My Lords, we have allowed my noble friend Lady Bowles to go off to her committee today so I am afraid that there is somebody on these Benches with a far less-detailed knowledge of the intricacies of the relevant pieces of legislation. That may be of some relief but she will be back on future occasions so the respite is only temporary.
We have no objection to these two SIs, although I would like to probe around them a little. Clearly the UK Government should make this move because, frankly, EEA UCITS with a presence here in London suddenly fleeing because of a lack of temporary permissions would be a hole beneath the waterline for the future of fund management in London. The measure is absolutely necessary. The vast majority of those funds have said that if they had to go back and apply again as third countries for third-country permissions to keep their existing funds in place, they would prefer to exit. That is the situation with which we are dealing so the Government’s move is appropriate.
However, noble Lords will be aware that a great deal of money has already fled London. Two or three weeks ago, EY provided a report setting the number of assets to have left the City, primarily funds, at around £800 billion. With the latest Barclays announcement, that takes the number to about £1 trillion, which is a reasonable amount of assets under management to
have left because of Brexit. So that everybody understands, I say that this is not about people being disloyal or unpatriotic. One of the companies involved, Somerset Capital Management—co-founded by Jacob Rees-Mogg—domiciled two recently launched funds in Dublin, apparently because of the demands of various clients. Clearly, a great deal of the movement out of London has been client-led.
That is a problem because conglomeration is a very powerful factor in driving this industry forward. Losing something like £1 trillion of funds under management and finding that many players are playing double-handed, with a presence in both London and somewhere else—typically in Dublin but perhaps in other places in the EU 27—puts into doubt a future never before doubted: that London would dominate in this area. Did I understand correctly from the Minister—and do I understand correctly from reading the instrument—that the transitional arrangements described are simply to provide continuity for existing London-domiciled EEA UCITS? Has there been any assessment of the likelihood of new funds to open choosing London for their headquarters? Has there been any assessment of whether the limited reach of the regulations mean that, if we leave on 29 March, funds to open later in the year are far less likely to be London-domiciled because they will have to apply through a third-country process? I would be interested to understand that.
In a sense, that leads me on to the impact statement, which is peculiar. The Minister is absolutely right that the statement is recent: I think it went online on Friday and was printed only today. The costs are defined in the summary as “Unknown: likely significant”. But the description which follows that brief table says that the only really quantifiable costs on businesses are,
“marginal compared to the … costs arising from the UK leaving the EU”—
thank goodness, as this is one tiny area—and that they,
“mainly consist of familiarisation costs”.
Has there been any attempt in that estimate of significance to estimate the changing pattern of investment for new funds that will follow, because of the limited nature of this new SI? From a cost perspective, I do not know whether that has been included in the numbers.
The benefits are described as “significant” but, again, we have no numbers around any of that. I suppose that one person’s significant differs from another’s but it seems that it is significant compared to having nothing to protect us from a cliff edge. I can certainly understand that that is significant but it seems peculiar, frankly, to suggest it as a benefit. The status quo is clearly the benefit; there are no costs and there is no reduction in the future location of funds in the UK. A benefit that basically avoids the damage of a cliff edge seems a terribly odd description.
Finally, I saw the humour on the Minister’s face, and I share it, at the second SI, which deals with long-term investment funds. Since, as I understand it, this is a continuity and rollover SI and there are no funds, can he help me with the logic of why we are bothering with it? I do not mind it being on the statute
book but it seems slightly redundant to provide for the continuity of nothing. I thought that the Minister might help me in this context with these issues, but we will of course oppose neither instrument.