Business Confidence
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts(4 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Duncan of Springbank
The noble Lord will not be surprised to know that I agree with him on those points. It is important to stress, as Dr Johnson once said:
“Self-confidence is the first requisite to great undertakings.”
Now that we have a situation where that confidence can grow, we are already in a good place. We already have record levels of employment and record levels of unemployment; we already have faster growth anticipated in our country than in Germany, Japan or Italy; we already see the signs whereby we can begin those great undertakings.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, it is not all sweetness and light, as the noble Lord would wish us to see. The report to which the Question refers also carries a health warning, which the Government should listen to. I am sure the Minister will have read it carefully and will have a response, but can he give specific answers to the core points raised later in the report, which goes on to state:
“the sector is not yet out of the woods in terms of performance, which means that this optimism could prove to be short-lived unless the government … help address underlying issues holding back manufacturers”?
The list is long, but it includes addressing skills shortages and improving productivity. We have been told to expect government action on sustainability and climate change—indeed, we are anxiously waiting for that—but what practical steps will the Government take to address skills shortages and to increase productivity, which is now more than 30% behind that in the US and around 10% to 15% behind that in Germany?
Lord Duncan of Springbank
The first thing to note is that the report is positive, and the CBI has not always been the most positive in its analysis of the Government’s activities. Secondly, we have anticipated a number of the issues which the report has flagged up, not least productivity and investment in SMEs. In the calendar year ahead, we shall look at how to move these areas from where they are now to help them grow. I am tempted to cite Chauncey Gardiner on the notion that as long as the roots are still in the soil then all will be well in the garden. That might be a little optimistic because the year ahead will be a challenge, but the same thing is true: we have opportunities ahead which will do us well.
Creative Industries: Research and Development
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts(4 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Duncan of Springbank
On tax, it is important to stress that we offer a significant amount of tax relief that covers all the wider creative industries, from film animation to museums and galleries and the theatre, and so far it affects a significant proportion of those areas. The noble Baroness raised the exact definitions, which is important, because thus far we are bound by the Frascati convention of the OECD definition, which is tilted primarily towards technology and science. I will not go into too much detail, but this of course misses the epistemic and aleatory uncertainties inherent in this particular problem—you do not hear that every day.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
Indeed, we need to pause after that. A round of applause would not be inappropriate.
My Lords, I am glad that the Minister mentioned the creative clusters, because they have been a huge success in bringing out the exact points made by the noble Baroness in her Question. However, does she not also raise a wider definitional issue—it does not have a grand name—which is that the creative industries are often structured around freelancers working in small industries and, as such, they cannot take advantage of some of the scale issues for which the Minister’s department is responsible? I think particularly of the way in which the apprenticeship levy cannot be applied in this case. Does the Minister have any plans to change that?
Lord Duncan of Springbank
The noble Lord makes an important point. I was curious about that this morning as well. I was fearful that a lot of these funds would end up in the larger businesses and industries but, in actual fact, SMEs are disproportionately affected in this area for the very reason that the arts, humanities and wider creative industries are usually small ventures. So there is a significant proportion of benefit in that regard. If the noble Lord will allow it, I will drop him a note on the exact figures and put it in the Library for the edification of all others.
Thomas Cook
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts(4 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
I am very grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement made in the other place. The collapse of Thomas Cook is turning into an issue that needs to be carefully reflected on. It is a tragedy that it happened at all, but the more information that becomes available about the actions of the directors, and the action that they should have taken but perhaps did not, the more we are concerned about it.
There were 8,000 job losses. At the time it was widely reported that Ministers and BEIS officials had little or no discussion with the company before it entered liquidation. However, in the six days leading up to its collapse, government Ministers from Germany, Spain, Bulgaria, Turkey and Greece all made personal contact with the company with the aim of trying to rescue it. Reports from Unite the Union and Syndex have shown that £188 million would have been sufficient to prevent the collapse of the company. Yet we have heard that the Government have spent over £600 million —a lot more than £188 million—on compensation and the successful repatriation of the 150,000 stranded holidaymakers.
We have not had the benefit of a report from the BEIS Committee in the other place; it has not been able to complete its inquiry because of the Dissolution. However, I hope there will be more detailed investigations when we get back, and that we will get an idea of the proposals that might be necessary. Some issues include: audit quality problems, revealed by the fact that the auditors were not able to get to the bottom of this before the liquidation; the struggles that the auditors seem to have faced over how to value some of the financial instruments in the contracts; the fact that the same auditors had been around for far too long; and teams not using their own judgment but tending to accept what they were told by management, possibly because they were so conflicted by their having additional consultancy work. These findings have not been reported by Parliament but by the Financial Reporting Council, as I am sure the Minister is aware.
We have a bit of a mess here. Having said that, it is wonderful to hear that the Government have decided that the outstanding matter referred to in the Statement—the impact on customers who have suffered life-changing injuries or loss of income while on Thomas Cook holidays—cannot be allowed to pass. We will support that decision in any way possible if it is necessary to do so after the election.
The Minister mentioned in the Statement the success of the repatriation; we should perhaps record that too. He paid tribute to the Secretary of State, but the main burden of heavy lifting fell to the Civil Aviation Authority, which booked the planes and arranged the logistics so successfully that customers who could have been stranded for weeks, if not longer, got back within a few days of their original bookings. We should be very proud of that; the success of Deirdre Hutton and her team should be recognised.
On the substance of today’s announcement, it seems extraordinary that this should have been allowed to happen at all. The first question we need to ask is: how could it be that a company of such status and standing as Thomas Cook, which was in operation for nearly 200 years, let itself get into a situation where it deliberately insured itself against the tragedy and therefore abandoned its rationale for existing—the good care of its customers —as it went into liquidation? It is unlikely that any payments will be made to those who will be treated as unsecured creditors. We all know that. Compensation is going missing; the Government have recognised that this needs to be sorted out, and we are very grateful for that.
Can the Minister give us some idea of how this kind of situation will be prevented in future? Clearly, this was something that lay within the remit of the company’s own decisions. The fact that it had insurance cover for the very high end of the spectrum suggests that it was aware of the insurance requirement, but that cut-off is too high. Does the Minister have any ideas about how this might be addressed? I presume he is thinking about future legislation.
The statutory compensation scheme is a great idea and I am pleased that it is happening, but questions arise about how it will be financed and organised. Will it be based on ATOL and ABTA-type approaches or funded directly by the Government, or will some form of co-funding be laid against the other travel companies? If so, does the Minister have any ideas about this?
On the question of whether the official receiver would be passing on matters relating to the actions of the directors, that is clearly not a matter that we can deal with in this House. However, can the Minister say whether he has in mind that a criminal offence may have taken place? If so, it would be useful to know that this is the way the wind is blowing. If not—or if it is not possible to say—can he confirm that the legislation he is considering will ensure that companies trading on a near or actual insolvency basis will not be empowered to pay bonuses to themselves? We should be quite clear that that is what we are talking about at this stage.
I have one final question. Clearly the Government do not intend to become the lender of last resort for companies that get into trouble over travel arrangements, but this will possibly not be the only example of such things happening. Can the Minister offer some reassuring words about being prepared to look again at the wider context, should this turn out to be a more common issue? That would be helpful. Also, will this be a permanent arrangement, or just temporary until things become clearer?
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. It raises some very serious issues. I echo the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and his inquiries about how Thomas Cook came to be in this very risky situation—risky for its customers. Is it because the law simply has no coverage of this area for companies? In other words, do we need to start absolutely from scratch in terms of legal requirements for companies? Or is it that Thomas Cook actually cut corners and could potentially be judged to be on the wrong side of the law in due course?
It is absolutely appalling that people who have suffered very serious injury, and indeed died, as a result of incidents when they were customers of Thomas Cook could find themselves in this very difficult position. We all know that when a company goes into liquidation, it takes years to sort it out, even in the best of circumstances. As it stands, who has priority as creditors for Thomas Cook? In addition to that, what are the Government’s plans for plugging the gap that clearly exists in this situation after the election? The Government are looking to add a capped fund. Of course, that means there will be people who remain badly out of pocket. They will not be compensated as they should be when things have gone wrong. The official receiver is conducting an inquiry into the situation for Thomas Cook. Can the Minister explain how long it is likely to take for the inquiry to report?
I want to raise one or two other issues of concern, following the demise of Thomas Cook. They are not of the order of magnitude of what was in the Minister’s Statement, but they are still serious. The CAA has done some amazing work to repatriate so many people. I know that CAA staff were literally sleeping in the office, because they were being called on to work such long hours. This is the second time in as many years that they have had to do this job and they are clearly getting quite practised at it. It is not acceptable that staff are being put under such huge amounts of stress. Are the Government considering additional resources for the CAA so that staff are not put under quite so much pressure when this happens again, as it almost certainly will?
There are still almost 2,000 Thomas Cook customers who paid by direct debit and have yet to receive their refunds. The original promised date for refunds was 14 October. These customers are a small percentage of the total, but this is a bad time of year for people to be owed money—significant amounts of money. I would like an explanation from the Minister as to whether the Government or any agency are able to provide support to those who are now having to fill in forms. There might well be vulnerable people who find this process extremely complex and our experience is always that the most vulnerable people find it most difficult to complete bureaucratic processes such as this.
Finally, the Government promised a review of insolvency legislation following the Monarch financial crash, the purpose of which was to enable companies to continue to trade long enough to bring customers home so that that responsibility did not fall on the Government again. It has happened again, and I would like to follow up with the Minister whether that work is still ongoing and whether the Government intend to introduce a change to insolvency rules to clarify that situation.
Extinction Rebellion
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts(4 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Duncan of Springbank
We are the only economy to have legislated for net zero by 2050. We have done so on the basis of science from a committee that is independent of thought. The important thing to recognise is that we as a nation are responsible for only 1.2% of global emissions; China alone is responsible for 30%. We have doubled our climate finance to address where the serious problem lies, which is indeed beyond our shores.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, one of the key objectives of Extinction Rebellion’s recent activities in London was to close down Westminster. Does the Minister agree that recent moves by the Government to achieve exactly that end suggest some sort of membership of the group’s committee at a high level, perhaps the highest level? More seriously, how can the Government continue to support fracking while simultaneously preparing for the elimination of fossil fuels in their entirety by 2050?
Lord Duncan of Springbank
It is important to recognise that, in the US, gas has been a bridge in moving towards decarbonisation. The key challenge for this globe right now will be addressed where serious emissions take place. Extension Rebellion has drawn attention to the issue but in a way that is not always helpful. It needs to be very careful to make sure that it brings alongside the people, because it is the people who will have to do the heavy lifting on this matter.
Brexit: Workers’ Rights
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts(4 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for repeating that Answer from the other place. It might be helpful and for the convenience of the House if I make it clear that the references to the leaks that gave rise to this exchange are significant, having been reported at the weekend by the Financial Times, which has a good record of picking up government intelligence—very often intelligence that the Government would not wish to see in print.
Three important points are made in these reports. First, the UK is apparently open to some divergence on workers’ rights after Brexit. The FT has stated that the paper that it was relying on was drafted by DExEU with input by Downing Street, and that the UK’s interpretation of the level playing field commitments would be very different after Brexit. It also said that the Government believed that binding arbitration would be “inappropriate”—and binding arbitration was the way suggested in the withdrawal agreement for how the two blocs will work together as we go forward.
This is quite a serious charge. I know that the Government do not normally comment on leaked documents, but it is important to recognise that they responded to this leak, saying that they had no intention of lowering standards, which was repeated in the Statement that we have just heard. They went on to explain:
“UK Level Playing Field commitments will be negotiated in the context of the future UK-EU Free Trade Agreement, where we will achieve a balance of rights and obligations which reflect the scope and depth of the future relationship”.
I put it to the Minister that that is a rather open-ended statement. It does not subscribe to the sense that he was giving in the Statement. How does that guarantee rights if they are to be negotiated, going forward, in the light of the scope and depth of the future relationship? To take a very simple and classic example, we have already set out what our tariff regime would be after Brexit, should there be one. That regime is effectively the same as that of the EU; it differs only very slightly. So what else is there to negotiate in a free trade agreement?
Secondly, looking more closely at the Statement that we have just heard, it is also very unclear where exactly the guarantee that we are expecting is to be found. The Minister has already said:
“The Government have absolutely no intention of lowering standards on workers’ rights”—
but the leaked version absolutely says that no guarantee is available at this stage. It goes on to say that,
“under the terms of the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018 all existing workers’ rights laws will be transferred into domestic law once we have left the EU, making sure there is no gap or lack of clarity in the minimum set of workers’ rights”.
It also says that,
“every Bill brought before this place in future that affects workers’ rights will include a statement by the Government of the day on how it impacts on workers’ rights”.
A statement on impact is not a guarantee. Can the Minister convince us otherwise?
Thirdly, the Minister said:
“The Government have also published clauses that will require every Government, now and in the future, to monitor new EU legislation covering employment and workplace health and safety standards and to report on those changes to Parliament, so that Parliament can again have its say”.
Where is the guarantee in that? “Having a say” will certainly not provide us with the guarantees we are talking about.
This Government are not committing to the future maintenance of standards. I draw the attention of your Lordships’ House to the very comprehensive amendment on the non-regression of standards that was passed by the House during the recent passage of the Trade Bill —a Bill which has now disappeared. It was proposed by the Government and accepted unanimously by the House. When will we see that re-enacted?
Lord Duncan of Springbank
I welcome the comments from the noble Lord. One of the important issues is the question about what a future trade agreement with the EU would deliver. I accept that he is saying that there is apparently nothing else to negotiate and perhaps it can be done very quickly indeed. This Government’s policy has always been that we can do that trade deal very quickly; it is important to stress that.
As to the elements in the leaked document, it will not surprise the noble Lord to know that I will not be commenting on them specifically. However, having been a member of the European Parliament, what I will say is that the European Parliament and the European Union set minimum standards. The secret to those is how you enforce them. This Government have put substantial investment into enforcing the rights and standards throughout all employment and welfare, which has not been matched by other countries. It is also important to suggest that we can now manage our own affairs in this regard and that it is for the other place and this place to determine what they shall be. My final point is that this Government will not diminish workers’ rights whatsoever.
Freedom of Establishment and Free Movement of Services (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts(4 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
At end insert “but that this House regrets that the draft Regulations will remove certain rights for European Union, European Economic Area, Swiss and Turkish nationals, namely to be self-employed, own and manage a company and provide services in the United Kingdom without facing additional restrictions; further regrets the impact this may have for many long-residing individuals and families, as well as the wider consequences for the United Kingdom economy and employment; expresses concern that this change may result in the loss of rights for United Kingdom citizens resident elsewhere in the European Union, European Economic Area, Switzerland or Turkey; and calls on Her Majesty’s Government to immediately and unilaterally guarantee the continuation of the relevant rights of European Union, European Economic Area, Swiss and Turkish nationals in the United Kingdom beyond exit day.”
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister both for our meeting earlier today and for his introduction to the regulations. I belatedly welcome him to the Front Bench; although we have crossed swords at Questions, this, I think, is the first time that he has dealt with me on a substantive issue. I look forward to more of those.
These regulations will come into force only in the event of a no-deal Brexit, which now seems extremely unlikely to happen, but they are also contingent on the becalmed immigration Bill; that separation is continuing, is causing concern and is troublesome. However, were they to come into force, they would significantly impact on the rights of EU, EEA, Swiss and Turkish nationals. Specifically, they disapply the basis under which these nationals enjoy their rights to be self-employed, own or manage companies, or provide services to the UK on the same basis as UK nationals, and their right to bring nationality discrimination claims in relation to these rights.
As the Minister said, these regulations were drawn to the special attention of your Lordships’ House by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee because they remove EU treaty rights and make significant policy changes. As he said, they were debated in the Third Delegated Legislation Committee of the House of Commons on Monday and have just been subject to a vote in the Commons, so they are drawing quite a lot of attention.
It surely makes no sense to decide immigration rights for those who are self-employed or are running businesses, separately from determining the immigration rights of other people, but that is what these regulations do. As recent correspondence has amply demonstrated, thousands of self-employed, business-owning or business-managing providers of services—including many who are contributing to our social and cultural life, the health service and our prosperity as a nation—need assurances that they will not be disadvantaged and that their right to stay will not be questioned or removed as we move forward. Does the Minister agree that the department could do more to explain what is happening to those affected by this measure, perhaps by writing to them once we know which way we are going?
In essence, I have three main concerns. First, the draft regulations are being made under Section 8 of the withdrawal Act, which gives the Government power to amend retained EU law in order to correct or mitigate “deficiencies” or,
“a failure of retained EU law”,
to operate effectively after Brexit. But are these really deficiencies? In what sense has there been a “failure” of retained EU Law? Is it appropriate for the Government to use Henry VIII powers in Section 8 as a vehicle for policy changes? That Act was never intended to address how, whether or how quickly we could meet our obligations under the WTO.
Secondly, the regulations disapply the rights of EU, EEA, Swiss and Turkish nationals who are presently self-employed, owning and managing companies or providing services in the UK, and precludes them from bringing nationality discrimination claims in respect of those rights. In drawing the regulations to the special attention of the House on public policy grounds, the SLSC has described them as appearing,
“to be a significant reduction of rights”.
The Minister said that the SI has had a wide review but, because there is no impact assessment, we do not know how many people will be affected; nor have they —or anyone—been consulted. In a previous debate, on a no-deal Brexit SI on metrology on 7 October, the Minister said on the question of stakeholder involvement in that SI:
“We did this the wrong way round—there should have been greater engagement in advance of such a complex and dense series of materials, to ensure that we had captured all the elements the first time. We did not do that, and … I acknowledge that this is the wrong way round, and I have said that on the record”.—[Official Report, 7/10/19; col. 1913.]
It is a pity that, in his short time in the department, he has not been able to change its view on how it deals with SIs such as this one.
Thirdly, if the House accepts that a change of policy of such profound character should not be made by way of secondary legislation, the question then becomes: why is this issue not included in primary legislation such as the immigration Bill, which, as I said, is becalmed but is still around? In particular, how does this square with the fact that, on 5 September 2019, the Home Secretary released a policy paper in which she stated that free movement would be ended after exit day by way of primary legislation—a commitment from a Cabinet member?
In his opening remarks, the Minister said that, as well as protecting our WTO most favoured nation status, the Government were progressing on the basis that there was no guarantee that the EU would offer reciprocity on this matter. However, it is not so long ago that the Government chose to allow EU and EEA firms the right to continue to have full access after Brexit to electronic data held in the UK, with absolutely no guarantee that our firms would be offered those rights in return. Reciprocity was not a barrier for BEIS on that occasion, but it seems to be here—really?
Despite the Minister’s assurances, which I accept, we have before us an SI which many of those affected think removes the rights to be self-employed, to own and manage companies or to provide services in the UK on the same basis as UK nationals. That, in turn, at face value, may affect the underlying basis of their lawful residence in the UK, because it is dependent on the immigration Bill, which we do not yet know the timetable for. The very strong impression given by the proposed SI is that it is a continuation of the Government’s “hostile” immigration policy.
Given where we are, and where we are likely to be in the not-too-distant future, I believe the regulations should be withdrawn and that, as my amendment says, Her Majesty’s Government should immediately and unilaterally guarantee the continuation of the relevant rights of EU, EEA, Swiss and Turkish nationals in the UK beyond exit day using primary legislation, if that is required. I beg to move.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. During the referendum campaign, a number of categorical commitments were made to EU citizens resident in the UK by the current Prime Minister and Home Secretary, among others. In June 2016, they said that,
“there will be no change for EU citizens already lawfully resident in the UK. These … citizens will automatically be granted indefinite leave to remain in the UK and will be treated no less favourably than they are at present”.
I have often repeated that statement to the House, and I make no apology for doing so again; first, because to the shame of the Government that undertaking remains unhonoured to this day; secondly, because it bears significantly on the level of trust that it is prudent to place in any assertions from this Administration; and, thirdly and most importantly, because it bears significantly on the regulations we are discussing today.
As we have heard, these regulations remove certain rights of EU, EEA, Swiss and Turkish citizens in the event of a no-deal Brexit, in relation to self-employment, the establishment and management of businesses, and the provision of services in the UK. They do so despite the fact that, during the passage of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, the Government pledged that no policy changes would be made via delegated legislation. The then Secretary of State, David Davis, told the House of Commons on 30 March 2017 that this went “without saying”. Nevertheless, MPs were sensible enough to insist that he actually said it, which he subsequently did. He told the House that,
“no change should be made to rights through delegated legislation”,
and added:
“Let me reiterate that the use of delegated legislation will be for technical changes”.—[Official Report, Commons, 30/3/17; col. 431.]
However, the Explanatory Memorandum that accompanies these regulations states that,
“the removal of these rights is not expected to prevent those EU, EEA EFTA, Swiss or Turkish nationals who are operating businesses or providing services immediately before exit day from continuing to be able to do so immediately after exit day (where they retain residence rights)”.
So the Government’s Explanatory Memorandum concedes that rights will be removed, in breach of Mr Davis’s undertaking. Having dispensed with the removal of rights, notwithstanding this undertaking, the best that the Government can tell us about the impact of the removal of these rights is that they do not expect that this will prevent EU-plus nationals from continuing to run their businesses or provide services.
It is deeply troubling that the Government can offer no more assurance than an expectation, because these regulations are causing great anxiety among EU-plus nationals resident in the UK about the impact they will have on their status and their ability to continue with their business or in self-employment. I hope that the Minister will be able to give them some considerably greater reassurance in his reply than that which has been given to date. I would be grateful in particular for the Minister’s response on the following points.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
Sorry about that; that was a big fly—bigger than normal.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
Goodness me, such words. I like a pun at this time.
We seem to be caught in a situation in which a number of noble Lords believe that this is of significance to the extent that it impacts upon 2.3 million people. It does not. However, if individuals affected by future changes in policy wish to confront the Government, they may be able to use elements of the existing corpus to do so, unless we disapply them. It may seem modest—I am sure the courts will be able to address this and many lawyers will make a great deal of money—but the point I am trying to make is that the change should, in the future, not happen. But it might happen. It is a relatively small adjustment we are talking about here, and it has had no impact assessment because the impact is de minimis.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
GOV.UK is a resource which I hope helps people address their questions. Part of the difficulty with GOV.UK is that it is very hard to anticipate questions that have not been set out in government legislation. We did not anticipate that individuals who have written would be fearful of what had been done. That is why I say again that we must be better at how we explain this in all our communications, whether online or on paper, and in the Explanatory Memorandum. The important thing for individuals to take from this debate is that the impact on them is not what has been explored or explained by others but rather a restricted aspect of future issues that concern future government policy or the ability of the WTO and the UK going forward to agree on most favoured nations.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, as I have been sitting and enjoying this debate, I have been reflecting on why the other 582—is it?—SIs on a no-deal Brexit did not attract audiences of this size and did not give rise to a debate of such excitement. I have reached no firm conclusions, but it is possibly because we as a House are reaching the end of our patience with the Government in how they use these regulations at a time when it is patently clear that we are moving on to different ground.
Having said that, this has been an extremely good debate, and I thank all noble Lords who have contributed. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Salisbury got it right in his contribution: while we are talking about important and possibly quite narrow legislation, this is really about trust—whether we feel we can place our trust in the Government to get this right in the wider context that we have been discussing. Although the Minister made a valiant attempt to persuade us of the correctness of his position, in his arguments, explanations, apologies for not making it more easily available to people outside and apologies for the drafting, he covered all the possible grounds for attack, but did not really answer the two or three main questions.
As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, we are disapplying one set of regulations and relying on what has already been brought in under a different piece of legislation. You cannot have it both ways. Either you are losing the rights that applied under the original position, in which case there is a deficit, or different sets of relationships are being brought in by the new corpus of law, which has drawn on EU and UK national law. There might be no threat in that, but we simply have not had the opportunity to discuss it. At the end of the day, the lasting feeling, I fear, is of people’s frustration. The points that have been raised around the House from reading these documents at very short notice—in some cases, the shortest possible notice—have been significant and substantial, and they deserved a better and wider hearing in front of a greater and more expert group, such as would have been provided by primary legislation.
Therefore, my three main points are as follows. First, were the Government right to use the EU withdrawal Bill? I do not think that we have been persuaded on that: there would have been a better way of doing it through primary legislation. Secondly, will there be a diminution in the rights currently enjoyed by people affected by this SI? The Minister is probably right that there are no direct changes, but it is the fear of those changes and the fear of the possible consequences once the law has changed that is not being addressed properly. As I said, I do not see how we can balance the two things. Thirdly, in our earlier meeting, the Minister’s officials were keen to make it very clear that these regulations deal only with movement under the EU legislative framework; they do not deal with immigration rights that will be coming forward. At the end of the day, this is about the gap between what it is being said will change and what might change under the immigration Bill, of which we have no knowledge because it is not in front of us.
The Government have not been successful in the court of public opinion, and we owe it to that public opinion to test the opinion of the House.
Post Offices: Cash Withdrawal Services
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts(4 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Duncan of Springbank
My noble friend asks a very good question. I will certainly have that discussion—and you never know.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, does this Question not also raise the problem about access to cash more generally? I am sure the Minister is familiar with the Access to Cash review. I wonder whether the department is in a position yet to respond to that. In that excellent review were six recommendations, which focused on the fact that new fintech is often designed for mass markets and does not reach out to the poor, those who live in rural communities and the vulnerable. Of the recommendations, the fifth and most important was for a clear government policy on cash, supported by a joined-up regulatory approach that treats cash as a utility, which I think is what the noble Lord was saying at the end. Is this in progress?
Lord Duncan of Springbank
I can assure the noble Lord that this is, indeed, in progress.