Financial Services and Markets Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Kramer and Lord Altrincham

Committee stage
Wednesday 8th July 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

That was very good too. I meant Amendment 164E, which is headed,

“Shared digital identity and compliance utilities”.

I come from a party that is always very concerned about identity cards, whether they are digital or traditional, old-fashioned cards, and what they do to privacy and independence, so I have those caveats constantly in the back of my mind. It seems to me, however, that a series of fundamental questions are raised by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, in subsection (2), where he talks about the various specifications, the governance arrangements, the very straightforward things such as whether utilities are to be publicly or privately owned, under public specifications or operated as industry utilities. There are issues of data, access to digital ledgers, privacy, data protection and how to cope with the transition period, which will be very complex and very different for different individuals. Some people will transition completely almost in the blink of an eye, and others will be very late adopters. That creates a whole set of issues around financial inclusion and exclusion. I hope very much that we will get the discussion that we need, particularly around subsection (2), which then sits as a foundation to all the other issues that are raised. These are issues that engage the regulator, of course, but many of them are above the regulatory pay grade, and we need to be engaged on those issues here in this Committee.

[Lord Altrincham (Con)]

My Lords, this group is a snapshot, in a sense, of where we are now in digital regulation for financial services in the UK, as discussed by my noble friend Lord Holmes. This group somewhat dovetails with the amendments that we discussed in the previous group, which sought to probe the Government’s strategy for digital assets, tokenisation, access to banking and payment services and consumer redress. However, I am concerned that this package rather jumps the gun. The issue is more profound than the absence of individual regulatory provisions.

As my noble friends Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lord Ranger of Northwood, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, said, we do not yet have the basic architecture in place, and we do not yet have a clear digital assets strategy. We do not yet have a settled framework of engagement with the industry, and we do not have a proper industry forum through which the Government, regulators and market participants can work through these questions in a structured way. That matters because this is a fast-moving area: if we legislate too quickly, or in too much detail, without proper consultation and industry engagement, we risk creating a framework that is either obsolete before it is implemented, or misaligned with how the market is actually developing.

The point that we have been making throughout these debates is that the Government need to move from ambition, the Digital Markets Taskforce and their initiatives to strategy. It is not enough to say that the UK should be a global centre for digital assets or tokenisation: we need to know what that means in practice, who is responsible for delivering it, how the regulators are working together, what definitions will be used, and what sort of regime firms can expect. At present, the problem is not only a lack of regulation: in some respects, the problem is the way the regulatory system is operating, those overlaps between the Treasury, the FCA, the PRA, the Bank of England and other bodies. There are sometimes different emphases, different attitudes and different levels of appetite toward digital assets and tokenised finance. That creates uncertainty for firms.

Industry does not need more rules; it needs clarity, a coherent regulatory perimeter, regulators that are aligned with one another and confidence that the UK is developing a framework that supports responsible innovation, rather than simply adding new layers of process and permission. This is why we need to be careful before layering further statutory requirements on top of a system which has not yet been properly clarified. That said, the principle raised by my noble friend about looking to world leaders for inspiration is a good one. This is something we should be paying attention to if we wish to remain internationally competitive.

In addition, the principle for higher regulatory neutrality between traditional and tokenised assets is a sensible one. If two instruments have the same economic substance and risk profile, there is a strong case for treating them consistently. But before that principle can operate effectively, the Government and the regulators need to define clearly what counts as an additional asset—a tokenised security, a crypto asset, a stablecoin or a form of digital market infrastructure. That is why the industry forum proposed in the previous group seems so important. We need a better mechanism for engagement before we decide the detailed architecture, and we need to hear from banks, payment firms, digital asset businesses, market infrastructure providers, asset managers, lawyers, technologists and consumer representatives. Without that, we risk legislating for a market as we imagine it, rather than for a market as it is developing.

In summary, my noble friend Lord Holmes raises important issues and many of the ideas in this group may well form part of the future architecture for digital finance. The first task is to sort out the foundations. We need strategy, clarity, co-ordination and proper industry engagement before we start building further layers of regulations. For those reasons, I welcome the debate and the questions raised by these amendments. The Government must first address the more fundamental uncertainty at the heart of the UK’s approach to digital assets and tokenised finance.

Financial Services and Markets Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Kramer and Lord Altrincham

Committee stage
Monday 6th July 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I was delighted when I saw that the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, had put down these amendments, because it is so apparent, as he has clearly stated, that the whole issue of digital and AI is missing from this Bill. Because of the pace of change and the impact—and strength of the impact—across all our financial services, this is an issue that has to be dealt with and grasped with some sense of urgency.

Like the noble Lord, I have been very interested in the Mills review, although, as it was published today, I have only had time to skim its summaries and some of the newspaper references to it. It is clear that, certainly from Sheldon Mills’ perspective—I think that most of us have, one way or another, dealt with Sheldon Mills over the years and very much respect his judgment—the FCA may well be short of relevant powers in dealing with AI. He noted particularly a lack of powers under the critical third-parties regime, which made sense to me. In his recommendations, he also raised issues around the regulatory perimeter, another area that we have raised on more than one occasion.

In recent years, it has not been uncommon—though I dread it—for the Government to present on Report amendments that deal with an area that has been missed from the body of a Bill in Committee. On this Bill, that would allow a period of thought and the opportunity to absorb and consider what is presented in the Mills review. Since financial services Bills do not come around that often, I very much hope that the Minister will seriously consider taking advantage of the Bill to get those kinds of protections in place. If he fails to do that, we might collectively have to come forward with something on Report. Frankly, given the intricacy, detail and complexity, this is an area where the Government coming forward with an answer would, I think, be welcomed across the House and very much, I hope, within the spirit and theme of the amendments presented by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes.

[Lord Altrincham (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his comments today on AI and digital resilience and for his comments on previous days. I declare my interest as the director of South Molton Street Capital, which is regulated by the FCA.

These amendments raise an interesting point about emerging technologies, digital resilience and the use of artificial intelligence in financial services, to be covered, as we have discussed, by the Mills review and the FCA itself. We will return to this subject in a later group, when my noble friend Lord Ranger of Northwood and the Opposition Front Bench will speak to our own amendments, particularly in relation to digital assets. We will also comment on supervision in a later group.

Both digital resilience and the proper use of AI are important. However, I am not convinced that this is the right way or the right place to tackle these issues. Our concern is that this could add another layer of regulation on firms that are already subject to a substantial body of obligations in this area. Financial services firms already operate under a wide range of frameworks relevant to AI governance, digital resilience and technology risk. The consumer duty, which we have touched on already, requires firms to deliver good outcomes for retail customers. The senior managers and certification regime provides a framework for accountability and governance. The FCA senior management arrangements and controls already require firms to maintain appropriate systems, controls, governance and risk management. Firms are subject to data protection law, including rules around automated decision-making and profiling. They are subject to equality law where discriminatory outcomes arise. They are subject to operational resilience requirements, outsourcing and third-party risk expectations, and, in some contexts, more specific requirements around algorithmic trading and market conduct.

We should therefore be cautious before adding new statutory requirements on top. That is particularly important because technology develops quickly and a prescriptive regulatory framework can rapidly become out of date. It can also lead to duplication, uncertainty and compliance activity that is focused more on satisfying the form of the requirement than managing the underlying risk.

I would be grateful for reassurance from the Minister about how Amendment 130 would interact with existing operational resilience and outsourcing requirements, and whether the Government believe that further statutory provision is needed.

On Amendment 131, the issues of transparency, bias, human oversight, and redress are all important, but they also overlap with existing duties on fair treatment, governance, data protection, discrimination and consumer outcomes. I would be reluctant to support an approach which simply adds a new AI-specific regime without first demonstrating that the existing framework is inadequate.

On Amendment 168, I understand the attraction of having a named individual responsible for AI governance. Accountability matters, but in financial services we have the SMCR regime to address supervision, and that regime is already quite complex, as we will address in a later group. A mandatory AI officer would probably cut across existing accountability structures in conduct, compliance, operations, risk, data and product governance. It could, in fact, cut across all existing supervisory positions.

This group raises important questions about the future of financial regulation. We must be alert to new risks, but we must also be careful not to respond to every emerging technology by simply adding another layer of regulation. The better approach is to ensure that regulation is proportionate, technology-neutral where possible and focused on real outcomes. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Financial Services and Markets Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Kramer and Lord Altrincham

Committee stage
Wednesday 24th June 2026 Grand Committee

[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.

[Lord Altrincham (Con)]

My Lords, this is a welcome amendment because it raises important questions about the structure of our regulatory framework and in particular about whether the regulatory principle set out in Section 3B of FSMA—the eight principles—remain coherent, useful and properly calibrated to the circumstances in which we now find ourselves.

Over time, FSMA has accumulated objectives, secondary objectives, regulatory principles, “have regard” duties, reporting requirements and consultation obligations. Some of those are individually sensible and many were introduced for good reasons, but taken together, there is a real risk of regulatory layering. Duties and principles are added and new obligations are placed on regulators, but very little is ever taken away. The result is a framework that is increasingly complex and it is not always clear which duties genuinely drive regulatory behaviour and which simply sit on the statute book without translating into meaningful change.

The amendment asks the Treasury to review whether those principles are duplicative or remain necessary, and whether the framework could be simplified or improved. There is also a wider question, which was raised by the Financial Services Regulation Committee in its report last year, about whether these sorts of duties actually translate into anything meaningful in practice. It is one thing for Parliament to place a duty on a regulator to have regard to a particular principle or consideration—as my noble friend Lady Noakes mentioned, that is exactly what the Leeds reforms are trying to streamline—but quite another for that duty to shape decisions in a clear, measurable and accountable way.

Needless complexity matters for firms as well as for regulators. A complicated regulatory framework does not stay confined to the regulator; it filters down into consultations, supervisory expectations, compliance systems, legal advice and business decisions. If the statutory framework is unclear or duplicative, the burden ultimately falls on the firms that have to comply with it. At a time when we are asking financial services to support growth, investment and competitiveness, we should be especially alert to unnecessary regulatory complexity. The UK’s high regulatory standards are not in question, but there is a question as to whether the framework through which those standards are delivered is as clear, efficient and proportionate as it can be.

I therefore hope that the Minister will engage constructively with the amendment. I would be grateful if he could explain how far the principles have already been reviewed in preparation for this Bill, in the light of the comments from the Financial Services Regulation Committee. Do the Government accept that the accumulation of regulatory principles and duties can create complexity, and do they believe that the existing Section 3B principles remain fit for purpose? This amendment raises a valuable point; I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill

Debate between Baroness Kramer and Lord Altrincham

Report stage
Thursday 5th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I shall be exceedingly brief. The amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Ashcombe, is, quite frankly, genius. We have all had a struggle trying to get our hands on information that is scattered in so many different places, and I am fairly sure that if this was put with a secret ballot to civil servants they would all sign up because they struggle as well. It makes it very difficult when new policy comes through to try to work out what on earth the consequentials are, what numbers to look at, how to weigh these issues and how to understand distribution of impact, so I support his amendment.

This is such a complex Bill. When the instructions went down to put the Bill in place, I am sure there was absolutely no sense of the complexity that was going to be entangled in it. Amendment 38 in my name was triggered particularly by the OBR publication, again in response to an FoI, Costing of charging NICs on salary-sacrificed pension contributions, which was a supplemental analysis. The word “uncertainty” appeared in so many parts of it that we began to have a sense that no one could have huge confidence in the final numbers that were appearing, and it was very honest of the OBR to make it clear that there were vast uncertainties underpinning large parts of this work.



Very much like the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, I still do not think that we have bottomed out the problem with optional remuneration arrangements. It is easy to assume that we can distinguish between a negotiation where we are choosing between cash and a pension and having a negotiation that involves cash and a pension. But can we claim that the two are not related to each other, so that we do not get trapped by OpRa? There is a lot in here, and a review is the least we should do to make sure that we have a grip on these things and that Parliament gets to see it when it is still in a position to make some decisions.

[Lord Altrincham (Con)]

I thank the Minister for his usual courtesy in hosting the debate. The amendments in this group all underscore another substantial shortcoming in how the Bill has been approached: its effects and impacts have not been properly assessed in advance. I suspect that the Minister does not have the information on how the Bill will affect pensions saving adequacy, which I highlight in my Amendment 37, and how it will affect employer costs, pensions adequacy and workers’ take-home pay, which the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, raises in her amendment.

These are serious questions. As was noted in Committee, if the Treasury had done better work in preparation for the Bill, it would already be able to give us the answers to the questions that these amendments raise. These are the questions that businesses, employers, savers and industry are asking. As my noble friend Lord Ashcombe highlighted, the information must be in an easily accessible format in a single place, because it will be relevant to more than just policymakers and parliamentarians: businesses and employers will be trying to understand what all this means for them, as well as employees saving for their pensions, who will be trying to understand how they could be affected.

My amendment raises the question of pensions adequacy. People are not saving enough for their pensions and the Government are worsening incentives to do so with the Bill. The Minister should consent to a review of this matter before the Bill comes into force. The Government must make sure that they know the facts, so that we can ensure that they do not inflict unintended harms. As a point of good governance, the Minister should accept this and the other amendments in this group.

National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill

Debate between Baroness Kramer and Lord Altrincham

Committee stage
Tuesday 24th February 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I will try to be speedy. The amendments in this group in various ways would require that the work to assess the impact of the Bill on pension savings and pension incomes is done and put before Parliament. My Amendment 28 would make this a responsibility of the Government. Amendments 29 and 30 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Altmann and Lady Neville-Rolfe, would require an independent review. These three amendments have different degrees of detail and emphasis, but I suspect they can easily be redrafted to cover all the key elements.

It seems to me that behind all these amendments sits a basic question: did the Government do their homework? If they had, they could pretty much hand us everything we have requested tomorrow morning. I fear that this has been another off-the-hoof policy where the Government poorly understand the consequences, and I think that needs to be exposed and dealt with. It is true that implementation of the policy is not until 2029, probably the other side of another general election, but, frankly, that is not an excuse for doing this wrong, for not having the evidence and for not making it available. That is what I think every amendment in this group seeks to achieve in a different way. I beg to move.

[Lord Altrincham (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 30 has a simple purpose: to ensure that before the Act is commenced there is an independent review of its impact on pensions adequacy—which we have been talking about again and again through this Committee—saving behaviour and on those repaying student loans, and that Parliament must see the findings before the provisions take effect.

Pensions adequacy is one of the central long-term economic challenges facing this country, and under the Government it is set to get far worse. The Institute for Fiscal Studies’ report Adequacy of Future Retirement Incomes: New Evidence for Private Sector Employees could not be clearer. On current trends, around four in 10 private sector employees saving into defined contribution schemes are projected to undershoot the Pension Commission’s replacement rate targets. Even using a far more modest minimum living standard benchmark, a substantial minority are not on track to reach it.

The IFS also makes a crucial point that, since the Pensions Commission report 20 years ago, lower returns on saving and longer life expectancy mean that the savings rates required to hit adequacy benchmarks are higher than previously thought. In other words, the adequacy challenge has intensified, not diminished. Yet what are the Government doing in the Bill? They are altering one of the key mechanisms through which many working people build their retirement savings without any independent assessment of what that will mean for adequacy.

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Debate between Baroness Kramer and Lord Altrincham

Committee stage
Thursday 6th February 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I think that the amendments we discussed on Monday would have covered the public authorities issue but I am not absolutely sure, so clarification from the Minister would be extremely helpful. Can he also clarify for us the protections put in place for micro-businesses? The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, is usually right when she identifies these issues. It is beginning to sound as though the sector is somehow not qualifying for that level of protection. It would be most helpful to understand that.

[Lord Altrincham (Con)]

I thank my noble friend Lady Noakes for her amendments in this group; for her extremely well-made case as to how we might look to soften the blow for public services and the private sector; and for drawing attention to so many areas on the edge of public services that will be affected, such as dentists and childcare jobs. This is where the impact will be widely felt across the country.

On Amendments 54 and 55, the Government have stated that the purpose of this Bill is to repair the public finances. A key aspect of this plan is to ensure that public authorities can continue to operate efficiently without being overly burdened by rising employment costs. By increasing the employment allowance for public authorities to £20,000, we would reduce the financial pressure on them to provide essential services. Increasing the employment allowance specifically helps offset rising staffing costs, which are expected only to grow as the Government invest more in public services.

As the Government focus on boosting public sector capacity to meet future challenges in depopulation, the higher allowance would support that goal. It would provide greater flexibility to focus on improving service quality and enhancing delivery without worrying about escalating employment costs. The proposal aligns with the Government’s goal of unlocking economic growth. The ability to support and maintain a strong and capable public sector workforce means that these services can continue to contribute positively to the wider economy. This tax increase will inevitably drive policy-driven unemployment, which we have talked about, as already evidenced in the recent jobs numbers.

I understand that the Minister believes that the Government had no flexibility when they produced their Budget and made these tax choices. However, as the months have passed, the economic situation has changed and there has been quite a bit of wage inflation. As such, these proposals to increase the employment allowance could be cost-neutral to the amount of money raised, and should certainly not be immediately dismissed as unfunded policy decisions.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My Lords, the amendments tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Noakes, seek to expand the eligibility of the employment allowance to domestic workers and the public sector, and to increase the value of the employment allowance for organisations carrying out functions of a public nature.

As we discussed on the previous day in Committee, the employment allowance was introduced in 2014 by the previous Government. Currently, eligible small businesses with employer national insurance bills of £100,000 or less receive £5,000 of employment allowance, which means that they can deduct £5,000 from the total employer national insurance that they pay on their employees’ wages. This Bill increases that employment allowance to £10,500 from April 2025. It also seeks to expand the employment allowance to all eligible employers by removing the £100,000 eligibility threshold, which will simplify and reform employer national insurance so that all eligible employers now benefit. All of the remaining eligibility criteria remain unchanged.

As has been the case since the employment allowance was introduced in 2014, organisations operating wholly or mainly in the public sector are not eligible to claim it. As we discussed during the previous session in Committee, eligibility for the employment allowance is not determined by sector but depends on the make-up of an individual business’s work. The HMRC guidance explains that this is based on whether an organisation is doing 50% or more of its work in the public sector.

The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, asked for some specific figures in relation to that. The number of those claiming the employment allowance varies from year to year because the amount of work done in the public sector varies from year to year. It is for individual businesses to determine the amount of work that they do in the public sector, therefore data is not collected in the way the noble Baroness asks for.

The noble Baroness also asked for specific additional assessments. As I have said many times before—she is no doubt sick of me saying so—the Government have provided the impact assessments that we intend to provide and do not intend to provide any further such assessments. I am not aware of any plans for a specific information campaign, in the way that she asks for, but I am very happy to take her suggestion back and discuss it with colleagues.

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Debate between Baroness Kramer and Lord Altrincham

Committee stage
Wednesday 29th January 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I will be very brief, because these Benches spoke extensively on charities in an earlier grouping, where the amendment would have overturned the change that the Government are introducing. I particularly want to pick up the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, because, like others, I am very conscious that, of the charities that I have talked to, a fundamental part of their problem is that they cannot turn around and respond quickly enough to a measure that is being introduced so quickly. I am not up on all the rules of the Charity Commission, but I suspect that it would frown greatly on a charity spending when there is no clear funding mechanism coming in to replenish its resources. I think that there is a requirement to have several months’ contingency on the books, so there is a real problem here for many charities in having to turn around very quickly.

One of the amendments deals with increases in the employment allowance. That runs into a problem that the Government could help us with. It is my understanding that an entity that sells 50% of its services to the public sector does not qualify for employment allowance, so there will be many charities that are excluded from any benefit that is offered under that amendment. I wonder if the Minister could help us to get a better grip on that, because I think we have all struggled with understanding the application of those rules.

My last point did not occur to me until I started reading the input from various charities. A number of charities that have been able to survive and are fairly confident about their funding will now find themselves in a position where they need to battle and compete for grants. Some of the very smallest charities are concerned that they may get excluded from the grant offering because charities with a bigger reach are now turning to those particular pots. I am not sure whether the Government considered that as they put together this picture.

[Lord Altrincham (Con)]

This is an interesting set of amendments, given that, in essence, through this policy the Government are looking to take £1 billion out of the charity sector to fund public services, when the charity sector obviously provides public services—so it is a uniquely baffling government initiative. We on these Benches absolutely support the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, on Amendment 11A and by my noble friend Lady Sater on Amendment 32.

I speak to Amendment 52, in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe. This amendment would increase the employment allowance for charities from £10,500 to £20,000 to assist with the burden being placed upon charities. It is a probing amendment, and I would like to understand the cost that this would have for the Treasury and the plans the Government have to support the sector with the increased costs and the rise.

The remarkable comments made by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, and its estimate that this will cost the sector £1.4 billion every year, has been referenced in this debate by my noble friend Lord Leigh and others. It would leave charities in a position where they are unable to absorb the costs and will, as a result, be forced to reduce the number of services they provide. In essence, as we talked about on day 1 in Committee, these services are public services. Charities in this country have become quasi-public service providers in the last 20 years, and it is most unlikely that, in pulling back services, those services would not have to be provided by the Government elsewhere. It is therefore most unlikely that the Government will not wear the costs of this change. It is naive to assume that charities provide some other service that is not a public service or a substitute for a public service.

The Government will be well aware of the severe issues that charities are facing, following the open letter from the NCVO to express concern that three out of four charities will have to withdraw from public service delivery or are considering doing so. This is an extraordinary way to treat a sector that would provide a public service. In fact, the Government have accepted the principle that the delivery of public services should not face this tax, following the exemption of both the Civil Service and the NHS. What justification does the Minister therefore have for the exemption of some providers of public services but not charities? Charities provide close to £17 billion in public services every single year, and the services they provide are invaluable to communities across the country, so a failure to protect them would be devastating.

I support my noble friend Lady Sater’s Amendment 32 and recognise the importance of the Government fully assessing the impact that this tax increase will have on the sector. The Government owe it to charities to fully consider the impact that this will have across the sector and, as such, I hope the Government will consider both Amendments 32 and 52 very carefully as we progress.

Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 (Addition of Relevant Enactments) Regulations 2024

Debate between Baroness Kramer and Lord Altrincham

Monday 2nd December 2024 Grand Committee

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, the more times I read this statutory instrument—even after writing myself a cheat sheet on its alphabet soup of acronyms—the more I realise that I lack the expertise in the digital financial services and crypto space to really understand what is happening, the context and the implications. However, I have always supported the sandbox approach as a creative way for the regulator to understand innovations in financial services and how to appropriately regulate them.

This is a high-level SI that will, as the Minister said, be followed by detailed—although negative—SIs to address specific cases. I am a bit concerned that we will need to spot these cases in order to question them, but I have no intention of opposing the regulations before us today. PISCES is a slightly different issue but, frankly, without seeing the new prospectus regime, I have absolutely no idea how to comment on the changes contained in this SI.

I do, as always, have a few questions. First, I want to understand how this SI and what lies behind it ties in with the competition and growth objective. Are the Government taking the view that future growth in financial services is largely linked to digital business models, including blockchain infrastructure and crypto assets, and that shaping the FCA to be a benign regulator will make the UK a leading player in designing, holding, trading and marketing new instruments? Or are the Government concerned that digital and crypto create a new potential for market manipulation, mis-selling and money laundering, such that the FCA needs to find ways to counter, with different approaches to monitoring supervision enforcement? In other words, are the Government playing offence or defence? I would like to hear the Minister’s view.

Secondly, and related to that, with this instrument and the related activities, are we ahead of the curve, with the curve or behind the curve compared with other international regulators? I am afraid I do not have the global reach to understand, and it would be helpful if the Minister could tell us.

My lack of knowledge in this area led me to contact a friend in the industry to seek advice, and I was stunned by the response. In summary, I was told that the innovators who bring new and innovative models to the regulator’s sandbox are the smartest people in the room, but the regulator views the sandbox as a means to decide on monitoring procedures, compliance algorithms and approaches to enforcement. The innovators, by contrast, use the sandbox to identify the regulator’s points of weakness and then build them into their models to escape regulatory control. Innovators in the sandbox explore the regulatory perimeter, for example, to design products that will fall just outside; the mini-bonds are an example. They identify transaction sizes that will slip under the radar and coding approaches that will prevent multiple transactions that are essentially identical to be linked together and therefore escape both supervision and action. Those are just examples, but, increasingly, the industry seems to regard observing the intent of the regulator as purely voluntary. Does the Minister have any concerns that the regulator is outmanoeuvred, underpowered and underresourced?

I will end on my hobby-horse, which applies very much in these circumstances. Does the Minister recognise that, in this very fast-changing world, when so much is global and so much is digital, an effective whistleblowing system is absolutely vital, and our current system is a serious weakness?

[Lord Altrincham (Con)]

My Lords, it is a privilege to address the Committee on the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 (Addition of Relevant Enactments) Regulations 2024. These regulations serve to bring various legislation under the remit of the financial market infrastructure—FMI—sandbox. The sandbox regime is an important part of the Financial Services and Markets Act, giving expression both to good prudential regulation and economic growth by supporting innovation.

As we heard, the regulations being transferred to the FMI sandbox are: the STRs, or stock transfer gilt-edged securities regulations 1985—the digital gilt area that is likely to be an enormous focus of the government team in the coming months; the GSRs, or Government Stock Regulations 2004; the MLRs, or Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017; and the UK prospectus regulation, Regulation (EU) 2017/1129 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

Since our departure from the European Union, the British Government have pursued an ambitious programme of reform to establish a regulatory framework that is better tailored to the strengths and opportunities in UK financial services. These regulations further enhance our ability to adapt and thrive in a competitive global financial environment. The instrument is more than a technical adjustment; it is a demonstration of our commitment to dynamic regulation in financial services and support for innovation. The instrument ensures that our laws continue to reflect the highest standards of probity and innovation while giving the financial services sector clarity and confidence.

As Conservatives, we believe in the power of free markets, tempered by fair rules and effective oversight. These regulations are a testament to that philosophy, and they ensure that the UK remains the jurisdiction of choice for global financial institutions and investors, which in turn helps the country secure tax revenues needed to fund public services. By updating and expanding the scope of the Act, we are aligning our regulations with emerging opportunities including advances in financial technology, green finance and digital assets—areas in which Britain has already established itself as a global pioneer.

The FMI sandbox scheme commenced under the previous Conservative Government and was a success, with the digital securities sandbox—the DSS—proving useful to business. Three of the pieces of legislation being brought into scope would facilitate activity in the first FMI sandbox, known as the DSS: the STRs, the GSRs and the MLRs. Bringing the GSRs and the STRs into the scope of the FMI sandbox powers under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 would facilitate the possibility of sovereign debt issuance, using distributed ledger technology, under the DSS.