Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing (Amendment) Regulations 2026
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts(3 weeks, 6 days ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his expansive introduction to this SI. I wish to express concern about two elements of it: the change in the transactions and the change in the rules on trusts.
This all comes at a moment when the OECD and the Financial Action Task Force are pushing every major jurisdiction in the direction of having more transparency, more openness and more recording. It weakens the UK’s stance when we ask other countries to tighten their own procedures. Both the OECD and the FATF have been pushing countries to make registers of beneficial ownership more complete and more accessible. The message that is being sent is, “We need to widen the net”.
Of course, historically, the UK has held itself up as a leader in this area, however hard it might have been to justify that claim. One of my questions for the Minister is: how does this measure align with the Government’s 2025 anti-corruption strategy, which is supposedly aimed at driving dirty money out of the UK and strengthening national security?
I note that, in December, the City of London Police was awarded an extra £15 million to expand its anti-corruption efforts. The Justice Secretary then said that the UK
“will no longer be a haven for dirty money and dictators’ laundered assets”
and promised action to tackle “professional enablers”— the lawyers, bankers and estate agents who we know have been at the heart of some very murky, shall we say, transactions. As the Justice Secretary said at the time, all too often, the trail of dirty money “leads back” to London; he also noted that that is
“exploited by those Kremlin-linked elites who enable Putin’s aggression”.
I come to my two specific points. The greatest area of concern that I can identify—the Minister alluded to this—is the jurisdictions under enhanced monitoring. The SI replaces high-risk third countries with FATF “call for action” countries in the enhanced due diligence trigger. Therefore, we are picking up only countries that are blacklisted now: North Korea, Iran and Myanmar. Previously, the regulations that applied to so-called grey list countries, which called for increased monitoring, included the UAE, South Africa, Turkey, Nigeria and the Philippines.
UK firms transacting with counterparts in those jurisdictions will no longer be automatically required to imply the enhanced due diligence. This seems to place a great deal of trust in UK companies that do not have a great record; I cross-reference back to what the Justice Secretary said in December about dirty money flowing into London. So, in effect, this SI represents a substantial retreat at exactly the moment when we are supposed to be cracking down on illicit finance.
My second area of detailed concern is the register provisions. New paragraph 23A of Schedule 3A to the 2017 regulations will create the first-ever general sized-based exemption from the trust register. If a trust holds no UK land, has under £2,000 in current assets, has never held more than £10,000 over its lifetime and earns under £5,000 a year, it never has to register.
This anti-abuse rule stops only a single settler, but does not allow for the situation where a wealthy family spreads a pot across a spouse, parents, adult children and who knows who else with each acting as a settler. Regulation 25(3) removes stamp duty reserve tax as a registration trigger, quietly pulling share-owning trusts that would otherwise have appeared on the register out of the scope of the register.
For those who might be listening, stamp duty reserve tax is a 0.5% tax when you buy UK shares electronically, so if a trust buys £100,000 worth of UK shares, it pays £500 in SDRT. It is a tiny tax and a tiny tax liability, but at the moment that triggers the registration. There are express trusts that have to register because of what they are, but there are also a large number of trusts that have to register only because of this provision. Trusts that own UK-listed shares are exactly the kind of structure where transparency matters to cleaning up the dirty money and I think to the general public as well. They are how anonymous foreign money often holds stocks in UK companies. The current position means that any trust active in the UK equity market at any scale has been caught, regardless of where it is based or who set it up, so removing it punches a hole in the net specifically to oversee shareholding trusts. I would like to hear some more from the Minister on how the Government see this deregulation as being any kind of positive when we are trying to crack down on the flows of dirty money that the Government acknowledge are flooding into London.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, these regulations introduce a number of changes following the Government’s 2022 review and the 2024 consultation. I thank the Minister for his clear introduction and for emphasising the important principle of getting things right first time, which partly explains why these reforms have taken time to come in. Some of the changes appear to be sensible. Refining due diligence requirements so that enhanced due diligence applies to unusually complex transactions rather than all complex transactions seems a proportionate step. Likewise, reforming the trust registration service to close identified gaps, while creating an exemption for low-value, low-risk trusts, appears to strike a reasonable balance between maintaining safeguards and reducing unnecessary burdens. To that extent, His Majesty’s Opposition welcome the direction of travel.
However, these regulations also raise a wider and very important question about whether the current anti-money laundering regime is operating as effectively, proportionately and fairly as it should. It is right—indeed, it is essential—that we are robust in tackling money laundering, terrorist finance and financial crime, but it is also essential that the system does not impose excessive costs, drive firms into defensive behaviour or leave innocent customers and legitimate businesses without access to banking services.
The purpose of anti-money laundering regulation is, of course, to prevent crime, but there is growing evidence that the regime can also have a serious unintended consequence, and customers who have done nothing wrong are nevertheless finding themselves excluded from banking services because they are deemed too costly, too complex or too risky to serve. The IEA’s 2024 report, Debanked, argues that under the current regime certain categories of customer may present a higher initial risk profile, but that the cost of establishing whether they are, in fact, engaged in criminal activity can exceed the value of their business to the bank. The result is that some accounts are closed pre-emptively.
The same report also estimates that compliance with anti-money laundering regulations costs UK banks £34 billion a year. That is a very significant burden and one that is ultimately borne by consumers and businesses. That is a huge multiple of the £178 million of savings in compliance costs which I think the Minister mentioned. To put it into context, the sums spent on some of the enforcement agencies are also relatively small. Nearly £100 million is spent on the Serious Fraud Office and £195 million on the Insolvency Service. Police funding, because police are very important in money laundering, costs nearly £20 billion, but that includes the excellent efforts of the City of London Police in this area, which were mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett.
What assessment have the Government made of the impact of the current AML regime on access to banking services? Are the considerable costs—the £34 billion I mentioned—imposed by this regime being matched by clear evidence of a proportionate reduction in financial crime, drawing on the resources I have described? Will the Government consider a broader review not merely of whether the system is functioning according to its own internal processes but whether it is delivering the right outcomes in the real world and whether the enforcement regime is fit for purpose? The Minister has mentioned the economic crime plan.
I turn to the issue of complexity. An anti-money laundering and sanctions regime must be clear if it is to be effective. I know this from my experience of trying to enforce the law in the business area. Professional advisers and regulated entities struggle to understand their obligations. If this happens, the result will naturally be worse enforcement. I was slightly concerned to hear that the Solicitors Regulation Authority has described the UK sanctions regime as “complex and challenging”. That should give us pause for thought. If professionals whose work depends on understanding and applying the law find the regime difficult to navigate, we should not be surprised when banks and firms respond by taking the safest possible course—even when that means withdrawing services from customers who may pose no real risk.
Can the Minister confirm whether organisations such as the SRA were consulted before these regulations were laid? Can he explain whether the regulations will materially reduce the complexity in the system? Do the Government intend to bring forward wider reforms to make the regime easier to understand, easier to apply and therefore more effective in achieving its core purpose and preventing financial crime?
Finally, I turn to redress. The consequences of debanking can be severe. A person or business whose account is closed may be left unable to receive payments, pay staff, meet obligations or even operate normally. Yet the process for challenging these decisions can be slow, opaque and deeply frustrating. In 2024, the APPG on Fair Business Banking published a report which found that thousands of customers were being debanked each month, often as a result of financial, regulatory and reputational pressures on banks. Shortly afterwards, the Treasury Committee published data showing that debanking-related complaints to the Financial Ombudsman Service had risen by 44% from 2023. These figures should concern us as they suggest a more systemic problem.
There are also particular groups that appear to be disproportionately affected: individuals with links to higher-risk jurisdictions, politically exposed persons such as ourselves, small businesses, charities and organisations with international connections—at a time when we are trying to encourage overseas investment. A further group the Government should examine closely is defence companies. A survey by ADS, the trade body representing 1,500 small defence companies, found that nearly three-quarters had struggled to access basic banking services, with respondents citing reputational concerns as a key factor behind that trend. I think I will return to this subject when we come to debate the financial services Bill.
These groups are not necessarily illegitimate customers yet, in practice, they seem to be treated, with the way in which the current regime operates, as though they are inherently suspect. Given the Government’s stated priorities of driving economic growth and increasing defence spending, this is surely an issue to which the Minister should be paying close attention. What consideration have the Government given to the impact of the AML regime on these groups? What steps are being taken to ensure that banks do not respond to regulatory pressure by simply excluding legitimate customers? Does the Minister accept that, if increasing numbers of affected customers are turning to the Financial Ombudsman Service, there is a strong case for looking at not just individual complaints but the structure of the regime itself? I asked that question at the beginning of my remarks.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I have just been musing on something that the noble Lord said that I think I wrote down correctly: namely, that stamp duty reserve tax liability does not indicate a significant link to the UK. We need to consider that statement in the context of how much UK infrastructure and its essential services have been privatised. I am thinking of water companies and infrastructure construction: indeed, large-scale defence companies in foreign ownership. I will understand if the Minister wants to write to me. I am not necessarily asking for a direct answer now, but what provisions do the Government have to make sure that this weakening of the regulation does not open up the ownership of some of those things that in the current geopolitical climate are of grave concern from a security aspect?
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
First, this is not a weakening of the regulation but a balanced approach that we take in this whole area. I will set out the arguments in greater form for the noble Baroness and write to her with the specifics.
King’s Speech
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank everyone who has participated in this interesting debate, even if we know that the country’s attention is largely directed otherwise today. No, I am not talking about what is happening within the Labour Party but in many areas around the country, the politics that has the most immediate impact on the lives of people and communities is changing.
New councillors and new leaders of councils are settling into their roles: 587 of them are Green councillors, two of them our first Green elected mayors. In Hackney, Waltham Forest, Norwich, Hastings and Lewisham, Greens are settling into control of those councils. In news just in, the Green Party’s Matt Jenkins has just been elected leader of Worcestershire County Council, displacing a chaotic Reform Party leadership. He will no doubt be working closely in Worcester city with the wonderful 26 year-old musician Tor Pingree, who is taking over as mayor. As Greens, we are really showing that politics can be done differently, and Worcester woman, and many others, are taking note. I must also note the imbalance between the votes just cast and the number of Greens in your Lordships’ Chamber. It would be nice if that could change in the near future.
I turn to the specifics of today’s debate. I try to praise where I can, so I am pleased to see the desire to build a closer partnership with the EU. I hope that very soon we will restore, at least to our young people, some of the freedoms and opportunities they have lost since Brexit, as we need to see the country move closer to a customs union and the single market, and eventually return to membership. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, I know that the people’s democratic will is not set in stone: it does not last for decades or centuries; it can change. I know that the public understand that if you are in a hole, you should not keep digging.
On our main subject, the economy, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Burns, who offered the Chamber a sombre, realistic view of the UK’s prospects as a middle-ranking power with an ageing population in a world of long-term “global slowdown”, in which
“it looks as though that pattern will continue”.
That showed a realism that we might expect from the Cross Benches but which we urgently need other corners of the House to grasp. The noble Lord also acknowledged—I thank him for recognising that there are alternative economic views to those that have put us in this mess—that not everyone in this Chamber regards growth as the holy grail.
We are not hearing from the Tory Benches or the Labour Front Bench any assessment of whose growth it is. Is it the few getting richer while the rest of us get poorer? Are we building up even further an unstable, insecure financial sector that concentrates wealth in a few hands in a few parts of the country? Are we ensuring that our economy can endure climate, geopolitical and health shocks, and that resilience, rather than spindly, fragile poles, props up the GDP figures? What costs are being borne by exploited human bodies, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle said, or by the already parlous state of nature on these islands and around the world? What costs will future generations bear for any growth that we seek today?
The noble Baroness, Lady Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent, spoke about aiming to strengthen and reform our foundations and bring “prosperity to every corner” of the economy. That deserves to be contrasted with the Prime Minister’s introduction to the Speech, which talks about creating “more highly paid jobs”. If we want prosperity in every corner, surely we need to ensure that every job is at least decently paid—one that gives individuals and households security and stability, and the ability to live well now and plan for the future. With, after housing costs, 20% of the population living in poverty, the words we heard from the Chancellor this morning, summarised by the Guardian as,
“if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”,
will ring very hollow indeed for many people, including those in poverty and those nearing and fearing it, who find themselves running faster and faster just to barely survive economically.
What would the Greens do instead? For starters, urgent action is needed to bring down people’s bills, and we need rent controls, nationalisation of water, freezing of energy prices and the taxing of wealth. People, particularly those living economically on the edge, are being subjected to an increasingly depleted, polluted environment, which, as we are understanding more and more every day, is terrible for their health.
Where is the environment in the Speech? We have plans that are awful and indefensible, both environmentally and economically—just look at the financial carbon bubble we face already—to expand airports, build roads and slash the regulation of nuclear power plants. Whose back gardens are those plants likely to end up in? Not those in Chelsea or the Cotswolds, we can be sure. My noble friend Lady Jones will cover more of this next week. Additionally, in the promised regulating for growth Bill, we have a vow to “strengthen the growth duty” for Natural England, the Environment Agency and the Health and Safety Executive. The Government are lining up with the Tory Benches with an ideological attachment to so-called slashing red tape, an approach that has left us with the unhealthy nation we have now.
Your Lordships’ House has heard me speak often on chemicals regulation, an issue raised this morning by Greenpeace, counting the more than 100 pesticides likely to have been sprayed on your Sunday roast, seven of which are banned in the EU. We might at least see some positive steps there, but I come back to the health of the population—our ageing population. Why is there nothing about this in the Speech and the Government’s presentations of it? Healthy life expectancy in the UK—the average number of years a person can expect to live in good health—fell by two years in the past decade. Healthy life expectancy has now fallen below the state pension age of 66 in more than 90% of areas. In more than one in 10 local areas, healthy life expectancy is below 55 years.
What else is missing? Those who advocate for animal welfare are rightly fuming at one gaping hole. As recently as December 2025, Defra published its Animal Welfare Strategy for England, a document that sets out a series of commitments intended to raise standards, strengthen protections and position the UK as a global leader in animal welfare. In its 2024 election manifesto, Labour promised to
“improve access to nature, promote biodiversity, and protect our landscapes and wildlife”.
Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, can tell me more about the Government’s plans to deliver on this, given they are missing from the Speech.
I also have to mention a report out this week about the state of our universities from the Education Select Committee. It warns that the Government have no clear plans for universities facing insolvency or protections for students who could be caught in that trap. The committee says that 24 universities are at risk of insolvency and closure within 12 months. Many of them, of course, are economically crucial to the communities in which they are placed.
Finally, there are a couple of other missing things. I declare my vice-presidency of the National Association of Local Councils. The Government promised to act on remote and hybrid council meetings, but that is lacking, as are measures to strengthen the framework for standards.
I started with local government and I return to it as the levels of government that, with adequate resources and power, could strengthen many of the foundations of our society—the health of our people, the supply of healthy food, the support for vulnerable children and adults—and rebuild our society in a way that Whitehall, at least under successive legacy parties, has demonstrated it is unable to do, and which this Speech, whether the legislative programme is delivered or whether we have a whole new one in a few weeks, is certainly not going to do.
Secondary International Competitiveness and Growth Objective (FSR Committee Report)
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts(3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, in following the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, I thank him for giving me the opportunity to reflect on the life of Adam Smith. The noble Lord said that Adam Smith wrote that it was not benevolence that ensured that he got his dinner. I point the noble Lord to a book by the Swedish feminist writer Katrine Marçal, Who Cooked Adam Smith’s Dinner? Through all his life, not just when he was a child but including when he was writing The Wealth of Nations, the answer was his mother. The benevolence of his mother kept Adam Smith fed all through her life. Perhaps we should think a bit more about benevolence and caring and those aspects of our society. The inability to see that is, of course, one of the great faults of our current mainstream economics.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, for her clear introduction and I thank her and her committee for their labours, even though I come at the issues covered in this report largely from a different perspective, one that is not represented in the report, although it is widely represented in civil society by organisations such as Positive Money, the Finance Innovation Lab, Transparency International and Spotlight on Corruption. While the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, and I often agree, I have respectfully to disagree with his statement that we all want to see lighter-touch regulation. I do not agree with that statement. I will, however, commend the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, for raising concerns about the engines of systemic collapse that we face and his commitment to radical institutional reform that is so urgently needed.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Mayo, who asked whether in the future the economy will be bigger, smaller or the same, I think that there is a far more important question than that. Will the economy—our financial systems, enterprises and activities on these islands—be able to feed us, house us and not threaten the security and stability of our society and state or those of other states on this single, fragile planet on which we all depend? Will the financial sector be harming or threatening us or supporting our well-being and survival?
It is notable that I am one of few speakers in this debate who does not have to declare financial interests or a past record of working in the financial sector. That is a grave pity. I address this comment to noble Lords who are not in the Committee today but perhaps are reading Hansard tomorrow. It is far too important to the state of our country—to the issues of poverty, inequality, housing and food security, which I will come back to—for these issues of financial regulation to be left only to insiders. These are crucial issues for all of society and we need far broader perspectives on them.
On those broader perspectives, during the passage of the now enacted Financial Services and Markets Bill, I spoke at Second Reading, in Committee and on Report against the inclusion of a competitiveness and growth objective for the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority. In its report, the committee focuses on
“the progress made in driving the regulators”—
the word “driving” is interesting—
“to support growth, both in the financial services sector and, crucially, in the wider UK economy … while maintaining the UK’s position as a global financial centre with a robust financial regulatory system”.
As I said at Second Reading, the final cause or aim—robust regulation—is essentially incompatible with growing the sector. Corruption and fraud are so enmeshed in the system that growing it inevitably means growing financial crime, and our regulatory approach is failing to address that. As I said in Committee, we should aim for a more secure financial sector that provides useful, effective and safe services to individuals and the real economy.
As organisations such as the International Monetary Fund have reported, there is an optimal size for a country’s financial sector, at which it provides the services that an economy and population need. Expansion beyond this size causes damage, increases inequality, boosts criminal behaviour and creates many other ills. Among those ills is what is broadly known as the London laundromat—the dirty and corrupt money of oligarchs and dictators that is being deposited, held and, all too often, washed here in London.
That is not in any of our interests. Nor is the level of risk in this age of shocks—geopolitical, climate, health and more. I note that the headline in today’s Financial Times:
“America has become an agent of chaos in world energy markets”.
And it is not just energy markets, of course. It is telling that, as the Evening Standard reports this week, the new Iranian leader of a theocratic, dictatorial, deadly-to-its-own-people regime, Mojtaba Khamenei, the successor to his father, Ali Khamenei, is said to own high-end Kensington properties through associates. They are apartments situated on the sixth and seventh floors of a building close to Kensington Palace and believed to be worth more than £50 million—although there are also servants’ quarters on the ground floor.
Regarding the current lack of regulation and the level of risk taking, a report in today’s Financial Times is headlined:
“Collapse of UK bridging loan specialist has sent reverberations across Wall St amid fears of weak underwriting standards”.
It refers to the refinancing merry-go-round of Market Financial Solutions, into which Barclays, Jefferies, Santander and many others put hundreds of millions of pounds before it suddenly collapsed last month amid allegations of fraud and double pledging of collateral, with creditors claiming a shortfall of £1.3 billion, and about £283 million unaccounted for.
My focus would be not, as in recommendation 1 from the committee, the cost of compliance but rather the costs and risks of non-compliance. These are practical costs and reputational costs, as the UK seeks to establish its place in a fast-changing, unstable geopolitical environment. I note in that context that the latest Corruption Perceptions Index from Transparency International shows that Britain has been slipping down the rankings since 2015. We were in seventh place then, and we are now in 20th place, with a score of 70 out of 100. That is a scoring of our financial regulation and how the outside world sees this.
Lest it be thought that I am picking just one example, I note that some other work by Transparency International identified a £40 million central London commercial property held by a company controlled by a trustee who is a member of a Singaporean money laundering gang serving time in jail, as well as £55 million-worth of commercial property owned by a former Malaysian Finance Minister via trusts—he died before a criminal trial into his wealth could take place.
I have identified areas in which I very much disagree with the committee, and I will now pick up some points with which I agree to some degree, particularly that made by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, and touched on by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes: the failure of the financial sector to actually serve the real economy. I am drawing here particularly on excellent work by Positive Money and the figure that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, mentioned: only 6.6% of bank lending last year went towards productive investment in the real economy.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
As I was saying, only 6.6% of bank lending last year went towards productive industries in the real economy— I am basing this on Positive Money. The group used the Bank of England’s annual money and credit statistics to find that net lending to productive industries increased by just £9 billion last year, compared with £52 billion for mortgages and £68 billion for the finance, insurance and real estate sectors.
To break that down, lending to electricity, gas and water industries made up more than half of the increase among all the productive industries. I have to slightly question the “productive” label, given that we know that the privatised water sector in particular has seen a huge amount of payments out in terms of dividends and fat-cat pay and has continued to be loaded down with debt. There is a question over how productive that actually is. Manufacturers and transportation firms did indeed see a small uptick in credit, which is encouraging, but lending to the wholesale and retail trade fell by £1.8 billion—a decline for the fourth year running. In these figures—this picks up points made by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell—mortgages accounted for 57% of bank lending and the FIRE sectors for 28% of lending. We are seeing a real misallocation of resources if we come back to the questions with which I started: is the financial sector making sure that we can feed ourselves, house ourselves and be secure in a very uncertain world?
One of the other things that this is very much associated with, as Positive Money often draws attention to, is rising inequality. For people who own assets, this lending funds further increases in the price of those assets, while people without assets are left even further behind. In fact, it is interesting that mortgages are the only type of lending that has seen significant increases in outstanding credit since the last financial crisis. This is one of the main reasons why property prices have skyrocketed. It is of course very clearly interlinked with the housing crisis that is affecting so many millions of people.
I will conclude with a point that I do not believe anyone else has raised but that I think is important. It is about the importance of financial education, and I entirely agree with the committee in its recommendation on this. I note this with regard to the Department for Education, as there is now an independent curriculum review. This surely has to be part of that review in focusing on ensuring that our schools provide education for life, to help people to live rather than just for exams or just for jobs. I also agree with the recommendations— I think the Government broadly agreed too—that the Treasury must work with the FCA and the industry to support adult education about finance. There is a huge inequality of arms in the information that consumers have when they are faced with the financial sector.
The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, raised the issue of cryptocurrencies. That is perhaps a particularly extreme area where we are seeing the targeting of younger people and people from minoritised communities, but, for everybody, many feel a real fear when confronted with having to deal with the financial sector, particularly online. Increasingly, of course, most dealings are online. This is something that stresses people out. They worry about being ripped off or about being the subject of fraud—of course, we are the global fraud capital. Giving the public—consumers—the tools to try to somewhat level the playing field with the financial sector is a crucial point on which I can entirely agree with the committee.
Barnett Formula: Wales
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts(7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
I would dispute what the noble Baroness has just said—I do not recognise that picture of what is going on in Wales. Obviously, the increase in the amount of funding that will go to Wales through the Barnett formula is welcome. As I pointed out, there is more direct funding to Wales as well, such as the £80 million for port investment to support floating offshore wind developments in Port Talbot, and £160 million each over 10 years for investment zones in Cardiff city region and Wrexham and Flintshire. There is a lot going on in Wales, there is a lot to be proud of, and there is a lot for the Welsh Government to boast about.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
We will hear from the noble Baroness.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
The strengthened representation and increased democracy we are about to see in Wales with the Senedd elections under the new system surely add further weight to the needs-based argument of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, for looking again at improving the Barnett formula for Wales. Should the elected people closest to the voters, truly representing them, not have adequate resources to deliver on their aspirations?
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
To repeat what I have said before, Wales and the other devolved authorities have done really well out of the Barnett formula this time around. It is the biggest increase in their funding from the Barnett formula since 1998. The money is there and it is up to the elected Assembly to decide how it is going to spend it, so that democracy is there. All I can say is that the best result we could get at the next election is a Labour Assembly.
Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 (Mutual Recognition Agreement) (Switzerland) Regulations 2025
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this statutory instrument, which, as he said, implements the UK’s commitment to the agreement between the UK and the Swiss Confederation on mutual recognition in financial services.
I note that the explanation of the SI says that it will, as the Minister said, allow the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority to essentially oversee and ensure that nothing is going wrong and have oversight of Swiss operations here. That is perhaps not as reassuring as one might hope. I note a report in the Times yesterday that the Financial Conduct Authority had privately shared concerns about the 79th Group with the City of London Police eight months before the group collapsed, owing thousands of people more than £200 million. It is, to quote the Times,
“suspected of being one of the largest Ponzi schemes in British history”.
I note for the record that the company denies any wrongdoing. None the less, the Financial Conduct Authority appears to have had concerns but did not share those with consumers, who are clearly now very much paying the price.
It is worth reflecting that it is a little bit surprising that, as the Minister said, this reflects an agreement that was struck in December 2023 by the previous Government. They said that this was a
“ground-breaking pact on financial services cooperation”
and that it would enable
“frictionless, cross-border provision of financial services between the UK and Switzerland”.
It is interesting that a Government who have been elected on a promise of change now appear to be delivering exactly the agenda with the same kind of terminology as that of the previous Government who they replaced.
It is important to put on the record and focus on the reality of Swiss banking, which is deeply corrupt and non-transparent. If we take, for example, the Tax Justice Network’s financial secrecy index, Switzerland ranks second, and that is not a good result—it is second worst. The UK ranks at number 20, which is relatively good comparatively. Yet we now appear to be seamlessly linking up these two systems, linking our system into a more secret system, with considerable risks. Switzerland also ranks fifth on the Tax Justice Network’s corporate tax haven index, so it is complicit in multinational companies’ tax abuse in particular. The Tax Justice Network estimates the cost to other countries of the Swiss operations to be $21 billion a year.
Perhaps this is a specific question to the Minister. As regards the worldwide rise of automatic exchange of information notes in the past decade or so, in which Governments are supposed to exchange relevant financial information with their peers to help them enforce criminal and tax laws, Switzerland has carved out exceptions to these so-called AEOI notes. So, Article 47 of the Federal Act on Banks and Article 127 of the direct federal tax Act, which still provide for secrecy, have not changed. That is going to be accessing our system and under Swiss law we will not be able to see what is happening. There has been talk of using trusts to replace some of the secrecy instead, but of course trusts are one of the issues that are a major problem.
I note in particular the work of Maria-Gabriella Sarmiento—I do not know whether the Minister has seen this, but I certainly encourage him to look at it—who completed a PhD at the University of Zaragoza about the estimated losses of between $20 and $40 billion for corruption practices, of which Switzerland is a significant destination for that money. Over 20 years,
“assets from at least 33 jurisdictions have been traced to Swiss banks … primarily proceeds of grand corruption, money laundering and other crimes”,
with their estimated values ranging between $112 billion and $514 billion.
The reality is, of course, that the UK and Switzerland are quite similar: they have expansive banking sectors, sophisticated wealth management services and market high-value assets. They are prime destinations for the corrupt to stash their money. To take one practical example from Transparency International, Carlos de São Vicente, a former CEO of a partially state-owned insurance company in Angola, embezzled more than $1.2 billion through Bermuda-registered companies; he then transferred substantial sums to Switzerland. That is one case where someone has been found out, but it is a sample of what a great many people we know are doing without being found out and without me being able to name the details.
I note also that, in 2023, Swiss regulators inspected their institutions and found that 50% had largely unsatisfactory anti-money laundering systems. I do not know whether the Minister can tell me whether there have been significant improvements in that area of money laundering since then.
It is very sad that this important statutory instrument is getting so little attention and focus and that it is happening in this Room, because it is crucial. We have to situate this in the context of the grave concerns—it is not just me who is expressing them—about the state of financial stability in our current system, for all kinds of reasons that I will not go into here. This is about linking up two systems that have great problems with corruption and a lack of transparency—two of the biggest systems in the world—and I cite a former Conservative Minister saying that 40% of the world’s dirty money goes through the City of London and the British Crown dependencies. I do not have a comparable figure for Switzerland, but I have no doubt that it is significant. We are linking up these two sets of money flows, which has to be a concern.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, this statutory instrument gives legal effect to the mutual recognition agreement between the UK and Switzerland known as the Bern financial services agreement. As the Minister has so clearly outlined, the agreement enables the UK and Swiss financial firms to provide services to each other’s markets, particularly in wholesale sectors, such as investment services, insurance and banking, without needing to establish a local presence or duplicate regulatory approvals.
The UK’s position as a global financial centre depends on maintaining strong transparent relationships with trusted international partners. We therefore welcome this agreement with Switzerland, developed on our watch. Mutual recognition, when accompanied by effective supervision and regulatory co-operation, can deliver meaningful benefits to both markets. Under this agreement, Swiss firms will be able to operate in the UK under the supervision of Swiss regulators, with the FCA and PRA granted powers to step in if issues arise—as the Minister explained. The same applies to UK firms offering services in Switzerland.
With that in mind, I would be grateful if the Minister could address the following points. First, I would like to probe the Swiss end. Has Switzerland yet put in place what is needed there to allow UK firms to benefit from mutual recognition? If not, when will this be done? What are the nature and scale of benefits to the UK financial institutions? That seems an important point.
Secondly, turning to our end, how confident are the Government that UK regulators have the necessary tools to monitor Swiss firms’ activities and act swiftly if concerns emerge? What protections are in place for UK clients—not only high net-worth individuals but small firms—should something go wrong?
Thirdly, on timing, why has it taken nearly two years from signing the agreement in December 2023 to putting this framework in place? Has there been a problem with the regulators not being ready or is the Treasury not working at pace?
I was grateful for the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, to my Question on 16 September, reporting that, by July this year, 51% of assimilated EU law—most of it in financial services—had been repealed, amended or replaced. This was a much lower figure than I had hoped for, given the importance of financial services to growth. I am not sure whether the Swiss regulations—the one set that we are debating and the negative set that is not being debated—will be included in the count in that definition, but the point about pace generally is important. The Official Opposition have been supportive of the transformation process, and there is no excuse for delay.
No doubt the Minister will respond on some of the reservations of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and perhaps explain how things have improved in Switzerland over time. But I note that there will be information sharing as part of the deal, which is important. However, how will Parliament be kept informed of the operation of this agreement, particularly in the event of regulatory diversion or dispute, or a bad case of the kind that was asked about?
In conclusion, we support efforts to deepen co-operation with trusted international partners in financial services, but it is vital that it is done without compromising consumer protection or financial stability, and that it delivers the trading benefits that we all hope to see. I look forward to the Minister’s response, ideally today but otherwise in writing.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I will ask a fairly technical question, so I will entirely understand if the noble Lord wishes to write to me about it. In his response, he said that this SI avoids duplicating regulatory burdens, but he also said that the Swiss companies would be covered by our anti-money laundering laws. As I referred to in my original contribution, my understanding is that transparency is avoided under Swiss law. I do not claim to be an expert on Swiss law; obviously I am taking advice here. Article 47 of the federal Act on banks and Article 127 of the direct federal tax Act effectively allow Swiss institutions to avoid scrutiny and reporting. But we are then saying that this will have to be covered by our anti-money laundering laws. As I said, I am not expecting the noble Lord to give me a response now, but could he commit to write to me about that issue of transparency and anti-money laundering, as well as how we can avoid duplication and ensure that we have our own anti-money laundering regulations?
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
Obviously, I will write with further detail but, as I said, the regulators will be held to account for what they do. This requires transparency—that is one of our stipulations—but I can write to the noble Baroness with further detail about that.
Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 (Capital Buffers and Macro-prudential Measures) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2025
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts(9 months, 1 week ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for outlining what he identified as a very technical and detailed set of two instruments. I came into the Committee not sure whether I was going to speak or not. I listened very carefully to the Minister’s tone and, as I was doing that, I was looking at the Bank of England’s financial stability report from July 2025. It said that uncertainty around the global outlook has intensified. It says of financial markets that they have been highly volatile. Weakness in non-bank finance can amplify risk. It says of UK households and businesses that, overall, they continue to be resilient. I am not quite sure that that, particularly the last one on households, reflects the experience that many people who are listening to this Committee have—if they are very bored this afternoon. None the less, there we are.
Some of the things that the Minister said in the introduction concerned me slightly. One of them started with “widely supported by industry”. We are hopefully thinking about the national interest rather than just the interests of the financial sector and, perhaps, the wilder reaches of the financial sector. It was described as essential for companies operating these core businesses. We are talking about complex financial instrument derivatives here. From the words of the Minister, it is clear that the Government are heading in the same direction as the previous Government.
Of course, not just the apparent complexion of the Government but the global situation has changed tremendously, so I have one question for the Minister. Are the Government keeping under constant review the foundational conditions in which the financial sector is operating and ensuring that everything they do is not increasing the level of risks that the financial sector presents to the security of us all?
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I recognise that these two statutory instruments deal with technical measures and in and of themselves have limited impact. They are essentially a tidy-up of the text to reflect broader changes made since Brexit to the financial regulatory system. The FSMA 2023 SI transfers to the PRA responsibility for setting the capital buffers that banks are required to hold in addition to minimum capital requirements. The PRA is a strong regulator, but it has taken a series of measures to move in the direction of lighter touch, motivated by its competitiveness and growth objective. I have spoken before about my concern that the PRA, for example, is increasingly willing to turn a blind eye to the illiquidity of assets. When powers are transferred to the PRA, as they are by this SI, a significant measure of transparency, accountability and parliamentary oversight disappears. Capital buffers are critical to the stability of the banking system, and I remain concerned when parliamentary oversight in this key area is significantly weakened, as it is by the measures that both surround and are then captured by this SI.
The second statutory instrument deals with the markets in financial instruments and again affects a transfer of power and responsibility, this time to both the FCA and the PRA. Once again, it is a move to a less transparent and less accountable system. The rules can now be changed, presumably in line with the smarter regulatory framework that the Government have put forward, and they both allow divergence from the EU and a lighter-touch approach. Divergence has its own risk, as it has implications for cross-border business, and Parliament will not have a voice any more than as a significant consultee. Frankly, experience suggests that the regulators look at Parliament’s views in these consultations and treat them as relatively irrelevant compared to the views of industry.
I note that the Minister described the regulators as expert, independent regulators. He would have used exactly that same phrasing before the 2007 crash, and we still live with the repercussions of that crash. Blind trust in the regulator is exceedingly inadvisable. I have tried in previous speeches to list some of the erosions of protections that were introduced after the crash. They include: the competitiveness and growth objective for regulators; the changing to matching adjustment; insolvency UK; significantly increasing the illiquidity of the insurance sector; the removal of the cap on bankers’ bonuses; the permanent permission for pension funds to transact derivatives without using central counterparties, thereby avoiding putting in place margin collateral, which puts them seriously at risk in any kind of financial volatility in unstable times; the watering down of the senior managers’ regime, which is key to accountability; the weakening of the financial ombudsman; the pressure on pension funds to invest in high-risk, illiquid assets; and the uncertainty that now exists around bank ring-fencing.
That is a partial list of the erosions that I have been able to pick up, and I am sure that, if the Government sat down and thought about it, they could come up with a far longer list and perhaps even suggest that this was a huge positive. But it is notable that Parliament will have no further say, now that these SIs have gone through, any more than just an ordinary consultee, in a further erosion of these various protections. Frankly, while Parliament will get reports that will allow it to look at the impact, that will be very much in retrospect, which I suggest is very late in the day.
I repeat a request that I have made before for the Government to publish a compendium of the changes that have been made that increase risk in the financial sector and a look at those risk implications. My view is that, without that degree of transparency, Parliament cannot do its proper job.
Palestine Statehood (Recognition) Bill [HL]
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle ExcerptsFriday 14th March 2025
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Palestine Statehood (Recognition) Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Palestine Statehood (Recognition) Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, yesterday your Lordships’ House was debating the UK’s global position. The noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, who called the debate, spoke about the need to work with the neo-non-aligned nations, the majority of the world’s states and people, who wish neither to cling to the coattails of the chaotic court of President Trump and answer to his whims nor to fall into the strangling gasp of the autocracies of Presidents Putin and Xi. These are states that wish to continue to uphold human rights and the rule of law, the norms hard won by campaigners and activists over past decades.
The question yesterday was essentially: what can the UK do as a middle-ranked power? Where should we position ourselves? Today we have the chance, thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, to offer a direct, important, practical course of action: the recognition of the state of Palestine. As many noble Lords have noted, this aligns with the Labour Party manifesto from the recent election and with a majority of those neo-non-aligned states, 146 in total, which already recognise the state of Palestine. We are the laggards here and, as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, pointed out, we do not have to wait for this Bill to go through all our parliamentary procedures. I join the noble Lord’s call for the Government to immediately recognise the state of Palestine.
We have had a powerful and important debate and I do not intend to go over the ground that has already been extensively covered. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, that the need for the Palestinian people to have state recognition has never been so acute. I also agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Bolton, that the recognition of the Palestinian state should be the first step, not the last, particularly with the looming gangsterish threats of the court in Washington which have suggested the reverse of self-determination, seemingly casually suggesting that the Palestinian people should be cleared out of Gaza.
As many noble Lords have indicated, recognition does not show support for any group or organisation within Palestine. It is a recognition of the need of the Palestinian people for a Palestinian state. Who might that be for? A Human Rights Watch report from January this year, “Five Babies in One Incubator”: Violations of Pregnant Women’s Rights Amid Israel’s Assault on Gaza, tells the story of RM, a 31 year-old who was two months pregnant on 7 October 2023. She almost starved through her pregnancy, could not get adequate perinatal care and, after enduring a difficult labour, was forced to leave hospital after four hours and beg for a lift home. She and her family were then forced to evacuate their home and, at last report, were living in a tent, the newborn baby suffering from diarrhoea.
State recognition of course will not meet the medical needs of RM and her baby, but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, said, it would offer a gesture of hope. It would be something we could and should do.
National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle ExcerptsTuesday 25th February 2025
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Act 2024-26 View all National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Act 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 56-R-I(Rev)(a) Manuscript amendments for Report - (25 Feb 2025)
Lord Sharkey (LD)
My Lords, this amendment, in the names of my noble friend Lady Kramer and myself, adds to the list of exemptions from the proposed increase in employer national insurance contributions. I thought I would make that clear at the outset, although I see that the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, is temporarily not in his place.
The arguments in favour of the nine proposed exemptions in this amendment were discussed in some detail in Committee. What the nine exemptions have in common is that they protect services that are vital to community life and are likely to suffer grave damage if the higher employer NIC is introduced. These services include early years education, charities, housing associations and town and parish councils. Each of these organisations makes a vital contribution to our communal life, and they also have in common the fact that most have no—or no significant—money. The proposed ENIC increase will inevitably reduce the critical services they provide, in many cases to the most disadvantaged in our communities.
The list of exemptions in our amendment also includes further and higher education, and I declare an interest as a member of council at UCL. Both our FE and HE institutions are in grave financial difficulties. This has been true for many years for our somewhat neglected FE sector and is now also obviously true for our higher education sector. The country’s future prosperity and its prospects for growth depend very largely upon these sectors being properly and sustainably funded. If we want a skilled and upskilled workforce, then FE colleges have a vital and irreplaceable role to play, but to play that role they need adequate funding.
I did ask, in Committee, about the funding arrangements for the FE sector. The Minister replied last week. He noted, by way of preamble, that the Government would
“provide support for departments and other public sector employers for additional employer national insurance contributions”.
He does not say what “support” means. He does say that the Autumn Budget provided an additional £300 million in revenue for funding for FEs for the financial year 2025-26
“to ensure young people are developing the skills this country needs”.
He does not say to what extent this will mitigate the imposition of the higher employer national insurance contribution. Could I therefore ask him again to tell us, when he replies: what percentage of the increase in the employer national insurance contribution will be mitigated by the allocation of funds from this £300 million, both in the short term from April to July this year and in the academic year 2025-26?
The Minister’s reply to my Committee stage question also includes a mention of the rise of £285 per annum in student fees chargeable by HEIs from the academic year 2025-26. This will not be enough to sustain our higher education sector. As I mentioned in Committee, our universities are already showing signs of deep financial distress. I noted then that nearly three quarters of institutions are expected to run deficits in the next academic year, and 40% have less than a month’s liquidity. I also noted that three Russell group research-intensive universities—Cardiff, Durham and Newcastle—had joined the long list of universities cutting jobs and costs. Now, Edinburgh has joined them in also announcing cuts, and I hear that at least one eminent university is close to breaching its banking covenants, with all the usual consequences. It is no surprise that it is estimated that 10,000 jobs will go this year.
This is a genuine crisis and it is made worse by the proposed increase in employer national insurance contributions. This new ENIC levy completely wipes out and more any net increase arising from the increase in student fees. The UK has four of the world’s top 10 universities and 16 of the world’s top 100 universities. We absolutely need to have our universities prosper and to be sustainably funded if we are to continue to be a world-class centre for education and research and to contribute to the growth that we so obviously need. Our amendment would, at least, prevent the already perilous situation from getting worse while the Government devise a new and sustainable funding arrangement.
Our amendment also excludes any SMEs and the hospitality sector from the rise in ENICs. SMEs are the wellspring of our economy and of its future. Some 60% of all jobs are provided by SMEs and these companies, almost by definition, are those that will have most difficulty absorbing the proposed rise in the ENIC rates. Significant job losses are inevitable. This matters not only because any job lost is regrettable but because SMEs are the engines of growth, renewal and innovation in our economy, and they create the jobs. Large corporations may be easier for government and Whitehall to deal with, but they are, and have been for a long time, net destroyers of jobs.
Many of the jobs created by SMEs will, of course, be in the hospitality sector, which this amendment also excludes from the proposed rise in contributions. Many of those jobs in the hospitality sector—currently around 350,000—are held by people under 25. For many, this will be their first job and the first step on a career ladder. To keep all these young people in employment after the proposed ENIC rise would nearly double the employers’ costs from £82 million to £153 million. We should protect these young entry-level employees from job losses by exempting their employers from the proposed NIC rise. I beg to move.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 8 in my name and Amendment 41 in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool. This is the first time I have taken part on Report but I sat and listened carefully to the entire debate on the first group, which covered a lot of the issues that relate particularly to Amendment 8.
Amendment 8 has a very simple and clear purpose, even though the technicalities are quite technical. It aims to delay for one year the introduction of the raised level of national insurance for all registered charities. Other amendments in this group deal with smaller charities and others with groups of organisations, many of which may be charities, but this is an exemption for one year for all charities.
I want to take on a couple of points made by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell. I am not quite sure which amendments he was counting in his 38, but I strongly assert that neither Amendment 8 nor Amendment 41 could in any way be described as a wrecking amendment, because they do not affect the Government’s long-term economic policy or plans. They mean that for one year the Government would not receive, in their own estimate, £1.4 billion.
I tabled the same amendment in Committee and did not get an answer from the Minister to my question; I would be interested to hear any response tonight. It was on a point raised in the first group of amendments. If charities go under or are forced to slash their services, how much are the Government going to have to fund through other means—through social care, government provision or whatever mechanisms? I do not have the capacity to put a figure on that, but it seems likely that there may not be very much difference between those two figures.
I tabled this in Committee because of the CEO of a fairly large charity with whom I happened to be having dinner. We were not having a deeply political, detailed discussion. She simply said to me, “If I just had one year to sort this out, I would have half a chance”. It is interesting that the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Nottingham, who is not currently in his place, said in the debate on the first group that so many organisations— I think he was specifically referring to charities—were encountering this unexpected expense. It is the suddenness and the lack of a chance to think, “Can we shift some money into fundraising to increase the funding stream so that we can cope with this down the track?”. That is what this amendment seeks to do.
I find myself in quite an unusual position as a Green, saying that I have put forward this really moderate, reasonable amendment that is quite small in scale compared with some of the other things we are discussing here. But it is a really practical step to attempt to protect charities and all the essential services.
We heard so much passion from people who are directly involved in delivering these services from charities. I am not going to repeat that long list now, but I will just raise one point—I do not think it has been raised up to now—on the place of charity shops on our high streets. They are already struggling. We are already seeing significant closures of charity shops, faced with rising energy costs and—no one is complaining—rising staff costs due to the increase in the minimum wage. If we further hollow out our high streets by losing those charity shops, that too will have all sorts of costs that in one way or another the Government are going to have to pick up.
So that is Amendment 8. I gave notice that I was going to see how this evening went. I am currently feeling inclined to test the opinion of your Lordships’ House on it.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 9, which is in my name. I suspect that it may have been subject to pre-emption, along with Amendment 8. If the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, is surprised, I am equally surprised that I think I agree with all of her remarks. That means that I would like to focus on Amendment 4, dealing with charity revenues of less than £1 million, which I believe is not subject to pre-emption.
According to the Charity Commission website, there are about 170,000 charities in the UK, with about £100 billion of income in aggregate and 1.3 million employees. My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe wants us to concentrate on those charities with an annual revenue of below £1 million.
There is different terminology that can be used by the Charity Commission, because it talks about gross income. On average, charities’ donations and legacies are about one-third of their total income, as was the case with the Thames Hospice, which I described earlier. The rest of the income is grants, investments and so on. A charity with £1 million of revenue will probably raise only some £350,000 in donations. I calculate from the available information that the sums raised by charities with revenues of less than £1 million total some £12 billion, which is 12% of total charity income. But there are 162,000 charities with an income of under £1 million, which means that we are talking about 95% of all UK charities.
As for their spend on national insurance, it is hard to determine, because we do not know exactly how much they spend on employment. We do know how much they spend on total expenditure, which is some £12 billion. If we assume that 50% of that—it is a very generous assumption—is on employee costs, and if we assume a salary of around £25,000, because it is a low-paid sector, then my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe’s amendment would impact only 240,000 people.
To try to answer the criticisms from the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, I calculated that my noble friend’s amendment would cost the Government around £480 million—half a billion pounds. Is the Minister going to tell us that he is not prepared to protect 95% of charities for just £500 million? Does he recognise my figure? If not, what is the cost of the amendment? I invite him to join us in pausing the hike until we work out what it is, so that we can then have a meaningful discussion.
I remind the Minister that in a speech to the civil society summit last year, hosted by Pro Bono Economics, Sir Keir Starmer promised to reset the relationship between civil society and government. Is this what he meant? He said that
“for too long, your voice has been ignored”.
I have read the full speech, and he also said,
“we know it’s people on the ground, people with skin in the game, who understand the problems best and have the best answers”.
He continued in his speech to civil society leaders, which largely rubbished Tory policies, by saying,
“let’s be honest, for too long, your voice has been ignored between the shouts of the market and the state”.
Are the Prime Minister and his Ministers listening now? Those leaders are calling for this national insurance hike to be dropped.
Why would the Government want to penalise 162,000 charities, where our fellow citizens give so much of their time freely, and in many cases their cash, simply for the betterment of fellow citizens at home and abroad? It is a shameful imposition.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, on a point of clarification, I have received information that my Amendment 8 has not been pre-empted and still stands.
UK-EU Relations
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts(1 year, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I will write to the noble Lord on that point, but we are not planning to give a blow-by-blow ongoing position on where we are with negotiations. We are clear that we are resetting the relationship with our European friends, and this Government will continue to report back to Parliament, as per the Statement, so that there is the opportunity to debate this. But I note the noble Lord’s point, and I will write to him on that aspect.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, during the general election, Steve Reed, who is now the Government’s Environment Secretary, said that the Labour Party would, in government,
“ban the commercial import of foie gras, where ducks and geese are aggressively force-fed”.
Interestingly, this was also the Conservative Government’s policy pre Liz Truss, although it was never delivered. Yet, just this week, a Defra spokesperson, when asked about plans for a potential veterinary agreement with the EU, essentially responded, “No comment”. Can the Minister assure me that the Labour promise during the general election will be delivered in banning the commercial import of foie gras?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I have to say that I do not have that in my pack. I will write to the noble Baroness on that. I personally do not eat foie gras, and I know many noble Lords feel the same.
Stock Market: First-time Investors
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts(1 year, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, in following the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, I have to go briefly to a report from the Intergenerational Foundation, which notes that the current UK tax regime strongly favours unearned income over earned income.
I thank the other noble Lord, Lord Lee—with a different spelling—for securing this already interesting debate. I invite noble Lords to imagine seeing billboards on their trip home this evening, whether on the Tube or along the side of the road. They will find advertisements directed towards retail investors for investments in the stock market or elsewhere. They might see a widely smiling young woman from a minoritised community, holding the latest iPhone and looking like she has just won the Esports championship, even though the advert is for an investment app. They might see signs on these adverts saying, “Earn up to £100 as a welcome bonus”, “No minimum balance”, “Robo-advice” and “Coaching services for all”, or perhaps they will feature the old traditional piles of spilling gold coins. There is no hint here of the skills and patience to which the noble Lord, Lord Davies, referred as a necessary part of retail investing; you will not find that in those adverts.
If noble Lords have a quick look at the work of the Advertising Standards Authority, they will find plenty of rulings against companies that are not even following our limited law. They are not putting—in a small and hard-to-read font in the most obscure corner—a warning about the initial investment being at risk, or an acknowledgement that the product is not covered by protective legislation. It is the Wild West out there, and I have not even got to TikTok and Instagram, where our regulators are at least starting to catch up. Last year, there was a crackdown on so-called finfluencers, a handful of whom, with a collective Instagram following of 4.5 million, were finally caught up with. I do not have time to go into the issue of greenwashing, on which, again, our regulators are just starting to catch up.
As we were reminded just this morning, we live in an age of shocks—geopolitical, political, climate and health—which can have massive impacts on even the most apparently solid investments. What is solid today? As our always clear and succinct Library briefing says:
“Retail investors are often advised not to buy shares unless they can afford not to access that money for more than five years, to give stock prices time to recover if they should fall”.
But that assumes, in this age of rapid technological, social and political change, that they will recover. I start in this debate from a position of concern about the existing vulnerability, under current arrangements, of so many retail investors in today’s world. I do not think that we are in a position to boost, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies, suggested; rather, we should be thinking about better protections.
There is one thing that the noble Lord, Lord Lee—to my left—and I can certainly agree on: that financial education in UK schools is abysmal. I have noted already that the Financial Times regard it as so bad that it made it the subject of last year’s Christmas’s appeal. But I suspect the noble Lord might find that financial education would not have the effect that he desires. Understanding of the financial system might well produce more concern about it—a rejection of it, as much as engagement.
I certainly hope that is the case with cryptocurrencies, on which more education is urgently needed. This was demonstrated by the newsworthy fact today that, as calculated by three blockchain analysis firms, entities behind President Donald Trump’s crypto coin have accumulated close to $100 million in trading fees in less than two weeks. Meanwhile, tens of thousands of small traders have lost, if not quite their shirts, two-thirds of their “investments”.