House of Lords amendments to the Financial Services and Markets Bill would require the Treasury to lay a report before Parliament explaining how the Financial Conduct Authority plans to use new consumer credit powers before those powers take effect, slowing the hand-off from the Consumer Credit Act to FCA Handbook rules.
Amendment 93, agreed in the Lords and carried into revised clauses published after the bill’s first Commons reading on 15 September, is designed to preserve parliamentary scrutiny as disclosure requirements for cards, loans and overdrafts move out of primary legislation. For the 30 million UK adults with a credit card, the change is procedural, but it shapes when firms must rewrite statements, persistent-debt letters and limit-increase processes.
Why the Consumer Credit Act is changing
The Treasury’s May policy statement confirmed plans to repeal most CCA information rules and recast them as FCA requirements, ending the threat that agreements could be rendered unenforceable for disclosure breaches. The FCA said it will consult on the full credit journey under the Consumer Duty, aiming for clearer pre-contract information without the rigid templates the 1974 Act imposed.
Issuers still operate under today’s Handbook chapters on post-contract practices, including rules that force minimum payments to clear the highest-interest balances first and interventions when customers pay more in interest than principal over 18 months. Those protections remain in force while Parliament rewrites the statute book.
What Amendment 93 would do
Legal briefings from Addleshaw Goddard note the compromise amendment would oblige HM Treasury to explain how the FCA proposes to exercise delegated powers on consumer credit under the new FSMA-based regime before commencement orders are made. Supporters argue increasingly significant policy choices should not slip into secondary legislation without a Commons debate; critics worry extra steps could delay modernised digital journeys lenders have been piloting.
The bill’s trajectory matters for product teams. If the amendment survives Commons ping-pong, card marketers may wait longer before dropping statutory wording from apps, even though the FCA has already signalled outcomes-based disclosure is coming.
Practical impact for cardholders
Nothing in the Lords vote changes APRs or limits overnight. Borrowers should still watch for persistent-debt letters and seek help if minimum payments barely touch principal. What shifts is timing: firms building compliance programmes for 2027 need clarity on whether parliamentary reports add quarters to the migration calendar.
Consumer groups will push for the Treasury report to spell out how unenforceability sanctions disappear without weakening redress. Lenders, meanwhile, want a single FCA consultation rather than a patchwork of transitional rules. The Lords have now put that tension on the record before the bill returns to the Commons.
How issuers are planning Handbook drafts
Major card issuers have parallel workstreams: one team maps CCA wording in current statements, another drafts FCA-ready templates assuming Consumer Duty outcomes tests. Legal counsel warn that persistent-debt rules in CONC 6.7 will not disappear during transition, so customer communications must still reference today’s thresholds until commencement orders land.
Trade bodies representing non-bank lenders say Amendment 93 could push back sandbox pilots for buy-now-pay-later products that hoped to rely on reformed disclosure. Fintech challengers, meanwhile, welcome moving information rules into the Handbook because it allows faster updates when apps change, provided Parliament still gets a readable roadmap.
Timeline through Commons
Commons second reading dates will determine whether firms target a 2027 compliance window or hold dual templates through 2028. Treasury officials have not published a migration table; the Lords vote ensures they cannot switch powers on without at least one public document MPs can scrutinise.