Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill

Lord Eatwell Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Wednesday 18th October 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I will talk a little about the role of the House as a revising Chamber and the legislative process. I am not an expert on the legalities of combating fraud, although I am well aware of the international dimensions of economic crime as someone who worked in the international sphere.

We have had a thorough committee process which was largely non-partisan; indeed, the way this House has treated the Bill has been almost entirely so. I have learned a great deal from a number of former Conservative Ministers and Cross-Benchers on the Bill, and I am interested to hear that two other former Conservative Ministers in the House of Commons supported the approach of these two Motions.

We are a revising Chamber, and the parliamentary process should be one in which reasoned amendments are taken into account by the Government and, where the Government are not entirely sure of their ground, compromises are made. The role of a Lords Minister is partly to act as a mediator between the reasoned arguments in this Chamber and the insistence of Cabinet Ministers that whatever they had thought of in the first place should absolutely go through unchanged. I have a strong memory of talking to Cabinet Ministers when I was a Lords Minister about why perhaps they might not wish to insist on their full original, because the reasoned arguments made in the Lords were sufficiently persuasive. That is the process that should be taken on. This is not an attempt to delay the Bill further: we are all committed to it going through. We are also committed to future-proofing it, so that it does not have to be amended, and to producing a Bill that commands as wide a consensus of support as possible.

I remind the Minister that we have not followed that for some Bills we have seen in recent Sessions. I am sure that he is well aware of the issue of party finance, which came up in the Elections Act and the National Security Act. He was sufficiently firm in resisting some of our arguments as to accuse me at one point of spreading rumours about a non-problem. I have now learned that the Leader of the Commons, Penny Mordaunt, has just written to the Security Minister to ask for the assistance of the intelligence agencies in investigating the origins of donations to political parties from foreign sources, so clearly there is now recognition within government that there is a real problem. There are other aspects of that Elections Act, particularly the insistence on a strategy statement from the Secretary of State, which the Government also appear to have had second thoughts on. Sadly, whoever become the next Government will have to introduce another elections Bill to put right some of the things that this House wished to amend but that the Government resisted.

Here we are with a Bill that has been improved and carefully scrutinised, and on which I, certainly, am persuaded by having listened at length and in succession to the arguments made by former Conservative Ministers wanting simply to improve the Bill to improve the fight against international fraud and economic crime.

Having been persuaded by that, I and the team on these Benches will recommend that Members of the Liberal Democrat group in the House support both the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord in pressing their amendments, if they wish to do so, because we believe in a legislative process in which this House has a role to play, in carefully scrutinising and improving Bills, and making sure that when a Bill becomes an Act, it lasts for some time, because it commands a widespread consensus.

[Lord Eatwell (Lab)]

My Lords, I listened carefully to the case that the Minister advanced against these amendments. The core of that case seemed to be that the cost of a company actually responding to this legislation would make the company less efficient, and that it should be concentrating, as he said, on increasing its production and activities, and not be bothered with issues such as fraud, perhaps. What was peculiar about the Minister’s argument was that it was an argument which could be placed against any regulation whatever. It could be placed against the need, as has been commented already, to have seatbelts in cars. That increased the costs of production of the vehicle and, indeed, the cost of the vehicle. It could be argued that most financial regulation, which seeks to increase the stability and respectability of the financial system in this country, increases costs. Yes, it does, but the benefit far exceeds the cost.

If the Minister feels that the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, increases costs and damages production, why is he accepting it at all, even for larger companies? It seems to me that this is an empty argument. The Minister has not produced any data or argument for the cost-benefit trade-off on which he has rested his entire case. In fact, I think he has no case at all.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I start by echoing something that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, said: overall, we all believe that this is a good Bill. It is a step forward, and we welcome the changes that the Government have made over a number of months to improve it, and that they have listened to the various points that have been made. It would be churlish not to say that to the Minister at the outset, but that does not alter the fact that the amendments tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, and the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, seek to address two omissions where, even at this late stage, the Government could act to further improve the Bill. I say to both that should they choose to test the opinion of the House, we certainly will support them in the Lobbies to do that.

I will not repeat the arguments. It was interesting; sometimes, when you are constrained by time, the argument distils down to its essence. I think that what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, said, supported by the noble Lords, Lord Agnew, Lord Eatwell and Lord Wallace, really summed it up with respect to his amendment. As he said, the failure to prevent bribery offence applies to everyone; there is no opt-out or exemption. The Government do not think that that is too burdensome for anyone. As he also said, no company is too small to be exempted from the failure to prevent tax evasion offence. But on this particular emphasis, the failure to prevent fraud, the Government come forward and say: “We need to protect a certain number of businesses”.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, has moved amendment after amendment to try to come closer to the Government’s position. As the noble Lords, Lord Agnew and Lord Eatwell, have just said, if you took that to its extreme, you would impose no costs on business at all, and they used the seatbelt argument. So we are very happy to support the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, should he choose to test the opinion of the House.

I shall pick out one aspect of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Faulks. It was a feature of all our debates and discussions that we wanted law enforcement to take tougher action against those who committed fraud. We believed that the state could and should take more action, that the amount of money lost with respect to fraud was enormous and that we need to do something about it. What I picked out from what the noble Lord said was about reducing the possibility of action not being taken by law enforcement agencies because they were frightened of the possibility of costs —not on the merits of the case that they might seek to pursue but simply because they were frightened that they may incur costs. As such, both amendments are simple but important ones that would do what this House, and I believe the public, expect Parliament to do, which is to give as much power as possible within the Bill to tackle the problem of fraud, which is what we all want.

Criminal Finances Bill

Lord Eatwell Excerpts

3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 25th April 2017 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register of the House and, in particular, that I was chief executive of a class 1 major reinsurer in Bermuda for a number of years and have very wide experience of financial services in that country and generally.

I pay tribute to the Minister and also to the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, in their respective ways. I am afraid that I can pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, but I disagree with her fundamentally. While I feel that the appalling catalogue of problems that she read out is terrible, worrying, vile and awful, Amendment 14 is not a good way of addressing the issue. She challenged me to try to provide a better way, and I will in the course of my remarks.

People often do not understand how big a jurisdiction Bermuda is. Bermuda overtook London as a centre of reinsurance in 2004. London remains number two in the world. No major insurer in this country would be able to trade without the reinsurance that it purchases from Bermuda. The amount of money, capital and sophistication in Bermuda is enormous. The BMA—the chief regulator there, of which more in a second—is an extremely professional and very tough regulator. Bermuda was not responsible for even one of the revelations in the Panama papers and is a very clean jurisdiction, and it is particularly unfair that it is named in this amendment.

I have four particular points, on two of which I can be very quick. The first is a general point about interference by Westminster in the affairs of these self-governing regimes. I agree with the Minister, and I will say no more. The second is a general point about shifting the problem to another jurisdiction. I agree that shifting a bad thing is a good thing in many ways, but shifting a good company is a bad thing because you are simply damaging the jurisdiction. There are many good companies, and I will explain in a second why this amendment would have the effect of shifting good companies. It would be very wrong for us to impose damage on our loyal overseas territories and possessions.

My third point is about the three things that control and look at naughtiness in financial services, which are the tax authorities, the police authorities and the regulators. As a chief executive of a big company, of course one is worried by tax authorities and policemen, but the person who can walk into your office and stop you trading immediately is the regulator. He has the most power, and he is the toughest. I regret that in the many debates we have had the power of regulators has not really been discussed, nor has how sophisticated they are and how close they are to what is going on. It is not possible for one of these shell companies to be set up without a regulator being involved because that company will require a bank account. Banks are heavily regulated. If the shell company does not require a bank account, it will require a fund manager to look after its money. They are very heavily regulated. A person running the support business in a high-integrity environment such as Bermuda would not allow someone —one bad client—to come in and kill off their whole business. They would be very careful to make sure that that does not happen. You are scared of regulators. You are of course scared of tax and police authorities, and you are more than willing to give up any information that will protect your business because no one client is worth it. Your business is your business; your staff are your staff. That is how everyone feels—I hope noble Lords can hear a level of emotion in my voice.

A sub-point is that in our society we rely on the forces of law enforcement to deal with naughtiness on our behalf. We do not have vigilante posses running around trying to do things. I worry that if everything were publicly available people would suddenly see themselves as being promoted into some sort of enforcement environment. That is wrong. We should leave these things to the professionals—the tax authorities, the police authorities and the regulators—and trust. If they do not do a good enough job, we should bash them. We should not allow vigilante posses.

I move to my fourth point, which is the most worrying point for me. I have mentioned it to the noble Baroness, Lady Stern. For many years, Hiscox, the group I worked for for so long, looked after the possessions of well-off people all over the world. It is also the leading kidnap and ransom insurer throughout the world. During my time at Hiscox, we logged 40,000 man days of kidnap problems around the world. Hiscox’s market share was more than 50%, so it understood the issues. In this country, we are very lucky to live in an environment where we are safe and secure. I will walk home tonight and think nothing of it. I can get into a smart car and think nothing of it. That is not the case in countries such as Mexico. In Mexico, you cannot keep your company with a local bank or keep your money there. In quite a lot of countries, you need to go to offshore environments, and you are a good client because you have earned your money. Hiscox’s perfect client was someone who owned a beer factory in Mexico or something because it knew they were straight and honest and could see how they had made their money. People were very scared. Part of kidnap and ransom is advising clients. Hiscox advised them to keep quiet about it and to be discreet. That is the chief weapon that will stop nastiness going on. When the nastiness happens, it happens not to the guy running the beer factory but to his daughter. It happens in a nasty way. I worry that the effect of this sort of thinking, without a proper impact assessment being sorted out and thought about very carefully, could be that we would be sentencing some people who have made their money honestly to physical harm and the invasion of their homes.

I finish by saying that of course I do not want any of this naughtiness to go on, but I feel strongly that Amendment 14 is not the way to go about it. We should rely on the police, the tax authorities and the regulators to do it for us. We should look very carefully at their performance in all of these countries and carry on, as the Government have been doing so successfully, getting incremental improvement. This House should make sure we carry on pushing the Government to push the authorities to get that incremental improvement. But I plead with the House not to support Amendment 14.

[Lord Eatwell (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, first, I declare an interest as chairman of the Jersey Financial Services Commission and therefore the person responsible for the beneficial ownership register in Jersey. The question addressed in Amendment 14, of public access to registers of beneficial ownership, is not one for me, and I will not address the value or otherwise of making a register public—that is a political issue. The regulator in Jersey is independent, and I therefore have no role in those political decisions, but I am concerned about whether a register of beneficial ownership is accurate and therefore useful.

A number of speakers have referred to the public availability of the register of beneficial ownership here in the UK—essentially the Companies House register. As I pointed out in Committee, that register is not a useful one, since it is not verified and, because of that, the information in it can be seriously misleading. Indeed, because it is not verified, the people in developing countries and indeed civil society as a whole are on their own with respect to attempting to identify wrongdoing through the structure of the register. The register does not do the job. Regrettably, the UK is not a leader in providing verified, accurate information about beneficial ownership.

I want to address two issues with respect to the amendments. First, what I have just said will make clear why I regard Amendment 14 as seriously defective in not including the word “verified”. The characterisation of the information in proposed new subsection (4) is of a,

“publicly accessible register of beneficial ownership”,

with information “equivalent” to that under the Companies Act. The word “verified” does not appear. Therefore, the information can be inaccurate and misleading, with nobody required here to check it.

For the second point, I go back to the Minister’s amendment. Amendment 8, which has not been discussed very much up until now, says not only that “relevant” territories will provide information to the UK and we will have a report on how that information is provided but that the UK will provide “beneficial ownership information” to the relevant territories. I presume that includes my registry in Jersey. But I would like to know what information is going to be provided. If it is the Companies House information, we should really not bother; if it is some verified information, I will be very pleased to receive it. I would be grateful if the Minister, when she sums up, could tell us exactly what information is going to be provided by the UK, whether it is going to be verified and, if so, by what authority. Only if we have accurate information will the objective of those supporting Amendment 14—the revelation of wrongdoing —be achieved. If information is not verified, that goal is not achieved. Amendment 14 is defective in that respect, and I would be grateful if the Minister, when summing up, would tell me exactly what sort of information will be provided by the UK to my registry in Jersey and by whom it will be verified.

Criminal Finances Bill

Lord Eatwell Excerpts

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 3rd April 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Eatwell (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I regret that I did not have the opportunity to participate in the Second Reading debate on this Bill as I was abroad. I have, however, read with care the record in Hansard, in particular those speeches by noble Lords who referred to the matters under consideration in this group of amendments. I wish to speak to Amendment 169 and do so because I have a particular interest to declare. I am the chairman of the Jersey Financial Services Commission. The company register in Jersey, which maintains the register of beneficial ownership, is a division of the Financial Services Commission and hence Amendment 169 refers to matters which are my direct personal responsibility.

I should say at the outset that I will not comment on the main issue of this debate, which is whether a register should be publicly available, other than to comment on the claims by Her Majesty’s Government that link public availability to effective verification. The issue of public availability is a political matter. The JFSC is an independent regulator; that is, it is independent of the political authorities in Jersey and hence the question of public availability is not a matter for me. What is a matter for me is subsection (4) of the proposed new clause in this amendment which states that,

“‘a publicly accessible register of the beneficial ownership of companies’ means a register which, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, provides information broadly equivalent to that available in accordance with the provisions of Part 21A of the Companies Act 2006”.

It is of course this information that forms the basis of the register at Companies House. I regret that this subsection reflects a serious lack of relevant understanding of the issue of reliability both of the Jersey register of beneficial ownership and of the Companies House register of People with Significant Control. Reliability depends upon verification, whether the information is true or false. The Panama papers were so successful in revealing ill-doing because they happened to contain information that was broadly true. I am afraid that this is not the case in the Companies House register.

Jersey has maintained a register of beneficial ownership since 1989. Initially, the legal requirement was for a statement of beneficial ownership when a company was first registered. That statement had to be updated when there was a change in circumstances amounting to a 25% change in ownership. Today, the requirement is for regular updating. At this very moment a detailed survey of beneficial ownership is under way to provide a complete picture of the state of affairs on 30 June this year. Thereafter, it will become a requirement to update information in Jersey on a 21-day limit when information is available.

This information is subject to detailed supervision and verification. For example, trust companies are required under the money laundering order to obtain and maintain beneficial ownership information. Client files are checked on supervisory visits to ensure that they have done so. Record-keeping failures are subject to enforcement action with failures resulting in individuals being banned from the industry and firms being subject to significant remediation. As was noted earlier, the Jersey register is available to all relevant authorities, including the National Crime Agency’s financial intelligence unit, and in the next year or so will be available in real time. In addition to current procedures, an annual validation process on beneficial ownership and control is to be introduced in 2019 to replace annual company returns.

Jersey not only maintains a detailed register of beneficial ownership, but subjects that register to detailed supervision and verification. Compare this state of affairs with the UK’s register of People with Significant Control. Almost all UK companies are required to maintain registers of people with significant control, known as PSCs. This information is maintained on the Companies House register and is available publicly through the Companies House website. But note: Companies House carries out no noticeable verification of the information provided. It certainly does not in terms of annual returns or regular confirmation. Companies House has always seen itself as a repository of information—a library, if you like, but not a regulator. Of course, company formation agents are often used in the UK and they are subject to anti-money laundering supervision by Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs. However, I understand it is standard practice for such agents to argue that setting up a company is a one-off transaction and thus exempt from anti-money laundering requirements. So HMRC does not verify either.

Just as in Jersey, it is of course an offence to submit false information to Companies House and a company will commit an offence if it does not declare its beneficial ownership information accurately. But I am afraid that enforcement of this offence is akin to the enforcement of the offence of not putting the ball in straight at a rugby scrum. The consequences for the UK register are well known. For example, an investigation in November last year by the organisation Global Witness noted that with respect to the UK register there were,

“2,160 beneficial owners born in 2016. Now either these are a very precocious bunch of toddlers or the data has been entered incorrectly”—

there is no verification. It continued:

“We also had people who listed 9988 as their year of birth—clearly a visitor from the future”.


It will not surprise noble Lords that the UK register has been the subject of some criticism, notably in the recent consultation on the fourth money laundering directive. Referring to such criticism in the consultation, Her Majesty’s Treasury argued:

“Some responses argued that consideration should be given to the accuracy of data on the PSC register, and the benefit of introducing verification measures in the incorporation process conducted by Companies House. The government is confident that maintaining one of the most open and extensively accessed registers in the world is a powerful tool in identifying false, inaccurate, or possibly fraudulent information. With many eyes viewing the data, errors, omissions or worse can be identified and reported. This means that the information held on the register can be policed on a significant scale by a variety of users. Ongoing consideration is being given as to whether this could be complemented by any additional measures”.


With all due respect, this is just wishful thinking. It amounts to saying that it is the responsibility of civil society to find out for itself what the structure of beneficial ownership might be, because our register is unreliable. Unearthing the reality of beneficial ownership requires the advanced skills of a financial services supervisor or, as I have learned, a forensic accountant. The deliberate provision of false, inaccurate or possibly fraudulent information is to deceive the authorities and civil society. We are not talking about simple mis-registration of a date of birth; it is false information which is the key. It is fanciful to suppose that many untutored eyes will identify clever fraud. I regret to say that, as a regulator, it is my personal opinion that Her Majesty’s Government’s unwillingness to verify the register of PSCs is a dereliction of regulatory duty.

Indeed, it is evident that, in reality, Her Majesty’s Treasury has no confidence in the Companies House register. In the draft regulations published by Her Majesty’s Treasury for the implementation of the fourth money laundering directive, Regulation 28 sets out the requirements for a firm to carry out due diligence on its customers. In doing so, Regulation 28(9) states that firms,

“do not satisfy their requirements … by relying only on the information … contained in … the register of people with significant control kept by a company under section 790M of the Companies Act 2006”.

In other words, Her Majesty’s Treasury will not accept information taken from the register at Companies House as fulfilling any due diligence responsibility. It does not believe the register.

Given that Her Majesty’s Treasury clearly regards the Companies House register as inadequate, I would be grateful if the Minister would tell the House what are the current conclusions of Her Majesty’s Government’s “considerations” as to whether the Companies House register will be verified. When will the UK produce a register that can be believed in?

To return to the main point, I hope that it is now clear that proposed new subsection (4) in Amendment 169, which calls for information in Crown dependency registers to be “broadly equivalent” to the Companies House register, would result in a major deterioration in the quality of the Jersey register. The amendment calls for the replacement of information that is subject to detailed and regular supervisory scrutiny with information that is not verified at all. I hope that, on this basis, noble Lords will not press their amendment, having been made aware of the damage that it would do to the cause of the availability of accurate and verified information on beneficial ownership.

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell. I apologise to the noble Baroness for not hearing the totality of her speech.

I shall not repeat what the noble Lord has just said. He cited in particular Jersey. I declare an interest as vice-chairman of the All-Party Group for the Cayman Islands, and I necessarily had some discussions about this Bill. I also have a member of my family working in the Cayman Islands. As to verifying beneficial ownership, which is what we are primarily talking about here, the situation in the Cayman Islands is that it has been a legal requirement there for 10 years now, and the authorities do verify the accuracy of the information that is given, in contrast to what the noble Lord rightly says about UK Companies House, which is basically a self-registration system. That is clearly nowhere near comparable to the norm in the best of the overseas territories.

Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Regulations 2013

Lord Eatwell Excerpts

Monday 18th March 2013 Grand Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach)]

My Lords, I am sure the Committee will recall that after discussion in Grand Committee I came to the House on 28 January and obtained approval to amend the Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Order 2011, which provides powers to charge for visa, immigration and nationality applications and services. I indicated at the time that I would return to debate the specific fees charged for the applications and services within the scope of that order.

These fees are set out in regulations made under Section 51 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006. A subset of those fees set above costs is then set out in accordance with the powers granted in Section 42 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004, as amended by Section 20 of the UK Borders Act 2007. Noble Lords will have seen the Immigration Minister’s Written Statement of 25 February, and I am happy to take points on any of the fee proposals here today, whether contained in these regulations or in those that will be laid shortly for fees set at or below the cost of processing.

We have sought to limit most increases to 3%, which is in line with recent measures of inflation. The fees that have increased by more than 3% include the following. First, the indefinite leave to remain fee is increasing from £991 to £1,051. The right to stay indefinitely in the UK is the most valuable entitlement provided by any product offered by the UK Border Agency. It is right that the fee for this product should not be exceeded by that for any products for migrants staying temporarily in the UK.

Secondly, for dependants applying to extend their leave in the UK at the same time as the main applicant, their fees were previously set at half the main applicant’s fees. We are reducing the concession on these fees so that those dependants will pay 75% of a main applicant’s fees. This is consistent with our policy to better align fees for applications made in the UK with those made overseas, where all dependants pay the full fee. It also reflects that each individual on an application may receive an independent set of entitlements, which will result in additional administration costs.

Thirdly, on registering for British citizenship, different fees currently apply to applications for naturalisation and those for registration, even though 99% of registration applicants receive the same status: namely, British citizenship. It is fair that those who receive the same entitlements pay the same fee. The fee for applying to register for citizenship will therefore increase to £673 as a first step towards alignment with naturalisation fees.

The fees for some applications have increased to reflect unit costs. These include those for reissues of or corrections to nationality certificates, nationality status and non-acquisition letters, and sponsors’ fees for tier 5 certificates of sponsorship and the tier 4 confirmation of acceptance for studies. It should be noted that some fees have also reduced in line with unit costs, including those for the transfer of conditions, renunciation of nationality and settlement visas for refugees’ dependent relatives.

We are also introducing some new fees. As I said when we debated the fees order, we are amending the way in which fees for applications made in person are structured. The main changes are as follows. A single uplift fee of £375 is payable, in addition to the relevant standard fee for applications made in person. This replaces a large number of public enquiry office fees in the existing regulations. The £375 in-person fee includes £100 payable for the arrangement of an in-person appointment. The fee is being introduced to tackle abuse of the public enquiry office booking system by organisations and individuals who have been making speculative appointments but then failing to attend. Such actions deprive genuine applicants of the opportunity to attend a PEO and damage a legitimate revenue stream for the UK Government.

A priority service fee of £275 for the expedited processing of standard applications via some routes will also be charged within the UK. Initially, this will be offered to selected tier 2 in-the-UK applicants, although we intend a phased rollout of the service to remaining temporary and permanent migration routes in future. In response to requests for such a service from universities and colleges, we are introducing, following a successful pilot, an extension of optional premium services to education sector sponsors in tier 4. Sponsors will pay £8,000 per year for an enhanced level of customer services.

A further £55 charge will be made for applications for documentation from EEA nationals and their non-EEA family members who are exercising free movement rights in the UK. Charging for these documents is common across Europe, and £55 will help the UK Border Agency to cover some of the administrative costs of this facility. Further, an extended-validity visa will be charged at £80 for those involved in the preparation of the Commonwealth Games, which are being held in Glasgow next year.

We have also taken the opportunity to split the fee for the tier 1 exceptional talent route to encourage more people to apply. As a result, migrants will know whether they are considered talented by the competent bodies before making and paying for a leave application. Following recent policy changes and a significant fee reduction, we also expect to see more applications via the graduate entrepreneur route.

The latest published data on UK Border Agency processing show that 91% of all applications received by the agency are processed within service standards. The majority of those applications are for visas for people coming to the UK, and we are exceeding our service standards for non-settlement visas. Where issues have arisen, particularly in the UK, the agency has taken steps to address them and expects that most of the affected application routes will be back within service standards by spring 2013.

Legal migration brings economic, cultural and social benefits to the UK. We shall continue to ensure that fees for immigration and nationality send a clear signal overseas that this country welcomes genuine visitors and the brightest and best migrants. These proposals support that message. We shall continue to monitor the economic, equality and diversity impacts of our changes. We shall ensure that our fees continue to be priced at competitive levels when compared with those in other key countries. These regulations provide a basis for a sustainable immigration system that will command public support, and I commend them to the Committee.

[Lord Eatwell]

My Lords, I shall refer to the applications-in-person fees that the Minister mentioned in his introduction. The idea that an efficient service is being provided in this case will, certainly in Cambridge, generate hollow laughter. I refer him to the case of a colleague of mine who, as a tier 1 applicant in person, has made a consistent series of applications for a personal appointment in order to secure an extension of tier 1 permission in good time so that she can attend important international conferences that are fundamental to her career and to the performance of her high-quality services here in the UK. Despite numerous telephone calls, hanging on for over an hour on one occasion, she was unable to obtain an appointment for a month. However, she was offered an appointment by a person in Turkey for £3,000. The Minister referred to the abuses that there have been in respect of applications in person, but I ask him why we are imposing a fee of £375 on such applications in person when the person making a profit of £3,000 will regard this as a perfectly good bet.

Why are we not improving the service? One thing that the Minister did not mention in his entire presentation was value for money. The service provided is lamentable. The British public, and indeed people resident here from overseas, are not receiving value for money. He described the fees as competitive with other countries. So what? Why do we not provide a basic service?

Eventually my colleague got an appointment in Cardiff. She went there to have her permission to stay renewed. The UK Border Agency office in Cardiff was deserted, although she had not been able to obtain an appointment. The reason, of course, was that the appointments had been jammed up by those who were illegally making appointments in order to jump the queue, because of the sheer inefficiency of the border agency in managing this process. Can we not say about applications in person that within the UK, for people who as tier 1 applicants are so important for the future of our economy, we will provide a decent service, which we are not doing at the moment, instead of imposing a higher fee upon them?

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining the effect of the regulations in what appears to be more detail and greater depth than was the case with the Minister in the other place. However, I am sure he will be relieved to know that I still intend to be brief, despite his very thorough explanation.

As we know, the UK Border Agency first conducted a full public consultation on charging for immigration and nationality applications in 2006, and that consultation led to the principle being established that the UKBA should operate a flexible pricing approach to setting fees for immigration services, to take account of wider policy objectives while reducing the contribution made by the taxpayer. As the Minister said, the regulations that we are considering today, which are pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Order 2011, come into force on 6 April and replace similar regulations that have been effective since April last year. They set out the changed fees to be paid for immigration and nationality applications or services, which will also enable a significant part of the costs to be recouped.

We support the principles involved, including premium services that the Government intend to introduce. However, I am sure the Minister will wish to respond to the specific point made by my noble friend Lord Eatwell, which certainly deserves a considered response, about what appears to be a far from satisfactory situation.

Beyond that, I do not intend to say anything further about these regulations. I would simply comment that in the light of a recent Written Answer that I received from the Minister, it appears as though the Home Office might not be having as much success as it would wish in reducing or containing the number of orders and regulations in existence. I had understood that to be a government objective in pursuit of their objective to reduce what they have described as unnecessary regulation. No doubt at some stage in the future we will have the opportunity to consider that question in greater detail.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I thank both noble Lords for their contributions. Although different, both were very valuable. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, that the complexity of immigration rules and regulations is a matter of concern. I am fairly certain that we will have opportunities to discuss these matters in full.

This is a little like Topsy. Successive Governments have tried to deal with the complex issues raised through immigration rules and regulations. They need dealing with. I hope that Parliament can play its part in ensuring that this matter is made much easier to manage. That is no excuse, however, for the situation described by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, and there are aspects of the UKBA that are of concern to the Home Office and to the Government in general. While I cannot comment on the specific case in point, I hope that I made it clear in my introduction that we were aware that there was abuse in this area and that false appointments denied people the opportunity of having a personal appointment to deal with their case. It is important to emphasise the value of such personal appointments. They enable key people to make sure that their application is dealt with and to have a face to face encounter.

Much of this is designed, as I think noble Lords will see from the university sponsor’s fee of £8,000, to try to make the UKBA much more consumer focused. The UKBA exists to serve the process whereby people can move in and out of this country and contribute to our economic, cultural and social life, points that I made at the beginning.

Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord whether he would mind documenting for me the case that he described. Government and opposition have a joint interest in making sure that the UKBA achieves, at least in governance terms, what I think we across the House and in this Committee would wish to see. It would be very helpful if the noble Lord could take the time to do that for me.

[Lord Eatwell]

My Lords, since I was very critical of the border agency in my earlier remarks, I should say that when my friend arrived at the deserted office in Cardiff, she received an excellent service.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

That is very reassuring. I think that the individual staff members of the UKBA are determined to turn the body around. I am satisfied that the organisation is heading in the right direction, but it is very useful to know where the pinch points are.

As noble Lords will know, we will consolidate regulation because we review the fees on an annual basis. It is right that we review the fees, but primary legislation requires them to be affirmed by Parliament. I hear the concerns expressed by noble Lords, both those of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, in the generality and those of the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, in the particular. Meanwhile, I commend the regulations to the Grand Committee.