Mortgage Prisoners Inquiry Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Leong and Earl of Effingham

3rd reading
Friday 4th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, for his tireless work on proactively raising awareness of this issue and continuing to maintain that dialogue. The nearly 200,000 individuals trapped as mortgage prisoners will be thanking him as he keeps up the momentum. People who are unable to secure better mortgage terms for a whole range of reasons often suffer challenging financial hardship and its detrimental knock-on effects, particularly in a world of heightened interest rates as a result of the many geopolitical risks of the past few years. This issue is a well-documented problem that has its roots largely in the 2008 financial crisis.

His Majesty’s Official Opposition understand the frustration of mortgage prisoners across the country, and we support the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, in his efforts to bring the challenges mortgage prisoners face to the attention of His Majesty’s Government, with a view to finding a resolution to this long-standing problem. These challenges are ruining lives:

“It’s a constant, daily battle to get up and get on with the day knowing that at the end of it there’s nothing to show for it other than being able to maintain the roof over my head”.


It is only right that your Lordships’ House continues its work to raise the profile of this issue.

When we debated the Bill at Second Reading, we raised concerns about the lengthy nature of inquiries, and we hope that the Government will seek resolution as swiftly as possible. We should not risk delaying that process.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, for his continued commitment to this important issue, and all noble Lords who have contributed their perspectives to the debate. As discussed at Second Reading, the origins and treatment of mortgage prisoners have been subject to close consideration by Parliament, the Treasury Committee and the Financial Conduct Authority. The circumstances of mortgage prisoners are not a matter the Government take lightly.

However, the Government consider that the Bill is not necessary. It would divert resources and focus on to issues that have already been extensively scrutinised, and our assessment continues to be that the correct process was followed when these mortgages were sold back to the private sector in the years after the financial crisis. Since then, the Financial Conduct Authority has introduced further protections, including a modified affordability assessment and, more recently, the consumer duty, which places clear obligations on all mortgage lenders to ensure fair treatment for their customers.

Nevertheless, the Government remain committed to ongoing engagement with both industry and regulators to ensure that the needs of affected borrowers continue to receive careful and thorough consideration. Although the Government maintain their reservations about the Bill, I again thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, for bringing this matter before the House and for his continued engagement on behalf of those affected.

Protection and Disclosure of Personal Information (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Debate between Lord Leong and Earl of Effingham

Tuesday 1st July 2025 Grand Committee

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Leong, for introducing this statutory instrument, which is part of a secondary legislation programme implementing the reforms of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023. Combating economic crimes is a top priority for all noble Lords, and it is essential that we support our UK businesses to thrive and contribute to economic growth.

His Majesty’s Official Opposition recognise that registering personal information of individuals, including their residential addresses, can lead to them being subject to an increased risk of fraud, identity theft and stalking. Currently, a director of a UK company or members of a UK limited liability partnership are able to apply to Companies House to prevent their residential address being displayed on the public register or disclosed to credit reference agencies. Aside from that, it is possible for an individual to protect their residential address from the public only in certain limited circumstances.

The statutory instrument introduced today will bring in additional measures to enhance the protection of personal information on the register. It builds on regulations that came into force earlier this year and will expand the circumstances in which an individual can protect their residential address. This instrument also adds to the existing address protection regime by allowing for the protection of an individual’s signature, business occupation and date of birth.

Under the legislation, any individual would be able to apply to suppress their residential address from public view, unless it is also the registered office address of an active company or part of the company’s name. The instrument will also remove the requirement for certain community interest company documents and statements of solvency to be signed, and the requirement for directors of overseas companies to provide a business occupation. It expands the grounds on which people with significant control can make an application to request the registrar to refrain from disclosing their residential address to a credit reference agency, as well as making other minor amendments to secondary legislation relating to PSCs, which are applied to limited liability partnerships and eligible Scottish partnerships.

His Majesty’s Official Opposition support the measures being introduced. We recognise that having personal information on the company’s register brings an increased risk to exposed individuals, and we are pleased that today’s reforms will bring in protections for personal information on the public registers held by Companies House.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, and the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, for their contributions. I will respond to some of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, and I need to declare an interest: I was the publisher of his major textbook, Bourne on Company Law, and I have known the noble Lord for several decades now. I can say with great pride that his book sold many copies.

The noble Lord’s point about residential addresses is very important. We need to address two points here. When a company is live, it needs a registered address. If the registered address is the residential address of the director, it has to be shown unless an alternative address is shown as the registered address. That is something of which directors need to be mindful when they use their residential address as the registered address.

Secondly, where there is a charge on a company, the director’s residential address may appear on the public record so that people know what property is being held as security for the charge. It is important that we ensure transparency in what is being displayed publicly. At the same time, we have to be mindful that we need certain protections, and these regulations support that as well.

The noble Lord, Lord Bourne, also asked how Companies House is sharing or marketing what it is doing. Since the last regulations, Companies House has been emailing every director on its register to inform them of the new regulations coming into place. The last one is on identification, verification and all that, and it has tremendous support. I do not have the statistics in front of me, but Companies House has cleaned up a lot of the register and removed hundreds of thousands of names, as well as “fraudulent” companies, from the register.

This is the next step in cleaning up the Companies House data. This is an ongoing process and there will be further regulations to clean up the database. Eventually, within the allocated five-year clean-up period, we hope that what we will have on the database will be up to date and relevant.

In summary, today’s debate has once more showed that it is vital that we get the reforms within the 2023 Act right. These regulations are another step towards that goal and ensure the right balance between transparency and privacy.

UK Modern Industrial Strategy

Debate between Lord Leong and Earl of Effingham

Monday 30th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, if this Government are pro-business, as the Statement says, why has £143 billion-worth of initial public offerings gone to New York? Why are Revolut, Unilever ice cream and many others jumping ship?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, since we got into government 11 months ago, we have secured £100 billion of inward investment in this country. People are coming to invest in this country because they have confidence in the Government. We have set out the infrastructure strategy, the industrial strategy, the trade strategy and will, hopefully very soon, set out the small business strategy. This Government are getting on with growing the economy, and we will attract more and more investment.

Public Authority Algorithmic and Automated Decision-Making Systems Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Leong and Earl of Effingham

3rd reading
Friday 7th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions on the Bill, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, who brought it forward. In an era increasingly shaped by the decisions of automated systems, it is the responsibility of all those using algorithmic and automated decision-making systems to safeguard individuals from the potential harm caused by them. We understand the goals of the Bill: namely, to ensure trustworthy artificial intelligence that garners public confidence, fosters innovation and contributes to economic growth. But His Majesty’s Official Opposition also see certain aspects of the Bill that we believe risk its effectiveness.

As the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, pointed out at Second Reading, we suggest the Bill may be prescriptive. The definition of “algorithmic systems” in Clause 2(1) is broad, encompassing any process, even those unrelated to digital or computational systems. While the exemptions in Clause 2(2) and (4) are noted, we believe that adopting our White Paper definitions to focus on autonomous and adaptive systems would provide clarity and align the scope with the Bill’s purpose.

The Bill may also benefit from an alternative approach to addressing the blistering pace of artificial intelligence development. Requiring ongoing assessments for every update under Clause 3(3) could be challenging, given that systems often change daily. We may also find that unintended administrative burdens are created from the Bill. For example, Clause 2(1) requires a detailed assessment even before a system is purchased, which may be unworkable, particularly for pilot projects that may not yet operate in test environments, as described in Clause 2(2)(b). These requirements could risk dampening exploration and innovation within the public sector.

Finally, we might suggest that in order to avoid potentially large amounts of bureaucracy, a more effective approach would be to require public bodies to have due regard for the five principles of artificial intelligence as evidenced in our White Paper, those five principles being: safety, security and robustness; appropriate transparency and explainability; fairness; accountability and governance; and contestability and redress. His Majesty’s Official Opposition do of course value the importance of automated algorithmic tools in the public sector.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for bringing the important issue of public sector algorithmic transparency for debate, both today and through the Data (Use and Access) Bill, and I thank the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, for his contribution.

The algorithmic transparency recording standard, or ATRS, is now mandatory for government departments. It is focused, first, on the 16 largest departments, including HMRC; some 85 ALBs; and local authorities. It has also now been endorsed by the Welsh Government. While visible progress on enforcing this mandate was slow for some time, new records are now being added to the online repository at pace. The first batch of 14 was added in December and a second batch of 10 was added just last week. I am assured that many more will follow shortly.

The blueprint for modern digital government, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, was published on 21 January, promising explicitly to commit to transparency and accountability by building on the ATRS. The blueprint also makes it clear that part of the new Government Digital Service role will be to offer specialist assurance support, including a service to rigorously test models and products before release.

The Government share the desire of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, to see algorithmic tools used in the public sector safely and transparently, and they are taking active steps to ensure that that happens. I hope that reassures the noble Lord, and I look forward to continuing to engage with him on this important issue.