Financial Services and Markets Bill [Lords]

Mark Garnier Excerpts

Tuesday 10th November 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

I thank the Chancellor for his speech’s very positive tone. As he so rightly said, there was a lot of collaboration in the House of Lords as our colleagues were taking through this Bill, and I certainly intend to enter the conversation in a similar spirit of collaboration over the coming weeks and months.

As the Chancellor has said, the financial services sector is incredibly important to this country. It is the engine room that powers our economy. As the Chancellor has also said, it generates 8% of our national economic output, contributes £12 in every £100 of tax paid and makes up 3% of all jobs in the UK. As the Chancellor so rightly said, two thirds of those jobs are outside London.

The sector truly is a jewel in our economic crown, but it is important to remember that financial services underpin our everyday lives—for example, they support my constituents in opening and running businesses. They support all our constituents across this great country to get on to the housing ladder. They support people across the UK in ways that are not truly understood, including financial support for their employer; ensuring that their homes and other assets are insured; providing liquidity to buy expensive items such as a car; and helping to provide for our retirement. What happens just a mile or so up the road and across the country helps every one of us in pretty much every aspect of our lives.

Despite that, we must be careful. The UK’s financial services and related professional services sector are at a crossroads. TheCityUK published earlier this year its “No Time to Lose” report in conjunction with PwC, which I will quote directly. It said that

“the hard truth is that overall industry growth has stalled over the last decade and the UK is falling behind other financial centres.”

Our international competitiveness should be our priority, because the UK market is so internationally focused. As we know, London is the second-biggest financial services centre on the planet, second only to New York. However, while New York’s financial services market is 80% led by its domestic economy, here in the UK London is 80% international. At the most basic level, our international competitiveness is four times as valuable to us here as it is to the Americans across the Atlantic.

The Chancellor rightly mentioned the Budget, during which he said to the banks that

“I celebrate, and am grateful for, the role that you play.”—[Official Report, 28 October 2026; Vol. 792, c. 307],

But then he increased the bank levy by 3%. To be fair to him, bank stocks did go up on the day, because they were expecting a 5% permanent levy. None the less, we have to bear in mind that that takes the marginal tax rate on banks to 49.5%. That is not competitive on the international stage. We need to be mindful of that, because we need to attract international banks to come to our shores, and it is very important that we get this right. We understand that that generates a little more tax, but we want more people to invest in this country, and that is why we were against that measure. It sends the wrong signal.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Member join me in congratulating J.P. Morgan? It is in its 40th year of operation in Bournemouth, and this year it is investing £350 million into Bournemouth and the wider UK economy. It is doing that because it sees the overriding talent in Bournemouth and across the UK. The Bournemouth site is the second-most important site across 38 in Europe, the middle east and Africa for the world’s largest bank and seventh-largest technologist. Is that not a vote of confidence in the UK economy?

[Mark Garnier]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It is incredibly important to remember that banks such as J.P. Morgan invest in the wider community, but Jamie Dimon has said that he is worried about uncertainty around the tax regime on banks in the UK. He has warned that if we are uncertain and increase the level of tax on banks, they will not invest another £300 million or so into Canary Wharf. That is the point: we have to be mindful of international competitiveness. It does not take much, when we are taxing close to 50% on banks, for them to change their mind and go to another financial services centre. However, the hon. Gentleman’s point is absolutely right: the value of international investment by banks in communities such as his is really important.

[Graham Stuart]

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

[Mark Garnier]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Dame Meg Hillier]

I am interested in the hon. Gentleman’s thoughtful comments and the research he is quoting, but he is now talking about removing ringfencing completely. Can he explain to the House how that would mitigate the risk posed by the bad players who led to some of the problems in 2008? As a result, some of us were in this place voting to nationalise banks, at a cost to the British taxpayer. How can the hon. Gentleman be confident that that could never happen again? We do not legislate for today; we legislate for the worst possible scenario—the mad, the bad and the dangerous—not the good people who I am sure he is talking about.

[Mark Garnier]

The point of ringfencing at the time was to separate the retail banks from the wholesale and investment banks. If the hon. Lady remembers, the Liikanen reforms sought to cage the tigers and ringfence the investment banks into units, whereas our reforms looked to put a fence around the deer park to look after the retail banks. The problem is that this creates a cliff edge as customers get past a certain turnover—I think they go from being in the retail bank to being in the wholesale bank when they get to £5 million of turnover. The only bank that has changed that is Barclays; it has set that limit at £100 million, which makes the retail bank much more open, and arguably could make it slightly more vulnerable.

Of course we do not want the big banks to fail—although, having said that, we have to have an element of risk within the banking system. It is important that we keep that. However, we have a number of systems that have come in later and that other countries have looked at, such as the bail-in bonds and the MREL regime. Returning to the competitiveness point, we now find ourselves with a ringfencing regime that creates extra costs and administrative burdens for banks that other countries do not have. We also have a system that can protect consumers, the bail-in bonds, whereby we have regulatory capital that can potentially be converted from bonds into equity to solve that problem.

[Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)]

I am sure that many Members of this House would entertain the idea of taking a targeted look at the way in which ringfencing regulation is implemented and agree that, where it is helpful, there should be much more of a free flow of information and discussions with clients across universal banks. However, can the hon. Gentleman categorically rule out the complete abolition of ringfencing that he has suggested, if only for the sake of consumers who do not want to see their retail money swirling around in an investment bank?

[Mark Garnier]

The hon. Gentleman raises a number of points. We are getting deep into the debate, but the very quick answer to his question is no, I cannot rule out getting rid of the ringfencing regime. It has already been made public that the policy of a future Conservative Government will be to do so. That is the debate we will be having in Committee, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman will be delighted to join us in Committee, where we can get into the debate in depth. It is great to see so many Members across the House putting themselves forward with their enthusiasm to get involved in the debate—my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) will have found a friend.

My second point—of a number of points, although I am conscious that I am taking up a lot of time—is that we would like the Government to go further on bank capital requirements. UK banks, building societies and PRA-designated investment firms are required to maintain minimum levels of capital in proportion to their risk-weighted assets. That is to help ensure that firms remain resilient and to reduce the impact of failure. Clearly, no responsible Government would abolish capital requirements, but we need to question whether banks should be required to hold capital beyond what is genuinely needed for resilience. This is an important point.

We should acknowledge that the Bank of England has eased bank capital requirements in recent years, specifically at the end of 2025, when it revised down the benchmark for tier 1 capital from 14% of risk-weighted assets to 13%. However, it is worth remembering that the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards recommended 11%, so that benchmark is higher than we originally asked for. We believe that the current level is still too high. The most recent stress test carried out by the Bank of England found that

“all banks remained above their set capital minima at the low-point of the scenario. No individual bank was required to strengthen its capital position as a result of the test.”

From memory, it was a one-in-250-year event that the banks were being stress tested on. The system has to allow an element of risk—when I was on the banking commission, we made it very clear how important that was. We made it clear that it was okay for a bank to fail, but it was not okay for banks to bring down the entire system.

The important point is that there has to be an element of risk in the system, but that is not what has been delivered, meaning that the potential lending and financing capacity of our banking sector is significantly reduced—to the tune of about £450 billion each year, we reckon. That is an awful lot of money that is not going into the economy. UK Finance has advised me that each percentage point of the tier 1 capital stack potentially represents about £600 billion in liquidity, so 2% above the recommendation of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards represents about £1.2 trillion. Leverage that up under the banks and we are potentially talking about £12 trillion that is not in circulation because of over-interpretation of the rules. But we do not want to get ahead of ourselves; we reckon that £450 billion is not in circulation because of that over-enthusiasm on the tier 1 stack. That is money that could be used more productively. It could be invested in our communities or in businesses, but it remains stuck on banks’ balance sheets.

While the Bill does not contain any specific measures dealing with bank capital requirements, we believe that it is a perfect opportunity to make the necessary changes—specifically, to reform the parameters within which the Financial Policy Committee and the PRA operate. As such, we will be putting forward changes in areas where we believe the Government may be encouraged to take some advice from the Opposition.

As we have heard, the Financial Ombudsman Service plays an incredibly important role in the UK financial services sector. It provides redress for consumers and small and medium-sized enterprises against FCA and PRA-regulated firms outside of the court system, and crucially, it provides a service that is low-cost and accessible for consumers. However, over the years, the FOS has gone beyond being a dispute resolution mechanism and has become a quasi-regulator. This is creating significant costs for firms, with research from TheCityUK suggesting that the cost of regulatory compliance across the financial sector now exceeds £34 billion. Importantly, firms are also being retrospectively penalised, despite having followed the law on the day of an occurrence that was subsequently deemed to be problematic.

The Bill makes some positive changes in this area, which we welcome. It narrows the fair and reasonable test so that there is no longer a presumption of guilt, and creates a 10-year complaint deadline. Those positive changes will help prevent the FOS from acting beyond its remit. However, again, we do not believe that they go far enough, and there are a number of issues that we will raise during our debates in Committee.

Madam Deputy Speaker, you will be pleased that this brings me to my final point.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Ah!

[Mark Garnier]

We are getting there. As I said at the beginning of my speech, the UK is a major financial centre with a rich history of innovation. We cannot afford to lose that reputation, so we must also be looking to the future. Digital assets will be a key part of that, as will the technologies that underpin them. We have been told time and again that the UK has no clear direction on digital assets, meaning that companies in the UK are being restricted from innovating, so we need to create a strategy that sends a clear signal to that industry. That is why the digital assets strategy in clause 50, which was introduced in the other place, is so important.

We tabled that amendment in the Lords for a few reasons. First, we want to send a clear message about where the UK is going; it is incredibly important that we define what the UK’s ambition is. Secondly, going back to the competitiveness point, other jurisdictions have these strategies. Thirdly, the significance of digital assets has not been identified in any recent Government strategy. Finally, the digital assets sector is incredibly diverse, beyond where the Government are currently looking—it is very innovative. For all of those reasons, we believe that the digital assets strategy and clause 50 are necessary, and that removing that clause from the Bill—if that is the Government intend to do—would send the wrong message to the sector.

Do not take our word for it; take the word of the organisations that support clause 50: the UK Cryptoasset Business Council, TheCityUK, Innovate Finance, the Payments Association, techUK, Global Digital Finance, the Crypto Council for Innovation, the International Digital Assets Counsel Association, CryptoUK and the Digital Money Association. All of those organisations know that

“Other jurisdictions are moving rapidly to attract digital-asset businesses, investment and talent.”

A clear strategy will help the UK to keep up with those other jurisdictions and demonstrate that we are embracing these new technologies. I know that the Economic Secretary to the Treasury feels passionately about this area of her brief, so I hope she will use her closing remarks—we will all be waiting in the Chamber until 10 o’clock to hear them—to reassure the industry and commit to retaining the digital assets strategy in the Bill.

To conclude, financial services and the related professional services are incredibly important to the UK. When they succeed, they help to empower our communities and unlock growth. The Economic Secretary to the Treasury understands that. She has a very good reputation in the City of London as being somebody who gets it, so I look forward to working with her over the next few weeks and months. I am sure we will have our disagreements, but where we do, it will be about the detail, not the overall direction of this Bill. I know we can remain focused on empowering the sector.

The financial services sector is also important to me personally. I spent the bulk of my working life—27 years—working in the City, and I know the amazing things it can do. Being the shadow Economic Secretary to the Treasury, I have seen at first hand that we still have so much potential across this great country of ours. If we get this Bill right, we can unlock even more. While the financial services sector may be at a crossroads, it is now time for us to get behind the sector, to shift into gear, to accelerate our efforts and to focus on the exciting journey ahead.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Chair of the Treasury Committee.