Financial Services Reform

Lord Livermore Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I spent two years on the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards following the 2008 crash. We were all aware that the financial sector and the City would, over time, work hard to erode the protections that we recommended to prevent a repeat of financial instability, casino-type risk-taking and consumer abuse. The financial sector plays a long game. Inch by inch the erosion is well under way, while the Government are seen as eager for nominal growth and too eager to resist that erosion.

Let me give a short list on the erosion: the competitiveness and growth objective for regulators; the changing to matching adjustment in Solvency UK, increasing the illiquidity of the insurance sector; the removal of the cap on bankers’ bonuses; the permanent permission for pension funds to transact derivatives without using central counterparties and holding margin collateral; the watering down of the senior managers regime, which is key to accountability; the weakening of the Financial Ombudsman; the pressure on pension funds to invest in high-risk and illiquid assets; and the weakening of bank ring-fencing, which was absolutely at the heart of the commission’s recommendations, removing that incentive to take free deposits and roll them in the casino. That list is just what springs immediately to mind. It is far from complete.

Regulation cannot be written in stone, and adjustment and streamlining are always necessary, but will the Government now issue a compendium of all the changes, along with a proper assessment of the cumulative shift in risk? I mean changes by not just the Government but the various regulators. Parliament will then be in a position to make a proper judgment.

The financial sector has approved this move back towards what it sees as a return to the light-touch regime, a regime that made it very rich. But remember that when the inevitable crash came, leading financiers were pretty much untouched. Ordinary people bore the brunt. It is crucial that this is not repeated.

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Kramer, for their questions and comments. I will do my best to address all the points they raised.

The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, spoke about the economy in general. She will be aware that we have had to take very difficult decisions on the economy to generate the stability that we all want to see—not least to restore stability to the public finances in the Budget last October. The stability that we have restored is already delivering. We have seen four cuts in interest rates by the Bank of England since the general election, reducing the cost of mortgages and business lending. Real wages have risen more in the first 10 months of this Labour Government than in the first 10 years of the previous Conservative Government. Investment is returning to our economy. At the spending review, the Chancellor set out £120 billion of additional public investment. The IMF has long identified the insufficient amount of investment in our public sector as a barrier to growth. The UK has attracted £120 billion of private sector investment in just the last 12 months.

The noble Baroness mentioned recent growth figures. Those growth figures were disappointing, but we are determined to go ever further and faster to deliver on our growth promise. That is why we are doing all the reforms that we have embarked on—not least the spending review and increased investment. We have increased investment in better city region transport, have committed record funding for affordable homes and are backing major infrastructure projects such as Sizewell C. We are investing in the parts of the economy that genuinely will be growth generative.

The noble Baroness also talked about the importance of financial services to the economy. The financial services sector is critical to our growth ambitions for our country. It is one of the largest and most productive sectors in the UK, worth around 9% of total economic output, as she said, employing 1.2 million people in clusters right across the UK. London is the financial centre of the world, home to the deepest equity capital market in Europe and the third-biggest venture capital market globally. It is right that we support the sector as we have in the strategy that we have set out, to see the growth that we want to see and for that growth to feed through to the real economy.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, for welcoming what we have said about the rebalancing between risk, growth and competitiveness. The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, struck a very different tone. I know that she has huge expertise in this. I do not for a second intend to in any way doubt her expertise. I know that she played a huge role post financial crisis in putting together much of the architecture that is in place. I disagree, though, with the way in which she characterised our reforms. She asked for a compendium of those reforms. The financial services growth and competitive strategy is the compendium of those reforms. I think that what have been called the Leeds reforms are the totality of the reforms that she identified.

We are not removing the regulatory architecture that was put in place and that she played a major role in after the global financial crisis. As the Chancellor has specifically said:

“The protections that were put in place … were the right thing to do, with better protections for consumers and more accountability injected into the system”.


The core elements of that—adherence to international standards, ensuring robust MREL, remaining committed to ring-fencing, which we do despite what the noble Baroness said, and the structure to the regulatory system—all remain in place. But we believe that the pendulum swung too far in the opposite direction. The balance of regulation has gone too far towards regulating for risk and not enough towards regulating for growth. Clearly, this is a highly competitive sector, and no other globally competitive financial services hub imposes such bureaucracy on its businesses. Neither should we if we want to be competitive.

So, absolutely, we are recalibrating. We are rebalancing the approach to risk so that it is more proportionate and so that, in the right places, consumers and industry can take informed risk and create the space for the innovation and growth in the sector that we want to see.

The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, mentioned the Financial Services Regulation Committee of this House and the fact that it identified many of the issues that have been addressed in this strategy. Obviously, I pay tribute to that committee and the work it has done. I look forward to debating its report in due course. That points to a degree of cross-party consensus in some of the challenges we face and want to address. She specifically mentioned financial education, for example, which was one of the key recommendations made in that report. I hope we can find consensus on the importance of that, if nothing else.

As the noble Baroness said, we need to build confidence for retail investment among the general public on a platform of greater education. As part of the Leeds reforms, we are looking to take forward a series of measures to give consumers the confidence to invest, so that they can grow their savings and access the long-term benefits that investing can bring.

There are three specific measures for that. The first is a new targeted support framework, enabling people to access the help they need to make the right financial decisions. The second is a cross-industry initiative to reframe how firms talk about investing, so that they talk about the growth benefits and not just the risk and warning people off. The third is an industry-led, multiyear advertising campaign to showcase some of the benefits of investing for the general public.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, said, that of course has to come on the basis of greater financial education. We discussed this previously and I have looked into it. Financial education does form part of the school curriculum in all UK nations. In England, financial education forms a compulsory part of the curriculum for mathematics at key stages 1 to 4, and citizenship at key stages 3 and 4. Together, they cover personal budgeting, saving for the future, financial risk, managing credit and debt, and calculating interest. But the noble Baroness is quite right that of course we should go further. The Government have established an independent curriculum and assessment review covering ages five to 18 in England. The review is considering whether the curriculum provides sufficient coverage of key knowledge and skills, including financial education, to prepare young people for future life and to thrive in a fast-changing world. The review’s final report and recommendations will be published in the autumn with the Government’s response.

On that note, the noble Baroness also asked about the timescale for a lot of what we have announced. Many of the reviews we have announced as part of these reforms will report in the autumn. At that point, we will see a lot of the things she spoke about coming to fruition.

The noble Baroness asked about ISAs. The Government will continue to talk to industry and others about the options for ISA reform. We recognise the potential for ISA reform to improve returns for savers and access to capital for UK businesses. Although there are differing views out there among stakeholders, we are all united in wanting better outcomes for savers and the UK economy.

Finally, the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, asked about pensions and quite rightly paid tribute to my noble friend Lady Drake, as I do too. I cannot think of anyone better equipped to take part in that review. Many of the questions she asked will be answered in phase 2 of the pensions review, so I shall wait until that is in place before commenting on the points she raised.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the Statement. The Government want to reintroduce informed risk-taking into our financial services system to deliver prosperity for working people. As my noble friend Lady Kramer pointed out, the last time we had risk-taking in the financial services system in a context of global competitive deregulation, in 2008, it created a crisis that meant the taxes of working people bailed out the bankers. How confident are the Government that we are not going down that path again?

In that context, why is the Chancellor disagreeing with the Governor of the Bank of England, who said that

“we can’t compromise on … financial stability”

and, notably, failed to endorse the route the Chancellor is taking?

On what the Minister called “reforming the ISA system”, I certainly agree with the comments that have been made about the need for more financial education, and it may be that ISA reforms can be discussed. But I question the way in which the Chancellor went about this. She created a scare story about how cash ISAs were going to be abolished. That scare story has run for several months, which will surely discourage the normal punter who is not confident in retail investment from saving at all.

Should the Chancellor not sack the spad or speech-writer who is encouraging her to shoot from the hip, which she seems to have a bit of a tendency to do, and take the better route of launching a reasonable debate, instead of letting these issues float and scare people?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her contribution. There was a lot there. There was a crumb of truth in the things she said, but I certainly do not accept the characterisation of any of the three points she made. She started by talking about risk-taking. Do we want informed consumers to be able to take risks in order to get better returns? Yes, we do. She talked about how just that alone would take us back to the situation at the time of the financial crisis. I have already set out that I fundamentally do not accept that point. We are not removing any of the regulatory architecture that was put in place after the global financial crisis and, as I have said, the Chancellor said very clearly:

“The protections that were put in place … were the right thing to do, with better protections for consumers and more accountability injected into the system”.


Does the noble Baroness think it is right that if a consumer has a large amount of cash sitting in their bank account, the banks that money is with cannot say to them that there might be better ways to invest their money? That is at the core of what she talked about. She started her remarks talking about better returns for consumers. That is exactly what we are talking about: getting better returns for consumers. That is why introducing a greater level of risk is important.

The noble Baroness talked about the Chancellor being at odds with the Governor of the Bank of England. Again, I do not think that is the case. I have read the comments. He is talking about the things that we are doing, so I do not think that that is true, and I do not think that they are at odds.

I think I have already addressed the question on ISA reforms. As I have said, the Government will continue to talk to industry and others about the options for ISA reforms. Again, we recognise the potential for ISA reforms to improve returns for savers and access to capital for UK businesses. At the end of the day, all these reforms are about getting better returns for savers—surely, we can all agree with that—and better returns for the UK economy and, again, I hope we can all agree with that.

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, history shows that infatuation with deregulation of the finance industry always ends up destabilising the economy. At the moment, shadow banks are bigger than retail banking and totally unregulated. Private equity is devouring care homes, water, veterinary services, town centres and companies all over the UK. Its gearing ratio is higher than that which brought down Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns, but the Government have still not moved to look at that sector. Under the so-called effective or tighter regulatory regime that we have now, money laundering by HSBC was buried, and we are still waiting for a report on the 2003 HBOS fraud and no regulator even wants to look at it. It will not get any better under the Government’s proposals, because the post-2008 crash reforms are being repealed and the regulator’s consumer protection duties have been diluted. There will not be enough money to bail out banks, businesses, markets and households when the next crash inevitably comes. Effective risk management must consider the likelihood of what are often called black swan events. What assessment have the Government made of the probability of a financial crash?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am always grateful to hear from my noble friend on all these topics. I disagree with him, as always. He said that the 2008 reforms are being repealed. I cannot see anywhere in the Chancellor’s statement where that is the case. As I have said clearly and as the Chancellor has said clearly, the protections that were put in place were the right things to do with better protections for consumers and more accountability in the system. My noble friend said that there would not be enough money to bail out banks in a crisis. We have been clear that the minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities regime plays a crucial role in maintaining financial stability and ensuring that taxpayers do not pick up the cost of bank failures. However, it is important that the regime is proportionate so that smaller banks can scale up, expand and support lending to UK households and businesses. As my noble friend will know, the Bank of England has announced the outcome of its MREL consultation.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister mentioned how interest rates have been cut, and other noble Lords on the Government Benches have mentioned the same thing. Does he agree that the Bank of England dictates monetary policy, not the Government, and that the reason why the Bank of England has been cutting interest rates is because of clear evidence of a slowing economy, not because the Government’s policy is working?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

As the noble Earl says, the Bank of England has operational independence to achieve the inflation target set by the Government. We absolutely support it in the work that it does to do that. However, it is absolutely the case that the Government’s fiscal policy has created the space for the Bank of England to cut interest rates. At the risk of repeating an old favourite of ours, if we still had a £22 billion black hole in the public finances, it would not have had the space to do that. It is obviously right that fiscal policy and monetary policy work together.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

I think it is worth reminding the House that I spent my entire working life in the financial services industry in one form or another, and I am afraid to say that my practical experience of the industry has made me a sceptic of much of the promotion provided by it telling us how it will do the economy a favour. Does my noble friend agree that there are potential downsides to the financialisation of the economy that seems to lie behind these proposals? We need to realise that there is a form of resource curse in overfinancialising the economy. There is also a dynamic within the industry driven in large part by the inevitable asymmetry of information. You can provide all the education and explanation that you wish, but there will still be this asymmetry of information leading to a succession of scandals. There is a dynamic in the industry—in personal pension scandals, endowment scandals and the Northern Rock scandal there was a dynamic that has to be recognised.

Finally, I am concerned that, in the Statement, the Government appear to be giving people financial advice. I am sure my noble friend will deny that that is what they are doing, but saying that the Government are going to get people better financial returns is a very dangerous path to go down. Does my noble friend the Minister accept that there is a need for robust safeguards for ordinary investors? I press him to accept that those appear to be contemplated by some of those commenting on these proposals. Significant weakening is a grave danger to the economy and individuals.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for his question, and I pay tribute to his experience in the industry that he outlined. I do not agree with his view of the industry. I am incredibly proud of the financial services sector in this country: it makes a massive contribution to our economy, and it is incredibly important that we enable it to grow and that that growth feeds through to the real economy so we can see the investment in the real economy that we want to see.

My noble friend talks, perfectly correctly, about finding the right balance between risk and growth. As I say, we are not dismantling any of the architecture that was put in place in the aftermath of the financial crisis, and it is quite right that we do not do that, but we believe that the pendulum has swung too far towards regulating only for risk. It needs to regulate not just for risk but for growth, and that is the right thing to do.

I think my noble friend is wrong to say that we are in any way giving financial advice. We are trying to put in place what has been called a targeted support framework that enables people to access the help they need to make the right financial decisions for them, and that will be ready to support consumers by ISA season next year. It would enable authorised firms, not the Government, to proactively suggest appropriate products or courses of action, using limited information about a customer and their circumstances. That could include helping people to make decisions about how to access their pension, supporting people with excess cash savings to consider investing for the first time. I cannot believe that anyone would think that was anything but a good idea.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, my question follows on from those of the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Brixton and Lord Sikka, both of whom spoke about financialisation. Earlier this year, the head of UNCTAD—UN Trade and Development —Dr Anastasia Nesvetailova wrote a piece on a path out of the “finance curse”. It offered suggestions to global South countries—developing countries—using the UK as a case study of what to be aware of from the finance curse. She wrote that

“financialisation had progressed against the backdrop of deepening asymmetries—sectoral and regional—in incomes, wealth, employment and even access to public services”.

I think we would all have to agree with that. She went on to say that

“the system … appeared to serve the interests of global asset owners rather than those of the people of the United Kingdom”.

How are the Government going to ensure, if indeed their changes have the effect that they desire, that the benefits are going to trickle down to people outside the financial sector? How else is the rest of the economy going to benefit?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I have already made it clear in previous answers that I disagree with that analysis. It is not at all how we see the financial services sector.

How are people going to benefit? I think the 1.2 million people employed in the financial services sector right across the UK will benefit from that. That is a pretty substantial benefit. The noble Baroness will know that we need to get more investment into our economy, and we are not going to get that investment unless we have a growing and thriving financial services sector. So I am very clear that I disagree with the noble Baroness’s analysis.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, any system of regulation consists of rules and administration. If you have good rules and bad administration, you will get bad regulation. Is my noble friend satisfied that the quality of administration is sufficient? If not, what is he doing about it?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My noble friend sums up quite nicely the balance between rules and administration. We are maintaining many of the rules that were put in place, as I have tried to make clear this evening. We are maintaining the architecture that was put in place after the global financial crisis, but the way in which those rules were administered was overly burdensome and probably disproportionate, placed too much of a burden on the sector and stifled the growth there that we want to see. As I have said, the pendulum swung too far in the opposite direction, and the balance of regulation has gone too far towards regulating for risk and not enough for also regulating for growth. As I have said before, no other globally competitive financial services hub imposes such bureaucracy on its businesses, so neither should we.

My noble friend asks what we are doing about it. What we are doing about it underpins the entirety of these reforms. We are seeking to recalibrate and rebalance the approach to risk so that it is more proportionate and that, in the right places, consumers and industry can take informed risks so that we create the space for the innovation and growth in the sector that I think we all want to see.

[Viscount Chandos (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the Leeds reforms that have been announced, and I thank my noble friend the Minister for his comments. I am delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, agreed that the balance was being successfully struck between achieving financial stability and growth objectives. If some in the financial services industry have expressed disappointment, I suggest that that came from unrealistic expectations—perhaps a reminder of the challenge that it is for the Government to communicate the striking of that balance.

I particularly welcome the commitment to review and prospectively reform bank ring-fencing. The headlines resulting from the Governor of the Bank of England’s comment to the Treasury Select Committee that it was “not sensible” to scrap ring-fencing perhaps exaggerate the difference between his views and those of the Government. Will the proposed review assess the effect of unreformed ring-fencing on the supply and cost of credit to business?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for his comments. He started his remarks on the reception for these reforms. I think there is quite a consensus that they are a sensible and proportionate attempt to rebalance the system in the way that he describes. He spoke specifically about the ring-fencing regime and the Governor of the Bank of England’s comments yesterday, which were also referred to earlier. What the governor said and what we are doing are entirely consistent because the Government remain committed to retaining the ring-fencing regime, and that is what the governor was saying should be the case. I think what he said and what we are doing are the same thing.

We have announced an intention to implement material reforms to the ring-fencing regime. This will be enacted via a Treasury-led review of the regime with input, crucially, from the Bank of England and the PRA, which will consider both legislation and PRA rules. The review will be published by early 2026. It will look in detail at how reforms to the regime could relieve unnecessary burdens, strengthen the banking sector’s ability to support economic growth and deliver against our commitment to ensure that post-global financial crisis regulation is balanced and proportionate. My noble friend asked about specific details of the reforms. These will be subject to the outcome of the review, so I am unable to detail them at this stage, but we will legislate to take them forward when parliamentary time allows if that becomes necessary.