Financial Services and Markets Bill [Lords]

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Tuesday 10th November 2026 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

One of the things I like about my hon. Friend is that he is a regular attendee of a range of different debates in this Chamber, and I welcome him here tonight. He may not have had a chance to study it, so after this debate I will send him our financial inclusion strategy, in which he, like the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade), will see set out some of the points of concern he raises. If not, then either I or my right hon. and learned Friend the Economic Secretary would be happy to discuss it with him further.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

Will the Chancellor give way?

[John Healey]

Of course, and then I will make a bit more progress.

[Kirsty Blackman]

The financial inclusion strategy does indeed highlight the problems and areas where improvements could be made. However, the actual strategies for doing that, and the things that actually need to be put in place to ensure better access to credit across the board, for example, are not quite solid enough. Could the Chancellor commit to looking again at how to improve fair access to credit for everybody?

[John Healey]

As my right hon. and learned Friend the Economic Secretary has just said to me, the strategy and action plan are relatively new. In many ways—the hon. Lady will know this from her own nationalist Government in Scotland—government is always, in some ways, a work in progress, and where there are improvements and strengthening measures that we can take, we are certainly willing to consider those.

The fourth measure on deregulation is that the Bill will give the Bank of England a new secondary innovation objective when regulating systemic payment systems and digital settlement asset service providers. This will ensure that the UK remains at the forefront of innovation in payments and digital finance. Fifthly, it reforms the senior managers and certification regime, retaining its core guardrails while saving firms an estimated £240 million a year.

Turning to the second part of the Bill, credit unions expand access to affordable credit, encourage saving and strengthen financial resilience in communities right across Britain. At the heart of a credit union is its common bond—the connection that brings together its members, be that place, employer or sometimes occupation. Yet in too many areas, the rules that govern how credit unions operate have simply not kept pace with the way people live and work today. In many cases, moving home, retiring or studying somewhere can stand in the way of someone benefiting from credit union membership. The Bill therefore ensures that credit unions will be able to admit a wider range of relatives, to deal with retirement and to accommodate students, even when they do not live or work in the same place as they study.

I turn to the third part of the Bill: consumer protections and redress. The Consumer Credit Act 1974 was designed and passed over 50 years ago. Research from the debt charity StepChange shows that parts of the Act can be harmful, resulting in many consumers feeling scared, depressed and overwhelmed by what they face. In part, that is because currently much of the information sent to consumers about their credit product is tightly specified by this 50-year-old Act—down in some cases to specific words and even which letters must be capitalised in the advice given. It requires the reading age of an undergraduate, when at least one in seven adults have the literacy skills expected of a nine to 11-year-old. The Bill repeals many of the prescriptive provisions in the 1974 Act, enabling the FCA to develop new rules around the information that consumers will receive, allowing this to be more flexible and tailored to the particular needs of different consumers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

This is quite a wide-ranging Bill, as we can tell from the variety of speeches that we have heard. It focuses not only on financial markets and financial services, but on consumer protection. In some ways, those are opposite ends of the spectrum, and we can talk about anything within that spectrum.

I will talk about a few measures in the Bill, but first I want to raise a concern that I have raised before, which is that any piece of legislation that originates in the House of Lords does not take oral evidence. It is immensely frustrating that no oral evidence will be taken regarding this Bill, despite the fact that it is immensely technical and we would really benefit from that. I have been on many Bill Committees, so I know that oral evidence sessions are invaluable for providing information that we can take forward. I urge the Government to have a rethink about whether oral evidence can be taken on House of Lords Bills when they come to the Commons, because it is not fair that we miss out on that evidence.

Turning to specific measures in the Bill, part 1 on credit unions is really important, and I agree with widening the membership. I think that the “Fair Banking for All” movement is really positive, and I would be keen to support it, including with access to credit. A number of Members have said things like, “We all rely on banking services”, but some people do not, because they cannot access those banking services because they are so financially excluded. Ensuring that those people who have suffered from economic abuse, for example, have access to those services is really important.

I am glad that credit unions will have their common bond widened, but I do wonder about the timeline for the statutory instrument that is coming through to widen the limit of people from 3 million to 10 million. It would be really helpful if the Minister could let us know what is happening with that statutory instrument and when it will progress, because it is happening in parallel to this Bill rather than being included in it.

On complaints and consumer redress, I agree with the majority of what the Chair of the Treasury Committee said. I have concerns about the absolute limit of 10 years. I do not think that that is appropriate, and consumer organisations also believe that.

I also have concerns about the general principle that consumers should take responsibility for their decisions. As a general principle, that makes sense, but when it comes to specific issues it does not necessarily always work. Consumers can take responsibility in situations where they had the full information and the capacity to understand the information that they were given, but in some cases they will not have been given the full information or had the ability to understand it. They should be able to take responsibility for informed decisions but not have to take responsibility for those in which they were not properly informed. I would appreciate it if the Minister could clarify that before we come to Report stage—it relates to clause 7, which proposes amendments to section 228 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.

On payment systems regulation, I absolutely agree that changes that can be made. I feel strongly that it is really important to future-proof the regulation of cryptoassets particularly and the transfer of those cryptoassets in relation to payment systems regulation and fees that are regulated by the FCA. Charities have seen a massive increase from a significant number of banking institutions in the payments that they make. For example, charities that have only a small amount of money and might be taking out a float to run a small event will now be seeing massive fees that they were not seeing before because of changes to charitable banking systems. I am not sure whether that exactly falls within payment systems regulation, but I do not think it is fair that they have to do that. Those changes disproportionately harm smaller charities and those who deal with small amounts of cash.

I have a specific question on anti-money laundering supervision. I understand the move away from professional body supervisors so that we can have fewer than 25 organisations doing that supervision, but I am worried about specialisation. For example, if we put the work of the organisation that supervises lawyers and solicitors in Scotland into the FCA as a regulator that supervises lawyers, that may not be appropriate for the legal system in Scotland, and we may end up with only one person—the one who understands Scottish law—having the knowledge and doing that supervision. There, again, we would have a single point of failure, and that is really concerning in a place supervising people who are doing anti-money laundering. Will the Minister confirm that there will be appropriate specialism and understanding of all the different organisations currently supervised by professional bodies as that work is moved into one organisation? I am concerned about potential failure points.

In relation to Scottish-specific things, those looking to get a child trust fund unlocked for someone in Scotland who has become an adult and does not have the capacity to manage their own finances has to go to the Office of the Public Guardian. Will the Minister please ensure that any changes in regulation made here do not make the system worse in Scotland? I understand that it is currently better than the system in England—there is no requirement to go through a court process—so will she talk to the people who understand the system in Scotland to ensure that our people will not be disadvantaged? I would love the system in Scotland to be made better, but at the very least it should not be made worse as we move forward here.

I believe strongly that we need access to in-person banking services, as have been mentioned. A huge many banks have closed in my constituency—a city constituency—and some people are required to go on public transport for an hour to get to banking facilities.

When banks close, they regularly say, “It’s fine, because there’s a post office.” That is not fine, because post offices are run by postmasters and postmistresses, who may get ill and have to step down at short notice, and post offices do not have to consult before they close to ensure that provision will always be there. Therefore, in terms of access to in-person banking services, if a post office is to be relied on as a backstop, that service needs to be better and better regulated, and we need to ensure that that backstop service will continue to be there.

On data sharing for consumer credit and ensuring that people have credit agreements, I am concerned that if the data sharing system is to be more flexible than currently, it may be more at risk given the number of hacks we are seeing. I urge the Government to ensure that the National Crime Agency, for example, has looked into that so that people’s data is as safe as possible.

I have one very last thing. On Henry VIII powers and the creation of things here, banking services should never have been a delegated authority; that should have been in the Bill. We should also have done the consultation before the legislation.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome the Bill and commend both the Chancellor and, in particular, my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary for their commitment to modernising financial services. Like the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) and other Government Members, I welcome in particular the proposed changes to credit union rules as well as recently announced measures to increase funding for community development finance institutions through the British Business Bank. But I want to focus my remarks specifically on what more the Bill could do to ensure that our financial system works for everyone, particularly by improving access to affordable credit for people and businesses in every region.

The Prime Minister has rightly said that ours must be a “cost of living Government” putting money back into people’s pockets and giving families breathing space. That must surely include tackling the extra costs that people face simply because they are on a low income. Research published this summer by Fair By Design found that 95% of low-income households pay a poverty premium, of an average of £380 a year extra, for essentials such as energy, insurance, food and, crucially, credit.

That research suggests that some 98% of households in poverty in my constituency pay a poverty premium that includes £178 a year on credit. That is not by any definition a small amount for a family already struggling to make ends meet. A household with savings can, for example, replace a broken fridge outright, but almost 40% of UK adults have less than £1,000 in savings and one in four people in financially vulnerable circumstances have no savings at all. A household without savings in that situation might have to borrow at eye-watering rates, paying far more for exactly the same appliance. The people with the least paying the highest price during a cost of living crisis is particularly unjust, and sometimes the consequences are far more serious than higher interest payments.

The Centre for Social Justice estimated earlier this year that close to 2 million people in England are borrowing from illegal money lenders. These loan sharks can trap people in escalating debts, using intimidation, threats and sometimes violence to extract repayments. The number of people using them has risen and sadly will continue to rise unless people have safe, affordable alternatives. Credit unions and community development finance institutions already provide those alternatives, but they need support to be able to scale up and meet demand. Public funding, while important and welcome, cannot do the job alone.

Some 850,000 SMEs already view access to finance as a major obstacle to growth, fewer than half of SME loan applications to traditional banks are successful, and in surveys, 40% of SMEs cite the high cost of the loans on offer as a problem for their business. Women business leaders, businesses led by disabled people, ethnic minority business leaders and businesses in the poorest areas of our country all face higher barriers to accessing the finance they need to unlock their expansion plans.

Concern has grown that a number of high-cost lenders are exploiting this situation, targeting small businesses with slick, online marketing offering very rapid access to cash. As with the payday lending scandal of a decade ago, these lenders do not have to display or explain the total cost of borrowing or accurate representative rates. The often quite aggressive use of personal guarantees, loan stacking and the behaviour of some brokers are also significant concerns. Court judgments, ombudsman complaints and wider efforts to refinance these loans all underline the need for tighter regulation of the rules on high-cost credit and for bolder measures to improve access to affordable credit.

Research for the Treasury and the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade published in January this year by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research underlined how much our increasingly centralised banking services had driven up the cost of lending for businesses, compared with other European countries with much larger regional and mutual banking sectors. The OECD’s most recent analysis of SMEs’ and entrepreneurs’ financing suggests that the UK had higher average SME interest rates in 2024 compared with the US, France and Germany.

I am therefore pleased that Ministers are backing with enthusiasm the CDFI taskforce that I initiated in government, and I welcome the progress on the Government’s financial inclusion strategy, but lasting change surely means looking beyond voluntary measures to ensure that people in the most vulnerable parts of the market are not excluded from essential financial services, including credit—a point members of the Treasury Committee made in their recent report. The Bill is the opportunity to bridge this gap and enact that change.

There is no consistent, transparent framework for assessing how well major banks serve the people and places excluded from affordable credit. There is no systematic way to compare their contribution or assess how they encourage partnerships with credit unions and CDFIs that can make a real difference. We should surely require the Financial Conduct Authority to assess and publish banks’ performance in meeting affordable credit needs, including their support for responsible community lenders. Assessments should be transparent, comparable and, of course, proportionate, with action expected where performance falls short. A similar thing is about to happen with pension schemes.

This is not about forcing banks to lend to people who cannot afford to repay. It is about ensuring that those who can repay are not excluded and that banks fulfil their part of the social contract. Banks have had huge success in the last decade—a decade when, according to Which?, almost 7,000 bank branches have closed, shutting down opportunities for basic advice, making access to financial services more difficult and leaving small businesses on our high streets facing yet another challenge.

[Kirsty Blackman]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a lot of this data is collected already, and that it would not place a significant additional regulatory burden on banks to have to gather it? It is just not being published.

[Gareth Thomas]

Indeed, the FCA said something similar to me at a roundtable with some charities. What is clearly needed is the will to publish that data and to sort out the remaining gaps in the data.

The banks’ success has come through being particularly selective in who they lend and offer detailed financial advice to. Their contributions to helping build the capacity of those financial institutions that do lend to everybody have been much more limited—in some cases, non-existent. It is the responsibility of Government to lead on tackling market failures, but as in other countries, banks in the UK have a responsibility to help, and not enough of them are helping to build the capacity of community banks, credit unions and CDFIs to do so. Just as it was right to ask banks to pay a bit more tax to support people with their energy bills, so we should ask them to work with us to create a more diverse, resilient and, crucially, inclusive financial system that will serve every community in the decades ahead.

Everyone in this House surely supports easing the cost of living and delivering good growth in every postcode. Fair access to credit is critical to both those ambitions. I hope that Ministers can be persuaded to back further steps on affordable credit as the Bill progresses. A financial system that works for everyone is fundamental to tackling the cost of living crisis.