Alternative Dispute Resolution for Consumer Disputes (Extension of Time Limits for Legal Proceedings) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020

Lord Mann Excerpts

Wednesday 16th September 2020 Grand Committee

[Lord Mann (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, over the last 20 years I have represented many thousands of people in what would accurately be described as alternative dispute resolutions, in a range of different ways. I see nothing amiss with this very sensible proposal. However, I want to press the Minister on the current situation and some of the likely ongoing disputes, in view of experiences I have had in recent times.

One problem I have encountered is the return of goods. Some suppliers have been remarkably reticent in acknowledging electronic communication, and consumers visiting their premises to return goods find that those premises are closed—a new scenario that potentially weakens the consumer’s position. I wanted to ensure that there is no hidden detriment in any way to those disputes where the goods supplier makes themselves unavailable. This is obviously severely compounded by their ability to do so at the current time.

The second is much more common, and concerns services—for example, airline services—and cancellations of airline and other transport services and comparable bookings due to the current crisis and for no other reason. Again, some airlines and third-party travel agencies have been highly responsive. Others have been highly unresponsive, with huge delays even in acknowledging requests for refunds. It appears that there is a danger in some cases of this potentially going on for many months and becoming protracted. An example would be if one were to cancel a Christmas booking now. There are all sorts of issues regarding what the rules for Christmas will be, whereas the rules for airlines seem much more precise.

As regards the Government’s thinking on this, does this legislation have any impact other than pro consumer, with the additional time allowance built in, or would it be accurate to entirely phrase this legislation as an additional time opportunity for consumers seeking redress through alternative dispute resolution without the need to go to court in these difficult times?

Enterprise Act 2002 (Specification of Additional Section 58 Consideration) Order 2020

Lord Mann Excerpts

Wednesday 15th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mann (Non-Afl) [V]]

My Lords, I am still struggling a little to work out how the coronavirus crisis directly links into the dangers of malign investment in the artificial intelligence sector, which was cited by the Minister. Nevertheless, I welcome this move.

I have long called for more state intervention in particular in our newer and more vulnerable sectors in the way in which Germany and France have for the past 30 or 40 years been able to protect their industries better than we have. To catch up, as we leave the European Union, will make us more robust and competitive internationally.

The Government are taking a lot of more state powers to themselves—this is an example of that—but that needs to be counterbalanced by transparency. Transparency means not just that things are clean but that things are seen to be clean. It is imperative that the Government show the way in ensuring that there is full transparency of the Government overall and of individual Ministers in relation to every decision made in future in relation to, for example, mergers and takeovers.

Overall, this move to further state intervention is to be welcomed. One could call it rather Wilsonian in its style, and therefore it should be acceptable to everyone across the House.

Electricity Capacity (Amendment etc.) (Coronavirus) Regulations 2020

Lord Mann Excerpts

Thursday 2nd July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mann (Non-Afl) [V]]

My Lords, we did not vote to leave the European Union, only to have the European Commission telling us what our state aid rules should be, particularly in the energy sector, where the European Union has had the most incoherent, disjointed approach for decades. That is summarised by, in recent years, the French going nuclear while the Germans went back to coal. Can the Minister clarify the implications for the remaining coal-powered generators in this country, for which the economics of the capacity market are critical? Several have closed in the past year, including Cottam, which I can see from my window today, leaving, I believe, three, including West Burton A, which has a capacity of 2,000 megawatts a year. West Burton is due to close in 2021. Will that closure be brought forward, will the date remain the same or will it be delayed? In other words, will we remain reliant on coal for longer than 2021, or will these regulations have nil effect in extinguishing what remains of our coal-fired energy generation power station system?

Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill

Lord Mann Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 16th June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, as a fellow member of the Constitution Committee, I am delighted to follow my noble friend Lady Taylor of Bolton, the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness. I also endorse warmly the powerful points made by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover.

Amendment 66 would enable Parliament to “keep … under review”—a phrase we hear endlessly—the manner in which the Secretary of State keeps under review the use of the very broad Henry VIII powers to change the law on corporate insolvency by regulations which Clause 18 empowers him to make. As many noble Lords have said, if we are to have Henry VIII powers, which are in principle constitutionally offensive, a special and convincing case must always be made for their creation by the Government. If they are to be legislated for, they should be as narrow as possible to meet their specific purpose and they should not last a minute longer than—as far as this legislation is concerned —the emergency requires.

As has been noted, the powers in Clause 18 expire on 30 April 2021, but regulations already made under that power can be extended. Moreover, the Henry VIII power itself can be extended by regulations under Clause 22 for another year, and again and again thereafter. That being so, these clauses give the Government a blank cheque. So Amendment 70, which sets a final expiry date, is the very least that is required.

I am very attracted to the robust and no-nonsense approach of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe: simply abolish the clause. Clause 39, to which she spoke, is a wicked piece of legislation in constitutional terms. It creates a power for the Secretary of State to change the duration of temporary provisions and to keep on doing so, ad infinitum. It is the most self-indulgent of Henry VIII powers. It is constitutionally offensive, and it really should not stand part of the Bill.

I accept, as do members of the Constitution Committee and, I think, all other noble Lords, that there is an emergency which needs urgent legislative action and that, as long as the emergency persists, we will need provisions in place to protect as far as we can businesses that are vulnerable to the coronavirus crisis and of course the jobs of those employed by them or dependent on them indirectly. However, as has been noted also by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, in an emergency—and this applies especially in a prolonged emergency—the more important it becomes for Parliament also to be vigilant and to protect the principles of the constitution.

The Bill, which the Government are fast-tracking, is huge. It has 47 clauses, 14 schedules and 234 pages. Like Henry VIII clauses, fast-tracked legislation should be rare. It should be specifically and convincingly justified and its scope should not extend beyond the minimum necessary to achieve its purposes, although the scale of this legislation makes even more questionable the appropriateness of the fast-track process.

The Government are tracking the Bill so fast that the House of Commons barely saw it. Its Second Reading and remaining stages all took place on the same day; the remaining stages were transacted in half an hour. The Bill was gone in a blink and the House of Commons did not perform its proper responsibility, I regret to say, of scrutinising it. If the House of Lords steps in where the House of Commons fears or has failed to tread, and if we seek to advise and to do so by way of passing amendments, Ministers and even Back-Bench Members of Parliament are wont to express some resentment. But we have a responsibility to scrutinise and improve important legislation. What else is Parliament for? Noble Lords have made a large number of important observations and criticisms of flaws in the Bill today, particularly in the very long debate on the first group. What we need to do, I suggest, is to separate policy for the emergency from policy for the long term.

This brings me to my second objection, beyond the inappropriate fast-tracking of some of this legislation. As many noble Lords have noted, the Government should not smuggle in permanent changes to policy and law via fast-track emergency legislation. There are three sets of permanent changes, as I understand it, in the Bill. There is a procedure for a new moratorium on enforcement action against companies in financial distress, even though this procedure may be detrimental to creditors and investors, and therefore be potentially as damaging as allowing the debtor companies to go to the wall. The Bill also provides for permanent new arrangements for restructuring companies that are in financial distress, and for restrictions on contractual supplier termination clauses.

In winding up on the first debate the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, argued that the Government had previously consulted on the permanent measures. Indeed they did, but that is no excuse for seeking to bypass full parliamentary scrutiny of important changes to the law on insolvency. We are not making a fuss about the dignity of Parliament. We are complaining about the Government outflanking a process which actually enables them to get difficult changes right and give democratic legitimacy to changes in the law. In another context, the Minister was very keen to restore full law-making rights to this Parliament. I wonder how he justifies what I would regard as this two-fold abuse of Parliament: fast-tracking such a vast law and using emergency legislation to enact permanent changes.

If the Covid-19 effects should, unfortunately, persist in a very damaging form, Parliament should return in new primary legislation to the question of what emergency powers the Government should continue to be able to exercise. I was attracted by the proposal made earlier by my noble friend Lord Liddle: that there should be post-legislative scrutiny of the Bill. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, put it to us that delegated powers are essential in the emergency. Yes, they may be, but there should be proper sunset clauses attached to all the powers that the Bill creates, and especially the ones that are intended to be permanent, which should never have been in a Bill creating powers for an emergency. At the least, as the DPRRC has recommended, these powers should be amended to limit their use to a period only so long as the Secretary of State judges that the effects of Covid-19 require them.

[Lord Mann (Non-Afl) [V]]

My Lords, it seems that there are different rationales for why amendments can be put forward and supported. It is often because of the poor drafting of legislation; sometimes, of course, it is for political point scoring or, often, where there is a clear difference of opinion. Sometimes they are intended to save the Government from themselves and, having heard the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and others, it appears that these amendments sit within the latter category if they are to have any validity. I note that the Law Society is rather supportive of some amendments, in contrast to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, although I found his arguments logical and persuasive.

Horizon: Sub-postmaster Convictions

Lord Mann Excerpts

Thursday 11th June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mann (Non-Afl) [V]]

Being experienced, knowledgeable and of impeccable character, and having no vested interest, were seen to be the appropriate qualities required for the person to chair this inquiry. Can the Minister think of anyone better suited than the former postman Alan Johnson?

[Lord Callanan]

I thank the noble Lord for his question. We are actively considering who should chair the inquiry at the moment, and as soon as I have further information, I will refer it to the noble Lord.

Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill

Lord Mann Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 9th June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mann (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, in any major economic crisis—and this is part of the current world crisis—there will be winners and losers. I was quite amused but not surprised to hear that the hot tub industry is doing incredibly well as people with sufficient money are installing them in their garden—in lieu perhaps of holidays to hotter climates. There will be winners, and entrepreneurs will be critical in coming out of any economic recession. There has been some fascinating research into how new entrepreneurs were critical to economic regeneration in the southern states of the US after some of their climatic disasters.

Some of them will be winners. There will also be losers, some of which may be big and well known. I do not wish to pour gloom by suggesting which kinds of companies, but household names may not survive the next six months, because of how shopping is changing and may permanently change as a result of consumer behaviour.

Therefore, this Bill has many importances—some perhaps beyond its initial worthy impetus. One area that has less accountability and is more poorly regulated than elsewhere is that of insolvency practitioners. From my experience, they always seem capable of charging the fees they are entitled to charge but sometimes, in cases where I have assisted companies, they do not seem to do a great deal more than that. That is a small sector that needs stronger regulation.

There are also landlords exploiting the situation, some of them offshoring, doubtless often for tax purposes, and in receipt of taxpayer support, and endangering the small, emerging businesses—which are sometimes well located and paying higher rents—which are precisely the businesses that will be the engine of recovery and which could be killed by cash flow. The invidious position of those offshoring is not addressed here and could be considered.

Pension funds have been raised already. If major, traditional, long-standing companies end up being the losers, some of them will have major pension funds. It is not just the social justice question, which is of significance in itself, but the economic repercussions for both the local economy and the UK economy if a group of pensioners or soon-to-be pensioners have a significantly lower purchasing power when they have a higher propensity to spend. So the protection of pension funds deserves more attention in the progress of this Bill.

There is also the question of employees. I have assisted people going to employment tribunals where the assets of the company and the directors remain; they start trading again on the same premises, doing the same work the next day, having got rid of a lot of people who then find that, even if they win in a tribunal, there is nothing to claim from. That is not a sensible way to run any economy. The Minister may wish to comment on whether this Bill will have any impact on strengthening that position.

Finally, there is the question of football clubs. That will be a big one that we should be very aware of, in terms of some of the names that may go under.

Covid-19: Businesses and the Private Sector

Lord Mann Excerpts

Thursday 21st May 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mann (Non-Afl)]

I echo the points made by the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, on consumers. He will be pleased to know that a shining example of good practice is the Scottish Youth Hostels Association. Sadly, I will not be spending time with it this weekend.

As we approach the likelihood of a second, or perhaps third or fourth, wave of this epidemic, it will be critical that entrepreneurs step forward, not just specifically to assist taking on Covid-19 but to move the economy forward. We cannot afford an economy that will stagnate or worse over the next two years. The Bank of England needs to use the full range of instruments at its disposal to ensure that investment in the economy continues apace by both private investors and the state. That new economy needs to learn the lessons that Japan learned after the Second World War by using W Edwards Deming and total quality management to change the paradigm within which industry operates.

We will be entering a new economy post Covid-19. That economy will have new products. We need to be self-sustaining and self-reliant as a nation and an economy, with the electric car, the driverless car, energy-generating building materials, artificial intelligence and robotics, goods movement shifting on to freight and effective 5G everywhere. We need to take action to move into that new economy now. We must not delay.

Draft State Aid (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Lord Mann Excerpts

Wednesday 10th April 2019 General Committees

[Bill Esterson]

The hon. Gentleman tempts me down various different routes. I shall come to how the Government have diverged from their normal practice of straight transposition with these regulations. That applies particularly to the debate we had about the devolved Administrations. These regulations do not follow the normal pattern, as will become clear as I set out my argument.

State aid plays a vital role in our economy. Ensuring that we have a functioning state aid regime means that putting in place regulations that deliver exactly what is needed is very important. It is therefore essential that we carry out the detailed scrutiny this afternoon in the same way that the Lords did on 14 March. Given the scale of the regulations and their far-reaching nature, I will put on the record our concern about whether we have been provided with sufficient evidence of whether they deliver the technical details required for a functioning state aid regime that supports our economy and communities up and down the country. We will, however, do what we can to tease out some of the concerns that we have been able to identify about the technical nature of what is being proposed.

This set of regulations comes to 80 pages. I, and other Members, have been on Public Bill Committees that have been allocated many days, if not weeks, to consider far shorter Bills with line-by-line scrutiny, quite often following pre-legislative evidence sessions from expert witnesses. Yet we are given 90 minutes, of which about 64 remain, and we will have to do our best to identify the key areas for such scrutiny. It is a most unsatisfactory situation, but we will do what we can.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

I hear that we may be free next week. Will my hon. Friend propose that the Committee adjourn until then, so that we can sit throughout the week in order to do the necessary, detailed line-by-line scrutiny—a proposal that I would be totally in accord with?

[The Chair]

Order. Just for your information, Mr Mann, whether the Committee is adjourned or not, it can last only an hour and a half, come what may—and we have already had 27 minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Mann]

I am rather opposed to the regulations. I do not disagree with what my hon. Friend said, but I take a more robust view, more in line with that of the Labour party leader, on state aid—namely, that we should have state aid without any restrictions. Indeed, that was one of the arguments used very successfully during the EU referendum campaign as a reason why we should leave the European Union. Many people in areas such as mine were very persuaded by that argument.

I recall leading a joint mining union delegation to Brussels to try to keep Harworth and Welbeck collieries alive, as Harworth colliery, which was one of the most productive in the world, was on the verge of closing down. There was unfair competition worldwide, and the country’s alternative was to bring in South African and Australian coal in particular. Having met Ministers here, we went to Brussels, where they were very polite. We got a cup of coffee and biscuits, which demonstrated what the answer would be. The answer was, “No. You signed up to this when you joined the European Union. You knew what you were signing up to, and such state aid is prohibited.”

Our argument was that we had a highly productive colliery and that we had an energy plan in the country that matched whatever the environmental protocols of the day were, pre-Kyoto. We wanted to dig the coal in my constituency as opposed to importing it, damaging the environment as fuel was used to ship over coal from Australia and South Africa. We were unsuccessful because of the state aid rules.

I had an earlier experience of why the state aid rules have worked against this country in the fledgling industries of the future. In 1988, I led the world-leading project on what came to be called DVDs—at the time, it was called interactive video—with Dr George Harland of the Open University, the late Vincent Hanna and Tony Lazzerini, an expert software engineer. We were the top award winners in the world at the time, but the competition was American, and in California the Americans were subsidising hugely, on both state level and national level, their industries competing against the fledgling ideas of geniuses elsewhere. I do not include myself in their number; I was merely a process producer or facilitator of the genius of the people I had managed to get together. They were world leaders—provably the best—but the Americans, through state aid in California and through the use of military contracts that tied in a state obligation on developing technology, wiped us out. Silicon Valley, as it became known, made huge gains.

[The Chair]

Order. I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. He is discussing state aid in general terms, but I would be grateful if he linked his comments to the provisions of the statutory instrument, which transfers powers from the European Union to another body. The instrument is very specific.

[John Mann]

The instrument is very specific, and what I am doing is outlining why I will vote against it. I object to the transfer—there should be no transfer and no restrictions on giving support to the innovative entrepreneurial industries of the future. When we have left the European Union, we should not hamstring ourselves with these regulations and have the Competition and Markets Authority say, “No, we can’t give support.” Areas like mine will be more than willing to give support to incubate those new sectors, yet as outlined in the instrument, all that is permitted under the European Union is European-level projects, such as Horizon, where the European Union gives state aid—sometimes wisely or even very wisely, in my view—but stops individual nation states and the governmental levels beneath them doing so. My objection to the regulations is that they will not allow local government or national Governments, parliamentarians or local councillors, to act in the interests of existing industries or the new industries of the future in the way that is economically rational.

We will be competing with India, China and America, and their approach, without a level playing field. We are hamstringing ourselves. The SI is a mistaken SI. The Government should withdraw it and go back to the drawing board. Do not give these powers to the CMA. Do not hamstring us. I hope that the Labour Front Benchers will, for those reasons—and because Jeremy agrees with me—robustly oppose the regulations.

Leaving the EU: Protection for Workers

Lord Mann Excerpts

Wednesday 6th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for the compliment that she paid me. I would reflect on the facts. She mentioned that introducing the minimum wage was a fight. This House is used to having fights and campaigns. The purpose of this Chamber is to have crusades that are successful. She will know that, far from that innovation having been rescinded, it was a Conservative Government who introduced the national living wage, which was the biggest pay increase for low-paid workers in 20 years. She should take confidence in that.

The right hon. Lady refers to drawing these protections from the European Union. Once we leave the European Union, the basis for a framework of workers’ rights will obviously not be there, and the alternative is that there would simply be no reference to what is happening in the European Union; that would be the default. We are responding to some helpful suggestions from the right hon. Lady’s colleagues that this House should keep a close eye on what is happening in the rest of Europe and that there should be an ability for the House to act on that. That is a good idea. I cannot say that it was my idea originally—it was brought to my attention—but when we recognise a good idea, I think we should back it.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

I recall, as an MP, taking a delegation of miners’ leaders to Brussels to argue for jobs and investment, but we were blocked by the state aid rules that the European Commission enforced on us under a Labour Government. That is why Harworth colliery in my constituency closed.

I welcome the Secretary of State’s openness in his statement—both to amendments from Labour Front Benchers over the next few days, if there are precise amendments and, if they are not agreed, to the ability to table amendments to the withdrawal Bill that can be voted on by Parliament.

I negotiated the derogation, under the Labour Government, for one section of workers from the Work at Height Regulations 2005 because of the way in which the Commission framed the legislation. When it comes to health and safety, will there be automatic harmonisation—in other words, we accept everything that comes, regardless of its suitability to specific industries and groups of workers? When it comes to health and safety and sometimes environmental standards, that has been a fundamental issue, and it would be one if we had direct harmonisation.

[Greg Clark]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his work in crafting this proposal, and I repeat the commitment to continue to work together as the draft clauses become clauses that are laid before the House. The procedures of this House allow substantial debate of those clauses in Committee and on Report. I agree with his assessment. It is not the case that every regulation proposed by the European Union is ideal and well suited to our circumstances. From my experience in European Councils, there is a process that tries to apply a set of rules in many different countries and economies that may not actually be the best for the UK economy. The procedure that the hon. Gentleman has given us the ability to discuss today provides this House with a means by which to consider what the best form of regulation is, suited to our circumstances and respecting the sovereignty of this House and this Parliament.

Points of Order

Lord Mann Excerpts

Tuesday 24th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I will sturdily resist any temptation to intervene further in that exchange. This private squabble may continue for a little while, albeit with good nature, I hope.

[John Mann]

(Bassetlaw) (Lab) rose—

[Mr Speaker]

On the subject of good-natured points of order, I say more in hope than in expectation, I call Mr John Mann.

[John Mann]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. After a debate on anti-Semitism a week ago today, I have received very many kind remarks from parliamentarians, their staff and, indeed, members of House staff, for which me and my family are very grateful. There is an exception to that: one member of the Press Lobby chose to put out on social media, without any communication whatsoever with me, the suggestion that I had misled Parliament in relation to a criminal act of violence against my wife. May I repeat, on the record, that I have not misled Parliament and that my wife, who was the victim of this crime, has written to the media outlet concerned today clarifying this in some detail? This outrageous commentary has led to a wave of additional abuse against me, against my wife and against my daughter, including a threat of violence from a Labour party member from Sefton that is being referred to the police. Can you confirm my understanding that members of the Press Lobby have a privileged status within here? They have computers, telephones and lists of MPs, and if they are struggling to get hold of anybody they have the ability to wait outside this Chamber after a debate to speak to us. This member of the Press Lobby chose to use none of those things, and I just wanted your confirmation that the Press Lobby has the full ability to contact any of us, should they wish to do so, before putting out such scurrilous material.

[Mr Speaker]

I can confirm that. Any journalist can contact any Member if said journalist is minded to do so. I think it is as simple as that; I have no responsibility for what has been said, and the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that I do. To be candid, I have no knowledge of which individual or outlet he has in mind. In a way, that is an advantage; he is asking me a straightforward question and I can offer him a straightforward confirmation by way of reply.

Needless to say, I am very sorry to hear about the torrent of abuse that the hon. Gentleman, his wife and his daughter have experienced—that is very sad. Nothing is going to stop the hon. Gentleman, whom I have known for more than 30 years, from speaking his mind, and it is right that that should be so. But it is a pity when people feel it necessary not to play the ball but to play the man or the woman, indulging in ad hominem abuse of a frequently loathsome kind, and sometimes of a kind that would be of interest to the police. This is a very worrying development in our democracy, about which I have spoken before, but I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he has said and I hope my reply offers him some reassurance.