Peers working for big City firms including Santander, Secure Trust Bank and the London Stock Exchange are currently sitting on a new House of Lords panel scrutinizing regulation of the financial services industry, the Guardian has found.
The House of Lords committee has been highly critical of the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), despite a number of the committee members being paid by companies that are overseen by the FCA.
The chair of the committee, Michael Forsyth, was until May last year chair of the UK retail bank Secure Trust Bank, which is regulated by the FCA. He is still a shareholder, according to his register of interests.
Lord Forsyth wrote to the FCA saying the committee didn't agree with the regulator’s plans to name companies under investigation in cases where it was in the public interest.
Currently, 9 other members of the 13-person committee have interests in financial services companies.
The Liberal Democrat peer Sharon Bowles is paid by the London Stock Exchange plc.
Labour peer Clive Hollick is an adviser to the fund Hambro Perks.
John Eatwell is an adviser to Palamon Capital Partners and a non-executive director of Unity Trust Bank. Another Labour peer, Jonathan Kestenbaum, is a director of Windmill Asset Management, and is also a director of the JP Morgan Japanese Investment Trust.
Peter Lilley, a former Tory cabinet minister, is an adviser to a Shanghai investment fund, YiMei Capital. Jonathan Hill, another former Tory minister, is an adviser to the Spanish bank Santander and the payment company Visa Europe.
Anthony Grabiner declared that he sat on the board of Goldman Sachs from 2014 to 2022, and has shareholdings that include Citigroup, HSBC and UBS
A spokesperson for the Lords committee said its members came from “different walks of life, from across the UK, and represent a wide range of professions and backgrounds”
Tom Brake, the director of the campaign group Unlock Democracy, said it would have been “safer” had members with financial interests in the sector recused themselves
Brake questioned whether putting pressure on the Financial Conduct Authority not to name financial service companies under investigation was really in the interests of consumers.