Court of Justice of the European Union: Comprehensive Sickness Insurance

Debate between Baroness Ludford and Baroness Penn
Tuesday 24th May 2022

(1 year, 10 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Ludford Portrait Baroness Ludford
- Hansard - -

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the implications of the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union on 10 March on comprehensive sickness insurance in case C 247/20 VI.

Baroness Penn Portrait Baroness Penn (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, this is a complex case, and the recent judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union raises many questions regarding residents’ rights and access to benefits under EU law. The Government are carefully considering the impacts of the judgment and seeking further legal advice on the implications.

Baroness Ludford Portrait Baroness Ludford (LD)
- Hansard - -

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, but the Government have had two months. The treatment of EU and EEA citizens risks becoming another Windrush, whether from refusal to give physical proof of status or from successive UK Governments’ 16-year insistence, now finally judged illegal by the Court of Justice, that some such citizens had to have unnecessary and expensive private health insurance, even though their access to the NHS satisfied the EU law test of comprehensive sickness insurance. When are the Government going to stop demanding private health insurance from all EEA citizens to help them access welfare benefits and British citizenship? What are they going to do to redress the wrongs suffered, including being deported and prevented from getting settled status?

Baroness Penn Portrait Baroness Penn (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, I do not accept the points made by the noble Baroness. Past decisions in which the comprehensive sickness insurance requirement was relevant were taken by the UK Government in good faith according to our understanding of EU law at the time. As I have said to the noble Baroness, we are reviewing the implications of this judgment for the approach taken by the UK to the sickness insurance requirement while free movement law operated in the UK. I will happily update the noble Baroness and others in this House when we have more detail to provide on that judgment and its implications.

Banks: Authorised Push Payment Fraud

Debate between Baroness Ludford and Baroness Penn
Thursday 11th June 2020

(3 years, 9 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Ludford Portrait Baroness Ludford
- Hansard - -

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to introduce legislation requiring banks to reimburse their customers who have been subject to Authorised Push Payment fraud.

Baroness Penn Portrait Baroness Penn (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, it is vital that victims of authorised push payment scams are protected. The voluntary contingent reimbursement model code for APP scams, launched in May 2019, sets standards for the prevention of APP scams and for the reimbursement of victims. The Lending Standards Board will review the operation of the code this year. Meanwhile, the Payment Systems Regulator continues to work with the industry to ensure better outcomes for consumers in the fight against APP fraud.

Baroness Ludford Portrait Baroness Ludford (LD)
- Hansard - -

I thank the Minister for her reply, but the fact is that the PSR believes that, last year, innocent victims lost nearly half a billion pounds to this scam, having been tricked into believing that they were transferring money to a correct account. Only a quarter of that money was reimbursed; some banks reimbursed fewer than one in 20 victims. The voluntary code is not working. Defrauded customers are being betrayed. I am not persuaded by the PSR’s argument that EU payment services law bars a statutory obligation—it was not raised when I asked about this last year. Even if it does, this is one area where the Government’s determination to diverge from EU law in future could have a silver lining.

Baroness Penn Portrait Baroness Penn
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

The noble Baroness is right that the Lending Standards Board has looked at reimbursements and found that, under the voluntary code, they have not been as high as expected. It has issued individual reports to each firm, with actions that they should take to improve matters. The industry continues to work on a longer-term solution and, where voluntary solutions are not possible, there is scope for further regulatory action.

Inheritance Tax

Debate between Baroness Ludford and Baroness Penn
Wednesday 20th May 2020

(3 years, 10 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Penn Portrait Baroness Penn
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

The Government are committed to a fair taxation system. We recognise that the current pandemic will have an impact on public borrowing and we will need to look at the sustainability of our public finances in the future. Our immediate focus is on providing financial support now for those who have been hit by the pandemic and on supporting jobs and livelihoods while we are in the period of social distancing and other coronavirus-related restrictions.

Baroness Ludford Portrait Baroness Ludford (LD)
- Hansard - -

My Lords, I fully support IHT being paid when it should, but I also support the campaign against excessive and burdensome bereavement bureaucracy being run by the charity Cruse Bereavement Care and the Times. In that context, can the Minister explain and justify why HMRC obliges the completion of onerous IHT forms in certain circumstances, even if the sole beneficiary is a spouse who is exempt from paying the tax? If she cannot answer me now, will she commit to reviewing this issue?

Baroness Penn Portrait Baroness Penn
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I pay tribute to the noble Baroness for her campaigning in this area. I reassure her that the Government have recently implemented an online service for inheritance tax where excepted estates can provide assured accounts to HMRC through a simple online portal. We will continue to consider ways of making the payment of tax more simple; for example, during the pandemic we have recognised that the provision of wet signatures may not be possible so we have introduced the acceptance of e-signatures in their place.