Financial Services and Markets Bill [HL]

Lord Vaux of Harrowden Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 22nd June 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

My Lords, as this is the first time I have spoken on the Bill, I would normally apologise for not taking part in Second Reading but—how I can put this—I was enjoying my temporary retirement from the House.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

It is very nice to be back to do another Financial Services and Markets Bill. As it is the first time I have spoken, I should declare a registered interest in Fidelity National Information Services, Inc., which is a large American company that provides services and software to a wide range of financial services companies around the world.

I have tabled Amendment 26 and given notice of my intention to oppose that Clause 3 stand part of the Bill. I have also added my name to a number of amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes.

I have another interest to declare. I lost my local bank branch in my village some years ago, and I have just been informed that the last remaining bank in my nearest town is also about to close. To visit a bank branch for me will now involve a 100-mile round trip, so I am sympathetic to the idea that we need to do something to ensure continuation of access to banking services, especially in rural areas such as mine. At the same time, I am conscious that I probably visit a bank branch less than a couple of times a year, so I understand why banks feel it necessary to close them. They are not economic. We need to find a sensible balance to this. I accept that we may need to do something, but what?

There is the old joke: “We need to do something; this is something, so let’s do it”, but Clause 3 is not even something. It is just a vague—I was going to say promise, but it is not even that—intention to do something completely unspecified at an unspecified time, or indeed times, in the future. This Government have an unfortunate track record of putting sweeping powers into legislation before deciding what they actually intend to do with them, and this is yet another example. As the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee pointed out really strongly, this is a very sweeping power with no meaningful limitations at all other than, as we have heard, the need to have regard, and only to have regard, to the independent review currently being undertaken by Richard Lloyd.

Clause 3(3), which has only examples rather than limitations, is one of the widest I have seen. It includes the express ability to make changes to any Act of Parliament, a really strong Henry VIII power. It starts by saying:

“Regulations under subsection (1) may (among other things)”


do the things listed below that. Will the Minister explain what these other things might be? Am I being old-fashioned to suggest that this is not the right way to create law? It would surely be better to wait until after the review has been undertaken, decide what is needed and then legislate—if legislation is actually necessary, since, as the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, says, we got these banking hubs without legislation—and have the legislation subject to proper scrutiny by Parliament, which it will not be if we go down this route.

The Minister will no doubt try to reassure us about how this power will be used. Of course I—and, I am sure, everybody else in this Room—will have complete faith that the Minister would not try to misuse the power, but he will not always be the Minister. That may be a comment that has particular resonance today. Who knows? It is even possible that this Government may not always be the Government, but this power is unlimited and will be the law for the foreseeable future. Who knows what a future Government might wish to do with such an unlimited power? Indeed, as written, they could even use it to reduce the rights of access to banking.

I have a few specific questions for the Minister. First, will he explain in more detail how the Government currently expect, subject of course to the review, to use this power? What do they expect to do with it and when? Secondly, will he explain which Acts of Parliament he has in mind that might be changed under Clause 3(3)(b) and what changes he would expect to make to them? I put on record now that if I do not get a very convincing answer as to why this wide Henry VIII power is required, I will push Amendment 26, which would remove the power to amend primary legislation, to a Division on Report.

Finally, the Explanatory Memorandum recognises that this is a broad power. It says it is “necessarily broad”. At the same time, and in contrast to that, it also seems to recognise that it is broader than really needed, as it goes on to say,

“the Government would expect to narrow it once the review has concluded”.

I am somewhat baffled by that. We are in Grand Committee now, and the timetable for the Bill seems pretty tight. Will the Minister explain how it would be possible to narrow it, given that the Bill is likely to have completed all its stages before the review is completed and they have worked out what they want to do with it? Once the Bill has become law, the power cannot be narrowed.

This is another example of the Government trying to show they are doing something before they have decided what they want to do, and therefore giving themselves inappropriately broad powers that avoid proper scrutiny when they do finally decide. It is not the right way to make laws that will outlast this Government, and I do not believe this clause should stand part of the Bill without at least very significant narrowing and safeguards.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendments 24 and 27 in my name. I support what has just been said by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux. To some extent, we are again fishing in the same constitutional pond that regulators are not Parliament. Parliament should not give away powers it cannot get back, and it should not make decisions before we know what we are deciding about.

Amendment 24 would ensure that any regulations made under this clause can only make provision that arises directly from the statutory review. A review is not a blank cheque. If Parliament asks for a review of access to banking services, the regulation-making power should be, if not confined to, at least in some way related to what the review identifies and not what a future Minister or regulator might wish to do. That is my real target. It may be that I have drafted he amendment a little too tightly but, as has been explained, this is a very open-ended power to do anything. Looked at constitutionally, the fact that the consultation has not yet been completed and assessed more than stretches proper procedure.

Amendment 27 addresses a different but related concern. As drafted, the Bill creates machinery in which FCA rules effectively drive changes to legislation, including primary legislation. The FCA pulls the lever, the Treasury presses the button and the law moves to reflect the regulator’s rulebook. The Government will no doubt say that Parliament can always reject the regulations, but we all know how that plays out: Parliament is presented with take-it-or-leave-it unamendable statutory instruments, and if it dares to reject them, we are told we are precipitating a constitutional crisis. That is not meaningful parliamentary control.

I am not opposed to the FCA modernising rules or streamlining processes—far from it—but where those rules have the effect of altering rights or obligations that were created by Parliament, the change must meaningfully come back to Parliament. Otherwise, we risk creating a system where the regulator can, in substance, rewrite Acts of Parliament by changing its rulebook. That is not proportionate regulation; it is law-making without accountability. Again, this seems not to be the sort of thing expected under the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act. These amendments do not prevent modernisation; they simply ensure that modernisation happens within a statutory framework, with Parliament retaining oversight of the rights it has created. It does not mean going into the detail, but it does mean monitoring the rights. I hope the Minister will recognise that these are modest but important constitutional guardrails.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stockwood (Lab)]

My Lords, I will begin by setting out why Clause 3 should stand part of the Bill. The way that UK citizens bank has changed significantly in recent years, with many customers choosing to use digital channels such as mobile banking. As such, we have seen many firms reviewing how best to meet these changing needs, and banks are closing branches in response.

However, for some people who require access to in-person banking services, these changes may have resulted in detriment. The Government are committed to ensuring that people who need in-person banking, including vulnerable customers and those with specific needs, can continue to access essential services. Last month, as mentioned, the Government launched an independent review into access to banking services led by Richard Lloyd, former executive director at Which? and a former board member of the FCA. I encourage noble Lords to engage with him. As they have noted, he conducts this critical work. I am glad to hear much agreement from many noble Lords today as this is a critical issue and the Government are right to be exploring it.

Clause 3 ensures that we can act swiftly and proportionately if the evidence from the Access to Banking Services review supports intervention. Once the Access to Banking Services review has concluded and made its recommendations, the Government will assess whether any further legislative change may be required. I appreciate that the power is broad and that many of the amendments in this group are aimed at scrutinising or reducing the breadth of that power. I also recognise that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has drawn Clause 3 to the attention of the House and recommended that the power be removed from the Bill. The Government have considered that report and will be responding in writing in the normal way before Report.

We accept that this is a broad power, but we consider that it is needed now so that, once the independent review reports, the Government can respond promptly and proportionately in light of the evidence and recommendations that it provides. As the review is still ongoing, it is not yet known what detriment exists, which customer segments are most affected, whether further intervention is needed or what form it should take. The Government are committed to keeping all aspects of this power under review as the independent review completes its work.

I pass on my personal welcome back to the noble Lord, Lord Vaux. His comments about Ministers changing is indeed pertinent on a day such as today. I am not casting too far in the future; indeed, I keep checking my phone just to see whether I make it through Committee stage.

The noble Lord whether this power could be narrowed. I can confirm that the Government expect to narrow the power once the review has concluded in October and we have had the opportunity to consider the recommendations. This will provide further clarity on any appropriate interventions that will allow the power to be refined.

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

If the review is going to be completed in October, presumably there will then be a period of time when the Government will consider it. In my experience, that usually takes several months, by which time the Bill will be law. I struggle to understand how the power can be narrowed, given that we are probably at the end of the year before proposals have come forward.

[Lord Stockwood (Lab)]

I was coming on to that point. The noble Lord asked what the power can do and how that scrutiny can take place. It allows the Government to introduce targeted secondary legislation or to confer functions on the FCA, including the power to make rules in the future. When using this power, the Treasury must have regard to the recommendation made by the Lloyd review.

I think the noble Lord made a point about what legislation could be amended. I can only answer this in part at this time: the Treasury expects to use the power if needed to amend relevant legislation, for example, financial services legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

My Lords, I have a number of amendments in this group on the subject of fraud and scams. I have also added my support to the lead amendment, which was tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and to which she has just spoken. Most of my amendments arise, at least in part, from the abolition of the PSR and the absorption of its activities into the FCA; I will quickly run through each of them.

The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, has already explained the need for her Amendment 46, which would require the FCA to make rules to ensure that the tech or communications company on whose platform or service the fraud arises is responsible for a proportion of the cost of reimbursing the victims. Whether or not the mechanism in her amendment is the right one, the principle here is obvious. At the moment, it is the banks that must compulsorily fully refund victims of fraud. There is some sense in the banks having to reimburse victims, because almost every fraud goes through some sort of bank account to allow the fraudsters to cash out. It is clear that the mandatory reimbursement requirement has incentivised banks to do more to protect customers. However, we also know that fraud does not originate from banks’ services. According to UK Finance’s latest report, some 66% of scams arise on online services and a further 17% originate via telecoms. Let us be clear: the highest proportion of that arises on Meta platforms.

Despite voluntary charters, this is not improving at all. Your Lordships’ Fraud Act 2006 and Digital Fraud Committee, of which I was a member, recognised this in its report nearly four years ago; if the Minister has not read it, I recommend it as some bedtime reading. It said:

“Until all fraud-enabling industries fear significant financial, legal and reputational risk for their failure to prevent fraud, they will not act”.


We were right. Nothing has changed since then to change that conclusion. If anything, matters continue to worsen as technology such as AI starts being used by criminals. It is time that the platforms were at last forced to step up and take financial responsibility for the losses that arise from their platforms, not just leaving it to the banks to pick up the full liability. I say this to the Minister: in your answer, please do not tell us that the Online Safety Act will solve this. It is too limited; it covers only directly paid-for advertising and is unlikely to make much difference.

The Government’s fraud strategy recognises all this. It says that,

“if industry partnership and market incentives alone remain insufficient to drive improvements, the Government will take legislative action within this Parliament”.

This has been going on for years. The voluntary online fraud charter was signed three years ago. Nothing material has improved. Fraud is still around 45% of all crime, and the percentage arising on tech platforms has not fallen; if anything, it has risen. The Bill is the perfect opportunity finally to take action on this and not leave it until thousands more people have fallen victim. We know that tech companies will not take action unless they have to—they continue to prove that—which is why the Government are at last taking action in respect of child protection. This is no different. It is now time to act without further delay.

My Amendment 47 would introduce a requirement for the mandatory reimbursement rules for APP fraud, which came into force in October 2024, to be reviewed after three years of operation. It is unlikely that we got everything right at the first attempt, so a review of how effective they have been in meeting their objectives of protecting consumers and incentivising the banks to improve protections—as well as, importantly, whether there have been any unintended consequences—must make sense.

I have tried to set out in the amendment—I will not go through all the detail—the key matters that were discussed when the requirement was introduced in 2022-23 as the matters that ought to be reviewed. I would have also included the tech platforms, but I did not want to duplicate the amendment that we have just discussed.

I completely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, who sadly is not with us at the moment, on his Amendment 58, which would add specific fraud prevention duties on payment service providers. I also have a lot of sympathy with the principle behind his Amendment 125, which would introduce a financial fraud prevention secondary objective to the FCA, although I caveat that by saying that I am not sure that adding yet more objectives to the regulators is necessarily the right way to go.

My Amendment 59 is designed to ensure that the FCA continues to collate and to publish the fraud data that the PSR has been collating and publishing for the past few years. This has been extremely valuable. It has identified several PSPs that were clearly not taking their fraud prevention duties seriously and led to action being taken against them. The pressure of shining a light on some of the bigger players has clearly incentivised them to step up and improve their systems. The information identifies very clearly which PSPs are protecting their customers best and which are doing it worst, which is important information for consumers when choosing a bank or payment provider.

To give just one example to show the value of this reporting, the last report by the PSR identified that, for every 1 million transactions received by Guavapay, 109,744 were APP scam payments—that is more than 10%. As a result of that information, the company has been forced to close by the FCA. In the meantime, consumers would have been able to see that this was an unsafe operator if the report had been issued in a timely manner—an issue that I will come to in a second.

This reporting was started as a result of efforts by Members of the House during the passage of FSMA 2023, and it followed undertakings by the then Minister. But there are already signs that, since moving the PSR’s activities into the FCA, this has started to slip. As I said, the last report of this nature was for the period up to 7 October 2024, when the mandatory reimbursement requirement was introduced. That was not published until February 2026, some 16 months later. My amendment would add a time limit of three months for the publication of these reports. No further report has been published since, so I hope that the Minister will recognise the value of this reporting, and that he will confirm that it should continue and that this amendment—which does not create any new burdens at all but just continues the status quo—should be accepted.

Amendment 64 would reverse the deletion of Clause 72 from FSMA 2023—it was the clause that introduced the requirement to introduce a mandatory reimbursement requirement. In the Explanatory Memorandum, the Government explain that this is being removed because it has already happened. But Clause 72 does not only introduce the requirement; subsection (9) also includes the ability

“to vary or revoke a relevant requirement”

or

“to impose further relevant requirements”.

So I am not sure that deleting it in full works—that is something to look at. Most importantly, can the Minister confirm that the mandatory reimbursement requirement is intended to continue, even if reviewed and amended in the future—particularly in relation to tech companies, which we have talked about—and that this Bill is not intended to change anything in that respect?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, for reasons that will become apparent, I start by referring to my register of interests, including my shareholding in Meta.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, and my noble friend noble Lord Holmes, who is absent, for bringing forward this important group of amendments. I am sorry that this debate is so late and that the Grand Committee is so thin under the new five-hour arrangements—of which I am not a fan—because, collectively, these amendments raise an important and timely point. As online retail platforms and digital marketplaces become more popular and AI makes fraud easier, there has been a concurrent increase in the risk that people face from online fraud, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Vaux.

We have seen concerning figures suggesting that Facebook Marketplace is now the single most scammed UK consumer platform. Very large sums are stolen through it every day in the UK, and a very high proportion of UK purchase fraud begins there. We have also seen banks such as Santander taking active steps to block suspected Marketplace transfers to protect customers. Those examples raise very important questions: how easy is it for consumers to obtain redress when they are defrauded in this way? Who holds ultimate responsibility when a fraud is facilitated through an online platform, and how can the regulatory framework ensure that the firms best placed to prevent the fraud have a real incentive to do so? It is also important to consider how changes can be made without introducing new rafts of regulation that put up costs and prices.

Banks and payment service providers have significant responsibilities, and rightly so. They process the payment, have duties to their customers, and have tools available to detect and prevent suspicious transactions. Yet they are often not the place where the fraud originated, and may see only the final payment instruction, by which point much of the harm has already been set in motion. By contrast, technology companies and online marketplaces may be much closer to the source of the problem. They host the listings, provide the communications infrastructure, enable the interaction between buyer and seller, and in many cases have access to data which could help identify suspicious behaviour before money ever leaves a consumer’s account.

Amendment 46 is based on the principle that fraud should be paid for by those best placed to prevent it, not simply those who happen to process the payment at the end of the chain. If platforms know that they may share liability where fraud is facilitated through their systems, they will have a much stronger incentive to identify fraudulent listings, remove scam accounts, improve verification, share data and co-operate with banks and regulators, and indeed help consumers to avoid fraud, as we can do a lot ourselves as consumers. This is not about saying that technology firms should always be liable in every case, nor is it about absolving banks of responsibility. Yet it recognises that the current model may place too much of the burden on one part of the system, while allowing other actors, including very large and profitable tech companies, to avoid the financial consequences of fraud which often begins on their platforms.

The goal should be to stop fraud before it happens, which means better consumer warnings, transaction monitoring, real-time data sharing, and use of technology by all relevant firms. It also means transparency. If particular platforms, channels or types of transaction are consistently associated with fraud, that information should be visible. Sunlight is an important tool of accountability, which is why Amendment 59 is valuable in principle. As the experienced noble Lord, Lord Vaux, has explained, regular publication of data on APP fraud performance, including where fraud originates, would help Parliament, regulators, firms and consumers to understand the real shape of the problem. It would put pressure on firms whose systems are repeatedly linked to fraud to improve their performance.

Before we take a definitive view on these amendments, I would be grateful if the Minister could address several questions. First, what is the Government’s view on the principle of shared liability for APP fraud across the wider ecosystem, including technology companies and online marketplaces? Secondly, is there a place for greater transparency on APP fraud performance? Thirdly, what discussions have the Government had with tech platforms about fraud originating on their services, and what more does the Minister believe those firms should be required to do? Fourthly, does the Minister accept that online platforms should have stronger incentives to prevent fraud where they host the marketplace, the listing or the communication through which the scam takes place? Finally, how do the Government envisage tackling this problem? Do they have plans to introduce legislation on this issue, or do they believe that changes within the existing framework will be sufficient?

APP fraud causes real harm to individuals, families and businesses. It can undermine confidence in digital payments and online commerce, which is increasingly the direction of travel. It also imposes costs on the wider financial system. I recognise that this may go even wider than our Bill, but this is an important group and I look forward to the Minister’s responses, and to seeing how we can improve this important area.

Financial Services and Markets Bill [HL]

Lord Vaux of Harrowden Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 24th June 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

My Lords, I have a number of amendments in this group that relate to the PSR. Before I run through those, I want to comment on Amendment 47A, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond. I must say that I am attracted by the idea of a payment systems panel. Payment systems are such a critical part of our financial services structure. They are used more often by more people and more businesses than any other financial service. If they go wrong, or become too expensive, or fail to prevent fraud or error effectively, the impact on individuals and businesses would be very significant. The abolition of the PSR risks dilution of attention to payment systems, so the creation of a panel has very real merit, and I will listen to the Minister’s answer with interest. I will also be interested to hear why the payment systems competition objective in the Bill is missing elements originally included in the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013, as the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, has pointed out.

I move on to my Amendment 49, which is simply a request for clarification and understanding. I have read new subsection 131Z3(2)(d)(ii), inserted by Schedule 2, a number of times, but have been struggling to understand the double negative in it. I think I now understand that it means that any system that includes any arrangements using digital settlement assets may be a payment system even if that system’s primary purpose is not that of enabling persons to transfer funds. Is that correct? If so, why is that? Why do we treat systems not primarily intended to be used for the transfer of funds, but which include digital settlement assets, differently from systems that do not include digital settlement assets?

Amendments 50 to 53 are all related and designed to reduce the discretion of the Treasury to designate or not designate a payment system as a regulated payment system. As it stands, the Bill gives the Treasury complete discretion. The Bill sets out when the Treasury may designate a payment system to be regulated, but whether it does so is entirely at its discretion, subject only to some consultations. If it does not wish to designate a payment system as a regulated payment system, it does not even need to consult. Similarly, new Section 131Z6 gives it complete discretion to withdraw any designation at will at any time. Why does that matter? That might be best illustrated by a completely hypothetical and obviously completely made-up example. Stablecoins are generally recognised as being primarily a payment system. Let us imagine that there might be a politician who has received a donation of, shall we say, £5 million from an overseas billionaire who is a major shareholder in the world’s leading stablecoin issuer. Perhaps that politician may not have registered such a donation. Let us imagine that that politician gains a position of influence over the Treasury and feels that the interests of his benefactor might be assisted if stablecoins, or indeed a particular stablecoin, were not designated as a regulated payment system. The Bill, as drafted, would allow exactly that to happen. Does the Minister agree that this feels somewhat inappropriate and open to potential abuse?

My amendments would reduce that discretion so that the Treasury must—“must”, not “may”—designate a payment system as a regulated payment system if it is satisfied that any deficiency in the design of the system, or any disruption of its operation, would likely have serious consequences for those who use or are likely to use the services provided by participants in the system. It would have to withdraw a designation if satisfied that those grounds are no longer met.

My Amendment 55 is another request for clarification; I recognise that it may not be required. Prior to being abolished, the PSR does not have a secondary competitiveness and growth objective such as that of the FCA. It has an objective to promote effective competition in the market for payment systems and services and an innovation objective, but those are different things. It was not clear to me when I read this whether, as the PSR becomes part of the FCA, the regulation of payment systems will become subject to the FCA’s wider set of objectives or not. This amendment aims to put that beyond doubt, but perhaps the Minister could confirm the position.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendments 55A, 55B and 55C seek to amend the FCA’s payment systems competition objective. I agree that the FCA must be able to consider user access and market entry by infrastructure—

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

I am not sure I fully understood the Minister’s response to Amendment 55. Does the FCA’s secondary growth and competitiveness objective apply to payment service systems under the Bill? That was the clarity I sought.

[Lord Stockwood (Lab)]

It does indeed. Returning to Amendments 55A, 55B and 55C, I agree that the FCA must be able to consider user access and market entry by infrastructure and payment service providers. The Bill already achieves that. The FCA’s payment systems objectives are intended to be equivalent in substance and scope to the PSR’s existing objectives.

The noble Lords, Lord Holmes and Lord Vaux, asked about drafting differences between the FCA and the PSR objectives. Changes in drafting of the FCA’s payment systems objectives are for simplification only. The FCA’s payment systems objectives retain the substance of the PSR’s objectives.

Turning to Amendment 57, the Government are committed to improving financial inclusion, but a new levy on payment system participants is not the right mechanism. The better course is targeted and proportionate action, including through the Government’s financial inclusion strategy and the recent allocation of £132.5 million in dormant assets funding to Fair4All Finance.

On Amendment 101A, the Bill already provides for the secondary competitiveness and growth objective to apply to the payment systems’ general functions. Any reporting on that secondary objective would include its application to payment systems’ regulation, as appropriate. Therefore, the Government consider the amendment unnecessary and are satisfied that the Bill already gives the FCA the right objectives to support innovation, competition and growth.

Finally, Amendment 48 seeks to introduce maximum and minimum lengths for the consultations undertaken by the FCA and PRA. I understand the desire to ensure that, where regulators consult on proposed rule changes, stakeholders have a fair opportunity to consider the proposals and respond properly. However, this amendment would impose a rigid statutory timetable on consultations, which will cover a very wide range of issues that vary considerably in complexity, urgency and market impact. The Government’s view is that it is appropriate to allow the regulators to determine the appropriate consultation period, rather than being bound to timings set in primary legislation.

The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, is right on how we describe the interpretation of the drafting; I commend him for his skill in reading a very technical provision that I have had difficulty reading. He asked why payment systems that involve digital settlement assets are treated differently. This reflects the particular characteristics of digital settlement assets and the way the market is developing. It also reflects the existing arrangements under the PSR framework.

The Bill preserves flexibility to bring relevant systems within the scope of payment systems regulation, where they support payment activity. That does not mean automatic regulation. The system must still be designated by HMT before the FCA’s main powers apply. This approach ensures that the new framework is both future-proofed and proportionate. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, raised the issue of consultations with industry. The FCA works closely with industry, and the Bill sets out clear consultation requirements on the FCA to support this as it takes on this new role.

As I said at the start, I cannot accept these amendments, but I appreciate the spirit of where they come from. The Bill is aimed at ensuring that we have the right institutional framework for this part of the sector, while ensuring that we do not weaken those consumer protections. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 72 and 75 and to my opposition to Clause 16 standing part of the Bill. I also support the other amendments in this group and their intentions: I think we could talk quite a lot longer about them all.

My Amendments 72 and 75 would require the regulators’ long-term strategies to include a review of their rulebooks, with the aim of identifying outdated or unnecessary requirements. That is a sensible and uncontroversial idea. No one disputes that the regulatory rulebook should be kept under review or that unnecessary or duplicative requirements should not be removed. Indeed, the FCA’s own handbook review consultation acknowledges that parts of the rulebook are outdated, unclear or internally inconsistent. I hope that this review idea can be taken up.

However, these amendments presently sit within Clause 16, which is where the problem lies. Clause 16 creates a statutory duty for the FCA and the PRA to produce long-term strategies. In principle, that is not objectionable; regulators have produced strategy documents before, and it is entirely proper that Ministers should be able to input as long as it is transparent, but there are other problems that have been elaborated on by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, which I do not need to repeat. In practice, however, Clause 16 is the delegation engine for Clause 17. It is part of a process of downgrading the day-to-day requirements, the regulatory principles on rule-making, into a commentary in a five-year strategy document. This is a profound change in the constitutional architecture of financial regulation. What were once operational regulatory principles, enforceable by judicial review—even if that route is rarely pursued—become strategic aspirations, influenced by Ministers, unchallengeable by others and reviewed only every five years. The long-term strategy is being used as a vehicle to downgrade regulatory principles and apply them in a minimalist, non-operational way—just talk, no walk. If Clause 16 is to remain, it must be made significantly better and not simply operate as a Trojan horse.

The key thing about regulatory principles is how to make them sensibly relate to operational matters— I say sensibly because that has not happened. That is the problem. It may work for some of them to be dealt with more thematically and rather more regularly than five-year intervals, but others need consideration at the rule-making and supervisory level. While Ministers are meant to stay clear of day-to-day operational interference, like the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, I query whether Clause 16 overly restricts ministerial input. FSMA 2000 has always had a difficult settlement to keep government away from day-to-day decisions, but—as the financial crisis showed—it is inescapable that the buck stops with government. Clause 16 does not strike the right balance there.

My Amendments 72 and 75 point to rulebook review. As I said in a previous group, and as noted by the Lords Financial Services Regulation Committee, it is effectively the regulators’ system that is cluttered, fragmented and difficult to navigate. It is a lot harder to navigate than a few regulatory principles that the regulators complain about, but which are the only way to challenge that regulatory clutter. In the Lords committee report, a central finding was that culture change, not structural tinkering, is what is needed. Regulators must be clearer, more predictable and more proportionate in how they exercise their powers. The Clause 16 regulatory strategy does not deliver that; it substitutes what were enforceable operational requirements about proportionality with unenforceable talk.

It rather looks as though the regulators will avoid having to step up to the mark. They did not much like the committee’s report or its suggestions of culture change, and, as we will discuss when we get to Clause 17, in the words of one City commentator, it looks like the regulators have done a job on Parliament. Clause 16 is not about transparency, nor is it new in suggesting a strategy document. It is just a vehicle to diminish the accountability and effectiveness of the regulatory principles, and I oppose it.

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

I have added my name to three of the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, in this group. To be honest, I am not quite sure why I did not add my name to her other two; I should have done, so I apologise. The noble Baroness has already explained those with her usual clarity, so I will try hard not to repeat what she said.

Briefly, on Amendment 70, I was going to say that I assumed that the omission from the FCA’s strategic priorities of its secondary objective was an oversight. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, has kindly shared with me an email she has received from the Minister that effectively confirms that, and that it will be sorted out at a later stage. Can I very gently say to the Minister that when he writes to noble Lords, it should be copied to all who have signed an amendment? On Amendments 73 and 76, I will listen with interest as to why the Treasury should be able to make recommendations to the FCA and the PRA only in relation to the long-term strategies—that is, every five years. I suspect that the Treasury will come to regret that restriction.

I have also added my support to Amendments 72 and 75 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, both of which would require the FCA and PRA to carry out a review of their regulations as part of the five-year strategy process, with a view to eliminating any unnecessary regulations. Rulebooks have a habit of growing—being added to—and scope has a tendency to creep, so a five-year spring clean must be a good thing and would be a good discipline that I would wholeheartedly support. I finish by saying that I share the reservations that have already been raised about the whole of Clause 16.

[Lord Massey of Hampstead (Con)]

My Lords, the Bill reflects the very substantial transfer of power, as mentioned by my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, from Parliament and from existing regulators, such as the PSR and the 22 professional bodies with specialised knowledge of the sectors, as we discussed earlier. This reflects a high degree of centralisation of regulatory supervision, which may lead to a lack of clarity and, in some cases, as my noble friend Lord Mackinlay mentioned, double regulation for small firms. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, said earlier, the system is also already overloaded. In that context, given the extensive proposed changes and the real possibility of unintended consequences, it seems that the Government should consider the setting of strategy for the future as an important component of the Bill.

Although I support all the amendments in this group, I emphasise the need for consultation with regulated firms and the regular review of the rulebooks as provided for in Amendments 71, 72, 74 and 75. The Bill indeed provides for the publication of a document and consultation with one party—the Court of Directors of the Bank of England is specifically mentioned as a party that will be consulted—but seemingly not with any regulated firm, despite the fact that regulated firms could clearly be very helpful in the setting of long-term strategy. Amendments 71 and 74, proposed by my noble friend Lady Noakes, therefore seem essential additions to the Bill, as would Amendments 72 and 75, proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, and the noble Lord, Lord Vaux.

--- Later in debate ---

I have much sympathy for the regulators who must navigate an array of “have regards” as they do their work. The whole “have regard” area could do with a review, which is what I initially thought the Government’s Leeds reform was going to do. That is clearly outstanding business. My amendment, as I said earlier, starts with the regulatory principles, but that is not by any means the whole of the problem. I beg to move.

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

My Lords, I hope to keep the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, happy by being very brief. One of the things that came out of the committee’s report was the proliferation of principles and “have regards”, et cetera. It is ripe for a review and an overhaul, and I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I very much suspect that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and I would find significant differences in our ideal list of the regulatory principles in Section 3B(1) of FSMA. I will argue in the next group for a “have regard” to the risks of the private credit market to financial stability. In group 8, my colleagues will argue for a “have regard” on sustainability and in group 10 for a “have regard” on financial inclusion.

These are all probing amendments, but they reflect the need for principles to be reviewed, debated and potentially changed by Parliament, so that a review would have input from the regulators and from the Government, but the final decision would rest with Parliament, as it has always done in primary legislation.

To pick up one of the issues that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, made about durability, constant churn is unacceptable and would leave the regulators and the financial sector in confusion, and none of us wishes for that. But I think that on the whole, we can look back and say that Parliament has behaved responsibly. Not everybody likes all the principles, but the financial system and the regulators have not had difficulty in delivering, or considering and making sure it is having regard to, those particular principles, particularly when financial stability is at stake.

To me, what underlies all this is the democratic process. I do not believe that principles can be abdicated to a regulator, which is what happens with the Bill—they go off into the long-term strategy. I believe this is for Parliament, and I would very much always support a review. Parliament has that right and that responsibility.

Some of us rather suspect that the removal of the principles to the five-year strategy has been to provide a covert way to diminish the climate change principles. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, whom I respect, would move them through the front door, but for many of us there is a strong suspicion that this is removing them through the back door so that the Government do not get the opprobrium that would follow from groups that are concerned about net zero and climate change. Some in the financial services sector are actually very dedicated to achieving climate change targets, but there are also plenty of voices that regard every climate change target and every net zero as a cost and a regulatory burden, and it seems to me that those voices have had very strong sway with the Government.

I suspect, frankly, that we would never have had climate change in among the principles had it not been for Mark Carney, and I very much doubt they will survive in any substance as part of the long-term strategy unless there is something of a volte- face in attitudes as we keep going through very extreme weather conditions and it becomes apparent that there is a huge financial cost and a huge risk to financial stability from the extreme weather conditions and the consequence damage to our overall economic circumstances.

As I say, if the Government wish to change the principles, they should do it through the front door in the way that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, proposes: raise the issues, tell Parliament that they wish to make changes and argue in favour of those changes. But that is a fundamentally different approach from taking principles, which I suspect they dislike, and moving them to a long-term strategy so that they will, over time, dwindle but without visibility or any parliamentary input.

Financial Services and Markets Bill [HL]

Lord Vaux of Harrowden Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 29th June 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

My Lords, I have added my name to the Clause 17 stand part notice. As has been explained so clearly, the Government’s intention appears to be to put most of the consideration of the regulatory principles and “have regards” into the five-year strategy created by Clause 16. They believe that, having done that and thereby provided long-term clarity as to how those principles and “have regards” will be met at a strategic level, it is no longer necessary to apply them to the nitty-gritty of individual rule-making, which is why Clause 17 effectively removes them from that process. Rightly, the Government consider the secondary competitiveness and growth objective to be extremely important, so they have singled that one out for special treatment in Clause 20, and it alone must be reported on annually. That, at least, is to be welcomed but does have the somewhat odd effect of making the secondary objective more important than even the primary objectives, or any other principles which are not subject to specific reporting.

As we have heard, there are very real problems with this overall approach in terms of the impact on the ability of Parliament to scrutinise the activities of the regulators, including the committees that have been established for that purpose. As the Minister is aware, the Financial Services Regulation Committee of this House, of which I and a number of others in this Grand Committee are members, has taken the unusual step of writing to the Minister to set out our unanimous concerns in that respect. I very much look forward to the meeting that he will attend next week on that.

In passing, just before we started today, we received a letter and a Treasury note from the Minister. Point 15 in the Treasury note would slightly bring together the strategy and the Clause 17 elements, in that it says:

“The Bill will require the regulators in their annual reports to update on the extent to which, in their opinion, they have implemented their long-term strategy”.


I spent a fair bit of time since I received that trying to find where the Bill actually says that. I may be being very dim, but I cannot find it, so perhaps the Minister could point out specifically where that is. I may well have missed it, and I apologise if I have.

I also spent part of the weekend reminding myself of what the FCA’s existing 2025-30 strategy document looks like. I lead a very exciting life, as you can see. While “vacuous” might be too strong a description, it is a classic of its type, being full of motherhood and apple pie generalities and lots of attractive diagrams and pictures, but very little of real specificity or genuine measurability. Statements such as

“We will be a smarter regulator; predictable, purposeful and proportionate”,


sound great, but is this really something that could be meaningfully scrutinised? When I compare the rules in Clause 16 with what is actually in the current strategy, it appears to me that the current strategy would actually comply with Clause 16.

During the previous day in Committee, the Minister said, in reply to a question from the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, about the existing strategy and whether it is the model on which Clause 16 is based:

“this is the starting point. There is definitely work to do and it needs to be improved”.—[Official Report, 24/6/26; col. GC 337.]

I cannot see how Clause 16 would improve it— I think it already complies—so I have no argument with the FCA having to have a longer-term strategy, but Clause 16 does not provide a sufficient basis on its own for parliamentary scrutiny and accountability, and that is where Clause 17 becomes such a problem. Clause 17 removes the need for the regulators to have regard to the regulatory principles and other “have regards” when going about its general duties, so apart from the annual report on competitiveness and growth in Clause 20 that I mentioned earlier, the only time the regulators will have to consider the regulatory principles—including, but not only, the critical issue of proportionality—will be in its five-year strategy. This would remove the need for regulators to explain how the regulatory principles apply to any draft regulations, at a time when they should be explaining not only the application to individual regulations but the cumulative impact of those regulations.

We debated last week how there is scope for an overhaul of the regulatory principles and other “have regards”, which have a tendency to proliferate. Perhaps that is where the Bill ought to be concentrating its efforts. Clause 17 represents a considerable downgrade on the ability of Parliament and indeed the Treasury to hold the regulators to account. Even as the Bill delegates ever-increasing activities to those regulators, this is a move in the wrong direction. So, by all means let us have a long-term strategy, but that does not substitute for the need for the regulators to have regard to the principles and other “have regards” when setting regulations, and to explain how they have been met. Clause 17 should be removed from the Bill.

[Lord Eatwell (Lab)]

My Lords, I want to follow on from the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, who commented that the committee was unanimous in its letter to the Minister. It was indeed: Conservative, Liberal Democrat, Labour and Cross-Bench Members were unanimous in rejecting Clause 17. The reason is that Clause 17 embodies the requirement to remove the principles from consideration by the committee. But those principles are the essential toolkit of the committee. This actually neuters the committee and leaves it just examining five-year strategies and annual reports, and without the ability to deal with specific proposals, which is the reason why the committee was established in the first place. By removing that ability, the Bill also weakens the regulators.

I am sure there are regulators in some office who thought that that was a neat way of getting rid of a very awkward committee. But it weakens, because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, pointed out, of the need for political cover—the need for a relationship between the political decisions and regulatory decisions. At the moment there exists this “proposal, accountability, critique” relationship between the regulators and the Financial Services Regulation Committee of your Lordships’ House. Remove that and the regulators are exposed to significant issues in a way they would not have been before.

I cannot see how in any way this measure improves a regulatory system that was built on the principles relationship established in FSMA at the beginning. It became particularly important once we left the European Union and the responsibility to examine the regulatory structure shifted from the European Parliament to this Parliament; and now, Clause 17 is taking away parliamentary accountability in any serious operational sense. It really should not stand part of the Bill.

Financial Services and Markets Bill [HL]

Lord Vaux of Harrowden Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 6th July 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

My Lords, this group is really two separate groups as far as I can see, and I am not quite sure why they have been lumped together. One is on operational readiness and the other is on the different treatment of wholesale and retail activities. I will add my support briefly to the principles behind the latter, on wholesale and retail activities, and to Amendments 142A and 142C, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Ashcombe. These bring us back to proportionality, which we have debated a number of times. The Minister can probably see a few themes coming through, and proportionality is definitely one.

In this case, the question is whether the regulators treat wholesale businesses with no retail customer exposure proportionately. By definition, wholesale businesses are dealing with sophisticated customers on a much more equal basis. It cannot be controversial to suggest that the regulation of these businesses could be lighter touch than for those dealing with retail customers.

The report of the Financial Services Regulation Committee on the secondary competitiveness and growth objective gave a number of examples where it appears that the FCA may not be doing enough to differentiate between these two parts of the market, while recognising that this is not always a clearly defined black and white boundary. Howard Davies put it well in his witness evidence:

“In wholesale markets, you are aiming to produce a fair contest, whereas in the retail markets you know it is not a fair contest because there is a significant information asymmetry problem between the consumer and the firm”.


The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, quoted the committee’s conclusion on this matter, so I will not repeat that. Whether this means that we need a separate wholesale markets and firms division within the FCA, as the amendments propose, is debatable, but I will be interested to hear how the Minister proposes to ensure that businesses that are primarily or wholly wholesale in operation are regulated proportionally.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendments 142A and 142C from my colleagues, the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Ashcombe. As has been said, this can be summed up in one word: proportionality. We have debated these themes on previous days in Committee and they are still as strong as they were when we mentioned them on day one. To “proportionality” I would add “specificity” and “applicability” because, without making this critical distinction—though difficult in some of the marginal cases—we are effectively saying that rules apply across the piece, which inevitably means increased burdens, increased costs, a lack of specificity, inapplicability, and holding firms and the UK economy back.

As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, rightly said, we have the at least odd situation right now where pet insurance is treated the same as marine or aviation insurance. I can see only one potential case where this would be appropriate: if many people were petting flying fish. As I do not believe we have an increase in flying fish petting, I believe that proportionality, specificity and applicability would be achieved by embracing the principles set out in Amendments 142A and 142C.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)]

My Lords, I support these amendments. They almost follow naturally from the debate that we had earlier about the need for a structurally competent wholesale function within the FCA. It is clear that you cannot produce a credible cost-benefit analysis without a credible evaluation capability. The PRA has understood that and already has the beginnings of an evaluation function, as the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, said.

I can understand that in part, because prudential regulation requires modelling, capital assessment and an understanding of how rules transmit through markets. The PRA’s world is balance-sheet solvency, capital modelling and risk transmission, so it already employs actuaries, quants and economists, and the evaluation office therefore fits more naturally into that culture. The FCA is different; its culture, as we have discussed, is overwhelmingly consumer focused. That is appropriate for retail regulation but it means that the FCA has never developed the technical machinery for the evaluation of wholesale market impacts. Consumer protection does not require the modelling of liquidity, pricing dynamics or market structure, but wholesale regulation does.

It occurred to me only when I was thinking about this in the context of this amendment that the need for an evaluation office points again to the different sides of the FCA and why somehow upgrading, or separating the wholesale side, becomes more relevant because functions are missing due to the consumer focus. We have heard that the FCA tends to do the minimum of cost-benefit analysis required by statute and then largely ignores it—again, probably because it thinks that it is not relevant to consumer protection, but I would say it is to the particular detriment of the wholesale side. That is an additional reason for supporting these amendments.

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

My Lords, I am sorry that I was not able to be here last Wednesday for the debates on the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, and others that proposed the creation of an office for financial regulatory accountability. I have read the debates in Hansard and there is a remarkable similarity to three years ago when we debated similar amendments. This was a significant error in 2023 during the passage of the last Financial Services and Markets Act. It would have been a significant improvement to the ability of Parliament to hold the regulators to account—a complement rather than a replacement.

I shall touch briefly on the ability to scrutinise the proportionality of specific rules. I shall look closely in Hansard at the Minister’s comments during the second group, when he seemed to agree that the specific scrutiny of the rules is in fact important, contrary to the approach that the Bill now takes. This holding of the regulators to account by Parliament has become only more important and more difficult, I think, as we give yet more responsibilities to the regulators under the Bill with, as we have heard, the move of the PRS, the Consumer Credit Act and so on.

Amendment 142 would provide an alternative way of achieving something similar to the amendments that were discussed on Wednesday that might perhaps be easier for the regulators and the Government to accept. It proposes the creation of offices of regulatory evaluation within both the FCA and the Bank but, unlike the office for financial regulatory accountability proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, it would lie within the regulator, although it would probably have much the same role. Whichever way we do it, I am sure the Minister will have heard loud and clear the concerns that are shared across the Committee about the accountability of the regulators to Parliament, another of the main themes that are emerging as we load ever greater responsibilities upon them.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I cannot improve on the three speeches that have been made. I rise simply to make clear that on these Benches, we think that this amendment is really important.

We can see in Committee that it is purely random that we have the capacity to raise many of the issues. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and my noble friend Lady Bowles have a deep understanding of the market, as does the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, but it is purely random that they happen to be in the Lords. If we did not have the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, we would struggle to deal with many of the issues around digital assets and the revolution that is taking place. We have no system of ensuring that, in any part of the parliamentary process, there is the capacity to get to the relevant pieces of information, understand the underlying issues and play the role that Parliament should be playing—whether at committee level, with a Special Standing Committee, or as associated with the passage of a piece of legislation. None of that can be done without genuine, adequate and well thought-through information.

Looking at other Parliaments around the globe, in the US, the Senate and Congress have vast numbers of staff available to make sure that those who represent the voice of the people are truly informed in great detail with proper understanding of the articles that are before them and the regulations that they seek to uphold or overturn. We lack this here. We are still an amateur body, which is not appropriate for a modern society. This is a very significant change, but it must be a change in the right direction. From these Benches, we very much support it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, in moving this amendment, I will speak also to Amendment 153 and the Clause 37 stand part notice.

I am instinctively suspicious of Clause 37 because I think that the best people to judge whether overseas financial services firms should be able to operate in the UK, and to determine the terms on which they operate, are the regulators. The Bill hands major judgments to the Treasury, which means that they are likely, at least in part, to be political judgments. Although new Section 408A requires the Treasury to have regard to various things, that list is not exclusive, so there is nothing to stop the Treasury taking into account factors other than those listed in new subsection (2). Decisions could be made, for example, in pursuit of foreign policy aims against a wider background of international relations in relation to the EU reset. Financial services could also be traded away in the context of international trade agreements. Even if the Treasury sticks with the list of “have regards” in new subsection (2), that subsection has no hierarchy of criteria. Financial stability is on a par with international competitiveness and growth.

This is in stark contrast to the regulators, where international competitiveness, growth and competition are secondary objectives that cannot override their core objectives. I fully support the Government’s quest for economic growth and the pursuit of international trade agreements but, under new Section 408A, the Treasury could set aside any concerns about the integrity and stability of the UK’s financial system because it favours facilitating international competitiveness and growth. Is this really what the Government are trying to enable?

We know that some countries, such as China, seem to have technical compliance with many international financial services standards although, in practice, the degree of state control and the weakness of local regulators leave a lot of questions to be answered about the organisations in their financial services sectors. We know that the Treasury wants more trade with China. Will it let Chinese financial services firms freely into the UK in order to facilitate that? How will the Treasury ensure that it gets a good deal for British financial services firms? Some countries, such as India, give the appearance of allowing foreign firms to operate in them. However, in practice, India places many hurdles in their way, and many organisations give up the struggle after a while. Does the Treasury really have the granular understanding of what is happening in these countries?

My own view is that it would be dangerous to let the Treasury loose on this area, and that the independent financial services regulators are the best people to determine who can operate in the UK and on what terms. This is why I oppose Clause 37 standing part of the Bill. However, I have heard from some in the City that they welcome this new overseas recognition regime, because the regulators do not prioritise negotiations with their foreign counterparts and there is little faith that they ever will. That has a ring of truth to it. The FCA has far too many other things to do, and the Bank and the PRA are exceedingly cautious. For that reason, I have tabled Amendments 152 and 153 in order to emphasise the important role that the regulator should have in the process.

Amendment 152 would add a requirement for the Treasury to consult the regulators when it uses the power under Section 408B. As currently drafted, the Treasury has to consult the regulators only if it exercises the power to recognise overseas firms to operate in the UK under Section 408A. The Treasury does not have to consult the regulators if it uses the Section 408B power to recognise overseas territories. My amendment poses the question: why not? The regulators are likely to know more about financial services and regulation in the overseas countries than the Treasury.

Amendment 153 is aimed at improving the information given to Parliament when the Treasury brings forward regulations to use these new powers. It would require the Treasury to publish any information or advice received from the regulators in connection with the use of the powers. As I mentioned, the Bill requires the Treasury to consult the regulators on only one of the two powers, but then the Treasury could completely ignore the information or advice that it receives from the regulators and Parliament would be none the wiser. This should be more transparent. The Treasury must be prepared to say why it has ignored or overridden the advice that is received, if that is indeed the case. It must therefore be prepared to share any relevant information with Parliament.

We all know that secondary legislation processes give Parliament no effective power over the Executive. That does not mean, however, that Parliament can be ignored. I believe it is necessary to force a bit of daylight into the process and not tolerate the suppression of relevant information from Parliament. Consistent with the stance I have taken throughout this Committee, if the Minister wishes to move his Amendment 154, I shall call, “Not content”. I think even the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, will accept that this amendment is not a small technical amendment.

I had hoped that the Treasury would have organised an all-Peers letter by now. It has had two weeks to do so since I first raised the issue. I was informed on Friday that the Government think it is okay just to write to the Front Benches on some government amendments. Since I was the only Peer who had tabled amendments in relation to Clause 37, I believe it was, at a minimum, discourteous not to have written to me at the same time.

I do, however, stick to my broader point that the whole House should be informed. The scrutiny of Bills is not something that belongs in a cosy club of Front-Benchers. Someone needs to stand up for Back-Benchers and that is what I am doing in this Bill. I beg to move.

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

My Lords, I will be very brief. I am sympathetic to ensuring that the overseas recognition regulations are as pragmatic and seamless as they can be to enable easier international competition. But I have quite a lot of sympathy with the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, about giving these powers exclusively to the Treasury.

I want to ask one question of the Minister. New Section 408A(2) sets out a list of areas that

“the Treasury must have regard to the importance of”

when making regulations. As an aside, that is quite odd wording; normally it is “have regard to”. I am still not sure I understand what difference

“must have regard to the importance of”

makes to the meaning. Maybe the Minister might explain that. New Section 408(1) does something similar but in a slightly different way. It seems that one area is missing from the lists of “have regards”: the question of economic crime, particularly anti-money laundering and the transparency of ownership in the relevant jurisdictions. Can the Minister say whether he agrees that those are important and explain why they might be missing from the list?

I will just finish with something I should have said earlier today, given that I think we are finishing early and the Minister is going to get some of his evening back: I wish him a happy birthday.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

I endorse the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, about the political pressure that the Treasury will be under to recognise certain countries. Without adequate scrutiny, wider advice and deep analysis, the problem of overleveraging in some banking systems, despite them appearing perfectly respectable, would expose the UK and its financial sector to the dangers of debt and contamination.

I therefore have doubts about the economic implications of the Treasury making these calls on account of political reasons. We see this all the time, whether on international agreements—I sit on that committee—or on European affairs, whose committee I previously sat on. There is constant pressure by Governments to sign treaties that are rather bad for the UK and its various sectors, including financial services. I would have concerns if there were no adequate scrutiny and no proper advice taken on whether such recognition is a good thing for our systems.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stockwood (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their warm regards. The fact that this is the most attractive way to spend my birthday probably tells them something about how my life has changed in the past 11 months. I will turn first to Clause 37 and explain why it should stand part of the Bill. I will then cover the amendments, including the government amendment.

The UK is a truly global financial services hub. We are the largest global net exporter of financial services, totalling £103 billion in 2025, representing half of the UK’s services export surplus. Excluding the US, UK financial services exports in 2025 were greater than those of the rest of the G7 combined. Different counties have different rules for the same financial activities. As such, many countries have frameworks to recognise where rules are comparable to their own. For example, the EU has equivalence regimes, and the US has comparability determinations.

At EU exit, the UK assimilated more than 270 EU equivalence decisions across 40 EU equivalence regimes. However, the UK has no way to grant these kinds of decisions except where we have inherited that power from the EU. In new areas of regulation, such as stablecoins, the Treasury currently has no ability to create recognition regimes nor, consequently, to recognise overseas jurisdictions where they have high standards and our firms want to do business.

Clause 37 enables the Treasury to make new overseas recognition regimes. Creating these regimes is done through the affirmative procedure, meaning that no regime can be created without debate in Parliament. Designation under those regimes must then be made by regulations, with the evidence base clearly set out before Parliament each time.

A number of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, asked me how the “have regards” that the Government must consider will function, and why they have been drafted in the way they have. I have been told that this is a complex piece of drafting, so I will write to them to explain the “have regards” in more detail and why the Government have taken the approach that we have.

Turning to the amendments, there are established processes in place that support the creation and operation of recognition regimes. I assure noble Lords that the points raised in Amendments 152 and 153 speak to matters for which current processes already exist, which support clear and balanced scrutiny of these regimes. The Treasury will always, as part of its designation process, summarise the evidence that it has received and considered in relation to other jurisdictions and their regulatory frameworks. That includes advice received from the UK’s financial services regulators.

The Treasury published, in July last year, guidance on overseas recognition and a memorandum of understanding with the regulators detailing the role of regulatory advice in the decision-making process for recognition designations. Within those documents, the Treasury has already committed to seeking advice from the relevant regulators in all but exceptional circumstances.

On Amendment 164D, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, and spoken to by others, the Government recognise the potential benefits of working towards recognition arrangements on crypto assets with compatible jurisdictions. As I have mentioned, this supports the case for the Treasury to have the powers in Clause 37. However, the Government have the tools they need to be able to respond appropriately to international regulatory developments to facilitate the UK’s access to global markets and vice versa, while ensuring that consumers are adequately protected. These tools include the powers in Clause 37 alongside the existing power to create mutual recognition agreements that was introduced in the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023.

I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, that this does not reflect any desire on the part of the Government to be insular in the development of crypto asset regulation. The UK continues to play an active role in the development of international standards for crypto assets, including through the financial stability board and the work of the International Organization of Securities Commissions. The Government also remain committed to working closely with international partners through multilateral fora on our approach to crypto assets.

I turn now to the amendment in my name. When the Bill gains Royal Assent, there will already exist a number of overseas recognition regimes created using existing powers inherited from the EU. This amendment is a transitional provision that enables the Treasury to restate the existing regimes within the new overseas recognition regime framework. The power is narrowly framed; it can be applied only to regulations listed in a specific schedule to which the overseas recognition regimes are currently added once they are in force, and it can be used only to create substantially the same effect as the existing regulations. This is essentially a tidying-up exercise. Without this amendment, overseas recognition regimes created before and after Clause 37 comes into effect will be rooted in different legislation. As my noble friend Lord Wilson said, parliamentary counsel has agreed that this amendment is minor and technical. However, I understand that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, objects to this amendment, so I will not move it.

I thank noble Lords for this debate, and I hope that I have sufficiently explained the Government’s intentions. I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

The Minister has not answered the question I asked about why the “have regards” do not include the economic crime issues of anti-money laundering and transparency of ownership. If he wants to write on that, that would be fine.

[Lord Stockwood (Lab)]

I will write to the noble Lord.

Financial Services and Markets Bill [HL]

Lord Vaux of Harrowden Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 8th July 2026 Grand Committee

[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.

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

My Lords, it has been an unusual experience to have had a debate with two sides to it on the Bill; the Minister must be pleased about that. I am afraid that I sit firmly on the fence—indeed, on the ring-fence. I am in two minds on this issue. Ring-fencing requirements were put in place after the financial crisis for very good reasons. You can argue that they went too far and that, to some extent, they have been overtaken by other regulations and that they perhaps overburden and create some restrictions on the banks. But, in the Bill, the Government recognise that.

On the other side of the equation, the economy and the banking system are currently facing a whole range of threats, which are arguably greater than have been faced at any time since the financial crisis in 2008. We have the private credit situation and the impacts of AI, to name just a few. Is it really the right time to remove ring-fencing entirely?

I am also not entirely convinced by the argument that removing ring-fencing would have that much impact on domestic lending. Domestic lending is inside the ring-fence. In fact, you could argue that it would have the opposite effect, as banks could then use deposits for more risky non-lending activities. Therefore, I confess that I find that argument unconvincing.

I am open-minded, but I am more minded to support the government proposals to loosen the ring-fencing rules and introduce some flexibility to them. I do not think I am ready to support complete removal at this stage. However, I am drawn to Amendment 159, which requires a consultation and assessment to take place before the proposed changes can be made.

[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.