with me is jane whitfield, chair of the wills and equity committee at the law society. thank you for coming in. it is a very old law but what is wrong with that, why isn't it still fit for purpose? it is 180 years old so it needs to be modernised. it needs to be clearer than it could be. some of the things that set out how you make a will and what makes it valid really need to be brought up to date. it is in very old language. victorian language. it talks about insane delusions and things that poison your affections. and so the law commission wants people to look at orchard bank will valid. sometimes there are harmless errors. a case recently where a husband and wife signed each others will by mistake and that made the will is com pletely mistake and that made the will is completely void. one of the things they are suggesting is that should bea they are suggesting is that should be a dispensing power to allow harmless mistakes to go through and although they will is to be valid evenif although they will is to be valid even if they don't fulfil the formalities properly.

you would, and i quote, be willing to work with congress and the various equities impacted by beneficial ownership due diligence requirements to address this challenge. we have on this committee introduced a bipartisan bill called the corporate transparency act that would require companies to disclose their true beneficial owners at the time the company is formed and this information would only be available to law enforcement and financial institutions that are required to know their customers with those customers' consent. our bill says that states can collect this information, but if they do not, then it would be treasury's responsibility to collect it as a backup. so, my question is, do you support requiring companies to disclose their true beneficial owners at the time the company is formed and treasury's role in our suggested legislation? >> let me just first say, thank you very much for that, and i now understand this issue much better than i did, and when i've-- my initial confirmation, and i spent a lot of time looking at this internally. it's also a concern at the g7, i can tell you this is not only just a u.s. issue, but our european partners are concerned that they

will begin trimming the balance sheet. another rigorous debate showing a divided committee over the question of where inflation is going. and number three, no explicit mention of high equityuations, underscoring the message that senior fed officials gave last week. >> very little in terms of new information that the market was hoping for on the timing of the beginning of rate hikes. do you think perhaps there is a shift? >> i think you are 100% correct, the consensus is for september tapering, but the more divided they appear to be the more dovish the maintenance -- the minutes will be interpreted as. if they cannot build consensus, it will be harder to deliver the combination of taper and a rate hike by the end of the year. pretty confident it will be one or the other. >> the central bank publishing their account of the policy meeting, emphasis on account and not minutes. no details. they have agreement that the current stance is appropriate and concern that small communication changes can be misperceived and urged not to overestimate the impact of cycles. they also considered whether to add just the evening and said -- easing and said some changes are expected. the outl

will begin trimming the balance sheet. a very rigorous debate showing again quite a divided committee over the question of where inflation is headed. and number three, no explicit mention of high equityuations, underscoring the message that senior fed officials gave last week. >> very little in terms of new information clarity that the market was clearly hoping for, on the timing of the beginning of tapering. the consensus is still for september. anything in this you think perhaps this gives a shift to that? >> i think you are 100% correct. the consensus is still for september tapering, however the more divided they appear to be the more dovish the minutes will , be interpreted as. if they cannot build consensus internally, it will be harder to deliver the combination of taper and a rate hike by the end of the year. pretty confident it will be one or the other. jonathan: the european central bank has just published their account of the policy meeting, emphasis on account and not minutes. it is kind of like the fed minutes without the detail and he said, she said stuff. the governors in broad agreement that the current stance is appropriate and concern that small communication changes