Agreement Establishing an Economic Partnership Agreement between the Eastern and Southern Africa States and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Debate between Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Wednesday 13th March 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I commend the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, for initiating this debate and agree with many of the points that he made—for example, publishing the agreements and those that they replace together. I also agree that there should be consultation wherever possible—for example, with the Scottish Parliament on the Faroe Islands.

Like my noble friend Lady Verma, I sit on the European Union Select Committee. We have been helping the scrutiny process in this House by reviewing the international agreements laid before Parliament in accordance with Section 20 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. The EU Committee was asked to take on this task rather late in the day, and it has involved a commendable cross-party effort by the committee and its sub-committees. However, as has already been said by previous speakers, the main credit should go to the clerks and our expert advisers, who, frankly, have done a fabulous job, working long hours and diving into the wearying complexities of these agreements. As we have heard, we published our sixth report in this series today—HL Paper 315, for the enthusiastic.

I am not sure that I have the chutzpah to table a Motion on this issue myself when there is so much parliamentary business to progress. However, I take this opportunity to draw attention to our work on treaties and to mention the UK-Swiss trade agreement, on which we reported today. This example is “illustrative”, in the word of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis. I very much understand that my noble friend the Minister may not be able to comment on this agreement, although she is very good at pulling rabbits out of hats. Switzerland is the 10th largest trading partner for the UK. As a committee, we were disappointed that the Government, in bringing forward the UK-Swiss trade agreement for scrutiny, had not provided an explanation of the plans for future UK-Swiss services trade, which accounts for 52% of overall trade between the UK and Switzerland. Services are as important as goods to our economy. Given that they now represent nearly 85% of GDP, you might say that they are even more important to the wealth and success of our islands. I am sorry that the process gives them so little focus.

In the meantime, I support the words of the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, about the importance of parliamentary scrutiny. I would like to see the three agreements before us passed without delay. I look forward to many further debates on the very important area of future trade agreements, which will potentially have big implications and lead to big changes to our country.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I suppose this is in the nature of an experiment. This is the first time we have had an opportunity to go into detail about the new world that beckons, whichever side of the Brexit divide one is on. At some point in the future, whether sooner or later, the UK will certainly be faced with making a very large number of these treaties. We need to get used to wading through them and investigating in detail.

I had only a short time to go through the agreements on the Order Paper, but I was left reeling, not only from the pages that dealt with the individual tariff lines—I know I will have to do more work on these because of the Government’s announcement today. Even so, it was a pretty scary moment to try to realise exactly what was going on there, equally so to recognise the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, that a modern trade agreement is not just about widgets and physical objects but trade in services, attitudes, approaches, commitments to work together, future developments—all sorts of areas. It is a very complex area. I do not think one quite has a sense of how that works in practice until one reads the raw text.

The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, is right to ask us to dwell on how the process works. Obviously, the committee’s work is exemplary in this way. It may have been short of time and the necessary expertise, but it certainly managed to get access to quite a lot of information. It is full of information that would be very difficult to get if one did not have access to our expert support. It is very useful to give an initial sense of what we are really up against and to take the benefit of those who have gone before us. I do not think there is much more, other than to listen to the Minister’s response, which I am sure will be very fair and cover all the ground.

I want to flag up that I will be looking at these with one particular issue—investment—in mind. That should not be a surprise, since I have been raising this issue over all these trade agreements over a period of time. I looked through the agreements on the Order Paper today and could only find one reference to investment in Article 39 of the agreement establishing an economic partnership agreement between eastern and southern African states and the UK. Is this the only one with an investment chapter in it? Will the noble Baroness comment on whether that is a trend or just the way things are? I probably know the answer to that.

Given that this one has an investment chapter in it, what is the meaning behind paragraph 1(e) of Article 39? It says that the parties recognise the importance of investment and the objectives in this case are to,

“develop a legal framework that promotes investment by both Parties, with a view to promoting and protecting investment and work towards harmonised and simplified procedures and administrative practices”.

Does this mean motherhood and apple pie, or is it code for some new system of secret courts meeting in secret locations and taking decisions on investment with an adverse effect on the political and social economy of the countries concerned? I may have extended slightly to make my point, but I would be grateful for a response.

Trade Bill

Debate between Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 4th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, I have some sympathy with my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering but for a quite different reason. As I said all those months ago at Second Reading, we need a highly professional team to look after the UK’s trade interests, but I am not convinced that we need a new authority separate from the trade department. I may be out of date, but my recollection is that the work in Brussels is done by the Directorate-General for Trade, not by a special agency—and it seems to get along very well, as we keep hearing.

I might not be able to convince my noble friend the Minister, but I emphasise that the proposed body must be of a very special type. The agency, if we must have it, should be run by people who are independent-minded with Civil Service values, not representatives of any particular stakeholder sector. Such people must be able to stand up to the vested interests who will approach them in the way that they approach Brussels under the current arrangements. I remember lobbying DG Trade on bra quotas in Brussels. I have to say that I was one of many very fluent stakeholders interested in the cargos that were sitting on the sea and not arriving in the shops in Britain.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, we are dealing with a clause stand part amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. But she and the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, have raised a number of points that actually come in the next group. I wonder if for the convenience of the House we should merge these groups and hear now the speech by my noble friend Lord McNicol, which I have had the privilege of seeing. It covers much the same ground as that covered by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, will probably come in on the ceramics aspects. It might be easier to finish this group together, so I suggest that my noble friend Lord McNicol speaks next.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I read that a few moments ago and now I have lost it. I think it is on the merits and on the process. To that extent, because this is a probing amendment, I will not push this too hard and it is for the Government to decide. In my limited experience in your Lordships’ House, every time that I have led on a Bill we have come up against this question of what an appeal actually means. I have detected that the Government have gradually been moving away from merits-based appeals, because they seem to take up an awful lot of time, and argue that appeals done simply on a JR basis are becoming increasingly softer-edged, rather than being simply about the process. Therefore, the two come together and the legislation has tended towards being purely on the procedural elements.

I retain the rather purer view that there should always be an appeal system in some way, in which case it should not simply be limited to the procedures because that just restarts the clock. It should also include merits. But that is a matter for the Government to consider. The question was: if, in the other place, the Secretary of State has confirmed that there would be an appeal system, what is it and can we please have it clearly explained before we get to Report?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

Has the noble Lord considered whether one could have an appeal to the courts? Of course, on the EU model that we were discussing earlier, the appeal is to the ECJ.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I will get through this very quickly and then questions can flow in. Amendment 85, which has already been accepted, therefore sets out an appeals process for the Government to respond to. Amendment 86 relates to how these are disposed of and the procedures for that. The two go together and will be difficult to separate, but again the Government must take that forward.

We have already had reference to how recommendations from the TRA for action or no action would be based on two issues—an economic interest test and a public interest test—but we do not have any definition of those. They are obviously good ideas and sensible approaches, around which decisions can be placed, but the narrow question of what they constitute and, more importantly, how they would be kept in scope with how people’s views change over time, is not dealt with in the Bill. Therefore, Amendment 87, which deals with the public interest test, and Amendment 88, which deals with the economic interest test, set out not so much the detail of what they consist of but the process under which they might be organised.

Trade Bill

Debate between Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 30th January 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, we move from future prospects and problems around definitions and what other partners will do to a matter which will lie very much in the hands of the Government as we go forward. As and when trade agreements become the responsibility of this Parliament, there need to be procedures for establishing how and on what basis these are agreed, but also, as is the subject of Amendment 32, for reviewing our progress in carrying these forward.

The amendment is rather full. It contains a long list of issues so it is perhaps not a probing amendment, but I hope the Minister will accept that we would be open to further discussion on the wording. It is meant to set out broadly all the issues that we think need to come into play on this issue but the detail itself could be subject to discussion.

I hope all Members of the Committee will agree that we need to have a system under which we have confidence that any trade negotiations taking place on behalf of the people of this country are subject to effective periodic review of the issues involved, what the process will be and how many dimensions are involved in the consultations and engagement with the devolved Assemblies and Parliaments, as well as the involvement of those affected by the negotiations, such as consumers, those who work in the industries concerned and the companies themselves.

Of course, there is an issue about what impact these trade agreements will have regionally, not just across the national regions but within England in particular, with variations that will need to be picked up. We need to make sure that Parliament, in assessing how these trade deals are done, has access to all the information that is required.

The whole process is set out in Amendment 32. Amendment 81, in the name of my noble friend Lord McNicol—he did so well with his previous amendment that we have given him the afternoon off to recover, so I am speaking for him on this amendment; we are working together, of course, as noble Lords would expect—sets out in more detail the question of independence for the responsible body. There are many candidates for that. We do not need to go into it, but it is important that there is separation between those who set up and agree trade agreements and those who review them for the benefit of the public interest.

This issue can be developed across various activities. I think there will be contributions from those who will wish to see more stress placed on the social rather than the economic issues. The Government are involved in international treaties that will come into play on this. There is a great deal to be said about how you would do this, with what process and everything else. The amendment attempts to set that up. I beg to move.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 64 in my name in this group. I also welcome the noble Lord, Lord McNicol of West Kilbride, to the joys of tabling amendments. They provide the ability to lead scrutiny and discussion of significance in a very freewheeling way. I was also going to say “succinct”, except that the previous group, on rules of origin, took nearly an hour.

My amendment is inspired by Amendment 32, which was just moved by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. However, having studied other amendments to the Bill and the Government’s reaction to them, I have opted for a simpler formula in the hope that this might attract support across the Committee. It provides for a review, after five years, by the Secretary of State of the impact and effectiveness of each international trade agreement under Clause 2, but it deliberately omits the long list of criteria in Amendment 32. That is because I believe in simplicity. I do not believe we should lay down detailed areas that the review should cover, worthy though they may be. As we know, policy priorities change over time and the review should be conducted from a contemporary perspective.

I pray in aid a precedent that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, will remember well: the report on innovation and economic growth provided for under the Intellectual Property Act 2014. I believe that was the result of an amendment that he tabled during the passage of that Act. As a Minister, I found the process of producing the report every year very helpful, as did the Intellectual Property Office. In fact, its CEO confirmed that to me only last week.

I have some doubts about the wisdom of setting up a special compliance monitoring agency, as proposed in Amendment 81, which is also in this group. It seems a big stick, given the Bill’s scope. However, on a separate point, compliance would appear to be in the purview of a general review of effectiveness. I have provided for such a review to be laid before the devolved Parliaments, to which the noble Lord attached importance, because I believe this would be a good way to keep them up to date, ensuring that the reviewers, looking back, think about their interests as well as English and UK interests. Such a review would also cover SMEs, which we discussed in another long debate last week. I look forward to hearing from my noble friend the Minister.

Domestic Gas and Electricity (Tariff Cap) Bill

Debate between Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 11th June 2018 Grand Committee

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 29 I will speak to linked Amendments 30 and 34. I should perhaps express my regret that I arrived too late to speak at Second Reading as a consequence of other commitments.

The purpose of these amendments is to make it more difficult to extend the duration of a price cap and to ensure that it is temporary, if I may pick up the useful word used by the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, in her amendment to Clause 2. As the helpful notes on the Bill say in paragraph 15:

“The cap applies until the end of 2020 but it may be extended, for a year on up to three occasions, if the conditions for effective competition in the market for supply contracts are not in place”.


The basic point is that I am unconvinced of the merits of price caps. Setting prices at a low level may seem superficially attractive but experience in many jurisdictions shows the problems that they create. For example, in California in 2001 retail prices were capped at levels that ended up being below the wholesale cost of energy. As a result, retailers found themselves $20 billion in debt and one of them went bankrupt. The state then had to step in. Price caps are against most economic theory and have unintended consequences, as we have discussed, so there is no need for me to labour the point.

If I may, though, I will share one personal experience of price regulation somewhat akin to what we are now discussing. As a junior civil servant, I was responsible for the milk costing system, administered with the help of a leading accountancy firm. In effect, we were responsible for setting the permitted retail price of milk. Unfortunately, a member of the departmental team unwisely agreed that a visit to an international dairy conference in Miami was a legitimate expense. As a result, everyone paid more for their milk. This was an early lesson in why it is better to avoid government interference in pricing.

Still, we are where we are and we need to improve the Bill. I believe it would be much better if the cap ended in 2020 and that, as drafted, it is far too easy for the Government to extend it. Indeed, there seems to be almost no prospect of ending it before 2023. Yet the Minister, Claire Perry, said in Committee in the Commons that there was,

“strong consensus in the Committee”,

that the cap should be temporary and that a proposal under discussion to extend it further,

“creates disincentives and uncertainty in a market where we have to have certainty to generate investment”.—[Official Report, Commons, Domestic Gas and Electricity (Tariff Cap) Bill Committee, 15/3/18; cols. 86-88.]

I would add that price caps where the case for a cap is strongest—for those 4 million households with prepayment meters, and for a million vulnerable consumers—have already been introduced by Ofgem. I ask the Minister to update us on the impact of those before the Bill leaves Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, made some powerful points about those very consumers and the complications of dealing with them. I hope his commission will come up with some simple innovative ideas that we can all support.

I heartily dislike needless regulation. I would like the Government to come back to Parliament and seek primary legislation if they want to extend these temporary controls beyond 2020. Clause 8 makes it far too easy to extend them, and my amendments would return this power to Parliament. I know from my wide experience of government as a civil servant, from working in business and as a Business Minister that getting rid of regulation is always a low priority in the modern world. This hurts competitiveness and is bad for our economy. I very much welcome the use of a sunset clause but it should be just that. As for the detail of what is proposed, my Amendments 29, 30 and 34 would remove the possibility of extending the cap by deleting most of Clause 8 and making related amendments to the review procedure in Clause 7.

I have to accept that there is a political dimension to the proposed price cap, and I know the Minister will have to support the Bill in the round. However, I would ask him to go away and think about whether we should really extend the cap beyond 2020 without primary legislation—that is, another Bill—and the process of review that always precedes such legislation. I beg to move.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, this is a somewhat complicated group of amendments because within it are points of view that are mutually contradictory and indeed on which we hold contradictory positions. So we are not going to agree on this, and I look forward to hearing the Minister trying to weave a way through that does not upset one side or the other too much. He does not normally care too much about whether he does that, but that is for another time.

Our amendments are probably based on the assumption that the rather high aspirations that you can read into the Bill in terms of how it might reform and change the basic market for electricity and gas supply will be achieved, and takes the sanguine view that they are not going to be achieved in time for the cap to be reduced at the appropriate time. If that is the case, it also has the benefit of making sure that vulnerable consumers are not caught by the other schemes referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, which we discussed earlier. They would continue to operate and we would take that to be a good thing, but as we have discovered, that is of course not the primary purpose of this Bill.

Unified Patent Court (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2017

Debate between Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Wednesday 6th December 2017 Grand Committee

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I congratulate my noble friend Lady Wilcox on her contribution to intellectual property. I was honoured to succeed her in an area where Britain is very strong. Obviously, that was a delight. I was intimately involved in the Unified Patent Court discussions in both Brussels and Luxembourg last year—after, as has been said, many, many years of discussion on its establishment and its location here in London, and the other centres. I want simply to welcome it and to congratulate the Minister and the Intellectual Property Office, which is headquartered in Newport. I wish them well in finding a sensible deal for patents in the Brexit negotiations. I have one point of clarification, which I think the Minister touched on: when does the patent court in London actually open its doors?

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister will be grateful to know that the shadow cast upon the previous debate does not extend this far. I will be a ray of sunlight in his life and he will emerge, if not hopping and skipping, possibly with a little spring in his step at the pleasure we express and the way in which this piece of legislation is coming forward.

In passing, it was unfortunate that the Minister caught what appeared to be a full blast from both barrels from my noble friend. He should have seen him in the earlier stages of that Bill, when the hapless victim was the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. The full wrath that my noble friend Lord Mendelsohn could express at the whole approach that the Government were daring to take to this important area was expressed in many amendments that we had to discuss. The Minister got off lightly; he may not feel that. We certainly look forward to his letter when it comes.

I am going to say absolutely nothing about the substance of the statutory instrument because we agree with it and are happy for it to go through. It shines a light on the way some people manage to live their lives—in tax-free environments, free of all exemptions and penalties; some people have all the luck—but nevertheless that is the way it is done. I am glad that it is coming forward.

Like the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, whose work on this I salute—as well as that of the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, who preceded her—I am interested to learn a little more about what is actually happening on the ground. There are rumours of premises having been secured and buildings having nameplates attached to them, and so on. It would be nice to know what exactly is going to happen and what the timing is, if it is possible for the Minister to tell us.

The other thing that might be interesting to find out is whether there is yet any feel for whether there will be a sufficient caseload to warrant other centres being opened. During the passage of the original Bill we talked about the possibility that the Court of Session’s responsibility for patent determinations in Scotland might be echoed by having a similar court based there, if there was sufficient casework, because there is expertise and knowledge in Edinburgh in this area, and it would be sad if those were not able to be expressed. But these are matters that the Minister may not yet have the detail on and I am happy to have that at a later stage.

As I said, I am a ray of sunlight. We support this statutory instrument.

Designs (International Registration of Industrial Designs) Order 2017

Debate between Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Wednesday 6th December 2017 Grand Committee

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, what I will say follows closely on what the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has said. He and I—if I dare also bring in the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe—are part of a declining band who followed the paths of the intellectual property legislation that this House has looked at over the past six or seven years. His intervention brought back fond memories of the time when we were happily discussing some of the issues that are clearly still in mind and will be in play as Brexit negotiations go on.

I make a slightly different point—also one that the Minister may wish to take back—which is that a lot of the effort that went into the earlier Bills was around the question of registered and unregistered designs. We are still in the situation alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones: a huge proportion of the designs generated in this country—for which we should be very proud—are unregistered. That is partly to do with the nature of the industries involved: where short-term designs, such as fashion designs, are being created, there is probably no incentive to register them, because they are copied and lose economic value so quickly. That design element would not necessarily qualify as a design. However—I made this point before to the noble Baroness; I am sure that she will recognise it and I do not need a response— the Government missed a trick on this. Government ought to be thinking very hard about what package of measures could be brought together to encourage people with design skills and knowledge, of whom we have so many talented examples, to register their designs, because the protections that they can get, as exemplified by this order, are significant, though they are not recognised as such. The point was well illustrated by the fact that so few responded to the consultation document; I was a bit shocked to hear how small a number it was.

Nevertheless, we are where we are. I am sure I will make myself slightly unpopular with the noble Lord, who will find a way of coming back to me—

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

Will the noble Lord give way on the subject of designs? Like him, I am very keen that design rights should be properly protected. It is such a growing part of the creative industries. The Intellectual Property Office has done some very good work. I know this because my daughter-in-law was looking to register a design and I discovered, first, that it was relatively inexpensive and, secondly, that the IPO had set up a very good IT option. The Minister may well be able to tell us more about what they were doing, but I thought that this was interesting consumer research.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

That is very good news indeed. If it is moving in that direction that picks up the point I am making. There is an unexplored case for more work here, which will bring benefits to UK plc in time.

As I was saying, I was going to grandstand a little on the instrument to ask a couple of questions that I am very confident the Minister will not be able to respond to directly. I am happy to have a letter on them. The first is specifically on the consultation exercise. The Minister touched on this in his opening speech. The comment is made that the UK does not need to keep its own register of registered design rights because after we accede to the Hague agreement, which is what we are doing today, it automatically confers protection on the UK because the UK signed up to the Designview database, operated by OHIM. However, what is the mechanism under which we will continue to have access to it after Brexit? If it is in any way tied to membership it will raise, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said, considerable difficulties in negotiating a fair price and the conditional arrangements. If there are to be cost barriers that will further diminish the pressure on people who wish to register designs. It is important and clearly a useful tool for protecting design rights, but if it is inaccessible it will obviously not be of any value. WIPO and the role it plays are very valuable. The IPO does not have much of a role in this. It again seems a slightly missed opportunity to beat the drum for registration, but if the connection is directly to WIPO and we are to be affected by Brexit, clearly that is a problem.

Secondly, the Minister may be aware of a Supreme Court decision in the Trunki case, PMS v Magmatic. It raised the interesting question of whether one could register or even protect shapes of articles. In this case, the well-known Trunki is a small ride-on suitcase that children use rather irritatingly, at speed, in airport lounges, which my ankles have felt over the years—not my children, I confess; there were third parties involved. The case raised the interesting issue that our systems do not allow anyone who has a visual representation or design representation to register it. As I understand it, the Hague agreement has some flexibility about what can or cannot be registered. It would be interesting to get a sense from the officials in due course about whether they think it would be possible to use the flexibilities in the Hague agreement to allow those talented members of our design profession who design representation to register those designs. I look forward to hearing from the Minister in due course.

Intellectual Property (Unjustified Threats) Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 13th December 2016 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)]

My Lords, before moving the Motion, I should like to take a moment to reflect on the Bill and to say thank you. This is a small Bill of limited scope, but we have taken steps to ensure that it will work effectively for businesses whether in physical or online environments. I want to record my thanks to the Law Commission for bringing its great expertise to this most technical of subjects. Along with the Scottish Law Commission, it played a key role in the development of the legislation.

This has been a delightful new experience for me. It gave an opportunity to see the benefit of the Law Commission special procedure, which ensured that there was both a wide-ranging debate on the key issues and a robust examination of the Bill. The evidence sessions in particular provided access to a rich seam of expertise, and the procedure, having worked as intended, has produced a Bill that is much the better for it. This is a valuable route for much-needed and uncontroversial reform, and the Law Commission has asked me to express its gratitude to the House for the time and care it has given to undertaking its work. That is perhaps code for our careful scrutiny and the amendments we made.

I should also like to take the opportunity to put on the record our thanks to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville of Newdigate, for his chairmanship of the Special Public Bill Committee, as well as our thanks to our excellent clerk. I am grateful to all noble Lords for their polite, considered and probing questions. In particular, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, for his constructive approach, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, for bringing her expertise to our deliberations. I also thank my noble friend Lady Wilcox, a former IP Minister, for her doughty championship of small businesses, along with our Whip, my noble friend Lady Mobarik.

Because of the structure of the Bill, we enjoyed not only the usual groups of amendments but vast families of amendments—a phrase coined by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles—across the various IP rights. Some of these families were quite large and, like any family, not always easy for outsiders to understand. Some of the families also appeared to be happier than others, but I would observe that we successfully manoeuvred our way through all the complexities.

I finish by putting on the record my thanks to the Bill team, the Intellectual Property Office and my private office officials for their support throughout the process. I believe that the Bill is being sent to the other place in great shape. I beg to move.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I should like briefly to echo the words of the Minister. This Bill has been a good experience and a novel and, for me, different way of doing Bills—something we might learn from, in fact, as we go forward. The Minister said that there were families of amendments, which was certainly true; and we became a little family as we tried to deal with the rather odd way in which the Bill is organised. That was because, every time we looked at one area, we discovered that we would have to amend the Bill in every other clause as well. We were in some danger of extending the small coterie of your Lordships who actually like IP matters, but that is a danger which I think not many would survive.

Like the Minister, I thank all those who gave evidence both in writing and in person. It was a rich and interesting experience. The Special Public Bill Committee worked very hard, and I would particularly like to thank, in addition to our chairman, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville of Newdigate, the representatives from the Labour side, my noble friends Lord Plant of Highfield and Lord Hanworth, who served a noble part on the Committee. I also echo the Minister’s thanks to the Intellectual Property Office and the Law Commission. Lastly, I thank the Minister. She has been rather modest in saying that we had improved the Bill; actually, it was she who took on the burden of heavy lifting not only by daring to go back to her own department and other departments to get clearance for various things, but also by taking on, in full measure, the Law Commission itself—and winning.

Intellectual Property (Unjustified Threats) Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

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

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I thank those noble Lords who contributed to this short debate. It is right that we recognise that there are particularities in relation to in-house lawyers and I take the point made by the Minister that the exemption would be particularly useful for them. It does not get round the fact that this could easily be the thin end of the wedge. While that should not detract from the specifics of what we are discussing today, it would be odd if a very small part of a very small part of the law—while I in no sense diminish the contribution made by this Bill to the greater good—was to be adapted to allow this exemption, which then spread.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

It may be clearer if I make one final point. My understanding is that the underlying law on agent liability is left undisturbed, so no precedent is being set here for other areas of law which concern agent-client relationships. I recall that being a concern expressed by the noble Lord, so perhaps my making that clear to the House will help him in agreeing to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

Yes. The Minister anticipated exactly what I was going to say. We were all looking for some words of reassurance so that those who had to interpret the provisions later would be better informed. We have not had the chance to see the Explanatory Memorandum in that regard. Perhaps we could receive that in correspondence before the final stages of the Bill, so that I might be more satisfied. On that basis, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.

Intellectual Property (Unjustified Threats) Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Wednesday 9th November 2016 Other Business

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, I support the amendments introduced so well by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted. There is very little that I need to add in terms of the general case—she made it very well. In the context of the remarks that we have just heard, a broader concern about the role of SMEs should carry weight in these debates. The anomaly of the omission of those commissioned by others who perhaps should know better is a point strongly made—the Lego example is rather a good one, even though we perhaps should not put it around too much in case people get ideas. The fact that such provision already exists elsewhere in statute suggests that, if we are trying in this Bill to level things up, this amendment and those consequential on it are very important. The amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Hanworth is also worthy of consideration, although we will need to hear him speak to the other amendments in later groups to get a full picture of where he is coming from.

[The Minister of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)]

My Lords, on interests, I am the Intellectual Property Minister, and I have the pleasure today of speaking on behalf of the Government.

I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, for her comprehensive introduction to this large group of amendments. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lady Wilcox for her support for the Bill as whole and for the good work done by the Law Commission.

It is common ground, I think, that Section 70A and its equivalents set out the definition of an actionable threat. The sections replicate the existing exception whereby a threats action cannot be brought if the threat refers to a primary act of infringement. The existing statutory definitions of what is an infringing act lie at the heart of the threats provisions.

The amendments in this group would mean that threats to someone “commissioning” another person to carry out a specified primary act cannot trigger a threats action. Commissioning infringing goods is not an infringing act within the meaning of any of the existing statutory definitions. This is a key point. Treating commissioning as if it were infringement, for the purposes of the threats provisions, would be a highly significant change to the law. It would introduce a novel concept and create confusion in the law of threats and more generally.

Unjustified threats are those threats which are made in respect of invalid rights, or where there has been no infringement. Amendment 1 and its equivalents would remove any protection from unjustified threats for a particular class of people who are not actually infringers at all—that could easily include the SMEs we are concerned about, on which I will come back to my noble friend’s comments at the end—and, to me, that cannot be right.

The amendment would also have other unwelcome consequences. For example, there is the defence which is available to the threatener, if they can show that the infringement did in fact occur. That defence is made unworkable in these circumstances.

I am concerned that, as with Amendment 3, there is a risk that the amendment would have unintended consequences on the interpretation of IP provisions more widely—specifically, the provisions which define infringement. Furthermore, the meaning of what amounts to “commissioning” a primary act would only become clear after a substantial body of case law had been built up. I do not think that that would be acceptable or welcome to business.

I shall now move on to Amendment 20—with many thanks to the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, for his explanation—which relates to use of trade marks in an online environment. I do not agree that there is an inconsistency in the threats regime. The noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, suggested that infringement law could be aligned better for the rights, but that is a wider question, as we discussed, that relates not just to threats or this particular Bill. If the amendment is intended to ensure that “applying” a trade mark in an online environment is covered more explicitly as a primary act, then in my view this is unnecessary when the threats provisions are read in the wider context of the parent Act.

This Bill will insert the individual threats provisions into the existing framework for the relevant rights. While the provisions appear in isolation in this Bill, they must be read—as I have just said—in their wider context.

The relevant sections of the Trade Marks Act 1994 do not expressly require a sign to be in physical form. It is accepted that services may be offered online under a sign in electronic form, and this applies whether the sign is included in a listing or as an AdWord. Nor do they require that the sign must be physically applied to physical goods or their physical packaging. Where goods themselves are electronic, then it follows that the sign applied must also be electronic.

That is a long way of saying that changing the provisions in the Bill to set out expressly that the online application of a sign is covered is unnecessary and, as we discussed in some of the hearings, could cast doubt on an already settled view.

I turn finally to the position of small businesses, which was so well expounded by my noble friend Lady Wilcox. I do not think that a champion is a matter for this Law Commission Bill, although she and I had a good discussion about it. I believe, as I have said several times, that this will benefit smaller-sized businesses by helping them to gain access to justice at reasonable cost in order to enforce and make best use of their IP in the sort of circumstances that she was talking about.

I hope noble Lords will allow me to enlarge a little on the measures that government has taken to help SMEs, as I think that might help my noble friend. We heard in the evidence sessions from Mr Justice Birss about the benefits to SMEs of using the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court. Recent reforms made to the IPEC—in particular, the small claims track—help to level the IP playing field for SMEs that previously struggled with cost. The Government are fully supportive of the IP pro bono initiative, launched last month, which is designed to help small businesses and individuals who are involved in a dispute about IP. The IPO also undertakes a wide range of activities that are aimed at SMEs—partly as a legacy of the time when my noble friend was Minister—and geared to promote understanding, such as: the government-funded IP audit programme; the IP for business tools; and the IP finance toolkit. I make no apology for taking this opportunity to explain that.

Regarding the guidance on the Bill, the IPO has committed to publish business guidance 12 weeks before the new provisions come into effect. In addition, the IPO will implement a full communications plan, update the online tools, make presentations at outreach events—many of which are aimed at SMEs—update stakeholders who have signed up to receive updates and use social media channels to try and ensure that we take this opportunity to raise awareness of the changes. Actually, this is a good opportunity to expound the importance of IP. The IPO works tirelessly to increase awareness of IP and to provide guidance and education at every level. I am happy to commit the IPO to communicating to SMEs in a helpful way about the changes and benefits that will be brought by the Bill.

An important point is that we will ensure, as we did for the Consumer Rights Act, that the material is pitched at the right level. I have asked the IPO to road-test the guidance in draft with small business representatives. So we will have material suitably targeted for SMEs, but also communicate to the people who provide advice and support to these businesses, such as the patent library network, growth hubs and professional IP advisers. As IP Minister, I have tried to make sure that people understand IP a bit more and, with my noble friend’s assistance, I think that this Bill is an opportunity to do a bit more of that.

Coming back to the amendments, I believe that they would in fact complicate what is currently, as drafted, a clear and consistent definition, developed by the Law Commission, of what is and is not an infringing act. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

Luckily, I do not have to answer that, but we have expertise beyond parallel at the Minister’s end of the table.

I just want to support the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted. The question here is not so much whether this is an issue that we should take into account ab initio, which was slightly the case with the previous amendment, although I supported that as well; the support here comes because there was clear evidence from those whom we consulted that this issue needs further attention, and the noble Baroness has made that case very well. If we have gone to the trouble of taking evidence but then do not consider it and take it forward, that seems to be a slightly casual way of approaching things. I hope that we will take this point very seriously.

I also take the noble Baroness’s point that, if we were to amend the Act in the way that she suggests, this would reduce the impact on small and medium-sized enterprises and other organisations, because there were would be fewer court actions and more such matters would be dealt with in the right way, which is directly between the participants. So I support these amendments.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, for her comments which, it is fair to say, were wide-ranging. I will explain how I see things and then address the various amendments, to use her words, on their merits—I should say her “family” of amendments, which is a good new collective term that she has invented today.

It is crucial that the threats provisions encourage rights holders to communicate with the trade source of an infringement—that is agreed—and provide much-needed protection for secondary actors, such as retailers and customers. To facilitate this, the Bill sets out a clear statement of primary acts. Threats in respect of these primary acts, namely the manufacture or import of a product, in the case of patents, will not give rise to a threats action. To answer the point made by my noble friend Lord Lucas, the manufacturer of the cornflakes—to use his example—is the primary actor. The point has been made by my advisers that this assumes that they are patented cornflakes; I am not sure how likely that is in reality, but it is a fair point. I think that there are people, as we discussed during the evidence session, who are in both the primary and secondary markets.

As we have discussed in this Committee, the provisions make a distinction between primary actor, such as the manufacturer, and secondary actor, such as the distributer and retailer, or the person with that hat. This provides protection for secondary actors from being exposed to threats. They are less likely to be able to make an informed decision on whether the threat is actually justified. Secondary actors are more vulnerable to threats because of the fear that they will become embroiled in an infringement action that they cannot afford. As a consequence, mere threats can—and do—persuade secondary actors to move their custom elsewhere.

This group of amendments would introduce circumstances where threats in relation to secondary acts would not give rise to a threats action. This clearly starts to undermine, to my mind, the protection for those who should rightly be protected by the provisions before us. The first set of amendments, concerning where a person presents themselves as doing a primary act when they are not, would mean that a threat sent to a person who claims to do a primary act could not be the subject of a threats action. The rationale for the proposed amendment is that the rights holder may not find out that the recipient is not a primary actor until after the letter has been sent, and then only if the recipient draws back from previous statements.

The amendment introduces an exception to secondary actor protection that is based on a new concept—as the noble Baroness explained—of “claiming” to be a primary infringer. This is an inherently vague concept not found elsewhere in the main Acts for the rights concerned. It would be complex and very difficult to bring evidence to prove in court. A significant body of case law would be required before businesses would have clarity about what amounts to “claiming” to be a primary actor. There may be different views to the one that I took on whether satellite litigation might result, but it certainly seems possible and unfairness could result in any case. Critically, the amendment would undermine protection for retailers who inadvertently use ambiguous language. If a secondary actor somehow implies, even accidentally, that their product was made by them, then under this amendment they lose all protection from unjustified threats, which also seems unfair. Under the current drafting, rights holders can make threats that refer only to primary acts. These are not actionable, so that is one solution. If a rights holder is uncertain about whether a retailer is also a primary actor, they can use a permitted communication to seek clarification of the identity of the primary infringer, without the risk of a committing an actionable threat.

I turn to the second group of amendments, which extend what is a primary act—for example, the manufacture of a hair dryer whose patent is owned by the threatener—to include any products or processes having the same features. To continue the example of a hair dryer, it would be one which is not the same but is similar in all material respects. Where threats are made to a primary actor in respect of one product, it is correct to approach them. They are potentially the greatest risk to trade and the source of the alleged infringing. But if threats are made in relation to equivalent or similar products, where the same business is only a secondary actor, it should be possible—in my view—to bring a threats action. To remove this option would chip away at the principle of protection for the secondary actor, which is at the very heart of the threats provisions. Mark Bridgeway noted in his evidence session that asking secondary actors for undertakings to cease doing something for commercial purposes is expressly excluded from being a permitted purpose. Yet the effect of the amendment would be to allow this to happen.

The amendment would also make the provisions more, not less, complex. It would blur what is intended to be a clear line between what is and what is not actionable. In addition, the concept of “the same features” is very vague and I can foresee great uncertainty for business. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, rightly mentioned SMEs. For the reasons that I have stated, I believe that including the amendments would reduce clarity and, therefore, make the provisions more complex and advice potentially more expensive for SMEs. In reducing the protection for secondary actors, I fear that the amendment could open up SMEs to unjustified threats. I know that it is a very complex area but, for these reasons, I ask the noble Baroness to consider not pressing her amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, for her ability to expand such a wide range of interests within one group. The grouping has been necessary, but possibly not in the best interests of a focused series of discussions. It rebounds on the Minister to try to respond in like mind to whichever one of the very large number of points we could have picked up on. I am sure she is well prepared, but I will not trouble her too much because I will not range very widely on this. I do not need to repeat what has been said so eloquently.

I wanted to focus my remarks on Amendment 13, which, more by luck than good judgment, I managed to get my name down to. I support what was said here in the context of the evidence we had. If the Committee will recall, a lot of what we talked about with one or two colleagues who came and gave evidence was the question of whether the Bill could be seen as evolutionary in any sense, leading to a broader understanding of the nature of the regulatory structure within which business in the UK should be conducted. I do not wish to put words into the Minister’s mouth, but I think she is not unsympathetic to the idea that we should instil good ethics in the business community. I hope for her support later on, perhaps, on this point.

The narrow issue here is that the decision of the Law Commission after much discussion was to accept that, while there was a teleological approach to this area of law in the sense that, in time, a wider tort could be introduced because it would encompass this and other areas, and in the process allow us to engage more directly with the Paris convention—which is where we might have to seek a wider international relationship post Brexit—it was not the time to do that and it had not carried out the necessary consultations it would wish if that was indeed where Parliament wanted to go. If we are not going the whole way, was there a midpoint?

It was interesting to hear the evidence from Sir Robin Jacob in particular that new Section 70B(3), if he read and interpreted it correctly, provided a little bit of breadth of discretion to the courts when approaching the issues that the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, mentioned. I am keen that that should be the case. I align myself entirely with the noble Baroness’s remarks on this. It would be unfortunate if the wording as it currently stands, with the word “necessary”, was seen by some as a barrier to the sort of thing we think is appropriate, which is that, on occasion, only in appropriate circumstances and only for good reason, the judges should have the right to take a wider view about some of the issues before them.

It would be helpful to get a sense from the Minister of whether she understands that. It may be that she cannot go as far as the proposal here, although the words “reasonable in all the circumstances” or “proportionate” that the noble Baroness would introduce, would be better than “necessary”. Perhaps the Minister could reflect a little on what she takes from the current wording. If, on reflection, we look at that in Hansard and think it probably takes us as far as we need to go, it may be sufficient to leave this. It is probably one of the key points in this Bill where we could be doing something rather wonderful in trying to move the whole way this is taken forward from a rather tight set of constraints to a much more open approach. That would be for the benefit of small businesses in particular, which cannot always necessarily see the narrow point and come forward with ideas that would make it easier for people to move forward with their business. I support the amendment.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, new Section 70B introduces a framework of “permitted communications”, which sets out clearly how a rights holder may communicate with a secondary actor without being at risk of a threats action. It is important to note that a request for this certainty came from businesses and legal professionals during the Law Commission’s work. I have listened to the points that have been made with great interest. I am rather a fan of Latin, which is a very politically incorrect thing to say. I did Latin A-level and was probably one of the last to do so—people do not study it much nowadays.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

They are not allowed to.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

You learn a lot from the mistakes of the Romans in terms of public policy.

I shall start with Amendment 6 and its equivalents. One of the requirements for a permitted communication is that the specific part of the communication which relates to a threat is made for a “permitted purpose”. The phrase,

“so far as it contains information that relates to a threat”,

is there to limit properly the scope of the provision about permitted purposes. We believe that deleting the words “contains information that” would risk the test being read as meaning that the entire communication had to be made for a permitted purpose—even the parts which were not a threat. The current drafting was inserted precisely because stakeholders—the Law Society and CIPA—expressed concern about that result. The amendment would mean that the permitted communications provisions might not apply if a communication happened to contain harmless, extraneous material. The hurdle would be so onerous that the protection offered by the permitted communications provisions would not, or might not, be used. Those less experienced would also easily be caught out by adding additional material.

I move on to Amendment 7. For a communication to be permitted, the part of the communication which relates to a threat must be made solely for a permitted purpose. The term “solely” ensures that the part in question cannot also be made for a non-permitted purpose. We heard that the Law Society and others have been concerned that the word “solely” somehow imports a need to look at the motives of the sender, but I do not really see how that would come about. The motives of the sender are not a consideration under either the current law or the new provisions. I think that the noble Baroness disagreed but my view is that that is right. As Professor Sir Robin Jacob said when he gave evidence, litigating over what someone believed,

“just leads to applications for discovery and claims for privilege”.

That is a bit of a red light to me because it could mean more costly litigation.

The “permitted purposes” in the Bill are based closely on the current patent exceptions. The law in this regard is unchanged—it remains an objective test—and, in legal terminology, making a threat will remain a strict liability tort. The requirements clearly relate to assessing the purpose of the communication itself, based on its wording alone. The amendment therefore seeks to resolve an issue which simply does not exist.

Turning to Amendment 8, to my mind the non-exclusive list of examples of information which are necessary for a permitted purpose provides valuable clarity. It gives stakeholders the certainty they desire, making it possible for disputing parties to know how and what they may communicate effectively without risking litigation. The amendment seeks to undermine that certainty by adding a requirement that not only must the information be necessary but it must also be “proportionate”. The term casts doubt on whether a business can rely on the examples listed. This decreases the value of the guidance that paragraph (5) is meant to provide and which stakeholders asked to be spelt out.

Amendment 14 has a similar effect by saying that the examples given are only “prima facie” to be regarded as necessary information. In other words, these examples can be regarded as necessary information, which it is safe to convey, only until it is proven otherwise. Noble Lords can see that this will introduce considerable doubt for business about whether the examples can be relied on.

Both amendments raise many possibilities for how to assess whether a particular communication can safely be made. They risk both confusion and even satellite litigation, and the resulting uncertainty about what information can be communicated risks encouraging a return to the “sue first, talk later” approach, which we are trying to avoid. That goes against the direction of the Bill as a whole.

Finally, I will address Amendments 12 and 13. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, spoke to the latter. As I said, the Bill provides a list of permitted purposes in order to give the much-needed clarity and certainty that stakeholders have asked for. However, consultees also warned against being too prescriptive. For this reason, the courts have discretion to treat other purposes as permitted, but only if necessary in the interests of justice.

The requirement for something to be necessary in the interests of justice is in fact intentionally high, and it is expected that the discretion will be used sparingly. “In the interests of justice” is a familiar and steady concept to shape how the law develops. A new test of “reasonable in all the circumstances” could make it difficult to ensure that the law provides the required level of guidance and certainty. These amendments could provide the courts with a wider discretion to treat other purposes as permitted, and that could create uncertainty for users over what communications can safely be made. That is undesirable both for those wishing to enforce their rights and for secondary actors in receipt of a threat. It would make legal advice more complex and perhaps more costly and it could risk the erosion, over time, of the valuable protection for secondary actors which is at the heart of the threats provisions.

The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, was making a wider point, but I do not think that we can tackle business ethics in this Bill. However, I agree that being responsible in business leads to better business, not only in the long term but in the shorter term.

I have listened to the debates about “solely” and “necessary”—we have now debated this over five sessions—and I can see that noble Lords share the same objective that we have, which is to ensure that this key area of the law operates in the best possible way and that these permitted communications work well. I cannot promise anything today but I, along with perhaps other noble Lords, will look at the Hansard report of the debate and I will consider carefully the various detailed points that have been made today. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Sharing Economy

Debate between Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Monday 17th October 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

The noble Baroness is right that skills—especially digital skills—are important to our economy. We are extremely aware of that, including in the context of the Brexit discussions. I am sure she knows about all that we have done to ensure that we can get diverse digital skills from abroad, where that is appropriate, and to develop digital skills here in the UK, both through lifelong learning education and, more importantly, in schools, with computing now being part of the curriculum from five to 16.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, in the last Administration the noble Baroness was a Minister not just in BIS but in DCMS—a post that she has now had to give up, although I in no sense cast any aspersions on her very successful successor. Since that Administration, the creative economy has been moved back to DCMS and higher education has been carved out and sent back to DfE. Given that she talked about the industrial strategy that is coming, and that we are all looking forward to, what arrangements are going to be made to ensure that the work on that will not be restricted to BIS?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

I can give the noble Lord that assurance. Obviously an industrial strategy has to be wide-ranging and, as I have said, key things such as the development of the digital economy and skills have to be at the heart of that. There is a Cabinet committee under the Prime Minister looking at the development of the industrial strategy, and that is bringing together the strands of work across Whitehall. There have been departmental changes; we have gathered energy—a major and important area—and I am trying to get to grips with its important challenges.

Employment: Remuneration

Debate between Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Thursday 8th September 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My noble friend, as always, brings unusual insights to the debate. It sounds as though this is a point that he and I should discuss further, because clearly we want to make sure that shareholders are exercising the oversight that we all want.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, there is an irony in this Question being answered today, in that later today we will consider a statutory instrument which makes a welcome increase to the national minimum wage by the order of 25p per hour. An earlier report by the High Pay Centre, which is a cross-party initiative, reported that FTSE 100 CEOs had just enjoyed a 10% pay increase to over £5.1 million per annum on average in the last year. Can I press the Minister a little further on what will be in the consultation? She mentioned a number of things, but the Prime Minister’s comments, to which I think the noble Baroness referred, are that she would like to see not just consumers represented on company boards but employees as well, and she wants to see more transparency on pay, including making shareholder votes on corporate pay not just advisory but binding. Will the noble Baroness confirm that?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

We are looking at the precise wording of the consultation document, but the idea is to explore the various ideas that the Prime Minister set out so eloquently in this area. That would include binding votes, employee representation, which I am aware of because I used to sit on a German board—it has pluses and minuses—and, of course, full disclosure of bonus arrangements.

National Minimum Wage (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2016

Debate between Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Thursday 8th September 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

We have debated zero-hours contracts in this House a number of times. I continue to believe that they have a part to play in the modern flexible market. There were some abuses to those contracts, which we discussed last year, and we have banned the use of exclusivity clauses so that people have the freedom to look for and take other work opportunities and have more control over their work hours and income. However, I believe that a strong minimum wage framework with good enforcement, which I am going to talk about, is the right way forward. The effectiveness of this system—I think that this is true in every regulatory area that I deal with—relies on proper enforcement.

We are clear that anyone entitled to be paid the national minimum wage or the national living wage should receive it, whether they are on a zero-hours contract or not. The enforcement of a minimum wage is therefore essential to its success and we are committed to cracking down on employers who break the minimum wage law. That is across all sectors of the economy. That is why we have increased the enforcement budget for HMRC, which enforces the minimum wage on behalf of our department. That is £20 million in 2016-17, up from £13 million last year. That bolsters its resources and ensures that it can respond to every worker complaint. We will continue to take a tough approach to employers who break minimum wage law. As of April this year, the Government have also doubled the national minimum wage penalty paid by employers, so it is up from 100% to 200% of the arrears owed to the worker, up to a maximum of £20,000 per worker—penalties that really hit those who do not comply with the law. Finally, HMRC will continue to refer the most serious cases of wilful non-compliance for criminal investigation.

The Government believe that the rates set out in the regulations before the House today will increase the wages of the lowest paid while being affordable for business. I commend the regulations to the House.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, first, I express my apologies to the House for not being present at the start of the discussions. I looked at the Annunciator and thought that I had about 10 minutes to spare, because the last speaker in the debate had only just started, but apparently he cut his speech very short. I was entranced by a debate going on in the Moses Room on access arrangements for going into secondary education, which was so good that I have completely lost my place. I am sorry that I was late.

However, I have heard the Minister speak on many of these issues before. Indeed, we debated them as recently as the end of last term. I am fairly aware of the issues and I will certainly read what she said carefully, in case I have missed anything. I have no objections at all in principle to the proposal that is being brought forward. For all the arguments made by the Minister, this process is now well-entrenched. The increases are very modest, but they are done in accordance with the procedure set out. I have absolutely no doubt that it is appropriate and good that wages will be lifted, which will benefit a large number of people on lower pay. Women in particular will see these benefits in their pay packets.

I have four small points that I want to raise and to which I would be happy to hear the Minister respond, but if there are complications I am happy to receive a letter in due course. The first is a technical one, which was that the paper supplied by the Printed Paper Office includes an impact assessment. It is extremely well-written and I compliment officials on that. I enjoyed reading it and I felt that it dealt with all the issues well. However, it said that the RPC opinion was awaiting scrutiny and I have not been sent that. I would be grateful if it could be provided. I am sure that there is no difficulty around it, but it would be nice to have a complete set of papers when we are considering these issues. On technical issues, I again congratulate the Minister on living the life that she promised, which was to bring these things in on the common commencement date of 1 October. She will have expected me to say that.

Secondly, the evidence base for many issues, but particularly for non-compliance and to some extent apprenticeships, depends on a rather oddly named survey called ASHE—a survey of employees completed by employers, which can be used to identify jobs paid below the national minimum wage. Clearly non-compliance is important here. Two points arise from it: is that the best we can do, and does the department have any plans to improve it? A survey of employees completed by employers aimed at establishing whether the national minimum wage is being paid at the correct rate may not be the most appropriate and independent way of checking whether it is happening in practice. Having said that, we note that some 209,000 employees’ jobs were paid less than the national minimum wage in April 2015. That is a significant number and ought to be of some concern, even though the individual amounts are small. It is the methodology that I pick up on. I would be interested to know whether the Minister has plans to improve it, because, as she said, it is important to ensure that the national minimum wage and, as we get to it, the national living wage are paid. If we do not have an adequate means of checking, I do not see how we will do so.

My third small point raises a similar issue. Quite an important part of some people’s pay packets is the accommodation offset rate. Accommodation is the only benefit in kind that can be offset against minimum wage pay. It is only up to the limit. I suspect that it is therefore quite an important element for quite a large number of the people involved, but the trouble is that we do not know how many that is, since apparently no statistics are available that give any details around it. The increase this year is 12%. It is a substantial amount of additional money, which goes up to £6 per week, but because of the uncertainty in knowing how many employees in scope of the national minimum wage offset rate receive it, it is not counted in analysing what the benefits, costs and disbenefits would be of any increase. I do not wish to delay consideration but, in the need to improve the quality of the public administration, surely we could do a bit more to survey and get accurate information. If it does not lie in BEIS, perhaps it lies in DWP—I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Freud, is taking note of the points that I make, because I am sure it is relevant to what he will say.

Finally, in a week where we have been given a lot of information about the activities of a particular sportswear manufacturing and delivering firm, it seemed a little ironic to read about the enforcement regime and the relatively small number of firms that have been reported on and investigated. Sports Direct—it may as well be named—clearly has a large problem on its plate in what it has been paying, or not paying, its employees. The situation with Sports Direct arose from a private investigation by a newspaper, not from the additional money available to HMRC. Has that taught the department any lessons about how this is to be taken forward? Might it wish to investigate other firms as a result? Its approach seems to be one of responding to complaints. That might miss some of the most obvious cases where not enough action is taking place.

What sort of approach would be better? Is there not a suggestion to be made of a tougher approach to large employers employing large numbers of people on zero-hours contracts, where it is clear that the combination of that arrangement, particularly in companies controlled perhaps by an original owner, might suggest that there will be some difficulty in ensuring that these things happen? Will the Minister confirm that in the case of Sports Direct, since it is fairly clear that there has been failure to comply with the arrangements, the doubled penalties to which we agreed in the then Enterprise Bill and the additional more difficult approach—not in numbers of employees, but in the amount per employee—will be applied in full in this case?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his courteous comments about his lateness—I am sorry to have dragged him away from such an important debate—and for his support for the regulations. The minimum wage came in under the Labour Government and we have had a lot of cross-party support for the system that they set up, including the Low Pay Commission. We agree on that. I am also grateful for his comment about common commencement dates, because we have a joint campaign to ensure that they are respected. It is not always possible, but when they are we should celebrate it. The points that he raised are technical and testing. I will start with the impact assessment. I think that the noble Lord was saying that he had not seen a copy.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I am sorry to interrupt. On the front page of the impact assessment, which is attached to the explanatory memorandum—it is what I was given when I asked in the Printed Paper Office—there is usually a note in the top right-hand corner on what the RPC opinion is. That is obviously useful, because it is a traffic-light system as to whether it thinks that the assessment has been properly done. I fully expect it to have been properly done, but its opinion is not recorded there.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

Perhaps the noble Lord remembers that the RPC had an issue with our impact assessment on the October 2015 uprating of the apprentice national minimum wage. It has, however, indicated that it is content with our new approach with respect to the assessment of the impacts of the 2016 upratings. Indeed, the assessment now looks at costs over two years, rather than one year, in response to RPC feedback. I hope that that clarifies the RPC position.

On the non-compliance estimates, we are working to improve them. I note what the noble Lord says about enforcement—he was saying, in a way, that we should look at higher-risk employers, and was talking about size and zero-hours contracts. I will take a look at the noble Lord’s comments and write to him about that whole area. I think that my spirit is the same as his.

With regard to Sports Direct, that is clearly a concerning matter. I have to be careful about commenting on specific employers, as noble Lords know. The double penalties have come in and, in relation to offences since the adoption of the regulation, they would of course apply. We are very much committed to ensuring that workers receive the money that they are owed and that unscrupulous employers face tough penalties. I like the combination of civil penalties, which have led to quite large amounts of income being recovered for people, and the occasional criminal penalty, where there is an egregious case and we can take totemic action. That is the way that we try to do things.

Cultural Property (Armed Conflicts) Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Tuesday 28th June 2016 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Neville-Rolfe)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for his welcome for the Bill, and for his constructive approach to scrutiny with a view to helping those who will have to implement and interpret it. To respond to the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, we will certainly take account of the points that have been made by Peers in considering this Bill as we come to implement it.

There is a concern that the Bill should enable appropriate protection of all forms of cultural property and that the definition of cultural property in the convention should be interpreted in a way which makes that possible. However, I have a few concerns about the proposed amendment.

First, we consider that the noble Lord’s amendment risks allowing the development of an interpretation of the definition in the United Kingdom which is not consistent with its internationally accepted interpretation. That would be undesirable. It would create uncertainty and inconsistency in the application of the convention and its protocols and could result in the UK failing to comply with its obligations under them. None of us wants that. The definition of cultural property set out in Article 1 is already wide ranging. The phrase,

“movable or immovable property of great importance to the cultural heritage of every people”,

is not limited, as has been said, to those things which are specifically mentioned. They are presented as examples of the sorts of cultural property which are protected by the convention. Other cultural property can also be protected under the convention if it is of great importance to the cultural heritage of every people. The definition is already sufficiently broad and flexible.

To answer the question from the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, we can accommodate rare and unique films and modern forms of cultural property such as digital material in the form of physical recordings.

The noble Lord, Lord Howarth, and my noble friend Lord Inglewood—who are both welcome to our proceedings and were certainly missed at Second Reading —are right. I was interested to hear the point about the knock-on effects for the 127 countries involved.

The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, rightly mentioned the BFI National Archive and we commend his work as a former director. The BFI could certainly be considered during our implementation process as the convention includes archives as an example of a building that could be considered to be cultural property and therefore protected under the convention. Indeed, it may even give me the opportunity to visit those splendid archives in the course of carrying our responsibilities forward.

I hope that that provides noble Lords with sufficient reassurance that the definition as drafted is necessary in order to meet our obligations under the convention but flexible enough to meet the concerns expressed about what sort of cultural property might be covered. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I thank all noble Lords for contributing to this short debate. I take the points, which were well made. In response to my noble friend Lord Howarth, whose work on this Bill in its previous manifestation we acknowledge, I would point out that there are other definitions in current use in international agreements such as UNESCO agreements where the definition is markedly different, and it may be that that would be the kind of marker that we have in mind. If I gave the wrong impression I apologise, but I am certainly not going to take this amendment to the next stage and I will not raise it again. It has been tabled simply to provide a debate of the type that we have had.

My point was picked up by the Minister but perhaps I may press her a little on it. If she is saying that in respect of the British list she would certainly have consideration of the BFI National Archive and the associated archives in the UK high on her list, that is a sufficient illustration to make the point that although it could be worked into the current definitions, one has had enough experience of lawyers to know that sometimes those lists can trap you, so it is nice to have it set out in primary legislation. A statement from the Minister at this stage is very helpful, but as I hinted I have a clever plan up my sleeve which I may come back to. In the interim, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, I raised this matter at Second Reading. The issue of inchoate offences is very important, particularly in this context. It sends the criminal law much further down, into preparatory acts. In these situations you often have a group of people acting—passing on information to buyers, et cetera. You often need to scoop quite a large number of people, so I would be grateful for confirmation from the Minister, because the inchoate offences in this context are an incredibly important part of stamping down all activity in relation to this illegal trade.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, in addressing these two amendments I hope to satisfy noble Lords, but if I do not we should speak between now and Report. I appreciate that the aim of the amendments is to ensure that the Bill allows the UK to meet all our obligations under the convention and its two protocols. Clause 4, as currently drafted, already allows the UK to meet its obligations under Article 15(2) of the Second Protocol and the legislation will comply with,

“general principles of law and international law”.

I will outline my main points now, although, given that this is a technical and complicated issue to explain briefly, I will reflect on what has been asked and send noble Lords a note setting out the Government’s position on this amendment.

The purpose and effect of Clause 4 are to ensure that the UK has extraterritorial jurisdiction to try all ancillary offences in the same circumstances in which Clause 3 establishes such jurisdiction to try the substantive offences. It does not establish the ancillary offences, which already exist under at least five different and relevant pieces of legislation. The good news is that these apply automatically to offences under Clause 3. In respect of England and Wales and Northern Ireland, the definitions of,

“An offence ancillary to an offence under section 3”,

are limited to the offences of attempting, conspiring, assisting and concealing, because it is only in relation to these offences that there might be doubt as to their extraterritorial application.

Where the existing law is clear as to extraterritorial application—which it is in relation to aiding and abetting and the offences under the Serious Crime Act 2007, which replaced the previous offence of incitement—no provision is made. However, as noble Lords will appreciate, to make such provision unnecessarily would be bad drafting practice and could create doubt as to the other situations where no such express provision is made.

The position in relation to Scottish criminal law is different and this is taken into account in the drafting of Clause 4(6). I assure noble Lords that the Scottish Government have, of course, been consulted on this provision.

I hope that brief explanation, together with the note that I am planning to send to noble Lords, will provide sufficient explanation and reassurance that we have taken the correct approach on ancillary offences, and that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I thank the Minister for that response and for the offer to write to us with more detail. I hope she will be able to respond in more detail than I can in terms of endorsing the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, which I think took a slightly deeper cut through some of these issues than did my amendment but are still very important. I am sure the Minister will want to ensure that her noble friend is properly responded to.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

Of course, I should have said that I will ensure that we look very carefully at my noble friend’s points, and the same letter will set out the detail of the proposals. Looking at these amendments and the consequential provisions, I was struck by how complex this all was. I had some of the questions that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, raised, so please let me set it all out and I hope everybody will be satisfied and we can move forward.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

Obviously, I should just keep sitting down and the noble Baroness will give us more and more. A deluge of Keeling schedule after Keeling schedule will arrive and more and more of these extraordinary areas will be explored. I am sure that we will find the right balance here. We do not wish to overload either ourselves or the civil servants, who I am sure have quite enough on their plate with other things. It would be helpful to pick out the particularity of the point made by the Minister’s noble friend but not lose the way in which the original formulations of the legislation come together to create offences that will be appropriate under this legislation. I am probably asking for the impossible but I think we both agree that the measure is not entirely clear as it stands, partly because, in seeking to minimise the amount of legislation, we are not seeing the whole picture, so if that could be brought forward, that would be helpful. We will return to this point as it comes up at later stages but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to the Clause 6 stand part debate, which is included in this group of amendments. The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, has raised a number of the points that I was going to raise, and I will not repeat them. I simply make three short points. I think this is the first time we have reached a point in the Bill where any amendment that might be put down would not interfere with our ability to sign up to the convention. This is an area where, for instance, the tariff of 30 years is not specified, so it would be at the discretion of the Government, should they wish to change that.

The points made by the noble Baroness were germane to this. We touched on this on Second Reading, and although 30 years was said to be appropriate for the maximum because it was in line with other areas, we are talking about a very narrow range of people who could be affected here: those who are under orders, or supposedly under orders, operating in a foreign territory with which we are at war. There may be circumstances that need a more considered view in the legislation, but we do not have a very strong view on this; as my noble friend Lord Touhig said, we are broadly in support of what is here, but this is an opportunity to make sure that we have the right approach as set out by the Minister when she comes to respond.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

I thank noble Lords for tabling these important amendments and the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, for his helpful explanation. It is good to welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, to our consideration. As she said, she brings her experience as a DfID Minister, with whom I was happy to serve.

I will say by way of introduction that it is absolutely right that government departments, including of course the Ministry of Defence, and the Armed Forces work closely together in bringing this Bill through to implementation to make sure that they understand the obligations that ratification of the convention will place on them. I hope we were all reassured on Second Reading when I explained that both the MoD and the Armed Forces were fully supportive of the Bill—I repeat that for those of your Lordships who missed Second Reading—and that all our Armed Forces already act as if bound by the convention and both protocols, but the legislation and its implementing provisions are extremely important.

The Joint Service Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict is already updated periodically by military lawyers, who will ensure that the necessary rules, regulations, legislation and advice regarding the Hague convention and its two protocols are fully reflected in the manual once ratification has taken place. I do not believe it is necessary to place a legal requirement, as Amendment 5 seeks to do, on the Secretary of State to ensure that this happens.

Turning to Amendment 6, command appointments within our Armed Forces change regularly, so laying a list before Parliament of all ranking military commanders who are responsible for a Section 3 offence committed by forces under their effective command would quickly require updating or become obsolete. Commanders are responsible for ensuring compliance of their forces and forces under their control with a wide range of national and international legislation. Singling out the Hague convention as the only piece of domestic or international legislation where such a list is required could set an unhelpful precedent.

I turn to Amendments 7 and 8, concerning the proposed new clauses on embedded forces and private military contractors. I think that their intended effect is already covered in the Bill and I have concerns about potential unintended consequences if we were to make the amendments. First, the Armed Forces Act 2006 provides that regular members of the Armed Forces remain subject to UK service law at all times. This includes times when they are under the command of another country. Embedded personnel would therefore still be within the definition in Clause 3 (6) of,

“person subject to UK service jurisdiction”,

and the Bill would apply to them in the same way as if they remained under UK command.

The noble Lords, Lord Touhig and Lord Howarth, talked about private military contractors. Such contractors and their individual staff are also already covered by the Bill and will be criminally liable in the same way as any other legal or natural person. For example, should an employee of a private military contractor who is a UK national or subject to UK service jurisdiction commit an act abroad of a kind described in Article 15(1)(d) or (e) of the Second Protocol, they could be criminally liable under Clause 3 on the same basis as any other person—so I think they are covered.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I might need to ask for a short break shortly to get my papers in order. This amendment is the pretty one. The Bill contains a diagram, which is unusual in parliamentary drafting. We do not often get to look at the symmetry and angles with which the rather crude representation of the emblem appears in Clause 3 in Part 8. If your Lordships have not seen it, I draw your attention to it, because we are now talking about culture. It helpfully has a key, which says that it is white and royal blue; it looks black to me but let us not worry too much about that. The point is that it has been used and has been found to be effective in its impact. I think the best-known example of its use was in the recent Iraq conflict, where the emblem was painted on top of the museum. That certainly saved it from being bombed but unfortunately it seemed—I am not sure whether this is true, but it is certainly a good story—to alert those people who had not perhaps known that it contained valuable artefacts to the fact that it was a storehouse of things they could loot, things which have subsequently been brought through to the international market. So it does not always work.

However, it is obviously a feature of the convention and we do not oppose it. Our amendment simply reflects on the way in which the emblem is restricted in its use—which is dealt with in the protocols and regulations. Again, a set of phrases is used that is redolent of the 1950s in terms of sticky paper, etching and watermarking, but there is no sense of how it might need to be applied in the digital age. It is a probing amendment, as all my other amendments are, to draw attention to the need to think about how we might update and improve the requirements and to give the Minister an opportunity perhaps to make a few points on how the emblem would be used in future. I beg to move.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

I thank the noble Lord for his comments. It is indeed delightful and unusual to have a cultural emblem on the face of legislation—I think I am not meant to flash legislation in the House, but I am delighted. On a lighter note, I was also delighted to see that Professor Peter Stone had a badge showing the emblem when he came to see me today. I am slightly worried that he might not be able to continue to use the badge, which shows him as a supporter, but I hope we can ensure that is not the case, because it is totemic and important. I am also grateful for the opportunity to clarify the circumstances in which digital material could be protected, although we have touched on it already.

Relatively modern types of cultural property such as film or recorded music could indeed be covered by the definition of “cultural property”. In practice, this would be in the form of physical recordings and storage, even if the film or music was digital. We would expect the emblem to be displayed on the physical object containing the recording or digital data.

The regulations to the convention provide that the emblem may be represented in any appropriate form. That gives full flexibility on how it can be displayed, which may be valuable. As has been said, this was evidenced when the blue shield was painted on the roof of the National Museum of Iraq to protect the building from air strikes. Therefore, there is nothing to preclude the emblem being displayed in digital form; for example, on a screen or by projection.

Ensuring the authorised use of the cultural emblem is especially important given that the blue shield has been said to be the cultural equivalent of the Red Cross. I certainly see it that way. This might be a good point at which to welcome the work done by Michael Meyer, the head of international law at the British Red Cross, who is, and remains, a champion of work in this field and a strong advocate of the Bill.

On introducing a statutory requirement to publish criteria on permission for use the blue shield, this would create inflexibility when flexibility and rapid reaction are most needed. Of course, techniques change.

Any such criteria should not be prescribed by the Secretary of State alone. The relevant national authorities should determine the basis on which they will grant permission for use of the cultural emblem. Our intention is that permissions may be granted to relevant organisations to allow them to use the emblem in specific ways and in specific circumstances. Authorisation may also be given for certain educational purposes.

I do not need to say why this clause is important. The noble Lord has already accepted that it is and I hope he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

I will be happy to write to Members of the Committee setting out, first, what we have already said, and, secondly, answering any points and questions, including the points made by the noble Lord. That will be the easiest way to move this forward.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, I was going to end with the point made by my noble friend Lord Howarth. This issue needs more explanation. I will be grateful to receive a letter, as the Minister suggested, and that will resolve the problems we have on this matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

There are a number of amendments here and I will try to deal with them in turn and answer the questions that have been raised. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, questioned whether a court should be able to order the destruction of an article bearing the cultural emblem unless it had been given permission by an expert. It is probably worth saying that the circumstances for destruction that I think this is intended to address is where the emblem is on items such as cards or T-shirts—it is not about destroying original cultural property. I agree that the court should not, in any event, order the destruction of articles unless it is clear that it is necessary and appropriate to do so. The current drafting only permits the court to make such an order as appears to it to be necessary.

We do not feel that it would be appropriate for expert evidence to give permission to the court to order the destruction of an article as that would mean that expert opinion would be allowed to override the views of the court. Of course, it is for the court to determine what to do with an article which is subject to forfeiture on the basis of relevant factors and evidence, which would include consideration of what was involved. That could, of course, include expert evidence but it would be for the court to decide that. I do not believe that the court would order the destruction of any article unless it was sure that it was necessary, but we believe that it is right for the court to have this option if it is the most appropriate means of upholding the authority of the cultural emblem, thus ensuring compliance with the convention. That is the background to that provision.

It has been suggested that a court could vary an order for forfeiture of cultural property in connection with a dealing offence only where it is a response to new evidence—this relates to Amendment 19. The potential reasons for a court varying provision under this section are not necessarily related to new evidence, so it would be inappropriate to limit the court’s discretion in this way. For example, the court may have made provision for the forfeited property to be retained at a specific site which was subsequently deemed to be no longer suitable for storage of that property.

On Amendment 22, which deals with compensation, it is of course right that those who, through no fault of their own, find themselves in possession of unlawfully exported cultural property should be compensated if the court orders their property to be forfeited so that it can be returned to its rightful owner. Paragraph 4 of the first protocol requires compensation to be paid by the state party whose obligation it was to prevent the unlawful export of cultural property from territory occupied by it. Which state that is will depend on the facts of each case. There is no obligation under the convention for anyone else to pay compensation, although in certain cases someone else may do so; for example, to ensure that the cultural property concerned can be forfeited before the forfeiture order lapses.

Ensuring that compensation is paid may require sensitive and potentially time-consuming negotiations between the United Kingdom and the occupying state. It would not be appropriate for the court to state who is responsible for the costs of compensation while negotiations are in progress. Indeed, that could put the success of those negotiations at risk. There is also a risk that forfeiture proceedings would become unnecessarily complicated and drawn out by arguments over who is responsible for paying compensation, with those states potentially responsible becoming involved in the proceedings. The noble Lord’s amendment risks complicating both the court proceedings and efforts to ensure that the occupying state pays the compensation that is due.

On Amendment 23, the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, raised the issue of police resourcing and the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, raised the question of storage. We would be happy to have discussions with the British Museum on this, but we do not expect the number of objects falling within the scope of the Bill to be an enormous burden for museums. However, the noble Lord has raised the point and I will consult them. I am already writing on the general issue of resourcing in relation to the Armed Forces and the police, so I will make sure that we cover the necessary ground.

On Amendment 23 and the requirement for the court to,

“make public the location and conditions of … storage”,

of cultural property, I agree that information about where an item of cultural property should be stored, and the conditions under which it is to be kept, should generally be available to the public. A court order is of course a matter of public record, and can normally be obtained by members of the public upon request, so there is no need for a separate provision allowing the court to make public any particular aspects. I should add that in some circumstances it may be necessary for a court to order that the location be kept secret if, for example, the cultural property in question is under particular threat. The general power contained in Clause 22(1) would enable a court to make such an order. We are satisfied that the current drafting of these provisions gives the appropriate courts full flexibility to make appropriate provisions and orders and to take account of the relevant circumstances. I hope that in those circumstances the noble Lord feels able to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I am grateful to the Minister for that very full response although I do not think that all the questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, and my noble friend Lord Howarth were picked up. I was particularly struck by the sense that the Minister was only now beginning to have discussions with some of the major repositories for artefacts of this nature. Perhaps I interpreted that wrongly and I shall read Hansard to make sure that I have it right. I understand that we are not talking about huge volumes of material but we need to recognise the way the world is at the moment, and that this measure is moving us from a position of compliance but not statutory agreement to one whereby a statutory responsibility will be placed on a number of bodies in relation to the material being given to them through the court process, on which the noble Baroness made a good point. It could take years for some of the court systems to work through, and the subsequent storage and possible display of these materials will involve costs. I am a little unclear about where that cost element will fall. It may be small enough to fit into a normal budget but all these institutions are under pressure. There is never enough money to do all the things they want to do, and there will be an additional cost on them.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

Of course, this is difficult for the institutions but there has been a reasonable settlement for the museums and so on. We regard this issue as extremely important, as the noble Lord knows, and we will have a look at the scale involved. However, some of the work we already have in hand on cultural artefact storage in places such as the British Museum is world leading. We should be able to accommodate the cultural protection work in this Bill, but I will of course look at Hansard and come back if the need arises.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

Yes, my Lords, but the truth is that all these institutions suffered at least a 30% reduction under the previous Government and are now grateful not to have been cut further. In fact, some of them are on reduced money because they have received cash standstill grants. Therefore, although I hear what the Minister says, I do not think the situation is quite as rosy as she depicts. However, this is not the time and place to pick up this issue. If she is willing, it would be nice to have a cup of tea—perhaps involving me as well—and of course I will offer to pay.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

As the noble Lord knows, I am always happy to have cups of tea with him and they are usually extremely wide-ranging.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

I am a little worried that we are turning into the Tea Party movement here.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, I am looking forward to the Minister’s response to the main amendment in this group but I would like to touch on Amendment 30A. Here, we are back with our friends clarity, consistency and accuracy, and as the noble Baroness is also a Minister in the department for business, I am sure she will want to follow this one through carefully. There is some merit in trying to make sure that we replicate the position in other areas where criminal activity might follow from acts by a corporate body, and it will be interesting to hear what she has to say on that.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

I am very grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for raising this issue and giving rise to this useful debate. I know he has extensive experience of the art insurance market and am grateful that he gave up time to take us through that and to try and find a way forward, because we are obviously keen, as I keep saying, to progress the Bill. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, for his comments.

I acknowledge the concern that the noble Earl raises that those who deal with cultural property, whether in museums, insurance companies or shipping companies, should understand what they must do in order to comply with the Bill and with the convention and its protocols. The noble Lord, Lord Howarth, also asked how people are supposed to know that they are acting properly, and I will explain some of the things that will happen.

The Collections Trust, on behalf of Arts Council England, provides extensive guidance for museums, collectors, dealers and others on compliance with the legal requirements relating to cultural property, including on conducting due diligence to establish provenance and on related moral and ethical issues. There is a section on the Collections Trust website that references the 1954 Hague convention and its obligations. A wide range of other organisations also provide advice and guidance to their members and sectors on these issues.

These organisations are best placed to provide expert advice on how to go about determining whether an object is unlawfully exported cultural property. The Bill does not require those dealing with cultural property to do anything they do not already do. Conducting due diligence and determining the provenance of cultural property is an established part, I am glad to say, of what museums, collectors, dealers, insurers and others do in this country, which is of course one of the reasons we have great museums and a buoyant art market. The questions of whether cultural property was exported before or after a particular date and whether it was exported from an occupied territory are part of the broader and more basic question of whether it was lawfully exported at all. This is the key point on which anyone dealing with cultural property will want to satisfy themselves.

What would constitute “reasonable” procedures will vary from case to case depending on the particular circumstances, and it is difficult to issue one-size-fits-all regulations. This is true in other areas too, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, suggested. We will work with Arts Council England, the Collections Trust and other stakeholders to ensure that clear guidance is available and up to date, to help all those who deal with cultural property to understand and comply with the Bill. I will make sure that my department ensures that the information available in relation to the Bill including that on websites—as we have discussed, we now have to have things on websites in relation to every bit of legislation—fully reflects the requirements of the Bill.

Amendment 30A relates to Clause 29(3). Clause 29 is a standard clause which appears in numerous pieces of legislation and has been the subject of interpretation by the courts. For example, there is similar provision in the Dealing in Cultural Objects (Offences) Act 2003, and I would hesitate to amend this, for reasons of consistency. The intention of such a clause is to ensure that senior officers of a company who are personally involved in an offence can be held personally responsible and cannot escape liability by hiding behind the company.

I understand that the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, is concerned, as perhaps are others, as to whether “manager” might, in a large organisation, cover relatively junior employees in management roles. I am advised that this phrase has been considered by the courts, which have determined that “manager” refers only to those in a position of real authority as regards the company’s affairs and not to those merely responsible for day-to-day management of part of the business. It is therefore the most senior company officers who might be held liable under this clause. In any event, the key point to note is that liability will arise only if the individual has personally consented to or connived in the offence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, although it is not grouped technically, perhaps I may take the Clause 28 stand part proposal with this amendment. The reason for this is that the amendment and the clause stand part Motion stem from a letter which was circulated to the Minister from the Select Committee on the Constitution. When we drafted the amendments we had not seen a response, but there has now been one. The response deals with the issues raised in Amendment 25 and Clause 28 and it may be more convenient for the Minister to deal with them together. I am getting panicked looks from the other side of the Dispatch Box so I am not sure whether it is. I am not sure whether the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, is giving a reassuring sign or a sign of defeat. However, we will continue with my plan to quickly introduce the two issues and hope that the points can be gathered and responded to together, which will save time later.

For those who are now confused about where we are on this matter, the Bill, in the sense and spirit of the convention, makes the treatment of any offence under the Act, as it will be, so serious that previous measures undertaken to protect this property, the Palace of Westminster, and the people who work here, would be vitiated. While that is right in some senses, some feel, particularly those who serve on the Select Committee on the Constitution, that it is a step too far and that further thought should be given to it.

I have now seen the response but I have not fully absorbed it because I got it only 10 minutes before the session started. The letter is from the Minister in response to the letter sent originally by the noble Lord, Lord Lang of Monkton, chair of the Select Committee on the Constitution. She seems to give positive and straightforward answers to the points raised by the Select Committee and it would be more appropriate for her to respond and give reassurance, if needed, to the Committee on this point. I beg to move.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

I thank the noble Lord for the opportunity to discuss and make clear to the Chamber the concerns of the Constitution Committee. As he has said, I have written to the committee today and I am sorry that the need to take advice meant that the letter could not be sent earlier. The purpose of the search and seizure provision is to enable the UK to fulfil its international obligations in relation to cultural property that has been unlawfully exported from an occupied territory. In particular, it enables us to fulfil our obligation under the First Protocol to return such property to its country of origin. That obligation is absolute and does not allow for any exceptions. We therefore need to ensure that the police have the power to search for and seize unlawfully exported cultural property wherever it may be in the United Kingdom.

I consider it right in principle that the search and seizure powers in Clause 23 should apply equally to the Parliamentary Estate and this wonderful building and we consider that the drafting of the Bill allows for that. My department has been in contact with the relevant parliamentary authorities with regard to the search and seizure powers in the Bill, recognising parliamentary freedoms. Any search or seizure taking place within the Palace of Westminster would of course need to be exercised in a way that respects the privileges of our Parliament. In practice, we would expect there to be a high degree of co-operation between the police and the House authorities with regard to both the need to obtain a warrant at all and with the execution of any warrant obtained. I would also note that we expect the likelihood of any warrant being applied for to be incredibly low, based on the very small number of items of cultural property unlawfully exported from occupied territories that we expect to be entering the UK after this Bill is enacted. In short, we are in discussions with the House authorities to ensure that the privileges are observed and the convention implemented. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment and agree to the clause.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I thank the noble Baroness for that reply and I think that the Committee will be reassured by what she has said. However, the fact that discussions are still ongoing suggests that this may be something she might wish to return to on Report.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

I am happy to do that. The noble Lord will know that we brought the Bill forward on the day of the Queen’s Speech and I am afraid that we have rushed one or two things. Fortunately we have a number of stages still to go and we are in discussions with the House authorities in the appropriate way. I hope the Committee understands that our wish was to get on and was certainly not in any way not to do the right things by the House authorities.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

It would not be out of place to say that I am sure the Minister would not dare go against the noble Lord, Lord Lang of Monkton, who is very severe in these matters. However, with that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Clancarty]

My Lords, I support Amendment 28 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson and Lord Collins. It is worth mentioning that UNESCO requests countries to fill in an extensive questionnaire every four years explaining how they are protecting their cultural property. There is a more general aspect: protection. The last questionnaire completed by Germany can be found online and includes, for example, what has been done to protect cultural property from flooding. It is all very well to say that you have done everything in your power to protect your cultural property from the effects of armed conflict, but if it has deteriorated or been harmed for other reasons, that rather negates the whole point of the exercise. Although military conflict can be devastating, most protection of cultural property takes place in peacetime, and that protection needs to be framed within this wider context.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, the obligation on states party to the convention to safeguard their own cultural property against the foreseeable effects of an armed conflict is obviously an important one. I have already agreed to update the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, on some of our plans more generally, which is probably relevant to this amendment as well. I should say, however, that we have concerns because the safeguarding requirements that are the subject of this amendment seem to relate to administrative arrangements rather than those covered by the Bill. I have already referred, in response to an earlier amendment, to the UNESCO report to which the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, referred with an interesting example of German good practice. We will be making that report every four years. The UK Government will already be reporting on the safeguarding of cultural property as a matter of good practice, in line with the reporting obligation in Article 26 of the convention, so it does not seem necessary to introduce a separate statutory obligation on this point.

We are already considering the administrative measures that will be needed to implement the convention once the Bill is passed into law and I will reflect, as I have said, on the issues raised during the passage of the Bill so far. In practice, there will be existing safeguarding measures in place for the majority of cultural property under general protection in the UK. Article 5 of the second protocol expands on the meaning of “safeguarding cultural property” by giving some examples of the kind of preparatory measures that should be taken in peacetime. These include: the preparation of inventories; the planning of emergency measures for protection against fire or structural collapse—presumably flooding would come under that broad heading—preparation for the removal of movable cultural property or provision for adequate in-situ protection of such property; and the designation of competent authorities responsible for the safeguarding of cultural property.

The early thinking is that the most appropriate body to undertake peacetime safeguarding measures is the existing owner, guardian or trustee of a cultural property. I hope that has given noble Lords some reassurance about safeguarding cultural property, both in relation to substance and process, and I ask them to withdraw their amendments.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I thank the Minister for her response. I think that covers most of the issues I have raised, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Northover]

My Lords, I rise simply to express the hope that the Bill speeds through rapidly, whatever else is happening around us, and that it is commenced as soon as possible. We have waited a very long time—since 1954—for this Bill to be put in place.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, I feel very well scrutinised today. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, for her support in relation to the speedy passage of the Bill.

The Government recognise the importance of giving as much advance notice as possible of when new regulations and requirements will come into force, particularly where they have an effect on business, as has been said. Of course, common commencement dates are not defined in law, they are a matter of policy, and we are not aware of any precedent for referring to them in legislation. In order to refer to them in the Bill, a definition would need to be included. But our intention is to bring the provisions of the Bill into force as soon as possible after Royal Assent.

The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, knows that I share his passion for common commencement dates, and if we can bring the Bill in on a common commencement date we will of course do so, but we have to balance that with the need to get ahead and implement the convention and the protocols. As I see it, the sooner we are able to bring the provisions of the Bill into force, the sooner we will be able to ratify the convention and its protocols and ensure that cultural property has the protection it needs, which is provided for in the Bill, and hold our head up high in international institutions that are concerned with cultural property.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

Well, follow that. I think these aspirations are shared on all sides of the Committee and I am privileged to have played a part in making sure that—at last—we get this piece of legislation through. It has been a good exercise on all sides of the House to scrutinise but also to support the aspirations and aims we all have for this—for making this little piece of the jigsaw puzzle, which has eluded us for so long, now finally come to pass in a picture that we hope will paint more than 1,000 words.

The issue that we will be left with is how we deal with this on Report and at later stages. We need to think through how we will want to do that to help speed the Bill on its way. But we have promises of cups of tea ringing in our ears and I am sure that those will be at least part of the process. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Intellectual Property

Debate between Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Tuesday 26th April 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My noble friend is right to support our creative industries—our musicians, our writers—and this is at the heart of our policy on intellectual property. One of the reasons we set up PIPCU was to put more focus into this area. Crime has moved online and we have to change the way in which we help our writers. But our attitude in Britain is right and strong.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, the problem is more complex, is it not? Noble Lords will be aware that the IP crime statistics are deficient in the sense that they do not collect separately details of cybercrime. We therefore have no real baseline against which we might operate. The ONS piloted a new scheme last year which revealed that there were about 5.1 million instances of fraud and 2.5 million instances of computer misuse per year. So there is a gap here and I wonder whether the Minister could respond on that. Secondly, could she say a little more on penalties, where the City of London Police have also identified a gap? IP offences attract a maximum 10-year prison sentence but online copyright infringement—one of the points just made by the noble Lord—attracts a maximum of only two years. That seems a bit of a discrepancy.

BBC Royal Charter

Debate between Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Tuesday 19th April 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

The length of time that the charter lasts will be one of the key issues that we address in the White Paper in May.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, may I press the Minister on two points? First, she did not specifically answer the Question originally posed by the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, about whether the debates that she has promised will allow both Houses to approve the proposal to be made by the Government. Can she say yes or no to that, bearing in mind that when the debates were held the last time round an approval Motion was put down in the Commons? Secondly, on the timing, we heard last week in a debate in the other place that a draft White Paper had been sighted, and indeed may even have been read. Does that mean that we will in fact receive this in May, as promised?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

Our plan and hope is that we will publish it in May, which was the original timing. In relation to votes, the Government will of course want to listen to the debate on the draft charter and respond accordingly, but I do not think that I can promise a vote.

Enterprise Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Tuesday 19th April 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, the Government have brought forward these amendments to establish the new Institute for Apprenticeships. We have done a lot on apprenticeships, and the results are promising. On the apprentices side, 89% of apprentices said they are satisfied with their apprenticeship, and 82% of employers said they were satisfied with their programme. To build on this, and to deliver more world-class apprenticeships, we need to support employers in maintaining the quality of their apprenticeships.

A new and independent public body, the Institute for Apprenticeships, is being established to ensure the quality of apprenticeship standards across all sectors in England. Although the focus for its activities will be recommended by government annually, the institute will be free to determine its own processes and make autonomous decisions in relation to its functions, responding to employer and apprentice needs. Employer groups will continue to develop the content of standards and assessment plans. The institute will ensure that they are fit for purpose by scrutinising the standards and the plans. Sector and assessment experts, academics and others, will help the institute to carry out these functions. In addition, the institute will carry out some wider quality assurance functions, including making arrangements for evaluating the quality of the end-point assessment for apprenticeships. Our objective is to ensure, through the Institute for Apprenticeships, that quality remains at the heart of approved English apprenticeships, whether they are with the biggest international companies or in small craft businesses.

Amendments 14 and 15 clarify the information that public sector organisations subject to apprenticeships targets should provide to the Secretary of State to ensure consistency and clarity of reporting.

On Amendments 16 and 17, as noble Lords know, the current Finance Bill introduces the apprenticeship levy, which will fund a step change in apprenticeship numbers and quality and deliver on the commitment of 3 million apprenticeship starts by 2020. For employers to get the full benefit of the levy, we need to know what they have contributed. Data sharing between HMRC and the Secretary of State for BIS is the most effective way of doing this and the least burdensome for business. Amendment 16 will enable information held by HMRC on an employer’s levy due to be shared, so that the Government will be able to match apprenticeship funding in England to the levy payments made by each employer by creating individual employer digital accounts. Similar data-sharing powers are provided to devolved Administrations to manage their apprenticeship schemes. From April 2017, we intend to apply a 10% top-up to levy funds paid to employers’ digital accounts to spend on apprenticeship training in England. Levy-paying employers in England will therefore be able to get out more than they put in if they are committed to training apprentices—a very important principle. Amendment 17 is technical and uncontentious.

I commend these amendments to the House, and I beg to move.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister said when she introduced the first set of amendments that the Bill was now in better shape than when it started. We can all agree with that, in particular with reference to apprenticeships. These amendments fill a lacuna in the area of apprenticeships, which we pointed out in Committee and on Report. Indeed, we tried very hard to get some movement from the Government on this but were rebuffed robustly, as is the noble Baroness’s way, albeit in a very gentle and appropriate manner. Therefore, it is all the more of a pleasure to see these amendments come back, which, in some senses, begin to address some of the big issues about what we need to do as a country to ensure that the apprenticeship route for vocational education is acknowledged, and made attractive to parents and the young people who might wish to take them, as has sadly been lacking for too many years.

However, there are some issues with the proposals, which I do not want in any sense to use to argue against them, but although we have some movement here there are still quite a lot of questions that have to be resolved. We will watch this with interest. I suspect—although I have no knowledge of this—that it might be something that your Lordships’ House may have to deal with as we go forward. For instance, the focus is rightly on trying to ensure that apprenticeships are of a high quality, but there is very little detail on what the new institute will do on that, and what it might not, at this stage, be appropriate to do. It has a good foundation with the people on it, but perhaps in its staffing it does not reach as far as it could towards issues that might give some reassurance that they are thinking about the quality levels. There is a problem about the age at which apprenticeships are offered. There are still too many people aged between 23 and 30 and not enough aged between 18 and 24. To what extent will the IFA have the tools to deal with that?

There is an assumption throughout a lot of people’s discussions and debate about apprenticeships that the focus will be on STEM subjects. In fact, I am sure the Minister will agree that there is just as much need to ensure that we have apprenticeships across the creative and other industries which supply so much of our national growth and which are being relied on to make sure that our economy is diversified—“STEAM”, not STEM, might be a better way of putting it. In case there is any doubt about that, the “A” stands for the arts and the creative industries.

These proposals do not deal with what is going to happen to our colleges. Many FE colleges are going through periodic and differential reviews and their future does not seem at all clear. They are obviously very nervous about how this will happen. Again, we would not seek to do this through the Bill, but we need more clarity about what the infrastructure that will receive the ministrations of the IFA will be able to do.

Finally, the question of the vocational education and the sort of provision that is required to provide an interlacing approach for children leaving school and going on to higher and further education is not yet fully mapped out, although I am sure that the aspirations are there. We will need to spend more time on that—perhaps when the White Paper turns into a higher education Bill we will have that opportunity. However, at the bottom of all that there is a really difficult problem about productivity. The test will be, at the end of the day, whether the IFA has anything to offer us in terms of improving productivity in this country, which is sadly lagging behind our competitors. If it does, all power to it; if it does not, we may have to revisit it; but in the interim it is an exciting development, we wish it well and we welcome these clauses.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his comments and for his help in filling the lacuna that he identified. I share his wish to see apprenticeships as a really attractive option for school leavers. We will be making more information available on funding and on the detail of how the new arrangements will work from next year. I hope that this will answer the noble Lord’s outstanding questions. He makes a good point about what we do for the younger apprentices and how that fits in with the older ones. I agree that while we need a focus on STEM we actually need apprenticeships right across the board and that the creative and digital industries are an incredibly important area. My friend in the other place, Ed Vaizey, slaves and steams day and night trying to ensure that that aspect is grabbed right across Whitehall.

What I like about the Bill is that it builds on earlier legislation to ensure that apprenticeships are real jobs with substantial and sustained training. The reforms are making apprenticeships more rigorous already and will ultimately help people to realise their potential. It will allow them to have a portfolio, so that they can move jobs if that is what they want to do. We are committed to ensuring that all apprenticeships are of high quality and this has been central to our reforms, as the House knows. High-quality apprenticeships are essential to support our employers and to help our economy prosper in the years to come. I believe that these additions to the Bill improve it and I trust that the House is happy to welcome these amendments.

Apprenticeships: Women

Debate between Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Thursday 14th April 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

As I have said, our new campaign will focus on role models, including female degree-level apprenticeships in engineering. We have Tomorrow’s Engineers Week, which responded to the Perkins review of engineering skills. The Your Life campaign, which I think the noble Baroness is well aware of, helps to ensure that the UK encourages women to move into maths and science in schools in a much more fundamental way. There is also the STEM Ambassadors programme, which I hope many noble Lords can help with. Some of us were not lucky enough to study science in school. We have to move forward and change the dynamics in our schools.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I was surprised to hear the Minister talk about the payment made to female apprentices because she will be aware of the Young Women’s Trust report which says that female apprentices receive, on average, £4.82 per hour, compared to £5.85 per hour for their male counterparts. However, I should like to ask her about what is happening in her own department; surely there she could show the way. I understand that, according to the latest figures, only 26% of apprentices in the department were women.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

We could certainly do better in the department. One of the changes we are making is to require government departments to make a good contribution to apprenticeships, and I think that can be extremely helpful. I have looked at the latest figures and am very happy to have a conversation with the noble Lord about them, because I was surprised and pleased to see that we seem to be moving in the right direction. People must have career choices. It is about freedom: people should be able to do what they want to do. I have a female apprentice involved in my team.

Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 (Consequential Amendments) (Bankruptcy) and the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2016

Debate between Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Tuesday 22nd March 2016 Grand Committee

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her extensive introduction to what is quite a narrow SI. It has a good history. I recall the debates that led up to the changes and also the paperwork that was provided at that time. I think that I recall correctly that this measure was welcomed by the industry when it was proposed. The consultation revealed that those involved were pleased by the direction in which the policy was going. The only significant issue was the pressure to go electronic, which came late in the process and was requested by the industry itself. I understand from my consultations with people from the industry that they are very pleased that the regulations have come out the way they have.

This is a good-news story—possibly so good that there is very little that I want to say about it, except simply to say that it was a game of considerable pleasure to read the very small amendments to the wording that had to be looked at if one was to do justice to the scrutiny that we are supposed to have in this House. Small words were changed that made a difference to the process: an individual has to be “adjudged” bankrupt as opposed to being “made” bankrupt. It was an exercise of great skill that I enjoyed processing.

However—there is always a “however”, is there not?—I of course noticed the change that led to the amendment to the draft statutory instrument that was inserted into the copy that I have. I slightly extend the point; I did not notice it, but I was very pleased to receive it. However, I cannot make sense of it, so could the Minister make clear to me what I am supposed to read into page 5, Schedule 1, paragraph 14(1), line 2? I could read that the first change, which is in the original, is in the earlier corrections and is obviously correct, because it should read:

“Paragraph 9 … to Schedule 6 (freezing orders in respect of property liable to forfeiture)”.

I am not sure about the change of “of” to “to” in the second line, because it seems to me that that paragraph needs to relate to a primary piece of legislation, which presumably is the International Criminal Court Act. If there is not time to be briefed in the short period of time that I am giving the Minister, I would be very happy to receive a Keeling schedule that clearly indicates what we are supposed to read into that.

That is really all that I had to say. I notice that there is no impact statement because of the assertion that there no impact at all on business from this. It says, in fact, that there is no impact on business, charities or voluntary bodies. I find that slightly difficult to believe because, presumably, the impact of insolvency always has a third-party engagement. But I understand the spirit in which this was made—which is, as the Minister said, that this is relatively small in the great scheme of things. It does not come to much, and, as insolvencies reduce, it will get even less. With that, I am happy to support this.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for agreeing that this is a good news story. It is always nice to put through this House legislation that helps to move things forward. As he says, we have changed the reference to paragraph 9 “to” the Schedule to the Act to “of” the Schedule to the Act. I understand that this reflects the conventions of writing these kinds of SIs. I am reading a book about Cicero at the moment and I am afraid that this point seems rather arcane, but that is the correct convention, which is why we have made the change.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

If Cicero had been involved, I think that the noble Baroness’s speech would have been about 17 times longer. He was not short on words. Quite honestly, I do not look for a response today. If in one of her excellent letters the Minister could write out what it is expected to mean, I would be very happy to receive that.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

I would be delighted to do that. These arcane points of parliamentary drafting are an improvement. Actually, I would like to defend Cicero: he was a great orator. I agree that he tended to speak at length, but some of the phrases that he coined are probably still influencing our language and our oratory, even in this House today. The Committee seems happy and I commend the draft regulations.

Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses (Amendment) Regulations 2016

Debate between Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Tuesday 22nd March 2016 Grand Committee

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I am, again, very grateful to the Minister for introducing this statutory instrument and for giving us such a full context in which it is operating. I have slightly more trouble with this one than I had with the last one, in three regards. The first is just to check that I am not missing something. The problem said to be under consideration appears in the helpful Explanatory Memorandum which is attached to the impact assessment. It states:

“The United Kingdom has one of the most lightly-regulated labour markets in the developed world for permanent employees. It is also the third least regulated labour market after Canada and the US in terms of temporary contracts”.

That seems to be quite a good situation, but we read further down:

“The Employment Agencies Act 1973 sought to ensure that there was a consistent approach across Great Britain”.

It gives the reasons for that—there were, I think, a number of scandals at the time and it is good that the Government of the day decided to legislate in this way. It goes on:

“Since then there have been many amendments to the legislation, which has resulted in a very complex set of regulations which place a burden on business, and are not fit for purpose in the UK’s modern labour market”.

The Government cannot have it both ways: it is either one of the most lightly-regulated labour markets in the developed world or it is a very complex set of regulations which place a burden on business and are not fit for purpose. I am not accusing the Minister in any sense of bad faith—I am sure she spoke absolutely from the heart about what she was trying to do—but perhaps she will reflect after this on the bombastic nature of the briefing with we have been provided, because I do not think that it stacks up.

My second point is an exemplification of that. I stray here into politics, which I know is almost a forbidden thing to do here. But we are told in paragraph 7.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum, headed “Policy background”—a very helpful innovation—that the reason we are amending Regulation 27A of the Conduct Regulations 2003 is that,

“there was a specific commitment from the Prime Minister during his speech on immigration on 21 May 2015 that the Government would make it illegal for employment agencies to recruit solely from abroad without advertising those jobs in Britain and in English”.

That sounds good—it must have been a wonderful soundbite to have prepared, ready to be picked up by the papers at the time. As we read on, the truth is that existing Regulation 27A goes some way towards resolving the problem that the Prime Minister identified, since it is already illegal to advertise specific—not generic—vacancies in other EEA countries without also advertising them in English in the UK.

Again, I do not wish to make a major point, because presumably some people will benefit from the fact that a generic advertisement placed not in English in Lithuania will now have to be placed in English in the UK. I do not want to demean that in any way but, again, I wonder about the tone being adopted here. It did not need to be quite as bombastic as it is. I am sure that the gap has been filled and that is a good thing.

My third point is a very trivial one but I would like an explanation. On the question of implementation and review—my favourite topic—the noble Baroness will be aware that I have an interest in common commencement dates. I was doing all right on this one until I got down to Regulation 1(2), which says:

“These Regulations come into force on … 6th April 2016”.

I like that. It is one of the two common commencement dates for reducing the burden on business. However, it goes on to say that,

“if later, at the end of the period of 21 days beginning with the day on which they are made”.

You cannot have it both ways. It is either a common commencement date or it is not. As we seem to be ahead of 6 April, can I have confirmation from the Minister that we are talking about 6 April and that the conditional phrasing was just a cover in case something went wrong in the great process that we are going through.

Finally, I notice that the review period is covered in the sense that there seems to be a series of reviews stemming from the 2003 regulations, which are said to be in Parliament every five years. The Explanatory Memorandum does not seem to imply that there will be any other reviews going forward. The provision of the existing regulations seems to be for one review and one review only. I just want clarification about the date. It may well be otiose to have a periodic five-year review, but I think that we should be clear whether there is to be a review—and, if so, whether it is a single review after five years or a periodic review.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

I thank the noble Lord for his extremely intelligent questioning of this proposal. I agree that there is a dichotomy. The regulations are quite complex, and we are seeking to change them so that they are deregulatory. I tried to take the noble Lord through paragraph by paragraph because I felt that that was useful to the Committee. At the same time, I think that the memorandum is correct to say that the UK is more lightly regulated in respect of the labour market than other EU member states. So I do not think that the things are contradictory, although I can see that there is the potential for confusion there.

The regulations will come into force 21 days after the beginning of the day they are made. Unfortunately, it is not a common commencement date. Like the noble Lord, I am always asking the department to put things on a common commencement date. Obviously, given the timing, the common commencement date would have to move to October because I do not think that things can be done in time. Therefore, we are commencing the regulations 21 days after they are made, and I will make them tomorrow or the next day. Perhaps I should write to the noble Lord with more information about the conventions. Spiritually, I am with him—I think that common commencement dates are extremely helpful. We have tried to get one here but the timing has overtaken us.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I do not wish to pressure the noble Baroness in any way whatever, but we have previously had insolvency regulations which are quite clearly coming into effect on 6 April—no buts, no buttons, no relationship, no 21 days here, there or everywhere. They are coming in on 6 April.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

I think that this has caused some confusion in our ranks. I will look into it, but I hope that the Committee will agree that these regulations should come in as soon as we can manage it. They are deregulatory, and I would like to pass them today. So I crave the indulgence of the Committee on this matter, but I will certainly look across the board at the phrasing of commencement dates in future. We always need to learn from feedback, and the noble Lord, as so often, makes a very good point.

I obviously did not explain the point about recruitment agencies adequately. The change we are making is on generic recruitment, which is not covered by the existing regulations. So we are essentially closing a loophole in the existing system of regulation, which currently just covers adverts for specific jobs—for example, an advert for a carpenter in Luton—but it does not cover generic recruitment. It should of course, so we are seeking to make that change.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

In no sense do I wish to delay things, but my point was not that the change in itself is not a good thing—it is a good thing, and the loophole should be closed—but that the bombast had rather got ahead of the action.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

We will watch our bombast for the future. Finally, the noble Lord knows that I feel the same way as him about the importance of periodic review. I will look at how the review clauses of relevant legislation interplay, and in coming back to him I will explain what our intentions are. With those reassurances, I commend the regulations to the Committee.

Apprenticeships

Debate between Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Thursday 17th March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

To quote my noble friend’s response to a previous question, my briefing does not cover the answer to that question. The Chancellor made it clear that we are giving levy employers a 10% top-up to their monthly levy contributions—but I shall write to my noble friend about the education side.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, 96% of apprenticeships are restricted to levels 2 and 3; I am sure we would all like to see that extended. There is also a problem about age, as in recent years most apprenticeships have gone to those aged over 24, although the target age is much younger. Will the Minister also comment on how apprenticeship completions are going? According to the latest figures, they are down from 76% in 2010-11 to 68% in 2013-14—something that must be reversed.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

The noble Lord is right to be concerned about the decline in completion rates. What seems to be happening is that as we are raising standards, requiring the apprenticeship to last for a year and generally toughening up, completion rates are falling. We will publish an operating model in April and information on funding rates in June. In that work, and in the quality work that we are doing, we need to take into account the essential importance of ensuring that youngsters are able to end their apprenticeships as well as begin them.

Aircraft: Laser Pointers

Debate between Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Tuesday 8th March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

We are also looking at this technology for exactly the reasons that the noble Lord suggests. The possibility of putting film on aircraft windows and/or using such film for goggles or spectacles is being progressed by a number of operators. We are very interested in that and are looking at it as part of the work we are doing on finding the right regime for these dangerous lasers.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, we support the measures being taken by the Government to look at this very serious issue. However, I am a bit surprised that the discussion so far has been limited to aircraft. Is not the problem one that also affects trains, goods vehicles and private cars, and therefore a wider scope is required? It is only a matter of time, we think, until somebody dies as a result of this.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

The noble Lord is right and, under general product safety regulations and transport legislation, we of course look at all these areas. Clearly, there have been recent incidents involving aircraft, which have concerned us all, but, equally, this could apply to trains, lorries or even cyclists, I suspect.

Patents (European Patent with Unitary Effect and Unified Patent Court) Order 2016

Debate between Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Wednesday 2nd March 2016 Grand Committee

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for his comments and for his support for this statutory instrument. As he said, we have debated these issues on and off, and this is a very important European initiative which I am very glad to be presenting to the Committee.

I am also delighted to see my noble friend Lord Lyell and to hear about his experience of the 1977 Act. I will now look to him when I have patent complications, which will improve our discussions in the Tea Room even more. My noble friend courteously gave me advance notice of his questions, so I will answer them briefly and write to him if he feels that necessary. Sections 48 and 49 of the Patents Act 1977 relate, as he said, to compulsory licences. There is no change. The unitary patent regulation requires national law on compulsory licences to apply to unitary patents. He also asked about Sections 103 to 105 relating to the client-attorney privilege before the comptroller of patents. The comptroller will have some jurisdiction over unitary patents, for example over entitlement, so we need to apply Section 103, which is the reason for this curious provision.

Continuing on these difficult questions of detail, the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, asked about the Isle of Man. There will be a separate order for the Isle of Man, but the Isle of Man Government have indicated that they want the UPC. The noble Lord shot the bullet in terms of questioning me, but I think that the answer is a positive one; this European endeavour will also stretch to the Isle of Man. He also asked about the ratification process. As I have said, we have had nine ratifications so far with a few more expected this summer. In particular, we expect Germany and the UK to be ready this autumn for the reasons I have already stated.

On the point about keeping the pressure on, on Monday I was at the European Competitiveness Council at which Commissioner Bienkowska gave us an update on progress with ratification. I think it is fair to say that the Competitiveness Council is keeping up the pressure in this important area.

In terms of where the UPC will be based, the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, mentioned that several countries were sharing in the opportunity here, and it is worth just running through them. The court of appeal will be in Luxembourg. The court of first instance will have a central division in Paris and specialist sections in London, for pharmaceuticals, and Munich, for mechanical engineering. The court of first instance will also have a number of local divisions in most member states, including in the UK, Germany, France, the Netherlands, Austria, Denmark and Finland. Sweden and the Baltic states will join together in a regional division based in Sweden.

The case-counting data so far suggest that the UK will only have enough cases to sustain one local division, at least in the early days of the new court. Of course, the UK could set up an additional local division in Scotland in future, should the case load increase, in consultation with the court jurisdictions across the UK.

The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, asked about the object of the software exception. I think I explained this fairly well in my opening remarks. We listened to industry concerns because this exception is untested and there is no case law on its interpretation. As a result, we are implementing the exception for European patents first and will then review how it works—as he said, we have a five-year review clause. In that way, the Government are able to meet their obligations under international law and to give effect to the provisions of the UPC while addressing the real concerns of industry on this issue. I can certainly share some of those with the noble Lord, but they were quite substantial. We believe in listening to consultation on these sorts of matters in the IPO area.

The noble Lord also asked about the evidence from plant breeders. They were pretty noisy about this provision, both here and in the European Parliament. They responded to our consultation to support it. I know that other member states feel the same: that the system for plant breeding works well and you do not necessarily want to add extra patent complications. That is why we felt it was okay to make this exemption.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I understand the case for that, and we take it, but it would be interesting to see the nature of the evidence. I have not seen evidence published for this particular point, and it would be helpful if it was possible to see it.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

We would of course be delighted to send the noble Lord what evidence we have. It is useful, when you make exemptions, to look at why you are doing it—what the rationale is—and what it means for future cases. I would be delighted to share that evidence with the noble Lord and look forward to his comments. Plant breeding is a very important industry. We are not number one in Europe, but its output is very important to the future of this planet.

I think we are all agreed that the order takes us a step closer to implementing the UPC agreement and makes it easier for businesses to enforce their patents across Europe. Innovative businesses have been waiting for more than 40 years for a single European patent system, and we are much closer to achieving that long-held aim. With the introduction of the UPC, for which we now have premises, firms will be able to start taking advantage of the unitary patent if they so wish. I commend the order to the Committee.

Limited Liability Partnerships (Register of People with Significant Control) Regulations 2016

Debate between Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Wednesday 2nd March 2016 Grand Committee

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to hear the bilious rants from the other side, with which we on this side have some sympathy. I liked the point about the number of times one has to scan one’s passport into an email in order to prove some point or other. Whatever happened to identity cards?

However, there are serious points relating to these regulations which I welcome and will support as they go through. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, about the weight or pressure being placed on companies in relation to transparency and the money laundering system more generally. However, that is not the only area where this process came from; as the Minister mentioned, it came from the desire of civil society to have a better handle on how some companies are being operated, as well as from those who wish to invest and from other stakeholders. There is a feeling that the Companies Acts cumulatively perhaps have not kept pace with how people regard the operations of the commercial sectors in the country. Obviously now with LLPs as well, which are not strictly commercial in the business sense but still operate commercially, the ability to have scrutiny is being reduced. It is interesting that the extractives directive and other things have been quoted in support of the need to have this transparency. That better contextualises the situation and I was grateful to the Minister for sketching that out.

That having been said, the point was made that at the end of the day, people will have to operate this in a way that will not be destructive to jobs, the creation of new companies, investment and trade, and these things sometimes do not see it right. Certainly when I began going through these Explanatory Memorandums, piles of which still wait to be destroyed, trees having been cut down all over Europe to create them, it seemed a bit otiose to say the least. On the other hand, these are some of the better Explanatory Memorandums I have seen and I congratulate the department on its work. However, this was difficult to get right. The issues here are complicated and are not factual; with these things we often see that a figure is mechanically put in at one end and comes out at the other, while this is judgment all the way through. I read them with interest and recommend them to those who might have an interest in how this process goes through.

The Minister mentioned this but perhaps it was not brought out as much as it could have been. The Government could have taken a position on this, which is articulated in the EMs, that the regulatory process might not achieve the best result. In the past we on this side have often been critical of the sense of a “voluntarism approach” to many of the problems which we perceive in the commercial world. On this occasion the Government have decided to go with a regulatory structure. It has not been an easy decision but I commend them for the rigour with which they have approached it.

Nevertheless—the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, picked this up—the judgments about what is a significant interest and control in an operation are heavily dependent on interpretations in the fourth and fifth legs of the process. While I listened with interest to what the Minister said about that, I was not entirely convinced that that was picked up either in the documentation we have had or in the wording she used to describe it. I do not think that that is sufficient to hold this back because, as I say, it is a good attempt to try to get it to balance out in a fair way. However, I wondered about the review process because I suspect that this is such a major change in some ways, not in monetary terms and not necessarily in its impact but in the whole way companies relate to the Government and to the wider parts of civil society, that it would be useful to have a pretty firm statement about how this will be seen in practice and whether there will be a formal process. Of course there will be a review, but it would be helpful to have that articulated now. Perhaps the Minister will be able to address that when she comes to respond.

The weakest part of this is the relationship to LLPs. In a sense that sounds very critical but I am not trying to be. LLPs are relatively new in the way we do business and therefore are not perhaps as well exposed as conventional companies. Their instance is largely in the business services and professional area, and it is harder to see quite where the analogues with a board of directors and control for profit is concerned. However, the sense is that the most appropriate way of biting a person with control of an LLP is in the way in which the proceeds of any dissolution would fall, with 25% going to the person deemed to be a person of significant control. That was not perhaps as strong as some of the other measures that apply in the commercial sector, and maybe that could be reflected on before the guidance finally gets published. I suspect that there might be a bit of an issue around that as we go forward, but it would be appropriate for a review provided that it is picked up and it is made clear to people that it will be coming forward.

In summary, I was present during the time the primary legislation went through last year. I was not directly involved in some of the debates around it but I followed them with interest. This is a big change; those who care about some of the actions and activities of companies and have been frustrated in the past because there was a veil behind which it was very difficult to see will feel that this is a step in the right direction. It is not overly bureaucratic but the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, is right to say, “Hang about—is this really worth all the hassle?”. I personally think that it is, but the questions that need to be asked are: how will you review this, how quickly will that happen and how effective will it be as regards how we might take this forward?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for his support for these regulations and for his kind words about the Explanatory Memorandum. I will make sure they are passed on to those who worked on it. It always helps to thank people when things are good because that leads to yet further good performance. Let us hope that the regulatory structure works. As the noble Lord said, it is a big change, but this is an important new regime for companies and it is critical that the detailed requirements are correct and fit for purpose. Increased transparency about who owns and controls UK companies is important in maintaining the UK’s higher standards of corporate trust. As we have discussed in relation to many different issues recently, having the sunlight of transparency can be an extremely powerful policy weapon, and we as a Government seek to use it in a number of areas.

We have committed to a review: I think that both sets of regulations require the Government to review the costs to business within five years. I note the points that the noble Lord made, in particular in relation to the LLP regulations, and will make sure that we keep an eye on that. I also repeat the hope that other countries will move ahead as we have done with the PSC, because this only works, as in so many areas, if other countries do this as well.

It was a delight to see my noble friend Lord Hodgson returning to the debate. I am grateful for his cautionary warning about perverse effects, which one could write into many areas of regulatory life. As he says, we need the right balance between transparency and privacy. We focus on risk, and the National Crime Agency is fully on board to be involved in the protection assessment process. As an expert in risk assessment, the NCA is well placed to ensure that assessments are consistently applied and protection applications robustly interrogated.

I share my noble friend’s concerns about the operation of the money laundering directive, which I used to speak about when I was on the Back Benches. I am glad to say that the business department and the Treasury are doing work on its application as part of a deregulation review. I very much welcome the chance to have a discussion with him so that his examples can be fed into that work.

Trade Union Bill

Debate between Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Tuesday 23rd February 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

The whole point about transparency is to encourage efficiency of use. I explained by reference to what has been happening in the Civil Service that there have been some advantageous changes. That does not mean to say that this is not worth doing and that we do not value many of the facility time activities.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

I am sorry to intervene in this debate, but I wonder whether I could make an additional point. Many of the bodies to which the Minister refers would already be covered by existing legislation. If those bodies are receiving grant in aid from government, by a simple stroke of the pen the Government could add a couple of paragraphs to the contract requiring them to publish the cost in the interests of transparency. So why is primary legislation required?

Channel 4: Privatisation

Debate between Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Wednesday 3rd February 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

I very much agree with the noble Baroness, except perhaps her conclusion. “Channel 4 News”, which is regulated news provision under Ofcom rules, is important. It is great that the channel attracts younger audiences because that is what we need for the future of the media and our creative industries in Britain.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I am sure the whole House will congratulate Charles Gurassa, the new chair of Channel 4, appointed by Ofcom on the advice of the Secretary of State. According to the Financial Times, Mr Gurassa has previously chaired three media and communications companies, all of which were sold during his tenure. Can the Minister confirm whether privatisation experience was specified in the job description?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

As the noble Lord said, the appointment was made by Ofcom and approved by the Secretary of State. It is true that Charles Gurassa brings a wealth of experience. That includes business experience of the kind the noble Lord suggests, but also experience on the board of the National Trust and as chairman of a housing association. He is very broadly experienced, and it is a sound appointment. I very much look forward to his ideas for the future of Channel 4.

Press Regulation

Debate between Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Tuesday 26th January 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

I am not sure that I see it quite that way. The extended exemplary damages are a good thing and a good incentive. We need a free press; the system is getting under way; and the Secretary of State is entirely right to think about as and when—and when and if—to bring in the costs provisions, which of course sit on the statute book and can be commenced at any time.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, perhaps I may take the Minister back to Leveson part 2. The second part was due to look at specific claims made about phone hacking, what went wrong with the original police investigations, and alleged police corruption. As the Minister said, it was delayed pending the conclusion of criminal prosecutions. My understanding is that those prosecutions have now been completed. If that is the case, we know that hacking took place at the News of the World and at Mirror Group titles but we do not know exactly what went on elsewhere. Can we have confirmation from the noble Baroness that the second part of the public inquiry will take place and, if so, what the timetable will be?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My understanding is different in that two cases are outstanding. That means that Leveson part 2 will not be able to take place until after those investigations and trials have concluded. However, as soon as they have been completed, we will formally consult Sir Brian Leveson, as he now is, as chair of the inquiry before announcing what is appropriate.

National Minimum Wage (Amendment) Regulations 2016

Debate between Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Monday 18th January 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for his comments. I endorse his comments about the great work done by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee; year in, year out, it does us a great service. I thank him for his kind words about the impact assessment and I shall pass them on.

I sympathise with noble Lords opposite, who were clearly wrong-footed by the most recent Budget, especially the living wage aspect, but then disappointment is part of political life. The strength of the economy means that we can afford to take this important step towards a higher-wage, lower-tax and lower-welfare society. The measures support the Government’s commitment to deliver fairness on pay for working people while being sensitive to the needs of business. By 2020, the national living wage will benefit 2.75 million low-wage workers directly, with up to 6 million in total expected to see their wages rise as a result of the ripple effects further up the distribution chain. I think that this is good news, and the House seems to recognise that.

The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, asked whether we had considered the use of primary legislation. Of course we considered all legislative options, but the powers are available to do this through secondary legislation and it will ensure that workers get their pay rise much more quickly. That is the reason why we have adopted this approach. I also took note of some of his questions on apprenticeships. I will need to have a look at Hansard, and perhaps he and I can have a word at one of our many meetings on other matters.

The rationale for 60% is that the 2014 Resolution Foundation review of the national minimum wage, More Than a Minimum—chaired by the excellent Professor Sir George Bain, who, as some will remember, was the founding chair of the LPC—recommended a national minimum wage at 60% of median earnings as “a reasonable lodestar”—a great word. The report’s expert panel also included Professor Alan Manning, Professor Paul Gregg and Professor Karen Mumford.

I accept that there was no consultation on setting the original rate at £7.20. The background work existed, and of course this was a Budget measure and its announcement was treated as such. I am afraid that that is the nature of Budget measures, but I hope that I have already given some reassurance in my opening remarks on the process in future in relation to consultation. Future national living wage rates will be recommended by the independent Low Pay Commission, which will continue to provide the invaluable advice that it has been giving for many years, firmly grounded in evidence and with public consultation. It seems right that it should have a pivotal role in this.

The noble Lord asked about the double impact of the national living wage and the apprenticeship levy. This will of course mean extra costs for some businesses, but it is right that workers are fairly rewarded for the work that they do. The economy is growing and profits and wages are rising, and we have given businesses some help, as I said in my opening remarks. The apprenticeship levy is equally necessary. It will support the development of a higher-skilled, more productive workforce, supporting greater economic growth in future and the creation of new jobs right across the UK. Employers will of course be able to get back the levy for the training that they are doing.

The noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, asked about how the LPC will seek advice when it is uprating the national minimum wage. It will continue to adopt the sort of process that we have seen operating successfully under the coalition: it will make recommendations to the Government by the end of October 2016, setting out its ideas for rates for the new national minimum wage from April 2017 and looking at indicative rates from April 2018.

Productivity growth is one of the key economic challenges for this Parliament and a route to raising living standards for everyone in the UK in a long-term, sustainable way. Our ambitious plan for this is set out in Fixing the Foundations and includes the introduction of the national living wage. There is a fair amount of research that shows that increasing wages to the national living wage should result in an increase in productivity in many areas, as people use labour more carefully and capital more efficiently.

As the noble Lords, Lord Stoneham and Lord Stevenson, mentioned, some parts of the economy—for example, the social care sector and retail—will be impacted more than others when the living wage is introduced. I reassure noble Lords that this Government recognise the particular position of these sectors. In response we are, for example, giving local authorities access to up to £3.5 billion in new support for social care by 2019-20. Equally important will be enforcement in these sectors. I have already outlined some of the changes that we are making, such as the extra funding and work on bringing the new rights to the attention of workers, and HMRC is taking action against those employers who break the law and underpay their staff. It currently has 155 investigations open with social care employers. These include acting on complaints and extensive targeted enforcement. I know from having worked in business that HMRC is also very keen to make sure that the national minimum wage—and in future the national living wage—is paid in low-paid service sectors.

The noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, asked about early years provision and employing under-25s. It is for the Low Pay Commission to use its consultations and expert judgment to advise on appropriate rates for under 25 year-olds and those aged 25 and over. As with all of its recommendations, should it recommend a change to the differential in the national minimum wage or living wage rates, the Government will want to understand why it thought this was appropriate to ensure that the minimum rates of pay continue to support low-paid working people as well as the economy. The substitution effect will depend on future LPC recommendations. Of course, the underlying reason for the difference between the national living wage and that for under 25 year-olds is that we are extremely keen to ensure that early years provision is employed provision—we really want to make sure that we do not hit employers and that we encourage people to give jobs to the youngsters.

I hope that the comments I made in my introduction and the points that I have been able to make in summing up will go some way to reassuring noble Lords who have put down this regret Motion both in respect of our plans and in respect of stronger enforcement. In the light of that, I recommend these regulations to the House.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, for contributing to this debate. They raised additional questions that were helpful and useful. I hope that further information will be forthcoming from the department into some of the details the Minister was not able to get to in her response.

The Minister ended by saying that she hoped that noble Lords—there is only one—who put down this regret Motion could see their way to providing some measure of agreement that this regulation is a good thing. Of course, we cannot be against additional pay for the lowest paid and we support the Minister on that. However, I sense a slight poverty of ambition behind the regulations and that is why I wanted to put forward a regret Motion for those of us who feel that this is a step in the right direction but only a very small step. It would have been good if we could have got from the Government more of a sense of an understanding of the need for pay to go up, for sticky areas in the economy to be addressed very vigorously and for the regulations to deal with those who wish to severely underpay—I think that some do go down that route—as well as, to pick up a point that the Minister made in her opening and closing remarks, an understanding that this is not just a right/left issue.

Many commentators—of which the Resolution Foundation, a non-partisan group, is a very good example—absolutely believe that the basis on which we will see recovery in this country is a real commitment to a proper high-wage and well-rewarded economy, in which people are paid for the work they do in growing the economy and making exports and everything else return to a level that we have seen in the past. I do not think that the regulations, as described, get us all the way there. They are a step in the right direction, but I think that this is something that we may wish to return to.

The reason for putting down the amendment—although not the timing, which was in the hands of the Government and not in our hands—was to get these debates up and running, and we have achieved that. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Sunday Trading

Debate between Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Monday 14th December 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, we look forward to hearing the results of the consultation, which must be one of the longest being carried out by the Government at present. However, for the avoidance of all doubt, I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed that the Enterprise Bill currently before your Lordships’ House, or any other Bill currently before either House, will not be used to bring forward such regulations in this Parliament.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, no decisions have been taken in relation to our proposals or to the legislative vehicle. I cannot help the noble Lord.

Channel 4

Debate between Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Thursday 10th December 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

Channel 4 is not under threat. It has an important remit. It must deliver innovative, experimental and distinctive content that appeals to a diverse society. Looking at all the options we shall obviously have full regard to that remit and indeed to the creative industries that depend on it.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

Channel 4 was established by Act of Parliament by a Conservative Government. Does the Minister agree that it is highly unlikely that any commercial purchaser could be found for Channel 4 unless the Government change its remit which at present ensures that all profits are reinvested in programmes? Will she confirm that it would require primary legislation to amend the current remit?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, we are still at a fairly early stage of the process on Channel 4. The issue of whether legislation would be required for any change that we decide to make will certainly be one of the considerations.

Enterprise Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Monday 30th November 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

I hesitate to interrupt the Minister but can she be very clear about exactly what she is offering? The offer of talks is obviously welcome and we would like to engage in those, but is she saying that following the talks there will be an amendment that we can discuss at Third Reading?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, I can promise talks and I can promise that, if we find a way through that meets the concerns about classification that have been identified, we will be very happy to think about how that can be implemented, whether in the Bill or elsewhere. The work might take some weeks but clearly we will be happy to continue with those talks.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I am sorry to press the noble Baroness but she has to be very clear about this. She needs to say to the House that she will accept an amendment being brought back in one of two cases: either we have an agreed position with her, in which case the Government can bring it forward; or, if that agreement is not forthcoming, we will be permitted to come back with an amendment. Obviously the rules are very tight, and I am looking very closely at the clerk to make sure that this is sufficient for us to be able to continue the debate.

Superfast Broadband

Debate between Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Thursday 26th November 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

I will write to the noble Baroness about the progress in Brussels, which I know my friend in the other place, Ed Vaizey, has been extremely busy on. I will also write about the particular circumstances in Devon and Cornwall. Actually, I was a sceptic on this but we have made a lot of progress. I look forward to telling her about that.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I suppose that in these post-austerity times we must be ready for a flurry of announcements and good news all round, and broadband is no exception. But where exactly do the Government stand given the two slightly contradictory statements we have now had? The Chancellor pledged in the last Budget to introduce broadband speed of 100 megabits into nearly all homes in the country. Does that fit with what the Minister just said? Exactly what speed can we expect?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, the Prime Minister talked about 10 megabits per second because that is fast enough to enable households to, in combination, stream films, watch catch-up TV, make a videocall and browse online. The expectation is to get there by 2020. Clearly, ultra-fast speed is incredibly important, too. It was probably not noticed, but there was an announcement in yesterday’s Budget that we are setting up a broadband investment fund that will look at public/private support for alternative network development, looking at ultra-fast broadband in particular.

Enterprise Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Wednesday 4th November 2015 Grand Committee

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

We want the package to look right, so “thrown under the bus” is the wrong metaphor. But we said clearly in June that we want to privatise the Green Investment Bank and when we came to do the work, we discovered that the ESA/ONS rules would not allow us to do that in this form. That is why we have taken the step of bringing this amendment to the House.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

I hesitate to cause more pain to the Minister but my noble friend Lord Mendelsohn has hit the nail on the head. If you are selling more than 50% of the stake then you are not in control of the bank. But control is exercised in public corporations at a variety of levels, as the Minister knows all too well from her own commercial experience. It would not be possible for a government shareholder holding around or less than 30% to make any impact on the overall management and control of the company because it would be down to the majority shareholders. The point is: what are the Government trying to do here? Is it just 51% to 49% or would they accept, in favourable circumstances, 71% to 29%? Those are the two options and, within that, the Government have a very limited role to play.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

I think I made it clear that there are a number of options regarding the share, but I had also made it clear that we are looking to sell only a significant stake. The heart of the problem is that if we could keep the legislation without prejudicing the bank’s status we would, but the advice we are working on is that we cannot do that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, I am not sure that there has been a complete understanding of what we are proposing. They will have a free-of-tie rent and a tied rent assessment, and they consider this in the context of their own business planning, which is in their own best interests. Stakeholders and officials have sat down through the summer and done flowcharts and so on to try to work out how this will best work. Obviously I am listening to what noble Lords are saying today. We have come forward with proposals that we would like to be considered in the context of the consultation that we launched last week. Obviously, I understand—

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

Is it not ironic that in working together with the previous Government to achieve a package that could get through on a tight timescale, to protect the Bill that the Minister was in charge of at the time, we have ended up in a worse position today than we were then? We should have learned that Governments are not to be trusted and gone with our instincts, which were to ensure that all these points were in primary legislation. Does the Minister not feel a scintilla of shame about the way in which we are now being dealt with? This is a real traducing of all our best endeavours and the support that we gave to her over that period. I personally feel very betrayed by it. I also feel betrayed by us not being told—in the spirit of openness that we tried to engender between ourselves in approaching legislation—that this was in the air, because the Minister must have known about it for some considerable time.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, I think that we have been through the arguments. I understand the disappointment. Noble Lords need to understand that the Government are trying to do this in a way that is less bureaucratic and more effective. That is the basis of the consultation. However, I understand the strength of feeling that has been expressed today. We want to get the implementation of the Pubs Code, the adjudicator and the provisions right. We are genuinely consulting on the proposals that we have put forward. There will be a meeting of representatives of tenants’ groups and pub companies as early as next week to discuss the proposals in detail and to take them through our thinking. This subject is on the table, so it can be discussed. I very much hope that by Report we will have satisfied the obviously genuine concerns raised today. In the mean time, I hope that in the light of my comments noble Lords will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Copyright Hub

Debate between Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Monday 2nd November 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, I am well aware of the great work that the British Library does on this. When I visited, I was delighted to discover that more than 50% of the entrepreneurs using it were female. We certainly support having a network across the country for IP for small entrepreneurs, who can look at, buy and register IP around the country.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister has several times expressed the very welcome view that she is on the front foot, leading IP debates and policy in Europe. Does that mean that we can hope to see a British-based EU copyright hub in the very near future?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, we are talking to the EU, but at the moment the EU is interested in how we are leading the way on the Copyright Hub. However, where the noble Lord, who knows so much about intellectual property, is right as usual, is that digital knows no boundaries and therefore having hub arrangements across the EU is an idea whose time will come.

Enterprise Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Monday 2nd November 2015 Grand Committee

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

As I said, the list will be available for consultation. It will be available during the passage of the Bill. I can give that undertaking. We will also consider any requests for removal as part of that consultation. However, it is important, for the careers of employees and the effectiveness of public institutions, that the public sector delivers its fair share of apprenticeship growth. We will give some further thought to my noble friend Lord Hodgson’s point, to see whether we can give any greater clarity, but I can give an assurance that we will be consulting.

To respond to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, which was picked up by the noble Lord, Lord Young, about local authorities, officials in the BIS/DfE apprenticeships unit are in active discussion with the DCLG about the public sector target and its application to local authorities. We will consult on the level of the target and who should be in scope. We cannot speculate on the figure, but to do so just as an indication, we are currently working towards 2% to 3% for consultation, but that will be subject to confirmation.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I am sorry, but 2% to 3% of what?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

Of employees.

To respond to the noble Lord, Lord Young, central government departments will be in scope. We agree strongly that the Civil Service should play its part. Indeed, I have an apprentice in the Bill team. I think that that is leading the way.

I turn to Amendment 49DA, which would remove the power of the Secretary of State to make regulations to set targets for public bodies. I do not think that that is the intention of these probing amendments, but I will say that investing in apprenticeships makes economic sense. In June 2015, research on further education in England indicated that adult apprenticeships at level 2 and level 3 deliver £26 and £28 of economic benefits respectively for each pound of government investment, measured on an NPV basis— the difference between gross benefits and costs. As for the apprentices, to pick up another point, individuals with a level 2 apprenticeship earn on average between £48,000 and £74,000 more over their lifetime than similar individuals with level 1 or 2 qualifications only. Higher apprenticeships could earn £150,000 or more on average over their lifetime, compared with those with equivalent vocational qualifications.

Amendments 49EA, 49EB and 50AB come together. They would extend the scope of Clause 18 to place apprenticeship targets on private sector companies in the UK. They state that the target should be achieved via higher-level apprenticeships. As I have always agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Young, apprenticeships are jobs and depend on employers offering opportunities to young people. Finding the right opportunity is vital for any young person starting out on their chosen career. There will always be competition for the best places, as there is for the best universities. Employers will naturally take the best candidate for the job that they offer. Figures show that, of the 851,000 people participating in apprenticeships in 2013-14, 185,000 were aged under 19.

The positive effects of apprenticeships are clear. They have an economic and social benefit for individuals and society as a whole. The public sector employs fewer apprentices as a proportion of its workforce than the private sector. The Government are therefore keen to place targets on the public sector.

However, we are against red tape and feel we should be careful about imposing new burdens, especially when the desired objective can be achieved in another way. Therefore, 1.3 million private sector organisations that employ people should not suddenly be required overnight to take on apprentices. Instead, via apprenticeship reforms, we are putting employers at the heart of the apprenticeship programme so that they are encouraged and incentivised to employ apprentices. We also judge that it would be administratively impractical for government to monitor whether employers were having “due regard” to the targets and take action where this was not the case. Firms would have to set up a whole compliance system for this, and we believe that their efforts are better used elsewhere.

I shall come to quality on another amendment, but I shall say something about career guidance because I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Young, that it is very important. That is why we have set up the employer-led Careers & Enterprise Company. This area is rightly being actively pursued by DfE, with Ofsted taking a great deal of interest in careers in its inspections. We have discussed before the problem of getting into schools and I will feed back the noble Lord’s observations to my noble friends in the DfE. Like him, I go to schools and, like him, I always mention apprenticeships. As government, we can do a lot, but we can also do a lot individually to help encourage careers in schools.

Noble Lords made a number of observations. We will come on to quality elsewhere. I hope that the readiness to consult and my indications of where we are heading have been helpful and will enable the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

I have to say I agree that having a good vision and a good framework for this important area of policy is essential. Obviously we came back in May—to the surprise of some of us—and we are trying to move forward with a new approach to apprenticeships, which does include a levy because we think that that is a good way of getting funding into this absolutely vital area. Of course I, like everybody who used to be a huge employer in their former lives, recognise the importance of certainty for employers. However, I do not think that we should apologise for trying to improve the framework. We should do that. We should then give the new arrangements a clear run. However, we are at that point in the process where policy is being formed. We are bringing in a levy, which is still the subject of consultation. We are rightly in the Bill trying to move forward on a couple of small and important issues, including this business of the definition of apprenticeships, where I feel that having sanctions, as there are for degrees, will actually help to improve the recognition of this vital employment category.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I thank all noble Lords for contributing to the debate. It has done what we wanted, which was to begin to open up this whole area and to get a sense of where the Government are going, and to try to see through to the vision and the framework, which the noble Baroness mentioned.

I think the slight problem we all have around the Room is that we are not quite sure what the vision actually is because we have not seen some of the detail of it. We have some doubts about whether the framework is going to be sufficient to get the country to the point where we can say that we have a competitive environment similar to Germany and others who have been at this for some time. The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, is quite right to bang on about whether or not large charities doing work for local authorities are going to be included. It will make a huge difference to them. We need to know a bit more about who will be on the list. If the Government are, as we know, changing around the definitions to housing associations so that they are in but they could be petitioned to come out by some other piece of legislation, this is not going to provide the basis of what we are talking about.

I suppose we were being a bit cheeky in trying to delete the first subsection of the first new Section in the clause, but we wanted to draw out from the Minister the rationale behind what we are doing. She says that it makes economic and social sense for bodies to recruit something like 2% to 3% of their workforce, even if they are charities, and that the burden should be on the larger—presumably, the 250 employees threshold will become the standard, as that is the target for small and medium. So it is largely going to be on those that are not SMEs, which is interesting but nevertheless understandable in the circumstances. Where we disagree is that, although it seems to the Government to make economic sense for those bodies to be involved, that does not read across to the productive sectors of the economy, for which there will be challenges and obviously lots of things are still to happen but for which the case is still very strong that there should be some engagement. After all, if the Government are going to levy them for payment of the apprentices that they are going to take on, presumably they are already in contact with them—presumably, they have to write to and communicate with them—so it would not be very difficult to put a target in place in return for the money.

However, a lot of this will come up later. We have had a good start to today’s debates. I am grateful to all concerned. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, we have three amendments in this group. The first follows up what the Minister said in response to the earlier debate. Apprentices are in jobs, and if they are in jobs, they should be paid as if they are in jobs, and if they are making a contribution, that would be a good thing to do, so our suggestion is that that should be paid the living wage. I would be interested to hear the argument against that. It has to be not only a training but a way of living. Anybody who does an apprenticeship will get the training, we hope, that will get them into remunerative employment. We heard the figures about how much it will benefit them over their lifetime, but they have to start somewhere. Starting below the current living wage will not be a great advertisement for these areas.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

Sorry, I had thought that the living wage amendment was in a different group.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

Can we clarify what we are planning to speak about, so that I can answer in due order? I would be extremely grateful.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My only excuse is that, as I explained, I am a bit underbriefed, having been thrown into the spotlight. I am also working from an earlier version. Since the Minister was in a not dissimilar situation in the previous group, perhaps she will bank my comments and reply to them at the appropriate point, if that would be convenient for her. Amendment 49H will come up later.

I want to endorse the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, and, in a previous group of amendments, by my noble friend Lady Corston in relation to quality. There will be a transition to the new scenario sketched out in the Bill and put into force by the Act, but at the moment we are starting from a very low background. There are good areas of activity. We have all heard about Crossrail’s good record on this, and there are other employers who do a lot of good. The Olympics are a gold standard for the aspirations we have in his area. However, these groups make the point that it will be important to try to find a way of bridging between the current system and the new system so that only good-quality apprenticeships that extend learning and training opportunities for the young people taking them will be able to benefit from them.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, for explaining her amendment so clearly and for regaling us with the examples. I agree that the Olympic legacy was amazing in many respects, particularly in relation to apprenticeships and the partnerships in east London that she described. There is a debate on the Olympic legacy on Thursday, and I am sure I will be able to use the noble Baroness’s material to good effect.

My favourite example of good practice is Crossrail. I have been down the tunnel. I do not like racing cars, but I like Crossrail. What Valerie Todd said to the committee was extremely well put. Crossrail is good not only at apprenticeships but at giving contracts to firms outside London and to SMEs, so there are three good things coming together there.

I am also extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for agreeing that I may answer on quality under a later grouping. Groupings moving around makes life difficult for those of us who are trying to shine a light into the proposals we are discussing in this Committee.

Amendments 49E and 50A relate to employment by subcontractors. They allow the employment of apprentices by subcontractors of a public body to be included in targets set for the public body. They also allow a public body to set apprenticeships targets for its subcontractors. There is a broad definition of subcontractor. Clause 18 will improve the capacity and capability of the public sector, ensuring that it benefits from the same positive impacts that apprentices bring to the rest of the economy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, I stand by what my noble friend Lord Courtown put in his letter. I will not delay the Committee by repeating it, although people are very welcome to a copy. Obviously, we understand that ensuring quality is an absolutely key part of our reforms. That is what we are saying. The SFA has an important part to play here. As I have said, Ofsted also has a part to play. We will be bringing in the quality control system that was described.

Although some people were concerned about the changes to apprenticeships, we are changing the system and we will have to make sure that the surrounding infrastructure is appropriate and appropriately resourced —we can certainly discuss that further—but that is why I did not repeat the points my noble friend made about the introduction of registers and quality control over training providers.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I thank noble Lords for contributing to this debate. It has certainly raised a number of issues, which we will probably have to come back to on Report. In the interim, of course, we will look forward to seeing what is now becoming a voluminous correspondence from the Minister. In the previous Parliament, she had to take on the very difficult task of matching the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, who set standards beyond any we had seen before. We look forward to her matching that.

We have given this area a good look. Although we may come back on one or two issues, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, I am grateful for these amendments and for the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, saying that there is much that is good. Actually, it is not only at the top end—the engineering apprenticeships that she described—but some of the retailers and the hospitality companies produce superb apprenticeships, which take some of the poorest and least well educated people in society and allow them to get on and progress in an awesome way.

We have discussed many of the issues underlying Amendment 49J because it talks about quality as well as quantity and, of course, Amendment 52 mentions funding. The Chancellor announced the Government’s intention to introduce the apprenticeship levy in this summer’s Budget—a surprise announcement, I think. It will be used to fund and improve the quality of apprenticeships. We need a reversal, as we have all been saying, in the trend of employer underinvestment in training, which has seen a decline in the amount and quality of training undertaken by employers over 20 years. This was highlighted in the report by the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, published in July this year, which recommended the introduction of a levy to fund the apprenticeship programme.

Past approaches to tackle this decline have relied on voluntarism and a significant government subsidy aimed at encouraging private funding. However time spent by employees in training has continued to decline. The levy is a model that is working successfully in more than 50 countries around the world, which is why we have decided to adopt it here. We will be putting employers directly in control of their apprenticeship training. Employers are currently leading in the development of apprenticeship standards. With the levy, they will be able to decide to which apprenticeship training providers they wish to direct funding.

The Government consulted on the key levy proposals during the summer and we received more than 700 responses. We are currently analysing them and will use what employers and others have told us to try to address concerns and meet employer aspirations for growth and quality. The Chancellor will be announcing further details on the levy as part of the spending review announcement later this month. I believe it is premature to seek to impose a reporting schedule on the impact of the levy. The levy will not be introduced before 2017 and there is further work to be done on the detailed implementation of the policy. At this stage, seeking to impose new reports within a 12-month period would be unlikely to provide robust evidence.

However, I can say today that we will continue to publish comprehensive quarterly data on apprenticeships through the Government’s published statistical first releases, published by the SFA, which include data on learner numbers by age, as well as by region, gender, ethnicity, disability, level and sector. We also publish research into the impact of apprenticeships on employers, including the employers’ survey, which monitors the extent to which apprenticeships are meeting the needs of employers and identifies aspects that are under- performing, with the next survey due in 2016.

When we introduce the apprenticeship levy, we are proposing to put in place a full and structured evaluation programme and publish the results. We expect this to address the points raised by noble Lords in relation to the impact on employer investment, the mix of programmes being delivered and their quality. I ask for patience, as we intend to publish more details on the levy shortly. Amendment 49J also referred to funding for non-apprenticeship schemes; funding for those will also be a matter for the spending review. The noble Lord’s Amendment 52 relates to apprenticeship schemes in England and Wales. While apprenticeships in England are the responsibility of the Secretary of State, apprenticeships in Wales fall within a devolved area of policy.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I hesitate to interrupt, but I want to make sure that I have got my point across correctly. In relation to the non-apprenticeship spending, I was not asking what the Government are spending on that. It was a question of the quantum of spending across the country, which obviously largely is sui generis to every company. The worry is that the impact of the Government taking what is effectively a tax on apprenticeship training may impact badly on that. Although it may be very hard to get since responsibilities are split between BIS and DfE, in the figures that the Minister is talking about, it would be very helpful if there could also be some reporting of the exact quantum at the moment and how that will change over the next few years. I am sure it would be a good thing to do anyway.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

We always like to do post-implementation reviews. We like good evidence and good figures. The point is well made. Where responsibilities are shared between departments, that can sometimes be difficult. I cannot emphasise more strongly that we are trying to create a successful policy, which will require us to see what is happening. Clearly, the past is the past. We have been spending something like £1.5 billion a year on apprenticeships. In the future the system will be different. There will be a levy. I will certainly try to ensure that in our evaluations we find out how things are changing and how effective that has been. We should be learning on the job.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I thank the Minister for her comprehensive response. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, this is an important area; enforcement is always important. The amendments relate to the enforcement of the measure to protect the term “apprenticeship” from misuse. They would require local enterprise partnerships to fulfil that function rather than trading standards. Noble Lords will know the high opinion that I have of trading standards, and I am glad to be able to put it on the record again.

As the apprenticeship brand grows, so does the risk that the term “apprenticeship” could be misused to refer to lower-quality courses. Therefore, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, explained, we intend to follow the precedent for enforcement that applies to unrecognised degrees, which is in the Education Reform Act 1998. Trading standards has a duty to enforce that legislation using its powers in the Consumer Rights Act 2015. That has ensured that UK-based operations with a physical presence are closed down, and there have been a number of prosecutions over the years. Since 2003, there have been successful enforcement cases against more than 18 offending bodies, with the closure of 10 and prosecution of a further three. In practice, although the duty extends to all trading standards teams, to answer the question asked, cases have tended to be concentrated in a couple of areas.

We are exploring whether it would be sensible to assign one trading standards team to act as the lead authority, with the ability to build the enforcement capability and expertise to deal with the challenge. This would be in line with the approach taken for other functions, such as the Illegal Money Lending Team, which is based in Birmingham City Council—another namecheck for that council—and tackles cases across England.

To respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, we judge that trading standards bodies would be more appropriate to enforce the measure than local enterprise partnerships because of trading standards’ specialist enforcement powers, history and experience. Trading standards will be there to carry out enforcement as a backstop, but with the SFA there—to respond to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson—to encourage compliance. As set out in the impact assessment, we anticipate that the number of prosecutions will be very few, because we know from experience of degrees that this can have a totemic effect. We are in active discussions with the Department for Communities and Local Government, the Local Government Association and the Better Regulation Development Office to ensure that the requirements of trading standards in this area are achievable, effective and proportionate. I hope with that explanation of how we plan to take these provisions forward, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I thank the Minister for her very comprehensive response. Given that the Government are consulting and in discussions, would it be possible to get a bit more information before Report, and for the Minister to tell us wherever they have got to on that level? This is a recurring theme: one of the great advantages of starting a Bill in the Lords is that one gets to have first go at it but the bad news is that you do not get all the detail that would make our jobs much easier. With that slight aperçu, I would be grateful to have any more information.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

The noble Lord summarises it very well. We will send an update ahead of Report. I think that noble Lords can see the general direction of travel, and it is fair to press us to try to make up our minds.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

After that gracious acceptance of my proposal, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, I welcome the spirit of these amendments, which intend to improve the functioning of insolvency. I am delighted to be able to confirm that today a number of industry reforms to pre-packs, recommended by Teresa Graham and her review, have been introduced. I am glad to hear support for those changes from my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley. Creditors will inevitably lose some money when a company fails, and this is unavoidable. However, in delivering these voluntary pre-pack reforms, creditor bodies and the insolvency industry have come together in a good way to support the reforms. I agree with my noble friend Lord Hodgson that creditors need confidence that the best deal is obtainable.

Another cause for celebration is that from today a further reform introduces new guidance on marketing to ensure that creditors can be confident that they are receiving the best price for the sale of the insolvent business, but these changes need to be given time to take effect before yet further changes are considered. The Government will undertake a review once these have bedded in.

On small businesses, the redundancy payments scheme provides valuable assistance to employees when their employer enters insolvency. All employees can access the scheme. There has recently been consultation on collective redundancies and the outcomes for employees in an insolvency. The findings will be published in due course.

The existing law on the priority of payments to creditors in an insolvency seeks to ensure that there is a fair distribution of a company’s assets. Any change to give preference to the types of small business set out in the amendment would, of course, have to be at the expense of other creditors. Giving priority to such creditors would have wider consequences, such as increasing the cost of suppliers from other creditors, or higher costs of borrowing for businesses in general. The Government do not consider that an evidence-based and sufficient case has been made for changing the long-established order of priority in that respect.

On Amendment 52ZD, it is obviously important that, if a viable company is unable to pay its debts, it is given an opportunity to continue as a going concern. That is why the insolvency regime already provides for a moratorium. It is important that any extension of the existing moratoria offers appropriate safeguards and protections to creditors. Otherwise, there is a risk that businesses will find financing more difficult.

I am so sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, is not here, because he has made a valuable point with his work on “debtor in possession”, elaborated in a helpful note that he sent me over the summer. I agree that viable businesses should allow sufficient time to develop a rescue plan, and I am therefore very pleased to be able to say today that, while we cannot accept an amendment to this Bill, the Government are already reviewing this area and we will announce our proposals in due course.

I hope that the noble Lord has found my explanations reassuring in this area, and on that basis feels able not to press his amendment.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I cannot really call these probing amendments, because they were not really probing anything—they were really there to stick pins into people to get them to take a bit more interest in this area. But I think that my pins can now be removed. As has been said, the amendments are of interest and, where appropriate, they can be looked at again. I am delighted, and I am sure that my noble friend Lord Mendelsohn will be particularly pleased, that the ideas behind the proposal of a business debtor in possession can be given a bit more thought—and they certainly need it, since they were not meant to be finished in any form.

I was slightly trembling when the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, said that he had a few questions that he wanted me to answer, because I am not the sort of person who can answer them, but I was lucky to have friends in the Room and did not get too far behind.

I thank noble Lords for the debate, which was meant genuinely to add something in the medium term. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Enterprise Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Wednesday 28th October 2015 Grand Committee

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I should declare an interest as my wife is a partner in a firm of solicitors and her expertise is in construction contracts. She does not talk to me about it so I do not know anything at all, but I still thought I should declare it.

This is the third time around the track on this particular topic. The quality of debate has not dipped; indeed, the interesting thing is that more people are now joining in. An emerging theme is now being drawn out, and I think it is a good one. For me, there are two points which have not been picked up, and I would like to reinforce them. First, as the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, was saying, construction is an interesting sector and a very important one for the economy, so we must be very careful about it. The ONS produces figures on the progress of our recovery which always feature an element of construction. It is important at a local level and an everyday level but also in a macroeconomic way, and we should give regard to that.

The second thing is that there is a way that this could be sorted out by the sector itself, and it has not been. The contractual arrangements could be reformed, and the JCT, which has been mentioned, has indeed begun to think through some of these things. There are available options for people who want to make contracts that take advantage of them. But the interesting thing is that that has not happened. Something is going on here and that simple point has been made in some of the briefing we have received. There is “grand theft auto” of the working capital. The unfairness is that while this is a resource that should be of benefit to the contractors who are owed it at the end of whatever contractual period they have signed up for, it is withheld from them. The consequence of course is that it does not feature in their ability to raise finance for ongoing projects later on.

That is an important issue, which makes this practice very pernicious in the way it is applied. The original idea was that you held back the cash in case the constructor did not come back to do any remedial works that might be required. But as my noble friend Lord O’Neill said, this is a story from the past because contracting has got its act together now and is much better. Also, the contractual arrangements are better, so I do not think that it is as much of a danger as it was. My last project, which was a small one, was interesting. When you analysed the retentions money, it explained why senior members of the company kept popping up on our doorstep. The retention represented the directors’ bonus for completing a good project. They were aware of what was going on and they were very keen that we did not retain any money, and we did not. It is a fact that it is woven into the way in which these people operate, and it will be difficult to get out of.

Our amendments suggest that we already know enough about this for the Government to act. The consensus in the Room is that we should think about a review and then act promptly, but certainly set a more ambitious timetable of 2020 rather than 2025. In proposing our amendment, we simply add to the pressure that must now be felt by the department and I hope very much that when we come to hear the Minister, she will be able to respond to that.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, for his Amendment 39 and for Amendment 46. The common ground is that they both call for a review of this practice. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, for his comments both in the Chamber and in the private conversation we had one evening on our way home together.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, there might be merit in further discussion on the finer points of this. The point I wanted to make is that it is important to also look at what we are planning in terms of payment transparency; perhaps we could discuss that outside the Room before Report.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Deben, for intervening in this debate. For his information, the figures I quoted, which were large, were in fact for the whole economy, not just construction: although construction is big, it is not that big. They came from a company called Satago, which provides a service for automated chasing of customers for payment and aims to reduce outstanding invoices. Therefore those figures are reputable and based on trade practice, so not necessarily far out.

I thank the Minister for her helpful intervention. It is true that there is a lot of similarity between what we are saying in this amendment and the proposals under the Prompt Payment Code. Am I right in saying that the code will remain a voluntary obligation on companies, not a statutory one?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

Just to clarify, the payment regulations we are bringing in are statutory requirements to share information on payments. The noble Lord is right that the Prompt Payment Code is voluntary. There are various different points, but the key thing is to look at them in the round, which we can do when we discuss them to make sure that we are capturing things that we feel are necessary.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I was not trying to be antagonistic at all on this—I was simply trying to clarify this point. The Prompt Payment Code has a slightly bad smell about it. The regulations that the Government are bringing forward will presumably be consulted upon, and then in the House we will reach out to a lot of the points that I was making in my submission. I absolutely agree with that, and it is good. However, the noble Baroness can see where we are heading. In a sense it is only a proportion of the companies, albeit the big ones; and it is an additional regulation, when we were suggesting that you can do it within an existing provision. However, the Minister is also right to point out that relying on statutory audit with the delays that come with that and the registration difficulties means that is all a bit late. I accept that.

The Minister’s suggestion of a chat about this is a good idea—let us see if we can work something out. We are not trying to push this particularly hard: it was an idea that came to us, which is already very close to where the Minister is, and I think we can probably leave it. With that in mind, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

There is an excellent report by the Regulatory Policy Committee with which the noble Lord may be familiar. That report gives all the information on the EU figures as well. In the last report EU financial systemic risk measures were a very large element, £1.6 billion in that particular time period. I think we were saying that the target that we have chosen to set and have put in legislation should reflect what we can control. The noble Lord is right that we should be transparent, and we have sought to be transparent through the work of the RPC, which can hold us to account.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, that is the point: £1.6 billion is excluded from the Government’s target because it relates to an area that they choose not to report on. It is up to the RPC to give us the full picture, and it is good that it does. I am saying as gently as possible that I think transparency might be the buzzword of the day, but it is not going to get us there if the Government do not accept that it would be better in the long run if the full burdens of regulation were calculated in a certain way. We will come on later to amendments about how we might do that. If they set out their targets in terms of that full load and then reported on them, I think we would be better off. That is for another day, though, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My noble friend, as always, makes a good point. We will certainly look at what is already happening. I suppose the idea is that if you can, ex-post, gather the information together and see what progress you are making in terms of reducing burdens, that could be helpful in itself. If in fact the figure already exists, which may be the implication of what my noble friend was saying, the task is not that difficult. I am grateful for that intervention.

Briefly, the actual retrospective effect of the provisions of the Bill does not have the consequences that noble Lords are concerned about. The provisions can have no impact on the status or effect of the regulatory policy changes made by regulators prior to the Bill being passed. The limit element of retrospection is appropriate and justified because it is about measuring delivery against the Government’s targets. The targets are set for the life of a Parliament, so if there were no limited retrospection, one would not be able to count any reductions in red tape that took place between the beginning of the Parliament and the writing of the report by the regulators concerned. We were trying in the drafting to tackle that gap.

I have also arranged a meeting with the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, who is chair of the EHRC, in early November and I will report back to the House on the outcome of that meeting on Report. I hope that what I have said on this important issue helps to reassure noble Lords that the proposed amendments are not required. In any event, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I thank the Minister for that full and comprehensive response, but I am afraid the answer to her question is that, no, it does not reassure us. I accept the assurances that she has given that the growth duty and the small business champion role do not apply to the EHRC. They are welcome and we would want that.

I hope that the Minister bears in mind that while on the one hand we would love to see her go down in history as the Minister who abolished retentions, we do not want to see her go down as the one who scuppered the country’s grade A-listed champion of human rights. I am sure she will realise that if it gets to that point, we will have to have a serious conversation. I take the points about retrospection. The intention was—if one might call it this—gold-plating on the part of the EHRC to make sure that it could not be caught at some future date, so her reassurance is helpful on that. But the fact still remains that if the EHRC feels that its international status is jeopardised by this, I do not think that the Government have much wiggle room on this matter. I hope that we return to that point on Report. However, let us continue to talk about that until then. I am sure that the contribution from the chair of the commission will be helpful. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, this group of amendments focuses on strengthening the work and role of the Regulatory Policy Committee. As the Minister has already said, it is good to find an independent body able to look widely across the regulatory field and make recommendations without fear or favour, and we value its work. However, it is a little hampered by the fact that it is not currently able to report except in terms of where the Government set their objectives. I have already criticised that and we should put that aside for the moment and say, well, those are the objectives. But we should also reflect, if we can, on where we might go on that.

The point has been made, better than I could possibly make it, in a quotation that I would like to read:

“if you have the privilege of being in government, you should try and think about the long term and not just today. And in the long term, I think the country would be better off if we thought about wellbeing and quality of life as well as economic growth”.

That was the Prime Minister. That sentiment is picked up by work that has been done in a number of think tanks, notably the Legatum Institute. The noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell, has picked up the idea of thinking more widely about where Governments should be aiming in what they do about the impact of their legislative and regulatory programmes.

There are two minor points in this group that I also want to pick up. First, as I understand it, the Treasury has now changed its view about how impact assessments are owned and operated through Whitehall by asking for a business-critical model to be introduced for many impact statements, where there is a senior responsible owner quoted as a named individual of sufficient seniority to take responsibility for the model throughout its lifecycle and to sign it off as fit for purpose prior to use. Is that now common practice across Whitehall or is this a work in progress? If the latter, will the out-turn be something that we can look forward to in terms of improving the quality of impact statements? I think the reason for this is the west coast main line franchise fracas. I need not say much more about that, since it was quite clear that there was not sufficient seniority in the department to take responsibility for what went wrong there.

My point here is that if we are seeing changes in some of the infrastructure activity in preparing for legislation and regulation, this would be an opportunity to have that on the table so that we could make judgments about it. I beg to move.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their amendments. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for quoting the Prime Minister—perhaps a signal of the constructive and harmonious nature of our debates in this Committee in the Moses Room. Amendment 48D would remove the responsibility for choosing and publishing the methodology for assessing economic impact under the business impact target from the Secretary of State, as I understand it, to the independent verification body.

We see the target, scope and methodology as a single package. They need to work together and be set together. It is unrealistic to expect that the Government should set a target having no idea about how the impacts will be measured against it—that sort of delegates responsibility. So there is a fundamental problem there. The purpose behind setting targets of this nature is to deliver the right incentive, change behaviour within government and improve the way we regulate to achieve the better regulation vision that has been expostulated today.

To my mind, it is right that this remains a matter for Ministers. We have to be accountable to Parliament and to the people at elections. Amending the role of the verification body would place an unusual amount of power in one unelected body and remove the flexibility for future Administrations to determine the methodology appropriate for assessing business impact in their particular circumstances. Of course we are consulting the Regulatory Policy Committee about the methodology for this Parliament, and we will continue to work with it to resolve questions of interpretation that inevitably arise.

Amendment 48EA seeks to stipulate that the target must comprise both a number of regulations and the monetary value. It is right for the Government of the day to decide methodology, and of course we have indicated our broad direction with our manifesto commitment of £10 billion of deregulatory savings. The change would limit options for future Administrations. I myself think that the number of regulations is less important than their economic value, but we could debate that. The point is that we would like to leave this broad and have discretion for the Government of the day.

Amendment 48E relates to the annual report on the Government’s performance against the target and would require the Secretary of State to publish additional information in respect of regulatory provisions which do not fall within scope. Transparency about such measures is important, and I can give some reassurances. Measures which do not score for the business impact target still receive proportionate appraisal and independent scrutiny under administrative requirements which will continue in this Parliament. That means that significant measures are required to have an impact assessment, even where they are excluded, as I think we discussed in respect of the EU financial measures.

Other than for regulatory measures with very small impacts, the relevant impact assessment is subject to independent scrutiny by the RPC. Impact assessments must be published at the final stage alongside the legislation to which they relate. This transparency is incredibly important. I have already said that I think the RPC is the biggest reform of administrative procedure in Whitehall since I last worked in government, and I am very pleased to see the teeth that it has. It seems to me to be proportionate and to avoid duplication. This approach does not detract from established principles. I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Curry, here, because he has been very involved in making sure that this regulatory system works correctly and that it is independent.

There are some technical issues with the drafting of Amendment 48EB. The RPC does not have a separate legal existence, but I can address the intent behind the amendment. The RPC is an enduring cornerstone of the regulatory framework, and the Government focused the verification functions on those that it was absolutely necessary to set out in statute. If there are further comments on the detail of this, I will be very happy to discuss them, but I will just respond to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, about the senior responsible owner of impact assessments. As he says, he has great intelligence networks. The Treasury is looking to strengthen government project management, including business cases. We are not sure that this will affect impact assessments as such, but I am certainly happy to update him on what is involved here. As he implies, it is potentially another important administrative innovation.

These amendments are to some extent probing but are also about trying to constrain the operation of the system. As I have said, some degree of operational flexibility is needed for the Government of the day. When we put proposals forward in the last Parliament, we put them forward with that in mind, and I would be reluctant to go down a different road.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I thank the noble Baroness for that very full response. These were of course probing amendments, but she might like to note for future reference that we struggled hard with the clerks to expand the range of things that we wanted to talk about. It was a fight of great intensity, which we lost on two areas that I thought we would be able to include. We could not put into Amendment 48EA a third point which would require the evaluation of the impact of all regulatory measures on well-being, because they said that that was not about enterprise, for some reason, and did not fall into the long title of the Bill. We also wanted to probe the question of whether or not the RPC would be able to follow up its idea that impact assessments should not just be generated sui generis within a department but should be exposed to external review as well, which would have given another cornerstone to the way in which impacts are measured and assessed and would help the law-making process. But these are much bigger and broader issues and cover more of a constitutional than a legislative area. They are matters to be discussed when we have that drink. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Enterprise Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Monday 26th October 2015 Grand Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, for opening the debate with his amendments. He is always a great charmer, but the power of argument matters too. I particularly thank him for his kind words to my officials—it is a bit like being photographed alongside the Minister in the media: they have to buy a round of cakes for the office—but I thank him in any event because, as he said, they are giving us a lot of support right across the board.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, with whom I spent hours on the small business Bill looking at some of the issues that I think we will probably visit over our next four sittings. I will come back to the public sector on later amendments, in the interests of time.

The Small Business Commissioner will be a valuable source of advice, information and support for small business, and, if I may say so, I think that we are all agreed that it is vital to find a person of talent and good judgment to carry out this very important role. We are very serious about tackling late payment, as noble Lords know. We are doing that not only in the provisions of the Bill but with a number of other provisions which we ran through on Second Reading.

As I said then, my view is that the commissioner does not need to be able to address any and every problem in order to be effective. Indeed, I believe that focus is an important ingredient in success. A commissioner who has a focused remit and great personal authority and credibility will have a significant impact on culture and practice—as we have seen in Australia, where the Small Business Commissioner’s role has been focused on priority issues in the Australian circumstances. This first group of amendments addresses the independence of the commissioner from the Government. Obviously, I understand noble Lords’ concern that the commissioner should be able to act independently. That is our intention, just as it is important that the commissioner must act independently of business.

Under the Bill as drafted, the commissioner will be required to act impartially in deciding complaints and when providing general advice and information, and the very fact of being set up by Parliament lends the office permanence and authority. Amendments 1 and 3 seek to remove the power of the Secretary of State to appoint and dismiss the commissioner and to give this power instead to Her Majesty. The fact that the Secretary of State will appoint the commissioner will not compromise the independence of the office. This will be a public appointment subject to all the usual public appointment rules and procedures.

As noble Lords will be aware, a great many appointments in public life are made in this way. The Commissioner for Public Appointments is the guardian of the process and ensures that the best people get appointed to public bodies free of personal and political patronage. The OCPA code of practice requires those making public appointments to comply with three principles: merit, fairness and openness. It is designed to provide Ministers with a choice of high-quality candidates, drawn from a strong and diverse field.

It is normal practice for public appointments to be capable of termination by the Secretary of State if he is satisfied that the person is unable, unwilling or unfit to perform his or her functions. The wording is carefully chosen and he or she cannot dismiss the commissioner at will. These grounds for dismissal reflect the approach that Parliament has been content to approve for the Groceries Code Adjudicator and the Pubs Code Adjudicator.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, that we need to find someone excellent for the job but the power in Clause 11 for the Secretary of State to abolish the office of Small Business Commissioner is not one that could be used as lightly as the noble Lord suggests. The Secretary of State could abolish the commissioner only following a review, and only if he is satisfied that either there is no longer a need for a commissioner or that the commissioner’s role has not been fully effective. Any regulations to abolish the office of commissioner would be subject to affirmative resolution.

If the role of commissioner is no longer required—either because sufficient improvements have been made in the issues the office is being set up to address or because it has proven ineffective in tackling them—it is right that there should be a clear and efficient process in place to abolish it, as my noble friend Lord Eccles said at Second Reading. To respond to the noble Lord’s challenge, I think it is a very attractive public job, which, if circumstances were very different, I might even be thinking about myself.

I am aware that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has published recommendations in relation to this clause, and I confirm that we are considering those recommendations closely and will bring forward amendments where necessary.

Amendments 4 and 5 would remove the ability of the Secretary of State to provide staff to the commissioner and would enable the commissioner to recruit his or her own staff.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, will the Minister clarify what she said about the Delegated Powers Committee report? She said that the Government were considering it and would be bringing forward amendments. That is still not yet decided, is that right? The Government are still considering that position so we will not necessarily see the amendments as recommended.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

The noble Lord will be aware that the committee produced its report at the end of last week. When I found out about it, I felt it would be right to refer to it. Of course, we always take very seriously the excellent work of the Delegated Powers Committee. I am not in a position today to say where we are on that but I wanted to make sure that noble Lords were aware of it because it seems relevant to our discussions.

As I said, Amendments 4 and 5 would remove the ability of the Secretary of State to provide staff to the commissioner and would enable the commissioner to recruit his or her own staff. Again, I can see that it may appear attractive to do this but it is not necessary. The commissioner will be staffed by civil servants. They owe no political loyalty to the Secretary of State and are obliged to do their work impartially and objectively. Such staff will work to the commissioner and under his or her direction.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord and will now respond to Amendments 11, 12 and 34, which, between them, would amend and extend the commissioner’s functions. As I have already set out, the Government consider their proposals for the commissioner’s functions proportionate in addressing the payment issues facing small businesses, especially when combined with the new reporting requirements. They balance the disincentives to encourage larger businesses to behave reasonably towards smaller suppliers with support for smaller businesses so that they become more savvy contractors—taking the heat out of difficult issues, as the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, said.

The proposals have been arrived at following consultation over the summer which—partly to my surprise—showed a need for better navigation of dispute resolution services rather than direct provision. Responses to the consultation and subsequent stakeholder engagement showed broad support for the Government’s approach to meeting these needs.

Amendment 11 would amend Clause 3, which relates to the provision of general advice and information. The Government intend the Small Business Commissioner to help build the confidence and capabilities of small businesses in managing their commercial dealings—for example, enabling them to assert themselves in contractual disputes and negotiate more effectively.

Under Clause 3, the commissioner may publish, or give to small businesses, general advice or information that would be helpful for them in dealings as a supplier or customer, and in encouraging them to resolve or avoid disputes—for example, information about agreeing contracts, supply chain dealings and options for resolving disputes. It also allows that general advice and information to be provided in different ways. It might be provided by the commissioner or his or her staff, or via others—for example, via a government department or a representative or professional body—but in all instances the commissioner has a key role in determining what advice or information is delivered, including approving content, which we intend will be delivered primarily via a web portal.

Clause 3(8) enables the commissioner to make recommendations to the Secretary of State about the provision of general advice and information to small businesses by the Secretary of State, and subsection (9) requires the Secretary of State to inform the commissioner of what, if anything, is to be done in response to the recommendation. I am not sure that we have discussed that before.

I do not believe that Amendment 11 is needed. The power in subsection (8) to which the noble Lord’s amendment applies is additional to the commissioner’s own powers to make that information available to small businesses, which are set out separately in Clause 3(1).

Turning to Amendment 12, I know that the noble Lord is concerned about the inability of the commissioner to directly provide dispute resolution services, such as mediation, and is calling on us to extend his role. This was one of the questions on which we consulted. Indeed, as noble Lords will be aware, initially we were thinking of creating a small business conciliation service. But our consultation and our engagement with stakeholders over the summer showed that there was little appetite for government to step into the dispute resolution market. There was broad and clear agreement among business stakeholders that the problem is not a lack of dispute resolution services. There are plenty of avenues for business to mediate or resolve a dispute outside of court action. There are various regulators and ombudsmen, including for example, those that cover utilities. There are numerous adjudicator schemes, including public sector schemes that I talked about earlier, and there is a large private sector, complete with relevant professional bodies, such as the Civil Mediation Council and the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators doing good work.

Instead stakeholders, including the Federation of Small Businesses, the CBI and IPSE, which importantly represent freelancers and the self-employed, have told us that there are gaps in the information available and that small businesses need support to navigate it more easily. The Small Business Commissioner will fill this gap.

Amendment 34 would provide the commissioner with the power to facilitate group litigation or representative action by small businesses with similar complaints. The commissioner will work to raise awareness among small businesses of alternative dispute procedures and where they can seek support when they have issues or disputes with other businesses—spreading the word. The aim is to encourage a change in how businesses deal with each other—a long-lasting culture change to promote fair treatment for all, especially in relation to payment practices. The commissioner will advise small businesses about their rights and options which in some circumstances could include litigation. However, it is essential that the commissioner is impartial. The impartiality of the commissioner is where we came in today, and it has to apply when he or she is dealing with complaints. He or she must be perceived by business to act impartially in any dispute that he or she deals with. It would therefore be inappropriate for him or her to take a more direct role in facilitating group litigation or representative action.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I am slightly anticipating what the Minister may go on to say, but it is an interesting point. I do not think that in considering this issue we were trying to argue that in any sense the Small Business Commissioner would have to take sides if, in the process of their activity, they noticed that similar cases were appearing in many parts of the country. One of the problems we hear from small businesses is that they feel isolated and unaware of what is happening elsewhere. It would be simply acting as an information exchange point and gatherer of similar cases and a playback to those industries that they are not alone and that this company or group is in fact acting either irresponsibly or aggressively towards a small or even large number of companies across the country. It does not imply one side or the other; it implies working for small businesses against the difficulties they have. Does the Minister accept that?

EU: Digital Single Market

Debate between Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Tuesday 20th October 2015 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)]

My Lords, the digital single market is a stated priority of the Juncker Commission, which the Government welcome. Achieving our objectives on digital could add up to 2% to UK GDP. We have made some progress with agreements to end data roaming charges and new protections for travellers who book online. We are pressing for ambitious proposals on copyright and consumer protection.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

Like the noble Baroness, we want to see a digital single market in Europe which works for both businesses and citizens. However, does she accept that the current system of financing independent films and television, with all that they bring in cultural richness and linguistic diversity, depends crucially on the ability to pre-sell and license individual territories within Europe on an exclusive basis? So can she confirm that she agrees with her colleague, the Secretary of State for DCMS, who has indicated his support for the continuation of territorial licensing, and ensure that this position is communicated robustly to the European Commission?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, I entirely share the noble Lord’s concern about territorial licensing. Reforms will need to be very carefully assessed to ensure that they do not undermine incentives to invest in the production of content, particularly by our European and British creative industries that contributed £77 billion to UK GVA in 2013.

Redcar Steelworks

Debate between Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Tuesday 13th October 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, the closure of this site is a catastrophe for the local economy and for the local community on Teesside: 170 years of steelmaking were snuffed out yesterday. The Government are overseeing the loss of a national industrial asset while showing no willingness, as far as we can see, to step in and try to rescue it.

Steel produced in that area is surely part of an industrial strategy. One would expect any Government concerned about the future of the economy in this country to think more closely about our automotive, aerospace and construction industry needs and the relationship they have with steel.

Did the Government explore options for mothballing this site over a longer period to save the assets? Will the Minister confirm how much it will cost the taxpayer to clean up the site? As she mentioned, there are several concerns there about toxicity. Will she reflect on the fact that we are currently engaged on the Enterprise Bill, and in that Bill there may be an opportunity to look again at the question of Chapter 11 solutions when industries of national strategic importance get into trouble?

It seems to me that the Government are washing their hands of this and standing back when they should be taking a direct interest.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his many questions, and for his reference to the Enterprise Bill, on which we had a good debate yesterday. As I explained at the end of proceedings then, it has been difficult. The underlying problem is that the SSI operation has never made a profit. The scale of decline in steel around the world is enormous. The world is oversupplied, with overproduction at 30%. This figure appalled me. There are 200 million tonnes of excess tonnage in China, and EU production is 169 million tonnes. We have an enormous challenge.

The right thing is to look forward. That is why we have established a steel summit on Friday in Rotherham, which obviously goes wider than Redcar. The Secretary of State will be chairing it and Anna Soubry will be there, along with all the key outside players, including, obviously, steelmakers such as Tata and Celsa, the trade unions and experts, including Oxford Economics, who are able to look objectively at the global position and look forward to see what can be done.

Chapter 11 has its advantages in some other climes. I think we have debated this before. We find that the insolvency tends to end up being less efficient, particularly in the sort of circumstance we have here, where you have a big global problem. You have to look forward to different opportunities for an area.

Enterprise Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Monday 12th October 2015 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)]

My Lords, we have had an interesting debate on the measures contained in the Enterprise Bill. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for his comprehensive summary, and to my noble friend Lord Cope for his analogy with the herbaceous border. In an autumn when gardens have been flourishing, I hope that the sun will shine on this Bill, on our small businesses and on our plans for apprenticeships.

I am grateful for what seems to be virtually unanimous support for this Bill from the various business groups and this House; not necessarily for every detail, but I look forward to a constructive debate in Grand Committee.

Enterprise has been part of the British DNA since Elizabethan times—possibly before—and this Bill will provide a new range of opportunities. It is pro-market, pro-competition, pro-innovation and pro-investment in people and technology, and not pro-vested interests, as my noble friend, small business ambassador and judge on “The Apprentice”, Lady Brady said. My noble friend Lord Sheikh made similar points based on his own business experience.

I am pleased to note that a number of my noble colleagues, including my noble friends Lady Harding, Lady Wheatcroft and Lord Patten, and the noble Lord, Lord Curry, have expressed their support for the Small Business Commissioner. The Government are committed to helping small businesses, which unlike larger businesses do not always have the resource or expertise to fight their corner. By establishing a Small Business Commissioner we want to drive a cultural change to address late payment.

The noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, argued that the Small Business Commissioner should have a wider remit, referring to its Australian counterpart. The Small Business Commissioner is inspired by, but not the same as, the Australian Small Business Commissioner. That is deliberate. We want to adapt the Australian experience to our own circumstances. Here, the commissioner will focus on the key issue of late payment, which is of real concern to small businesses in the UK. I should advise my noble friend Lord Eccles that the definition of “small business” in Clause 2 is, in substance, consistent with the EU definition and that which we discussed during the passage of the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act.

I recently met the Australian Small Business Commissioner, Mark Brennan, to learn from his success. I concluded that finding a very good candidate for this job will be extremely important, as has been said. He told me that, in the last two years, he has had to use his power to name and shame an organisation only once. He is able to resolve most complaints informally and the threat of reputational damage encourages firms to work constructively with him.

Our consultation showed that the commissioner should not provide mediation directly. The real issue is awareness of mediation and of other forms of dispute resolution, which the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, mentioned. We do not believe that yet more legislation, as he suggested, is needed, beyond the proposals that I outlined in my opening speech. What is needed is a change in culture. That means good, early decisions by the Small Business Commissioner.

The commissioner will seek to improve, rather than undermine, our business environment. He or she will complement existing dispute resolution services and lead a culture change in how businesses resolve and ultimately avoid commercial disputes, particularly around payment issues. It was good to hear of the positive experience that some had had of the Groceries Code Adjudicator.

Previous consultations showed that additional penalties would not solve the problem of late payment—that is what was felt—but stakeholders have demonstrated strong support for increased transparency. So we are also implementing a new reporting requirement. Our intention is for the Small Business Commissioner to be the custodian of the new reporting requirement. We will bring together this package of measures to drive a real change on the ground.

The public sector, a concern of the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, is an area where we have been busy trying to lead in our own backyard. The Government have restated their long-standing commitment to pay 80% of invoices in five days and are required to report quarterly against this performance target. Where public sector invoices are not paid within 30 days and are not disputed, interest becomes payable. There are new reporting requirements for public sector contracting authorities over the next two years. The Government set out in their manifesto a commitment to strengthen the prompt payment code and ensure that all major government suppliers sign up to it. Sixteen of the 33 major suppliers to government have already signed up.

It is not just legislation which imposes costs on business; the actions of regulators do so as well. That is why we are extending the business impact target to regulators and introducing new annual reporting requirements for them. I welcome the support of the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, for the principle of including regulators in the target and note his scepticism about the savings made under “one in, two out” in the last Parliament. The policies of the previous Administration saved businesses £2.2 billion a year, a £10 billion cumulative net saving over the course of the last Parliament. As the noble Lord, Lord Curry, said, these figures are validated by the independent Regulatory Policy Committee, whose strength is its independence. It is probably the best innovation in public administration that I found when I returned to government, and I would like to see one in Brussels. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Lindsay for bringing his experience in the regulatory world to our debate today. The business impact target will cover the economic impact of new regulatory activity on business, including voluntary and community bodies—which I think answers my noble friend’s question—but it cannot apply to the public sector.

I stress that this Government are committed to matching that saving: another £10 billion of savings over the course of the Parliament. To help achieve this, we have just launched our first five reviews, in the energy, waste, agriculture, care and mineral extraction sectors. I welcome the support of the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, for the growth duty. I want to clarify that this will not override or cut across regulators’ existing obligations but will sit alongside and complement them.

The noble Lord and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, expressed concerns about the inclusion of the Equality and Human Rights Commission within the scope of the target. I assure noble Lords that the intention is to require regulators to measure and to report on the economic impact on business of the regulatory changes they make. We are certainly not seeking to fetter the independence of regulators, nor will we do so. While I understand the concern to protect the EHRC’s accreditation as a national human rights institution, I do not believe that being in scope of the target puts that accreditation at risk. I look forward to a meeting with the commission in November and I hope that it will agree that this is different.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

This is of such importance to the EHRC, but it is exactly the same argument as we had over the small business Bill. By implying any relationship to the governing authority, the list A status is jeopardised. If that turns out to be the case, does the Minister agree that it would be appropriate to put this on the front page of the Act?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

I thank the noble Lord for his comment. As I have said, we will discuss this matter further. We will consult on the bodies that should be included, but I have stated the reasons why I see things differently in this case.

The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, asked whether the FCA would be in scope, and my noble friend Lord Leigh asked about the Financial Ombudsman Service. I intend to issue a Written Ministerial Statement before Committee in this House which will list the regulators that the Government currently intend to bring within the scope of the target. The necessary secondary legislation will also be subject to the affirmative procedure. I agree with the noble Earl on his point about historic gold-plating and would be delighted to find some rich pickings from 2005, as our ambitions are high. I would welcome any examples.

My noble friend Lord Flight talked about late payment of insurance, which I am sure we will return to in Committee, but Law Commission research suggests that late payment could occur in up to 10% of cases, which is not insignificant. Where late payment occurs, its impact on businesses can be devastating.

I am pleased to say that we all agree on the important role that apprenticeships play. I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Baker of Dorking for sharing his compelling experience and to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London for sharing his experiences of apprenticeships in historic buildings—I speak as a Culture Minister and a lover of cathedrals. I especially liked his notion of the dignity of the makers, which I am sure we will return to.

On uptake, we are developing a comprehensive plan for growth including more work with large employers, more support for small business and a renewed emphasis on communications. On quality, I agree that it is crucial to improve the quality of apprenticeships. That is why we are pursuing reforms to content, assessment and funding. I also completely agree that higher levels of apprenticeships are important for both young people and employers. I look forward to the debate on apprenticeships in Committee and to talking about the various educational pathways that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, described, in different places.

On the question of the public sector target, we want the public sector to act as a model employer and lead by example by employing a significant proportion of apprentices. A number of noble Lords asked about the scope of the public sector duty. We will be consulting, but our current thinking is that public bodies with a workforce in England of more than 250 employees will be subject to the duty. This would be likely to include most local authorities, of course, and other organisations that are classified as public bodies. We do not believe that it is necessary to set targets for the private sector, but we are taking steps to promote apprenticeships and put employers at the heart of designing new apprenticeship standards, and of course the new levy. I also agree about the value of the growing number of university technical colleges, and as my noble friend Lady Harding said, in partnerships between employers and universities in offering sandwich courses and in work experience. These other areas are also very important.

The noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, suggested that we do more to increase the number of apprenticeships generated in businesses through public sector procurement. I am happy to say that all bids for government contracts worth more than £10 million and lasting more than 12 months must demonstrate a clear commitment to apprenticeships. Many public bodies in central and local government already build skill considerations into their procurement on a voluntary basis. We certainly want to see more. Heathrow, as the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, said, and Crossrail have both played important roles in promoting apprenticeships, as have many others.

The noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, raised concerns about trading standards enforcing the measure to protect the term “apprenticeships” from misuse. We are in active discussion with the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Local Government Association about this issue to make sure that it works. As regards the level of business rates in the UK, a topic mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, it is important to note that looking at one tax in isolation presents a skewed picture. We are cutting corporation tax further to 19% in 2017 and 18.5% in 2020, benefiting more than 1 million businesses, and the Chancellor has announced £1.4 billion-worth of support for business rates for the year 2015-16.

My noble friend Lord Cope asked whether the information shared by the VOA with local authorities would go beyond that already on the VOA website. The answer is yes. The information will include detailed information such as plans. I am seeing the VOA shortly and will explore some of the points raised in today’s debate.

I reassure the noble Lords, Lord Stoneham of Droxford and Lord O’Neill, and the noble Baroness Lady Donaghy, that the Government greatly value public sector workers and the important services that they deliver. We agree that it is essential that the public sector recruits, retains and motivates the highest-quality staff. The Government also recognise that exit payments are a valuable tool for employers, particularly when restructuring and modernising, as has been said. However, exit payments have cost around £2 billion a year in recent years and it is important these payments are fair and proportionate and provide value for money for the taxpayer. I assure the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, that individuals will continue to receive their index-linked pension in full from their normal pension age. These reforms are not an attack on retirement benefits. They are a sensible curb on six-figure redundancy payments.

I also reassure my noble friend Lord Borwick that employers cannot get around the 28-day limit by staggering payments. The 28-day limit applies to the date that a person leaves public sector employment, no matter when they are paid.

The Industrial Development Act 1982 is over 30 years old and this Bill updates it to reflect current economic realities such as the need to be able to fund broadband infrastructure. I do not have time to go into the details that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, asked for, but I would like to reply to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, on superfast broadband. Superfast broadband is available to over 83% of homes and businesses in the UK, up from 45% in 2010. Broadband deployment is progressing at pace, with the Government’s programme making available an additional 5,000 premises a day. We remain on track to provide 90% superfast coverage by early 2016 and we are aiming for 95% of UK premises to have access to superfast speeds by December 2017.

The noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, raised the issue of cash retention in the construction industry. There are problems with the system, but this is a deeply embedded feature of the industry and we must act on the basis of evidence. This is why we will commission analysis on the costs and benefits of such practices to inform future action. I am sure that we will return to this subject.

On Sunday trading, the Government are currently considering the responses to the consultation and will publish our own response in due course. The consultation was signed by both the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, and the Minister of State for Housing and Planning. The Government consulted on devolving powers to local areas—for example, to metro mayors through devolution deals, and devolving powers to local authorities more generally across England and Wales.

Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, raised the important topic of SSI in Redcar. The Government are absolutely committed to helping the workforce and local economy. That is why we have announced a package of £80 million, which will include support for workers to retrain and help for local firms to grow and create jobs.

The Government are committed to supporting small businesses and have a much better track record than the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, gives us credit for. There are 760,000 more businesses now than in 2010. Many measures exist to help small firms grow and innovate, such as the enterprise investment scheme, through which small businesses raised £1.46 billion in 2013-14. Micro-businesses and start-ups remain exempt from new regulations. The British Business Bank schemes currently support £2.4 billion of finance to more than 40,000 smaller businesses. Through the bank we aim to facilitate up to £10 billion of finance to business by 2019.

In the last 18 months alone, UK Export Finance products aimed at smaller exporters have helped to secure nearly £1.7 billion of export orders. That replies to the final point of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson.

I thank noble Lords for their contributions today, and look forward to further debate and scrutiny when the Bill comes to Committee. The Enterprise Bill will support small firms. It will make life easier for businesses by furthering our deregulation agenda, and by investing in apprenticeships. We believe that it will help to cement the UK’s position as the best place in Europe to start and grow a business. I commend it to the House.

BBC: Charter 2017

Debate between Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Thursday 17th September 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, there are a number of questions there. I make the general point that the BBC is funded with public money, paid through the licence fee, and that we should expect it to observe the same efficiencies as others in the public sector. Local news is very important. We welcome the proposals that the BBC has put forward, but we are looking at the potential effect on competitors; I think that that is what the noble Baroness is referring to. We need to find the right balance in this area so that strong, creative content and excellent news continue to be produced.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

During the debate last week led by my noble friend Lady Bakewell, the Minister was at pains to stress that the BBC charter review was focused on the people. Indeed, the hashtag “yourBBC” has been applied to the charter documents for those who are trendily following it. As the Minister said, the Government announced yesterday that David Clementi would be leading the independent review. How, precisely, does that square with the idea that the people should lead, given that the consultation does not finish until 8 October? Can she tell the House whether the independent review and its evidence will be published, and confirm that it will be debated in the House?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

As I see it, all these various pieces of work fit in and feed in to the charter review. The consultation is important and, as noble Lords know, we are making good progress with it. But we saw a need to have some new, independent advice on governance and regulation, which is why Sir David has been appointed, and his review will indeed be published.

Football: Disabled Spectators

Debate between Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Tuesday 15th September 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, as always, my noble friend is full of ideas, and I will certainly have a think about that. I am always careful about being regulatory; people who know me know that. I feel that we are making progress under the existing legislation but I thank my noble friend for her comment, and of course we should also celebrate Wolverhampton Wanderers.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, the whole House will want to join in congratulating the Government and the Premier League on the work that they are doing on this. I am sure that the movement which has been observed is due largely to the pressure on these issues that has come from this House. In the papers which the Minister referred to, and more generally, disability is often taken to be physical disability, but there is a large number of people who enjoy sport who are ambulant physically disabled people—a group which is often overlooked. Will she reassure us that this group, the blind and the deaf particularly, will be looked at too?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

The noble Lord is right to remind us that disabilities raise different issues. Of course, the duties apply in the round. The disability access officer who is to be appointed by the Premier League clubs will look at the matter on a whole-club basis. Sharing best practice on hearing loops and access for the blind will be extremely important. I know that some totemic events, such as the Olympics, had very good facilities.

Rugby World Cup 2015

Debate between Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Thursday 10th September 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I am sure the noble Baroness made a mistake when she simply referred to supporting England in those matches. The Scots among us, the Welsh and even the Irish will also want her congratulations; I am sure that she will want to give them.

Also, do the excellent plans that the RFU has for those legacy activities extend to women players? The participation figures for young women in rugby are still very poor and they need to be supported.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

Of course, I wish Scotland, Wales and Ireland very well as well. When Scotland do extremely well, I will think of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, with his fashionable new beard. As noble Lords can imagine, I feel some passion on the subject of women in rugby, as of course does the Minister for Sport, who herself plays football. England women won the 2014 World Cup, and the RFU’s women and girls strategy, launched in September 2014, has built on that. Participation is up by a third, demonstrating a track record of success. Of course there is more to be done, but the RFU is focused on that and it is part of their excellent lead-up and legacy plan.

Consumer Rights Act 2015 (Consequential Amendments) Order 2015

Debate between Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Monday 7th September 2015 Grand Committee

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

To continue that point, it would be helpful to know how this is to be shaped and organised. I agree that there is a lot of expertise out there but it has not always been brought in. It would be useful if we could be reassured that the range of representation on the expert group will be sufficient to make sure that all the points are picked up.

I am grateful to the Minister for what she has said about the CMA. It is perfectly appropriate for it to carry on its work independently. However, it is the lack of transparency about where it is in the game that causes us the most concern. We were completely unaware that negotiations were taking place between the CMA, or its predecessor body—probably the OFT—and the secondary ticket market. That meant that everything we thought we were hearing needed to be refocused because it was untrammelled by other people’s considerations. The point that I was trying to make was, without in any sense trespassing on the independence of the CMA, it would have been helpful to know whether a programme of work was going on at the same time. The fact that the CMA will be an adviser to the expert group, which presumably will report to the Secretary of State, will make matters a lot easier. I suspect that that is where the matter should lie but I should like confirmation from the Minister.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

I am grateful for those helpful interventions. We are nearly there. I will reflect on the point about lack of transparency and pass it on to the CMA. I will take away the points that noble Lords have made about the expert group. There is not a lot extra that I can say today but we will make an announcement soon and bear in mind the helpful contributions that have been made.

I shall move on to trading standards. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, asked about the review. It was announced as part of the productivity plan published by the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills in July. Noble Lords will remember that the plan called for more open and fair markets. Following the Raine review, we have said that we are reviewing trading standards’ ability to deliver the Government’s aims. We aim to make recommendations for a more efficient and effective trading standards service, which will ensure suitable consumer protection in an efficient and financially sustainable way so that business has confidence to invest and grow. That is the link with the productivity envelope and the context in which the review was published. We will not be carrying out a formal consultation but would welcome views from public bodies that rely on trading standards to deliver enforcement, as well as from consumer and business representatives, and local service providers in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, to inform our review. The review will report in the autumn, working alongside the LGA.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, asked supplementary questions about the ADR directive, in particular about when it will fully be in force and how much of the consumer market will be covered. The ADR will be fully implemented on 1 October as a result of these various provisions.

BBC Charter Review

Debate between Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Thursday 16th July 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, I was not aware of that, but it is clearly very good news. I know that the chairman of the BBC Trust said that the Green Paper recognised the enormous contribution that the BBC had made, that she valued that and that there would be a wide debate involving the public. These are all important points that we must not lose sight of because of concern about a particular paragraph or figure.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I hesitate to interrupt but I want to correct what has just been said. In front of me—thanks to the iPad and other new technologies—I have the statement from the BBC. It says:

“We believe that this Green Paper would appear to herald a much diminished, less popular BBC. That would be bad for Britain and would not be the BBC that the public has known and loved for over 90 years”.

I do not think that that squares well with what was said.

Authors: Rights and Income

Debate between Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Tuesday 14th July 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, a very sunny atmosphere descended on your Lordships’ House as the Minister mentioned the PLR and public libraries, which cannot be right. Fully operating public libraries have been decimated in the last five years and, as the noble Lord said, there are now difficulties in interpreting how the PLR operates when volunteers are involved. Is it not time now, given the change in the way publishing operates, for the Government to institute a proper review of the PLR to make sure that our authors, who contribute so much to the creative industries, get proper remuneration from all borrowing that is done?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, the noble Lord is right that libraries have declined in number, but the new modern libraries are amazing. We still have 3,142, which is an impressive network. I was in one of the modern libraries at Canada Water only last week. The Government are committed to looking at the options to extend PLR to remote e-learning. That was one of our manifesto commitments and I am sure we will be debating some of the related points that he has made in the coming weeks and months.

Consumer Protection: Secondary Ticketing

Debate between Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Thursday 9th July 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

I thank my noble friend for all he has done to move forward the consumer offer in this important area. I can confirm that the review will assess the current law, including changes we made in the Consumer Rights Act as a result of work in this House, and any surrounding law, which would rightly include any EU provisions.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, further to that response, which I welcome, can the Minister spell out a little more how the review will operate, as information on that is still not available? It will presumably receive evidence. If it does, will it take oral and well as written testimony and, if that evidence is provided, will it be published so that we can all look at it?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his questions. We have debated some of these points before. The chair will need to take a view on exactly how they run things. Clearly, the idea of a review is to have a wide range of evidence, and I think we will come back to the House on exactly how we organise that once we announce the review and the precise terms of reference. We have a short time for this, but it is good to have a focused review with an end date. We also need experience of how the new arrangements are working, as they only came into effect on 27 May. The review will be able to look at the summer of joy—the Ashes, the World Cup and Wimbledon, which is on at the moment—and see how the arrangements are working.

Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill

Debate between Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Tuesday 17th March 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, the amendments in this group make a number of consequential and technical changes to the Bill. I turn first to Amendments 4, 6, 12 and 13. In Committee, the Government moved a number of technical amendments about the penalties in the Bill. The majority of those related to the penalties in Parts 7 and 8. At the time, it was unclear whether changes to the fines available to magistrates in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 would be implemented during this Parliament. This was because the regulations needed to accompany commencement were yet to be debated in both Houses of Parliament and a number of the amendments were designed to ensure that the penalties worked in either event. As noble Lords may be aware, Section 85 of LASPO came into force on 12 March. As a result, there is no longer an upper limit on fines in the magistrates’ courts. My amendments therefore remove the changes we made in relation to these fines, as they are no longer necessary.

I now turn to Amendments 14 to 16. Noble Lords will be aware that the Deregulation Bill has recently been read in this House for a third time, and yesterday this House considered and agreed amendments made to it in the other place. These technical amendments are therefore required so that the Schedule 9 amendments are based on the text of the Insolvency Act after amendment by the Deregulation Bill.

Finally, I turn to Amendments 7 to 9. Our penalty measure in Clause 150 provides for full and prompt payment of employment tribunal awards. This will reassure claimants that, should they be successful at a tribunal, they will receive the money that they are owed. Clause 150(5) already amends the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 to provide that the affirmative procedure applies to regulations made under the new provisions. However, it does not also remove them from the category of instruments that are subject to negative procedure. Amendments 7 to 9 correct this.

I hope noble Lords will welcome these various amendments and give them the House’s support.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, it says in the Companion very clearly that Third Readings are mainly used for tidying up complicated parts of Bills that perhaps have eluded the draftsman or indeed are subject to a change in other places. The descriptions as made by the Minister clearly fulfil all aspects of that and we have no wish to enter into them.

I must say that I was slightly confused by the insertion and then removal and then the reinsertion but in a different way of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act provision. However, the Minister has explained the reason for that in a private meeting and we are very happy with the provisions now.

Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill

Debate between Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Wednesday 11th March 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I am sorry to interrupt. I just want the Minister to clarify something. She said that our support for her amendment was at a late stage. I point out that that is not the case. We saw the amendment at noon one day and I signed up to it as soon as it appeared. It was certainly not at a late stage. We are very supportive of what she is doing. Our problem is that she is not doing it in nearly enough other cases. Her case that more evidence is required really does not stack up.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

I am sorry if I caused confusion. What I was saying is that this is a relatively late stage in this Bill and that what we have done is taken steps to bring forward some of the actions that follow from the Francis review. Noble Lords opposite have been extremely helpful about supporting that and supporting it instantly. I am very glad to have been able to end that confusion.

Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill

Debate between Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Monday 9th March 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I simply want to add a little to the comments of my noble friend Lord Watson. In his typically modest way, he did not take enough credit for himself for raising some of the issues. I think he touched on them at the end of his remarks, but without his probing in Committee we perhaps would not have got as far as we have. With the additional help of the DPRRC’s recommendations, which were very firm in a number of areas relating in particular to the change to the affirmative procedure but also to matters related to foreign limited partnerships and directors’ responsibilities, we have now got to a much better place. We are very grateful to the Minister for listening so well and for bringing forward these amendments.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

I thank noble Lords. I am especially grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Watson, for his support today and for the work that he put into what has become the government amendments. If I may, I will write to him on the public interest test.

Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill

Debate between Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Tuesday 3rd March 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 5 is in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Mendelsohn. I declare an interest in that my wife is a practising solicitor who deals with construction contracts. When we raised this issue in Committee I made the following points. Recent research shows that about £3 billion is outstanding within the construction industry, and only in that industry, by way of cash retentions; that the practice unfairly enhances the working capital of the party deducting them; and that most of those who retained moneys openly accepted that they added cash retentions to their working capital or actually reinvested them. The effect is that bodies that are commissioning work are also in effect borrowing from the small firms that are carrying out the work. This is counterproductive to good economic activity at a time when such firms are also having major problems in accessing finance.

The key issue is that cash retentions are being deducted from payments already earned. However, there is no statutory protection for the retained moneys that will ensure that they will in fact be available for release if, in the event, there are no uncompleted remedial works that need to be done. There is a good case for any retention funds to be kept separate from working capital, perhaps within an escrow account—as is now used for government contracts—or a separate trust account.

When the Minister responded to the debate, as well as outlining the new but still rather patchy approach to payments being adopted by the Government, she agreed that there were a number of issues of concern with the payment culture in the construction industry. But she said that the current statutory framework governing contractual terms on payment—which was introduced in 2011—with a prohibition on “pay-when-paid” clauses and a right to adjudication, would be sufficient to see out this unfortunate practice. She added that since 2014, the Government have been working with the industry to implement a payment charter that contains 11 commitments, including one specifically aimed at removing the need for retentions, with the intention of moving by 2025 to a position where retentions are no longer necessary.

The noble Baroness pointed out that the powers being taken in the Bill would be sufficient to gather the information needed for a review of current policy, and I take that point. But she was a little unconvincing about why it will take 10 years to gather the information about this issue, even if there were a need to go wider than just the construction industry. If this amendment is accepted, it would have far-reaching benefits for small businesses throughout the construction industry. They would not have to wait another 10 years before this practice is outlawed—but even if they did have to wait that long there is surely a case, which I have outlined above, for action now to require the use of escrow accounts for this type of payment. I beg to move.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for this amendment and for providing the opportunity for us to look again at the important matter of retention payments. Following Committee we have been busy. We have consulted with stakeholders on payment terms, and it is clear that the practice of retentions is an issue, as we suspected, largely confined to the construction sector. As with other payment issues in construction, issues with retentions go to the heart of the industry’s business models. These models are driven by a broad and diverse range of customers—and, of course, there is an extensive reliance on subcontracting. The work is project based and frequently short term, with no ongoing relationships. Typically, low levels of capitalisation mean that the industry is heavily reliant on cash flow.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for his comments on Amendment 20, which would restrict the regulators to which the provisions on small business appeals champions can apply. It was also good to hear from my noble friends Lord Deben and Lord Lindsay.

Clause 18 already provides that the list of regulators to be covered by the appeals champions should be set out in regulations. A consultation on the list of regulators closed in January. We intend to publish a summary of the consultation and our response before Parliament rises, based on careful consideration. The Government’s response will then become the basis of the regulations which will bring regulators into scope. These regulations will be subject to affirmative resolution, so Parliament will have the opportunity to consider which regulators should be on the list. On other occasions, the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, has called for just that affirmative resolution. Although the consultation has closed, we shall take into account representations that noble Lords have made during discussions on the Bill. I am coming on to reassure about the EHRC, but I encourage any noble Lord who has particular concerns about anything else to let me know: we will give them a fair hearing.

Listing inclusions and exemptions would make the Bill cumbersome and unwieldy. Pre-empting our case-by-case consideration through a blanket exemption is not the right way ahead. The amendment first seeks to exclude the EHRC. Noble Lords have linked this to the protection of the EHRC’s A status as a national human rights organisation. The Government share the determination to protect the commission’s status and we understand that, as a regulator, the EHRC is different and needs to maintain its independence from government.

The Government’s position is that the EHRC will not be in the scope of the champions policy. It was not included in our consultation on the list of regulators to be brought into scope. No specific regulatory functions of any other particular named body are listed for inclusion or exclusion in the Bill and it is not necessary to do so in relation to the regulatory functions of the EHRC. Doing so would set a precedent that might lead to overly complex legislation. We have never proposed to include the EHRC, and today I can make a commitment not to do so. The Government will not include the EHRC in the small business champions policy. I hope that noble Lords will accept that full, unequivocal and repeated assurance. In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, was kind enough to accept my assurance on this point, and the majority of noble Lords accepted similar assurances in respect of the growth duty during the passage of the Deregulation Bill. I hope that the House will be willing to do the same today.

The second part of the amendment proposes to exclude any regulator belonging to a list of departments. The proposal would exclude more than half of the regulators we propose to include. Many of them have considerable contact with small businesses. There is broad support for small business appeals champions to make sure that businesses have effective routes to regulators. The amendment would deny that assurance to care homes, which need to challenge rulings by the Care Quality Commission or businesses challenging inspections by the Health and Safety Executive. I do not understand why we should emasculate a policy that has such widespread backing.

The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, asked whether the Government had decided to exclude a health regulator from the appeals champion policy. We have made no decisions yet, and we shall do so on a case-by-case basis. As I have said, if any noble Lord or regulator is in this situation, they should make representations to us. We intend to make a decision on the list and publish our response before the end of the Parliament.

This is not the growth duty. This is simply a policy that aims to improve public administration and provide an assurance that regulators have the procedures and processes in place to support business appropriately. We all agree that small businesses need a better deal, and we should be aiming to apply this policy to regulators where possible rather than looking at potentially wide exemptions. I hope that, in the circumstances, the noble Lord will feel reassured and that he will agree to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I thank all those who have contributed to the debate. Perhaps I may make one or two points about it. I would say to the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, who obviously has great knowledge of and experience in this area, that I can understand why he might think so. However, I draw his attention to the fact that the intention in the second part of the amendment is to select a group of regulators equivalent or similar to the EHRC in the sense that they are required to be taken out of a broader approach. It does not attack all the regulators in a department. If he misunderstood that, I apologise, but it is clear that what we are trying to do here is to say that because we were not involved in drawing up the list of regulators, we are not absolutely clear which are in and which are not. In that sense, it is imperfect and we would have to be quite inventive, if the amendment were to be accepted, to come to the right conclusion. I accept that it is not as well done as it could have been. However, it has provoked a good debate and that is the point. Indeed, the noble Baroness has already accepted that there may be one or two regulators that might well be included in the list of the growth duty within the Deregulation Bill. That might not be appropriate for small businesses—and vice versa. We are in a situation where we are not sure how the lists will bottom out. It is that unease which I was trying to attack, and in that sense I hope that the noble Earl is reassured on the point.

It is worth reflecting on the fact that, to do what is required in the Bill, as I understand it, appointments would need to be made to various regulators at board level. That would have an impact on how these bodies operate. I do not think it is an entirely free-riding champion helping to resolve appeals. These are people who, by their constitutional and statutory position, will have to have an involvement in the day-to-day work of these regulators. By accepting this, we are accepting by implication that there will be a change—perhaps a beneficial one—to the way that some regulators will operate in the future; they will not do so as they were originally set up. Again, that is what I am trying to reflect in this debate.

However, I accept that, as presently drafted, the amendment would not achieve the ambitions we had for it and there may be better ways to approach this. It may be that the rather convoluted process whereby I think the noble Baroness was inviting individual Members of your Lordships’ House to write in with special and favourite regulators to be excluded will mean that we arrive at a resolution in an appropriate way. I am sure that this will come out all right in the wash, but at the moment it seems rather a complicated way of doing it.

I will say again that it will not be possible for either House of this Parliament to pick and mix within the secondary legislation. Either it must be accepted as it stands or we can vote against the whole of the SI. It is not fair to say that we will have a choice at the time when these regulations are going through. The choice will have to be made outside Parliament and before the Government, whichever Government they are, put forward the secondary legislation. We have to be realistic about the fact that there will not be the same level of scrutiny.

I broadly take the points which have been made. It will be interesting to see how they go through. We made it clear in Committee that we are not against the idea of there being appeals business champions, as it were. I think we agreed that we would call them “small business champions” in relation to regulation. It is a good idea but I am not quite sure whether it will work in practice; only time will tell.

Finally, on the EHRC, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Deben, for his consistent support for this issue. If it is so clear in the minds of Ministers that the EHRC is not, will not and never can be part of the processes involved in this Bill or in the Deregulation Bill, why on earth can they not just accept that it would be sensible to table an amendment at Third Reading stating that the EHRC is not involved? That would peradventure put beyond doubt the question of whether the EHRC is ever around. There may be evil forces at work and there may not. We do not think there are, and we are not looking at it with suspicion. However, enough damage has already been done to the EHRC, for heaven’s sake, and what is left of it needs to be protected. It would be a positive and rather a noble thing for the Government to accept at this stage that it would be right to have that line in an amendment, just because the EHRC is so special, as the noble Lord said, and to be super-careful because of the particular nature of the commission. That is for the Minister to reflect on and perhaps to come back at Third Reading.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

I very much take the point that the noble Lord has made. I am happy to consider whether we could put the EHRC into the Bill, but whether I can do that, I am not sure. Giving the commission that clarity seems to be widely supported around the House.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

That is a very generous offer and I think it would solve an awful lot of problems. Indeed, we have been discussing it week after week for the past two or three months. I would be very pleased if she can do this, but I repeat that I am happy to withdraw the amendment at this stage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, government Amendments 21, 22 and 23 respond directly to our Committee debates regarding the small business appeals champion and the business impact target. Regarding the champion, the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, made a number of helpful observations about how it might work in practice. He was keen to ensure that any guidance issued to the champions should be laid before both Houses as well as published. I made it clear in Committee that this was already our intention and I am pleased to confirm it with Amendments 21 and 22.

I turn now to the business impact target. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for his comments in Committee regarding the scope of the target. In particular, he raised concerns around the clarity of the coverage regarding voluntary and community bodies. I have reflected on this issue and I agree that there is more that we can do in the Bill to clarify it. I have therefore tabled Amendment 23, which is a relatively straightforward provision to simplify Clause 27(5). It will remove the current membership threshold of at least 21 individuals for unincorporated bodies that do not distribute any surplus to their members. As I am sure many noble Lords will be aware from their own work in the voluntary sector, such bodies can be adversely affected by redundant, ineffective or excessively burdensome regulation, just as much as businesses can. Therefore, including them within the scope of the business impact target makes a lot of sense. It will not harm the voluntary sector, but will help to ensure that any burdens from new regulations are minimised and that there is transparent reporting of impacts.

This Government have already made a number of changes that have made it easier to set up and run charities and social enterprises. Those include providing greater legal clarity on volunteer liability and supporting proposals to make criminal record checks simpler and less onerous. The amendment will mean that such bodies are not excluded from the definition of “small” and “micro” businesses in Clauses 33 and 34, meaning that they can benefit from any regulatory exemptions made by reference to that definition. I hope noble Lords will welcome the amendments, and I beg to move.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

This must be the shortest amendment ever considered in my time in the House. I look to the clerks for further guidance on these matters. The Minister suggested that we might welcome the amendments; we do welcome them.

Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill

Debate between Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Wednesday 21st January 2015 Grand Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for helping us to probe the effectiveness of Clause 114, which of course was put forward as part of the Red Tape Challenge. Like him, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, is not here today. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for his kind words about BIS and the Insolvency Service, which of course has been intimately involved in preparing for the Bill and associated legislation.

Because of our concern to help small business, insolvency has recently been subject to the Red Tape Challenge, and suggestions made from across all parts of the industry have been incorporated into this Bill. Alongside measures being taken forward elsewhere, these clauses on insolvency will lead to improvements in the efficiency of our processes. The efficiencies will provide a total of over £30 million a year more for creditors, many of whom of course are small businesses—which underlines the purpose of the Bill.

Administration is the primary corporate rescue procedure in the UK. It is well respected internationally for its speed and the size of its returns to creditors, which many compare favourably with similar procedures in other countries such as Chapter 11 in the USA, which was mentioned at Second Reading. We are working with the industry to take forward the voluntary reforms set out by the Graham review, while taking a new power—this is important—in case the voluntary reforms do not bring the desired confidence.

Amendment 61ZA would delay the introduction of this clause and would force government to review the impact of abolishing the administration duration time limit. Administration is a dynamic procedure, and we want administrators to take swift action to restructure and rescue businesses where at all possible. For this reason, there are time limits; I think there is agreement that there should be.

Currently, administration lasts for 12 months with the option to extend it by six months. With the consent of creditors, we are seeking to extend this to 12 months. We do not consider that an administration should last indefinitely and do not intend to review the time period further. To allow companies to remain in administration for longer than necessary would add unnecessary expense to the procedure and, in some cases, might even give the insolvent business an unfair advantage over competitors.

I take the point the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, made, that where an administrator commences a wrongful or fraudulent trading action he fears that the claim could take more than a year or two to complete. However, I do not think that that time limit will necessarily reduce the effectiveness of the right proposed under Clause 114.

During debate in the other place, concern was raised as to whether this clause will be used, bearing in mind that it may take longer to conclude such a claim. However, Clause 124 will enable creditors of the company to consent to an extension of the administration by an additional year, and the court has power to grant extensions beyond that.

Clause 114 was suggested by insolvency practitioners as part of the Red Tape Challenge. Our earlier consultation suggested that delaying its introduction pending a review, or completely removing the time limit on administration, would not be well supported by many stakeholders, particularly creditor groups. For this reason I hope that the noble Lord will be reassured and will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. I should have said at the outset that I was grateful to her and to her colleagues for organising a couple of meetings on this issue, which a number of noble Lords present attended and which were very helpful in providing us with background to this section of the Bill.

In her response the Minister alluded to the question which has been long debated but is still unresolved, of whether Britain should have a Chapter 11-style approach to trying to maintain companies that get themselves into difficulties. I have amendments later on in the Marshalled List, where we will come back to the more substantive issues here, so I will not deal with that in any detail now. However, it is worth saying that while the detail of Chapter 11 is not appropriate for translation across to the British system—or at least not at present—the one important thing that comes through in that is a very strong sense that existing companies should be retained and encouraged to try to trade themselves through the difficulties that they may be experiencing at the time. It is in that sense, and that sense only, that the questions posed in my original statement still hang in the air.

There is an awkwardness here. A one-year administration when many processes need to go beyond two years, a need to apply to courts or to other authorities to get an extension of the administration period, perhaps to two years, and the knowledge that most administrations actually complete within two years all suggest that there is a bit of a case here which would provide the struggling company, which will eventually be successful but is currently going through difficulty, an easier route through. I do not put it any stronger than that. That was behind the letter but the Government have set their mind against it. We will probably have to come back to this at some future date but at this stage I withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Flight]

My Lords, the Government’s aim in Schedules 9 and 10 is to create a more efficient process for the Government’s official receiver to be appointed trustee of a banker’s estate—I mean a bankrupt’s estate; it might be a bankrupt banker. This would mirror the provisions for compulsory liquidation and therefore seem logical but the changes set out in Schedule 10 go further and remove the requirement for the official receiver to tell creditors whether or not they can hold a meeting to appoint a trustee. This means that creditors will not be informed that they have an up-front opportunity to appoint an alternative trustee, should they wish to do so, because there will be no process in place to inform them. The schedule would see a dramatic reduction in creditors’ power to influence insolvency proceedings and I fear that this could lead to a reduction in trust and confidence in the UK’s insolvency regime.

My Amendment 61WA—I mis-referred earlier on but Amendment 61VA also relates to this point—seeks to provide that the official receiver becomes a trustee on making the bankruptcy orders, and to omit the existing provisions which require the official receiver to decide whether to hold a creditors’ meeting to appoint a trustee and to notify the creditors if he decides not to do so. I take the view that three creditors or the proposed threshold of 10% by value of the creditors should be sufficient to requisition the qualifying decision-making process.

In addition, there is no provision in the Bill requiring the official receiver in each and every bankruptcy case to inform creditors of their rights to appoint an insolvency practitioner as trustee or for the mechanism to do so. This lack of provision disenfranchises creditors and surely flies in the face of increasing creditor engagement. Amendments 61WA and 61VA are intended to address these points.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord and my noble friend for these amendments. I hope that I have understood their thinking correctly.

I will start by talking about Clause 118, which Amendment 61ZB seeks to amend. The clause removes the need for trustees to seek sanction before exercising certain statutory powers. That is a cost-saving measure, which arises, as I have already said, from the Red Tape Challenge; it receives considerable support externally and helps to achieve efficiency, as my noble friend Lord Flight explained.

The requirement for sanction was originally designed to protect creditors from an unregulated insolvency profession, preventing officeholders from taking steps that could have a negative impact on the bankruptcy estate such as continuing to trade a bankrupt’s business, which you have to look back in time to imagine. Now, of course, we have a much more highly regulated insolvency practitioner profession. Failure to act in the interests of creditors is a regulatory matter, and it would be for the trustee’s regulatory body to take appropriate disciplinary action.

The amendment would make an exception for cases where there is a creditors’ committee and the trustee wished to appoint the bankrupt to assist in dealing with certain tasks. This sometimes happens where the bankrupt is involved in a particularly unusual trade or there is some urgency to the matter and the trustee cannot find someone to perform vital tasks.

Let us take the case of a bankrupt and a remote farm—which is close to my own personal experience many years ago—perhaps in winter when weather conditions are challenging. That may mean a quick decision is required to instruct the bankrupt to continue to feed the animals or to engage a vet to look after sick animals, and so on. The requirement for sanction where there is a creditors’ committee would add unnecessary delay and cost.

A further reason for resisting the amendment is consistency. If accepted, trustees would be able to exercise all other powers without permission except this one, and then only where there is a creditors’ committee. That might add unnecessary complexity to the insolvency framework.

Amendment 61ADG would have the effect of removing a part of Schedule 10, which updates the section of the Insolvency Act 1986 which itself dealt with the process of interim receivership. Noble Lords will be aware that an interim receiver is appointed to protect assets where a bankruptcy petition has been presented and there is a real risk that assets could be lost before the petition is heard.

While the official receiver is acting as interim receiver, he or she is protected from liability where they dispose of an asset which subsequently turns out not to be part of the person’s estate, provided that when they did it they had good reason to believe that it was. Schedule 10 makes amendments to extend that protection to insolvency practitioners when they are appointed to that role. Amendment 61ADG would act to remove the protection for insolvency practitioners while leaving it in place for official receivers. I suspect that that was not the intention of the amendment.

Amendment 61WA would introduce a requirement into the Insolvency Act for the official receiver to notify creditors how they may go about removing and replacing them as trustee. I am grateful for the noble Lord’s probing amendment to government Amendment 61W, which my noble friend Lord Popat will introduce later on in this debate. However, I will just say that it is intended that these matters will be dealt with by guidance to official receivers, and I do not agree that we should introduce new regulation when we are trying to cut red tape. I hope that that explanation is helpful, and that on that basis the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I thank the Minister for her comments. In answer to her direct question of whether she interpreted our comments correctly, as far as I am concerned she did. I will leave the noble Lord, Lord Flight, to respond, but my impression is that she also got to the heart of his comments.

I am still concerned about two things, although I will read what the noble Baroness said in Hansard and reflect upon it. As the noble Lord, Lord Flight, said, we have a brilliant IP insolvency system, which comes high in the rankings. However, that is because it spends a lot of time and effort bringing creditors into play. Whenever we see this dilution coming through in the Government’s Bill here, I worry about that. I understand the cost argument. It must be right that cost is taken out of this where it can be, but the creditors are important, particularly in relation to small businesses, which are after all the subject of the Bill. Creditors can often be critical friends as well as antagonists in these matters, so simply to disengage them from an area is not right. I think that we share the common view that, where possible, we should be careful about doing anything that diminishes the role that creditors or creditors’ committees may play. However, I take the point that there are costs that need to be balanced up.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I thank all noble Lords who have spoken on this group. I think that together we have arrived at a conspectus view, which has persuaded the Minister that a little more thinking on this would be welcome. I am grateful to her for that.

I do not think that we are in any sense trying to be negative about what is being proposed. This is the future—we understand that. I just think that we are not quite there yet and that the sentiment from all sides is that we perhaps need to encourage people to do things in a more innovative way but not lose some of the values in the original proposals. If we can get somewhere along that line, I would be very grateful. I am also grateful to her for her comments about broadband. We are on the same side here and we want this to happen. She made the point herself: if she has to leave her wonderful kitchen in her rural farmhouse to find an internet café in order to participate in the wider world, something is not quite right yet in the Government’s plans.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

I would like to inform noble Lords that I have broadband. I do not have mobile, which is actually a joy.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

Now we know that to be successful in the world of business is to be selective in the use of your technologies. That is a lesson for us all. In the mean time, I would like to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, I start by paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for building up StepChange. I can only express my regret at the news that he will be stepping down. He leaves a great legacy there and I know that he will be much missed. I pay tribute also to the other DRO facilitators, including Citizens Advice.

Turning to the wider subject, last Friday the Government introduced legislation to increase DRO eligibility. This included raising the debt and asset limits to make DROs more accessible for the most vulnerable debtor: those with low levels of debt and limited resources, and for whom bankruptcy is too expensive. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, mentioned high bankruptcy application costs. He may already be aware that we will be introducing in 2016 a new debtor petition application process, which will allow a person to pay the application costs by instalments. As part of the announcement last week, the Government committed to fully reviewing DROs again two years after the changes come into effect on 1 October this year. We, of course, consulted on these changes, including on the fee paid to the facilitators of DROs. The majority of respondents, including CAB, which is the largest facilitator, stated that they did not want to increase the fee, being mindful of the need to keep this important service affordable.

The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, has agreed today that increasing the fee is not the solution. As he pointed out, the Insolvency Service receives £80 for its element of the DRO application process. Unfortunately, as I have explained to him outside the Committee, Treasury rules preclude the Insolvency Service from setting its fee at less than this figure, which represents full cost recovery. It is important that the Insolvency Service works hard to keep its costs as low as possible. The DRO unit has recently undertaken a lean review and is focused on continually improving its service. This service includes verifying DRO applications, providing an advice service to the facilitators and considering creditor objections to the granting of DROs. The Insolvency Service has also committed to an upgrade of the IT system providing the electronic DRO solution, which may help. The upgrade will improve response times and make the system more user-friendly, potentially saving time and resources for DRO facilitators. I must thank facilitators such as StepChange for providing a lot of input into those improvements.

This Government do not feel that there is a need for an additional review. However, we will continue to look at ways to improve the administrative processes, which will be of benefit to the facilitators and affect the underlying costings. I note what the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, said about good practice in Scotland. More broadly, before I finish, the Government are very keen to ensure that anyone facing debt worries seeks independent, reputable and free debt advice at an early stage. We have put the funding of free debt advice on a sustainable footing through the Money Advice Service. The Government have also commissioned an independent review of the Money Advice Service to make an assessment of the need for debt advice and education. The review, and the Government’s response, will be published shortly. We have had a good debate on this important subject, albeit again a bilateral one. I hope that on this basis, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her kind words about me and my contribution to StepChange. I am sorry to leave it—it is a terrific organisation—but I am sure it will be in good hands after I have gone.

We are edging towards the point where this issue needs more exploration and discussion. As I have said, we are willing to participate, as I am sure many others will be. It costs us £250 per applicant to do something that we want to keep in play and we only get £10 back. That is too big a gap and we need to address that issue. There are other money sources around but it is a hard time out there for charities and it is not easy to see how this can be done on a sustainable basis.

I am glad the points have been raised. I stand ready to discuss these matters, should that be required, and in the interim I am happy to withdraw the amendment.

Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill

Debate between Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Monday 12th January 2015 Grand Committee

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, the Bill creates a duty on the relevant Minister of the Crown to appoint a person for each non-economic regulator. As the person is variously described it is a bit confusing, both in the Bill and in the notes, as to exactly what they will be called. It might be worth having a further discussion about this at some point, but for the purposes of this amendment my eye was drawn to the phrase in the notes “Small Business Appeals Champion”.

An additional point to make here is that it is quite refreshing to read of a Government who are prepared to go hammer and tongs into adding new regulations to an area. I am not one who is necessarily against regulation in principle, as good regulation drives a lot of good things, but this has quite a set of layers of regulation in it. Given that we are also considering the Deregulation Bill, and indeed have been faced with a number of attempts to try to reduce regulation, we ought to be quite clear what we are doing here. Although I make a trivial point about the name, it is also important.

The aim is to ensure that there are clear and effective procedures and processes in place, so that businesses—again, it seems to be defined as “businesses”—can challenge regulatory decisions, should they feel that they have been treated unfairly. I put on record that we support this approach. We are aware of the previous history of this: in the publication Small Business, Great Ambition it was said that businesses were not always confident that there was a clear pathway to challenge decisions by a regulator. It is good that the Government have recognised this and want to come forward with proposals. It is also interesting that, in the evidence for that, it is clear that two issues are in play here. Businesses did not know how to challenge decisions—I imagine that is more at the smaller end of the market—but they also found that it was either too expensive or too time-consuming, or both, which again rings true to anybody with experience in this area.

In the consultation issued by the Government prior to the preparation of the Bill, Small Business Appeals Champion and Non-Economic Regulators—it perhaps gave away its content in its title—the Government explained that,

“given the range of different statutory arrangements … the Government will need to give individual consideration to the application of the policy to each regulator before the policy is implemented”.

That is a large amount of work given the number of regulators that have been revealed as a result of our work on the Deregulation Bill, for which a parallel but different set of regulations is of course being imposed. Can the Minister update us on how they are doing on this? It will be quite an extensive trawl through a number of regulators that were set up over the years. It is important that we have some sense of how we are getting on and whether any lessons can be learnt from that experience.

Cutting to the chase, a small business appeals champion—or whatever name we agree on—will be appointed to every non-economic regulator. These will be quite important people, particularly for small businesses, because they will be concerned about, and seek redress, when regulators introduce new regulations that might be against the best interests of their businesses. I worry that the Bill is not very sharp about the regulatory powers and responsibilities. Will they be sufficient? Will they be adequate to achieve what they set out to do? Will it be more than just a talking shop?

Individual appointments to the regulator will be by a Minister of the Crown. The Bill states that they will either be statutory office-holders within the regulator or be appointed by the Minister of the Crown in respect of the regulator’s functions—presumably as additional personnel. I am concerned about this. The power of a small business appeals champion will lie in their ability to challenge the regulatory functions that they are appointed to review. Perhaps the Minister will explain this when she responds, but it does not seem to me that a person who is already employed by the regulator is in a very strong position to criticise the regulator’s activities. Could she talk us through this? Are they not meant to be independent? It would be very unusual to have someone in a position of reviewing or providing reports to external bodies about a particular body if they are employed by that body. It might be better if they are board members and maybe they should be appointed in a particular capacity to each board, but the range envisaged in the Bill seems to be too large for this to be appropriate.

To take further examples, what happens if a reviewer has to comment to the Minister on the way that the regulatory duties are discharged by his or her boss? Is there not a problem there? The employee will have a duty of care that might be breached if they are expected to make recommendations in public that will end up being considered in Parliament. Noble Lords begin to see where I am going. This is almost like a whistleblower. Parliament has considered this topic and will return to it later in this Bill, but real concerns have been expressed about how we treat whistleblowers. Their effectiveness is entirely related to whether they can make their comments without being subsequently sorted out by the powers that be in their organisation.

Similar points came up on whether an employee in a regulator would have sufficient knowledge and expertise to do the job envisaged by the Bill. It seems to me that someone who reviews the work of a regulator would need to be at the board level. Although there will be no doubt excellent people further down the chain, I doubt whether they would have the experience or expertise, or be senior enough, to take a view.

There is also an intention in the clause that one reviewer would be appointed to each national, non-economic regulator in some cases but to groups of regulators in others. For instance, some regulators, groups of industries or groups of functions will work in roughly the same area; the suggestion is that one regulator could cover them all. Is there a list of the regulators that would likely be grouped together? If there is not, could we get that in play? That is quite important. For instance, we could consider one regulator for energy, but we could also think that there would need to be different expertise relating to gas or to water, as opposed to some of the other utilities. There is also the asymmetry of expertise and experience that I have already mentioned. For instance, if a reviewer was employed by one regulator but was expected to review and critique a cognate regulator—or even a very different one—one would worry about whether they had the expertise, or whether they would be able to criticise a sister organisation operating in the same field.

I am afraid that I have asked a lot of questions. I should have made clear that this is merely a probing amendment. We support the general approach, but we would be grateful to have a bit more detail so that the Committee could better appraise whether this is a good move. I beg to move.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his amendment relating to the appointment of small business champions—my snappier, if less accurate, title for them. I agree that sometimes we need to regulate, especially, as in this case, to make regulation better.

The Government have brought forward these clauses because we want to ensure that regulators’ appeals and complaints processes are accessible and fair, and work for business. We want to make sure that, if a business wants to challenge a poor regulatory decision, there is a clear and easy-to-understand process to make a complaint or appeal to that regulator. I agree with many of the noble Lord’s comments.

How are we progressing with identifying regulation? The consultation closed last Friday. It is on the government website. We will make final regulations with our proposals for listing regulators once the Bill is approved. Our proposed list was set out in the consultation. What regulators will be grouped together? We have not decided on that, but we will certainly look at it once the list of regulators is finalised in the light of the comment that the noble Lord made.

Turning to the amendment before us, the Government intend that the small business appeals champion policy should apply to a diverse range of national regulators, with equally diverse circumstances. For example, there are large regulators, some with statutory governance arrangements, complex stakeholder groups and thousands of staff, such as the Health and Safety Executive, the Care Quality Commission and the Environment Agency. However, there are also tiny regulators with few staff, where there is no board and the legal responsibility for regulating lies with the Secretary of State, such as the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate, the Animals in Science Regulation Unit or the Senior Traffic Commissioner. There is something in between as well, such as the Office for Nuclear Regulation or the Charity Commission. We have designed this policy so that it has the flexibility to work across this varied array. A key part of that flexibility is around appointments.

I agree with the noble Lord that in some cases it may not be appropriate to appoint a board member as a champion. For instance, if the board is involved in the appeals process, it would create a conflict of interest. However, in other cases, it could be a positive advantage to appoint a board member as the champion. A non-executive director might be uniquely well placed to combine an understanding of the needs of regulated businesses and an intimate knowledge of the way the regulator works. There is not an unlimited supply of people of talent and objectivity who are prepared to take on public roles of this kind and familiarity can be a distinct advantage, especially in very technical areas.

The Government do not agree that the appointment should be limited to exclude regulators’ board members. We have deliberately placed responsibility for appointing champions with the relevant Minister, supported by his or her departmental officials, and not with the regulator, to ensure that someone of appropriate independence and stature is chosen. We should trust Ministers to be responsible for ensuring that an appropriate appointment is made, and not constrain them as the amendment proposes. In carrying out the recruitment process, the Minister and the Government will, of course, ensure adherence to any relevant guidelines such as the Code of Practice for Ministerial Appointments to Public Bodies. I hope that the noble Lord will be reassured by what I have said and agree to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her very clear exposition. I agree that we should focus on small business champions—I will try to do that, although it gets a bit complicated later on. Who is involved and what sort of bodies are likely to be grouped together are obviously a work in progress and I hope to get information on that as we go forward as it shapes the way in which we respond to this issue. We may wish to return to that at a later stage.

I understand the point the Minister makes about the need to have expertise and a sufficient number of high-calibre people doing this important work. It will help small businesses and, as I said, we support it. However, I think that the conflict-of-interest point has resonance. Her examples do not necessarily reassure me that, simply because the appointment comes from outside and is made by somebody who is not themselves the regulator, that will provide the degree of independence, authority, expertise and single-mindedness of purpose that will be required if this is to be effective. However, for the purposes of this debate in Committee, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for tabling this probing amendment. To answer his question I will explain the purpose of the clause. The Government have significantly improved the regulatory environment for business, as I have already explained. There has also been some encouraging progress at an EU level. This December’s EU Competitiveness Council conclusions on better regulation were extremely positive, calling for the first time for EU burden reduction targets. Therefore, the issue now goes wider than the UK. Building on those achievements, the Government are legislating to lay the framework for transparent regulatory reporting.

On Amendment 33P, I acknowledge that the framing of the business impact target sets a wide scope for future Administrations to determine for themselves what will count for the purposes of the target; that is, what is a “qualifying regulatory provision”. We consider it prudent to allow sufficient flexibility for future Administrations to determine the precise scope of the target, depending on their priorities and circumstances. We believe that this approach should attract support on all sides, not least at this stage of the Parliament.

Potentially a wide range of regulations could be in scope, meaning that some adjustment may be necessary to avoid perverse outcomes or other adverse impacts. For example, it may not be sensible to include certain measures—such as those related to national security or civil emergencies—within the target, because they could not be anticipated at the start of, say, the five-year parliamentary term. In addition, a future Government may wish to exclude measures that have negligible impacts on business, such as simple consolidations of existing regulations. Including all such measures in the target could be disproportionate and would represent a poor use of taxpayers’ resources without delivering obvious benefits to business.

The fundamental point is that the choices that a future Administration make regarding the scope of a business impact target will be transparent and will be for the Government of the day to defend. It is not appropriate for this Government or for Parliament unduly to restrict that choice. I hope that that is not byzantine but sensible and that on reflection noble Lords will feel that it is a reasonable rationale.

My noble friend raised the important issue of methodology and I agree with him that you can have as many methods as you have economics professors. However, it is an important principle that we need transparency around methodology and, of course, methodology is an important component of the good work that a body such as the RPC does. It is entirely appropriate that the Government of the day are able to look at the methodology options in a transparent way, to make appropriate decisions and to put them before Parliament. I hope that the noble Lord will be willing to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, I prefaced what I said by saying that it was a very low-minded question. I hoped that I would get an answer to my concern, which was that I did not understand why we had to regulate in the Bill for stuff that I thought was taken as read more generally. Perhaps that was too detailed or too low a question to be answered on the Floor of the House. Perhaps the Minister might write to me about it. I do not think that it is a major issue.

The major issue is the one raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, which is increasing my sense of concern—“panic” might be too strong a word—arising from some of the ways in which Clause 21, in particular, is described. It is not just the slightly odd use of the word “things”. This is a complicated set of calculations with a new quango being set up to look at it, with all the other things that go with that. I think that we will come back to it, as I have an amendment later that deals with the way in which this might be amended. At this stage, I will certainly withdraw the amendment, although I think that we will need to come back to some of the points raised.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for his questions and for allowing us to debate these important provisions. I will start by answering the question about coverage and refer him to Clause 27(2)(b), where he will see that businesses activities are defined as including activities,

“by a voluntary or community body”.

The definition is broad and includes the voluntary sector. I can understand why that is.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

That is, of course, true and I have read that. Clause 27(2) specifies that, but Clause 27(3) says that they do not count as business activities if they are controlled by a public body, or are,

“acting on behalf of a public authority in carrying out the activities”.

We are back on a rather circuitous argument.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

The noble Lord has anticipated me. Voluntary shops presumably would be covered, but I will come on to talk about why there is a carve-out for public services, which is a slightly different point; I think that it is in the noble Lord’s last amendment.

Perhaps I should also, before I answer on individual amendments, talk a little about the verification body. It could of course be the RPC, which already exists, but the Bill allows flexibility for the Government of the day to decide on the precise body that they want, the people who are on that committee and the mechanics of how they are remunerated. At the moment, they get paid a daily rate, which seems fine to me. The Secretary of State will be under a duty to appoint a person, people or a body to perform the verification function. The body or persons must, in the view of the Secretary of State, be independent of UK Ministers and have expertise in economic and cost-benefit appraisal and the impact of regulation on business—including, significantly and importantly, smaller businesses. They will obviously also be subject to the usual public appointments rules.

Returning to the amendments, I think that there is a strong consensus on the importance of minimising regulatory burdens on voluntary and community bodies. Those bodies range from Cancer Research UK at the upper end to local community football clubs or parent-teacher associations. They are affected by many of the regulatory burdens affecting businesses, including reporting requirements. That is why the economic impact of regulations affecting the activity of those bodies is explicitly included in the scope of our target and it is why they are included in other regulatory reform proposals in the Bill. Moreover, as noble Lords will be aware, the Government have made a number of changes that have made it easier to set up and run charities and social enterprises. For example, we have provided greater legal clarity about volunteer liability and supported proposals to make criminal record checks simpler and less onerous.

However, the Government are not convinced of the need for the two amendments tabled today. The vast majority of voluntary and community bodies are small and will therefore already be covered by the existing reporting requirement set out in Clause 23(4). As well as being fewer in number, larger charities can call on greater resources and are able to mitigate the impact of regulatory burdens more easily than smaller charities. The amendment would therefore have the unintended consequence of weakening the focus of the reporting requirement on mitigating disproportionate burdens and undermine its intended impact. It also means that the benefits of the amendment in extending the reporting requirement to community and voluntary bodies in general would be limited.

Amendments 33U and 33N relate to the expertise of the independent verification body. I understand that there is a desire to deliver a clear specification of expertise—that is, regarding small business, community and voluntary bodies, as well as businesses in general. However, the Government’s view is that the clause already provides sufficiently for that outcome. Clause 25(6) requires that the independent verification body must have expertise in assessing the likely impact of regulation on business activities, including activities carried on by smaller-scale businesses or voluntary or community bodies. The Government consider it most important that the verification body has substantive expertise in assessing the economic impact of regulation on voluntary and community bodies, not just on commercial business. That is reflected in the membership of the existing Regulatory Policy Committee. However, securing that outcome does not require a change to the Bill.

Finally, I turn to Amendment 33X and the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, about the carve-out for public sector bodies. The Government’s primary focus in the Bill is reducing regulatory burdens on business and the third sector. Subsection (3) therefore excludes from the definition of qualifying activities those carried out by public sector bodies or that are related specifically to the delivering of a public service. Public sector regulatory burdens are of course important, but they are clearly beyond the scope of a business impact target. Including them within the target system would lose the clarity of focus on business—small business in particular—so essential to the growth agenda.

This carve-out also avoids unintentionally capturing regulations concerning requirements of public sector delivery—for example, schools, prisons and NHS services. We feel that it would be perverse to capture within the target the impacts associated with regulations relating purely to the provision of public services in that way. Doing so would lead to significant changes in reported impacts arising purely from changes in public sector delivery arrangements. For example, where service delivery was transferred from the public to the private sector, or the other way round, the effect would be an increase/decrease in the reported burden on business.

I hope that that explains the rationale for the provisions and why it is important that they are retained. I hope that the noble Lord will have found that reassuring and will be willing to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

Not quite. I do not think that it is reassuring. I am getting more and more like the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, as we go through the day. Is the Minister really saying that every PTA in the country will have to be in scope to this quango? I may be thought bonkers, but this is getting beyond a joke. We are talking about a Government so dedicated to deregulation that they will require my Little Missenden parish council school to get together in a way to ensure that it has proper regulatory functions in place and understands the process of regulatory procedures to the point at which it can appeal and go to see a small business champion, who will, of course, be far too busy dealing with big business problems. I understand, I think, that the regulatory structures need to be reformed a little, but one only has to read pages 26 and 27 to become completely hysterical about what we are saying. We have talked about things already, but the wording here does not strike one as being a wonderfully clear and concise expression of the new regulatory burden.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

We are building on existing good practice, which I have explained. If small bodies such as the ones that the noble Lord described are affected by a new regulation, it seems right that the impact should be considered in the assessment by the independent body—the sort of compliance assessments that we rely on to look at the impact of regulation. It could, of course, be de minimis. That would be perfectly possible in the circumstances described by the noble Lord, but to exclude them does not seem to be right. This is in relation to the impact target; we are particularly focused on that at the moment.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I appreciate what the Minister is saying, but I do not see a de minimis provision here. Perhaps the noble Baroness can take that away to look at. It is similar to what the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, was saying. It looks like a many-headed Hydra and I do not think that that is what was meant. I think that it is meant to be a much simpler cut-through to try to find a balance between ensuring that those who are adversely affected by regulatory practice have a mechanism recognising that they are so affected and having a way of resolving it without suddenly putting the aegis of the country on a war-time footing alert that they are going to be attacked by the bureaucrats who will be coming to get them. I extend to make my point.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, given the concern that has been raised and given that, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, says, our intentions are certainly to cut red tape rather than the reverse, I shall be happy to discuss this before Report if that would be helpful.

Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill

Debate between Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Wednesday 7th January 2015 Grand Committee

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for setting out his thinking on these amendments. I shall comment in turn on the two amendments, taking Amendment 31 first.

The powers in Clause 11 are deliberately drawn as widely as possible to enable UK Export Finance to provide wide-ranging and flexible support, and to respond quickly and imaginatively to changes in market conditions. Our intention is for UK Export Finance to have the widest possible ability to support UK-based firms in their involvement with exporting, whether these firms are existing exporters, those in exporting supply chains or aspiring exporters.

The current requirement for a connection between the department’s support and an actual or contemplated export has made it difficult for the department to respond to the needs of exporters in certain cases, especially in relation to support for the general business of an exporter or a supply chain company. We share the aim that has been expressed today of maximising government support for exports and of maximising the awareness of that support among UK businesses. However, by delaying commencement, this amendment could serve to delay the introduction of new facilities for UK businesses to seek new opportunities and win export contracts that would help us increase UK trade, the aim set out in the Britain Open for Business update announced by the Prime Minister last year.

In view of the points that were made earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, I should say that when it comes to promoting British exports, this Government have done an enormous amount. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Popat, who is playing an important part in the passage of this Bill. It was on his recommendation that your Lordships’ House established a Select Committee under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Cope, who spoke earlier, examining the ways that the Government could support and encourage SMEs to export. That was a very valuable initiative, which reported in March 2013. The Government accepted all 23 of its recommendations, including measures on credit risks for SME exporters and better publicity for services provided by the Government.

We are absolutely committed to increasing British exports to rebalance our economy. As recently as the Autumn Statement, the Chancellor outlined a £45 million package to increase exports, including £20 million for first-time investors. That is in addition to work to increase UKTI’s presence in emerging markets and our work since 2010 to put a much greater emphasis on trade and economic growth in our diplomatic relations. The additional funding that this Government have provided for UKTI has allowed it to double the number of businesses helped since 2010, and we are on track to support more than 50,000 businesses this year. I echo the points made by my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley about the export effort for SMEs that he observed on his trip to China with the Prime Minister. Less glamorously, I saw the results for myself on a week’s visit to China in September. I was impressed both by the programme and performance of UKTI and by the scale of business involvement. Again, it was a mixture of SMEs, larger businesses and legal experts.

UK Export Finance is referred to several times in these amendments. In 2011, the Government reintroduced, after 20 years, UK Export Finance support for goods usually sold on shorter terms of credit—mainly those supplied by smaller companies. So far in this financial year, around 120 companies have benefited from direct UK Export Finance support, and almost 80% of them are smaller firms. Companies in the supply chains of exporters benefit indirectly from UK Export Finance support. We want them to benefit directly, hence the provisions in the Bill. UKEF is keenly aware of the need to improve awareness of it among smaller exporters. Last year, the British Exporters Association scored the product range of UK Export Finance at nine out of 10, while the Global Trade Review voted UK Export Finance the world’s best export credit agency. So we are making progress. Awareness of UKTI has also increased significantly over four years, from an average of 51% in 2010 to 65% now.

The noble Lord spoke at greater length to Amendment 32, touching on a very important area. It is of course government policy, informed by an extensive public consultation conducted in 2009-10, that UK Export Finance will comply with international agreements which apply to export credit agencies. UK Export Finance complies with the OECD common approaches, which set out how export credit agencies should undertake due diligence on the environmental and human rights impacts of projects falling within their scope. The OECD common approaches make reference to the UN guiding principles. In undertaking environmental and human rights due diligence in line with the common approaches, it is the practice of UK Export Finance to apply the 2012 performance standards of the International Finance Corporation. These are recognised as comprehensive standards. UK Export Finance is taking an active and leading role in further OECD consideration of human rights issues, which will inform possible changes to the OECD common approaches, should they be agreed.

I pause to comment on the example of fossil fuels given by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. UK Export Finance has not supported any transactions in violation of the coalition agreement’s pledge to support green technologies rather than invest in dirty fossil fuel energy production. The Secretary of State made it clear in a Written Ministerial Statement in July that “dirty fossil fuel” should be taken as referring to projects that produce pollution in excess of international environmental standards. The practice of UK Export Finance is not to support such projects.

As I have already said, UK Export Finance complies with the OECD common approaches and has a dedicated environment advisory team that reviews the environmental, social and human rights issues of projects covered by the common approaches prior to the department agreeing to provide support. I hope that gives some comfort. Against this background, the Government consider it neither necessary nor appropriate to impose a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to have regard to only one set of principles—which are, in any case, already taken into account through UKEF’s adherence to the common approaches.

On the second part of the amendment, the common approaches set out how export credit agencies such as UK Export Finance must take account of environmental, social and human rights issues. In line with this, UKEF requires that projects with significant ethical risks are subject to a full impact assessment and that international standards regarding environmental, social and human rights issues are complied with before it provides export credit finance support. UKEF will also monitor these issues throughout the life of projects where relevant, sometimes over periods as long as 10 years.

I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, make reference to various changes and improvements made in recent years, including the Bribery Act. That has been pivotal in clamping down on corruption. UK Export Finance also conducts due diligence on the contracts it supports to ensure that they are not tainted by corruption and that the risks associated with dealing with the parties are acceptable. This includes but is not limited to warranties from exporters and checks against prohibition lists maintained by multilateral development organisations such as the World Bank.

The Secretary of State also benefits from the advice of the independent Export Guarantees Advisory Council, whose remit is to advise on UKEF’s application of its ethical policies. The annual report of the chair of the Export Guarantees Advisory Council is published alongside UKEF’s own annual report, which lists the transactions supported by UKEF each year.

I hope that noble Lords are reassured that UKEF takes appropriate consideration of ethical issues in its decision-making and therefore will agree that it is not necessary to place a new statutory requirement upon the Secretary of State. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I thank the Minister for her very expansive response. I appreciate the effort that went into it. I know it is not her direct area of responsibility and I am sure that she received assistance from others. They put together a good response and I appreciated listening to it. I was also remiss in not paying tribute to the work of the noble Lord, Lord Popat, which has been referred to in the Committee before and is worthy of further comment. His is a terrific initiative and is doing well. The noble Lord, Lord Livingston, and his predecessor have also done a terrific job, which we support. The export champions, many of whom sit in this House, do a great job right across the world.

We are all on the same side here. Obviously, we recognise that we need more exports. We cannot become the nation that we want to be or enjoy the economic success that we all think we should have if we do not radically increase the amount and volume of our exports. We can take that as common ground. But—there is always a “but”—while I agree that we need to maximise support for exports and we accept that there is a long way to go, it does not have to be a zero-sum game. It is possible—many countries do this—to have regard to the terrible impacts of extractive industries, the difficulty of ensuring responsible trading and the respect for human rights in all aspects of activity, and not to be guided always by, in some senses, the lure of more arms sales. Of course, we have special regimes for them, but it is still very difficult to get a proper sense of what is happening there because they tend so much to dominate the work of both UKTI and UKEF.

Issues were brought up by my brief example, and there are many others. I accept the fact that since 2012, although that is not a long time ago, UKEF has not been involved in supporting the export of dirty fossil fuels—although I note that the quotation we were both referring to states that the situation is that it has not publicly financed new coal-fired plant overseas,

“except in rare circumstances in which the poorest countries have no feasible alternative”.

That seems to me to be a large door through which many rather undesirable practices may have taken place, but I have no evidence of that. However, it makes the point again that it may be that how we are interpreting things is good at the moment, but without statutory underpinning, how can we give sufficient support to people in order to ensure that good practice continues in the long run?

The proposals set out in Amendment 32 are not onerous. The Minister said that she felt that the amendment simply sets out what is common practice now in relation to promoting UK government adherence to the UN guiding principles. That is fine, so why not let us have that in legislation and all agree on it? Further, preparing a report for both Houses of Parliament might well be a way of bringing up some of the issues that do bear on this debate: for example, what exactly is the interaction between the moral and ethical standards we are looking at on the one side and the success or otherwise of exporting around the world?

However, I hear what has been said and I know that this is a complex and difficult area. The work that is going on in government is in some sense at the right level and indeed is of a standard that the rest of the world could easily emulate. However, we must not lose sight of this because it is important and it will have long-term consequences, both good and bad, if we do not get it right. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill

Debate between Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Monday 15th December 2014 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)]

My Lords, further to our Second Reading debate on 2 December, I now beg to move the commitment Motion for the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill. This has been agreed through the usual channels. The Motion sets out that the Bill will be taken in Grand Committee. Furthermore, given that Clause 42 was added to the Bill only at Commons Report stage by way of a government defeat, the Order of Consideration Motion sets out that Part 4 on pubs will be taken after Part 11 on employment.

As I set out at Second Reading, the Government have accepted the principle that there should be a market rent-only option for tied pub tenants. However, the clause will require some amendments to ensure that it works correctly, is consistent and mitigates some potential unintended consequences. A later consideration in Committee will allow everyone more time to consider these important points. I welcome the commitment from the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, at Second Reading to work with the Government to ensure that the clause works effectively. I look forward to support for the commitment Motion.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the assurance she made at Second Reading that the Government accept the principle of the introduction of a market rent-only option for tenanted pubs. We understand the reasons for wishing to reorder consideration of the Bill and I confirm that we are very happy to work with the Government to ensure that this option is made workable.

Consumer Rights Bill

Debate between Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Monday 8th December 2014 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)]

My Lords, these three amendments are minor and technical amendments to tidy up the Bill. Amendment 1 simply serves to update a cross-reference in Clause 21 to make sure that the Bill’s requirements relating to how refunds are paid apply also where the consumer rejects only some of the goods.

Amendment 2 adds Clause 38—other pre-contract information included in the contract—to the list of provisions in Clause 48(1) from which the trader cannot “contract out”. It corrects an omission and aligns the clause with Clause 31(1) for goods.

Amendment 4 simply retains some provisions originally considered to be obsolete. The provisions concerned insert provisions into the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 which we now consider need to be retained. I beg to move.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, at this stage of a Bill, I always feel that the subject matter should be aspirational, involving the high reaches of policy-making and big speeches. It is always a slight disappointment when we deal simply with technical matters. However, I congratulate the Minister on raising the issue. I am glad that she has done so and even gladder that she was able to battle through the noise made by those leaving the Chamber in such numbers as she was speaking. I am sure she will be delighted to hear that we fully support these amendments.

However, we were expecting to see in today’s Marshalled List amendments concerning issues that had been raised by Ofcom. We had understood that such amendments would be tabled, given the meetings arranged by another government Minister, which were attended by many Members of this House, on the subject of provider-led switching and whether or not the Government might support measures to reduce anti-competitive behaviour in relation to the internet. However, those amendments are not in the Marshalled List. Will the noble Baroness comment on that situation?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, I understand that my honourable friend Mr Ed Vaizey is dealing with this issue. I think we have the powers that we need, and we discussed this on a previous occasion. As I say, my right honourable friend is dealing with the issue. We are not in a position to add a provision to the Bill but I assure the noble Lord that the issue is being progressed very keenly.

Consumer Rights Bill

Debate between Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Wednesday 26th November 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, Amendment 49, which we support, would amend Section 3 of the Communications Act 2003, requiring Ofcom to promote competition and consumers’ interests by introducing a gaining provider led—or GPL—switching regime to the communications market.

It is obviously clear from what we have already heard and what we heard in Grand Committee that simple switching processes are vital to the health and future of all markets. While banking and energy customers are able to switch by contacting their new provider of choice, in mobile, pay TV and broadband customers have to contact their original provider before switching. The current losing provider led process is complicated and slow, works against consumers and distorts fair and open competition.

What is this mystery all about? As outlined by previous speakers, we have a situation where the Minister assured noble Lords, when she responded to this debate in Committee, that the Government have considerable sympathy for GPL switching in the UK. She said:

“In the Connectivity, Content and Consumers paper published last year, we emphasised that we want that across the board”.—[Official Report, 5/11/14; col. GC 692.]

That seems to be a supportive statement. Given that GPL switching already operates for fixed-line voice and broadband services delivered over the BT Openreach network, it is incomprehensible that it does not yet operate for mobile services or for pay TV. In Grand Committee, the Minister said that Ofcom had the power to mandate GPL switching for all communications services. However, as we have just heard, that does not seem to be Ofcom’s view. Indeed, so much does it disagree with what the Minister has said, it had to write to correct her after the debate in Grand Committee. It is worth quoting:

“We have said consistently that legislative reform to support GPL switching would enable us to address switching issues more quickly and directly, and make it easier for consumers to take advantage of the competitive UK communications market. Therefore we were pleased both with the government’s full support for Gaining Provider Led switching”—

in the July 2013 paper—

“and with the subsequent amendment tabled by Lord Clement-Jones … which would give effect to this aspiration by giving Ofcom a clear duty to mandate GPL switching”.

It is clear that Ofcom not only feels it does not have the power, but would welcome the certainty provided by legislation in the Bill. I suspect that that has more to do with the fact that this is a very litigious market within which a number of providers will probably seek judicial review on other issues if there is any doubt at all over whether the powers exist. It seems not so much a Christmas present but a necessary condition for the improvement of our markets that we should go ahead with this. I do not understand why the Government are reluctant to do so. I hope that they will be able to clear this up by supporting the amendment.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, as someone who has switched provider recently, I have seen at first hand how important it is to make the switching process easier for consumers. I empathise with people who are troubled by this, but I believe that we are close to solving the issue. Obviously the consumer is at the heart of our efforts and I am as keen as other noble Lords to make progress. I hope that I have some good news.

I am aware that Ed Richards has written to support the principle behind the amendment and I have also heard what he said to the parliamentary committee. As a result of that correspondence, we have had subsequent discussions with Ofcom. It has confirmed that it already has sufficient powers to deal with mobile services, on the same basis as it already deals with fixed line and broadband, which I will mention. We will want to see the conclusions of Ofcom’s current call for inputs before deciding what legislation is required for pay TV and bundles, but pay TV is not the issue that we are debating.

While I understand the concerns behind my noble friend’s amendment, I believe that it is not necessary, given Ofcom’s existing functions under the Communications Act 2003. Ofcom announced in December that RPL switching would be mandated for all providers delivering broadband and fixed telephony over the existing copper network. Work has started and full implementation of it will be completed by June 2015. Because many consumers now subscribe to telephony as part of a bundle of services, it does not make sense to focus on telephony alone. In July, Ofcom published a call for inputs to understand better the processes used to switch providers of bundled voice, broadband and pay TV. It will also hold discussions with the industry and consumer organisations, and, to respond to my noble friend Lord Stoneham’s question about the timetable, it will publish a document setting out the results in the first half of 2015. Ofcom will consult further and as appropriate on mobile and bundled services with a view to mandating RPL switching.

I share my noble friend’s concerns about RPL switching, but a short-term partial solution is not the answer. I can assure him that we are fully engaged on this matter with Ofcom and we will continue to be so. Given that progress, and everything that Ofcom is achieving with its existing powers and the ongoing work to move towards a system of RPL switching across the board, I ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.

Consumer Rights Bill

Debate between Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Wednesday 19th November 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

The amendment stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Hayter of Kentish Town. I declare my interest as retiring chair of the charity StepChange. Your Lordships’ House will be well aware of the considerable influence that it has had in curbing the explosion of high-cost credit that has so disadvantaged consumers in recent years. However, there is more to do.

The purpose of the amendment is to level the playing field on logbook loans by requiring the lender to obtain a court order before repossessing goods being repossessed by this archaic system, which uses legislation first introduced in 1878. A logbook loan is a bill of sale securing a loan on an asset, often a vehicle, and it gets its name from the fact that the lender retains the vehicle’s logbook or vehicle registration certificate, the V54, until the loan and any outstanding interest are repaid. Logbook loans are another form of very high-interest credit, and share with payday loans the use of unfair terms and conditions. They tend to be used by people who have bad credit ratings but need cash quickly. If you check them out on the internet you will find that an application for a logbook loan can be completed in as little as 15 minutes.

Recent research shows that logbook loans secured by a bill of sale are generally for amounts ranging from £500 to £2,000; the average is about £1,000. They are typically repaid over a six to 18-month period. The APR varies, but tends to range between 200% and 500%. These are not cheap loans.

It is the use of a bill of sale that causes the most difficulty. The legislation governing such loans, which dates from Victorian times, means that, uniquely in the high cost credit market, the lender can repossess the debtor’s asset—the vehicle—without a court order. We need to change this, to level the playing field. Bills of sale are already illegal in Scotland. Should we not take a leaf out of its book?

The history of this is interesting. After reviewing the position in December 2009, the previous Government proposed to ban the use of bills of sale for consumer lending, but, after the election, the coalition Government decided not to go ahead but to rely on a voluntary code of practice. Recent research by Citizens Advice shows that there is likely to be a 60% increase in bills for sale registered from 2011 to 2014. We believe that it is now time to stamp out this arcane practice. The Victorians had much to commend them but this legislation is not their finest monument.

When we raised this issue in Committee, the Government response was twofold. First, the Minister confirmed that the Law Commission has agreed to a request from Treasury Ministers to look at how best to reform bills of sale. This is indeed somewhat ironic, given that we had a debate only yesterday on Schedule 20 to the Deregulation Bill, when the Government were rather limply trying to defend their decision not to ask the Law Commission to review acres of what they call “legislation no longer of practical use”. However, this process will take time and unless the noble Baroness has some more information to share with us, it seems highly likely that this issue will not get into the next Law Commission Bill, which is unfortunately not due until 2016. The Government also pointed out that the FCA is in charge of this sector of consumer credit and mentioned that it had defined logbook loans as “higher risk activities”. That is certainly not wrong but when, oh when, will they get around to doing something about it?

As we found with payday lenders, it does no harm to give the regulator a bit of a push when you think that it may not get to the right place quickly enough. Consumer detriment is happening now and it ought to be stopped, so our amendment follows the approach that the House took to capping payday lending, as a sort of regulatory push. As well as welcoming the promised robust action by the FCA, we think it is appropriate to hasten it on its way. If loan book lenders have to use the courts to repossess goods, it will level the playing field with the other consumer credit operators and make it more likely that many will exit the market. That would be “job done”. I do not believe that the actions being proposed by the Government are sufficient to outlaw this scourge in good enough time. Our amendment will strengthen protections for consumers using logbook loans. I beg to move.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)]

My Lords, before turning to Amendment 1 in detail, I would like to take a step back and set out why the Government do not believe that this Bill should be the vehicle for addressing issues in consumer credit and financial services more generally.

First, as noble Lords will be aware, the Government have introduced a major package of reforms to strengthen regulation of financial services markets. In the Financial Services Act 2012, we replaced the flawed system of financial regulation that we had inherited. We created the Prudential Regulation Authority to take the lead in ensuring that our banks and our insurers are safely and soundly run. We also set up the Financial Conduct Authority—FCA—as a consumer protection and market conduct regulator.

To ensure that the FCA has a clear and comprehensive remit covering all consumer financial services matters, we transferred the responsibility for regulating consumer credit from the OFT to the FCA. This means that the FCA’s statutory objectives, such as consumer protection, apply to the regulation of consumer credit. It also means that the FCA’s comprehensive and flexible rule-making powers can be used to help protect consumers from bad practices in the consumer credit market for the first time. For example, the payday lending rules introduced by the FCA have meant that the volume of payday loans has shrunk by 35% since the FCA took over regulatory responsibility in April 2014, demonstrating the strength of the regulatory regime. The Government therefore consider that the Consumer Rights Bill is not the place for making amendments to the law on consumer credit.

I turn to the detail of the amendment. Across government, we share concern about the risk to consumers from logbook loans, which were well described by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. The Government believe that people should be able to borrow and should have the tools to make an informed decision about which credit products are right for them but that consumers should be confident that they will be treated fairly when things go wrong. As I have said, responsibility for consumer credit regulation, which includes logbook lenders and the associated arrangements, transferred from the Office of Fair Trading to the Financial Conduct Authority on 1 April. Consumers are far better protected under the stronger, well resourced FCA regime.

Like payday loans, the FCA defines logbook loans as “higher risk activities”, as has been said, so lenders face closer supervision. Logbook lenders are subject to a range of binding FCA rules, including requirements to provide precontractual explanation to borrowers of their rights before any agreement is signed. The Government have ensured that the FCA has a wide enforcement toolkit to take action where its rules are breached. There is no limit on the fines it can levy and, crucially, it can force firms to provide redress to consumers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, I echo the words of those noble Lords who have said that this has been a very good debate: it has indeed been good and it is right that it should have been, because it raised difficult issues with which the Government have been grappling. The predominant weight of the arguments that we have heard today—because they were not universally on one side—was for change, so I hope that that will weigh heavily with the Government when they come to consider what they are going to do.

I had a full speech here, full of witty aphorisms and wonderful evidence, but you always find that in debates of this nature, somebody stands up and says, “Do you know, just about everything that could be said about this thing has been said, but not by everybody,” and then they repeat them. I am not going to do that. The issue on which I want to reflect is what on earth the Government are going to do with this. When you have had your case as put in Grand Committee completely destroyed by the forensic words of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan; when you have had your best arguments bashed to boundary by the noble Baroness, Lady Heyhoe Flint; when you have reduced the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones—and it is an astonishing thing—to speak for less than three minutes in a debate; when your former Secretary of State is lining up to give you good advice about how you should deal with this, then you are in a spot of trouble.

You know you are in trouble when you have to rely on people on the other side who are basically scaremongering. I respect the noble Lords who have spoken in support of the Government on this matter, but I think they went way over the top, while we on this side were utter models of restraint. We insisted on only two things: that the equity that should exist for anybody who wishes to buy tickets is not abolishing, changing or adjusting any market; I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Grade, made that point very well, and it was previously made by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, who picked up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Heyhoe Flint. Instead, it is about making those markets that exist work fairly, removing the fraud where it is possible, and making sure that people can see and get access to the events they want. When you have consumers, event organisers, participants and the police—for goodness’ sake—on your side, what on earth are you doing, and who are you listening to when you stand against them?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, many of us love British sport and our creative industries. This love unites most of us in the House and certainly those in the Chamber today. As the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, said, it has been a very good debate. We have had a star cast, including ladies of sport—the noble Baronesses, Lady Grey-Thompson and Lady Heyhoe Flint—and the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, so we have had real experts.

Noble Lords will know that I take a great deal of personal interest in this issue. In fact, I should almost declare an interest as a mother of three cricketers. I have met the England and Wales Cricket Board, the organisers of Wimbledon and the Rugby Football Union. I have also met Which? and I am aware of the interest of UK Music, which I meet on other things. I have actively engaged with Mike Weatherley MP and his All-Party Parliamentary Group on Ticket Abuse. I have been working with these bodies to try to get to the core of this issue: what we can best do to help and protect the fans? It is the fans who really matter in this equation.

I congratulate the noble Lords, Lord Moynihan and Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Heyhoe Flint, on their extensive work on this issue and the expertise they always bring to our debates. Most fans buy tickets direct from the venue or the organiser, often well in advance of the event. To pick up a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Heyhoe Flint, debenture holders and sponsors often get ticket allocations well in advance, which is why there are sometimes tickets on sale well ahead of events. A lot can change between a ticket being bought and the event itself—people fall ill or make other plans—and these fans then resell their tickets to other fans. This is the market we are discussing today, for which there has been great support. I agree with the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Ticket Abuse when it says that,

“the existence of a secondary market is justified by the need of consumers to pass on tickets bought for events that they can no longer use”.

Let me be clear: we believe fans should be protected in this market.

If the House will bear with me, I will respond to the debate and will then set out some new plans to take things forward. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, talked about fraud. Fraud is a criminal offence under the Fraud Act 2006. It covers activity by all sellers, including consumers and traders. Many of the actions referred to are fraud: selling tickets you do not have and have not purchased is fraud; traders impersonating consumers to sell tickets are committing criminal offences; and, arguably, selling tickets knowingly in contradiction of their terms and conditions without informing the consumer of this may be fraud.

Repeating in the Bill that fraud is a crime would not make it any more illegal. What matters to fans, and many of your Lordships, is enforcement of the law that we have. There is fraud in the ticket market: we do not dispute the numbers quoted from the National Fraud Authority on this. In the specific case of ticket fraud, it reports £1.5 billion of losses. That is not a number to be ignored and we are not going to ignore it. As my noble friend Lord Grade said, there is a serious problem.

The Government have a huge focus on cutting economic crime, and we have created a powerful Economic Crime Command within the National Crime Agency to drive this forward. We have also strengthened the reporting and intelligence arrangements for fraud. ActionFraud is now the single national reporting centre for fraud and financially motivated cybercrime. Since 1 April this year, responsibility for ActionFraud rests with the City of London Police, bringing it closer to the National Fraud Intelligence Bureau. This allows links to be made between disparate crimes that would otherwise not be connected and it has led to a significant increase in the reporting of fraud. The Government are also investing £860 million through the National Cyber Security Programme, which includes work on online fraud.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, will thank me for making an even shorter speech than I made in the previous debate. I must say that my breath is somewhat taken away by the sweeping nature of the amendment, which tries to sweep all digital content into the clauses on the sale of goods. The software industry may have some difficulty with some areas of Chapter 3 on digital content, but if what the noble Lord wants happened, it would be horrified. The dialogue between the software industry and the Government may not have produced everything that the software industry wants, but it has recognised that digital content is very different. I forewarned the noble Baroness, Lady King, that I would cite her. Like me, she said:

“I will not speak at length on this amendment or the other amendments … but it seems worth reiterating the peculiar nature of digital content”. [Official Report, 20/10/14; col. GC 183.]

Although I do not have the exact reference, I entirely agree with her. The noble Lord, Lord Knight, made similar points about the peculiar nature of digital content. It would be an extremely retrograde step to sweep up the additional content in this. If the noble Lord had come with individual amendments to the clauses to bring digital content in, I might have been more sympathetic, because one then could have seen the exact consequences of the amendments, but the consequences of this amendment could be quite unforeseen and extremely contrary to the interests of the strong and vibrant software industry that we have in this country.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, the Bill brings in clear quality rights for consumers of digital content for the first time. In this digital age, many of us are consumers of digital content on our smartphones, our smart televisions, our computers and, I was hearing this morning, on wearables. The sector is crucial and growing for the UK economy. The Business Population Survey estimated that there were more than 300,000 digital content firms in 2013—e-book publishers, games, software and website developers—with an annual turnover of just over £200 billion. It is vital that we have the right sort of regulation for that important, very innovative sector. That is why we have consulted widely on our approach to digital content.

The digital content chapter provides that when digital content is faulty, the consumer is entitled to a repair or replacement of the digital content. If that cannot be done within a reasonable time, or without significant inconvenience to the consumer, the consumer is entitled to a price reduction, which may mean some money back or, in some cases, 100%. I set out the general picture because we are about to discuss a number of amendments in this area.

This approach takes account of the way that industry works. As my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones, who I am delighted to see here at this debate, said in Grand Committee,

“in practical terms the software industry will always find a workaround or fix to a problem”.—Official Report, 20/10/14; col. GC 211.]

I have been using that quote elsewhere. In other words, when digital content is faulty, the problem is usually remedied quickly through an update.

The proposed amendment would apply to intangible digital content the same rights as apply to goods. So when intangible digital content is faulty, the consumer would also be entitled to a short-term right to reject, a limit to a single repair or replacement, and a final right to reject. Applying the full suite of goods remedies to digital content where it does not form part of goods, as it does in a washing machine, for example, would result in provisions that were not fit for the digital world.

We want provisions that encourage an increase in uptake and allow industry to innovate and flourish. This amendment would be a retrograde step, to the detriment of consumers. As the noble Lord, Lord Knight, who has already been quoted as a real digital expert, reflected in Committee, we must remember that many digital content producers are micro-businesses and start-ups, and we need to maintain an environment in which they can flourish and provide innovative products—while, of course, not letting them off the hook for substandard offerings.

The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, made a number of good points, but I feel, as does my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones, that the proposals in his amendment could have unforeseen effects. A short-term right to reject intangible digital content and strict limits on the numbers of repairs and replacements would not be practical in the complex world we live in. In the digital environment, a fault in one copy of digital content may be replicated in all copies, or the fault may not be a result of an action by the trader at all. That is why a repair is a more equitable solution in the first instance than a full refund.

There are also issues around the practicality of “returning” intangible digital content. I think the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, is suggesting that there should be an obligation on the consumer to delete digital content and on the trader to provide a refund. I do not believe it would be equitable or necessary to impose such a burden on consumers, who may not be technically savvy enough to achieve this—or not without assistance from the content supplier. Of course, many forms of digital content are quickly used, so the consumer may already have taken advantage of the digital content as much as they intended—for example, having viewed the film or read some of the e-book—before they reject it. There is a high risk that a short-term right to reject would therefore push manufacturers towards more restrictive data management techniques that would not be in the best interests of the consumer. Or it could cause the industry to be more conservative in its product offerings, reducing our competitiveness. Innovation would be chilled.

Looking to the future, it is also worth considering the moves in Europe towards a digital single market, and remembering that digital content is commonly sold across borders. The short-term right to reject is a domestic law; there is no short-term right to reject in the consumer sales directive from which many of the goods remedies derive. If we went ahead with a short-term right to reject intangible digital content, we could be out of step with Europe, creating problems for our manufacturers who want to sell across borders.

I believe that, although there are attractions in providing a short-term right to reject for digital content where it does not form part of goods, this would tip the balance of the Bill too far the wrong way. Indeed, it would be to the detriment of consumers, who would suffer from, at the very least, restricted product offerings and higher prices. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I thank the Minister for her full reply. I would like to come back on one or two of the points that she mentioned. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for coming at me with rather less venom than he threatened me with outside the Chamber beforehand, when he implied that I would be mad even to stand up and make my speech. The bark was rather worse than the bite on this occasion, particularly as I have now discovered that, even though he had the correct item in his hand, he misquoted my noble friend Lady King. My noble friend is incredibly adept on the iPad, and was able to summon up the full quote, and of course it was about a different issue. I shall have words with my noble friend Lord Knight later: he gets quoted too often on these issues and, as I have discovered, he is not always sound on some of the points that we want to put through.

Ticket Touting

Debate between Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Wednesday 5th November 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, I should be careful about moving on to the turf of the criminal justice services. What I will say is that this was a narrow question about ticket touting, which is regulated under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act, which was specifically set up to help with the terrible problems in football. I think that everyone feels that it has had some success. Clearly, our discussions have been wider, covering what we are doing for the consumers on the general question of ticket touting and how we can make sure that this is a good market, where people can buy tickets and be sure that they are not getting defrauded, while also ensuring that the consumer gets a good deal and can attend sport, the theatre and pop concerts. That is what we all want.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, Operation Podium argues, and the Government need to accept, that ticket fraud is usually,

“committed by organised criminal networks … creating legitimate-looking websites, taking payment for event tickets and then failing to supply them.”

That is the fact, but what is perhaps not realised as often is that many people who suffer from that ticket fraud then discover they are also subject to a scam which means that their credit card details are used again and again, so they are doubly hit. What sort of balance does the Minister find in that?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

The noble Lord is right to express concerns but I think the House needs to understand that we have brought in new regulations as recently as June, and we have been working with the online marketplaces so that consumers are protected. The four main resale sites now go way beyond what they used to do. They are refunding or replacing unusable tickets and working with the RFU and all the other sporting bodies to make sure that things are okay. I saw the RFU yesterday and was very impressed by the action it is taking for the 2015 Rugby World Cup in using anti-forgery designs and a ballot system. We have to make progress in the real world, where consumers want to get tickets and attend games and concerts.

Copyright and Rights in Performances (Certain Permitted Uses of Orphan Works) Regulations 2014

Debate between Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Thursday 23rd October 2014 Grand Committee

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their valuable contributions and comments. We always have lively debates on these intellectual property issues, partly because of the balance that one has to try to strike on the whole series of measures we have taken.

The noble Lord, Lord Howarth, welcomed the EU directive, as did I, and I in turn welcome the work he has done with the British Library. He is of course the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, which is where the Intellectual Property Office is located, so he is a friend for that reason as well. It was also good to hear of the interests of my noble friend Lord Bridgeman, who introduced a family perspective into this debate to complement and assist the perspective of national collections such as the British Library.

The noble Lord, Lord Howarth, argued that the scheme did not meet the needs of museums and that the balance was wrong. Clearly, I respect his view, but I disagree. We must protect copyright owners as well as the cultural sector, which was a point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott.

The noble Lord, Lord Howarth, also felt that the UK scheme was bureaucratic and expensive. As he said, I care a lot about regulation and bureaucracy and will be keeping a beady eye on this. As we have heard, there are views on both sides. As my noble friend Lady Buscombe said, we are slightly between a rock and a hard place. We have to find a balance and move forward on these important intellectual property issues. There were many years of debate when little was done, and it is good that we have moved forward in recent times. We now have a policy on orphan works coming into effect.

We are mindful of the need to make the scheme affordable to cultural institutions. We have developed the orphan works licensing scheme, including the approach to pricing, in consultation with museums, libraries and archives. However, the needs of potential users of orphan works need to be balanced with the rights of copyright holders.

The noble Lord, Lord Howarth, also argued that the diligent search requirements were onerous. I will come on to talk about those in a little more detail in view of the other points that were raised, but I say at this point that it is a fundamental principle of diligent search that it needs to be a diligent search for all relevant rights holders of any given work. That is only fair. Of course, many libraries, museums and archives are already doing this. The difference will be that when those searches do not result in rights holders being found, the search will not have been wasted.

Of course, the EU directive covered only the heritage and cultural orphan works, not commercial works. The UK scheme also covers a broader field than the original EU directive. Despite our efforts to make the directive wider during its negotiations, it does not allow us to regulate commercial use. That also partly answers the question of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, about why we had to have two statutory instruments, one under Section 2(2) and the other under domestic legislation, but we are of course debating them together.

The noble Lord, Lord Howarth, asked about licence fees. He said that if you multiply a minimal fee by millions of works, you get large sums.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

To go back to diligent search, if I am picking this up correctly from what the noble Baroness has said, the irony will be that the position in the order reflecting the incorporation of the EU measure has got specified minimum requirements for a diligent search, but there are no such requirements in respect of the commercial work. That is, I think, the cause of the unease that we all feel. Does she not recognise that unless a similar or even greater level of scrutiny is required, the danger will always be in the minds of the rights holders that they are not being dealt with fairly in the domestic issues?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. I think in fact that is not right. There will be rules for diligent search and indeed we have published guidelines on diligent search, which I am very happy to make available to the Committee. For exactly this reason, we are very aware of the interplay between the two schemes and that is something that we have been concentrating on during the extensive period of implementation and thinking about exactly how to implement this.

I would say that licence fees are not a tax. They are the price owed to the copyright holder. It is fair to pay for this, given that copyright is, in a sense, a property right, as has been said.

Consumer Rights Bill

Debate between Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Monday 20th October 2014 Grand Committee

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

The department always keeps the operation of new regulations under review, and I can certainly follow up with the precise detail on this provision, if that is helpful.

The noble Lord, Lord Knight, also asked whether the consumer could require a trader to delete any data that they may have collected. In a sense, the answer is similar: it would be a significant departure from the current regime, which traders are familiar with, and of course data protection rules need to be complied with at all times.

The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, I think asserted that consumers have the right to a refund only if the trader did not have the right to supply it. However, as I have just said under my second general point, the consumer can get 100% of their money back under Clause 44(2) if a repair or replacement cannot be made within a reasonable time or without significant inconvenience.

In conclusion, I have heard the argument in favour of giving intangible digital content the same rights as goods, including applying the short-term right to reject. I realise that there are strong views on both sides of this debate and a keenness to get this area right. We are already improving the situation for digital content by providing new rights when consumers buy digital content. There may be some attractions to the idea of providing exactly the same rights for digital content as goods, but the issues are not clear cut and a balance has to be struck with the impact on industry. To exactly align the rights for digital content and goods could have severe consequences—to the detriment of industry, which would have to bear the costs, and consequently, I fear, to consumers, who might suffer from reduced product offerings, reduced innovation and, ultimately, higher prices. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I thank the Minister for her response, although I am very disappointed in it. I also thank my noble friend Lord Knight for his contributions. It is obviously going to be a lively afternoon if this is the rate at which he intends to intervene. I encourage him to do so, a bit like “Angry Birds”—or is that the wrong analogy? Just while I have him in my sights, his support for me was, I think, generous but perhaps a little lukewarm on the central point, which we might have a talk about afterwards. However, I also felt two things about what he was saying—which I think is relevant to the debate; I am not trying to pick on him. I agree that very often the download level, at which you are paying a matter of pence for things, can look very trivial, and that perhaps makes the effort of trying to remove the charge uncertain; but there are people in this world who look after the pence and hope that the pounds will look after themselves. For all people we have to be sure that there is not a massive rip-off taking place on a big scale. Prices are important, but they are not the only determinant.

Secondly, the failure to find a way in which one can return intangible downloads is also a way of cluttering up one’s computer. I think that I would be quite pleased if I got rid of some of the stuff that I have wittingly or unwittingly received in my computer which is slowing it down. These are points that we perhaps might come back to.

My main argument is that there is a lack of consistency in approach here. It is therefore not really about the detail, it is about the principles of this. In light of the fact that the consumer can experience some types of digital content in both tangible and intangible form, it seems unarguably the case that we need to have a single remedy and a single process under which that is operating. I think that we are building in problems for ourselves as a society if we do not get this right at this stage, and I fear that the Government are getting it wrong.

There is also a danger that the market will become skewed if one regime is seen to be effective and efficient for tangible goods but there is another for intangible goods. The better consumer protection for tangible goods and materials will be of benefit, and higher prices may even be applied to that area. Again, that would distort the market, which I thought was what we were trying to avoid. The cost elements of the two platforms are an issue to which we would have to return.

The Minister said she was worried about consumers’ willingness to try new and innovative products, but we are not hearing—as we have in previous debates in this Committee—that it is an important tenet of consumers’ interest in new products and innovative solutions that they have security in their rights. If they do not have easy, effective and properly organised rights as regards intangible goods, they will be less likely to take innovative material. That would be bad for innovation and our economy.

The Minister said that what we were asking for was a step too far but, as we heard from my noble friend Lord Knight, there is a huge asymmetry in the relationship between the traders now operating on the internet and consumers. He gave an example about the benefits that come back to producers in the form of personal data and the unwillingness of the Government to take that on board as a serious issue. If a consumer takes a free download in return for providing personal data but has no redress in terms of what the data are used for if he chooses to reject the material he has downloaded, there is a new asymmetry that we need to think carefully about.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, I enjoyed the graphic picture described by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, of how things have changed and the smaller scale of everything as a result of the digital world. Despite his comments on the previous amendment, I think that we share a common goal: to legislate for the consumer of digital content in a 21st-century way.

One of the main aims of the Bill is to provide clarity on what rights consumers have when goods, digital content or services are substandard. I am sure that we are all agreed that one of the things that a consumer needs to know is to whom they should go when things go wrong. Intermediary businesses also need to be clear on when the rights do and do not apply to them, particularly when they are developing new and innovative business models. The digital content quality rights are contractual rights consumers have when they pay a trader to supply digital content to them under contract.

The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, asked whether freemium products were covered by the clause for those who are not as digitally aware as some among the younger generation. A good example would be “Smurfs”, which is a free game but users can buy additional content within the game such as a house for Smurfers. The basic model is free but consumers then pay, sometimes at premium rates—hence the term freemium—for enhancements and additional features. Where a consumer pays for digital content and the trader provides it under a contract, the quality rights apply. This means that the initial free product will not attract the quality rights. However, the later paid-for features will, indeed, attract the quality rights. This includes being fit for the purpose for which they were bought—that is, to use in connection with the free product. Those of us who have studied the proceedings in another place will know that “Candy Crush” occupied a great deal of time among Members, to their great delight.

The noble Lord also asked what happens when the two matters come together and whether the quality rights that apply to the paid later additions then change the status of the free product. I will come back to him on that point.

The digital content chapter covers a consumer contract with the trader who supplies the digital content and not the intermediary who introduces the consumer to the trader, as they are not supplying that digital content. The intermediary will be covered only if they also supply digital content as part of their business. For example, if a consumer buys a computer game from an online trader such as Green Man Gaming, Green Man Gaming is the trader, in the same way as if they buy a board game from WH Smith, WH Smith is the trader.

If the consumer uses a search engine to find a trader from whom they can buy the game, the contract is not between the search engine and the consumer. The same is clearly true in the physical world. If the consumer uses Yellow Pages to find a shop, Yellow Pages is not the trader.

What consumers need to know is who the trader is. This information needs to be clear and transparent. I know that this is not always the case in the digital world. However, the consumer contract regulations, to which we referred in our discussions last week, came into force in June, particularly in respect of distance sales. They require that the identity of the trader and their contact details are provided to the consumer before the contract is made. This applies to digital content as well as to goods and services. Therefore, the proposed amendment is not necessary because this is how our reforms work. The rights apply against the trader the consumer has paid for the supply of digital content and not against the intermediary. The name and contact details of the trader have to be provided to the consumer under those regulations. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I thank the Minister for her response. I take it from that that there is now agreement and clarity about the role of the intermediary, which I fully accept. I am glad to have on the record that the trader is the person with whom the consumer is contracting to provide a particular good or service delivered digitally and that the role of the intermediary is not involved unless they are also supplying either directly or indirectly material which could be called digital and it would be a paid-for service. I am also grateful for the confirmation that the consumer contract regulations will apply to that.

What I am not quite so happy about is the point raised by my noble friend Lord Knight about free downloads and what constitutes a free download—that is, not for monetary consideration—in the digital world. I wonder if the Minister would take that point away. It obviously comes up in relation to the freemium type of arrangement, but there are wider considerations here. I do not understand why the Government are taking a rather pure view of the fact that the trigger point appears to be the transfer of cash for a product that is already embedded into something that has been downloaded. The vanilla version—if I can use that term—of the game is clearly being used and operated in a traded way even though money is not being exchanged. There must be a reasonable expectation on both sides that a later development in that process would be for money to be exchanged so that the game could be enjoyed at a higher level. If the rights to it kick in only at the point at which consideration passes, then we are not covering the point at which the free version somehow interferes with and reduces the enjoyment of the player. It is perhaps too complicated to deal with here, but I would be grateful if we could exchange letters on this point. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Sugar for putting down this amendment and my noble friend Lord Haskel for adding his name to it and standing in and presenting it for my noble friend Lord Sugar who is unavoidably detained today. As has been said, this is an alternative approach to things which is, perhaps, more reflective of a more dynamic and engaged relationship between consumer and trader in which you have to trust the trader to develop the tools you use and you go forward. It certainly beats the old advice—which I am sure my noble friend Lady King has already tried—that when in trouble switch it off, hope for the best and it will magically work itself out. It is an attractive idea that somebody up there is thinking about how it works and how best to improve it. With the dangers that my noble friend has mentioned, we need to hear from the Minister about how this has been received.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, for his amendment and for standing in for the noble Lord, Lord Sugar. I look forward to his appearance on the Lord Sugar show.

I recognise that some types of digital content, such as software and games, do, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, evolve over time. That is precisely why we introduced Clause 40, allowing updates that were in the terms of the contract. So let me reassure noble Lords that there is nothing in the Bill that prevents digital content traders from providing updates or upgrades, under the terms of their contract, to improve the functionality of the digital content. We have heard several times from the noble Lord, Lord Knight, about the iterative nature of some digital content and I am grateful for his digitally aware intervention.

Clause 40 ensures that, as long as modifications are allowed under the terms of the contract, there is nothing to prevent the trader from updating or upgrading digital content as long as it remains of satisfactory quality, fit for any particular purpose and as described. Such contract terms would be assessable for fairness under Part 2, “Unfair Terms”. The “as described” aspect does not fix the digital content to a static description. The digital content has to match the description but this does not mean it has to be exactly the same as the original description. It simply means that if the digital content is described as containing a certain feature then it should have that feature. However, as long as it has the described features, any additional features would not prevent it from matching, rather as a blouse may match a jacket, although the jacket may have more colours.

To a large degree, the description is in the gift of the trader, as long as it includes the main characteristics of the digital content, its functionality and interoperability. I have heard the industry’s concerns that it needs to be able to provide updates that are made for the consumer’s benefit. Perhaps a feature is taking up too much processing power and slowing everything else down, or perhaps a feature has become vulnerable to a security threat and needs to be removed while it is fixed, to protect the consumer from the threat. Of course it is important that industry is able to act in these cases but I am not convinced by arguments that Clause 40 will prevent it from doing so or slow it down in cases of urgent updates.

Let us assume that a trader has needed to remove a feature of some digital content, either intending to improve functionality or protect from a security threat. What would the trader do next? They would have two options. They could repair the feature to make it work more efficiently or improve security, and then reinstate it. Or they could take a decision that it was a minor feature that not enough consumers used, so they would not reinstate it. If, in that scenario, the removal of the feature meant that the digital content no longer matched the description, as required by Clause 40, the first remedy available to the consumer would be the repair or replacement of the digital content.

In the first option I have just outlined, that is normal industry practice already and is appropriate. A consumer has bought some digital content expecting it to contain the features or perform the functions it was described as doing. If the digital content no longer does that they will be justifiably unhappy and will expect the problem to be fixed. In the second option, where the trader is not repairing or replacing the feature, the consumer would be entitled to some money back. Let us remember that the amount due is unlikely to be the full price paid. It would be an appropriate amount and we would expect this to take into account the use the consumer had already had of the digital content and the continued functionality of the rest of the digital content. So the amount might be small.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

I agree—I take the rebuke. Obviously, perfect spelling is very important to the future of civilisation.

As I was saying, the digital content might have introduced a code that has damaged all the digital content on the consumer’s device, including the underlying operating system—for example, as can happen on one’s iPad. In this case, the compensation could be considerably more.

We have already debated the issues surrounding business liabilities under this clause and we have talked a little about the consumer angle. I have listened very carefully to both of the perspectives discussed in relation to this clause and I will read Hansard. I am keen to ensure that we have the balance right here. I think that we have. For that reason, I hope that your Lordships will agree that this clause should stand part of the Bill.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her comments. By her use of examples she has explained some of the difficulties. She put herself into exactly the position I was trying to bring her to, which is that I do not really understand how this works yet. I now understand the mechanism and that it will apply to free delivery, and anticipating her line of argument, presumably where free apps turn into freemium apps there will be an assessment of both the free part and the premium part because there will be two different elements in the calculation that go towards it. I can see that the issue is about the damage caused rather than the original pricing because there was no price on the free element. However, I still do not quite understand who is doing that. Is this now a matter for the courts or will some new form of arbitration system be set up for problems around free downloads? I am not looking for a response at this point, but perhaps the Minister could write to me.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

Perhaps I may clarify that obviously it is ultimately for the courts since we are talking about provision for damages and so on. I shall set that out clearly in writing.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I am now slightly more confused because the text of the Bill states that the consumer has a right and can exercise that right against a trader. Is that going to be in the courts in all circumstances? If we are talking about some of the apps referred to earlier by my noble friend Lord Knight, we are considering trivial things which may create a lot of confusion. I cannot believe that the courts will wish to engage themselves with “Angry Birds” and “Candy Crush” users who are annoyed about an issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

Perhaps I have confused the noble Lord by saying that ultimately this is a matter for the courts. However, he will be pleased to know that we are planning to issue guidance in this area which will be subject to the usual consultation. The minor points being articulated by the noble Lord will be the subject of guidance and therefore, it is hoped, will not reach the courts too often.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

“A hae ma doots” about that—but perhaps I should not use that term in Hansard. I have some doubts about where this is going, so again perhaps I may request a letter that sketches this out in more detail; I am sure that we will reach an accommodation. In the mean time, I am happy not to press my opposition to the clause.

Tata Steel

Debate between Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Thursday 16th October 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in the other place. I am sure that everyone in the country will appreciate the uncertainty and anxiety that yesterday’s announcement by Tata Steel will have caused for thousands of steel-workers, their families, affected communities and firms in the metals supply chain. I hope that the Minister will join me in expressing that to those people.

As the noble Baroness said, steel is a vital foundation for much of the UK’s manufacturing supply chains. The UK is a leading global player in sectors such as aerospace, automotives, construction and energy infrastructure, and the production of steel here in the UK underpins much of that competitiveness. However, we now know that Britain’s largest steel manufacturer is preparing to sell half of its capacity. What contingencies will the Government put in place to maintain and enhance the skills and capability of that industry to ensure that they are not lost to the UK?

Secondly, what commitments have the Government obtained from the potential new owner regarding the maintenance of existing sites and industrial capability, the safeguarding of jobs and additional investment? How binding are these commitments likely to be, or are we in danger of repeating the mistakes we encountered during the Cadbury takeover? Is the Minister concerned that we have learned that the unions have not been involved in any consultation or communication with the potential new owners?

Thirdly, this matter affects England and Scotland. What discussions have the Government had with their counterparts in Scotland to ensure a co-ordinated and united response for the good of the steel industry across the United Kingdom?

Finally, do the Government have a plan for what happens if negotiations for the sale break down? It is clear that Tata wishes to divest itself of its Long Products division, so what active role are the Government taking about maintaining that capacity in the United Kingdom? Should an effective industrial strategy not consider and mitigate these risks?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, we share the concern about the uncertainty for the communities, as I made clear in the Statement. Fortunately, we have done a great deal of work on skills, including providing a stronger steel industry, which makes the prospects of a good outcome much more likely. I understand that the unions were warned about the announcement, but clearly there were constraints relating to inside information. I emphasise that no closures have been announced; this is the beginning of a possible sale. I reassure the noble Lord that we are actively engaging in discussions with both the Tata Group, the existing owner of the asset, and the Klesch Group, with which we will discuss its intentions. The Scottish angle will be attended to and is very much in our minds.

Copyright and Rights in Performances (Personal Copies for Private Use) Regulations 2014

Debate between Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Tuesday 29th July 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, I accept that the guidance notes are important and I will take the point away, if my noble friend is kind enough to give me the detail. I also say to the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, that I will keep an eye on the cloud aspect, which she rightly raised. I feel that it is important to include the cloud, because it is part of modern life, but clearly we need to look at how it is going.

My noble friend Lord Grade of Yarmouth felt that changes would harm rights holders. I would say that the exception legitimises what millions of people already do, something that the market has accepted for many years. This is aimed at consumers who have paid for content and support the creative industries by paying for music, films and books.

Many points have been made. I will study Hansard carefully and come back if there are points that I have not addressed in my summing up. As I said in my opening speech, this is a delicate balancing act. The Government believe that the copyright system has not kept pace with the digital revolution. As a result, a great many intuitively acceptable activities are illegal or uncertain. These changes relating to private copying, parody and use of quotations form part of a package that should make copyright works more valuable to all, give users clarity about their rights and build respect for copyright in the process. They will contribute to a more modern statute book that meets the challenges of an increasingly digital and changing world.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, I thank all those who participated in this debate. It was wide-ranging and many noble Lords made helpful and informative speeches, even matching those points picked out by the noble Baroness when she referred to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. The point of having the debate was made in the range and diversity of the issues raised all round the House. I am glad that a number of noble Lords were able to pick up on the concerns which I raised in my speech.

I would make one point to the Minister. I regret that I did not welcome her to her first substantive position on the Front Bench in this Chamber, although she has appeared in the Moses Room. She is turning out to be a formidable performer and we are all impressed by her ability to grasp such a complex issue in such a short time. However, she was quite wrong to say that these two statutory instruments were unbundled simply to provide us with the opportunity for a further and more substantial debate. They were unbundled because they had a car crash on the way to being approved. As a result, they had to be brought back in a different Session, separated from the other statutory instruments. I do not think that the noble Baroness should gloss too much over that.

Would we have got to the same place we are in today had we proceeded down my recommended route of going primary in these matters? Probably, but I suspect that we would still face, as many noble Lords have said, the prospect of these rather imperfect instruments being brought into law. However, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, said, the advantage would have been that we would have had some sensible, mature discussion—in the right order and at the beginning of the process, not the end—about what was going on, what the purposes were of these exceptions and whether they fitted some overall narrative, as my friend the noble Lord, Lord Grade, said in his prescient point. It would also have presented the opportunity, as my noble friend Lady Morris said, of trying to raise the whole level of the debate in the country about this really important issue. If we cannot get people on board in terms of what IP is and what it can do for them, we have lost the battle.

In putting down this amendment to regret, my challenge was to raise the question of why the Government had gone for a secondary legislation route rather than a primary route and how it had come to be so badly handled, as we heard from the evidence of those who were consulted about this issue. Why did the Government not raise the questions asked during the debate about changes in the licensing regime, which have now caught up with—and in some cases overtaken—this set of SIs? Why was no real consideration given to the Copyright Hub, which is going great guns in solving a lot of problems in the copyright area; and why and how is this at variance with what we think will be the way that some developments take place with our EU colleagues?

I do not think that I have had satisfactory answers to those questions. I have had the detail, but not the overarching view. Perhaps in a subsequent letter that is yet to come, some of these points might be picked up. In particular, I hope that the letters that come will recognise that the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, about contract override has not been resolved; that the question of whether the regulations —in particular, with respect to remuneration—are intra vires lies open to judgment; and that the question of whether the Government should legislate in an area where they are not yet fully certain still raises questions of propriety. I felt that my noble friend Lady Morris was right in her jibe that the way that the Government argued the case on intra vires was really a question of looking for appropriate fig leaves for their position. They may be right, but it is unfortunate that it has been left for the courts to decide.

The feeling in the industry is that the battle over these regulations is over and that those affected have been consulted to death but not listened to and, as a result, are simply exhausted. That, more than anything, suggests that the Government have got this completely wrong from beginning to end—although, in fact, I do not think that we have heard the last of these proposals.

Having listened to the debate and having been buoyed by the support of those around the Chamber who picked up on the points I made, I still think that we should accept the inevitability that the regulations will come into law, and therefore, with the leave of the House, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment to the Motion.

Copyright and Rights in Performances (Extended Collective Licensing) Regulations 2014

Debate between Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Monday 21st July 2014 Grand Committee

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I am grateful to the Minister for rehearsing that point, but I really still do not quite get it. She said that it was possible that different collecting societies would have different thresholds at which informed consent would be deemed to have been properly researched and implemented. Can she be quite clear that we are not talking about a minority of members of a collecting society being able to impose some sort of structure on other right holders at—let us take an arbitrary point—50%?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

I think that this issue merits further discussion, which might need to be the subject of the new art of letter writing.

If I may, I would like to come back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth—that libraries do not need regular checks on digitisation projects. All ECLs, including those for digitisation, must be balanced with safeguards for non-members. It is this which has led us to the view that we need regular reviews. Libraries and archives are very important to us, as are digitisation projects, but, as I said earlier, this does not seem likely to be the main focus of use of the provision in the early stages.