United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 28th October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, we are obviously in competition to make the shortest speech of the evening; I cannot imagine why, because this is quite an interesting question, although we had a partial answer to it in an earlier debate. My take on it was not so much about the points raised clearly by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh; I am worried about how acceptably these phrases, put into this Bill at this time, work in a digital world. It is clearly stated in the clause that we are talking about businesses that are local and not local, businesses which are located or not located in an area. We are talking about propinquity and the ability of those who have to interpret these clauses to understand where there are real businesses and how they are operating if they are to be seen to be local.

That does not work for Amazon or quite a lot of the shopping we will be doing between now and Christmas, which will be largely digital in form. Is “hypothetical” to mean virtual? I leave that rather complicated philosophical question for the Minister to respond to.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

My Lords, I understand that the purpose of this amendment from my noble friend Lady McIntosh is to probe the meaning of “actual or hypothetical goods” in the Bill, which has foxed a number of other noble Lords. I am very happy to provide further information on that. The inclusion of actual and hypothetical goods in this clause is critical, as it means the provisions work effectively in scenarios that could arise where there are no actual local goods against which impacts on incoming goods can be compared.

If a company has a product which is subject to a patent, it can therefore be made by only one company in the UK. If an authority were to regulate against that product because of where it is produced, there could not possibly be a local good to compare it against to determine relative disadvantage. Being able to compare it to a hypothetical good addresses this and allows the rules against direct discrimination to operate properly and protect all businesses across the UK.

Let us take as an example a new technology which takes an innovative approach to food processing, cutting production times by half. The technology may be completely unique, novel and unlike other technologies for food processing on the market. Without being able to compare this against a hypothetical good, it would be very challenging to deem whether any new measures taken by Administrations were discriminatory or not. Equally, as a further example, if a Scottish company patented a technological breakthrough in quantum computing, this same technology would not be present on the English market and we would therefore need a hypothetical good to be able to compare this innovation to in order to determine whether new English regulations discriminated against this Scottish technology and otherwise created an unfair disadvantage.

The existing wording is also important to deal with situations where arguments could be posited that a local good is similar to, but not the same as, an incoming good, and therefore would not be a good comparator in determining whether discrimination exists. Being able to compare a hypothetical good that is the same as the incoming good, save for location, enables that determination to take place.

I was also asked who determines what a hypothetical good actually is. Ultimately, it would be the courts, but a business would bring forward the challenge and claim discrimination.

I turn to the stand part debate on Clause 7, which sets out the test for direct discrimination. Direct discrimination is where a requirement applies explicitly differently to local goods and goods from elsewhere in the UK and that difference results in disadvantage for the goods from elsewhere. This means, for example, that a Scottish regulator cannot impose additional licensing requirements for Welsh goods unless it does the same for Scottish goods. As another example, take a scenario where Scotland regulated that only Scottish whisky could be sold in pubs; this would be directly discriminatory against the very fine Penderyn whisky produced in Wales, as they would have a clear disadvantage against similar goods on the Scottish market—I see that meets with approval.

“Disadvantage” simply means that it is more difficult or less attractive for those incoming goods to be bought or sold. In this example, any additional licensing requirements on Welsh goods may impose additional costs and potentially increase the price of the Welsh good, meaning it would be less attractive to buy. To be clear, the goods that we are comparing here are the local equivalents of the incoming goods that are materially the same, or materially share the same characteristics, but do not have the same connection to the originating part of the UK. For example, a potato produced in Wales is compared with a potato produced in Scotland. This clause will ensure that directly discriminatory barriers cannot be created by rules that aim at the way in which a good is sold to circumvent the effect of mutual recognition. For example, if English butchers were banned from selling Welsh lamb, this would be directly discriminatory.

It is worth noting that Schedule 1 to the Bill allows for direct discrimination where a requirement discriminates in a reasonable way, as a response to a public health emergency, ensuring that the rules leave scope to react to such situations. I ask my noble friend to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

I am obliged to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, for raising these points. There is a raft of unanswered questions here. It is late at night, so I will try to focus on only the most important. Am I right in assuming that the market access principles, recognition and discrimination, apply to the rental and gifting of goods? If they apply to the rental of goods, what is the policy purpose? What is the purpose of applying them to the gifting of goods and what does it mean in practice? For example, does it apply to statutory requirements for the provision of food by food suppliers that are subject to statutory requirements?

The second head of issues concerns the position of public bodies engaged in commerce. I understand, but only from the Explanatory Notes, that the supplying of drugs by the NHS, even though it does so in a commercial context from time to time, is not covered by the Bill. Is this right? I have particularly in mind Clause 14(2), which says:

“‘Sale’ does not include a sale which … is made in the course of a business but only for the purpose of performing a function of a public nature.”


I read in the Explanatory Notes that that means the NHS supplying drugs. If that is right, what does the completely impenetrable Clause 14(3)(b) mean when it says:

“Subsection (2)(b) does not exclude a sale which is … not made for the purpose of performing a function of a public nature (other than a function relating to the carrying on of commercial activities)”?


Can the Minister explain this to the House? It matters quite considerably because I suspect it will cover a great deal of commercial activity performed by public bodies.

Thirdly, and separately, what is the position in relation to the goods that are made partly in one part of the United Kingdom and partly in another—for example, cars on an assembly line that crosses borders, or planes or high-tech equipment where parts from elsewhere come into it? As a result of Clause 15(3) and (4), is there a separate application to each of the individual components or does one look only at the completed goods?

Lastly, and this is perhaps the most significant, how do the Government envisage that this will operate? My understanding of Clause 6, on the non-discrimination principle, is that where a statutory or regulatory requirement in one part of the country discriminates indirectly, making the sale of those goods disadvantageous in another part of the United Kingdom, that disadvantageous provision can be supported only if it has one of the legitimate aims identified in Clause 8(6).

Let us take minimum alcohol pricing in Scotland. This is a relevant requirement which indiscriminately discriminates against incoming goods on the basis that alcohol brought into Scotland from England by a supplier is the subject of a disadvantage as defined in Clause 8(2); namely, minimum pricing makes it less attractive because the goods are more expensive to buy. As I understand it, this can be justified only if that minimum pricing statutory requirement has one of the following aims:

“the protection of the life or health of humans, animals or plants”

or

“the protection of public safety or security”.

Am I right in understanding that if, for example, a large supplier of alcohol from England into Scotland wished to challenge minimum alcohol pricing, he could do so by taking his buyer to court? There would then be a private law action in the courts of either Scotland or England—could the Minister tell me which it would be, assuming that the minimum alcohol pricing was in Scotland and the supplier was in England?—and the courts would have to decide whether or not minimum alcohol pricing was a regulation that had a legitimate aim.

The consequence of this Act—which is quite tricky to understand and is perhaps unthought-out—is that we in Parliament are handing over to the courts the determination of policies such as minimum alcohol pricing. That seems at the moment to be the consequence of the way that the Bill is drafted. I cannot believe that that is what any sensible Government would wish. Could the Minister please explain how Clause 8 works? I hope she can explain why my conclusions on the basis of Clause 8 are wrong—I really hope they are.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this short debate. There were a lot of questions in there, some of which I will just have to write to noble Lords about because my briefing does not cover the whole gamut of what was asked and I would rather give a full answer.

Amendments 66 and 67 are relatively technical amendments relating to the definitions of “sale” in the Bill. I am willing to provide further details on this issue and discuss any concerns that my noble friend has. Amendment 66 would narrow the definition of “sale” in the Bill. It would narrow the types of supply-related activities that a trader could carry out and benefit from the market access principles. It would therefore reduce the effectiveness of the market access principles in reducing barriers to trade across the UK.

The United Kingdom Internal Market Bill is intended to provide a structural underpinning and additional protections to the status quo of intra-UK trade, ensuring certainty for businesses and investors in the form of a safety net of regulatory coherence. We should not cut holes in the safety net. The definition of “sale” that we have will ensure that businesses can continue to trade in a frictionless way, no matter how they are supplying their goods. It also seeks to align broadly with the scope of the “placing on the market” concept that is central to our existing goods regulation.

I say to my noble friend Lady McIntosh that the Sale of Goods Act 1979 was a very UK-specific way of defining a sale. The EU style of definition that has been brought into our legislation is much broader, and there is a need to ensure that the same principles align across the whole legislative piece. “Placing on the market” is therefore included in this as a concept but not in the Sale of Goods Act. In short, the Government cannot support this amendment, and I ask my noble friend to withdraw it.

Amendment 67 would exclude the supply of goods free of charge from the market access principles. It would include the rental of goods, as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, pointed out. That would lead to the strange outcome that a good could be lawfully sold under the mutual recognition principle in a part of the UK for only a penny but could not be supplied there under that principle free of charge. This would affect a range of items such as commercial samples, marketing merchandise or introductory offers, and would reduce the effectiveness of the market access principles in reducing barriers to trade across the UK.

I was asked a question by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, when we were talking about coal. I think the distinction my noble friend was trying to make was between a ban on the sale of coal and a ban on its use. As in his example, you could legally buy it in Wales, but you could not then legally use it in England just because you bought it over the border due to the difference in rules. For these reasons, I ask my noble friend not to move Amendment 67.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alderdice) (LD)]

I have received a request to speak after the Minister from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed.

--- Later in debate ---

My third question is absolutely not meant to be a “gotcha”. I did not give notice to the Minister and it has not been raised, so perhaps she will be able to write to me. It comes from information provided by Universities Scotland, which is interested in whether “sale” would effectively cover tuition fees as the purchase of a good. Under this legislation, higher education is not considered to be a public authority. Public authorities are excluded under this part of the Bill, but higher education, as a provider—like, for example, the NHS—is potentially not excluded. If the Minister could write to me on that, it would be very helpful, and I think that Universities Scotland will benefit from having clarity on how it will be treated under the sale and purchase of either goods or services.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

I remember the noble Lord asking that question earlier in the debate. I am more than happy to write to him on that and on the other issues that I have not been able to cover in my response.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

I am not complaining, but the Minister did not try to answer any of my questions, so I would like a comprehensive response.

I am really interested in whether the Government envisage that in private law actions the courts will be resolving whether regulations that are discriminatory on the face of it for public purposes, as defined in the Bill, are valid—that is, whether they are for a legitimate aim. If they are, then the consequence is that Parliament is subcontracting decisions on these policy issues to the courts. I am not asking the Minister to deal with the other issues, but if she could deal with that one now, I would be grateful. If she cannot, because the answer is not yet known or has not been worked out, I would be grateful if she could indicate that. This issue seems to be absolutely key to the question of certainty for business. If where we come out at the end of the Bill is the courts system deciding on the legitimacy of a whole range of regulations, I am sure that that would not be what the Government would have wished. That is why the common frameworks process looks so much more attractive.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

Having looked at that question, I would rather write to the noble and learned Lord giving a full answer—but I will do so very speedily, before we come to the next stage.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I am grateful to have had this little debate. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, for identifying even more issues than I and the Law Society of Scotland had done.

I thank my noble friend Lady Bloomfield for her answers, as far as they went, but, bearing in mind in particular the way that procedure operates in this place as opposed to the other place, it is extremely important that we have a very full letter. Perhaps she could write to the three of us who have contributed, as well as putting a copy of her letter in the Library, before we get anywhere close to the next stage.

I would like to, and still do not, understand why we are bringing in a new definition of “sale” that has a different meaning from that in the Sale of Goods Act 1979. I do not know whether my noble friend is saying that we are widening the definition to include what is generally understood in EU law, but I do not recognise any of this from what is before us in the Bill, so I would be grateful if my noble friend could write to me and say what, precisely, is the legal basis for widening and changing the definition in the way that the Government have in that regard.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, for the definitions that he gave and the illustrations that he posted as being a particular problem north of the border. I am also grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, because I think this is absolutely vital: none of us here this evening wants to put up barriers to trade between the four nations of the United Kingdom. However, it is absolutely essential that we have clarity on the face of the Bill for the reasons that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, has given: we do not wish to have to resort to private-law actions before the courts—that, surely, is not acceptable. I quite understand that the Government have had to bring this Bill forward in something of a hurry, but I am here this evening to help them identify these issues.

Certainly, I am now even more confused as to why Clause 14(6)(c) has been introduced, particularly as regards the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, referring to Clause 8(6) in this regard. However, rather than delay proceedings this evening, I will say that it would be extremely helpful to have a written understanding from my noble friend Lady Bloomfield as to why we are in this position this evening. With those remarks, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 66 at this stage.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 26th October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, at the end of the previous group the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord True, kindly said that his mind was not closed to further discussion on this issue about common frameworks and how they relate to the Bill. I welcome that. In a sense, the amendments in this group are part of the same debate. I therefore hope that they will also be included in the next-stage discussions, as they are a variation on the theme.

I set out my route map for progress in my response to the previous group and I will not repeat it. However, I endorse the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, my noble friend Lady Andrews, the noble Lord, Lord German, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, particularly their growing confusion about what exactly is in the Government’s mind on this issue. Perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, coming fresh to the debate, can persuade us that there is indeed a coherent logic to the Government’s position—because it certainly eludes me.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

I hate to disappoint the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, but it falls to me to respond to this debate. I will now speak to the two amendments—Amendment 6 and the consequential Amendment 44—concerned with how UK market access principles, as proposed in the Bill, will apply. I understand that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, has tabled these amendments on behalf of the Welsh Government. Accordingly, I would like to begin by thanking the Welsh Government for their positive engagement on this Bill so far. The UK Government look forward to continuing constructive future engagement with the Welsh Government.

As my noble friend Lord True said earlier, we continue to work closely with the Welsh Government to develop common frameworks, in line with the framework principles agreed by the Joint Ministerial Committee (EU Negotiations) in October 2017. I know the Senedd were happy to see the Joint Ministerial Committee provisionally confirm the first two frameworks of the programme on hazardous substances and nutrition. Work continues in earnest to reach further such agreements in the coming months and beyond.

Before I turn to the detail of the amendments, I want briefly to cover the context of the Bill in order to explain the approach the Government took to applying the market access principles. At the risk of repeating the arguments of my noble friend Lord True, now that we have left the EU and as we recover after our fight against Covid, it is vital that we deliver legislation which allows the continuing smooth function of our UK internal market at the end of the transition period. The Bill aims to ensure frictionless trade, movement and investment between all the nations of the UK. The policies that different parts of the UK choose to pursue in the future is a matter for each Administration. The Bill ensures that these local policies can be pursued while maintaining seamless trade in the UK internal market. There is no question of the UK Government intending to bypass the common frameworks; the Bill is intended to complement them.

The approach we have taken in the Bill will give businesses the regulatory clarity and certainty they want. It will ensure that the cost of doing business in the UK stays as low as possible, and without damaging and costly regulatory barriers emerging between the nations of the UK. With this context in mind, I turn to the amendments. They would, in combination, prevent the market access principles from applying at the end of the transition period. The lengthy process they put in place before the principles can apply, including the need to exhaust frameworks discussions, would mean a considerable delay in securing business certainty that trade can continue unhindered within the UK’s internal market. The resulting threat of unmanaged regulatory divergence would not provide the certainty businesses need and could deter businesses that wish to expand and supply customers across the UK. This is not desirable, especially as we continue our recovery from Covid-19.

The amendments would also limit the areas to which the market access principles can apply. Again, this would unduly constrain the scope of the principles and fail to protect the internal market fully. In contrast, the Government’s approach is more comprehensive and ensures that businesses in all sectors can continue to trade across the UK without facing new barriers or discrimination.

The amendments also present a challenge in defining the exhaustion of the frameworks process. In all cases, common frameworks are designed as living arrangements, capable of change by agreement as required. Thus, the process is never wholly exhausted. The new clause also specifies a consultation process with the devolved Administrations and the CMA, or, failing that, a 12-month delay before any regulations can be made specifying areas to which the market access requirement would apply. The Government are already committed to appropriate consultation with the devolved Administrations; however, under the terms of the amendments, the time limits proposed would create unnecessary delay.

The noble Lord, Lord German, asked about the timing of the Bill. Reduced certainty would indeed be a disaster to our recovery from Covid-19. We do not believe that it is acceptable for businesses to have less certainty on trade with their UK supply chain after 1 January 2021 than they have today and have had for centuries. The UK Government are committed to ensuring that the status quo of seamless internal trade is maintained for the shared prosperity and the welfare of people and businesses across all four nations of the UK. Without the internal market, livelihoods would be at risk. There is also the issue of future-proofing the Bill to allow that, for the jobs of the future, mutual recognition will apply across areas that we may know nothing about today, including things such as the artificial intelligence industry.

My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, asked whether reference should be made to the common frameworks should be made in the Bill. We already have a statutory obligation to report quarterly on progress on the common frameworks, so there is no need to put this in the Bill as well. Far from being silenced, as the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, suggested, as she knows, two common frameworks have already been agreed. However, some 38 more have yet to be considered, with only nine or 10 weeks until the end of the transition period. They do indeed provide a very sensible framework, but they remain voluntary. Ultimately, the common frameworks depend on continued co-operation. In spring 2019, the Scottish Government walked away from the internal market project. This legislation is required to provide certainty for business and consumers.

The noble Baroness asked about labelling in Welsh. There is nothing to prevent labelling in Welsh for goods produced in Wales. I was also asked about the use of plastic teaspoons. The Welsh Government can still ban their use, but perhaps not their sale.

For these reasons, and for the uncertainty and confusion that it would generate for businesses and consumers, unfortunately the Government cannot support the amendments in this group and I would ask noble Lords to withdraw or not move them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I listened very carefully to what the Minister said about the need for certainty, which seems to be the overriding approach. But, having listened to my noble friend Lord German and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, I would refer to the Food Standards Agency report, Food and Feed Safety and Hygiene Common Framework Update. Paragraph 3.15 states, in relation to adopting mitigating measures against mutual recognition, which we will discuss in another group on another day, makes a quite interesting point that

“where common approaches are taken, mutual recognition will not apply.”

If that is the case in this Bill, the common approaches across the nations—the mutual recognition and certainty that she indicated—will not apply. But we do not yet have full agreement on all the common frameworks, so how can that apply under this Bill, given that we have not reached the agreements yet? However, the Government’s own position is that mutual recognition will not apply if common approaches are taken on any regulatory changes. So which is it? Is it in this Bill or is it within the common frameworks?

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

I am afraid that the noble Lord has the advantage of me in that I have not seen that bit of the food standards framework. I would rather look at his question again in Hansard tomorrow and reply to him in detail. I do not think that I am able to give him a full answer now.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. I am grateful to the Minister for her response but it is disappointing.

I must say that I appreciate the noble Lord, Lord German, pressing the Government on why they cannot specify any examples of potential disruption to the internal market, because we really need to hear those. Perhaps the Minister might write to me with some of those specific points following this debate. I note that the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, confirmed that there is no evidence that common frameworks are breaking down, nor that there is an inability to be fast.

I can see that the timing in the amendment needs to be looked at and renegotiated, and I am sure that would not be a problem. I know that the Welsh Government are sincerely committed to bridging the gap that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, outlined so clearly; at the moment it is a chasm, but it can be bridged.

I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, that we all want the UK to prosper and things to work, but we must find a way to make them work by not splitting the UK, which is what the Bill seems to be doing at the moment.

I am grateful for confirmation from the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, of cross-party support for this approach. I have to agree with the noble Baroness that there is little evidence of the Government’s good will towards devolution in the Bill as drafted, and that at the moment the logic of the Government’s approach is quite difficult to discern.

The amendment was a genuine attempt to restore confidence between the central Westminster Government and the devolved Governments. I hope we will return to it because I think we need to. This was a hand of peace, an olive branch, and we must return to it later on Report. For the moment, though, pending further discussions and negotiations, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 19th October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Whitty (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, most contributions so far have related to Part 5 and the Government’s somewhat ham-fisted attempt to unilaterally disavow an undertaking made only a few months ago. I agree with those sentiments. and with the reports of the Constitution Committee and the EU Select Committee and the contributions by their chairs, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. I will also support the Motion in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, at the end of the debate.

However, this is quite a big Bill, and I want to talk about something else. Before doing so, I welcome my noble friend Lady Hayman to the Chamber. I commend her speech, including the importance that she stressed of environmental standards, which relate to this Bill as much as they do to much of the legislation we will face over the coming months.

I want to talk about state aid, which is in the Bill but is dealt with rather superficially. It needs to be clearer before the Bill finishes its passage through this House. In a sense, the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, referred to this in her contribution. She and I were members of an EU Select Committee that produced a report on state aid about two years ago. We rarely agreed on anything fully, but we do agree on the importance of this issue.

At its most acute, the issue of state aid could be epitomised by the issue in Northern Ireland. As a result of the agreement and the way the Government are now pursuing the matter, through the Northern Ireland protocol Northern Ireland is to be part of the customs union and, to a large extent, the single market. So if the Stormont Government gave a subsidy or preferential public procurement arrangement to, say, a Northern Ireland textile company, the main exports of which are to the Republic, and if its Irish competitors objected, would EU state aid rules prevail or would the UK internal market rule prevail? It is clear that we need a UK state aid regime and it is fairly clear how that will relate to our international obligations under the WTO and, I hope, to future bilateral free trade agreements. But it is not at all clear how it will operate in relation to the internal market, which is the focus of the Bill. If that same Northern Irish company’s main export were to Scotland, what then would the arrangements be? If it were to England, would it be different again, because there would be an equivalent objection from England-based competitors?

The fact is that industrial, employment and consumer policy—all of which are relevant to state aid considerations —are differentially devolved between the three Administration and centralised in England but not in the UK. Of course, even in England there is the expected intention to devolve more industrial and employment policy to the English regions, so the question could, at some stage in the future, apply to Greater Manchester, which may have a different industrial and employment support system from that in the West Midlands. How does that play out in the new state aid framework?

The central question is whether there is yet a draft framework for all of this in relation to state aid, at least between the UK Government and the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Governments. If not, what do the Government think it should look like and, above all, how should it be enforced? Is the office for the internal market, due to be established within the CMA, wholly a creature of the UK Government or will the devolved Administrations have a say in its governance and decision-making? During the EU regime, the Commission’s state aid arm had authority over member states, with prohibitions and fines at its disposal. That could be the case for the CMA.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

I remind noble Lords of the speaking limit.

[Lord Whitty (Lab) [V]]

Before the passage of the Bill, we need to clarify these issues.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, I add my warm welcome and congratulations to my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock. Despite the case just made by the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish of Furness, it is a puzzle to me that the Government have introduced this Bill, given the commitment agreed in the Joint Ministerial Committee—of Ministers of the UK and the devolved Governments—to develop by consensus common frameworks for the UK internal market. We are told that good progress has been made on that yet, with perfunctory consultation, the Bill has been brought in.

The Bill contains no mention of common frameworks. It takes powers to override devolved legislation by means of regulations passed at Westminster and to spend money in areas of devolved competence. It contains only patchy and vague provisions for future consultation on the exercise of the powers that it creates. It has provoked indignation in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and legislative consent is highly unlikely to be forthcoming. The Bill is disrespectful to the devolved Administrations. When the union is under great stress from Brexit and Covid, it is also reckless.

The Bill is disrespectful towards this Parliament. It contains egregious Henry VIII clauses, most notably Clause 53(2), which says:

“Any power to make regulations under this Act includes power … to amend, repeal or otherwise modify legislation.”


The Bill is disrespectful towards our treaty partners. It authorises breaches of the Northern Ireland protocol and the withdrawal agreement. The Government offer as justification that the EU may intend to interpret ambiguities in the withdrawal agreement—ambiguities that the Government were happy to write in a year ago—to the detriment of the UK’s internal market and the Good Friday agreement. Ministers may see this as a suitable tactic in the Brexit negotiations. It may also be a reckless reminder to other countries not to trust perfidious Albion.

The brutal declaration in the House of Commons by the Northern Ireland Secretary that the Government are deliberately taking power to break international law sounds a loud alarm. The Bill is disrespectful to the rule of law and the judiciary. In this regard it echoes thinly veiled threats to the judiciary in the Conservative manifesto, the notorious remarks in Conservative Home by Suella Braverman shortly before she was appointed Attorney-General, and attacks on lawyers by the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister at the Conservative Party conference.

The Government make the case in self-exculpation that their defiance of international law is legal under domestic law. They also insist that they are not precluding judicial review, although in Clause 47 they go to extreme lengths to insulate regulations made under the Bill from challenge. The Government cannot justify what they are doing by quibbling. Constitutionality entails acting in a spirit of respect towards the rule of law, including both international law and, in our domestic jurisdiction, the effective ability for persons to have redress in court for the misuse of executive power.

It consists in respecting conventions which, though uncodified, ought to be binding on Ministers and on Parliament. These conventions include respect for the role of other institutions which form part of the constitution, among them the devolved Administrations as well as the judiciary, and therefore acting with restraint towards them. Proper government keeps the convoy moving along together. It shows itself to be trustworthy. The doctrine of the omnicompetence of statute, undoubtedly valid, is gratifying to the vanity of parliamentarians and convenient to Governments, but such ill-judged deployment of statutory power as we see in this Bill risks imposing intolerable stresses on the cohesion of the constitution and of the United Kingdom.

The Bill is an expression of a loutishness that characterises this Government’s political dealings. Where will this debasement of our democracy take us if we collude in it?

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

I remind the noble Lord of the advisory speaking time. We cannot go beyond midnight, and if everybody goes over, some Lords will have to wait until tomorrow to speak.

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

In this House we must do all we can to limit the damage that the Bill causes, starting by supporting the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge.

Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Obligations of Hospitality Undertakings) (England) Regulations 2020

Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist Excerpts

Friday 9th October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]]

My Lords, I have two related questions for the Minister. I understand that they may not fall under his departmental responsibilities, but I would appreciate an answer at some time.

We seem to have heard less of the term “world-leading” from the Government recently, at least in regard to Covid-19, but are we learning from the rest of the world and following best global practice closely? Last month, the World Health Organization produced a report on pandemic fatigue. It advised presenting evidence clearly to the public, acknowledging the difficulties that rules present and making it clear that the Government are letting people live their lives with as much freedom as possible. On 5 October, the World Health Organization Insights Unit had a high-level meeting related to that. Did the UK have a representative at that meeting?

Secondly, the Minister may be aware of the Australian state of Victoria, which, through intensive contact tracing—

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

May I ask the noble Baroness to address the issues in question in this debate?

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]]

Victoria appears to be close to getting a grip on the so-called second wave. I will get to businesses in a second.

If the Minister is not, I suggest he reads an account of the outbreak at the Butcher Club in Chadstone shopping centre; it is of particular relevance to today’s debate in that the businesses in the case seem to have done everything right, yet they were still at the centre of contagion. In the accounts, it is almost possible to trace every step of the virus around the shopping centre and across the streets. My understanding is that some of the scores of local test and trace units around the country could operate in such a way, but it is clear that our national, privatised, chaotic system cannot. What justification do the Government have for continuing with the failing system, as a number of other noble Lords have asked?

We hope to see soon, as the amendment calls for, extra support for businesses—and, I would add, individuals. The Victoria outbreak was traced to a cleaner in a business who went to work ill out of economic necessity. We hope that such things do not happen in the UK, but the Government are not doing anything like enough to save people from that extremely difficult position.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Wheatcroft (Non-Afl) [V]]

My Lords, the regulations related to hospitality do not make sense. Other noble Lords have pointed out the illogicalities, particularly around dancing. The Minister insists that consultation has driven government thinking. Consultation with the restaurant and pub business would have told the Government that the 10 pm curfew could not be justified. There has been little evidence of scientific reason behind it. Restaurants practising social distancing could survive if they were able to do two sittings at dinner, but the 10 pm curfew makes that impossible.

Publicans have to watch their customers leave and head straight to the supermarket or off-licence to buy more alcohol, which they can then drink outdoors without following any social distancing rules at all. Local authority leaders have pleaded with the Government for changes to this legislation on drink sales but have had no success. The regulations are not being respected because people do not understand government thinking.

Are we really facing an appalling rise in Covid cases, as the scientists say? Even Health Minister Nadine Dorries has warned that our intensive care beds could be overrun within 10 days if the current rate of increase in Covid cases continues. If that is the case, why are we debating these already outdated regulations? We are consistently told that the Government are following the science, but at what distance?

With a virus that spreads in this way, we need immediate action. It will be painful but, without decisive action, the long-term pain will be even greater. If we need more draconian measures, let us have them now, when they might stave off the problem, not when it is too late. The leader of the Opposition, Keir Starmer, wrote this morning that the current dithering is causing confusion.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

I ask the noble Baroness to draw her comments to a close because we are very tight on time.

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

Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist Excerpts

Wednesday 15th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these statutory instruments today in his usual clear way. As he said, these SIs amend the Enterprise Act 2002 to enable the Secretary of State to intervene in mergers on two new grounds: by lowering the jurisdictional thresholds for reviewing transactions affecting UK-targeted companies involved in AI, cryptographic authentication and advanced materials; and by introducing a new criterion for intervention to preserve UK critical health and crisis mitigation, including but not limited to those needed for Covid-19. He stressed that these were short-term measures until more fundamental reform was taken forward in the now long-promised national security and investment Bill.

I tabled a regret Motion which stems from the report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and relates to four main points. There is a discrepancy between the apparently permanent changes set out in these SIs and the accompanying comment from BEIS that more fundamental change is in train. There is a lack of any information about the timing or content of the national security and investment Bill other than its antecedent, the White Paper 2018, which now seems a very long time ago. The committee suggests that the draft Bill be published forthwith and be subject to comprehensive debate and pre-legislative scrutiny. Further, the committee suggests that a better lens for consideration of the impact of mergers and takeovers would be to include their impact on consumers and consumer detriment. I will briefly expand on those points and look forward to the debates from other noble Lords who signed up to speak.

We broadly welcome the intention behind these reforms, which mirror changes to FDI in other countries, including France, Germany, Australia and Canada. The Minister is right to stress that these do not alter our commitment to having an open economy, which we support, and they are not against FDI, which has done so much to improve the quality of work in this country and the jobs available, and they are certainly not about putting up barriers. The country must remain open for business.

However, experience shows that many new tools must be available if we are to combat action and reaction to pandemics. These reforms presumably reach out, as the Minister said, to pharmaceutical and medical equipment suppliers, but they also seem to extend further. As he mentioned, they look at the effects of the pandemic including on food supply and service providers such as the internet. That is a very wide reach. Will the Minister confirm that this new power could also be used to prevent hostile takeovers of otherwise profitable and stable companies suffering short-term reductions in profitability or depressed share prices as a result of the pandemic or similar emergency? Will he also confirm that notifications to the CMA will remain voluntary, even though the intention remains to mitigate risks in the short term, which suggests that a more direct route of action might be required? Will there be further guidance on what might trigger this power, which has been criticised as being potentially very broad, and, if so, when that will be published?

The Government last lowered the jurisdictional turnover thresholds of the UK merger control regime in June 2018, when we passed an SI concerned with the development and production of military and dual-use technology, computing hardware and quantum technology. At that time, the threshold in relation to UK target company turnovers was lowered from £70 million to £1 million, which is a big change, and the 25% share of supply, which the Minister mentioned, was amended. We supported the moves at that time, but we questioned whether other sectors should be included. But these were described at that time as temporary, short-term reforms, again pending primary legislation. Is that still the situation? Can we expect more changes when the Bill finally arrives? When does temporary and short-term actually morph into permanent?

We now have a proposal to extend these already amended jurisdictional thresholds to three further sectors under quite broad headings—artificial intelligence, cryptographic authentication and advanced materials. The Explanatory Memorandum makes it clear that the intention is to cover producers but also researchers, and it covers suppliers to these companies, so the scope is again potentially very wide. There is a promise of further guidance on this. Will the Minister give us some more information on when that will be available? Again, the notification system will be voluntary, and companies will have to take the risk of the CMA or the Secretary of State initiating an investigation. Is that really the most sensible way of proceeding?

The outstanding questions that my regret Motion raises and that I would like the Minister to respond to are as follows. As the SLSC says, it is very difficult to scrutinise these SIs. Indeed, it will not really be possible to do so until we see the National Security and Investment Bill itself. When will it be published? Will there be pre-legislative scrutiny? If not, why not? Can the Minister settle the question of whether the changes set out in these SIs are intended to be temporary, in the sense that they might be unwound in the NS and I Bill, once it arrives, or are they permanent? Can he confirm that it remains the Government’s intention to unwind the earlier June 2018 amendments once the new regime is in place, or are they now permanent? Can the Minister confirm whether the new Bill will follow the proposals in the 2018 White Paper? The world is a very different place now, and I wonder whether, for example, the voluntary notification system is really sufficient for national security concerns. Also, will there be turnover cut-offs or sectoral cut-offs? What about regional and place considerations?

Finally, why are consumer interests not given a central part in this process? The CMA, under its recent chair, the noble Lord, Lord Tyrie, was rightly refocusing work around the prevention of detriment to consumers. Its recent consultation on its 2020-21 plan stressed that competition, particularly in digital markets, was getting weaker in many sectors and that practices that damaged effective competition needed to be eliminated. In a sense, this is the other side of the same coin which is being addressed by these SIs.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

I remind the noble Lord of the speaking limit.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara [V]]

I am just winding up. I accept that some mergers and acquisitions affect national security, however it is defined, but all mergers and acquisitions affect consumers, so can the Minister confirm that consumer detriment will form part of it? I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl) [V]]

My Lords, taking part in the Business and Planning Bill has pushed me to venture into this debate, and I add my small voice of support for the Motion of Regret in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, that we should remain mindful of our international obligations towards developing countries with regard to potential vaccine development.

I also agree with the sentiment that the Government must ensure that they have the capacity and confidence to guard against future threats. I understand their wish to be self-reliant when dealing with current and future public health crises in order to safeguard the welfare of the British people and intervene on grounds of public interest.

The new categories of businesses to be subject to the share of supply test are justified—although I would like to see the list widened—given the terrible complications and supply shortfalls that we have experienced during the pandemic. As a nation, we must be more alert and prepared for any potential second wave and other detrimental advances arising from external hostile forces that might be a peril to our national interest.

I also welcome the lowering of the thresholds, but I agree with noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, about not having any. Indeed, this might have been a factor that led to companies in the UK producing PPE and other medical instruments and making them available abroad while our capacity was drastically low.

I accept that, under these extenuating circumstances, for matters related to the availability of vaccines, essential food products, pharmaceuticals, and internet and communication infrastructures, we should intervene to protect our public interest. At the same time, any interventions must be transparent and beyond retrospective reproach, as suggested by my noble friend Lord Liddle, unless it is a matter of defence and state security.

Finally, a question arises about the financial impact of government intervention and how we safeguard parliamentary scrutiny and democratic oversight. Should the Government need to assist or rescue companies and intervene in merger processes, they should do so with thorough consultation with relevant trade organisations—

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

I remind the noble Baroness of the time limit for speeches.

Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill

Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist Excerpts

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard) & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 23rd June 2020 Lords Chamber

39: Clause 10, page 64, line 17, leave out from “30” to end of line 18 and insert “September 2020.”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment alters the definition of the “relevant period” that applies for the purposes of Clause 10 so that the period ends with 30 September 2020.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

My Lords, I turn to the amendments in this group tabled by the Government, which extend the temporary insolvency measures in the Bill. Each of these measures delivers relief to those companies affected by the economic impact of Covid-19. The protections for companies from winding-up petitions and statutory demands will help struggling businesses by temporarily removing the threat of winding-up proceedings. The suspension of wrongful trading enables directors to make decisions about whether to carry on trading without the threat of personal liability. Modifications to the new moratorium will extend their benefits to companies that may otherwise not have been sure of accessing this procedure, and the small supplier carve-out from the termination clause provisions will help support small business suppliers.

We have listened to the concerns raised in the House regarding the expiry of the temporary insolvency measures and whether they should be extended. We agree that the period of uncertainty caused by the coronavirus will not have ended by the time these measures are currently due to expire. Therefore, an extension to 30 September 2020 will ensure that the measures continue to provide support to those companies impacted by the current pandemic. For this reason, I commend the government amendments in this group to the House. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Speaker]

Just before I call the Minister, I am going to see whether we can try the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, again. No? I call the Minister.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist]

I thank my noble friend Lady Fookes, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for the issues they raised concerning the suspension of wrongful trading and restrictions on winding-up petitions.

I turn first to Amendments 40 and 42, which seek to remove the suspension of wrongful trading in cases where a company’s financial problems are unrelated to the coronavirus. Noble Lords will recall that the purpose of this measure is to remove the potential for wrongful trading liability at a time when many directors have been, and still are, making difficult decisions about the future of their companies. The suspension does not mean that a struggling company could just carry on trading without any regard for the consequences, but that, if it unfortunately enters insolvency, the directors will not face personal liability for using their best endeavours and trading while the pandemic is having such an impact on businesses.

Amendments 40 and 42 would disapply the suspension of wrongful trading if it can be shown that the underlying causes of the problems are unrelated to Covid-19. While this is a laudable aim, I fear that at this uncertain time it would be very difficult for directors to disentangle the various reasons for their company’s woes. Asking them to be 100% certain that those difficulties are related exclusively to Covid-19 before continuing to trade may be a test too far. Moreover, they would want to be 100% certain. The threat of personal liability is a very effective deterrent and directors do not want to put themselves in a position where they could lose their house if they took the risk of trying to save a struggling company. The stakes here are high: if there is any doubt—and in most situations there surely will be—directors would be likely to cease trading and the objective of this measure will not be achieved.

We understand noble Lords’ concerns about a blanket suspension of liability, but other protections for creditors and the wider business community will continue to apply. For example, directors’ duties under the Companies Act 2006 and directors disqualification actions are not affected. For it to be successful in its objective to save otherwise viable businesses, the blanket suspension given by Clauses 10 and 11 is necessary.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, asked why we are suspending trading from 1 March, as indeed did my noble friend Lord Bourne. Wrongful trading does not in itself affect normal business; rather it is the recovery action that may be made retrospectively by an insolvency officeholder against the company’s directors after the company enters insolvency proceedings. Suspension of the wrongful trading liability will not interfere with normal relationships between a business and its customers.

I turn next to Amendments 103 and 106, which would remove the retrospective provision in Schedules 10 and 11 regarding the making of winding-up orders. We understand the concerns of noble Lords regarding retrospection. This is not a step to be taken lightly and, if it is misapplied, retrospective legislation could indeed lead to significant injustice. We do not dispute the conclusion of the Constitution Committee that such measures should be based on need rather than on desirability. However, the need for retrospection in the context of this measure has been amply demonstrated, and I believe that there has been an especially compelling justification for these provisions.

Certain creditors have shown that they will pursue their debts despite government requests for pragmatism or forbearance, regardless of whether such action is in the interest of the survival of other businesses and irrespective of the impact on the economy as a whole. It is because the evidence demonstrates that the restraint required in the current circumstances can be guaranteed only through legislation that the Government have brought forward this widely supported measure.

However, its purpose would be wholly undermined if the protection it gives against certain types of undesirable creditor behaviour were to begin only after Royal Assent. That approach could have led only to an immediate rush to court by creditors urgently seeking winding-up orders in order to beat the deadline. That would have defeated the legislation even before it reached this House. It is right that creditors who have obtained winding-up orders specifically to frustrate Parliament’s legislative intention should not benefit from that behaviour. That is particularly so when the behaviour has caused potentially significant harm to a company that was the subject of a petition.

The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, also asked how anyone could tell whether an order made between 27 April and the Bill coming into force is void. It is possible that a small number of creditors may not have acted responsibly and have brought winding-up petitions on the basis of the current law despite the Government’s previous announcement that this will not be allowed. The official receiver, or in Scotland the interim liquidator, will be required to bring any such circumstances to the attention of the court so that it can take appropriate measures.

I hope that noble Lords will understand why we are not able to accept Amendments 40, 42, 103 and 106, and that they will agree not to press them.

Amendment 39 agreed.

Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill

Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist Excerpts

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

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

I call the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara. Is he there? No? I call the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

I thank noble Lords for their amendments on these important issues and their comments in this short debate. The amendments include making additional changes to insolvency legislation in the provisions regarding the prescribed part, which is the amount of a company’s net property that must be reserved for the benefit of unsecured creditors when a company enters insolvency. There is what I take to be a probing amendment, which will provide the opportunity to discuss the effect of priority on creditors, such as pension fund deficit, as flagged by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles. There is also an amendment in this group from my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe to enable the regulation of pre-packs and connected sales in administration. As this matter is being dealt with in group 10, I hope my noble friend will not mind if her amendment is spoken to in full in that group.

The measures in the Bill are intended to help companies maximise their chances of survival during the Covid-19 emergency, to protect jobs and to support the recovery of the economy. That is why other measures that would not alleviate the impact of the current emergency have not been included in the Bill.

I shall first deal with the probing amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, and the noble Lord, Lord Fox. It is correct that the priority rules, which apply to some debts when a company enters insolvency following the end of a moratorium, change the way in which a company’s assets are allocated among different types of creditor, but the Government consider there to be compelling reasons why the moratorium provisions should give priority to certain types of creditor. These relate to rent and goods and services supplied during the moratorium, which will enable the company to pull through as a going concern.

For example, they include amounts owed to employees —which, as I am sure noble Lords agree, should rightly be considered a special category—and liabilities involving financial services, where default could result in the company facing a demand to repay a much larger amount, which would prevent the rescue of the company as a going concern. For the moratorium measure to operate successfully, it is essential that providers supplying these types of goods and services during the moratorium have some level of assurance that they will receive payment for those supplies.

The amendments from the noble Lords, Lord Hendy, Lord Hain, Lord Monks and Lord Stevenson, would change the value of the prescribed part and alter the way in which an insolvent company’s property is distributed between different categories of creditor. The rules for calculating the prescribed part were recently amended by statutory instrument in April this year. The noble Lord, Lord Hendy, asked how this was calculated: the proportion set aside for payment to unsecured is calculated at 50% of the first £10,000 of assets plus 20% of the rest up to—he was correct—a current cap of £800,000. This amendment was as a result of a consultation that ran between March and June 2018. As a result of these changes, the maximum amount of the prescribed part was increased from £600,000 to £800,000.

When this issue was consulted on, respondents expressed concern that further alterations to the rules for calculating the prescribed part were likely to have an adverse effect on lending, as floating charge holders may not be able to accurately assess their level of risk and anticipated recovery in the event of the debtor’s insolvency.

The noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, asked why the Government have not introduced measures to support the provision of debtor-in-possession rescue finance for distressed companies, in line with other jurisdictions, such as the Chapter 11 arrangements in the US. While the current UK restructuring framework does not provide explicit debtor-in-possession finance provisions, it allows rescue finance to be used to help rescue a financially distressed company. The Government previously consulted on various ways in which rescue finance could form a more prominent part of the restructuring package but, at that time, feedback from stakeholders was that the new measures would still allow for rescue finance with all the features found in other jurisdictions. I hope that answers the noble Lord’s question.

Lastly, the noble Lord, Lord Fox, mentioned the Finance Bill and HMRC taking precedence. I am not sure that he is aware that its precedence relates only to moneys it holds on behalf of employees, such as national insurance. For the reasons I have set out, the Government are not able to accept these amendments. I hope the noble Lords will therefore withdraw their amendments.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

I have received a request to speak after the Minister from the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara. We were unable to hear him earlier due to a technical error.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara [V]]

My Lords, I want to make a brief point. The Minister’s response was interesting but very much couched in the existing paradigm. We seem to be in a situation where, as somebody said, the Government have lifted the lid on the debate over how we work out what goes into the insolvency waterfall, as it were, and how to compensate those who lose out as a result of that compression. Pensions should be part of wages and salary; they should not be where they are. Small businesses always seem to suffer. Thirty per cent is just a figure; it is beneficial but it does not go to the heart of the problem of how we deal with creditors and who comprises the neediest in terms of the analysis of what must be paid back and how that should be organised.

As the Minister was trying to argue, I think, there may be a short-term fix to get this thing back on the road, but these reforms will not be sufficient to resolve the inadequacies of the present arrangement. Does she agree that the time has come—but perhaps it is already too late—to review this area critically, with particular reference to issues such as debtor-in-possession financing? Obviously, there is a crisis because of Covid-19; that crisis provides an opportunity to say that we need to look at this issue again. This would be a good time to do so.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist]

I take the noble Lord’s point. The point of the Bill is to provide emergency relief in the current crisis. The restructuring planned provisions that we have tabled and are taking forward in the Bill are flexible and will permit complex funding arrangements to be used in a company rescue. This will bring our regime more in line with other jurisdictions where debtor in possession rescue finance is well established. These measures will add to the UK’s existing first-class restructuring and insolvency framework and ensure that it keeps pace with developments in other highly regarded international jurisdictions.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted [V]]

My Lords, I thank everybody who spoke in this wide-ranging debate. We have explored further how the Bill has been a catalyst for looking at some long-standing issues with the fairness of the insolvency waterfall in general. I hear what the Minister says about the April update but that is still broadly based on the original tenets.

As the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, explained so well, the situation is different in modern times, with many more what would have been employees and other workers falling to the unsecured creditors. It is also they who are squeezed in the robbing of Peter to pay Paul that goes on in the adjustments to provide the impetus for a moratorium. We heard an interesting suggestion from the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann—one she has made before, perhaps in connection with the Pensions Bill—that, instead of looking at Section 75 debt, which tends to make you throw up your hands in horror and run away, we should look at technical provisions or the amount that would go to the PPF; that is another part that could be preserved.

I thank noble Lords. We have more food for thought. I accept that new Clause A18 is perhaps not the place to introduce new priority protection—that probably belongs more in Schedule 3—but these matters are serious enough that they must be brought back at a later date. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

I will now try the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, again. No, that did not work, so we will go to the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist]

Can I correct for the record something that I said on the previous amendments? The money that will take precedence from HMRC includes VAT held on behalf of customers, as well as national insurance contributions. What it does not include is things such as corporation tax.

I thank noble Lords for their amendments on a range of important issues in this group. I will try to cover them all, as well as the Committee’s questions, as best I can in the time available. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for highlighting the important matter of directors’ duties under the Companies Act. These duties continue to apply during the period in which personal liability for wrongful trading is suspended. The purpose of this provision is to remove the deterrent of personal liability at the point at which the directors of the company are deciding whether it should continue to trade at a time of great economic uncertainty. At this time, it is important that directors can be certain that their decision to trade on will not result in personal liability.

I reassure the noble Lord that those directors’ duties he refers to in his amendment will continue to operate, including the duty to protect the interests of creditors. I add that directors have legal responsibilities under wider company law; for example, to exercise independent judgment with reasonable care, skill and diligence. These duties will remain in place, as will measures in insolvency law to penalise directors who abuse their position. Therefore, directors will still face the threat of fraudulent trading, coupled with director disqualification from a compensation regime where their conduct merits it.

On Amendment 67, regarding the general power to amend insolvency law, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, for raising the matter of ensuring that temporary amendments made using the general powers in Clauses 18 and 26 remain relevant and necessary while in effect and will be removed when they are not needed. Full consideration must be given to the impact of temporary amendments on anybody likely to be affected by them, not just small or medium-sized companies and unsecured creditors, and this consideration must be given before the powers are used. The amendments must then be proportionate to the purpose of making them, which must be one of the purposes set out in Clauses 19 and 27. This might be reducing the number of entities having to use corporate insolvency proceedings or mitigating the impact of Covid-19 on those processes. Further, the powers in Clauses 18 and 26 may not be used to create a provision to impose or increase a fee.

A temporary amendment which causes financial harm to small and medium-sized companies and unsecured creditors is unlikely to meet one of the purposes for which the powers in Clauses 18 and 26 may be used. Temporary amendments must remain under review. In the unfortunate circumstances where an amendment caused unforeseen and unintended harm, this would be addressed during the ongoing review process.

A number of noble Lords mentioned the Small Business Commissioner in relation to Amendment 75. The noble Lords, Lord Stevenson and Lord Mendelsohn, are right to highlight the office of the commissioner as a force for good in resolving payment issues for the smallest businesses which, as we know, are least able to weather the storm of cash flow issues. The Government are completely focused on their manifesto commitment to clamp down on late payment to small businesses. The SBC’s intervention in late-payment disputes has recovered over £7 million in late or unpaid invoices for small businesses since it was created, and its work has been especially important in light of the cash flow issues all sizes of businesses have been facing in the current Covid situation. I hope this also goes some way to addressing the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Palmer.

We have already pledged to consult on extending the powers of the SBC and we will bring forward that consultation as soon as we are able. The consultation period and engagement with interested parties will bring forward ideas for the extension of scope and powers and will be given consideration. I hope that noble Lords will understand our desire to consult carefully before making important decisions such as this one.

I turn to Amendment 48 on the Financial Reporting Council, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. The Government are committed to strengthening the UK’s corporate governance and audit regime. We are drawing up plans to replace the Financial Reporting Council with a new regulator, as part of a wider programme of audit reform. This programme covers the recommendations of three independent reviews by Sir John Kingman, Sir Donald Brydon and the Competition and Markets Authority. The Government are therefore already considering many, if not all, the specific issues highlighted by this amendment. Our intention is to set out our proposals in the coming months, seeking views on them where the Government have not already done so. The noble Lord will be aware that this Bill takes forward some of the corporate governance reforms related to his amendment, such as a freestanding moratorium and a new restructuring tool.

We were asked why we were not reforming Companies House. The consultation on reform received a significant number of responses. An official government response will be published in due course. We are considering a broad package of reforms to Companies House, to ensure that it is fit for the future and continues to contribute to the UK’s business environment. The proposals amount to the most significant reform of the UK’s company registration framework since the companies register was first introduced in 1844 and it is important to take the time to get it right.

Amendment 80, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, covers the role of the Registrar of Companies. The Government agree that there is a case for introducing further checks to verify the identities of individuals setting up, managing or controlling corporate entities. Last year’s consultation proposed that those with a key role in companies should have their identity verified, and that Companies House should have greater powers to query and seek corroboration on information before it is entered on the register and to remove inaccurate information.

I turn to Amendment 143 in the name of my noble friend Lady Anelay. I will try to allay her concerns, and those of my noble friend Lord Cormack. There have been extensive discussions with DCMS and the Charity Commission, which have been involved in all the measures in the Bill. My noble friend will be aware that a small number of charities is incorporated and regulated by an Act of Parliament or by royal charter. In the limited time available it was not considered proportionate to extend the measures in Schedule 14 to the Bill to this small group of charities. Extending the relevant provisions to these groups of charities in a way that would be effective and avoid unintended consequences would be complex.

In cases where charities are not covered by the Bill’s flexibility on AGMs, the Charity Commission has indicated in its published guidance that it will take a pragmatic and proportionate approach where members’ meetings need to be postponed or held virtually in order to comply with social distancing, even where this may appear to be contrary to the rules of the charity’s governing document.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Altmann and the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, for tabling an amendment on shareholder representation that draws attention to the flexibilities offered regarding meetings of companies and other qualifying bodies. Given that, at present, public health measures preclude mass gatherings, it is right that the Government should temporarily suspend certain members’ rights, the most fundamental being the right to attend a meeting in person. The measures on AGMs and other meetings enable them to be held in a way that is consistent with the coronavirus regulations and the Government guidelines on social distancing. The new measures will not prevent shareholders exercising their right to vote. They will still have the ability to vote by proxy where available.

To minimise the impact of not being able to attend, we expect companies to engage with shareholders ahead of and following meetings, including responding to shareholders’ questions that are sent in by electronic and other means. We have issued guidance to industry that bodies which seek to make use of the range of meeting flexibilities that the Bill provides should explore all alternative avenues to ensure that their members are able to participate in AGMs and other meetings to as great an extent as is reasonably practical.

I turn now to the final point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, on the Financial Reporting Council UK audit reform in response to the review by Sir John Kingman of the FRC, Sir Donald Brydon’s review of audit and the Competition and Markets Authority’s study of competition in the statutory audit market. The Government have committed to bringing forward proposals for reform, including legislation to establish a new regulator in place of the FRC.

I would like to thank noble Lords for their insightful contributions. I have sought to offer reassurances regarding each of the issues raised, albeit in brevity given the range of issues in this group. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara [V]]

My Lords, I thank all speakers in this short debate. It has been very wide-ranging and we have ended up with what almost amounts to a raft of future changes that we would all like to see in the legislation relating to corporate governance and related matters. I look forward to hearing about progress on that in the near future.

I have one point to make which does not need a response from the noble Baroness at this stage. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, rightly raised the question of charitable companies. We have been given a response to the effect that it is not felt appropriate to deal with the very small number which fall into the main category. However, I put it to the Minister that these days most charities have trading companies and all of those will be subject to the same rules and regulations that we have been talking about prior to this. Therefore, I assume that any charity which is set up—whether by royal charter or a company set up by Parliament or indeed by any other way in which charities are formed—and has a trading company would be caught by the main tenet of these things. I am afraid that insolvency is quite likely, given the very bad impact of the coronavirus on charities. Tourism numbers are down, and we are likely to see problems and I hope that that will be covered. Perhaps the Minister could drop me a note on this point.

In the same vein, I ask the Minister to confirm that companies which are set up through credit union legislation could have similar issues, so their particular circumstances need to be looked at, as are those companies set up on a social enterprise model for which there is not the same legal framework. However, the same intention lies behind them and they should be able to trade and operate in a way that is effective for their members. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness [V]]

My Lords, I will seek to be brief. The point I will make relates to retrospection, which Amendment 129 from the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, perhaps illuminates; he is trying to make some of the provisions even more retrospective. I will not work through all the detail; suffice it to say that in Schedule 10 we are asked to enact a provision that would retrospectively void a court order that had been legally pursued and granted. In the words of the Government’s Explanatory Notes, this

“may lead to the petitioner becoming liable for the cost of doing so.”

I do not doubt that there are important business and commercial reasons underpinning these provisions. I ask simply that the Committee proceeds with the utmost caution when making retrospective provision. I quote from the Constitution Committee’s seventh report:

“We recognise that the COVID-19 pandemic presents companies with considerable challenges and that the Government is rightly seeking to protect businesses and the economy as a whole … However, measures with retrospective effect are exceptional and undesirable in principle, requiring the strongest possible justification. We do not think the Government has yet made the case for them in this Bill.”


I simply invite the Minister, when he comes to reply, to try to make a justification and, if he is unable to do so in the time remaining in these foreshortened proceedings today, to undertake to make a response to the Constitution Committee’s report before the House meets for Report.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist]

My Lords, if I might take just a couple of seconds of your Lordships’ time, we have 10 minutes left to finish this group. I encourage people to make their comments as short as possible, so that we at least finish this group.

[Lord Howarth of Newport [V]]

My Lords, I will follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, and make my comments in reference to Amendment 129 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts. I begin by commending him on the very strong statement of principle he made in the debate on the first group about the constitutional impropriety of too many aspects of this Bill.

His amendment dealing with the “relevant period” provides us the opportunity to touch on the constitutional principle of retrospectivity. The Bill’s provisions are backdated, altering the law on winding-up petitions as it stood after 1 March in some aspects and after 27 April in others. I do not in any way dissent from the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, to bring in a further measure to protect vulnerable businesses. None the less, we ought to recognise that it is generally held that retrospective legislation undermines the rule of law.

In this Bill, a legal right that people relied on is ex post facto wiped out, to the detriment of persons who relied on it. Provisions in Schedule 10 operate retrospectively to invalidate winding-up petitions made by creditors, albeit creditors exercising a statutory right. They could even be deprived of the benefit of a favourable court judgment previously made, as the noble and learned Lord just said. It allows the court to undo the effect of winding-up petitions and even to require petitioners to be liable for costs. This is a remarkable provision and appears to be incompatible with the rule of law.

Retrospective legislation should be very rare indeed. It is constitutionally objectionable in principle, so, like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, I ask: how does the Minister justify it? If he considers it necessary to deal with abuses by creditors, how widespread are these abuses? How many instances have been reported? Why is a change in the law needed to deal with them, and why a retrospective change in the law?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lennie [V]]

I thank my noble friends Lord Hendy, Lord Hain and Lord Monks for bringing forward their amendments on this part of the Bill. Given the constraints on time, I ask the Minister whether the Government intend to bring forward further legislation on this matter. Does this have to be dealt with now, or can it wait for further legislation?

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist]

My Lords, these are important amendments, which deserve a proper response. The Government agree with much of the sentiment behind some of the amendments, and so I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I commit to write to them with a proper response tomorrow. Clearly, the Government are not able to accept the amendment, and I hope that the noble Lord will therefore withdraw it.

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden [V]]

My Lords, given the time, I will not try to sum up the brief debate we have had on these 18 amendments, including one dealing with small companies and one relating to employment situations. I look forward to the letter from the noble Baroness and ask that she has another look at how we might mitigate the impacts on the very smallest of businesses, otherwise we may have to revisit the matter on Report. That said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill

Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist Excerpts

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

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I draw attention to my financial interests, as in the register. Although we broadly support the Bill, it is a little frustrating. It does too much by permitting things in a fast-tracked temporary measures Bill, and too little because it has left out other important measures similarly well consulted on. The Minister may conclude that that balance is like Baby Bear’s porridge and just about right. Nevertheless, there are some lumps in the porridge. Expediency has meant that it is the business-favouring parts of the consultations that are being fast-tracked and the more social-facing, small business and employee-facing measures that are left out. I therefore ask the Minister for reassurance that the Bill is not seen as removing pressure from legislating other important reforms on corporate governance and reporting, ESG, insolvency practitioners, audit and replacement of the Financial Reporting Council. I certainly do not see it as a justification for holding off.

The moratorium provision was expected, but there may be traps in the way it works, especially in the event of a following insolvency. There are changes in the insolvency distribution waterfall, with unpaid moratorium debts, and pre-moratorium debts without a payment holiday, being given a new super-priority. Both the treatment of what becomes super-priority and what is “normal supply” disadvantage smaller suppliers. All their pre-moratorium debt is in the subordinated category and normal supply favours stronger creditors’ amounts of super-priority, as they will have contracted shorter payment terms. Will events be monitored, and rankings readjusted if the super-priority does result in outcomes with less in the pot for SMEs, unsecured creditors and pension fund deficits? Unfortunately, it also looks as though the slaying hand will be held by HMRC, with its new claims for extra super-priority, and by banks, as they are outside the ipso facto provisions. It may be that security is not exercised in moratorium, but where are the provisions that prevent banks charging special fees and hiking interest so they can profit in moratorium, or making repayment acceleration demands to secure larger sums with super-priority? Such actions will not help rescue companies, are unfair and should be restrained. That is not to say that the moratorium concept is unwelcome but, because we do not have the time now to weigh up all the checks and balances, it would be sensible to hold its operation under review, to see how it worked and for revisions in the light of unintended consequences to be brought forward.

The temporary suspension of winding-up petitions also has lumps. In a sense, it robs Peter to pay Paul and whether it is the potential petitioner or the company that is smaller, more at risk or more aggressive, is not always one way. I therefore recognise the compromise in trying to keep the period short. However, under Schedule 10, the courts could impose retrospective restoration costs on those required to withdraw petitions made under the current law. Unlimited, might that be a retrospective step too far?

I am conscious that fast-tracked emergency legislation is not appropriate for complex changes and additions, but a few simple things within the scope of the Bill could be achieved. My noble friends will say more.

I regret that there are not more provisions to assist with personal bankruptcy. Australia has raised both the payment time and the financial threshold for initiation of proceedings.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

I remind the noble Baroness of the time limit.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted [V]]

What is happening in the UK? Additionally, I regret that the Bill does not include simple Companies House provisions on identity verification, enabling it to play a role in preventing rogue or criminal elements abusing the current crisis to commit fraud. Again, there has been consultation already, but how is that being followed up?

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist]

I ask the noble Baroness to bring her comments to a close.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted [V]]

I intend to revert to the various matters I have mentioned with amendments.

Covid-19: Businesses and the Private Sector

Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist Excerpts

Thursday 21st May 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, we have heard about the extraordinary impact of the private sector contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, and other noble Lords. I wish to highlight the work of the British curry industry which, as a collective of 11,000 restaurants with 80,000 staff—[Inaudible.] Any recession or job losses elsewhere is likely to have profound effect on this business, which is interconnected and interdependent. Many noble Lords will be aware of the pioneering entrepreneurs and leaders among the 5,000-strong members of the Bangladesh Caterers Association —[Inaudible.] This lockdown has been devastating on their profession. Further job losses—[Inaudible.] It has impacted hundreds of thousands of families for whom this has been their livelihood for generations.

Post lockdown, with the economic decline, many of these businesses are likely to face catastrophic meltdown. The UK’s forthcoming immigration point-based system will further exacerbate the pressure—[Inaudible]—staff from overseas, though not Europe. I look forward to the Home Secretary fulfilling her promises made during the Brexit campaign to support this industry and to recruit skilled chefs from abroad.

Despite all these factors, the majority of restaurants, if not all, throughout the four nations have responded to this emergency in earnest by donating ready-made meals to hundreds of thousands of vulnerable families—particularly during the month of Ramadan—and of course to every hospital in their locality as well as to care staff. I am proud of their formidable endeavours, reaching out to make a difference and disregarding—[Inaudible.] They are indeed the pride of Britain.

I invite the Minister to commend the work of the Bangladesh Caterers Association and agree that government measures for the curry industry are equally as essential—[Inaudible.]

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

I remind the noble Baroness of the speaking limit.

[Baroness Uddin]

I have finished.

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

Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist Excerpts

Wednesday 20th May 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, I join others in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, on the clarity of his exposition at the start of the debate on this very complex matter. It is also nice to see him at the virtual Dispatch Box once again. To tell the truth, I am rather missing him from all the debates that we had together on Brexit. It is a shame, in a way, that he has gone to another department—certainly his successor does not appear to wish to engage the House on the issues of our future relationship with Europe in quite the same depth that he was so nobly and willingly keen to do—so it is a pleasure to be debating something with him again today.

This is essentially a very technical measure; I thought the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, put it very well in explaining its importance. However, in the past this business of weights and measures has of course been of no small amount of political significance. I would just like to make some comments on that.

We will all remember the great brouhaha of the early 2000s about the “Metric Martyrs”, the refusal of traders in some of our markets to go along with these standards. They were taken to court, and this was described by the Daily Mail as the EU’s “bureaucratic bullying”. I think it was described by many people who were opponents of the EU at the time as a classic example of the EU bullying its way into something that good Brits wanted to have nothing to do with. What makes the row about the Metric Martyrs quite poignant is that, of course, one of the people who were greatly involved in it was a man called Mr Steve Thoburn, a trader in Sunderland. It was a case involving Sunderland City Council that brought this issue to prominence, and of course Sunderland was the city that voted overwhelmingly for Brexit.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

I remind the noble Lord of the speaking time limit.

[Lord Liddle]

Yes. I believe that the Government should now be acknowledging that this issue is nothing to do with EU sovereignty but was to do with international standards, and that it is desirable for Britain fully to follow international standards. I humbly suggest that the Minister, as a former North East MEP, writes to the Daily Mail, the Daily Telegraph and all those others—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist]

I suggest that the noble Lord draws his comments to a close.

[Lord Liddle]

Of course I will. I suggest that he writes to them and explains that the great brouhaha about EU bullying was so much nonsense.