Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)

I was thanking the Minister for his response to the scrutiny committee’s concerns. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, for her well-informed insights, as usual, and her correct reference to risk. I very much look forward to the Minister’s response on that point. While the Official Opposition are supportive of the direction of travel, we believe that the drafting is flawed. My noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond explained that well; he called it a “wrinkle”. Fortunately, following the debate in the other place, I believe that the Minister and his crypto asset team have agreed to look into this with interested parties and that a follow-up meeting is planned between the Minister and our shadow Minister. I say at the outset that this is most welcome. Crypto assets such as Bitcoin are commodities. They are bought and sold in anticipation of changes in value, much like shares or bonds. Stablecoins are different. They are backed by a fiat currency and act as a proxy for that currency. As such, stablecoins sit within the payment system and should be regulated as part of it. The draft instrument establishes the regulatory framework for crypto assets in the UK, including stablecoins. What we are therefore debating is critical to the delivery of the Government’s stated ambition for the UK to become a global hub for digital assets and blockchain technology—although I believe that the vast majority of such assets are held in the United States at present. Equally, according to Bitpanda and Opinium, one in five adults in the UK has invested in crypto assets, and 40% of them are under 35. The possibility of high returns seems to be the main motivator, with portfolio diversification also being important. According to the same survey, the prime reason for transferring crypto is for the purchase of goods and services. The Government’s policy note accompanying the original draft of these regulations made clear that it was published to identify errors or oversights that could lead to unintended consequences. My concern today is that such an oversight remains, so the instrument fails to achieve its stated aim. A thriving digital asset market requires an effective form of digital cash. There are three such forms: central bank digital currencies, tokenised commercial bank deposits and regulated stablecoins. All three should be able to operate seamlessly alongside traditional fiat money with regulations that reflect how each functions in practice. The Bank of England has recognised that regulated stablecoins could deliver faster, cheaper and more functional payments, both domestically and across borders, as part of a multi-money system alongside commercial bank money. If we fail to regulate stablecoins in a way that reflects the real-world function, we risk losing ground to other jurisdictions. If using stablecoins means facing new regulatory hurdles, they simply may not be used. In the UK, we have a long history of encouraging innovation in a regulated financial services sector. This record and the ability to innovate is vital to both growth and stability. With the current wording of the instrument, the UK could see the prize of innovation slipping away. Will the Minister comment on that concern? The Government have attempted to address the problem in the context of payments by importing an existing exemption for the purchase of goods and services. However, that approach is ill suited to stablecoins and fails to provide clarity for all participants, particularly those who convert fiat into stablecoin and back again. Without certainty for these actors, the payment system may not be able to function effectively. A clearer approach would be a bespoke exemption for stablecoins or the use of an existing definition that captures payment activity within payment services regulations. I would be interested to hear about the current direction of travel on these various ideas. Before I conclude, I would be grateful if the Minister would reflect on a number of broader questions that arise from this statutory instrument and the wider regulatory architecture within which it sits, and let me have a response—either today, which would be ideal, or in writing. I was very grateful to the Minister for the helpful letter he sent me following our last financial services discussion in Grand Committee. He will be aware that the House of Lords Financial Services Regulation Committee is planning an inquiry into crypto assets, so these questions are important, and the answers might be helpful to the debates that that committee will have. First, how confident are the Government that the regulators are striking the appropriate balance between their statutory objectives for consumer protection, market integrity and financial stability, while also enabling the growth and innovation in our financial services sector that I think we both want? Given previous concerns that our regulatory system can at times err on the side of excessive caution, are the Government satisfied that the framework will not result in valuable crypto-related activity being driven offshore? Secondly, how big is the risk of fraud, and what is being done to combat it? The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, rightly talked about the danger of scams. Although she was less concerned about individual consumers, whom she sounded as though she felt were reasonably well protected, she made a very important point about scams hitting SMEs. Thirdly, turning specifically to stablecoins, how significant do the Government believe sterling-denominated stablecoin activity could become in the United Kingdom? Does the Minister have concerns about potential disintermediation from the regulated banking sector and any consequent implications for banks’ capacity to lend to the real economy? If so, how do the Government intend to balance the imperative of supporting economic growth with the opportunity to foster innovation? Finally, what steps are being taken to improve public understanding in this area? There is evidence that some young people are engaging with cryptocurrencies in a highly speculative manner, while others are deterred entirely by a lack of accessible information. Does the Minister share my concern that the continued absence of meaningful financial education within our various education curricula leaves many citizens ill equipped to make informed decisions in what is now an increasingly complex financial landscape? We are united in our desire for the UK to do well in this field. It seems that the technical flaw, of which my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond also spoke, can be corrected, although I assume that this would have to be done by an amending SI rather than the withdrawal of the SI under discussion. In any event, I look forward to the Minister’s response to this and to the other questions that I have set out. This is an important area, and it is right that we take the time to scrutinise the intentions and effects.