Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill

Debate between Baroness Kennedy of Cradley and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

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

[Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I shall speak in support of Amendments 2, 42 and 5. Amendments 2 and 42 seek to make it explicit and clear to all relevant stakeholders involved in a moratorium that the monitor is expected to be independent from the company under consideration. The proposed moratorium is intended to give struggling companies breathing space to turn their businesses around and suspend, for example, a number of actions by creditors, such as chasing debts through the courts or enforcing securities, for as long as the moratorium is in force. To build confidence in the system, the monitor, who decides if the moratorium will help rescue the company, has to be independent of the company under consideration.

It is not unreasonable to assume that creditors will be worried that such a moratorium will be subject to abuse. The monitor is a safeguard in this regard, but will the monitor be able to allay creditor fears if they are perceived not to be independently minded and not to have conflicts? Having a high degree of control over which debts can be paid and which properties can be sold means independence is critical, especially as creditors can apply to courts if they disagree with these decisions. Surely, if the Bill is explicit about the monitor’s independence, it will give greater confidence to all concerned. I hope the Minister will support the intention behind the amendments and set out in his response how the Government will ensure that that independence is achieved.

Finally, I support Amendment 5 in the name of my noble friend Lord Lennie. It is right that once a company enters a restructuring process, there are mandatory talks with trade unions and those who represent employees. Having the right to be fully consulted and having access to the same information that goes to the courts will help ensure the protection of workers in the event of restructuring in an insolvency. I hope the noble Lord will address this too in his response.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I shall be brief. I agree with the question of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, about the need for clarity on timing and other issues on the moratorium. I was very interested in the comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, on how we might proceed. I look forward to the Minister’s response on all the issues raised in this vast group, including on the interests of small business and on the notion of my noble friend Lord Leigh that we focus on businesses, and saving trading businesses, rather than on companies. I think we should listen to those with real experience of the market.

As my noble friend the Minister knows, I support the Bill and look forward to helping to get it through in a way that does not have unacceptable, perverse consequences, including addressing the concerns rightly articulated by my noble friend Lord Hodgson on the use of delegated powers.

Domestic Gas and Electricity (Tariff Cap) Bill

Debate between Baroness Kennedy of Cradley and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 11th June 2018 Grand Committee

[Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendment 36A. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for putting his name to it.

The discussions around the Bill have touched on the loyalty penalty and the tease-and-squeeze tactics mentioned by my noble friend Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, which are the root cause. In good consumer markets, competition drives down prices to deliver good outcomes for all customers—even those who shop around only every once in a while—because new customers see the same prices as loyal customers. In bad consumer markets, competition pits a small minority of highly engaged customers against the vast majority of those who, quite reasonably, engage only occasionally. These loyal customers cross-subsidise deals for a tiny minority of new customers for the first year of their deals. We know that those who can least afford it are disproportionately losing out under this broken market. To put it another way, our poorest citizens are subsidising the better-off in society. Currently, this loyalty penalty runs to hundreds of pounds per year being overpaid by millions of people to companies that exploit them. It is good that the absolute price cap will set an upper limit on the effects of this detriment, but it will still allow the behaviour to continue. It would be a wasted opportunity to allow this legislation to pass without also addressing the cause of the loyalty penalty.

Amendments 36 and 36A propose a relative price cap: a limit between a supplier’s cheapest tariff and its most expensive. In moving Amendment 36, my noble friend Lord Stevenson of Balmacara set out the arguments for a relative price cap. I want to add my support to this for two reasons. The first is fairness. We must bring an end to the grotesque idea that markets must necessarily punish those customers who do not relentlessly police them. Britain’s consumer regulations are some of the best in the world. They embody the principles of transparency and fair play to ensure that customers operate on a level playing field with corporations, so that our citizens can use their collective consumer power to get a better deal for everyone. That means that shopkeepers who short-change us, or manufacturers that mislabel their products, can be brought to justice.

However, in this area, our regulations simply fail, and they fail our most vulnerable citizens the hardest. They must be updated for the modern era. We must send a signal to markets—and the companies that seek to operate within them—that a “divide and conquer” or “tease and squeeze” approach to customers is not acceptable. Our hard-working citizens deserve to buy a product from a retailer without having the price hiked up when they are not looking. We must banish the principle of tease and squeeze.

Secondly, the role of legislation should be to bring lasting, meaningful reform that addresses the root cause of the problems facing our society. The loyalty penalty is a self-perpetuating dynamic. Efficient suppliers who want to offer good-value prices to their customers and not inflict tease-and-squeeze deals on them are disadvantaged in a market in which competition is purely driven by their position on a price comparison website. We have already seen this happen with some of the early challenger suppliers, which have started to ape the behaviour of the big six so that they can succeed in the market. Unless we break this cycle, the market will continue to be dysfunctional. The absolute cap will partially mask the symptoms for a couple of years, but the core detriment will continue and return with full force once the cap is lifted.

Introducing a limit on the gap between a supplier’s cheapest tariff and its most expensive will force companies to compete equally for new customers and loyal customers. This will reveal once and for all which companies are genuinely driving costs down and which companies are masking the real cost all along through pricing trickery. Some well-meaning people have warned that a relative price cap could lead to the big six removing their cheapest deals from the market, but we know that these so-called cheap deals are anything but, as 95% of people will roll on to an expensive tariff at the end of their first year, and end up paying more overall. Losing these deceptive deals would be good riddance to bad rubbish.

What is more, once we make pricing transparent, we will unleash the forces of the dozens of newer, more efficient suppliers. Once they are able to compete on a level playing field, customers will see a daily price war for their custom, as we see for groceries. By cleaning up energy pricing, customers who switch can be confident of getting a cheaper supplier, not one that is simply dangling misleading offers. Switching will be worthwhile, instead of being a merry-go-round, and we will restore consumer trust in a market that currently does not deserve it.

In moving Amendment 36, my noble friend Lord Stevenson of Balmacara has already proposed that a relative price cap should be implemented after the price cap, but why wait to introduce meaningful reform to a market that has already been failing customers for two decades? If something is worth doing, it is worth doing now. What is more, we are going to see a full-scale rollout of smart meters in the next two years. That gives us an imminent deadline to clean up pricing and restore trust in the market. Otherwise, we face a real danger that people will reject the opportunities that smart energy can provide.

Amendment 36A proposes that the relative price cap should be introduced immediately, alongside the absolute price cap, and be ongoing. Amendment 36 will therefore give customers the choice to stay where they are without fear of being exploited and remove the need to hunt every year for a fair price. It could be a step towards reducing the number of tariffs on the market, making buying energy even simpler for customers. Introducing a fair mechanism into the UK energy market is long overdue and benefits everyone, from those who buy energy to their suppliers, who are forced to improve their efficiencies to compete. That is why a relative price cap is a good idea for everyone and why it should be implemented at the same time as the absolute cap and be ongoing. I hope the Minister will see the benefits in both these amendments.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

Noble Lords will know that I am not in favour of extending the cap, in whatever way. However, I am interested to hear about the relative tariff differential and would like to understand further how that works. I think the proposal here is that it should be imposed as well as a cap—it seems to me that that gives you a double regulation and I am not convinced that that is necessary. It would, however, be good to understand—the Minister may well be able to comment on this—what the advantages are of a relative cap in relation to the end I think we all seek, which is a more competitive market.

The noble Baroness mentioned retailers. As I was a retailer, I know that 19% to 20% of customers changing their supplier annually is quite a high figure, but the key point is that the underlying dynamics in the market are encouraging players to reduce prices and to innovate. That is what we want to see in energy. It would be good to hear from the Minister how he sees that happening in a situation where we have a cap, whatever its nature.

Consumer Rights Bill

Debate between Baroness Kennedy of Cradley and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Wednesday 5th November 2014 Grand Committee

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, for raising this issue and for tabling the amendment. I am delighted to be able to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, who I have known for some years, to his maiden contribution at the Dispatch Box, and thank him for bringing his expertise and family experience to this important debate on this very important subject. He is most welcome to our deliberations.

I am very sympathetic to the intention of the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, which seeks to relieve the suffering of those with allergies. As she said, allergic reactions can be very distressing to those who experience them, not least in the confines of an aircraft cabin, where it can be particularly scary. I know that no carrier would wish that to occur on its services. I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, for sharing her experience on another troubling issue, deep vein thrombosis, and her knowledge of travel filters and air exchanges, which are an important technological part of the debate that we are having today.

I assure the Committee that industry practice is for carriers to request passengers to pre-notify prior to travel if they have any medical conditions, including allergies, and that most passengers do so. Most airlines will then take all reasonable measures to prevent passengers from having an allergic reaction while on board the aircraft. I know that, where given prior notice—and that is an important duty for us as passengers—airlines take steps, such as broadcasting requests to passengers not to eat nuts.

For some allergies, a carrier is unlikely to be able to guarantee an environment totally free of the trigger substance. For example, an aircraft may have been used by another carrier only hours previously, other passengers may bring their own food with them which can contain a trigger substance, or a passenger may be accompanied by an assistance dog, which may be a source of allergic reaction for some people.

I note that the amendment is specific both to airlines and to allergies. While I appreciate that there is a distinction, which the noble Lord has explained, the amendment would place a duty on airlines that is not placed on operators of any other modes of transport such as trains, ships, buses or taxis, or the airport operator responsible for the airport environment. However, there may well be steps that operators in those modes could take to reduce the risk of a person with an allergy having an attack during their journey. Furthermore, there may well be conditions other than allergies where an operator could take reasonable steps to reduce the risk of an attack during the journey—for example, photosensitive epilepsy. Moreover, the majority of airlines already do what the amendment would create a duty for them to do.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for bringing this issue to our debate, but I do not think that we can justify the addition of this regulation to the Bill. I will ensure that the remarks made on the subject today are conveyed to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport, and that the points that have been made are considered. I shall also ask the department to pass the comments to British Airways because of the examples that she cited. I know from my own extensive experience of travelling that the company always seems very keen to provide a good service. As the noble Lord said, good management systems make a very big difference in these sorts of cases.

I was interested in the good practice outlined by the noble Baroness and, as I said, in the experiences of my noble friend Lady Wilcox, and in the international developments that have been mentioned, which I was not aware of. I also commend to the Committee the advice that the charity Anaphylaxis Action gives on its website to those with allergies when they travel by air. That advice includes stating their needs to carriers, discussing their proposed flight with their GP or specialist and, if concerned, taking their own food and medication, such as antihistamines or an adrenaline auto-injector, when they fly. In the circumstances, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.

[Baroness Kennedy of Cradley]

I thank all noble Lords who have spoken today, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, for her intervention. I was very interested to hear about the fast air exchange; I shall take her advice and look it up. I do not see that the fast air exchange helped the little girl aged four who became affected by a passenger who ate nuts a few rows behind her, but it could be that that is not a technical solution that is available to all airlines. I will certainly go and investigate that. Presumably, that is one of the reasons why buffer zones have been created by many airlines, such as Delta Airlines, to create a space where the passenger can sit and feel risk-free from their allergy.

I thank my noble friend Lord Mendelsohn for his contribution and his list of questions, which the Minister did not address. Actually, I was quite disappointed with the Minister’s reply. She said that most airlines do this. Most airlines do but not all of them, and that is the central point of my amendment. We need to ensure that there is a level playing field across the airlines in relation to security. There is good practice but there is also bad practice; there are good initiatives but there are also no initiatives; actions are taken but there is also a refusal to take action.