Consumer Rights Bill

Debate between Lord Deben and Lord Stoneham of Droxford

Monday 8th December 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, having played some part in the arguments on difficult subjects in the Bill, I also thank the Minister for the courtesy and care with which she approached it. This was her first Bill and it bodes enormously well for future Bills. I hope she will carry from the House an understanding that this is a Bill on which this House has done its job very well. It has shown why this House is here and how changes can be introduced, encouraged and made in a non-partisan manner. It is important that the Government recognise that one major amendment was of precisely that kind. When all those with a direct interest in and knowledge of the sporting world have supported a change, and when every sporting authority has supported that change, it would be as well for the Government to recognise that making such changes is precisely what the House of Lords is here for. They should not seek to reverse something in those circumstances, for those circumstances range much further than the simple matter of asking those who sell tickets to be as concerned about their customers as those who sell baked beans are about theirs.

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)]

My Lords, I had not expected a debate on secondary ticketing, so I will not delay the House for very long. There is an alternative argument. I would dispute the idea that this change is necessarily in the interest of consumers. It may well be in the interest of the sporting establishment but not necessarily in the interest of consumers. It might actually drive secondary ticketing more into the hands of street touts rather than the formalised, recognised secondary ticket sellers who give guarantees that the tickets are genuine. That is a debate for another time, but someone ought to make the argument.

I have greatly enjoyed working on this Bill. The coalition side has worked well together and I congratulate the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Jolly, on all their work to keep us in touch with the developments. I have also enjoyed working opposite the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and alongside my colleagues and noble friends Lady Bakewell and Lord Clement-Jones. I look forward to the Bill going to the Commons now, and I imagine that at some stage it will return here.

Consumer Rights Bill

Debate between Lord Deben and Lord Stoneham of Droxford

Wednesday 19th November 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Deben]

There may be regulations which, when people did not do it, you need. I think that if the Daily Telegraph took its address off, we would be able to find it. We would not be in too much difficulty with newspapers today. The problem here is that these websites are in the same position as newspapers were in those days, when there were a very large number of them, they were run off by hand and people did not know whence they came. I think that that explains the difference between now and then: the world changes and it moves quickly. I used the example of liqueur chocolates because it was always silly to have liqueur chocolates under the rules. I do not know which party proposed it, but whoever it was should be ashamed.

I finish with the real reason I wanted to stand up and talk about this. Britain is increasingly the centre of a very large tourist trade. London is the only world city, in a real sense. We have the glory of the most diverse society with the most wonderful opportunities. We should be saying, every day, “Thank goodness we live in this great country and in this great city”. Therefore, we must ensure that we protect the brand. I do not want to be vulgarly capitalist, but let us protect our brand.

I want us to be a major force in the European Union, where we are properly at home, but I want people coming from the rest of the European Union to feel that we protect them when they buy tickets here, when they buy them from abroad and when they come in from the EU and beyond—I want our American and Australian friends to feel that they can do this safely. The Government have a very simple way of doing this, which is to accept the amendment. I very much hope they will.

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)]

My Lords, in supporting the Government on this amendment I feel a bit like Pietersen, the cricketer, taking on the cricket establishment, but since I have always admired his bravery and foolhardiness, I shall have a go. I think there is a dangerous presumption in this debate that the secondary ticketing market is a bad thing and that people would like to do without it. Balancing that, I accept, there is a genuine belief that by increasing regulation, by demanding more information, we will eliminate fraud. I think that approach is misguided. I do not think that you necessarily end fraud by increasing regulation.

The secondary ticketing market fulfils a very useful purpose for people, particularly those who buy tickets and are often made to buy them a year ahead of the event. When they do not want to use them, they can dispose of them appropriately; 70% of people buying tickets want that secondary market to continue. We should be supporting recognised and established brand leaders that work in this market and do all that is required. They guarantee their tickets, and people should use them; we should encourage more people to use those established brands. If they did that, the market would work better; that is how to attack fraud.

If you are attacking fraud, where else do you look? You look first of all at the computer-operated systems that enable people to buy mass tickets. That is where you ought to direct your attacks, and there are some encouraging signs there. But you also need to question the sports operators. Too many of them are greedy. They give their tickets to people in hospitality, who then do not need them and try to dispose of them through secondary markets. If the sports operators want an improvement, the first thing that they could do is to improve the affordability of their tickets, so they are not forcing the price up, which encourages this sort of fraud.

Ticket sellers are already subject to the regulations, as we have heard. Is it a good Conservative or Liberal principle that, if the regulations are not working, you add to them? Surely you question them. Are we really saying that just adding a name to a ticket will eliminate fraud? I do not believe that either. We should encourage established secondary sellers, so that they can help us to undermine the bad sellers of tickets—the touts, if you like. Online selling and ticketing is actually a huge improvement in terms of control on the old idea whereby tickets were sold by street traders. So instead of having an emotional look at this issue—and I accept that there is a lot of emotion about it—we should look at it frankly and in great detail to see what we are doing here, rather than adding to regulation that is not working and not actually looking at the real areas where fraud is being perpetrated.

Deregulation Bill

Debate between Lord Deben and Lord Stoneham of Droxford

Tuesday 11th November 2014 Grand Committee

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford]

My Lords, the main arguments have been made in favour of these amendments but I have just one or two points to make. We have to remember how the growth of pay TV is such that its revenues now hugely exceed those of our public service broadcasters. Sky TV’s revenues are more than twice the BBC’s, which gives it huge power. The Government are considering a review of licence fee collection, but are not prepared to accept some changes to this Bill along the lines of this amendment. Why on earth are they not prepared to have a review or consultation on the proposals which stand in this amendment—and the sooner the better?

[Lord Deben]

My Lords, I believe that my noble friend will realise that my earlier intervention had a degree of mischievousness to it, as I had come in specifically to address this particular amendment. I do so for three reasons. First, sometimes we on this side of the House have been disappointed with the Deregulation Bill, because quite a number of things have been deregulated that really do not seem to have been very important. There has been a tendency to add up the number of things that we have got rid of. On one occasion my noble friend had to justify the removal of a statutory right from someone who was still able to exercise it voluntarily—not, I thought, one of the biggest things that we have ever done in government. I am particularly concerned that when we have an opportunity to make a change that is really worth while, we should do it.

The second reason for my concern is that sometimes one of the ways you can judge the validity of a proposition is to see who opposes it. For much of the time in my period in the House of Commons, there were one or two Members on my own side from whom, when I knew they were in favour of something, I was almost automatically on the other side. I believe that that is true of both sides of the House: we all have bellwethers, who are always extremely useful if we have not quite grasped what is behind the issue. My noble friend’s characterisation of the dual position of Fox News is one that deserves considerable investigation. The reason that people do not want that is because they make money out of it. We therefore have to ask ourselves some very simple questions. Should they make money out of it? Is it in the public interest that they make money out of it? Is it money that could be better spent somewhere else?

That brings me to my third point. Torn aside from all the history, the phrases, the arguments and the discussions, this is a simple matter. We once had a different system, and we had different rules to deal with that system. The system has changed but the rules have not. Would it not be sensible to change the rules now that the system has changed? If there is a big reason for deregulation, and there are several, the biggest of all is that many Administrations suffer from the inability to get rid of good things when they become bad. You can go round the whole Continent of Europe and find all sorts of bits of regulation that were frightfully good at the time when they were put forward but which now get in the way of trade, make it more difficult for people to innovate, and distort the market.

I am not always known for my upholding of the free and unfettered market, mainly because most markets are neither free nor unfettered. However, I wish to say that here there is an obvious way in which a Conservative-led coalition can make the market freer. In those circumstances, seeing as it appears to have the support of the Opposition as well as that of its coalition partners, there is not much reason for saying that this is not a sensible amendment. I therefore hope that my noble friend will find it possible, if not to give way on this occasion, at least to indicate that he has every intention of giving way at a more amenable moment, but before the Bill passes.

Deregulation Bill

Debate between Lord Deben and Lord Stoneham of Droxford

Tuesday 21st October 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)]

My Lords, my personal position is that we should not bother to amend this aspect of the Health and Safety etc. Act, but I also accept that, although there are arguments on both sides, the chasm of disagreement is not as great as either side might want us to think.

There are certain bêtes noires of our society which are blamed for most of our problems, whereas in reality the positive contributions of those organisations are often greater. One of those is the Health and Safety Executive. The perception of that organisation often gets in the way of reality. The health and safety legislation has assisted huge improvements, as indeed have better management practice and staff involvement to address poor work practice and productivity related to poor safety conditions.

The questioning of the working of the health and safety legislation and the European directives associated with it was probably to be expected from this Conservative-led Government, but Professor Löfstedt may have disappointed many when he said that no radical reform was needed and that the problem was less with regulations and more with the way in which they were interpreted and regulated. However, one feels that he had to say something to come up with a political proposal. He advocated that those self-employed whose work activities pose no threat to others should be excluded, which would help reduce the perception that health and safety is inappropriately applied.

The reality is that there is not much of a burden on the self-employed. That was proved in the Government’s consultation. If you do not believe the Health and Safety Executive, even the mighty Engineering Employers’ Federation, as the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, told us, supports its view, stating:

“It is a myth to suggest that the self-employed are singled out by the regulatory authorities for inspection. This is not the case nor is there a record of prosecution against the self-employed, except in a few cases where their activities have or could have impacted others adversely”.

If such burdens were so great on the self-employed and on small businesses, how do we account for the huge growth in self-employment and business start-ups under this coalition Government?

There is a problem with excluding general categories of self-employed for whom health and safety is not a burden. You end up making the regulations more complicated and less simplified, which should be the objective of the legislation. The self-employed are going to have to know whether they are excluded. To many, this might mean that understanding the regulations will be even more difficult than it is now, and that we are going to have all sorts of categories, whether it is drivers, removal people, carpenters and all trades people, construction workers, bee-keepers and so on, excluded from this provision in the Deregulation Bill. The general view that this change is not worth the candle is one which I share, but if we are to have it—and I accept that we probably are—we must see the list of exemptions to reassure people that no real harm is going to be done.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as the chairman of a company that from time to time gives health and safety advice and as a former Minister for health and safety. I start from the assumption that there is something a bit peculiar about an outside body controlling the way that an individual shall disport himself in his own business—particularly if it is held in his home. That is not unreasonable. More and more people work at home. We are changing the law to make it impossible for people who rent accommodation to be told that they cannot work at home. There are many jobs that people do at home where, frankly, telling someone that they should not stand on an upturned waste-paper basket to get something down from a shelf is an intrusion.

That is my basis, so I do not come to this with any antagonism. There is truth in the feeling that the health and safety regulations have, whether because of their application or because of the perception, stopped a whole lot of activities which it would be better not to have stopped. I also know that many of those who are opposed to the European Union have used this as an excuse to bash the European Union when, of course, almost all of it is our domestic attitudes, and the European Union has adopted British attitudes towards health and safety. I often point out to people that the ease with which the European Union is blamed for things is one of the problems with people’s perception of that very important institution to which we belong and to which I trust that we will fight to ensure that we go on belonging.

However, there are some real problems here that have not been approached. Perhaps I may give some practical experience. Recently, I talked to someone who had been held responsible for an accident in premises which he owned and oversaw by a self-employed person who did something dangerous to himself, but not on his own property but on that of the person concerned. We have to face the odd issue that if we are not very careful, we will have circumstances in which the employee of a firm will be protected and the self-employed will find themselves protected or affected only when they are working somewhere else. Does that mean that a self-employed person who has no responsibility under the Act to protect himself nevertheless has a case against someone else for his own actions, because they happened to be on their premises? That may not seem to be a general activity, but it is a bit more general than some would like. That would bring no benefit to people’s approach to health and safety legislation.

I use that example not because it is the most important, but because it makes me wonder whether, in the speedy time in which the Bill has been discussed, we have thought through all the ramifications. Having been a Minister for health and safety, I have to say that it is a very complex area. Apart from the very real sense that people feel that we have overdone it in many concerns, let us also accept that it has had remarkable success in protecting people, sometimes from themselves.

That brings me to my second point. My noble friend raised the argument of whether, if you have sufficient people exempted from cover, those who are not covered will know whether they are exempted. In other words, there seems to be a real complication about how people get to know whether they should be there or not. That in itself is one of the things that will bring the Act into disrepute. People will say, “I don’t know if I am covered. Perhaps I had better find out—I had better get somebody to tell me”. Frankly, they will find themselves in precisely the position from which the Government are, absolutely rightly, trying to protect them. I have a real issue with the complications which inevitably come if we are dealing with this.

Mesothelioma Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Deben and Lord Stoneham of Droxford

Wednesday 17th July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford]

My Lords, I start by giving apologies from my noble friend Lord German who should be standing in my place today but is at a family funeral. I join in the praise for the two Front-Bench spokesmen for the dedication and commitment they have given to this legislation.

The amendment is worthy and I have admiration for the persistence of the noble Lord, Lord Alton. However, this is quite an easy target to win support for medical research and we have to question whether it is an effective amendment. All the evidence we have heard today suggests that it is not necessarily the lack of funding that is the problem but the lack of effective research proposals. That is what we should be addressing. If the insurance companies thought there was effective research to be supported, they would be the first to support it because it would reduce their liability. That is what we need to address. The Minister in his response should help us.

The other important thing is that this levy has been arrived at by negotiation and agreement. It is not a statutory levy that we are putting in place because we think that it is appropriate. It has been arrived at through agreement and negotiation. Are we saying that we have to start these negotiations again as we will be putting a supplementary payment on the people who have agreed to this levy? We need to know whether this will mean a serious delay to the legislation and its implementation. The Minister should give us answers to the complications that these amendments could cause. We are interested in getting the benefits into the hands of the families who have suffered from this disease.

We also have to ask what we are arguing over. What are the sums of money that we are arguing over? They do not seem to me to be very large. The Minister should therefore tell us—I am sure that he will in his closing remarks—what efforts the Government are going to make to meet some of the requirements for funding if we can find effective research.

This issue seems worthy and worth support and it is very easy to argue for it. But what is the reality and effect of the amendment and what sort of delay will it cause to this legislation? Those are the key issues that the House should be looking at this afternoon.

[Lord Deben]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, made an important contribution to this discussion. As a former Minister, I understand precisely the difficulties in which Ministers find themselves, particularly in the medical area, because there are many diseases that are extremely distressing and which, when specifically singled out, can cause all of us to feel that we ought to do something about it. There are few as distressing as this, but there are others in parallel.

It may be that what the Minister has said so far is the right answer, distressing and difficult though it is, particularly in terms of the danger that arises if we start deciding politically which diseases are properly sought after and which are not; this is a dangerous area to be in. My problem is slightly different. I hope that, in his response, my noble friend the Minister will not rely on the Treasury argument of hypothecation. One of the disastrous themes in this country’s legislation is the refusal of the Treasury to accept that hypothecation is an essential part of sensible financial arrangements. Many things would be much better done if there was a clear connection between what people pay through tax and what happens.

I speak with an interest in mind, as a passionate believer in the environment. We will not get people to understand why they should pay congestion charges, for example, if the money is not clearly spent on reducing congestion. In other words, there needs to be hypothecation. I remember when I fought hard for and got the first hypothecated tax, the landfill tax, which few would now deny was very important. My noble friend the Health Minister remembers that as well as I do. It was a battle against a theology. I hope that, when the Minister comes to speak, he will do so in the terms of the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, and not in the terms of those who deny this kind of response—not on the basis of ensuring objective decisions by independent judgment, but on the basis that there is something inherently unacceptable about hypothecation.

If this country moved to greater hypothecation, it would be signally more democratic—although it might mean that the Treasury would have less opportunity to get its fingers on the money on its way to that for which it was needed. That is a wholly admirable aim: the effort to ensure that there is a link in the public’s mind between what they pay and what they get is an essential part of our democracy. I hope that, of all the arguments my noble friend uses, he will eschew that one. I would not like to be pushed over the edge to not support him because of the importance of upholding the fine principle of hypothecation.