Mini-tender Offers: Protection for Shareholders

Baroness Altmann Excerpts

Wednesday 15th July 2026 Lords Chamber

Tabled by

[Baroness Altmann]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to protect shareholders in major British firms from being targeted by mini-tender offers which seek to enable unauthorised overseas firms from buying shares from vulnerable share- holders below their market value.

[The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade and HM Treasury (Lord Stockwood) (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government are committed to promoting the culture of retail investment. We are concerned by reports of shareholders being targeted by unsolicited offers to sell their shares below market value. Share- holders should exercise caution and carefully consider any such offer. The law is also clear: communications relating to the buying and selling of shares must be fair, clear and not misleading. We will continue to work with the FCA to monitor risk and ensure that investors remain appropriately protected.

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer, but there is no way that the offer can be considered fair. It cannot be justified as being in the shareholders’ interests. It does not mention that Aviva has its own small shareholder dealing service, for example. The gaps in shareholder protection that are allowing this cynical exploitation of vulnerable elderly people, who often received shares in the 1980s and 1990s demutualisations and denationalisations, seem to be a real loophole that we need to close. I would be grateful if the Minister would meet me while the Financial Services and Markets Bill is going through the House to see whether we can offer better protection. The courts have not protected, the data protection laws have not protected, and the FCA is merely looking at whether the law is broken. If not, we need to change that protection.

[Lord Stockwood (Lab)]

My Lords, I will of course be happy to meet the noble Baroness. As I hope we are showing through the process on that Bill, we are trying to rightsize our regulation to ensure that it is appropriate.

I will not comment too much on this particular case. The CEO of the FCA is committed to doing a thorough assessment. We have to be careful about what is regarded as a fair market price for products. The market assessment and the ability to make an offer, and making sure that those financial promotions are appropriate, should be absolutely clear and within the remit of the FCA. An under market price could sometimes be appropriate if there is no liquidity in that market, but I agree with the noble Baroness: we need to look at this specific instance to make sure that there is no wrongdoing. We believe that the FCA has the right process to be able to do that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stockwood (Lab)]

I have become well aware of the noble Baroness’s interest in this issue. I am certainly not going to speak for a Prime Minister before he is appointed next week, but this really matters to this Government. My belief is that there will be a continuation of the strategy to ensure that we protect entrepreneurs’ interests, make the economy grow and make the UK increasingly attractive, particularly relative to our global competitors for investment. That is the job I do day to day, and I hope to continue to be doing it next Monday.

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

I have one further question. There are at least two issues at stake. First, the data protection legislation forced Aviva to send all the names and addresses of its shareholders on its register, even though this company wished to write to only a very small subsection of them. That is surely an issue for data protection legislation. Secondly, it is very difficult to understand how the courts could justify a 20% discount to the share price of a major firm, where there is no problem with trading and it has a small shareholder scheme, as being bona fide business interests.

[Lord Stockwood (Lab)]

The noble Baroness raises important points. There are two distinct answers to the question. On access to data, the courts have declared that a regulated entity, which any financial promotion has to go through, has to approve that offer and say whether it is for proper business or proper promotion. What we are talking about is an assessment of whether the offer is appropriate, which would be an assessment made by the FCA itself. Companies can apply to the courts to refuse access where they believe that the use of that data is not for a proper purpose. That is what happened in this case. Whether access should be granted is ultimately a matter for the courts. Shareholder registers and the ability to access them are also important for the issuers of those shares. Whether it is for a proper use has to be approved by a regulated entity.

As to whether it is below market price, we have to be careful about what a fair assessment of a market price is, depending on the liquidity of that asset. We need to assess this case to see whether it is an outlier or something specific to our market details, but I believe it is correct for the courts to decide whether it is for a proper commercial purpose.

Financial Services and Markets Bill [HL]

Baroness Altmann Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 22nd June 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)]

My Lords, I oppose Clause 1 and Schedule 1 standing part of the Bill. I shall speak also to my detailed amendments to the schedule, which appear as Amendments 4 to 17.

We all know how consumer agreements work, whether for credit or anything else. There is always an asymmetry of power between the provider and the consumer. Nowadays, it is often impossible to speak to a person rather than a bot. If you do get a person, it is a call centre with scripted questions and answers, often including a recital of terms and conditions faster than it is possible to understand. You cannot get to the next stage without saying, “Yes, I have understood and agreed”, when, in truth, you have not. You do not even see the terms and conditions until after you have clicked “Yes”, then you are given a time-limited right to withdraw. This back-to-front impatience to get boxes ticked first is now a feature of the modern consumer environment—one that I fear we have now replicated in the legislative procedures in the Bill, only here, once Parliament ticks the box, there is no cooling-off period and no right to withdraw.

The Bill repeals parts of the Consumer Credit Act. It gives the Government open-ended regulation-making powers before there has been any consultation and before we have seen the shape or operation of any FCA rules. I cannot support that. It goes too far, too fast and too unseen. That is not the way to make irrevocable changes. So I will not tick the box. I want to know what I am signing up to, just as the consumer must. I want to know that what are presented as rights are, in fact, rights.

Clause 1 repeals statutory rights before replacements exist. The Government take powers to make regulations before consultation. At the very least, that is a reason to take a great deal of notice of what is being said by Parliament. I also question whether this approach meets the Government’s own statutory duties under the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006, which requires regulation to be proportionate, accountable and transparent. Repealing rights before replacements exist does not seem to meet those tests. This is a fundamental change from the status quo, where rights are in statute and rules are made to assist in negotiating the statute.

Clause 1 reverses that. It removes statutory protections now and offers only a possibility of regulatory rules later. Rules are not rights. Rules can be changed by the rule-maker, whereas rights bind everyone, including the regulator. The Government’s approach is, therefore, constitutionally backwards. Parliament is being asked to repeal rights without knowing what will replace them. It is like signing a credit agreement without knowing the terms, and we are being asked to sign it on behalf of the public.

My solution would be to preserve a statutory floor, both now and in future, and not a temporary one that could be slowly eroded at the whim of the Government or a regulator. My amendments to Schedule 1 are intended to show how this can be done; I thank Which? for its assistance in preparing them. They aim to preserve important provisions in relation to notices of arrears and default sums, as well as the unenforceability sanctions attached to them in the Consumer Credit Act. These are the legal backstops—the protections that ensure that rights are real.

I shall explain what my amendments do and why they matter. First, they would preserve the requirement to serve notices of arrears and default sums and the statutory consequences of failing to do so. These provisions apply, for example, where a borrower has fallen behind on payments. A default notice must be served before a creditor can take certain drastic steps such as terminating the agreement, demanding early repayment or recovering goods and land. Default notices also play an important part in determining when debts become statute barred, because, once served, lenders have six years to take court action. Secondly, they would keep these protections in legislation but allow the FCA to modernise the form and content of the notices. That is the right balance. Technology changes, as does the way in which information is presented, but the underlying rights do not and should not.

The Government’s approach is to repeal the majority of the CCA provisions with the suggestion that they could be recast into FCA rules at some future point, subject to consultation. That means there will be no parliamentary scrutiny of what these protections might look like once they are repealed. My amendments would guarantee that the core protections remained mandatory legal requirements while allowing the FCA to update the way in which information is provided. That is what the legislation should have done from the start—modernise the form, not abolish the substance.

I turn to sanctions, which is where the Consumer Credit Act is at its strongest and where the Bill is at its weakest. The sanctions in the CCA were included in 1974 because Parliament recognised the significant imbalance of power between a consumer and a creditor. Parliament wanted proactive compliance with the law, not a system where an individual consumer must detect a breach, voice a complaint, and then pursue slow and time-consuming legal or ombudsman remedies, particularly when those consumers are likely to be vulnerable, stressed or in financial difficulty.

The sanctions ensure that a creditor cannot take steps against a debtor while the creditor is non-compliant with the law. They are automatic. They work because they require compliance up front, not after the harm has occurred, and they cannot be replicated in FCA rules. Without those sanctions, consumers may face new threats from being pursued for debts, particularly when debts are sold to unauthorised debt purchasers. The burden shifts on to the consumer to detect breaches and seek redress. Vulnerable consumers are disproportionately harmed, and the automatic reprieve that Parliament deliberately created is lost.

My amendments would ensure that those sanctions on arrears and default notices remained in legislation while allowing the FCA to modernise the way information was presented. That would preserve vital individual rights while recognising that flexibility is needed in a digital age. That is not an unusual approach. The CCA and the FCA’s existing consumer credit rules already operate in a complementary way.

The amendments I have tabled focus on arrears and default notices because that is where the greatest harm would arise if protections were removed, but they are only exemplary. They show the balanced approach that should have been taken across the whole reform of the Consumer Credit Act: move form and content to the FCA rules where appropriate but keep the substantive protections in legislation. I am looking for that complete reform.

There are other areas, such as the form and content of credit agreements, the duty to provide information under fixed-sum and running-account agreements, and the sanctions for improperly executed agreements, where the same balanced approach could and should be taken. I would be happy to meet to discuss those. The Government’s own consultation on CCA reform was meant to have two phases. Phase 1, on information requirements and sanctions, took place, but phase 2, on key consumer rights, was scrapped. That is not a sound basis for repealing rights now and promising rules later.

The CCA was ground-breaking for creating automatic protections, even if at times those protections have been bitten for trivialities. That is a reason for modification, not cancellation. Their purpose is still relevant: ensuring active compliance, preventing regulatory creep and protecting vulnerable consumers. They cannot be replaced with certainty in FCA rules. Their removal shifts the burden on to consumers. This is a regression in consumer protection at a time when modern communications already curtail the time for circumspection.

If the Government were bringing forward a coherent replacement for the Consumer Credit Act, it would look something like this: statutory principles of fairness, transparency, good faith and protection against unequal bargaining power. Those are not exotic ideas; they exist in other jurisdictions. Australia’s unconscionable conduct regime is one example. At the end of the day, businesses must think and exert conscience and play fair, but that is not what Clause 1 does. It removes rights without replacing them. Modernisation is possible but I will not tick the box on behalf of the public until I have seen the replacement and until I know that it preserves rights now and in the statute. I beg to move.

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I must apologise: I was not in the country for Second Reading, so this is my first intervention on the Bill.

I support wholeheartedly the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, and the rationale that she has just explained. I thank Which? for the work that it has been doing on the Bill and to try to help consumers.

I cannot support this leap in the dark for parliamentary scrutiny and I cannot support imposing this leap in the dark on consumers. At the end of the day, that is what the provisions in Schedule 1 are at risk of doing. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, with her amendments, and the amendments that we have seen from other noble Lords in the first group, are seeking to help the Government to achieve their aims more safely for consumers. I believe that what the Government are trying to do has the right motive; it is about whether the manner in which this is being done is safe for us to agree to—and I do not believe that it is.

If we think one step ahead, what protection will consumers have against the FCA making a significant error in its regulation? What protection will consumers have if the asymmetry of information and power that we know already exists in the financial services industry, especially for retail customers, continues along its current lines? I hope that the Government and the Committee will recognise that leaving consumer protection to the regulators is not a safe thing to do if you want to improve consumer protection—and, as I say, I believe that is what the Government would like to do.

The FCA has a peculiar regulatory style. For example, if it has discovered or suspected wrongdoing, it does not, as you might expect, do mystery shopping on behalf of consumers. It will ask firms generally to investigate how they behave and then to report to the FCA. That may work but it will not always work, and there is no fallback protection such as we have in the Consumer Credit Act if the consumer experience is not as it has been portrayed or as the FCA might have expected. There is a consumer panel as part of the FCA, but, in my experience with a number of financial scandals or problems that have arisen for consumers, the FCA consumer panel has little or no power. It is not listened to and does not form part of the FCA regulatory decision-making process that perhaps one would need to be confident that it represents in the case of passing on this protection to the FCA.

I hope that the Minister and the Government will listen carefully to the arguments that have been made so far in the first two groups and recognise the damage that could be done by pursuing the proposed actions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

I just wanted to say that I have a lot to say on the Financial Ombudsman Service but I shall save it all for group 6.

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, first, I declare an interest, which perhaps I should have done at the beginning. I am a director of a pension company that is regulated by the FCA. I apologise for not having declared that earlier.

I will reflect on an issue that could arise because the Financial Ombudsman Service is in charge of complaints about pensions. We know that many people who are taking out pensions products may have problems that do not become apparent to them for six or 10 years or beyond. Perhaps we could consider an amendment that would carve out the extent to which the Financial Ombudsman Service deals with a pension complaint in relation to this element of the Bill.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I have only a few comments on this group. As I listened to the comments on Amendment 17A, particularly those of my noble friend Lady Bowles and the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, I understood what reminded them of mortgage prisoners. In that case, people who held mortgages with banks that failed, and who were rescued by the Treasury, were then sold on to private holders who were not themselves lenders of mortgages. In effect, they lost the ability to refinance, and so they remained imprisoned in very high-rate mortgages at a time when everyone else was able to remortgage. We can see echoes of that in some of the limitations that would be introduced by these amendments. I am therefore always concerned about those time limitations, particularly in situations where assets can be sold on, as they often and increasingly are today.

Amendment 44, from the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, seeks to deal with the issue of consumer redress. If a consumer has been abused in some way and has a moral right to redress—a right in law—should that be lost simply because we have a regulator that fails to act promptly and within a reasonable time? I understand that it is tough for the industry, because it leaves it with uncertainty, but some of these products are life-changing for individual consumers and have life consequences. That is what made me think of mortgage prisoners; their lives were completely ruined by that process.

Where there are such consequences for the individual, it is very concerning to take away the right to redress because there was a delay in the functioning of the regulator. I understand that it means that the industry has to live with uncertainty, but my advice to it is to behave well to your customers. That really is the very best way not to get into these issues.

Israel: Trade

Baroness Altmann Excerpts

Thursday 8th January 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Austin both on securing this debate and on his excellent introduction. I must thank from the bottom of my heart my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, for his remarks just now, which have almost brought me to tears. I declare my interest as a member of various APPGs on Britain and Israel and British Jews, and I associate myself fully with the remarks made by the noble Lords, Lord Leigh and Lord Livingston, on the BDS issue.

There are many important areas in which Israeli trade contributes significantly to the UK and helps improve our future economic growth. In my allotted time for today, I will focus on three vital issues: Israel’s contribution to our health, technological advances and security.

On health, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, explained, Israel supplies many medicines for the NHS and saves this country significant sums. There is a long history of co-operation between Israel and the UK on national and international health challenges. For example, the Rotherham, Doncaster and South Humberside NHS Trust is working with the Israeli firm Taliaz, with its AI technology supporting mental health patients; that is just one small example. Israel is a recognised global leader in digital health, biotech and medical innovations, as we have heard from other noble Lords. We have much to learn from the advances that Israel continues to make. I ask the Minister: how do the Government plan to expand scientific, medical and commercial co-operation with Israel to ensure that its breakthroughs directly support UK healthcare and bolster the NHS?

In science and technology, including environmental tech, Israeli innovation is world-renowned. Its advances can help the UK. As a global leader in fields ranging from sophisticated air traffic control systems to high-level security, it has developed improvements in sectors such as clean energy, the creative industries, life sciences, digital technology and services, which are core areas of the Government’s 10-year plan to boost the UK’s economy and productivity. Since these are such important areas of our plan for growth, does the Minister agree with me that closer co-operation with Israel can accelerate UK technological leadership, helping the Government meet their industrial strategy and growth goals even faster?

Lastly, on national security, including intelligence sharing and counterterrorism, Israel makes a positive contribution to the UK. Past Governments built a strong defence partnership and developed close co-operation on counterterrorism and cyber security, with Israeli experts playing an important role in defending our country against bad actors. In that connection, I repeat that it is an extreme disappointment that our Government have suspended some of our trade with Israel—and only Israel—on what I consider spurious grounds. There are hints of antisemitism. Given that both nations face increasingly complex security challenges, does the Minister agree that Israel-UK trade and co-operation can offer significant potential for boosting UK growth, innovation, intelligence collaboration and the joint development of advanced capabilities?

Listed Investment Companies (Classification etc) Bill [HL]

Baroness Altmann Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 15th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, on bringing the Bill forward. I also thank Ministers and Bill team officials who have worked so hard on this issue, and the many industry experts, and Herbert Smith Freehills’ legal team, who have made such contributions to this Bill and to my previous Private Member’s Bill, which received support from all sides of this House in the last Session and from which this Bill follows on.

The aim, as we all know, is to protect and revive a success story of the UK’s financial markets—a global leader. Although some may perceive this to be a higher-risk investment, for most consumers it is a lower-risk method of achieving exposure to sustainable growth or real estate investments than buying an individual company’s shares. This is a diversified spread, managed expertly, of a number of companies, so the overall risk should be lower, yet the current regulations and legislation treat these as if they are much higher-risk.

It is very good to see that we have laid the PRIIPs and CCI statutory instruments, and that the Treasury has issued its own statement. The Government seem to have encouraged or enabled the Financial Conduct Authority to issue emergency forbearance that states that the current practice in the markets, which this Bill aims to correct, is inappropriate and should not continue.

Currently, closed-end listed investment companies and their investors, or potential investors, are still not being treated fairly. Were the Bill to be adopted immediately, or as quickly as parliamentary time allows, that would solve the problem. The forbearance was supposed to do that. I will ask the Minister about this. The CCI legislation intended to replace the current system seems still to want to cover listed closed-end investment companies, even though there are clear reasons for them to be treated as an independent sector—they are not like open-ended funds.

Indeed, a highlight are the real estate investment trusts, about which I would be grateful if the Minister could speak today or write to me on. Will the new legislation the Government have proposed include companies such as British Land and Landsec as listed investment companies under the CCI regime? Currently, that seems to be what is implied: they will be classed as CCIs, which would be a significant issue in the market. Does the Minister know of any other country that treats its investment companies, such as REITs, as if they were consumer composite investments?

The CEO of the FCA said, in his reply to the House of Lords Financial Services Regulation Committee:

“Under the Consumer Duty, platform firms should be determining value and listing for retail consumers on a holistic basis, rather than any single data line in the EMT”.


That means that the current practice in the markets is not working for the consumer. I ask the Minister to respond to us with the Government’s attitude to what is happening, as the retail platforms seem to be deliberately not complying with the Government’s wishes.

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill

Baroness Altmann Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 20th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

My Lords, I also thank the Minister for having listened to the points that were made in our previous debates about the importance of ACSPs’ verification statements being made publicly available and for making this comprehensive suite of amendments. Indeed, I think he has gone further than my original amendments on the subject and the Bill is considerably strengthened as a result. I am extremely grateful.

Perhaps I may add one quick word in support of Amendment 93 from the noble Lord, Lord Agnew. A very high number of the ACSPs are going to be authorised and regulated by HMRC, and it is an unfortunate truth that such regulation is not the principal function of HMRC. Accordingly, that regulation has been somewhat light-touch. I ask the Minister to reassure us that considering how HMRC carries out this role will be an important part of the forthcoming consultation on AML regulation? The only requirement to become an ACSP is to be regulated for AML, so we need to make sure that regulation is robust and that only genuine, suitable persons are therefore authorised.

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister and congratulate him on this suite of amendments. I know that my noble friend is keen that this should be a really landmark Bill and that he has worked really hard to listen carefully and ensure that it is as robust as it can be. I know his dedication to this matter, and I thank him for it.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

Although my noble friend the Minister has described me in very flattering terms today, for which I am grateful, I will not add to the flattery, as his noble kinsman is no longer sitting next to me. I just want to add a note of caution, because it is on the record in Amendment 93 from my noble friend Lord Agnew, on the possibility of HMRC taking AML to be of equal priority to tax collecting, essentially. I declare an interest as chairman of the Finance Bill Sub-Committee of the Economic Affairs Committee that investigated R&D tax credits, which led to HMRC’s accounts being qualified given the level of uncertainty. I just want to put it on the record that we all want HMRC to focus on tax collection, with fraud focused on in other areas.

Whistleblowing Framework

Baroness Altmann Excerpts

Tuesday 16th May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I think my noble friend may want to ask that on the pensions Question.

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

I congratulate the Government on having a review of whistleblowing, which clearly is long overdue. I thank my noble friend for his letter and engagement with us on the whistleblowing issue in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill, but does he consider that there is adequate protection in the current framework against career detriment and dismissal for whistleblowers? Does he not think that those who are working inside firms are best placed to blow the whistle and uncover crimes before any regulator tries to sweep up the mess afterwards? Therefore, looking at examples overseas, such as in America, that seem to work much better than here might be worth considering.

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

My Lords, I think I have answered the question about the American system. Having said that, we will of course look at what is current practice and best practice overseas to see how we can take this whole process forward. Surely what we are trying to do is to come up with a world-class whistleblowing framework and structure that protects workers who come forward and risk their employment and, to some extent, their financial future in calling out this potential fraud.

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill

Baroness Altmann Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 18th April 2023 Grand Committee

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)]

My Lords, I support what others have said. If we take these amendments as essentially saying that Clause 187 needs to be amplified, I, like the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, do not see the reason for sunsetting in 2030. It is not that far away given that, although this might commence immediately on Royal Assent, there are quite a lot of regulations and other things—and I do not know what the timescale of those will be—before everything is up and running.

As I see it, Clause 187 is about monitoring progress, getting everything up and running and seeing that it is okay, then just saying “that is fine”, but I think there is a case for ongoing monitoring to see what is changing and whether there is a need for any further update. The annual report seems to be a vehicle for that and, like others, I say that that is a good reason for it to continue, rather than being sunsetted, and if need be, perhaps to list a few more things that it will cover. Clause 187 could stay silent on that as it is quite broad, talking about

“the implementation and operation of Parts 1 to 3”.

If you took away the sunset clause, I could probably be quite satisfied.

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

I briefly thank my noble friend for Clause 187. It is a valid attempt to achieve some of the aims of these amendments, although I wholeheartedly agree that the sunset clause is puzzling. I ask my noble friend to bear in mind that the expertise being offered by this Committee and Amendment 65 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, as well as the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Agnew, are attempting to assist the Government in achieving the objectives that we all wish to see by injecting the difference between theory and practice. The Government want these measures to succeed. The Committee is trying to suggest that there are, in practice, a number of measures identified in each of these amendments—which, of course, could be combined—to guide those overseeing or producing the reports about what the important elements will be if we want to make this work well.

[Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, in terms of timing, it is important to bear in mind that the genesis of much of this legislation can be found as long ago as 2015. It has taken a long time for anything to happen in response to what was then identified as a major threat—the corruption which has permeated our society. Eventually we got the Criminal Finances Act, then there were many promises of legislation, which did not materialise, then we had the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act, which dealt with some aspects of this, and then it took the invasion of Ukraine before we had the last piece of legislation. Now, eight years after the initiative of 2015, we have this legislation, which may or may not be the final chance. So, with respect, keeping the Government up to the mark with an annual report and not having a sunset clause is something we should learn from the very chronology that I have just described.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendments 69 to 71, which the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, has just described so powerfully. Those of us who participated in what we call ECB 1 will remember that there was a great deal of discussion and many points made around the fact that passing legislation is pointless if you do not resource the enforcement bodies that must then carry it out. Reading that debate back, this was covered in detail; I am simply making the point baldly again.

I have three further points to make. The fund would appear to need no new money. It would be funded and administered through the fines and incorporation fees. There may well be pushback on the hypothecation of funds in principle, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, just highlighted, his explanatory statement illustrates that there are plenty of precedents for such a fund. I would also suggest that, for the crime-fighting agencies—if I can call them that—being able to access this money swiftly and flexibly, rather than having to fight up hill and down dale with the Treasury in trying to extract the money from it, would be a great leap forward. After all, it will be they who will have achieved these funds through successful prosecutions.

Let me add one small but important qualification. We are going to need transparent processes and procedures, including audit, for how these funds are used and by whom. However, with that small and rather pedantic caveat, I lend my support to those three amendments.

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to my Amendment 106E. In a way, it is an attempt to combine and perhaps strengthen the other amendments in this group: those in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker—he explained them excellently—the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blake; and those in the name of my noble friend Lord Agnew, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles.

I welcome the new duties and powers for Companies House. We all know that, as the Government themselves have recognised, there is a severe and growing threat in the area of economic crime. With the pressure on public funding and the fiscal constraints that we know are being and will continue to be faced, funds have to be found for the transformational changes needed to keep pace with the growing and severe threat.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

Can my noble friend explain to the Committee what advantage the Government believe would flow from having low fees for incorporation? There seems to be an idea that we need to raise it to £50 only, as though there is some benefit in having a low fee—I am not sure in what terms, given that the EU average is €300, the US cost is between $570 and $1,400 and the BVI charge £1,000. In the Government’s view, why would there be an objection to going with the Treasury Select Committee recommendation, for example, of at least £100? It would not mean that they could not charge more. It seems to be the general view of the Committee that £100 would not be an unreasonable minimum, at least, for this incorporation fee. The annual fee can always be set in a different way.

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

I appreciate my noble friend’s intervention. It is probably a good thing that we will be cheaper than the EU when it comes to registering a company; we could call it a Brexit dividend. Without being facetious, this is about giving the Government flexibility to ensure that they charge the right amount. I have no personal view on whether it should be £75, £100 or £125; we can have this debate all evening, and I have great sympathy with it. The point is that I do not believe that anyone in this Committee is suggesting a significant change in the volume of cost for either establishing a business or registering it, so it is absolutely right that we should consult widely and make sure both that the right amount is charged and that we have the flexibility to change it one way or the other, if appropriate.