemented. It also advocates for fundamental rights, such as a right to a human review for high-risk decisions. IFOW similarly calls for an accountability for algorithms Act that would mandate pre-emptive algorithmic impact assessments to identify and mitigate risks, ensuring greater transparency and accountability in the use of AI at work. Both organisations stress that existing frameworks are insufficient to protect workers from the potential harms of AI.
When I spoke to a similar amendment—Amendment 149—in Committee, the Minister acknowledged this and said:
“The Government are committed to working with trade unions, employers, workers and experts to examine what AI and new technologies mean for work, jobs and skills. We will promote best practice in safeguarding against the invasion of privacy through surveillance technology, spyware and discriminatory algorithmic decision-making … However, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that the Institute for the Future of Work will be welcome to make an input into that piece of work and the consultation that is going forward. I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and all noble Lords that this is an area that the Government are actively looking into, and we will consult on proposals in the make work pay plan in due course”.—[Official Report, 5/6/25; col. 878.]
This was all very reassuring, perhaps, but I have retabled this amendment precisely because we need more concrete specifics regarding this promised consultation.
The TUC and IFOW have been working on this for four years. Is it too much to ask the Government to take a clear position on what is proposed now? The Minister referred to the importance of proper consultation. This is a crucial area impacting the fundamental rights and well-being of workers right now, often without their knowledge, and AI systems are increasingly being introduced into the workforce, so the Government need to provide clarity on what kind of consultation is being undertaken, with whom they will engage beyond relevant stakeholders and what the precise timescale is for this consultation and any subsequent legislative action, particularly given the rapid introduction of AI into workplaces.
We cannot afford a wait-and-see approach. If comprehensive AI regulation cannot be addressed within this Bill as regards the workplace, we need an immediate and clear commitment to provision within dedicated AI legislation, perhaps coming down the track, to ensure that AI in the workplace truly benefits everyone. I beg to move.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, who, in his single Nelsonian amendment, has covered a lot of the material in my more spread-out set of amendments. I support his Amendment 111ZA and will speak to my Amendments 168 to 176. I declare my interests in the register, particularly my technology interests, not least as a member of the advisory board of Endava plc and as a member of the technology and science advisory committee of the Crown Estate.
I will take one brief step backwards. From the outset, we have heard that the Government do not want to undertake cross-sector AI legislation and regulation. Rather, they want to take a domain-specific approach. That is fine; it is clearly the stated position, although it would not be my choice. But it is simultaneously interesting to ask how, if that choice is adopted, consistency across our economy and society is ensured so that, wherever an individual citizen comes up against AI, they can be assured of a consistent approach to the treatment of the challenges and opportunities of that AI. Similarly, what happens where there is no competent regulator or authority in that domain?
At the moment, largely, neither approach seems to be being adopted. Whenever I and colleagues have raised amendments around AI in what we might call domain-specific areas, such as the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill, the data Bill and now the Employment Rights Bill, we are told, “This is not the legislation for AI”. I ask the Minister for clarity as to whether, if a cross-sector approach to AI is not being taken, a domain-specific approach is, as opportunities are not being taken up when appropriate legislation comes before your Lordships’ House.
I turn to the amendments in my name. Amendment 168 goes to the very heart of the issue around employers’ use of AI. Very good, if not excellent, principles were set out in the then Government’s White Paper of 2023. I have transposed many of these into my Amendment 168. Would it not be beneficial to have these principles set in statute for the benefit of workers, in this instance, wherever they come across employers deploying AI in their workplace?
Amendment 169 lifts a clause largely from my Artificial Intelligence (Regulation) Private Member’s Bill and suggests that an AI responsible officer in all organisations that develop, deploy and use AI would be a positive thing for workers, employees and employers alike. This would not be seen as burdensome, compliant or a mere question of audit but as a positive, vibrant, dynamic role, so that the benefits of AI could be felt by workers right across their employment experience. It would be proportionate and right touch, with reporting requirements easily recognised as mirroring similar requirements set out for other obligations under the Companies Act. If we had AI responsible officers across our economy, across businesses and organisations deploying and using AI right now, this would be positive, dynamic and beneficial for workers, employees, employers, our economy and wider society.
Amendment 170 goes to the issue of IP copyright and labelling. It would put a responsibility on workers who are using AI to report to the relevant government department on the genesis of that IP and copyrighted material, and the data used in that AI deployment, by which means there would be clarity not only on where that IP copyright and data had emanated from but that it had been got through informed consent and that all IP and copyright obligations had been respected and adhered to.
Amendments 171 and 172 similarly look at where workers’ data may be ingested right now by employers’ use of AI. These are such rich, useful and economically beneficial sources of data for employers and businesses. Amendment 171 simply suggests that there should be informed consent from those workers before any of their data can be used, ingested and deployed.
I would like to take a little time on Amendment 174, around the whole area of AI in recruitment and employment. This goes back to one of my points at the beginning of this speech: for recruitment, there currently exists no competent authority or regulator. If the Government continue with their domain-specific approach, recruitment remains a gap, because there is no domain-specific competent authority or regulator that could be held responsible for the deployment and development of AI in that sector. If, for example, somebody finds themselves not making a shortlist, they may not know that AI has been involved in making that decision. Even if they were aware, they would find themselves with no redress and no competent authority to take their claim to.