Green Investment Bank

Debate between Lord Geddes and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Tuesday 1st November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

Given the commercial sensitivity of the sale process, I am sure the noble Baroness will understand that I cannot comment on the identity of any bidders. They have been required to sign confidentiality agreements, as is appropriate. As I have said, there will be an announcement once a deal is signed, and the Government will provide a full report to Parliament on the sale, proceeds and so on when the sale is completed.

[Lord Geddes (Con)]

Will my noble friend allow me to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, who, unlike the vast majority of his colleagues, asked his supplementary without a note in his hand?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

I agree with my noble friend that this is an excellent example of good practice.

Sharing Economy

Debate between Lord Geddes and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Monday 17th October 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

Helicopters are some way from the sharing economy, which is the subject of this Question. We are looking at the procurement rules on the sharing economy and in other areas to make sure that we get the best deal for Britain. We will be looking at all the issues regarding the industrial strategy. Coming from the West Country, I look forward to talking to the noble Lord further on the subject of Yeovil.

[Lord Geddes (Con)]

My Lords, reverting to the subject of wave power, I opened my account in your Lordships’ House 40 years ago on the subject of marine power. Will my noble friend concentrate rather more on tidal power than wave power, because I do not think any manufacturer has yet produced a machine that could withstand the forces of waves—but tidal power is another story altogether?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My noble friend is right: some innovative demonstration work is going on in Scotland and we are awaiting a report from Mr Hendry on a possible tidal lagoon in Swansea—and elsewhere.

Cold Calls

Debate between Lord Geddes and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Thursday 29th October 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, there are several questions which I look forward to discussing with the noble Lord, but fraudulent and scam activities are a crime and should be constantly reported to Action Fraud. I have a feeling that consumer representatives and the Government are very much on the same side here, and I look forward to taking on these issues.

[Lord Geddes (Con)]

My Lords, who pays for the plethora of calls, which I am sure we have all had, regarding PPI mis-sold insurance?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, I am not sure who pays for them but by registering to the Telephone Preference Service it is possible to get oneself off the list, in relation to both mobile and home phones. Which? has done great work in this area and is about to do a marketing campaign to bring this to the consumer’s attention. Consumers have to be involved as well as regulators to draw attention to the fact that they are being targeted. I get calls as well.

Consumer Rights Bill

Debate between Lord Geddes and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Monday 20th October 2014 Grand Committee

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Geddes) (Con)]

My Lords, it is now 6.23 pm. At least, it is according to the Annunciator, not the Clock; we should not rely on the Clock. I cut the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, off in her prime. Perhaps she would like to continue.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, I had finished explaining the background to what we were seeking to achieve, which is important for the Committee to understand and for the record because of the original nature of the discussions on online. However, my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones was particularly concerned about emergency security updates. He rightly emphasised that they need to be carried out with great speed and that some consumers could suffer minor damage.

The position as the Government see it is as follows. The consumer has to demonstrate that the trader failed to use reasonable care and skill to prevent the damage. We would expect that all reputable traders in this area would use reasonable care and skill as a matter of course, even for security updates that obviously have to be released rapidly. However, what constitutes reasonable care and skill for urgent security updates would be judged against the normal industry standards in that context, not against the standards for regular updates.

I sympathise with my noble friend’s concerns about traders facing claims concerning minor damage caused to a few consumers during the process of an emergency update. However, if the trader has used reasonable care and skill, given the context, I would not expect that Clause 46 would be engaged. I therefore ask my noble friend to withdraw the amendment.