Post Office Compensation

Debate between Baroness Blake of Leeds and Lord Fox

Tuesday 19th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I thank the noble Earl for attending today to discuss yesterday’s important Statement in the other place concerning compensation for victims of the Post Office’s Horizon IT system failings.

What took place after the installation of Horizon accounting software started in the late 1990s has been referred to as one of the greatest scandals of modern times. The installation of the accounting software led to recorded shortfalls in cash at many branches. The truth is that, instead of questioning whether the software was working accurately, the Post Office instead believed that the shortfalls were caused by postmasters themselves, leading to dismissals, recovery of losses from the individuals concerned and, of course, in some cases criminal prosecutions.

The lives of decent, honest postmasters were ripped apart, with some cases resulting in prison sentences but, for all, a long and difficult wait for years to get justice. The consequences for some of those victims are just too awful to contemplate. The wait for resolution of compensation claims has only added to the intolerable burden so many have had to face.

We can all be grateful for the work done by Ministers and civil servants to make progress on this important matter, and I acknowledge the commitment and dedication of Members in both Houses continuing to work with victims through the Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance to sort this mess out.

We agree that there is logic in the proposals for compensation outlined in the Statement and welcome the clarification given in yesterday’s Statement by the Minister, Kevin Hollinrake. He acknowledged that 86 convictions have been overturned and that over £21 million has been paid out in compensation. However, due to the complexity of some claims, especially for personal damages, progress on full and final settlements has been slow. The proposal outlined is to offer a fixed sum of £600,00 for those who received an overturned conviction. Can the noble Earl tell us what specific methodology was used to arrive at this figure? Will he commit to publishing it for the sake of transparency?

I also seek clarification on a few factors. First, how many people does the noble Earl anticipate will take up this offer? What assurances can he give that the compensation being offered to those 86 individuals whose convictions have been overturned will be made up to a sufficient level? What can he say in response to the point that, if people go through the full scheme, the compensation will be much higher? I would be grateful if he addressed what he thinks the balance is between the figure of £600,000 and what others might expect to get. Importantly, what is the estimated timescale for compensation completion for those he considers eligible and not yet fully compensated? Finally, can the noble Earl explain why it has taken so long for evidence from key stakeholders—the Post Office, the Government and Fujitsu—to be presented to the public inquiry?

The Post Office is a national institution, but its reputation has been severely damaged by this scandal. I finally ask: what steps are being taken to ensure that this can never happen again?

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I too thank the noble Earl for repeating this Statement. I recognise the good faith that the Under-Secretary of State in the Commons and the noble Earl have in trying to move this forward. As the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, said, this scandal is deeply shameful—one of the most deeply shameful incidents in public life, certainly in our lifetimes. It has involved lying, cover-up and deceit on an industrial scale and, to date, only the innocent have been punished.

Nevertheless, as I said, this announcement is a sincere attempt to inject some forward movement. As media reports have indicated, and as the noble Baroness set out, since the announcement, some of the victims will be freed from the need for an extensive claims assessment process through this offer. Others, some of the most egregiously harmed by this scandal, will rightly decline in anticipation of more appropriate compensation via a full assessment and, clearly, the Government have recognised this right, which is the right thing to do.

I sense and understand the Government’s frustration that only 86 out of an estimated 600 people who were damned by Horizon evidence have so far come through the process. Perhaps this new announcement will attract some people out, but I ask the Minister: what is plan B and what else are the Government going to do to try to inject further forward motion in this awful scandal? The process is grindingly slow and presents imposing challenges to people who have already been burned by their contact with the courts and the authorities. These are people who have been psychologically harmed by the system and now have to re-enter it to get recompense. Some element of psychological understanding has to go into coaxing these people to cross that line.

In the Commons, my honourable friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton asked a very pertinent question regarding subpostmasters who were dismissed but not prosecuted. In his thoughtful answer, Kevin Hollinrake MP highlighted the complexity and difficulty of processing claims. This is the nub of the problem and why things are grindingly slow. It is complex and difficult, and things are taking so long. Already, people have died and more will die before they find justice. I understand that this announcement is driven by a desire to move things forward, but can the Minister please undertake to carry back to his department your Lordships’ frustration and plea for greater urgency and more energy to make this move forward?

I have a question, which perhaps the Minister can explain now or write to us. Do the victims in this process, which is complex, have to prove themselves innocent, or is the assessment the other way around? It seems to me much harder to prove innocence than to refute guilt. Perhaps one way of moving this forward is to change the bar that people have to clear in the assessment process, and make it clear to them that it has been lowered and made easier. Perhaps we are applying too rigorous a standard for people who were so unrigorously prosecuted in the first place.

The elephants in the room in this inquiry are the roles played by the Post Office and Fujitsu, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, said. Here, I think the Government have been found wanting. The Government moved on the issue of senior employee bonuses, for which they deserve some praise, but, seemingly unchastened by this overall story, the Post Office is still taking an obfuscatory stance with respect to providing evidence to the inquiry and moving things forward, and it continues to be allowed to do so. Secondly, can the Minister confirm that Fujitsu remains commercially untouched by this and continues to bid and win government contracts—and can he tell us why?

This is a welcome announcement, but it is one step and there is a long way to go, so please can the Minister, who I know is working with us in good faith, work with his colleagues to find new ways to speed it up and find resolution and at least some end to this sorry story?

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill

Debate between Baroness Blake of Leeds and Lord Fox

Consideration of Commons amendments
Monday 11th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, in his opening dispatch the Minister praised those involved for the way in which the Bill has been modified and changed. The noble Lord, Lord Agnew, needs to take a lot of credit for how that modification has gone ahead, and the work that he has done and will have to continue to do in his role overseeing the Government’s response to this. I will not repeat anything that has already been said, other than to say that I agree.

The reason we are concerned about this issue is that the Government will rightfully say that they know who the names are in these trusts, but the issue we are talking about is the publication. It has been the role of civil society and journalists to uncover problems, and that has been very important in issues around this. If the Government can demonstrate that their commitment to enforcement, getting behind these trusts and exposing people who are using them to avoid issues is fully funded and fully backed by them, our relying on civil society—which we have had to do to date—would be less of an issue. That is why we support the quest by the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, on this, and will support him as he seeks to make sure that further steps are appropriate and that enforcement is at the heart of what we seek to achieve here.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, I start by thanking the Minister for the broader tidying up of the amendments in this group and by reflecting on the time, over several months, that we have been discussing these important issues. We must keep our eye on the scale of the issues that we are dealing with; they are immense, and they cost this country billions of pounds. We have a great deal to do to repair the UK’s reputation in the world, and I hope that we involved in this debate will all have our eyes on that prize.

I am pleased to say that we have seen some positive changes achieved through the passage of this Bill and a genuine appetite for change, as we experienced with our conversation with Companies House. We are going through an immense cultural change in the management of these affairs. As we know, it is the biggest shake-up for 170 years. I also pay tribute to everyone in the Chamber, and those who are not here today, for their diligence in the work that they have done, and to my colleagues in the other place, Dame Margaret Hodge and Seema Malhotra in particular. Months and months of work have gone into getting us to this place.

I am very grateful for the explanation that the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, gave. There is real recognition that there will be an ongoing need to scrutinise. I think we all accept the commitments in good faith, but we need to make it clear to Ministers and their officials that the interest is very live and that there will be close scrutiny as these matters roll up. Compromise has been reached on this—I accept that that is the reason we will not be taking the amendment to a vote—but we add our support to the ongoing scrutiny that will need to take place.

I also pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, for his persistence in this and his unique position having had experience in government, which has informed the approach he has taken and the concern that I think many would agree he has rightly raised. We are where we are—he has decided to accept the reassurances—but we also have an insight into those elephant traps that he referred to. I also reference the comments of my noble friend Lord Eatwell on the explicit need for vigilance.

With those comments, and thanking everyone for the spirit of compromise, I reassure everyone that we will look closely at this, and we very much hope that the measures being brought in today will be sufficient. We will look to those delegated powers that have been built in to make sure that, if change is necessary, it will indeed be made.

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill

Debate between Baroness Blake of Leeds and Lord Fox

Report stage
Tuesday 20th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, there are political Bills, where the House divides on political issues and argues among itself, and there are Bills of practical importance, when the House can come together and pull in the same direction. We will not all agree about everything, but the motives behind what we are proposing have been similar. In this case, it is about helping to clear up and clean up a bad situation, and to do so in the best possible way. The Minister and his colleagues, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, must be congratulated on their openness and their listening ears. They have not just listened but acted on what they heard, and we should all be grateful that we have moved in this direction.

I am pleased that I can agree with the noble Lords, Lord Leigh of Hurley and Lord Agnew, in their characterisation of these changes, which are important. I think the change to the mission of Companies House is absolutely fundamental. It is vital that it is there, and it then plays to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, about the culture change, as well as, I think, giving the flexibility and understanding that—again, as the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, said—this is going to be a mobile struggle that we have to move forward.

This group of amendments is followed by other groups which are other examples of where listening has turned into positive changes. From these Benches, we are really pleased that we are moving in this direction, and are grateful that we have done that. As we have heard, the Bill is improving as a result. So we are very supportive of these measures, and continue to be supportive of the other measures that we will hear about later.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, I add my thanks to the Ministers for their regular updates, and the access we have had to their officials. The ability to meet the team from Companies House was particularly helpful and instructive. I too believe that we have a better Bill before us.

Having said that, we must not forget the scale and severity of the consequences of actions of bad actors, particularly the exposure of the public to fraud, nor the victims, who have suffered so appallingly over many years. As we know, the Ukraine war has brought all these issues to a head, necessitating a swift response. I thank everyone involved for responding positively to some of the many proposals that we have put forward.

I will refer particularly to Amendment 2, with regard to the fourth objective. It would be wrong of me not to mention the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, as has been mentioned, was very forceful in his views that the objective surely must be to prevent unlawful activities rather than to minimise them, as was the earlier wording. I also welcome the change to the third objective, and the increase in the ability of the registrar to strike off companies and take swift action. Again, I think that running through this is the emphasis on the ability to act quickly with clarity.

I acknowledge the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, which would bring in a framework of intervention criteria to assist the registrar, and particularly Amendment 57, which recognises the sheer scale of the task ahead of Companies House and seeks full, regular scrutiny. I want to put on record our concern about the sheer scale of the task ahead of Companies House and make it plain that we must communicate to everyone involved that there is a fallback position and that it can come back if the resources are not adequate for the job it has in hand. The scale of change it has to go through, from being a receiver of information to a proactive partner, is quite significant.

I again thank the Ministers involved for their openness and for having moved on a number of our suggestions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox (LD)]

The Minister will be blushing with the fulsome praise that he has received. I think he described it as a significant package of improvements and as major steps. The noble Lord, Lord Agnew, went further and described them as revolutionary changes. The Minister can be sure that he has hit an important nail very firmly on the head with this set of amendments. I think we all believe that this makes the Bill a much better Bill, and for that, we are very pleased.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I rise just to add our support for the amendments. I emphasise the concern that has been raised in Amendment 93 from the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, in terms of recognising the significant function that HMRC has. I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, with interest. I think there is some issue with looking at the two functions equally and making sure there is no conflict between them.

Carer’s Leave Bill

Debate between Baroness Blake of Leeds and Lord Fox

Friday 19th May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, this is a very worthy Bill and one that I am glad to see through to its final reading. We know that caring can take many guises, and providing unpaid care for a family member, friend, neighbour or dependant is a reality for many millions of people across the UK and is something that almost everyone will experience either directly or indirectly through their lives.

New findings from Carers UK and the University of Sheffield released earlier this month show that unpaid carers in England and Wales now contribute a staggering £445 million to the economy of England and Wales every day—that is £162 billion per year of voluntary work and the equivalent of a second NHS in England and Wales.

At an individual level, staying in work while providing care for a relative or friend can be incredibly challenging. Latest estimates show that over 7 million people in the UK are juggling work and unpaid care and, every year, more than 1.9 million people in paid employment become unpaid carers. The stresses and strains of having to juggle paid work alongside unpaid care without the support they need has left many exhausted and burnt out, and too often it is impossible for them to manage. As a result, on average, 600 people per day have had to leave work because they need to provide care. Many others have had to reduce their hours.

Research shows that having a supportive employer and the ability to take time off work to support dependants can mitigate those pressures. That is why this Bill would create a new entitlement for employees to take up to a week of unpaid leave a year in order to provide or arrange care for a dependant with a long-term care need, and it is why it is so important. I am delighted that my Liberal Democrat colleague in the Commons, Wendy Chamberlain MP, brought forward this Private Member’s Bill with government support, for which I express my thanks.

The Bill will provide, on day one, a right to one week of unpaid leave for carers in employment, with the flexible option to take as little as half a day at a time. This will be available to all employees providing care for a dependant with a long-term care need. Carers will have the time and flexibility for their caring responsibilities and to make the required preparations for the future, such as being able to take half-days off for medical appointments. The Bill will give carers the opportunity to be able to put work to one side and focus solely, for that time, on their caring responsibilities without the added pressures of having to juggle both duties. Although the Bill does not provide carers with a paid leave right, it will nevertheless go a long way towards helping to relieve the financial burden by providing carers with the confidence of job security. It is also an important step in recognising the role of carers in the workplace.

I am pleased that the Bill will support women in particular to stay in work, as they are more likely to juggle work and care and to be a part-time, rather than a full-time, worker. Indeed, the impact assessment produced for the Bill recognises this, stating:

“In the context of the gender pay gap, the fact that women are more likely to provide care means that they are more likely to face adverse employment effects associated with caring i.e., lower earnings and leaving the labour market”.


I hope that the Bill will bring some peace of mind to all employed carers so that they can live in the certainty that their jobs are secure while they are caring for their dependants. I beg to move.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome this stage of this important Bill. I acknowledge the very rich debate we had at Second Reading, including the incredible personal testimony from so many Members on behalf of their own families and people they had met in their communities or work. As the noble Lord, Lord Fox, laid out, this is an important first step, but we need to acknowledge that there is still much more to do. I emphasise, to avoid any confusion, that this refers to unpaid leave, although many arguments have been made to move to paid leave.

We have heard very clearly that the Bill will help to relieve the stress and isolation that carers often experience—the loneliness, the impact on mental health and, as we have heard, the disproportionate impact on women. But what we also know, which is not emphasised enough, is that the Bill will benefit employers by reducing the risk of the absenteeism, turnover and retention of staff.

All that remains is to thank Wendy Chamberlain MP, the Bill’s sponsor in the other place; the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for bringing it to the Lords; and the cross-party support we have seen. I also refer to the work by Carers UK from which we have all benefited. I thank carers and their families who have shared their stories and experiences. In particular, I make special mention of my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley; she is very sorry not to be able to be here today. I thank her again for her tireless work over many years and her absolute determination to make progress on this really significant issue.

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill

Debate between Baroness Blake of Leeds and Lord Fox

Committee stage
Thursday 11th May 2023 Grand Committee

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak very briefly—I am sure the Minister will be glad to know that. I am intrigued by Amendment 109 because it complicates the process of bringing the Bill into being quite a lot. There are a lot of moving parts set out in Amendments 109 and 110 for the Bill to start to be effective. The simple question is: from start to finish—from Royal Assent to when everything is working and all parts are moving—what is the Government’s estimate as to long it will take to fulfil all the steps set out in these amendments?

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I too will speak very briefly. I note the comments about consultation with devolved authorities. Given concerns about the extent of consultation in other areas, can the Minister reassure us that it is adequate, and deemed adequate by the devolved authorities? That is a clear theme running through some of the legislation.

We have discussed—we will revisit it, I am sure—the issue of failure to prevent and the specific mention of large organisations. We understand that keeping it to large organisations will not capture a broad enough spectrum of the businesses that we are covering. Having said that, I recognise that this is a tidying-up exercise. With further amendments we might revisit some of the issues at a future stage, but I would be grateful if the Minister could respond to those comments.

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill

Debate between Baroness Blake of Leeds and Lord Fox

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th April 2023 Grand Committee

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, it is with more than a little trepidation that I will speak on this group of amendments, with two noble and learned Lords sat behind me. In his opening observations, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, got the SLAPPs argument a bit back to front. My noble friend Lord Thomas worded the SLAPPs amendment in the way that he did so as not to include the non-economic crime aspects of SLAPPs. That was exactly to avoid the issue that I think the noble and learned Lord highlighted in saying that SLAPPs would drag other criminal definitions into the Bill. My noble friend’s careful wording was designed specifically to avoid that, but no matter.

More generally, there is a functionality in Schedule 9 which, if taken away, we will lose: the ability to put offences in and take them out using regulation. That is included in Clause 83 on page 165. If the noble and learned Lord is successful in his campaign, he needs to consider putting that back in, because in future we do not want to have to use primary legislation to achieve that objective. That is something to look at.

On the final amendment to Clause 183, Amendment 90 —with the names of the four riders of the apocalypse on it—again I take the noble and learned Lords’ points about client privilege. I have one question for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. If a solicitor is taken on and starts through their client privilege to find things that they do not like, I assume that they would be encouraged to walk away from that client. Not having been in that situation, I would like to understand what the professional advice is. Do they carry on and sit behind privilege or is a solicitor essentially encouraged to walk away from a client when they begin to uncover things through that privilege that they find to be illegal or immoral?

There is another debate to be had at the beginning of the next sitting, where we talk about failure to prevent. It is quite clear that the point raised here cuts into the failure to prevent debate. I encourage both noble and learned Lords to be present for that because their point here is absolutely relevant to the failure to prevent debate, and we have to have those two debates almost together. I hope that they will be able to make time on Thursday to join in that debate.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I do not have an enormous amount to add but I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, for his comments and for the full explanation of the amendments before us in this group.

I will add a concern about the removal of the schedule naming the offences. Perhaps we will need to have a better understanding of why that would be an advantage, but I remain to be convinced on that point. On Amendment 90, I do not have much to add to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, which lead to a need for greater clarification before we can move on from this.

Subsidy Control Bill

Debate between Baroness Blake of Leeds and Lord Fox

3rd reading
Monday 28th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I will start by sharing our concern at the information the Minister gave regarding the devolved authorities. We look forward to being involved in ongoing consultation and discussions as time goes forward. I echo the comments already made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, and the noble Lords, Lord Wigley and Lord Dodds, on this issue.

I think it is fair to say that this Bill might not have been noticed by as many people as the more high-profile Bills that are going through the House at the moment, but everyone who has been involved in it recognises the significance of the work undertaken and just how deep the implications are for how public money will be spent for years to come. As we made clear from the outset, we agreed with the Government’s core principles in this area, including introducing greater flexibility through the removal of pre-notification requirements. However, as we have stressed throughout the debates on this Bill, with power comes responsibility. It is for this reason that we have focused on increasing the transparency obligations on public authorities, as the Minister just outlined. We are talking about large sums of public money, which must be easily accounted for and deliver real value for money. Unfortunately, we have had too many examples recently where we cannot claim that that is the case.

However, we are very grateful to the Minister and to the Whip, the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, for their genuine engagement on these matters. Although we did not achieve everything that we would have liked, we believe the Bill is much improved as a result of the substantial package of concessions brought forward on Report.

I would like to echo our profound thanks to everyone involved through the Bill team. Our access to officials has been particularly helpful; they have been very open. It has enabled us to delve into the detail and discuss potential ways forward, whether legislative or non-legislative.

Despite good progress being made in most areas, there are significant concerns in others—particularly, as we have already highlighted, in relation to the involvement or otherwise of the devolved Administrations and the substantial financial and practical barriers imposed on SMEs and others if they wish to challenge individual subsidies. A particular concern of the business community is the lack of clarity in the guidance around the decision-making on when subsidies will be awarded.

We will have a review, as is outlined in the Bill, of some of these matters in three years’ time, and we hope the Government will act quickly in response to the findings. Until then, we hope public authorities will make the most of this new framework. In particular, I am appreciative that the Government listened to all the arguments about focusing and directing money towards areas with economic deprivation. This is a welcome shift from the Government across this area.

Another regret is failing—just—to pass the amendment to improve the Bill’s green credentials. We hope all levels of Government will continue to have regard to the fight against climate change. Pursuing a net-zero strategy is not just a statutory duty but a moral one. I firmly believe we have missed a trick by not more firmly linking net-zero obligations to the awarding of subsidies.

All that remains is to thank all colleagues who took part during the Bill’s various stages—particularly, as has been highlighted, the noble Lords, Lord Fox, Lord Lamont, Lord Ravensdale and Lord Wigley, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan. I would like to pay tribute to my noble friend Lord McNicol. Unfortunately, he cannot be with us today, but I think we all recognise the amount of work he put in. I would like also to add my thanks to all the staff, clerks and doorkeepers in the normal manner. I end by thanking sincerely Dan Stevens, the officer in our office, for his unfailing patience, support, and clarity of thought and purpose, and for helping us to put down the improvements sought.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, it is genuinely pleasing to see the Minister looking in a substantially better state than he did at the end of Report. I am pleased that he is back up and at the Dispatch Box.

As the Minister has repeatedly told us throughout the process, this Subsidy Control Bill is a consequence of the TCA. The Minister also claimed that it was rare for such controls to exist in other countries around the world, and said it would be a permissive regime, the antithesis of the regime it is replacing. So it is something of a legislative experiment as it goes forward.

Since its introduction, as has been stated, improvements have been made, and the Bill leaves your Lordships’ House much improved. My noble friends, Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition and some important voices from the Cross Benches and Conservative Benches have helped to make these improvements, along with the work of the Minister and his colleagues.

But noble Lords would expect me to say that it remains a flawed Bill. As was highlighted, it is more transparent—but a £99,999 subsidy need not be reported, and that remains a very large sum of money that can be passed from government to business without a report. It invests some powers to the CMA, but insufficient authority. I align myself with the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, on the subject of the burden on SMEs and the absence of any net-zero quantity.

The biggest uncertainty hanging over the Bill, as far as we can see, is this: if it is permissive, what will it permit? True to the nature of this Government, they have delivered a Bill that is not designed to deliver a strategy—almost the opposite. By permitting authorities to deliver subsidies or subsidy schemes in their area of control, essentially independent of schemes in adjacent areas, they are creating the potential for huge confusion and conflict, with money flowing from the richest areas back into their own communities to ensure that they remain the richest areas. The failure to grasp the need to map deprivation systematically could well render this system very divisive.

My noble friend Lord German used the Welsh example, but I will use an English one, because the Minister is the English Minister. As we know, EU funding in Cornwall over the seven years from 2014 to 2020 was nearly €600 million. This was based on a realistic assessment of the relative poverty of that county. The proof of this Government’s subsidy scheme, system or control, and of their promises, will be how much UK money flows into Cornwall.

As the Minister mentioned, there was the whole devolution issue. I will not repeat all the arguments, but the Government’s mantra of repeating over and again “It is a reserved issue” does not represent negotiation, nor is it designed to win the hearts and minds of those who sit on the edge of the unionist/separatist divide—quite the opposite; to then include agriculture, which is a devolved issue, in the Bill made matters substantially worse. We heard from the Minister that these were the issues driving the absence of legislative consent. Despite the many improvements we have seen, we on these Benches remain very concerned about the effect this Act will have on the union, but I will pass from this critique and move on to the Oscars ceremony part—the Minister can be assured that I do not mean that part of it.

I again thank the Minister. He showed remarkable fortitude during the Bill’s passage, along with his Whip, the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, who showed the customary availability and relatively good humour. Those in Bill team itself were, as usual, authoritative and helpful. I thank them, as set out by the Minister.

During the debates, the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, the noble and learned Lords, Lord Thomas and Lord Hope, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, made significant contributions that helped to shape the Bill. On these Benches, my noble friends Lady Sheehan, Lady Randerson, Lady Humphreys, Lord German, Lord Bruce and Lord Purvis offered wisdom and experience. In the office, making sure that the whole thing held together, we must once again thank Sarah Pughe, along with Dan in the Labour office, who helped to drive us along.

So the Minister will have his Act. Whether it is indeed a subsidy control regime remains to be seen. I think many of us still suspect that it is actually a mechanism for central government to parachute schemes into areas of its choice, unchallengeable by devolved authorities, local authorities or indeed the CMA.

Subsidy Control Bill

Debate between Baroness Blake of Leeds and Lord Fox

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Report stage
Tuesday 22nd March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I rise to support briefly Amendments 3, 51 and 61. On the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and our Green friend, I was not aware that this scheme excluded small projects. What it will exclude is us finding out about them as they will all come in under the threshold and will not be reported. I hope that the Minister can perhaps come back and report on them; we will not find them in the database.

We have heard fantastic speeches on Amendments 3, 51 and 61. I will not repeat them but want to pre-empt a little what the Minister’s response might be. I have a hint of that; I suspect that he is guided by his feelings about Ukraine. Since its invasion, the mood will have changed, and that will be his line. The Russians are indeed committing atrocities in Europe as we speak, and it is terrible, but the climate crisis is not standing back while this happens. With this amendment, we are asking the Government to walk and chew gum at the same time. Yes, we have to deal with the consequences of the war and we understand how hard that is, but we have to do that within the context of attacking the net-zero challenge. Unless the Minister can officially announce that global warming is performing a ceasefire, this amendment has to be there for us to meet both the important things that this country has to face right now.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, for tabling her amendments and sorry that she cannot be here to move them today; I am grateful that my noble friend Lord Whitty stepped into the breach much more than adequately. I want also to recognise the contribution of the debate and the importance of getting on to the front foot with its urgency on such a range of different issues. Obviously we have the climate emergency, but we have to mention Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine and the West’s urgent discussions about how to lower its dependence on Russian oil and gas.

These discussions are happening at the highest possible level. For some, I fear that they will give a convenient excuse to promote activities that will cause significant environmental damage if unchecked, whether that is firing up coal-fired power stations, resuming fracking, or indeed Shell’s announcement just this morning that it will look again at the Cambo field. For many, the focus is on the acuteness of the energy security issues that we are facing, which have come to the forefront, and the ever greater need to develop energy self-sufficiency; that means focusing on the climate imperative together with security issues, regeneration and the new green jobs that will come along.

Following COP 26, the UK remains a key player in driving implementation of the various agreements reached. What hope do we have of ensuring that other countries follow through on their commitments if we do not play our leading role in this global fight? Another aspect is that we know the Government want a degree of flexibility for public authorities at every level, but we do not see anything in Amendment 3 that takes that flexibility away. The Minister has been keen to use the example of Welsh steel during our discussions on this matter. If, when conducting the so-called balance test, the Welsh Government decide that the short-term economic benefits outweigh the costs of emissions, they will be able to award the subsidy. However, as a general principle, public money should be used for public good, and what greater public good can there be than preserving our planet for future generations?

Now is the time for us to double down on our commitments to renewables and nuclear rather than being swayed by those who are seeking to turn back the clock. I finish by picking up on the comments of my noble friend Lord Whitty about pressing Amendment 3 to a vote. If he does indeed decide to do so, we will support him.

Commercial Rent (Coronavirus) Bill

Debate between Baroness Blake of Leeds and Lord Fox

Committee stage
Thursday 10th February 2022 Grand Committee

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, I also extend our thanks to the Minister for his courtesy, as always, and for picking up these—as he made clear—technical issues. We have received numerous representations on the Bill from stakeholders. I was pleased to hear the Government picking up some of the very detailed concerns about liabilities. We recognise Amendments 11 and 12 as positive, reflecting the concerns raised by stakeholders. I shall be interested in hearing the clarifications from the Minister on the points raised by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, particularly on definitions. The complexity of these areas makes us all try to look at the unintended consequences that could flow from making one change. Sadly, we know the pressures that so many of these businesses and tenants are under and the potential risk to their future liability.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

With apologies to the Minister, I forgot to complete what I was going to ask with respect to government Amendments 11 and 12. Would they in any way change the relationship with former tenants who have unpaid rent when it comes to the process of recovering that rent? That was not clear to me from what the Minister said, probably because it was not the intention of what he was describing. Can he clarify that they would not in any way downgrade the landlord’s ability to pursue unpaid debt from a former tenant?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I am grateful for the contribution that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, has made in this grouping and look forward to the discussions that we will have, recognising the additional amendment in this group.

I again thank the Minister for the attention to detail in representing the representations from stakeholders —importantly, from both tenants and landlords. I thank him, too, for his letter responding to the concerns raised by noble Lords at Second Reading. I just want to make the point about understanding the real pressure that businesses, tenants and landlords are under at the moment. It has been an incredibly difficult winter for many businesses, as we know and, of course, we are in a situation where we face ongoing pressures from the national insurance rise, energy costs and inflationary pressures. It is a time of great uncertainty for many people affected by the Bill before us. We welcome the moves forward as outlined in the Bill, recognising the complexity and the absolute need to get the detail right, but also the time pressures and the fact that the clock has been ticking for many businesses for some time now.

Of course, running through all that, it is essential that stakeholders have confidence in the system. The reason for Amendment 2 is the need to ensure absolutely that bodies under subsection (1) have adequate resources and sufficient numbers of arbitrators. Through this amendment, we seek reassurance with regard to immediate capacity, but I would also like to ask about evidence and what understanding there is of how much work has been done on resourcing the needs and future demands on services for all those involved. It is essential that everyone feels that they have proper access to a fair hearing. I should like the assurance that all due consideration has been given to the proposed nature of the hearings.

I understand that the assumption is that the hearings will be in public and that oral hearings may be desired by the parties involved. Could that have an undue impact on costs? Would they add to the capacity requirements of the arbitrators? Am I right to understand that a document-only approach would allow for a more efficient process? Is that the understanding behind the direction of travel, and would this be seen to keep costs and time lower?

We understand from our discussions at Second Reading that many cases have now moved to be settled. Would we be right in assuming that the outstanding ones may well be more complex, which explains why they are moving forward to seeking arbitration, as laid out? My question remains: has a full assessment been undertaken with regard to the demands of the services of arbitrators? I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, will expand on the issues around accessibility to the services.

Amendment 3 would increase the transparency of the arbitrator’s decision, which we have emphasised in the debates in the other place—and I refer to the discussions that were held there.

I regard Amendment 5 as positive and, again, is one that we tabled in the other place. We are concerned that the arbitration fees could be the final cost to push landlords and businesses over the edge. Therefore, we consider that the Secretary of State should ensure that fees are capped. As I said at the outset, this is a time when costs are escalating in so many different areas; we would like the absolute assurance that this area has been considered and controlled.

Can we also be assured that arbitration fees and expenses will be proportionate to the arrears that have caused the dispute? High arbitration costs will have a huge impact on businesses that are doing everything they can to emerge from the pressures that they have been facing. The fact that they need to go to arbitration highlights those pressures. Will the Minister expand on the powers that the Secretary of State will have to make regulations specifying limits on the fees and expenses of arbitrators? What circumstances would lead to the Secretary of State becoming involved, and how will affordability be judged?

With regard to Amendment 7, also in my name, can the Minister say more about what, in his view, constitute viable and unviable businesses? Further, could he expand on what guidance will be provided to arbitrators? Do we know how much flexibility they will have? We all recognise the difficulty of defining what constitutes viability or affordability, but this is such an important area that we need to push further to make sure that we have a clearer definition. That is why we seek more answers in this area and to add more depth to some of our previous discussions.

The noble Lord, Lord Fox, has tabled Amendment 7A, and I shall listen with interest—sorry, this is a double use of the word—to the cap on interest. I am interested in the interest on the interest. With those points, I beg to move.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 3, 5 and 7A in my name, and in support of the other amendments in the group, most of which I countersigned and one that I, mysteriously, did not. I am not sure why, because I agree with it completely. It certainly does not have any lower rating because I failed to sign it.

My three amendments are relatively self-explanatory and I shall be brief, but the Minister should not mistake that brevity for the idea that I do not think they are important. I can speak for longer if necessary. Amendment 3 would ensure that arbitration decisions are easily accessible. The basis for that is that, although we do not have long to get through this process, building up a body of case law, or case decision-making, will be important for consistency. What worries me most is complete inconsistency in how these rulings are made. I think we will come to the last point that the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, made about viability, which is where inconsistency will be most a problem. One starting point is to publish fully and accessibly. It would be better if the Government had their own website which scraped them up and put them all in one place so that people would not have to go to various places but, at the very least, they should be easily available somewhere.

Amendment 5, which has some crossover with parts of Amendment 6, requires the Secretary of State to make regulations specifying limits on arbitration fees. The Minister will see that the word “may” is employed, and I am sure he will tell us that this is a legislative trope and that this is how it is done. That is what I expect. Therefore, it will be sufficient if the Minister stands up at the Dispatch Box and says that such regulation will be brought forward at the earliest opportunity and the word “may” remains in the legislation. That would clearly clarify the Government’s intention as to whether this process will happen.

I apologise for the late arrival of Amendment 7A, and I really appreciate the help of the Public Bill Office and others in drafting it so that it is in scope of the Bill. The aim of this amendment is to put a cap on the level of interest that can be baked into the arbitration. This is important because otherwise it will be a lever used in the negotiation. In other words, the landlord will say, “Yes, I’ll do this deal but I expect interest of X or Y”, and clearly that interest level may not be to the advantage of the tenant. Therefore, putting this in removes that lever from the arbitration process. It knowingly and deliberately moves it so that the negotiation is on different ground. The Minister will have noted that I often speak up against secondary legislation—indeed, we have some coming later—but in this case it seems to me that Amendments 5 and 7A are good examples of what secondary legislation was designed for.

I turn briefly to the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Blake. Amendment 2 is a sensible measure to ensure that there are sufficient arbitrators. The Minister has said on occasion that there are sufficient, but to some extent he is relying on the word of the organisations concerned. I think it unlikely that they would say, “No, Minister, we can’t do it”. This amendment forces that assurance process a little harder.

Amendment 6 further supports Amendments 5 and 2, in my view. I thank the Minister for his letter. One element of that was to set out the distribution of potential cases. The question I have is whether the availability matches the potential cases. For example, it seems that there is a concentration of potential cases in the south-east, and it seems likely to me that there is probably a concentration of resources for arbitration in the south-east. But what of the towns where the commercial infrastructure has dwindled and where there are not the people who fit the arbitration photofit that the Minister described? How has the Minister ascertained that those towns, cities and villages, which will need arbitration just as much as the bigger places, will have the supply they need? If they do not have the supply locally, on their doorstep, how will that be supplied otherwise? It is not just whether they are sufficient in the country but whether the footprint of those arbitrators matches the expected need.

Then we come to Amendment 7, the one I did not sign, which is strange because I think it is really important. The questions I asked in the debate before Second Reading were, “What is viability?” and “On what forward data is viability assessed?”. One percentage point on expected interest rates, one or two percentage points different on expected inflation and one percentage point up or down on the RPI are the difference between life and death for a business. When the arbitrator sits down at looks at viability, from where is that arbitrator going to get that data and how can we ensure that the data is consistent? The Treasury and the Bank of England often get it wrong when it comes to forecasting data—with all due respect to the Deputy Chairman’s son, who I believe has the job of making some of that data. The point is that we have to use something. Is it up to the arbitrator to decide which projection for RPI, which interest rate data and which inflation data are to be used? This is the difference.

What does viability mean? Is it wiping your face in the colloquial, is it a 5% return on capital employed or what? What do we mean? How do we make sure that businesses are not shut down that in other places are determined viable? This is a difficult question to answer but it is a crucial point, on which the effectiveness of this legislation will turn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, we are on the last group— so soon. The amendment

“would require the Secretary of State to review the impact of this Act four months after the Act has been passed.”

That is unusual because, normally, the review process is one year, or five years, or whatever. However, we need to look at Clause 9, which sets a time limit of six months from when the Act is invoked or enacted for people to submit their process. I may have misunderstood —if so, I hope the Minister can put me right—but, if that is the case and that six months is a serious period, we need to assess the progress of this Bill in time for the Minister to roll it forward; the Bill makes provision for that, as I understand it.

We have talked about availability; the Minister has said that he will keep this under review. We have talked about cost; the Minister has said that he will keep this under review. We have talked about regional distribution and how that works; the Minister has said that he will keep this under review. My amendment would create a process that allows this review to happen formally so that your Lordships’ House and the Commons have time to roll this forward if some of the issues that we have discussed are preventing the process going forward.

I want to say one thing on the subject of fees. It comes back to a point that I ask the Minister to continue to review. As the noble Lord—Lord who? Sorry, Lord Thurlow—pointed out, there are a lot of ancillary costs other than the cost of the arbitration process itself; there is the cost of preparing for it, for example. In the end, this can be a loaded gun that the landlord—or the tenant, depending on which way it goes—can use. In other words, “It’s going to cost you this anyway so you might as well give me that”. I do not think that that is the purpose of this Bill. The Bill’s purpose is not to enrich massively dozens of service industries; it is designed to keep commerce rolling. One thing that must be reviewed, and one reason why we are keen to have this four-month review, is the question of whether the cost of fees is causing unfair settlements to occur. With that, I beg to move.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I am pleased to put my name to Amendment 10 and stand here to support it.

Constant reference has been made to monitoring the progress of the matters we have discussed, in particular to assessing the impact on all parties in the spirit of fairness and consistency. I believe that such a review would be welcomed by all parties: landlords, tenants and arbitrators. We must ensure that it is fully understood and clear as to whether the system is well understood, is working well and, most of all, is bringing benefit to those areas where it is needed most.

I would not be persuaded if the argument against this was that it would be onerous or too costly. The cost of failure in an area such as this would be far greater than the cost of keeping a close eye on progress and making sure that adjustments can be made if they are deemed appropriate.

With those few comments, I am pleased to support the amendment.

Subsidy Control Bill

Debate between Baroness Blake of Leeds and Lord Fox

Committee stage
Wednesday 9th February 2022 Grand Committee

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, for tabling these amendments. At Second Reading and over the past three and a half days of Committee, we have repeatedly come back to how the new subsidy regime interacts with the broader provisions contained in the United Kingdom Internal Market Act.

As we know, the Government have clearly classified subsidy control as a reserved matter, but there a number of sectors where local or devolved interests may conflict with the wider interests of the internal market Act. The Government repeatedly come back to the notion that the new regime should facilitate the smooth functioning of the internal market. However, if we return to Monday’s discussions about Northern Ireland’s unique position and the inclusion of agriculture, we have to accept that those issues have raised more questions than answers when it comes to how the new regime will balance competing interests.

It is fair to say that some of the responses that we have had thus far have not been entirely convincing, and some of the answers given by the Minister seem to have highlighted the complexity of the issues that we are discussing and, therefore, the need to raise the matters in these amendments.

The wording “even-handedly”, as raised in Amendment 72 and used in other legislation, is particularly interesting. What is the Minister’s personal interpretation of that? How will it be administered and who will make the judgments, if it is deemed that unfairness is built into some of the decisions that are made?

We are repeatedly told when debating this Bill as well as when discussing whole rafts of government policy in other areas that there is a commitment to devolution and that is the most important thing—but, in the same breath, the Government say that subsidies must not undermine the internal market. How can both those statements be true?

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, this is an interesting debate. I originally set out, as Committee stages are wont to do, to tease out some minor details and things from this legislation, but it is clear that there is a major philosophical point that needs to be established before the minor details can be filled in.

Perhaps the Minister can cast himself back to when he was at school. I am sure that he popped into the odd mathematics lesson. He may well have come across a thing called a Venn diagram. For those who missed that particular week, a Venn diagram is made up of a number of circles. The degree to which they intersect indicates the amount of common area that they have—and perhaps the Minister is beginning to understand the direction of travel.

The issue here is that the Minister is asserting that, when it comes to subsidies, essentially, the internal market Act and this Subsidy Control Bill are discrete circles—that is circles that barely intersect or do not do so at all. We have ministerial assertion, and then we have the words as written in Bills and Acts. My noble friend Lord Purvis carefully and usefully filleted the words from the internal market Act, which seem to indicate that there is a large element of common ground with respect to subsidies between these two circles—these two pieces of legislation. Therefore, it is not possible to unpick the words and aims of the internal market Act when talking about subsidies.

My noble friend set out some of the potential contradictions. I will be simpler, because I am a simpler person. Reading those two pieces of legislation, and looking at words rather than hearing the Minister’s assertions, it seems to me that the Scottish Government could design a subsidies scheme. The CMA and the SAU within it, using this Subsidy Control Bill as their guide, as my noble friend set out, would indicate that this scheme is allowable and that market distortions are only minimal, as the Bill allows. The scheme could therefore be launched. However, the OIM—the Office for the Internal Market—would then analyse that subsidies scheme and detect that there are indeed distortions, albeit minimal ones, in that market. This information would be passed to the Secretary of State, who could, quite properly, then withdraw that scheme or cause it to be withdrawn; that is what the words in that Act and this Bill say. So I am interested to understand from the Minister why this might not be the case.

A separate and slightly smaller issue is that, within the CMA, we have the OIM and the SAU. Will these two organisations be operated discretely? Will there be Chinese walls between them in that they will operate under different Acts? Will they operate off the same data, or will they have to get their data separately? Indeed, coming back to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord German, will they share the same lawyers when push comes to shove?

We seem to have here two things that the Minister is trying to push apart but which the words bring closely together. The purpose of these amendments is to understand how the Minister can assert that these two worlds are separate when the words indicate quite the opposite.

Rating (Coronavirus) and Directors Disqualification (Dissolved Companies) Bill

Debate between Baroness Blake of Leeds and Lord Fox

Report stage
Wednesday 1st December 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

This amendment relates to part of the situation discussed in Committee: that this a hybrid Bill which has caused some conversation and comment over its different stages.

In moving Amendment 4 in my name, I will also reference Amendments 5 and 6. Amendment 4 would place an obligation on the Secretary of State to

“make a statement on the impact of this Act on the financial situation of the Insolvency Service”

and

“whether the Insolvency Service is sufficiently resourced to meet its obligations under this Act.”

As we know, the Bill removes the necessity for the Insolvency Service to apply to court to have dissolved companies restored before investigating said companies’ directors. In doing so, it makes it quicker and cheaper for the Insolvency Service to investigate the directors of dissolved companies.

Her Majesty’s Opposition are pleased at the closing of a legal loophole that for too long has allowed unscrupulous company directors to evade responsibility for their financial decisions. However, we remain concerned about whether the Insolvency Service has enough resources to carry out this extra work. We understand the concern caused by the behaviour of some directors in receipt of, for example, bounce-back loans and how the dissolution process might be being used inappropriately to shed liabilities. I should like to ask the Minister: do we have an assessment of the scale of the problem this is causing?

The Bill makes no mention of further funding for the Insolvency Service. Given that the Bill means that the service will be carrying out additional investigations, this is worrying and risks overstretching it. Can the Minister confirm that the service will be given the adequate funding to deal with this workload and ensure that all necessary investigations are carried out to a good standard? If the Minister argues against such a statement, as requested by Amendment 4, will he explain clearly how adequate resourcing for the service for these new powers will be included in its annual report? I beg to move.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 5 and 6 in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley.

Amendment 5 seeks to add a new clause that would require the Secretary of State to report on the resources and the powers available to both the Secretary of State and the Insolvency Service in relation to the Bill. It covers similar territory to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Blake. Despite the Minister’s comments in Committee that resources are always available for cases in the public interest, members of the insolvency and restructuring profession report that they often see cases involving significant breaches by directors that are not investigated and acted on. This would suggest that the Insolvency Service is currently resource-constrained.

That view is supported by looking at figures on the disqualification of directors of insolvent companies by the Insolvency Service. These show a roughly flat line of disqualifications made by the service over a number of years—a constant rate of disqualification, irrespective of economic conditions, trends or fluctuations in the number of corporate insolvencies. Again, that suggests a resourcing issue for the service.

That situation could get worse without a commitment to fund the additional cases that the Bill will create. We have therefore tabled our Amendment 5, which would require the Government to report six months after the Bill has been passed on whether the appropriate resources were available to undertake the additional investigations required as a result of the legislation.

I thank the Minister, who met me and the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, to discuss these amendments—I think very productively. It is clear that the Minister and the Insolvency Service grasp the point that the more resources that there are, the better the return, or likely return, to the taxpayer. We are looking for something from the Minister that indicates that Her Majesty’s Treasury shares this understanding. We of course do not want to upset delicate negotiations that may now be under way between the Minister’s department and the Treasury, but a clear indication that the resource issue is in hand would help negate the need for this amendment.

It would also be helpful if the Minister were able to comment on the nature of the cases that this legislation will enable. Our understanding is that the Bill gives the Insolvency Service the power to pursue recompense from the former directors of dissolved companies and that this can be done via compensation orders without the cost of reinstating the companies in question. The key issue for clarification is which creditors may benefit from these future compensation orders. Can he confirm that future beneficiaries will include all other creditors in addition to Her Majesty’s Treasury? The Minister has just nodded. Can he confirm that the Insolvency Service will include the plights of those other creditors in its calculation of the public interest when it decides which cases to pursue?

The second amendment, Amendment 6, would also add another clause. This time, it creates a requirement on the Secretary of State to report on the impact of the legislation on the investigations into the conduct of directors of dissolved companies. The principal purpose of this amendment is to weigh the success of the legislation by measuring and reporting its ability to claw back money from directors of dissolved companies. We know that the Insolvency Service already has a duty to report annually. However, at the moment, our reading is that the metric we propose here is not explicitly included in the list of requirements on which to report. Again, following discussions with the Minister, it seems reasonable for this “cash-back” criterion to be added to the Insolvency Service’s annual report agenda. We hope that his response to this amendment will do just that, rather than requiring primary legislation. I trust that he is able to make those undertakings.

Rating (Coronavirus) and Directors Disqualification (Dissolved Companies) Bill

Debate between Baroness Blake of Leeds and Lord Fox

Wednesday 10th November 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, for the avoidance of doubt, and for the Government Whip, just as the Government have changed Ministers, so we have changed Front-Benchers. I put that on the record. The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, who is no longer in his place, called this a hybrid Bill. Internally, I have called it the “kippers and custard Bill”, because it contains two completely different things, perhaps creating an unpalatable whole.

I also apologise for not being able to speak at Second Reading, for the same reason as most speakers: it was a moving target and most of us were involved in legislation elsewhere. That said, I was grateful to my noble friend Lady Pinnock, who represented my views on the director disqualification part of this Bill very well. I thank her. Noble Lords will be pleased to know that, despite the fact I was not here for Second Reading, I will not do a quasi-Second Reading speech at this point, but I will take a couple of minutes to set out my frame of reference for this group and the next so that it makes more sense.

I read the Hansard report of the Second Reading. As usual, I was struck by the great wisdom shown by your Lordships, but I was a little surprised to see one speech that characterised the whole insolvency and restructuring profession in a universally negative way. Although I am sure there are always examples of bad behaviour, I put on record that that is not my experience. By way of disclosure, I point out that R3, the organisation that represents the profession, has been very helpful in providing technical briefing to me on the Bill.

Businesses, especially smaller ones, rely on these services to get back as much of the money that they are owed as possible. That can be an existential issue for them. As things stand, some creditors are more equal than others. HMRC has always sought priority access to a failed company’s assets. We debated this long and hard during the passage of the Corporate Governance and Insolvency Bill—it seems a lifetime ago—where the Government promoted the interests of the tax authority a little higher. This Bill seeks to introduce powers to enable the Insolvency Service to investigate directors of companies that have been dissolved. Currently, the Insolvency Service can investigate directors of insolvent companies only. We should ask whether it seeks to achieve that on behalf of HMRC at the expense of other creditors. Will the Minister give us a specific assessment of how this new process will affect non-HMRC creditors?

There are accusations that the Government are in danger of not dealing with the loophole to deter fraudulent behaviour because this legislation is so tightly focused on bounce-back loan fraud. While the Government are likely to be a significant creditor in those cases, using this legislation in such a limited way would represent a missed opportunity to tackle the abuse of the company dissolution process more widely. I think that was what the noble Lord, Lord Lea, alluded to. Dissolving a company is a legitimate way of shutting a business down but it is often used to avoid scrutiny, as dissolution does not currently involve examination of the dissolved company’s finances by an external party, such as an insolvency practitioner. The Bill should be a chance to open this issue up.

We broadly support Amendment 3, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lea, and Amendment 7, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Blake. They both essentially probe when a company moves into dissolution. The noble Lord, Lord Lea, seeks to expose a possible pattern of director behaviour and the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, seeks to gain more data on the possible extent of such abuse through a duty of reporting for the Secretary of State. I do not think any of us would maintain that these amendments on their own would stamp out abuses, but at the very least they would cause a strong light to be shone on them.

I have a couple of other questions for the Minister. What steps will the Government take to ensure that investigations into directors of dissolved companies do not come at the expense of investigations into directors of insolvent companies? How will the Government determine which cases are in the public interest? The Bill’s impact assessment focuses on bounce-back fraud, but there are many other creditors in fraud cases. There is a huge public interest in helping ensure that all creditors are repaid. They are the businesses that contribute to the nation’s economy and without repayment they may become insolvent. This Bill risks becoming a missed opportunity to help this wider body of individuals and business if it is used to recoup government money only. Ensuring that creditors receive their fair share of any assets vested in a company requires the use of the insolvency framework to identify and distribute those assets. At the very least, will the Minister confirm that, where a company’s directors are found to be culpable, dissolved companies will be put through an insolvency process to ensure that returns to creditors can be made?

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I start by thanking my noble friend Lord Lea for moving his Amendment 3. I know that we will have further discussions on the issues relating to it.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Fox, I do not want to go over the extensive debate that both noble Lords missed at Second Reading. The points made were so pertinent; I think most of us will have received extensive correspondence around the circumstances in which different creditors, in particular, find themselves.

I will limit my comments on my amendment to drawing together all the expressions of concern from the previous discussions about the lack of scrutiny. There is a real sense about a course of action being followed that enables people who should not be practising an opportunity to continue doing so in other ways. Most of all, I ask the Minister to look at whether we could establish an inquiry into unlawful behaviours relating to dissolved companies.

The other question that has come out of these discussions concerns the capacity of the different organisations. Can the Minister confirm what assessment he has made of the Valuation Office Agency’s capacity to deal with non-Covid-related material changes in circumstances? Continuing on the issue of resource, there is real concern about BEIS and the Insolvency Service. We recognise and welcome the requirement for the Secretary of State to report on the resources and powers available to the Secretary of State, BEIS and the Insolvency Service in relation to this Bill.

I understand that support staff at BEIS, represented by the PCS union, recently announced the possibility of strike action. They called for improved working conditions and an end to low pay. Does the Minister expect that further support staff will be required by BEIS in order to undertake the fulfilment of the new responsibilities?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 4, I will also speak to Amendment 5 in my name. In doing so, I am conscious that I will be talking about some issues that we have already discussed as we have gone through the different stages of the Bill.

Amendment 4

“would place an obligation on the Secretary of State to report the number of former directors of dissolved companies investigated and disqualified by the Insolvency Service.”

The purpose of this is to collect data on whether the provisions in Clauses 2 and 3 would work as intended: to help to understand the sufficiency of the Insolvency Service’s funding and resourcing, as we have already highlighted. This relates to Amendment 5, which

“would place an obligation on the Secretary of State to make a statement on the impact of this Act on the financial situation of the Insolvency Service.”

I have tabled these amendments in the hope that the Government will give further information on their plans to fund the Insolvency Service properly and allay our ongoing concerns about its resourcing. At present, the Bill makes no mention of further funding for the Insolvency Service, despite creating new obligations to carry out investigations.

The provisions in the Bill to remove the restoration hurdle mean that the Insolvency Service will now be expected retrospectively to investigate the directors of dissolved companies and then apply to court for a disqualification order to be made against the said directors. Can the Minister estimate how many additional staff will be required to carry out just the retrospective investigations and, separately, how many to apply for the new disqualification orders? I am sure that the Minister would agree that an overstretched Insolvency Service would benefit no one, but there is real concern at the moment around the Government giving new powers to the service without the resources to back it up.

At Second Reading, the Minister responded to these concerns by saying:

“The Insolvency Service’s resources are not limitless.”—[Official Report, 19/10/21; col. GC 55.]


We would certainly not argue that they should be; we are simply asking for a guarantee that the service will be supported to fulfil its new responsibilities. I beg to move.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I fully support the spirit of Amendments 4 and 5 and commend the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, on her presentation. I will speak primarily to Amendment 8, which is in my name and those of my noble friend Lady Pinnock and the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, whom I thank. As the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, said, we discussed much of the driving rationale behind these amendments during the previous group. I am not going to repeat that, so the Committee will be relieved to know that my speech will be shorter.

The heart of Amendment 8 is simple. It is a reporting amendment, similar in a sense to those tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, which is designed to help evaluate the usefulness of the approach as set out by the Government in their Bill. It is also designed to demonstrate whether there are adequate resources. I think the Minister is underplaying the concerns around resources, so I will approach it from the other end. If the Insolvency Service had, let us say, resources to investigate 12 cases and, because of the Covid crisis, 12 new and quite high-profile cases that were in the public interest arrive on the scene, then the 12 other cases that would have been examined would not be. That is the problem the Minister has failed to address. There need to be sufficient resources to cover not just the 12 currently top of the list, but the 12 that would have been had the Covid crisis not happened. The Minister needs to address that point. This amendment is designed to expose, or otherwise, the level of success we are having in that.

The success of this can also be judged by how effectively the tools that are available to recover money are working, so Amendment 8 also requires reporting on the appropriate mechanisms available to prosecute directors of dissolved companies. Finally, the proof of this pudding will be in how much money is recovered for HMRC and the other creditors—this is the important bit. That is why this amendment includes the requirement to report exactly how much money has been returned to creditors, which will demonstrate whether the current toolbox is adequate and whether the legislation is working.

It may also incentivise the Government to use the legislation to prosecute directors of dissolved companies and effectively deal with the firms themselves, so that returns can be made to the creditors. I refer the Minister to my previous point: this returned money is existential to a lot of companies. We see companies go down because their customers have done so. This amendment presents another way of shining light on the process and its effectiveness. The process is still unclear, so perhaps the Minister can take the opportunity of this amendment to set out exactly how the Government intend to prosecute culpable directors once they have been investigated. What existing measures will be employed and are new sanctions being considered?

While supporting the objectives of the Bill, I close where I started. There is evidence that the director disqualification regime will not be sufficient to recoup moneys. It will be too weak to deter rogue directors and compensation orders, in particular, will benefit only one creditor: HMRC. That is why we welcome further debate on this because it is important that the Government consider the impact of this fraudulent behaviour on all creditors, not just on themselves. I look forward to the Minister’s response with a view to pursuing this on Report.

Professional Qualifications Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Blake of Leeds and Lord Fox

Report stage
Tuesday 9th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I think we can all congratulate Members on their persistence on this issue and I have to tell noble Lords that my vocabulary has expanded at an enormous rate by being involved in the Bill. I have never heard the expression, “I am not assuaged” quite so often, but it clearly shows that we are moving in the right direction. As we have heard, there are still concerns and, given the lateness of the hour, I just want to add that with Amendment 18 we really feel that we would like to see statutory protection to ensure that the list is regularly maintained and updated. That is the question we have: we have achieved so much through the debate here, but how can we be reassured that the list will be kept updated and maintained, and how often will it happen? Because of our experience, we need a reassurance that the list will not be removed once the Bill has received Royal Assent. I will listen very carefully to the Minister’s reply.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I think no one has had a bigger headache on this list than the Minister himself and the department, but it was a headache, frankly, of their own making.

I am with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, on this: I think it should be a separate schedule. We proposed a mechanism in Amendment 19 by which this schedule might be created and maintained. The noble Baroness, Lady Blake, talked about keeping it updated: if it had not been for the scrutiny of your Lordships and the constant harrying of the Ministers, this list would not have been nearly right now. I suspect there are still amendments to go into it. For that reason, we think Parliament should hold on to a regulatory process and, through a statutory instrument, that schedule can be updated.

What we have sought to do in Amendment 19 is not to second-guess where the list is now—because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, pointed out, that is like catching a knife—but to give the Government a process by which a definitive list may be created, put in a schedule and updated easily and, I would say, flexibly through a statutory instrument. Why? Because this is not just a list of organisations on a website: there are rights and responsibilities that come with being on this list and, indeed, not being on this list. Which professions are going to be scrutinised to see whether demand is met or unmet? This is a really important issue that Parliament should continue to maintain scrutiny over.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, talked about the responsibilities of those organisations, but also the rights—which ones have the autonomy that the Minister’s amendment has granted and which are not part of this list? Furthermore, when the conversations are being had with the devolved authorities, a list gives weight to those discussions and gives a very clear indication of which professions are in and which are not. So, one way or another, putting it in the schedule is really important, as is a way in which that can be flexibly maintained, whereby Parliament maintains its ability to scrutinise that process; because without that scrutiny, where would we be now?

Professional Qualifications Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Blake of Leeds and Lord Fox

Committee stage
Tuesday 22nd June 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fox (LD)]

Once again, my Lords, I find myself following the wise words of the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Patel. In his speech, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, referenced the Trade Act. Students of the Trade Act will have heard me make a speech about secondary legislation on at least two occasions and I am not going to repeat it, but—spoiler alert—it was very similar to the speech the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, gave. The key element both of us brought out was the complete lack of government jeopardy when it comes to secondary legislation. In other words: it is essentially a bet that cannot be lost. What they are betting with is the right governance of a very important thing.

After several trailers from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, we come to this amendment. He has trailed this several times and the sunset clause is one way of putting some insurance into this Bill. What we would really like is for the Bill to leave this House not needing a sunset clause; that has to be the objective. This is very much a second-order or third-order solution to something sub-optimal. In that respect, I am not enthusiastic; I am somewhat reluctantly drawn to supporting this clause because we have to put in some element of insurance if we cannot get this right. I hope that, by hook or by crook, we can get the Bill right and perhaps not need a sunset clause, but in the meantime, we should keep that option open.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend Lord Hunt and the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for tabling Amendment 59. A four-year sunset clause is an interesting proposal, given the wider concerns that keep coming up throughout these debates: how quickly the Bill has been put together, the lack of thinking through of all the elements, and the concerns just raised by the noble Lord, Lord Fox.

Have the Government considered a mechanism for reviewing the Act’s effectiveness and, if so, what sort of review is the Minister proposing? I hope he will acknowledge the lack of confidence that has been expressed from all sides of this Chamber. I finish by asking the Minister to explain why the Bill’s provisions should last longer than four years, without a review mechanism.

Professional Qualifications Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Blake of Leeds and Lord Fox

Committee stage
Monday 14th June 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, this has been a short but important debate. I expect the Minister to stand up and say that EEA professionals whose qualifications were recognised before the end of the transition period will continue to be recognised, but I warn him—again, in the spirit of helpfulness—to be careful what he promises because there is a problem: how do we know who has qualifications?

For the 5 million-plus EU nationals who have applied for settled status, the Home Office has only been checking the box that says “settled status”. It has not been verifying all withdrawal agreement rights, including professional qualifications. If these people remain in the job they are in now, so be it, but in the event that they move to another job with a new employer, I do not know how the process of them verifying their professional qualifications will happen. When the Minister answers this question, he needs also to answer the question of how this process will be effected for the millions of people, potentially, who came through the mutual recognition process, meaning that their names may not have been—indeed, probably were not—gathered with all the regulating bodies. How will it be managed? As previous speakers have emphasised, the role that these people already play in the United Kingdom is not just important but vital. It is also vital that the Government understand that these people’s qualifications need to work not just for their current job but for their next job and the one after that.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I thank everyone for their contributions in this really important area. I join noble Lords in raising concerns about the impact of the Bill on the qualifications of those who already live and work in the UK.

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Patel and Lord Hunt, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, for signing my Amendment 60. Their expertise, especially in the medical and legal professions, has been incredibly helpful for this debate and for my first amendment to a Bill in this House. I could not be more appreciative of such cross-party support. I share the intention behind Amendment 37 and thank the noble Lords, Lord Palmer and Lord Fox, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for tabling it.

It is absolutely clear from the debate that we need to give those who already have their professional qualifications recognised in the UK certainty and confidence that this legislation will not affect them negatively, especially because, in many cases, the professionals and people working in these areas already live in our communities, have decided to call the UK their home and are people on whom all of us so often rely, particularly for our vital public services. This is especially true in the context of shortages, as the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, set out, picking up on the comments made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Fraser and Lady Finlay, about the whiff of doubt that exists at the moment.

We cannot repeat this frequently enough: last year, the number of non-British people here included 169,000 NHS staff in England, 122,000 staff on the Nursing and Midwifery Council’s register and 247,000 staff in social care. We are hugely grateful to all these key workers—especially for their efforts during the pandemic. As I said at Second Reading, we cannot clap for carers today then strip them of their qualifications tomorrow. We need to stand behind all these workers and want to do so side by side with Ministers.

In the Explanatory Notes to the Bill, the Government’s central promise was that

“nothing in the Bill prevents, qualifies or otherwise impacts the ability of those with existing recognised qualifications from continuing their areas of practice in the UK”,

but the Bill as drafted is currently silent on this. Therefore, Amendment 60 would write the Government’s own promise into the Bill. Surely the Minister will have no objection to accepting this simple but extremely important amendment. How can he guarantee protection of workers without it?

I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for pointing out in conversation that many who have registration are not currently practising, and there needs to be reassurance for them as well. We have the opportunity to provide the certainty and confidence that all so richly deserve. Let us do what we can to provide the atmosphere of trust that we have mentioned today.