United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Lord Russell of Liverpool Excerpts
Report stage & Report: 3rd sitting (Hansard) & Report: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 25th November 2020

(3 years, 11 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 View all United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 150-III(Rev) Revised third marshalled list for Report - (23 Nov 2020)
Relevant documents: 24th, 36th and 29th Reports from the Delegated Powers Committee, 17th Report from the Constitution Committee, 8th Report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights
Lord Russell of Liverpool Portrait The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
- Hansard - -

My Lords, I should inform the House that, on Monday, Amendment 34 was agreed in error. It was pre-empted by Amendment 31.

Clause 39: Enforcement

Amendment 62

Moved by
--- Later in debate ---
Clause 43: Financial assistance: supplementary
Lord Russell of Liverpool Portrait The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
- Hansard - -

My Lords, Amendments 66 and 67 have been pre-empted.

Amendments 66 and 67 not moved.
--- Later in debate ---
Amendment 68 agreed.
Lord Russell of Liverpool Portrait The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
- Hansard - -

We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 68A. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once, and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division should make that clear in debate.

Amendment 68A

Moved by
--- Later in debate ---
Lord Wigley Portrait Lord Wigley (PC) [V]
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I support this amendment, the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, on these matters, and the need to have the OIM and CMA working at arm’s length. I have spoken several times on the need to have an office of the internal market that is at arm’s length from all government and is responsive to the needs and reservations of every nation—Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, and, yes, England. I would prefer the OIM to be required to obtain the consent of all four nations, but I accept the wording in this amendment as a significant step in the right direction. I am very happy to support it and to vote for it if a vote is taken.

Lord Russell of Liverpool Portrait The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
- Hansard - -

The noble Lord, Lord Flight, does not appear to be present in the Chamber and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, has withdrawn from this group, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Naseby.

Lord Naseby Portrait Lord Naseby (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, I cannot support this amendment. We had a considerable debate on the OIM in Committee. There are already too many examples in the United Kingdom of where a service can be challenged, one way or the other, particularly in the financial services area, where there is the Financial Services Authority and the appeal mechanism of the Financial Ombudsman Service.

My experience is in the area of what are called doorstep loans. There is, of course, a rogue element, and that must be dealt with, but genuine operators have been servicing that market for decades, including the credit unions and two or three other companies of the highest repute. However, at some point the FSA may say that what they are doing is absolutely right, while five minutes later somebody has appealed and the ombudsman says the opposite.

We must have a uniform, single agency to deal with. The decision made by the Government to put the OIM underneath—for want of a better phrase—the CMA is absolutely right. This amendment would be a retrograde step that would confuse everybody.