Debates between Lord Flight and Baroness Scott of Bybrook during the 2019-2024 Parliament

Mon 19th Oct 2020
United Kingdom Internal Market Bill
Lords Chamber

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Tue 28th Jul 2020
Agriculture Bill
Lords Chamber

Committee stage:Committee: 7th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 7th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 7th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords

Outsourcing: DWP Telephone Services

Debate between Lord Flight and Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Tuesday 30th November 2021

(3 years ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, the Government recognise that some public services are delivered better through private companies than directly through the public sector. A delivery model assessment methodology, as defined in the Cabinet Office Sourcing Playbook, helps to determine whether the public or private sector is the best placed to deliver a public service. Most of those issues will be on GOV.UK.

Lord Flight Portrait Lord Flight (Con)
- Hansard - -

How much is paid to suppliers for delivering these telephony services?

Personal Independence Payments

Debate between Lord Flight and Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Monday 22nd November 2021

(3 years, 1 month ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

No, my Lords, those are two separate things. What we should be doing is looking after disabled people in the best way we can. We are looking after more disabled people and getting more disabled people into work, which is where they would like to be, supported by the Government. We are doing the best we can, but we will never be complacent and will continue to do more.

Lord Flight Portrait Lord Flight (Con)
- Hansard - -

My Lords, what steps are the Government taking to ensure that terminally ill people get the support they so much need?

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, under the special rules for terminal illness, people nearing the end of their lives—as I would rather call them—have their claims fast tracked. The average time from registration to decision for a claimant under this new scheme is three working days. I am sure noble Lords will think that is reasonable for this group of people.

Disability Benefit Claimants

Debate between Lord Flight and Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Tuesday 8th June 2021

(3 years, 6 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Flight Portrait Lord Flight (Con)
- Hansard - -

My Lords, what training and support have Her Majesty’s Government put in place for staff who may be dealing with people with suicidal thoughts or plans?

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My noble friend raises an important issue. Comprehensive guidance is available to all work coaches and case managers on how to deal with threats of self-harm. This guidance applies to all methods of communication, including the online journal. When a threat of self-harm is identified, agents follow a six-point plan and I am happy to let my noble friend have that. The plan helps them take the right action, at the right time, to ensure that the customer receives the support they need.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Debate between Lord Flight and Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Lord Flight Portrait Lord Flight (Con)
- Hansard - -

My Lords, the justification for this Bill is to support and advance trade, and, as pointed out, to provide insurance against present negotiations breaking down. The existing internal market is supported by EU law until the end of the year, where this Bill provides for UK law to take over. This is a detailed Bill, which provides for what I call single market membership in respect of our trade with the rest of the EU, if we reach agreement with the EU to this end.

The question is raised; what happens if trade negotiations break down and the UK opts for the WTO? This looks unfortunately likely, from the Prime Minister’s comments yesterday, to be the case. It is clear, I am afraid, that the EU has been acting in bad faith in the trade negotiations, which the PM has pointed out involved a requirement to lead, and not a requirement to lead to a breakdown.

Presumably we could amend and use the Bill as we saw fit. We would, however, have a self-interest to make the Bill as helpful as possible to European importers and exporters to help optimise our trade. As we are leading historic free trade supporters, I am sure we will be happy to be driven by the free trade principles of mutual recognition and non-discrimination. The Bill will become an Act as of 31 December, assuming it passes both Chambers. Whether or not we do a trade formula deal with the EU, this trade legislation will be on the statute book and operative to ensure the smooth functioning of trade.

I turn now to the controversy. It was the UK Government who found out that the EU was seeking to misuse aspects of the Northern Ireland protocol in a way that was not intended and in order to gain advantage in future relationship negotiations. I am somewhat disappointed that no one seems to have made this point, and the whole problem with Clause 5 arises from that. It was for this reason that the UK Government created the safety net of Clauses 44 and 45, to give British Ministers the power to unilaterally interpret, modify or disapply parts of the Northern Ireland protocol.

The UK has agreed to require parliamentary approval of any government initiatives involved here—I think that this is Clause 56. I was always told as a student that there was really no such thing as international law, as there was no agreed single court of law to monitor it. But, in this situation, I am inclined to the view that it may be better to get rid of Clauses 5 and 6 and to address the issues raised in another way.

I remain a staunch supporter of free trade and appreciate the major contribution to upholding free trade afforded by the Internal Market Bill, but it has the weakness of underpinning oligopoly. Most of the trading requirements as witnessed by this legislation are too detailed, too difficult, too expensive and too demanding of businesses—

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Will the noble Lord wind up, please?

Agriculture Bill

Debate between Lord Flight and Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Committee stage & Committee: 7th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 7th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 28th July 2020

(4 years, 4 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Agriculture Act 2020 View all Agriculture Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 112-VII Seventh marshalled list for Committee - (23 Jul 2020)
Lord Flight Portrait Lord Flight (Con) [V]
- Hansard - -

My Lords—[Inaudible.]

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I am afraid that we cannot hear the noble Lord. Can he get closer to his microphone?

Lord Flight Portrait Lord Flight [V]
- Hansard - -

Is that better?

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Yes, I think we can hear well enough. Go ahead.

Lord Flight Portrait Lord Flight [V]
- Hansard - -

I think that it would be a tragedy if British agriculture suffered rather than benefited from Brexit. It appears to be—[Inaudible.]

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I am really sorry, but the sound has gone again. Perhaps we can move on to the next speaker and try to get the noble Lord back later.