Childcare Payments (Eligibility) Regulations 2015

Lord Newby Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2015 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Newby]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Childcare Payments (Eligibility) Regulations 2015.

Relevant document: 20th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, the regulations before the Committee today were laid on 13 January under powers set out in the Childcare Payments Act 2014, which introduced the new tax-free childcare scheme. They were announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the 2013 Budget and will provide financial support to working families with their costs of childcare. Once the scheme is in place, the Government will meet 20% of eligible working families’ childcare costs up to an annual maximum of £2,000 for each child. Support will be delivered through childcare accounts, into which a parent will deposit their funds to pay for childcare and into which the Government will add a 20% top-up payment.

The regulations before us today were published for consultation between 14 July and 3 October last year, and I would like to put on the record my thanks to all those organisations and individuals who responded. As I will explain in a moment, the Government listened to the suggestions which were made and introduced some small but important changes to the way in which some of these regulations operate.

There are 18 regulations in all, but I am pleased to say that I do not intend to describe each of them in detail. However, I would like to give an overview of who will qualify for support once the new scheme is introduced. First, a person must be in the UK, over the age of 16 and have responsibility for looking after a qualifying child. It does not matter whether they are the child’s biological parent; they simply need to be responsible for their care. Secondly, the person responsible for the child must be in paid work, either for an employer or self-employed in their own business. If they have a partner, both partners will need to be in work. Providing support to the self-employed with their childcare costs is a significant, perhaps the most significant, advantage of the new scheme over the one it replaces; namely, the employer supported childcare scheme. As its name implies, that scheme was available only to people in employment.

The third eligibility condition is that the person’s income, and that of their partner if they have one, must be below the level which would make them liable to pay income tax at the additional rate of 45%. This currently applies to individuals with an income of more than £150,000 per year. Finally, someone will not be able to qualify for this scheme if they are already in receipt of support with their childcare costs from other government-funded schemes, most notably tax credits, universal credit and employer supported childcare. These are the eligibility conditions as they are set out in the Act. However, it is essential that the Government should retain the necessary flexibility to make adjustments to these conditions to ensure that the scheme remains properly targeted where it is most needed. This is why some of the detailed rules determining eligibility for support are set out in these regulations rather than in primary legislation.

I would like to draw the attention of noble Lords to some specific aspects of the regulations. First, regulation 5 sets out what is meant by a “qualifying child” for the purposes of the scheme. In broad terms, this is any child under the age of 12 or, in the case of a disabled child, under the age of 17. Regulation 9 defines what is meant by being in paid work for the purposes of the scheme. This is that a person will meet this condition if they receive as little as what someone would earn if they worked for one day a week at the prevailing rate of the national minimum wage, equivalent to around £52 a week, or £676 a quarter. Regulation 10 defines income in the case of self-employed parents. This broadly follows the well-established approach used for income tax purposes and is based on the net profit they generate from their business over the relevant period.

I will turn briefly to the ways in which the regulations have been amended following the consultation. Two significant amendments were made to the regulations as they apply to self-employed parents. The first concerns the requirement to generate a specified amount of profit every quarter. The point was rightly made that this had the potential to exclude self-employed people in very seasonal businesses where they are able to make a profit only at certain times of the year. To address this, the regulations were amended to give self-employed parents the option of meeting the minimum income level across a full tax year rather than in each quarter, as had been the case originally.

The second change applies to newly self-employed parents and again concerns the minimum income rule. The point was made that it is very common for new businesses not to make a profit immediately and that therefore it would be unreasonable to require them to reach the minimum income rule straightaway. The regulations were therefore changed so that someone starting out as self-employed will not be required to reach that level in their first entire year of trading. This will mean that they will not be disqualified from using the scheme as they struggle to make a profit when they are starting to establish their business.

A further change to which I would draw your Lordships’ attention concerns parents who are about to return to the workplace. The point was made during consultation that such parents need sufficient time to put suitable childcare arrangements in place before they start working. As originally drafted, the regulations provided a seven-day window during which a person could apply to open a childcare account in anticipation of starting a new job. The argument was made that seven days is simply too short to allow parents to make adequate childcare arrangements before they take up work after an absence. The regulations were therefore amended to allow someone to be treated as being in paid work where they have accepted the offer of a job up to 14 days before they actually start work. This will help to smooth the transition back to work and encourage parents back to the workplace.

Finally, I would like to refer to the position of those with responsibility for disabled children. As both the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield rightly pointed out at Second Reading of the Bill, such parents can face significantly higher childcare costs than other parents. The Government are keen to ensure that this is reflected in the way that the new scheme will operate.

As I said at that time, the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury made a commitment in another place to consider whether it would be possible to increase the maximum amount which families with disabled children could receive from the Government. I am glad to confirm that the Minister has honoured that commitment. She has said that such parents will be able to receive up to double the amount of support that other parents will be entitled to. This will mean that they will be able to receive support of up to £4,000 a year for each disabled child, rather than £2,000 a year as is the case for other parents. This change, which has been warmly received by the childcare sector as a positive step for disabled children and their families, does not feature in the regulations which we are considering but will be brought into effect by a separate instrument. However, given the interest shown in the matter at Second Reading, I thought that it would be appropriate to mention it now. I beg to move.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining the regulations. I particularly thank him for the way in which the Government have reacted to the consultation by introducing some detailed changes. I also thank him for what he has said about disabled children, in giving us notice of further regulation to follow. I have only one or two points to make about these regulations, which we are not going to oppose as we see value in more money being put into the whole issue of childcare. First, I have a couple of detailed questions about them and then some questions about whether the right balance has been achieved in terms of the distributive effect that the Act has.

Of the two questions about implementation the first is about NS&I, which has been the chosen instrument for these accounts. If I have read the impact assessment properly, I believe that there could be 2 million such accounts. I understand that when NS&I introduced what I think were called pensioner bonds in the new year, it processed 30,000 accounts and its systems failed. Can the Minister assure me that by the time this scheme is introduced, the NS&I systems will be robust enough to cope with the volume?

Secondly, the choices that people will have to make between this, the current scheme which is being phased out and other potential state sources of support are really quite complex. The Government acknowledged this by assuring us during the debate on the primary legislation that there would be an online calculator to help individuals. I wonder whether the Minister can give us some indication of progress on the online calculator. I think that these regulations are expected to be rolled out in the autumn which, in terms of delivering things, is relatively close.

The substance of my concern is in regulation 15. The Minister does not have to look it up; it is the £150,000 regulation. These regulations existed in draft when the original primary legislation was debated.

I think this is the order that specifies that it will be £150,000. That is a large figure. Perhaps this is because of the paucity of my friends, but I do not know a lot of people on £150,000. Indeed, the figure could rise to £300,000 in a household with an affluent wife and an affluent husband together. That seems to be a pretty high figure. I wonder why the Government have chosen such a high figure, because of the subsequent distributive effects.

In effect, the order was debated when the primary legislation was debated in the other place. I draw attention to the Public Bill Committee in the other place on 16 October 2014, when Vidhya Alakeson, then deputy chief executive of the Resolution Foundation, said in evidence;

“Our analysis shows that 80% of families that will benefit from tax-free child care are in the top 40% of the income distribution. The evidence on how parents respond to child care investment is reasonably limited, but we know from self-reported surveys that parents with a family income of more than about £60,000 a year are not predominantly making work decisions and suchlike on the basis of the affordability of child care. The vast majority of this funding is targeted at those families, which suggests to me that you are unlikely to see much of a change in behaviour, but you will get a cost shift from parents to Government”.—[Official Report, Commons, Childcare Payments Bill Committee, 16/10/14; cols. 100-01.]

Does the Minister accept the Resolution Foundation’s analysis that 80% of the benefit will go to the top 40% of households? If not, does he have some Treasury-based analysis to counter that claim? I know of no other analysis. So far, the Government have not revealed any analysis that they have done; there is certainly no distributive analysis in the impact assessment. Therefore, I have to take the Resolution Foundation’s statement as the best analysis available.

The scheme will cost, say, £600 million a year—it varies by year in the impact assessment, but it is £600 million-plus. Well, 80% of that is half a billion pounds, which is a not inconsiderable sum. Is it true that half a billion pounds is being directed at the top 40% of households? Was that the Government’s intention, was it a mistake or do they not know?

The position that we took in the other place during the passage of the Bill is that if the upper limit had been lower, money would have been saved that could have been used to increase the percentage relief to those who qualify. Therefore, the distributive effect would not have been this apparently amazing situation where half a billion pounds is going to the top 40% of the income distribution. The Minister’s colleague in the other place, Priti Patel, was pressed on the matter of distributional analysis. At the end of one of her responses—before she was interrupted—to the Public Bill Committee on 21 October, 2014, which is now some time ago, she said:

“Officials are discussing with colleagues across Government the possibility of considering the matter in more detail and of carrying out distributional analysis of all Government child care support. Much child care support is outside the Treasury’s remit and lies with the Department for Education, and many of the schemes that exist have been touched on in the Committee”.—[Official Report, Commons, Childcare Payments Bill Committee, 21/10/14; col. 164.]

That seems to me like a promise of a report about the distributional analysis of government childcare support. Am I right in interpreting it as such a promise? If so, when do the Government intend to produce such a report, which I think we would all find very interesting?

As I said, the Opposition will not be resisting these regulations. We find them surprising. We find the very high figure that directs this money at such households sad. We are sorry that the Government have not pondered on representations that have been made on the various scales and introduced a lower figure, but nevertheless we will not oppose it. However, our view is that we should go much further. When a Labour Government is elected, we intend to extend free childcare from 15 to 25 hours a week for working parents with three and four year-olds, paid for by an increase in the bank levy. We intend to introduce a legal guarantee that parents of primary school-age children can access childcare from 8 am to 6 pm through their local school and we intend to reinvigorate Sure Start, returning the way local services work together to shift from sticking-plaster services to radically early help. We believe those reforms will direct appropriate public money, properly funded, at the real places of need with relation to childcare.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, the noble Lord asked me a number of questions about these regulations. First, is NS&I up to it, given the teething problems with the pensioner bonds? NS&I is up to it. It is an established provider of payment processor services within government. It manages the premium bonds. The difference between this and pensioner bonds is that those bonds suddenly became available and there was a great rush. These provisions will be introduced on a phased basis and there will be no incentive for hundreds of thousands of people, even if the phasing worked that way, all to want to do it within an hour or two of each other.

The noble Lord asked about the online calculator. As he pointed out, the scheme is due to be introduced from the autumn. The online calculator will be introduced in good time before implementation. It would be of no particular benefit to anybody if the calculator were available now, but it will be available well before the scheme is implemented.

I think the main burden of the noble Lord’s comments is about whether the £150,000 cut off is appropriate. It is worth pointing out two aspects of the context here. First, this scheme replaces one that has no limits to the income at which people can benefit. It also does not cover the self-employed, many of whom will not be high earners. In that respect, it is a more inclusive and fairer scheme. The other element of context is that the Government’s overall system of childcare support remains focused on people with lower incomes. Families in receipt of tax credits already receive more generous support with childcare costs than under universal credit. Support will be intended to cover up to 85% of the cost of childcare and will be available regardless of the number of hours worked. It is not a scheme about helping the wealthy. There is a question about where you put the cap. The only two logical places would be at the thresholds for the 40% or 45% tax rate. Any other limit between those two would involve a disproportionate amount of effort and administrative change. The Government took the view that, given the history of this scheme and the fact that the cap on those who can benefit is being reduced, the 40% threshold was too low. We want to support people with childcare at incomes above that level. Therefore, we went for this limit. An intermediate limit would have been complicated and confusing.

The noble Lord’s final question concerned what had happened to the commitment given by my colleague in another place, Priti Patel, to carry out a cross-departmental distribution analysis of all childcare support. I reassure him that officials across government are currently examining the feasibility of carrying out distributional analysis across all childcare support schemes, but this is taking time because of the complexities involved.

Motion agreed.

Tax Avoidance and HSBC

Lord Newby Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I will now repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer given by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to an Urgent Question in another place. The Statement is as follows.

“The allegations about tax evasion at HSBC Swiss are extremely serious. They have been the subject of extensive investigation by HMRC. Money has been recovered for the Exchequer and HMRC continues to be in active discussion with our prosecuting authorities. Both the chief executive of HMRC and the Director of Public Prosecutions have confirmed that they have the necessary resources to carry out their work on this. If they need more resources, they will get them.

The House should know, however, that in each and every case the alleged tax evasion—both by individuals and the bank itself—happened before 2006, when the shadow Chancellor was then principal adviser on tax policy and economic affairs to the then Labour Government. The news that the French had got hold of files with the names of the bank accounts became publicly known in 2009, when the shadow Chancellor was sitting on these Benches, in government, and the files were requested and recovered by HMRC before May 2010, when he was a member of the Cabinet. He wrote to me last week asking me five questions about my responsibilities. I will repeat the answers that I have given to each one directly, and in return he can answer the questions about his responsibilities.

First, he asked me about what he called ‘the selective prosecution policy’ pursued by HMRC and a decision made by Ministers. The answer is: yes, it was. The Inland Revenue’s overall approach to prosecuting cases of suspected serious tax fraud was set out in col. 784W on 7 November 2002 by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right honourable Member for Kirkcaldy. It was confirmed again when HMRC was created in 2005, again by the right honourable Member for Kirkcaldy. What I have done is increase resources for tackling tax evasion and, as a result, prosecutions are up fivefold. So I have answered for my responsibility. Perhaps he will answer for his and tell us: did he have a hand in drafting the selective prosecution policy under the last Government?

Secondly, he asked me in his letter when I was first made aware of the HSBC files, what action I took and whether I discussed it with the Prime Minister. I first became aware of the existence of these files in 2009 when a story appeared in the Financial Times. I was the shadow Chancellor at the time, so I could take no action, and I could not discuss it with the then Prime Minister at that time because we were not on speaking terms. So that is what I knew. What did he do, as a Cabinet Minister, when he heard about these revelations, and did he speak to the Prime Minister about them?

Thirdly, he asked why we appointed Stephen Green to the Government. We thought that he would do a good job as Trade Minister—and so did the Labour Party, which welcomed his appointment. But the trade job was not Stephen Green’s first public appointment: that was when he was appointed by the last Government to be not just a member of the then Prime Minister’s business council but its chair, a post he continued to hold after the existence of the HSBC files became public and after HMRC negotiated to receive them. So I have explained why we appointed Stephen Green to our Government: why did he appoint him to his Government?

Fourthly, he asked about discussions with Stephen Green about tax evasion. I can confirm that the Cabinet Secretary and the director-general for ethics at the Cabinet Office carried out the background checks for ministerial appointments that were put in place by the last Government and that Stephen Green’s personal tax affairs were examined by HMRC on behalf of the House of Lords Appointments Commission, again using exactly the last Government’s procedures. Those are the procedures we followed when we appointed Stephen Green. What procedures did he follow?

Finally, he asked me, ‘Why did you sign a deal with the Swiss authorities in 2012?’. He does not need my explanation—listen to the shadow Chief Secretary. This is what he said at the time:

‘We support the agreement signed by the UK and Swiss Governments to secure billions in unpaid tax’.

He is right—billions in unpaid tax never collected under a Labour Government.

Under this Government, tax evasion is at the top of the G8 agenda. We have collected more money, and prosecutions have increased five times over. Ahead of the Budget, I set the Treasury to work on further ways to pursue not just the tax evaders but those providing them with advice. I say to anyone involved in tax evasion, whatever their role: this Government are coming after you. Unlike the last Government, who simply turned a blind eye, this Government are taking action now and will do so again in the weeks ahead. So I am happy to answer any time for our record on tackling tax evasion: now let him account for his”.

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, the noble Lord asked about the selective prosecution policy and why further prosecutions have not been taken. In the case of the HSBC people, the French authorities placed restrictions on the way in which we could use the data so that we could pursue only tax evasion, which greatly circumscribed what we could do. That restriction is in the process of being lifted by the French authorities within the last few days, so there is the possibility of going after more people in future.

The noble Lord contrasted our prosecution position with that of France. I am afraid that he is misinformed. In France they are pursuing prosecutions, but, as yet, there have been none. HSBC Geneva has been indicted for money-laundering offences, but the case has yet to proceed to court.

The noble Lord asked about the noble Lord, Lord Green. I have nothing further to say about the procedures followed by him; they were perfectly straightforward and proper. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Green, may be asked to appear before the Treasury Select Committee in another place—and, if he does, he can be asked questions which may be appropriate to his time as chairman of HSBC.

The noble Lord was very dismissive about the deal with the Swiss authorities that has yielded more than £1 billion. That is £1 billion more than the Labour Government even set about trying to get from people who had bank accounts in Switzerland. Frankly, to be dismissive of it bears no investigation whatever.

Finally, the Government’s pursuit through G8 of the automatic transfer of tax information, which has now been agreed by 90 countries, will mean that the kind of activities that were happening in Switzerland simply will not happen in future, because all transactions and money placed in Swiss bank accounts will automatically be disclosed to the British tax authority.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Crosby]

My Lords, I am waiting for a reply from my noble friend.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, there are 10 minutes for everybody, so let me be brief. I agree with my noble friend in her core view. I have not read in any detail what my noble friend Lord Macdonald has said, but HMRC has made it clear that now that the restrictions on the use of the information from France have been lifted, it is looking closely at that new information and will refer cases to the CPS for prosecution as appropriate. I think that bonuses at HSBC are matters for its board and shareholders.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)]

My Lords, that really was an astonishing and disgraceful Statement. I heard it in the House of Commons, and it was outrageous how the Chancellor tried to portray Labour as the friends of the tax evaders. If that is the case, why is it that £5 million has been given by HSBC to a political party—not the Labour Party but the Tory party? Why is it that there are three Peers who are either members of the board or advisors to HSBC—not Labour Peers but Tory Peers? Perhaps I can remind the Minister that in the July my noble friend Lady Royall and I raised a question about the appointment of the noble Lord, Lord Green of Hurstpierpoint. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and others pooh-poohed the question and said that there was no need to worry about it. Now we are being told that we did not raise it at the time. I raised it because the noble Lord never turned up at the House, and that is why I dubbed him the Scarlet Pimpernel. He really has to come and face the music about his role as the chair of HSBC.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Green, like many other noble Lords, will read the noble Lord’s comments with great interest.

[Lord Soley (Lab)]

My Lords, does the noble Lord recall that about two weeks ago I raised with him on the Floor of this House the question of the governance of banks and reminded him of the Bank of England’s criticism of the failure of that governance? There can hardly be a better example of the failure of governance than what has happened at HSBC. It is one thing to say that these organisations are so big that they need to be broken but, frankly, they are not so big that they cannot be better managed. The managements of these banks need to provide reports on the quality of their management. They need to give those reports to the Chancellor of the Exchequer so that they can be placed before both Houses and we can keep an eye on these organisations. They are now becoming a disgrace to the public where once they used to be regarded as one of the great strengths of the United Kingdom.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, the important thing to note is that the problems that we are now looking at—never mind who was in government—arose before the new regulatory regime was in place, before the banking industry itself set up its new standards body, and before there was the kind of scrutiny of what is happening in the banks that there is now. Everyone agrees that there needs to be a change of culture in the banks, including many who are in senior positions in those banks. I agree completely that Parliament has a role to play in calling the banks to account, and I hope that both Houses will continue in it.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

My Lords—

Stamp Duty Land Tax Bill

Lord Newby Excerpts

Wednesday 11th February 2015 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Newby]

That the Bill be read a second time.

Relevant document: 16th Report from the Delegated Powers Committee

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, the Chancellor’s Autumn Statement last December announced an important and comprehensive reform to stamp duty land tax—SDLT—on residential property. With effect from 4 December, the structure, rates and thresholds of stamp duty land tax have changed for residential properties, and stamp duty has moved from a “slab” to a “slice” arrangement. Each new SDLT rate is now payable only on the portion of the property value that falls within each band. That is in contrast to the old system, under which tax was due at one rate for the entire property value.

Stamp duty land tax is an important source of government revenue: it raised £6.5 billion in 2013-14 to pay for the essential services that government provides and supports. However, the old system was increasingly seen as unfair and inequitable, especially for those looking to move on and up the housing ladder.

Under the new structure, no buyer purchasing a property will pay any SDLT at all for the portion of the property up to £125,000. Buyers will be charged 2% for the portion from £125,000 to £250,000, and 5% for the portion from £250,000 to £925,000. Those buying a house worth over £925,000 will be charged 10% for the portion of the price between £925,000 and £1.5 million. From £1.5 million onwards, buyers will pay 12% SDLT for the proportion of the price above that threshold.

Moving from a slab to a slice arrangement is right in terms of fairness and economic efficiency. The new arrangement will cut SDLT for 98% of people who pay the tax; and no one who buys a home worth up to £937,500 will pay more compared to the previous system.

The stamp duty system as it then stood was a flawed system. It had been criticised by policymakers, industry and think tanks. The “slab” system created a significant hike in taxes at particular thresholds. It created the absurd situation where if you paid £250,000 for a house you would end up paying £2,500 in stamp duty, but if you paid £250,001 you would have to pay £7,500—three times as much. In reality, of course, nobody did. In 2013-14, there were over 30 times as many sales between £245,000 and £250,000 as between £250,000 and £255,000. That represented a significant distortion in the housing market, given the average UK house price of around £275,000, and one which is removed by the Bill.

Not only does the Bill eliminate the previous flaws in the stamp duty system, but it does so in a way which gives a helping hand to those at the bottom of the housing ladder. A family buying a Help to Buy property at the average cost of £185,000 will be £650 better off—a significant sum, especially at a time when cash is most likely to be tight. As I said, nobody buying a home worth up to £937,500 will pay more SDLT under the reformed system, and many will be left with substantial sums in their pockets. Overall, 98% of purchases nationwide will pay the same SDLT or less. That is 99% in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and 91% in London.

These reforms came into force at midnight on 4 December, to avoid creating undue distortions in the housing market. This stand-alone Bill was introduced in the other place on 4 December, and its provisions have had statutory effect under the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act since the end of the Autumn Statement debate on 3 December. The Government ensured that if a person had exchanged contracts before 4 December but completed on or after that date, transitional arrangements were in place to ensure that they would not lose out.

We also paid particular attention to how this change would affect Scotland. From 1 April 2015, land and buildings transaction tax is due to replace SDLT in Scotland. However, up until that point, these reforms apply to all residential property transactions in the UK, including Scotland. That will ensure that home buyers in Scotland do not miss out on a potential tax cut before their own tax comes into operation.

This change was met enthusiastically by industry, with the CBI labelling it,

“a shot in the arm for families and growing firms”.

It sits as part of a wider scheme of government policies that are designed to boost home ownership and homebuilding, relieving the pressures on the housing market and helping to make people’s aspirations a reality. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have taken part in this debate.

The noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, asked me several questions. He started by asking whether this change would have the effect of increasing foreign ownership at the top end of the market. It is far too early to tell how it will affect the market more generally. A number of suggestions have been made but we must see how things turn out before we can draw any firm conclusions about that. The noble Lord asked why we had not adopted the same approach to non-residential property. The Government think that the market for non-residential property is very different from that for residential property. For example, the data show that the current non-residential SDLT structure has less of a distortive effect around the rate thresholds than the old residential SDLT rules, non-residential properties also have a higher value on average and many have large leases and small premiums, which is rare for residential properties. Because of these differences, we do not think it follows that a reform to non-residential SDLT should accompany the reform that we are talking about today.

The noble Lord raised the Swiss system of dealing with under-occupied properties. I will, of course, happily pass that on to my colleagues in the Treasury. He suggested that we should insert more council tax bands at the top end. I thought for a moment that he was advocating Liberal Democrat policy, but then I discovered that he wanted to do that instead of the changes proposed in the Bill rather than in addition to them. We feel that, through the Bill, we are dealing with a system that has widely distorted the market over a long period and have replaced it with something which is more progressive and less distorting.

The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, pressed on the House the Labour Party’s proposal for a mansion tax and the need to build more houses. The election will include much debate on the mansion tax and I do not think I would serve a very useful purpose by entering into it this evening. On the noble Lord’s second point, while I agree, and the Government definitely agree, that we need to build more houses, I would point out that the Government have taken significant steps to support housing supply, including introducing the new National Planning Policy Framework, investing £7.8 billion to deliver 335,000 new affordable homes between 2011 and 2018, which is the most ambitious affordable housing programme for 20 years and being done in very difficult economic times, and providing £3.6 billion to facilitate access to finance for SME builders. The Autumn Statement includes a raft of further measures which will substantially boost housebuilding.

I am extremely grateful to noble Lords who have spoken in favour of the principles of the Bill and therefore I ask that it be given a Second Reading.

Bill read a second time. Committee negatived. Standing Order 46 having been dispensed with, the Bill was read a third time and passed.

Guardian’s Allowance Up-rating (Northern Ireland) Order 2015

Lord Newby Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2015 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Newby]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Guardian’s Allowance Up-rating (Northern Ireland) Order 2015.

Relevant document: 20th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments

Motion agreed.

Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) Order 2015

Lord Newby Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2015 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Newby]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) Order 2015.

Relevant document: 20th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, the financial services industry matters greatly to our economy, which is why the Government have taken wide-ranging action to ensure the integrity and stability of financial services in the UK. A framework of legislation for financial market benchmarks was introduced in response to the LIBOR scandal, when the Government took action to criminalise the manipulation of LIBOR and to create further supervisory requirements on administrators and submitters to LIBOR.

Last June the Chancellor announced the establishment of the Fair and Effective Markets Review, which reinforces the Government’s determination to ensure confidence in the fairness and effectiveness of UK wholesale financial market activity. The review is chaired by Minouche Shafik, Deputy Governor of the Bank of England, with Charles Roxburgh, director-general of financial services at HM Treasury, and Martin Wheatley, CEO of the Financial Conduct Authority, as co-chairs. The chairs are supported by a secretariat drawn from those three authorities. The review will report this June.

In addition, the Chancellor announced that the Fair and Effective Markets Review would make early recommendations on which further major financial benchmarks ought to be brought into the UK criminal and regulatory regime originally put in place for LIBOR. Given the widespread use of benchmarks in financial contracts, it is vital that consumers and markets are confident that benchmarks are credible and trustworthy.

In August the review recommended to the Treasury that seven additional benchmarks should be named in legislation. The review considered a wide range of benchmarks in fixed-income, currency and commodity markets—FICC—selecting a recommended list to target those benchmarks where the regulator currently has fewer powers and where manipulation of a benchmark would have the greatest impact on financial markets.

In drawing up its recommended list, the review sought to identify benchmarks that are major FICC benchmarks, those where the main benchmark administration activities are located in the UK, and those based on transactions in financial instruments that are not covered comprehensively by existing market abuse regulation. The Government opened a four-week consultation on these recommendations and held round-table discussions with participants from all sectors of the market. Overall, respondents agreed that the seven benchmarks recommended by the review should be brought into the UK regulatory regime.

Following that consultation, the Government announced in December that they agreed with the review’s recommendations in full. The changes set out in this draft order therefore extend the criminal and civil regulatory regime to cover those further seven major financial benchmarks. These changes will extend the legislation covering LIBOR to the following seven major benchmarks: the WM/Reuters 4 pm London Fix, which is the dominant global foreign exchange benchmark; the Sterling Overnight Index Average—SONIA—and the Repurchase Overnight Index Average, or RONIA, which both serve as reference rates for overnight index swaps; ISDAfix, which is the principal global benchmark for swap rates and spreads for interest rate swap transactions; the London Gold Fixing, soon to be known as the LBMA Gold Price, and the LBMA Silver Price, which determine the price of gold and silver in the London market; and the ICE Brent Index, which acts as the crude oil market’s principal financial benchmark.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords who have participated in this debate, particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Soley, for breaking up our traditional duet. He asked about the relationship between this order and the developing EU plans to do roughly the same thing. Negotiations are going on at EU level in which the UK is actively participating. The aim is that the EU regulation, when it comes forward, will be compatible with these measures. When it comes in, it will replace this order automatically because it will have legal force. However, the aim—there is no reason to think that this will not be possible—is that the EU measure does not require us to make any substantial change to the way that we run this regime. It will come in and supersede what we are doing, but only, as it were, in a legal sense rather than in a practical sense. That is the plan. We do not envisage that we will need to make any significant changes in the way that the administration or the procedures work as a result of that measure coming in.

[Lord Soley]

How will this measure come off the statute book? Is it because it is identical to another? I understand that this measure will have to come off the statute book.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Newby]

I will write to the noble Lord if I am wrong, but I believe that if an EU regulation is passed which covers the same area as existing domestic legislation, it automatically supersedes it under the terms of the 1974 legislation.

As regards criminal charges and the criminal system, the relevant criminal code dealing with any charges will depend on which country the offences are committed in, so if an offence is committed in Germany it will obviously be dealt with under its criminal code, just as an offence committed in this country will be dealt with under our criminal code.

The noble Lord, Lord Soley, asked about consultation with the FSB. I suspect that there was no consultation with the FSB because the kind of businesses we are talking about here are not typical small businesses. I would be extremely surprised if any business that was going to be significantly involved with these indices were a member of the FSB. However, as I said, consultation was undertaken with those stakeholders which are most closely involved at present.

The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, asked a number of questions. He asked how the implementation of the equivalent LIBOR order had been carried out. That order came in in April 2013, but applies only to activity undertaken after 2013. The criminal cases taken in respect of manipulating LIBOR relate to an earlier period. The charge was conspiracy to defraud and there has already been one guilty plea. We have not taken any cases under this legislation yet as it relates to the recent period. We hope that since it came in there has not been the kind of malfeasance that would require us to use it. The other legislation was used for earlier offences.

On malpractice in relation to other benchmarks, the two benchmarks against which malpractice has occurred are the gold fix, where Barclays got into difficulty due to manipulation, and there was a case involving WM/Reuters in November last year. We are not aware of systematic problems going forward because the new regulatory regime is stronger than it was in the past. However, some problems have arisen with some of those benchmark areas.

The noble Lord asked about the ISDAFIX and whether the change of administrator would be in place in April this year, to which the answer is yes. On Gold Fixing and the change in the administrator, live testing of the new arrangements is imminent and, again, we expect it to be in place before April. He suggested that in future, because of the nature of the benchmark, administration has changed, and it will be virtually impossible for it to be manipulated—certainly not manipulated in the way in which it was in the past. Sadly, it is not quite as straightforward as that. The main change in the methodology is that, in the past, the indices were based on quotes, but in the future they will be based on trades. It is possible that trades could be made with manipulative intent. You could be making real trades with a view to manipulating the index. There is rather more to the system than just a passive, administrative procedure. If somebody wants to manipulate the index they will still be able to do it in theory, although it will be more difficult. That is leaving aside all the rules to try to stop them, but in theory it could be manipulated by trades with manipulative intent.

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

Am I right that in five of the seven indices the manipulation that happened in LIBOR, which was essentially submitters manipulating the index for their fellow bankers, and so on, would not take place? If someone tried to manipulate the benchmark, particularly in the five I mentioned, he would have to go to the market and alter things happening there. It would be a much more exposed position and probably a rather more expensive one.

[Lord Newby]

The noble Lord is absolutely right. The point I was seeking to make was that it is not impossible to do it but the costs of doing it are potentially greater.

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

More than a bottle of champagne?

[Lord Newby]

Probably more than a case of champagne.

The noble Lord asked what happens if there are errors and who would pay up. If there were an error in the way in which the system worked, the administrators would pay up. That is obviously different from what happens if damages are caused because somebody is manipulating the exchange. If the exchange itself causes errors to be made or makes errors, the exchange will be liable for those errors.

With regard to what is happening elsewhere, we are not aware of any other European country that is planning to do this. They are awaiting EU legislation. Of course London is a global centre for these types of index, which is why it is more important here than in some other financial centres in the EU.

Finally, the noble Lord asked why we went for these seven rather than going beyond. The view was that these were the seven most systemically important indices. We consulted on the scope and whether we should go further and the view taken was that these were the key ones and we should stop at seven. That was thought to be a proportionate response. I hope that I have answered the questions asked by noble Lords and that the Committee will feel able to support the order.

Motion agreed

Tax Credits Up-rating Regulations 2015

Lord Newby Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2015 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Newby]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Tax Credits Up-rating Regulations 2015.

Relevant document: 20th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, with these regulations it will be convenient to consider the two draft guardian’s allowance orders. It is a requirement that I confirm that the provisions contained in the orders and regulations before the Committee today are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, and I so confirm.

Before I start, the Committee should note an amendment to the Explanatory Memorandum to the Tax Credits Up-rating Regulations 2015. The rate of CPI to be applied to these regulations is 1.2%, in line with the rate of CPI published by the ONS, rather than the 1.3% that was mistakenly written in the original document. A revised Explanatory Memorandum and accompanying Section 41 report correcting the error was laid before Parliament on Friday 6 February.

The regulations increase the maximum rates of the disability elements of tax credits—that is, the disabled child and severely disabled child elements of child tax credit, and disabled worker and severely disabled worker elements of working tax credit—in line with CPI. This decision was taken to protect those benefits that help with the extra cost of disability. The regulations also increase the earnings threshold for those entitled to child tax credit only, after which payments begin to be tapered away. The orders increase by CPI the rate of guardian’s allowance, which is the payment made to provide support to those who look after a child whose parents are deceased.

Child benefit and other elements of tax credits will be uprated by 1% by the child benefit and tax credits uprating order 2015. This is a separate instrument and these increases are not before the Committee today.

The regulations and orders before the Committee protect the most vulnerable by ensuring that the guardian’s allowance and the elements of working tax credits and child tax credits designed to assist with the extra costs of disability keep pace with the change in prices. This Government have ensured that these elements of financial support paid to low-income and vulnerable households have kept pace with inflation and will continue to do so until the end of this Parliament.

The regulations and orders before the Committee today will uprate the disability elements of tax credits by CPI. The rate of guardian’s allowance will also be uprated by CPI. In line with normal practice, we are applying the rate of CPI from September 2014, which, as I said earlier, was 1.2%. I beg to move.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, we do not intend to oppose any three of these orders, and I have no questions.

Barnett Formula

Lord Newby Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how much has been allocated to the Scottish Government in Barnett consequentials in the last year.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, the Barnett formula was applied in the usual way to changes in departmental spending at both Budget 2014 and Autumn Statement 2014. The Scottish Government received £301 million in extra allocations as a consequence of spending decisions taken by the UK Government.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that Barnett provides secure funding for the Scottish Government and if they had relied on oil revenues they would not have produced the £7 billion that was in the SNP White Paper, but just over £1 billion, and that an independent Scotland would now be bankrupt? Is it not a good job that we voted no in the referendum?

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, it is always a pleasure to agree with the noble Lord. It is, however, worth underlining the point that he has just made. There would be a £6 billion deficit compared to the figures in the Scottish Government’s November 2013 White Paper in respect of oil revenues, which would mean that for that reason alone the Scottish deficit in 2016-17 would be more than 6% of GDP, one of the biggest in the developed world.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, as the progress of Scotland towards independence seems to be almost inexorable, should we not be getting them used to the idea of doing without English money and phasing out the Barnett formula over a period of years?

[Lord Newby]

Well, my Lords, that is exactly what we are doing. The transfer of tax revenue to the Scottish Government means that the block grant, the element to which the Barnett formula applies, is falling by two-thirds from approximately £30 billion to £10 billion.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, does the Minister accept that the comments he has just made about phasing out the Barnett formula will be noted with considerable interest in Wales? Does he understand that on the formula that Scotland is receiving at the moment, adjusted for population, Wales is getting £1.2 billion less than we would if it was calculated on the Scottish basis? When are the Government going to phase in a new arrangement for Wales so that we get a fair deal out of the Treasury?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, the noble Lord knows that this year Welsh spending will be at a level which Gerry Holtham has said is the appropriate level for Wales.

[Lord Stephen (LD)]

My Lords, can my noble friend first confirm that the preservation of the Barnett formula was one of the key elements of the vow given by all the main party leaders from this Parliament in the run-up to the referendum? Secondly, can he confirm that there would be no Barnett formula whatever if there had been an independent Scotland, and thirdly, that as a consequence the finances of Scotland would be in tatters and the country facing financial ruin if there had been a positive referendum vote in favour of independence?

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, I agree with all the points my noble friend has made.

[Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)]

Does the Minister recognise that whatever new constitutional arrangements may be made, there will be no stable union of the nations of the United Kingdom as long as the distribution of public funding between them is fundamentally inequitable?

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, there are many different views about where equity lies in this respect. The effect of the transfer of fiscal responsibility means that, going forward, the extent to which Scotland has money to spend will depend increasingly on the success of the Scottish economy and therefore very much upon the effectiveness of the Scottish Administration.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, will my noble friend reflect on the fact that if it is the Government’s policy that the Scottish Parliament should be more responsible for the money it spends and should raise that money, the corollary is that the grant should be done on a needs basis and not on the basis of a formula that dates back to the 1970s, which clearly disadvantages the north of England, Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom? Why have the Government set their face against the report of the Select Committee of this House on the Barnett formula which spelled this out very clearly?

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, apart from the fact that the parties have supported the Barnett formula, the effect of the changes being made is that the relevance of the Barnett formula going forward is being cut by two-thirds and therefore any disparity that it might bring about will be reduced by an equivalent proportion.

[Lord Soley (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that this exchange reinforces the view that we must have a constitutional convention and that a core part of that must be to address the relationship between the four parts of the United Kingdom? If we do not do that, we will lose the union, and I for one would deeply regret that.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, it is absolutely clear that a consequence of the Scottish referendum is that a raft of issues around the way the union operates, not least the way in which power works in the Commons and in England, needs to be revisited. All the parties are setting out proposals at the moment about how they propose to do that.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)]

Does the Minister accept that the solemn undertaking given by the Prime Minister on Welsh devolution—that Wales should be at the very heart of devolution—means that as regards the Barnett formula, Wales should be on a par with Scotland in relation to that subvention?

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, all-party talks are going on at the moment about future constitutional and other developments in Wales, and funding is one of the items.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)]

The Minister referred to the Holtham commission. Is he aware that last October all four parties in the Welsh Assembly agreed that in conjunction with the UK Government Holtham should be looked at again? What is the current situation?

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, in terms of what is happening on the ground in Wales, the level of expenditure which Holtham suggested would be appropriate if there was to be a fair allocation is actually being spent.

[Lord Richard (Lab)]

The Minister said that the Barnett formula is becoming less relevant to Scotland. That may be so, but does he recognise that it is deeply relevant to Wales? The committee of this House in relation to the Barnett formula, which I had the honour of chairing, was crystal clear: it is unfair. It should be changed, but the Government have set their face against that. I do not for the life of me understand why. It ought to be based on needs and not upon some mathematical formula being applied to a block grant system which has been out of date for 40 years.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, I am well aware of the noble Lord’s views. The Secretary of State for Wales is considering the devolution settlement at the moment and is aiming to reach a cross-party agreement by 1 March.

[Lord Tebbit (Con)]

My Lords, will my noble friend tell the House whether he thinks that, as a consequence of the policies which are being pursued by the coalition Government in Scotland, there will be a great wave of support for Liberal Democrat candidates in Scotland?

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, I am extremely confident about the electoral prospects of my colleagues in Scotland.

Guardian’s Allowance Up-rating Order 2015

Lord Newby Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2015 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Newby]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Guardian’s Allowance Up-rating Order 2015.

Relevant document: 20th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments

Motion agreed.

Armed Forces Pension (Consequential Provisions) Regulations 2015

Lord Newby Excerpts

Monday 9th February 2015 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Newby]

That the draft regulations laid before the House on 17 December 2014 be approved.

Relevant document: 17th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. Considered in Grand Committee on 3 February.

Motions agreed.

Taxation: Avoidance

Lord Newby Excerpts

Monday 9th February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer given by my honourable friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to an Urgent Question in another place on tax avoidance by HSBC. The Statement is as follows:

“HMRC has a long-standing approach to tax evasion, which is based on collecting the tax and interest due, changing taxpayer behaviour to discourage them from evading in future, and enforcing the most appropriate and effective penalties. Overwhelmingly, this means providing disclosure facilities to encourage tax evaders to sort out their tax affairs, backed by civil penalties to fine them for the offence.

This Government have supported HMRC’s approach by increasing investment in HMRC’s enforcement capacity and by strengthening HMRC’s powers, including increasing the maximum civil fines for hiding money in tax havens to 200% of the tax evaded. There was no evidence for the possibility of prosecution of HSBC from the data provided to HMRC. However, if further evidence comes to light through the evidence published today, HMRC will of course respond appropriately.

This approach has been very successful in tackling tax evasion—whether from plumbers, barristers and medics in the UK or from the wealthy hiding money in offshore accounts. HMRC has collected more than £1.6 billion from 57,000 disclosures as a result of a wide range of UK and international initiatives. Internationally, since 2010, HMRC has brought in around £2 billion in previously unpaid tax as a result of the UK’s agreement with Switzerland on a withholding tax on Swiss bank accounts and the international Liechtenstein disclosure facility.

In a small number of cases, HMRC will institute criminal investigations into serial tax evaders and those who deliberately conceal information from us. But in most cases, disclosure and civil fines are the most appropriate and effective intervention, and that is how HMRC has approached the receipt of data from leaks and whistleblowers, including the Swiss HSBC data that were shared with the department in May 2010.

Using the civil disclosure approach, HMRC has systematically worked through all the HSBC data that it has received, and has brought in more than £135 million in tax, interest and penalties from tax evaders who hid their assets in Swiss HSBC accounts. HMRC received data about 6,800 entities, which, after removing duplication, resulted in information on 3,600 businesses and individuals. Of these, more than 1,000 were challenged and the cases were settled. HMRC believes the remainder are compliant but continues to monitor their activities. HMRC is examining whether we have all the same data that the ICIJ has, and will be asking the ICIJ for any data that we have not already been given.

HMRC received the HSBC data under very strict conditions, which limited the department’s use of the data to pursuing offshore tax evasion and prevented HMRC from sharing the data with other law enforcement authorities. Under these restrictions, HMRC has not been able to seek prosecution for other potential offences, such as money laundering. The French authorities have today confirmed that they will provide all assistance necessary to allow HMRC to exploit the data to the fullest.

HMRC’s powers to crack down on international evasion are being further strengthened by the new international common reporting standards, which more than 90 countries have agreed to as an extra tool for closing down the options for tax cheats to pursue this increasingly high-risk practice”.

[Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)]

My Lords, I fear the House and the country are going to regard that as a fairly lame Statement in the light of the disclosures today. The Minister has not made any attempt at all to answer the questions that are being asked about past actions. We and the country want to know: why did the Prime Minister, first, appoint Stephen Green to this House when the information was already in the Government’s hands and, secondly, make him Trade Minister? Did they not address the issue of due diligence at all with regard to Mr Green’s past actions and responsibilities at HSBC, as chairman and before that as chief executive? When the information was received by the Government, why was it not acted on?

Why is it that we are now hearing from the Government that we have had one successful prosecution, but the French are talking about the very many successful prosecutions that they have carried out? Why are the Government now boasting about the fact that they have been able to persuade the French to release their information and be helpful to the British Government? That looks as if the French have set about the issue with the due seriousness and urgency that were required, and our Government have not.

Finally, despite what the Minister says about the actions being carried out, the amount of uncollected tax has risen year on year on this Government’s watch, from £31 billion in 2009-10 to £34 billion in 2012-13. When will this Government take real, meaningful action to tackle this tax gap?

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, as I explained at Questions earlier, before the noble Lord, Lord Green, was appointed to your Lordships’ House, he went through the normal rigorous vetting procedure that is undertaken by the House of Lords Appointment Commission, and the Cabinet Office went through its normal procedure. As for prosecutions, my colleague’s Statement in another place explained that HMRC received the HSBC data under very strict conditions which limited our use of them to pursuing offshore tax evasion, and prevented us from sharing the data with other law enforcement authorities. Under these restrictions, we have not been able to seek a prosecution for other potential offences such as money laundering. However, by pursuing the civil route, we have been able to recover some £135 million from people who were involved in this activity. The noble Lord is right in saying that, in monetary terms, the tax gap has increased very slightly but I think he will find that in real terms the tax gap has fallen.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury (LD)]

My Lords, in the course of his Statement my noble friend said twice, I think, that it is more appropriate to deal with these issues by way of civil proceedings. He mentioned that the amount recovered was a sum short of £200 million. My own experience—I must plead guilty to being a practising lawyer of 57 years’ standing—is very clear that one conviction of one major figure in one major bank for tax fraud, such as that which HSBC has been carrying out for many years, reverberates around the City and the world of business and the professions with infinitely more force and effectiveness than any amount of civil penalties, which none of those who are responsible for the malefactions actually pay from their own pocket.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, the noble Lord asked about civil as opposed to criminal penalties, and whether an exemplary hanging might not be a good idea. I explained the difficulties about prosecutions in this case, but we have successfully prosecuted people for LIBOR manipulation and we have extended the scope of the criminal law in respect of people in senior positions in banks. The noble Lord will probably have seen that the very threat of criminal action against directors of banks, even though pretty remote, has made a number of non-executive directors of banks extremely nervous.

[Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)]

My Lords, anybody who knows the noble Lord, Lord Green of Hurstpierpoint, as many of us in this House do, knows that he is a person of the utmost integrity and great ability. Do not these revelations about HSBC, profoundly shocking as they are, demonstrate two things, among others? The first is that enormous international conglomerates such as HSBC are impossible to manage as they need to be managed. Secondly, does not this revelation demonstrate the cultural change wrought by the neo-liberal orthodoxy which has been dominant during recent decades and under which personal material self-seeking has been elevated far too far above other values?

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, if noble Lords have read the statement by HSBC in today’s Guardian—it may be in other newspapers, but that is where I read it—they will have seen that it is clear that, in 2005, HSBC was run as a very loose confederation and that the centre sought not to exercise very great control. That has changed very dramatically, and the new regulatory authorities are much more intrusive in ensuring that management at the centre has effective control throughout the organisation. It is clear that there was a wholly unacceptable culture in many of the banks. Both regulatory and legal change and activities by the banks in setting up their own body to monitor standards—as well as statements by senior management at the top of banks—are trying to reverse that culture towards the kind of culture that I suspect most people would expect their bankers to follow.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, I have listened to several attempts by the Opposition to tie the name of my noble friend Lord Green to whatever was going on in HSBC Switzerland, which I know in intention he would not dream of defending. Does the Minister nevertheless accept that my noble friend Lord Green is a man of the utmost probity who has done an enormously valuable job as a Trade Minister for this Government? I have the privilege of working with him. His activities bring great benefit to this nation. Would it not be a little wiser, if we want to maintain the quality and integrity of our political discussion in this House, to avoid premature innuendo of the kind that we have heard frequently from the opposition Benches?

[Lord Newby]

I completely agree, my Lords.

[Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury (Con)]

My Lords, can I endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, said? I know my noble friend Lord Green, who I agree is a man of great integrity. I agree also that the acquisition by HSBC at the time of a great many companies, producing a loose federation, caused management stretch in terms of organising it—I think that it has learnt the lessons of that. It is important that people outside this Chamber understand the measures that this Government have taken to strengthen controls on banking behaviour.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord. It is important to stress that, as a result of initiatives led by this Government, there will be in place automatic information exchange agreements with more than 90 countries within a couple of years, including Switzerland, which means that the kind of egregious behaviour which today’s revelations have brought to light simply will not be possible in future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Green, as everyone has said, is a man of great integrity. Can the Minister tell us whether the noble Lord was aware of the wrongdoing of the bank of which he was chairman? If he was aware, was the Prime Minister aware of that when he appointed him as a Trade Minister? If he was not aware, what judgment did the Prime Minister make about how effective he was as chairman of HSBC?

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, I have no idea what was in the head of the noble Lord, Lord Green, but I am aware that when he was appointed he was held in extremely high esteem by everybody who had ever had any dealings with him.