The Finance Ministry unveiled emergency legislation in Parliament on Monday, 21 September 2026, seeking sweeping, time-limited powers to intervene directly in capital markets during periods of “acute instability.” The draft — the Market Stability and Emergency Measures Bill — would allow ministers to appoint interim directors at the independent Financial Conduct Office, impose temporary trading suspensions on designated asset classes and enact short-term capital controls without prior parliamentary approval.
Presenting the bill, Finance Minister Julian Hartley said ministers acted out of necessity after a week of sharp market moves that, he said, revealed gaps in the current architecture. “This bill is a narrow, temporary measure designed to protect savers and businesses while we repair the mechanisms that failed under stress,” Hartley told MPs. The government said the measure would expire automatically after three months unless extended by a two-thirds vote of both houses.
Markets reacted nervously to the announcement. The Daw Jones Average fell 1.9% in opening trade on Monday and sterling weakened against the dollar, while short-term government bond yields climbed, pricing in higher risk. Trade groups and pension funds warned the proposal could unsettle foreign investors and increase the cost of capital for companies already bracing for a slower growth outlook.
Civil liberties groups said the real risk was political interference in independent institutions. “Putting ministers in charge of regulator appointments at a time when those same ministers will be choosing which firms to shield risks a conflict that will be seized upon by those who vote with their feet,” said Dr. Aisha Kaur, senior economist at the Independent Fiscal Institute. “Markets dislike unpredictability; they prefer predictable rule-based interventions to ad hoc political decisions.”
Legal experts cautioned that the bill’s broad drafting could invite court challenges that would prolong uncertainty. Professor Michael Brenner, a constitutional law specialist at Kingford University, said, “Even if parts of the bill are lawful in extremis, the prospect of litigation and the three-month clock will keep investors and companies on edge. If regulators are seen as an extension of ministerial will, the long-term credibility of oversight is damaged.”
Opposition parties lined up against the bill, promising immediate legal action if it became law. Leader of the Opposition Clara Montrose said her party would support sensible measures to shore up liquidity but vowed to resist powers that she said would “centralise authority and politicalise our independent institutions.” International creditors and rating agencies signalled they were monitoring developments closely; one unnamed bond-market analyst said the proposal could prompt a downgrade if it were enacted without clearer safeguards.
The government says the measures are a short-term stabiliser while a separate, longer-term review of market infrastructure gets under way. Still, experts warn that without tighter limits — clearer trigger conditions, judicial oversight and transparent sunset clauses — the bill may do more harm than good. “Good crisis tools have a narrow, predictable trigger and independent judges reviewing any derogation from fundamental safeguards,” Dr. Kaur added. “Absent that, the policy may reduce confidence at exactly the time it needs to restore it.”
