Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill
Debate between Lord Marland and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
Lord Marland
Thank you, Deputy Chairman. This is a government amendment. First, I would like to put on record my thanks to the officials. Not only have we had a confetti of amendments to deal with on this Bill but, late last night, they were all changed into different groupings. That has meant a huge amount of work for them but they have done it with good cheer. It has been difficult not only for them but for the rest of us. However, we shall press on as hard as we can. We have only 23 amendments to get through today so let us hope that we can do it. I am sure that people want to go home tonight for Christmas.
These government amendments are minor amendments. They are quite technical, which rules me out of the equation pretty early on, but they are consistent with what is intended. I hope that they will find favour with the Opposition and other Peers. I beg to move.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, we have very few comments to make on the substantive point in the amendments before us. We accept the drafting; it is very appropriate. On Amendment 25A, which is included in the group but was not specifically spoken to by the noble Lord, I simply note that this matter will come up later on in discussions. Although I have no comments to make at this stage, that does not mean that we will not wish to raise one or two points later. I agree that the rest of the amendments are technical.
I apologise for the slightly odd grouping of Amendment 26AD. It is not in my name but I shall speak to it—which will confuse matters even further.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
She certainly is not. She is working hard on other matters elsewhere, to which I will need to repair. That is why I asked if we could group the amendments rather oddly, although I think they work in the scheme of things. I shall speak to them briefly at this point.
The point of concurrency, which is raised in these substantive amendments, raises an issue in relation to the way that the new architecture which has been proposed will operate. Clearly we take a view, which I think is common around your Lordships’ House, that functioning competition and certainty are the two single most important conditions that markets require to sustain investment and drive innovation. Those conditions are best aided by clear, robust and agile competition regimes. That condition is most required in fast-moving sectors, such as telecommunications, where the market is in a state of constant, relentless evolution.
The recent experience of competition oversight of one section of the telecommunications market—the pay TV market—highlights two critical failings that the Bill must address: the slow-moving pace of investigations and the confusion that might be caused by differing outcomes between sectoral and competition authorities. Although it is right that the CMA should be the ultimate protector of the basic principles of competition law, surely it cannot do so effectively in isolation from market developments and, in particular, from advice that may be available within the sectoral regulators.
In my remarks I want to refer to recent investigations of the pay TV market in considering questions of pace and lack of collaboration. I recognise that some of my remarks will delve deep into regulatory matters and it may be appropriate for the Minister, even although he has taken an extended Christmas break, to respond to me in writing if he wishes to go into some of the points that I am going to make.
On slow pace, UK consumers have enjoyed more than a decade and a half of investigation into competition in the content/pay TV market by Ofcom, the Competition Commission, the Office of Fair Trading and the European Commission. Inevitably, much effort has been duplicated. Nevertheless issues in the market have been identified and yet no lasting remedies have been proposed to tackle a consumer harm that the Competition Commission had initially estimated cost consumers £50 million to £60 million per year in inflated prices for premium content.
Inconsistency, or lack of collaboration, is the other point I want to make. In August 2012, just a week apart, both the Competition Commission and the Competition Appeal Tribunal reached completely inconsistent and contradictory conclusions on two aspects of the state of the pay TV market. On 2 August 2012, the Competition Commission concluded that Sky has market power and that competition in the pay TV retail market is “ineffective”. On 8 August 2012, the Competition Appeals Tribunal issued a completely different view to both the Competition Commission and previous Ofcom statements, concluding that there were no substantive competitive concerns regarding Sky’s supply of premium sports channels.
Surely what we need is for the different layers of a regulatory regime to work together in the best interests of the consumer. This amendment seeks to ensure that the CMA acts in co-operation with sectoral regulators when exercising its competition powers to share information; undertake joint working, investigation and, if needed, remedies; and to keep the performance of each sectoral regulator against its competition powers under periodic review.
The CMA should provide the central core of expertise in these cases. It should have primary responsibility for conducting the full competition investigation and ultimately should take the decision on all aspects in competition cases. A reformed and strengthened competition authority acting within the parameters of competition law is best placed to objectively apply competition principles consistently across all sectors.
However, it cannot effectively judge the competitive conditions of a given market in isolation from the sectoral experts. So we believe that the sectoral regulator is best placed to make the initial assessment as to whether competition concerns may potentially arise in a given scenario. In recent history—certainly where the pay TV market is concerned—that stage of the process has taken far too long.
In addition, there should be a renewed emphasis placed on sectoral regulators to reach a speedy judgment on whether referral to the CMA for full market investigation is indeed warranted. But the role of any sectoral regulator should not stop at speedy referral. Rather, it is vital that it also provides a supportive and advisory role to the CMA, imparting knowledge and experience in the sector which the CMA would take into account as appropriate, and where appropriate taking a central role in considering any remedies that might be required.
Lord Marland
I apologise; I should have dealt with this amendment in the same grouping. Clause 45, as was rightly said, will bolster concurrency by giving the CMA stronger powers to co-ordinate Competition Act enforcement work and giving regulators explicit duties to consider using the Competition Act. Amendment 26AD is intended to add to these arrangements to make sector regulators make an early decision on whether to refer a matter to the CMA for an in-depth investigation. It would also allow the regulators to take exclusive responsibility themselves for remedying a problem in a market.
I do not believe that this amendment is necessary. First, it is the Government’s intention that new timeframes for market processes will apply to sector regulators. This will be effected by subordinate legislation later in the year under this Bill. Therefore we recognise the need for a timeframe—but we will get to that, as I said, with subordinate legislation.
Secondly, there are existing provisions in the relevant sector legislation which prevent duplicate market investigations by the relevant regulators and the CMA. Furthermore, the CMA in looking at a market should be able to consider whether action by a regulator is impeding competition. Amendment 26AD therefore is not appropriate and I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw it.
Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill
Debate between Lord Marland and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
Baroness Turner of Camden
My Lords, I understand from the Government’s statement and from what the Minister has said that the intention is to ensure that people who ought to be covered by the Act in future will in fact be covered. What bothers me about it, however, is Clause 4, which gives the Secretary of State the right to make amendments as to what individuals count as workers for the purpose of this part. It seems to me that that leaves the whole thing fairly wide open as far as the Government are concerned: they would be able to introduce secondary legislation to indicate that some people are workers and other people are not workers. That is a bit of a difficulty as far as we are concerned.
As far as the clause itself is concerned, it had been my intention to move that it should be opposed, mainly because the TUC’s view is that the wording as it now exists in the Bill introduces a public interest test into whistleblowing rights and, for such claims to succeed, the employee will have to demonstrate that he believed that disclosure was in the public interest and that this belief was reasonable in the circumstances. The view of the TUC was that this would limit the protection that employees have in raising concerns about health and safety issues at work. The Law Society also has doubts about this clause. For these reasons I intended to oppose the clause. However, my noble friends have further amendments which we are due to discuss and which I think will deal with some of the problems that some of us have with this clause.
Of course, I am sure that the Minister will appreciate that it is very important to ensure that workers, particularly those working in very dangerous environments, do not have any restrictions about whether or not they may raise problems they have about health and safety at work. I can remember my own union being very much involved with this many years ago when there was the awful accident at Piper Alpha in the offshore oil industry, in which a number of workers were killed. We discovered on investigation that a number of individuals working there had short-term contracts and, because they had short-term contracts, they were very reluctant to warn about the kind of issues that were of concern to them about safety and so on because they feared that they would not have their short-term contracts renewed.
There is a case for looking at the way that this clause in the present legislation works to ensure that we do cover everybody who might have the possibility of drawing attention to possible dangers in their working environment. We must be absolutely certain that they are not prevented in any way from raising those particular issues. I will not, this evening, be pressing the opposition to the whole clause, but I certainly think that we need to look at it very thoroughly before the legislation leaves us.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, in the margins of the debate that we have just had the Minister very kindly passed across the original quote from the 11 May 1998 House of Lords Second Reading debate on the then Public Interest Disclosure Bill. I had to read it very quickly because I was not as well briefed as perhaps I should have been when coming to this debate. I want to make a point that I think influences the way that we might need to respond to the clause-stand-part part of the discussion that we are having today.
The interesting thing about this debate is that we are focusing on the words “the public interest”. I suggest to the Minister that it might be sensible to have a discussion about what the Government are trying to do here. Rather than in the openness of this debate, perhaps we could have a side meeting on it. The reason I am saying that is that, reading the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, one might think that if he made it up as he went along, it was extremely well written. I imagine that he read it out at the time from a brief that he had. The important thing about it—I am sure that the Minister will have been on to this immediately—is that the Minister was selective in what he quoted to us. The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, said that,
“the tribunal must be satisfied that that disclosure was reasonable, having regard, among other things, to the seriousness of the threat to the public interest, whether the danger is continuing or likely to occur again, whether the disclosure was in breach of an obligation of confidentiality owed to a third party and, where appropriate, whether use was made of any whistle-blowing procedure which the organisation had in place”.—[Official Report, 11/5/98; col. 891.]
The noble Lord then went on to make the quote to which the Minister referred.
The point that I want to underline is that the tribunal has to be satisfied that disclosure was reasonable: that is the founding principle of this part of the legislation. “Having regard to” is a secondary feature of that in relation to the seriousness of the threat to the public interest. It seems to me that this amendment substitutes the present arrangements for the reasonableness —having regard to other things—of the seriousness of the threat to the public interest, to a direct concern for “the public interest”, however we define that. It seems to me that in making that rather elegant elision we are in danger of opening a much wider range of issues that need more thought than we can possibly give it in this Committee, which is why I suggest that we have a meeting.
The Minister says that this is ongoing work—we welcome that. He says that it is important—we certainly echo that. He is also asserting, and we would agree with this, that we are singing off the same hymn sheet. So we are surely trying to get to the same place here. I do not think that there is a difference of approach: I just worry that the wording is not as you would do it.
The complexity of this issue is that, as the noble Baroness said very clearly, we all want those who should be covered to be covered by this part of the legislation, but we do not want to have the risk that those who could be covered are not covered by it. I think that that is a really important point. It is in that sense that we would ask the Minister to respond to this and, perhaps, to take up our suggestion of a side meeting.
Lord Marland
I am always available for side meetings to discuss this. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, is clutching at straws a little in his interpretation, but then, we each have our own interpretation. I do not see that, at the end of it all, we are going to move this back to breach of contract, to which the previous amendment—which is now withdrawn—related. I am grateful for the noble Lord’s words that we are all trying to move along the same path together. That is why we should continue to discuss this, which would be most welcome.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, reminded me of Piper Alpha. I used to be in the insurance industry and that was a seismic event for that industry. How well I remember the loss of life. It was a shocking moment for everybody who was involved in insurance. Luckily those who were worried ended up in jobs because, obviously, the oil industry was able to recover very quickly from that horrendous accident and its expertise was needed.
Both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, mentioned the list. It is all about definition of “a worker”. We can only remove “a worker” from the definition if that category of worker no longer exists. What we have sought to do in the first part, which I think everyone is very happy about, is to recognise that we have failed to add some workers in. We have put a provision in the Bill to add others in if a worker group does start to exist, and of course we will remove one if they do not exist. It is an ongoing thing, which is why we have provided for that definition.
I am not quite sure where we have got to. Lord Chairman, perhaps with your great wisdom you can guide us. I moved an amendment and I think that the noble Baroness was speaking to her amendment as well as to mine. I ask for guidance, Lord Chairman. I hope that one amendment will be supported and the other will not be pressed.
Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill
Debate between Lord Marland and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
Lord Marland
I thank noble Lords, especially the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, for their words. The Government agree that there must be parliamentary scrutiny of the bank’s statement of objects and particularly in terms of its green purposes as part of the process of designation of the bank. That is why in another place we tabled an amendment to that effect. However, we do not believe that there is a need to separate out the statement by the Secretary of State. I will try to respond to the question asked by my noble friend Lord Brooke on the Secretary of State in a minute because with his years of experience in government—I am playing for time now—he knows far more about this particular thing than I would ever dream of knowing, but I will come to that in a minute.
The Secretary of State is satisfied that the bank’s objectives are consistent with the green purposes because Clause 2(2) already provides that he cannot lay a draft order before Parliament unless he is so satisfied. I am also happy to give noble Lords the commitment that the Government will make available to Peers and to Members of the other House a copy of the bank’s articles of association when the draft order is laid so that all can be made transparent.
The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, asked about the sale of shares. This Government are committed to not selling the relevant shares but, unfortunately, this Government cannot legislate for a Labour Government, for example, if they wished to sell the shares. I am sure the noble Lord knows that better than I do. It would therefore be wrong to try to impose things on future Governments. We will be in power for a very long time, but just in case we are not, the Opposition may choose to change the law if they come to power.
As a general point on outside investment, one of the things I have noticed as I have travelled the world is the clear desire of international companies to come in alongside the Green Investment Bank as co-investors because the integrity of the board that has been set up, its skills and knowledge and the leadership Britain has shown under this Government and the previous one in terms of green credentials and green expertise has meant that we are seen as a centre of excellence. If the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Kelvin, were standing here, I know he would say that there is huge scope for involving international companies to invest in the bank. I really do not think that that is a problem.
I have no idea what the response to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, is, so, if I may, for once, I shall request the pleasure of writing to him about something which is not to do with cricket. I hope that with that explanation—
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
Before the noble Lord sits down, I should make it clear that I was agreeing with him, as he has played it back to us, that the present Government cannot tie the hands of future Governments. However, my question was deeper than that. It was: why is there so much in this designation clause about the way in which the shareholding is to be managed going forward? The noble Lord has not dealt with that particular point. That was the purpose of my remarks on this section. We have a situation where currently this is a 100% owned company. The Government have made a great virtue of the fact that that is the case and, indeed, we welcome that. In his latest remarks, the Minister has alluded to the fact that the reason that investment may flow into the bank is precisely because it is owned by the Government and the investor community, for whatever reasons, is supportive of the view that it is the Government leading this that gives them the security and the risk reduction that they are looking for. We may come back to this on a later amendment. So why all this stuff about what happens below a shareholding of 50%? We are told in a later clause that the Government are not able to fund the bank if their own shareholding drops below 50%. Does that imply that there is a plan that we have not been told about, or is it just a precautionary measure in the event that terrible things might happen and other decisions are taken?
Lord Marland
I can deal with that immediately. It is a very good point. We have no current intentions to sell this—I absolutely underline that fact. We have no current intentions to do so during this Parliament as long as we are in power. I hope that that very clear statement satisfies the noble Lord. I readily understand that that has to be clear.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
I thank the noble Lord for those additional remarks and for saying earlier in his response that he would lay copies of the articles of association in both Houses when it comes to reviewing the designation process. We look forward to seeing them because they will help considerably.
I am afraid that I cannot respond very positively to the former Secretary of State, the noble Lord, Lord Brooke. I did not pick up this point when I was reading, but I am so completely gender-blind in these matters that I simply read the word as one that described, in a personal way, the Secretary of State for the time being. However, he will have noticed, as we all did, that throughout his response the Minister referred to the Secretary of State as “he”. Perhaps we have a problem that we should all reflect on.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
Perhaps I can help with this question. Since the 1880s, it has been a matter of interpretation of statutes, and I was certainly taught at law school that the male embraces the female. It has therefore always been said that you used the term “he”, which meant, in the appropriate context, “he or she”. The result is that statutes and, presumably, amendments do not need to use the words “he or she” each time. My noble friend will find when he takes advice on this later that it is a well established principle of statutory interpretation, if I may repeat it, that the male embraces the female.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is quite straightforward. I spoke under the last amendment about the need for transparency, accountability, scrutiny and banking ethics, and the importance that these now have, particularly after the last crisis. This is something that should apply to the green bank. It is the first public bank to be created in modern times, but it may not be alone, because we are aware that a British Investment Bank, or whatever it is to be called, is starting up. Therefore, we should be setting precedents for how it should operate as we go forward.
We suggest that the Green Investment Bank has the highest standards of transparency both for the shareholders and the general public, which means that we can have meaningful debate; assessment and scrutiny as to how the bank is being managed; its success in achieving its green purposes; the manner in which it arrives at investment decisions—and all subject to the important point of commercial sensitivities and considerations.
The amendment would ensure that all working papers and studies undertaken in the preparation of the bank’s business plan, as well as all written correspondence exchanged between the Government and the board, were made available on a website that was freely accessible by the public. We do not want to do anything that compromises the bank’s ability to make investments and consider matters of a sensitive and commercial nature; that is why the amendment is couched in those terms, to make sure that a full and frank discussion of views can still take place between the Government and the board, and that the bank can fully undertake its activities. I stress that we want the Green Investment Bank to have the highest possible standards of transparency, accountability and scrutiny to the public and other stakeholders.
It is true that the bank falls under the Companies Act 2006, and is registered at Companies House as a company with proper articles of association and so on, but our concern is not so much with historic reporting, because often these reports can be delayed for six to nine months, but with allowing debate and discussion. A good example of this would be the rules that the Government are putting in place to ensure that inappropriate bonuses and executive pay will be restricted. As the Committee will be aware, this Bill will change the powers of shareholders in deliberations on executive remuneration, although we do not think that it goes far enough, as we will come to later. This amendment will ensure that the bank will be different from other Companies Act companies in the sense that debate about appropriate pay and the Government’s role in that would be flagged up on the website, and there permit a wider debate before the mechanisms proposed in this Bill kick in. I beg to move.
Lord Marland
My Lords, this is an interesting amendment, but of course it goes way beyond the Freedom of Information Act 2000, which permits a great level of self-disclosure and obligations that the bank must apply to because it is wholly owned by the Government. So the information will be readily accessible as to bonuses and all the other things that the noble Lord reasonably requests. It is important that there is transparency in our current world of bonuses and directors’ pay, but we do not want to put an extra burden on an organisation that is already within the Freedom of Information Act. I hope that the noble Lord understands that and will perhaps withdraw his amendment.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, I do understand that and thank the Minister for pointing out how the Government are approaching this issue. I still regret that in some senses we are not taking advantage of how one could use a more engaged discussion with those who have responsibilities in this area, notably Parliament. Having said that, I will read carefully what the Minister has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, the main aim of this amendment is to firm up how and in what form the Secretary of State must prepare and lay before both Houses of Parliament a report on the activities and investments of the UK Green Investment Bank. The amendment is largely self-explanatory, but it may be for the benefit of the Committee if I raise one general and a couple of specific points.
As I mentioned before, relying on the reports generated under the Companies Act 2006 introduces significant timing problems, as these reports will be generally arranged for an AGM often some months after the year end. A report for Parliament, if it were different, can be much more up to date and therefore more relevant to those who have to discuss it. The focus of Companies Act reports are the stakeholders, mainly in conventional companies. These would be the dispersed institutional and private shareholders and not the public interest represented by Parliament. It is therefore sensible to recognise that, although initially the Crown interest will be the only shareholding interest, that will not be identical with the public interest, and different reporting might therefore be required.
Proposed new paragraphs (a) and (b) in the amendment would give Parliament a feel for the activity that the bank has been undertaking on the ground, and bring the reality of the bank's operations to life. It would be unusual for Companies Act reports to deal with specific investments in this way.
Paragraph (c) would assess the way in which the bank is achieving value for money for its investments, and draw parliamentary attention to value for money and efficiency—again an approach that would not commonly be found in company reports.
Unusually for institutions in the public sector, the bank will have to be familiar with risk in all its forms and across its investments, and the wider economic climate will also need to be referred to as well as the appetite that individual investors will have for risk. This is an important area that we think the report should deal with.
It would be of considerable concern if the Green Investment Bank were to displace investment already available in the market, which we have already touched on in our debate this afternoon. So a specific report in that area would be helpful in understanding how the bank was progressing, and in assessing how successful it was in the marketplace.
The final point brings us back to corporate behaviours, and assisting Parliament to judge whether the bank was addressing concerns on such matters as pay and bonuses and ethical behaviours more generally.
I hope that the Minister will accept that with this amendment we are trying to be helpful. We have some common ground in assisting Parliament in getting material which is better suited to its particular role. I do not think that that will necessarily come out of the companies’ reports and I hope that the amendment will stimulate those who have to prepare them to come up with more appropriate solutions for the reporting that is necessary. I beg to move.
Lord Marland
The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, probes again—quite reasonably, if I may say so. I just want to make it clear that the Government, as the main shareholder—indeed, the only shareholder—will be holding it to account at every angle. Also, Clause 5 treats the bank as if it were a quoted company. Therefore it is subject to the Companies Act, which imposes three quite important criteria. First it will be required to produce a directors’ remuneration report, about which there will be more later in this Bill. It will be required to publish its annual accounts and reports on a website. It will be required to produce an enhanced business review, under which the directors must report on matters such as main trends and factors likely to affect the company’s business and environmental matters. We believe that that has enhanced transparency, public transparency, in addition to the watchful eye of government in terms of getting return on our investment. I hope that satisfies the noble Lord on what I consider a very important probing amendment.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, Amendment 15 brings to the attention of the Committee the suggestion that if the reports that are being received by Parliament are those which are mainly being generated within the Companies Act register of reporting requirements, there may be some gaps in terms of independent review. So the main purpose is to require such a review every five years following enactment, and also to have an interim report.
I am sure that the Minister will again argue that the bank will have sufficient to do under the Companies Act, and that, as a public company falling within the Freedom of Information Act, there is already a sufficiency of reporting requirements for the bank. He may argue that requiring any more might be regarded as otiose, but there are some reasons why I think the export report would be of value.
The rationale for setting up the bank is to bridge a gap in understanding between the investor community and those who wish to manufacture, develop and trade in the green technologies. Surely a periodic report of what the bank has been doing and how successful it has been in fulfilling its purposes, a check on its competitiveness and a review of the main trends and factors likely to affect its future performance would help bridge that gap and help improve the sector as a whole, leading to greater investment.
In a similar way the preparation of an external expert report would surely help the bank sharpen its performance and help improve its knowledge and understanding of the sector. It may well be that it has collected the best and the brightest to work within the bank, but, even so, whenever there is an external report, there always is more that is achieved because of the preparation for that reporting requirement than there is perhaps by actually going through the process. So in that sense it would be an assistance to the company itself.
Thirdly, the existence of such a report would surely assist those who would otherwise only be able to rely on the standard output of the bank under the Companies Act. With that, I beg to move.
Lord Marland
My Lords, this is an A+ amendment, without any doubt at all, something that I have never achieved myself. So much was I taken with this amendment that I invited my officials to contact the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Kelvin, as chairman, to consider this because I felt that it was such an A+ amendment, from an A+ man and an A+ male, that it was worthy of consideration. I hope it will satisfy the noble Lord that the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Kelvin, has made it clear that the board will undertake an independent review of its own performance each year from the end of its first full financial year in 2014. I hope that that satisfies what I thought was an excellent amendment, and I encourage the noble Lord to withdraw it.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
It is embarrassing to be praised so quickly, and so young. Of course, to be the very best of our universe you now have to go above A+ to A*+, at the risk of suggesting that there might be a further grade to which I might aspire.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
I shall play my cards slowly and see how we get on. The simple point that I was going to make was that the answer is exactly as I would like, and this will satisfy us in that respect. It is just a question of what will happen to the report in terms of public arrangements. Perhaps the Minister could reflect on having a further exchange with the chair of the bank to see whether it would be something that could be laid before Parliament. I do not think that it would need a formal discussion or debate, but it would be useful to have it in the Library at least, so that it is available. If he could confirm that at some point, we would be grateful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
This is my last appearance in the Committee on this occasion. I have risked the Minister’s wrath by suggesting that we need to think further about reporting, but I do not think that this one will be as well received—but I will have another go.
The Green Investment Bank is already covered by the Freedom of Information Act, and I accept that. It was discussed in another place, and I have read that discussion. But it stuck in my mind that there were two reasons why we need to revisit it. In the discussion in the other place, the Government said that they believed that the Freedom of Information Act, together with Clauses 5 and 6, ensure that the bank will be subject to appropriate, extensive obligations to disclose information and to report on its activities, which will ensure full transparency and accountability. I accept that, because the bank already qualifies as a publicly owned company under Section 6 of the Freedom of Information Act, which means that it is subject to the disclosure obligations that apply to public authorities. We also accept that, unlike most public authorities, not only is the bank subject to the Freedom of Information Act but it has additional, proactive reporting obligations under the Companies Act 2006, which will be enhanced by Clause 5. However, things may change. We had a discussion earlier on in Committee today at which the remote prospect of changes of ownership in the bank were raised. If those changes of ownership were such that the proportion of the bank owned by a future Government dropped below 50%, I doubt that FOI legislation would still apply. So this is to future-proof something for which there is a particular responsibility. At the moment, it is going to be wholly owned by the Crown, and the sole shareholder is the Government, so it is appropriate that the questions that may be put in terms of FOI will be answered.
This bank is being set up in the wake of the biggest financial crisis the world has seen in modern times. That should, even if for no other reason, mean that we should try to ensure that the new bank should have the highest possible standards of accountability and reporting. I remind the Committee that the Secretary of State, in his examination before the Environmental Audit Committee on 2 February 2011, said:
“As Secretary of State in BIS, my ambition is to … develop and deliver a GIB that is effective and transparent and affordable—those are our key criteria”.
Love or hate the FOI Act, it is here to stay, and is proving very effective in ensuring that the Government respond to legitimate requests for information from citizens of the UK. We should do what we can to promote that view, and we should do nothing which sets up barriers or creates uncertainty about whether information is retrievable or not. In our view, therefore, there should be no objection to recording in the primary legislation that it is quite clear that, as well as the class of institution it is, the bank itself, as long as it is retained, will be subject to FOI. I beg to move.
Lord Marland
My Lords, we have trodden this ground quite a lot so far. I think that the FOI is a very significant and far-reaching incumbence on a company, and on individuals in a country, as we have found out. There will be more later, but as I have said in the past under previous amendments the FOI Act is a very strong regulatory thing. I am not going to play “what if” scenarios, such as what if the bank is sold by a Labour Government in 10 years’ time, or another coalition in five years’ time, because it is our task to operate within the current government schemes and not to tie the hands of future Governments if they wish to carry on with other things. But I totally accept the sentiment and look forward to further debates on the subject. In the light of that, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, I simply note that perhaps in 10 years’ time, when we are on the other side and are debating similar issues, I will remind the noble Lord of those points. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Olympic and Paralympic Games 2012: Trade and Investment
Debate between Lord Marland and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
Lord Marland
I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his supplementary on his supplementary on his supplementary question. Time will allow me to deal with only one of them, but I thank him for everything that he did, and of course I thank people for everything that they did cross-party to promote British business. I am leading something called the GREAT campaign, which I hope has been well advertised in this country and abroad. That is a good platform for showing people our great country.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, there has been welcome news and we on this side congratulate all those concerned. Will the Minister please give us some facts? What proportion of the sales or trade that took place at those meetings is arms-related? Will he also give a sense of what proportion of what was left went to SMEs in this country?
Lord Marland
The noble Lord will know that arms-related sales do not happen overnight. There are long congestion periods. If we look at the activity on Typhoon, decisions about such huge amounts of money are not made quickly. Clearly, we have a remarkable defence industry, of which we are proud and which is at the cutting edge of world technology. I have no doubt that it will be making sales throughout the world. On the defence front, I can say that I was privileged to lead a mission advising people on cybersecurity around the Middle East and orders are coming in thick and fast.