Television Licences: Over 75s

Debate between Lord Ashton of Hyde and Lord Lexden

Tuesday 27th November 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

I think that the noble Lord misunderstands the position. We made it absolutely clear to the BBC that we expect it to continue with this important concession, and in October the Secretary of State also made that clear to the House of Commons committee. However, the Digital Economy Act, which was passed before that, also made it clear that the Government retain the power to maintain the concession until 2020, which we will do, after which full responsibility will transfer to the BBC. Therefore, the settlement took place before the manifesto was written.

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

Would it not be good if the director-general of the BBC occasionally came to this House, of which he is a Member, to assist us in discussions of this kind?

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

I am not sure that that would be helpful—for a number of reasons but mainly because it is very important that the BBC’s director-general, who is the editor-in-chief of the BBC, stays clear of politics as much as he can.

Historic Cathedrals

Debate between Lord Ashton of Hyde and Lord Lexden

Monday 14th May 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

My Lords, I feel that I am really on the noble Lord’s ground here and that I am visiting, as it were. However, I assure him that we are looking not just at the established Church but at other places of worship, particularly those that are listed. There are many examples of places where money, particularly from the First World War cathedrals fund, has gone—it has been spread all around the country.

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

Has my noble friend noted the sharp drop in the number of people visiting Salisbury Cathedral since the recent nerve poison attack? Are there steps that the Government can take to help revive tourism in that magnificent cathedral city?

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

My Lords, I am going back to my tourism notes. I am not sure that there is concrete evidence that visitor numbers decline after terrorist incidents, but there is anecdotal evidence to support that. The DCMS has committed £100,000 to VisitEngland and VisitWiltshire to support the recovery of tourism in Salisbury. Indeed, the Minister for Tourism will visit Salisbury a week today to see how the recovery is progressing. We regularly engage with areas that have suffered, as Salisbury has, from terrorist activity. We are of course aware of those issues and do our best to support them.

Youth Orchestras

Debate between Lord Ashton of Hyde and Lord Lexden

Thursday 7th December 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

I am tempted to bring my trumpet in to have a duet with the noble Baroness, but I am sure she is better at it than I am. I have said that we agree that art and music are important, which is why they are part of the national curriculum. Arts Council England has increased funding for music since 2014-15, so in the difficult choices that have had to be made we think we have sustained our support for the arts. We recognise that the arts, including music, are important as part of an overall education.

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

What reassurance can the Government offer the National Youth String Orchestra, of which I am patron, whose concerns over things like insurance cover and the movement of musical instruments across borders after Brexit have led it to consider abandoning its customary European tours?

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

I think the orchestra should check with its insurance broker because I am not sure whether that is a critical factor for travelling orchestras. Much more important is the visa requirements that will be needed after Brexit, and we are working hard with the Home Office to ensure that they are acceptable. The other measure that we are taking is the orchestra tax relief, which allows orchestras to travel.

Building Societies (Floating Charges and Other Provisions) Order 2016

Debate between Lord Ashton of Hyde and Lord Lexden

Monday 6th June 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)]

My Lords, I beg to move that the House considers the draft Building Societies (Floating Charges and Other Provisions) Order 2016. With permission, I shall refer to this henceforth as the order.

In March 2015, the Government laid an order which commenced a provision in the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013 repealing a restriction in the Building Societies Act 1986 on the creation of floating charges by building societies. This order is the next and final step required to make sure that the reform allowing floating charges to be created by building societies is effective.

I will provide some background to this. In July 2012, the Government launched a consultation on the future of building societies, seeking views on how to maintain the distinctiveness of the sector while creating a level playing field and removing unnecessary barriers to growth. One of the proposals that came out of this was that building societies should be able to create floating charges over their assets as well as fixed charges, which they are already able to create. After consideration, the Government agreed and commenced this change last year.

It may be helpful if I explain what floating charges are and how they are used by banks. Floating charges are securities over an undefined set of assets: for example, a building society’s or a bank’s mortgage book, which will fluctuate during the course of business. This is in contrast to a fixed charge, which is over a fixed asset such as a building or a specified set of loans. Floating charges allow financial institutions to borrow money and use their mortgage book as collateral, while still being able to exchange and dispose of individual mortgages during normal trading activity.

As a result of the previous restriction, banks denied building societies access to certain transactions. This was because a risk had become apparent that a fixed charge over the assets of a building society could be reclassified by the court as a floating charge. This would then make the security void. The Government took action on this to allow building societies to compete on a level playing field with banks, which do not face these restrictions and can create both floating and fixed charges. Initial estimates indicate that this change will save the building society sector around £2 million per year.

This order makes provision in consequence of the repeal of the restriction last year. The order amends the Building Societies Act to apply companies’ insolvency legislation on receivership. It enables the appointment of a receiver, but not an administrative receiver, to enforce the terms of a floating charge. The order will ensure that there is uniform provision of receivers for banks and building societies. By allowing a floating charge holder to appoint a receiver in the unlikely event that it becomes necessary to enforce the security, this order will help provide legal certainty and ensure the effectiveness of the repeal of the restriction.

This is a technical and uncontroversial order that reaffirms previous action taken by the Government to show our commitment to maintaining diversity and competition in the banking sector and enabling building societies to compete on a level playing field. Competition in the banking sector is a top government priority. The Government recognise that building societies have been effective competitors to the major banks for many years and that the sector continues to drive competition, particularly in the mortgage market. This order is one example of the action the Government are taking to support this important objective. I therefore hope that noble Lords will support the Motion to approve this order.

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

My Lords, I have a few comments to make on this order, and I do so as a member of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. Our committee reported this order in draft for defective drafting in our 20th report of the previous Session on 9 March 2016. We did so because Article 6 of the order provided for the amendment of provisions that had been revoked.

It seems clear that the revocation was accidental. In other regulations made last year, the Treasury had intended to make only one or two modest amendments to a financial services order relevant to these matters, but instead it revoked the whole of that order. Since our committee published our 20th report, the Bank of England and Financial Services Act 2016 has received Royal Assent, and Section 37 of that Act reverses the mistaken repeal with retrospective effect. As a result, the defect in the draft order identified by the JCSI has been dealt with, so the way is clear for it to be approved by both Houses and made by the Treasury. Although this story has a happy ending, the fact remains that the statutory instrument was originally laid prematurely and as part of a number of errors by the Treasury.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure again to be debating a Treasury statutory instrument with the Minister. It is an innovation for us to have more than two speakers, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, for his contribution. I agree that this is a technical and non-controversial order and, despite the august surroundings of the Chamber, we will not be opposing it.

However, I have two or three questions. From the Minister’s speech, the essence of the problem seems to be that a court can reclassify a charge as a floating charge, thereby making the security void. I do not always understand these orders but this point has completely lost me. If the Minister could take us through it in a little more detail, I would find that useful. The essence seems to be that security becomes void and therefore there are concerns about it.

Secondly, the Minister said that there could be the appointment of a receiver but not of an administrative receiver. I cannot see why there is a distinction between the two types of receiver.

Thirdly, I think the offending area relates to paragraph 4 of Schedule 9 to the 2013 Act, which I understand was commenced on 26 March 2015. Presumably, this problem emerged on commencement. It seems an awfully long time since 26 March 2015, so I ask the Minister why this order was not brought forward earlier.