Trade Bill

Debate between Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Viscount Trenchard

Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 4th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, against the framework of what the future relationship will be, I do not think that the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Lea, that we do not follow the procedure set by Article 50 for withdrawal but instead combine a withdrawal agreement-plus with seeking to accede or re-accede to EFTA would find much support among our European friends and partners. They would say that that is not what Article 50 says.

The noble Lord has made clear on many occasions his view that the UK should seek the softest possible Brexit, and his amendment would achieve that. If we were to become a member of EFTA—I think that Norway, for one, has not expressed any enthusiasm for our accession or re-accession—it is true that we would escape the jurisdiction of the ECJ and instead be subject to the EFTA Court, but that court follows closely ECJ judgments.

The leader of Norway’s European Movement has stated clearly that it is in neither Norway’s nor the UK’s interest for the UK to become again a member of EFTA. Continued membership of the EEA would require us to accept future EU rules and regulations, but without a seat at the table and with a greatly reduced voice in the formulation of those rules and regulations. It would also prevent the UK having its own trade policy and remove the raison d’être of my noble friend the Minister and the Department for International Trade. We would not be able to enter new free trade agreements with other countries or accede to broader free trade partnerships such as the CPTPP, which includes Japan, an enormously important trade and investment partner, and leading Commonwealth countries such as Australia, Canada and New Zealand, whose trading regulations, policy and law share origins with our own.

The EEA/EFTA proposal would make this Bill redundant, because we would have no need to novate existing EU FTAs and it would negate the whole upside of Brexit, leaving us as effectively a vassal state of the EU. That is not what the people voted for and your Lordships’ House would not be serving the nation’s interest by supporting the amendment.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I hesitate to become too involved in this debate, which seems rather above the level at which I am accustomed to operating, but one or two things came to mind. As the noble Lord, Lord Lea, explained to me and as came through in his address, the purpose of the amendment is to make sure that we explore all possible options before coming to a conclusion on the many difficult issues before us today. He has done that clearly and it will be interesting to hear what the Minister has to say in response.

It would probably defeat any prospect for active negotiation to play the card that has been played in this amendment at this point, but it is worth bearing in mind the issues that it raises and the much broader point that the noble Lord, Lord Finkelstein, was keen to explore: so many strands to our positioning are being coalesced into a single deal/no deal debate, squeezing out our opportunities for further, richer and more flexible solutions to the long-term problems that we have all recognised and debated today. At this point, it would be best to hear from the Minister what the official line is and then see whether there are issues that we need to come back to on Report.

Financial Guidance and Claims Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Viscount Trenchard

Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 13th September 2017 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Trenchard]

My Lords, I, too, strongly support my noble friend Lord Hunt’s amendments. I was completely horrified to hear the statistics relayed by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. It does not surprise me because I travelled to Spain last summer—not on a package tour but they nevertheless somehow know where you are and I started to receive unsolicited texts and emails from people inviting me to make claims for the bad food or being sick. I just deleted them, of course.

I also agree with my noble friend Lady Altmann that, where possible, the cap on fees should be broadened because I would have used a CMC to pursue a claim against an airline. This was not this summer but the summer before, when our flights were cancelled and I tried to get refunded by an airline. My daughter had booked on the same flights through a different travel agent, but in the end neither of us has made a successful claim, although we are both entitled to. It was too difficult because the airline had contracted the flight to another airline. When you are entitled to a refund for a service that was contracted but not delivered—as in the cancellation of a flight—then, as the Committee is well aware, it is made extremely difficult for you to receive reimbursement. When I received an unsolicited email from a CMC about cancelled flight claims, I was quite tempted to use it. But even though I had virtually given up on the claim against the airlines, I decided not to because a quick examination of the company made me suspicious. I also thought it would absorb in fees most of what it might get back, so I decided not to proceed.

Once such companies are capped in what they can charge, I will feel much happier about using their services because of what they specialise in and because it is made extremely difficult for individuals to pursue refund claims themselves. In many areas there may be a route whereby the individual can do the same thing as a CMC, and do it for free, but it is often made so difficult. It is intended that people will get bored or be too busy to go on waiting, while listening to music and pressing “1” or “2”.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. Once again, he has made his case brilliantly and without having to resort to metaphors about drones or anything else. He seemed this time to be firing a set of missiles rather closely to his right. I am sure progress can be made on this important issue and want to make two points.

First, to pick up on the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, in the representations that many of us have received there was a slightly larger package than just the question of claims management companies. There was a question about the small claims limit going from £1,000 to £5,000 and I would be grateful if the Minister, when he responds, could give us some better information about how that impacts on this issue. There is also a narrower question about an amendment to the public liability protocol, which I do not fully understand. But I hope the Minister will rise up in his helicopter, or whatever he is currently riding in to get to his scenic views, to give us a view of what this is about. There is an exception for claims arising overseas in these areas, which seems a little unfair because if a claim is genuine then it should be possible to mount it in whichever jurisdiction. If the package travel regulations are UK law and need to be resolved in that way, it seems odd if an exception is made for those who want to claim from an overseas position.

My other point would be that while I think we are all in the same place in wanting to see this issue resolved, I hope it will not be at the expense of genuine illnesses. The Minister might want to make sure that there is an avenue open when he comes to respond. Rather like the noble Viscount who has just spoken, I had a problem with a holiday—not a package holiday but one booked through an agent. It was in Italy, at a villa which was a nice place to be, but it became overrun with rats; I think this was on day three. So numerous were these creatures, and of such an extraordinary puissance, that they climbed up on to the veranda and entertained us while we tried to eat. They then ran round the bedroom while we tried to sleep, knocking over our toothpaste and other things in our bathroom. We eventually had to retreat to the top floor of the villa and barricade ourselves in.

The response from the locals was that they were “ratti”, which I think is the Italian for rats. We were therefore fairly clear what they were. At one point the locals produced some materials to capture these rodents. It consisted of a large plane of wood, about the size of the Dispatch Box, on which was placed some translucent gooey substance. They did not want to kill these things—they were very eco-friendly and against that—but just wanted us to capture them. But the blooming things were so strong that when one ran up and landed on that sticky substance, it could not quite get all four legs off at once but it got one limb up and then just hopped off. It was not very effective.

We sued the company that let us this property. The interesting thing about suing holiday companies—I am sorry, this is a long way into my point—is that holidays exceptionally attract damages because holidays are not repeatable instances. In other words, under English law you can claim for exemplary damages for a holiday lost in a way that you cannot for other damage. That is an issue that need not detain us in the Bill, but given that that particularity exists in the law, I hope that the sense of the amendments would not damage genuine claims. Illness does occur on holiday, and sometimes rats invade, and we would want to make sure that people can sue properly and, given that it was a holiday that was spoiled, get the additional money available without any recall or loss.