Financial Services (Gibraltar) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Debate between Lord Deben and Lord Tunnicliffe

Tuesday 5th March 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, I want to ask a question which follows on from the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Beith. First, I am still a little at a loss as to how these years work, compared with other SIs. I do not quite understand what would happen if we had a deal and a transitional period. The noble Lord raised something which needs to be explained.

Secondly, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, that it would be wrong to allow these two SIs to pass without reminding the House of the serious effects of Brexit on this particular connection of the United Kingdom. The more we talk about these and the more you unwind it, the more it becomes quite clear how ridiculous the whole process is. I know it is not suitable for my noble friend to comment on this, but I wish only that our Benches were filled with those who think that Brexit is good idea so that they could listen to the realities of what happens if you leave the European Union—let alone without a deal. As usual, none of them is present to listen to the serious effects of Brexit. It is rather like trying to talk about climate change. You never have the climate change deniers present to see what the science is actually about. The House might like to note the non-existence of those who think that Brexit is just a matter of getting there and doing it at once. The people who stand outside with little notices about the WTO clearly have never worked out what becoming dependent on WTO rules means.

Thirdly, of course we have to pass these two SIs. Without them, were we to leave the European Union without a deal, things would be even worse than they need be, but we must not do it thinking that this is going to make things easier. Gibraltar is a sharp instance of the damage that could be done. Will my noble friend explain a little more about the discussions that have been held with the Gibraltar Government and particularly his reference to the Gibraltar Government making their own arrangements should there be Brexit without a deal? What are these arrangements and how do they interrelate with this SI? I do not think that many Members of this House have detailed knowledge of the kinds of things which Gibraltar would have to do were we—and they—to leave the European Union without a deal. It would be helpful to the House if my noble friend would delineate what exactly it is that they have to do and what their powers and responsibilities are in parallel with the two SIs with which we are concerned this evening.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, we have no objection to these two SIs, but I have two or three brief questions. The position is summed up in the Explanatory Memorandum to the first set of regulations, paragraph 7.21 of which surprised me. It states:

“The UK government will work closely with the government of Gibraltar to design a long-term permanent framework”.


My impression until I got to that sentence was that the provisions here would change the situation into a stable framework. I would be grateful if the Minister could give us a feel for the extent of difference between the UK system and the system in Gibraltar that means that this bespoke framework is needed, and particularly what will happen if it is not agreed by the end of 2020.

The Minister can respond in writing to my second comment if he would like to do so. I refer to the first bullet point in paragraph 7.15 on the second set of regulations. This is really a cry of anguish because one has slogged through so many of these SIs and has to read every one, and then one reads this final sentence:

“This framework will not apply to the automatic recognition procedure of resolution actions between the UK and Gibraltar”.


I do not have the faintest idea of what that means and not the faintest idea of how to find out what it means. I ask the Minister as a matter of sheer curiosity what it means, and I will accept a letter.

Market Abuse (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018

Debate between Lord Deben and Lord Tunnicliffe

Wednesday 23rd January 2019 Grand Committee

[Lord Deben]

My Lords, I want to make a couple of fundamental points. First, my noble friend uses the word “equivalent”, but of course this is not equivalent. It is equivalent only in the sense that it applies to Britain; therefore, immediately, it is not the same thing. He may say that this is chopping logic, but I think that it is important for us to underline that when you take into British law what has been up to now European law, you assert your control over what happens here but you deny the fact that you had some control over what happens over the whole area. That, therefore, is not equivalent. It may be what people want, but I doubt that people who voted to leave understood the details. Indeed, none of us did until we started to go through it—what I say is not in any way insulting to either side. The fact is that this is much more complex than we thought.

The effect, which I think is important, is that we say of many of the things that we are talking about, “These institutions are international. We are still part of Europe, in the sense that we are working in this space. Therefore, we are going to try, even if we leave the European Union and even if we do so without a deal, to have arrangements that will overcome these problems”. Then my noble friend says, “We will do these things on a discretionary basis”. The problem with a discretionary basis is that it is exactly that. There will be occasions when the British Government—or the FCA—do some of these things and occasions when they do not. My concern is that, by translating where we are now into a national position and not an international position, as far as the financial services industry is concerned—I have declared my interest—we introduce a degree of randomness that we do not have at the moment. At the moment, we know when these things happen. Under the regulations, we will not know, because it will be at the discretion of the British Government to decide what things they will do in common and what things they will not.

The second thing to say is that this is entirely one-sided. We are saying that we will take these powers over the things that we have control of, but we have no deal under which we can get the information and no deal on things over which we have partial control. The noble Baroness who just spoke is absolutely right. There is a real issue about information. How will we know some of these things? If we leave the European Union and do not have information in common, there will be things that affect us which we will not know unless we have a deal which allows—and not only allows but makes—the European authorities to be in a position to tell the Government or the FCA the information that they have.

The third important thing is the whole question of who pays the bill. I am very much relieved by the Minister’s assertion that, for example, credit agencies will pay a fee, as they do at the moment, and that that fee will come to the FCA rather than to the European authorities. But it is important for him to recognise that there is already considerable unhappiness about the unaccountability of the FCA for the charges that it makes. There is no way of monitoring the charges which the FCA makes—no superior court to go to. There is a constant problem with the FCA because many of its charges seem, to those of us who represent people who have to pay them, to be unconnected either with the rise in the cost of living or indeed with the services that are provided. The difficulty with bringing everything back into this country is that there is nowhere to appeal to. The FCA is entirely under its own decision-making process, and says, “We have got enough money, but if we don’t have enough money, we’ll just raise the tariff”. I want to know from the Minister when we will have a situation in which even a group of people with whom I have no very close relationship—namely, the credit rating agencies; indeed, I have some pretty serious complaints about them—ought to have some opportunity to complain about the price that they are charged. I do not see any reference to that, nor indeed has the Minister mentioned it altogether.

My last point is, simply, that of course everything therefore comes into the hands of the Treasury. That is what happens when you nationalise what was and should be an international effort. Everything is decided by the Treasury. When people talked about “taking back control”, what that actually means here is that the Treasury takes back control. I see no opportunity for anybody outside the Treasury to be able to oversee the decisions that are made here. I say to the Minister that I am not at all sure that that is a very cheerful future. It seems that there was a great deal to be said for the much more open way in which the European Union deals with these matters. It is a much more transparent system than the system that we have in this country. One of the pieces of truth which I am afraid has been lost in the debates about Brexit is that in many areas, the European Union has been much more willing to discuss, much more open and much more transparent. We are going to lose all that, and I do not see anything in the Minister’s speech—admirable though it was—that indicates that the Treasury will open itself up to a more transparent system and provide opportunities for people to complain, argue and to know what the details are, and I see no sign that the same will happen with the FCA. This is therefore a further closure of the mechanisms of the financial world, and less transparency and openness. I am sorry that the Government have not taken this opportunity to say, “When the time comes, if we leave the European Union, we will start on a process of opening these things up”. I realise it cannot be part of this SI because it would change the nature of the legislation but I would like to hear something of the willingness of the Treasury to mimic, to some extent, the openness of the European Union, which we are now going to lose.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, perhaps I can start by posing the same question on these two SIs as I did before. Are they no-deal only SIs or ones that will be switched off? I am entirely happy for the Minister to reference his previous reply, if that is, in fact, the reply he will give. I have tested these SIs as best I can on the basis of paragraphs 7.1 to 7.9 of the Explanatory Memorandum. Noble Lords will have read these points before as they are the same in every Explanatory Memorandum. They basically say that new policy will not be introduced except where necessary.

Largely speaking, I have found nothing to complain about. However, there were one or two areas I did not understand. I start with the Explanatory Memorandum on the first SI, on market abuse. In paragraphs 2.7 and 2.8 once again I think the problem is that the author knew what they were talking about and I do not. The first sentence of paragraph 2.8 says:

“The decision to keep instruments admitted to trading or traded on EU venues, rather than amending to a UK only scope, was taken because of the close relationship between UK and EU markets”.


I hope that the Minister might expand on that because I find the language of that paragraph, in particular, extraordinarily difficult to understand.

On international co-operation, we have had one reply. I want to press the noble Lord further. We hope that the outcome of this—no matter how badly we do it—is that we are still in this international market and therefore working together not just with the EU but with the rest of the world. As I understand it at the moment, we effectively work with the rest of the world keeping abuse regulations, in particular, up to date through the channels of the EU. How will that be replaced? The abuse regulations, in particular, clearly have to be kept up to date.

The remaining thing to say about the first SI is that it should not be in front of us because of the absurd paragraph 12.5 in the Explanatory Memorandum that says we are going to have an impact assessment but not until we have agreed the instrument. As we know, the noble Lord, Lord Bates, took some stick on that—I think that would be the right term—and your Lordships might moderate that stick by some useful comments. I do not know.

Moving on to credit rating agencies, I have a couple of questions. One is, once again, due to my failure to understand. I did get O-level English—I am not that bad, I hope. My understanding of the three bullet points in paragraph 7.12 of the Explanatory Memorandum diminished as I read through them. In particular, I have no idea what this means:

“The Automatic Certification Process will enable Certified CRAs established outside the EU to notify the FCA of their intention to extend certification to the UK. Like the Conversion Regime, these notifications must be made before exit day”.


I do not know what a “Certified CRA” is.

Finally, paragraph 7.15 covers enforcement and makes reference to criminal actions. It also makes reference to sections in FSMA, which would be a joy if I had an up-to-date copy to check them against. What I would like to be reassured about—or not if it is not true—is whether credit rating agencies are subject to the requirement to have a senior management regime where the clarity of roles is such that if a criminal prosecution was to take place, as referred to in this paragraph, that prosecution could be directed at an individual.

Space Industry Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Deben and Lord Tunnicliffe

Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 14th November 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

My Lords, we support the general thrust of this proposal and hope that the Minister will say sufficiently warm words so that the amendment will not be pressed. I hope that she will be driven by the simple fact that the industry almost certainly will not get off the ground unless the Government can produce some assurance that appropriate legislation will be brought forward at some stage to enable small satellites to be economically effective.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

I look forward to my noble friend’s reply and take this opportunity to say how exemplary the Government’s response has been on a range of issues that we have raised. If they responded in this way on a lot of other issues it would be very much easier for all of us. My noble friend has indicated in her delightful and charming way that she thought these amendments were worth while. Can we extend such a response more widely so that we do not have to have acrimonious discussions and then find ourselves with an amendment which is more or less similar to what has been proposed before? This is a very good example of that. People should always say thank you, and I do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Deben]

I am sure the House will accept that the Minister wishes to be less precise than the noble Baroness would like her to be, although her spirit suggests that she might move a little towards what is proposed here.

I wish to say two things. I welcome these amendments. They show the care that we all have to take at the extension of ministerial power. Even the small difference between expediency and appropriateness is a big gulf when it comes to attitudes. Expediency is a subjective statement whereas appropriateness can properly be tested in an objective way. I welcome the changes that have taken place.

In the course of the debate it was suggested that other legislation was the same as this. I have looked at the other legislation—I am boring like that—and, having been a Minister, I know that people occasionally put before one a phrase which is perhaps ill advised. The other legislation is not the same—it is rather different. One of the things your Lordships’ House is here to do is to deal with tiny differences which, when they get on to the statute book, become serious. As I take more and more time to deal with questions of climate change and the like, I find that there are institutional barriers to things that are obviously sensible to do because, at some time at some place, no one looked at the wording properly to ensure it did not create circumstances which made decisions more difficult.

As I said earlier, my thanks for the amendments will be accompanied by a warning that it is important to use this House in the way in which it has properly been used on this Bill. My noble friend may feel that a little more in the direction of the devolved Governments would be helpful. Certainly I would like to know more about their willingness to support the legislation as it is. That is the centrepiece of this disagreement and, as we have so few disagreements now, it would be nice to get rid of this one.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I would like to reflect briefly on what the noble Lord, Lord Deben, has said about the processing of this Bill. We will have a remarkably short Report stage, having had a good deal longer in Committee, because the Minister—I would say at our insistence but it would be unfair to suggest there was any resistance—has been willing to provide a great deal of time in private to work through the Bill in detail. There have been many concessions, which have been moved today and will form part of the Bill. This is an example of what an Opposition do best. The government concessions on land use and so forth add up to as good a deal as we think we are going to get, and the sensible thing for a good Administration to do is to take it. If we go any further we will end up dividing the House. We might or might not win, it then becomes a hostile environment, and things may get worse as a result. Therefore part of the process, unglamorous as it is, is to bank what you can.

I do not want to underestimate this because the Government have gone a long way in their concessions, but I will not recite them. I am pleased that the Minister has brought out the power in Clause 43; if she had done so in Committee I might not have made such a vigorous attack. That is because with our limited resources—I cannot think of a better way of putting it—we did not quite get to Clause 43. Certainly the compensation that Clause 43 refers to in Schedule 8 rounds off the land issues, so they are now as well rounded as they reasonably can be.

I share the view about Amendment 21, which I hope will not be pressed, but it would be good if the Minister could say a little more about it. I hope that the issue of reference to the devolved Administrations, which in successive Bills over the next several months we will be facing, is made a bit clearer. We must look at how it goes into future legislation. With that, I thank the Minister and all who have been involved not so much in this debate but in the wider debates both within and outside the Chamber for coming to what is a pretty good and rounded deal on the land issue.

Space Industry Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Deben and Lord Tunnicliffe

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 18th October 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

My Lords, I rise to speak to whether Clauses 38 and 40 should stand part of the Bill. The issue is about land, and Clause 38 deals with the powers to obtain rights over land. The noble Lord has written me a splendid letter—not that I am suggesting that any of his other letters were not splendid—in which, on page 4, he said:

“To enable the safe operation of spaceports, particularly during launch, the Bill makes provision to allow minimal rights over land. I strongly believe that these powers are proportionate and ensure that the rights of landowners are respected”.


I have had a look at Clause 38, and it did not feel very minimal. I shall read the bits that I think are important. First, subsection (1) says:

“The Secretary of State may make an order under this section if satisfied that it is expedient to do so—


(a) to secure the safe and efficient use for the carrying out of spaceflight activities of any land which is vested in a qualifying person or which a qualifying person proposes to acquire,


(b) to secure the provision of any services required in relation to any such land, or


(c) to secure that spacecraft and carrier aircraft may be navigated safely”.


Subsection (3) defines three qualifying persons, the third being the,

“holder of a spaceport licence”.

Subsection (4) starts to set out what may be granted by such an order. Subsection (4)(b) refers to,

“rights to carry out and maintain works on any land”,

and subsection (4)(c) to,

“rights to install and maintain structures and apparatus on, under or over any land”.

Subsection (5) says:

“An order under this section may—


(a) include provision authorising persons to enter any land for the purpose of carrying out, maintaining, installing or removing any works, structures or apparatus”.


Subsection (10) says:

“For the purposes of this section, a reference to carrying out works on land includes a reference to excavating the land or carrying out levelling operations on the land”.


I am not a lawyer, but my recollection is that the concept of ownership is related to the concept of enjoyment. For ownership to be real, you must be able to enjoy what you own. To say, as the Minister does in his letter:

“I can assure you that the Bill does not give spaceport or range control operators powers to acquire land, or for the Secretary of State to do so on their behalf”,


really is not honest. Well, I do not want to say that it is dishonest, but it is not truthful.

You do not enjoy a piece of land when someone can come in, carry out and maintain works, or install a 50-foot tower in your back garden. That is not enjoying the land. The Bill stresses that it can be on, under or over your piece of land. You have to allow the appropriate person to enter and to excavate, so you have a JCB in your back garden—you do not have enjoyment of your land. It is useless, hence the land would be valueless.

I hope the Minister will reconsider the wording of this clause. I know that I am going to be told that such an intrusion would never take place, but I should like the Bill to say that it will never happen by recognising that, if these powers are necessary, there must be an appropriate mechanism for a challenge. There is a mechanism, but we need a proper mechanism for a challenge—and, in that, there has to be a mechanism of redress. If these orders are issued, as far as I can see, my land becomes valueless and I am out of pocket. I am sure that that is not the Government’s intention, and I hope that they will reconsider the clause.

The noble Lord talks about Clause 40 in his letter, saying that:

“The power in clause 40 restricts the use of land for safety reasons during times of launch and landing. This is essential for ensuring public safety and minimising risks associated with launch. The restrictions which can be enacted by Clause 40 are temporary and are only likely to last for a matter of hours. Therefore I do not believe this represents a significant infringement of land rights”.


There is a problem with being told that these things are not going to happen very often. It seems to me that if they are not going to happen very often, they will not be very profitable. This assurance seems a bit like the Wright brothers, in December 1903, saying to the sheriff of Kitty Hawk, “This is not going to happen very often”. The whole point of the Bill is so that it can happen often.

Clause 40 restricts the rights of citizens to the quiet enjoyment of land, and I do not think that we have the proper mechanisms to take account of those restrictions. Similar restrictions have built up over the years on things such as military ranges and so on—but they were built up for reasons of national security, often in tense and difficult times, and they were accepted by society. These ranges are for a civil purpose and I just do not think that the balance in Clause 40 is right. I hope that the noble Lord will give some thought to this and try to improve the rights of citizens in these circumstances.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, I feel strongly about these two clauses, because I recognise them. I have been a Minister for whom civil servants have produced such clauses. They always have an answer: you tell the House that it is not going to happen very often, it will never be used badly and nobody in their right mind could think that it would be any trouble. I have always resisted all those, I have to say. I am a Conservative and I believe in the rights of property. I do not believe that anybody should be taking those away. I am also a believer in the human rights legislation, and I do not like the way that the Conservative Party has made comments about it. It has a very clear defence of the rights of property and I am not prepared to go along with such words, if they mean what the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, and I think that they mean. Maybe neither of us is clever enough to understand the hidden protection within them.

There seems to be no protection whatever in Clause 38; the Secretary of State appears to be able to use it,

“if satisfied that it is expedient to do so”.

Expedient is an extremely dangerous word. Expedient means anything that you want to do; that is why you want to do it—it is expedient. I have to say, I would not trust myself with expedience, leave alone trusting anybody else, and leave alone trusting this Secretary of State to be other than expedient. I do not get this clause, and I certainly do not get why it does not have the full panoply of proper means of protection of the people concerned.

I would like my noble friend to point to other areas where the same kinds of rights are given to the Secretary of State, where similar powers are given without any restriction, because I think that this is a very dangerous area. Nobody could be more enthusiastic about space than I—as long as nobody asks me to go in one of these things. It is a hugely important thing and I am entirely on the side of the Government in seeking to do what they want to do. It would be better if we did not have Brexit—then we would get more of it and a great deal more benefit from it, but that is true of almost everything. The fact of the matter still remains that, whatever happens, if we do or if we do not, this will affect people in this country and their rights to property. I do think that this clause, in its present form, should be presented by any Government, least of all by a Conservative Government who are supposed to believe in the rights of property.

I say very clearly to my noble friend that my problem with Clause 40 is that the only defence given for this provision is that it will not happen very often and will happen for short periods of time. Indeed, my noble friend said that it is okay because it will happen only for short periods of time. If that is the case, why does the Bill not say that? If it is going to be temporary, why does the Bill not say that? If that is not stated in the Bill, people will say, “The Bill does not say that it is temporary and therefore this time we are going to do it for three months”, or say, “Three months is what we meant by temporary”. I am afraid that is the other argument that civil servants try to use. I am trying to excuse my noble friend on the basis of the advice he has received rather than his determination. This measure seems to me contrary to the political position that he holds. After all, he would consider me rather a “pinko”, so I say to him that—