The UK House of Lords has added a digital assets strategy clause to the Financial Services and Markets Bill, putting banking, payment and settlement access alongside regulation, tokenisation and consumer protection in the proposed policy mandate.
Parliament’s bill record shows that Amendment 88 was agreed during the bill’s report stage on September 9. If the bill becomes law with the clause intact, the Treasury would have 12 months from enactment to prepare, publish and consult on a strategy for the regulation and development of digital assets and related digital financial-market infrastructure in the UK.
The measure is not yet law. The bill originated in the Lords and is scheduled for third reading there on September 15. It would then face scrutiny in the House of Commons, where the text could be changed or removed before any final agreement and Royal Assent.
Payments access is part of the proposed mandate
The amendment’s payments relevance goes beyond stablecoin policy. It directs the Treasury to consider whether firms conducting or seeking to conduct digital asset activities can obtain and maintain appropriate access to banking, payment and settlement services.
It also calls for consideration of risks to competition, innovation and lawful market participation when those services are withdrawn or denied, including decisions made on a blanket or insufficiently risk-sensitive basis. That language places account access and infrastructure participation within the strategy review, but it does not create a right to an account, require a bank or payment provider to serve a particular firm, or override financial-crime and risk-management duties.
For payment processors, banking partners and stablecoin businesses, the practical question would therefore be how the Treasury distinguishes legitimate risk controls from broad category-based restrictions. If the clause survives, consultation responses are likely to matter because the strategy would have to address operating conditions as well as headline regulation.
Stablecoins sit inside a wider digital-finance scope
The required review would cover cryptoassets, qualifying stablecoins, central bank digital currencies, tokenised securities and other digital or tokenised financial assets. It would also examine digital settlement assets and other digital payment or settlement arrangements relevant to financial markets.
That breadth matters for industry planning. The amendment does not establish one regime for all of those instruments. Instead, it would require the government to set out how overlapping legal, regulatory and infrastructure initiatives fit together, while considering market integrity, financial stability, consumer protection and UK competitiveness.
The strategy would also have to consider relevant developments in other jurisdictions and any legislative or regulatory changes the Treasury believes may be needed. This creates a formal policy-coordination exercise, not a product authorization, stablecoin approval or implementation timetable.
Consultation would span regulators and industry
The clause names the Bank of England, Prudential Regulation Authority and Financial Conduct Authority as required consultees. It also includes representatives from industry forums and any other parties the Treasury considers appropriate.
That structure could give payments businesses a channel to document specific infrastructure barriers and control practices. Useful evidence would be concrete: onboarding and offboarding criteria, transaction-monitoring capabilities, safeguarding or reserve arrangements, settlement dependencies, rejection rates and the operational effect of service withdrawals. Assertions that access is difficult will carry less policy value than data showing where controls, legal uncertainty or risk appetite produce a measurable constraint.
For now, firms should treat the Lords vote as a legislative signal rather than a settled compliance change. The immediate milestones are the bill’s third reading and its subsequent passage through the Commons. Only the final enacted text would determine whether the Treasury faces a binding 12-month strategy deadline.