Financial Services and Markets Bill [HL]

Baroness Noakes Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 8th July 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

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

[Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

Reform has become hard to distinguish from managed abolition, so I urge the Government to use this opportunity to materially simplify the rules, reduce unnecessary expense and not tinker with the ring-fencing rules but just abolish them.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

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

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

[Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

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

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

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

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

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

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

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

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

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