Eurozone Crisis
Lord De Mauley Excerpts(13 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, there is plenty of time. Perhaps we may hear from the noble Lord, Lord Brooke.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe
I am grateful and I will be brief. I should like further clarification on the position of the IMF, which has been significantly involved with these negotiations. As I understand it, the IMF is already subscribing to three country adjustment programmes and will continue to do so. It has indicated that it may be required to look for more money from members of the IMF to put more cash into those programmes. I think that I am correct in my understanding of the Minister on that. If that is the case, we are therefore putting more money into the eurozone venture.
Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Carrying on Regulated Activities by Way of Business) (Amendment) Order 2011
Lord De Mauley Excerpts(13 years, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord De Mauley
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Carrying on Regulated Activities by Way of Business) (Amendment) Order 2011.
Relevant document: 27th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, the purpose of this order is to ensure that the regulation of the sale and rent-back market will operate as originally intended and deliver appropriate consumer protections. To set it in context, I hope that your Lordships will allow me to give a little background on the sale and rent-back market.
These schemes allow consumers to sell their property to a public or private sector organisation and then rent it back. This allows a consumer to stay in his or her own home and avoid the distress and expense of repossession. In 2008, the Office of Fair Trading published a study of the market. It found that it was not working well for consumers and recommended that the Treasury should introduce regulation by the Financial Services Authority. This was deemed necessary because the sale and rent-back market suffers from an imbalance in the relationship between those consumers considering taking up a sale and rent-back agreement and those selling the schemes.
Sale and rent-back agreements are extremely complex contracts. The OFT study showed that consumers entering into these agreements are often vulnerable people with low levels of financial understanding. They are often already in debt and believe that their financial situation is out of control. They are unlikely to seek independent financial advice, probably because they do not know where to go. Conversely, the sellers of sale and rent-back agreements are professional salespeople, who in some cases may also play on the emotional aspects of a sale and rent-back agreement—for example, the consumer’s attachment to the family home. This results in two significant impacts on the consumer. First, there is financial loss to the consumer through a distressed sale. Evidence suggests that most sale and rent-back providers pay between 70 per cent and 90 per cent of the market value of the property. Secondly, there is a lack of security over tenure for the consumer, who may believe that they cannot ever be evicted from their home, whereas in reality, many consumers suffer rising rents or, indeed, eviction.
Following the OFT study, an interim system of FSA regulation was introduced in July 2009. This was replaced by a full regime in June 2010. Today’s order amends the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Carrying on Regulated Activities by Way of Business) Order 2001 to make clear that any provider of a sale and rent-back agreement, unless they are closely related to the consumer, will be regarded as doing so by way of business and will therefore need to be FSA-regulated.
Currently, the FSA’s regulation captures only those firms that meet the strict “by way of business” test. That test is intended to include firms who carry out the specified activity as a business arrangement but exclude those who carry it out for other purposes, such as arrangements with immediate family members. However, some providers have misunderstood whether they are entering into a regulated activity, while others, dare I say it, have chosen to interpret the rules such that they are not acting by way of business and thereby have avoided FSA regulation
The order clarifies the position. Everyone who enters into a sale and rent-back agreement, unless they are closely related to the consumer, will be regarded as doing so by way of business and will therefore need to be FSA-regulated. About 80 per cent of sale and rent-back transactions are still taking place outside regulation, despite the intention of the original regime, so the sale and rent-back market continues to generate a high level of consumer concern. In the 12 months from April 2010 to March 2011, citizens advice bureaux received more than 1,000 inquiries about sale and rent-back providers. In March this year, a report by Which? highlighted cases where a number of firms were acting outside FSA regulation. In July this year, there was an investigation by Channel 4’s “Dispatches” into sale and rent-back providers. Citizens Advice, Shelter and Which? have all publicly supported the Government’s work to address this genuine gap in the regulatory architecture and make it clear to providers when they are acting by way of business.
The costs and benefits of the order were set out in the impact assessment. The order will ensure that FSA regulation of sale and rent-back agreements operates as originally intended, when the costs were expected to be incurred at the time of the original legislation. The benefits of the order will be felt by those individuals who sell and rent back in their houses through fairer sale prices and fairer tenancy agreements. The FSA’s regulation of the sale and rent-back market attempts to address those issues through, for example, pre-sales disclosure and rules on terms and conditions of tenancy agreements.
The option for a consumer to avoid repossession and have the choice to enter into a sale and rent-back arrangement, and remain in his home when it is financially viable to do so, is important, but it is equally important that appropriate consumer protection is in place. The order is scheduled for debate in another place next week.
I hope that I have reassured your Lordships that the order merely clarifies the intent of previous efforts to address issues in that market and that the Committee will therefore give its support.
Lord Newby
My Lords, in view of the statement by the Deputy Chairman at the start of our proceedings about about the photographer, I am now tempted to give a 45-minute speech just to make sure that I get my picture taken in action to prove that I do things in your Lordships’ House other than turn up. However, I probably will not.
I am extremely grateful to the Minister for his introduction to the order, because it filled out the information in the Explanatory Memorandum. The phrase “sale and rent-back” is new to me; I am used to the phrase “sale and lease-back”. My first question relates to that terminology: is there a difference in law between sale and rent-back and sale and lease-back? When I think of sale and lease-back, I have commercial activity in mind. I remember that Tesco was notoriously involved in sale and lease-back of properties via the Cayman Islands a few years ago. I wondered whether this regulation meant that commercial companies involved in those kinds of deals on commercial properties are now brought into the legislative net, or whether the phrase “sale and lease-back” is already recognised in law. If I decided that I wanted to buy a Tesco store and lease it back to them, would I be covered by something that already exists or would this newly apply to me?
My other questions relates to Article 6 about the sunset clause. Within a year, more or less, of this provision coming into force a report has to be produced on how effective it has been. Presumably, the intention is that between then and 2015, if the report suggests that it has been effective, a subsequent order will be made, which no doubt will cover lots of other things as well but would continue this provision. I cannot remember, from when the Financial Services and Markets Act was going through, how this sunset provisions worked. If, as I suspect, we would expect a successor order to this one to be introduced before 1 January 2015, how long would that last for? Is this a rolling series of orders that have to be renewed every five or 10 years? Subject to that, this seems to be a sensible additional component in the consumer protection framework.
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Newby and the noble Lord, Lord Davies, for their helpful and constructive comments and questions. Let me see if I can address them. First, my noble friend asked about the difference in law between a sale and rent-back agreement and a sale and lease-back agreement. Essentially, there is no difference between the two terms, but this order relates to where firms provide sale and rent-back arrangements to individual consumers. Commercial property is thereby not covered; that is the essential distinction.
My noble friend asked about the sunset clause and whether there will be a new order after 2012. It will be for the Treasury to decide whether to renew the order with a further order—with or without a sunset provision—depending on the outcome of the review.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, asked whether consumers who are already involved in an arrangement will gain protection through this order. This order clarifies that all providers entering into sale and rent-back arrangements need to be FSA-authorised. It is a matter for the FSA whether to take enforcement action against those firms who have already entered into existing arrangements outside regulation, and decide whether these have taken place by way of business. That is the key and the defining factor. Where an unregulated sale and rent-back transaction, which should have been FSA-regulated, has taken place, those consumers will still have recourse to the Financial Ombudsman Service.
The noble Lord asked why there had been no further consultation. This order merely clarifies the intention of the original order, which was subject to full consultation by the Treasury and the FSA. Perhaps I could also concur with the noble Lord in being concerned about people facing repossession. The Government are deeply conscious of the effect that this has on people and, as I think he intimated, the purpose of this order is absolutely to prevent exacerbation of the problem. I pay tribute to the work of the previous Government in setting us on this course in the first place.
This order amends the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Carrying on Regulated Activities by Way of Business) Order 2001 to make clear that any provider of a sale and rent-back agreement, unless closely related to the consumer, will be regarded as doing so by way of business and will therefore need to be FSA-regulated. The order improves outcomes for consumers entering into sale and rent-back arrangement first, by increasing the transparency of information provided by sale and rent-back providers; secondly, by reducing the potential for consumers to enter into unsuitable arrangements; and thirdly, by increasing product quality by driving providers to improve, or exit, the market.
It has been universally welcomed by consumer groups. Citizens Advice welcomed the government commitment to ensure that people with sale and rent-back agreements are protected against bad practices. The order will ensure that FSA regulation of sale and rent-back agreements operates as first intended. I commend this order to the Committee.
Finance (No. 3) Bill
Lord De Mauley Excerpts(13 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, 21 speakers have signed up for the debate on the Second Reading of the Finance (No. 3) Bill and the report on the Finance Bill 2011. If Back-Bench contributions to the Bill are kept to seven minutes, the House should be able to rise this evening at around the target rising time of 10 pm.
Economy: Government Policies
Lord De Mauley Excerpts(13 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sugar
The House will be indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, for initiating this debate and for what he has said. He will recall that when he was Chancellor under the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, I was one of her blue-eyed boys. The young fellow from Hackney, who had done well, was a fine example of entrepreneurial spirit. She hauled me all over the place, displaying me as a prime example of what can be achieved. I was in and out of Downing Street more often than the window cleaners and possibly the noble Lord, Lord Lawson.
The thing is, people like me are a dying breed. When as a young man I went to a bank with my hand out, they thought I was part of a Morecambe and Wise team. “Do you have any collateral, a balance sheet, some history of profits?”, they asked. “No”, I replied. “Well then, clear off”, was their response. Like many others, I realised at an early stage that if you want something, you have to get it yourself. My idea of government support was: you supply me hospitals, schools, a police force, roads to drive on and a good environment for me to do business in, and that will do me fine; but do not poke your nose into my business.
To reflect on the past 15 years or so, it has been customary for a person dressed in a nice pair of designer jeans and a nice blue blazer with a white open-collared shirt, a bottle of Evian in one hand and a wonderful Microsoft spreadsheet in the other, to walk into a bank, mention the word dotcom and walk out with £5 million. Those days, I am afraid, are over. We all know what went wrong there; and we also know what a mess the banks got into recently; but the penny has not dropped with some people. We still have in some cases an expectancy culture, where people still think that there should be money freely available to finance lost causes, poorly run companies or a whim of an idea.
When I was employed as an adviser to Her Majesty's Government last year, I had occasion to visit many small to medium-sized enterprises across the country and spoke to several thousand people. The most frequently asked question of me was, “What can this Government do to help my business?”. My reply was not perceived as helpful. I told them, “Do not rely on any Government to assist you in running your business. You are people who have chosen to go into business, which is very enterprising, and I am pleased about that, but do not expect to get any advice from the Government about what products you should make, what ideas you should pursue, what services your business should provide or how you should market your products and generate income, because that is what you are supposed to do”.
More recently, I have asked people, “Who is there in government able to dish out such advice? Just step back and look at them”. Take, with the greatest respect, the current Business Secretary. He has never been in business or run a business. He has been an adviser or a politician all his life. He has never touched the coalface. Frankly, what does he know? It is this realism that brings me to my next point. In my opinion, the current Government are very good at window-dressing the demise of the economy by blaming it all on the banks. It is very convenient continually to repeat the same old broken record: “It’s not our fault. It’s the banks’ fault; it’s the previous Government's fault”.
Let us take a look at that for a moment. True, the banks were irresponsible, and they have been told in no uncertain terms to get their act together. However, having told the banks to get their house in order, the current Government are constantly bleating that the banks are not being helpful in lending money to small businesses, whereas the message to the small business community should be one of realism in understanding that no one is going to lend money to a lost cause. The banks are now looking at the traditional criteria of showing some assets or having some historic record of profits before parting with their money. They are definitely open for business. That, I remind your Lordships, is how they make some of their money. In my recent seminars, I have received comments from some people along the lines of, “The bank has been outrageous. It has actually asked me to put up some collateral—my house, for example”. Well, I am very sorry, but why not? Why should it take a risk on you if you are not prepared to take a risk on yourself?
In my capacity as a business adviser to the previous Government, I visited many Business Link centres, which I understand are funded in some way by government although I am not at all clear how. The cost of running these organisations was something in the region of £250 million per year. To be perfectly frank, apart from meeting a nice bunch of people, there was no real business advice dished out other than simple stuff you could pick up and learn for yourself by going on the internet. I urge the Government to redeploy money spent on these types of initiatives in other directions. As a simple example, there are so many empty premises around the country, large factories and warehouses, that can be converted and made into incubator factories. They could contain a core factory and a silo of workshops on the periphery. The core factory would be accessible to the individual businesses like satellites around a nucleus.
The noble Lord, Lord Lawson, said that sometimes you need to be unpopular. I think that the Government should come clean in their message to help small-to-medium-sized enterprises. You cannot on the one hand tell the banks, “You've been naughty by being irresponsible”, and on the other hand say, “Go and be irresponsible again. Go and help lost causes”. Give SMEs the facts of life. By all means be bold and be adventurous, but be realistic. Do not expect anybody in Whitehall to give you any hints and tips on how to do it because, basically, that is a case of the blind leading the blind. You are the business people, you are the ones with the ideas, and you are the ones who are going to drive your businesses forward, but regrettably, as with everything else in life, there are no free lunches.
All government can do is to provide a good business environment and assistance from HMRC—for example, export credit guarantees if you are successful enough to find an export customer, tax breaks for entrepreneurs who sell their businesses and tax deductions for investment in R&D. Here is the final point. To take advantage of the lollipops, as the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, called them, the wonderful tax incentives announced in yesterday’s Budget, perhaps I may just bring everybody down to earth again by saying that to benefit from them, you have to make a profit first. How to do that is something on which this Government, and perhaps some others, have not been capable of advising.
Budget Responsibility and National Audit Bill [HL]
Lord De Mauley Excerpts(14 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Burns
My Lords, I have a lot of sympathy with the idea of having independent reviews of forecasts and the methods employed at some intervals during the process. My concern is whether the amendment makes too much of a meal of the issue. It is important to have an appropriate way of appointing an independent person or persons to undertake this work. My preference would be to give this job to the non-executive directors of the OBR. That seems a perfectly respectable way to do this. It is common practice in companies that the independent directors should appoint auditors and should look after other forms of oversight.
I cannot believe that a group of five people is needed to undertake this task, which, as the amendment says, is to evaluate forecasts and to look at the methods used. If we are not careful, we will have the same problem as we have had with the MPC—quite soon, one runs out of qualified people to fill a committee.
I also have concerns about whether an independent review is needed every year. Not a lot will change each year. We will have one year’s figures in the forecasts and we will be able to look at the outturns. When one is looking at issues relating to bias and variables, one typically needs a run of years to be able to see the pattern of the forecasting record. The Bill suggests that there should be an annual review, but to me the issue is how often one needs independent input into this process. I would be cautious about that. It is a task that one could leave to the non-executive directors, who would decide whether, for example, an independent review was needed every year or whether internal and independent reviews should be held in alternate years. I would leave it to the independent directors, or members of the office, to determine the number of people needed for these investigations, who to recruit and whether to recruit the same people on successive occasions.
I support the idea of independent input, but let us not make a meal of it. The task is on a different scale from that in the US example that the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, cited. We need something of a size that is appropriate to the task in hand.
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, and his noble friends for their amendment and to the noble Lord, Lord Burns, for his contribution. The Government recognise the importance of external expert challenge, which is the issue that the noble Lords have raised. Indeed, the fact that the OBR analysis is publicly available means that it is open to scrutiny.
On a previous occasion, we debated whether the OBR should produce an assessment of forecast accuracy. This process needs expertise in forecasting, which the OBR clearly has. The Government argue that this expertise will be difficult, although not impossible, to find elsewhere. It also requires a full understanding of the data underpinning the forecasts. Again, the OBR has this, and a similar level of knowledge is scarce elsewhere, although, I acknowledge, not unobtainable.
Assessing previous performance provides a very valuable opportunity for the OBR to learn and understand what has driven diversions from accuracy. It is clear that it is the OBR’s intention to use the report in this way and that it has the right skill set to do so. The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, mentioned the Congressional Budget Office. I understand that, although it does indeed have a panel of external advisers who meet twice a year, the CBO carries out its own analysis of previous forecasts. I think that our proposed design is in line with discussions with international organisations.
The proposals in the amendment raise a number of issues that we need to consider. The Government, for example, believe it is difficult to envisage that the committee could get into the detail needed to produce a comprehensive and meaningful assessment. Like the noble Lord, Lord Burns, we share the concerns about a body of five people being needed to scrutinise this work. We are not sure whether the noble Lord envisages that they would be paid and, if so, how much. We also feel that there is an issue of focus and that it might be appropriate to look at a larger section of the OBR’s work, because perhaps all parts of its work could benefit from external expertise.
In general, in a broader context there is nothing to stop any person or organisation assessing the OBR’s forecast accuracy by looking at its forecasts and comparing them with the actual outturn data. Where value can be added is in making sure that the OBR uses all the best information. That is why we put an emphasis on transparency across the piece. None the less, we accept that bringing in external expertise could be very useful. We believe that it is consistent with the Bill as drafted but that it is important to take a more proportionate approach. Of course, the OBR already has the power to convene advisory panels to provide external perspectives if it sees fit, and Robert Chote indicated his interest in that in his evidence to the Treasury Select Committee. The OBR is already drawing on external expertise, as noted in its autumn forecast statement.
In conclusion, the Government will reflect on whether additional steps are needed in the light of this very helpful debate and suggestion. In particular, I am interested in the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, which I should like to take away and think about.
Lord Eatwell
I am grateful to the noble Lord. Perhaps I may take up a couple of the points to which he referred, as did the noble Lord, Lord Burns. First, there is the question of whether there would be enough people to do the job. The Treasury sends out a compendium of about 40 independent forecasts, so at least 40 independent forecasting organisations are doing this job. It seems to me that within those organisations, as well as within universities and research organisations such as the national institute, there is a sufficient pool of talent to draw on over the years to ensure that this job is well done.
Secondly, in suggesting that there should be a team of five, I was not recommending that they all commit themselves to do the job in any one year; rather, I was proposing that they act as a committee, perhaps assigning a couple of its members to do the job each year. The group of five would provide continuity over the piece.
There was then the question of how much the committee members should be paid. I should tell the noble Lord that academics, in particular, are so obsessive and competitive that they will do this in exchange for a good lunch. Given the amount that they are paid, they are not so well fed these days, and I do not think that there would be any difficulty in finding suitable people at a reasonable level of remuneration.
The key issue is bringing in external experts who are committed to doing the job. As I conceded in my opening speech, the transparency with which the OBR is to operate will attract outside commentators. What is needed is a group of people who have suitable expertise, in whom the Chancellor and the Select Committee of another place have confidence, and whose responsibility it would be to comment on the two major forecasts per year that the OBR is required under the Bill to make. However, I am heartened by the Minister’s response and look forward to further discussions on this matter. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Budget Responsibility and National Audit Bill [HL]
Lord De Mauley Excerpts(14 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, this might be a convenient if somewhat early moment for the Committee to adjourn until Thursday at 2 pm.
Budget Responsibility and National Audit Bill [HL]
Lord De Mauley Excerpts(14 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, this may be a convenient moment for the Committee to adjourn until Wednesday at 3.45 pm.
Comprehensive Spending Review
Lord De Mauley Excerpts(14 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord James of Blackheath
Not into my pocket. My biggest terrorist client was the IRA and I am pleased to say that I managed to write off more than £1 billion of its money. I have also had extensive connections with north African terrorists, but that was of a far nastier nature, and I do not want to talk about that because it is still a security issue. I hasten to add that it is no good getting the police in, because I shall immediately call the Bank of England as my defence witness, given that it put me in to deal with these problems.
The point is that when I was in the course of doing this strange activity, I had an interesting set of phone numbers and references that I could go to for help when I needed it. So people in the City have known that if they want to check out anything that looks at all odd, they can come to me and I can press a few phone numbers to obtain a reference. The City firm came to me and asked whether I could get a reference and a clearance on foundation X. For 20 weeks, I have been endeavouring to do that. I have come to the absolute conclusion that foundation X is completely genuine and sincere and that it directly wishes to make the United Kingdom one of the principal points that it will use to disseminate its extraordinarily great wealth into the world at this present moment, as part of an attempt to seek the recovery of the global economy.
I made the phone call to my noble friend Lord Strathclyde on a Sunday afternoon—I think he was sitting on his lawn, poor man—and he did the quickest ball pass that I have ever witnessed. If England can do anything like it at Twickenham on Saturday, we will have a chance against the All Blacks. The next think I knew, I had my noble friend Lord Sassoon on the phone. From the outset, he took the proper defensive attitude of total scepticism, and said, “This cannot possibly be right”. During the following weeks, my noble friend said, “Go and talk to the Bank of England”. So I phoned the governor and asked whether he could check this out for me. After about three days, he came back and said, “You can get lost. I’m not touching this with a bargepole; it is far too difficult. Take it back to the Treasury”. So I did. Within another day, my noble friend Lord Sassoon had come back and said, “This is rubbish. It can’t possibly be right”. I said, “I am going to work more on it”. Then I brought one of the senior executives from foundation X to meet my noble friend Lord Strathclyde. I have to say that, as first dates go, it was not a great success. Neither of them ended up by inviting the other out for a coffee or drink at the end of the evening, and they did not exchange telephone numbers in order to follow up the meeting.
I found myself between a rock and a hard place that were totally paranoid about each other, because the foundation X people have an amazing obsession with their own security. They expect to be contacted only by someone equal to head of state status or someone with an international security rating equal to the top six people in the world. This is a strange situation. My noble friends Lord Sassoon and Lord Strathclyde both came up with what should have been an absolute killer argument as to why this could not be true and that we should forget it. My noble friend Lord Sassoon’s argument was that these people claimed to have evidence that last year they had lodged £5 billion with British banks. They gave transfer dates and the details of these transfers. As my noble friend Lord Sassoon, said, if that were true it would stick out like a sore thumb. You could not have £5 billion popping out of a bank account without it disrupting the balance sheet completely. But I remember that at about the same time as those transfers were being made the noble Lord, Lord Myners, was indulging in his game of rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic of the British banking community. If he had three banks at that time, which had had, say, a deficiency of £1.5 billion each, then you would pretty well have absorbed the entire £5 billion, and you would not have had the sore thumb stick out at that time; you would have taken £1.5 billion into each of three banks and you would have absorbed the lot. That would be a logical explanation—I do not know.
My noble friend Lord Strathclyde came up with a very different argument. He said that this cannot be right because these people said at the meeting with him that they were still effectively on the gold standard from back in the 1920s and that their entire currency holdings throughout the world, which were very large, were backed by bullion. My noble friend Lord Strathclyde came back and said to me that he had an analyst working on it and that this had to be stuff and nonsense. He said that they had come up with a figure for the amount of bullion that would be needed to cover their currency reserves, as claimed, which would be more than the entire value of bullion that had ever been mined in the history of the world. I am sorry but my noble friend Lord Strathclyde is wrong; his analysts are wrong. He had tapped into the sources that are available and there is only one definitive source for the amount of bullion that has ever been taken from the earth’s crust. That was a National Geographic magazine article 12 years ago. Whatever figure it was that was quoted was then quoted again on six other sites on the internet—on Google. Everyone is quoting one original source; there is no other confirming authority. But if you tap into the Vatican accounts—of the Vatican bank—you come up with a claim of total bullion—
Lord De Mauley
The noble Lord is into his fifteenth minute. I wonder whether he can draw his remarks to a conclusion.
Lord James of Blackheath
The total value of the Vatican bank reserves would claim to be more than the entire value of gold ever mined in the history of the world. My point on all of this is that we have not proven any of this. Foundation X is saying at this moment that it is prepared to put up the entire £5 billion for the funding of the three Is recreation; the British Government can have the entire independent management and control of it—foundation X does not want anything to do with it; there will be no interest charged; and, by the way, if the British Government would like it as well, if it will help, it will be prepared to put up money for funding hospitals, schools, the building of Crossrail immediately with £17 billion transfer by Christmas, if requested, and all these other things. These things can be done, if wished, but a senior member of the Government has to accept the invitation to a phone call to the chairman of foundation X—and then we can get into business. This is too big an issue. I am just an ageing, obsessive old Peer and I am easily dispensable, but getting to the truth is not. We need to know what really is happening here. We must find out the truth of this situation.
EU: Economic Governance
Lord De Mauley Excerpts(14 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Richard
My Lords, did I hear the Minister saying that the Government would consider changes to the treaty that did not involve a transfer of sovereignty from this country to the EU? Did he say that? If he did, what are the implications of that for the Prime Minister’s commitment that there would be a referendum on the Lisbon treaty if there were any changes to it? There is a distinction between any changes to the treaty and changes that transfer sovereignty from Britain to the EU. Which is it?
Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc. Bill [HL]
Lord De Mauley Excerpts(14 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
My Lords, perhaps I may briefly echo my support for the noble and learned Lord’s amendment.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
My Lords, the Minister gave three reasons why he could not accept the amendment, the first of which was that the measures are meant to be preventive. However, they are also rather more than preventive; they are extremely restrictive of the basic right of any individual to deal with his assets as he thinks fit. He also said that we are not concerned here with human rights. Of course we are; we are concerned with Article 1.