Financial Services and Markets Bill [HL]

Lord Pitt-Watson Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 8th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)]

My Lords, my professional background before I joined the House was as a finance practitioner. I still work pro bono with consumer organisations, including some who have a view on the Bill. Most relevant to what I will say is that I am a fellow at Cambridge, where I teach a course focused on how we create a purposeful finance industry that, like all good market institutions, prospers when it serves the outside world.

To help build such a purposeful industry should be the goal of this legislation. It is a profoundly important goal, partly because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, said, this is the jewel in the UK’s economic crown. But it is more than that: we need a successful finance industry if we are going to solve the critical problems of the country and the world: growth, prosperity, looking after people in old age and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, was saying, addressing the growing climate challenge.

There is no successful finance industry without effective regulation. However, as the House of Lords Financial Services Regulation Committee noted, we do not have a blueprint for what the best regulation looks like, and we have made big mistakes in the past. The global financial crisis took place despite the then existing regulation; some might even argue that, in some ways, it happened because of the nature of that regulation.

I wonder whether the whole House might agree on a starting point: that we are trying to get a finance industry that will fulfil its purpose well in serving the outside world. That means keeping our money safe, helping us transact, allowing us to share risk, and, critically, allowing us to take our money from point A, where it is, to point B, where it is needed and can create growth and prosperity. But for that to happen, we need an industry that is trustworthy and trusted to carry out these purposes. Otherwise, people will not save or borrow.

That all seems pretty straightforward, but there is a problem which we should recognise. People do not express trust in the finance industry. According to FCA surveys, in 2024 only 36% of people felt that

“most financial firms are honest and transparent in the way they treat them”;

27% felt the opposite. Some years ago, the Bank of England asked British people to find one word to describe the finance industry. Do noble Lords know which word they chose? It was “corrupt”. The finance industry accounts for about 9% of GDP—the figure from the Minister was 8%, and 12% from the opposition Benches—and it is responsible for 42% of corporate fines that have been issued. The Local Government Ombudsman gets 22,000 complaints a year; the Financial Ombudsman gets 216,000. I could go on and on. This issue needs to be resolved.

Malfeasance is not the most concerning issue; it is productivity. On the best academic evidence we have, there is little evidence that the cost of getting money from point A to point B has fallen by very much, even over 100 years. No other major industry has such a poor productivity record over such a period. At the same time, 1.3 million British people do not have a bank account. According to the FT a couple of weeks ago, British bank lending to SMEs is the lowest percentage of GDP it has been this century. There are big gaps in our finance system.

These problems occur despite, or maybe even because of, the great amount of regulation we have. Robin Ellison was a pensions partner in one of the big law firms and has now retired. He reckoned that, in 1990, we had 3,000 pages of pensions regulation; a couple of years back, it had risen to 165,000.

We must be sure that we are not encouraging a world where finance practitioners spend their time thinking about how to get around the regulation. It is euphemistically called regulatory arbitrage, and it creates a game of whack-a-mole: there is a rule, and someone finds their way around it; we whack that, and they find their way around it again—and we end up with a burdensome and expanding rule book. As the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, said, we need a new settlement.

But in that settlement, regulation is just one piece of the ecosystem. There are also institutions, markets, incentives, ethics, professionalism and technologies, all of which are changing rapidly day to day. Getting the regulation right means that it needs to fit into this much larger system. I would have that as a background—a background on which I hope we might agree—and I think that has implications.

I applaud many parts of the Bill—for example, the encouragement of credit unions and thinking about how we can get credit to the people who need it fairly—but one concern, which it might be helpful to clarify, is that as we change the rules by which the Financial Ombudsman Service adjudicates, we need, as the noble Lord, Lord Burns said, to keep them principles based. Why is that? Because these are dynamic markets and we are trying to minimise regulatory arbitrage. Maybe it could be made clear from the outset that, when reference is made to the Financial Ombudsman Service adjudicating only on breaches of the FCA rules, those rules include the principles of business and the code of conduct.

There are many other comments that one might make, but I think they are best addressed in Committee. For now, my key point is that in any effective market economy, success should be contingent on serving customers well. There is a deficit of trust in the financial services industry. Regulation should align consumer, producer and society. My broader point for this House is that, in debating the Bill, it might be helpful to express a consensus, shared with industry and with consumer groups, that we want a finance industry that is there effectively to fulfil its proper purposes to the world. I look forward to our coming discussions.

Financial Services and Markets Bill [HL]

Lord Pitt-Watson Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 29th June 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)]

If I might talk on this point, I have huge sympathy with the overall direction of where people want to go on this. Climate risk is clearly relevant for any financial manager managing the assets—the cash—of any ordinary citizen, be they a vicar of the Church of England or simply a worker setting money aside, and that needs to be taken into account.

Even if you do not buy that argument, there are financial risks that go with climate that need to be recognised—for example, assets that will become stranded if we responded to the climate crisis, which should not be recognised as being valuable today. By the way, if I were to find an institution that is a mile ahead of the regulation in trying to make this take place, the Church of England pension fund is exemplary of what it is that we want to do.

As I look at this, I find it rather ironic that we are focusing on the FCA. In the past five years, if there is a financial regulator that has taken steps forward on this, it is the FCA rather than the others. I think—I have tried to check on the internet—the UK now has the highest number of transition plans by companies, and the highest standard of transition plans by companies, of any country in the world. I want to celebrate the companies doing that and the senior appointments that the FCA put in place to make these sorts of things happen.

It might be a good idea for us to scratch our heads about those regulators that, even where there are clear rules on reporting on financially material matters, are finding it difficult to see them enforced. We might want to raise those sorts of issues as well as additional reporting. If it is additional reporting, as the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, said, let us be sure that we know that the extra reporting is bringing about some good.

In Amendment 80, and perhaps in some other amendments, there is a question about parliamentary oversight. Does the Minister consider that parliamentary oversight might be kept under review so that we know that we have a financial services industry that is properly responding to the risk of climate change, and might perhaps do some other things as well?

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

I shall be exceedingly brief because the position of my party has been so well-voiced by my noble friends Lady Northover and Lady Sheehan, and there is a great deal more to say in the clause stand part debate in today’s fourth group. My party has made it very clear that it has a deep commitment to the climate, nature and sustainability agenda. I am conscious that it has become quite fashionable in financial circles to say that this agenda should not be the concern of the Bank of England or of any of the regulators. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Pitt-Watson, can indicate to me where in the five-year strategy of the FCA he can find any reference to it, because I cannot.

[Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)]

For five years, there has been a director of ESG at the Financial Conduct Authority who has specifically taken responsibility for ensuring that, where relevant, it is embedded in what the FCA is doing. Most of the feedback I get from the FCA and financial practitioners suggests that he is called Sacha Sadan, and that he had a senior role in financial services beforehand and has had considerable success in being able to do that. Is it perfect? No, I am sure it is absolutely not perfect. We have a long way to go, but I want to do something that says, “Let us celebrate some success when we have it”.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

I always join in celebrating success but, from our perspective, this is a pivot moment away from what has been the practice and emphasis over the past several years. Indeed, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, said, there was consensus across the parties, with perhaps different strategies, but this appears to be a time when much of this has changed, or is about to change or is changing. I have to say that it makes absolutely no sense. Climate risk is so obviously a financial and economic stability risk, as indeed is the loss of nature and the issue of sustainable growth; surely “sustainable” belongs in growth programmes that we put in front of us.

I am also very conscious that the City and others, which have tended to have very short-term perspectives—typically the next quarter’s results—have voiced opposition to the inclusion of climate and nature in the financial regulators’ remit and that it should have the significance it has had to date, and I am very afraid that the Government are now responding to that particular set of views. Moving these regulatory principles from the Bill—from primary legislation—into a “have regard” for the five-year strategy strikes me as an acquiescence with those voices we are hearing from the City. To me, there is some confirmation in not finding a firm strand in the FCA’s own five-year strategy; that is its forward look, not its historic look backwards.

In a few minutes the Conservative Party will speak, and it will make its own position clear, but I understand that Kemi Badenoch has now said that her party, if in government, would scrap the Climate Change Act. That is a very significant change. I know it is motivated by fear of Reform, but it really has an impact on the overall discourse and the cross-party commitment we have had up to this point.

I agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester—I think it was him, although I may have attributed this to the wrong person—that this is a very strange week in which to downgrade the significance of climate change. I happened to be in conversation with my daughter in the midst of last week’s heat. When I described what we were doing, she said, “I guess the universe has heard the intention and it’s decided to bite back”. I think it must have been the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, who made the remark; I am so sorry not to have recognised that.

I think that both Labour and the Conservatives hope that by Third Reading, we will have forgotten the extreme heat and they can reassert a much more convenient and easy agenda of pretending that climate change is no longer an issue of urgency. It has now dropped down the scale and there are other issues of much greater urgency on which we must focus, and this one can be largely set aside. But I and my party continue to look at it as a series of risks that will cause extraordinary pain to ordinary people in Britain, both relentlessly and increasingly—and not just to people in the UK but to far more vulnerable countries across the globe.

The Bank of England and the financial sector have crucial and powerful tools in their hands. Those tools are vital if we are to redesign our world to limit nature loss and climate change, and to ensure that we grow sustainably in the future. As the Bill is now structured, it takes away from those tools and will encourage their being regarded as secondary or tertiary instruments, to be used only when it does not irritate certain voices in the City of London. That is not appropriate for the legislation we pass today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly in general across this set of amendments and specifically to Amendment 141 in my name, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann.

In the general remarks, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, that I am excited and thrilled by his amendments in this group and I support every one of them—I would even open champagne; I am that pleased. I say to my noble friend Lady Tyler that I totally support the amendments that she has introduced here. I share with both of them the perception that financial inclusion is absolutely at the core of the requirement that we must place on our financial services sector and on the regulators that deal with it.

To pick up on a point that my noble friend Lady Tyler made, the consumer duty does not deal with financial inclusion, and that is exactly right. The consumer duty is very much a protection against mis-selling. It is not a duty of care, which could indeed have required that gaps left in the market are filled and the regulator take steps to fill them; the regulator was absolutely determined not to have that responsibility when this House attempted to make it address the issue, and the Government of the day were also very determined that the regulator should not play that role. We cannot look to the regulator to be a key player in financial inclusion.

In the five-year strategy of the FCA—I really have read that document—there is reference to financial inclusion; in fact, it is in big, black, bold letters. The problem is that what it anticipates as the role that it will play is to try to address how low financial capability holds people back from accessing financial services and how it could support them in managing their financial life. That is important and it matters, but the reality is that for many people who are excluded, the way to give them support is not to try to get them digital—it would be brilliant if you could but that is not the reality—but to deal with those people as they are in the world that they live in. There is absolutely no reference in this five-year strategy that you could in any way interpret as related to what has become the Richard Lloyd review—to things such as banking hubs. It is focused solely on the individual, whereas issues that we have addressed in previous groups have also been about the financial exclusion of small businesses from financial services. There is no reference to any of that.

I have had so many conversations with the FCA over the years, and it has said things like, “Yes, if we had a set of community banks, that would be absolutely brilliant; CDFIs are absolutely wonderful—not our job. If they appear, we will make sure that we regulate them appropriately, but it is not our job to fill that gap and we resolutely hold to that position”. That clarity needs to be here in this debate. I will not repeat what has been said because it was so well said by the three previous speakers, but I very much hope that the Minister will pay serious attention to this issue. From things that he has said in the past, I hope that he takes it to heart. It very much belongs in a very central way in primary legislation.

The issue I am raising is perhaps not an obvious one to raise in the context of this Bill, but it is in scope. It is dear to my heart, but I think it is widely supported. I am using this opportunity to deal with an issue that, frankly, the Government should have dealt with without any problem. It is child trust funds and the ability of young adults with learning difficulties to access those funds that sit in in their name. My party leader, Ed Davey, who, as I think all in this Committee know, has a son with very severe learning difficulties, has written of his eight-month battle to access the child trust fund put in place and invested in for the benefit of his severely disabled son, who is now 18. The fund should be easily accessible when a child turns 18, but, as the Davey family found out the hard way, this is not true for children with learning or other disabilities who lack the capacity to fill in the forms themselves.

The process of applying to the Court of Protection for a deputyship order is Kafkaesque, consumes endless time and places such a burden and cost that many parents give up altogether. The many steps, and my goodness there are many, include obtaining written permission from three different relatives to demonstrate that you are unlikely to abuse the funds that you will access, and obtaining various doctors’ assessments—well, perhaps that is fair—but then the courts kick in. The Court of Protection charges £412 for a deputyship order. It requires you to obtain insurance against misuse, and the Davey family found that that cost £48. Then comes the Office of the Public Guardian, which charges £100 for its assessment, and it then levies an annual supervision charge of £320. If you add this up, it basically becomes £1,000 to be able to access a child trust fund for your severely disabled child.

What is really extraordinary is that most child trust funds do not have a lot of money in them. I think the average amount is £2,000. You would have to spend 50% of it to be able to access that fund for your child. The people accessing it are parents whom the DWP already relies on to deal with a variety of much more significant pots of money to support that child. I use the Davey family not to ask for any kind of sympathy, but here is an MP whose wife is a lawyer, and they cannot work their way through this maze. How are people without those kinds of expertise going to work their way through this system?

Unfortunately, there is a new legal offering from specialists who will, for a significant sum, offer to negotiate the way through for you. That is a practice that none of us wants to encourage. There are a few child trust fund managers who handle the process a bit better and have been helping some of the people whose funds they manage to minimise the process, but it is a lottery in terms of finding that you have taken out your child trust fund with an entity that takes that approach. Charities estimate that 80,000 to 123,000 young adults are essentially locked out of their child trust funds.

I tried to look for what response the Government have been making to the overtures of the charities and other civic society groups that have been out there trying to speak for these youngsters. Two things came to my attention. The only response I could find from the Department of Justice was that it has now digitised the application form and provided a guide.

My amendment would force the FCA to simplify the whole process for CTFs paying out under £5,000 in any one year. It is formulated around an amendment put before the House in 2021—I am pretty sure that is the correct year—by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, who is really skilled in developing, designing and presenting the appropriate amendments. In speaking to that amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, who was the Minister when child trust funds were put in place, made it very clear that no one had thought of this particular set of problems and that that was why the system was designed in a way that set up this obstacle course. It was not intentional or planned; it was simply a failure to recognise what could happen and has in fact happened.

I say this to the Minister: all the arguments we hear in support of the Bill are about deregulation; here is a piece of deregulation that I think no one could argue with, and which I would definitely and clearly support, as would my party and, I suspect, many others. If the Minister cannot control this himself, could he please go away and berate his colleagues? These youngsters need to be able to access their funds. We are talking about small pots. Simply digitising the 106 sections of the application form is not the answer.

[Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)]

My Lords, if I might add to this debate, I begin by noting the huge cross-party agreement we have on lots of the issues the Bill raises, most particularly on this issue of ensuring access to financial services for everyone. That is what is behind so many of the amendments here. It is also the issue that was raised in the debate about affordable credit by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, and at Second Reading by the noble Baroness, Lady Hyde, and the noble Lord, Lord Kamall. We all, from all parties, want to know that such services are available to everyone. The question is simply how we can make sure that that takes place and that the industry that has to be there to deliver it buys in to making sure that those services take place. We need to be sure that our actions as rule-makers are helpful in that regard.

At Second Reading, I heard a number of speeches about excessive regulation, all doubtless intending to encourage financial services to do their job better. But there is an issue with regulation and how much of it there is. If there is any concern about this amendment, that is absolutely not its objective. Critically, we need financial services to be available to everyone; the question is whether, by regulating them, that gets us to where we want to be. Maybe it will, but we might argue that, unless we have persuaded those whom we wish to influence that they will strive to improve performance in this regard, the danger is that it might just be another regulation. Whatever we ask the FCA to report, we need to first take a step back and think through how this will affect performance on the ground. It is the finance industry that has to deliver this, and we need to be working in partnership with it—with the industry, customers, potential customers, the Government and regulators, moving ahead together. There are also initiatives, some of which might work, and which, if they had real momentum, with everyone behind them, might start to deliver the sort of things we want.

As many noble Lords know, I have done quite a lot of work with the financial services industry in Scotland. Its industry body, Scottish Financial Enterprise, has laid out as its objective that it intends to

“have a financial services system that allows every citizen and business of Scotland to connect and access appropriate services”.

Wow. Is that not exactly what we are trying to get to happen? But who is following up to make sure that that statement, that vision is realised? It feels to me that we need a new settlement, and institutions to see that such a settlement is delivered.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)]

My Lords, this is the third of the trio. Clause 18 is a deletion clause, the final clause in the trio that removes consideration of the regulatory principles from the context of actual rule-making. It strips out the guidance duties, reporting duties and consultation hooks that once gave Parliament visibility into how the regulators applied their objectives and principles. Let us look at what is being systematically dismantled here. There is some overlap here with some of the things that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, has addressed.

Clauses 18(1) and (2) delete the FCA’s and PRA’s guidance about their objectives—the very provisions which, as the Explanatory Notes admit, required the regulators to explain how they advanced those objectives. It is not a question that they still have to explain now; that has gone. Clauses 18(3) and (4) remove the explanations required on directions on consolidated supervision and authorised decisions. Clause 18(7) removes the FCA’s obligation to notify, consult or explain when issuing guidance relating to its objectives. Clauses 18(9) and (10) delete large parts of the FCA’s and PRA’s annual reporting requirements, one of the most sensible and accessible ways for Parliament to understand how objectives were dealt with in practice and would ideally be built upon. Clauses 18(12) to (14) remove linkages to other Acts of Parliament, including the auditor engagement duties that once provided an additional source of supervisory insight.

What is left? Guidance? Gone. Explanations? Gone. Participation? Gone. Annual reporting? Gone. Audit? Gone. These were the exact mechanisms through which Parliament and others scrutinised how the regulators applied their objectives and principles. Clause 18 removes them all. It is the inevitable consequence of the Clause 16 and 17 shift: the practical reality of decoupling principles from operational effectiveness and removing Parliament’s line of sight. It leaves us with no checks and absolutely no balances. For these reasons, I oppose Clause 18 standing part of the Bill.

[Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 93 and 94. I have not audited a bank or sat on a bank board, but I was a member of the Sharman committee that looked at the problems with auditing following the global financial crisis. I sat on the board of one of the big four auditors, chairing its public interest committee, and I talked to a number of partners who audited the banks.

I think that we agree that audit is absolutely a foundation stone for the integrity of the capital markets. For those who are interested, it was part of the settlement following the collapse of the City of Glasgow Bank in 1878 that we would have audits of limited liability banks. It is particularly critical where entities are highly geared or where there is a considerable element of judgment in determining their value. If we look at the banks, they are hugely geared. People like to talk about the common equity tier 1 ratio, but if we look at the gearing that most companies use, it is the equity versus the liabilities. For a typical bank, equity is about 6%: on the back of that, you can borrow £94 and lend £100. That means that, if you have overvalued your assets by 3% and undervalued your liabilities by 3%, you end up with no equity whatever.

This is a really sensitive calculation and, historically, it would have been made with a degree of prudence and conservatism. Prudence and conservatism have now gone as guiding principles, and valuations are done neutrally. For example, this would allow a bank to declare a profit on a zero-interest credit card, on the grounds that it can bring forward the profits it thinks it will make in future. The noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, has been great in raising these issues for some time.

There are of course huge temptations to optimism. Indeed, it is surely testament to the professionalism of our bankers, and the independent agents we employ to monitor and control bank behaviour, that banks have not got into greater trouble. There are four such agents: the independent non-executive directors; the auditors; the investors and the regulators. Many more resources are devoted to auditing banks than to regulating them, and vastly more than fund managers devote to their role as stewards. The auditors have inside knowledge and huge expertise, and it is precisely that insight, given independently, that regulators need in order to play their role.

I think that that was recognised by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, when she suggested that the PRA “may” ask to speak to the auditors. The problem is that the auditors have a delicate job: they are referees. The report is done for the investors, but they need the trust of the audited entity. Indeed, they are, in effect, appointed by the audited entity, and they even sometimes describe the audited entity as a client. They are unlikely to go to the regulator without having profound concerns.

Regulators may find it helpful to call in the auditors because of problems that are visible to them: the known knowns. Under those circumstances, this amendment would of course work. However, what the regulator really needs to know is the unknown knowns: something that is known by the auditor, who has gone inside, but not known by the regulator. That is why it makes sense to mandate that the regulator “must” talk to the auditor to hear their concerns, to pick up potential emerging problems before they become critical, and to understand how the auditor judged the numbers to be true and fair.

The audit is the foundation of the integrity of our capital markets. For auditors to have material knowledge of a bank’s position that is relevant to the stability of the system and for that not to be known by the regulator seems to be completely perverse and potentially very dangerous. With that perspective, I wonder whether the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, might be content with Clause 18, on audit reporting, to remain as it stands.

Financial Services and Markets Bill [HL]

Lord Pitt-Watson Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 1st July 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, my amendment concerns the impact of prudential capital requirements on lending capacity, borrowing costs, competition and growth. Since my amendment was tabled, His Majesty’s Opposition have announced a new policy position in this area, which I shall speak to now.

Our new policy is straightforward. The statutory basis for post-financial crisis bank capital requirements should be amended so that UK regulators are required to take proper account of equivalent capital regimes in competitor jurisdictions, and to identify, justify and, where not justified, remove any UK-specific overcapitalisation relative to equivalent international regimes. We want to consider the position in competitor jurisdictions, to benchmark equivalent regimes, to publish detailed analysis and to explain clearly where the UK is imposing requirements above international standards or above those imposed by comparable financial centres. That seems a basic requirement of a serious competitiveness agenda, on which the UK is particularly reliant. The UK is the world’s largest net exporter of financial services, whereas comparable jurisdictions, such as the US, rely much more on their domestic markets. It is therefore imperative that we remain competitive on the world stage.

Capital requirements matter, but there is a cost. Capital held solely for statutory compliance is capital that cannot otherwise be used to support lending, investment, home ownership, business expansion or economic activity. The central question is therefore not whether banks should hold capital but whether the UK requires materially more capital than comparable jurisdictions without a clear and evidenced stability justification. If we do, we are placing the UK at a competitive disadvantage: we are constraining lending, increasing borrowing costs, making it harder for firms to access finance and weakening growth, and doing so in a way that may not be required by international standards or by the actual risk profile of the system.

The analysis behind our policy suggests that the UK capital framework may materially exceed international Basel III requirements and competitor regimes. It has been suggested that the resulting constraint on UK banks’ lending and financing capacity could amount to £250 billion across overlapping capital requirements and £200 billion across leverage ratio constraints. Of course, not every pound of capital released would automatically translate into new lending—we understand that. Some may be used for business investment, dividends, buybacks or balance-sheet strengthening. The key point remains that capital deployed productively in the economy is preferable to capital trapped by a regulatory framework that is more restrictive than it needs to be.

We appreciate that the Government recognise this issue and have moved a little on it already. They have made the bank resolution regime more flexible, allowing the Bank of England to reduce or remove MREL for some firms where the new FSCS recapitalisation mechanism can substitute for pre-positioned loss-absorbing resources. Our proposal is a step to unlocking a lot more capital. We already require the PRA, in some contexts, to have regard to the UK’s relative standing against competitor jurisdictions, but that duty is incomplete. It does not apply across the whole capital framework and, in particular, it does not fully capture Pillar 2A, the PRA buffer or systemic buffers. The FPC has produced useful comparative analysis, but there is not yet a binding requirement for regular, systematic benchmarking against competitor jurisdictions.

Our proposed review is also about transparency. If regulators believe that the UK should impose higher requirements than comparable regimes then Parliament, industry and the public should be able to see the analysis behind that decision. That is how we preserve independence while improving accountability.

The amendment is part of a wider argument. Prudential regulation must be understood not only through the lens of stability but through the lens of growth, lending, and competitiveness. A capital framework that is more demanding than necessary does not make the economy stronger. It may make it less dynamic, less competitive and less able to support households and businesses, especially SMEs and scale-ups. I speak from experience as a director at a responsible and careful challenger bank, where the UK capital rules were a significant constraint on what we could do. They also consumed a great deal of management and board time.

I would like the Government to accept that the UK should not impose capital requirements above equivalent international competitor regimes, especially if there is no financial stability justification for doing so. The first step is to undertake the necessary analysis. Ours is a serious and responsible policy. It preserves regulatory independence and protects financial stability but recognises that excessive or unjustified capital requirements carry real economic costs. If we want growth, competitiveness and banks to support businesses and homebuyers, then we need a capital framework that is robust but not overrestrictive. That is the balance that our policy seeks to strike. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)]

My Lords, both the amendment and the speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, were sensible in terms of making us think about bank capital requirements and whether we have got them right. As she says, the first step is undertaking proper analysis to be able to work out whether that happens. I noticed she caveated everything that they may not be right. They may be right, but they may not.

My worry is that that is a sensible position to take but it did not sound like the position being taken by the Leader of the Opposition when she made her speech last week saying that she was going to reduce bank capital requirements to release £450 billion in capital. Where did the calculation that hundreds of billions are sitting idly on bank balance sheets come from? Where do those hundreds of billions come from? If we are going to release £450 billion, what is the calculation in the reduction of bank capital requirements that sits behind that calculation? While I feel quite supportive of the issues that the noble Baroness was raising, we need to be sure—I hope she will agree—that we do not jump the gun on this.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Pitt-Watson, was rather generous in his comments. Sometimes it is important to speak truth to power. This is a lowest common denominator strategy. We have heard it before from the Conservatives, and it is repeated with enthusiasm today. I heard so many of these arguments back in the early 2000s. It contributed and was a fundamental part of the reasons why we ended up with such a major financial crash with huge financial and political consequences that echo through to this day. I could see the argument being made that we need to take proper care that we are looking at capital requirements and that we need to assess them and look at the consequences and do so on a regular basis. That is already part of the programme and certainly would always need to be part of it.

I notice that in line seven of the amendment the phrase is,

“while also considering financial stability”.

If ever there was a phrase lowering the significance of the primary objective with which we tasked the Bank of England, that phrase does it—merely a consideration of financial stability. I was afraid when the growth and productivity objectives were introduced as secondary objectives that quickly the attraction of the phrases would cause them to cannibalise the primary objective. This is a very good example of the way in which that, frankly, has been happening.

I have seen across so many of the measures in the Bill a step away from the precautionary principle—in this case, of looking for appropriate capital requirements, whether in equities or in MREL—to a notion that we deal with all this through a resolution regime. I am suspicious of resolution regimes and of after the fact ways of ensuring financial stability. I would much rather we did not have a bank failure that we must then attempt to remedy through the use of something like bail-in MREL, which I do not think will ever work. Frankly, MREL is held by insurance companies and pension funds, and we are never going to wreck them to save a major bank. I am very concerned about the change in approach that we are hearing today from the Conservative party.

Financial Services and Markets Bill [HL]

Lord Pitt-Watson Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 8th July 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, our amendments in this group concern the future of the bank ring-fencing regime. I will start by setting out clearly the position that we have reached as the Official Opposition. Through our diagnostic work, we have found a consensus that the bank ring-fencing regime is no longer fit for purpose. It adds costs to banks and their customers and it has been superseded by other rules since its introduction. A regulatory regime should not be preserved simply because it exists. It must continue to justify itself against present-day risks, tools and costs. In our view, the ring-fencing regime no longer does so. The next Conservative Government would repeal the post-global financial crisis ring-fencing regime, bringing the United Kingdom more closely into line with other international jurisdictions. Amendment 160A reflects that policy.

It is worth reminding ourselves what ring-fencing is. The regime was created through the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013, which amended FSMA 2000. The implementing regulations and orders came into effect in 2019, more than 10 years after the onset of the global financial crisis. At its core, ring-fencing is the structural separation of certain retail banking activities from activities normally conducted by international wholesale investment banks. In practice, that means a separate legal entity, with restrictions on what it can do and how it can interact with the rest of the banking group. Retail and small business deposit-taking is placed inside the ring-fence, while certain other activities must be conducted outside it.

The regime was introduced for serious reasons. The Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, convened after the financial crisis, identified three broad objectives: to make it easier to deal with failing banks without taxpayer-funded solvency support; to insulate vital banking services used by households and SMEs from problems elsewhere in the financial system; and to curtail implicit government guarantees, thereby reducing risks to public finances and incentives for excessive risk-taking.

Since ring-fencing was designed, the wider regulatory landscape has changed profoundly. We now have a much more developed resolution regime. We have recovery and resolution planning. We have operational continuity arrangements in resolution. We have stronger capital and liquidity requirements. We have the leverage ratio, the liquidity coverage ratio and the net stable funding ratio. The Bank of England, the PRA and the FPC have a broad toolkit for reducing the risk of bank failure and dealing with failure if it occurs. Moreover, we have sounder management of banks as a result of the senior management regime.

That is precisely the point that we wish to highlight in our amendment. The risks that ring-fencing was designed to address are now addressed through other more modern, more targeted and more internationally coherent tools. The 2022 Independent Panel on Ring-fencing and Proprietary Trading, chaired by Sir Keith Skeoch, reported that the regime has an annual cost to the UK banking sector of around £1.5 billion, which comes from running multiple separate legal entities, duplicating governance systems and raising the cost of capital and lending conducted by non-ring-fenced bodies. This is because large retail deposits inside the ring-fence cannot be used as sources of finance elsewhere in a group to support lending and investment. That review also found that the reduction in the implicit government guarantee and progress in ending “too big to fail” were not attributable to ring-fencing but instead to the development of the UK resolution regime. Ring-fencing is therefore a good example of a broader problem in financial services regulation: rules that are introduced in response to a crisis which then remain in place long after the conditions that justified the change.

We are now left with two regimes that are not aligned in the way that they aim to address “too big to fail”. That adds complexity, cost and burden. It also risks making the United Kingdom less competitive than jurisdictions that rely on resolution, prudential supervision and capital frameworks, rather than structural separation of this kind. Clauses 39 and 40 show that the Government recognise that there is a problem. They seek to make changes to the ring-fencing regime and give the PRA more flexibility over ring-fencing arrangements, but in our view these reforms do not go far enough.

Amendment 160A would repeal Part 9B of FSMA and the core statutory ring-fencing provisions introduced after the financial crisis. It would require the Treasury, the PRA, the FCA and the Bank of England to take the necessary steps to unwind the related rules and guidance. It would require an orderly transition, with attention paid to financial stability, continuity of core banking services and the competitiveness of the United Kingdom. Consumer savings would continue to be protected. Banks would continue to be subject to prudential supervision. Resolution planning would remain in place.

This reform matters for competitiveness. Other major financial centres do not operate a UK-style ring-fencing regime. If UK banks are required to carry costs and structural constraints that their international competitors do not face, that affects the cost and availability of finance. It affects the ability of banks to deploy capital efficiently and it affects the attractiveness of the UK as a place to operate and invest in. It also matters for customers. Regulations that increase costs without delivering commensurate benefit feed through into pricing, service innovation and lending capacity.

If the Government believe that ring-fencing remains necessary, will the Minister explain precisely what financial stability objective it now achieves that is not already achieved through the resolution regime and other prudential rules? Ring-fencing was created in response to a particular crisis at a particular moment for reasons that were understandable at the time. But regulation must evolve. It must be reviewed against current conditions. It must be removed when it no longer serves its intended purpose.

Finally, I would add that whatever changes are made, it is right to have a proper process of consultation with business and stakeholders and a follow-up report to Parliament. That is the purpose of my Amendments 159 and 174.

[Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)]

My Lords, if I may respond to that, I had thought until recently that what we were debating was a response to the Skeoch commission established by the last Government, but we have new amendments now, it seems—Amendment 160A and the abandonment of clauses—that are really throwing ring-fencing out. I guess that they are tabled in response to a speech by the leader of the Conservative Party, Kemi Badenoch—a speech underpinned by a policy document from her party. That speech, the policy document and this amendment are not asking to think things through further from the Skeoch report: they have made their minds up. Kemi Badenoch announced that a future Conservative Government will end ring-fencing—definitive end of discussion. That, I believe, would be a bad idea. So did the review by Keith Skeoch, who was commissioned by the Conservative Government to opine on this and whose recommendations we are now trying to take forward.

Worse still, the evidence for Mrs Badenoch’s statement is based on really questionable claims, numbers and Mickey Mouse logic. For example, the claim was that the Skeoch report reckoned that the cost of ring-fencing was £1.5 billion. In fact, the report notes that that figure was presented to the review and that

“it has not been possible to draw a strong conclusion based on aggregating these costs”.

The report recognises that there are some costs to ring-fencing, but notes that that was expected and acknowledged by the Independent Commission on Banking, which said that that would not be a cost to the economy, but rather

“a consequence of returning risk to where it should be—with bank investors, not taxpayers—and so would reflect the aim of removing government support and risk to public finances”.

The policy paper has a Mickey Mouse logic that costs should be placed on the taxpayer, when they should be paid by the banks and the investors in the banks.

We should of course be in favour of reviewing the ring-fencing regime to be sure that it is properly doing its job. This is what Skeoch did and, now, if this Bill follows that report, I ask the Minister to ensure that we are careful with definitions in the implementation. For example, we should ensure that, within the growth allowance, the definitions are very carefully drawn up. We do not in future want the taxpayer subsidising proprietary trading—what many refer to as “casino capitalism”.

Badenoch suggests that her reforms would release £450 billion in capital—another number from nowhere. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, will not have a lot of time to sum up, but I would be grateful if she might write afterwards on how these numbers have been derived and what reduction in bank equity capital they assume. If these numbers do not stack up, that pulls the rug from under the policy document and the speech that was made by the leader of the Conservative Party.

The policy paper suggests that we should abandon the Financial Ombudsman Service. In this industry, which represents 8% of GDP but attracts 42% of corporate fines, Mrs Badenoch has decided that the front-line institution that protects consumers should be abolished. We could say that this does not matter and that Kemi Badenoch is unlikely any time soon to be Prime Minister, but it should matter to us. As the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, has pointed out, there is considerable expertise in financial services across all parties in the House. Although we have differences, we are united, I hope, in trying to set a framework for the industry that allows it better to serve its purpose: to serve the outside world; to help get money from point A, where it is, to point B, where it is needed; to keep our money safe; to help us transact; and to help us share risk.

If the Opposition Benches feel mandated to follow the policy documented last month, we have a problem. I could not find a single reference in that document to any input from any consumer group anywhere. It felt like a lobbyist document from the City, but I have talked to at least one lobbyist who said “No, it goes way further than we would ever suggest”.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

In Committee, it is normal to address the amendments and not opposition parties’ policy documents.

[Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)]

The amendment has been put to us at the last minute. The points that it relates to have been there for weeks, indeed months, but I would argue that what has triggered the amendment is the speech by the leader of the Conservative Party and the policy document that underpins it. If the noble Baroness thinks, like me, that the policy document is lacking, I would be pleased to hear it because, as she knows, it would abolish the FOS and seek to mandate regulatory changes that come close to invading the independence of the regulator.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)]

I did indeed talk to senior members of the Skeoch commission before writing my speech, and what I said is completely consistent with the conclusions of the Skeoch commission, which was set up by the previous Conservative Government, as I said.

[Lord Massey of Hampstead (Con)]

I am just reading the conclusions from the report, my Lords. They make it very clear that the continuation of ring-fencing made sense at the time the report was written, but the commission clearly envisaged that it might not be needed over the passage of time. I also remind noble Lords that Glass-Steagall was abolished some 25 years ago with no detriment to the American banking system. I say this just to make the point that it is not so obvious.

[Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)]

I find it difficult to believe that someone has told me that the withdrawal of Glass-Steagall, which took place 13 years before the global financial crisis, had no detriment to the American banking system. As I say, I have read the Skeoch report and discussed it with senior members of Skeoch, and I believe that what I said is entirely consistent with the recommendations that they made to the Government and this House, which is recognised in the Bill.

[Lord Massey of Hampstead (Con)]

I also draw attention to the abolition of FOS, which the noble Lord mentioned. I draw the Committee’s attention to Amendment 172A, which discusses the changes proposed to FOS. It is to be abolished and replaced with something called the financial adjudication service, which is a broadly similar methodology to give redress to consumers and private clients, in the event of problems with the firms that serve them. While it is a change, it is a reform to FOS with an organisation with a different name, but it is not a straightforward abolition of that very important process. This will be dealt with in that later amendment—not in my name, I might add.

Governments, like some businesses, are very good at locking the stable door after the horse has bolted. Our reaction to 2008 was an example of just that. But we are now 18 years on and the banking sector has been solid during that time. However, as we know, growth has flatlined, despite many years of ultra-low interest rates. I am not suggesting that we are an exception here; there has been a similar experience across most of Europe. But we now have a substantial cost of capital for business to bear, with interest rates stuck at 3.75% and sadly not much prospect of a reduction in the near term.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I have some experience of ring-fencing as, in my capacity as the chairman of the risk committee of a major bank, I oversaw the implementation of ring-fencing. At that time, it was a significant risk to the bank that we would not be in compliance with the ring-fencing legislation and therefore this required considerable oversight.

I am clear that ring-fencing has been a very expensive element of the post-financial crisis reforms. The Skeoch report, which has been referred to, put the upfront cost at £2.9 billion and the ongoing cost at £1.5 billion, which amounts to about £14 billion to date. The noble Lord, Lord Pitt-Watson, tried to undermine those numbers, but, from my experience, I do not doubt that order of magnitude. More importantly, the implementation, and, to a lesser extent, the ongoing element—

[Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)]

There were two points, one of which is that the Skeoch report says that the numbers given are not its numbers. The report is clear that whatever the cost of ring-fencing, it is not a cost to the economy—this is what the Vickers report said earlier —and that, by removing ring-fencing, it suddenly becomes a cost to the taxpayer rather than to the bank’s investor. That is the key point that Skeoch is bringing to our attention.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I understand the point that the noble Lord is trying to make, but I argue that the risk of the taxpayer picking up the tab is now considerably lower, which means that it is reasonable to re-examine whether ring-fencing should be an ongoing part of the regime.

I was about to say that, in addition to the cash costs, there was during the implementation, and to some extent on an ongoing basis, considerable diversion of scarce management resource, which will have damaged the banks in a number of ways. My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe has registered her opposition to Clauses 39 and 40 standing part of the Bill. I support Clauses 39 and 40 on the grounds that any improvement in the ring-fencing regime is better than none. The flexibility that will come with letting the PRA handle some of the changes via rules is a constructive solution. The PRA is, however, heavily invested in ring-fencing and no one should be under any illusion that the power will be used by the PRA to make significant changes to the regime. That is why I believe that we need to make provision to go further and I support the other amendments in this group.

As we have heard, since the implementation of ring-fencing, the parallel and very expensive requirement to maintain and develop resolution plans has been implemented, and the Bank of England has confirmed that the major banks are resolvable. In addition, bank capital levels are significantly above the levels that they were immediately after the financial crisis and well above regulatory minima. Regulatory capital is expensive and can restrict the ability of banks to lend to support the economy. I am always extremely sceptical about claims that reducing capital requirements on banks will immediately lead to masses of extra lending by the banks—there is some element of truth in it, but the effect is not as great as might be claimed.

We are hugely proud of the robustness of our financial regulation and what we do in the UK is often copied abroad. No one anywhere else in the world has ever copied ring-fencing and that is for a very good reason: it is a very expensive solution to a problem that can be and has been addressed in other ways. That is why I support the amendments from my noble friend, which pave the way for eliminating ring-fencing. It cannot be done away with overnight, so I support the measured approach taken in my noble friend’s Amendment 160A.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted to have the debate, and I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Pitt-Watson, for raising questions which have encouraged debate, but I support my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe’s opposition to Clause 39 standing part of the Bill. I also support her Amendment 160A about ring-fencing.

Clause 39 gives the Treasury powers to loosen the ring-fencing scheme. It has been anticipated, as others have said in this debate, by a number of announcements and reports, not least the Skeoch report—I hope I have pronounced it rightly, in the Celtic way—and the announcements this year by the Treasury itself. All of these point to and address a real problem. The question before us today is whether the Government’s solution in their Clauses 39 and 40 is sufficient to deal with the problems raised by reviews and announcements going back to the 1 March 2022 independent review of the working of the scheme.

I have a concern. The clause may seem to be the answer to some of the serious questions raised in that review and other concerns, and allow for the mitigation of problems arising from the ring-fencing regime—to allow for “proportionate” changes, to use a word which continues to recur throughout the assessments of how the scheme is working. However, in essence, it protracts the dominance of the regime and the regulators in what should be business decisions under good law, which is the spirit of the common law. It is a law which is permissive of risk-taking rather than prohibitive of the spirit of enterprise, or looking over the shoulder to the precautionary principle.

Officials and regulators can be very intelligent, competent and talented people, but it is not part of their skill set to drive through an entrepreneurial idea from the drawing board to production, sale, expanding their markets, developing a business, taking risk, and hiring and training people—which is an additional cost—while all the time keeping on top of the services sector, one of the fastest growing sectors in the UK and a jewel in the crown. Enabling officials to decide which activities should or should not be prohibited, and under which circumstances, does not tackle the fundamental problem to which the ring-fenced regime has given rise: the artificial and contrived structure. We are dealing with a structural problem—an artificially separated structure.

This structure inhibits the financial services sector from functioning in the best possible way, as an enabling hub for the whole UK economy, to allow small businesses, in particular, to grow and credit to flow. It is unlikely to remedy what we are dealing with, the fundamental problem of risk aversion imposed by ring-fencing law on businesses and the endemic risk aversion in the operation of the law.

[Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)]

I wonder whether there might be some confusion here. The thing about the ring-fence is that there are activities within it that the Government are promising to bail out. Those things are being insured. By the way, the move in the ring-fence proposed by the Government will extend these a little, but they include lending to the small businesses that the noble Baroness has talked about. The question is: are we going to be rid of that? Is it the case that the implicit guarantee that the Government are giving can go to any other activity that the bank decides that it wants to undertake? That could include, although Skeoch would say it is not a problem right now, the sort of proprietary trading that brought the American banks down in 2008—of course, they had been allowed to do that because Glass-Steagall had been removed 10 years earlier. What we are talking about here is: how much of bank activity will the Government stand behind? As Mervyn King said, we must make sure that it is just the very most important things.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord, but it is about where the line is drawn in law, so that businesses can be certain and have predictability, because activities change day by day.

[Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)]

With respect, that is what Skeoch is recommending and what is being allowed in what we are being asked to accept here—there is an extension of the ring-fence. He is saying, “Look, there are other important activities that go beyond the ring-fence that are administratively complicated for the banks. Please can you move this? Also, can you move this in a way so that it doesn’t need to go to primary legislation any time it needs to change, because all these things are moving?” What we are trying to do here is recognise that the independent commission is run by a senior financial businessperson—he used to run Standard Life—whom we are going to back. He indeed said that, in the long term, you may want to think about how ring-fencing goes together with the resolution regime, but that is not for now. He certainly did not say that we should abandon it.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord, but he was speaking about 2022, which was light years away for the financial sector. Things have moved on and have changed. We have different regimes in place now. As my noble friend Lady Noakes has explained, the banks are now resolvable. There are other schemes that will avoid the problems for the taxpayer. That should be borne in mind.

I had better finish quickly. That is my objection. It is about who decides for businesses. If you have a ring-fence, ultimately, no matter how much you relax it, the Government are never going to have the knowledge of the sector, and the detailed tactical and strategic ability, to be ahead of the game and make businesses grow. They will always play slightly safe, but maybe they are over-safe.

I will finish on why we need to repeal the ring-fence, not just why Clause 39 is not good enough. In a sense, we are seeing the inhibition of risk-taking and a structure that inhibits it. As other noble Lords have pointed out, we do not have parallels in other economies. I know that there is the Volcker rule in the US, but Switzerland has solved its “too big to fail” problem without a ring-fence and it has a very instructive banking sector. France and Germany have it individually but not the EU, which rejected it. Australia reviewed it again in 2019 and rejected it on the grounds that noble Lords have mentioned. It is well worth going back to the famous Skeoch review, which contends that, in the longer term, we will not need the ring-fence and we will have resolution schemes in place. For those reasons, I support my noble friend’s opposition to the clause standing part of the Bill and her Amendment 160A.

--- Later in debate ---

The corporation is, however, unlike any other local authority in the UK, not least because the 8,500 residents of the City of London are dwarfed by the over 600,000 people who work there and whose interests also needs to be considered. There is no other municipality that contributes over £100 billion annually to the UK economy and is the centre of our world-leading financial and professional services sector. It is therefore right that the corporation should use its convening power to promote this sector, which is at the heart of its success, including through engaging with the FCA and the PRA. If noble Lords have specific concerns about a particular interaction between the corporation and the regulators, the right response is a specific question to the Treasury or to the regulators, or even to the corporation itself, rather than the statutory review panel with a long process that is being considered in this amendment. We do not legislate for a review every time a body engages constructively with a regulator, and we should not seek to do so here.

[Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, has suggested that we inquire into the City of London’s role with the regulators and regulation. My noble friend Lady Bi summed it up well: there is no direct role there. But I wonder whether we could send a message to the City of London, perhaps a little more collegiate and, as a result, more effective. We all recognise that the role and constitution of the City corporation is quite difficult to defend from 21st-century principles. Why does one square mile of the country have these unique privileges? It has billions of pounds worth of property and investment, and the Lord Mayor of London has the status of a Cabinet Minister, apparently, when he or she goes on trips abroad. Why is it charged with the powers of a local authority but also with promoting Britain’s financial services industry? I point out that your Lordships’ House bears witness to the fact that historic institutions can—and often do—do good and important work. I wonder whether, harking back to the traditions of the City of London, there is one that we could help revive, in the spirit of what the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, may want to happen.

Historically, the City of London was responsible for the good conduct of the trades in the city, ensuring that the goods produced could be trusted to be of high quality. Indeed, I believe that Elizabeth I even had the goldsmiths of London check that the coinage that the Mint was producing was of a high enough standard, because the goldsmiths were more professional than the people at the Royal Mint.

Over time, that role of policing good conduct has passed to professional bodies and then to regulators, but we often forget that it is the professionalism that we need. Regulators cannot replace professionalism, for which so many people from Britain and around the world come to use Britain’s financial services industry. Professionals, whether individuals or institutions, are a disciplined group possessing special knowledge and skills in a widely recognised body of learning. They are prepared to apply this knowledge and exercise these skills in the interests of others. That professionalism, both for individuals and for institutions, harks back to that old role of the City of London: not regulation but professionalism. It is and should be the core and unique selling point of the UK financial services industry. I sense that that is what we in this Room would like to achieve.

The City of London promotes financial services, but surely, if it does that, it must be sure that the services it promotes—maybe not every financial service—serve a purpose in the world. There is still enormous room for the City to identify and help to encourage good practice, not just to promote financial services generally but to ensure that all the services it promotes deliver benefit to the customer and the world. That may, from time to time, involve talking to a regulator—I do not see that as a problem—but it should seek much more to ensure that professional good practice becomes a norm. The City already does some of this, but it could be so much clearer about its focus and role. There would be no better way to promote the success of financial services in Britain.

I have one last coda on this and a more immediate thought. Spokespeople from the City of London Corporation like to explain—correctly—that they represent the whole financial services industry of Britain, two-thirds of which works outside London. But those who work to promote the industry are exclusively employed in the square mile, and it is difficult to express the level of frustration that I have felt among some that the City talks the talk about employment around the country but maybe needs to walk the walk in its own practices on where people are employed. I hope that might be a constructive suggestion about how this venerable institution might serve its country better.

[Baroness Dacres of Lewisham (Lab)]

My Lords, I fear that Amendment 172C strays beyond the purpose of the Bill, which is concerned with improving the regulation of financial services and markets. It is not, in my view, the appropriate vehicle for reopening broader questions about the role and governance of the City of London Corporation. This amendment takes us into a rather different debate—it asks us to examine the role and function of the City of London Corporation—whereas the purpose of the Bill is to strengthen the UK’s financial regulatory framework, ensuring that it is effective, proportionate and capable of supporting growth, investment and innovation, while maintaining high standards. Our focus should remain on achieving those objectives.

It is important to be clear about the respective roles of the organisations involved. The City of London Corporation is not a financial regulator. It does not authorise firms, supervise markets or enforce regulatory rules. Those responsibilities rest with the Financial Conduct Authority, the Prudential Regulation Authority and the Bank of England, all of which are independently accountable to Parliament.

The City corporation performs a different, but none the less valuable, function. It acts as a convenor of expertise, an advocate for one of the United Kingdom’s most important industries and a champion of the UK as a global financial centre. Through its international engagement, it promotes inward investment, supports exports of financial and professional services, and works with industry to help maintain the UK’s reputation for high standards and innovation.

I question whether the amendment has demonstrated that there is a genuine accountability gap requiring statutory review. Before Parliament creates a new review mechanism, we should be satisfied that there is evidence of a problem that the existing arrangements have failed to address. I have not yet heard that case made. The City corporation is already subject to established governance and oversight arrangements, while the regulators are independently accountable to Parliament.

At a time when the Government are rightly seeking to promote economic growth and strengthen the United Kingdom’s competitiveness as a leading international financial centre, I am concerned that this amendment risks creating uncertainty without identifying a clear public benefit. Our efforts should be directed towards ensuring that regulators can carry out their duties effectively, while organisations such as the City of London Corporation continue to play their distinct role in supporting the wider success of the UK’s financial and professional services. For those reasons, I believe our attention should remain firmly on the purpose of the Bill: strengthening the United Kingdom’s financial regulatory framework. I cannot support Amendment 172C.