Financial Services and Markets Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Holmes of Richmond and Baroness Kramer

Committee stage
Wednesday 8th July 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I am going to be brief again: these are very interesting amendments. The breadth of the amendments put before us by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, gives us a sense of the extensive work that must be done, right across the plumbing of the entire financial services sector, to move and take advantage of the opportunities of the digital world. There is no discussion here of some of the risks, namely about the levers of power shifting to different hands and whether we should be concerned about that or whether there are monetary sovereignty issues. Those are crucial issues, and we cannot walk away from them. Plumbing seems boring, but it is crucial. It seems that every aspect of that plumbing has been raised here, something that I hoped we might hear about in greater detail from the Government. I am particularly focused on the first of the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, which is Amendment 164C. I apologise, I have the wrong one.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

That was good too, though.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

That was very good too. I meant Amendment 164E, which is headed,

“Shared digital identity and compliance utilities”.

I come from a party that is always very concerned about identity cards, whether they are digital or traditional, old-fashioned cards, and what they do to privacy and independence, so I have those caveats constantly in the back of my mind. It seems to me, however, that a series of fundamental questions are raised by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, in subsection (2), where he talks about the various specifications, the governance arrangements, the very straightforward things such as whether utilities are to be publicly or privately owned, under public specifications or operated as industry utilities. There are issues of data, access to digital ledgers, privacy, data protection and how to cope with the transition period, which will be very complex and very different for different individuals. Some people will transition completely almost in the blink of an eye, and others will be very late adopters. That creates a whole set of issues around financial inclusion and exclusion. I hope very much that we will get the discussion that we need, particularly around subsection (2), which then sits as a foundation to all the other issues that are raised. These are issues that engage the regulator, of course, but many of them are above the regulatory pay grade, and we need to be engaged on those issues here in this Committee.

Financial Services and Markets Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Holmes of Richmond and Baroness Kramer

Committee stage
Monday 6th July 2026 Grand Committee

[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.

Financial Services and Markets Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Holmes of Richmond and Baroness Kramer

Committee stage
Wednesday 1st July 2026 Grand Committee

[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.

Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Cryptoassets) Regulations 2025

Debate between Lord Holmes of Richmond and Baroness Kramer

Wednesday 28th January 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

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

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

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

Crown Estate Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Holmes of Richmond and Baroness Kramer

Committee stage
Monday 14th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend and agree with many of his comments, and to give more than a nod to the amendments in the name of my noble friend Baroness Vere of Norbiton.

I rise to speak to Amendment 20 in my name. The Crown Estate has a unique position in our society, our economy, across many of our communities and right around our shoreline. This position will only be increased and enhanced through many of the measures set out in this Bill, not least the yet to be discovered tie-up with GB Energy. To this end, my Amendment 20 seeks to put in statute the principle of additionality for all spending decisions of the Crown Estate. It seems sound that, given the potential not least of offshore wind, the activities of the Crown Estate cannot at any point be seen to be crowding out other private funds. An additionality principle which seeks to apply measures on crowding out and ensure crowding in, and a report to that effect, would be not just a principle of additionality but a good addition to this Bill. I look forward to the Minister’s comments.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I want to pick up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes. That would be an attractive proposition if we were dealing with a “have regard”, but asking the Crown Estate to go through an extensive exercise to find out what every competitor wants to invest in would be far too challenging. However, as an underlying principle, through a “have regard”, that might be a workable way to address that issue.

I want to come back to the body of the amendments. I was fairly hopeful that we would not have to come forward with these amendments because we would have seen the language, or at least the essence of the language, that was going to be in the new framework agreement. The Minister fully accepts that the existing framework agreement completely misses the point and is unfit for purpose when it comes to adding new borrowing powers. For those who have not made the effort to look the current framework, it says that the Crown Estate may not borrow money “on security or otherwise”. There are some small exceptions for day-to-day running and working capital-type things, but that is about it. Then, the framework says that the Crown Estate’s exposure to indirect borrowing through joint ventures—this is the way the Crown Estate, in effect, has borrowed: by creating joint ventures that then go out into the market—will be no more than 40% in one vehicle, and in aggregate should not exceed 10% of the Crown Estate’s net asset value. Something along those lines strikes me as extremely appropriate and would, I think, seem appropriate to most of this House.

I raised ahead of Second Reading, and on Second Reading with the Minister, that we have never seen a business case that argues why additional borrowing or additional funds are necessary. This is an entity that is sitting on some £2 billion in cash—why is this necessary? I do not think we are opposed to this, but if we are going to approve it, it makes sense to see the thought process behind it. The Minister was quite hopeful: he said that he was happy now to commit to publishing a version of the business plan, approved by the last Government, which removes any commercially sensitive information. That was a really satisfactory step, but we have not seen it. I suppose I am slightly surprised that it is been so difficult to just black out the commercially sensitive bits, and I wonder when we are going to see it.