25/04/2017 House of Lords

That's the end of the day in the houckz. We will now be going -- in

the House of Commons, we will go live over to the House of Lords. You

can watch recorded coverage after the Daily Politics later tonight.

... However the Government respects the constitutional relationship with

the overseas territories and the Crown dependencies. Legislating for

the overseas territories is something that we have only done

very rarely and on issues such as the abolition of the death penalty,

which raised issues of compliance with human rights obligations, areas

for which the UK retains direct responsibility. While tackling this

kind of complex criminality and its consequences is extremely serious,

there is a clear constitutional difference in the fact that

financial services are an area that is devolved to territory governments

in the case of the Crown dependencies, the UK has never

legislated for them without their consent. It is also likely to lead

to the territories with drawing their current level of cooperation,

jeopardising the progress made and the spirit of working in partnership

that we have fostered with the territories. I hope that noble

Lord's will see this is a course of action that we shouldn't take. My

Lord's, in terms of their existing commitments, it is quite right that

we should ensure that there are effectively implemented and deliver

real benefits for the UK law enforcement. This was a point that

the noble Lord emphasised at committee stage and following

careful consideration, I have brought forward amendments 8 and 32,

to address the concerns raised by him and others. The amendments

provide for a report to Parliament on the effectiveness of the

bilateral arrangements in place between the UK and the governments

of the overseas territories with financial centres and of the Crown

dependencies on the exchange of beneficial ownership information. As

I noted at committee stage, the Government is committed to follow up

on these arrangements to ensure that they deliver in practice. There is

already provision in the exchanges of notes agreements with the

overseas territories and Crown dependencies for reviews of the

arrangements six months after they come into force, that is on December

31 of this year and for further reviews on an annual basis there

after. The arrangements provide for continuous monitoring by both

parties. However, placing review of the first 18 months of operation of

the arrangements on a statutory basis will, I believe, provide

further assurance that careful Parliamentary scrutiny will be given

to the effectiveness of the arrangements and demonstrate they

are being implemented properly, working effectively and meeting our

law enforcement objectives. My Lord's, as I've said, the UK is the

only G20 country to have established a public register and it is this

Government's long-term ambition that publicly accessible registers of

beneficial ownership will, in time, become a global standard. At that

point, we'd expect the overseas territories and Crown dependencies

to implement this standard. The Government amendment includes

provision that in the review of the effectiveness of the arrangements,

we can consider relevant international standards. This

further demonstrates our intention to ensure that we and our overseas

territories and Crown dependencies remain ahead of the curve of

international standards and will continue to consider the bespoke

arrangements set out in the exchange of notes in relation to these

standards as they evolve. Given that so many jurisdictions fail even to

reach the standards set by the financial action taskforce, for

beneficial ownership transparency, it is right to focus our efforts on

persuading others to up their game, while ensuring that the overseas

territories and the Crown dependencies deliver on what they

have promised. We will continue to engage with partners through the key

international groups like the OECD to increase levels of transparency

worldwide. I pay credit to all noble Lord's who have campaigned on this

issue. The fight against global corruption is a priority for the

Government. We've listened carefully to all those that have made

representations, not least the noble lady Baroness Stern. And the noble

Lord. I hope that the House will recognise the strong rational for

the Government's proposed approach and that noble Lord's will accept

the concessionary amendments that we propose in the light of our debate.

I look forward to responding to noble Lord's at the conclusion of

the debate, when I will also seek to address the amendment in the name of

my noble friends. Amendment proposed to insert a new

clause entitled Corporation beneficial ownership information

followed by the words printed. I rise to speak to amendment 14 in my

name and also the names of Baroness Kramer, Lord Ross and Lord Kirk,

this amendment has already been discussed in committee and is

unchanged but since the debate in committee I have been fortunate to

have lengthy discussions with representatives in the United

Kingdom of the British Virgin Islands and Bermuda which have been

very enlightening and I also want to thank the Chief minister of the isle

of man and his colleagues for meeting me. I am also grateful to

the House of Lords library for the excellent briefings and to Christian

Aid and transparency International for the additional briefings they

provided and the work they do in this area. The background to this

amendment is the growing public understanding of how the lack of

transparency in offshore financial centres helps the corrupt to find a

haven for their ill gotten wealth and the tax evaders to sleep easily

in their beds. Those in poor countries feel the effects of the

most because they do not have the resources to pursue the money that's

been taken from them. The understanding of this need for

transparency was enhanced by the publication of the Panama papers in

April 2000 and 16. Following this, on the 8th of November 2016 the

Chancellor of the Exchequer made her written statement on the work of the

cross agency Panama papers task force. This is a group of law

enforcers set up to pursue the information that related to the

United Kingdom about the illegality revealed in the Panama papers. He

said in his statement that since the publication of the Panama papers the

task force upon the following, open civil and criminal investigations

into 22 investigations were suspected tax evasion, identified a

number of leads relevant to a major insider trading operation,

identified nine potential additional enablers of economic crime or who

had links to known criminals. Placed 43 high net worth individuals under

a special review was there are links to Panama were further investigated.

Established links to eight active Serious Fraud Office investigations,

identified 26 offshore companies whose beneficial ownership of UK

property was previously concealed and whose financial activity had

been identified to the National crime agency as potentially

suspicious. And in addition to pursuing these individuals and other

leads on insider trading and sanctions and number of individuals

had come forwards to settle forwards to set other affairs before action

was taken against them. All the law enforcement activity I have just

listed is the result in just six months of bringing can transparency

to the files of just one legal firm in just one country. It gives an

indication of the huge extent of the illicit activity and eliminates the

rationale behind the measures in this very welcome bill. I would in

passing with great respect asked those noble Lords who oppose public

registers if they feel that bringing that number of people to justice is

not worth doing are whether they have a proposal other than

transparency for achieving that end. And though to delay government

amendment eight which the Minister has just spoken so eloquently is a

step forward in trying to curb the criminal activity at tax evasion and

laundering of corruptly gained a well illustrated by the work of the

Panama papers task force. It is very welcome them and makes it clear the

overseas territories to keep good and accurate information. Let us

remember that half of the companies exposed by the Panama papers were

incorporated in the British Virgin Islands. Amendment number 14 goes

further than the government amendment. In relation to the

overseas territories it aims to bring transparency to their

financial operations by allowing public access to registers are

beneficial ownership and I note that Montserrat has already agreed to

establish such a public register. This amendment would put a timetable

anyplace for the British Overseas Territories to have public

registers. It would require the government to give all the

reasonable assistance possible to the overseas territories to help

with this. If they had not been made public by the end of 2019 the

amendment requires public registers should be brought in by a council.

At committee stage the noble lady the Minister made it clear she could

not accept the amendment but in doing so she did not use the

argument that has been raised so frequently in discussions of this

matter the argument that requiring the overseas territories to have

public registers whilst other offshore centres maintain their

secrecy puts them at a competitive disadvantage so that in the

evocative words used in committee by the noble Lord Lord Hodgson the

malfeasance will drift away to still mark year regimes. I welcome very

much the noble lady 's rejection of that line of argument. She said the

overseas territories and I quote may face competitive disadvantage in the

short term but in the long term the transparent and open way in which

the territories tend to work and we with them will be to their

advantage. At the committee stage the noble ladies main reason for

rejecting the amendment was that there would be a constitutional

problem in accepting it and she repeated that today. I have been

sent many documents on this subject since committee stage which I have

studied carefully and they make it clear that ultimately the UK

Parliament could legislate. I am sure there is wide agreement.

Finally could I remind the noble lady the Minister of what she said

at committee, for the purposes of international law the overseas

territories are British. And that Britishness is significant. In my

various discussions it has become clear to me that the attraction of

the financial services in the overseas territories is primarily

related to the British identity, the language, the access to a common-law

legal system, final recourse to the Privy Council and the appeal as it

is seen of the union jack. It is worth repeating what the noble Lord

said at committee, he said it is fair to ask those jurisdictions that

while their economy and defence depend on the stability and

integrity of the United Kingdom they should also be expected to follow

the same rules of business and investment that we follow here. We

in the United Kingdom have a public register, it may not be perfect I am

sure the noble Lord would agree with me on that. But it is our policy, we

have one because we believe it is right and because it helps to

prevent serious crime I hope that by tabling this amendment we have made

it clear that we in the United Kingdom understand the huge impact

that secret offshore financial services can have on the poor

countries of the world, on good governance, democracy and security.

We understand the overseas territories are the United Kingdom

responsibility and we hope very much that transparency of their financial

operations will come sooner rather than later. Finally can I thank the

noble lady the Minister for the way she has carried this hugely

important bill through the house and for her support and helpfulness at

all times. Can I just intervene for a short time because as one of the

cigarette trees on amendment 14 and indeed its predecessor which we

looked out at committee stage I want to first of all thank and

congratulate the noble ladies bull lady for her amazing vigour and

courage and indeed our intuition in pursuing this matter which is so

important. I remember that when I spoke in committee I made it very

clear from the beginning that first of all this is important still, the

government does indeed deserve enormous praise for the work it has

done both here in the UK and also internationally to tackle

corruption, tax evasion and avoidance. That is something I would

like to credit also to the previous government because one of the

reasons I have been interested in this matter is because I have

followed the Right Honourable David Cameron's lead when in fact he put

this issue very much at the front of the agenda in the 2013 G8 summit.

Subsequently of course it has been referred to already in an earlier

discussion that the anti-corruption summit which took place in May last

year. He did not refer of course and others did not fair just to global

standards. Indeed one of my noble friend the Minister 's responses at

committee stage was to talk about awaiting global standards before any

pressure was placed on overseas territories to comply with the

public register. The former Prime Minister referred to the gold

standard which the United Kingdom its self was very much in the

vanguard of. And this was accepted and understood and it left this

country as it is now in an enormously advantageous position in

dealing with other countries as we go forward into the future. Can I

just also say that I for my sins was one of those involved in the

drafting of the fourth anti-money-laundering directive. I

think whenever I meet my friends they always induce me as an expert

on money-laundering. I do not like that description but undoubtedly we

are looking in this legislation which is an enormously important

piece of legislation, at the way in which we respond to the requirements

under that fourth money-laundering directive as well. I still maintain

that the amendment which I have co-signed is the best way forward

but what I would also like to do now is to pay tribute to the noble lady

the Minister for the way in which she has listened to the concerns of

those who held our views. She has listened carefully during the

committee stage and not just listened, then I think our ministers

listen and that's about it. She has in fact acted. And I therefore want

to just revert quickly to the government amendment she has brought

before us. I think the government amendment eight is an enormous

stride forward. It is actually also I think giving us the ability which

is so important to review the situation actively in two years'

time where we can have reports to see how things are getting on with

overseas territories and the introduction of public registers.

She has also given us good news this evening about developments even

since the committee stage and I think we should welcome that and we

should thank the government for its interest in proceeding in that

manner. I am still of the belief that we need to have a level playing

field and we need to have agreement with our overseas territories which

is at least compatible with and equivalent to the requirements

replace in the domestic setting. It makes no sense not to have that. I

realise the government's position on this and that they wish to proceed

by consent. Of course we all agree that consent is always better than

enforcement. I wish the government great success with this and if

necessary and as we proceed I hope we will be getting regular updates

and then in June course when the reports come inside back we will

have the opportunity if necessary to return to this matter. But at the

end of the day my Lord's this is a very, very important bill in so many

other regards as well. So from my perspective I certainly would wish

us to proceed to confirm this bill and to allow it to proceed from

here. I have to declare an interest. I

have served professionally and voluntarily in the development

sphere in various non-governmental organisations including being

director. To all of us involved in that work, the importance of this

bill and I very much endorse that it is an important bill and the

importance of the amendment that's just been moved cannot be over

emphasised. Indeed I noticed the other day that the Prime Minister in

saying within the Conservative election campaign, they are going to

stand by their commitment of overseas aid emphasised that what

was important was to make sure that the aid was being spent in the most

effective way and not wasted. My Lord's, one of the things that is

terribly important to recognise, in what is being proposed in this

amendment, is that the people of too many developing countries have been

robbed by their leaders and that existing arrangements enable their

leaders to get away with it. If we're going to talk about the

effective use of aid, it seems to me, that where we have the authority

to take highly effective steps we should do it. Yes, of course, we

must put on record that Britain has made great steps to provide world

leadership in this sphere and it is leading the world already. That is

why the remaining gaps are very ugly. I don't like to put it in

these crude terms, but it always seems to me that either people have

some reason for not implementing it immediately, what is proposed, or

they don't. If they don't, let's do it. If they are going to find ways

of delaying, having still to work out anningments and so on, this --

arrangements and so on, this must raise suspicion that's arrangements

are going to be made in other respects as well. From that stand

point, I would simply like to say that with all my experience in this

sphere, this is a crucially important matter. I congratulate the

noble lady in having stood by her guns and those who have gone along

with her in proposing the amendment and I do hope it will be taken

seriously, because I really believe that they could be a very important

consensus in this House if we are prepared to put ourselves on record.

My Lord's I declare - Following the speech of my noble friend, I too

shall wish to refer to Mr Cameron and the G8 summit. First of all, can

I say that I think amendment eight is unnecessary, but it's harmless,

so I shall support it. But amendment 14, in my opinion, is wrong and

misguided for a number of reasons. First, we have no right neither

legal or moral to seek to impose our rules on law abiding, self-governing

British Overseas Territories. I hear some of those NGOs outside this

House talking about our overseas territories then I'm appalled at

their old style colonial arrogance. One notorious campaigner against

so-called tax havens has suggested in his book that they should be

closed down and the natives made to depend on overseas aid once again.

He calls himself moral and he's one of the architects behind these

proposals. I believe we have no moral right because the United

Kingdom, my Lord's, creates more dodgy shell companies than some of

the tightly regulated overseas territories and Crown dependencies.

We need to come up to their standard, not the other way round.

Second, we should not impose the public register rules because the

rules themselves, as I shall explain, are rubbish. Not one single

other country in the OECD is implementing this and have made

clear they never, ever will. This public register was invented by my

right honourable friend Mr Cameron in 2013 and no other country will

touch it with a barge pole. The only reason he was so keen then to foist

this system on the overseas territories was so that he could

point to others, being in the same boat as himself, and did not look

isolated. My Lord's, I was involved in the background at that time. I

had a meeting with prominent NGOs prior to the G8 in 2013. I asked

them, why are they not campaigning against the real tax havens of this

world, Luxembourg, Mauritius etc. And why target the overseas

territories? They responded that they had no chance of influencing

policy in those tax havens, but Mr Cameron was so desperate for a win

at the G8 that he and the overseas territories were an easy target. I

should make it clear for the record, at that point, I was the director of

the caiman islands office in London, I have no connection whatsoever

financial or otherwise with the Cayman islands government now. I

deeply admire the way the territory is run and the exceptional level of

integrity they bring to financial services, greater than the United

Kingdom. I shall attempt to justify that. Why do I say that our UK

policy is farcical? Because it says that the way you get dodgy pensions

setting up dodgy shell companies is through public registers so nosey

parker NGOs can trawl through them. No you must stop them setting up

dodgy companies in the first place. Jersey and Cayman are the top

countries in the world with by far the tighter regulations and checks

on people setting up dodgy shell companies. A few years ago, an

Australian professionor and his -- professor and his team did a huge

xarmt. They created e-mail addresses around the world from Islamabad,

Nigeria and Moscow to London and New York and elsewhere. Many of the

locations were highly reputable and others were places where you should

hang onto your wallet if you got an e-mail from them they have ?10

million to invest with you. The researchers sent messages to

hundreds of service providers around the world. The messages varied from,

we wish to establish an export base in your country, to messages from

Pakistan addressing, saying we have a few million dollars and we want to

set up companies in complete secrecy and want some fake bank accounts

etc. What is astonishing, my Lord's, according to the Professor's

research, whilst the majority of CSPs did not respond to the latter

highly suspicious messages or told them to get lost, a very large

number responded and were willing to help. The team invented a ratings

system for the responses. Who came out top as the most difficult

places, impossible places to set up fake shell companies, without

supplying beneficial ownership information, yes, little old Cayman

and jersey. I have the chart here. Who was at the bottom of the heap,

where you could almost walk in with a suitcase full of terrorist cash

and set up a company, no questions asks, not Panama, but individual

states such as Delaware, Montana and Wyoming at the bottom of the chart.

Two million new companies are created in the United States every

single year. If you want to set up a dodgy shell company you go to the

United States or rather you don't go, you go to the e-mail and do it

in under half an hour for under $300. These states, individual

states have said gladly they don't care what the president signs up to

at federal level. They're in charge of company registrations in their

states and they will never, in a million years, go for public

register or sell tral registers and they will not go for any more

scrutiny before they set up companies. Where does the United

Kingdom come into this? Unfortunately, guess who was 13th,

at the bottom of the heap? Under Vietnam, under Panama, and under the

Ukraine, yes, my Lord's, the United Kingdom was 13th from the bottom on

creating dodgy shell companies. Because we do it with insufficient

verification of the beneficial owners. Clobbering Cayman and

Bermuda with rules, which only they would follow, is misguided and

foolish. We don't - I agree with my noble friend, we do not make the

world a better or more transparent place by hitting the good guys,

encouraging the bad and letting all the Mugabes of this world go to the

real tax havens to set up accounts. Neither does the OECD asked for the

public registers. They merely wants all legitimate authorities to get

speedy access to the relevant information so that the police,

Security Services and financial regulators can check the legality of

owners and their transactions. That's the point of access to

beneficial information. I know that the Caiman islands has been

providing that information without any objection whatsoever for the

last ten years. They now have implemented a system to give that

information to legitimate authorities within 24 hours, seven

days a week. Now my Lord's, that is a far better system than publishing

registers. It is perfectly legitimate for individuals, many

individuals, for people to create companies and seek to keep the

information ownership private. There is no right for the public or for

anti-capitalist NGOs to know who owns private companies. But there is

a need for legitimate law enforcement authorities to get

speedy access to that information. The overseas territories are at the

forefront of providing it. What is more, I know that information which

will be provided by the islands for example, will be verified by the

authorities as opposed to what will be supplied by Companies House,

which does not verify the accuracy of anything. It is left to

individuals to say to Companies House, I promise I'm telling the

truth. The overseas territories don't accept that. All I ask of my

noble friend is this: Will my noble friend, the minister, give me an

assurance that in due course, the UK Government will now make an attempt

to get a beneficial ownership information in Companies House as up

to scratch and as good as the best of the OTs. Our overseas

territorieses should be lauded not criticised. For these reasons I

oppose amendment 14 and believe it should be rejected. My Lord's I

declare an interest as former chairman of the Justice Committee in

the House of Commons where we sought to clarify and underline the

constitutional relationship. That probably explains while I generally

support the amendment number eight, I have some doubts as to whether its

desirable to have includes the overseas territories and Crown

dependencies in the same amendment when they're constitutionally very

different. Of course, the amendment as it is framed doesn't claim to

place any requirements on the jurisdiction to which it refers. It

simply requires UK ministers to report to the UK Parliament on how

it's all going, which is obviously a good thing. Something we very much

welcome. Parliament needs to know about the effectiveness of

information sharing, of course, it needs to know not only in respect of

the overseas territories or Crown dependencies but in respect of all

the jurisdictions to which business already is carried out or to which

it might transfer as a result of the steadily improving regulation in

some of the territories that have been referred to in this debate. A

lot of the public concern rises from two things, one mentioned by the

noble Lord, the appalling record of corruption in many developing

countries. But secondly, from the revelation of much of that in the

Panama papers. When the noble lady, who deserves credit and tribute for

her campaigning on this issue, when she referred to the number of

proceedings considered or starting, many of those arise - and would not

arise really from inadequate public registers. They arise from the

useful publication of a great deal of nfrgs from one law firm. As it

happens the biggest law firm in Panama, both of whose named partners

are currently in detention in relation to matters in Brazil. That

notorious partnership created many, many thousands of shell companies,

did not know and did not really seek to know the beneficial ownership of

the clients for whom it was doing this.

It took place in Panama and many other jurisdictions, not just

British Overseas Territories but for example at least one territory

associated with the Netherlands as well. This was a massive operation

stretching to Singapore and many other places. In Panama and has been

significant improvement in both the criminal law and requirements of due

diligence, which will offer have two comply with. I think that situation

will change quite strikingly in that particular country and jurisdiction

but much of this business may have transferred to Nevada, Delaware or

Singapore and this will need to report to Parliament on how

effective is the access of law enforcement and tax agencies to

jurisdictions? To serve its purpose jurisdictions? To serve its purpose

of course the information shared has to be reliable, up-to-date and that

is the priority. The UK itself has work to do at home as several noble

Lords pointed out. If it is to match what is already done for an example,

Jersey. There are real benefits to be had from publicly accountable

registers such as Harper poured the amendment particularly in tackling

the corruption by national leaders which would not otherwise come to

life but my worry is unless this does become a much more widespread

practice there will be many, many jurisdictions in which they can

engage in these activities. I think the phrase gold standard is an

unfortunate one because that is something we went off in

circumstances we realised we had to do so solid to find a different

analogy let's recognise the priority is to get law enforcement and those

of other countries accessed information which is reliable

up-to-date unverified. I was chief executive of a class one major

reinsurer in Bermuda for a number of years and have wide experience of

financial services in that country. And generally. I would pay tribute

to the noble Baroness the Minister and also Baroness Dearne in their

respective ways I am afraid I can page a beauty Baroness Dearne but I

disagree with her fundamentally and while I feel the catalogue of

problems she mentioned is terrible, worrying, vile and awful I'm afraid

to say amendment 14 is not a good way of addressing the issue and she

challenged me to try to provide a better way and I will in the course

of my remarks. I should say that people don't quite often understand

how big a jet restriction Bermuda is. It overtook London as a centre

of reassurance in 2004, London remains number two in the world. No

major insurer in this country would be able to trade without the

reinsurance it purchases from Bermuda. The amount of money and

capital and sophistication in Bermuda is enormous. The BMA, the

chief regulator is an extremely professional and very tough

regulator indeed. I should say that Bermuda was not responsible for even

one of the revelations in the Panama papers and is a very clean

jurisdiction and therefore I think it's particularly an fair they are

named in this thing. I have four particular points, two of which are

very quick to say, firstly the general point of interference by

Westminster in the affairs of these self-governing regimes and I agree

with the Minister. The second is a general point about just shifting

the problem to another jurisdiction. I absolutely agree that shifting a

bad thing is a good thing in many ways but shifting a good company is

a bad thing because you are simply damaging the jurisdiction and there

are many good companies involved and would explain later on in a second

wireless amendment would have the effect of shifting good companies

and I think it would be very wrong for to impose damage on our loyal

overseas territories and possessions. The three things I am

moving onto my third point now, the three things which control and look

at naughtiness in financial services are the tax authorities, the police

authorities and the regulators. As a chief executive of a big company of

course one is worried by tax authorities and policeman but the

person who can walk into your office and stop you trading immediately is

the regulator, he has the most power and is the toughest and I regret

that in the many we have the power of the regulators has not been

discussed. Or indeed how close they are to what is going on. It's not

possible for one of these shell companies to be set up without a

regulator being involved because that company will require a bank

account. The bank is a heavily regulated thing. If it does not

require up bank account it will require a font manager and that is

heavily regulated. As a person who would be running the support

business in these type of environment there is no way any high

integrity environment like Bermuda that you would allow someone one bad

cloud to come in and kill off the whole business. You would be very

careful to make sure what happens. You are of course afraid of tax and

police authorities and are more than willing to give any information

which will protect your business because no one client is worth it,

your business is your business, your staff are your staff and that is how

everyone feels. A sub point here is that in our society we rely on the

forces of law enforcement to deal with naughtiness on our behalf. We

don't have vigilante posse is running around trying to do things

and I do worry that it would be the case that if everything was public

available that people would see themselves suddenly as being

promoted into some sort of enforcement environment. I think

that is wrong, we should leave these things to the professionals, the tax

authorities and police authorities and the regulators and trust them.

If they do not do a good enough job we should bash them. We should not

allow vigilante posse is. I moved to my fourth and in fact I think most

worrying point for me, which I have mentioned before, the other thing

that who I work for for so long did was look after the possessions of

well off people all over the world. And it's also the leading insurer of

kidnap and ransom throughout the world. Indeed during my time we

logged 40,000 man days of kidnap problem around the world. It had a

market share more than 50%. I think we understand what the issue is. We

are lucky in this country to live in an environment where we are safe and

secure. I will lock on the night and think nothing of it, I can get in a

smart car and think nothing of it. That is not the case in countries

like Mexico. In Mexico you cannot keep your company in a local bank,

in quite a lot of countries you need to go to these offshore environments

and you are a good client because you're someone who has earned your

money. A perfect client was someone who owned a beer factory in Mexico

or something because you knew they were straight and honest and made

their money, you could see how they made it and they were very

frightened and the thing we advised them is to keep quiet about it.

Discretion because that's the chief weapon that. Nastiness going on.

When the nastiness happens it does not really happen to the guy running

the beer factory it happens to the daughter and it happens in a nasty

way and so I do worry that the effect of this sort of thinking

without a proper impact assessment being sorted out and thought about

carefully could be we would be sentencing some people to physical

harm, to the invasion of homes of people who have made their money

honestly and I say in vanishing, of course I do not want this

naughtiness to go on but I do feel strongly that amendment 14 is not

the way to go about it. That we should rely on police authorities,

tax authorities and regulators to do it for us and we should look

carefully at their performance in all of these countries and carry on

doing as the government has been doing so successfully to get

incremental improvement and this house should make sure we carry on

pushing the government towards incremental improvement but can I

please with the house not to support amendment 14. My Lords may I first

declare an interest as I am the chairman of the Jersey financial

services commission and therefore the person responsible for the

beneficial ownership register in Jersey. The question addressed in

amendment 14 of the public availability, public accessibility

to register is beneficial ownerships is not a question for me and I will

not address the value or not of making a register public. That's a

political issue. The regulator in Jersey is independent and I

therefore have no role in those political decisions. What I am

concerned about is whether a register of beneficial ownership is

and therefore a useful. There has been reference by a number of

speakers to the public availability of the register of beneficial

ownership here in the UK. Essentially the companies house

register. As I pointed out in my speech in committee, that register

is not a useful register, since it is not verified and because it is

not verified the information in it can be seriously misleading. And

indeed because it is not verified the people in developing countries

or in the civil society as a whole are on their own with respect to

attempting to identify wrongdoing through the structure of the

register. The register doesn't do the job. Regrettably the UK is not a

leader in providing verified accurate information about

beneficial ownership. Now the two issues I want to address with

respect to the amendments are first of all with respect to amendment 14

what I have just said will make clear why I regard it as seriously

defective in not including the word verified. The characterisation of

the information in this section, subsection four says a publicly

ownership of information a covenant ownership of information a covenant

that in the companies act and the word verified does not appear.

Therefore this information can be inaccurate, it can be misleading,

nobody is required here to check that information. Now the second

point I wish to go back to, the noble lady the Minister's amendment

number eight, which has not been discussed very much up until now

where it says that the, not only will relevant territories provide

information to the UK and we all have a report on how that

information is provided, but it also says the UK will provide beneficial

ownership information to the relevant territories and I presume

that includes my registry in Jersey. So I would like to know what

information is going to be provided. If it's the companies house

information do not bother. If it's some verified information then I

will be very pleased to receive it. So I would be grateful if when the

minister sums up she would tell us exactly what information is going to

be provided by the UK and whether this is going to be verified and if

so by what authority will it be verified? Because only if we have

accurate information are the goals that those who have moved amendment

number 40, the objectives of achieving the revelation of

wrongdoing only is that then achieved if information is not

verified that goal is not achieved so I do think amendment 14 I would

summing out will tell me what sort summing out will tell me what sort

of information and by whom it will be verified provided to the UK to my

register in Jersey. Wishes the United Kingdom to be ahead of the

curve and in relation to amendment number eight I think she's

absolutely right if she is saying that the corporation on beneficial

ownership information in order to remove tax evasion or deal with tax

evasion, stamping out corruption, money laundering and terrorist

finance is that if that is the objective then it's to be welcomed

and it is welcomed as far as I can see by those in the overseas

territories. Of course what will come from this particular amendment

which I will come back to in a minute is the overseas territories

have as I understand it committed themselves to provide real-time

24-hour information in response to requests from the Lord authorities

in the United Kingdom 's. this area of challenge. I too have

concern over some of the detail of this particular clause. It is

unfortunate that a clause of this importance is appearing on the order

paper so late in the process. Of course, I recognise my noble friend

on the frontbenches is in some difficulty in that this is a really

major bill and here we are at the 11th having to lock at an amendment

which is absolutely vital. So, one has to have some allowance for that.

But I share the view of the Lord in exactly what information is going to

come from the UK and who on earth is verifying that information. I think

the overseas territories have every right to be told exactly what this

information is and how it has been verified. I add to that, there seems

to be a great rush to have this work that's done over the next period of

time and it's all going to be based on one year's experience. This is

such a major step forward, that I wonder whether 12 months, with some

of them we heard this evening from my noble friend, the Turks and

Caicos are hoping to get started soon. Well, I think one year is

asking an awful lot and not many statisticians would work on the

basis of one year's information. Nevertheless, we are where we are. I

have one other concern, that is on section number two. It says and I

quote, "The report must include an assessment of the effectiveness of

those arrangements having wrard to such international standards as

appear to be relevant, as appear to the relevant minister to be

relevant." We don't know who the minister is or may be in the next

Government. Nor do we know what the international standards are that are

to be used. I suggest to my noble friend and I don't blame them for

this, but when the report comes forward, we shall want to have great

clarity on what international standards are being used and whether

they're being consistently used in the analysis of the implementation

that flows from clause eight. I return to the basic point that there

must be great joy, I think, both in the overseas territories and the law

enforcement agencies in the United Kingdom at what they are going to

get now really is a first-class get now really is a first-class

service which ought to have a major impact on the areas that I've

described. My Lord's, I've had the privilege of working overseas in

Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka. I spent part of my National Service in

Canada. Certainly when I was in commerce with the overseas group,

one of the bug bears of international trade, I'm now talking

several decades ago, but it hasn't changed I'm afraid, is that it isn't

a level playing field. Here we are, approaching Brexit, we are hoping to

trade internationally. The tragedy of the situation is that somehow or

other we've never managed, the United Kingdom nor other countries

have managed to sper suede, have we managed to persuade the United

States, Hong Kong and Singapore even to have a central, non-public

register? We haven't got even that far. Even on the basis of what we're

doing now, we are having rivals and make no mistake about it, most of

our overseas territories are in the Caribbean. Their main competitor is

the United States. They do not even have a central beneficial ownership

register. Not only will they lose business, if we go too far, but the

other parties, particularly the States, Singapore and Hong Kong, if

they take business from our overseas territories, net result will be that

whereas we're getting information out of our overseas territories, if

the business goes elsewhere, then the cooperation that the UK gets

from its overseas territories, which is good and is going to be even

better, will be totally undermind and we won't get any information,

frankly, from the United States, Hong Kong or Singapore. Finally,

when you come to amendment 14, it keeps re-appearing, I certainly

don't think Her Majesty's Government is committed to producing anything

on a public register at the end of the review on beneficial ownership.

The review on beneficial ownership should be solely on that. There may

need to be further amendments or extensions of that situation. I just

do remind your Lordships that the law enforcement agencies do not

support public registers, the tax authorities do not support public

registers, UK intelligent law enforcement is a key part of our

foreign policy. We look for cooperation from our friendly

countries across the world. That will be jeopardised still further if

there are these public registers. I say to my noble friend on the

frontbench, I support very much what she's done with this bill. I support

the way she's pushed forward this progress with the overseas

territories, but let's be quite clear, beneficial ownership is one

thing and very important. Public registers, in my view, are totally

out of call. I rise briefly to support the Government amendment

number eight. In so doing, to apologise to the House for the fact

that I haven't been here for earlier proceedings, because amongst other

things, I have been visiting one of the overseas territories, Gibraltar,

where I'm Chancellor of the new university there. And of course, as

a former governor of Gibraltar, I'm probably the only person in the

chamber who has been a governor of chamber who has been a governor of

an overseas territory and I thought I ought to say something on this

very important debate. I think that my noble friend, the Baroness, and

all those who have added their name to that amendment, they've done a

service to the House, in ensuring that we debate this vital issue of

standards, of regulations in overseas territories. After all, at

the end of the day, it is our Government, it is ultimately

accountable to Parliament for the performance in our overseas

territories. Therefore, we must, the Government must satisfy themselves

that the standards both in this country as well as in overseas

territories are to the standards required by OECD and elsewhere. I

congratulate my noble friend on the leadership that she's shown in

ensuring that we debate this issue. But there is a very delicate balance

to be struck. I think the House understands this in listening to

this debate. Of course, we are now in a non-colonial era. I remember

when I became governor of Gibraltar, Robin cook, very soon after became

Foreign Secretary, two or three months later. One of the first

things he did, I think very sensibly, was to drop the term

territories and to now have the territories and to now have the

present name title that we use which is British overseas territories. We

have to approach these issues in a very non-paternalistic, non-colonial

fashion. That, to my mind, is absolutely essential. The danger is,

with devolved powers that we have, quite rightly in my view, in these

overseas territories, if we try to impose in a paternalistic fashion

our views and policies upon them, we will be doing a great disservice.

That is something that we want to avoid above all in having to impose

direct rule, which could be the implication. At the same time, we've

got to ensure that there is a level playing field, which includes us as

well, and in making progress on this, that we don't do it at the

expense of the overseas territories. My Lord's, I think the Government

responding to the amendment, in this responding to the amendment, in this

amendment number eight. Because it provides a framework in which we can

move forward in negotiation, in dialogue with the overseas

territories in the next two or three years to try and move the whole

issue forward. Many of the overseas territories we've already heard

today, have made good progress. I congratulate the Government on this

and support their amendment strongly.

My Lord's, I'd like to support very much the noble Lord, what he has

just said, and associate myself respectfully with what he has said.

I strongly support amendment eight, if I may put it this way. I think

the Government and particularly the noble lady, the minister, has been

extremely shrewd in taking the sting of the points that have been raised

by the noble lady Stern, who has very wisely brought these issues to

Parliament, to this House, but also, the Government has picked it up and

produced what seems to me to be the right approach to dealing with the

overseas territories. It provides a useful nudge to those overseas

territories. The Government is looking at what they're doing

without imposing what is unacceptable upon these independent

countries with their own constitutions and their own

parliaments. I do not agree with amendment 14. I was at the meeting

this morning, where a number of the overseas territories explained to

those of us would were there what they were doing. As you've already

heard about Bermuda and the Cayman Islands, we did hear this morning,

but we heard from the British Virgin Islands, who are doing very good

work. We heard from Anguila. We heard about the Turks and Caicos

islands. The areas which are contained within the amendment 14

are already on the way, if not indeed ahead of us, some of them.

It's not necessary that they should be referred to specifically in this

particular amendment. I don't want to hold up everybody. I support

amendment eight. I don't think amendment 14 now is really

necessary. I would like to speak briefly to an

amendment which is in my name, Lord Hodgson. It's amendment 24. It

concerns the setting up of a public register of beneficial ownership of

UK property by companies and other legalents registered -- legal

entities registered outside the United Kingdom. Those are the words

or more or less the words that are the subject of a call for evidence

issued by the department of business, energy and industrial

strategy in April of this year. I don't know, but I assume that the

Home Office did a great deal to bring forward the publication of

this report, in the light of the debates that took place at committee

stage about the concern that was generally expressed about corruption

and the acquisition of property in Central London by overseas

companies, who hid behind anonymity. The establishment of a public

register was indeed a commitment made by the Government. Why do we

need a register of this sort? I can do no better than quote briefly from

the call for evidence. The Government is concerned about the

potential for illegal activity to take place through overseas

companies investing in the property sector. Some properties are owned

through offshore companies in order to obscure their true owners. This

can make it difficult for regulators, legitimate businesses

and the general public to know who the true owners are and can make it

very difficult for law enforcement agencies to carry out effective

investigations. The document goes on to say greater transparency of

property ownership will make the job easier. It's made quite clear that

the Government intends to introduce a register of beneficial owners of

overseas companies. But since it's a call for evidence, it doesn't seek

to prescribe precisely what the nature this afternoon register

should be and it calls for advice and information to assist it

formulating the register. It might well be influenced by what the noble

Lord said about verification in order to make any such register

particularly useful. The amendment in the name of, in my name, simply

asks the Government to do this and make it a part of the bill. If we

don't, there's a real feeling that there will not be legislative time

even in the Parliament that we have, potentially starting in June. I ask

my noble friend, the minister, to reassure us that this register will

be set up and be done in short order.

I apologise for rising at this late hour, the Minister knows I would

like to thank the Minister for her attendance at the meeting this

morning, very productive. I admitted then I had not seen the government

amendment number eight and now that I have read it I think in fairness

to the baroness, I know people have said it is very welcome, it's

actually quite disappointing for the aid organisations who have been

campaigning so I thought perhaps that should be on record. I think

it's really a restatement of government policy as it is already

and it's not a compromise in that sense. I would prefer to support my

noble friend and the others moving amendment 14 because it's all my

common sense if we look back on the discussion at committee stage they

are asking for is for the government to complete its own programme of

persuading the overseas to adopt public registers. This was a

worldwide campaign and we admire the government has led this campaign. It

is now intended to include the overseas territories although I

fully recognise it's been a slow take-up and orders in Council may be

required. I worked with Christian Aid and many other organisations who

support this new clause in amendment 14 where they are to my mind rightly

concerned that the need for transparency should apply to

overseas territories and developing countries just as much as it applies

to us. I hope the minister recognises this and will see her way

to a further compromise in future. The aid agencies feel quite strongly

by this and the majority of people living in these countries are who we

are thinking about, not the ones sitting on the money. I would like

to quote an action from Christian Aid, they said the exchanges of

notes signed between the UK and overseas territories on sharing

beneficial ownership information already provide for a joint review

of the operation of the arrangements, six months after

coming into force and thereafter on an annual basis. The report

envisaged by amendment eight is already therefore committed to. All

this amendment does is put an existing commitment into law and so

the amendment is not mentioned transparency at all nor does it

mention developing countries and therefore I see no reason why we

cannot support amendment 14 and amendment eight. Adding my name to

amendment 24 which is about the overseas poverty register. The

baroness was kind enough to refer to my remarks at the committee stage

about drifting away to murkier regimes, I took it from the way she

quoted it that she did not approve of that. I was relieved that my

noble friend equated it with approval which shows you you cannot

please all the people all the time. But I do not want my noble friend or

indeed the house to think that was a remark made just in isolation. I

said the status quo was not sustainable and that there would be

in my view at least three issues that should be tackled as part of

the new regime. Firstly that there should be a register and that our

law enforcement agencies should have full access to that register and it

was done in a way that was prompt and helpful and consistent with the

working relationship and thirdly that the UK Government was itself

satisfied with the effectiveness of the regime in those overseas

territories and Crown dependencies. It seemed to me that actually

amendment eight, the government amendment, meets those tests which

is why I am supporting it and I think rather than drifting away to

Marky resumes I would say we must not let the best become the enemy of

the good. So if I may return to amendment 24, it is important I

think not my lords to see the issues raised as only being a problem for

central London and maybe the suburbs as well. There is a knock-on effect

from what is going on and from the continued overseas investment in

London properties. That makes the urgency referred to in the remarks a

moment ago all the more pressing. Because first my Lords there is a

ripple effect on properties in the south-east of the night Kingdom as

they settled population... Further amounts of money to buy properties

elsewhere in the region. There is an interesting article in the Financial

Times of Monday the 30th of April in which it pointed out house prices

have increased by 102% since 2002 compared to 38% and that London no

need to pay 12.9 times their earnings, up from 6.9 times in 2002,

to achieve a London house. And that if you wish to buy a house in

Kensington, Chelsea, the heartland of the area I think my noble friend

has in his gun sights, now you have to have 31 times your median salary

to be able to afford it. So there is a real sense that we need to get a

grip and some transparency and clarity on what is going on and of

course there is a second impact because as London has become more

expensive foreign investors have begun to look at other cities. The

times of Friday, April seven pointed out that number one Cambridge St in

Manchester, a development of 282 flats end 29 stories has investment

or purchases from Aber 's Irish, China, Japan, Zimbabwe, 18

nationalities in all and only two of the 282 flats are owned by

Britain's. The developer said the generously designed proportions

apartments appealed to owner occupiers, investors and renters. In

other words the scheme is appealing to several sectors of the market.

Including those looking to make a step towards getting on the housing

ladder and more established owner occupiers. I must say I think

first-time buyers in Manchester might wonder whether 99.2% overseas

investment and .8% local ownership is what, if that is a fair

reflection. Here I offer to my noble friend Baroness Stone and some

comfort. One investor based on the British Virgin Islands has purchased

125 flats. It's a company which has paid 25.7 million for these

properties. So my Lords, whilst this amendment is no silver bullet it

does set out an important direction of travel and that is why I support

it. There have been many speeches and I was unable to speak at an

earlier stage so I will be brief. Amendment eight is good but

amendment 14 is better and the reason it is better is simply this,

it adds greater certainty to the idea that we and the British

territories overseas are doing our level best and they are doing their

level best to destroy this scourge of corruption which invests so many

countries and does so much damage throughout the whole world. Maybe we

are at the start of this process, I think this bill is the beginning of

this process but we have to start somewhere and this is where we

should start. My Lords I had the privilege of being an name added to

the amendment moved by the baroness. I want to use this opportunity if I

made to congratulate horror both not only on raising this issue but also

pursuing it with so much energy and I think we can see from some of the

results that the argument has moved, the profile of this issue has been

significantly raised. I think government will struggle to ignore

it going forward. But we have had a small concession from the

government, I agree very much with the Earl of sand wedge that it would

have been encouraging to have a stronger response because this is

the encapsulation if you like the existing government policy, existing

notes of exchange into statute. It's better to have it in statute and not

have it in statute, that's a bit of movement but it's extremely small. I

think what has disappointed me in a lot of the debate today has been the

range of views that have been expressed as opposing transparency.

I am very appreciative of those who have spoken out and recognise the

importance of transparency. The Panama papers have been an

extraordinary illustration of what transparency can do and does, that

is to engage both the regulators, the enforcement agencies to pursue,

it is not naughtiness, it runs far deeper than naughtiness. To pursue

real misbehaviour that distorts economies including our own quite

frankly. I think in amendment 24 in many ways illustrates the

distortions which has happened in the property market in the UK with

huge consequences for many of our young people, many of those on lower

incomes. There is a very big knock on beyond just the initial misuse of

bank accounts and investments. My Lords, I have said and I made a much

longer speech at committee stage which I won't repeat here, but that

we have to face the reality that much of their many of the problems

we face across the globe, whether it's looking at things like the

Civil War in Syria, hunger in Africa, the absence of democracy in

countries like Russia, the impact of withdrawn democracy in places like

Turkey, that all of that depends on the capacity of those who are

politicians or government that abuse their people, governments or

politicians who are corrupt, vast criminal networks which exploit in

every way to then take advantage by moving illicitly obtained money into

the legal financial sector. When we look anywhere around the world that

functions as a haven or portal for that transition from the illicit

world to the legal world that we are facing a situation where we have to

try to close down that ability of those funds to move. The impact of

that would be huge and so many ways across the globe and for us. I very

much support and I am sad not everyone did, the work the previous

Prime Minister David Cameron did in this area, the stance he took that

said first we have to make the kinds of changes that give us a central

registers and I am glad the government has moved and this

government continues to move to make sure that extends right across all

our overseas territories and Crown dependencies and many of them as has

been stated, this will be a universal description of the UK, its

overseas territories and Crown dependencies. But I am sad that the

principle of public registers is now being so thoroughly challenged. We

all know that if we wait for a global standard we will wait for

generations and secrecy provides that kind of cover that is used

extensively by all those we would wish to stop. They are the people

who will be pleased today that amendment 14 is not going to be put

to a vote and potentially carried. They will be delighted because that

is the cover that enables them to continue to make the transfer

between the illicit world and the legal world. So I say to the

minister I think this is a path that I am sure the baroness who has been

so vigorous on this issue is going to continue. I think there are

others around the house who will continue that and I hope because we

must achieve that as transparency and if we don't take a leadership

there is no way we can turn around to be United States are any other

location and incest they indeed carry out those same measures when

we say we are not willing to do it ourselves and we are not willing to

use our relationship with the overseas territories and Crown

dependencies to achieve that goal. I wish the Minister was able to tell

us more, that would give us a great deal of comfort, there does not seem

to be modern which has much force energy behind us and I find that

exceedingly sad but this is a day when frankly we recognise the needs

and I very much will accept that supporting the government amendment

eight and will with regret recognise we are very likely to have an

opportunity to push on amendment 14. Could I start off by making a

reference to the amendment that's down in the name of the noble Lord

and the noble Lord Hodgson. We certainly support the objectives of

that amendment. It's a matter that we have raised at committee stage as

well as of the noble Lords. The amendment, unless I've misunderstood

its intention, seeks to say that action should be taken within a

certain period of time, which I think is described as within six

months of the day on which this act is passed. When the matter was

discussed at committee stage, of course, the noble lady the minister

did say, refer to the fact that the Government had announced that the

London anticorruption summit last year that the Government's intention

was to create a register of overseas company beneficial ownership

information, where the company owns UK property. On behalf of the

Government, the noble lady the minister also said that the

Government intended to publish a call for evidence, which would set

out the policy proposals in full in the coming weeks and that the

Government would also introduce legislation to implement the

register as soon as Parliamentary time allowed. Now of course, as the

noble Lord has said, the call for evidence on a register showing who

owns and controls overseas legal entities that own UK property or

participate in UK Government procurement has now been issued.

It's come from the Department for Business, energy and industrial

strategy. But I imagine that the key concern from what the noble Lord has

said, of course, is how long it may take for anything to happen as far

as setting up the register is concerned. I assume that the noble

lady, the minister, is probably not going to be in a position to say

very much about that. She could tell us what the intentions of this

Government would have been. But this Government isn't going to be around

for very much longer. It will be a new Government. And it will be an

issue for that Government to decide what priority they're going to give

to it. But certainly, the omens do not necessarily seem very good,

since there seems to be a general view that much of the legislative

time that any Government has after the next election is going to be

taken up with the issue of the implications of our withdrawal from

Europe. I hope the noble lady, the minister, will at least be able to

say what the intentions of this Government would have been, when she

comes to respond to the specific point that's actually raised in the

amendment moved by the noble Lord about putting a time limit on when

something's actually going to happen and not leaving it as something that

may well drift into the future. Could I turn to the Government's

amendment and to the amendment 14, to which my name is attached. I

would like to thank the noble lady the minister for moving Government

amendment number eight, which I think fairly clearly has been put

down at least in partial response to the terms of amendment number 14,

which has been moved by the noble lady Baroness Stern and to which my

name is attached. I don't intend to reiterate the arguments and points

made by the noble lady Baroness Stern with which I'd have to say I

fully concur. What I do want to do is to concentrate my comments on the

Government amendment number eight. The Government amendment, as the

noble lady Baroness Stern has already said does not go as far as

amendment 14, since it contains no reference to the Government having

to bring forward by the end of 2019 or indeed any other time scale an

order in council and then taking all reasonable steps to ensure its

implementation requiring any overseas territories listed in the

amendment, amendment 14, that have not by the end of 2019 introduce aid

publicly accessible register and thus if they haven't done that,

requiring them to do so. What the Government amendment provides for is

a report to be prepared before the first of July 2019, with an

assessment of the effectiveness of the arrangements in place between

the UK Government and the Government of any of the Channel Islands, the

aye of man or relevant overseas territories for the sharing of

beneficial ownership information, having regard to such international

standards as appear to the relevant minister to be relevant. I would

like to ask the noble lady, the minister, for more information on

the criteria against which the Government will assess the

effectiveness of the current arrangements. I'm asking that in the

context of what the view would have been of this Government on that

issue. What we are presumably all seeking to do is reduce the

incidents of money laundering and corruption in particular as well as

avoidance of paying tax by either illegal means or through elaborate

schemes which have not been cleared by the tax authorities. Will the

level of such reduction achieved or not achieved in these areas be a key

part of the assessment of the effectiveness of the arrangements in

place? And will that be reported on in specific terms in the report to

be placed before Parliament and to which reference is made in the

Government amendment? And further, is it this Government's intention

that there should be a debate in both Houses of Parliament on the

report in Government time? And what does the reference to "having regard

to such international standards as appear to be relevant minister to be

relevant" actually mean? What does this Government consider the

relevant international standards are at present? And how would the

international standards at the end of 2018 be determined? Are

international standards internationally binding agreements?

Or is an international standard what is being achieved by the country

with the best record of effectiveness and transparency in

this area? Or the one with the worst record? Now I believe the noble

lady, the minister, said that the regard to international standards

would be to the highest standards, but I would be grateful if the noble

lady, the minister, could confirm that when she comes to respond. One

of the concerns that's been expressed during the course of our

discussions on this issue has been the potential or actual use of

overseas territories and Crown dependencies by corrupt individuals,

organisations or people in positions of real power in other countries to

cream off money for themselves, which was intended to be used for

the benefit of a nation as a whole or a significant part of a nation.

An advantage of a publicly accessible register of beneficial

ownership means people in that country would have access and would

identify where corruption and money laundering may be taking place and

thus be better able to expose what's going on. The prospect of which in

itself would also act as a potentially significant deterrent.

The Government's amendment refers to an exchange of information between

the Government of the UK and the government of each relevant

territory. How will this Government's amendment address the

issue of the use of overseas territories and Crown dependencies

for corruption and money laundering purposes by individuals,

organisations or people in positions of real power in countries outside

the United Kingdom? Does the amendment mean that the UK

Government would seek information on beneficial ownership from a relevant

Crown dependencies or overseas territories in respect of

individuals, organisations or people in positions of power in countries

other than the United Kingdom? And were a credible request for such

information -- where a credible request comes from individuals,

organisations or governments within those other countries, is it the

intention of this Government that the information on beneficial

ownership obtained would be passed on unless -- wouldn't be passed on

unless overriding reasons to do so would jeopardise life or security.

There is a basic difference between ourselves an the Government. The

Government believe that a process of persuasion will lead to publicly

accessible registers of beneficial ownership in line with what is to be

UK practice, albeit I note the noble Lord's tren chant comments about the

lack of verification of the register in the UK. However, the Government

do not want to put any time limit for when the voluntary approach has

to have delivered follow which legislative action would be taken.

We are not convinced that this approach will deliver the required

outcome and particularly in the light of the Government's change of

stance in the days of the previous Prime Minister so that the

commitment now appears only to be to expect overseas territories and

Crown dependencies to follow suit if publicly accessible registers of

beneficial ownership become the international standard. It appears

as though the United Kingdom will not be taking the lead as far as the

overseas territories and Crown dependencies are concerned. This

Government's only expects them to "follow suit qul qul. And perhaps

the -- follow suit." . And perhaps the noble lady could say though

there are no time limits in the amendment when it should be

implemented, nevertheless, this Government would not resile from

taking legislative action at some undefined point in the future if

that was shown to be necessary. We are now in a situation where this

Parliament is about to end, pending the general election in June. This

bill as has been said, has received widespread support, concluding in

the Commons as well as this House, where the areas of difference of

view have been over what the bill does not include, rather than over

what it does. A judgment has to be made in the situation. The

Government have been persuaded to move further with their amendment,

amendment eight, providing for a report to Parliament to be prepared

by the middle of 2019. This will enable the issue to be kept alive

and for the case for an objective of publicly accessible registers of

beneficial ownership in bone overseas territories and Crown

dependencies to continue to be pursued, pursued assuming the then

Government of the day do not come to the conclusion themselves that firm

action needs to be taken to deliver that objective in the light of the

progress, or lack of it, being made by the voluntary approach and the

effectiveness or lack of it of the arrangements in place for the

sharing of beneficial ownership legislation. The amendment does

require progress, does represent progress, albeit not as much as we

would have liked. Nobody wants to see this bill or even significant

parts of it actually bite the dust. We do not believe that an election

having now been called, that Government MPs in the Commons are

now going to do anything other than support their own Government's

amendment number eight at the expense of amendment 14, assuming

that amendment could still have been carried in this House in the light

of the Government's amendment. We will support the Government's

amendment for the reasons I have given. It does not go as far as we

would wish. That position is reflected in amendment number 14.

But it does represent progress, that's amendment eight represents

progress and we thank the noble lady, the minister, for her work in

that regard. My Lord's, may I thank all noble Lord's who have spoken so

passionately on amendments 8 and 14. And particularly thank the noble

lady, lady Stern for all the work she has done in promoting her

amendment 14. May I also thank all noble Lord's who attended the

meeting with the overseas territories this morning. I hope

they found it was a useful meeting and that they can see that progress

is in fact being made. But my Lord's, could I begin with amendment

24.