Brexit: Financial Services Sector

Lord Low of Dalston Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd January 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie]

I respect the noble Baroness and understand that she is a significant contributor to the proceedings of this House, but she is a little harsh in her terminology. There is no question of the Government playing games, and that is recognised in Brussels and by the EU. It is recognised that these are complex, challenging negotiations and that by their very nature a degree of sensitivity surrounds them, and that involves also the need to observe a degree of confidentiality. The financial services industry is aware of the Government’s broad objectives in these negotiations; as I said last week, senior representatives of the industry met with the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and my honourable friend Robin Walker. So there is clarity on the part of the industry as to what the Government wish to try to achieve. When the Government think it appropriate, as my honourable friend Robin Walker said in the other place, we can consider how to set out our position.

[Lord Low of Dalston (CB)]

My Lords, how can we possibly continue to enjoy a position similar to that which we enjoy the moment, as the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, suggested, when we are determined to withdraw from the single market and the customs union?

[Baroness Goldie]

We have made it clear that we are determined to negotiate an ambitious free trade agreement. We want to do everything we can to facilitate access to the markets and to enjoy the arrangements that currently obtain. However, the Government have been clear that we cannot commit to being in the single market or the customs union, because to do so per se is not to leave the EU. On the financial services markets, this has been explored, and it is clear that passporting is not the only way to access EU financial services markets. That is why these negotiations are so critical and why we have to leave the negotiators in peace to get on with their important work.

Student Loans: Interest Rates

Lord Low of Dalston Excerpts

Monday 11th September 2017 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

I made the position clear on vice-chancellors’ pay the other day in the House. Although the Government do not wish to interfere, my colleague in the other place, Jo Johnson, has made it quite clear that universities must have restraint in the pay offered to vice-chancellors and, indeed, to other senior positions.

[Lord Low of Dalston (CB)]

My Lords, if we could come back to the Question, it was reported at the weekend that Mrs May was casting around for ways to ease the burdens on students. Would an obvious way of doing that not be to reduce interest rates to something more like the rates that banks were paying to investors?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

There have been rumours in the press about a review but I cannot really confirm that at all. We believe the balance is right between making sure that the interest rates are right and that we encourage people to go to university.

Investigatory Powers Bill

Lord Low of Dalston Excerpts

Report: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 19th October 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Low of Dalston (CB)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 294 and 295, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Hollins and Lady O’Neill, and the noble and learned Lords, Lord Falconer and Lord Wallace. The noble Baronesses very much regret that they cannot be present in the House today, and they have asked me to speak to their amendments. I will be brief, as I understand that, without prejudice to the Government’s ultimate position, the Minister is not seeking to divide the House, and we are all most grateful to him for that.

The amendments would have no impact on the security measures in the Bill, nor would they affect the other measures in the Bill in any way. Their sole purpose is to bring into force automatically after Royal Assent Clause 8 and the new clause that was added to the Bill by this House last week by a large majority.

The amendments would deliver cost protections in hacking cases, which Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 was enacted to provide for all publication torts. Section 40 is a key part of the Leveson recommendations that the Government promised to implement but has not been commenced. Non-commencement frustrates the will of Parliament and is a breach of the 2013 cross-party agreement. The commencement of these clauses automatically after Royal Assent is necessary to ensure that the device of non-commencement is not employed again on the amendments that the House passed last week. For these reasons, I commend Amendments 294 and 295 to the House.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, we discussed the substantive points on this issue on day one of Report. We consider these amendments consequential to the ones we discussed then. Although the Government’s position on the substantive issue remains as we set out last week, we are not opposing these amendments.

Queen’s Speech

Lord Low of Dalston Excerpts

Monday 23rd May 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Low of Dalston (CB)]

My Lords, I certainly have no intention of going on for nine minutes or anything like that. The thought of upwards of 60 people lining up to give their views on the referendum is rather deadly, but I fear it can hardly be avoided for now is surely the time to stand up and be counted. I am for remain, but I shall try to make the case on a ground we do not hear too much about—namely, the interests of disabled people.

Before I do that, however, I shall try to tot up the score on the grounds we hear all too much about. I say “all too much” because a lot of the advocacy tends to be self-cancelling. That in itself suggests that the arguments are not clear-cut and the ultimate decision must be on a balance of advantages. That said, I believe the balance is clearly in favour of remain. I shall examine the arguments under five heads.

On the economy, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies, said, remain appears to be winning hands down. Even leave admits that there would be an economic shock in the short term, and remain has a veritable alphabet soup of heavyweight endorsements from the IMF, the OECD, the WTO, the G20, the IFS, the OBR, the CBI, the LSE, the MPC, the World Bank, the Governor of the Bank of England and eight US Treasury Secretaries.

Next, there is the disruption to trading relationships. Leave used to believe that we could have all the benefits of the single market without any of the burdens, but it has been forced to abandon that argument. It is thus now in disarray on the single market. On the whole, it seems now to say that we can do without it, but then the claim that there would be little disruption to trading relationships implodes. Everyone, except leave, agrees that renegotiating bilateral replacements for all the trading relationships vacated by our withdrawal from the EU would be a long and far from straightforward process.

On sovereignty, again remain has the better of the argument. Whenever you go into a collective arrangement, you share some of your sovereignty, but in return you get the benefits of the collective arrangement. If the complaint is that the European Court of Justice sometimes finds against us, it is not a very edifying stance to say that we will accept the jurisdiction of a court only if it is guaranteed never to find against us. On security, the camps may be more evenly matched, but one should not take lightly the warnings of five Secretary-Generals of NATO and a dozen or so US defence and security chiefs. On ability to control immigration, leave probably has the edge, but the weight of this argument depends a lot on how dim a view you take of immigration.

I make that about three and a half to one and a half to the remain campaign, but I do not think the matter should be determined by a sort of accountant’s calculus. Ultimately, it is a question of philosophical orientation and whether you think that in a globalised world you can turn your back on collective arrangements and go it alone in a little England backwater at the edge of the world. I am an internationalist, and I do not think you can.

I said I would say something about disability. The lives of disabled people and their families in the UK have been significantly improved through our membership of the European Union. Many positive changes in our laws and policies over the past 20 years owe their origin to European initiatives. For example, the 2000 directive on equal treatment in employment strengthened the law on discrimination in the workplace to the benefit of disabled people, among others, in the UK. Unfortunately, it is often at national level that we experience difficulty or resistance in the forging of new rights. The British Government were not up for the legal strengthening provided for by the equal treatment in employment directive, for instance. It has been the common experience of disabled people in Britain that we can get advances through the EU that we would not get from British Governments of whatever stripe. Leaving the EU would put these advances at risk, and the EU would no longer prevent UK Governments rolling them back. Leaving the EU would also make it more likely that disabled people in Britain would not be able to enjoy the benefits of new initiatives where the EU is leading and the UK is dragging its feet—for example, over the accessible design of manufactured goods—and it would jeopardise much-needed financial support for disabled people in the UK from EU structural and investment funds which have just been changed to place more emphasis on anti-poverty and social inclusion measures.

The EU’s superior record in advancing and protecting the rights of disabled people is another positive reason for wishing to remain within the EU, and the score goes up to four and a half to one and a half.

Tax Credits (Income Thresholds and Determination of Rates) (Amendment) Regulations 2015

Lord Low of Dalston Excerpts

Monday 26th October 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fowler]

That is obviously something we can consider for the future, and on first hearing sounds an attractive proposition. However, we are considering what we are doing now and not in the future.

I make a last point. In spite of some of the criticism—no, the attack—now being directed at this House, it is my view that it carries out a very valuable series of functions. The Members I meet here day by day are hard-working, not just on the Floor of the House but in Select Committees. However, we need to recognise one common-sense thing: that as long as this is an appointed House, we must accept the limitations on our powers, particularly in financial matters. To ignore those limitations is not in the interests of Parliament, it is certainly not in the interests of the House of Lords and it is not in the interests of the public. It cannot be justified and that is why I will be voting against these amendments.

[Lord Low of Dalston (CB)]

My Lords, we have been going at this now for well over two and a half hours. Strong points have been made on each side of the argument and many points have been made in speeches that have been not only lengthy but weighty. I find it difficult to conceive that any more arguments can be deployed on either side. I submit that we need to make up our minds on the basis of what we have heard and that it is time to come to a conclusion.

[Baroness Hayman (CB)]

My Lords, I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Low, says but I want to make one or two points that have perhaps not been made before and, if the House will indulge me, I would be grateful for the opportunity so to do.

I shall not go over the case against the regulations in their current form. That has been argued powerfully tonight from all Benches, and I think that we could pass almost nem con that we feel there is a need for reconsideration. The issue before us is whether it is constitutionally appropriate for the House of Lords to use its most potent and well-known weapon—the weapon of delay—in respect of these regulations.

Very powerful speeches were made from the Bishops’ Benches. I am delighted that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester is here for today’s debate. I should warn her—or console her—that it is not always like this. However, I hope that those Benches and others will consider that it might be appropriate for the House to use its powers of delay tonight. I favour the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, because it gives us an alternative to a fatal amendment on a matter which is, I agree, of high political import. It gives us the opportunity to delay the regulations and to ask the Commons—and, through it, the Government—to think again.

In introducing the debate, the noble Baroness the Leader of the House said that she had seen the Chancellor of the Exchequer today. I think that the words used were that he would “listen very carefully” to what was said in the House today. I accept that. However, having had the privilege of being a Member of both Houses, I think he will listen even more carefully to what is said in the House of Commons on Thursday, and I would like him to have the opportunity to do that.

Delaying an SI rather than killing it is innovative, and I have asked myself over time whether it is something we should therefore abjure. My answer is no. If we have the power to kill a statutory instrument and send it back to base, surely we have the power to delay it and wait for reconsideration.

I absolutely accept that this matter has been discussed in another place three times. Does it need further consideration? I think the evidence is that it does. Every time we discuss an amendment to a Bill that has gone through the House of Commons, it has probably been voted on three times: at Second Reading, in Committee and on Report. That does not inhibit us from saying first time round, “Please will you look again?”.

Therefore, for me, the only question that remains is that of financial privilege. I hesitate to cross swords with either the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, or my noble friend Lord Butler, but the situation is not as clear-cut as they have set out. If this were a Finance Bill we would have no part in it, and if it were a taxation SI we would have no part in it. In fact, it would never come here: it would go through only the House of Commons. But it is not. This is an SI under “ordinary legislation”—under a welfare Bill. Under that legislation, this House considers amendments and sends them to the House of Commons. The House of Commons can then do what it likes with them: it can accept them; it can offer a compromise; it can reject them; or it can invoke financial privilege. However, that is after this House has asked it to think again. That is a better analogy than the analogy of a Finance Bill. This statutory instrument comes under welfare legislation, not a Finance Bill.