Employment Rights

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Callanan

Tuesday 19th July 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I do not see any contradiction. This is about getting a balance between those workers who have the right to go on strike and all those other workers who have the right to go to their hospital appointments, take their exams and go to their place of employment.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I wonder if the noble Lord could help me. In answer to an earlier Question, the noble Lord, Lord True, explained why the Government have not yet introduced their promised unpaid leave for carers. If I understood correctly, in answer to the noble Baroness a moment ago, the Minister said that he was sympathetic to paid leave for carers. Can he explain the Government’s thinking on this and tell us when we are likely to see some action?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I do not think that those answers are contradictory at all. It is always nice to go further in these matters. We keep all of these employment rights issues under review. As I have said, we have an excellent record, and we will go further when it is possible to do so.

Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Bill

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Callanan

Committee stage
Monday 14th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I can add to the Minister’s embarrassment. We are pleased to see these amendments brought forward. I have two questions. I think I understand why it is different, but it might be helpful if the Minister could put on record why one amendment refers to the Department of Finance in relation to Northern Ireland yet in the other, for Scotland, it is Scottish Ministers. It seems slightly odd. Secondly, has formal engagement begun already and, if not, when will that start? Overwhelmingly, we thank the Minister and hope that this is a sign of things to come.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I should quit while I am ahead on this one. I am not sure this will continue with other Bills, but let us welcome it when it happens.

I thank noble Lords for their brief comments. I am happy to confirm to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, that engagement has already started. I have spoken to Scottish Ministers. I think I spoke to Welsh Ministers, but if not some of my colleagues have. I definitely also spoke to Ministers from Northern Ireland. I will get back to her with the precise reasons why it is the Department of Finance. I suspect the problem is that we have not been able to get a formal consent Motion from the Northern Ireland Assembly because it is not sitting, but we do have written confirmation from the Ministers that if the Assembly had been sitting they would have recommended that a legislative consent Motion be granted. I suspect that is why the Department of Finance is mentioned, rather than the Northern Ireland Assembly.

After moving the amendment, I now ask that it be withdrawn so that I can retable it and the other amendments on Report.

Greensill Capital

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Callanan

Wednesday 14th April 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, the government response fails to grasp the seriousness of this issue. Not only did the former Prime Minister lobby his mates through the backdoor for Greensill Capital but it now emerges that the Government’s chief procurement officer, Mr Crothers, a full-time civil servant, was also an adviser to the Greensill Capital board, apparently en route to becoming a director. I have here his letter to the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, in which he says he was given approval to transition back to the private sector, that it was not contentious and, he says, “not uncommon”. At best this is sloppy governance; at worst it is dodgy in the extreme. I have two questions: who gave that approval and how many other cases are there across Whitehall? The Minister should have that information. If he does not, I will settle for him writing to me. The Minister is known to be an honourable man. Is he really comfortable defending this?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her questions. She will be aware that the Prime Minister has asked Nigel Boardman to conduct a review that will look into all the decisions that were taken around these developments and the questions of supply chain finance, which was the original point of the question that was posed. I say to the noble Baroness that I think it is a good thing that there is some cross-fertilisation between civil servants and the private sector. It is wrong for people to have experience purely in the public sector. These are long-standing arrangements. It has happened under Governments of all political persuasions.

Brexit

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Callanan

Monday 21st October 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

Well, my Lords, what an extraordinary response.

On Saturday, MPs from all parties voted to seek an extension to ensure that the necessary legislation will be passed prior to Brexit day. The Prime Minister maintains that his deal, and its enabling legislation, must be delivered by 31 October, yet your Lordships’ House has always said that such a self-imposed deadline runs the risk of either not completing the legislation and crashing out or making serious errors in haste.

The Letwin amendment provides insurance against “no deal by default” as the legislation must be in place first—a perfectly reasonable approach. The new Bill is likely to run to around 100 pages or more, about the size of the document I am holding, and will include arrangements for the new border down the Irish Sea, a range of vital protections for EU citizens and a range of broad delegated powers. It will probably include Henry VIII powers; perhaps the Minister can confirm whether that is the case. It will also amend or repeal parts of the original withdrawal Act, to which your Lordships’ House devoted something like 150 hours of consideration. This is significant and complex legislation, which will need proportionate scrutiny. To seek to force a Bill of this complexity through both Houses of Parliament in a little over a week is irresponsible.

Mr Johnson’s response on Saturday was like the tantrum of a naughty child. Yes, he sent the letter, but he did so in the most contemptuous way possible. He has shown no respect for the second withdrawal Act, so perhaps we should not be surprised that he shows such disdain for the normal scrutiny processes of Parliament. I have two questions for the Minister on top of my question about Henry VIII powers. Can he confirm that this House and its committees will have an appropriate amount of time to scrutinise the legislation? Secondly, will all supporting documentation, including impact assessments, be published alongside the Bill?

[Lord Callanan]

I thank the noble Baroness for her questions. On her first point, the deadline is not self-imposed; 31 October is the legal default. I must say, I am delighted to hear her new-found enthusiasm for parliamentary scrutiny; it seemed a little absent when we were told that we had to push the Benn Act through all its stages in this House in less than a day. Of course, the usual channels will discuss the appropriate scrutiny provisions for the Bill with third parties and others.

We have been talking about these issues for three years. I have lost track of the countless hours that I have stood at this Dispatch Box and answered questions on a range of such issues. If the House is willing and able, we need to give the Bill proper scrutiny but we need to pass it so that we can get this done by 31 October.

Brexit: Withdrawal Agreement and Political Declaration

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Callanan

Monday 7th October 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I feel I have heard some of those words before in many other Statements. To be clear, what the Urgent Question asked was when the Government intend to publish the full legal text of proposed changes to the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration. MPs will be asked to make a judgment on this and consider the Prime Minister’s offer. I am not going to call it a deal, because a deal to me is something that is agreed between two parties. At the moment, this is an offer from the Government which, as I understand it, has not found favour with anyone yet except the Government’s partners, the DUP. Unfortunately, they are not in the Chamber.

The Prime Minister’s language on this has changed. First, he said he would die in a ditch rather than ask for an extension beyond 31 October, then this was going to be a take-it-or-leave-it offer and now he talks about negotiations and having a basis for discussion. There are probably three things to ask here. First, there is the issue of confidentiality. My understanding is that both the President of the European Commission and the Irish Prime Minister have called for the legal text to be published. It is just the British Government who are saying that they do not want to publish it.

Secondly, in two different places, the Statement says that:

“Under no circumstances will the United Kingdom place infrastructure, checks or controls at the border”.


“At the border” is very specific. I have two questions for the Minister about that. Could the offer that is being made to the EU, which we do not know the details of, mean that the EU would need to put checks or infrastructure in place? Is the UK considering checks or infrastructure at locations other than the border? Those are very important questions, given how specific the Statement is.

People also want more information on employment, consumer and environmental rights—that is why seeing the detail of the legal text, rather than just brief Statements, is so important. Can the Minister confirm that we will maintain the levels of protection we have and keep pace with the EU in future?

My final point relates to the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive having to consider the arrangements on the border every four years. Can the Minister give any examples of such arrangements being in place, or reference any treaty or agreement, in respect of which the parliament or assembly that has to make the decisions is not active? It seems an extraordinary way forward.

It would help the House if the Minister could respond to these questions. I struggle to understand why the legal text cannot be published to parliamentarians in this country so that we can see the detail of it.

[Lord Callanan]

I thank the noble Baroness for her questions. Of course, implicit in her first question was the fact that discussions are continuing; she was quite right about that. These are proposals from the United Kingdom, as she says. It appears that they may not have found favour with the EU, so talks will continue and the texts may change. She can rest assured that, as soon as we have any concrete proposals, we will bring them back to the House and we are considering whether they should be published before then. As soon as it is helpful to the negotiation process, we will indeed do that.

The noble Baroness asked whether the EU will put checks or infrastructure in place. I do not know. It is a question for the EU. How they choose to interpret their regulations is a matter for them. We very much hope not. We have said that we are prepared to work with them.

We have no plans for any infrastructure at the border, as I said. We have always said that there will have to be customs checks, but they can be done in traders’ premises and places such as haulage depots and others away from the border, similar to the way in which we conduct excise checks now. I remind the noble Baroness that there is already a VAT border, an excise border, a currency border. The excise regulations are currently enforced by both sides, by co-operative, pragmatic, low-profile, intelligence-led policing, in co-operation with the Irish authorities. We envisage something similar.

The issue of social and environmental protection goes back to a question that I answered last week from the Liberal Democrats. I remind the noble Baroness that we already exceed EU minimum standards in a whole range of areas—be it holiday pay, maternity protections, workers’ rights, et cetera, our standards are already higher than those mandated by EU minimum standards. That also applies to environmental standards; our climate change targets are higher than the whole of the rest of the European Union.

Lastly, on the noble Baroness’s question about the consent procedure, clearly, it is a challenge that the Northern Ireland Assembly is not sitting, and we are working hard to get it reinstated. We are prepared to discuss the details of these proposals but we believe that, when one is going to subject an area of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to control by an external body through alignment with EU single market standards, which we are proposing in a compromise for Northern Ireland, it is right that the people of that area should have the opportunity to give their consent or otherwise to those proposals.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, by way of explanation, I said that the DUP were not represented here. I see that they have now taken their seats, and we look forward to hearing from them.

European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 6) Bill

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Callanan

3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Friday 6th September 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan]

I think some noble Lords might want answers to some of the questions that have been asked, particularly about the Government’s intentions—

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

If I might help the noble Lord, the only point of dissent there was that we are not at Third Reading but the Do Now Pass stage.

[Lord Callanan]

I apologise—perhaps the legal officials did not explain it to me clearly enough. I thank the noble Baroness for her clarification.

My noble friends Lady McIntosh of Pickering and Lord Hailsham raised concerns about whether the Government would request an extension but then vote against it in the European Council. I reiterate, as we have stated many times, that the Government have been clear that we will of course adhere to the law. Noble Lords have the text of Clause 1(4) in front of them and can see what it requires. The noble Baronesses, Lady Deech and Lady Falkner of Margravine, and my noble friends Lord Forsyth of Drumlean and Lord Leigh of Hurley have raised the prospect that the extension could come with conditions. Noble Lords are well aware of my position, which is of course that the Bill hands powers to the European Union, and it is true that the Bill, as drafted—

Brexit: Non-Disclosure Agreements

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Callanan

Thursday 14th March 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan]

I can only give the information that I have in front of me; I asked my department how many NDAs were in place and what they were. I will look at the situation and respond in writing if that is appropriate.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I have to say to the Minister that he answers for the whole Government when he speaks from the Dispatch Box. If his department cannot find the information, it should ask other departments. Sometimes, when I listen to his answers, I think that there is a parallel universe: there is the Prime Minister and some of her Ministers and then there are the rest of us. Most of us saw what happened in the House of Commons again last night, when MPs ruled out a no-deal Brexit, yet here the Minister is talking about no-deal Brexit non-disclosure agreements. It is hard to understand the justifications for the secrecy the Government are insisting on. Picking up on the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, does the Minister understand and share the frustrations of businesses and sectoral bodies subject to these gagging orders, which in many cases are deeply unhappy with the direction of travel but ultimately are unable to speak out on such a crucial issue?

[Lord Callanan]

Again, the noble Baroness is referring to hearsay conversations that she may or may not have had. They are not gagging orders but standard non-disclosure agreements. These are not unusual; they were used extensively throughout periods of Labour Governments as well. Many businesses are speaking out with their opinions on Brexit. Everybody has an opinion on Brexit. Believe me, I get a lot of contributions, a lot of letters and a lot of emails, from businesses and individuals, on the subject of Brexit. Nobody is being gagged.

Brexit: Date of Exit

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Callanan

Thursday 14th March 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given private notice.

[The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Lord Callanan) (Con)]

The Government have today deposited in the Libraries of both Houses a document making clear the necessary steps required to extend Article 50. The position of the House of Commons with regards to an extension of Article 50 will not be clear until the conclusion of the debate this afternoon.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, we are back to that parallel universe I referred to a few minutes ago. I ask the Minister about a no-deal Brexit and his answer is about the extension of Article 50.

This has been an extraordinary parliamentary week. On Tuesday, the Prime Minister was again defeated on her unchanged agreement with the EU. Last night, MPs rejected leaving the EU without a deal, and the Prime Minister has now to accept that she does not have the full support of her Government, or even her Cabinet. This House has also emphatically rejected no deal. Yet, in an extraordinary, intransigent speech which followed the defeat in the Commons, Mrs May appeared to want to ignore Parliament.

We are spending a great deal of time, energy and money—millions, if not billions of pounds—on preparing for a no-deal failure. One parliamentary recess has already been cancelled, and there is serious talk of longer, later and more sittings—including on Saturdays. There are even reports that the Prime Minister intends to run down the clock further to try and get her twice-rejected deal through. She is acting like the cruel parent who, when the child will not eat its dinner, serves up the same plate of cold food day after day until they are forced to accept the unwanted, the unpalatable and the dangerous.

My question, which I would have expected the noble Baroness the Leader of the House to answer, but which I put to the Minister, is: in order to give effect to what Parliament has now agreed, and to end this dreadful waste of resources and the irresponsibility that goes with it, when will the Government bring forward the necessary legislation to prevent a no-deal exit?

[Lord Callanan]

As the noble Baroness is well aware, since I have repeated it many times in this House—noble Lords will groan and roll their eyes—the legal position, until it is changed, is that we leave on 29 March. The Government have said that if the House of Commons wishes to vote for an extension, we will table the necessary affirmative SI, but we cannot do that until it has been agreed by the EU Council. We cannot just unilaterally extend Article 50; it has to be agreed with the Council. We will do that if an extension is agreed by the House of Commons and by the European Council.

Brexit: Parliamentary Approval of the Outcome of Negotiations with the European Union

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Callanan

Monday 28th January 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan]

We are going round in circles here. I refer to the point that I made. Has somebody got a copy of the Motion?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

While the noble Lord is searching for a copy, I refer him to the part of my Motion that he complained about, which calls on,

“Her Majesty’s Government to take all appropriate steps to ensure that … the United Kingdom does not leave the European Union without an agreement”.

That includes getting a deal that is acceptable to the other place. What is it that he objects to?

[Lord Callanan]

I think that you can read that as taking no deal off the table. Of course, we are doing our best. No deal is not our preferred option. We want to avoid no deal if at all possible, but we continue to believe that the best way to avoid no deal is to vote for a deal. For the Labour Party to come along here and say that it is against everything, without putting forward any positive proposals, is not acceptable.

I have set out our position. If the noble Baroness wishes to move her Motion, she is entitled to do so. That is the end of my remarks.

Brexit: Withdrawal Agreement Scrutiny

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Callanan

Wednesday 31st October 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, two questions were asked. Perhaps the Chief Whip could indicate which question the Minister should answer.

[Lord Callanan]

I am happy to answer as many questions as we have time for. I do not know who the other Member was, but I would be happy to take a question from them afterwards. I do not agree with my noble friend Lord Tebbit. We think that the Commission is negotiating in good faith and we hope to reach an agreement. That is in the interest of both sides and we want to do so.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Callanan

Monday 18th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Lord Callanan) (Con)]

My Lords, the issue of continued participation in a customs union with the EU was debated at length in our House. It has now been debated twice in the House of Commons. Most recently, the other place chose to reject those amendments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr. Instead, it chose to accept an amendment tabled in lieu by my right honourable friend Sir Oliver Letwin, to which this House is now invited to agree.

My right honourable and learned friend the Solicitor-General set out why the Government were unable to support Lords Amendments 1 and 2 and I do not intend to repeat those arguments at length. I will simply reiterate that the UK, in its entirety, is leaving the customs union. We will seek a new customs arrangement with the EU that allows us to trade goods and services as frictionlessly as possible with the EU, frees us to strike trade deals around the world, and avoids any return to a hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland.

The amendment sent to us from the other place ensures that Parliament is informed, through a Statement before both Houses provided by 31 October 2018, of the steps we have taken to seek to negotiate an agreement for the United Kingdom to participate in a customs arrangement with the EU. The Government believe that this alternative to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, provides the right balance between ensuring Parliament is informed of the steps the Government are taking to secure a future customs relationship, and ensuring that we follow through on the objective of delivering the referendum result by leaving the EU and, therefore, also leaving the customs union.

I therefore hope noble Lords will be content to accept the amendments from the House of Commons this afternoon. I beg to move.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, this is the first of the Motions before us today. In addressing it, I will briefly reflect on the role that your Lordships’ House played in consideration of this Bill, and, for the avoidance of any doubt, our approach to today’s business.

Despite attracting perhaps a little more excitement, this is the same procedure that we have for every legislative Bill that comes before your Lordships’ House. I have said before that the process of Brexit cannot be left to those who have no doubt. It is only through consideration and challenge that we get better, if not the best, outcomes for any legislation. This Bill came to us deeply flawed and divisive. Together as a House, we approached it thoughtfully and diligently. We have had some long days and some long nights in Committee and on Report. We are grateful to those Government Ministers across departments who have been willing to engage on some of the less controversial but equally important issues.

Of around 200 amendments passed, 15 did not enjoy the full or initial support of the Government. Of these, one was totally accepted on agencies and another largely accepted, with minor changes, on Northern Ireland. Eight were rejected, although on some of these enhanced protections for EU-derived protections the Government have since made further concessions, or, in the case of sifting, reinstated earlier amendments. Five have been replaced with amendments in lieu. We will consider these today, including the one we are talking about now on the customs union and the publication of primary legislation to enforce environmental protections.

We are grateful to the Government for their consideration and acceptance of so many of the points raised in your Lordships’ House. Even before the Bill returned to the other place, significant changes were made on a range of issues, including removing the power to levy taxes or establish new public authorities by statutory instrument, which is particularly important for the new environmental enforcement body; additional explanatory statements and reports to Parliament; the introduction of sunset clauses on some issues; the prevention of the repeal or amendment of devolution clauses by secondary legislation and significant amendments in your Lordships’ House on devolution provisions; and clearer guidance for courts and tribunals relating to future decisions of the CJEU. Importantly, we have seen the removal of a clause that I had never seen before in legislation; that is, one giving a Minister the ability to amend the Bill via an SI. That has gone.

Despite disappointment at the rejection of some Lords amendments, this legislation is better for the work that we have undertaken. We have not exceeded our defined and limited role, but we have used our remit to provide for greater consideration, further reflection and meaningful changes. As the Leader of the House has said previously, reinforced by Ministers in the other place, there is no legislation that does not benefit from scrutiny in your Lordships’ House.

We understand that in a democracy this can be both an asset and, at times, a source of frustration to government. Canadians describe their second Chamber as a Chamber of sober second thought—a further opportunity to think things through and fine-tune legislation. That makes the outbursts of some pro-Brexit MPs all the more ridiculous. As we discuss these final amendments from the House of Commons, we have seen a fair bit of sabre-rattling from some of the most enthusiastic Brexiteers and supporters. Inaccurate and misleading press headlines such as “Enemies of the People” and “Saboteurs” may add excitement and drama, but they do nothing to improve the quality of debate or journalistic integrity.

We have also heard calls for this House to be abolished, to be replaced with a committee of experts or an elected House. I know that many hold honourable and genuine positions on different kinds of reform, but to base a case for fundamental change to and abolition of the current system on disagreement on a Bill shows poor judgment. In response to proposals for an elected House or House of experts, I suggest that such a House might not be quite so compliant in accepting the primacy of the House of Commons.

Today, our role is very clear. This House does not and should not engage in ping-pong lightly or without thought. The process of ping-pong is not to challenge the elected House, but to provide an opportunity. Where matters are clearly and obviously unresolved in the House of Commons, that is where they should be dealt with. The reported disagreement since Friday between the Government and their own MPs is not one we should seek to intervene in, other than to provide an opportunity for MPs’ consideration, and it can be resolved only by those elected to the House of Commons.

Lords Amendments 1 and 2 on a customs union have been returned to this House with, in effect, just one amendment, changing “customs union” to “customs arrangement”. This is unnecessary, but I understand why the Government have done it. It is because the Government do not yet know, even today, what they want. Currently, they have two work streams: a customs partnership and maximum facilitation. However, when the Dutch Government are advising their manufacturing industry not to buy car components from the UK because our future customs relationship with the EU is unclear, we know that there is a problem that needs to be addressed urgently. As a result of the amendment from your Lordships’ House, the Government are now committed to return to Parliament in just over four months, by the end of October this year, with a Written Statement on what they have done and how they will proceed. I do not now feel that this is an issue that we should return to the other place.

Brexit: Transition Period

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Callanan

Wednesday 31st January 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan]

The Question was about the objectives of the implementation period, which I think I answered fully. If the noble Lord is referring to the objectives of the renegotiation, the Prime Minister set those out very clearly in her Florence speech and in her Lancaster House speech.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I do have to press the Minister on this point. He referred again to the implementation period. The Question is more accurately about the transition period. I think that is understood by noble Lords. What are the Government’s objectives? The Prime Minister was quite clear previously when she said that access to one another’s markets will continue on the current terms, maintaining on current terms the customs union and single market, and that we will also continue to take part in existing security measures. Can he confirm that those are still the Government’s intentions and objectives for the transition period?

Trade Union Bill

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Callanan

Wednesday 10th February 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords—

[Lord Callanan]

My Lords—

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I have never yet been intervened on before I have said one sentence, but I will happily give way.

[Lord Callanan]

I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. I wonder if she could help me with something which is troubling me. I noticed when the noble Lord, Lord Collins, was speaking earlier that he was wearing a “I ‘heart’ unions” badge. I noticed in Prime Minister’s Questions earlier today that the right honourable gentleman the leader of the Opposition was also wearing one. I cannot help noticing that the noble Baroness is not wearing one. Should we read anything into this sartorial omission?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I have to say to the noble Lord that that is one of the silliest interventions that I have ever heard in this House. I am really sorry—I have been left off the list; I did not get the memo this morning. Perhaps I should ask my noble friend Lord Collins if I could have a badge too, please, as it might calm the noble Lord opposite. Seriously, though, I think that it is a rather silly point to make on what I think is a serious issue, and I am not normally devoid of a sense of humour.

Noble Lords will recall from debates at Second Reading and on my Motion to establish a Select Committee that there are really deep concerns about Clauses 10 and 11. Regardless of what any of us in this Chamber say, and as we may learn in the Select Committee, we believe that this Bill has an impact on trade union political funding and, as a consequence, on party-political funding. I use as my reference on that the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which addressed those points. It is hugely controversial and we will not resolve it across this Dispatch Box, whether or not I have a union badge on—I thought that my brooch was rather nice. I think that it is right that your Lordships’ House has sought a Select Committee to get further information on this issue and really get under it in a lot more detail than we will be able to do in this Chamber. Its report will enable us to have a much more informed discussion on Report, and I am looking forward to it.

The noble Lord, Lord King, was right to raise earlier the process of discussing the overall principle underlining the two clauses. We did so at Second Reading and when we had the debate on the Select Committee, and I suspect that we will return to it again on Report. I want to touch on some of those principles today while addressing the clauses and the amendments tabled by me and my noble friend Lord Collins. I do not want to repeat the points that I made when we debated the Select Committee, but I think that some of them are worth emphasising and amplifying.

The Government’s proposals are that every trade union should within three months or 12 weeks ensure that all the members who wish to contribute to the political levy of their trade union should have to opt in to the political fund rather than having the right to opt out. The purpose of the amendments in this group is to probe the Government’s intentions a bit further but also to recognise and demonstrate why the timescale is so unrealistic, unnecessary and unreasonable. It also seeks a government response to what we believe is a sensible and practical way forward, either through extending the transitional period to five years or delaying commencement, both of which would have the effect, in practice, of providing the time to plan and prepare for the changes in a sensible way. I appreciate that this is not to do with the overall, overarching theme, but I think that we have established that there is a lack of credibility and robustness about the principles underlining the Government’s proposals.

The timescale of five years that we propose has not been plucked out of thin air. Unlike the Government’s proposals, and unlike this flimsy and inadequate impact assessment, we have taken the timescale from previous independent reports. The Committee on Standards in Public Life made similar recommendations, which allowed for changes to be made within five years. But let us be absolutely clear about those recommendations, which were made in the context of, and alongside, those three other recommendations that it envisaged would be acted on at exactly the same time. Those four recommendations, across the board on political funding, were made together. The committee’s report from 2011 said:

“Failure to resist the temptation to implement some parts, while rejecting others, would upset the balance we have sought to achieve”.

It was very clear—it sought not to advantage or disadvantage one political party over another but to have a balanced approach. That is what I find so offensive about the Government’s approach; they do not even pretend to seek a balanced approach but identify just one of four recommendations and seek to legislate on it while pretending that it does not have an impact on the very thing that the Committee on Standards in Public Life said that it did have an impact on. The report said:

“Both as a matter of principle and to support its sustainability, the regulatory regime must be fair to all political parties, and widely believed to be so”.