Financial Services and Markets Bill [Lords]

Meg Hillier Excerpts

Tuesday 10th November 2026 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

The straight answer to my hon. Friend is, yes, I do regard it as sufficient. If he has a stronger case to make to the contrary, I encourage him to make it. To answer his question directly, as things stand, I do regard it as sufficiently robust and strong.

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Financial Ombudsman Service is much loved by consumers because it provides an impartial fairness test. The Chancellor can correct me if I am misunderstanding this, but under the new proposed rules there is a presumption that the firm is right, and the consumer therefore has to go through more hoops to raise a concern. Is that really fair on consumers?

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend is so expert and well read in this area. In fact, her assertion about an assumption that the firm is always right is incorrect. At the heart of what is proposed in the Bill is the consumer duty of the FCA, with a single, clear set of standards that firms must meet and that consumers who feel their service has fallen short are able to use as reference for challenge, redress and appeal to the ombudsman. Instead of the ombudsman having its own set of standards and criteria and the FCA having its own, which has led to confusion and inconsistency, we will have a single set of standards that are clear and consistent for both the consumer and firms.

Turning to the fourth and final area, we must do more to increase lending and encourage firms to start and succeed here in Britain, as I did with measures in the Budget.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

I agree with both the Chancellor and the shadow Economic Secretary, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) that the financial services sector has an important part to play in our economy. As the shadow Economic Secretary said, the sector represents 3% of jobs in the UK, and it is important for growth and investment. It is therefore important that we understand its role and that we get things right. This Bill, in the Government’s terms,

“will modernise how the sector is regulated, and enable it to grow and lend more to businesses. It will also make consumer protections fit for the digital age”.

I do not think any of us would disagree with those intentions.

The Government have also set out clearly that they want to maintain high standards of regulation and oversight at the same time. There is a balance to be struck in leaning in to support a sector, while also protecting the many consumers—millions of our constituents—who are borrowing, investing and using the services of financial institutions. Having a strong and competitive financial services sector is important for driving growth, but the protection of consumers is important, too. The Treasury Committee has looked at that balance between the growth objective that the previous Chancellor set the Financial Conduct Authority and its role in regulation.

As a side point, I mention remit letters. The new Chancellor has not had a chance to write too many yet, but the number of remit letters that go to our regulators runs into quite high numbers. Those bodies then have to consider the “have regard to” comments in those letters in their work, and it makes for a very long list of things to do, some of which just cannot all be done at the same time. The Treasury could look to prune some of these requirements, or to decide what the key areas are at any point, so that those organisations know what they should be focusing on.

This Bill could be seen as moving the pendulum more towards the financial services sector and further from regulation to support consumers, and we should be careful about that. The Committee has made some comments on it, but for me, consumers should be front and centre. My question to the Government—the Economic Secretary may expand on this in her closing remarks—is: how far should that pendulum swing? How far is too far? Who is the arbiter of what level of protection constituents and consumers should expect? We have a number of bodies, and I will speak about the Financial Ombudsman Service a little later.

It is not just me or the Treasury Committee who have been raising these issues. Nikhil Rathi, the chief executive of the Financial Conduct Authority, said to us in July that the FCA needs a clear indication of the Government’s risk tolerance when it comes to markets. He is up for the challenge, but he needs to know as a regulator where to draw the line between promoting growth and consumer protection. We know that even a small increase in the percentage of customers harmed is a lot of people. One of the pleasures of our role as MPs is that we get to see people face to face at our surgeries. We see people in the raw. Whitehall is a long way from that direct contact, and it is us who will be picking up the problems if they arise. As this Bill proceeds through Committee, we need to be cautious and make sure that we are stress-testing that point about consumer protection at each stage.

The Government are encouraging more investment. In fact, the Economic Secretary, during her previous time as Economic Secretary, made a number of public statements encouraging people to invest more. I can understand the Government’s position. People can make a lot more money from savings if they invest them carefully and well, but it is about changing the language. There has been concern about investment, particularly since the financial crash of 2008—it is a bit like the “Smoking kills” signs on cigarette packets—so the Government are changing the language, but I need to ask what level of risk they are willing to take. As they change the language and encourage people to take not risky, but less safe approaches to managing their money, where will the Government draw the line?

My main concern is the changes to the Financial Ombudsman Service, which has been a vital consumer protection. It is popular with consumers, and the source of much complaint from the City. The shadow Economic Secretary highlighted some of those concerns, as did the Chancellor. We know that the Financial Ombudsman Service is not perfect. It has had a bit of a rocky ride in the past few years, but it is already undergoing some changes without the need for legislation. It is having to adapt to the modern world, and AI is no doubt causing it even more challenges, but it was dealing with a high volume and not always reacting quickly enough.

I have a couple of particular concerns to raise. One is the time limit on complaints. While 10 years sounds like a long time, some of the financial products that our constituents take out have a very long life, with pensions being the obvious example. When something goes wrong in that area, it can have a long reach back into the past. I understand the challenges for banks, such as we have seen with the motor finance issues. When the issue was payment protection insurance, I spoke to one bank that employed 10 people just to go through the complaints coming in from people who were not even customers of the bank. There is a lot to be done in that area. This partly relates to those online promising the earth to people if they take up a complaint, even if they do not have legitimate grounds. I do not believe setting the time limit at 10 years is the answer. The Economic Secretary might not be able to discuss it now, but perhaps she will meet the Committee or me—whoever—to talk about how the Government will protect people taking out long-term financial products, including pensions.

The Treasury Committee has heard evidence on the Financial Ombudsman Service from the Citizens Advice, which noted that although it believes that consumer protection and growth do not have to be competing objectives—I agree with that—this Bill reduces protections and access to redress for consumers. Which? wrote to the Committee and noted that the proposed referral mechanism in clause 6 risks making redress slower and more complex, creating additional barriers to redress for consumers. I know that the Chancellor answered that point to a degree in response to my question earlier.

Clause 7 constrains the fair and reasonable test that the FOS has worked under for such a long time, which will make it harder for consumers to receive redress, even when they have been treated unfairly. I can see clearly what the Chancellor and the Government are trying to do here. We have heard the noise from the financial institutions, saying, “We adhere to the rules of the FCA. We take into account the consumer duty, as the FCA requires us to do. Then something goes to the ombudsman and suddenly it seems to be judged by a whole different set of rules.” Most financial institutions do a reasonably good job most of the time and treat their customers fairly, and the consumer duty weighs heavily on them. When something goes to the ombudsman and is not considered to meet the fair and reasonable test, it should be something that is egregiously outside that consumer duty. It is important to have that backstop for our constituents. The Financial Ombudsman Service is already, as I said, undergoing non-legislative reforms. We should focus first on improving the system, rather than adding more layers of legal reform. Perhaps giving it that chance to reform itself would be the best first step.

In March this year, the Committee wrote to the Government outlining the importance of the Financial Ombudsman Service’s independence. The perception of that independence is vital. I propose—I would like to talk to the Economic Secretary further about this—that we introduce a statutory lock for the Treasury Committee on the appointment and dismissal of the chair of the Financial Ombudsman Service. There is precedent; the Chancellor of the Exchequer may not know it, but he cannot appoint or sack a chair of the Office for Budget Responsibility without the agreement of the Treasury Committee. That is a lock on a mad, bad or dangerous Chancellor taking away the independence of that important body. We think that there should also be a lock on a mad, bad or dangerous Chancellor doing the same for the chair of the FOS.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Friern Barnet) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend, who chairs the Treasury Committee, agree that in other jurisdictions it is quite common to have more parliamentary oversight of these sorts of appointments?

[Dame Meg Hillier]

I agree with my hon. Friend, who is also a member of the Treasury Committee and a constituency neighbour of mine in London. We are not suggesting for a moment that the Treasury Committee starts rolling up its sleeves, conducting job interviews or getting in CVs. That is not our role. Our role is to be a check and a balance on the Government.

As I said to the Opposition Front Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest, we are not legislating for the people here in this Chamber, who I believe are good and honourable Members with all good intent. We have to legislate for the worst possible set of legislators and the worst possible Government, and we need to make sure that we have that commitment to the independence of the Financial Ombudsman Service. This would be one small step that would take nothing away from the rest of the Bill. It would not damage any of the Government’s set-out intentions. I know that the Chancellor is a strong advocate for a strong Parliament, and he should be praised and recognised for that, so I hope he will consider this option. I am happy to share my thoughts with the Economic Secretary on how an amendment could be tabled; it may be that it can come up in Committee—I would hope that it would not have to wait until a later stage, on Report.

It is essential that the Chair of the Financial Ombudsman Service, which is a key public role, has the necessary independence and professional skills to maintain the balance between consumers and the financial services industry. The Treasury Committee has a number of pre-appointment hearings—more than a number of Committees do—and our measure is professional competence and independence. I would hope—and so far, Members will be glad to know, this has proved to be the case—that when the Treasury goes through a proper recruitment process, it recruits people with professional competence. We measure against that. Again, if there were a mad, bad or dangerous Government in future, that might not always be the case, but so far it has been. The independence point is important too, and that is what is often tested in the room when we have someone before us for a pre-appointment hearing. We do not have a power to sack, but in this case, we think we should have an extra power of a lock on that appointment.

The Financial Ombudsman Service is accountable to Parliament. The Treasury Committee was compelled, due to the actions of a previous chair of the Financial Ombudsman Service, to underline that point in our ninth report of the session 2024-25, which was entitled— I say this for Hansard’s purposes and I am sure that colleagues will avidly look this up in a moment—“Financial Ombudsman Service: Accountability to the House of Commons”. Providing the Treasury Committee with a statutory lock on the appointment of the FOS chair would help to guard against a repeat of that incident. I was saddened at the time to receive a letter from a public appointee to say that they did not have to appear in front of the Treasury Committee because they were a Member of the other place. That is another issue that I will take up in due course. The Second Reading debate is obviously about arguments in principle, but I am happy to have a further conversation with the Economic Secretary on the detail.

I want to raise a couple of other quick points while I have the floor. On financial inclusion, I know the Economic Secretary has played her part—I think four Economic Secretaries have dealt with the financial inclusion strategy. Now that it has been published, the Committee will keep an eye on how it is going. We published a report on the matter, and the Government told the Committee that the Bill would include a reserve power on access to face-to-face banking services, recognising the limitations of voluntary action. The power was removed in the other place following concerns about its breadth. In their response to our report, the Government said they intended to restore that power during the passage of the Bill in the Commons, and that they would use evidence from the access to banking services review to do so. I would be interested, if the Economic Secretary could cover that in her closing remarks.

[Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)]

I entirely agree with the point my hon. Friend is making. In my constituency of Ealing Southall, Santander and NatWest have recently closed down, although Barclays is still there and is being refurbished. There is a very large north Indian population in the constituency and many of them are first generation, with English as another language. Does my hon. Friend agree that face-to-face banking is particularly important for those people and for older communities?

[Dame Meg Hillier]

My hon. Friend raises an important point, because there are many excluded groups. There is an important challenge here, too. I am proud to be the Member of Parliament for Hackney South and Shoreditch, representing a very high percentage of fintech companies. Of course, those companies never had branches on the street, so it is not unreasonable for the larger banks, which have had a network of high street banks, to say that the playing field is not level. Some tech innovation has been amazing, making banking very accessible to some people, but there are still points in life—for instance, death, or maturity to 18 when products have to be turned from junior to adult—when we need to have conversations face to face.

Even if it is not very often, there will be times when even the most digitally-savvy will need to have face-to-face contact. I recognise this is a difficult challenge for the Government to wrestle with, and there is no easy, simple answer, but it is important if there is to be financial inclusion. The danger is that if there is no proper ability to have contact with trusted banks, people get advice from elsewhere—a friend or a relative—that is not good advice; I have seen that in my own constituency. There is a danger that people get driven to the wrong place if we do not have a lock on some sort of provision, though I recognise that particular challenge for the Government.

[Gareth Thomas]

One of the encouraging things in the financial inclusion strategy was a proposal to build a coalition of employers willing to offer a payroll deduction service to their employees to join and save with a credit union. Does my hon. Friend think that one of the ways to give that coalition new life and new energy would be if more parts of Whitehall—perhaps even the Treasury itself—were willing to make that commitment?

[Dame Meg Hillier]

There we go: a stretch target for the Chancellor to sign up every civil servant in his Department to a credit union. I am sure that he is listening closely to that suggestion.

I do not want to segue too much from the subject, but many years ago I tried to establish a mutual in Government and there was a limited understanding of what that meant. I am proud that we now have a co-operatives champion in my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes)—a Labour and Co-operative MP—who has access to all areas and can go in and challenge, shake up and educate parts of Whitehall about the benefits of mutuals.

To finish on financial inclusion, the financial inclusion strategy is a good first step, but we said that the Government cannot rely solely on voluntary action from financial services to drive financial inclusion. We have made our comments clear in our report, and I hope that we will continue that dialogue with the Government to ensure that financial inclusion is a real thing.

There has been some talk about access to capital markets in the banking sector, but there is a particular issue for building societies too. It is interesting how very few failures and repossessions there are with some building societies. I was talking recently to the chief executive of Skipton Building Society, whose default rate is very low—in fact, a number of those are people who have voluntarily given up their mortgage. That means the building society’s repossession rate is even lower, yet it has to capitalise to a very high degree to ensure that it is covering any potential losses. I think there is a real opportunity there.

As was raised earlier, changes to credit unions are necessary and overdue. We have seen some of the measures for co-ops and mutuals in government get stuck, whether with the Law Commission or somewhere in the depths of Whitehall. We now have an agenda in government to double the size of the co-operative sector. We are seeing a strong building society sector and a mutual sector in finance. We have an opportunity to get credit unions on a stable footing. This is the opportunity to ensure that we get those things in place so that they are embedded and we make sure that the sector works and delivers.

If it is about growth in every postcode, those are the organisations that reach every postcode, that are from the grassroots up and that can make this Financial Services and Markets Bill much more relevant to the people on the ground. It is not that the City of London is not relevant to me in my constituency and to a number of us who neighbour it, but for people in other parts of the country, Whitehall and the City seem like a long way away. Having co-ops and mutuals written in is important. I hope that the Economic Secretary will respond to some of those points when she sums up.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

I, too, welcome this legislation and its goal of modernising consumer protection arrangements and making them fit for the digital age. I congratulate the Chancellor and the Economic Secretary to the Treasury on their work, and on their ongoing engagement with Members from across the House as the reforms proceed.

I am very pleased to see measures that enable credit unions to expand by widening access to membership. I have seen the challenges experienced over the years as a Labour and Co-op MP, and I have worked to increase access to credit unions for local people in Feltham and Heston. It has been a challenge, and I look forward to working with my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) on these reforms and on making sure that they become a reality for our constituents. It is clear that if anything can focus our mind’s eye on how important this is, it is seeing the importance of household resilience and being able to plan financially, given the challenges that the cost of living crisis has brought.

It is important for us to think ahead and make sure that we do all we can to improve household resilience, and these reforms will help more than 200 credit unions across Great Britain to reach new communities, with millions of people having more access to affordable and community-based financial services. Credit unions are known and trusted by local communities, and trust is really important for giving people confidence about where to save, how to save and whom to trust. It is also vital that we take steps to protect access to in-person banking services for the future, and we look forward with anticipation to the publication of the access to banking review and the Government’s response.

I want to raise three matters that I believe need to be further addressed in the Bill, some of which have already been referred to: the proposed 10-year time limit on complaints, the referrals process, and the fair and reasonable test. Finally, I will mention mortgage prisoners, as discussed by the Liberal Democrats’ spokesperson, the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean)

First, on the 10-year time limit, the Government are putting forward a wide range of reforms to the Financial Ombudsman Service, but I am concerned that they are not being clear about the impacts on the public. The proposed 10-year time limit on Financial Ombudsman Service complaints risks locking thousands of consumers out of compensation. It can take years for people to realise that they have been ripped off, and firms often do everything they can to conceal misconduct.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

On that point, one of the issues is document retention. Firms do not necessarily keep information, so the process can rely on the consumer keeping it. Even if they can get redress from a firm, they may not have the documentation.

[Seema Malhotra]

I think we all agree with my hon. Friend’s important point.

I am concerned that the Government’s assessment appears to underestimate the true cost by assuming that historical cases are worth little more than average complaints, and by ignoring many complaints that firms will simply reject, without considering their merits, due to the application of the new time limit. I am very happy to share with the Minister more of my analysis of the implications and of what is in the impact assessment.

Secondly, the process of referral to the FCA could create a bureaucratic logjam, with firms incentivised to seek FCA rulings whenever a case looks likely to go against them, adding delay and administrative costs while allowing binding interpretations of the rules to be made without proper consultation. The referrals process should be reformed so that it is a rare occurrence, rather than the 1,000 to 3,000 referrals a year that the FCA expects will happen, which will cause delays as well as administrative costs and all the pain that that will entail. Proper consultation needs to be built in, so that the FCA gets full input from consumer groups before making binding decisions on what the new rules mean.

Thirdly, there are important questions about changes to the ombudsman’s fair and reasonable test, which could narrow the ability of the FOS to take account of industry codes and good practice, including protections that victims of economic and financial abuse rely on. If we want economic growth, we need consumers to save for retirement, take out insurance and engage confidently with long-term financial products. We need small businesses, like many of those across Feltham and Heston, to borrow and invest, and undermining trust in dispute resolution mechanisms risks undermining that confidence. Martin Lewis has warned that

“Restricting consumers’ access to free and fair redress is not a recipe for economic growth. Once consumers are warned about the erosion of their rights, it’s possible it will lead to disengagement from the financial services industry and diminishing trust.”

That is why we must look very closely at the proposals in order that we are confident that consumers will retain the necessary confidence in financial services.

Finally, in the last Parliament, the all-party parliamentary group on mortgage prisoners, which I co-chaired for a number of years following the experience of mortgage prisoners in Feltham and Heston, raised concerns that poor decision making at the FOS was leading to detriment for mortgage prisoners. In all honesty, no real progress was made. The situation is ongoing, as thousands of mortgage prisoners remain stuck and are suffering significant detriment. Many are still trapped on expensive variable rates with inactive lenders and are unable to switch to cheaper deals, so they are paying hundreds or thousands of pounds more each year and facing a far greater risk of losing their homes.

In 2024, the previous Prime Minister promised to get everyone around the table and ensure that this issue was properly addressed, but that has not yet happened. Mortgage prisoners remain trapped, and are paying higher interest rates to inactive lenders and vulture funds. They are told that they cannot pass affordability tests in order to pay less for their mortgage, and as the Bank of England increases interest rates following six cuts, there is nothing that vulnerable mortgage prisoners can do to gain any certainty on their payments. Many are former Northern Rock customers who are still experiencing severe harm because their loans were sold to inactive lenders by the previous Conservative Government. The London School of Economics report, funded by Martin Lewis, put forward solutions including improved access to financial advice, targeted equity loan schemes, and a Government-backed guarantee mechanism to help borrowers move back into the active market. I would be grateful to hear when the Government plan to respond in full to the proposals in the LSE report, and I would also be grateful for a meeting to discuss what more the Government can do to help mortgage prisoners.

I very much look forward to the Minister’s response and to working with colleagues from across the House on these reforms to make sure that, together, we can ensure the leadership and the fairness of our financial services sector, which is so renowned across the world.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Glen]

I absolutely take on the challenge, but I think we need to level with the British public about this and have a better conversation about it, rather than say there is an ultimate backstop provision apparently for absolutely everything. We have to reset that dynamic.

I have mixed feelings about the proposed reforms of the Financial Ombudsman Service. I feel it has become an unreliable pathway to resolution, but I am also concerned that by wrapping it into the FCA, as with the decision to apparently streamline regulations by putting the Payment Systems Regulator into the FCA, we will just create a bigger FCA, with different functions under one banner.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

It is worth noting that, in the end, there were two redundancies as a result of the merger, all the backroom costs were the same and the only thing that will change, when the legislation finally goes through, is that the board will go, which is a saving of about £100,000.

[John Glen]

I am very grateful for the hon. Lady’s characteristic grasp of the detail of this subject, and she absolutely makes the point. Just removing a banner from a front office does not streamline, so I urge the Economic Secretary to retain a forensic view, as I know she will, of what processes faced by businesses and consumers are actually streamlined.

I note the streamlining of the senior managers and certification regime by abolishing mandatory annual employee certification below senior manager level. I note the comment of the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe), who is no longer in his place, on that regime, which was, “Abolish everything.” I understand the frustration that leads to many people saying that, but I think we have some new challenges, which have not been properly addressed, when it comes to AI in financial services.

The Chair of the Select Committee mentioned this in passing, but AI, in automating the evaluation of which products would suit individuals, is transforming most consumers’ interactions with financial services. Following the Mills review, there does seem to be a bit of a gap in what will happen with appropriate regulation. It seems that the essence of the position of the FCA is that it does not want to slow down the pace of innovation and growth in financial services, so it will be very reticent to put in any regulation. That is not an unreasonable sentiment, but we must discuss where we as a society feel responsibility should lie. If a financial services firm essentially allows an AI regime to produce offers of products that are sold, somebody has to be responsible for the terms and the basis for such a product going to market.

I welcome the changes to the PRA to streamline the bank rules on ringfencing, but I was the Minister who commissioned the Keith Skeoch review, which essentially came to the conclusion that it was not really necessary, but because of the legacy of the global financial crisis, we had better keep it in place. I urge the Economic Secretary to ask this question: what does that ringfencing actually give us? Many senior people at the PRA told me that we do not really need it, and we have a resolution regime that would actually satisfy all our requirements. However, it has a totemic significance, because it is associated with that season of under-regulation that led to the global financial crisis. We must have an honest conversation, not one based on received wisdom about what happened 18 years ago. We should not be reckless, but we do not need to carry unnecessary burdens when they do not really add anything.

Time goes quickly in this place, and I respect the need for everyone to speak, but I would like to make two or three broader points. One is about the imbalance of power and expertise. When I became the Economic Secretary, I hardly slept for the first few weeks because it was just so complicated, after I had been the arts, heritage and tourism Minister. From museums to MiFID in one step was a big move, but I did my best to master it. Every six weeks or so, I met the head of the FCA and the head of the PRA. These are some of the most brilliant people in public service, who have at their disposal some of the most intelligent, numerate individuals who are aware of all the nuances of different conditions, the capital requirements of banks of different sizes and the different mitigations for them. I was trying to mediate all the representations I had had from TheCityUK, UK Finance, the Association of British Insurers, the London Market Group and all the consumer organisations, essentially to try to challenge them on the right way of liberalising the regime or having a strong and simple regime to, for example, make it easier for smaller banks.

I probably got that right sometimes and on other occasions did not press hard enough, while at times there was a reasonable expectation that I would be moved on. Indeed, since July 2022 there have been eight Economic Secretaries—I am glad the sixth one is now back again as the eighth one. I just do not feel that that is a grown-up way to deal with our financial services Minister—the person responsible for this industry that we have all said is so important in terms of the jobs it creates and the GDP it accounts for. There is well-meaning intent, when we come to this place, to mediate consumer groups’ concerns and the concerns of our constituents, but we need to think about how we can do this better. Perhaps there should be a joint committee of the Commons and the Lords, properly staffed with the sort of expertise and advice that would really allow us to take on our friends at the PRA and the FCA, but it is something that does need scrutiny.

The legacy of the global financial crisis is important. It obviously had an enormous impact on our country and our public finances. “Too big to fail” must never happen again, but we must recognise that financial services in this country compete on an international basis. Too often, when legislation is passed in this place, there is another “have regard to”. I have been in Select Committees where colleagues have asked about some piece of legislation—some provision or “have regard to” that I probably allowed to pass through the House of Lords because I wanted to be collegiate—that led the regulator to make assessments that were not going to go anywhere, but added significant compliance costs to our financial services industry with no material outcome. I urge the Minister to really think about what is a necessary legacy of the global financial crisis and what is a sort of received wisdom of defensiveness that does not serve us well any more.

My final point, which I alluded to earlier, is about the consumer reset. The Chair of the Select Committee rightly pointed to Nikhil Rathi’s challenge to us at the Select Committee that we, as politicians, need to be clear about what level of risk we are prepared to tolerate. That is a difficult question for us as Members of Parliament. We are never going to want to say to our constituents, “We are happy to allow lots of risk,” but we have to put it in context. The measures we put in place on risk mitigation, the mandate and responsibilities we give the FCA and the PRA, make quite a big difference to the way the industry functions and how competitive it is.

I welcome what the Government have done on financial education. The Economic Secretary and I were at the launch of a report by UK Finance this morning. I welcome the progress that has been made and needs to be made in that area, but we must get to a better place in terms of enabling people, when so much more information is available, to own the choices that they make. Of course the responsibility to look after consumer interest exists, but let us calibrate that appropriately for the age we live in.

Thank you for the opportunity to contribute.