Financial Services Act 2021 (Prudential Regulation of Credit Institutions and Investment Firms) (Consequential Amendments and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2021

Debate between Lord Naseby and Baroness Kramer

Tuesday 30th November 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

My Lords, I declare a possible interest as a trustee of the Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund. I want to put this on the record, as we are getting wide briefings at the moment. I also have some experience of the friendly society movement as a former chairman of the Tunbridge Wells Equitable Friendly Society and two Invesco investment trusts.

I particularly draw attention to paragraph 7.8 of the Explanatory Memorandum, which is key. It says that

“the framework in its current form does not appropriately cater for the differences between credit institutions and investment firms and can be disproportionate”

and “burdensome”, et cetera. That seems crucial. It then goes on to mention the consultation that has been carried out. When my noble friend winds up, could he make it clear whether all parts of Part 9C rules have been produced and circulated to the interested parties, or not? Certainly, implementation on 1 January 2022 does not fill me with enthusiasm. It is after Christmas and less than a month away, so I hope he will say that they have been produced, and when.

I am sure that my noble friend and all noble Lords would feel that there are some deficiencies in UK-retained law. I seek reassurance that we are confident that those deficiencies have been removed.

The other dimension I raise relates to paragraph 12.3. It will not surprise my noble friends that, once again, I feel very strongly about impact assessments and statements from Her Majesty’s Treasury that it considers that the net impact will be less than £5 million and very limited. Paragraph 14.1 says that

“the number of small businesses in scope is low.”

They may be small businesses, but they are important businesses to whoever is running them—and we are talking about financial firms.

It is always helpful to have a review of any legislation, particularly legislation relating to our coming out of the EU. That may not be proportionate in the judgment of the Treasury, but I do not know how many firms we are talking about. If my noble friend has that information, that will be helpful. I suppose that if we are talking of only three or four, that may be right, but I do not believe that that is the number—from my experience in the City, from some of the presentations we have recently had and, indeed, from some of the publicity about what is happening in the financial sector at the moment.

Is my noble friend absolutely confident that those firms do not want the SI reviewed after a period? If they all say no—that they do not want a review and are comfortable—fine, but my judgment is that, in life, it is helpful to have a review at some point.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, obviously I will not oppose this statutory instrument, but it raises a number of issues which need to be explored, and I shall look forward to the Minister’s response to our concerns. We raised these concerns during the passage of the Financial Services Act 2021, but they have not been alleviated.

The Act and this SI transfer significant power to set the UK rules on Basel III standards to the financial regulators accompanied by minimal parliamentary oversight. It is a crucial process and has a fundamental impact on financial stability, as it sets the capital and risk management requirements for banks and other financial institutions. The PRA and the FCA are expected to consult on their decisions, and parliamentarians can contribute to those consultations, but as no more than ordinary consultees, despite their responsibilities to the public, and can at best hope for a few comments on their points as part of the general response.

Committees of Parliament can question the PRA and FCA and undertake reports but, in practice, on only a handful of issues each year, so they are likely to be visited exceedingly rarely and probably only at a time of crisis, which is rather too late. Even the SIs offer no meaningful accountability, because they cannot be amended. This SI, with the powers it gives the regulators, will mean that the issues of Basel III, so crucial to our financial structure, will probably never again come before either this House or the other place, except through that committee arrangement, which is, as I said, pretty minimal. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that.

When we were members of the EU—I know mentioning that is not popular with the Government—basic Basel standards were implemented through EU law, where the process was open and accountable and as different as day from night from our current circumstance. Before the EU Commission proposed draft legislation, it held many conferences and public meetings involving parliamentarians; parliamentarians were engaged in briefings, expert evidence sessions and discussions with a wide range of relevant regulators and supervisory authorities; and the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee would be involved in scrutinising the main directive and regulations by way of co-decision. With Brexit, the power has transferred from the EU, but the Government have chosen to do it in a way that essentially removes any meaningful democratic accountability. I should like to hear for the record why the Minister has chosen such a route.

Financial Services Bill

Debate between Lord Naseby and Baroness Kramer

Committee stage
Monday 1st March 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Naseby (Con) [V]]

I thank the Lord Chairman. As I was just saying, in both the United States and Canada there has been a change in young people’s attitudes to debt. This is one reason why the credit union movement there is seeing better times and beginning to come strongly back to life. However, two other things have happened here. First, during the pandemic, people have had a chance to look in great depth at their own financial situation; many are responding to approaches by building societies, credit unions and the other mutuals by having interactions, on the basis that they know somebody. They do not know anybody in the banks. I do not have a clue who looks after an account that I have at RBS; all I can do is act on the telephone. Secondly, and in addition, what do we see on the ground? Bank after bank are closing branches. Whereas in the old days I could go to the RBS in Biggleswade, and then to Bedford, now they have all gone. There is an opportunity here that should be encouraged.

Secondly, I will look not at cheap credit—I hasten to say—but what is called “home-collected credit”, which I covered to some extent at Second Reading. That is all about consumer choice and a fair price. Home-collected credit has been around for 150 years. It is highly successful: it is the credit of choice for the working classes, if I may use that phrase in today’s world. People who use home-collected credit take out small, short-term loans perhaps three or four times a year, probably around Christmas, Easter, birthdays and days such as that. They know what the terms are; the terms do not change, and if they run over in terms of repayment, there is not some swingeing increase in the rate charged. They get a single credit charge.

On the other side, there are payday loans. Every one of us in politics knows exactly what those loans are about: they compound interest and offer high-frequency, weekly loans that people get hooked on. When they go a bit wrong, the claims management companies—CMCs—leap in with a huge volume of complaints, most of which are manufactured. The problem is that today the FCA appears to be treating all high-cost credit models in the same way. The regulator is taking a singular sector-wide approach to affordability and repeat lending and pays less or no attention to the crucial differences between these two products. Whereas officials once differentiated between the responsible and the harmful models, now they treat them all the same. There is therefore a real danger of the HCCs being driven out of business.

In 2018 no less a man than Andrew Bailey said that people viewed home-collected credit differently from rent-to-own and payday ones, and that this was the model he thought about because the difference with home-collected credit is that the borrower knows the lender. The agent is the lender; that is, it is a different, almost social relationship that goes on and creates different attitudes. I ask the Minister to have a close look at this, and perhaps a discussion with the FCA and the Financial Ombudsman Service, to ensure that there is a clear differentiation in any investigations that they might want to undertake between these two very different models.

Thirdly, with the permission of the Committee, I would like to go back to the Mutuals’ Deferred Shares Bill, which I took through your Lordships’ House in 2015. I was motivated to do so by my interest in the mutual movement and by the financial crash of 2008. It seemed to me that there was a need for mutual insurers and friendly societies to have a means of raising capital. That is what I set about doing and it became law in 2015. That was, for me, a high day for the mutual movement. Today, there are not hundreds of mutual insurers and friendly societies: in fact, the active ones are the 52 that are members of the Association of Financial Mutuals.

What that Bill—which is now an Act—did was important, first, because it gave access to new capital, particularly for the friendly societies and mutual insurers. Secondly, without that new capital, many mutuals would have been driven into inappropriate corporate forms through demutualisation. Thirdly, a lack of capital limits mutuals’ growth and their ability to develop new services, which is what this amendment is all about. Fourthly, like all businesses, mutuals need to be able to benefit from economies of scale. Fifthly, it is important to learn lessons from that financial crisis I mentioned; if financial services businesses are to build up stronger capital bases, they require the legislated regulatory agility with which to do so. Sixthly and lastly, there are direct benefits of being able to issue new shares; debt—the alternative—is of lower quality than equity for firms wishing to build their capital base.

One dimension of the then Bill had two elements to it. I am afraid the Government of the day decided they would not accept the second arm that I put in the Bill originally, which was the proposal to have redeemable share instruments for co-operative and community benefit societies. At the time, the Government said they were

“unpersuaded about the merit of a redeemable share instrument as these societies already have a means of issuing redeemable shares. The Government do not see a clear need and demand for such an instrument”.—[Official Report, 24/10/14; col. 923.]

I think the world has not changed. The Government need to have another long, hard look at the second element of that Bill. Obviously, I withdrew that section, because I was happy to have what I could get.

The mutual world is dynamic. If we have learned nothing else from Covid—I was in isolation for my 10 days because I caught it at the beginning of January—it is that people work very hard on a local level. We need to capitalise on that. Society wants it. The wind is in the right direction. I hope very much that the amendments that both the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, and my very good and noble friend Lord Holmes are putting forward find a following wind—not necessarily in the format they have produced them but certainly in some other format—and come to fruition.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak very quickly to Amendments 29 and 126. Like the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, I welcome both. We need to keep putting pressure on the regulator to be far more granular in regulation. There has been significant improvement on predecessor regulators, but there is a lot more work to be done. I will speak in a later group about roles which could encourage the regulator to gap-fill, which is very much related to how it regulates a much more varied set of financial organisations, particularly relatively small ones.

Unlike the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, I am a very strong fan of the idea of regional banks, so I appreciate the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes. You have only to look at the Landesbanken in Germany and their capacity to focus on local issues and people; they are there for them during times of crisis when, frankly, big banks tend to flee. Being regional does not guarantee that you are good, but it certainly creates a different dynamic, which we ought to explore—particularly in an era when we are talking much more about the importance of devolution and recognising its significance, and dealing with a levelling-up agenda. I hope all those will generate some thought in the Treasury and Government.

My three amendments—I am sorry there are three and that I have to talk to all of them—are probing amendments into problems that the Government need to get down and fix promptly.

Amendment 43 deals with the proportionality issue, which really is urgent. The level of loss-absorbing capital which medium-sized banks must hold in the UK is decided by the Bank of England. The Bank has been clear in declaring that these banks are not systemic, so we are not looking at systemic risk, but it treats them as if they were major banks, systemically risky, for the purposes of setting the requirement for loss-absorbing capital, and sets what is known as MREL—the minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities—at 200% of their minimum capital requirements.

This is not an international norm. In the UK, the threshold at which MREL kicks in is a £15 billion balance sheet, or 40,000 transactional accounts—that really is a medium-sized bank. In the eurozone, the threshold is a €100 billion balance sheet, and in the US it is $250 billion before MREL kicks in. I really think that the Bank of England needs to go back and look at this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Naseby (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I would like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, for the second time this afternoon for an interesting new clause. I have in the back of my mind the concluding words of the Minister of State, my noble friend Lord Agnew, when he introduced this Bill. Colleagues will remember that he said the Bill

“will support economic prosperity across the country, ensure financial stability, market integrity and consumer protection. It will ensure that the UK remains a world-class financial centre.”—[Official Report, 28/1/21; col. 1814.]

So we all know that the Bill is absolutely key. This particular amendment is about the enhanced role of the FCA and the PRA and, in particular, those who lead them. It means, frankly, that they are ever more powerful and important.

The amendment calls for a review after five years, although the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, made it clear that, according to her contacts in Australia, a shorter period would have been better. I am quite clear in my own mind that five years is far too long. A great many changes are happening all the time, and I am quite sure that the market will remain dynamic and there will be many opportunities; personally, I would suggest a period of three years. You could argue for two, and I understand why you might, but I think that three years is about right, because it is quite a challenge for those who are running these two organisations to be reviewed after two years, which in effect means 18 months.

Should it be just one person? No, it is far too big a challenge for just one person. I believe there should be a team of three, and it should be the responsibility of one of them to be the chairman of the review, with a casting vote if necessary. In my experience of 12 years on the Public Accounts Committee, quite often a small working group would be set up of just three of us to look at the spread and success or otherwise of our work, and it seems to me that that was a good test market. Secondly, I had the privilege of being chairman of a quoted investment trust for some 10 years on a fixed-term basis. We had a limited number of non-executives and we decided that there should be a review every two to three years of the strategy that the operational company was following.

I say to the noble Baroness: well done for putting this forward. In principle, it ought to find favour from Her Majesty’s Government, although I am sure that the review period should be shorter than five years.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, come another Monday, come another financial regulator story—this time in the Times. There are concerns that the FCA is going too slowly in its investigation of the Woodford scandal, to the point that Neil Woodford has felt confident about announcing plans to stage a comeback. It is just one story after another, and it very sadly makes the point. I think it is necessary to say that there are many—plenty—of good people at the FCA and the PRA, but clearly something is not working when we have regulatory scandal after regulatory scandal.

Financial services are notoriously difficult to police. The FCA is knee-deep in reviews that it has carried out after a failure, but the internal remedies that are promised every time perhaps help with the problem but do not seem to really cure it. Any financial services firm with a track record like the FCA would have been required by the regulator to bring in outside expertise to give an objective overview but then also to oversee change.

Revised Draft Airports National Policy Statement

Debate between Lord Naseby and Baroness Kramer

Thursday 15th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, obviously the draft airports NPS will be the basis for the Government’s decision on the development consent application for a north-west runway at Heathrow Airport. I confess that I live under the flight path, so I suffer daily—I was woken this morning at 5.30, which has been very frustrating after the late hours that we have been here. I have long opposed expansion at Heathrow, well before ever becoming engaged in politics, on national as well as local issues.

It is often taken as given that there is a strong economic case for expansion at Heathrow, but that is exceedingly questionable. I am sure the Minister will be aware that the Davies commission agreed that it was clearly stated that the case for a third runway at Heathrow depended on a hub model of aviation prevailing over point-to-point. However, the shift in the industry is clearly towards point-to-point because, frankly, passengers hate changing planes. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Spicer, that his Chinese tenant is the exact example. People put up with this problematic hubbing, having to change planes and wait for hours in terminals for a second flight, until there is the opportunity to fly direct.

We are in an era where flying direct is becoming dominant. That is one reason for the rise of airports all across the various continents, and for a very fundamental change in the pattern of aviation that passengers themselves are demanding. What we have is a hub airport at Heathrow that is primarily and almost solely functioning on an outdated concept. The passenger forecast for the third runway is that there will be 41 million additional passengers a year, but that 22 million of them will simply be changing planes at Heathrow. I pick up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones: those 22 million contribute absolutely nothing to our national economy. A large part of the investment and the cost that we are carrying is to support literally half the passengers, who bring no specific benefit.

The economic case is also based on an assumption of a direct correlation between GDP growth and an increase in passenger numbers, particularly at Heathrow. That is very simplistic. We got a glimpse into how simplistic it was during the work of the Davies commission when it released the technical documents. I give credit to Justine Greening MP, who, at that time, through a number of FOIs, was able to get more information on the cost-benefit analysis, and it was clear that there really was nothing. Many people think that somehow there had been work with businesses in London to work out what the future demand would be; there was none. They thought that there had been a look at historical correlations; there were none. It is simply meant to be a given that as GDP goes up, there is a corresponding increase in demand for flights out of Heathrow. I say this with a warning, because the rail industry has had to cope with the fact that what it assumed was an unbreakable link between GDP growth and passenger demand for rail has now been clearly broken. For example, in London, the Tube has seen its passenger numbers this year down by almost 4 million. So the economic case is extremely simplistic and very unreliable.

None of the analyses ever included the negative impact on businesses from noise, poor air quality and, above all, traffic congestion, so the work has been inadequate. But, interestingly, even in that inadequate work, the latest piece of work done by the Government shows that a second runway at Gatwick is a better generator of long-term economic benefit than a third runway at Heathrow—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton.

A number of key airlines, including BA—Willie Walsh’s name was quoted just now by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley—have turned against the project because of the charges which they know they will have to pay and then have to pass on in ticket prices. No-one I talk to believes the cost of £17 million, which is often thrown around as the right number for this project. That number completely fails to include any realistic costing of the plans to move and then reinstate the M25 or, alternatively, to tunnel it. Until we get some reasonable costings, it is going to be very difficult to assess this, but £17 million is way too low, and any contractor will tell you that. To break even—even on that understated price—Heathrow will need to require the new runway to operate at 38% capacity from day one. The only way to achieve that kind of increase in flights at Heathrow is to lure flights—especially high-value flights by US airlines—away from Gatwick, Stansted and Birmingham, and possibly even farther afield, which would seriously compromise the viability of those other airports. This issue has never been properly examined and it bodes very ill for regional development.

Heathrow will incur a huge debt load as a result of building the third runway, and the pressure to service that debt means that Heathrow will inevitably focus its new capacity on long-haul popular destinations, where planes can be filled very quickly. That means New York and other near-US destinations, not flights to new developing markets in Africa and Asia. Even the NPS forecasts that the airport will reduce its network of domestic flights to serve, at best, only five domestic airports, compared with the eight that it serves today.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, talked extensively and so well on climate change. To meet the carbon targets in the Climate Change Act 2008, the third runway would require off-setting cuts across our regional airports. Passenger numbers would need to be cut by 36% in the south-west, by 11% in Scotland, by 14% in the north-west and by 55% in the West Midlands. Without that, carbon emissions from aviation would constitute 25% of our carbon emissions allowance by 2050. Again, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, described that far more effectively than I can.

Of course, there are local issues. Getting passengers to and from the airport is a nightmare, both because of the impact on air quality and because of road and rail congestion. NOx emissions and particulates are severe around Heathrow even today, and legal limits are regularly breached. All the local access roads are heavily congested, so dispersal is not even possible. Even the London mayor’s plans for ultra-low emission zones does not solve the problem. In fact, this basically destroys the effectiveness of any of those plans, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, described. She talked about the health impacts of poor air quality, something we are becoming more and more aware of. So there are serious consequences to the air quality impact of a third runway.

The Government have promised that a third runway will lead to no more cars on the road—they do not say that about freight; we will have freight on the road but no more cars. Frankly, that is impossible. Every scheme to provide more rail access from London to Heathrow falls to pieces either because it requires tunnelling on a major scale at a huge cost or because it triggers the level-crossing problem. I will explain the level-crossing problem. In my former constituency of Richmond Park, the position of the River Thames, Richmond Park and the railway lines means that several thousand people can get in or out of the area only by using one of four roads that have level crossings. The rail lines are so busy that the level crossings are often down for 50 minutes out of the hour. A train service to Heathrow, which all agree—if passengers were willing to use it —would have to be a fast train running every 15 minutes with no more than one stop, would in effect close those level crossings completely, trapping the local population.

Transport for London has estimated that providing surface transport to support a third runway would cost £18 million, of which Heathrow has said it would pay £1 million, with the rest to fall on the taxpayer. That includes not a penny for resolving the level crossing problem. No engineer has found any solution to that, so we are talking about the impossible.

Last but not least, noise is a fundamental issue. I was astonished to hear praise for a six-and-a-half hour night flight ban. That ends at 5.30 am, and the traffic between 6 am and 7 am is what drives the community most insane. Also, the airlines constantly fly exceptions, created by some circumstance of weather or another, that always breach their current limits, and that will undoubtedly continue. It is an ongoing problem.

The noble Lord, Lord Naseby, talked about much quieter planes, but the problem is flights coming over in a constant stream so that there is never any relief from the level of noise, so even making planes quieter does not necessarily deal with that problem. There is an additional problem: Heathrow with a third runway will be running planes on two parallel runways. As the noble Lord knows, noise fans, so in the area between those two runways, the fan effect of two planes flying at the same time will be extraordinary. The operation of those two runways at the same time means that areas once affected only by take-off will now have take-off and landing.

[Lord Naseby]

I am not sure where the noble Baroness gets her information from. If one got the information for, let us say, two fighter jets taking off together, one would see that the increase in incremental noise is very small. Surely, since those are fair noisier than the aircraft that I was talking about, her facts are totally wrong.

[Baroness Kramer]

I will ask the Richmond Society to forward to the noble Lord the detailed modelling that has been done to show the impact of double noise on a significant section of the population. He may find that rather interesting.

Opposition to Heathrow comes from the overwhelming majority of residents in south-west London living under the flight path, four local councils and MPs of all political colours that represent that area. My party, the Liberal Democrats, and the Greens have consistently opposed expansion. When any of us hear of the mitigations, we apply that against our own experience. I lived in the area when Heathrow applied for the fourth terminal and we were assured there would be nothing more. Then came the fifth terminal, and we were assured again that anyone was foolish to suggest there would be a third runway. Then came a third runway and we were told, of course, there would be no sixth terminal. Now we hear of a sixth terminal to go with the third runway. This pattern continues regularly. In the same way, the mitigations—noise is a good example —never live up to their billing. Sitting outside—most people have the right to sit in their garden—is not helped by noise insulation inside a house; that works only provided all the windows and doors are closed, with the consequence that quality of life is severely affected.

Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Naseby and Baroness Kramer

Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Wednesday 6th December 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, Amendments 69H, 69J and 69L in this group are in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Bowles, but the group also encompasses Amendment 69K in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Naseby. This cluster of four amendments work extremely well together, and we are very grateful to the noble Lord for bringing in a piece which strengthens this cluster.

Even the unobservant will have noticed that, in a sense, this is about starting to close loopholes. We had a very interesting comment, I think from the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, earlier—he can tell me if I am wrong—talking about the reputation and the failures of the UK to manage money laundering that involves the overseas ownership of property in London. The noble Lord, Lord Naseby, may not have had the opportunity to be here earlier, but we did have Amendment 69 in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Faulks, Lord Rooker and Lord Collins, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, which directly addressed the public register of beneficial ownership of UK property by companies and other legal entities registered outside the UK, in an attempt to speed up the whole process of getting a public register of beneficial ownership.

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

I sat through the whole debate on Amendment 69, which took a fair amount of time.

[Baroness Kramer]

I do apologise, but the noble Lord will know then that that issue was addressed at that point in time. The Government gave us an update on the progress they are making towards what we hope will be such a public register. Indeed, I believe the Minister said it was not a question of whether but how there would be a public register. In a sense, that is one of the criticisms of London that hopefully will be closed within a reasonable period of time. We are still waiting on the timetable, but that is indeed what we hope.

However, the noble Lord is absolutely right that whenever issues are raised, particularly when the UK talks of issues around tax havens in other countries, or we on these various Benches talk about trying to get public registers in the overseas territories and Crown dependencies, the answer nearly always comes back, “Clean up your own house first”. Indeed, that is one of the reasons why I and so many in this House support that public register of beneficial ownership of property.

These amendments that I now address follow on that same theme. I remember the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, in particular in the debates on the Criminal Finances Bill, being highly critical, comparing London very badly with Jersey. Although we have a public register for companies, it is not one that has any verification system, and he saw that as a very fundamental flaw in the UK system. That accusation comes again and again, whenever we look at trying to do anything with the overseas territories. Whenever we look at any kind of more global activity, the answer that always comes back is: “You say that you’re well in advance of other countries, but look at your own house—you’ve plenty there to get in order”. I would agree that we have plenty to get in order, so let us do it.

The three amendments that I have tabled with the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, deal with various aspects of this. Amendment 69H deals with an issue that has generally been overlooked. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, for identifying it—as noble Lords can probably tell, she is the expert hand in these amendments and has drafted all three. Amendment 69H proposes that trust or company service providers that do not carry on business in the UK and ensures that they may not incorporate UK companies without oversight from an anti-money laundering supervisor. I will not go through the details of each of its provisions, but essentially it makes sure that anti-money laundering authorities can get a grip on a series of organisations—trust or company service providers—that may have escaped notice up to this point in time. It is one loophole closed.

Amendment 69J takes another tack to close loopholes. It recognises that a company can be tracked if it has a UK bank account, but if the company does not, it is much harder to identify that particular company and make sure that the money laundering authorities can give it due and appropriate attention. In the proposed new clause, if an entity falling under the Companies Act 2006 does not have a UK bank account, it will have to provide a fee. The reason it should provide a fee is that it means that the cost of doing due diligence falls not on the UK taxpayer but on the company. That provides every incentive and every opportunity for the various authorities to pay due attention to that company. That is another loophole closed.

That fits brilliantly with the new clause proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Naseby. I will let him explain that because he will understand it far better than me, but again it highlights the importance of due diligence which flows through the first two amendments that I have described. Due diligence is vital to make sure that those entities that are active in the UK have very limited opportunity—or, preferably, no opportunity—to engage in nefarious activity.

Finally, Amendment 69L directly addresses that issue that was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, and others. As noble Lords know, we have a public register of companies here in the UK, but the Government have never used a verification procedure. I understand why they have not. When a register is public, it is transparent. Journalists, NGOs, and members of the public have the opportunity to trawl that database, and that provides for many additional eyes to look through the material. That is exceedingly important, but perhaps it is not sufficient. At this point in time, issues of tax avoidance, tax evasion and money laundering have become far more significant—and on a far more significant scale. This is the time to turn to the supervisory authorities and give them the power and the wherewithal —the wherewithal probably being the critical element—to do verification and proper due diligence on that register.

That is the purpose of the three new clauses proposed in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles. They are to close the kinds of loopholes which leave the UK open to regular criticism that we talk about cleaning other people’s houses but we have not done what is necessary to clean our own. Read those together with Amendment 69 and you have a package that makes a very fundamental difference—one I am sure ought to be acceptable to the Government. I beg to move.

London Underground: Industrial Action

Debate between Lord Naseby and Baroness Kramer

Monday 10th March 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

Is my noble friend able to clarify the figure of 3% that she quoted? Does it not represent millions of journeys made on the Underground, and are not the majority of those made by tourists? Do we not want to be able to attract tourists?

[Baroness Kramer]

I do not have a breakdown of how the 3% is divided up although I assume that tourists are a significant part of that number. If tourists can turn to someone on the platform—someone who is clearly in a uniform, who is able to help them and who possibly has access to another language, where necessary, if that might make it easier—and ask that person about their journey and be directed, that could make London Underground very attractive to them. It is similar to what the Games makers did during the Olympics.

Taxation: Avoidance

Debate between Lord Naseby and Baroness Kramer

Tuesday 11th December 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Naseby]

My Lords—

[Baroness Kramer]

My Lords—

[Noble Lords]

Order!