Grand Committee
Provision of Information (Contractual Control) (Registered Land) Regulations 2026
(3 weeks, 3 days ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That the Grand Committee do consider the Provision of Information (Contractual Control) (Registered Land) Regulations 2026.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, these regulations were laid before the House on 9 March.
I draw the Committee’s attention to a minor typographical correction: at Regulation 4(3)(c)(i), the words “the right” should have a space between them. This was identified after the SI was laid and has been rectified through a correction slip. The correction is only typographical and has no effect on the meaning or operation of the regulations.
It has long been the case that a developer or land promoter can secure effective control over a piece of land—through an option, a conditional contract, a pre-emption right or a promotion agreement—without anyone outside the deal knowing about it. The land stays in the same name on the title register but, in practice, another party is determining its future. There is no legal obligation to disclose these arrangements and no reliable way of finding out about them.
The result is a land market that operates, in significant part, in the dark. Planning authorities draw up housing strategies without knowing who actually holds the cards on development sites. Smaller builders spend time and resources chasing land that turns out to be already committed, and local people find out about the development intentions for the land around them only when a planning application is submitted.
The Competition and Markets Authority examined these issues as part of its 2023 housebuilding market study and found that the largest firms alone hold contractual control over some 658,000 strategic plots through arrangements that are not on the public record. That is an extraordinary volume of land to be controlled without any transparency. The Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, which was passed under the previous Government, gave the Secretary of State the powers to address this, and the draft regulations before the Committee today give effect to those powers.
In essence, these regulations require anyone who holds one of the four specified types of contractual control right over registered land to notify HM Land Registry. HM Land Registry will then publish that information without charge—openly, digitally and in geospatial form—in a new database from April 2028. The regulations have been designed to support our objective of increasing transparency without introducing undue burdens on the sector.
HMLR will collect the names of the parties, the types of right, the land in question and the duration of the arrangement. Details about financial terms are not required. Conveyancers will provide this information. The information must be provided within 60 days of the right being created, assigned or varied through a regulated conveyancer, and HMLR must also be told when a right comes to an end. Conveyancers will also be expected to indicate the extent of the contractual control right to provide sufficient details to identify the land affected, to enable transparency rather than to represent definitive legal boundaries.
The regulations are focused on rights related to future development and include a proportionate set of exemptions for national security, loan security, short-term arrangements of less than 18 months and obligations under Section 106 planning agreements. They do not apply to agreements entered into before the regulations are made, unless those agreements are amended. The previous Government consulted on a five-year retrospective window, but we have decided not to pursue that, in order to minimise the administrative burden on businesses.
Where someone does not comply, HMLR may refuse to register a notice or restriction protecting that interest, and providing false or misleading information is a criminal offence under Section 225 of the 2023 Act.
I will say a word about why this measure matters beyond the legal mechanics. In the 1980s, smaller firms were responsible for a substantial share of housing delivery. That share has fallen dramatically and one reason for that, although it is not the sole cause, is the lack of transparency in the land market around them. They do not have the networks, the legal teams or the intelligence that larger operators have built up over decades.
A public database of who holds what rights and over which land changes that. It gives planning authorities the tools to more effectively understand the landscape of control over development land in their area, and to plan accordingly. Local communities will now be able both to understand who holds rights over development land nearby and to engage with them earlier in the process.
These regulations are a practical and measured step towards a land market that works more fairly. I beg to move.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these regulations. As she will know, the origins of this policy lie with the previous Conservative Government and the work undertaken through the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 to improve transparency around contractual control agreements over land. We support greater transparency.
The Government argue that greater visibility of contractual control agreements may assist local authorities, communities and smaller developers in understanding how land is being assembled and brought forward for development. Although the principle is sensible, we also need to look at the practical implications of these regulations. Their success will depend ultimately on how they operate in practice and whether the Government properly monitor their wider effects on an already fragile housebuilding sector.
The context today is very different from when this policy was first developed. Developers, land promoters, conveyancers and, in particular, small and medium-sized enterprises are facing increasingly difficult market conditions. Inflationary pressures remain significant, input costs remain elevated, financing conditions are tighter and the costs of construction materials, labour and fuel continue to place pressure on viability across the sector—not to mention the increasing regulatory burden. At the same time, the Government continue to set ambitious housing targets while housebuilding output remains under strain. We have also seen growing financial pressures across parts of the industry, including on major housebuilders, as we read in the weekend’s business papers.
Against that backdrop, we must be cautious. Even relatively modest additional compliance burdens can have wider consequences than Ministers may anticipate. The challenge in many parts of the country is no longer simply identifying land, particularly brownfield land, but ensuring that development remains financially viable once construction, financing and regulatory costs are taken into account.
The Government estimate that the regulations will impose a cost on business of approximately £4.2 million per annum. In isolation, Ministers may regard that as manageable, but business does not experience regulation in isolation. These costs sit alongside increasing taxation, staffing pressures, financing costs and wider regulatory obligations. Can the Minister therefore explain what assessment has been made of the cumulative impact of regulatory and economic pressures on SMEs operating within the development sector?
I will also press the Minister on the risk of unintended consequences, which several stakeholders raised during consultation. There is a legitimate concern that the regulations could alter market behaviour in ways that are not intended. These are, after all, private contractual arrangements, and we should be cautious about imposing disclosure requirements unless the benefits clearly outweigh the additional burdens and commercial sensitivities involved. For example, encouraging a shift away from flexible contractual arrangements and towards outright land acquisition in order to avoid additional reporting requirements could have the effect of tying up larger amounts of capital and potentially reducing the stock of land being actively brought forward for development.
Similarly, there is a risk that some landowners may become more reluctant to enter into option or promotion agreements if the public disclosure of those arrangements creates commercial sensitivities or local controversies at an earlier stage. Can the Minister therefore commit to conducting a regular review of the market impact of these regulations? I would be grateful if she could also clarify how the Government intend to ensure that the new dataset is genuinely usable and accessible in practice, and at what de minimis level this applies. Will it apply to all land ownership and the structures around that, or is there a size of plot or de minimis at which it does not apply?
The Government’s objective of increasing visibility within the land market is understandable. At a time when housing remains challenging and viability pressures across the sector are growing, the Government must ensure that these regulations support development rather than inadvertently discourage it. The test of this policy will not be simply whether more information is collected but whether it helps get Britain building more homes without placing further strain on a sector already facing considerable economic pressure. I hope the Minister can provide reassurances on these points and look forward to her response.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for his contribution to this short debate. He is quite right that this provision was brought forward in a Bill from the previous Government.
As I set out in my introductory speech, the purpose of this is to try to help support the SME sector and others, including local communities, alongside our other package of work, as we go forward to make sure that they have transparency and access to the information they need to make the business and local decisions that are so important to them. Transparency is not a substitute for other interventions to boost delivery, but it is a complementary and necessary precondition for a properly functioning and competitive land market.
The noble Lord is right that SME housebuilders have seen their market share significantly shrink since the 1980s, when SME builders delivered about 40% of the nation’s homes. A structural barrier to their return, as I am sure he will be aware, is the difficulty of identifying genuinely available sites. This new database will directly reduce that barrier for SMEs by allowing smaller developers to identify from the outset which sites are already under contractual control. More SMEs competing for genuinely available sites means more homes can be built by a more diverse market, which is central to our Government’s ambition to deliver more homes. We know that these regulations are not a silver bullet to the challenges SME builders face, but they do form part of a wider package of measures.
The noble Lord asked about exemption agreements. We have included targeted exemptions to make sure that the regulations are proportionate and require information to be provided only where it progresses the transparency aims. We have included the exemptions that I set out earlier, on national security arrangements such as loan security, non-development rights, short-term rights under 18 months and Section 106 agreements. Overage and clawback agreements are primarily financial mechanisms, which do not give a party the power to control how land is used or disposed, so a clear majority of the consultation respondents did not support their inclusion. Information about easements and restricted covenants is typically already available through the register of title.
I think the burdens and costs on the sector were the main issue that the noble Lord was raising. We have been deliberate throughout about ensuring that requirements are proportionate. The Government’s assessment is that the overall impact on business will be de minimis. No significant impact on the public sector is foreseen, and local authorities will benefit from access to the data at no cost. The information required is typically information that parties already hold. Exemptions exist for short-term and non-development rights. Our consultation, which was extensive, confirmed that the vast majority of parties already engage lawyers when drawing up these agreements. It was estimated that the process would add between 21 and 60 minutes per agreement.
As the noble Lord said, the impact on businesses is estimated at approximately £4.2 million per annum. That consists of ongoing compliance costs and one-off familiarisation costs to developers, land promoters and conveyancers. But, as always with these things, the important thing is to balance this with the improved transparency for communities and the industry to understand how land is available. Hopefully, that will off-set some of the costs because it will enable SMEs and others to access information that will tell them what land is available and save them wasting money looking at land that already has agreements over it.
In conclusion, these regulations will for the first time give government, planning authorities, small builders and local communities a clear and reliable picture of who controls development land in England and Wales. That is a straightforward but significant change and one that is long overdue. I trust the Committee welcomes the regulations.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I asked a question, which I appreciate the Minister may not be able to answer, about whether there is a de minimis level in those exemptions—for half an acre, quarter of an acre or whatever. Secondly, she rightly raised the various exemptions, and I am pleased that they are there; for clarification, will they be under the judgment of the legal bodies handling the transaction or will they have to refer to somebody for those exemptions?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I will respond to the noble Lord about the de minimis level in writing, if that is all right. In terms of determining what the exemptions are, the conveyancers will put this forward, so it will be up to them. As with all things in regulations, they will have to be honest in the way they approach this and exercise their professional judgment.
Hampshire and the Solent Combined County Authority Regulations 2026
(3 weeks, 3 days ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That the Grand Committee do consider the Hampshire and the Solent Combined County Authority Regulations 2026.
Relevant document: 57th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, Session 2024–26
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, these regulations were laid on 16 March 2026. When referring to the Hampshire and the Solent combined county authority hereafter, I will use the term “strategic authority” unless there is a particular reason to be specific.
This Government were elected on a manifesto commitment to widen and deepen devolution across England and the English Devolution White Paper set out our plans to achieve that. Much of the White Paper has now been delivered through Parliament via the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act. Devolution is a critical lever for delivering growth and prosperity, with mayors and local leaders best placed to take the decisions that benefit their communities.
The White Paper also launched the devolution priority programme to provide a fast track to establish a new wave of mayoral strategic authorities. Following the expressions of interest process, in February 2025 we announced six places on the programme, including Hampshire and the Solent. This statutory instrument will establish the Hampshire and the Solent strategic authority and provide for mayoral elections. In doing so, it represents substantial progress towards fulfilling our commitment to move power out of Whitehall and back to those who know their areas best. The Government have worked closely with the constituent councils within Hampshire and the Solent on the instrument. The constituent councils are Hampshire County Council, Southampton City Council, Portsmouth City Council and Isle of Wight Council. All the constituent councils have consented to the making of this instrument, and I thank local leaders and their councils for their support in getting us to this point.
The instrument will be made, if Parliament approves, under the enabling provisions in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. The amendments made to those provisions by the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 do not apply for the purposes of this instrument due to transitional and saving provisions made in a separate instrument, the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 (Transitional and Saving Provisions) (England) Regulations 2026. The strategic authority will be established on the day after the day on which this instrument is made. The inaugural mayoral election is due to take place on 4 May 2028 and the elected mayor will take office on 8 May 2028 on a four-year term.
The instrument makes provision for the governance arrangements of the strategic authority. Each constituent council will appoint one of its elected members to be a member of the strategic authority, with Hampshire County Council appointing a further member. The mayor will also be a member once in office. The strategic authority can also appoint non-constituent and associate members to support its work. Each voting member is to have one vote. Before the mayor takes office, by the unanimous request of all constituent authorities, there will be specific interim governance arrangements for decisions on certain matters, as set out in the instrument. Once the mayor takes office, the vast majority of decisions are to be determined by a simple majority of the members present and voting; that majority must include the mayor or the deputy mayor acting in place of the mayor.
The instrument provides some functions in relation to transport and economic development, but there is a strong link here with the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act. On establishment, the Hampshire and the Solent strategic authority will be classed as a mayoral strategic authority, and the functions reserved for that tier will automatically be conferred. Even before the mayor is in office, the strategic authority will be able to exercise mayoral strategic authority functions, with the exception of those that are reserved specifically for the mayor. That is why this instrument confers fewer functions than previous instruments establishing strategic authorities. The functions that it does confer, focused on local transport and economic development, are designed both to support the work of the strategic authority before all of the provisions of the Act are in force and to enable it to deliver the benefits of devolution from day one.
MHCLG consulted on a proposal to establish the strategic authority between 17 February and 13 April 2025. The purpose of the consultation was to gather evidence and information on the effects of establishing the strategic authority. The consultation was promoted using social media, a communications campaign, a dedicated website, online and in-person events, and the distribution of consultation materials. Responses could be made online, by email or by post.
Responses were received from a wide range of stakeholder groups, including members of the public, businesses, councils, universities, the third sector and other bodies. A summary of all the responses has been published on GOV.UK. The Government carefully considered the responses and, on 17 July 2025, confirmed to Parliament that the statutory test to establish a strategic authority had been met. Subject to the making of this instrument, the strategic authority will receive devolved funding, including for transport and adult skills, capacity funding and a 30-year mayoral investment fund to support key local priorities.
This instrument represents clear progress on our mission to widen and deepen devolution in England. It will make this a reality in Hampshire and the Solent. It will empower local leaders to deliver for their communities, improving the lives and opportunities of their residents. I hope that noble Lords will join me in supporting the draft regulations, which I commend to the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, for introducing these regulations and outlining their effect. I declare my interest as a councillor in central Bedfordshire, although that does not extend quite as far as Hampshire.
We on these Benches recognise the Government’s broader ambitions to pursue devolution and to simplify local government structures. In principle, we are in favour of real devolution in which decisions are taken closer to the communities they affect. However, devolution cannot become simply a process of restructuring for restructuring’s sake; nor can it come at the expense of democratic consent, local accountability or financial clarity.
The first concern is the apparent lack of public support for these proposals. The Government’s own consultation process showed that a clear majority of respondents did not agree that the creation of this combined authority would deliver the benefits claimed for it. During the passage of the then English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, we made it clear that the Government’s approach should be informed by local public consent. This raises an important constitutional point: if the Government are creating a new strategic authority with a directly elected mayor, new spending powers and significant transport responsibilities, what justification is there for proceeding where there is such evident public scepticism? Can the Minister explain what threshold of public support the Government believe is necessary for reforms of this scale to command democratic legitimacy?
Secondly, there is the question of the mayoral elections that were postponed from the original date of May 2026 to May 2028. Can the Minister explain why the Government concluded that this postponement was necessary? What assessment was made of the impact that this decision would have on public confidence in the devolution process? The postponement of mayoral elections raises important questions regarding funding, investment and delivery. These devolution arrangements were presented to local areas on the basis that mayoral structures would help unlock funding, strategic transport investment and economic development opportunities. Can the Minister clarify, therefore, what impact the delay to the elections will have on the timing and quantum of these funding allocations and devolved investment programmes, as well as on the implementation of the Government’s wider devolution agenda in Hampshire and the Solent?
Thirdly, there are important questions around accountability and cost. Part 6 of the regulations provides that the constituent councils must ensure that the costs of the authority are met alongside expenditure incurred by the mayor in relation to their mayoral functions. At a time when councils are already under significant financial strain, local taxpayers will understandably ask what tangible benefit they are receiving in return for the creation of another governance layer. Can the Minister set out what estimate has been made of the ongoing administrative and operational costs of the authority? Do the Government expect these costs ultimately to be offset by efficiencies elsewhere in local government?
There are also wider concerns regarding the transfer of powers. These regulations confer transport-planning responsibilities and related functions on the authority, including powers relating to local transport plans and grants. Yet responsibility for day-to-day local services will remain with constituent councils, creating a risk of blurred accountability between the local council, the combined authority and the future mayor. Can the Minister explain how the Government intend to ensure clear lines of responsibility, in particular where transport policy decisions affect local service delivery and local budgets?
Finally, these regulations cannot be viewed in isolation from the Government’s wider programme of local government reorganisation. Many residents across Hampshire and the Solent will understandably feel uncertain about what these changes will mean in practice, how power will be exercised and whether local voices will genuinely be strengthened or absorbed into larger regional structures. We have seen proposals for the wholesale reorganisation of the county and district councils into five unitary councils, involving the break-up of several district councils. This is causing significant concern in the local area, particularly in what I would describe as the greater Southampton and greater Portsmouth areas but are, I believe, classified as South West Hampshire and South East Hampshire, where there has been a significant enlargement of those two cities to incorporate significant parts of their rural hinterland.
In particular, in the case of Southampton, there is a splitting up of the New Forest district council and the Test Valley district council, so there will be a double whammy in terms of reorganisation. There is particular concern around breaking up existing communities and the efficiencies of doing all those changes, as well as a concern about scale for some of the traditional county council functions, such as adult social care and children’s services, including whether splitting them into five will deliver genuine efficiencies.
Devolution succeeds when it carries public confidence and when accountability is clear. It is less convincing when structures appear to be imposed from above, with elections delayed and costs transferred on to councils that are already facing acute pressures, and where key decisions on funding are still held by Whitehall. I hope that the Minister will be able to provide reassurance on these points today; I look forward to her response.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for his comments. I know that he has great experience of dealing with matters such as this. I will pick up each of his points in turn.
The first is the issue of restructuring for its own sake. That is just not where we are with this. We have had extensive negotiation with local government. The proposals that were put forward came to us from local government, and we are acting on those proposals. Anyone who has been involved in local government for as long as I and the noble Lord have been will know that carrying on as we were was not an option: it is not effective or efficient, and it does not deliver best for either the people we serve or the country, so we did need to change things.
The noble Lord mentioned consultation. It is an important point, and I will answer his question in two ways. First, the purpose of the consultation was to gather evidence and information on the effect of establishing a mayoral strategic authority over the proposed geography. It was never intended to be a referendum. A range of views were provided by respondents, including evidence setting out the potential benefits as well as some concerns raised, and the Government carefully considered the responses received. The results of the consultation formed part of the assessment made by the Secretary of State, but the relevant statutory tests set out in Section 46 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act were met for Hampshire and the Solent.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
Before the Minister sits down, can she clarify two points?
First, the Minister mentioned the 30-year funding. The point is that, in effect, it has been delayed for two years by a delay to the mayoral elections: obviously, that is of concern locally.
Secondly, in looking at wider devolution, there is concern around the new authorities being a lot smaller than Hampshire county council. We need confidence that they will not end up having higher costs in the provision of the two critical regulatory services of adult social care and children’s services.
Related to that, looking at South East Hampshire in particular, the Southampton-based authority, in effect, two districts are being split up and two half-districts, a full district and a unitary council, are being amalgamated. My geography may not be perfect—it may not be quite half—but this is quite a complex thing. What confidence do the Government and the Minister have that that will be done successfully, without risking any of those key services?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I will take the second point first because, as I hope I conveyed in my winding speech, the proposals we have considered have all come from authorities themselves. They set out very clearly the proposals that they sent forward and, in most areas, there were a number of different proposals. Each one of those proposals had to set out clearly how public services were going to be managed, both through the transition and going forward; if they did not do so, they did not get put in front of Ministers for the decision-making process. So all the proposals that came before Ministers met those criteria. It was for the local authorities to set out how they would do that, and they have done so in the case of Hampshire and the Solent.
On the point about funding, I did say that there will be the 30-year mayoral investment fund, but, in the two years prior to the mayor being elected, the authority will receive a portion of this funding to support early delivery of the growth priorities, and it will also receive other devolved funding for things such as transport and adult skills. I hope that will enable the authority to establish itself as a strategic authority with a strong foundation, which we want, before we have the election for mayor.
Syria (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
Lord Lemos
That the Grand Committee do consider the Syria (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
Relevant documents: Instrument not yet reported by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Lemos) (Lab)
My Lords, these regulations amend the Syria (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. Since the fall of the Assad regime in December 2024, the UK has engaged with and supported the new Syrian Government to help to build a secure, prosperous future for all Syrians. The UK has long stood by the people of Syria and will continue to do so as they rebuild their country. The pace of change over the past year has been encouraging and the next phase of the political transition is crucial. A stable Syria is firmly in the interests of the region and the UK. This is why the Prime Minister welcomed Syrian President Ahmed Al-Sharaa on his first visit to the UK on 31 March 2026.
On 21 April, this Government laid a statutory instrument to amend the Syria sanctions regulations. The instruments revoked specific UK sanctions measures on some sectors of the Syrian economy, namely, on gold, diamonds, precious metals and luxury goods, including automobiles. This action allows British companies to trade with and invest in these sectors in Syria. Sustained investment in these and other sectors supports both British industry and Syria’s economic recovery. This is the latest step in a series of actions designed to support Syria’s economy and allow UK business to contribute to and benefit from the country’s economic recovery.
In February 2025, shortly after the fall of the Assad regime, HM Treasury’s Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation issued a general licence allowing payments to support humanitarian delivery. This provided essential sanctions relief to Syria at a time when the country faced staggering humanitarian need and a broken economy. Then, in April 2025, this Government revoked a number of sanctions on energy, transport, financial transactions and trade. We also delisted Syrian organisations that had been used by the Assad regime to fund the oppression of the Syrian people. This included the Central Bank of Syria, Syrian Air and several energy and media companies. The UK was at the forefront of Western countries to lift sanctions on Syria, recognising that enabling the flow of investment into Syria was essential for the country’s recovery and reconstruction.
In parallel, the UK is actively engaged with British companies to understand the barriers to market entry and to support their re-entrance into the Syrian market. During his visit to London in March, Syrian President al-Sharaa joined the Minister for the Middle East and North Africa at a UK-Syria business reception, where he heard investment proposals from a range of UK firms as well as the government support for British companies wanting to invest in Syria.
The amendments made to our sanctions regime last year have allowed us to continue to use sanctions as a tool to promote peace, stability and security in Syria while encouraging respect for the rule of law and the protection of human rights. That is why sanctions remain in place on those who committed gross human rights violations by or on behalf of Bashar al-Assad’s regime.
The amendments that this Government have made to the Syria sanctions regime, both this year and last year, reflect the momentous changes that have taken place in Syria since the fall of the Assad regime. They support the Syrian people in rebuilding their country and economy and make sure that our regime is up to date. We keep all our sanctions regimes under close review to ensure that they are used as a responsive tool, targeting those who bear responsibility for repression and human rights abuses.
Noble Lords may rightly raise concerns about violence that has taken place in Syria since the fall of Assad, whether in the coastal areas, Sweida or the north-east. I reassure noble Lords that the UK remains committed to holding those responsible for violence against civilians in Syria to account. In December 2025, the UK sanctioned individuals and organisations involved in the coastal violence and Assad-era atrocities to hold to account perpetrators of human rights abuses. Additionally, two individuals who financially supported the Assad regime were sanctioned.
In our engagements with the Syrian Government, we consistently emphasise the importance of protecting the rights of all Syrians and of a genuinely inclusive political transition. Meaningful representation of Syria’s diverse communities is critical to strengthening Syria’s social fabric and underpinning a better future for the country.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, as the Minister said, this SI amends the sanctions on Syria to allow access to UK luxury goods exports. It follows previous steps to lift sanctions on Syria following the fall of the hated Assad regime, which was responsible for appalling atrocities. Its decision to crush the peaceful pro-democracy protests in 2011 plunged Syria into a decade-long civil war that left 400,000 people dead. Half of Syria’s pre-war population was displaced as a result of the war.
In our view, the Syrian people deserve a brighter future, and we all sincerely hope that the next chapter in Syria’s story is more peaceful and prosperous than the previous one. Sadly, the road to peace and prosperity is long and hard fought. We know that Syria under the new transitional Government still faces serious challenges, including some deplorable examples of sectarian violence. I note that lifting the sanctions mentioned in this SI will mean that the UK will move forward in line with our American and European partners. We should continue to work closely with our allies to support Syria’s recovery.
On the situation in Syria today, will the Minister update the Committee on the progress being made by the transitional Government towards a democratic future for Syria? Will he also set out any assessment his department has made of the impact of the conflict in Iran and the Gulf on progress towards what we hope will be a better future for Syria?
We have discussed the very concerning examples of sectarian violence in Syria in recent months. Will the Minister say what engagement the UK has had with the Syrian transitional Government about this appalling violence? In June last year, a church in Damascus was targeted by suicide bombers thought to have been part of the IS-linked Sunni group Saraya Ansar al-Sunnah. The attack killed 25 people and injured 63 others. Will the Minister say what steps the transitional Government are taking to protect Christian communities, in particular, in Syria?
Finally, what support can the international community provide to assist the transitional Government in trying to stamp out these appalling attacks? With those few questions, in general we support the proposed SI.
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his support and those questions. I shall deal them, and if there are any outstanding matters I will deal with them by letter, if necessary.
In relation to progress in Syria, the next phase of Syria’s political transition is critical. We want to be sure that the Syrian Government ensure fair representation of diverse communities in positions of authority and consult widely on their planned next steps. This is fundamental to rebuilding and supporting Syria’s longer term transition. We are committed to that, and we were pleased to see indirect elections as a start in that direction.
With regard to the conflict in Iran, as the noble Lord will know, the President of Syria has stayed out of the conflict and kept Syria out of the conflict in Iran, and we welcome that.
On sectarian violence, which he raised, we are concerned about this, and we continue to advocate for the right to freedom of religion or belief for all in Syria. No one should live in fear because of what they do or do not believe. There have been positive steps taken by the Syrian Government in response to the violence in Suwayda in the summer, including President al-Sharaa’s establishment of a committee to investigate the violence fully. We also noted the start of public trials of suspects linked to the violence on the Syrian coast in March. We will follow the judicial process when it resumes in December. We welcome the Syrian Government’s committee being established to investigate, and we particularly welcome the UN independent commission of inquiry being granted access to the area to monitor what is going on.
On the question of protection for the Christian communities, we have been very clear and assertive in the meetings that the Attorney-General and Minister Falconer had with the Syrian President about the crucial role of freedom of religion and belief. We recognise the importance of an inclusive future in Syria for all communities, including the Christian community. Syria is a freedom of religion and belief priority country for the UK, and we continue to use our leadership in multilateral fora to draw international attention to human rights concerns in Syria. However, we do not underestimate the challenges that we face in the transition. We particularly take account of the importance of recognising Syria’s diversity not just in relation to religion, but in relation to the Kurdish community in the north-east of Syria, which the UK Government have played an important role in supporting.
I hope I have answered the questions that the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, asked me, but if not, I am sure he will let me know. I thank noble Lords for their frank and open questions in this debate. His Majesty’s Government are committed to keeping our sanctions regulations up to date and to supporting Syria as it takes steps towards a more peaceful, prosperous and hopeful future. I hope noble Lords will agree that this is the future the Syrian people deserve. I hope and trust, therefore, that the Committee will support the regulations.
Motion agreed.
Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing (Amendment) Regulations 2026
(3 weeks, 3 days ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield
That the Grand Committee do consider the Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
Relevant document: 57th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, Session 2024-26
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
I beg to move that the Committee considers this package of changes to the money laundering regulations. They are aimed at improving the effectiveness of the UK’s anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing regime.
The money laundering regulations sit at the heart of the UK’s preventive, risk-based approach to tackling illicit finance. They ensure that the UK’s modern and open economy cannot be exploited by criminals seeking to hide the proceeds of their crimes. By requiring banks and other regulated businesses to take reasonable, proportionate steps to detect and prevent money laundering and terrorist financing, the regulations protect the integrity of the UK’s financial system.
However, as new technologies emerge and criminals find new ways in which to launder illicit funds, the regulations must evolve with them. The changes before the Committee represent a significant update to the regime. They ensure that the regulations are focused on the highest-risk activities and threats to the UK system, while closing loopholes and making the regime clearer and easier to use.
This SI reflects the Government’s determination to ensure that regulations strike the right balance between managing risk and enabling growth, as set out in the modern industrial strategy and the regulation action plan published last year. These changes are part of a broader push under the economic crime plan 2023 to 2026 to build a more effective system that turns the tide on dirty money, including major changes that the Government are making to improve our anti-money laundering supervision regime.
Progress is already being made. In the year ending December 2025, there were 8,486 prosecutions for money laundering as a principal or non-principal offence, a 19% increase compared with the previous year. In the year ending March 2025, £285 million of criminal assets were recovered, a 15% rise compared with the previous year, with £47 million in compensation paid to victims out of confiscation order receipts—a six-year high.
I am aware that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee raised concerns about the timeliness of this legislation in its 57th report. I am grateful to the committee for its input. However, it is important to recognise the complex nature of some of the measures in the SI. Following the public consultation, further technical discussions with industry and anti-money laundering supervisors were necessary on a number of measures, including in relation to bank insolvency, pooled client accounts and crypto assets. I know the Committee will appreciate the importance of getting the drafting right first time to avoid unintended consequences.
This SI consists of measures on four core themes: making customer due diligence more proportionate and effective; strengthening system co-ordination; closing gaps in coverage; and reforming registration requirements for the trust registration service. There are also additional minor and technical changes that serve to improve consistency and ensure the UK complies with the standards set by the Financial Action Task Force, the global standard setter on anti-money laundering.
I turn first to the measures on customer due diligence. These aim to ensure the checks required on customers are proportionate to the risks. This includes the removal of the requirement for regulated businesses to apply enhanced due diligence checks on countries listed by the Financial Action Task Force as jurisdictions under increased monitoring. These are countries found by the FATF to have strategic deficiencies in their regimes. The FATF does not require these checks, and permitting more flexibility here recognises that being linked to a listed jurisdiction does not automatically make a customer high risk. The Government estimate that this change alone will generate savings of £178 million per year for regulated firms, which can then be reinvested in higher-value compliance activity that identifies genuinely suspicious activity. Other changes on customer due diligence include important measures to increase the availability of pooled client accounts for businesses with a legitimate need, and to facilitate continued access to banking services for customers in the event of a banking insolvency.
I turn to the system co-ordination. The SI makes changes to strengthen co-operation and information-sharing between anti-money laundering supervisors and other public bodies such as Companies House, which plays an increasingly integral role in the UK’s defences against illicit finance. To close gaps in coverage, the SI brings the activity of selling off-the-shelf firms within the scope of regulated activities. The SI also makes changes to ensure owners of crypto asset firms do not escape fit and proper checks by the Financial Conduct Authority.
I turn finally to the trust registration service. The SI makes a number of changes to close loopholes that could be leveraged to obscure asset ownership, improve transparency of beneficial ownership of trusts with significant UK connections and refine registration requirements for other types of trust.
The implementation of these measures will be swift, with the majority of measures coming into force 21 days after the SI is made. There are limited exceptions to this, such as for the measures on crypto assets, where a longer implementation period is necessary to give regulated businesses sufficient time both to adjust their systems and processes and to align with the introduction of the new financial services regulatory regime for crypto assets, which will come into force in October 2027. Safeguards have been built into the SI to mitigate risks in the interim period.
In conclusion, these regulations strengthen the UK’s defences against illicit finance by better targeting high-risk activity and closing loopholes in the regime. I beg to move.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his expansive introduction to this SI. I wish to express concern about two elements of it: the change in the transactions and the change in the rules on trusts.
This all comes at a moment when the OECD and the Financial Action Task Force are pushing every major jurisdiction in the direction of having more transparency, more openness and more recording. It weakens the UK’s stance when we ask other countries to tighten their own procedures. Both the OECD and the FATF have been pushing countries to make registers of beneficial ownership more complete and more accessible. The message that is being sent is, “We need to widen the net”.
Of course, historically, the UK has held itself up as a leader in this area, however hard it might have been to justify that claim. One of my questions for the Minister is: how does this measure align with the Government’s 2025 anti-corruption strategy, which is supposedly aimed at driving dirty money out of the UK and strengthening national security?
I note that, in December, the City of London Police was awarded an extra £15 million to expand its anti-corruption efforts. The Justice Secretary then said that the UK
“will no longer be a haven for dirty money and dictators’ laundered assets”
and promised action to tackle “professional enablers”— the lawyers, bankers and estate agents who we know have been at the heart of some very murky, shall we say, transactions. As the Justice Secretary said at the time, all too often, the trail of dirty money “leads back” to London; he also noted that that is
“exploited by those Kremlin-linked elites who enable Putin’s aggression”.
I come to my two specific points. The greatest area of concern that I can identify—the Minister alluded to this—is the jurisdictions under enhanced monitoring. The SI replaces high-risk third countries with FATF “call for action” countries in the enhanced due diligence trigger. Therefore, we are picking up only countries that are blacklisted now: North Korea, Iran and Myanmar. Previously, the regulations that applied to so-called grey list countries, which called for increased monitoring, included the UAE, South Africa, Turkey, Nigeria and the Philippines.
UK firms transacting with counterparts in those jurisdictions will no longer be automatically required to imply the enhanced due diligence. This seems to place a great deal of trust in UK companies that do not have a great record; I cross-reference back to what the Justice Secretary said in December about dirty money flowing into London. So, in effect, this SI represents a substantial retreat at exactly the moment when we are supposed to be cracking down on illicit finance.
My second area of detailed concern is the register provisions. New paragraph 23A of Schedule 3A to the 2017 regulations will create the first-ever general sized-based exemption from the trust register. If a trust holds no UK land, has under £2,000 in current assets, has never held more than £10,000 over its lifetime and earns under £5,000 a year, it never has to register.
This anti-abuse rule stops only a single settler, but does not allow for the situation where a wealthy family spreads a pot across a spouse, parents, adult children and who knows who else with each acting as a settler. Regulation 25(3) removes stamp duty reserve tax as a registration trigger, quietly pulling share-owning trusts that would otherwise have appeared on the register out of the scope of the register.
For those who might be listening, stamp duty reserve tax is a 0.5% tax when you buy UK shares electronically, so if a trust buys £100,000 worth of UK shares, it pays £500 in SDRT. It is a tiny tax and a tiny tax liability, but at the moment that triggers the registration. There are express trusts that have to register because of what they are, but there are also a large number of trusts that have to register only because of this provision. Trusts that own UK-listed shares are exactly the kind of structure where transparency matters to cleaning up the dirty money and I think to the general public as well. They are how anonymous foreign money often holds stocks in UK companies. The current position means that any trust active in the UK equity market at any scale has been caught, regardless of where it is based or who set it up, so removing it punches a hole in the net specifically to oversee shareholding trusts. I would like to hear some more from the Minister on how the Government see this deregulation as being any kind of positive when we are trying to crack down on the flows of dirty money that the Government acknowledge are flooding into London.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, these regulations introduce a number of changes following the Government’s 2022 review and the 2024 consultation. I thank the Minister for his clear introduction and for emphasising the important principle of getting things right first time, which partly explains why these reforms have taken time to come in. Some of the changes appear to be sensible. Refining due diligence requirements so that enhanced due diligence applies to unusually complex transactions rather than all complex transactions seems a proportionate step. Likewise, reforming the trust registration service to close identified gaps, while creating an exemption for low-value, low-risk trusts, appears to strike a reasonable balance between maintaining safeguards and reducing unnecessary burdens. To that extent, His Majesty’s Opposition welcome the direction of travel.
However, these regulations also raise a wider and very important question about whether the current anti-money laundering regime is operating as effectively, proportionately and fairly as it should. It is right—indeed, it is essential—that we are robust in tackling money laundering, terrorist finance and financial crime, but it is also essential that the system does not impose excessive costs, drive firms into defensive behaviour or leave innocent customers and legitimate businesses without access to banking services.
The purpose of anti-money laundering regulation is, of course, to prevent crime, but there is growing evidence that the regime can also have a serious unintended consequence, and customers who have done nothing wrong are nevertheless finding themselves excluded from banking services because they are deemed too costly, too complex or too risky to serve. The IEA’s 2024 report, Debanked, argues that under the current regime certain categories of customer may present a higher initial risk profile, but that the cost of establishing whether they are, in fact, engaged in criminal activity can exceed the value of their business to the bank. The result is that some accounts are closed pre-emptively.
The same report also estimates that compliance with anti-money laundering regulations costs UK banks £34 billion a year. That is a very significant burden and one that is ultimately borne by consumers and businesses. That is a huge multiple of the £178 million of savings in compliance costs which I think the Minister mentioned. To put it into context, the sums spent on some of the enforcement agencies are also relatively small. Nearly £100 million is spent on the Serious Fraud Office and £195 million on the Insolvency Service. Police funding, because police are very important in money laundering, costs nearly £20 billion, but that includes the excellent efforts of the City of London Police in this area, which were mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett.
What assessment have the Government made of the impact of the current AML regime on access to banking services? Are the considerable costs—the £34 billion I mentioned—imposed by this regime being matched by clear evidence of a proportionate reduction in financial crime, drawing on the resources I have described? Will the Government consider a broader review not merely of whether the system is functioning according to its own internal processes but whether it is delivering the right outcomes in the real world and whether the enforcement regime is fit for purpose? The Minister has mentioned the economic crime plan.
I turn to the issue of complexity. An anti-money laundering and sanctions regime must be clear if it is to be effective. I know this from my experience of trying to enforce the law in the business area. Professional advisers and regulated entities struggle to understand their obligations. If this happens, the result will naturally be worse enforcement. I was slightly concerned to hear that the Solicitors Regulation Authority has described the UK sanctions regime as “complex and challenging”. That should give us pause for thought. If professionals whose work depends on understanding and applying the law find the regime difficult to navigate, we should not be surprised when banks and firms respond by taking the safest possible course—even when that means withdrawing services from customers who may pose no real risk.
Can the Minister confirm whether organisations such as the SRA were consulted before these regulations were laid? Can he explain whether the regulations will materially reduce the complexity in the system? Do the Government intend to bring forward wider reforms to make the regime easier to understand, easier to apply and therefore more effective in achieving its core purpose and preventing financial crime?
Finally, I turn to redress. The consequences of debanking can be severe. A person or business whose account is closed may be left unable to receive payments, pay staff, meet obligations or even operate normally. Yet the process for challenging these decisions can be slow, opaque and deeply frustrating. In 2024, the APPG on Fair Business Banking published a report which found that thousands of customers were being debanked each month, often as a result of financial, regulatory and reputational pressures on banks. Shortly afterwards, the Treasury Committee published data showing that debanking-related complaints to the Financial Ombudsman Service had risen by 44% from 2023. These figures should concern us as they suggest a more systemic problem.
There are also particular groups that appear to be disproportionately affected: individuals with links to higher-risk jurisdictions, politically exposed persons such as ourselves, small businesses, charities and organisations with international connections—at a time when we are trying to encourage overseas investment. A further group the Government should examine closely is defence companies. A survey by ADS, the trade body representing 1,500 small defence companies, found that nearly three-quarters had struggled to access basic banking services, with respondents citing reputational concerns as a key factor behind that trend. I think I will return to this subject when we come to debate the financial services Bill.
These groups are not necessarily illegitimate customers yet, in practice, they seem to be treated, with the way in which the current regime operates, as though they are inherently suspect. Given the Government’s stated priorities of driving economic growth and increasing defence spending, this is surely an issue to which the Minister should be paying close attention. What consideration have the Government given to the impact of the AML regime on these groups? What steps are being taken to ensure that banks do not respond to regulatory pressure by simply excluding legitimate customers? Does the Minister accept that, if increasing numbers of affected customers are turning to the Financial Ombudsman Service, there is a strong case for looking at not just individual complaints but the structure of the regime itself? I asked that question at the beginning of my remarks.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses for their questions. They were many in number so we will scour Hansard and, if there are any that I do not answer, we will of course respond with letters.
I turn first to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett; I hope to cover them all, though not necessarily in the order in which she made them. She mentioned enhanced due diligence as far as high-risk jurisdictions, especially the likes of Russia and China, are concerned. The money laundering regulations contain specific provisions requiring enhanced due diligence in relation to geographic risk, which are unchanged by this SI. Firms must still assess and manage geographic risk as part of their overall risk-based approach and apply EDD wherever high risk is identified, in line with the requirements set out in the regulations. Firms will be expected to consult government guidance, such as the National Risk Assessment of Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing 2025, which provides a more UK-focused, nuanced and sector-specific view of the risks. Jurisdictions that present a risk in the UK but are not currently listed by the Financial Action Task Force, such as Russia, China and the UAE, are referred to in the national risk assessment for the UK.
On the changes to the due diligence requirements, some countries on the FATF’s increased monitoring list are recognised as presenting more of a regional risk than an international one, perhaps due to the lack of specialised and international-facing financial sector or strict currency controls. The Financial Action Task Force recommends enhanced due diligence to be mandatory only for countries on the separate “call for action” list, which will continue to be the case following this change.
The noble Baroness asked a question on asset recovery. The 2026-29 ECP will set out the Government’s next whole-system approach to tackling economic crime. It will consolidate key strategies, including the fraud and anti-corruption strategies and the forthcoming anti-money laundering and asset recovery strategy, into a single coherent framework for delivery. The plan will focus on strengthening cross-system prioritisation and deliver grip and the long-term funding and capabilities needed to respond to evolving economic crime threats.
On reforms to the trust registration service, the Government are making targeted changes to particular categories of trusts to ensure that requirements to register remain proportionate to the risk. Recognising that registration must be proportionate to risk, certain types of trusts are excluded from the requirement to register on the grounds that they either pose an inherently low risk of money laundering or are already regulated elsewhere.
On the database for trust registration, trusts are frequently established for legitimate and highly personal reasons, such as to hold assets for children or vulnerable adults. The Government believe that placing the information held on the trust register into the public domain would infringe the privacy rights of individual beneficial owners, the vast majority of whom are not involved in any money laundering activities. The information held on the register is available on request to law enforcement agencies and other relevant parties to assist with anti-money laundering investigations. The Government believe that this approach strikes the right balance between the conflicting demands of transparency and privacy.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, made a point about stamp duty reserve tax. In taking a risk-based approach, the Government consider that the role of stamp duty reserve tax in enabling and detecting money laundering or terrorist financing is not proportionate to the administration placed on trusts by this requirement. The current regulatory framework focuses on those entities with significant links to the UK. The Government consider that a liability to stamp duty reserve tax is not, in isolation, indicative of a significant link to the UK. Entities with significant links to the UK are more likely to be those with significant property assets or liabilities for income, capital gains and inheritance tax. The collection of stamp duty reserve tax is already administered by the Government, and the sale of shares already sits within a broader regulatory environment.
I welcome the approval of the general thrust of the SI from the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. She raised several issues that I hope I can answer. The money laundering regulations form a core part of the UK’s defence against economic crime. They aim to ensure that attempts to launder money through banks and other regulatory businesses are prevented or detected and flagged to law enforcement. The SI is part of a wider suite of government action on money laundering and economic crime in general. This includes the publication of the National Risk Assessment of Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing 2025 in July 2025, the delivery of two economic crime plans—2019-22 and 2023-26—with a further economic crime plan in the pipeline, the new anti-corruption strategy in December 2025, the new fraud strategy in March 2026 and anti-money laundering supervision reform.
At Budget 2025, the economic crime levy, which is paid by businesses regulated under the money laundering regulations, was raised to generate an additional £110 million for initiatives to tackle economic crime. In my opening speech, I mentioned some of the benefits from what we have achieved and are going on to achieve. The Government have committed to recruit 475 new roles by September 2026 to help clamp down on money laundering; £284.5 million of criminal assets were recovered in the year to March 2025; and there have been nearly 8,500 prosecutions and 3,892 convictions for money laundering as a principal and non-principal offence. This is a big increase, of nearly 20%, from before.
On refusal to open bank accounts, the FCA requires banks to treat customers and prospective customers fairly, to take proportionate and non-discriminatory account opening decisions and to apply the consumer duty across the full onboarding journey. Where someone is dissatisfied with how a decision has been handled, they can complain to the firm and escalate the matter to the Financial Ombudsman Service, which can assess whether the firm has acted fairly. In addition, where an individual is denied access to a standard current account, the UK’s nine largest personal current account providers are legally required to offer basic bank accounts.
I turn to derisking and bank account closure. Economic crime, including money laundering, poses a rapidly growing and increasingly complex threat to the UK’s national security and prosperity. It fuels the serious organised crime that damages the fabric of society. In the face of this threat, the Government believe that due diligence checks, applied proportionately, are an essential tool to protect firms and their customers from fraud and other financial crime, as well as assisting law enforcement in investigating criminal activity.
On the SRA and sanctions, the original consultation received hundreds of responses. The legal sector, as the noble Baroness pointed out, expressed some concerns, but changes made following the technical consultation are expected to address most of those. Financial services and most other sectors have welcomed the shift away from tick-box compliance, particularly the reforms to increase flexibility around enhanced due diligence. Civil society and anti-corruption organisations supported the measures to close loopholes and improve system co-ordination, while expressing measured concern about EDD changes. A recent blog by Spotlight on Corruption stated that most of the measures in the SI were “unambiguously positive”.
On debanking, banking services fulfil a vital role for millions of people. The Government have legislated to ensure customer protection in cases where their bank account is terminated by the provider. Payment service providers are required to give customers at least 90 days’ notice before closing their account under new rules which came into force in April 2026. Providers will also need to provide a clear explanation to customers in writing so that they are able to challenge decisions, such as through the Financial Ombudsman Service.
I turn to the difficulties facing SMEs in accessing a bank account. Access to banking services is obviously vital and the Government have introduced new rules to require banks to give customers 90 days’ notice. These new rules will ensure more transparent and predictable access to banking, and the Government will continue to monitor wider access to bank account provision.
On the difficulties facing charities in accessing a bank account, charities and community groups make a valuable contribution to society. UK Finance, banks and charity representative groups have worked together to provide the voluntary organisation banking guide, aimed at supporting charities and community groups to access banking services. We will continue to monitor wider access to bank account provision while recognising that it is largely a commercial matter.
The noble Baroness mentioned defence companies and their access to bank accounts. Access to finance is a significant issue for defence firms, particularly SMEs. No company should ever be denied access to financial services solely on the basis of its work in the defence sector. The banking sector should never take a blanket approach to any one sector. The Government are actively engaging with banks to ensure that they understand the importance of the defence sector. The FCA has worked to understand why banks might close or reject accounts. Where it has found areas where firms need to improve customer outcomes, the Government expect firms to consider its findings.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I have just been musing on something that the noble Lord said that I think I wrote down correctly: namely, that stamp duty reserve tax liability does not indicate a significant link to the UK. We need to consider that statement in the context of how much UK infrastructure and its essential services have been privatised. I am thinking of water companies and infrastructure construction: indeed, large-scale defence companies in foreign ownership. I will understand if the Minister wants to write to me. I am not necessarily asking for a direct answer now, but what provisions do the Government have to make sure that this weakening of the regulation does not open up the ownership of some of those things that in the current geopolitical climate are of grave concern from a security aspect?
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
First, this is not a weakening of the regulation but a balanced approach that we take in this whole area. I will set out the arguments in greater form for the noble Baroness and write to her with the specifics.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I come back to the issue of debanking. The Minister said some very useful things. This is debanking. We talked about defence companies and I look forward to hearing the results of that active engagement. I have talked in the APPG to individual defence companies that have had difficulties in this respect and we need to be supporting our defence companies, especially the innovative ones, given the change in the nature of weapons and so on at this difficult time.
The banks are required to offer basic banking and give 90 days’ notice if they want to close an account. When you are given notice of the closing of an account, you then have to go to another bank and go through the whole system of being approved by it. I have tried to set up a new bank account at Metro to complement my account with one of the major four banks. Frankly, I gave up. Once you are in the system, it is absolutely fine. My bank knows about me: I have been banking there for years. But, if you try to go to a new bank, it is quite complicated: a lot of questions are asked and you give up.
This all links to what the Minister is trying to do, which is to make it easier for citizens who do not necessarily have a good credit record to have a bank account, because it is important for them to be able to operate an account, save, have a card and so on. I wanted to emphasise that point and say that the Government’s work is important. If more progress is made in that area, I should be very interested to hear about it.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
In response to the noble Baroness, there is the 90 days’ notice and the access to basic bank accounts, et cetera. There is ongoing work in this area. I can write to her and let her know exactly where we are up to in all of this, so she will have some awareness of where the Government intend to go.