European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Lord Bridges of Headley and Lord Berkeley

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 1st March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

Good morning, my Lords. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to this amendment again, as I did on Monday night.

Let me start by saying that these agencies are important and I was not wishing in any shape or form to be derogatory about any agency. The Government dispute the suggestion that we have to wait before triggering Article 50 to publish a report on all these agencies, but I think that the noble Lord made that point in his own words.

The list, as the noble Lord, Lord Lea, pointed out, covers a range of different policy areas: aviation, fisheries, justice and home affairs, banking and customs. Our approach to a lot of these policy areas was, of course, covered in the White Paper. There is a lot of analysis going on.

[Lord Berkeley]

The White Paper has only seven lines addressed to agencies.

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

I entirely concede that point. Forgive me: I have obviously not expressed myself well at this early hour of the morning. What I am saying is that those agencies touch on different areas of policy.

I entirely understand the noble Lord’s wish for greater clarity and his need to scrutinise our proposals. As I have said before at this Dispatch Box, and I will go on saying it, when we can provide further information we will.

Consequent to that, the noble Lord rightly says that industry and the sectors look for more certainty. I am very aware of that. I, too, have had excellent meetings with, for example, the freight industry, with those involved in ports and so on. We are fully aware of that. It is in our interests, it is in their interests and it is in Parliament’s interests to provide as much detail as we can when we can. I am very sorry to say that I am not now going to be committing to do so at a certain juncture or in a certain format, but I can assure the noble Lord that we are analysing all these points and we will keep the House fully up to date.

I have very little further to add to this. Given the range of policy areas that this touches on, I could talk for a long time—but I do not think that noble Lords would want me to—about banking, about the chemicals agency or such things. Now is not the time for me to do that, so I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Government Contracts: Steel Industry

Debate between Lord Bridges of Headley and Lord Berkeley

Thursday 25th February 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

Let us wait and see. These investigations are obviously under way as we speak.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government recently announced that the Chinese were going to invest in Hinkley Point power station. Will a condition of that be that Chinese steel and other products are used in its construction?

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

That is a very good point, my Lords. Responsibility for the construction of Hinkley Point C rests with EDF rather than the Government. The project will require hundreds of thousands of tonnes of steel and EDF has made it clear that it expects a large proportion of that to come from UK companies. The construction and operation of Hinkley are expected to create 25,000 employment opportunities and aim to create 1,000 apprenticeships.

Taxation: Capital Gains Tax

Debate between Lord Bridges of Headley and Lord Berkeley

Tuesday 7th July 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

I look forward to that great contribution, my Lords.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, given my noble friend’s question on tax avoidance and the Minister’s answer, how can he link this with the fact that the Inland Revenue has just lost 20% of its staff?

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

My Lords, I know that my right honourable friend the Chancellor will continue to ensure that HMRC has the assets and resources at its disposal to do what is required.