Financial Services and Markets Bill [HL]

Lord Howard of Rising Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 8th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howard of Rising (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a holder of listed shares and a director of a listed investment trust.

There is much to be commended in this proposed legislation. Any reduction in regulation and the consequential benefit on the wealth of the nation is to be applauded. I am, however, concerned about the proposed power which will enable new regulations to be introduced without scrutiny. Although introduced with the best intentions, regulations can do more harm than good—partly recognised by having the Bill in front of us today. It is not always possible to foresee the full consequences of regulation. Generally speaking, the more markets are left to themselves, the better off we all are.

An example of regulations having a negative effect is the Basel II agreement. This ruled that personal mortgages were safer than other types of lending and therefore banks would need a lower capital requirement for lending for house purchases. I will not waste your Lordships’ time with the full story—caravans in trailer parks being classed as houses and so on—but this was ultimately a major contributor to the 2008 financial crisis, brought about by a change in regulations. Because of the crisis, regulation in Great Britain was made for pension funds to invest a higher proportion of their funds into safer gilt-edged securities. The gilts gave a lower return than other types of investment. To compensate, pension funds used their gilt-edged securities as collateral to buy more gilt-edged securities to give an overall larger return—little risk as both instruments were Government-backed. Unfortunately, it slipped their minds that interest rates can go up as well as down and rising interest rates would result in losses. Interest rates did go up. Even the Bank of England’s own pension fund was caught out, as interest rates rose and its pension fund faced large losses.

With one regulation on top of another, it is not always possible to see the knock-on effect of regulations. I urge your Lordships, when taking this Bill forward, to have clearly in mind the inability of anyone to fully know what benefits or what collateral damage may result from new regulations. While flexibility may be desirable, it is very important not to delegate too much power without the ability for rule-making bodies to be questioned independently and firmly. It will not do everything, but it may put a brake on rules which impede or hamper the development and success of our financial services industry and reduce risk.

Financial Services and Markets Bill [HL]

Lord Howard of Rising Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 1st July 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Howard of Rising (Con)]

My Lords, my Amendment 151 seeks to enable employment in the financial services industry to be made more efficient. At present, Section 55V of FSMA requires the Financial Conduct Authority to determine a complete application for Part 4A permission within six months and an incomplete application within 12 months. These statutory limits provide certainty but do not distinguish between entirely new market entrants and applicants who have previously been authorised and regulated by the FCA.

Many experienced financial services professionals have already undergone extensive regulatory scrutiny, have held approved positions within FCA-authorised firms and possess established records of compliance, integrity and competence. Despite this, when establishing a new authorised firm, they are often subject to the same authorisation timetable as applicants with no prior regulatory history. This approach can create unnecessary delays, increase costs, discourage entrepreneurship and inhibit competition within the UK financial services sector. It is also inconsistent with the Government’s broader objective of promoting growth, innovation and international competitiveness within the UK financial markets.

I propose that His Majesty’s Government consider introducing a fast-track authorisation process whereby applicants who have previously been authorised by the FCA or who have held FCA-approved senior management or controlled functions for a substantial period, have no record of serious regulatory misconduct, meet all threshold conditions and prudential requirements and submit a complete application should receive a determination from the FCA within 90 days of the application being submitted.

Such a provision would not reduce regulatory standards. It would recognise that the FCA already possesses significant information regarding the applicant’s competence, conduct, fitness and propriety. The FCA would retain full discretion to refuse applications where concerns arise, but qualifying applicants would benefit from a more proportionate and efficient regulatory process. The United Kingdom’s reputation as a leading global financial centre depends on regulation that is not only effective but efficient. A targeted, expedited process for proven and reputable applicants would help reduce barriers to market entry, encourage innovation, support economic growth and make the UK a more attractive jurisdiction in which to establish regulated businesses. It would tie in with the Government’s declared interest in reducing burdensome regulation, which impedes growth in the economy.

[Lord Stockwood (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lords, Lord Altrincham and Lord Holmes, for tabling these amendments on statutory deadlines for regulatory approvals. The Government agree that determining authorisations and other regulatory applications must be prompt and proportionate, while maintaining high standards, and they continue to push the regulators to be as ambitious as possible. This is why the Government are taking action to shorten a range of statutory deadlines through the Bill and, on top of this, have agreed voluntary stretch targets for the regulators to go further and faster to speed up the processing of the most crucial applications and facilitate growth. This focus is starting to pay off: for example, the FCA’s authorisation metrics for the last quarter show that the FCA determined 99.9% of senior manager applications within the existing three-month deadline, compared to 92.5% in the same quarter for 2022-23. In addition, the FCA determined 98.1% of senior manager applications within its two-month voluntary stretch target, determining 50% of authorisations within only 19 days.

Amendments 105, 106, 110, 111, 113, 114 and 115 seek to ensure that the Treasury can use the power under Clause 21 to reduce the deadlines for determining applications. The Government understand the intention behind these amendments. The Government are committed to keeping these statutory deadlines under review to ensure that they are as ambitious as possible to support firms. The intention behind this is primarily to allow certain deadlines to be shortened further if conditions change in future and the regulators can process applications faster. However, it is vital that the regulatory framework reflects the need for a robust approvals process and the high standards expected of firms operating in the UK. Limiting the Government’s ability to recalibrate the statutory deadlines in the other direction would limit our ability to react to unexpected circumstances and could risk those high standards being watered down or push the regulators to refuse more applications to ensure they are meeting their legal obligations. This is why the Government’s view is that the powers must remain flexible.

Amendments 107, 112 and 116 would oblige the Government further to shorten these statutory deadlines should the regulator meet these deadlines for two consecutive years. The Government understand the intention and ambition behind these amendments but do not agree that this is the right way to achieve it. Meeting an existing deadline for two consecutive years does not in and of itself mean that further shortening the deadline will be appropriate and could risk watering down standards. Such a ratcheting mechanism could also drive perverse behaviour, disincentivising the regulators meeting these deadlines to avoid further operational pressures. The Government’s view is that these amendments would prevent the exact outcome they are seeking to achieve.

On Amendment 109, I understand the concern that statutory deadlines are less meaningful if the FCA can repeatedly stop the clock and make rolling requests for information. The Government recognise the frustrations that firms feel when applications are paused or when they receive repeated requests for information. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, asked about the proportionality of circumstances in which the FCA can indeed stop the clock. The FCA can stop the clock only in three specific circumstances under FSMA: for change of control, senior manager and appointed representative applications. This power allows the FCA fully to investigate issues that emerge only after an initial response has been received or where further clarification is needed on matters that were not reasonably identifiable at the outset. This is important for ensuring that robust standards are applied.

The Government think it is important that the regulators retain some flexibility to scrutinise senior manager applications properly. A rigid rule limiting the formal stop the clock power to a single occasion risks weakening the regulator’s ability to conduct proper scrutiny in more complex cases, which it does only on very few occasions when really necessary. It also risks encouraging broad, defensive and overly onerous initial information requests as the FCA seeks to adjust procedures to the new requirement, potentially making the process more onerous for all applications. However, I do not want to sound complacent: the Government will continue to engage with the regulators to ensure that they are processing applications as quickly as possible while maintaining standards and avoiding delays.

Financial Services and Markets Bill [HL]

Lord Howard of Rising Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 8th July 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Howard of Rising (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 172E in the name of my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe. She expressed her support for it far more ably than I ever could, but I want to say that it would be unrealistic to think that sophisticated financial businesses with complex computer systems and programmes can continue to operate in this country if they cannot protect the secrecy of systems oh whose development they may have spent millions of pounds or dollars.

Whether this is carried out by non-compete clauses, which I imagine will be the easiest way to do it, or some other method, what must be achieved is the ability of financial companies to preserve the security of their systems—that is, if we wish these businesses to remain in this country and not go somewhere else where they will get security for what, as I say, may have cost them many millions to develop. In that context, they just do things that we do not know about. For example, the method of communication in the United States now is to bounce radio waves off the ionosphere. They do not want to come here and show everybody how to do it. So I urge the Minister to pay good attention to what my noble friend has said.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe’s Amendment 172D. The problem of debanking has reached a serious level in the UK, with roughly half a million people reported to be affected last year alone. I welcome and recognise that the Government have moved on this and that the new rules require banks to give 90 days’ notice and provide a clear explanation. I also welcome the fact that there is a right to challenge unresolved disputes via the ombudsman.

Financial Services and Markets Bill [HL]

Lord Howard of Rising Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 7th September 2026 Lords Chamber

The amendment would simply require the FCA, into which the PSR has now been subsumed, to continue with that valuable reporting, including, where reasonably possible, identifying where the fraud originated—for example, which tech platforms, as we have just been talking about. This would allow us to take targeted action against those platforms that are doing least to protect consumers from fraud. The amendment would introduce no new obligations or work; it just requires the FCA to continue to do what was previously agreed and was being done by the PSR. I hope the Minister can provide some reassurance that this important reporting will continue.

[Lord Howard of Rising (Con)]

My Lords, my Amendment 95 raises the issue of non-compete legislation. When this was raised in Committee, the Minister undertook to respond. His response was to refer to a 2025 working paper, but action is needed. Could I urge the Minister to pursue this and not to allow the report just to sit?

In Committee, the Minister commented that he was not an expert on employment law. That may be the case, but the ability to maintain confidentiality of important and expensive systems is vital in the financial services industry. Algorithms and sophisticated and complex computer systems are an essential part of today’s top-level financial service companies. They must be able to maintain the confidentiality of their systems.

Non-compete agreements are an essential part of this. Whether the Bill we are debating today is the right place for this is uncertain, but it must be dealt with if we wish to retain Great Britain’s predominant place in the industry—something that I hope the Minister favours. Even if non-compete is not precisely within his remit, he should certainly make it his business, in the interest of his department. I urge the Minister not to allow the 2025 report just to sit in a pending tray.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I speak to Amendment 97, which appears in this group in my name. I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, for providing us with powerful arguments, particularly for Amendment 17. I echo the noble Lord’s comments as, if the noble Baroness wishes to put this to the vote, the Green Party will certainly support it. We need to see the tech companies being made to pay for the huge profits they are collecting while continuing to allow illegality to operate in their spaces.

However, I will primarily speak to Amendment 97. I begin by acknowledging the work of Joshua Tjeransen, who is my King’s College London intern. He has identified this issue for me and done a great deal of work on this amendment. This amendment is about a different sort of fraud from that covered by the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer; it is about ransomware. I am sure noble Lords have come across many cases of this; it is a great concern to businesspeople, individuals and institutions, particularly the NHS. It is where a computer system or database is locked and access is prevented. The ransomware takes it over, and companies are told, “Pay up or you will never get this back”.

It is worth thinking about the circumstances of this. Very often, payment is demanded in cryptocurrency. People are told, “If you don’t do this in the next hour, the figure will double and double again” and so on, through alerts appearing on someone’s computer screen. These are tremendously frightening, difficult, challenging circumstances to face.

The figures we have for this come from Report Fraud. In the year from April 2025, 323 UK organisations reported such an attack. More than half of them were small and medium-sized enterprises, and the average loss was £270,000, which for SMEs is a huge sum of money. I said “reported” because it is generally acknowledged by experts in the field that there is a real issue of stigma here. Companies and organisations do not want to admit that they have fallen victim to such a fraud, and it is generally agreed that those figures are the tip of the iceberg. The accepted advice from law enforcement is “Don’t pay”, but it is generally acknowledged, although it is very hard to put figures on it, that a lot of people are paying right now, and this must be very lucrative for some very nasty criminals.

I come to the amendment, which would insert a new clause that would place a duty on the Financial Conduct Authority to make rules within 12 months of Royal Assent prohibiting the firms it regulates from

“making, offering, authorising or facilitating a ransom payment”

and would prevent the insuring or indemnifying of anyone against such a ransom payment. Firms would have to notify the FCA within 72 hours of becoming aware of a ransom demand. The only exception provided is where the payment is needed to prevent an imminent risk to life or serious injury, and then only with the prior approval of the Secretary of State. It covers authorised persons and firms supervised by the FCA under the Payment Services Regulations and the Electronic Money Regulations.

I think it is worth going back over how we have got to the point where we still do not have any action. In January 2025, the Home Office consulted on three proposed measures on ransomware: a targeted ban on ransom payments by public sector bodies and operators of critical national infrastructure; a payment prevention regime under which other organisations would have to notify the Government before paying; and mandatory incident reporting. The response was reported on 22 July 2025 and recorded 72% support for a targeted ban. There was an announcement that all public sector bodies and CNI operators would be banned from paying, and there would be a notification requirement.

On 14 October 2025, answering a Question from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, on the Jaguar Land Rover attack, the noble Lord, Lord Leong, told the House:

“The Home Office is progressing a new package of measures to protect UK businesses, and we will update the House accordingly”.—[Official Report, 14/10/25; col. 169.]


In December 2025, the Security Minister said that the ban remained a priority and would progress—noble Lords know the dreaded phrase—when parliamentary time allowed. You might think that there would be coverage of this in the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill, but my understanding is that there is no coverage of such issues.

Why does this amendment work? Why can we do this through the Financial Services and Markets Bill? Nearly every payment will pass through a financial company. If there is any kind of scale to this at all, whoever the victim is, the money will go through a firm that the FCA supervises. A rule on these firms therefore reaches most payments made from the UK, not just payments by financial firms themselves. I think the amendment is elegant. It would not create a new offence or a general ban on businesses as the Public Bill Office said that that would be outside the scope of the Bill. Instead, it would place a duty on the FCA to create the rules within 12 months. This is a step forward in dealing with a critical issue that is affecting businesses and organisations right now and on which the Government have promised to act. It follows the Government’s own design.

I am not expecting the Minister to accept the amendment, and I am not going to put this to a vote because we have not had the time or capacity to work through the detail of exactly how this is written, but none the less I hope that we will hear from the Minister that there is going to be significant progress in this area very soon. I am really hoping not to hear the phrase “when parliamentary time allows” because the Government have done the consultation on this and have promised to act. We need to see protection in this fraud capital of the world—the UK—for firms. If ransoms cannot be paid, it will not be in the interests of criminals to put the effort in to try to get ransoms.