Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Debate between Lord Hope of Craighead and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Report stage
Monday 15th May 2023 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)]

My Lords, I too thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, and other noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, to all the extensive and useful debates we had in Committee, and—this is important—for the useful engagement that has taken place on the devolutionary aspects of the Bill.

The Government have listened carefully to the concerns raised both in the debates in Parliament and by the devolved Governments and have tabled the government amendments in this group in response. Amendments 52 and 53 extend the power to make consequential provision under Clause 20 for the devolved authorities. Amendment 58 extends the power to make transitional, transitory and savings provisions under Clause 23 to the devolved authorities. These amendments will make the consequential power and the power to make transitional, transitory and savings provisions concurrent powers. This will enable UK Ministers and the devolved Governments—or both acting jointly—to exercise the powers in devolved areas.

The remaining government amendments, Amendments 54, 55, 56, 57, 59, 60, 65, 66, 67, 70, 71, 72 and 77, are consequential. They will remove the requirement for the devolved Governments to request the UK Government to make such changes on their behalf. Furthermore, these amendments will align these powers with the other powers in the Bill, which are also conferred concurrently on the devolved Governments.

I hope that noble Lords will agree that this is a meaningful change to the Bill that demonstrates the UK Government’s commitment to working collaboratively with the devolved Governments—which we talked about in Committee—and ensuring that the Bill works for all parts of the UK. Amendment 71 is a further technical amendment that I think everybody is happy with.

Amendment 17, tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, is to Clause 7. As we have now extended the power to make consequential provision under Clause 20 on devolved authorities, he is right that it is no longer necessary.

I turn to Amendments 35, 37, 39 and 75, which relate to powers under Clauses 13, 14 and 16 and Schedule 4. Amendment 35 requires that the power to restate REUL cannot be used to restate it in areas of devolved competence unless the relevant parliament has provided legislative consent for the retained EU law to be restated. Amendments 37 and 39 place similar requirements on the power to restate under Clause 14, and on the powers to revoke or replace under Clause 16.

In essence, these amendments would carve out regulation within areas of devolved competence in the absence of legislative consent. As has been said, Amendment 75 similarly seeks to impose a requirement for a Minister of the Crown to seek legislative consent when using the powers on legislation within areas of devolved legislative competence. These amendments are unnecessary. The UK Government are committed to ensuring that the provisions in the Bill, including its powers, are consistent with the devolution settlements and work for all parts of the UK. Indeed, the majority of the powers in the Bill are conferred concurrently on the devolved Governments, which will enable them to make active decisions regarding their retained EU law.

It is not necessary to limit the use of the powers within areas of devolved legislative competence by requiring UK Ministers to obtain legislative consent. Rest assured, the concurrent nature of the powers is not intended to affect the devolution settlements, nor to influence decision-making in devolved Governments. Rather, it is intended to reduce additional resource pressure on the devolved Governments by enabling the UK Government to legislate on behalf of a devolved Government where they do not intend to take a different position.

Let me move on and address Amendments 41 and 46, eloquently spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick. Her amendments would restrict the exercise of the powers to revoke or replace and the power to update. They require that any replacement instruments could not effect substantial policy change relating to human rights, equality or environmental protection that has effect in Northern Ireland. The Government intend to maintain the UK’s leading role in the promotion and protection of human rights, equality, the rule of law and environmental protections. We are proud of our long and diverse history of freedoms. The Government do not intend to undermine our hard-won human rights, equality and environmental legislation through the exercise of these powers. I should perhaps add that we are committed to ensuring the UK’s compliance with our international obligations, such as our human rights obligations. I therefore do not judge that the proposed restrictions to this clause are necessary.

Amendment 61 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, is no longer necessary in the light of the amendments that the Government have tabled in relation to Clause 23.

Finally, I turn to the noble and learned Lord’s latest amendment, Amendment 72A. It relates to Amendment 76, which we discussed in the previous grouping and which seeks to insert a new paragraph in Schedule 4 to the Bill. As Amendment 76 has fallen away, this amendment is now redundant.

Let me say that we have come a long way on this part of the Bill, as has been acknowledged on all sides. For all the reasons I have outlined, I ask that these amendments be withdrawn or not pressed.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who spoke in this debate; I am particularly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, for her very kind words.

I listened carefully to what the Minister said. I am grateful for her assurance that Amendment 17 is not required; that was my impression, so it is nice to have confirmation of that from her.

As far as the other amendments are concerned, I take the point that increasing pressure on resources is something that we should try to avoid. I see the value of joint working, which is really what the Minister described to us in her reply. I recognise that the Government have gone a long way in their amendments in this group, for which I am extremely grateful; I am sure that all others who care about devolution would say the same.

I will not press the amendments, but I hope that the message is still powerfully in the mind of the Government that continued co-operation and easing of the pressures round about to achieve a consensus across the board is the way to proceed if we possibly can. I think that the signs behind the scenes are that that can be achieved. I am grateful for that. For that reason, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

List of Ministers’ Interests and Ministerial Code

Debate between Lord Hope of Craighead and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Tuesday 25th April 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

Since the noble Lord mentions the former Deputy Prime Minister, I remind the House that he made an important contribution to the country, not least by his work during the pandemic. On a personal note, he supported me and indeed the Bench opposite on justice for retail workers facing harassment. He felt obliged to resign following the Tolley report, and I respect his decision. The noble Lord may have seen the letter to the former Deputy Prime Minister from the Prime Minister. It said,

“it is clear that there have been shortcomings in the historic process that have negatively affected everyone involved. We should learn from this how to better handle such matters in future”.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, the Tolley report, which looked into the matter in great detail, referred to intimidation rather than bullying as the cause of the conduct which led the former Deputy Prime Minister to resign. There is a difference between intimidation and bullying, and that should be recognised.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I do not think I have a great deal to add to the Prime Minister’s reply, other than to underline the point that has been made about how we learn to better handle such matters in future. The points that noble Lords have made are, of course, relevant to that.

Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Debate between Lord Hope of Craighead and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Committee stage
Thursday 23rd February 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I will try to answer my noble friend’s question. Defra has a programme looking at all this. It needs to decide what to preserve and what might need to be amended. I think the Bill has some scope for extension from 2023 into 2026. Perhaps I could now move on to Amendment 17 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

Before the Minister moves to Amendment 17, Amendment 4 raises the issue of common frameworks. I can well understand the Government’s wish to have a fresh look at standards overall, but it is a massive task, and if the Government are adhering to the structure of the common frameworks, that cannot be done without consultation with the devolved Administrations. Are we dealing with common frameworks in the area that Amendment 4 is concerned with and, if so, how do the Government propose to handle it? Are they proposing to adhere to the mechanisms in the common frameworks? If so, can the Government assure us that they can achieve what is necessary before the sunset date?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I was going to respond at the end on common frameworks, partly to say what our hope is, and partly to say that this may well come up under future amendments on the Bill in the next few days. I wanted to be reassuring. Obviously, our ambition is that government departments and devolved government counterparts work together to agree their approaches to individual pieces of REUL. The delegated powers in Bill could then be used to preserve, extend, amend or repeal REUL as required via statutory instrument. Of course, as has been said, the devolved Administrations also have statutory instruments that they need to look at.

Procurement Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Hope of Craighead and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Committee stage
Monday 11th July 2022 Grand Committee

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, I return to Amendment 37 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. He made the point that the words at the end of Clause 10(1),

“except in accordance with this Act”,

are a hostage to fortune. The words range right across the whole of this complicated Bill and of course a disaffected client will invite his lawyer to search through all the provisions to find some flaw in the way in which the procurement exercise was carried out, which he can then attack.

I wonder whether the words

“in accordance with this Act”

are wider than they need to be. First, Clause 10 contains a prohibition, but Clause 10(2) contains a definition of procurement and Clause 10(3) tells you that

“a contracting authority may only award a public contract in accordance with”

the four matters set out there.

In my mind, that raises the question of whether the words at the end of Clause 10(1) should really be

“except in accordance with this”

section, the purpose of which is to describe the framework or scope of the power, before Clause 11 tells you that that power must be exercised in accordance with the procurement objectives set out there. It would make sense if Clause 10 simply said what may be done in accordance with that section. If I am wrong about that, the Minister might like to reflect on whether the words

“in accordance with this Act”

go further than they need to.

Choice of words, as I say from time to time, is always very important and the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, raises an important point. What he wishes to put in place at the end of Clause 10(1) is already in Clause 11 and will have to be complied with. I understand that the Minister may be reluctant to go as far as the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, has invited him to go, but he has raised an important point. That is why I suggest that the word “section” might be a more sensible and less dangerous word to use than “Act”, at the end of Clause 10(1).

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, it is always a great pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, who is always so brief and makes such constructive suggestions. The more I listen, the more I feel that this Bill in many respects strikes the wrong note. It is overregulatory and calls for a rethink, which I hope the Government will be thinking about.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (Consequential Modifications and Repeals and Revocations) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Debate between Lord Hope of Craighead and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Monday 4th March 2019 Grand Committee

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

I am extremely grateful to the Minister for his very careful introduction to the background of the regulations. I should make clear that I have no criticism of the detail of the regulations themselves; I fully understand the reason for them and the explanation he has given has reassured me on all those points.

I have, however, two points on the provisions relating to Scotland. I am delighted to see the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, here, because she will recall our discussions relating to what is now Section 8 of the Act, when I argued that consent of the Scottish Parliament should be required in the exercise of powers relating to Scotland in any way. As I recall it, she gave me an assurance that the Scottish Government would be consulted on any such amendments and, in the end, I was content with that. It is not in the legislation itself but, rather like the Sewel convention, it is part of the background to the exercise of the power to make regulations under the Act.

My first question is short and technical and relates to the provision in Part 1 of the schedule to which the Minister referred—the reference to the Scotland Act 1998 and the repeal of paragraph 28 of Schedule 8. The reason I refer to it is that it is laid down in Section 8(7) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 that regulations under Section 8 may not do various things, among which is to,

“amend or repeal the Scotland Act”.

What is happening here is an amendment to the Scotland Act. That provision is qualified by stating that it does not apply if,

“the regulations are made by virtue of paragraph 21(b) of Schedule 7 to this Act”.

I notice that in the preamble to the regulations, reference is made to that paragraph.

My point is very short. I seek confirmation from the Minister that what we see in Part 1 of the schedule is an exercise of the power under paragraph 21(b) of the schedule and not under Section 8, because if it is under Section 8 standing alone, it would seem to be contrary to the prohibition in subsection (7). I think that is a relatively straightforward point, and I do not imagine that it will cause the Minister any concern.

The second point relates to Part 3 of these regulations which, as the noble Lord has pointed out, amends the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010. At first sight, it seems very odd that a UK Minister should be amending an Act of the Scottish Parliament; this very important Act was drafted with great care in Edinburgh. There is no doubt whatever that power to do this was given to Scottish Ministers under Schedule 2 of the withdrawal Act, because this is a devolved matter and there is no inhibition on their powers to deal with devolved legislation as they think fit. It seems that the Scottish Parliament is the natural place to make these amendments. One can understand that the position in Northern Ireland is different, because the Assembly is not sitting; it is obviously necessary to make provision by legislative means and this would seem the appropriate way to do it.

That is really a preamble to what we find set out in paragraph 10.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum, which says:

“We have consulted the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the Northern Irish Civil Service”.


It is the next sentence which troubles me. It says:

“In particular, we have consulted them on the amendments to the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954 and the ILRA 2010; these amendments are made in Part 3 and 4 respectively of the instrument”.


That sentence is wrong, because the amendment in Part 3 is nothing to do with the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954 or the IRLA 201; it is an amendment to the interpretation Act made by the Scottish Parliament. Therefore, that sentence does not make sense. The last sentence deals with something different: consultation relating to the technical and consequential repeals to the Scotland Act, which is what we saw in Part 1 of Schedule 2. My question really is this: what is the position in relation to the amendment of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 which we find in Part 3?

Following our long debates on the whole structure of the withdrawal Act, the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, will understand my concern that the Scottish Parliament should be properly consulted on matters of this kind. I have to say that paragraph 10.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum does not make it clear. The second sentence is plainly incorrect and there is a gap, because it does not mention that Part 3 is an amendment of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010. I ask the Minister for clarification as to what exactly is going on here and whether the consultation, which is fundamental to the exercise of the powers in relation to Scotland, has been properly carried out.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, unlike the distinguished noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, I am not a lawyer and am unable to go into the detail that he has. I look forward to hearing the answers to his excellent questions. However, I have three simple questions that I would like to address to the Minister.

The first question is about impact. When this instrument was referred to us for debate, making it an affirmative instrument, the ESIC commented on the cumulative impact, saying that this meant that it should be debated here. As a consequence, we are all here today. There is no impact assessment and there is a statement from the Government saying that there is no need for one. Given the scale of the changes and the consequential effects, it seems that there could well be more than £5 million-worth of work for all the professional services and from companies in all four countries of the UK. I would be interested to hear more on that.

I also make the comment that, after EU exit, it will be much more difficult to find out what is going on in the EU, which is a problem when we are continuing to take European Union changes on board. We cannot even send representatives to the Committee of the Regions any longer, let alone the Council.

How will we keep business and citizens informed of what is going on in the EU? This is an issue which I hope the EU Select Committee, which I serve on, will look at as part of its report on the future bilateral institutional arrangements with the EU 27. This troubles me a bit because I am looking forward to post Brexit and how we will work alongside our friends in the EU 27, allow our citizens to continue to visit them, and our businesses to continue to operate.

My second question is a simple one. There has been no consultation except with the devolved Administrations. How do we know that the quite extensive changes that are being made in this Order are safe?

Finally, as my noble friend knows, I strongly support the Government’s approach to providing a new legal base for the post-Brexit world and for doing that in the orderly way he is pursuing. However, I would be interested in an update on the gaps that there may be on Brexit day, particularly in the not very likely event of no deal. It seems that this Order helps to deal with some of the gaps, but I would be interested to know how many more there may be that we should be worrying about.

Intellectual Property (Unjustified Threats) Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Hope of Craighead and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 23rd November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, I beg to move.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, perhaps I may take this opportunity to say on behalf of my noble and learned friend Lord Saville of Newdigate, who chaired the Special Public Bill Committee, how much he regrets that he is not able to be present at this stage of the Bill. He has authorised me to say that he, having read all the amendments, fully supports them. The fact that they have been brought before the House in this way indicates the hard work that the committee did, and the Bill will no doubt be greatly improved by their being moved.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hope of Craighead]

My Lords, I am fairly new to this argument as unfortunately I was not able to be present as a member of the committee. Judges faced with the nature of this clause, in looking at the word “instructions”, would give the word a purposive meaning and would tend to look for a specific instruction as a necessary condition even if the words were not expressed in the Bill. For the avoidance of doubt, I respectfully suggest that the amendment moved by my noble kinsman has great force behind it. One would want to put the matter beyond doubt. For what it is worth, I support the amendment.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, I understand that this is an area of concern. I welcome the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles. I very much appreciate the noble Lord’s constructive approach to the Bill and his commitment to careful scrutiny. I think he said the amendment was probing in nature. I will start by setting out why I remain convinced that the exemption for professional advisers is so necessary, before talking about the specific amendment.

The Law Commission’s consultation demonstrated that the tactic of suing a professional adviser for making a threat has been used to hamper the legitimate client-adviser relationship. This causes problems not only for the adviser but for the client, who may as a result need to find a new adviser. I believe we heard convincingly during the evidence stages that this is a significant and common issue. It leaves rights holders in the position of having to pay indemnities before a legal adviser will write an entirely justified letter on their behalf. SMEs are more likely to be asked for such indemnities and are most affected by them.

I am aware that there were concerns regarding such an exemption, which might give rise to an increase in the use of unscrupulous threats. However, I do not agree for the following reasons. Where the professional adviser is exempt, the instructing client will remain liable. This ensures that recourse is available to those damaged by threats. A legal adviser who advises their client badly, leaving them liable for threats, risks a negligence action. The exemption does not prevent this. The exemption has been carefully and appropriately limited in its availability. The amendment would restrict the protection available for professional advisers to just those who are acting on “specific” instructions from another person.

In an increasingly global market—that was mentioned —we need to capture the many different types of foreign and domestic IP legal practitioner who may risk facing a threats action under UK law. As discussed in Committee, this should clearly include those in private practice as well as “in-house” advisers. For that reason, I do not agree that the exemption principle should apply only to the very limited category of circumstances envisaged by the amendment.

In practice, instructions come in all shapes and forms, written and oral. It is therefore unclear what would be required in order to demonstrate that an adviser was acting on a “specific” instruction. Such lack of clarity about “specific” instructions would be particularly problematic for in-house legal advisers, who are often acting on a general mandate to protect their company’s IP rights. The Law Commission agrees that the amendment risks leaving in-house advisers without protection. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson: I think that that is the response that he was expecting in relation to the amendment.

Enterprise Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Hope of Craighead and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Tuesday 19th April 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, the chairman of the Green Investment Bank, the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Kelvin, is not in his place this afternoon, but I am sure he would like it to be said on his behalf that he is grateful to the Government for agreeing to remove these three clauses from the Bill and to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for all the work that he has done to bring this solution about. I think it is right to say that as far as the chairman is concerned, his main aim in detaching the bank from the public sector is to attract investment. From his point of view, investment is vital if the bank is to fulfil its ambitious plans to double the size of its business and to deliver a growing green project—I am quoting from one of the letters which, as the Minister said, have been placed in the Library. So minimising the risk of the bank being classified as part of the public sector is part of the strategy of the noble Lord, Lord Smith, to attract investment, and from his point of view, the result of the amendments the Minister has moved will be to help him to deliver what he is seeking to deliver.

I think I should mention also that steps have been taken by the bank to make progress with the overall scheme that has been devised. A new special shareholder company has been incorporated and agreement from three very well-established and reputable institutions has been secured so that they will help the bank to find individuals to serve in a personal capacity as trustees of the special share that has been set up. The structures are now being put in place and the step being taken this afternoon is really the last in the series of steps to bring about the reality that the noble Lord, Lord Smith, has been seeking to achieve for some months. So, on his behalf, I repeat the thanks to various people, including the Minister, for what has been achieved.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords, especially the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for his gracious comments. This has been a brief but constructive discussion. Let me reiterate that the Government not only support the intention of this provision but are already acting on it. I am also very grateful for the intervention of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, speaking on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Smith, who could not be here today. He rightly underlined the importance of the external investment that the Green Investment Bank is seeking to raise to realise its exciting green ambitions.

Working across this House, we developed a mechanism that meets our purpose. It allows the bank to move to the private sector, meaning that it can grow and increase its green impact, and it ensures that its green mission is protected. With regard to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, the ONS publishes its decisions routinely. Indeed, for some classification decisions, such as that of Royal Mail or Lloyds TSB, the ONS also provides detailed reasoning behind the classification decision. I can reassure the noble Lord that the ONS has confirmed that it will publish a detailed explanatory article on its decision on the classification of the GIB.

However, I must emphasise—this is the nub of the problem—that a decision on the GIB will be taken only after the sale has taken place. There is a reason for this. Until the ONS is able to look at the full facts of the matter, such as the legislation which exists at that point in time, the precise nature and number of the shareholders, their rights and so on, it cannot make a formal decision on which party is in control of the body, and hence on its classification. That is why the Government engage with ONS during the development of policy proposals, where ONS will give a formal, but provisional, classification assessment. That is what we did with the special share structure which the GIB is now putting in place. As I mentioned earlier, the ONS has given us a formal opinion that this structure should not prevent the GIB moving to the private sector.

The noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, rightly asked why the decision could not be published earlier. As I have said, the decision will come after the sale has completed. Until the full details, which would include legislation, ownership and contractual arrangements, are known, any judgment on who controls the body could only ever be provisional—so providing an earlier decision would not enhance certainty. Unfortunately, the nature of these assessments can be complex and cases can be time-consuming, although I am glad to say that the ONS publishes its forward work plan every quarter, which sets out the classification issues that it will be considering.

So what is the way forward? I understand noble Lords’ frustration; I have to say that I shared it myself in spades on the question of public sector classification and the ONS’s role. These concerns go wider than just the issue of the Green Investment Bank, and I am happy to undertake to bring them to the attention of my colleagues in the Treasury to see if anything can be done for future cases to help rightly risk-averse government Ministers.

I hope that we can all agree that we have reached a good outcome for the Green Investment Bank and wish it well, and I hope that in the circumstances the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Consumer Rights Bill

Debate between Lord Hope of Craighead and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Monday 8th December 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, noble Lords who were in the House during the second day of Report will have heard the case presented by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Hope of Craighead and Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, in support of their amendments. Both were intended to remove a potential barrier to judges sitting in the Court of Session or the Northern Ireland High Court, from sitting as chairs in the Competition Appeal Tribunal. As I told the House at the time, I shared those concerns. I have met with the noble and learned Lords and I believe that the amendment before us today will address the issues they raised. I am pleased that we have been able to make progress on this matter.

First, as a consequence of the proposed government amendment, the Judicial Appointments Commission will no longer be required to recommend the appointment of judges as CAT chairs to the Lord Chancellor. Instead, the Lord Justice of England and Wales, the Lord President of the Court of Session and the Lord Chief Justice for Northern Ireland may nominate any suitably qualified individual who is already a judge sitting in the relevant court to be deployed as a CAT chair. This includes the Court of Session and the High Court in Northern Ireland. We are also providing that nominations in England and Wales may be from any division of the High Court, rather than restricted to the Chancery Division as at present. This will ensure that CAT chairs are drawn from the widest possible pool of expertise.

Moving to a nomination process will also address concerns that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, spoke about in relation to the limited appointment terms currently applying to CAT chairs. Currently, chair appointments are restricted to a maximum of eight years. As a consequence, experienced judicial officeholders are required to stand down regardless of their age and whether they wish to continue to serve. This requirement results in loss of expertise from the tribunal.

As part of the move to a nomination process, we will no longer impose such a limit on judicial officeholders who are nominated. Instead, judges will be eligible to be deployed to sit as CAT chairs until they retire or resign from their existing judicial office; if at any time they cease to sit in their judicial office, they would also cease to be a CAT chairman.

I should make clear that the changes I have set out here will apply only to those who are full-time salaried judicial officeholders. Fee-paid CAT chairmen—private practitioners who want to hold a part-time judicial office for the first time, or to add another part-time judicial office to their portfolio—will continue to be recruited through the Judicial Appointment Commission selection process and be subject to an eight-year term of appointment. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that this is an appropriate amendment, ensuring as it does that judges from all the UK’s jurisdictions are able to be deployed to sit in the CAT.

Before I sit down, I would like to convey my warmest thanks to my noble friend Lady Jolly who has provided me with such valuable support and assistance, and of course to the Bill team drawn from several departments, a great example of joined-up government. It has been a very great pleasure to steer this, my first Bill through your Lordships’ House and to engage with noble Lords on every side so very constructively. I beg to move.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for bringing forward these amendments. As she explained, the initiative was taken initially by me and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, at the request of the Lord President in Scotland and the Lord Justice of England and Wales. Their concern about the need for these amendments was, to some extent, due to the extended jurisdiction of the Competition Appeal Tribunal, which is the result of other provisions in the Bill.

As it is, the amendment that has been proposed today addresses all the concerns of all three senior judicial officers. I express on behalf of myself and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, our gratitude to the Minister and her Bill team for meeting us and checking whether the amendment would meet with our approval. We were happy to say that it did. This is a good example of the way that the House works to solve a technical, but not unimportant, problem. It says a great deal for the Government that they were prepared to accept this suggestion.

Consumer Rights Bill

Debate between Lord Hope of Craighead and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Monday 24th November 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hope of Craighead]

My Lords, I will reply to that very briefly. I thought that I made it clear that the amendment is really provoked by the expanding jurisdiction in Schedule 8. The present position copes satisfactorily—it is not the ideal situation—but the expanded jurisdiction will greatly increase the workload of the tribunal and its visibility, because it is going to deal with private litigation as well as the regulatory authorities. It is that particular feature that is concerning the Lord Chief Justice and, I dare say, his equivalents north of the border and in Northern Ireland. I do not want to criticise anybody on the tribunal at the present time; I am trying to look forward to the expanded jurisdiction and see that it is served as well as possible.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, I am grateful to the distinguished noble and learned Lords, Lord Hope of Craighead and Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, for joining our debate and for their amendments, which are intended to address an anomaly in the appointment of Competition Appeal Tribunal chairs. I recognise their concerns and agree that this difference has existed for far too long.

As noble Lords will know, the CAT has a UK-wide jurisdiction and, as a result of the Bill, we expect the CAT to become the venue of choice for competition cases. As the noble and learned Lord explained, it will be busier. The CAT hears appeals against decisions by the regulators and competition authorities in cases arising in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. I agree with the noble and learned Lord that the current process for appointing CAT chairs effectively acts as a barrier to judges sitting in the Court of Session in Scotland or the Northern Ireland High Court.

The Judicial Appointments Commission was created in order to remove the scope for any perceived political interference. As part of its responsibilities, judges who are appointed to the Chancery Division of the High Court are also assessed for appointment as a chair of the CAT. However, the Scottish and Northern Irish equivalents of the Judicial Appointments Commission do not have a remit to make recommendations for appointments of CAT chairmen. This means that the only way judges in either the Court of Session or the Northern Ireland High Court can sit as chairmen in the CAT is to seek appointment via an application to the JAC.

I agree with the noble and learned Lords that this cannot be right, nor can it be what was intended when the Judicial Appointments Commission was created. It seems needlessly bureaucratic, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, said. This is an issue on which we share common ground and I would welcome the opportunity to discuss it in more detail with the noble and learned Lords to see what progress we can make at Third Reading, including, if appropriate, tidying up any slip. I hope that what I have said reassures the noble and learned Lords and I therefore ask the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Hope of Craighead]

My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for her encouraging and constructive reply. I am quite sure that in discussion we will be able to find some satisfactory solution. There are two solutions on the table and I think that, with the assistance of the Bill team, we can probably work out a satisfactory answer. I look forward very much to achieving that before Third Reading. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Immigration Bill

Debate between Lord Hope of Craighead and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Monday 10th March 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 56, which is tabled in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, who regrets that he cannot be in place. I have put my name to the amendment. I should make it clear that the matter with which it deals was drawn to our attention by the Law Society of Scotland. Just to set the background, it raises a short point in relation to Clause 28, the discrimination clause, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, referred. That clause requires the Secretary of State to issue a code of practice with a view to ensuring that landlords or agents do not breach the provisions of the Equality Act 2010 so far as it is related to race when performing the obligations imposed on them by Chapter 1 of Part 3.

Clause 28(3) provides that:

“Before issuing the code (or a revised code) the Secretary of State must consult … the Commission for Equality and Human Rights … the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland”.

This amendment adds the Scottish Human Rights Commission to that list.

The reasoning behind the proposal can be put very shortly. It is that while Chapter 1, with which the code will be concerned, can be said to fall under the broad heading of immigration, which is a reserved matter for the Home Office, it also involves the devolved area of tenancies in relation to both social housing and private lettings between landlord and tenant. This is a sensitive area where the Article 8 right to family life and to respect for the person’s home is involved. It could also be argued that there is an Article 1, Protocol 1, right with regard to the landlord since he is having to take decisions about his own property.

The reference in Clause 28(3)(c) to,

“such persons representing the interests of landlords and tenants as the Secretary of State considers appropriate”,

suggests that there is room for adding something to the two particular bodies which are mentioned in the list set out in the clause. But it is suggested that, in order to complete the protection for the tenant’s rights under a devolved system, the inclusion of the Scottish Human Rights Commission would be appropriate. In a sense, it is a precautionary proposal because one has to be careful with regard both to the devolved system and to the risk of entrenching on the human rights of either party, which could give rise to very unfortunate consequences. The safer course, I respectfully suggest, is to include the Scottish Human Rights Commission so that it can offer its advice on the drafting of the code.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I am sorry that prior engagements meant that I missed part of the Second Reading debate and could not speak then on this important Bill, which I support. I start by thanking my noble friend the Minister for the briefing he kindly provided on the residential tenancy provisions. I thank noble Lords opposite for initiating a debate on Clause 15, as it gives me the opportunity to probe the Government’s intentions and the “workability” of the provisions, to quote the noble Baroness.

I come at the subject as a business person, although I should declare an interest as the part-owner of a son’s flat which is currently let while he works out of London. We are asking the landlord community, nearly 2 million of us, to be part of the enforcement service for immigration. This is a new burden, as the noble Lord, Lord Best, has said. I understand that, for 62% of landlords, the required documentation is already available to satisfy the provisions. But that leaves a lot of people burdened for the first time, and required to keep copies and records that they do not have to worry about at present. I suspect that many will not know about the new rules and that they risk a civil penalty—£1,000 for the first offence, £3,000 thereafter— if they let to somebody whose papers are not in order.

I have a fear that the immigration authorities, in order to hit targets, could turn their attention to the easy task of cracking down on landlords who make a mistake, rather than the labyrinthine task of fighting illegal immigrants through the courts. Can my noble friend give landlords, especially small landlords who do not use expensive letting agencies, some comfort on these issues?

This is an important Bill, as I have said, and it is clearly essential that the new provisions are communicated really well. I have two thoughts on this and would be glad to hear the Minister’s reactions before we accept the provisions on landlords in Clause 15 and subsequent clauses. One is to use the web properly. We should place on gov.uk, in one user-friendly place, all the new rules for landlords, wherever they are set out, including the new online checking resource that is planned; briefing on the new biometric residence permits, which will ease landlords’ task of identification; the contact details for the phone inquiry line; and the 48-hour e-mail immigration checking service, which I agree will need to be adequately staffed, as the noble Lord, Lord Best, has said.

A different version could also be provided for tenants, including, perhaps—having listened to earlier debates—students, from whom I believe the paperwork requirements may be relatively light. It would be good for all of those people to know what the rules are and be able to check them in a simple place on the web. With modern techniques, prospective tenants could easily translate this briefing using an online app, obviating the need for expensive advice and lawyers.

Secondly, we should ask the landlords’ associations to prepare model clauses on the new immigration controls to be added to their standard shorthold lease. This would make it less likely that the new requirements were overlooked and the tenant would have to make an undertaking, which would be helpful, for example, in avoiding illegal sub-letting.

Finally, I would like to understand the Government’s intentions on timing, a point which links to Amendment 51 on a possible pilot. I believe that the Government plan to trial the new arrangements in a specific area or areas, which is an excellent idea that I would like to see applied to more areas of regulation. However, what would the timetable look like, and will the Government, as suggested by the noble Lords opposite, feel able to feed back to this House what they have learnt before the new system goes nationwide?

As a supporter of the Bill I am very keen that it should work well and not lead to an adverse reaction by small landlords or a reduction in available accommodation because people do not want to risk a fine or the hassle involved in the new scheme. The money-laundering laws were no doubt good in intent, but the repetitive bureaucracy they have introduced into every aspect of asset purchase certainly comes at a cost which affects UK productivity. I am keen to know whether we have learnt from this experience in establishing this important new regime for landlords.