UK Internal Market: White Paper

Lord Wei Excerpts

Wednesday 29th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan]

I hope there will not be any disputes, but if there are, they will be legal disputes and the correct forum for resolving those is the courts system. We have no intention of setting up an alternative dispute resolution procedure when we have one of the best and most efficient court systems in the world to resolve disputes.

[Lord Wei (Con) [V]]

My Lords, the free ports policy, as part of levelling-up the country, was announced to great fanfare last year. Will the White Paper and the policies within it take account of free ports, and what happens if other Administrations disagree on creating such tax-free zones and zones to promote investment into their parts of our country? How will we co-ordinate such a policy as we take back the powers from Europe that will allow us to move ahead with it?

[Lord Callanan]

The free ports policy is unaffected by this legislation. If the power exists for devolved Administrations to create them, it is unchanged by this legislation.

Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill

Lord Wei Excerpts

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

[Lord Wei (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I declare my interests as a company director with involvement in a number of firms that are affected by the current crisis. I welcome this Bill. We need to do what we can to enable firms to weather this particularly difficult situation. In the time that I have, I will highlight from some of the conversations I have been having in the marketplace an observation that there seem to be at least three types of company situation, although I am sure that there are more.

Broadly, there are companies that were basically already insolvent or on very thin margins before the crisis hit us, those that are temporarily insolvent but which are resilient and have a future, particularly those that have a pivot or a plan—we know the stories of much being done in incredibly innovative ways to pivot businesses; for example, pubs becoming supermarkets and drive-through cinemas massively expanding on stately homes—and there are those that are solvent and doing well but, frankly, have taken advantage of the various available schemes and liquidity to give themselves an extra cushion.

There is a danger that, as we move forward, agencies, regulators and financial institutions will not be able to distinguish between these three types of organisation. I am particularly keen that this Bill should provide some of the framework for that greater understanding. For example, a business with great prospects that has for whatever reason decided to delay reporting or to take advantage of some of the measures in this Bill may find later on that it impacts either their credit rating or certain non-legally controlled matters such as the decision to grant invoice discounting, which can sometimes be a pure business decision and not one necessarily governed by law.

We are hearing stories of company directors not being able to get mortgages currently because they are taking advantage of the various available schemes. Is there a danger, as I am hearing from certain quarters, that banks may force businesses into voluntary insolvency in exchange for equity? Under these measures, it may well be that, if I am a bank that wants to avoid being lumped together with other creditors in an unfavourable situation, it would be better for me to withdraw the overdraft to a business unless it gives me equity in that business, which would mean that I would be protected from that creditor-type situation.

Finally, there needs to be a longer-term view. Can we use technologies such as blockchain and give businesses a new option that is not just debt or equity? There are all kinds of instruments: sharing of royalties; securing or collateralising risk within a supply chain, which means that businesses do not always have to rely just on cash from creditors or new investors; starting to separate the delivery of essential goods and services within a supply chain from the actual survivability of a business, as we have seen in the banking world and could do for our supply chains.

Is this thinking around the three layers being taken into account? How can we avoid a cliff edge in a month’s time, when lots of businesses might start filing for bankruptcy—do we need to taper this over a long period? What are the Government doing to ensure that credit agencies and other bodies make wise business decisions that may not be governed by these laws but which will still have a huge impact on whether we have a zombie economy or one that will thrive and pivot into the new age to come?

Covid-19: Businesses and the Private Sector

Lord Wei Excerpts

Thursday 21st May 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wei (Con)]

My Lords, declaring my interests as in the Lords register, especially in tech, I join other speakers in praising the contribution of the private sector, which by and large has really stepped up to play a role in helping tackle this crisis that is bigger than just making money for shareholders. It has supported us so much as a nation, and we need to look out for business and employees in the coming economic crisis.

I have three questions for the Minister, bearing in mind the time. First, in future can the private sector be engaged through the furlough scheme and a modified industrial strategy, taking Covid into account, to transition to a more resilient world, so that businesses are never again caught out because they operate only in a physical way? We have heard many examples—pubs becoming supermarkets, et cetera. This would help us all help those who will be unemployed move into the new jobs of the future. Rather than everyone being paid to stay at home and not work, perhaps we should start paying people a little to start imagining what the future could look like.

Secondly, could more be done to build trusted hubs online? For example, I think of the excellent work of Frontline.live, set up within weeks recently to facilitate requests for PPE and suppliers that can provide it. Rather than relying purely on government procurement technology, we could look at things such as leisure technologies and blockchain to find ways to eliminate fraud, increase transparency and ensure that supplies are delivered to spec faster and less bureaucratically, using different trusted platforms that need to be built. In this context, I think particularly about the many low-margin businesses in this country in food production or other areas that right now are struggling to raise finance, operate or pay off invoices. Could there be ways in which we could help support more resilient supply chains in low-margin industries, especially post Brexit, and create the ability for them still to have the funding they need to keep our critical services and goods and products flowing, even in crises such as this?

My final question relates more to health. There have been some signs in parts of the NHS and Public Health England of a slightly anti-private sector attitude, which may have contributed to some of the challenges we have had in securing PPE and in supply chains around testing labs and so on. Could more be done to enable the NHS and, especially, Public Health England and other public bodies to have greater awareness of the potential to work with business, so that together we can solve future problems and crises more effectively and rapidly?

[The Deputy Speaker]

My Lords, we now come to two speakers who are out of order on the main list. We will first hear from the noble Lord, Lord Tyrie, and then from the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, who we hope will have regained his signal. Then we shall have the Front-Benchers winding up. I call the noble Lord, Lord Tyrie.

Weights and Measures Act 1985 (Definitions of “Metre” and “Kilogram”) (Amendment) Order 2020

Lord Wei Excerpts

Wednesday 20th May 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wei (Con)]

My Lords, I also thank the Minister for the clarity of his opening remarks. I welcome this change. I am going to disagree with the previous speaker and some of the others, because I believe that there is an interesting nuance to this measure and its context that goes way beyond the debate around the metric system versus imperial.

In fact, it is true to say that Britain and British scientists and thinkers have played a key role in developing the metric system, with the likes of Kelvin and, more recently, Kibble, who developed some of the techniques that have led to the current definitions that we are discussing today. Undoubtedly, in future the accuracy that this change will bring will be of great benefit in many fields: astronomy, quantum physics, computing and telecommunications, as well as more generally in business.

To me, this measure starts to potentially exemplify a positive trend towards decentralising control. No longer will we need to reference a lump of metal in Paris; we can actually develop our own understanding of these measures in laboratories in Britain. I am therefore saddened that the Explanatory Note says that we have to align with Europe in order to develop these standards. We were part of developing this system, so I do not think we necessarily need to reference any other country. In my view, we need to be able to make our own decisions, especially with Brexit, sovereignly about what measures we want to move forwards, and if our choice is to align with international standards then that should be our choice.

I have a question for the Minister: until recently there were apparently only two laboratories in this country that had the instruments to do these measurements. I would be keen to know whether there are more labs that have been equipped, resourced and encouraged to make these measurements on a regular basis around the country, so that we can decentralise even away from London or wherever we take our national standard from, and local communities, local scientists and manufacturers of weight and measurement instruments can actually develop these standards in accordance with the natural norms of the Planck measurement and so on.

I welcome this move and, while I would not say that it is necessarily about internationalism, although it is good to have common standards for trade, I would encourage the Government to give us clarity in the coming months and years on how we will develop our own sovereign decision-making on this. For example, will future decisions on changes are made to this system and others fall under the purview of chief scientists?