Financial Services and Markets Bill [Lords]

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Tuesday 10th November 2026 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

The short answer is more investment—encouraged by the UK Government, but decided, often, by the financial services sector itself. My right hon. and learned Friend the Economic Secretary was in Belfast recently to mark the opening of new Bank of America offices—a sign to the hon. Gentleman, I hope, of a flourishing financial services sector in Northern Ireland, and one with a good, strong future.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

Has the Chancellor made an assessment of the investment and wider economic benefits that would arise from these deregulatory measures? If so, can he share it now? If not now, will he publish it and share it with the House?

[John Healey]

We have indeed. As the right hon. Gentleman would expect, an economic impact assessment, which he may see in the Vote Office, has been published alongside the Bill. In rough terms—this is probably a conservative estimate—we think that the benefit of the measures in the Bill as it stands will have a value of about £1.6 billion over the next 10 years.

The UK is home not only to some of the deepest and most liquid capital markets in the world, but to some of the largest global banks, the world’s premier insurance market—Lloyd’s of London—and huge digital success stories such as Revolut and Wise. That is why I will always talk up the immense contribution that the sector makes to our economy and to the services that underpin everyday life: funding for the small firm looking to expand, mortgage finance for the first-time buyer and investment for the saver planning for the future. That comes not only from our world-leading banks, insurers and asset managers, but from our mutuals, building societies and credit unions, which are all essential parts of the UK financial system. Just last week, I was pleased to appoint my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) as the first ever co-operatives and mutuals champion in Government. He will help to fulfil our aim of doubling the size of the co-operative and mutual sector.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend is so expert and well read in this area. In fact, her assertion about an assumption that the firm is always right is incorrect. At the heart of what is proposed in the Bill is the consumer duty of the FCA, with a single, clear set of standards that firms must meet and that consumers who feel their service has fallen short are able to use as reference for challenge, redress and appeal to the ombudsman. Instead of the ombudsman having its own set of standards and criteria and the FCA having its own, which has led to confusion and inconsistency, we will have a single set of standards that are clear and consistent for both the consumer and firms.

Turning to the fourth and final area, we must do more to increase lending and encourage firms to start and succeed here in Britain, as I did with measures in the Budget.

[Graham Stuart]

Will the Chancellor give way?

[John Healey]

The right hon. Gentleman has had one go. Quite a few Members wish to speak, and it is beginning to get into the evening, so I am going to make a bit more progress and let others come in. But if he wants to sit on the Bill Committee, he would be welcome— I am sure the Whips on his Front Bench will have noticed his keen interest in the debate. If that does not put him off, I don’t know what will!

The ringfencing regime requires major banks to separate their UK retail banking services from riskier investment banking activities. This regime has strengthened the resilience of UK retail banking since the financial crisis, but the independent Skeoch review identified areas where the ringfencing regime and the resolution regime could be better aligned. That is why we are introducing a series of reforms, such as the new growth allowance, to give ringfenced banks greater flexibility to provide growing businesses with the support they need as they grow. The measures in the Bill go a stage further, including allowing the Prudential Regulation Authority to remove unnecessary duplication in its rules, and we are introducing new powers to expand the commercial credit data-sharing scheme.

[Graham Stuart]

In lieu of other people seeking to intervene, would the Chancellor allow me to?

[John Healey]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an irresistible plea.

[Graham Stuart]

I am grateful to the Chancellor, who is being typically generous. On the subject of lending, he will be aware that the doubling of the bank tax, which was red meat for his Back Benchers, will raise £1.5 billion in just 15 months. The regulatory rules suggest that that could reduce the lending pot by a maximum of perhaps £25 billion. Is it not fair to say that that dwarfs any of the benefits of this Bill? My final question is, can he commit that it will be 15 months and 15 months only before this credit-reducing measure is brought back again?

[John Healey]

Two questions in one intervention—that really will be the last time I give way to the right hon. Gentleman. The answer to his first question is that, as I have said already, this is time limited. It will end in March 2028. If he looks at clause 7 of the Finance Bill, he will see that set out.

On the question of hitting investment, I have to tell the right hon. Gentleman that none of the discussions I have had with banking and financial sector leaders before or subsequent to the Budget suggests they want to do anything other than raise their levels of investment into British firms. I understand the reaction to and view of the temporary 3% additional surcharge that I put on banks to help pay for household energy help this winter. I certainly would not describe it as welcomed by the banks. I do believe it is manageable. I do not believe, and I have seen no evidence, that it is going to hit the levels of investment or the commitment they make to this country. As I said earlier, I will miss no opportunity to talk up the importance of the financial services sector to the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stuart]

Following that last intervention on the tremendous importance of banks to this country, does my hon. Friend share my concern? Notwithstanding what it says on the face of the Finance Bill, I rather fear that a Labour Chancellor with this particular set of Back Benchers will not turn up after 15 months and say, “I have a great idea, comrades: let us get rid of the doubling of the bank tax.” I fear that there will be some other new financial pressure—there are always financial pressures—that will mean that this socialist Government further reduce the credit available to this country and make us all poorer as a result of satisfying Government Back Benchers, who understand nothing about economics.

[Mark Garnier]

My right hon. Friend makes a very reasonable point. It is certainly easier to tax banks than it is to cut benefits, for example, but we have to be careful about this. He raises a very good point; if we reduce the amount of cash available to banks, we reduce the amount of money getting into the wider economy. I will come to that a bit later in my speech. We have identified certain areas where we can make it easier for banks to lend more money in the economy, but, as I say, I will come to that in a minute.

This Bill is an important opportunity to change the signal that we are sending to the wider world. We believe that, in general terms, this Bill takes steps in the right direction, so the Chancellor and the Economic Secretary to the Treasury will be glad to hear that we will not vote against it tonight. There is a one-line Whip, and it is fantastic that so many people have turned up on the Government Benches for this debate. However, while the Bill takes a positive step, it should be taking a positive leap. Just like the Budget, it feels like a missed opportunity to take the bold action needed. As I have said, we intend to work constructively with the Government, but we want them to be braver and go further.

Let me be clear: when it comes to this Bill, we should be talking about the level of risk that we are willing to accept, not how we can pursue perfection. This is about how we can keep talent in the UK, not about how we can make it jump through more hoops. This is about how we can empower the financial services sector, not about how we can bind it in further red tape. This is about the bold action that we should take to cement the future of the sector, not about how we can tinker at the edges. I hope that colleagues will follow that advice as the Bill progresses.

First, though, we should celebrate our past, because we have so much to be proud of in this country. The financial services ecosystem started in the UK in the 12th century, when the Knights Templar first issued receipts to pilgrims and crusaders for valuable assets such as gold. Those could be exchanged in the Holy Land for funds, creating what we recognise as the first iteration of bank notes. In the 17th century, Jonathan’s Coffee House was the first to advertise share prices. From there, the London stock exchange grew, setting up the model for equity ownership the world over. Similarly, Lloyd’s Coffee House created the insurance market that we see today. From that, the UK has continued to be a world leader in innovation, and we have built a reputation as a major financial centre.

The statistics do not lie. We are the largest net exporter of financial services in the world, at £119 billion last year. The London market alone is larger than its five closest international competitors combined. We have the most unicorns in Europe, the second largest asset management sector globally, the third largest insurance market globally and the fifth largest domestic banking sector globally. The point is that we start in a good position, and we have a great deal to be proud of. However, if we are to continue to succeed today and in the future, we must be bold, and we must be aware that others seek to steal our advantage. We must respond to that challenge and restore our economic powerhouse.

Where do we want the Government to go further? The first area is ringfencing. As the Chancellor alluded to earlier, the Bill talks about ringfencing, which, as we know, is the structural separation of certain retail banking activities from the activities conducted by international wholesale and investment banks. It was proposed by the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards back in 2013—following the Wright review, if I remember rightly—which was created in response to the global financial crisis.

Let me be clear that ringfencing was well intentioned— I know that well, because I sat on the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards and was part of the process that recommended it. However, 13 years later, I can see that the implementation of the ringfencing regime has not gone in the way that was intended. It costs our banking sector about £1.5 billion a year to implement. To go back to the competitiveness point, no other jurisdiction ended up bringing in ringfencing at all, and it has been superseded by more recent regulatory developments, such as the resolution regime. That last point is especially important. To quote the 2022 independent review of ringfencing and proprietary trading:

“The reduction in the implicit government guarantee and progress in ending too-big-to-fail was not found to be attributable to ring-fencing. The last point is instead attributable to the development of the UK resolution regime”.

As I say, that is from an independent review of ringfencing.

The Government are making changes in the Bill that will make ringfencing more flexible. That includes amending the PRA’s duty to make ringfencing rules, helping it to avoid duplicating protections that are already provided by the bank resolution regime. Along with other measures in the Bill, that measure takes a positive step forward, but we feel that the Government could have been bolder.

At times of change, we need to remove rules that no longer serve their intended purposes. Some of these rules have been superseded by subsequent legislation—last year’s Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Act 2025 is a case in point, together with bail-in bonds and the minimum requirements for own funds and eligible liabilities regime. We believe that ringfencing is the clearest example, so we will push the Government to go further and not just reform ringfencing, but remove it altogether.