Over the Counter Derivatives, Central Counterparties and Trade Repositories (Amendment, etc., and Transitional Provision) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

Monday 4th February 2019 Grand Committee

The essence of the financial markets and insolvency regulations is to prevent clawback in insolvency situations, which is presently automatic for non-UK EEA members. This will fall away on exit day, but this SI gives the Bank of England power to designate, and there is a temporary designation regime with the traditional format of three years and 12 months. However, does this create an asymmetric situation? Do UK firms participating in EEA countries receive the same protection?

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

This is quite an important question. At the moment, LCH is the dominant clearing house globally and it is certainly the dominant player for any euro-denominated transactions. There is a shift under way to take some of this activity to Paris. The real question for a lot of the UK players is whether they have to relocate part of their operation to Paris to be able to play in both parts of what will become a much more fragmented European clearing system. That matters a lot for terms of compression and deciding what levels of margin companies have to keep. The reciprocal play matters. Today, the Bank of England and ESMA signed an MoU on how they will regulate these central counterparties. I do not know whether, or to what extent, that is the context. Am I being clear? No, I am being confusing.

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

No, that is very good. It might turn my casual question into quite a substantial one.

I notice that all the Treasury SIs that the Committee has discussed say that there will be no consolidation and no guidance. I do not know how we can carry on like this. I have found it absolutely impossible to understand the overall scene that these SIs relate to. The scrutiny that one is able to give is therefore entirely dependent on the Explanatory Memorandums. As a generality, these assume quite significant previous knowledge and it is an uphill battle to get a feel for these SIs and to give them the appropriate scrutiny.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Young of Cookham]

Again, I take that seriously. Would the noble Lord allow me to make some inquiries within the machinery of government in this House to find out what exactly went wrong there? I understand that they were delivered to the Printed Paper Office on Friday.

[Baroness Kramer]

Having gone to the Printed Paper Office myself well into the afternoon, I know that if the Printed Paper Office had received them, it was not aware it had, so there is something there that needs investigation.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

We need a post-mortem on this, which I will authorise.

In response to the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, regarding the numbers on the impact assessment, and how they relate to trade repositories, I say that there are eight trade repositories operating in the EEA that are in scope of familiarisation costs. The impact assessment confirmed that we anticipate that the IT costs for those TRs will be approximately £10,000 to £15,000 per TR—although this cost is also dependent on the size of the TR—and, for firms that will need to update their systems, £5,000 per firm. Costs to the FCA associated with supervising the trade repositories, as well as new IT systems to connect to trade repositories, would be approximately £500,000 per trade repository, although this cost is also dependent on their size. The impact assessment also acknowledged that there may be other costs associated with trade repositories connecting to the Bank of England.

I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, and it may have also been the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, who asked about the FCA’s power to suspend the need to report if there were no trade repositories. That is most unlikely. There are a number of trade repositories in the UK and there are arrangements in the legislation to passport them so they carry on. There are also arrangements for relatively speedily authorising any new TRs. It was slightly odd that a city such as the City of London did not have any TRs, so we think it most unlikely that the FCA will utilise its power to suspend reporting obligations against that background.

In the earlier debate, the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, asked me whether the EU was considering reciprocity to UK funds in a no-deal scenario. The EU has not done the same for UK funds passporting into the EU, but many UK asset management firms operate EU fund ranges, and they have welcomed the creation of the temporary marketing permission regime, which enables them to market them into the UK.

I was asked what happens to an EEA system that does not notify the Bank of England of entering the TDR. Such a system will not enter the temporary designation regime and it will therefore not have recognition for UK insolvency law purposes. A notification is not an onerous requirement; the Bank of England provided details of this last autumn. The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, pointed out that under Section 8 we cannot create any new criminal offences, or, I think, create new taxes or new public authorities, and I am confident that nothing in the SIs goes against that restraint.

Collective Investment Schemes (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

Monday 4th February 2019 Grand Committee

The Government believe that the proposed legislation is necessary to ensure that there is a functioning investment funds framework in the UK, and that the legislation will continue to function appropriately if the UK leaves the EU without a deal or an implementation period. I hope that noble Lords will join me in supporting these regulations. I beg to move.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, we have allowed my noble friend Lady Bowles to go off to her committee today so I am afraid that there is somebody on these Benches with a far less-detailed knowledge of the intricacies of the relevant pieces of legislation. That may be of some relief but she will be back on future occasions so the respite is only temporary.

We have no objection to these two SIs, although I would like to probe around them a little. Clearly the UK Government should make this move because, frankly, EEA UCITS with a presence here in London suddenly fleeing because of a lack of temporary permissions would be a hole beneath the waterline for the future of fund management in London. The measure is absolutely necessary. The vast majority of those funds have said that if they had to go back and apply again as third countries for third-country permissions to keep their existing funds in place, they would prefer to exit. That is the situation with which we are dealing so the Government’s move is appropriate.

However, noble Lords will be aware that a great deal of money has already fled London. Two or three weeks ago, EY provided a report setting the number of assets to have left the City, primarily funds, at around £800 billion. With the latest Barclays announcement, that takes the number to about £1 trillion, which is a reasonable amount of assets under management to have left because of Brexit. So that everybody understands, I say that this is not about people being disloyal or unpatriotic. One of the companies involved, Somerset Capital Management—co-founded by Jacob Rees-Mogg—domiciled two recently launched funds in Dublin, apparently because of the demands of various clients. Clearly, a great deal of the movement out of London has been client-led.

That is a problem because conglomeration is a very powerful factor in driving this industry forward. Losing something like £1 trillion of funds under management and finding that many players are playing double-handed, with a presence in both London and somewhere else—typically in Dublin but perhaps in other places in the EU 27—puts into doubt a future never before doubted: that London would dominate in this area. Did I understand correctly from the Minister—and do I understand correctly from reading the instrument—that the transitional arrangements described are simply to provide continuity for existing London-domiciled EEA UCITS? Has there been any assessment of the likelihood of new funds to open choosing London for their headquarters? Has there been any assessment of whether the limited reach of the regulations means that, if we leave on 29 March, funds to open later in the year are far less likely to be London-domiciled because they will have to apply through a third-country process? I would be interested to understand that.

In a sense, that leads me on to the impact statement, which is peculiar. The Minister is absolutely right that the statement is recent: I think it went online on Friday and was printed only today. The costs are defined in the summary as “Unknown: likely significant”. But the description which follows that brief table says that the only really quantifiable costs on businesses are,

“marginal compared to the … costs arising from the UK leaving the EU”—

thank goodness, as this is one tiny area—and that they,

“mainly consist of familiarisation costs”.

Has there been any attempt in that estimate of significance to estimate the changing pattern of investment for new funds that will follow, because of the limited nature of this new SI? From a cost perspective, I do not know whether that has been included in the numbers.

The benefits are described as “significant” but, again, we have no numbers around any of that. I suppose that one person’s significant differs from another’s but it seems that it is significant compared to having nothing to protect us from a cliff edge. I can certainly understand that that is significant but it seems peculiar, frankly, to suggest it as a benefit. The status quo is clearly the benefit; there are no costs and there is no reduction in the future location of funds in the UK. A benefit that basically avoids the damage of a cliff edge seems a terribly odd description.

Finally, I saw the humour on the Minister’s face, and I share it, at the second SI, which deals with long-term investment funds. Since, as I understand it, this is a continuity and rollover SI and there are no funds, can he help me with the logic of why we are bothering with it? I do not mind it being on the statute book but it seems slightly redundant to provide for the continuity of nothing. I thought that the Minister might help me in this context with these issues, but we will of course oppose neither instrument.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I think I can help the noble Baroness on that. There are no UK-based funds of this nature but there are some based in the EU—about five—that market into the UK. Those are the ones that will be able to apply for a temporary passport.

[Baroness Kramer]

I find that very helpful and I thank the Minister for saying that.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for introducing this statutory instrument but I repeat my concern that we are considering such instruments at all. I and my party feel that the Government should have given a commitment that we would not have a no-deal exit; day by day, there is growing evidence that such an exit will be disastrous for our country. I will say no more on that but try to process these SIs on their merits against—how shall I put it?—the strict limitation that we are assuming a no-deal situation and recognising that things have to be done to achieve that.

The Treasury, I assume to be consistent, has reproduced the same eight paragraphs in all the Explanatory Memorandums. Paragraph 7.4, which I will repeat, says:

“These SIs are not intended to make policy changes, other than to reflect the UK’s new position outside the EU, and to smooth the transition to this situation”.


It is against that test that I spent my time studying the Explanatory Memorandum. It seems to do all the right things: it creates a new name; it says that passporting dies; and it goes on to offer a temporary permission regime. This regime may last for up to three years, or three years and 12 months, or three years and 24 months, or perhaps for ever. One has to view the SI in the light of that regime.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate for their broad support for the statutory instrument before us. The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, implied that she was not well informed on financial matters, but we all know that not to be the case. I agree with what she said about the TPRs. These are sensible measures, not least for seeking to keep the City of London’s pre-eminent position in financial markets at the forefront of our priorities.

The noble Baroness mentioned the migration of funds. I, too, saw the EY report. The £800 billion figure was an estimation of firms’ stated intentions rather than of actual assets transferred. The report states that the estimate is a “modest” sum when compared to the total assets of the UK banking sector, which stand at almost £8 trillion. None the less, it underlines the case for taking forward measures such as this to prevent any unnecessary migration of funds out of the UK. She also asked whether new funds could be established. The answer is that where there is an umbrella fund with lots of sub-funds, an existing umbrella fund with a sub-fund approved under the TPR can then get another sub-fund approved subsequently because it shares the same governance structure as the original one, so it has already been validated. Otherwise, a brand new one would have to start from scratch, in the way that the noble Baroness implied.

The noble Baroness asked about the impact assessment, She is quite right that it was published recently. These impact assessments focus narrowly on the changes that these SIs make and how businesses will need to respond. They do not deal with the broader economic impact of leaving the EU. The whole point of these SIs is to try, wherever possible, to maintain stability and continuity and minimise the amount of turbulence for firms involved. An impact assessment for the EU withdrawal Act deals with the impact of the parent Act; the Government have also published analysis of the potential economic impact of a range of scenarios, including no deal. These SIs mitigate the impact of leaving the EU without a deal. As the noble Baroness said, if they were not in place, there would be substantially more disruption and turbulence for the industry as a whole.

I think I have dealt with temporary marketing permissions. New EEA UCITS that are not sub-funds with temporary permissions, as I have just described, will have to use the third-country regime to market into the UK after exit day. The instrument does not change the process for authorising UK UCITS; that remains the same. There should be minimal change for the domestic industry.

The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, reiterated his opposition to no deal, which I understand and which he has made absolutely clear on earlier occasions. The best way to avoid no deal is to agree a deal; as I think he knows, the Prime Minister wants to meet others to identify what would be required to secure the backing of the House.

I think I answered the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, about removing LTIFs, in that some market and want to go on doing so. It will allow for EEA funds that market into the UK before exit day to continue to do so through the temporary marketing permission regime. The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, is right that it can be renewed at the end of three years. The TMPR can be extended only by the Treasury, pursuant to an FCA assessment on the effect of extending, or not extending, on financial markets, funds in the TMPR and the FCA’s objectives. It must also go through the House.

I was asked, if reciprocity is so important that they can continue marketing into this country, what about the reverse? The answer is that we can legislate only in relation to EEA funds and managers that passport into the UK. We cannot, through our own unilateral action, oblige them to do the same to us. That is why we are seeking to agree a deep and special partnership with the EU, as well as an implementation period—important for both of us—so we can have this reciprocity.

[Baroness Kramer]

On reciprocity, we know that some temporary permissions are now being provided by the EU. For example, the London Clearing House has been given 12 months. Does the Minister anticipate temporary permissions in this area? Some guidance would be extremely helpful for the industry.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

The noble Baroness makes a valid point. The answer may become available before I sit down. I agree that it would be of great value to firms based in this country if they could continue marketing into the EU in the event of no deal. I have just been handed the answer to an earlier question, which I have already replied to off the cuff. There may be some more in-flight refuelling.

On the response of industry to what we are doing, I draw the Committee’s attention to the remarks of Richard Withers, the head of government relations for Vanguard in Europe—one of the world’s largest asset management firms. He said that the collective investment scheme regulation that the Committee is debating now is a well-considered and well-drafted piece of secondary legislation, which removes possible disruptions to the UK public’s long-term investment and pension savings activity while also ensuring that the UK remains an attractive and pre-eminent target market into which global fund management companies distribute their products.

On the last point, it looks as if I may not be able to give a response to the very good question aimed at what representations are now being made by the Government or City institutions to encourage the EU and the relevant authorities there to do to us what we are in the process of doing to them. If I have not got the information by the time we reach the end of the next statutory instrument, I will write to the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer. I beg to move.

Taxation: Digital Publications

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

Thursday 6th December 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I detect a certain degree of unanimity in the representations made so far. As I said, I have some sympathy with the argument that we should now equalise the tax on e-publications and conventional publications. We have had that freedom for only two days, so I hope the noble Lord will understand that we have not acted so far. However, meetings are under way with interested parties to develop the case. As I said earlier, if the Chancellor is convinced that a substantial case has been made, I am sure he will respond favourably.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, research from the National Literacy Trust shows that one in eight children from disadvantaged backgrounds say they do not have a book of their own at home. Have the Government, in anticipation of this potential, done any assessment of what impact zero-rated VAT would have as a way to tackle reading inequalities? Do they plan any such assessment, as so many of these children have access to a smart phone or a tablet?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

Again, the noble Baroness makes the case for equalising. As far as literacy is concerned, this country has quite a good record if one looks at the international literacy standards. With e-publications for schools, at the moment the VAT can be got back through the local authorities. The noble Baroness adds reinforcements to the case that has already been made for using the freedom that we now have to equalise the rates.

Infrastructure and Projects Authority

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

Wednesday 10th October 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham]

As I said in my initial reply, the reviews are primarily aimed at the project leaders. They give them advice on how to identify risks and take mitigating action to ensure that those risks are circumvented to ensure that the project hits the relevant milestones. There might be occasions when Ministers have to intervene, for example, if some legislative change is needed or if fresh estimates and more money are required from the Treasury, but for the most part the reviews are aimed not at Ministers but at departmental leaders. As someone who has been a Minister, if I was in charge of a project that had a red tag attached to it by the IPA, I would take a very close interest in its progress and make sure that it was delivered.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I suggest to the Minister that if he were in charge of a project and he saw an amber/red, he would find within his department very few resources with the kind of expertise, training and coalface experience to be able to come to grips with these large, complex and high-risk projects. Will he take back to the Government the need to completely relook at resources and staffing against these projects? It is not the standard civil servant, nor the management consultants who are required; it is hard-bitten folk with real experience of the relevant industries, and the Government should start to put that rapidly in place.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

The noble Baroness raises a very important issue. If she looks at the annual report of the IPA, she will see the action it is taking in order to make sure that the Civil Service has exactly the skills and resources it needs. There is a fast-stream process and it is recruiting graduates and providing leadership programmes in order to ensure that the Civil Service does indeed have the capacity to manage these very large and costly projects.

Revised Draft Airports National Policy Statement

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

Thursday 15th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, obviously the draft airports NPS will be the basis for the Government’s decision on the development consent application for a north-west runway at Heathrow Airport. I confess that I live under the flight path, so I suffer daily—I was woken this morning at 5.30, which has been very frustrating after the late hours that we have been here. I have long opposed expansion at Heathrow, well before ever becoming engaged in politics, on national as well as local issues.

It is often taken as given that there is a strong economic case for expansion at Heathrow, but that is exceedingly questionable. I am sure the Minister will be aware that the Davies commission agreed that it was clearly stated that the case for a third runway at Heathrow depended on a hub model of aviation prevailing over point-to-point. However, the shift in the industry is clearly towards point-to-point because, frankly, passengers hate changing planes. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Spicer, that his Chinese tenant is the exact example. People put up with this problematic hubbing, having to change planes and wait for hours in terminals for a second flight, until there is the opportunity to fly direct.

We are in an era where flying direct is becoming dominant. That is one reason for the rise of airports all across the various continents, and for a very fundamental change in the pattern of aviation that passengers themselves are demanding. What we have is a hub airport at Heathrow that is primarily and almost solely functioning on an outdated concept. The passenger forecast for the third runway is that there will be 41 million additional passengers a year, but that 22 million of them will simply be changing planes at Heathrow. I pick up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones: those 22 million contribute absolutely nothing to our national economy. A large part of the investment and the cost that we are carrying is to support literally half the passengers, who bring no specific benefit.

The economic case is also based on an assumption of a direct correlation between GDP growth and an increase in passenger numbers, particularly at Heathrow. That is very simplistic. We got a glimpse into how simplistic it was during the work of the Davies commission when it released the technical documents. I give credit to Justine Greening MP, who, at that time, through a number of FOIs, was able to get more information on the cost-benefit analysis, and it was clear that there really was nothing. Many people think that somehow there had been work with businesses in London to work out what the future demand would be; there was none. They thought that there had been a look at historical correlations; there were none. It is simply meant to be a given that as GDP goes up, there is a corresponding increase in demand for flights out of Heathrow. I say this with a warning, because the rail industry has had to cope with the fact that what it assumed was an unbreakable link between GDP growth and passenger demand for rail has now been clearly broken. For example, in London, the Tube has seen its passenger numbers this year down by almost 4 million. So the economic case is extremely simplistic and very unreliable.

None of the analyses ever included the negative impact on businesses from noise, poor air quality and, above all, traffic congestion, so the work has been inadequate. But, interestingly, even in that inadequate work, the latest piece of work done by the Government shows that a second runway at Gatwick is a better generator of long-term economic benefit than a third runway at Heathrow—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton.

A number of key airlines, including BA—Willie Walsh’s name was quoted just now by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley—have turned against the project because of the charges which they know they will have to pay and then have to pass on in ticket prices. No-one I talk to believes the cost of £17 million, which is often thrown around as the right number for this project. That number completely fails to include any realistic costing of the plans to move and then reinstate the M25 or, alternatively, to tunnel it. Until we get some reasonable costings, it is going to be very difficult to assess this, but £17 million is way too low, and any contractor will tell you that. To break even—even on that understated price—Heathrow will need to require the new runway to operate at 38% capacity from day one. The only way to achieve that kind of increase in flights at Heathrow is to lure flights—especially high-value flights by US airlines—away from Gatwick, Stansted and Birmingham, and possibly even farther afield, which would seriously compromise the viability of those other airports. This issue has never been properly examined and it bodes very ill for regional development.

Heathrow will incur a huge debt load as a result of building the third runway, and the pressure to service that debt means that Heathrow will inevitably focus its new capacity on long-haul popular destinations, where planes can be filled very quickly. That means New York and other near-US destinations, not flights to new developing markets in Africa and Asia. Even the NPS forecasts that the airport will reduce its network of domestic flights to serve, at best, only five domestic airports, compared with the eight that it serves today.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, talked extensively and so well on climate change. To meet the carbon targets in the Climate Change Act 2008, the third runway would require off-setting cuts across our regional airports. Passenger numbers would need to be cut by 36% in the south-west, by 11% in Scotland, by 14% in the north-west and by 55% in the West Midlands. Without that, carbon emissions from aviation would constitute 25% of our carbon emissions allowance by 2050. Again, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, described that far more effectively than I can.

Of course, there are local issues. Getting passengers to and from the airport is a nightmare, both because of the impact on air quality and because of road and rail congestion. NOx emissions and particulates are severe around Heathrow even today, and legal limits are regularly breached. All the local access roads are heavily congested, so dispersal is not even possible. Even the London mayor’s plans for ultra-low emission zones does not solve the problem. In fact, this basically destroys the effectiveness of any of those plans, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, described. She talked about the health impacts of poor air quality, something we are becoming more and more aware of. So there are serious consequences to the air quality impact of a third runway.

The Government have promised that a third runway will lead to no more cars on the road—they do not say that about freight; we will have freight on the road but no more cars. Frankly, that is impossible. Every scheme to provide more rail access from London to Heathrow falls to pieces either because it requires tunnelling on a major scale at a huge cost or because it triggers the level-crossing problem. I will explain the level-crossing problem. In my former constituency of Richmond Park, the position of the River Thames, Richmond Park and the railway lines means that several thousand people can get in or out of the area only by using one of four roads that have level crossings. The rail lines are so busy that the level crossings are often down for 50 minutes out of the hour. A train service to Heathrow, which all agree—if passengers were willing to use it —would have to be a fast train running every 15 minutes with no more than one stop, would in effect close those level crossings completely, trapping the local population.

Transport for London has estimated that providing surface transport to support a third runway would cost £18 million, of which Heathrow has said it would pay £1 million, with the rest to fall on the taxpayer. That includes not a penny for resolving the level crossing problem. No engineer has found any solution to that, so we are talking about the impossible.

Last but not least, noise is a fundamental issue. I was astonished to hear praise for a six-and-a-half hour night flight ban. That ends at 5.30 am, and the traffic between 6 am and 7 am is what drives the community most insane. Also, the airlines constantly fly exceptions, created by some circumstance of weather or another, that always breach their current limits, and that will undoubtedly continue. It is an ongoing problem.

The noble Lord, Lord Naseby, talked about much quieter planes, but the problem is flights coming over in a constant stream so that there is never any relief from the level of noise, so even making planes quieter does not necessarily deal with that problem. There is an additional problem: Heathrow with a third runway will be running planes on two parallel runways. As the noble Lord knows, noise fans, so in the area between those two runways, the fan effect of two planes flying at the same time will be extraordinary. The operation of those two runways at the same time means that areas once affected only by take-off will now have take-off and landing.

[Lord Naseby]

I am not sure where the noble Baroness gets her information from. If one got the information for, let us say, two fighter jets taking off together, one would see that the increase in incremental noise is very small. Surely, since those are fair noisier than the aircraft that I was talking about, her facts are totally wrong.

[Baroness Kramer]

I will ask the Richmond Society to forward to the noble Lord the detailed modelling that has been done to show the impact of double noise on a significant section of the population. He may find that rather interesting.

Opposition to Heathrow comes from the overwhelming majority of residents in south-west London living under the flight path, four local councils and MPs of all political colours that represent that area. My party, the Liberal Democrats, and the Greens have consistently opposed expansion. When any of us hear of the mitigations, we apply that against our own experience. I lived in the area when Heathrow applied for the fourth terminal and we were assured there would be nothing more. Then came the fifth terminal, and we were assured again that anyone was foolish to suggest there would be a third runway. Then came a third runway and we were told, of course, there would be no sixth terminal. Now we hear of a sixth terminal to go with the third runway. This pattern continues regularly. In the same way, the mitigations—noise is a good example —never live up to their billing. Sitting outside—most people have the right to sit in their garden—is not helped by noise insulation inside a house; that works only provided all the windows and doors are closed, with the consequence that quality of life is severely affected.

[Lord Berkeley]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness. She quite rightly talked about more and more terminals. Does she have a view on the view expressed by the noble Lords, Lord Spicer and Lord Naseby, that we should be talking about probably four runways, if not five, to keep up with Dubai and Amsterdam?

[Baroness Kramer]

I think the noble Lord, Lord Spicer, was perhaps more honest than most. A lot of the PR that comes from Heathrow and much of the aviation industry suggests that every new increment will always be the last and it never is, because there is always a rationale and always money to be made from continually trying to expand capacity, particularly when the underlying strategy is to strip flights out of other airports in the UK. That ownership is no longer held in common has added great fire to that underpinning strategy.

I hope that the Government will reconsider again the whole notion of a third runway at Heathrow; there are other and better options. I understand that it is in some ways a sop to business because business tends just to assume that a third runway would be good without looking into the detail. This seemed a way to pacify businesses infuriated by Brexit.

[Lord Spicer]

The noble Baroness is making a very interesting speech, but how will we get in and out of the country—we are an island—as the population becomes larger and we do not expand our airports?

[Baroness Kramer]

My Lords, there are many regional airports—I personally look at Birmingham as the most obvious way to expand and it is part of our regional strategy. There are many alternatives to the third runway at Heathrow that were not considered by the Davies commission. There are mechanisms. Rail will be taking a different part of the strain domestically in future, so we are part of a changing pattern.

I do not want to keep the House longer.

[Lord Spicer]

You are passing the problem to Birmingham.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Kramer]

Birmingham is eager to have a third runway, and there is a logic for it being there.

Heathrow has reached its limit. Frankly, it is time that the Government recognised that and looked for a better strategy.

Andrey Lugovoy and Dmitri Kovtun Freezing Order 2018

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

Tuesday 20th February 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

My Lords, I commend the Government for taking this action. I also commend my right honourable friend the Security Minister in the other place for his comments about the assets of many people that have been brought here. They are probably illegally obtained moneys and are now held by oligarchs in this country who are laundering them through the banks here and buying up a great deal of London real estate.

I have been put on a stop list and cannot go to Russia. I would rather like to go to St Petersburg, never having been. I have probably been put on the stop list because I said something slightly disobliging about President Putin a few years ago. I urge the Government not just to pursue this matter but to be really fierce with the Russian Government, as I believe our Foreign Secretary has been. If the Russian Government get away with it, they will continue to get away with it and life will get worse, not better.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I support the continuation of the freeze on the assets of Andrey Lugovoy and Dmitri Kovtun, but they had years in which to reorder their finances before the first asset freeze came about in 2016. I point out that there is a lesson there: in the future the Government need to act quickly. The delay in the public inquiry and in acting to freeze the assets was, frankly, shamefully long. Beyond this just being a heinous crime, the murder was also, as my colleague in the other place, Tom Brake MP, said at the time of the public inquiry, an assault on our sovereignty. Those are two fundamental issues that should have urged us to rapid action.

I have a couple of questions for the Minister. Having reread the order, I am unclear about whether it applies to cryptocurrencies. If it does, I wonder whether the Minister can guide me to the relevant article or paragraph in the order and explain to me how on earth action against cryptocurrencies will be enforced. Because those currencies are beginning to play a major role in many areas of asset purchases and payments, it is important that we make sure that the issue is covered, and I would appreciate the Minister’s comments on that.

I also want to ask the Minister about the situation in the British Overseas Territories. The Government have firmly refused to require the overseas territories to make their registers of beneficial ownership open to public scrutiny. They have argued that the facility for UK authorities to inquire whether beneficial ownership is associated with individuals such as these two is sufficient for them to be able to enforce. How often have the relevant British enforcement authorities investigated this and are either of these men using the overseas territories and shell companies to continue to access financial services and markets? If the Minister does not have an answer now, could he write to me on that issue?

Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Carrying on Regulated Activities by Way of Business) (Amendment) Order 2018

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

Thursday 1st February 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, the order amends existing regulations to clarify an outstanding regulatory issue for the peer-to-peer lending industry. Peer-to-peer lending is not what happens at the Bishops’ Bar, but a thriving business activity which I will describe in a moment.

Specifically, the order, drafted in consultation with the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority, will set out when a business borrowing via a peer-to-peer lending platform would need to have a deposit-taking licence to do so.

Peer-to-peer lending is a relatively new financial service, with the world’s first peer-to-peer loan originating in the UK in 2005. This nascent industry has experienced rapid growth and, at the industry’s request, the Government legislated to bring running a peer-to-peer lending platform into the scope of financial services regulation. Running a peer-to-peer platform is a discrete activity and not, for example, another type of asset management service. It allows investors, including consumers, to lend money directly to businesses or other consumers via the peer-to-peer platform.

The Government therefore introduced bespoke legislation regulating peer-to-peer lending where it interacts with consumers. This means that all P2P platforms used by consumers need to be authorised by the FCA and comply with financial, organisational and conduct requirements. These requirements include rules regarding separation of client money, business conduct such as fair treatment of customers, financial promotions and creditworthiness and affordability assessments.

This approach to regulation has allowed the industry to thrive, and £3.5 billion was lent via peer-to-peer platforms in 2016. In 2016, peer-to-peer lending to businesses grew 36% compared with the previous year, and was the equivalent of 15% of all new loans by UK banks to microenterprises in 2016. These impressive statistics demonstrate the Government’s commitment to fostering a diverse and competitive financial services sector which delivers quality services at efficient prices.

There is a degree of risk in members of the public making deposits, as they may not necessarily have the same degree of financial literacy as professional lenders. As a result, regulation surrounds businesses accepting deposits from the public. Under current legislation, conditions set out that if a business wishes to accept deposits from the public in order to wholly or materially finance their activities, such as a bank, they must be authorised and regulated by the FCA and the PRA. This could be termed “accepting deposits by way of business”. The regulatory permission for accepting deposits by way of business is known colloquially as a banking licence.

Currently when a business borrows money via a peer-to-peer platform, the legislation could be read as saying that businesses are technically accepting deposits from the public “by way of business” and therefore require a banking licence. In reality, it is not the case that the core business of these borrowers is accepting deposits. If it were, they would, for example, be operating like a bank and require FCA and PRA oversight.

However, for the vast majority of commercial borrowers, borrowing via peer-to-peer platforms is simply a way of financing their business—for example, capital expenditure. In the existing legislation as inherited by this new industry, there exists uncertainty as to whether those who are not accepting deposits as their core business would still need to be regulated.

It remains the case that peer-to-peer platforms used by consumers should be regulated, but some peer-to-peer platforms are therefore unsure as to whether businesses borrowing via their platform would require a banking licence. The practicalities of obtaining and then maintaining a banking licence just to borrow via a peer-to-peer platform would be burdensome for both the borrower and the platform, increasing costs and making it unviable as an efficient source of finance.

The order therefore provides clarity for peer-to-peer platforms and their business borrowers regarding the regulatory framework. It does this in a number of ways, specifically by making clear that where a peer-to-peer borrower is using deposits solely to finance their other business activity, they should not need a banking licence, and by ensuring that regulated financial institutions still need a banking licence to accept funds from the public, regardless of whether they do so via peer-to-peer or other means.

The order is required to provide certainty to peer-to-peer lending platforms and the businesses which fund their growth and other costs through this means. The certainty provided by the order will ensure that no undue burdens are placed on the sector or businesses because of legislation which predates the invention of this financial service. I beg to move.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I may have been the first person in this House to use the phrase peer-to-peer lending, to the enormous amusement of Lord Peston, who misunderstood it as “pier to pier”, which, as he said, was impossible. It is now a widely accepted, very successful strategy. I am not sure if this is officially a conflict of interest, but I declare that one of my children is an employee of a peer-to-peer lending platform. Back in the old days—and certainly before my son was involved—my noble friend Lord Sharkey and I helped to construct the framework that sits behind the regulations. We obviously missed a trick in allowing this discrepancy to enter the regulation, and for that, I—also on behalf of my noble friend—apologise. I am very glad that the Government are clearing up this misconception.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I came to the order in a state of almost complete ignorance, having never been involved in peer-to-peer activity in my life and not entirely understanding what it was. I did some research, and it seems that through peer-to-peer lending, the lender can get a better rate of return and the borrower has to pay less. I am reminded of the advice I would give anyone when it comes to financial affairs: “If it is too good to be true, it is too good to be true”. It is too good to be true in the sense that, in a peer-to-peer environment, one can lose one’s total investment and one is not covered by the FSCS guarantee.

I then did a bit more googling, and picked up an article from Which?, which stated:

“Two of the biggest peer-to-peer (P2P) lenders in the UK have been beset by problems over the past month, with RateSetter forced to make up a near £9m loan-deal gone sour and Zopa customers experiencing a severe cut in returns. So, is the market for peer-to-peer lending headed for trouble? RateSetter has announced that it had to intervene to protect investors from losing money in struggling wholesale loans. The company, which lent £664m last year, has now confirmed it has left a peer-to-peer lending trade body for breaching transparency rules”.


I say that because, with no experience, you have to turn to Google, but it does not look as though the peer-to-peer environment is entirely without problems.

I then read the order and the Explanatory Memorandum and it seemed to me in some way deregulatory. The last thing I naturally want when I read about this is for peer-to-peer lending to be deregulated. I then tried to understand the situation more carefully, and I concluded that peer-to-peer lending activity involves three parties: investors, platforms and borrowers. It is important to be absolutely clear what the order does to each of those groups. In my understanding, investors are in no way regulated and therefore the order has no impact on them, except where the investor is a company or firm involved in financial services.

My question to myself, which I have partly answered, is: are the platforms regulated? As has already been said, they are. Perhaps the Minister would enlarge slightly on his brief reference to the regulation of the platforms. The key question is: is the regulation of platforms in any way impacted on by the order?

Finally, under the present regulations, are borrowers regulated? Clearly they are if they are in the financial services business, but if they are ordinary firms, are they in any way regulated? I think that that is what the order seeks to address. The final question that sums up everything is: is the SI in practice solely related to borrowers? Does it leave the protection of customers using the platform in its present regulated state?

Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies Act 2014 (Amendments to Audit Requirements) Order 2017

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

Thursday 1st February 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, these three orders relate to the mutuals sector, which encompasses co-operatives, community benefit societies, credit unions and building societies. In the mutuals sector the interests of members, not shareholders, are paramount. Mutuals are an important part of Britain’s diverse and resilient economy, and we wish to keep it that way. Recognising this, the Government have brought forward a package of measures to provide further support for the sector and level the playing field between mutuals and companies.

There are nearly 7,000 co-operatives in Britain today, which together contribute more than £36 billion to the UK economy. They employ over 200,000 people and are part-owned by 13.6 million members of our society. The Government recognise the value of co-operatives and want to ensure they are not saddled with unnecessary administrative burdens. Since 2012, small companies have enjoyed an exemption from the requirement in the Companies Act 2006 to have their accounts fully audited.

The first statutory instrument, the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies Act 2014 (Amendments to Audit Requirements) Order 2017, will increase the thresholds at which co-ops are required to appoint a professional auditor from £2.8 million in assets and £5.6 million in turnover to £5.1 million in assets and £10.2 million in turnover, in line with those for companies. While this proposal is deregulatory, noble Lords can be confident that appropriate controls remain in place. Members must vote to apply the exemption and the regulators can still demand a full audit if they have concerns over the management of a co-operative. Furthermore, co-operatives which disapply the requirement to appoint a professional auditor will still be required to prepare a less onerous audit report.

The second of the three orders before the House is the draft Building Societies (Restricted Transactions) (Amendment to the Prohibition on Entering into Derivatives Transactions) Order 2018. Building societies serve over 20 million UK customers and are an integral source of loans to first-time buyers. In order to offer fixed-rate mortgages, building societies must hedge against the risk of interest-rate changes and may do so by buying derivatives. The European markets infrastructure regulation of 2012 requires all derivatives to be centrally cleared. This means that building societies must either become direct members of a clearing house or clear through third-party members.

However, as it currently stands, the legislation prevents building societies complying with the membership rules of the main UK clearing house. The specific rule which we are concerned with requires that, in the event of a member defaulting, other members must bid for a portion of the defaulted member’s derivatives portfolio. Under current legislation, building societies cannot take part in this process because they are prohibited from trading derivatives for any purpose other than to hedge balance-sheet risk. As a result, building societies must clear indirectly through third parties which are members, placing them on an uneven footing as compared to banks. Clearing through third parties incurs expensive broker fees and makes building societies dependent on clearing-house members continuing to offer this service.

This SI will amend the Building Societies Act 1986, which I believe I put on the statute book, to allow building societies to trade derivatives not just to hedge their balance-sheet risk but for the purpose of complying with the membership rules of a clearing house. The Government have consulted representatives of the building societies and the Prudential Regulation Authority in developing these proposals, and they are content.

The last order before the House concerns mutuals in Northern Ireland including, for this purpose, credit unions. Under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, mutuals in Great Britain are registered with and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority. As noble Lords will recall, prior to the appointment of the FCA as the primary financial services regulator, this function was performed by the Financial Services Authority. Following the failure of Presbyterian Mutual in October 2008, at a cost to the taxpayer of £50 million, Northern Ireland Ministers and HM Treasury agreed that responsibility for regulating Northern Ireland credit unions and other mutuals should transfer to the FSA. Responsibility for regulation was transferred in 2011. The aim of this transfer was to provide members of those mutuals with access to the Financial Services Compensation Scheme and the Financial Ombudsman Service, among other benefits.

It was intended that the registration of Northern Ireland’s mutuals should follow in due course, once the establishment of the new Financial Conduct Authority and Prudential Regulation Authority was completed. It is clearly logical for registration and regulatory oversight to lie with a single authority. The Northern Ireland registering authority, the Department for the Economy, also supports the move. A good deal of preparatory work has now taken place, and Department for the Economy and FCA officials are working closely to ensure that Northern Ireland’s mutuals are supported during the transfer of registration, which is set to occur on 6 April this year. Societies previously registered with the Department for the Economy will not have to re-register; their records will simply be transferred to the FCA.

I trust that the Members of the House will agree that these orders represent a welcome update to mutuals legislation across the country for the wider benefit of the sector. I commend the orders to the House.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I have a few questions to ask the Minister on these orders, although I cannot see anything major wrong with them. The first order the Minister described lifts the threshold at which point a co-op is required to have a professional audit. I have two questions on that. Looking through the attendant paperwork, I notice that responses to the consultation came from different co-operative societies. It is no surprise that they would wish to be on a level playing field with their various competitors which are privately owned companies, so I perfectly understand why they feel it is unfair that they should carry a cost burden which their competitors of the same size do not. But there is a difference between a private company and a co-op, which is that the membership of the co-op, which in effect is its ownership, is typically much more widely cast and made up of a large number of people who may not have a great deal of financial sophistication, whereas the owners of a privately owned company may have much greater awareness of the financial structure and happenings within that company. So I wonder to what extent the Government in their consultations took into account the exposure of relatively small people to losses that might seem quite small to those who have very large incomes but might be significant to those who are part of the membership of a co-op. It is the first area of concern.

Secondly, I am curious to understand the choice of benchmark. From the outside, it looks slightly random. I wonder whether it was done on a percentage of size within the industry or whether there was some structural characteristic within the industry that led to the choice of that benchmark.

The second issue the Minister addressed was the provision of the order that would allow building societies to be members of clearing houses. I think that all of us in this House agree that it is crucial that interest-rate swaps are cleared through a central counterparty—in the UK that would usually be the London Clearing House—and that it is very frustrating for building societies and mutuals to have to go the agency route and pay a brokerage fee, usually through an existing member which, quite frankly, is fairly disinterested in the service that it provides to that building society, never mind charging for it—so I am entirely on board. Can the Minister strengthen his confirmation that this provides no capacity for building societies to engage in speculation? It seems to be very clear that it does not. We all recognise that anyone providing a fixed-rate mortgage can do so only if they can hedge it through a derivatives contract, so that is an entirely appropriate and necessary use of a derivatives contract, or by doing it at the level of the balance sheet to achieve the same kind of protection.

Capita

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

Thursday 1st February 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham]

On the first question, I understand that dividends have been suspended. That was part of the announcement. That, together with the rights issue of some £700 million, will mean that there will be some additional £900 million available in cash to the company. I will write to the noble Lord. I have asked about the Crown representative. I was assured that one had been in place. I will drop him a line on the specific question of 12 months, but there has been, and indeed is, a Crown representative on the board.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I hope that the Government will understand that they now have a very strong warning sign from both the Carillion and Capita events that they have been concentrating their outsourcing on far too small a group of companies, but also companies that, partly through their concentration, are too complex not just to manage, but to audit, or for the analysts or the credit rating agencies to get a grip on them. Will the Government strengthen the assessment capability for central and local government, and other parts of the public sector, so that they can comprehend the risk far more accurately at the prequalification stage, when contracts are to be let, and during the period of supervision? Picking up on diversification, which is certainly crucial to small entities, does he understand that diversification in and of itself is necessary to break the systemic risk that comes with overconcentration?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

On the noble Baroness’s first point about it being too complex, I believe that the chief executive officer himself, Jon Lewis, said yesterday that it is too complex and he wants to streamline it, hence the asset disposal and the streamlining of the operation.

I know that more personnel have been recruited within the Cabinet Office to beef up the Government’s capacity to supervise these contracts. I take on board the point that the noble Baroness made about making sure the Government have the resources to monitor the contracts we have placed with private sector companies.

We are at one on her final point. We would like to reduce the concentration of these big contracts to a small number of companies. We would like to broaden the base and see more companies bidding for these contracts and winning them.

Financial Guidance and Claims Bill [HL]

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

Tuesday 24th October 2017 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Brookeborough (CB)]

My Lords, as a member of that committee, I support this amendment. This is different from some of the other amendments that have come under Clause 2(7), because this is really already there as far as schools go, but it just falls short of doing what it should. For instance it talks about the “provision of financial education” and then says,

“working with others in the financial services”.

Your Lordships might sympathise with what Martin Lewis says:

“We do not ask GlaxoSmithKline to pay for chemistry. This is on the national curriculum. Why are we asking banks to pay for it?”.


Why are we asking financial institutions? I am perfectly happy that, as the Minister will say, “Yes, we do ask them and they do something”, but it is really small and does not begin to touch.

Here are just a few statistics to show why we are talking about education. I will not try to bore your Lordships with them all, but they put this into perspective: 40% of the working population have less than £100 in savings; one in six struggle to identify a single bank balance; around a third of the population, 17 million, cannot even manage a budget; and 26% of postgraduates —that is all—are confident in managing their money. The excellent FCA report which came out at the weekend also shows why it is important. I will come to education in schools in a minute, which is fairly horrifying, but the report says:

“Adults with postgraduate degrees are just as likely to feel uncertain about their abilities as those educated to GCSE level”.


So, with all due respect, there is simply nothing going on. Many do not understand the excessive interest rates on unauthorised overdrafts, for example, or revolving credit card balances and the interest rates that are put on those. They do not understand payday loans very much—although it is interesting to note, since we were ready to condemn them, that payday loans are actually cheaper than some of the other loans available, which is quite surprising. That is not because payday loans are cheap but because interest rates on credit cards and unauthorised overdrafts are not only ridiculous but incredibly unfair, as they do not even notify you. At least when you take out a payday loan, you know that you have borrowed £1,000. With most banks, you would not have a clue until you got the bill. So the question is not straightforward. These statistics are all true; they come from evidence that we took and the survey that I just mentioned, showing how very poor the understanding of basic financial matters is in this country. We are way behind others, including, I believe, China.

This whole problem ultimately causes so much unhappiness and stress and will mean a higher cost than otherwise to the welfare state, purely because of the number of people who could have managed but do not because no one told them how. It is all due to a single cause: the lack of financial education in schools. The Bill talks about,

“the provision of financial education to children and young people”.

Where are children and young people, and where are you going to educate them? Even I went to a school, and that is the only place where you have them all in one place. You do not honestly think that on a Saturday, instead of going to the cinema, they will go to a class on financial education. So there is only one place for it: the schoolroom. You have only to add “in school” to the wording and you almost have the amendment as it stands.

Financial education could be introduced into primary schools. However, although we are aware that there is some excellent work in primary schools—the Minister may come back and say, “There are good stories about primary schools because they teach people things”, and they do—in answer to question 179 in our evidence transcript, Adrian Lyons of Ofsted, who was incredibly useful and very nice about it, said of ex-primary schoolchildren,

“but then the children go to secondary school and hit a brick wall”.

That completely sums it up. What a condemnation that is from Ofsted itself.

What of the addition of financial education to the secondary school curriculum in 2014? The first point is that to most sane people a curriculum is what people have to learn. Believe it or not, though, there are actually two curriculums, one non-statutory and the other, the national one, statutory. You have got it in one: this is on the non-statutory curriculum, because it lies within the PSHE programme. It gets worse, as only 35% of state schools come under that so-called curriculum—all the free schools and academies are outside it. We need not say that financial education is being taught in schools as a curriculum subject; clearly it is not, as we would understand it, and it definitely does not go anywhere.

Financial education lies within PSHE subjects but they are not statutory. Guess what happens. Time devoted to PSHE has been reduced by 32% since 2011 because it is non-statutory and there is not enough time for it. Why? One reason for that was suggested by the PSHE representative, who said that schools,

“have so little time for it”,

characterising the situation as follows:

“We only have 20 minutes, and if we don’t do something on sexual exploitation or online safety we’re going to be in trouble over safeguarding”.


To all intents and purposes, that is the end of your secondary school financial education. Adrian Lyons said that Ofsted produces a state-of-the-nation education report. Our chairman, the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, asked,

“how much was there on financial education in the last one?”.

Mr Lyons’s answer was:

“I do not know the answer to that, but I would be surprised if there was any, to be honest”.


I think we know that it was zero.

Here we have something that is all about life skills. After all, school, at the end of the day, is concerned with life skills. You are not going to survive on geography alone; you are not going to survive on physics or other things alone. We are talking about very basic financial management; we are not talking about pensions. We are saying: if you save one sweet every day until the end of the week, you will get five sweets; and if you want to borrow five sweets from me, you can pay me 10 next week. As a foundation, it is as simple as that, but the inspectorate does not even look at it. This amendment could change all that.

Of course, Ofsted says that you cannot judge something—I seem to think that this is how it puts it—without having exam marks, and there are no exam marks here. Ofsted is about marking schools. It is also about encouraging schools to do the right thing and to teach life skills, so why not initially find a way of saying, “Do you teach financial education? How much do you teach? Okay, we’ll give you 10 points for that”? At least that would be an incentive to do what they should.

When we talked about education in schools, every reason under the sun was given for why they would not or could not do it. We did not have the teachers in front of us. I am terribly sympathetic about teachers’ time, so I am not getting at them. There is no time. Teachers are not confident to teach this subject but, as I have said, we are talking about the basics. Any teacher on a salary is going to know something about saving or spending or not having enough money or whatever. I just do not believe that that is the reason.

The FCA book shows a really poor record on everything, yet schools are the only place where we have young people’s attention. What are we meant to be doing? If we say that schools should not be the place—we have already had several amendments turned down because they were too well defined or because they have added too many lines—where should it be? It is not going to be in church, so I suggest that it should be in schools and that we do something to make sure that it is done; otherwise, it will not be done. When we talk to people about where it might be done, why it is not done and the problems with that, it is somebody else’s problem. No doubt we will be told that it is the education board’s problem, or whatever there is. I am telling noble Lords that that is passing the buck. The sooner we get “schools” written in the Bill, the better.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I will add just a brief comment in this area, as the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, has really made the case. A few years ago, when I was dealing much more with banking institutions, one of them very proudly showed me its pack for schools. All that I came away with was that its logo and colours were all over everything. Had this been presented to an adult, they would have regarded it as a sales pitch rather than an educational tool. That was rather worrying. We are moving into an era where there is huge disruption of all the traditional players. On a personal basis, many of the people making decisions to save or borrow will be looking at many of the new disrupters—the challengers, the peer-to-peers, the digital bodies and whatever else. If we are looking towards the handful of major high-street players to be the providers of financial education, particularly to the young, they will not be introducing that world, which they very much regard as threatening. Yet that is the world of the future that our youngsters will have to deal with. The Government have to be very cautious about how they use providers as a delivery instrument for this education.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, for his contribution to this debate. It is a pity that there were not more people in the Chamber to hear the powerful case that he made.

Actually, I do not think that the Minister has responded yet—my apologies.