Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill
Lord Phillips of Sudbury Excerpts(9 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Low of Dalston
My Lords, I have put my name to all these amendments, which have been spoken to so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Wills. I will speak very briefly to them in the order in which they were grouped.
I very much welcome the Government’s speedy response to the recommendations of the report by Sir Robert Francis on speaking up, or whistleblowing, in the NHS. However, like the noble Lord, Lord Wills, I am concerned that too narrow an approach has been taken to the issue of protecting whistleblowers in the job application process. Surely it is not right to adopt such a piecemeal approach to the development of legal protection for whistleblowers. This is why I support Amendment 58ZA, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wills, which calls for the protection of anyone who, in applying for a new job, is discriminated against for making protected disclosures or for blowing the whistle in a previous job. I emphasise anyone, not just workers in the NHS. The Government’s movement on this issue and their recognition of the principle is very welcome but, like the noble Lord, Lord Wills, I cannot for the life of me see why they should confine their approach to the NHS. Surely what is good for workers in the NHS must be just as good for workers in any other sector. This is an issue that many whistleblowers have said results in real hardship, as is evidenced in the Francis report. I believe that anyone who is not employed because the potential employer knows about their whistleblowing activity in a previous job should be able to remedy such discrimination in law.
I also support Amendment 59, as I believe that it will assist the Government in taking a cross-sector, strategic view of the UK whistleblowing framework. As the noble Lord has indicated, now is the time to put in place a structure that will collect and analyse not just the reforms in this Bill but recommendations from other inquiries that will impact on the whistleblowing framework, whether these come from the banking sector, the NHS, social services or the police. There is real value for employers, regulators, the Government and society as a whole in reviewing these issues on a regular basis. I hope very much that the Minister will see this amendment, which provides for a regular review of the whistleblowing framework, as a useful mechanism not just for identifying what is missing from the framework but also for helping to spread and encourage good practice among employers.
Turning finally to Amendments 59A to 59F, which give power to the Secretary of State to establish a number of national whistleblowing review officers, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wills, that a role such as this will help to plug the regulatory gap that exists in the whistleblowing framework. This would make it possible for such a national whistleblowing review officer role to be created, by order of the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, in any industry, not just in the NHS, as the noble Lord, Lord Wills, said. This role complements the regulatory reporting provisions contained in the Bill that the Government intend should drive change in relation to whistleblowing across all industries. It will enable a review officer to be created in any sector or industry, whether that is financial services, the health and care sectors, or services in relation to vulnerable adults and children.
Given the very many scandals brought to light by whistleblowers in recent years—in our care homes, our schools and our local authorities—I consider that such a role could only do good in driving forward the development of good practice in whistleblowing across all sectors. What is more, a role that has the features described in this amendment will provide a quick and simple warning system for regulators and organisations where there is a failure to deal properly with a whistleblowing issue. I therefore look forward to hearing the Minister’s response on these amendments, which I am pleased to support.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury (LD)
My Lords, my name is also to this group of amendments. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Wills and Lord Low of Dalston, for making most of the points that need making, and making them forcefully.
It seems extraordinary that the Government should have introduced Amendment 58A in the wake of the 200-page report by Robert Francis QC, entitled Freedom to Speak Up and published only last month. It is bizarre that they confine the provisions in the amendment to the National Health Service, for reasons which have been touched on by the two Peers who have already spoken. The need for the protection of Amendment 58A is universal.
I should perhaps say that in my long legal career I have dealt with a number of whistleblowing cases, and was charged back in the 1980s with trying to register a charity which had as its principal purpose the support of whistleblowers. That was successful—not, I may say, without vast and prolonged effort, because at first the Charity Commission viewed the very idea as bizarre. In 1993, the charity Public Concern at Work was formed and is still operating with huge effect. All of us here tonight are grateful for the work that it has done and the information which it has provided to us under the leadership of Cathy James. Its work leads it even now—or perhaps more than ever now—to advise about 800 people a year who have personal, direct, often plangent problems in relation to their employment and their attempt to try to get those who employ them to take seriously malfeasance—sometimes corruption, sometimes wilful and terrible illegality.
Public Concern at Work is, as I said, better informed than any other agency in this country as to just what whistleblowers have to go through. Our point is that whistleblowers are not some little sideshow. If we are serious about attacking the widespread and growing corruption and criminality that, I fear, infects so much of what we value in this country, we have to support whistleblowers. Frankly, they are the only people who can uncover criminality at source, often at a time when, if it can be dealt with, doing so will save vast loss and suffering. One has to look only at the collapse of the financial markets of the world, led by the City of London in 2008, to realise just what terrible losses we have all suffered—trillions rather than billions—by reason of the fact that there were virtually no whistleblowers from within the City of London, or indeed the other financial centres, who were able to get the facts relating to what was going on in their entities to the authorities in time for them to take action.
Again, I have a certain amount of personal experience of this. One thinks, for example, of Paul Moore of HBOS. He blew the whistle, except that he blew the whistle to his own board, saying openly and clearly that the measures taken in that bank to balance risk and opportunity were unsustainable and were leading the bank, and had led the bank, into the most dangerous of situations. He not only got no succour when he took this matter up the scale in the bank but has not had a job in the City of London since then—we are talking about 2007 or 2008—despite his huge experience as a former partner at KPMG and senior financial officer at HBOS.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, I am not sure that we are going to agree this evening on extending to other areas the provisions that we are very happy to include for the NHS. I have made clear that we need an evidence base and that we are doing things in other areas. The things that we are doing in other areas, to which I hope to move on, will also help to show what is happening on the ground. The debates that we have had in the House, which the noble Lord, Lord Wills, has encouraged us to have, will also change the culture in relation to whistleblowers. The very fact of the disastrous circumstances in the NHS has shown how important whistleblowers are, which is why we are making the changes that we are in relation to recruitment in the NHS.
If I may make progress, I will turn to the noble Lord’s Amendment 59, which seeks to introduce a rolling statutory review of the whistleblowing legislation. I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Wills, that it was only last June that the Government reported the findings from their call for evidence that reviewed that legislation. The Government have also carried out an extensive employment law review during this Parliament. Looking to future review processes, we see that post-legislative scrutiny is applied to all changes to legislation five years after the measures have come into force. We have an impressive rolling programme. The changes that we introduced to the whistleblowing framework in the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013, and the changes in this Bill, will be included in the rolling process. Considering the steps that we have taken to review employment legislation, and specifically whistleblowing legislation, I do not believe that it is necessary to introduce another review next year.
I turn now to Amendments 59A to 59F, which seek to create a national whistleblowing review officer. The Government fully understand the intention behind the proposed new clauses, which is to ensure that concerns raised by whistleblowers are acted upon. We know from research carried out by the University of Greenwich and Public Concern at Work that 75% of whistleblowers believe not enough is done about the concerns that they report. We want employers or the relevant authority to take action. That is why we are introducing the important measures in this Bill to require prescribed persons to report on how they handle whistleblowing concerns. That will increase transparency and reveal any circumstances where whistleblowing concerns are not addressed. The Government will want to allow time for this measure to take effect before they consider yet further measures. Introducing a body that has oversight of all investigatory action in response to whistleblowing concerns would be one way of going further, depending on what the need for further action was. But of course there could be other options for the Government to consider, based, as I have said, on evidence. Before introducing legislation, the Government will want to carry out a proper assessment of all available options to ensure that they are not introducing a body that was duplicating the existing functions of the regulators. This is a complex area.
Evaluation work will begin by the Department of Health publishing a consultation, which will explore the case for creating an independent whistleblowing guardian for the NHS. The Government will be able to use the evidence gathered from that consultation to look at the situation in other sectors. I cannot emphasise enough the importance of having a proper evidence base and the fact that we have been able to fast-track the Francis recommendations because of the very powerful work that he has done.
The Government are committed to addressing the barriers that whistleblowers face. In addition to the measures in this Bill, we have made significant progress. Perhaps I could mention some other measures that we have taken forward. We are updating a set of comprehensive guidance for whistleblowers and employers as well as introducing a non-statutory code of practice for employers. The Government intend to publish this shortly. We have carried out work to update the list of prescribed persons. This is a list of more than 60 individuals and bodies, which includes all MPs, that a whistleblower can approach to raise their concerns. The Government have recently introduced separate legislation, which comes into force in April this year, to extend the scope of the whistleblowing framework to student nurses and student midwives.
The whistleblowing framework is improving and robust processes are in place for future work and the continuous review of the legislation that we have introduced. I hope that the noble Lord will agree that much further exploratory work would be required before proper consideration could be given to his proposal for a national whistleblowing review officer and for extending legislation to cover all job applicants, whether in the public or the private sector.
We have made a major change in relation to the NHS. Perhaps that has eclipsed the other important changes in this Bill and other progress that we have made on whistleblowing. I commend the Government’s amendment and invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My noble friend the Minister said a number of times that there is insufficient evidence for extending what the Government are doing in this Bill vis-à-vis health to other sectors. Let us think again of the financial centre of this country. The collapse that we had in 2008 was perhaps the greatest financial collapse in our entire island history. It involved extensive and universally accepted huge breaches in the criminal law: the LIBOR fixing, the forex fixing, PFI—the list goes on and on. How can my noble friend say that there is insufficient evidence to warrant extending to this sector, if none other, some of the requirements that we are now extending to the health service?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, we are bringing in the new process provided for in the Bill which will allow greater review and engagement in those other sectors.
Taxation: Avoidance
Lord Phillips of Sudbury Excerpts(9 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
Income Tax
Lord Phillips of Sudbury Excerpts(9 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Newby
My Lords, paying the living wage is something that the Government support but, as we have discussed before in your Lordships’ House, there is a balance between rising wages and unemployment. That is the basis on which the minimum wage is set. I gave an example from the Dispatch Box the last time we discussed this: having spoken to people working in the textile industry in Leicester, they demonstrated to me that a big increase in the wage that they were paid would mean that fewer of them would be earning it, because they would be out of the job.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury (LD)
My Lords, is it not the case that income tax should be a good deal higher, particularly if those in the higher ranges of income paid their full amount of tax? What are we doing to tighten the receipt of income tax from all who should pay it?
Lord Newby
My Lords, the amount of income tax paid by the top 1% is now 28% of the total income tax revenues, which is the highest proportion it has ever been. That is because this Government have put substantially more money into fighting tax avoidance and evasion—far, far more—than the previous Administration.
Assisted Dying Bill [HL]
Lord Phillips of Sudbury Excerpts(9 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Condon
The noble Lord raises a very vital issue. We can and will address it in two ways: first, through the judicial oversight, and secondly, by amending Section 10, which at the moment has insufficient offences, but which can be amended to have a range of offences that will satisfy just the concern that the noble Lord has raised.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury (LD)
My Lords, it is in the very best traditions of this House that there is standing room only at this debate on a Friday. It is entirely appropriate, is it not, given the profound issues that are involved? I have no doubt at all that the country will be watching and listening to this debate in a way in which it perhaps has not done since the last of these debates, because this is one in a series. Like other noble Lords, I have taken part in all those debates; I come at the subject from having spent six years in the early part of my legal career as a part-time assistant to a part-time coroner and occasionally deputising for him. I was very vividly thrown up against the issues that are at the root of this legislation. I have to confess—I see the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, sitting yonder—that whereas I was wholly unconvinced when the noble Lord started his pilgrimage, the Bill contains the sort of protections that could make it one which we should support, given that it blocks off the thin-end-of-the-wedge fears that many of us had formerly.
I will make only one major point. We do not want to go from a situation where, as now, you have to be rich enough to go to Switzerland to get some sort of justice in these complicated matters. However, we could be in a comparable if lesser dilemma because of the cost which will attach to going to the High Court—with representation, as one would have to have—and getting an order. I have no doubt that the cost will be more than most of us expect and more than some of us fear, and legal aid is now available only to people at a very low level of income, and it will leave at least 80% of the public of this country unsustained if they wish to use the remedies that the Bill will provide. That is not right in a matter of death. One of the things we need to contemplate is whether we have some special arrangements for this life and death matter.
Secondly, the noble Lord who produced the Bill has done wonderful work, and those who tabled the amendments—the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and my noble friend Lord Carlile—have also done great work. However, there is a huge number of problems at the back of either amendment; a great number of issues that have not been considered carefully, in the round, and reported on. I hope very much that we will not vote on these amendments now or indeed at all today, because we all need time to reflect on and contemplate them. However, I would like us to think about—and, if necessary, to form— an ad hoc group to report on whether one could not deal with the issue at the heart of these amendments just as well by having either a county court judge or a special panel of justices of the peace to determine the issues concerned. Some may think, “That’s not good enough”. As one who spent a lot of time in magistrates’ courts and county courts in years past, I do not hold that view. In some ways, given that the issues are—how shall I put it?—common-sense life experience issues that will have to be determined by whoever adjudicates on this, I am not so sure that a county court judge or a panel of magistrates might not be at least as good, competent and able to undertake the decisions involved.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
My Lords, my name is down in support of the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, with the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, and I very much support the reasons he set out so cogently.
I was very glad to see the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, because it points in the right direction. I cannot support it, because I believe that doctors should not be involved at all in the final decision-making process. Under the noble Lord’s amendment, the courts would check that a good decision had been made, and they may ask for witnesses, as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said.
We need, for all the reasons set out at Second Reading, to take doctors out of the decision-making process altogether. I remind your Lordships of points made at Second Reading about the erosion of trust if a Bill such as this went through Parliament, and the minority of doctors who are willing to take part in the system—four out of five doctors are totally opposed to taking part in it, so only a minority of doctors would be willing to do it. That would lead to a lot of looking around for the right kind of doctors. I do not want to get into the business of knocking doctors—they have been in my family for some time; my wife and my son are doctors, and my grandson is on the way there—or weighing the relative merits or demerits of rogue doctors and rogue lawyers. However, we are not talking about individuals, but about the Supreme Court. The Committee on Standards in Public Life carried out a series of polls about how the public regard various professions, which shows that trust has been eroded in so many professions, but not in judges. Trust in judges remains at about 80%. That is a very significant factor; decisions made by the court on this issue, if we eventually went down this road, would be trusted by the general public.
I would just like to mention one point that has not been mentioned. I have a quotation from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger, in the judgment that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, was discussing. He said:
“Quite apart from the notorious difficulty in assessing life expectancy even for the terminally ill, there seems to me to be significantly more justification in assisting people to die if they have the prospect of living for many years a life that they regarded as valueless, miserable and often painful, than if they have only a few months left to live”.
Baroness O'Cathain (Con)
My Lords, I wish to raise a point for clarification. Amendment 12 states:
“No registered medical practitioner, registered nurse or other health professional may suggest that a person consider seeking assistance to end his or her own life”.
It does not mention whether they are terminally ill. That means that anybody could say to a person with a chronic hearing problem or even dementia, “Why don’t you seek assistance to end your own life?”. That person would not necessarily be terminally ill. I just want clarification on that point in the amendment.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, I rise also to point out what seems to be a flaw in the drafting of the second proposed new subsection in Amendment 12. As drafted, the registered medical practitioner, registered nurse or other health professional does not have to be treating the person referred to. That would mean that if my daughter was a nurse, she would be caught by such a measure if she said to me, “Dad, shouldn’t you seek assistance?”. That does not sound probable but you never know. I simply draw the Committee’s attention to what seems to be a fatal flaw.
Lord Cormack
My Lords, there are clearly deficiencies in the drafting but my noble friend Lord McColl made it quite clear what he was seeking to put across. There needs to be something to replace this in the Bill because we do not want anybody to be able to suggest this. That is the simple point that my noble friend was seeking to make. It is self-evident and I hope we will have a sympathetic response from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, indicating that he will look carefully at perhaps crossing a few “t”s and dotting a few “i”s.
Tax: Aggressive Tax Avoidance
Lord Phillips of Sudbury Excerpts(9 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Phillips of Sudbury (LD)
My Lords, will my noble friend tell the House whether the Government refuse to grant contracts to the companies and individuals that are engaged in this ludicrous and anti-social avoidance?
Lord Newby
My Lords, I think that there have been a number of cases in recent times where companies have lost contracts because they have been behaving in an unreasonable way, and that is a very good principle.
EU: Money-laundering Directive
Lord Phillips of Sudbury Excerpts(10 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Phillips of Sudbury (LD)
My Lords, this is an interesting debate and we should thank the noble Lord for introducing it. It concerns a series of issues that are still very much in the air because, as I understand it, the European Parliament has approved the directive but has made amendments to it. One of those amendments is of particular concern; namely, that the right of access to the information has been widened from “competent authorities” such as Governments and “obliged entities” such as banks, lawyers and so on to the general public. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, is particularly concerned about it. I wanted to make that clear because there is a long way to go. Negotiations will be held between the Parliament, the Commission and the Council of Ministers, and then it will come here. Being a hoary old lawyer, I am cautious about being at all definitive until I see the final wording and have the opportunity to discover precisely what the disclosure requirements will mean.
I think that the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, has somewhat exaggerated the potential breach of privacy. Charities, for example, are themselves public bodies. They comprise the biggest body of trusts in the country and, since they are essentially public bodies, there is no earthly reason why any aspect of their affairs should not be made public. However, I do accept the position with regard to family trusts. Here I should say that I spent several years during the late 1960s and early 1970s dealing with a great deal of family and business work that involved a considerable amount of trust work, particularly with what are called discretionary trusts. I am well aware of the background to those sorts of trusts and why they have a particular relevance, as has been explained to us.
However, I must also be plain. I am deeply concerned about the continuing decline in public trust which I am afraid is afflicting virtually every aspect of our establishment. Perhaps, mercifully, only the judiciary is free of public suspicion and mistrust. One institution after another has lost credibility. I need not go through all the institutions in our country, but it is necessary for us to remember that we ourselves have contributed to the decline in public trust through the events of a few years back, which the public have certainly not forgotten. That want of public confidence, if you like, is now being played on. I do not say this with any disparagement, but UKIP is definitely plugging into that sentiment, just as I believe Alex Salmond and his Scottish colleagues are doing north of the border.
I understand perfectly why there is disaffection and disconnection between the body politic and the ordinary citizen. However, one crucial, central element of that is corruption—using that word in its broadest sense—by big business, particularly among the banks, which frankly has been stupendous, and in the other areas I have touched upon. I want to see a radical attack on corruption, and anything that weakens the ability of the prosecutorial authorities to deal with this corruption must be remedied by us here in Parliament.
I am not as big a fool as to believe that passing laws is a substitute for achievement on the ground; indeed, in this area, I am afraid, the gulf between legislation and implementation is tragically wide, which is something that this House really has to concentrate on in the coming months and years, because what is going on is a farce. Look at Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs: it had 96,000 staff in 2005 but by next year that will be down to 56,000. Even if you are inclined to believe that there is a great deal of inefficiency et cetera, that is way beyond anything that is at all compatible with the need of the country to see tax avoidance in particular, and fraud in general, dealt with.
Just before he retired, I had lunch with Richard Alderman, the former head of the Serious Fraud Office. He was almost crying into his soup, telling me that he had met one of his former senior staff the month before to find this gentleman bewailing the fact that he had left the SFO and rather wishing he was back rather than being employed by a firm of American lawyers in London at 500% of his salary. At the Serious Fraud Office, as at HMRC, the senior cadres of people are so far outgunned by their opposites in big business, particularly the banks, that it is not just David and Goliath, it is David without his sling against Goliath. It is not a joke. It is a scandal and we should be ashamed of it.
I want ultimately to see the fine print but at this moment I am definitely in favour of strict disincentives for fraudulent activities—money-laundering or anything else you can name—utilising the trust mechanism. I am too experienced a lawyer and know just how convenient the trust is in nefarious activities, precisely because it is informal, fluid and has little statutory law bureaucracy around it.
We all know that the extent of tax evasion has dispirited this country. In the excellent report put out by our colleagues in the Select Committee on Economic Affairs in July last year, Tackling Corporate Tax Avoidance in a Global Economy, the public were able to read about Amazon, Starbucks, Thames Water, Vodafone, Cadbury before being taken over by Kraft—would not its Quaker forefathers just fall out of bed?—and, of course, Google. Citing just the example of Google, the report tells us that in the years between 2006 and 2011 in the United Kingdom, it generated £80 billion of business and paid—can your Lordships believe it?—£16 million tax. It is conceivable that that was done legally but the truth is that most tax avoidance is fraudulent when done on a major scale.
What are we doing vis-à-vis foreign so-called investors? The crooks from across the world come to this country, but why do they come? It is on record, if noble Lords doubt it. Look at the Migration Advisory Committee report from February this year. The principal reason that the big crooks bring their black money to London is because it is safe here.
Noble Lords should consider, too, the rights that anybody who invests £1 million in government bonds for five years and spends 180 days a year in this country acquires. He or she, and their families, have indefinite leave to remain in this country, while knowing that they will not pay tax on their rotten money, because they make damn sure that they do not. They will not use lawful means, most of the time. The sort of people we are talking about are driving up central London property prices so that decent, ordinary Londoners cannot get near staying in London and have to get out of the city in order to live. That is all part of a world that we have to deal with, and part of dealing with that world is to attack trusts.
Lord Willoughby de Broke
My Lords, some noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Watson, and to a certain extent the noble Lord, Lord Davies, have missed the point that I was trying to make. There are already, under the Money Laundering Regulations 2007, absolute requirements on financial intermediaries and lawyers to report to the relevant authorities if they suspect that there is any illegal use of trusts. They already have the weapons; the idea that there is absolutely no legislation to deal with trusts is entirely misplaced.
Lord Newby
My Lords, the approach I set out would mean that we would have a different way of reporting the majority of trusts. Therefore, there would not be a common system across the EU. The Government’s view is that it is very important that, across all the EU, there is a requirement for both companies and trusts to be more transparently described than they are at the moment. That is why we put a huge amount of effort into pursuing the concept of the mandatory requirement on beneficial ownership of companies. We want to ensure that, as far as possible, information about trusts that could be problematic for money-laundering purposes will be more generally available. Our proposals would do that in respect of the UK without having a full mandatory register in the same way as we propose for companies. We accept that there is a difference in nature between the two, but we think we can have the best of both worlds by having that difference of approach between them.
In response to the question from my noble friend Lord Dykes, trusts would not become default alternatives to companies because there are the requirements to report financial information to HMRC and to pay tax where appropriate and also for the automatic exchange of information where the beneficiary is a foreign national.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
Would the requirement on the trustees and trust extend to revealing who the beneficial owners are?
Lord Newby
I am not sure I can give my noble friend a definitive answer now. I may be able to, but in any event I will write to him about that.
My noble friend Lord Dykes referred to the challenges of making a risk assessment in this area. Of course, it is almost an impossible task. I do not think that the risk assessment is a key part of the process. We do it because we have a broad sense of what the risks are, without being able to get to the nearest pound or euro.
In answer to my noble friend Lord Phillips’ earlier question, I should have been clearer: the answer is yes.
My noble friend Lord Dykes also asked about third country equivalence. Commission proposals do not include provisions for listing of third countries as having equivalent money-laundering or terrorist-financing regimes. Under the third money-laundering directive, this proved to be a problematic process, and the white list of equivalent jurisdictions was difficult to keep up to date. The FATF peer reviews of member states heavily criticised this white-listing process, and we support the Commission’s view.
My noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury discussed the reductions in HMRC staff. It is not a question of whether they are more efficient at doing the same jobs. The truth is that the way in which we manage the tax affairs of the vast bulk of individuals and companies is now online. A huge number of staff whose jobs were essentially related to dealing with paper are no longer necessary. The reduction in staff is largely in response to changed circumstances. I remind my noble friend that we put in an additional almost £1 billion in this Parliament for staff working on tax avoidance and evasion. That has already generated several million pounds-worth of additional revenue beyond what we believe would otherwise have been obtained. There has been a change in gear, if you like, in the way that HMRC operates.
To sum up, given that my time is very brief, the UK is leading from the front on an agenda that places a practical emphasis on transparency and accountability. The Government are working to ensure that the EU shows similar ambition on what is a cross-border issue, with serious implications for developed and developing countries alike. We want the outcome to be fair and proportionate, but we also require it to be effective. That is what we are working towards and what I am optimistic that we will achieve.
Pensions
Lord Phillips of Sudbury Excerpts(10 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Newby
My Lords, as the noble Lord will be aware, the big new development in pensions is around auto-enrolment. In this area, the Government have set a cap on allowable fees, precisely to deal with the problem of high fees going forward. More generally, the FCA is undertaking a thematic review of annuities, which will look at fees among other things. There is a lot going on and we will see action without needing to set up any further bodies to bring it about.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury (LD)
My Lords, would the Minister not accept that, after the latest in an apparently endless series of disillusioning revelations about the cynicism of too many parts of the financial sector in particular, it is about time that we as a Parliament, and indeed the Government, made clear to the people of this country that there is a limit to what we can do in these issues? They bear on profound moral issues. Perhaps the time is right for us to, in effect, throw the ball back into the court of Mr and Mrs Britain and call upon them to exercise their own, individual moral autonomy and power to effect some sort of reformation of what is becoming a very depressing state of affairs.
Lord Newby
There are obvious limits to what government and Parliament can do, but I have always believed that one of the very important things that Parliament can do is to act as the bully pulpit and set out what it thinks is the correct way of behaviour. In terms of the financial institutions we have instituted, as the noble Lord knows, a number of pieces of legislation in this area but, as the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards pointed out, culture is very important—that is, the culture of the industry and also of consumers. A big problem around pensions in particular is that virtually no consumer understands the product that they are buying, which makes it very difficult for us to get people to accept responsibility. They find it very difficult to get to grips with a pretty complicated product.
Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill
Lord Phillips of Sudbury Excerpts(10 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Higgins (Con)
My Lords, I thought the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, was going to come in. I welcome these clauses, although these four new clauses add even greater length to the Bill in addition to the amendments that have been made. The rate at which this Bill has been growing has been quite extraordinary, and we shall have to wait and see how it ends up. I remain rather concerned at the way in which drafting has taken place. My noble friend might consider whether it would be appropriate to have some form of consolidation Act bringing together this and previous legislation. If the legislation is to be understood by bankers, or indeed by anyone, it will be necessary to correlate the various provisions which will exist after we have completed our debate. We have four new clauses at Third Reading, which is subject to tight rules.
I have merely one or two points. I am glad the ideas put forward by Mr Paul Volcker in the context of proprietary trading have been recognised as important. I have had many interesting exchanges with him, both as a Minister and as chairman of the Treasury Select Committee, and indeed in relation to the Claims Resolution Tribunal for Dormant Accounts in Switzerland, a quite different thing. He has been wise in all that he has said, but the problem is putting wise ideas into legislation.
As my noble friend has just said, if the Financial Times in the past few days is anything to go by the American legislation is going to be over 1,000 pages, while over here we are going to have a review and then a review of the review. This is going to take some time. Meanwhile the American legislation may be in place. What are we doing to co-ordinate the approach? This is an international matter. There are British banks operating in America and American banks that operate here. It would create considerable difficulties were the rules in one country to differ significantly from those in the other. A degree of international co-operation as soon as possible will be important if, as we all want, we are to ensure that proprietary trading does not carry both the risk to which my noble friend Lord Lawson referred and dangers in general to the banking system.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury (LD)
My Lords, I ask whether the independent review under Amendment 3 is on the same basis as the review carried out by the PRA under Amendment 2. Amendment 2 specifically refers to the risk factors that proprietary trading embraces, but there is no reference to that in Amendment 3 with regard to the independent review of proprietary trading. Is the second, independent review to be undertaken on a wider basis than the PRA review? Will it be able to look at some of the broader cultural aspects of proprietary trading by banks? I hope that question is not too late in the day for the Minister.
Lord Deighton
I thank noble Lords for those questions. In response to my noble friend Lord Higgins, with respect to proprietary trading and international collaboration and co-operation, that is the approach that we shall be espousing. On consolidation, this is structured so as to be integrated into existing legislation, thereby ending up with a consolidated result.
With respect to the question of my noble friend Lord Phillips, I confirm that the independent review of proprietary trading will not be constrained in what it can examine.
Taxation: Rental Income
Lord Phillips of Sudbury Excerpts(10 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Newby
I do not know the strict answer to that question, but HMRC makes strong efforts to bring home to everybody who should be paying tax that they should be doing that, which is why the Government have put in almost an extra £1 billion a year towards tackling tax avoidance and evasion.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury (LD)
My Lords, would my noble friend the Minister contemplate the fact that, in many London boroughs, 70% and more of the housing being purchased is purchased by foreign buyers? Many of them have poor credentials as to their abidance by law in their own states, let alone laws here. Might we not be getting near the time when we need to consider limiting the extent to which foreign buyers can dominate the housing market in London?
Lord Newby
My Lords, there is a very disparate housing market in London. At the bottom end of the market, the vast bulk of houses are purchased domestically. At the very top end, the vast bulk of houses are purchased by foreign buyers, particularly from Russia, eastern Europe and the Far East. One key thing that we are very keen to try to achieve is a greater degree of housebuilding in London and elsewhere. Only by building a lot more houses will it be possible to satisfy the demands of a growing population.
Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill
Lord Phillips of Sudbury Excerpts(10 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
“Review of the effects of the exemption of certain business and financial contracts from the Gaming Acts
(1) The Treasury must institute a review of the effects of certain business and financial gaming contracts having been made enforceable at law by the repeal of certain provisions of the Gaming Acts pursuant to the Financial Services Act 1986 (as amended).
(2) “Effects” shall include the national social, cultural and ethical effects as well as the commercial and economic effects.
(3) The Treasury shall appoint one or more persons to undertake the review after consultation with the Bank of England, the PRA and the FCA and such others as it shall decide on such terms as it thinks fit.
(4) The review shall culminate in a report to the Treasury within two and a half years of the coming into force of this Act.
(5) The Treasury must lay the report before Parliament and thereafter publish the same.”
Lord Phillips of Sudbury (LD)
My Lords, when this amendment was moved in Committee on 15 October there were 10 of us here at 10.20 pm. On that occasion my noble friend Lord Newby, summing up the debate, said that the amendment was superfluous, might have problems with EU law; and was,
“not proportionate or objectively justified”.—[Official Report, 15/10/13; col. 528.]
I shall endeavour to briefly answer those objections this afternoon.
Talking of superfluity, nothing in the Bill touches on the issue of gaming and gaming trades of all sorts. I will give a few statistics in a minute to show just how huge gaming now is in the City of London. Then we have the issue of the EU. If I may say so, it is slightly premature for the Government to anticipate the outcome of any recommendations that the review I am suggesting might come out with. That is a long way down the line: two and a half years is the time given for the review and heaven knows what that outcome might be, least of all whether it would be in any way in breach of EU law, which is in any event changing.
Lastly, perhaps the most important ground for rejection was the thought that this proposal to set up a review to look at the effects of gaming on the wider culture—social, ethical and cultural as well as economic and commercial—would be unnecessary and objectively unjustified. If one considers that these gaming trades now amount to many trillions—some estimate quadrillions; I had never heard that word before—it seems bizarre to say that this modest proposal is disproportionate.
The background to all this is the legislation brought in in 1986 in anticipation of the big bang. The Financial Services Act 1986 contained provisions that for the first time ever said that the gaming laws of the land would not apply to these City gaming contracts. Since then there has been a staggering explosion of such contracts. They are simply massive across the world, not just here. Derivatives, which are the most common form of gaming contracts or trades but not the only one, are largely below the radar, although steps are being taken to make them more transparent and measurable. The Bank for International Settlements has calculated this year that the value of derivatives alone—the over-the-counter derivatives, as they are called—is $693 trillion. Others reckon that if you add in the other form of gaming contracts, that goes up to a figure of $1.2 quadrillion in terms of face value, which may work out in real terms at some $20 trillion, or 30% of global gross national product—or gross international product, I should say.
Let us look briefly at the collapse of the world financial centres, particularly Wall Street and London. Lehman Brothers, had 1.2 million derivative contracts on its books when it collapsed in 2008, of which the face value was $39 trillion—that is one bank. It is calculated that 80% of the income of Lehman Brothers before it collapsed was from such gaming trades. Bear Sterns’ proportion of income from gaming was even higher than 80%. The statistics show capital debts of $384 billion against a capital of $11.8 billion; that is, 30 times more. If you look at the collapses of AIG, MF Global, Merrill Lynch, Northern Rock, Countrywide, Wachovia and so on, you will find in all cases that derivative gaming was absolutely central, usually key, to them. I just throw that back at my noble friend when he says that a review of all that, in terms of its cultural outfall, is not objectively justified.
Banks of course are still doing it today and it is creeping up, and I have no doubt that it will go on and on with its potentially malevolent effects just as heretofore. Huge profits are made from these types of contract, but on the other side of the coin they are matched by huge losses, which was the principal spur to this devastating collapse, a collapse which, do not let us ever forget, was stemmed internationally only by Governments moving in with massive sums of money—what was it here, $800 trillion? Not trillion, million—or am I wrong?
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
Yes.
I want to see, and I think that this may commend itself to the House, a cool look at just what the consequences are beyond the merely financial—you can scarcely use “merely” in terms of the numbers concerned. In Committee, I tried to remember a quote from John Maynard Keynes in 1936, when this type of trade was trivial when compared with today. He stated in his great book, The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money:
“When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done”.
How pre-eminently true that is. The noble Lord, Lord Turner of Ecchinswell, made the bold but timeless statement when he was head of the FSA that a great deal—I am not sure that he did not say the majority—of what the City now does is socially useless, because, sadly, only a tiny proportion of these gaming trades has any commercial purpose whatever. They are pure gambling. It is not that they are buying forward raw supplies for some manufacturer to even out the ebb and flow of world prices in whatever commodity or mineral it is—nothing to do with it; it is pure, unalloyed gambling.
Lord Higgins (Con)
My Lords, I am trying to follow my noble friend’s argument. Precisely what contract is he describing as a gaming contract?
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
I will do my best to explain. Let us consider Merrill Lynch. It cornered, it is estimated, 50% to 80% of the world’s copper in a series of purchases last year, I think it was. That was pure gaming. It was not to satisfy any of its customer needs; it saw potentially vast gains in moving into the world copper market and simply buying it up. Can you imagine: 50% to 80% of all the world’s copper was purchased? That was pure gaming. In fact, I think that it went wrong and was part of the collapse, but I would not lay my life on that.
These are extremely difficult issues. The cultural and ethical aspects are deep. The vast majority of people engaged in such trading are decent, good people. They are not all crooks, but the system in which they are trapped is one which, first, was at the root of the disastrous financial and banking collapse from which we are still suffering—and there is a long way yet to go. Also, we should be interested in the wider outfall. The noble Lord, Lord Lawson, coined a rather vivid phrase last night about the cultural contamination that can go on when one part of a system loses all contact with any ethical underpinning.
Let us consider what is happening in our nation at large, and the extent to which gaming is now spreading rapidly. This week, I heard of one medium-sized town that has more than 70 betting shops. In my town, they have spread like a disease. I am the first to accept that it will be a difficult set of issues to address, but taking a cool, calm look at the wider effects of what is going on in the City of London must surely be for the public benefit.
My noble friend may argue that we have review overload and that the City must be allowed to settle down and not have any further big inquiries. We have had all sorts of them, have we not? That would be a profound mistake, because, often, the more difficult the inquiry, the more important the potential outcome. This proposal has no pre-judgment. Some of my remarks in opening the debate on the amendment, and some of my assumptions, may, in the light of a deep, extended inquiry that looks at all aspects of these difficult matters, be proved wrong. As I emphasise, it would be an open-eyed inquiry.
I refer to the Kay inquiry, which was published in July 2012. Many noble Lords will remember it. John Kay undertook an interesting and important inquiry. He stated that,
“trust and confidence are not generally created by trading between anonymous agents attempting to make short term gains at each other’s expense. Trust and confidence, or their absence, are the product of the prevailing culture”.
I want a better hold on what the prevailing culture is and what part in it is played by the City of London, which is central to our economic future and our thriving.
I hope that there will be support for this proposal. Even if the Government do not like some of the detail, I hope that they will take the nub of it away and, conceivably, come back at Third Reading with their own amendment. Such a review will speak to the prevailing values of Britain today and to the spirit of our times. In a profoundly and dangerously materialistic society, surely nothing could be more material to us all than to seek to get beneath these complex and technical facts and issues, in order to understand the wider underlying effects. I beg to move.
Lord Newby
My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is to require the Treasury to undertake a review of the consequences of exempting certain gaming contracts from the rule that used to provide that no gaming contract or wager could be enforced in a court of law. Such a review would consider the national, commercial and economic effects, in addition to the social, cultural and ethical effects, proposed in the equivalent amendment in Committee. I understand my noble friend’s desire to know more about the consequences of what appears to have been an extensive gambling culture in the City of London, which flourished in the derivative markets that expanded significantly following the gaming contracts rule change but was not limited to those markets.
The financial crisis exposed serious problems in derivative markets—particularly, as the most reverend Primate pointed out during our last debate on the equivalent amendment, in OTC activities. Clearly, the proliferation of such activities and the lack of adequate regulation showed up a need for change.
Following extensive international regulatory debate, a set of significant international reforms was agreed by the G20 to address these concerns. It may be helpful if I provide noble Lords with a short update on what they are. They include measures to ensure transparency by requiring all OTC derivatives transactions to be reported to trade repositories, and the requirement for all standardised derivatives to be centrally cleared and, where appropriate, traded on electronic platforms. These reforms are now being implemented in the UK and should go some way towards limiting the risks associated with these instruments.
So far as the wider effects of gaming in the City are concerned, the PCBS undertook an extensive and wide-ranging examination of the professional standards and culture of the UK banking sector. Its final report made a number of findings on the existing standards and culture in the banking sector, and recommendations as to what might be done to improve the position. We are seeking to give effect to those recommendations in this Bill. As the noble Lord will be aware, we will have a debate on the broader cultural aspects of the PCBS’s report next week.
In the circumstances, I am not sure that a formal Treasury review, as proposed by the noble Lord, is the best way forward. In Committee, I suggested to him that a more appropriate way forward to address his concerns might be for him and, possibly, other Members of your Lordships’ House to work with a think tank that specialises in financial services to undertake such a review. The precedent I had in mind was the review of the banking sector undertaken in the previous Parliament. The Future of Banking Commission was chaired by David Davis MP and included not only my colleague Vince Cable but the noble Lord, Lord McFall. That report had a major impact at the time in influencing the consideration of how we should be looking at the banking sector. The advantage of such a structure over a formal Treasury structure is that it enables a wide range of individuals, including serving politicians, to sit on it. That is much more likely to happen if it is done under the aegis of that sort of think tank than if it is initiated by the Treasury. As a result, when the report came out, it commanded a broad degree of public respect.
I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, and the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury about the specific consequences of potential tax avoidance or evasion by people involved in this sector. I undertake to discuss that with my colleagues in the Treasury in the context of measures that might be brought forward in a future finance Bill. I agree that at first sight it appears to be a loophole that we should have a look at. As noble Lords know, the Government have devoted considerable resource and attention to these issues. I am sure my colleagues in the Treasury will be happy to have a look at the issue.
With those suggestions, I hope my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
I thank the Minister for what he said. I am particularly pleased to hear him say that he will take up the two practical points made by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, which are entirely germane to the review that I was thinking of. That will be an important step forward. I am obviously disappointed that the Government will not go further, but I do not think that I can take the matter any further today.
In opening, I should have said how grateful I was to two professors at the University of Essex, on whom I relied substantially for a lot of the statistics: Professor Sikka and Professor Markose. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
Before the noble Lord sits down, why does he not propose extending his fiduciary liability to all banks rather than just the ring-fenced entities?
Lord Eatwell
That is because I think the distinction between commercial banking and investment banking is relevant in this case. One would expect investment bankers to behave honestly and in an appropriate manner in their business transactions. I would not expect an investment banker necessarily to display a duty of care and certainly not a fiduciary responsibility whereas I really would expect a commercial banker to exercise those responsibilities in all circumstances when dealing with families and small businesses.