Investment Bank Special Administration Regulations 2011

Debate between Lord Myners and Lord Sentamu

Thursday 3rd February 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Myners]

I had almost concluded my speech but the noble Baroness’s intervention has provided me with an opportunity to carry on and say more. There are very talented people working in UK banking and some of them are among the world’s very best. They earn their remuneration. Sir Philip Hampton, the chairman of Royal Bank of Scotland, referred to a gangmaster culture in some of the banks. I put down a Question for the Minister on this subject, to which he gave his standard Answer on bank bonuses which I can now recite. Regardless of the Question I ask, I get the same Answer. Perhaps it will change at some point, but I am beginning to lose any great hope that the Minister will seek to answer the Questions that I ask him on these subjects.

[The Archbishop of York]

The noble Lord, Lord Myners, normally speaks with great sense and clarity on matters of money, but the question is not that banking is not an honourable profession. People who work in the banks are people of good will and good respect, and they do a very good job. The first question is about bonuses. People in this country find the bonus culture indefensible. The second question is about the gambling casinos around banking. Will they get rid of those gambling casinos? Many people say they do not like them. The question that the noble Lord asked the Minister about Lehman Brothers and deposit accounts in Germany illustrated the point. Some people say that that is not the honourable business of banking. Anybody who is having a go at banking is saying not that banking is not an honourable profession or that bankers are not very able people doing a good job but that these bonuses and the gambling casinos taint the entire profession of banking.

[Lord Myners]

I can only say that there are failures of agency functions here. The shareholders are not holding the boards to account, and the boards are not asking the right questions or building depth of talent. It may be that the Minister, with his great experience in this area, can share with us his thoughts about why banking has this problem of high bonuses. My father was a fisherman, and there was not a big bonus culture in fishing. There is no bonus culture in making ball bearings, in engineering or in the hospitality industry. I think the answer possibly lies with the work that the Independent Commission on Banking is doing. The Minister always treats anything I say positively with considerable scepticism and caution, but I repeat my strong endorsement of the creation of the Independent Commission on Banking. It may well raise some interesting perspectives on the points that have been made. I close by simply saying that I fully support the administrative orders being tabled today.

Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc. Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Myners and Lord Sentamu

Wednesday 6th October 2010 Lords Chamber

[The Archbishop of York]

My Lords, in the debate on Second Reading on 29 July, I supported the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Falkner, and the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Myners, in suggesting that “reasonable suspicion” provided too low a threshold for action that would violate a person’s liberty, privacy and financial interests. I prefer the term “reasonable belief”. The difference between the two is that reasonable suspicion means that something may be so, whereas reasonable belief means that something is so. To me, the distinction is important. However, I congratulate the Government because at least they listened to the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, argued in his reply that the test of reasonable suspicion was necessary to allow preventive action to be taken before any terrorist acts were actually committed. He cited the freezing of assets in connection with the transatlantic bomb plot in 2006. However, he indicated that he had listened to the arguments.

Last Friday the Government tabled their amendments, which essentially create a distinction that I think is probably reasonable. The amendments create an interim designation that would expire after 30 days and a final designation that would be made subsequently. New clauses inserted after Clause 5 state that the test for an interim designation would be that of reasonable suspicion, while Amendment 2 amends Clause 2 to provide that the test for a final designation would be that of reasonable belief. This provides a way of allowing preventive freezing through a lower threshold of proof for a limited period.

The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Falkner, have tabled an alternative set of amendments that would apply a more rigorous test by substituting the test of reasonable belief in Clause 2—Amendment 3—and by providing that designation should expire after 30 days unless confirmed by the High Court. This would bring judicial review forward to an earlier stage in the proceedings and make it automatic rather than dependent on the lodging of an appeal.

I have only just seen these amendments with the publication of the Marshalled List, but my initial inclination is to think that they do not meet the point about preventive action, which is at the heart of the Bill. Noble Lords will remember that UN Resolution 1373, adopted in 2001, required member states to prevent the financing of terrorist acts, including the freezing of funds, and to prevent their nationals and those within their territories from making funds and resources available: so it was intended to prevent actions. On that particular bit, I am happy with this two-pronged approach: first, an interim designation, and then after 30 days an actual designation. But I am not sure why the final designation is not to be made by the High Court. Why have we not gone that little bit further? I understand the interim designation because we need to stop people, as the United Nations requires us to do. Indeed, we are here today simply because the Supreme Court has ruled that the orders that have been made by Order in Council should not have been made in that way. It said not that they were not right but that they should have been made through an Act of Parliament. I suggest that, in keeping with UN Resolution 1373, and with Resolution 1452 in December 2002, the interim designation that is being attempted here goes a long way to meet my concern last time, but I am not so sure why, after a period of 30 days, the designation will not be made by the High Court.

[Lord Myners]

My Lords, I join others in giving credit to the Minister for the changes that have been made on the issue of reasonable suspicion and reasonable belief. When I was a Minister, I came to recognise that officials’ favoured recommendation on any amendment or discussion in this House and probably in the other place is “resist”. It is much to the credit of the Minister that he listened carefully to the arguments and has brought forward a constructive proposal.

It is clearly the case that you can reasonably suspect something without necessarily believing it, as the Minister’s proposal acknowledges. It is possibly churlish, therefore, to find any fault. However, I have a reservation that the proposed interim test may now be recognised as rather simple and could be used for a fishing trip to flush out further evidence during the period. It will be interesting to hear the Minister’s response as to how we can be assured that the test of reasonable suspicion will be implemented with appropriate respect for our intention in that regard.

I hope that the Minister will also confirm that the acceptance of these amendments today will not limit further discussion on Report. Other Members of the Committee have noted that these amendments, constructive and welcome as they are in most respects, have nevertheless been tabled quite recently. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, indicated, they give rise to significant issues, which Parliament should be expected to consider carefully.

I add my support to the observation of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, about the protocols that will apply in a situation in which an initial freezing might be extended. The noble Lord is right to say that that should be done not simply on the basis of there being new evidence but on the basis of substantial and material new evidence. This is to ensure that the abuse that the Government have in mind—the granting of successive interim orders without ever having to go to the test of reasonable belief—is addressed. The noble Lord’s suggestion in this respect is entirely consistent with the grain of the Minister’s thinking.

As the Minister who took the temporary Bill through this House earlier this year, with the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, responding on behalf of what was then the Opposition, I agree that the Minister has presented us with a significant improvement on that legislation.